All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[numberthirty]

I mean, we are talking the "Will sit through Tom DeLonge laying out how aliens actually exist and we have proof..." crowd.

Again, probably folks who are coming into this from a certain angle.

[Tendrin]

An audience who were all most likely already pretty well aware of McCarthy and her thoughts on vaccines and what they might have done.

People are talking like the guy is getting to virgin ears who had never even heard of vaccines potentially posing a threat to the folks that take them.

Which is just incredibly unlikely.

And yet, it is not Jenna McCarthy whose name they spout, is it? Get outta here. I definitely think you're underestimating Rogan's broader appeal, and overestimating McCarthy's continuing relevance.

[numberthirty]

And yet, it is not Jenna McCarthy whose name they spout, is it? Get outta here. I definitely think you're underestimating Rogan's broader appeal, and overestimating McCarthy's continuing relevance.

The guy is literally talking about all of his friends with children who have Autism making the connection in this clip.



Anyone who gives it even half of a second thought can tell you where that notion probably came from.

The guy having an audience does nothing to undercut that said audience most likely tuned into the show with that exact same background.

That take is informing everything that they are trying to pin on the guy. Not that he is blameless, but he isn't even a large part of said hesitancy.

[Tendrin]

The guy is literally talking about all of his friends with children who have Autism making the connection in this clip.



Anyone who gives it even half of a second thought can tell you where that notion probably came from.

The guy having an audience does nothing to undercut that said audience most likely tuned into the show with that exact same background.

That take is informing everything that they are trying to pin on the guy. Not that he is blameless, but he isn't even a large part of said hesitancy.

Yeah, but again: whose name is being talked about here? People will say 'I heard it on Rogan'.

The damage arguably started with her, sure.

But the conversation is now bigger than her and Rogan is killing people listening to him, and there's a lot of them -- and I find it extroidinarily difficult to believe that they were all Jenna McCarthy acolytes. The fact that you're focused on her really says you don't know the zeitgeist as well as you think you do.

No one here has advocated that getting him stop will solve everything, but it sure as hell can't hurt.

[numberthirty]

Yeah, but again: whose name is being talked about here? People will say 'I heard it on Rogan'.

The damage arguably started with her, sure.

But the conversation is now bigger than her and Rogan is killing people listening to him, and there's a lot of them -- and I find it extroidinarily difficult to believe that they were all Jenna McCarthy acolytes. The fact that you're focused on her really says you don't know the zeitgeist as well as you think you do.

No one here has advocated that getting him stop will solve everything, but it sure as hell can't hurt.

In that clip, what one woman suspected might have been happening is still a pretty central part of the discussion as of just a couple of years ago.

I've just got a tough time with the idea that...

- First, folks seem to think that this guy's take on things has an even wider reach.

- Second, getting him muzzled somehow does not result in roughly the same outcome as the Autism/vaccine "Connection..." It was already there, and probably isn't going away if he even gets the chain yanked.

[Tendrin]

In that clip, what one woman suspected might have been happening is still a pretty central part of the discussion as of just a couple of years ago.

I've just got a tough time with the idea that...

- First, folks seem to think that this guy's take on things has an even wider reach.

- Second, getting him muzzled somehow does not result in roughly the same outcome as the Autism/vaccine "Connection..." It was already there, and probably isn't going away if he even gets the chain yanked.

Eleven million people. And his reach sure seemed fine for you when he endorsed Berni.

[numberthirty]

And that is before you even get to how "Conspiracy..." types tend to see things...

Anything like they guy getting his chain yanked actually happens?

That is just "Proof..." that he was right the entire time, and had to be silenced.

[Mister Mets]

Yes. I am sure leaving Spotify with a much reduced stock market value and a badly tarnished reputation would make other platforms very eager to throw money at Rogan.

I think that misunderstands the situations.

Let's take a look at Spotify shares.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPOT...stedClose=true

Spotify's deal with Rogan appears to have been announced May 19 2020.

On May 18, the height of the share value was $163.88.
On May 19, the height was $179.69.

Yesterday, the value hovered between $163.11 and $176.95. It was $174.43 at the close.

The share value is still a bit higher than during the deal with Rogan (to be fair, yesterday was a volatile trading day so that wasn't always true.)

Right now, we've seen some volatility in the market, especially with tech stocks. Facebook just set the record for largest one-day drop. Netflix has gone from $567 a share in the beginning of the month to $411 now.

The Rogan Young mess had an effect. Part of it is that it exposes some fault lines for the company. I don't think they would have been better off if they had announced they will kick off Joe Rogan, who would likely keep every penny they offered him as part of the deal, and be free to go outside Spotify, to either reach a larger audience than he currently has (his numbers have gone down since he was Spotify exclusive), or to go to a smaller audience that will pay him directly.

There was a critic who had an interesting point on a cultural problem we have been today, and I've been thinking about it. Many consumers want two very different mutually exclusive things. We want the convenience of everything in one place. Many also don't want to support the content-makers we don't like. It's impossible to have it both ways, and that realization is causing some trouble for Spotify, since there isn't much of a limiting principle on that if it becomes acceptable.

[Mister Mets]

The entire Spotify boycotts started because of the vaccine disinformation. Read up on Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, two famous Canadians.

This gets to an interesting question about what should be acceptable discourse.

Joni Mitchell is against nuclear power, which is likely the most valid current alternative to fossil fuels, performing at rallies against it.

Neil Young is against GMOs, and made an album about it. Should people who believe GMOs are a net good by decreasing costs, pesticide use and other bad stuff insist that he be further deplatformed?

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/neil-you...nto-msna649971

I'm sure Neil Young is legitimate in his opposition to vaccine skepticism. But he did also have an existing argument with Spotify, over what he perceived to be inadequate audio quality.

https://www.techhive.com/article/610...o-quality.html

Yeah, I posted that earlier at a different point in the thread, suggesting his popularity has peaked. However, this isn't just about popularity, it's about the way Sanders squandered the credibility of his movement boosting the endorsement of a racist transphobe. Once given, credibility is hard to get back and it demonstrated the weakness of Sanders' 'class first' politics.





Going *on* Rogan's show was fine, though he absolutely should have challenged him on his viewpoints to advocate for democratic policies. To my understanding, he did not do that as part of courting the endorsement he got. By all means, *go on shows inclined to opposition*. Don't misunderstand me on that, go in prepared and do your thing. Where I take issue was that Sanders /boosted Rogan/ more than Rogan boosted Sanders, and that was a colossal mistake. We now have a guy pining to his audience about how black people shouldn't really call themselves 'black' unless they're 'really black' to an audience of 11,000,000, repeating debunked transphobic nonsense and more. This is the exact kind of thinking that led to Bernie struggling with voters of color in the ways that he did, fueling their rightful skepticism that he'd chase the endorsement of racist clowns like Rogan over courting black voters. This is a *problem*, and he should never have had the credibility lent to his viewpoints that he has. Sanders played a role in that, people warned about it at the time, and now people are dying from covid misinformation he's helping to spread.

Rogan isn't the be all end all, but he's a point that who you boost in your campaign will have consequences that outlast it and so we should take care who we grant the credibility on our way up and on our way down.

I can appreciate the argument that Sanders elevated Rogan. I don't think he did, but there are situations where a politician going on a show makes the person seem more respectable. It was disgusting that Donald Trump went on Alex Jones' show.

I've heard this comment elsewhere, but it does seem people who don't like Joe Rogan are trying to use the Alex Jones playbook, getting him deplatformed the way Jones was. The problem is that Joe Rogan is not Alex Jones.

[CSTowle]

Joe Rogan endorsed Bernie in 2020, dude, and Bernie going on his show was a Big Deal. There was a big talk about it on this forum, and I pointed out *then* that Bernie was wrong for giving the time of day to a transphobic know nothing. It has nothing to do with Hillary, and Biden sure as hell didn't seek out his endorsement. And now we're living in a world where Joe Rogan has 11,000,000 listeners, given additional credibility by Saint Bernard, to spew transphobia and racism. I am pointing out that some people on this forum misjudged that moment.

And I'm saying living in a 2016 world and s##tting on Bernie non-stop doesn't solve anything. Nor does Bernie appearing on a show where he didn't agree with the host on most issues and is as far away from the Presidential choice of his audience as anyone in American politics make him the guy who legitimized Rogan. Politicians ought to step out of their comfort zones more and go on shows where the host might actually challenge them. I think the Democratic nominee ought to talk to a Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity, and the Republican should sit down with Rachel Maddow.

I also stand by the statement that if he were endorsing Hillary she would have jumped at the chance to appear, and that Hillary backers still living in a world 6 years in the past does nothing to help the Party's future. Further I'd blame them for Trump being a thing in the first place, as nothing did more damage to Party unity and Democratic voting enthusiasm than Hillary backers not only trying to paint all backers of another candidate as racist, homophobic frat bros but also gleefully s##tting on them after she won the nomination. Trump's victory is partly on your heads. Perhaps that's why you're so bitter about the topic of Bernie, but continuing on this way will only help him and his kind in the future. Like I said in my last post, it's time to move on. We already have a likely bad midterm showing and several epic problems on the books without worrying about things that can't be changed and won't have an impact on the future.

[Tendrin]

And I'm saying living in a 2016 world and s##tting on Bernie non-stop doesn't solve anything. Nor does Bernie appearing on a show where he didn't agree with the host on most issues and is as far away from the Presidential choice of his audience as anyone in American politics make him the guy who legitimized Rogan. Politicians ought to step out of their comfort zones more and go on shows where the host might actually challenge them. I think the Democratic nominee ought to talk to a Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity, and the Republican should sit down with Rachel Maddow.

I also stand by the statement that if he were endorsing Hillary she would have jumped at the chance to appear, and that Hillary backers still living in a world 6 years in the past does nothing to help the Party's future. Further I'd blame them for Trump being a thing in the first place, as nothing did more damage to Party unity and Democratic voting enthusiasm than Hillary backers not only trying to paint all backers of another candidate as racist, homophobic frat bros but also gleefully s##tting on them after she won the nomination. Trump's victory is partly on your heads. Perhaps that's why you're so bitter about the topic of Bernie, but continuing on this way will only help him and his kind in the future. Like I said in my last post, it's time to move on. We already have a likely bad midterm showing and several epic problems on the books without worrying about things that can't be changed and won't have an impact on the future.

I am literally talking abouit 2020 and the consequences of bad political decisions in 2020 that we're living with two years later but go on.

[shooshoomanjoe]

So Biden is sending 2000 troops to Europe. What's the point of having all those bases in Germany if they aren't going to use their soldiers stationed there.

[Tami]

So Biden is sending 2000 troops to Europe. What's the point of having all those bases in Germany if they aren't going to use their soldiers stationed there.

Who said they are not?

When I was in the Army Reserve, I was stationed at a small base whose' mission was to move in to a nearby larger base and take over when those in the larger base were deployed overseas.

Everyone has a role, and sometimes you only need people to fill a role under certain circumstances. Shifting of troops, redeployment, it's all part of the way it's done.

[Jack Dracula]

Eleven million people. And his reach sure seemed fine for you when he endorsed Berni.

And we have to understand that those eleven million listeners are repeating what they hear on the show in increasingly flawed interpretations to many other people who will in turn, also repeat it.

[Jack Dracula]

So Biden is sending 2000 troops to Europe. What's the point of having all those bases in Germany if they aren't going to use their soldiers stationed there.

It demonstrates the level of commitment Biden’s administration has in its position. He’s playing chicken with Putin and just stepped on the gas.