Harris/Walz Catch-All | Kamala blitz in closing stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 30K
  • Politics 
finesse said:
I don't know a thing about him but the name. Who is he? Why would I need to hear anything he has to say?
Click to expand...
He has a lot of sway among a certain demographic of young men. He has never been particularly bright, but he used to be a lot less partisan than he is now.

Seems like he turned during COVID. He rarely questions people on his show, usually just goes along with whatever they’re saying. You can see how this tactic would lead him astray during COVID if he’s having fringe loonies on.
 
My perspective on Rogan is that he possesses just enough intelligence to be passable in his milieu, while possessing a warm charisma, yuck-yuck likability that endears the audience. I loved him in News Radio … 25 years ago.

Trouble is, Rogan’s milieu is disproportionately influenced by right wing ideologues and grifters like Milo, Peterson, RFKjr, and numerous medical grifters, and those folks see Rogan as the empty intellectual vessel he truly is. I think Rogan has had a deleterious effect on society by contributing to this current hard turn to the right by young men, which is chalked full of messaging about male entitlement, female inferiority, xenophobia, and creating images of “men” that could and should be criticized for how broadly unrealistic they are for 90% of young men. That said, I don’t think he’s a “bad guy”, I just think he’s kinda empty.

Upshot, I’m in favor of Harris going on Rogan with the condition that it’s Rogan alone involved in the interview. I think he’s easily persuadable, or at a minimum, he’s easy to soften, and that goes a long way with young men.
 
Last edited:
HeelingAg said:
Oh ffs, stop with the oblique “I am the enlightened one” bs. You were doing fine with the “maybe give Rogan a chance” narrative, but you’re going to lose any voice you might seek on this board if you choose to position yourself as someone who’s done their “own research” and thinks for a second has greater insight into the “realities” of the world. This board is a mix of conservatives, former conservatives, progressives, centrists, rural and urban dwellers, technocrats, lawyers, medical professionals, researchers, factory managers, people with no college degree (admittedly, they post less), etc.

You aren’t bringing to this board “realities”. I certainly welcome your perspectives but if you want to position yourself as the insightful enlightened, who also uses slurs - because that’s already happened - then go for it, but know your posts will be ignored, quickly.
Click to expand...
pretty defensive response, sorry if I offended you?
 
HeelingAg said:
My perspective on Rogan is that he possesses just enough intelligence to be passable in his milieu, while possessing a warm charisma, yuck-yuck likability that endears the audience. I loved him in News Radio … 25 years ago.

Trouble is, Rogan’s milieu is disproportionately influenced by right wing ideologues and grifters like Milo, Peterson, RFKjr, etc, and those folks see Rogan as the empty intellectual vessel he truly is. I think Rogan has had a deleterious effect on society by contributing to this current hard turn to the right by young men, which is chalked full of messaging about male entitlement, female inferiority, xenophobia, and creating images of “men” that could and should be criticized for how broadly unrealistic they are for 90% of young men. That said, I don’t think he’s a “bad guy”, I just think he’s kinda empty.

Upshot, I’m in favor of Harris going on Rogan with the condition that it’s Rogan alone involved in the interview. I think he’s easily persuadable, or at a minimum, he’s easy to soften, and that goes a long way with young men.
Click to expand...
I know quite a few folks who listen to him. I'd say this is largely accurate mostlty because of the folks he chooses to have on his show. I don't necessarily mind the breadth of folks he has on his show, but he definitely does nothing to push back when presented with bat shit crazy ideas.

If forced to try to sum him up in a sentence, I'd go with: He's a dumb person's idea of an intelligent person.

I do think it would be great if Harris can go on his show. He'll get her in front of an audience that likely wouldn't otherwise listen to her and I doubt he'd push back in any way she couldn't handle.
 
Illithor said:
pretty defensive response, sorry if I offended you?
Click to expand...
You don’t have that power, because I don’t know you and, to date, your words have offered me nothing

Your early foray into this board aligns with literally dozens of copy and paste trolls, though you have offered slight hints that you’re maybe not just another OCSCalla derivative.

I eagerly welcome new posters with earnest and thoughtful positions. Any “offense” you misinterpreted was merely fatigue and the impending sense of disappointment that you’re likely just a derivative.
 
aGDevil2k said:
Cut the crap. You came after me, and you are upset when doing that pissed other people off and made you look bad?
Click to expand...
How’d I come after you? By pointing out that as a whole, liberal circles find the idea of Rogan repulsive, toxic masculinity, transphobic, etc? It wasn’t meant as a personal attack, just a statement of fact.

Here’s a fact: 70% of people don’t trust MSM.

Another fact: MSM has been attacking Rogan for years, largely because his viewership of one episode is larger than every major news network combined.

Does he bring on the occasional wacko? Sure, but he constantly says to his viewers that they shouldn’t believe everything they hear on his show. More importantly, he gives a huge platform to experts to talk about real issues. Listen to his recent episode with two doctors Calley and Casey Means talking about metabolic health and the food industry. Or the guy from The Innocence Project he has on every few months to bring awareness to black men who are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit.

People don’t listen to Rogan for Rogan, they listen for the (sometimes) amazing guests he has on.
 
Last edited:
HeelingAg said:
You don’t have that power, because I don’t know you and, to date, your words have offered me nothing

Your early foray into this board aligns with literally dozens of copy and paste trolls, though you have offered slight hints that you’re maybe not just another OCSCalla derivative.

I eagerly welcome new posters with earnest and thoughtful positions. Any “offense” you misinterpreted was merely fatigue and the impending sense of disappointment that you’re likely just a derivative.
Click to expand...
Cool story. Good to know that it’s worth seeking your patronizing approval if I want to continue posting here.

Not here to troll, and you’ll likely not see me for weeks at a time, as I really don’t normally have time for this (at home with COVID right now). I’ll probably agree with 75% of what you guys talk about, but I’ll try not to come off as “enlightened” or whatever that was in my future disagreements.
 
Illithor said:
Or… and keep an open mind on this one… he puts out a great product?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call his product great - what I would call it is approachable. Rogan's show is basically premised on the idea that there's no such thing as a stupid question, so he is willing to entertain all sorts of quacks and grifters and scammers on his show without applying anything approaching discernment, logic, or intellectual rigor to what they're saying. By keeping things at a very low level intellectually, it allows the audience to feel smarter. In other words it's a show that makes people who aren't intellectual feel intellectual, which is why it's understandably successful.

If you want to watch guests ramble for an hour while Rogan says "cool" or "wow" and asks inane questions, it's great for you. if you are someone who thinks that watching Rogan let a conspiracy theorist or a right-wing grifter say whatever they want for a couple hours constitutes "doing your own research" it's good for you. You're certainly entitled to like it and enjoy it; taste is subjective. But the idea that the popularity of any entertainment or media product proves its quality is silly. People like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens also have some of the most-viewed podcasts in the country. I mean the "Hawk Tuah" girl now has one of the top-ranked podcasts in the country; she seems like a nice enough girl but I'm confident her podcast isn't popular because it's innovative or smart or unique. Lots of people just like to hear friendly people ramble in the background for a couple of hours. Which is fine, but also doesn't change the fact that the shows are largely empty calories.
 
Illithor said:
Here’s a fact: 70% of people don’t trust MSM.
Click to expand...
70% of people say they don't trust the MSM because right-wingers have engaged in a very successful, decades long campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the MSM. (They've done basically the same thing with eroding trust in the government itself.) Years of shouting from the Limbaughs and Trumps of the world that the MSM are liars has taken its toll. The motives for right-wingers to do this are obvious; they want to be able to make their own truth and not be "fact checked" or otherwise have their lies challenged by the media. Trump and others like him want to be able to lie with impunity, so they accuse the people calling them on their BS of being liars. It's just the oldest conservative trick in the book; they've been doing it for centuries. Same with the rest of the conservative playbook (fearmongering about immigration, preaching safety and security, undermining the legitimacy of elections, etc) - all of this stuff would be right at home in conservative messaging from 50, 100, or 200.

Modern media is not without its problems but those problems are far less of a factor in eroding trust than the bad-faith actors who are seeking profit or power by undermining the media. Just like declining public faith in the security and legitimacy of elections has very little to do with any real problems with the elections and a lot to do with the bad-faith actors who have been shouting baseless claims about about voter fraud, cheating, etc. for years.
 
Maybe time to have a separate pros and cons of Joe Rogan thread separate from this one?

Either way, I vote that we cut @Illithor some slack -- s/he's bringing a different POV about Rogan and since I know virtually nothing about Rogan other than seeing posts of and about him pop up on X a good bit, so I find the POV of someone who listens to Rogan's work to be enriching for overall discussion/consideration.
 
nycfan said:
Maybe time to have a separate pros and cons of Joe Rogan thread separate from this one?

Either way, I vote that we cut @Illithor some slack -- s/he's bringing a different POV about Rogan and since I know virtually nothing about Rogan other than seeing posts of and about him pop up on X a good bit, so I find the POV of someone who listens to Rogan's work to be enriching for overall discussion/consideration.
Click to expand...
I think quite a bit of slack has been offered. Numerous folks have engaged, substantively, with the meat of their posts. Several folks, including myself, came to their defense when they derisively dropped the r-word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top