Thing$ $till not going well for Joe Rogan, I $ee.

[Pato del Muerto 52572]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

...yes? He's an insufferable narcissist with mental health issues that's enabled by his menagerie of handlers and yes-men. He has some good music, but fuck man, at what cost? Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you arguing that kanye is an icon of (((the cabal))) or something?

Your judgement really is something. Or you're just a lazy and intellectually dishonest troll.

He’s bipolar. Not sure about clinically narcissistic. 

[Chooky 13317]

36 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

 

 

And we come full circle.  Somehow (1) it's very righteous thing to signal being above popular figures, even though <1hr ago (2) you totally "don't care enough" about said figures.

Hey guys, isn't Kanye West just THE WORST????

His comedy sucks and I don't think he's as bright as you think he is and I've seen other comedian's jokes go right over his head multiple times.  The latter happened so often there was a point where other comedians joked and referred to him as "literal Joe."  He didn't like that and they stopped.  I think he's a thorough mediocrity and I find it amusing when any person falls into maximum degree idolatry to another person.  I don't want him censored or deplatformed or whatever.  I just think he's a knob.  I also think it's a sketchy psychological state for middle-aged men to take selfies on a daily basis.  That's lame.  And I know he's a hypocrite.  He got flat busted by multiple small time YouTube channels for using one of his LLC's (Bent Pixels) to remove content that made fun of him.  Mr. Free Speech, remember?  He spent a few years acting like Onnit was just a company who had products he really liked.  He pimped the products with the proviso that he wasn't being paid to talk about them.  Then it was revealed he was always a part owner of the company from day one -- seemed a little grifty, but whatever.  Make money, amigo.  It just put a slight damper on the notion that he's the truth sword.  I like to make fun of him, especially with guys like you who apply a sacred cow status to him.  It's just my opinion.  I think he blows.  You want to blow him.  That's all that's happening here.  

Edited January 17, 2022 by Chooky
words hard me struggle

[Al_4_ISU 12481]

Kanye is awful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brisketexan 105288]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

In my experience, people who purvey crude toilet humor tend to have views consistent with those types of jokes.

Fart noises.

5 minutes ago, Chooky said:

His comedy sucks and I don't think he's as bright as you think he is and I've seen other comedian's jokes go right over his head multiple times.  The latter happened so often there was a point where other comedians joked and referred to him as "literal Joe."  He didn't like that and they stopped.  I think he's a thorough mediocrity and I find it amusing when any person falls into maximum degree idolatry to another person.  I don't want him censored or deplatformed or whatever.  I just think he's a knob.  I also think it's a sketchy psychological state for middle-aged men to take selfies on a daily basis.  That's lame.  And I know he's a hypocrite.  He got flat busted by multiple small time YouTube channels for using one of his LLC's (Bent Pixels) to remove content that made fun of him.  Mr. Free Speech, remember?  He spent a few years acting like Onnit was just a company who had products he really liked.  He pimped the products with the proviso that he wasn't being paid to talk about them.  Then it was revealed he was always a part owner of the company from day one -- seemed a little grifty, but whatever.  Make money, amigo.  It just put a slight damper on the notion that he's the truth sword.  I like to make fun of him, especially with guys like you who apply a sacred cow status to him.  It's just my opinion.  I think he blows.  You want to blow him.  That's all that's happening here.  

And a whole lot of this.  White-knighting someone who has a pattern of on-point hypocrisy and outright lies to enrich himself, who is also an intellectual lightweight with a demonstrably shitty grasp of evidence-based reasoning?  Doesn't get more 2022 than that.

[Chooky 13317]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Kanye is awful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But he's a genius.  Look at the geniusness.  

[Chooky 13317]

And this promo looks like he's fucking a lion.

 

[Celery Man 20996]

Man for a minute I thought the drummer of Dream Theater had gotten into some shit.

[52-80 19237]

7 minutes ago, Chooky said:

His comedy sucks and I don't think he's as bright as you think he is and I've seen other comedian's jokes go right over his head multiple times.  The latter happened so often there was a point where other comedians joked and referred to him as "literal Joe."  He didn't like that and they stopped.  I think he's a thorough mediocrity and I find it amusing when any person falls into maximum degree idolatry to another person.  I don't want him censored or deplatformed or whatever.  I just think he's a knob.  I also think it's a sketchy psychological state for middle-aged men to take selfies on a daily basis.  That's lame.  And I know he's a hypocrite.  He got flat busted by multiple small time YouTube channels for using one of his LLC's (Bent Pixels) to remove content that made fun of him.  Mr. Free Speech, remember?  He spent a few years acting like Onnit was just a company who had products he really liked.  He pimped the products with the proviso that he wasn't being paid to talk about them.  Then it was revealed he was always a part owner of the company from day one -- seemed a little grifty, but whatever.  Make money, amigo.  It just put a slight damper on the notion that he's the truth sword.  I like to make fun of him, especially with guys like you who apply a sacred cow status to him.  It's just my opinion.  I think he blows.  You want to blow him.  That's all that's happening here.  

I never said he's bright.  I never said he's a good comedian.  And a lot of his content is an absolute bore -- I wrote these sentiments on this website multiple times.  The way he looks he's likely on HGH along with his cocktail of homeopathic organic deer antler kale powder supplements.

None of this makes him what you claim him to be: a sacred cow truth bringer chemist postdoc.  He's literally just a dude with a podcast.  You are projecting his position the same way you are mine, just to have something to beat on.  That's what's happening here.

[elfenix 34331]

18 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Kanye is awful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

also a republican plant

 

and turn off your tapatalk signature, noob

[fattyflattie 4638]

I’m considerably less concerned about Portnoys mild racism than I am his God level douchebaggery. I mean that dude is the walking embodiment of a fucking douchebag. I didn’t think anyone liked him.  Think he had some recent #metoo allegations, iirc.  I remember not being surprised in the least when I heard (on radio) 

[Brisketexan 105288]

14 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I never said he's bright.  I never said he's a good comedian.  And a lot of his content is an absolute bore -- I wrote these sentiments on this website multiple times.  The way he looks he's likely on HGH along with his cocktail of homeopathic organic deer antler kale powder supplements.

None of this makes him what you claim him to be: a sacred cow truth bringer chemist postdoc.  He's literally just a dude with a podcast.  You are projecting his position the same way you are mine, just to have something to beat on.  That's what's happening here.

If he was "just a dude with a podcast," nobody would GAF.

He's a dude with a podcast with millions of rabid followers who look to him as a thought leader.

Kind of a big difference, and thus he's rightly called out as 1) a naked hypocrite, 2) a plainly lying grifter, and 3) fucking super shitty at evidence-based reasoning.  Sorry that the demonstrable proof of all three of those things upsets you so when they're pointed out.  Doesn't make them any less true.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

27 minutes ago, Chooky said:

And this promo looks like he's fucking a lion.

 

You show that turd who's boss!

[Chooky 13317]

Whoa! Easy there, buddy. You'll blow out your o-ring.

[atomheartbevo 89783]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

It's right in line with the dormroom humor of his brand, which means its in poor taste and ill advised for basically anyone in the world to express.

But you are convinced this represents his racist nature?  A belief in racial superiority and discriminatory actions based on such beliefs?

It's off-color, but making fun of peoples looks (hello Spencer Rattler) and terrorist-adjacent jokes are all over this fucking board.

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

In my experience, people who purvey crude toilet humor tend to have views consistent with those types of jokes.

He was very comfortable saying it.

He also had no problem publicly hopping on twitter and comparing Kaepernick to Osama Bin Laden.

That's pretty fucking stupid for somebody who makes a living in the sports world but it's also a sign he's a little too comfortable making such statements.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[TurkeyChew 383]

The year is 1996. Joe Rogan has hair and long sideburns and wears puka shells as contestants eat Donkey Semen.

Who would have guessed this guy would be the biggest liberal trigger 26 years later?

[52-80 19237]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If he was "just a dude with a podcast," nobody would GAF.

He's a dude with a podcast with millions of rabid followers who look to him as a thought leader.

Kind of a big difference, and thus he's rightly called out as 1) a naked hypocrite, 2) a plainly lying grifter, and 3) fucking super shitty at evidence-based reasoning.  Sorry that the demonstrable proof of all three of those things upsets you so when they're pointed out.  Doesn't make them any less true.

He has a podcast that people listen to on a voluntary basis. The breadth of his guestlist is wider than any other show, hence the popularity. It’s been popular pre-COVID, pre-Q (his recent guest produced an HBO series exposing/unmasking the entire Q conspiracy). 
 

He’s not responsible for what you or others choose to listen to. It sounds like you never have, anyway. 
 

He doesn’t claim to be some master philosopher or debater. But you sneer at him for this. And you guys repeat ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesnt share your position. 
 

There is a really rich irony in this echo chamber, maybe one day you will appreciate it. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

3 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

The year is 1996. Joe Rogan has hair and long sideburns and wears puka shells as contestants eat Donkey Semen.

Who would have guessed this guy would be the biggest liberal trigger 26 years later?

The year is 2026. The person behind TurkeyChew has been crowdsourced 33 times and re-emerges as BunnySnuff to troll again. 

Who would have guessed this piece of shit didn’t have better things to do?

[hpslugga 4062]

15 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

The year is 1996. Joe Rogan has hair and long sideburns and wears puka shells as contestants eat Donkey Semen.

Who would have guessed this guy would be the biggest liberal trigger 26 years later?

Just stop. You ain’t about that life.

[Celery Man 20996]

15 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

The year is 1996. Joe Rogan has hair and long sideburns and wears puka shells as contestants eat Donkey Semen.

Who would have guessed this guy would be the biggest liberal trigger 26 years later?

Him becoming important at all is more surprising than Christians abandoning their beliefs entirely and replacing Jesus Christ with Donald Trump

[elfenix 34331]

the year is 1965.  the voting rights act passes congress. 

who would have guess that this would still be the biggest conservative trigger 57 years later.

[Anastasis 23481]

This is where all the really important stuff is hashed out. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

34 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I just saw he averages 11M per podcast

J. F. C. 

[Brisketexan 105288]

The year is 1996. Joe Rogan has hair and long sideburns and wears puka shells as contestants eat Donkey Semen.
Who would have guessed this guy would be the biggest liberal trigger 26 years later?

What’s telling is that “being critical of people shitty at evidence-based reasoning promulgating idiotic shit, some of which is actually harmful to people’s health” become a “liberal” thing? My whole life, “libtards” like William F Buckley had the same position. Having a problem with stupid people selling breathtakingly stupid shit used to be a core conservative value….and in literally less than a decade, it became the core conservative brand. Fucking amazing to watch.

[Herpa Derpa 6129]

44 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I just saw he averages 11M per podcast. Is that more than all network primetime shows combined? That's amazing. I understand the left warning to silence him because that's quite the audience. 

Please list the specific names of anyone in a position to do so that is trying to silence him? And the specific things that are being done to bring about his silence? Or are you just confused by the marketplace of ideas? Calling someone an idiot who should be ignored is not trying to silence them, it's calling them an idiot who should be ignored. For example, if I say that you're an elementary simpleton easily led by charlatans issuing sophomoric proclamations bereft of intellectual substance, that doesn't mean you can't keep peppering the world with your galtish inanity, it just means that you shouldn't be too surprised when your vapid comprehension is sarcastically and derisively dismissed.

No, 11 million is not more than all network primetime shows combined. It's just barely more than 60 Minutes, a single network primetime show. So your amazement is suspect. The fact that 0.03% of the population bothers themselves with his ramblings is meaningless in the grand scheme. His audience of validation seeking bros and sjw twatters looking for material won't budge the social zeitgeist longer than a fart in the wind. He's not worthy enough for the baby-eating cabal to even care. (ex. sarcastic derision of your comment)

Edited January 18, 2022 by Herpa Derpa

[staboner 4984]

On 1/16/2022 at 5:30 AM, Neonmoon said:

There is so much stupidity crammed into this 3 minutes, it’s impressive. The best is he starts out with a fabricated position to attack.

“So like when people think that like the idea of saying that freedom is important is a frivolous notion.”

Who is saying freedom is not important? Who is saying it’s a frivolous notion? Is there some huge anti-freedom movement we are not aware of? I’m sure he is trying to somehow implicate that a government elected by the people pursuing health policies are against freedom somehow. 

He brings up Australia as an example of an extreme government that controls its people because everyone is unarmed. He falsely accused them of taking the guns away. He then says “Their imposing rules on people. Would that be possible in a place where everyone is armed?” He says no, I’m not saying people should rise up against the government. But that’s exactly what’s he’s fucking implying 

Then he stupidly compares the government to a parent and the citizen to a child. He says the government treats them like they know better and they have to listen, and treats them like second class citizens. The people who disagree shouldn’t have to listen. Imagine how fucking stupid you have to be to think that analogy was a good one. First off, parents DO KNOW better than fucking children. There’s a reasons we don’t let 7 years old drive or do our taxes. And you have to listen because we live in a civilized society you dumb fuck. Everyone has to follow the rules, even if you don’t like them. We have rules so everyone can live together safely, which includes public health policy. And yes, you dirty bitch, you will be treated as a second class citizen If you do something that endangers the herd. The herd has decided that vaccinations are the best way to protect everyone. If you choose not to get one, yes, you will be viewed as the dirty kid and you won’t be allowed in school, like the other weird fucking kids. 

That wasn’t an epic rant. It was a simple temper tantrum. 

 

 

 

 

 

its the pre-emptive victim defense. debate is dead.  It irks the shit out of me when people start of anything with "they seem to say". Who they F is "they"?

At this time in our public discourse - assuming you want good outcomes and not just the same BS victimhood thing - you have to work to leave the luggage at home. Seems like everyone is bring lots of it to every goddamn interaction they have. They, them, you, the XX's, whoever it is they are fighting constantly in their day to day thoughts. 

thanks for the rant. 

[Captainant 27744]

37 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Donkey Semen

Strong to very strong candidate for your next handle, donk

[Anastasis 23481]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

 

 

 

 

People on CNN advocating low level censoring or framing of misinformation is chefs fucking kiss. 

[Brisketexan 105288]

He has a podcast that people listen to on a voluntary basis. The breadth of his guestlist is wider than any other show, hence the popularity. It’s been popular pre-COVID, pre-Q (his recent guest produced an HBO series exposing/unmasking the entire Q conspiracy). 
 
He’s not responsible for what you or others choose to listen to. It sounds like you never have, anyway. 
 
He doesn’t claim to be some master philosopher or debater. But you sneer at him for this. And you guys repeat ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesnt share your position. 
 
There is a really rich irony in this echo chamber, maybe one day you will appreciate it. 

Just a little hint for you: criticizing someone for the things he says and does is not “ad hominem.” Which is most of what this discussion is, and is the only thing my post you quoted did. Calling him a dim meathead….THAT’s ad hominem. Which he is, but I haven’t called him that.

Just helping you out here.

[52-80 19237]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Just a little hint for you: criticizing someone for the things he says and does is not “ad hominem.” Which is most of what this discussion is, and is the only thing my post you quoted did. Calling him a dim meathead….THAT’s ad hominem. Which he is, but I haven’t called him that.

Just helping you out here.

Reread the words after “hominem” and think about your response again. You can still edit your post. 
 

Just helping you out. 

[Anastasis 23481]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Just a little hint for you: criticizing someone for the things he says and does is not “ad hominem.” 

It certainly can be. 

Ad hominem focusses on something other than the actual argument being made.

It is quite pervasive here. 

[tchookem 3905]

The year is 1996. Joe Rogan has hair and long sideburns and wears puka shells as contestants eat Donkey Semen.
Who would have guessed this guy would be the biggest liberal trigger 26 years later?

About as likely as guessing that he'd be an alt-right darling.

[elfenix 34331]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It certainly can be. 

Ad hominem focusses on something other than the actual argument being made.

It is quite pervasive here. 

as are generalizations

  

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

People on CNN advocating low level censoring or framing of misinformation is chefs fucking kiss. 

and the other type of ad hominem

Edited January 18, 2022 by elfenix

[bolverk 29717]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

People on CNN advocating low level censoring or framing of misinformation is chefs fucking kiss. 

Nice move casting doubt on her message because you don't like CNN. Do you not also "frame" Rogan's anti-vaccine stance as misinformation? Given your pro-vaccine statements in the past, I'd be shocked if you didn't also characterize it as such.

She's not just some rando calling Rogan's anti-vaxx stance misinformation. She's one of the signatories to the open letter to Spotify and who also happens to be an infectious disease epidemiology research fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital. What that letter asks is that Spotify "establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform." So, it's kind of valid that she's being interviewed. Has she or any of the other signers been invited to FOX and given an opportunity to explain the open letter? I would certainly hope so.

But, you know, your bringing CNN into the conversation a focus on something other than the actual argument being made, which is that Joe Rogan's podcast spreads misinformation regarding the vaccine, that Joe Rogan has a devoted fanbase numbering in the millions, and that people shouldn't be listening to what Joe Rogan's stupid opinions about Covid or the vaccine, because that information is bogus and (if taken to heart) is potentially deadly. Your focus on CNN rather than Rogan seems, I dunno, a tad ad hominem.

[Anastasis 23481]

16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Nice move casting doubt on her message because you don't like CNN. Do you not also "frame" Rogan's anti-vaccine stance as misinformation? Given your pro-vaccine statements in the past, I'd be shocked if you didn't also characterize it as such.

She's not just some rando calling Rogan's anti-vaxx stance misinformation. She's one of the signatories to the open letter to Spotify and who also happens to be an infectious disease epidemiology research fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital. What that letter asks is that Spotify "establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform." So, it's kind of valid that she's being interviewed. Has she or any of the other signers been invited to FOX and given an opportunity to explain the open letter? I would certainly hope so.

But, you know, your bringing CNN into the conversation a focus on something other than the actual argument being made, which is that Joe Rogan's podcast spreads misinformation regarding the vaccine, that Joe Rogan has a devoted fanbase numbering in the millions, and that people shouldn't be listening to what Joe Rogan's stupid opinions about Covid or the vaccine, because that information is bogus and (if taken to heart) is potentially deadly. Your focus on CNN rather than Rogan seems, I dunno, a tad ad hominem.

She's not really engaging in a scientific discussion.  She is proposing, on CNN, applying warning sighs and banners highlighting misinformation.  "There is a lot of speculation on these shows that people take as infallible". Redirecting to the CDC and WHO for reliable information. Sorry if that irony is lost on you big B.  

[Chooky 13317]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

Oh there is a mvmt to either get him banned or have warnings put into his podcast. 

Then this group of docs trying to get Spotify to censor him. 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/14/spotify-joe-rogan-podcast-open-letter?CMP=twt_gu&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=&s=09#Echobox=1642160922-1

 

This is the other side of the exact, same self righteous coin. But the "echo chamber" here will screech about their victimization by the establishment media and will then fight to the death to protect Joe The Bringer of Holy Roundhouse Supplements.  Then they applaud their political party for dismantling Liz Cheney for daring to dissent from the opinion they themselves had to be bullied into promoting. Fuck outta here. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Joe really touches a nerve here. This is funny. In ideal Surly world what would y’all like to happen to him? Deplatform? Warning banners all over his podcast? Or just leave him be?

[bolverk 29717]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

She's not really engaging in a scientific discussion.  She is proposing, on CNN, applying warning sighs and banners highlighting misinformation.  "There is a lot of speculation on these shows that people take as infallible". Redirecting to the CDC and WHO for reliable information. Sorry if that irony is lost on you big B.  

Guess it is lost on me. Not having cable for the past decade+, I didn't realize CNN was known for regularly spreading misinformation regarding the vaccine and/or Covid like Joe Rogan, and I certainly didn't realize that CNN's talking heads were widely seen by their audience as being infallible. Pretty much my only exposure to them is short clips like this one that get posted here, and the overall Surly consensus so far as I understand it is they're widely seen as being pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as other cable news networks.

But, anyway, this thread isn't about CNN. It's about Joe Rogan and the recent pick up in conversation is about him continuing to spread debunked information about Covid and the vaccine to his millions of fans.

[Chooky 13317]

9 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Joe really touches a nerve here. This is funny. In ideal Surly world what would y’all like to happen to him? Deplatform? Warning banners all over his podcast? Or just leave him be?

You might be a compete fucking idiot. 

[4th&Five 41586]

13 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Joe really touches a nerve here. This is funny. In ideal Surly world what would y’all like to happen to him? Deplatform? Warning banners all over his podcast? Or just leave him be?

[Anastasis 23481]

9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

didn't realize CNN was known for regularly spreading misinformation

Sorry for the selective quote, but I LOLed. 

[hpslugga 4062]

Watching posters here trying to re-shape the definition of ad hominem:

 

[TurkeyChew 383]

2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

Him becoming important at all is more surprising than Christians abandoning their beliefs entirely and replacing Jesus Christ with Donald Trump

Agreed. Just goes to show anyone can make something of themselves and get rich doing what they love, despite how impossible it may be seem at the time.

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

People on CNN advocating low level censoring or framing of misinformation is chefs fucking kiss. 

How the fuck could anyone possibly view Joe Rogan's advice as "infallible"? That's ridiculous, especially given the fact that he frequently reminds viewers that he is not a scientist. 

[SizzleChest 8284]

30 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Joe really touches a nerve here. This is funny. In ideal Surly world what would y’all like to happen to him? Deplatform? Warning banners all over his podcast? Or just leave him be?

None of that matters at this point.  

Enjoy your hero and his "original" content while you can.  The goofy supplements and the roids will assume control of him at some point soon.  But you'll have hours upon hours of blathering Rogan content to binge listen on repeat - featuring exclamations like "you know, I can't accept that" when he's challenged with clear, objective truths.  Plenty of misplaced skepticism and fellating Dana White for you to listen to over and over again after Joey assumes room temperature.

 

[TurkeyChew 383]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

What’s telling is that “being critical of people shitty at evidence-based reasoning promulgating idiotic shit, some of which is actually harmful to people’s health” become a “liberal” thing? My whole life, “libtards” like William F Buckley had the same position. Having a problem with stupid people selling breathtakingly stupid shit used to be a core conservative value….and in literally less than a decade, it became the core conservative brand. Fucking amazing to watch.

I was mainly speaking about this website-- it's the liberals who are blowing their gaskets on the internet over this guy. As I see it, Joe Rogan isn't the problem. He's like the cartel boss-- take him away and another "Joe Rogan" will rise to the top and fill the talking-head vacuum. It's like the cartel and drug war-- the problem isn't the supply. It's that there are literally millions upon millions of folks demanding that a Joe Rogan exist and create content.

As you well know, we aren't putting that genie back in the bottle or that toothpaste back in the tube-- the internet has decentralized content and information to the point that there will never be abstracted and representative public intellectuals like Buckley or anyone else again. We all have our own value champions now.

[SizzleChest 8284]

3 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I was mainly speaking about this website-- it's the liberals who are blowing their gaskets on the internet over this guy.

Since you know "the liberals" on this website (and its progenitor), can you list for us all the usernames you've had on Surly or Shaggy going back to 2008 so we can verify your authenticity as a judge for who the liberals on this site really are?

Please tell us.  I'm beyond curious.

[TurkeyChew 383]

1 minute ago, SizzleChest said:

Since you know "the liberals" on this website (and its progenitor), can you list for us all the usernames you've had on Surly or Shaggy going back to 2008 so we can verify your authenticity as a judge for who the liberals on this site really are?

Please tell us.  I'm beyond curious.

I was talking about this thread-- the 25 pages on this site whose posters can be seen on these 25 pages. Apologies if you thought I was talking about some deeply profiled persona matching going back to 15 years or whatever your point was, that was not what I was trying to say. Does that make sense?

[SizzleChest 8284]

7 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I was talking about this thread-- the 25 pages on this site whose posters can be seen on these 25 pages. Apologies if you thought I was talking about some deeply profiled persona matching going back to 15 years or whatever your point was, that was not what I was trying to say. Does that make sense?

You don't know who the fucking "liberals" really are here.  That was the point.  The majority of the people mocking Rogan here are conservatives historically (and many remain as such), but it's those demon liberals shucking ol' Joe and they're always the primary agitators because that's all your brain can process.

Edited January 18, 2022 by SizzleChest

[TurkeyChew 383]

4 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

You don't know who the fucking "liberals" really are here.  That was the point.  The majority of the people mocking Rogan here are conservatives historically (and many remain as such), but it's those demon liberals shucking ol' Joe and they're always the primary agitators because that's all your brain can process.

"Liberals as defined in 2022", is that better?

Or better yet, I'm an open-minded and coachable guy, which word or descriptor would you have used in the place of "liberals" as short-hand for a generalization as I was trying to define?

Edited January 18, 2022 by TurkeyChew

[Celery Man 20996]

Maybe bookfags?