Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Arakan

„Woke Culture“ is a child of Neo-liberal capitalism

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Right so somebody was convicted for tweeting a joke about blowing up an airport, Rosanne’s career is over, you didn’t really find that most of those people on that site hadn’t been cancelled and you did admit that you celebrated Andy Ngo getting his head smashed in... so what’s your point?

Someone getting arrested for tweeting a joke about airport bombs may well be excessive, but that's an example of paranoid security theater and not liberals run amok. That kind of response to bomb jokes has been in place since 9/11, so you don't get to blame that on the intolerant left.

You said Roseanne's career was over because of "mere accusations of racism." She was fired from her show after two months of deranged and racist tweeting after her employers asked her to stop. Again this is a case where you've twisted facts to suit your narrative.

I looked into a handful of cases on that cancelled people site, just the ones I had already had some familiarity with, and found them to be almost entirely bullshit. That doesn't mean those are the only bullshit cases.  I went into quite a bit of detail in my debunking but you never saw fit to respond and when I specifically called you out on it, you acted as if you didn't care about the site, was just putting it out there for discussion, didn't vouch for its accuracy. But now you're defending it. If you want to do your own goddamn research and defend some of the biased and dishonest entries there, be my guest, but something tells me you're not interested in actually backing up your assertions.

I did not at all admit "celebrating" Andy Ngo having his "head smashed in." I pointed out that what happened to him was more complicated than some vicious antifa assault on an innocent journalist. He'd been hanging out and laughing with Proud Boys as they were plotting to assault left wing activists who were congregating at a brewery. His head was not "smashed in." He was punched and milkshaked and immediately after a couple of people attacked him, other left wing activists defended him and got him out of harm's way. I did say I wouldn't shed any tears for what happened to Ngo, which is a far cry from "celebrating having his head bashed in."  This is a perfect example of the dishonest way you try to sell your narratives. You accusing me of celebration just because I didn't perform enough outrage for you does not make it true, and it's a pernicious and dishonest way to try to score points. Nor did I appreciate you calling me your "dancing monkey" when you thought you'd caught me in your fatuous rhetorical trap. So I'd appreciate if you stopped lying about it.

I wonder why you decided to respond to me now, of all times, when you're usually content to just put a laugh emoji on something I said that you disagreed with. I guess it's true what they say, a hit dog will holler.

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

milkshaked

But you see being doused in the milkshake hurt than any macing , stabbing, or bludgeoning of Anifa NGO laughed at.

29 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

You said Roseanne's career was over because of "mere accusations of racism." She was fired from her show after two months of deranged and racist tweeting after her employers asked her to stop. Again this is a case where you've twisted facts to suit your narrative.

But is saying racist things really racist? We don’t know. 
:closedeyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darzin said:

Joe Rogan generally supports  the need for greater social spending for the nation’s poor and working class, opposes war and militarism, supports drug legalization, is strongly pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights, and if you break it down is pretty much a liberal on standard political debates. That is why he endorsed Bernie and talked on favorable terms with Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang whose signature issue was the universal basic income. I don't think the fact he is personally friendly with Alex Jones while calling him a nut on his show outweighs that.

Rogan is an interesting case study in what level of responsibility should someone have because of their platform. I am not an expert on the guy but I have heard maybe 10 or 15 episodes of his show over the years, usually based on interest in his guest. The long format conversation is honestly great if you have interest in the guest or the topic. Like him or not he is a good interviewer and let’s the guest talk and the conversation is given the freedom to meander. He has a lot of episodes with other comedians or mma people that I don’t give two shits about and would have to be monetarily compensated to sit through, but also a decent number of interesting guests who he won’t really try to steer in a particular direction. IMO this is what is at the heart of his popularity.

Anyway, I don’t think he began his show with the intent, or with even the slightest idea, that it would become as huge as it is. He was one of the early adopters of the podcast format and the show basically revolves around him hosting guests who he is personally interested in talking to and is two to three hours of him shooting the shit with that person. That ranges from the aforementioned comedians and mma meatheads to authors, scientists, pseudoscientific cranks, military people, journalists, musicians, athletes, a few certified nutjobs (nugent, Jones), and the occasional politician.

My opinion is that when he has a bad take on something, which certainly does happen, it now quickly hits mainstream media and is portrayed as ‘Joe Rogan is spreading x,y,z’ and having listened to his show a bit I think that often is a disingenuous oversimplification of what his show is.

He’s trying to do the same show he did when he had 50,000 listeners now that he has somehow amassed millions and I think finds himself in a position where bullshitting around in long format unstructured conversation makes it very easy to say some really dumb shit sometimes and for that to then enter the National news cycle now that he is being broadcast to a much larger audience.

I think it’s an open question whether or not he bears any responsibility for self editing or avoiding certain subjects or guests altogether on his own show simply because the audience has grown. I’m not sure. I think to some extent the media does more to amplify his occasional idiotic takes than he himself does. Should Joe Rogan’s foot-in-mouth comments on the Covid vaccine even be news in the first place? I’m not sure they should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Rogan might be personally liberal- although given his repeated transphobic rhetoric I wouldn't call him 'strongly pro LGBT', because the 'T' counts- but he gives too much time and platform to right-wingers and, crucially, he's really easily to momentarily sway with so that he doesn't challenge assertions and sometimes goes along with them which gives a massive free boost to what should be some fairly fringe views.

Politically speaking he's overal probably closer to libertarian than liberal though he doesn't fully fit any single definition of what a libertarian might be either.

But what he is is a tosser.



Remember he also parotted Trump's rhetoric about Biden's mental health while also complaining about any challenge to Trump's mental health.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rogan's more a centrist-libertarian than a liberal, I think, as well. 

The main thing about him is that he basically just sucks up to whoever he's talking to at any particular moment, and seems to buy everything they sell with only minimal pushback. He can swing wildly in his perceived positions between episodes, from what I've seen. I think there are supercuts of his basically arguing with himself, taking both sides of a position. On the plus side, that allows his guests latitude to talk and expound their ideas. On the negative side, he has guests who say complete BS with no pushback.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, S John said:

Rogan is an interesting case study in what level of responsibility should someone have because of their platform. I am not an expert on the guy but I have heard maybe 10 or 15 episodes of his show over the years, usually based on interest in his guest. The long format conversation is honestly great if you have interest in the guest or the topic. Like him or not he is a good interviewer and let’s the guest talk and the conversation is given the freedom to meander. He has a lot of episodes with other comedians or mma people that I don’t give two shits about and would have to be monetarily compensated to sit through, but also a decent number of interesting guests who he won’t really try to steer in a particular direction. IMO this is what is at the heart of his popularity.

Anyway, I don’t think he began his show with the intent, or with even the slightest idea, that it would become as huge as it is. He was one of the early adopters of the podcast format and the show basically revolves around him hosting guests who he is personally interested in talking to and is two to three hours of him shooting the shit with that person. That ranges from the aforementioned comedians and mma meatheads to authors, scientists, pseudoscientific cranks, military people, journalists, musicians, athletes, a few certified nutjobs (nugent, Jones), and the occasional politician.

My opinion is that when he has a bad take on something, which certainly does happen, it now quickly hits mainstream media and is portrayed as ‘Joe Rogan is spreading x,y,z’ and having listened to his show a bit I think that often is a disingenuous oversimplification of what his show is.

He’s trying to do the same show he did when he had 50,000 listeners now that he has somehow amassed millions and I think finds himself in a position where bullshitting around in long format unstructured conversation makes it very easy to say some really dumb shit sometimes and for that to then enter the National news cycle now that he is being broadcast to a much larger audience.

I think it’s an open question whether or not he bears any responsibility for self editing or avoiding certain subjects or guests altogether on his own show simply because the audience has grown. I’m not sure. I think to some extent the media does more to amplify his occasional idiotic takes than he himself does. Should Joe Rogan’s foot-in-mouth comments on the Covid vaccine even be news in the first place? I’m not sure they should be. 

This is pretty much my exact opinion, well said. I think he knows the relaxed shooting-the-shit vibe is what makes his podcast as good as it is, and if he starts editing himself the whole thing crumbles. It is an interesting discussion though, if your ramblings are amplified is it your responsibility to change your ramblings? In a perfect world popularity would tally neatly with how much sense you made and these things would be self correcting. But it isn’t. I’m just not sure I like what the modern social media age seems to be saying about us; you can’t say certain things if you’re famous because what if people find sense in what you say? Like humans just fundamentally can’t be trusted with exposure to particular points of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

This is pretty much my exact opinion, well said. I think he knows the relaxed shooting-the-shit vibe is what makes his podcast as good as it is, and if he starts editing himself the whole thing crumbles. It is an interesting discussion though, if your ramblings are amplified is it your responsibility to change your ramblings? In a perfect world popularity would tally neatly with how much sense you made and these things would be self correcting. But it isn’t. I’m just not sure I like what the modern social media age seems to be saying about us; you can’t say certain things if you’re famous because what if people find sense in what you say? Like humans just fundamentally can’t be trusted with exposure to particular points of view.

I think the number of people who think the US election was stolen, who believe in QAnon, who believe Covid is a hoax and that vaccines are either useless or a sinister conspiracy, are all pretty conclusive proof that at least some large subset of humans are vulnerable to pernicious bullshit. I think it does create responsibility for someone with a platform to refrain from spreading harmful bullshit. Hundreds of thousands of people who didn't need to die have died because of pernicious bullshit from people with platforms. The US government is broken because pernicious bullshit was allowed to proliferate on social media. The recovery from Covid is stalling because of this. And wanting to prevent harmful messages from spreading this isn't some liberal control fantasy, because it used to be that it was mostly conservatives accusing D&D, video games, heavy metal, rap music, etc of corrupting minds.

We used to have a lot of debates here about whether it's a good idea to shut down Nazi speech. Certain people that I respect were all for the notion that you can expose those ideas to light and discredit them in debate. I think that's been proven to be pretty naive now, that truth doesn't always win, because so many Americans have been conditioned to be unable to distinguish facts and reason from comfortable bullshit.

In a perfect world, the vast majority of people would be armed with critical thinking skills to see through bullshit and we wouldn't have to worry about dumbasses shooting up pizza parlors because someone said so on social media. Obviously this world is not perfect. I don't know how to fix it, aside from better education for everyone, which will never happen because powerful and entrenched interests profit off a gullible and irrational public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's silly to think Joe Rogan has any strong political opinions one way or another.  Maybe it's just me, but seems very apparent he has no actual values at all.  Not really judging btw, most don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Since Sahra Wagenknecht's book about (young) people not taking up the class struggle anymore came up in the thread, I'm going to throw in a few provoking words, as well. These people try do something on very urgent issues, they try do treat others respectfully, they try to do something good. Now that doesn't mean everything they do is the right thing to do, they make mistakes, are partly inexperienced and also sometimes inconsistant. Because that's how humans (and especially young humans) are in real life. So it would need someone to point out their blind spots and provide ideas how to solve them. That could be the job of a social democratic party that understands that you have to combine climate justice and social justice (in Germany that would be a party formed out of the left-wing Social Democrats, the left-wing Greens and the social democratic parts of the Left party). Still clinging to the concept of communism is just nonsense, it never worked (I know it was just bad luck anytime someone tried...) and it won't work in the foreseeable future, especially not in a country that still remembers the humans who got shot by a regime that called itself socialist. What it doesn't need is a scornful book by a dogmatic left politician who felt triggered by Stalin called out on his crimes on humanity and who isn't able to avoid getting herself used by the right-wing for their fight against left liberals everytime she opens her mouth.

Edited by The Wondering Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think the number of people who think the US election was stolen, who believe in QAnon, who believe Covid is a hoax and that vaccines are either useless or a sinister conspiracy, are all pretty conclusive proof that at least some large subset of humans are vulnerable to pernicious bullshit.

Oh absolutely. I was never doubting that that’s the case. But it creates an odd situation where your ability to talk openly gets altered through no fault of your own. If I started publishing your posts as a blog and it took off massively, how responsible are you for any misinterpretations that occur? Are you responsible if you didn’t know I was doing that? 

8 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

We used to have a lot of debates here about whether it's a good idea to shut down Nazi speech. Certain people that I respect were all for the notion that you can expose those ideas to light and discredit them in debate. I think that's been proven to be pretty naive now, that truth doesn't always win, because so many Americans have been conditioned to be unable to distinguish facts and reason from comfortable bullshit.

Which is why I really can’t stand it when people water down the definition of Nazi. If Nazi speech needs shutting down but then we start calling Jordan Peterson a Nazi, it’s gonna be a very hard sell to shut down all speech in the chasm that creates. And of course (and we’re veering off topic I guess but anyway) it makes no sense that private companies are in charge of deciding these things through social media.

8 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Obviously this world is not perfect. I don't know how to fix it, aside from better education for everyone, which will never happen because powerful and entrenched interests profit off a gullible and irrational public.

I have a glimmer of hope that things like FB will burn themselves out, because of how spectacularly worse it is as a user experience than when it started. FB would crash and burn if you tried launching it in its current state today. So maybe, very slowly, take up will trail off and it’ll gradually have less of a hold on our public discourse. Although I don’t think that solves things entirely, to circle back to my original post, it depresses me that even if you take out the algorithms and the data harvesting, humans just fundamentally can’t be trusted to talk to one another on mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Oh absolutely. I was never doubting that that’s the case. But it creates an odd situation where your ability to talk openly gets altered through no fault of your own. If I started publishing your posts as a blog and it took off massively, how responsible are you for any misinterpretations that occur? Are you responsible if you didn’t know I was doing that? 

Which is why I really can’t stand it when people water down the definition of Nazi. If Nazi speech needs shutting down but then we start calling Jordan Peterson a Nazi, it’s gonna be a very hard sell to shut down all speech in the chasm that creates. And of course (and we’re veering off topic I guess but anyway) it makes no sense that private companies are in charge of deciding these things through social media.

I have a glimmer of hope that things like FB will burn themselves out, because of how spectacularly worse it is as a user experience than when it started. FB would crash and burn if you tried launching it in its current state today. So maybe, very slowly, take up will trail off and it’ll gradually have less of a hold on our public discourse. Although I don’t think that solves things entirely, to circle back to my original post, it depresses me that even if you take out the algorithms and the data harvesting, humans just fundamentally can’t be trusted to talk to one another on mass.

It would not be DG’s responsibility if you were airing everything he said without his knowledge. That is not the case with Joe Rogan. He knows and he’s the one who put it out and cultivated that large following. If you crown yourself king of the douchebros, you make yourself responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

It would not be DG’s responsibility if you were airing everything he said without his knowledge. That is not the case with Joe Rogan. He knows and he’s the one who put it out and cultivated that large following. If you crown yourself king of the douchebros, you make yourself responsible.

But I’m just curious at what point it becomes whose responsibility. Once DG knows, is it then? How much is mine for broadcasting them? I not really trying to set myself up as a Rogan defender, he says some dumb shit from time to time. He’s also had some great podcasts (the David Choe one, man that’s a rollercoaster), and I do think he understandably has decided to just keep doing what he’s doing. A vibe of “I need to be careful what I say” would be death to the listener experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, S John said:

I think it’s an open question whether or not he bears any responsibility for self editing or avoiding certain subjects or guests altogether on his own show simply because the audience has grown. I’m not sure. I think to some extent the media does more to amplify his occasional idiotic takes than he himself does. Should Joe Rogan’s foot-in-mouth comments on the Covid vaccine even be news in the first place? I’m not sure they should be. 

I think that there is a section of the media, or twitter, who are waiting for Rogan to say something stupid so they can pounce on it and try to play up the whole narrative around him. I get it makes good clicks if you write stuff about the most popular podcaster on the planet. 

I agree with your point though, there does come a point where your product becomes so popular that maybe you can't keep doing what you were doing. Maybe there is a level of responsibility there. The whole vaccination thing is a case in point. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on that but the rest of the media is tightly controlled and mediated as to what you can and can't say on the topic because you don't really want to affect vaccine take up numbers. So should Rogan really be making his opinions known on the subject? But then if its a valid opinion you have to say why should he self censor?

Either way most Rogan episodes are pretty dull and I would rarely bother to listen to 90% of them. But I would push back on anyone saying he just lets his guests talk and doesn't challenge them at all. There have been a number of occasions where guests who you would assume would get a free ride have actually been grilled and made to look pretty stupid. Sam Seder got a lot of value out of pointing out that Rogan ripped Candance Owens a new one when she decided to talk about Climate Change, and the internet is brim full of clips of Rogan "destroying" Dave Rubin. 
 

58 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Which is why I really can’t stand it when people water down the definition of Nazi. If Nazi speech needs shutting down but then we start calling Jordan Peterson a Nazi, it’s gonna be a very hard sell to shut down all speech in the chasm that creates. And of course (and we’re veering off topic I guess but anyway) it makes no sense that private companies are in charge of deciding these things through social media.

 

The incentives for the internet are all messed up and that is the issue. To get any traction you have to scream and use hyperbole. The OP of this very thread admitted to doing that. So writing something balanced or thoughtful is going to get you nowhere, so why not write something like 'OMG Peterson is a Nazi and Rogan is a child murderer', more people will pay attention to that, and you'll get more shares and retweets, from people who agree and people who disagree.

I don't know how you fix that incentive structure but that is the root core of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, polishgenius said:

That's why all the backlash: you appear to have wanted to make a topic ultimately saying 'virtue-signalling hypocrites are bad' but made no discrimination about who is genuinely virtue-signalling or not.

That’s it. And I apologize for the over generalizations. I don’t have Twitter and Facebook personally so when I discuss it’s face to face or in a forum like this. 
 

It’s the virtue signaling. And it’s accusations without any balance. Like what happened to my professor. I guarantee you that basically no one of her attackers did know her backstory or her personal engagement over more than two decades. And the whole book was thrown at her. For me this was such in injustice and I got angry. Especially knowing that those who accused her never had to walk in her shoes. What she went through. It’s the hubris of people living a life in comfort and wealth that gets me. Maybe she was wrong but then let’s have a debate. I am as leftwing as they come but I don’t want to be associated with that mob. We criticized rightly that rightwingers often just yell paroles without any further thought. We praised ourselves that we on the left tried to convince with arguments and logic. Is this still true? When it comes to social media apparently not. It’s harmful for our cause. It reminds me ob behavior during the Cultural revolution in China. I am convinced that the majority of people would be supportive of major left causes but the tone makes the music. 
 

Basically online discussion culture is fucking shit :)). 
 

But @polishgenius @DanteGabriel I apologize for the stupid generalization especially when certain words have a certain history and get misused (which I did). One shouldn’t rant when one is angry. Lesson learned. 
 

ETA I admit I became part of the problem with my OP.

Edited by Arakan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Oh absolutely. I was never doubting that that’s the case. But it creates an odd situation where your ability to talk openly gets altered through no fault of your own. If I started publishing your posts as a blog and it took off massively, how responsible are you for any misinterpretations that occur? Are you responsible if you didn’t know I was doing that? 

If you were, in fact, publishing my posts as a blog, I would ask you to knock it off and consider legal action. But this is a silly hypothetical that, as Fury points out, is completely different from someone actually producing a podcast for public consumption. I am also just a schmuck on a message board who gets into arguments in real time, while Rogan is a host and creator who never pushes back against the bullshit he amplifies, and I am pretty sure there are a lot of half-bright galaxy-brain bros out there who take Rogan very seriously, because I have interacted with a lot of them. That's part of why I got irritated with the invocation of Rogan in the first place.

 

Quote

Which is why I really can’t stand it when people water down the definition of Nazi. If Nazi speech needs shutting down but then we start calling Jordan Peterson a Nazi, it’s gonna be a very hard sell to shut down all speech in the chasm that creates. And of course (and we’re veering off topic I guess but anyway) it makes no sense that private companies are in charge of deciding these things through social media.

And here we take a tour into hypotheticals instead of contemplating the actual harm done by a podcast with an audience of millions allowing disinformation to proliferate on their time. I won't speculate on your background, but I've inevitably found that those who engage in slippery slope thought exercises to argue against punching Nazis are those for whom the threat of Nazi violence is a mere hypothetical, and not something they have actually had to worry about in their real lives. In those previous board arguments about whether to shut down Nazi speech or to try to "defeat them with logical arguments" I was frequently in disagreement with a poster I was pretty good friends with. We discussed it in PMs and I pointed out that as a middle-aged white guy he never had to be afraid Nazis were coming for him, he literally did not have skin in the game, and he acknowledged that. So I would ask you to think more on why it's so easy for you to treat proliferation of Nazi speech as some scenario to be debated instead of a real threat to you and your family. There are sitting members of the US Congress who actually talked about forming an Anglo-Saxon caucus and a US President pretty openly catered to that prejudice and detonated a shitbomb in every branch of the government. This isn't hypothetical.

So I find the notion that it sucks to have the Nazi accusation over-used to be, at best, a distraction from real issues. To me, it is akin to thinking that the accusation of racism to be more threatening than being subject to racist behavior -- maybe some people find it easier to sympathize with one scenario than the other. That's also why, I think, there is so much handwringing over the censorious left -- which I agree exists and is a negative force, but is not even the tenth most pressing problem in our social and political culture, except to the extent that the right wing uses them as a scapegoat for everything.

Besides, no one was even talking about Jordan Peterson here. We are talking about the unchallenged spread of harmful lies -- election fraud and Corona conspiracies and anti-vaxxing are a much more potent threat to real life than some fatuous douchebag who rode a cynical anti-PC crusade to fame and fortune. If the solution to harmful speech is to allow ideas to be aired out and expose their flaws, Rogan doesn't even do that, does he?

 

Quote

I have a glimmer of hope that things like FB will burn themselves out, because of how spectacularly worse it is as a user experience than when it started. FB would crash and burn if you tried launching it in its current state today. So maybe, very slowly, take up will trail off and it’ll gradually have less of a hold on our public discourse. Although I don’t think that solves things entirely, to circle back to my original post, it depresses me that even if you take out the algorithms and the data harvesting, humans just fundamentally can’t be trusted to talk to one another on mass.

Recent history has led me to conclude that humans can not be trusted to talk to each other en masse, at least not with the immediacy and reach of Twitter. Harlan Ellison once observed something like "The world is full of assholes, and the Internet lets them talk to each other."  I used to be on the "let all ideas be subject to vigorous public debate" side of things, until it became clear to me just how much of the country was not even minimally rational. We as a species are still too vulnerable to lizard-brain fear-based Othering of different people. There's always an underclass or marginalized group to get fucked over for the power and profit of elites. Black people, Native Americans, Asian people, Mexicans, Catholics, gay people, women -- lots of people have gotten to be the conveniently unifying bogeyman of the moment. The Republican Party has ridden fear of the other and intentional stoking of white resentment to electorally imbalanced levels of power. If it wasn't Facebook, it'd be cable channels or stupid emails or conspiracy websites -- but I agree they wouldn't be as devastating for civil society as Facebook and Twitter are.

I believe Facebook and Twitter have a higher responsibility to regulate hate speech and misinformation on their platforms. I don't know if you agree,  but if they have a responsibility, then Rogan does too. I am sorry that runs afoul of the fantasy that anyone should be able to say whatever the hell they want on a podcast that makes them millions without having to consider the consequences of the bullshit they spread and allow to fester.

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

But I’m just curious at what point it becomes whose responsibility. Once DG knows, is it then? How much is mine for broadcasting them? I not really trying to set myself up as a Rogan defender, he says some dumb shit from time to time. He’s also had some great podcasts (the David Choe one, man that’s a rollercoaster), and I do think he understandably has decided to just keep doing what he’s doing. A vibe of “I need to be careful what I say” would be death to the listener experience.

Why does that distinction matter in this case when Joe Rogan has cultivated the influence himself, with nobody else putting it out. 
And frankly, any listener whose experience is killed by Joe Rogan merely making sure he isn’t putting out dangerous misinformation or platforming people who advocate violence and insurrection is the listener who needs that the most. Joe Rogan could absolutely hire a fact checker and should. That he does not shows that he does not give a single fuck about accuracy or about responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Why does that distinction matter in this case when Joe Rogan has cultivated the influence himself, with nobody else putting it out. 
And frankly, any listener whose experience is killed by Joe Rogan merely making sure he isn’t putting out dangerous misinformation or platforming people who advocate violence and insurrection is the listener who needs that the most. Joe Rogan could absolutely hire a fact checker and should. That he does not shows that he does not give a single fuck about accuracy or about responsibility.

Uncle Ben was right: with great power comes great responsibility. 

I know that there is a lingering nostalgia for the Internet of old, the „golden age“ where you could do basically everything for shit and giggles without being taken seriously. Those times are IMO over and it’s a good thing. One major reason I left Facebook was the uncontrolled spreading of pure bullshit without any checks and balances. As long as you articulate the biggest bullshit in a sophisticated manner, a significant number of people will believe you. 

Maybe it’s time to remove the anonymity of social media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Maybe it’s time to remove the anonymity of social media. 

 

nonononononono please no

This would hurt people who rely on anonimity to stay safe (minorities, vulnerable people, etc) while still having a voice far more than the scummers- after all actual hateposts often come from behind real names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think other than stuff there are already measures against, we don’t need more regulation. I think in the case of Joe Rogan, nobody needs to step in, but it’s great that there are people vocally calling for him to take more responsibility for his platform. That’s how it should work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...