THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1836, 1837, 1838 ... 1857, 1858, 1859  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:01 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
kikanga wrote:
adkindo wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Some believe all voices deserve a platform as big as Rogans. Some believe not all voices do, but his guests haven't "crossed the line". Either argument is pretty easy to pick apart.
I appreciate some of his guests. But others are allowed to say whatever ignorant stuff they want via his interviewing technique. And of the millions of people who watch and listen. 10s of thousands (I'm sure in some cases 100s of thousands) gobble it up like it's gospel truth.
Not saying that's Rogan's personal goal. I am saying the effect is there though.


kind of like the Rachel Maddow Show, Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Hardball with Chris Matthews, All In with Chris Hayes, AC360, Cuomo Prime Time, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, The Sean Hannity Show and the Ingraham Angle?


Not at all. Joe Rogan goes out of his way to just let the guest speak their thoughts in a more unchallenged way than any of the MSNBC or CNN hosts I've seen.
For example, a guest came in and said a black man's brain is smaller than a white man's brain. And Joe just nodded and let the man continue on whatever ignorant point he was making.

That ish doesn't fly with the MSNBC and CNN shows you mentioned.


They're all grifters, IMO, for the possible exception of Hannity who probably believes the stupid (bleep) he says. I'm tempted to say Hayes might be above the fray, which probably explains why he's the lowest rated.


My point is. Either have controversial guests on that you have a dialogue with that challenges their views. Or don't invite them on to a massive platform to spread hate. Quality news programs at least do the former. Joe does neither.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 10553

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:05 pm    Post subject:

^
I'd say don't invite the crazies or the trolls at all. As I said above, there's no societal benefit in it. Crazy Alex Jones and troll Ben Shapiro aren't interested in reasonable dialogue, and shouldn't be legitimized in any way.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:12 pm    Post subject:

A common response to my POV I've heard often is I'm advocating for censorship and taking away people's freedom of speech.

Say there was a very popular program in an Arab country that brings on guests multiple times who advocate for killing any non-Muslim they see on sight. Would I be advocating against freedom of speech if I said that program should stop that?

This really just comes down to people's personal line in the sand they draw as appropriate and inappropriate. And when someone says I'm being to hard on Joe's podcast, they are really saying. Joe's guests haven't crossed MY line. So it's all good.

I guess one could say, the line is directly advocating for violence. But then of course I think of the manifesto's I've seen that quote Trump. Sure Trump's didn't directly advocate for violence toward a certain group. But it still occurred nonetheless. And besides violence is a soft line. You can hurt people without physically harming them.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:19 pm    Post subject:

Sure censorship can go to far. But I don't think that's a valid reason to give effective hate speech a huge unfettered platform.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 10565

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:28 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ribeye wrote:
adkindo wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Some believe all voices deserve a platform as big as Rogans. Some believe not all voices do, but his guests haven't "crossed the line". Either argument is pretty easy to pick apart.
I appreciate some of his guests. But others are allowed to say whatever ignorant stuff they want via his interviewing technique. And of the millions of people who watch and listen. 10s of thousands (I'm sure in some cases 100s of thousands) gobble it up like it's gospel truth.
Not saying that's Rogan's personal goal. I am saying the effect is there though.


kind of like the Rachel Maddow Show, Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Hardball with Chris Matthews, All In with Chris Hayes, AC360, Cuomo Prime Time, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, The Sean Hannity Show and the Ingraham Angle?


Let's keep this simple and start just with Rachel. Please give a few examples of the ignorant stuff she says.

For everybody else . . . yeah, I know, really silly to expect him to truly back up a statement.


Okay, I'll start the ball rolling.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-niger-travel-ban_n_59ea060fe4b05b4f1c3ad52f

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/08/msnbc-hosts-conspiracy-theory-what-if-putin-planned-the-syrian-chemical-attack-to-help-trump/

When even the HuffPo is calling you out...


I remember the first one and Rachel's "suggestion" did and does appear to be a stretch. The second one I did not see but if you are concerned about Lawrence playing the "what if" game, you should avoid Fox entirely. Rachel smiling is likely the cordiality one has with a colleague, and would be for that minute or so they are together as her show ends.

Let me say Rachel was wrong in the first instance. I have seen many times that she appeared to be wrong or not as forthcoming as I would prefer, but all of them together don't add up to how many times Hannity is wrong before the end of his first segment, or Trump, before he eats breakfast.

If this is all you could Google-up, I'd say you have failed to show her "ignorance."


Last edited by ribeye on Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:34 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 10553

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:32 pm    Post subject:

It's not a question of censorship. The government shouldn't tell Joe Rogan or anyone else which people to interview or not to interview. If you have a public platform, you shouldn't legitimize crazies and trolls by giving them the opportunity to spew their garbage. By legitimizing them, you delegitimize yourself, even if you have the most popular podcast. The problem is that the crazies and trolls get most of the attention. And Joe Rogan knows that, and hence why he invites them.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44202
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:57 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
It's not a question of censorship. The government shouldn't tell Joe Rogan or anyone else which people to interview or not to interview. If you have a public platform, you shouldn't legitimize crazies and trolls by giving them the opportunity to spew their garbage. By legitimizing them, you delegitimize yourself, even if you have the most popular podcast. The problem is that the crazies and trolls get most of the attention. And Joe Rogan knows that, and hence why he invites them.


Thank you. That sums it all up perfectly.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:58 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


HOLY (bleep) (bleep)

NAME the first person ANTIFA shot

now try..
just (bleep) try without being an NRA White Nationalist

Try to name those who have been killed in the name of
White Nationalism/MAGA
Trump Anti Immigrant Murderers

Republicans and the GOP are Terrorists to Democracy and Freedom and Human Rights AND ALWAYS WILL BE


Grand Obstructionist Party is the actual acronym

(bleep) below was said in 1948 - 71? years ago... Even truer today

Quote:
They approve of the American farmer-but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.

They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.

They favor a minimum wage--the smaller the minimum the better.

They indorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them.

They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.

They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

They consider electric power a great blessing-but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again.

They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

They think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.

And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.


Do NOT try and frame me as somebody who condones white supremacy or the terrorist attacks their members have committed. You would never do that in person because it would rightfully end in an exchange of blows but you hide behind your keyboard and type away with no repercussions because you are a coward with anonymity. But it doesn’t shock me that you enjoy using your anonymity like the people you are defending.

White supremacy is a horrible and vile disease that America needs to rid itself of. That doesn’t make what Antifa does ok or any less detrimental to the country. I didn’t compare it to white supremacy nor do I intend to. Was simply acknowledging that many SJWs within Antifas ranks have committed violent crimes(albeit none using guns as far as I know) and are hurting the country. In no way does that mean I don’t see how horrible white supremacy is. Both can be wrong and detrimental. And before you try to twist my words yet again(because we both know this would be the route you take without the following disclaimer) I never said Antifa is as wrong or detrimental as White Supremacists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:59 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


Don't be modest. You are unique.
Quote:
As President Trump battles the impeachment inquiry, 90% of Republicans approve of his job performance, while 10% disapprove.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268493/trump-approval-holds-steady-face-impeachment-probe.aspx

And this is amid impeachment. The % has been higher.
I do find it interesting peaking into a mind that thinks about antifa when the reality is:
Quote:
The issue with this narrative is that this is verifiably not the case; though members of antifa have committed violent acts, that number is dwarfed by those committed by far-right extremists, says Hankes. That’s also the truth according to FBI director Christopher Wray, who has said that white supremacists constitute “the vast majority” of domestic terrorism threats. And when considering the very real, very immediate threat of far-right radicalization, promoting the conspiracy theories of a huckster like Ngo serves as little more than a distraction.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/

A Republican caring about left leaning terrorist threats is like a Houston Rockets fan concerned about how players on other teams flop too much.


I’m not a republican and MANY independents like myself feel the same way as me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:00 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


I'm a simple man. If Nazis think you're an okay person then you're doing something, many things in fact, very wrong.


I think(maybe hope) you know that’s a drastic oversimplification regarding the Tulsi Gabbert situation.


That’s fair. Russians like her too, as do right wing trolls...


As do moderate independents sick of the elites of both parties.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:04 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Sure censorship can go to far. But I don't think that's a valid reason to give effective hate speech a huge unfettered platform.


Quite simply, Rogan has never done that in any of his pods I’ve listened to and I doubt he ever has.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:07 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
This clip of Joe Rogan is interesting to me for 2 reasons.
1) He goes back and forth with the idea that David Duke is Democrat plant.
2) He argues directly against my point. He says de-platforming David Duke (and others like him). Would actually make their message spread more. Make their message more powerful/effective.

I disagree with both points. 1 is a scary bad take. But I wonder if anybody in here thinks point 2 is correct.


I agree with the second point whole heartedly. Combats hate speech with real speech to disprove it and you’ll see it get less and less prevalent.


Be it David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, it is scary so many feel the answer is to censor and silence them in America. They are so easily defeated with logical retort, but the only chance we get to push back on their ideas is to allow them to express them in an open dialogue.


Scary indeed. I thought that was common sense until everything changed the last few years. One of the main reasons I agree certain SJWs are really hurting the country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:11 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Sure censorship can go to far. But I don't think that's a valid reason to give effective hate speech a huge unfettered platform.


Quite simply, Rogan has never done that in any of his pods I’ve listened to and I doubt he ever has.


Did you not see the video I posted where a guest said a black male's brain is smaller than a white male's brain and he just nodded and let the guy continue?
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:23 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Sure censorship can go to far. But I don't think that's a valid reason to give effective hate speech a huge unfettered platform.


Quite simply, Rogan has never done that in any of his pods I’ve listened to and I doubt he ever has.


Did you not see the video I posted where a guest said a black male's brain is smaller than a white male's brain and he just nodded and let the guy continue?


Yes, I saw the 30 second clip(maybe less) cut out of what I’m assuming was a 2-3 hour podcast. My assumption is he did indeed respond and push back on that idea as I’ve heard him do many times. Feel free to let me know which podcast that was and at what point they have that discussion and I can check. I’d be very surprised if he didn’t especially considering they also used a tiny Peterson clip from a pod I listened to which doesn’t do the conversation justice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 7620
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:29 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


HOLY (bleep) (bleep)

NAME the first person ANTIFA shot

now try..
just (bleep) try without being an NRA White Nationalist

Try to name those who have been killed in the name of
White Nationalism/MAGA
Trump Anti Immigrant Murderers

Republicans and the GOP are Terrorists to Democracy and Freedom and Human Rights AND ALWAYS WILL BE


Grand Obstructionist Party is the actual acronym

(bleep) below was said in 1948 - 71? years ago... Even truer today

Quote:
They approve of the American farmer-but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.

They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.

They favor a minimum wage--the smaller the minimum the better.

They indorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them.

They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.

They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

They consider electric power a great blessing-but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again.

They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

They think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.

And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.


Do NOT try and frame me as somebody who condones white supremacy or the terrorist attacks their members have committed. You would never do that in person because it would rightfully end in an exchange of blows but you hide behind your keyboard and type away with no repercussions because you are a coward with anonymity. But it doesn’t shock me that you enjoy using your anonymity like the people you are defending.

White supremacy is a horrible and vile disease that America needs to rid itself of. That doesn’t make what Antifa does ok or any less detrimental to the country. I didn’t compare it to white supremacy nor do I intend to. Was simply acknowledging that many SJWs within Antifas ranks have committed violent crimes(albeit none using guns as far as I know) and are hurting the country. In no way does that mean I don’t see how horrible white supremacy is. Both can be wrong and detrimental. And before you try to twist my words yet again(because we both know this would be the route you take without the following disclaimer) I never said Antifa is as wrong or detrimental as White Supremacists.


Any Republican or Trump supporter who brings up Antifa is most commonly using the both sides argument

Trump has decreased.funding for investigating and stopping white nationalist supremacist terror groups

While people bring up the non murdering anti-fascist group and point to them as bad most commonly neglecting Trump's terrorists.. Yes Trump's terrorists. He himself is a Terrorist to America and all it values


Maybe get an anger checkup or don't both sides us or go beat up someone who calls your both sides (bleep)

Republicans are terrorists to all democracies. Unbelievable they convince humans to go against Humanity and side with billionaires who don't give a damn about humans or citizens unless they got money..

BGH, I won't apologize for your anger problems
_________________
КОБЭ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:48 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


HOLY (bleep) (bleep)

NAME the first person ANTIFA shot

now try..
just (bleep) try without being an NRA White Nationalist

Try to name those who have been killed in the name of
White Nationalism/MAGA
Trump Anti Immigrant Murderers

Republicans and the GOP are Terrorists to Democracy and Freedom and Human Rights AND ALWAYS WILL BE


Grand Obstructionist Party is the actual acronym

(bleep) below was said in 1948 - 71? years ago... Even truer today

Quote:
They approve of the American farmer-but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.

They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.

They favor a minimum wage--the smaller the minimum the better.

They indorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them.

They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.

They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

They consider electric power a great blessing-but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again.

They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

They think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.

And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.


Do NOT try and frame me as somebody who condones white supremacy or the terrorist attacks their members have committed. You would never do that in person because it would rightfully end in an exchange of blows but you hide behind your keyboard and type away with no repercussions because you are a coward with anonymity. But it doesn’t shock me that you enjoy using your anonymity like the people you are defending.

White supremacy is a horrible and vile disease that America needs to rid itself of. That doesn’t make what Antifa does ok or any less detrimental to the country. I didn’t compare it to white supremacy nor do I intend to. Was simply acknowledging that many SJWs within Antifas ranks have committed violent crimes(albeit none using guns as far as I know) and are hurting the country. In no way does that mean I don’t see how horrible white supremacy is. Both can be wrong and detrimental. And before you try to twist my words yet again(because we both know this would be the route you take without the following disclaimer) I never said Antifa is as wrong or detrimental as White Supremacists.


Any Republican or Trump supporter who brings up Antifa is most commonly using the both sides argument

Trump has decreased.funding for investigating and stopping white nationalist supremacist terror groups

While people bring up the non murdering anti-fascist group and point to them as bad most commonly neglecting Trump's terrorists.. Yes Trump's terrorists. He himself is a Terrorist to America and all it values


Maybe get an anger checkup or don't both sides us or go beat up someone who calls your both sides (bleep)

Republicans are terrorists to all democracies. Unbelievable they convince humans to go against Humanity and side with billionaires who don't give a damn about humans or citizens unless they got money..

BGH, I won't apologize for your anger problems


You’re making (bleep) up. I never used any both sides argument or even discussed white supremacy until you did. I’m not even a Republican or a Trump supporter. I mentioned that I agree some SJW groups are hurting America. At no point did I say they are more detrimental or dangerous than white supremacists. I didn’t even bring them up at all.

They can call themselves “anti-fascist” all they want. Doesn’t mean much while they use strategies that fascist groups have used for years to gain popularity and power. Suppression of speech(sometimes with violence), not allowing anybody within the group to speak against somebody else in the group or the group itself, using propaganda to generate hate towards the opposition. They do all of these things. I’m sure there are many good people who are apart of Antifa(unfortunately they probably don’t fully understand the group they have aligned with)but as a whole it’s very bad for our country.

I have no anger problems nor do I want an apology. Especially one from somebody line you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 84960
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:42 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


I'm a simple man. If Nazis think you're an okay person then you're doing something, many things in fact, very wrong.


I think(maybe hope) you know that’s a drastic oversimplification regarding the Tulsi Gabbert situation.


That’s fair. Russians like her too, as do right wing trolls...


As do moderate independents sick of the elites of both parties.


Interestingly enough, pollsters have begun to study the independent voter as the electoral college implications in swing states have come to the political forefront. The old saw was that there was this group of sober, thoughtful people who carefully sifted between the offerings of both parties, and refused to join their partisan elites, choosing race by race on the merits.

Turns out, that voter by and large does not exist. Instead, independents are mostly two groups:

1. The least informed and uninterested voters. They are independent because theyhave very little interest in politics day to day, and thus have very little understanding of it. They tend to go for personalities and soundbites, when they vote at all.

2. Disaffected members of a party when that party is making a big move in the "wrong" direction, but they are still too tied to ideology to move to the other party. Examples would be Reagan Democrats (in spirit, if no self named as such), and Never Trumpers.

The people who don't like the "elites" (meaning, the mainstream majority, and therefore the power) tend to fall on the outer wings of both parties, and the one thing they are not is moderate.

Now there is a third category of "independent" and that's the false independent who wants to attack the other side while not having to defend their own.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:17 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:

Yes, I saw the 30 second clip(maybe less) cut out of what I’m assuming was a 2-3 hour podcast. My assumption is he did indeed respond and push back on that idea as I’ve heard him do many times. Feel free to let me know which podcast that was and at what point they have that discussion and I can check. I’d be very surprised if he didn’t especially considering they also used a tiny Peterson clip from a pod I listened to which doesn’t do the conversation justice.


The same Jordan Peterson who said?
Quote:
feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination,” referred to developing nations as “pits of catastrophe” in a speech to a Dutch far-right group, and recently told a Times reporter that he supported “enforced monogamy.”

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life

I don't think there is any amount of homework I could do that would change your mind.
I mean, Joe is known for his unique long form interviewing style where he lets his guests go on and on unfettered.
Is Joe Rogan prejudice? No. Does Joe Rogan have people on both sides of the aisle on his show? Yes. But has he let hate speech fly when a guest comes on the show and spouts it? Yes.
The long leash he gives to guests is one of the things his pods are most known for. Well that and the fact that youtube recommends far right channels/videos when you click one of his videos.
I think this post addresses what I'm saying:
https://tinyurl.com/u9petsf
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:31 pm    Post subject:

The Data & Society research institute has a report (which includes Rogan: https://tinyurl.com/uavogrc) about how "Social networking between influencers makes it easy for audience members to be incrementally exposed to, and come to trust, ever more extremist political positions."
https://tinyurl.com/wh22w3u
https://tinyurl.com/ybddex9f
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 17740
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:16 pm    Post subject:

NBC and MSNBC are primarily news organizations no matter what the political leaning of a particular host or show. Fox news was conceived by Nixon's political operative Roger Ailes to be the PR/propaganda arm of the Republican party. It sued for the right to lie.

When people "both sides" these like they are equivalent, it's complete and utter bullcrap. Same with Breitbart or any right-wing platform. Their mission isn't to inform, their mission is propaganda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:15 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


I'm a simple man. If Nazis think you're an okay person then you're doing something, many things in fact, very wrong.


I think(maybe hope) you know that’s a drastic oversimplification regarding the Tulsi Gabbert situation.


That’s fair. Russians like her too, as do right wing trolls...


As do moderate independents sick of the elites of both parties.


Interestingly enough, pollsters have begun to study the independent voter as the electoral college implications in swing states have come to the political forefront. The old saw was that there was this group of sober, thoughtful people who carefully sifted between the offerings of both parties, and refused to join their partisan elites, choosing race by race on the merits.

Turns out, that voter by and large does not exist. Instead, independents are mostly two groups:

1. The least informed and uninterested voters. They are independent because theyhave very little interest in politics day to day, and thus have very little understanding of it. They tend to go for personalities and soundbites, when they vote at all.

2. Disaffected members of a party when that party is making a big move in the "wrong" direction, but they are still too tied to ideology to move to the other party. Examples would be Reagan Democrats (in spirit, if no self named as such), and Never Trumpers.

The people who don't like the "elites" (meaning, the mainstream majority, and therefore the power) tend to fall on the outer wings of both parties, and the one thing they are not is moderate.

Now there is a third category of "independent" and that's the false independent who wants to attack the other side while not having to defend their own.


I’m sorry I don’t fit under any of your predetermined labels.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:23 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

Yes, I saw the 30 second clip(maybe less) cut out of what I’m assuming was a 2-3 hour podcast. My assumption is he did indeed respond and push back on that idea as I’ve heard him do many times. Feel free to let me know which podcast that was and at what point they have that discussion and I can check. I’d be very surprised if he didn’t especially considering they also used a tiny Peterson clip from a pod I listened to which doesn’t do the conversation justice.


The same Jordan Peterson who said?
Quote:
feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination,” referred to developing nations as “pits of catastrophe” in a speech to a Dutch far-right group, and recently told a Times reporter that he supported “enforced monogamy.”

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life

I don't think there is any amount of homework I could do that would change your mind.
I mean, Joe is known for his unique long form interviewing style where he lets his guests go on and on unfettered.
Is Joe Rogan prejudice? No. Does Joe Rogan have people on both sides of the aisle on his show? Yes. But has he let hate speech fly when a guest comes on the show and spouts it? Yes.
The long leash he gives to guests is one of the things his pods are most known for. Well that and the fact that youtube recommends far right channels/videos when you click one of his videos.
I think this post addresses what I'm saying:
https://tinyurl.com/u9petsf


More snippets intended to misrepresent what the message actually is. You are arguing against long form discussion that can allow a conversation to be discussed on a much deeper more precise level and are citing click baity headlines as reasons why. We’re just not gonna agree on this topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44202
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:36 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
Omar Little wrote:


Interestingly enough, pollsters have begun to study the independent voter as the electoral college implications in swing states have come to the political forefront. The old saw was that there was this group of sober, thoughtful people who carefully sifted between the offerings of both parties, and refused to join their partisan elites, choosing race by race on the merits.

Turns out, that voter by and large does not exist. Instead, independents are mostly two groups:

1. The least informed and uninterested voters. They are independent because theyhave very little interest in politics day to day, and thus have very little understanding of it. They tend to go for personalities and soundbites, when they vote at all.

2. Disaffected members of a party when that party is making a big move in the "wrong" direction, but they are still too tied to ideology to move to the other party. Examples would be Reagan Democrats (in spirit, if no self named as such), and Never Trumpers.

The people who don't like the "elites" (meaning, the mainstream majority, and therefore the power) tend to fall on the outer wings of both parties, and the one thing they are not is moderate.

Now there is a third category of "independent" and that's the false independent who wants to attack the other side while not having to defend their own.


I’m sorry I don’t fit under any of your predetermined labels.


You should include “IMO” after this statement.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 84960
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:30 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree.

You fit into a niche I've never seen before. Repeats Republican talking points, but doesn't support Trump.
I guess that's an effective way to take a moral high ground from the right side of the aisle.
Do you agree with Rogan that David Duke could be controlled by the Democratic party as a way to hurt Republicans.


Im assuming that’s because you prefer to only speak to like minded individuals. I’m far from one of a kind. Acknowledging how bad Antifa is for the country isn’t a republican talking point, its common sense if you do a smidge of objective research into Antifa.

I have no idea regarding David Duke. I know he was a democrat in the 80s but idk how the Democratic Party would control him. He seems like a disgusting person only interested in spewing his racist nonsense to anybody who will listen. Regardless, him saying he supports Tulsi means nothing to me.


I'm a simple man. If Nazis think you're an okay person then you're doing something, many things in fact, very wrong.


I think(maybe hope) you know that’s a drastic oversimplification regarding the Tulsi Gabbert situation.


That’s fair. Russians like her too, as do right wing trolls...


As do moderate independents sick of the elites of both parties.


Interestingly enough, pollsters have begun to study the independent voter as the electoral college implications in swing states have come to the political forefront. The old saw was that there was this group of sober, thoughtful people who carefully sifted between the offerings of both parties, and refused to join their partisan elites, choosing race by race on the merits.

Turns out, that voter by and large does not exist. Instead, independents are mostly two groups:

1. The least informed and uninterested voters. They are independent because theyhave very little interest in politics day to day, and thus have very little understanding of it. They tend to go for personalities and soundbites, when they vote at all.

2. Disaffected members of a party when that party is making a big move in the "wrong" direction, but they are still too tied to ideology to move to the other party. Examples would be Reagan Democrats (in spirit, if no self named as such), and Never Trumpers.

The people who don't like the "elites" (meaning, the mainstream majority, and therefore the power) tend to fall on the outer wings of both parties, and the one thing they are not is moderate.

Now there is a third category of "independent" and that's the false independent who wants to attack the other side while not having to defend their own.


I’m sorry I don’t fit under any of your predetermined labels.


That moment when a guy is no longer trying to lie to you, but he’s now trying to convince himself. You’re not unique or particularly noteworthy (in this arena, you may be amazing and singular in some other area), and you’re not outfoxing us. We see you. You want a better reception, bring better game.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 84960
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:32 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

Yes, I saw the 30 second clip(maybe less) cut out of what I’m assuming was a 2-3 hour podcast. My assumption is he did indeed respond and push back on that idea as I’ve heard him do many times. Feel free to let me know which podcast that was and at what point they have that discussion and I can check. I’d be very surprised if he didn’t especially considering they also used a tiny Peterson clip from a pod I listened to which doesn’t do the conversation justice.


The same Jordan Peterson who said?
Quote:
feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination,” referred to developing nations as “pits of catastrophe” in a speech to a Dutch far-right group, and recently told a Times reporter that he supported “enforced monogamy.”

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life

I don't think there is any amount of homework I could do that would change your mind.
I mean, Joe is known for his unique long form interviewing style where he lets his guests go on and on unfettered.
Is Joe Rogan prejudice? No. Does Joe Rogan have people on both sides of the aisle on his show? Yes. But has he let hate speech fly when a guest comes on the show and spouts it? Yes.
The long leash he gives to guests is one of the things his pods are most known for. Well that and the fact that youtube recommends far right channels/videos when you click one of his videos.
I think this post addresses what I'm saying:
https://tinyurl.com/u9petsf


More snippets intended to misrepresent what the message actually is. You are arguing against long form discussion that can allow a conversation to be discussed on a much deeper more precise level and are citing click baity headlines as reasons why. We’re just not gonna agree on this topic.


Probably not. It hasn’t gotten any more cogent in long form.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1836, 1837, 1838 ... 1857, 1858, 1859  Next
Page 1837 of 1859
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB