Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

nullzero

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.

When was the last time anyone here used any of those platforms? Realistically, if we're all being honest, virtually never.

YouTube enforces it's rules where it likes, not always where they deserve to be enforced, and removal from their platform is not akin to being refused entry from a nightclub or another small scale business. Youtube is an alphabet subsidiary, and enjoys a market share beyond anything you can care to measure it against.

Also I've never outlined what my "standard" is, so I'm unsure what you're getting at.

Being removed from YouTube reduces the reach of content providers by (in my estimation) by at least 90-95% at least. I can accept that they have the right to remove things they feel don't meet their standards, but there remains plenty of unsavoury content on youtube that it leaves the platform open to criticism for banning one type of content that offends one set of sensibilities and allowing others that offend a different set of sensibilities. It is permissable to question how fair that system is, even if to some that means that by questioning it you are automatically agreeing with the opinions of those who have been removed from the platform, because obviously that's the only motivation anyone could have for questioning youtube and its policies.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

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

Pathetic.

Come back when you have a cogent argument to make yourself, one that you actually understand. You're like the weedy kid who hangs around with the school bully who pops out to say "Yeaaahh" when the bully says something nasty to someone else.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Pathetic.

Come back when you have a cogent argument to make yourself, one that you actually understand. You're like the weedy kid who hangs around with the school bully who pops out to say "Yeaaahh" when the bully says something nasty to someone else.

I have presented my argument many times about Joe Rogan’s failure to be a responsible broadcaster, which you have mistakenly inferred to be some sort of endorsement of censorship over and over again. You’re fighting ghosts, mate.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I have presented my argument many times about Joe Rogan’s failure to be a responsible broadcaster, which you have mistakenly inferred to be some sort of endorsement of censorship over and over again. You’re fighting ghosts, mate.

You believe the people in question shouldn't be allowed to appear on his show. How is that not an endorsement of censorship? They don't have opinions you agree with therefore they shouldn't be allowed to express them to a wide audience.

Here's a blurb from Wikipedia(the third time I have provided you with a source) about censorship; "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

You are suggesting that the people who don't agree with be denied a platform to express their opinions which falls under the definition of censorship. You support censorship, you have made that clear, even though you can't seem to process that fact (probably because it clearly demonstrates how wrong you are).

I'm not fighting ghosts here" mate", I'm struggling to get through to a clearly narcissistic individual who cannot accept that they completely misjudged the discussion they are involved in.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

You believe the people in question shouldn't be allowed to appear on his show. How is that not an endorsement of censorship? They don't have opinions you agree with therefore they shouldn't be allowed to express them to a wide audience.

Here's a blurb from Wikipedia about censorship; "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

You are suggesting that the people who don't agree with be denied a platform to express their opinions which falls under the definition of censorship. You support censorship, you have made that clear, even though you can't seem to process that fact (probably because it clearly demonstrates how wrong you are).

I'm not fighting ghosts here" mate", I'm struggling to get through to a clearly narcissistic individual who cannot accept that they completely misjudged the discussion they are involved in.

If I had suggested that he should be punished somehow for having those people on his programme then it would be an advocation of censorship. As it stands, I haven’t so it isn’t. He is free to have those people on if he likes, whether I think they should be on his programme or not. And I certainly am not suggesting any preventative measures to stop any particular people from appearing on his programme.

I don’t think you should keep posting about this topic because you are clearly in over your head intellectually and you are making a fool out of yourself. Am I censoring you? Give yourself a few minutes to really think about it.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

If I had suggested that he should be punished somehow for having those people on his programme then it would be an advocation of censorship. As it stands, I haven’t so it isn’t. He is free to have those people on if he likes, whether I think they should be on his programme or not. And I certainly am not suggesting any preventative measures to stop any particular people from appearing on his programme.

I don’t think you should keep posting about this topic because you are clearly in over your head intellectually and you are making a fool out of yourself. Am I censoring you? Give yourself a few minutes to really think about it.

Provide a source that supports your hypothesis please. Chiefly that you supporting censorship in this instance hinges on you advocating he be punished.

The barefaced cheek of you stating that I'm "in over my head intellectually" when I have shown you to be a demonstrable hypocrite. You don't think I should be posting here because I'm showing up how ill informed you are. You're a pseudo intellectual narcissistic individual who just wants the nasty person highlighting your ignorance of facts to disappear so you can "win".

Just pathetic.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Provide a source that supports your hypothesis please. Chiefly that you supporting censorship in this instance hinges on you advocating he be punished.

The barefaced cheek of you stating that I'm "in over my head intellectually" when I have shown you to be a demonstrable hypocrite. You don't think I should be posting here because I'm showing up how ill informed you are. You're a pseudo intellectual narcissistic individual who just wants the nasty person highlighting your ignorance of facts to disappear so you can "win".

Just pathetic.

Take some more time to think about it.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Take some more time to think about it.

Laughable.

You haven't taken the time to think about anything you've written.

And you're suggesting I shouldn't be part of the discussion, who gave you that right?

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Laughable.

You haven't taken the time to think about anything you've written.

And you're suggesting I shouldn't be part of the discussion, who gave you that right?

I have been entirely consistent presenting my belief that Joe Rogan isn’t a responsible broadcaster. Meanwhile you have been inventing arguments about censorship and misinterpreting everything I have said.

I don’t think you should be part of the discussion because you don’t seem to have the head for it. It’s my opinion, don’t try to censor me for it.

Hey, wait a minute... :eek:

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I have been entirely consistent presenting my belief that Joe Rogan isn’t a responsible broadcaster. Meanwhile you have been inventing arguments about censorship and misinterpreting everything I have said.

I don’t think you should be part of the discussion because you don’t seem to have the head for it. It’s my opinion, don’t try to censor me for it.

Hey, wait a minute... :eek:

Don't try to censor you?

You literally just told me I shouldn't be part of the discussion, twice.

I don't mind that you have been advocating censorship, it's the fact that when a mirror is held up to you to show you that, you pointe blank refuse to accept it. Just accept that you support censorship, there's nothing wrong with having that opinion if it's what you believe.

My issue is that you just can't accept that you were wrong in how you defined censorship, that and your telling me I shouldn't be part of the discussion. I don't agree with your opinion but you certainly have the right to be here expressing it and arguing with me if you wish.

You literally have to self awareness whatsoever.

Pintman Paddy Losty

All those angry posts. Not a good look. Seriously.

Anyway. Having had a quick scan through this thread it looks like you're coming across like some loony conspiracy theorist nullzero. Like defending Alex Jones... Get a grip pal.

nullzero

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

5 posts in a row. Not a good look mate. Seriously.

Anyway. Having had a quick scan through this thread it looks like you're coming across like some loony conspiracy theorist nullzero. Like defending Alex Jones... Get a grip pal.

Where did I defend Alex Jones?

And 5 posts in a row? Check again smarty pants.(I'll give you a hint, both me and Woke Hogan have the same avatar).

Get your facts straight before you start taking aim at people.

Pintman Paddy Losty

nullzero wrote: »

Where did I defend Alex Jones?

And 5 posts in a row? Check again smarty pants.

You keep dancing around the issue mate. Bleating on about censorship. Some people just don't deserve to be given a platform. That ain't censorship. Not by any definition.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Don't try to censor you?

You literally just told me I shouldn't be part of the discussion, twice.

I don't mind that you have been advocating censorship, it's the fact that when a mirror is held up to you to show you that, you pointe blank refuse to accept it. Just accept that you support censorship, there's nothing wrong with having that opinion if it's what you believe.

My issue is that you just can't accept that you were wrong in how you defined censorship, that and your telling me I shouldn't be part of the discussion. I don't agree with your opinion but you certainly have the right to be here expressing it and arguing with me if you wish.

You literally have to self awareness whatsoever.

I never suggested anyone should be censored. You’re making it up.

nullzero

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You keep dancing around the issue mate. Bleating on about censorship. Some people just don't deserve to be given a platform. That ain't censorship. Not by any definition.

It is censorship, by definition. I've provided definitions for what censorship is. You can read I assume?

Also, show me where I defended Alex Jones please.

I notice you edited your post with reference to the 5 posts in a row comment, it is still present where I quoted it btw.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I never suggested anyone should be censored. You’re making it up.

I could quote tower the hell out of your previous posts and repost the definitions I've provided for what censorship is, but you'll just ignore it. If you want to believe you're right about this fire ahead. Back in the land of facts, you're still wrong.

You also suggested I shouldn't take part in this discussion, which displays your complete intolerance for people who's opinions differ from yours, or more to the point people who can point out the holes in your logic.

Pintman Paddy Losty

nullzero wrote: »

It is censorship, by definition. I've provided definitions for what censorship is. You can read I assume?

Well able to read my friend. I can also comprehend which is apparently beyond your capabilities. Have a read of the definition again. Good lad.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

I could quote tower the hell out of your previous posts and repost the definitions I've provided for what censorship is, but you'll just ignore it. If you want to believe you're right about this fire ahead. Back in the land of facts, you're still wrong.

I can post the definition of what a quark is but I doesn’t mean I understand it. Similarly you have posted a few different definitions of what censorship is and yet you consistently show that you haven’t a clue what it means. You don’t have a clue.

nullzero

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Well able to read my friend. I can also comprehend which is apparently beyond your capabilities. Have a read of the definition again. Good lad.

Well able to read?
You said I posted five times in a row when that clearly wasn't true. I understand the definition of censorship, you can't even differentiate between me and another poster who disagrees with me. You clearly can't comprehend the most basic information.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I can post the definition of what a quark is but I doesn’t mean I understand it. Similarly you have posted a few different definitions of what censorship is and yet you consistently show that you haven’t a clue what it means. You don’t have a clue.

Are you suggesting that the definition of censorship is in someway analogous to understanding the definition of an elementary particle?
You don't need to be a physicist to understand the concept of censorship.

Here's the definitions again ;"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

And

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

What is so difficult for you to understand here?

The notion that you consistently misunderstand these definitions and how they relate to the opinions you have expressed here and still have the nerve to accuse me of not having a clue is laughable.

Read it again, comprehend it, please.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the definition of censorship is in someway analogous to understanding the definition of an elementary particle?
You don't need to be a physicist to understand the concept of censorship.

Here's the definitions again ;"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

And

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

What is so difficult for you to understand here?

The notion that you consistently misunderstand these definitions and how they relate to the opinions you have expressed here and still have the nerve to accuse me of not having a clue is laughable.

Read it again, comprehend it, please.

Nothing I have posted about this topic falls in line with those definitions you posted. The fact that you keep inferring that is mind-blowing to me.

Also: “You don't need to be a physicist to understand the concept of censorship?” Do you even know what an analogy is? I can’t believe I keep wasting my time with you.

Necro

Mod Note:

Cut out the petty back and forth stuff. One card has been issued already, more will follow. Any issues with a post and report it.

85603

nullzero wrote: »

When was the last time anyone here used any of those platforms? Realistically, if we're all being honest, virtually never.
.

Vimeo and dailymotion are lesser services, I agree.

But is my free speech being suppressed because youtube wont take my content?

Maybe it could be perceived as a tacit form of suppression by omission, but youtubes job was never to be guardians of free speech, their job is to make money for their shareholders, its their legal obligation.

If Ickes/jones' nonsense about moon people/faked mass shootings causes fewer users, which causes fewer ad clicks, and in turn less revenue then they may just have to remove it as part of their duty to their shareholders.

Pintman Paddy Losty

nullzero wrote: »

Well able to read?
You said I posted five times in a row when that clearly wasn't true. I understand the definition of censorship, you can't even differentiate between me and another poster who disagrees with me. You clearly can't comprehend the most basic information.

Time to close the laptop down and call it a day buddy. Today wasn't a good day for you on the frontline a of the internet I'm afraid.

I'm with Nullzero here..
This is how censorship starts..with those you disagree with..
Didn't they go on a bit of an offensive against crypto related videos around the same time too?..

"We all love big brother.."

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I think it’s important to have people of all political hues on shows like Joe’s. My thought is “Why not? What are you afraid of?”. And if somebody is a looper, let people see that and make up their own mind. I do agree that Joe could be better researched though. I listen to a really good podcast called Triggernometry by two British comics. One is an old school leftie, the other a centrist. They have all kinds of guests on, many of them controversial for whatever reason. They tend to be very well prepared with their questions and give the guest a lot of room to talk at the same time.

blinding

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think it’s important to have people of all political hues on shows like Joe’s. My thought is “Why not? What are you afraid of?”. And if somebody is a looper, let people see that and make up their own mind. I do agree that Joe could be better researched though. I listen to a really good podcast called Triggernometry by two British comics. One is an old school leftie, the other a centrist. They have all kinds of guests on, many of them controversial for whatever reason. They tend to be very well prepared with their questions and give the guest a lot of room to talk at the same time.

Triggernometry is very good.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

blinding wrote: »

Triggernometry is very good.

I think and hope it will get more popular. I think it does pretty well but I think they deserve a bigger audience than they have. Time will tell.

Meh triggernometry are only meh, like all the other pseud podcasts..

At least Rogan was original..He pretty much started the genre..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh triggernometry are only meh, like all the other pseud podcasts..

At least Rogan was original..He pretty much started the genre..

Those lads could not be less pretentious. I’m guessing that’s what you mean by ‘pseud’. Rogan wasn’t the first podcaster so he’s not original either. Not that you need to be. Is the first talkshow ever the only good one? Hardly.