Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

The Joe Rogan Thread

1679111215

Comments

  • shorty4568shorty4568 Seattle, WAPosts: 57
    dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
    free speech is only protected from prosecution by the government, not criticism. 

    when will people figure this out? 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
    free speech is only protected from prosecution by the government, not criticism. 

    when will people figure this out? 


    They won't, because it doesn't suit their narrative.


    What's their take on Ghislaine Maxwell? Is she another victim of "globalist" George Soros?


  • shorty4568shorty4568 Seattle, WAPosts: 57
    dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
    free speech is only protected from prosecution by the government, not criticism. 

    when will people figure this out? 
    He is upset they broadcasted a banned videos. He is advocating that since the videos have been banned by a private companies that it should not be shown. He doesn't provide any criticism or counter argument other than the content is wrong and has been banned.
  • dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
    free speech is only protected from prosecution by the government, not criticism. 

    when will people figure this out? 
    He is upset they broadcasted a banned videos. He is advocating that since the videos have been banned by a private companies that it should not be shown. He doesn't provide any criticism or counter argument other than the content is wrong and has been banned.
    It's a tweet. 
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,942
    edited October 2020
    dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
    free speech is only protected from prosecution by the government, not criticism. 

    when will people figure this out? 
    He is upset they broadcasted a banned videos. He is advocating that since the videos have been banned by a private companies that it should not be shown. He doesn't provide any criticism or counter argument other than the content is wrong and has been banned.
    It's a tweet. 
    That and it's Alex Jones.

    I'm curious to see how someone would go about defending Alex "Sandy Hook shooting was a false flag" Jones.


    Post edited by dignin on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
    free speech is only protected from prosecution by the government, not criticism. 

    when will people figure this out? 
    He is upset they broadcasted a banned videos. He is advocating that since the videos have been banned by a private companies that it should not be shown. He doesn't provide any criticism or counter argument other than the content is wrong and has been banned.
    you sure are making assumptions based on that one tweet. he's upset rogan is giving jones a platform. of course he's aware that rogan is legally allowed to do so, but he thinks it's irresponsible. 

    otherwise his tweet would be advocating calling the cops. which he didn't. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • shorty4568shorty4568 Seattle, WAPosts: 57
    Yes, from a person that describes themselves solely as a "free speech activist". Criticizing JRE for platforming AJ without acknowledging his own role in boosting that platform. It is hilariously hypocritical and not self-aware.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • shorty4568shorty4568 Seattle, WAPosts: 57
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    ok sure
  • SmellymanSmellyman AsiaPosts: 4,358
    Rogan bros not understanding free speech?

    I am shocked.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 24,724
    I know I’m in the minority but I don’t listen to a single podcast I never have, I have no interest in them no matter who the personality is..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 6,585
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
  • shorty4568shorty4568 Seattle, WAPosts: 57
    pjl44 said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
     :o just wow... I'm gonna stick to lost dogs. Sorry to break the seal on your vacuum. 
  • pjl44 said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
     :o just wow... I'm gonna stick to lost dogs. Sorry to break the seal on your vacuum. 
    How are they wrong? 

  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 6,585
    pjl44 said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
     :o just wow... I'm gonna stick to lost dogs. Sorry to break the seal on your vacuum. 
    You should be focused on the fact that Spotify doesn't seem to be bending on this. It's more important to encourage large companies and institutions to push back than get worked up over a rando Twitter blue check exercising his own rights.
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 6,585
    If you don't want a private company to censor, lobby that company. If they hear more voices in support, that affects their decision (see: Trader Joe's). You're not going to resolve anything by bickering with a howling mob. But some guys just want to be aggrieved and fight a culture war.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    pjl44 said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
     :o just wow... I'm gonna stick to lost dogs. Sorry to break the seal on your vacuum. 
    so you are against facts/definitions?
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,604
    Yes, from a person that describes themselves solely as a "free speech activist". Criticizing JRE for platforming AJ without acknowledging his own role in boosting that platform. It is hilariously hypocritical and not self-aware.
    The government didn't stop him from speaking....that is what the 1st Amendment is about.

    That people have a response to what was said has nothing to do with the 1A.  Ridiculous.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
     :o just wow... I'm gonna stick to lost dogs. Sorry to break the seal on your vacuum. 
    You should be focused on the fact that Spotify doesn't seem to be bending on this. It's more important to encourage large companies and institutions to push back than get worked up over a rando Twitter blue check exercising his own rights.

    "Free speech activist uses free speech to criticize corporation for amplifying misinformation" isn't the gotcha that Shorty seems to think it is.

  • pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
     :o just wow... I'm gonna stick to lost dogs. Sorry to break the seal on your vacuum. 
    You should be focused on the fact that Spotify doesn't seem to be bending on this. It's more important to encourage large companies and institutions to push back than get worked up over a rando Twitter blue check exercising his own rights.

    "Free speech activist uses free speech to criticize corporation for amplifying misinformation" isn't the gotcha that Shorty seems to think it is.
    You forgot “free speech” between “amplifying” and “misinformation.”
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 6,585
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    100% this. A private citizen can use his/her speech to request a private company take an action and that company can consider it or ignore them entirely.
     :o just wow... I'm gonna stick to lost dogs. Sorry to break the seal on your vacuum. 
    You should be focused on the fact that Spotify doesn't seem to be bending on this. It's more important to encourage large companies and institutions to push back than get worked up over a rando Twitter blue check exercising his own rights.

    "Free speech activist uses free speech to criticize corporation for amplifying misinformation" isn't the gotcha that Shorty seems to think it is.
    Exactly. Private citizen is criticizing big company with no repercussions from the state. Another private citizen could agree with the company and that's ok! What a system!
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    rogan posted on instagram about this. he said (paraphrasing) that he knew people would judge this podcast without even watching it, and "i was right". he said he fact checked everything jones said, and he was mostly right on everything. he posted an interview that bill gates did where he admits that the corona vaccine that moderna is testing that 80% of the people in the study got sick. and bill gates looked uncharacteristically uncomfortable talking about it the entire time. 

    he said "look, we all know alex is nuts, but he's also right about a lot of things". 

    maybe i'll watch the podcast to see what his idea of fact checking is. I know that someone who posted a video of their proof that rogan is a nut/full of shit, but the video they posted was rogan looking at an article by the associated press. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    Smellyman said:
    Rogan bros not understanding free speech?

    I am shocked.
    so am i a rogan bro or do i not understand free speech? you can't have it both ways. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • "I am all col with giving a platform for a fucking idiot spewing bullshit, because I ask my off-camera friend to google stuff sometimes"
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 6,585
    rogan posted on instagram about this. he said (paraphrasing) that he knew people would judge this podcast without even watching it, and "i was right". he said he fact checked everything jones said, and he was mostly right on everything. he posted an interview that bill gates did where he admits that the corona vaccine that moderna is testing that 80% of the people in the study got sick. and bill gates looked uncharacteristically uncomfortable talking about it the entire time. 

    he said "look, we all know alex is nuts, but he's also right about a lot of things". 

    maybe i'll watch the podcast to see what his idea of fact checking is. I know that someone who posted a video of their proof that rogan is a nut/full of shit, but the video they posted was rogan looking at an article by the associated press. 
    This is the AP article they were supposedly discussing:

    https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-health-middle-east-africa-united-nations-619efb65b9eeec5650f011b960a152e9

    On one hand, I have some criticism of Rogan and one is that he gives Alex Jones too much leeway. On the other hand, the people who are perpetually mad about him distort their critiques in the hope of maximizing impact. I probably wasn't going to listen to this episode to begin with and don't have the time to make myself a scholar on it. So I shrug my shoulders and just keep listening to the ones where the guests are interesting. MJK, Quinn, Burr, etc.
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 23,566
    edited October 2020
    This obsession with "free speech" and whatever amendment.

    Here it is just a given. Doesn't need to be a "thing".
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    "I am all col with giving a platform for a fucking idiot spewing bullshit, because I ask my off-camera friend to google stuff sometimes"
    i don't even know what your point is here. and jamie is a producer. not an "off camera friend". you don't have a $100 million show by employing a buddy who isn't a professional. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • "I am all col with giving a platform for a fucking idiot spewing bullshit, because I ask my off-camera friend to google stuff sometimes"
    i don't even know what your point is here. and jamie is a producer. not an "off camera friend". you don't have a $100 million show by employing a buddy who isn't a professional. 
    Lol. Okey. Sorry, I touched a nerve.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,063
    edited October 2020
    "I am all col with giving a platform for a fucking idiot spewing bullshit, because I ask my off-camera friend to google stuff sometimes"
    i don't even know what your point is here. and jamie is a producer. not an "off camera friend". you don't have a $100 million show by employing a buddy who isn't a professional. 
    Lol. Okey. Sorry, I touched a nerve.
    again with this "touched a nerve" shit. that's what people mean by trolling. you didn't touch any nerve. you once again showed your seemingly unending ignorance. and if touching people's nerves is some motivation for posting, then maybe you should take some time to reflect on why. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


Sign In or Register to comment.