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

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 33K
  • Politics 
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.
 
ZenMode said:
200.gif
Click to expand...
So your misogyny and abnormal intelligence can't compute the fact that Kamala Harris's balls are bigger than Bret's and yours. Or is it the implication that the vernacular of having big balls not apply to females? I mean having the balls to reply may or may not affirm your gender? That's what?
 
Last edited:
lightbluenc said:
He was famous for making people eat cow balls and horse dicks. He has very little of anything to say. Rogan will quite literally just parrot whatever guest he has on, and occasionally will get fact checked and its funny to watch his brain try to deduce what happened.
Click to expand...
I have been re-watching Newsradio. It is amusing how much his character was not acting.
 
Don't want a new thread Went to DPAC tonight and saw Hillary and John Grisham-her "moderator" She was Hawking a book-but was basically a Harris rally Maybe 70 % ladies my age (white hair ) She is still sharp as hell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top