Podcast Joe Rogan - Tricked again!

[the_interloper]

Disingenuous. Is he being a comedian or going on as an expert like McCullough or Weinstein or Shapiro?

He's going on as Eddie Bravo, one of Rogan's best mates.

 

[Chief]

He's going on as Eddie Bravo, one of Rogan's best mates.

I dunno the guy. What does he do? Truckie? Bartender? Lawyer?

 

[the_interloper]

I dunno the guy. What does he do? Truckie? Bartender? Lawyer?

Since your Google button seems to be broken he's the founder of a jiu jitsu style among other things.

 

[Bloods86]

I dunno the guy. What does he do? Truckie? Bartender? Lawyer?

In shocking news, martial arts and comedy.

 

[bourbons]

Jones was on when he was just a regular nutcase, well before he started saying crap about Sandy Hook kids.

Infact, this is the exact reason why Rogan doesn't have him on anymore, because he went too far.

This type of guest though is still in the FAR minority. The far majority of guests are not right wing nut cases.

Not even vaguely correct.

Jones has been talking crap about Sandy Hook since it happened in 2012, with legal action against him well under way before at least one of his Rogan appearances. I've listened to both his eps, he talked about the Sandy Hook legal stuff briefly, says how he got it wrong in good faith and had apologised (which is all bullshit of course).

 

[Bloods86]

Not even vaguely correct.

Jones has been talking crap about Sandy Hook since it happened in 2012, with legal action against him well under way before at least one of his Rogan appearances. I've listened to both his eps, he talked about the Sandy Hook legal stuff briefly, says how he got it wrong in good faith and had apologised (which is all bullshit of course).

If you get Sandy Hook wrong in "good faith" I'd be questioning your entire worldview. And I grew up in a family that subscribed to far right newsletters about how Port Arthur was staged (among other things).

 

[Chief]

Since your Google button seems to be broken he's the founder of a jiu jitsu style among other things.

So he'll be talking about vaccination and trans people, of course.

 

[the_interloper]

So he'll be talking about vaccination and trans people, of course.

And UFOs and music and any other subject that comes up, frightening stuff!

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Not even vaguely correct.

Jones has been talking crap about Sandy Hook since it happened in 2012, with legal action against him well under way before at least one of his Rogan appearances. I've listened to both his eps, he talked about the Sandy Hook legal stuff briefly, says how he got it wrong in good faith and had apologised (which is all bullshit of course).

yes, true but he ramped up considerably in recent years which is more of what i was getting at. I worded my original post incorrectly sorry.

But alas i agree with the message. He is someone i am a fan of not giving airtime. This is a prime case of someone doing something illegal and thus should not be platformed.

 

[Chief]

And UFOs and music and any other subject that comes up, frightening stuff!

Well, obviously UFOs!

 

[Bloods86]

yes, true but he ramped up considerably in recent years which is more of what i was getting at. I worded my original post incorrectly sorry.

But alas i agree with the message. He is someone i am a fan of not giving airtime. This is a prime case of someone doing something illegal and thus should not be platformed.

Interesting place to draw the line. Obviously Rogan has to figure in where he can also get into legal issues. But using 'the law' to decide who can be platformed is odd, plenty of horrific things have been (or are) legal, plenty of good or neutral things have been or are illegal.

That's probably why some of us use 'harm' as the measure. Although I'm ok with platforming nearly anyone, just hold them accountable. Certainly discretion is advised on how you might be doing more harm than good. Rogan not hosting Jones for that reason would be commendable.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Interesting place to draw the line. Obviously Rogan has to figure in where he can also get into legal issues. But using 'the law' to decide who can be platformed is odd, plenty of horrific things have been (or are) legal, plenty of good or neutral things have been or are illegal.

That's probably why some of us use 'harm' as the measure. Although I'm ok with platforming nearly anyone, just hold them accountable. Certainly discretion is advised on how you might be doing more harm than good. Rogan not hosting Jones for that reason would be commendable.

I dont think there is ever a clear line if we want to maintain free speech.

I personally draw the line when something is illegal and it's just easier. There are definitely people out there who say god awful things, that may not be illegal, but not sure how we draw the line clearly otherwise.

 

[Bloods86]

I dont think there is ever a clear line if we want to maintain free speech.

I personally draw the line when something is illegal and it's just easier. There are definitely people out there who say god awful things, that may not be illegal, but not sure how we draw the line clearly otherwise.

Well say goodbye to many of the civil rights movements we've had. Or supporting freedom of speech under authoritarian regimes.

 

[PT Bar None]

Since your Google button seems to be broken he's the founder of a jiu jitsu style among other things.

Didn't he used to be the booker (slash match maker) for UFC? Around the Liddell v Ortiz timeframe. Or still is?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Well say goodbye to many of the civil rights movements we've had. Or supporting freedom of speech under authoritarian regimes.

you dont have to view it the same way i do, many dont.

 

[the_interloper]

Didn't he used to be the booker (slash match maker) for UFC? Around the Liddell v Ortiz timeframe. Or still is?

I think Sean Shelby is the matchmaker now. Bravo used to commentate on some fights, he might have even been a judge, not sure he was ever the match maker though. He's one of those dudes who has done a lot of s**t though so wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Gethelred]

you dont have to view it the same way i do, many dont.

This isn't really a response to the point made, though.

If you confine speech to legal/illegal, you're completely at the mercy of those with power. The Magna Carta becomes an illegal document, because the king was forced to sign it under threat of civil war. The Declaration of Independence is an illegal document, because it was open treason against the English crown. An awful lot of political thought and philosophy on tyranny would never have been written because it's illegal speech.

Would you be open to a discussion on the nature of free speech, in which you're willing to argue the merit of your view? If not that's fine; just unless you're willing to examine that assumption you're going to receive blowback every time you use it.

 

[Bloods86]

This isn't really a response to the point made, though.

If you confine speech to legal/illegal, you're completely at the mercy of those with power. The Magna Carta becomes an illegal document, because the king was forced to sign it under threat of civil war. The Declaration of Independence is an illegal document, because it was open treason against the English crown. An awful lot of political thought and philosophy on tyranny would never have been written because it's illegal speech.

Would you be open to a discussion on the nature of free speech, in which you're willing to argue the merit of your view? If not that's fine; just unless you're willing to examine that assumption you're going to receive blowback every time you use it.

Come on now, we're in a good place where we don't have to think about those things. It's not like there's a major political party in the world's most powerful democracy that's trying to make certain speech illegal in educational and government settings, while simultaneously trying to curtail/override the speech of its citizenry at election time.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This isn't really a response to the point made, though.

If you confine speech to legal/illegal, you're completely at the mercy of those with power. The Magna Carta becomes an illegal document, because the king was forced to sign it under threat of civil war. The Declaration of Independence is an illegal document, because it was open treason against the English crown. An awful lot of political thought and philosophy on tyranny would never have been written because it's illegal speech.

Would you be open to a discussion on the nature of free speech, in which you're willing to argue the merit of your view? If not that's fine; just unless you're willing to examine that assumption you're going to receive blowback every time you use it.

The Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are far more than just freedom of speech..........

One is the declaration of rights, and the other is the desire to remove themselves from sovereign rule......

I'm not sure how you draw a parallel between these and freedom of speech of people on a podcast?

Like i have said before, if you dont like something, best not to tune into it. I dont listen to things that i dont like, nor see value in. Dont know why it's so hard for others.

 

[Bloods86]

The Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are far more than just freedom of speech..........

One is the declaration of rights, and the other is the desire to remove themselves from sovereign rule......

I'm not sure how you draw a parallel between these and freedom of speech of people on a podcast?

Like i have said before, if you dont like something, best not to tune into it.

Because if you stifle movements at lower levels based on what is legal or not, then you make it impossible, or a lot harder, to achieve an outcome that runs counter to those in charge.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Because if you stifle movements at lower levels based on what is legal or not, then you make it impossible, or a lot harder, to achieve the desired outcomes.

I'm not stifling anything? it is my personal view.

I literally said you dont have to have the same view as me?

if you guys want to criticize guys like Matt Walsh or Dave Shapiro than have at it. All i said is that IMO there's nothing wrong with having them on Rogan's podcast, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. You can have a different perspective.

 

[Bloods86]

I'm not stifling anything? it is my personal view.

I literally said you dont have to have the same view as me?

You said that someone shouldn't be platformed because they were doing something illegal. We're pointing out the flaw in that thinking, if you care about freedom of speech.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You said that someone shouldn't be platformed because they were doing something illegal. We're pointing out the flaw in that thinking, if you care about freedom of speech.

Sure, its flawed because it's not black and white, but that's the only way in my opinion you can deal with it due to the USA's constitution. Again, if you dont agree that's fine. In Australia we have hate speech laws, so different kettle of fish i guess.

I also think people should just turn off something if they dont like it.

 

[Bloods86]

I guess another way to look at it... let's say that legislation was passed to outlaw podcasts that discussed topics without a sanctioned (by government) expert being the guest.

It's the law folks.

 

[Bloods86]

Sure, its flawed because it's not black and white, but that's the only way in my opinion you can deal with it due to the USA's constitution. Again, if you dont agree that's fine. In Australia we have hate speech laws, so different kettle of fish i guess.

I also think people should just turn off something if they dont like it.

Wait, so should we listen to more Rogan and not just clips? Or just switch it off?