The Joe Rogan Thread

1…1011131516…89

Comments

  • shorty4568
    shorty4568 Posts: 181
    dignin said:
    Hilariously hypocritical tweet from a user claiming to be a "free speech activist". 
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,102
    shorty4568 said:
    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? 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,818
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    shorty4568 said:
    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?

  • shorty4568
    shorty4568 Posts: 181
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    shorty4568 said:
    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.
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,663
    shorty4568 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    shorty4568 said:
    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"
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    edited October 2020
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    shorty4568 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    shorty4568 said:
    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
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,102
    shorty4568 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    shorty4568 said:
    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. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • shorty4568
    shorty4568 Posts: 181
    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.
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,102
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • shorty4568
    shorty4568 Posts: 181
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    no, it is not hypocritical at all. free speech has ZERO to do with it. 
    ok sure
  • Smellyman
    Smellyman Asia Posts: 4,528
    Rogan bros not understanding free speech?

    I am shocked.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,161
    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 ....
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,680
    HughFreakingDillon 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.
  • shorty4568
    shorty4568 Posts: 181
    pjl44 said:
    HughFreakingDillon 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. 
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,818
    shorty4568 said:
    pjl44 said:
    HughFreakingDillon 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? 
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,680
    shorty4568 said:
    pjl44 said:
    HughFreakingDillon 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.
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,680
    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.
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,102
    shorty4568 said:
    pjl44 said:
    HughFreakingDillon 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?
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • Gern Blansten
    Gern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 22,797
    shorty4568 said:
    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)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,818
    pjl44 said:
    shorty4568 said:
    pjl44 said:
    HughFreakingDillon 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.

Categories