Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Big first day at school for you yesterday.

Nice superiority complex you've got there.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

When someone turns up fresh and posts 63 times in one day in a rambling and incoherent fashion on a wide range of topics, I tend to raise an eyebrow, yes.

Suspicion? Yes. Superiority? Well, that's not for me to say.

What has someone else's actions got to do with you being unpleasant?

nullzero wrote: »

What has someone else's actions got to do with you being unpleasant?

If I think someone's sole purpose on the board is to troll for the sake of it, I'll dismiss them out of hand. I like to do so with my withering sense of humour.

Interesting that my response to an obvious troll is the post you purport to take issue with (because, let's face it, it's a joke, everyone knows it and you're not in any way offended by it) rather than, for example, the one that calls those who hold half the views in this debate "weak betas". The author of that post has a Tolkien reference for their username but we'll leave the discussion about the threat the right wing Tolkien superfans pose to society for another day.

nullzero wrote: »

Withering sense of humour? So you thought what you said was funny? Ah right.

So you're free to be unpleasant once you feel justified in doing so?

This gets better and better. It's normally people of your ilk who brand everyone who disagrees with what they see as their absolute right to do and say as they please as snowflakes. How ironic.

Although, given the number of Joe Rogan fans in this thread, the inability to work out what's funny and what's not is, perhaps, unsurprising.

nullzero wrote: »

There's a difference between expressing an opinion and just being unpleasant for the sake of it.

You're welcome to your opinion, insulting people really only serves to diminish your position and highlight your inability to debate properly.

You appear to be under the misguided understanding that one guy attempting to draw parallels between the corporate policies of YouTube (an internet video sharing company, as a gentle reminder) and those of, *checks*, Idi ****ing Amin constitutes "debate" on this topic.

The only other poster in this thread who I've mocked rather than actually discussing the issue is one who appears to just randomly land in to shout "leftie luvvies" and "100 million dead" a few times.

Please indulge me my small, small wish to not try and debate actual issues with such people.

To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest **** what some absolute random on the internet says about me. Am I supposed to or something???

As for my "being right" vs "opinion", there is no debate to be had, as the topic under discussion (deplatforming of controversial individuals or groups for breaching Ts&Cs by privately held organisations) is not one of opinion. Rather it is one of fact.

You don't have to like the fact that YouTube or Facebook or Twitter or whatever can deplatform people but implying that there's anything more to it, or more sinister than an organisation enforcing its policies (lol at the suggestion that it is an infringement of civil liberties) is disingenuous, at best.

As an example, I could spam boards.ie abusing you left, right and centre and I would, rightly, get banned by the mods. My civil liberties would certainly not have been infringed and it's certainly not because the guys who run boards.ie are this group of "lefty luvvies" (who share an ideology whose followers killed 100m people of course!) who have some sort of responsibility to allow everyone to air their views and opinions, no matter how controversial or distasteful, because they have, by default, become a group that shapes the larger views of the population. Anyone trying to claim otherwise, would of course, be rightly laughed out of the joint.

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I have and it has nothing to do with my criticism of Joe Rogan.

But it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest **** what some absolute random on the internet says about me. Am I supposed to or something???

As for my "being right" vs "opinion", there is no debate to be had, as the topic under discussion (deplatforming of controversial individuals or groups for breaching Ts&Cs by privately held organisations) is not one of opinion. Rather it is one of fact.

You don't have to like the fact that YouTube or Facebook or Twitter or whatever can deplatform people but implying that there's anything more to it, or more sinister than an organisation enforcing its policies (lol at the suggestion that it is an infringement of civil liberties) is disingenuous, at best.

As an example, I could spam boards.ie abusing you left, right and centre and I would, rightly, get banned by the mods. My civil liberties would certainly not have been infringed and it's certainly not because the guys who run boards.ie are this group of "lefty luvvies" (who share an ideology whose followers killed 100m people of course!) who have some sort of responsibility to allow everyone to air their views and opinions, no matter how controversial or distasteful, because they have, by default, become a group that shapes the larger views of the population. Anyone trying to claim otherwise, would of course, be rightly laughed out of the joint.

People have the right to discuss the morality of people and their opinions being banned from platforms who have monopolies within their chosen space. Just because somebody says something you disagree with doesn't give you the right (on a moral level) to be an ass hole to them.

As for whether or not you are supposed to give a **** about somebody pointing out how unpleasant you are, that's down to you. We all receive criticism in life, sometimes it's worth taking a look at why it was given in the first place. There are people who think they are above criticism maybe you fit into that category, who knows?

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Not really. I think you have some prepared statements to make in your head about "censorship" and you're just itching to roll them out and inorganically shoehorn them into this discussion.

In a real grown up discussion you counter the points being made, you don't invent points of view for your opponents and debate those.

Grown up discussion?
You stated that censorship involves the following (a quote from you) ; " if I was a policeman or a soldier and I came around to your house, burned your “research” and killed you for speaking out, then I would have been censoring you. Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you".

The following is a description of Internet censorship that you will find if you enter "Internet censorship" into Google ; "Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. ... Other types of censorship include the use of copyrights, defamation, harassment, and obscene material claims as a way to suppress content.".

So you have said that internet censorship isn't relevant to this discussion(baffling as youtube exists on the Internet and we are discussing this issue on the Internet) however if we go back to your earlier statement and look at the final sentence "Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you." It would appear that you inadvertently described Internet censorship yourself albeit unbeknownst to yourself.

If you want to condescend to me and talk about" grown up discussion" when you are demonstrably incapable of understanding the points you are trying to make yourself but display a willingness to be insulting towards other posters I'm afraid you're making a fool of yourself.

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I have no idea why you keep dragging censorship into my criticism of Joe Rogan. I don't think Joe Rogan should have people on his programme spreading spurious ideas because he doesn't challenge their points of view or hold them to any kind of scrutiny. What does that have to do with censorship?

You don't think Rogan should have people on his programme you disagree with, but you don't see how saying that connects to censorship?

Let's just get this straight for a second, in your ideal world people you disagree with wouldn't be given the opportunity to appear on the most popular podcast in the world... But that's not in anyway tangential to censorship...

The mind boggles.

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I don't think he should have any serious political or social commentator on his programme, or any other far-reaching programme, if they're not under any kind of journalistic scrutiny or fact-checked.

You keep playing a victim and squawking censorship but nothing I have said in this discussion is in any analogous to censorship. Once again, you don't know what the word "censorship" means and you're making a tit out of yourself.

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.

cournioni wrote: »

Some good, some dreadful.

His brown nose podcasts with Elon Musk are cringeworthy.

Musk, clearly, did not inhale.

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.

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 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.