Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan

[dlanod]

This is going to be a very touchy subject.

There will be a very broad range of opinions about the correct way to handle this.

I'll remind everyone to post respectfully at this time - sniping at each other is not going to help.

Any continued pointless back and forth will get a day or more to cool off. If you want to avoid this fate, let it go.

 

[martinson]

The issue with Rogan is that he will give a platform to anybody and everybody (except trump I guess), and will take most of what they say at face value with very little pushback from him as the host (regardless of what his actual beliefs are).

The man is a true meathead that’s taken more hits to the head than all of the parties in the AFL’s Concussion lawsuit combined, he’s obviously not trying to do anything insidious or push any agenda. But he thinks himself an intellectual which is why he has a “wide variety of guests” on, yet he sits there and says “Well now that’s interesting” as guests will, for example, push covid19 conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Giving a platform to people like Ben Shapiro is arguably just as bad as having trump on for what it’s worth.

Not trying to bug you but whenever I converse with someone who says something I think is idiotic I say ,well that sounds interesting.

It's not his job to pass comment. His silence or inconsequential comments probably say it all.

If you want someone to disagree with them get a megastar TV interviewer where they're the star.

The great interviewers let people talk and draw out their true selves for people to see.

 

[BangyBangy]

The issue with Rogan is that he will give a platform to anybody and everybody (except trump I guess), and will take most of what they say at face value with very little pushback from him as the host (regardless of what his actual beliefs are).

The man is a true meathead that’s taken more hits to the head than all of the parties in the AFL’s Concussion lawsuit combined, he’s obviously not trying to do anything insidious or push any agenda. But he thinks himself an intellectual which is why he has a “wide variety of guests” on, yet he sits there and says “Well now that’s interesting” as guests will, for example, push covid19 conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Giving a platform to people like Ben Shapiro is arguably just as bad as having trump on for what it’s worth.

The issue is that he platforms people with “dangerous/misinformed views” and then doesn’t debate them or push back on them at all. While he may not explicitly support said views, he implicitly supports them by airing them and then saying nothing in response, or even just “yes and-ing” them at times because he doesn’t know enough about a subject to say “actually that’s probably bullsh!t”.

So Joe Rogan, needs to have his show censored (and media in general) to protect the unintelligent.

Y'know this has come about because we started putting warning / danger signs up.

Let natural selection do its magic.

 

[martinson]

I am a doctor mate, I know what I’m talking about when it comes to covid misinformation. What misinformation did the government push?

Sorry Maaate. I didn't know you were a doctor.

Obviously out of my depth with someone of your standing.

 

[buttermuffs]

You sound like you're from one of the elites at Davos buttermuffs.

Wanting to censor anything they don't agree with.

I don't listen to him all that often nor know anything about what his political leanings could be but on anything I've ever listened to he just let's people talk.

Just trawling through his guest list who has he platformed 'with dangerous views ' . And 'harmful rhetoric' . According to whom.

Dave Chappelle is a notorious transphobe, dangerous in itself but doesn’t push anything completely extreme.

Russel Brand has turned into a conspiracist regard the pandemic which is harmful.

Ben Shapiro is a big one. Pushes forth dangerous rhetoric regarding queer people, claiming grooming and pedophilia. Relentlessly will spread misinformation regarding it. He is generally one of the biggest political commentators online where he constantly spews culture war rhetoric about basically anything. Owns the Daily Wire, an extremist site that has many terrible people employed to it that push the same kind of rhetoric.

Matt Walsh is one of the employees there whose been on Joe Rogan, though kudos to Joe he seems to genuinely push back on his ideas. Matt Walsh likes to label anything queer related as pedophilia and openly campaigns for greater action to be taken to stop them at all costs. Despite the idea that he wants to protect children, he constantly talks about the prime fertility of sixteen year old girls and how they should be getting married and pregnant. He recently made a documentary which is basically prescribing ‘trans agenda’ as abusive towards children and a blight on society. That documentary was currently promoted on the social media site of another Rogan guest, deliberately at the start of pride month to try and rile up their bases.

Elon Musk is that person. Who despite posturing that he bought twitter to make it a more politically neutral forum, had decided to platform hate speech on it consistently. I could go on but it’s exhausting.

I couldn’t even make it to Steven Crowder.

Simply put, I’m not saying he shouldn’t have these people on but he is vastly in equipped to deal with them. The simple fact is that you shouldn’t be giving equal space to people who espouse rhetoric that causes monumental harm to people. There’s no middle ground to find between people who simply want to live their lives and people who don’t want them to exist. It’s like asking for a Jewish person to find compromise with a Nazi, it’s just so ducking ridiculous and yet people act like the Jewish person is unreasonable for not wanting to do it.

I think you should look up the paradox of tolerance. It’s no possible to be a tolerant society when you accept those that explicitly want to be intolerant.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[BRAB]

There’s a few good comments from this thread that talk about the Joe Rogan thing.

 

[Thomasno]

Sorry Maaate. I didn't know you were a doctor.

Obviously out of my depth with someone of your standing.

Hey you’re the one that said the government was pushing misinformation, I was just asking what that was? Because as far as I’m aware the only people that were saying the government was pushing misinformation were the same anti-mask/vaccine types that I was being critical of.

Which is my entire point, that giving platform to those people without rebuke muddies the waters and blurs what is fact and what is not.

 

[briztoon]

Sorry Maaate. I didn't know you were a doctor.

Obviously out of my depth with someone of your standing.

That’s really poor form.

 

[martinson]

The bolded is blatant misinformation, he pushes back quite often, you obviously haven't watched much of him if at all, you are likely going off highly edited out of context quotes. He has said things I disagree with him on, one of which is his pro gun stance.

The fact that you think he is a meathead is laughable.

Who decides who should be given a platform? A government run wrong think censor? As martinson said there are laws in place for libellous, racist, violence inciting speech etc if needed.

I think we should give it away maaate. I am.

They're coming at us with guns blazing over nothing.

I've listened to Joe Rogan half a dozen times.

Really enjoyed it tbh.

Now I've got people telling me I shouldn't be doing it.

Crikey.

I've also been told what I shouldn't be reading.

Back to the footy

 

[M Malice]

I think we should give it away maaate. I am.

They're coming at us with guns blazing over nothing.

I've listened to Joe Rogan half a dozen times.

Really enjoyed it tbh.

Now I've got people telling me I shouldn't be doing it.

Crikey.

I've also been told what I shouldn't be reading.

Back to the footy

People coming at me online does not worry me in the least.. does not affect me at all. If I have learnt anything in life it is how to compartmentalise and have a thick hide. If I bore of it I just go off line and enjoy the flesh, blood, sunshine and natural world.

 

[buttermuffs]

You do realise that people with 'dangerous views ' and 'harmful rhetoric' don't get a platform in places like China without significant consequences. That's how it works there.

The reason we have a democracy is to allow anyone to have a platform. If it's ridiculous ,dangerous, libellous or whatever else we have laws to push back on that if required.

Sadly I've seen some nutty politicians enter the world stage from the great democracies of recent years who think they have the right to control what people think.

Yes? Last time I checked Joe Rogan wasn’t the government. I am speaking freely how I feel like he is doing harm by platforming people with dangerous opinions.

Have I proposed we perform state censorship on Joe Rogan, or simply that that he shouldn’t do it because it is not good. I’m not sure why you think I’m suggesting the former.

At not point did I suggest the government should intervene to censor the people with dangerous opinion nor Rogan himself. The issue is that you believe that I’m advocating for state censorship. I am not.

Genuine question, do you think banning people from social media censorship and a violation of allowing them to have a platform?

 

[buttermuffs]

The bolded is blatant misinformation, he pushes back quite often, you obviously haven't watched much of him if at all, you are likely going off highly edited out of context quotes. He has said things I disagree with him on, one of which is his pro gun stance.

The fact that you think he is a meathead is laughable.

Who decides who should be given a platform? A government run wrong think censor? As martinson said there are laws in place for libellous, racist, violence inciting speech etc if needed.

No one is suggesting government intervention into who he platforms. No one is arguing he should be prevented from platforming these people, just that he shouldn’t do it because it’s harmful.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[M Malice]

There’s a few good comments from this thread that talk about the Joe Rogan thing.

I like the opening post(pasted below) and agree with most of it, I'll read the comments at a later date.
_____________________________________________

There's a lot I want to say about just the dynamics of social media, how misinformation is spread, and how the perception of a person is gradually cultivated over headlines and forums like reddit or twitter, but I really don't feel articulate or immersed enough to write a respectable argument about that. Instead, I'm hoping I can just use this recent article on the front page as my example and backdrop for my argument:

Joe Rogan has clearly become a controversial figure since the whole Alex Jones episode and covid started, and since then you constantly see articles like this blow up on reddit. It really bothers me how people on reddit are so ready to take a clearly sensationalized headline at face value, how people who I'm convinced have never sat through a full episode of Joe Rogan's show get so impassioned about him through the same hot takes that are parroted in every one of these threads, and how obviously hypocritical they can be when there is a contrary perspective out there.

To be clear, the article and thread condemn Rogan for denying climate change. But Joe Rogan is not a climate change denier. I'll give a few examples just from a quick youtube search on the subject.

• Here is a 20 minute debate he had with Candace Owens where he pretty passionately argues against her perspective when she claims climate change isn't real
• His conversation with Barbara Freese who is an environmental attorney and author who has a book on the coal industry where she talks about corporations denying that climate change exists
• His conversation with David Wallace Wells talking about the long term effects of climate change

As for the episode in the article - if anyone bothered to listen to their conversation, Joe is actually constantly pushing back on Jordan Peterson's takes. But you don't see any of that in the clip. What you see is a heavily spliced 2-minute montage of Peterson rambling from what is 4-hour conversation, and then journalists give it the headline of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson eviscerated by experts for ‘whackadoo’ and ‘deadly’ interview on climate crisis or Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson Wax Idiotic on Climate Change, and then mainpage reddit eats it up.

I've been a listener of the podcast for a longtime, and there is a lot about Joe's biases and the takes from his guests he brings on that I don't agree with at all. He is certainly biased, especially recently with his stance on vaccines (and in the past whenever they had any sort of debate on plant-based diets), but I don't think he's nearly as much of a nuthead as reddit has painted him out to be.

I'd love to be proven wrong, for him to say something that is so egregious that I can outright condemn his show, but I just feel almost every story that's been on reddit and on the news recently has been deliberately taken out of context, and I can't cosign what largely feels like a bunch of misplaced outrage.

EDIT: Apologies for the vague title. I guess what I'm mostly seeing is media sources constantly pushing to paint Joe Rogan as the new "Alex Jones", or at least the prototype of how people think of Alex Jones. They like to paint him as this unhinged, hotheaded contrarian with a lot of influence who pushes people to believe in dangerous theories, which is what I don't agree with.

 

[martinson]

That’s really poor form.

You obviously took his comment in a totally different context to what I did.

 

[BRAB]

I like the opening post(pasted below) and agree with most of it, I'll read the comments at a later date.
_____________________________________________

There's a lot I want to say about just the dynamics of social media, how misinformation is spread, and how the perception of a person is gradually cultivated over headlines and forums like reddit or twitter, but I really don't feel articulate or immersed enough to write a respectable argument about that. Instead, I'm hoping I can just use this recent article on the front page as my example and backdrop for my argument:


Joe Rogan has clearly become a controversial figure since the whole Alex Jones episode and covid started, and since then you constantly see articles like this blow up on reddit. It really bothers me how people on reddit are so ready to take a clearly sensationalized headline at face value, how people who I'm convinced have never sat through a full episode of Joe Rogan's show get so impassioned about him through the same hot takes that are parroted in every one of these threads, and how obviously hypocritical they can be when there is a contrary perspective out there.

To be clear, the article and thread condemn Rogan for denying climate change. But Joe Rogan is not a climate change denier. I'll give a few examples just from a quick youtube search on the subject.

• Here is a 20 minute debate he had with Candace Owens where he pretty passionately argues against her perspective when she claims climate change isn't real
• His conversation with Barbara Freese who is an environmental attorney and author who has a book on the coal industry where she talks about corporations denying that climate change exists
• His conversation with David Wallace Wells talking about the long term effects of climate change

As for the episode in the article - if anyone bothered to listen to their conversation, Joe is actually constantly pushing back on Jordan Peterson's takes. But you don't see any of that in the clip. What you see is a heavily spliced 2-minute montage of Peterson rambling from what is 4-hour conversation, and then journalists give it the headline of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson eviscerated by experts for ‘whackadoo’ and ‘deadly’ interview on climate crisis or Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson Wax Idiotic on Climate Change, and then mainpage reddit eats it up.

I've been a listener of the podcast for a longtime, and there is a lot about Joe's biases and the takes from his guests he brings on that I don't agree with at all. He is certainly biased, especially recently with his stance on vaccines (and in the past whenever they had any sort of debate on plant-based diets), but I don't think he's nearly as much of a nuthead as reddit has painted him out to be.

I'd love to be proven wrong, for him to say something that is so egregious that I can outright condemn his show, but I just feel almost every story that's been on reddit and on the news recently has been deliberately taken out of context, and I can't cosign what largely feels like a bunch of misplaced outrage.

EDIT: Apologies for the vague title. I guess what I'm mostly seeing is media sources constantly pushing to paint Joe Rogan as the new "Alex Jones", or at least the prototype of how people think of Alex Jones. They like to paint him as this unhinged, hotheaded contrarian with a lot of influence who pushes people to believe in dangerous theories, which is what I don't agree with.

I think you should definitely read the comments when you get the opportunity to. I think you’ll find it really interesting.

 

[M Malice]

No one is suggesting government intervention into who he platforms. No one is arguing he should be prevented from platforming these people, just that he shouldn’t do it because it’s harmful.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

So you agree he should be allowed to have people on that he wants to have on...... you seem to have a low paternalistic condescending opinion of the average person.

IMO they can watch a 2-3 hour unedited Podcast and make up their own mind as to what to believe and what not to.

 

[rye]

did not see this thread progressing to covid, joe rogan and vaush discussion but here we are

 

[Viceregal]

Might I humbly suggest that the current conversastional theme would be more suited to the politics thread in the Den rather than on here - people may wish to come here for updates on the Hawthorn culture and Fagan (why they would assume that I don't know - oh yes it is in the thread title!) and while I get that this is an ancilliary line the noise factor is getting a little high ...

 

[M Malice]

Might I humbly suggest that the current conversastional theme would be more suited to the politics thread in the Den rather than on here - people may wish to come here for updates on the Hawthorn culture and Fagan (why they would assume that I don't know - oh yes it is in the thread title!) and while I get that this is an ancilliary line the noise factor is getting a little high ...

It is way past my bedtime anyway... goodnight beautiful people, I have really enjoyed the discussion.

I'll get back to Lions/footy love tomorrow.

 

[buttermuffs]

Not trying to bug you but whenever I converse with someone who says something I think is idiotic I say ,well that sounds interesting.

It's not his job to pass comment. His silence or inconsequential comments probably say it all.

If you want someone to disagree with them get a megastar TV interviewer where they're the star.

The great interviewers let people talk and draw out their true selves for people to see.

Great interviewers know when to challenge the people they interview and not pretend the misinformation they spread has any value or merit. I would not call someone a good interviewer if they brought on a race realist and let them speak uninterrupted about black people’s genetic predisposition to violence.

To give some credit to Joe Rogan, when a recent guest claimed that there were millions of American children on medication relating to transitioning, he provided the statistics to show that is was not in fact millions, but only a couple thousand in all of America. What he did not do, is ever actually call it out as misinformation, instead basically letting his guest attempt to spread harmful rhetoric with no consequences. Joe Rogan isn’t asking why they have decided to try and spread misinformation, nor has he even actually said it is.

The natural consequence of platforming these ideas is the genocidal ideals that are present in Florida from their governor and the state itself. Influential figures like Joe Rogan assist in spreading the misinformation parroted by those people and helps popularise it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[buttermuffs]

So Joe Rogan, needs to have his show censored (and media in general) to protect the unintelligent.

Y'know this has come about because we started putting warning / danger signs up.

Let natural selection do its magic.

Everyone needs to stop jumping to ‘SO YOU THINK THE STATE SHOULD CENSOR THEM?!’ conclusion when criticising a public figure for platforming people with terrible views.

Apparently free speech means a person deserves to do things without facing public criticism?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Thomasno]

So you agree he should be allowed to have people on that he wants to have on...... you seem to have a low paternalistic condescending opinion of the average person.

IMO they can watch a 2-3 hour unedited Podcast and make up their own mind as to what to believe and what not to.

And you clearly have a far higher opinion of the average person.

I have seen multiple people refuse life saving surgery in the last 2 years because they couldn’t be guaranteed that any blood transfusions they may require would come from unvaccinated people.

The average person is incredibly stupid.

EDIT: we are very off topic so I’ll stop too.

 

[BangyBangy]

Everyone needs to stop jumping to ‘SO YOU THINK THE STATE SHOULD CENSOR THEM?!’ conclusion when criticising a public figure for platforming people with terrible views.

Apparently free speech means a person deserves to do things without facing public criticism?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Stop telling everyone what to do.

Edit: My first post was more in jest. This one is too.

 

[briztoon]

You obviously took his comment in a totally different context to what I did.

I took his comment as someone who has a proper education in the field of medicine, and has a fairly good understanding about a topic you introduced.

For reference and full disclosure, he was letting you know he has an education and understanding about said topic, and was willing to properly discuss it with you.

You then rolled out “Maaate”.

 

[BangyBangy]

And you clearly have a far higher opinion of the average person.

I have seen multiple people refuse life saving surgery in the last 2 years because they couldn’t be guaranteed that any blood transfusions they may require would come from unvaccinated people.

The average person is incredibly stupid.

EDIT: we are very off topic so I’ll stop too.

To quote the late great George Carlin

'think about how stupid the average person is, then realise half of them are even stupider than that'..

 

[buttermuffs]

So you agree he should be allowed to have people on that he wants to have on...... you seem to have a low paternalistic condescending opinion of the average person.

IMO they can watch a 2-3 hour unedited Podcast and make up their own mind as to what to believe and what not to.

Holy moly. Do I agree he should not be legally barred from having who he wants on? No s**t. Do I think he should have those people on? No. Stop conflating my personal opinion on his actions as me lobbying for it to be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com