I believe that’s why allowing him and others to speak is important and why arguing against points you disagree with instead of silencing them is the right(as well as American) way to create change.
But it's not important. If he engaged in a reasonable dialogue, yes. But he doesn't, and there is no societal benefit in having him on a show and spew his garbage for hours, challenged or not challenged. The only winner is Alex Jones, and everybody else loses.
Which goes back to my original question: why should anyone be impressed if Joe Rogan invites people that range from reasonable all the way to crazy? It's not impressive at all. It doesn't make him a great interviewer, it doesn't make him into some rebellious fighter against political correctness. It simply makes him someone that wants attention, and he knows that people like Alex Jones will gather attention. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Last edited by Wilt on Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:34 am; edited 1 time in total
The first two representatives to endorse that orange thing for supreme being are both being convicted of federal crimes and stepping down from office.
Maybe the morons who follow him accept this as delivering on his promise to drain the swamp.
and Barack Obama launched his political career in the living room of a well known domestic terrorist....what should we make of the morons that supported him?
Wow, had to reach back to the 2008 Fox News talking points. Nice job.
just a fact.....you probably had your head deep in the sand when it was verified and discussed.
What will you bring up next, how disrespectful the Dixie Chicks are to our soldiers?
Agree to disagree. I don’t think you’re objectivity looking at this discussion, or many discussions at all.
Well, if your argument is that not letting him speak is infringing on his First Amendment rights - even though it has nothing to do with the First Amendment - it's kind of an important thing to point out.
Objective = anything I say (facts, research, empirical or quantitative data not needed)
Subjective = anything I disagree with
What facts, research, empirical or quantitative data was used? Upvotes and comments? Do you really believe that’s valuable?
At least it quantitative. With thousands in the data pool. You've provided anecdotal evidence of your friends.
And I've provided 10 links over the past 4 pages of this thread. Including research done and video evidence.
Links to articles that are opinions and a video in which I explained why I don’t think it’s a valuable piece of evidence because it over simplifies an implicitly deep discussion. If you think those are valuable data points, fine but I don’t and have explained why I believe what I believe.
Joined: 09 Jul 2010 Posts: 7844 Location: Orange County
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:38 am Post subject:
vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
The first two representatives to endorse that orange thing for supreme being are both being convicted of federal crimes and stepping down from office.
Maybe the morons who follow him accept this as delivering on his promise to drain the swamp.
and Barack Obama launched his political career in the living room of a well known domestic terrorist....what should we make of the morons that supported him?
Wow, had to reach back to the 2008 Fox News talking points. Nice job.
just a fact.....you probably had your head deep in the sand when it was verified and discussed.
What will you bring up next, how disrespectful the Dixie Chicks are to our soldiers?
They still never got the apology they deserve. _________________ Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
I believe that’s why allowing him and others to speak is important and why arguing against points you disagree with instead of silencing them is the right(as well as American) way to create change.
But it's not important. If he engaged in a reasonable dialogue, yes. But he doesn't, and there is no societal benefit in having him on a show and spew his garbage for hours, challenged or not challenged. The only winner is Alex Jones, and everybody else loses.
Which goes back to my original question: why should anyone be impressed if Joe Rogan invites people that range from reasonable all the way to crazy? It's not impressive at all. It doesn't make him a great interviewer, it doesn't make him into some rebellious fighter against political correctness. It simply makes him someone that wants attention, and he knows that people like Alex Jones will gather attention.
The first paragraph is simply your opinion, which you are entitled to, but I disagree with.
Joe Rogan is a quality interviewer because of his openmindedness and willingness to allow his guests to clearly give their opinion and support it whether he agrees or not. Would it be more beneficial for him to be more knowledgeable on certain topics? Of course but you can’t expect him to know anything and everything. He interviews all kinds of people. Unfortunately, we have very few people in the media who are educated on the various topics with his level of objectivity.
The first two representatives to endorse that orange thing for supreme being are both being convicted of federal crimes and stepping down from office.
Maybe the morons who follow him accept this as delivering on his promise to drain the swamp.
and Barack Obama launched his political career in the living room of a well known domestic terrorist....what should we make of the morons that supported him?
At least you didn't go with Chuck Barris for your whataboutism.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29150 Location: La La Land
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:44 am Post subject:
Another gem from 6 time Joe Rogan guest Jordan Peterson:
Quote:
“It’s been really interesting for me to watch the response… of young Caucasian males to hip-hop. You know, there’s an aggressiveness about hip-hop that’s really attractive to young Caucasian males. And there’s something absurd about the spectacle of the young Caucasian males taking on the persona of inner-city black gang members. But I’m sympathetic to it because there’s an aggressiveness to that art form that’s a necessary corrective to the insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness—which is absurd.
Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.
He didn't say that on Joe's podcast. But I can see why Joe brought him on so many times. He's a fountain of knowledge.
This guy knows women am I right CL? _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:49 am; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 04 Oct 2001 Posts: 6346 Location: The Titanic that is the USA
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:45 am Post subject:
nickuku wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
The first two representatives to endorse that orange thing for supreme being are both being convicted of federal crimes and stepping down from office.
Maybe the morons who follow him accept this as delivering on his promise to drain the swamp.
and Barack Obama launched his political career in the living room of a well known domestic terrorist....what should we make of the morons that supported him?
Wow, had to reach back to the 2008 Fox News talking points. Nice job.
just a fact.....you probably had your head deep in the sand when it was verified and discussed.
What will you bring up next, how disrespectful the Dixie Chicks are to our soldiers?
They still never got the apology they deserve.
...especially when our president, just today, on foreign soil, took swipes at U.S. elected officials. And that's not the first time.
Trump and his lackeys lose the whataboutism arguments on an hourly basis, which leads one to the only conclusion possible: they're all acting in bad faith. What's American about that?
Reasonable disagreement is one thing. Allowing someone to go on credible outlets, that people rely on for solid news, with half-baked, bad faith conspiracy theories and other wacked out arguments is irresponsible. That's not American. We're a world leader not just because of market and military power, but also because we are always supposed to be holding ourselves to a higher standard of behavior.
I feel like I have to repost this quote on a weekly basis:
The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. Isaac Asimov
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29150 Location: La La Land
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:47 am Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Quote:
Agree to disagree. I don’t think you’re objectivity looking at this discussion, or many discussions at all.
Well, if your argument is that not letting him speak is infringing on his First Amendment rights - even though it has nothing to do with the First Amendment - it's kind of an important thing to point out.
Objective = anything I say (facts, research, empirical or quantitative data not needed)
Subjective = anything I disagree with
What facts, research, empirical or quantitative data was used? Upvotes and comments? Do you really believe that’s valuable?
At least it quantitative. With thousands in the data pool. You've provided anecdotal evidence of your friends.
And I've provided 10 links over the past 4 pages of this thread. Including research done and video evidence.
Links to articles that are opinions and a video in which I explained why I don’t think it’s a valuable piece of evidence because it over simplifies an implicitly deep discussion. If you think those are valuable data points, fine but I don’t and have explained why I believe what I believe.
There was a study done! Since you are choosing to hold my numerous sources to an impossible standard. Would you mind showing me a source that supports your opinion that meets that same standard? _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29150 Location: La La Land
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:52 am Post subject:
I'm sure there are a ton of studies done showing how agreeing there are humanoids helped people realize Alex Jones is wrong. Even though the responses to the video show the complete opposite. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
I'm sure there are a ton of studies done showing how agreeing there are humanoids helped people realize Alex Jones is wrong. Even though the responses to the video show the complete opposite.
If you wanna continue this exchange don’t intentionally misrepresent what I’ve said.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67317 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:24 pm Post subject:
Trumps numbers are steady. This tells me no matter what's said about him they won't change. His base is of his ilk.
Target undecided, independents, youth, AA, Hispanic, Asian, women, groups that outnumber the Trump base etc.
Beat the hell out of GET OUT AND VOTE drums.
Don't be apathetic as in 2016, it's a lock. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Trumps numbers are steady. This tells me no matter what's said about him they won't change. His base is of his ilk.
Target undecided, independents, youth, AA, Hispanic, Asian, women, groups that outnumber the Trump base etc.
Beat the hell out of GET OUT AND VOTE drums.
Don't be apathetic as in 2016, it's a lock.
Three things worry me:
1. Long and divisive Democratic contest
2. New and improved Russian meddling efforts
3. Trump refusing to concede and telling his army of followers not to accept the election result _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Agree to disagree. I don’t think you’re objectivity looking at this discussion, or many discussions at all.
Well, if your argument is that not letting him speak is infringing on his First Amendment rights - even though it has nothing to do with the First Amendment - it's kind of an important thing to point out.
Objective = anything I say (facts, research, empirical or quantitative data not needed)
Subjective = anything I disagree with
What facts, research, empirical or quantitative data was used? Upvotes and comments? Do you really believe that’s valuable?
At least it quantitative. With thousands in the data pool. You've provided anecdotal evidence of your friends.
And I've provided 10 links over the past 4 pages of this thread. Including research done and video evidence.
Links to articles that are opinions and a video in which I explained why I don’t think it’s a valuable piece of evidence because it over simplifies an implicitly deep discussion. If you think those are valuable data points, fine but I don’t and have explained why I believe what I believe.
There was a study done! Since you are choosing to hold my numerous sources to an impossible standard. Would you mind showing me a source that supports your opinion that meets that same standard?
That study showed it can make people more susceptible to “extreme political opinions” which is an incredibly subjective thing and I think it should be allowed regardless. If Ben Shapiro is far right, than Maddow is far left. So you want to silence her too? I doubt it. This isn’t a topic that can be quantified or a debate that will be solved with numbers. It’s far too theoretical for that. What I will say is our culture with free speech has led to a far more free society than nations with histories of the suppression of speech. China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany etc all practice[d] the suppression of speech so they could brainwash their populations to believe what they wanted them to believe. Historically, freedom of speech and open debate has always been the best way to counteract bad extremist ideas without exception.
Another gem from 6 time Joe Rogan guest Jordan Peterson:
Quote:
“It’s been really interesting for me to watch the response… of young Caucasian males to hip-hop. You know, there’s an aggressiveness about hip-hop that’s really attractive to young Caucasian males. And there’s something absurd about the spectacle of the young Caucasian males taking on the persona of inner-city black gang members. But I’m sympathetic to it because there’s an aggressiveness to that art form that’s a necessary corrective to the insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness—which is absurd.
Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.
He didn't say that on Joe's podcast. But I can see why Joe brought him on so many times. He's a fountain of knowledge.
This guy knows women am I right CL?
Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist with a doctorate and has made a career of studying human nature(what people want/need, what motivates them, what they are naturally drawn to etc.) Trusting CL to know what woman want ON AVERAGE over him because he’s a man is like trusting a random 7 footer on the street to teach AD how to protect the rim over Frank Vogel cause he’s short.
Considering your strong opinion on him, I’m hoping you’ve already watched this. If not, give it a watch, you might learn something.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
• Asked whether the United States supports Iranian protesters challenging their government: "I don't want to comment on that, but the answer is no. But I don't want to comment." Aside from the indistinguishable-from-parody phrasing, both Trump's secretary of state and Donald Actual Trump himself publicly stated the exact opposite position in the last 24 hours. Does Trump even know what protesters the questioner was taking about? Did he forget his own stance? We don't know—but he soon reversed that position yet again.
• Trump badgered the French president in an excruciatingly strange exchange, asking him "Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? I could give them to you."
• Trump straight-up embraced the imperialist argument his staff apparently used as leverage to convince him to keep some U.S. troops in Syria, claiming that "We have taken the oil. I've taken the oil. We should have done it in other locations, frankly, where we were. I can name four of them right now, but we've taken the oil ... our great soldiers are right around the oil where we've got the oil."
• He again bragged of his close relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, even while calling him "Rocket Man." "I’m possibly the only one he has that kind of relationship with in the world."
• He refused to confirm that the United States would come to the aid of other NATO members who came under military attack.
• On climate change: "Climate change is very important to me. I've done many environmental impact statements over my life and I believe very strongly in very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air. That's a big part of climate change." Donald Trump has previously declared climate change to be a "hoax" propagated by China in an attempt to weaken American industry. Further, pollution levels in the United States have increased during Trump's tenure, due in part to Trump administration refusals to enforce violations of the Clean Air Act. Those elevated pollution levels have caused nearly 10,000 premature deaths.
• He again revised his claims of how much his own actions have hurt China, claiming the Chinese economy is "down $32 trillion" because of his acts. This unexplained number continues to vary every time he makes the claim; since China's total gross domestic product in 2017 was $12 trillion, Trump is claiming that he harmed China to the tune of roughly three times their annual GDP.
• He called the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee "a maniac" and "a deranged human being." Further claimed, of his own phone call(s?) with the Ukrainian president: "I had legal scholars looking at the transcripts the other day and they said 'these are absolutely perfect, Trump is right when he uses the word.'" There is no evidence these legal scholars exist.
• He mused that in the future, when there is a "Democrat" president and a Republican House, Republicans will "hopefully" impeach that president in retaliation for the current impeachment inquiry. "They’ll do the same thing. Because somebody picked an orange out of a refrigerator and you don’t like it, so let’s go and impeach him." This is a baffling statement in any number of ways, but is perhaps dangerous to dwell on.
Trumps numbers are steady. This tells me no matter what's said about him they won't change. His base is of his ilk.
Target undecided, independents, youth, AA, Hispanic, Asian, women, groups that outnumber the Trump base etc.
Beat the hell out of GET OUT AND VOTE drums.
Don't be apathetic as in 2016, it's a lock.
Three things worry me:
1. Long and divisive Democratic contest
2. New and improved Russian meddling efforts
3. Trump refusing to concede and telling his army of followers not to accept the election result
#3 prob not gonna happened but #1 and #2 for sure it's gonna happened. As long as we coalesce at the end, it's ok
Biden/ Harris ticket would work swimmingly... If I was Biden and his team I would reach out to her and basically propose a trade- Give me your endorsement, I promise you the VP. If Harris can read the writing on the wall that Joe might pass away as prez then she's the boss. _________________ Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52624 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:09 pm Post subject:
governator wrote:
Wilt wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Trumps numbers are steady. This tells me no matter what's said about him they won't change. His base is of his ilk.
Target undecided, independents, youth, AA, Hispanic, Asian, women, groups that outnumber the Trump base etc.
Beat the hell out of GET OUT AND VOTE drums.
Don't be apathetic as in 2016, it's a lock.
Three things worry me:
1. Long and divisive Democratic contest
2. New and improved Russian meddling efforts
3. Trump refusing to concede and telling his army of followers not to accept the election result
#3 prob not gonna happened but #1 and #2 for sure it's gonna happened. As long as we coalesce at the end, it's ok
Unless there is a sweeping victory in the Electoral College vote and a profound victory in the popular vote, I don't see Trump conceding. He'll claim election fraud on the part of the Dems and claim it negates the Dem victory. _________________ 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
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31788 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:15 pm Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Kamala Harris is dropping out.
I was so high on her after the 1st debate. Boy was I wrong. She couldn't defend her record AT ALL. She flip flopped on Medicare for All. And she couldn't get the small donors. I still find he likeable. But she just wasn't good enough.
Never got African-American support. And neither has Booker.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29150 Location: La La Land
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:27 pm Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Another gem from 6 time Joe Rogan guest Jordan Peterson:
Quote:
“It’s been really interesting for me to watch the response… of young Caucasian males to hip-hop. You know, there’s an aggressiveness about hip-hop that’s really attractive to young Caucasian males. And there’s something absurd about the spectacle of the young Caucasian males taking on the persona of inner-city black gang members. But I’m sympathetic to it because there’s an aggressiveness to that art form that’s a necessary corrective to the insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness—which is absurd.
Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.
He didn't say that on Joe's podcast. But I can see why Joe brought him on so many times. He's a fountain of knowledge.
This guy knows women am I right CL?
Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist with a doctorate and has made a career of studying human nature(what people want/need, what motivates them, what they are naturally drawn to etc.) Trusting CL to know what woman want ON AVERAGE over him because he’s a man is like trusting a random 7 footer on the street to teach AD how to protect the rim over Frank Vogel cause he’s short.
Considering your strong opinion on him, I’m hoping you’ve already watched this. If not, give it a watch, you might learn something.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
You may have a point here. Peterson the lone clinical psychologist in the world is Neo of this FemiNazi controlled simulation built to destroy harmless Caucasian men!
And we can’t ask CL about it because best case scenario she doesn’t know about the plot and worst case scenario she is one of the organizers.
I’m so glad I started looking up Joe Rogan podcasts otherwise, me and I’m sure others wouldn’t have given Peterson's 100% accurate depiction of 1/2 the world's population a deeper look. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:25 pm; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 12 Feb 2002 Posts: 3829 Location: South Orange County
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:30 pm Post subject:
Wilt wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I believe that’s why allowing him and others to speak is important and why arguing against points you disagree with instead of silencing them is the right(as well as American) way to create change.
But it's not important. If he engaged in a reasonable dialogue, yes. But he doesn't, and there is no societal benefit in having him on a show and spew his garbage for hours, challenged or not challenged. The only winner is Alex Jones, and everybody else loses.
Which goes back to my original question: why should anyone be impressed if Joe Rogan invites people that range from reasonable all the way to crazy? It's not impressive at all. It doesn't make him a great interviewer, it doesn't make him into some rebellious fighter against political correctness. It simply makes him someone that wants attention, and he knows that people like Alex Jones will gather attention.
I'm reminded of the late great Christopher Hitchens, "It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it's the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something."
Last edited by Surfitall on Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 09 Jul 2010 Posts: 7844 Location: Orange County
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:30 pm Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Another gem from 6 time Joe Rogan guest Jordan Peterson:
Quote:
“It’s been really interesting for me to watch the response… of young Caucasian males to hip-hop. You know, there’s an aggressiveness about hip-hop that’s really attractive to young Caucasian males. And there’s something absurd about the spectacle of the young Caucasian males taking on the persona of inner-city black gang members. But I’m sympathetic to it because there’s an aggressiveness to that art form that’s a necessary corrective to the insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness—which is absurd.
Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.
He didn't say that on Joe's podcast. But I can see why Joe brought him on so many times. He's a fountain of knowledge.
This guy knows women am I right CL?
Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist with a doctorate and has made a career of studying human nature(what people want/need, what motivates them, what they are naturally drawn to etc.) Trusting CL to know what woman want ON AVERAGE over him because he’s a man is like trusting a random 7 footer on the street to teach AD how to protect the rim over Frank Vogel cause he’s short.
Considering your strong opinion on him, I’m hoping you’ve already watched this. If not, give it a watch, you might learn something.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
You may have a point here. Peterson the lone clinical psychologist in the world is Neo of this FemiNazi controlled simulation built to destroy harmless Caucasian men!
And we can’t ask CL about it because best case scenario she doesn’t know about the plot and worst case scenario she is one of the organizers.
I thought the JP hype died when everyone exposed him as a fraud. _________________ Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Another gem from 6 time Joe Rogan guest Jordan Peterson:
Quote:
“It’s been really interesting for me to watch the response… of young Caucasian males to hip-hop. You know, there’s an aggressiveness about hip-hop that’s really attractive to young Caucasian males. And there’s something absurd about the spectacle of the young Caucasian males taking on the persona of inner-city black gang members. But I’m sympathetic to it because there’s an aggressiveness to that art form that’s a necessary corrective to the insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness—which is absurd.
Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.
He didn't say that on Joe's podcast. But I can see why Joe brought him on so many times. He's a fountain of knowledge.
This guy knows women am I right CL?
Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist with a doctorate and has made a career of studying human nature(what people want/need, what motivates them, what they are naturally drawn to etc.) Trusting CL to know what woman want ON AVERAGE over him because he’s a man is like trusting a random 7 footer on the street to teach AD how to protect the rim over Frank Vogel cause he’s short.
Considering your strong opinion on him, I’m hoping you’ve already watched this. If not, give it a watch, you might learn something.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
You may have a point here. Peterson the lone clinical psychologist in the world is Neo of this FemiNazi controlled simulation built to destroy harmless Caucasian men!
And we can’t ask CL about it because best case scenario she doesn’t know about the plot and worst case scenario she is one of the organizers.
I’m so glad I started looking up Joe Rogan podcasts otherwise, me and I’m sure others wouldn’t have given Peterson 100% accurate depiction of 1/2 the worlds population a deeper look.
I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.
I believe that’s why allowing him and others to speak is important and why arguing against points you disagree with instead of silencing them is the right(as well as American) way to create change.
But it's not important. If he engaged in a reasonable dialogue, yes. But he doesn't, and there is no societal benefit in having him on a show and spew his garbage for hours, challenged or not challenged. The only winner is Alex Jones, and everybody else loses.
Which goes back to my original question: why should anyone be impressed if Joe Rogan invites people that range from reasonable all the way to crazy? It's not impressive at all. It doesn't make him a great interviewer, it doesn't make him into some rebellious fighter against political correctness. It simply makes him someone that wants attention, and he knows that people like Alex Jones will gather attention.
I'm reminded of the late great Christopher Hitchens, "It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it's the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something."
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