Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

blinding

cournioni wrote: »

Some good, some dreadful.

His brown nose podcasts with Elon Musk are cringeworthy.

The easy ride Musk gets is particularly nauseating. I suppose if you don’t kiss Musk’s a$$ then he won’t come on.

I know Musk made an awful lot of Money from Paypal but boy does he come across as a snake oil salesman in a lot of the stuff he is on.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Sorry, hang on a bloody minute pal. The neck on you saying I don't understand what censorship is when I have offered definitions of what censorship and internet censorship are, you have misinterpreted what censorship means time and again and you have the cheek to say I'm making a tit of myself.

I posted a little while ago demonstrating how ridiculous your contribution here has been using quotes from you, things you posted yourself.

You're making a complete and utter fool of yourself, repeatedly and you have the gall to say I don't understand the concepts being discussed even though I have offered you definitions of these concepts whilst you have ignored that and relied instead on your own over inflated sense of self importance.

You have quoted me and posted many misinterpreted definitions over and over again of censorship, it's true. You genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about and you're apparently incapable of basic reading comprehension. You just don't "get it." Give it up.

EmmetSpiceland

cournioni wrote: »

Some good, some dreadful.

His brown nose podcasts with Elon Musk are cringeworthy.

Musk, clearly, did not inhale.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

You have quoted me and posted many misinterpreted definitions over and over again of censorship, it's true. You genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about and you're apparently incapable of basic reading comprehension. You just don't "get it." Give it up.

The definition of censorship proves that you don't understand what it is. It's there in black and white, I'm not misinterpreting it in any way at all. You stated that censorship requires people being killed and research destroyed. Where in God's name did you get that idea from?

You stated that you felt that internet censorship wasn't related to the topics being discussed here. How clueless can you be?

The narcissism you're displaying when saying I'm incapable of basic reading comprehension when your own posts contradict what you're saying is laughable. You want me to "give it up" because I showed how pathetic your "logic" is. You don't even understand what you're saying yourself.

steddyeddy

cournioni wrote: »

Some good, some dreadful.

His brown nose podcasts with Elon Musk are cringeworthy.

Indeed they are. I quite like some of his interviews as they expose me to viewpoints or subject areas I don't usually interact with. However, when he interviewed Elon I seen another side to him. Joe was willing to contradict himself just to be seen to agree with Elon.

Case in point is the fact that Joe completely changed his views on lockdown following the interview where Elon was whinging about it.

JohnnyFlash

cournioni wrote: »

Some good, some dreadful.

His brown nose podcasts with Elon Musk are cringeworthy.

Musk is a spoofer, a conman, and a wretched human being.

But like, he thinks Musk is some super intelligent being sent from the future to give us electric cars..

Is it not the sign of a working mind to be able to change it from time to time?..

It was funny him taking the piss out of him about the kid's name though..

blinding

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Musk is a spoofer, a conman, and a wretched human being.

Musk gives me the creeps !

Musk is on the spectrum..

He got lucky with PayPal..

The cult of personality that developed around him has just blown smoke up his hole..

Woke Hogan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed they are. I quite like some of his interviews as they expose me to viewpoints or subject areas I don't usually interact with. However, when he interviewed Elon I seen another side to him. Joe was willing to contradict himself just to be seen to agree with Elon.

Case in point is the fact that Joe completely changed his views on lockdown following the interview where Elon was whinging about it.

Joe Rogan seems to agree with anyone he talks to until he speaks to someone else who contradicts his previous guest, then he agrees with everything they're saying.

blinding

Deleted User wrote: »

Musk is on the spectrum..

He got lucky with PayPal..

The cult of personality that developed around him has just blown smoke up his hole..

There is definitely something not right about Musk ! !

Remember the whole Thai Boys rescue thing and Musk calling one of the Divers Paedo guy and Musk getting away with it because the Court case was is California ( I think ) ! ! !

Something ain't right about Musk ! !

That was pretty f*cked..

steddyeddy

Well it shows a level of insecurity that is worrying coming from someone at that position. I mean to call someone who disagrees with your suggestion a paedophile is an incredibly facile thing to say.

85603

nullzero wrote: »

The reach of the "multitude of other options" you speak of when combined cannot begin to compete with the reach of YouTube, surely this is self evident, are you being willingly obtuse in relation to this obvious fact?

so what.

because youtube is a successful business it now owes you something and must shape its policies to your liking, or else they're censoring you.

you just seem to assume youtube has this role of public facility, it doesn't.

i like youtube therefore youtube now should not filter content i like in particular, and if they do its a matter of international level importance.

at what number of visits does a business become part of muh free speech, and did youtube even get notified of their new responsibility.

arbitary entitlement.

i like this, so that means its mine now, and if you change it then you're the worlds biggest monster

did you whinge about all the years they filtered nudity, or copyright music, or newly released films, or sports events, or criminality.

But like, there's all sorts of sh1te on YouTube..

The only censorship has been along ideological lines..

85603

Deleted User wrote: »

But like, there's all sorts of sh1te on YouTube..

The only censorship has been along ideological lines..

and litigation lines, and copyright lines, and nudity lines, and criminality lines, and confidential/personal information lines.


i want to make a video criticising a left wing politician for an alleged sexual assault and giving out his home address.

oh, whats this, youtube dont want any part of that ****, ... well that must be because they're a right wing propaganda platform .... wah wah wah freedom of speech, big social issue, im a patriot with a three point hat and a musket, defending liberty in letterkenny.

85603

85603 wrote: »

. wah wah wah freedom of speech, big social issue, im a patriot with a three point hat and a musket, defending liberty in letterkenny.

Well, keep up the good work..

MadYaker

Right wingers are the biggest snowflakes of all. Screaming censorship at every opportunity.

nullzero

85603 wrote: »

so what.

because youtube is a successful business it now owes you something and must shape its policies to your liking, or else they're censoring you.

you just seem to assume youtube has this role of public facility, it doesn't.

i like youtube therefore youtube now should not filter content i like in particular, and if they do its a matter of international level importance.

at what number of visits does a business become part of muh free speech, and did youtube even get notified of their new responsibility.

arbitary entitlement.

i like this, so that means its mine now, and if you change it then you're the worlds biggest monster

did you whinge about all the years they filtered nudity, or copyright music, or newly released films, or sports events, or criminality.

Arbitrary entitlement?
Ha ha, I pointed out that as an entity that enjoys a monopoly in its field, that employs censorship that targets some questionable content providers and not others is worthy of discussion. I never stayed that I had be censored in any way, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

nullzero

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it shows a level of insecurity that is worrying coming from someone at that position. I mean to call someone who disagrees with your suggestion a paedophile is an incredibly facile thing to say.

Calling people who disagree with you names seems to be acceptable to a lot of people here as it happens.

85603

nullzero wrote: »

Arbitrary entitlement?
Ha ha, I pointed out that as an entity that enjoys a monopoly in its field, that employs censorship that targets some questionable content providers and not others is worthy of discussion. I never stayed that I had be censored in any way, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

vimeo, metacafe, dailymotion, veoh. theres no monopoly.

setting up a basic website with open source video software may cost about 100 euro.

free alternatives also exist on the likes of wordpress, and blog sites.

youtube wont stop you.

what you're complaining about its the most popular platform not meeting your standard. rather than the only available platform.

and thats a trivial objection which proposes personal preference is equivalent to an issue of massive importance.

It's honestly worrying how people are willing to defend Youtube banning people..

MadYaker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's honestly worrying how people are willing to defend Youtube banning people..

They are a private enterprise who can ban whoever they want. It’s no different to a nightclub having the right to refuse entry to people for no particular reason.

85603

Deleted User wrote: »

It's honestly worrying how people are willing to defend Youtube banning people..

they even banned my video on how to make sarin gas. god damn lefties.

steddyeddy

nullzero wrote: »

Calling people who disagree with you names seems to be acceptable to a lot of people here as it happens.

Not as acceptable when you have shareholders.

First they came for Alex Jones..

Ipso

[Deleted User] wrote: »

First they came for Alex Jones..

But noone cared because of infowars terms of service, number 19.
https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/#nineteen

EagererBeaver

Ipso wrote: »

But noone cared because of infowars terms of service, number 19.
https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/#nineteen

And that's a KO in Round 1.

Haha..touche..

Woke Hogan

85603 wrote: »

vimeo, metacafe, dailymotion, veoh. theres no monopoly.

setting up a basic website with open source video software may cost about 100 euro.

free alternatives also exist on the likes of wordpress, and blog sites.

youtube wont stop you.

what you're complaining about its the most popular platform not meeting your standard. rather than the only available platform.

and thats a trivial objection which proposes personal preference is equivalent to an issue of massive importance.

Don’t bother, he really doesn’t “get it.”