Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

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. 

when he's "just asking questions" he casts doubt upon credible experts and contributes to the "muh MEDIAH bias!" narrative and encourages people to "do their own research"

And then rogan only brings on the fringe conspiracy loons who call themselves experts and do nothing but disparage the actual accredited experts and further cast doubt and validate the crazy stuff rogan is spouts.

This is how disinformation works. It's the mechanics of "people are saying". It's a familiar tactic for grifters.

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Maybe bookfags?

Come on, nobody reads books these days. For my part, at least, I couldn't tell you the last Man Booker finalist book or National Book Award book I've read in who knows how long and I consider myself a strong reader. From what I have seen, I think most people these days are lucky to read a best-seller from Hudson News or a business book du jour. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That’s a pissy shit little cop out if I’ve ever seen one.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, believe it or not. I was trying to make a salient point and if using the right pronouns or descriptors is helpful, it's the least I can do. I'm taking Sizzle's feedback and trying to incorporate it, not trying to "cop out".

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That’s a pissy shit little cop out if I’ve ever seen one.

More like a massive cunty cop out, with a "let me tell you how big of a fucking dumbass I really am chaser".

Posted
1 minute ago, TurkeyChew said:

I'm not trying to antagonize you, believe it or not. I was trying to make a salient point and if using the right pronouns or descriptors is helpful, it's the least I can do. I'm taking Sizzle's feedback and trying to incorporate it, not trying to "cop out".

LOL.

Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

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.

Well, it’s because of the flavor the peddle. 

Posted
3 hours 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?
2 hours ago, tchookem said:

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

And that's the rub.  If you went back and told 1996 me that the Clintons would look trustworthy compared to the current crop of Republican leaders,  and that the GOP panders to a fucking cult that thinks Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey are drinking the fluids of child slaves to stay young, I would have laughed heartily at you.

You might as well have told me that the Astros would switch to the American League and win a World Series.  I'd have an easier time believing that.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

when he's "just asking questions" he casts doubt upon credible experts and contributes to the "muh MEDIAH bias!" narrative and encourages people to "do their own research"

And then rogan only brings on the fringe conspiracy loons who call themselves experts and do nothing but disparage the actual accredited experts and further cast doubt and validate the crazy stuff rogan is spouts.

This is how disinformation works. It's the mechanics of "people are saying". It's a familiar tactic for grifters.

Well making ridiculous arguments isn't going to work. All of your displeasure is perfectly fine for you to have but it still does not trump the right to free speech. Be careful what you're asking for here

  • Fuck You 2
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I'm not trying to antagonize you, believe it or not.

Who said you were?

14 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I was trying to make a salient point

That’s make believe and pretend. You knew that.

14 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

and if using the right pronouns or descriptors is helpful, it's the least I can do. I'm taking Sizzle's feedback and trying to incorporate it, not trying to "cop out".

No, your whole “logic” about this is “if you say anything negative about Joe Rogan, you’re a liberal.” That’s extremely lacking in mental toughness in every conceivable facet about this. So yes, reducing it to “liberals in 2022” most certainly is a cop out because you’re grasping at straws to insist on credibility of a preposterous statement.

Edited by hpslugga
Posted
11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And that's the rub.  If you went back and told 1996 me that the Clintons would look trustworthy compared to the current crop of Republican leaders,  and that the GOP panders to a fucking cult that thinks Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey are drinking the fluids of child slaves to stay young, I would have laughed heartily at you.

You might as well have told me that the Astros would switch to the American League and win a World Series.  I'd have an easier time believing that.

 

This is the world we currently live in. Meanwhile China and Europe are the most stable they have been in a long time and are making significant economic and technological progress while we sit here in America telling everyone how awesome we are. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Who said you were?

That’s make believe and pretend. You knew that.

No, your whole “logic” about this is “if you say anything negative about Joe Rogan, you’re a liberal.” That’s extremely lacking in mental toughness in every conceivable facet about this. So yes, reducing it to “liberals in 2022” most certainly is a cop out because you’re grasping at straws to insist on credibility of a preposterous statement.

mmmm, I don't agree but it's not worth arguing about. I shouldn't have used the term "liberals" because it clearly wrapped folks around the axle. I should have said "Joe Rogan triggers a certain type and personality of people who are emotional and overreact over everything these days, regardless of their past, current and future political identity." I forgot everything has to be prefaced with a Safe Harbor statement for a certain segment of people.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck You 8
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

mmmm, I don't agree but it's not worth arguing about. I shouldn't have used the term "liberals" because it clearly wrapped folks around the axle.
 

You shouldn’t have used it because:

1. It was a case of incorrect usage

2. you haven’t the foggiest clue what “liberal” even is.

Has absolutely nothing to do with how others felt about it and everything to do with its fractal wrongness. You want to jaw about everyone being hypersensitive and emotional, yet you’re sitting there displaying a textbook case of an emotional attachment to a belief in something that was disproven.

 

Edited by hpslugga
Posted
23 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

Well making ridiculous arguments isn't going to work. All of your displeasure is perfectly fine for you to have but it still does not trump the right to free speech. Be careful what you're asking for here

For the billionth time, the American right of free speech has nothing to do with private business.  Especially a foreign private business. 
 

and furthermore, since Joe and his guests have the right to their free speech, why don’t his detractors have their right to free speech on condemning him and asking or demanding his platform to take action?

and if you agree with that, then what’s the argument?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

For the billionth time, the American right of free speech has nothing to do with private business.  Especially a foreign private business. 
 

and furthermore, since Joe and his guests have the right to their free speech, why don’t his detractors have their right to free speech on condemning him and asking or demanding his platform to take action?

and if you agree with that, then what’s the argument?

Rogan good, rest bad 

Posted
41 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

and if you agree with that, then what’s the argument?

Whatever the position, I want it known that I don't think Tom Hanks should be allowed to drink human baby smoothies. I'm against that. 

Posted
8 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Barstool/Portnoy are harmless and people digging up clips of bullshitting around behavior to make a point out of context are the worst of social media. 
 

The blog used to be great but everyone started doing podcasts and now the comment section is nothing but 18-35 year old Breitbart commenters. 

Is that better than 52-80? Asking for a friend/asshole. 

Posted
7 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:

Come on, nobody reads books these days. For my part, at least, I couldn't tell you the last Man Booker finalist book or National Book Award book I've read in who knows how long and I consider myself a strong reader. From what I have seen, I think most people these days are lucky to read a best-seller from Hudson News or a business book du jour. 

spock you dont say GIF

  • Haha 4
Posted
7 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:

. I should have said "Joe Rogan triggers a certain type and personality of people who are emotional and overreact over everything these days, regardless of their past, current and future political identity."

this one doing numbers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

“Spreading the misinformation that has made this pandemic the deadliest event in American history is bad and should be criticized “

Star Trek GIF
 

“they’re removing racist imagery from children’s books”

Cry Baby Crying GIF by The Lumineers
 

 

“The children’s potato toy no longer explicitly has a theoretical penis”

sad alex jones GIF

  • Haha 4
Posted
9 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

For the billionth time, the American right of free speech has nothing to do with private business.  Especially a foreign private business. 
 

and furthermore, since Joe and his guests have the right to their free speech, why don’t his detractors have their right to free speech on condemning him and asking or demanding his platform to take action?

and if you agree with that, then what’s the argument?

Of course they have that right, and they should not be silenced for it, and neither should Rogan

Posted

Side 1: Joe Rogan spreading vaccine disinformation is bad (and to a lesser extent, platforming white nationalists and propagandist is bad)

Side 2: Why does he bother you? He’s just a comedian and podcaster, not a doctor. You liberals are triggered. Just don’t listen to him


Is spreading vaccine disinformation bad? (yes/no)

Is Joe Rogan spreading vaccine disinformation? (yes/no)

Does being a podcaster excuse one from spreading vaccine disinformation? (yes/no)

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted

And just to be clear - liberals are kinda sorta triggered about Rogan promoting disinformation to millions of idiots, but the BIGGEST trigger for liberals is when smart conservative alpha males drink their own piss and then die of a disease for which their is a free cure. Drives us fucking bonkers, it is fucking hilarious dudes.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:

mmmm, I don't agree but it's not worth arguing about. I shouldn't have used the term "liberals" because it clearly wrapped folks around the axle. I should have said "Joe Rogan triggers a certain type and personality of people who are emotional and overreact over everything these days, regardless of their past, current and future political identity." I forgot everything has to be prefaced with a Safe Harbor statement for a certain segment of people.

There's a 1200+ post topic on the TexAgs politics forum about Alec Baldwin right now.  

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

Of course they have that right, and they should not be silenced for it, and neither should Rogan

no, they fucking don't and yes they should. for the billionth fucking time, you're allowed to say whatever the fuck you want. that does not mean a private company has to give you a platform. that also doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions for what you say. the only right you have is against the GOVERNMENT silencing your speech. that's bad. censoring disinfo bros during the deadliest pandemic in generations, well that's fucking good and should be done. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted

imagine defending dave portnoy. the guy cannot even smile without stretching his skin suit to the extreme.

https___assets.bwbx_.io_images_users_iqj

that's not a smile of a guy enjoying life. that's a sneer of someone who thinks they got the world by the balls, but also hates himself and everyone around him because he is a vortex of self-loathing.

success doesn't mean someone is successful. 

Posted (edited)

Y'all do remember Rogan endorsed Bernie over Biden in 2020, right? He reluctantly said he'd rather vote for Trump over Biden but is no touting a 2024 Michelle Obama / Kamala Harris ticket as one he would heartily endorse and thinks would win. He calls Obama "the best president we've had in our lifetime."....

He's less a true right-wing moron than he is a one-size-fits-all moron. And his endorsement did almost nothing to help Bernie. It might have even harmed him because it got a bunch of moderate women's knickers in a twist about the prospect of a union of Bernie Bros and Bro Bros that never happened, and couldn't happen, because the concept of a legion of misogynistic Bernie Bros is a fiction concocted on the basis of a half-dozen dudes being dicks on Twitter, as if no other candidate had people being dicks on Twitter on their behalf.

Anyway, anti-vax stances are not necessarily the sole domain of Trumpalos and I think a lot of you think because he's anti-vax he's pro-Trump. No, he's in the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" so many "ruggedly independent" Americans become because of our deep anti-intellectual streak.

Not white knighting for Rogan here, just the truth.

 

 

Edited by MaybeACoordinator
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Y'all do remember Rogan endorsed Bernie over Biden in 2020, right? He reluctantly said he'd rather vote for Trump over Biden but is no touting a 2024 Michelle Obama / Kamala Harris ticket as one he would heartily endorse and thinks would win. He calls Obama "the best president we've had in our lifetime."....

He's less a true right-wing moron than he is a one-size-fits-all moron. And his endorsement did almost nothing to help Bernie. It might have even harmed him because it got a bunch of moderate women's knickers in a twist about the prospect of a union of Bernie Bros and Bro Bros that never happened, and couldn't happen, because the concept of a legion of misogynistic Bernie Bros is a fiction concocted on the basis of a half-dozen dudes being dicks on Twitter, as if no other candidate had people being dicks on Twitter on their behalf.

Anyway, anti-vax stances are not necessarily the sole domain of Trumpalos and I think a lot of you think because he's anti-vax he's anti-Trump. No, he's in the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" so many "ruggedly independent" Americans become because of our deep anti-intellectual streak.

Not white knighting for Rogan here, just the truth.

 

 

he is also a dumbass liar who is disseminating dis/misinfo. both things can be true

also, did you mean to say "I think a lot of you think because he's anti-vax he's pro-Trump"?

Posted
19 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

he is also a dumbass liar who is disseminating dis/misinfo. both things can be true

also, did you mean to say "I think a lot of you think because he's anti-vax he's pro-Trump"?

yeah, corrected, thanks. I don't think he's a liar. I think he is a pure dumbass. I passed that meme along yesterday about the hamburger as pork thing thinking 100 percent it was satire. No, he really thinks that. I kind of wonder if he has CTE. America, home of the brain damaged thought leaders.

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Y'all do remember Rogan endorsed Bernie over Biden in 2020, right? He reluctantly said he'd rather vote for Trump over Biden but is no touting a 2024 Michelle Obama / Kamala Harris ticket as one he would heartily endorse and thinks would win. He calls Obama "the best president we've had in our lifetime."....

He's less a true right-wing moron than he is a one-size-fits-all moron. And his endorsement did almost nothing to help Bernie. It might have even harmed him because it got a bunch of moderate women's knickers in a twist about the prospect of a union of Bernie Bros and Bro Bros that never happened, and couldn't happen, because the concept of a legion of misogynistic Bernie Bros is a fiction concocted on the basis of a half-dozen dudes being dicks on Twitter, as if no other candidate had people being dicks on Twitter on their behalf.

Anyway, anti-vax stances are not necessarily the sole domain of Trumpalos and I think a lot of you think because he's anti-vax he's pro-Trump. No, he's in the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" so many "ruggedly independent" Americans become because of our deep anti-intellectual streak.

Not white knighting for Rogan here, just the truth.

 

 

Yeah.....my criticism of him isn't based on a politician he endorses/doesn't endorse.  Honestly, I hadn't paid much attention to that.  My criticism of him is as an example of everything that's wrong with our discourse and reasoning.

Again, we used to champion sound, evidence-based reasoning.  Now, the dominant intellectual strain is the "just asking questions" variety of dumbassery, of which Rogan is a poster-child.  Actual conservatives of days past would have panned Rogan, not for his positions, but for his approach.  Buckley and Will have no use for him.  But now we live in a world where 1) to even criticize the "just asking questions" approach means you are a LIBERAL (that is how much anti-intellectualism has become the identity of the modern "right wing" -- to criticize the "just asking questions" bullshit is a direct challenge to the entire right wing movement).  Meaning 2) that Buckley and Will are pussy libtard RINOs.  Which, if you pay attention to what happens to the Lynne Cheneys of the world....is exactly what is happening.

My problem is with idiots idioting.  Historically, that meant I was critical of people all over the political map.  Now that the American right has planted its flag and built an impenetrable wall around the holy ground of "just asking questions" and "alternative facts" and such shit.....well, most of that criticism falls on people who either fall on the right or are defended by the right because "he's an anti-intellectual, he must be one of us!"

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

no, they fucking don't and yes they should. for the billionth fucking time, you're allowed to say whatever the fuck you want. that does not mean a private company has to give you a platform. that also doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions for what you say. the only right you have is against the GOVERNMENT silencing your speech. that's bad. censoring disinfo bros during the deadliest pandemic in generations, well that's fucking good and should be done. 

So as long as someone is saying something you agree with, then their right to free speech should be protected. Got it. 

  • Fuck You 5
Posted
1 minute ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

So as long as someone is saying something you agree with, then their right to free speech should be protected. Got it. 

no, you clearly do not. I can explain it to you, but I obviously cannot understand it for you. 

  • Like 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

So as long as someone is saying something you agree with, then their right to free speech should be protected. Got it. 

Can you read?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 minute ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

So as long as someone is saying something you agree with, then their right to free speech should be protected. Got it. 

No, he's saying Joe Rogan is irresponsibly using his platform to spread lies and misinformation, but at the same time he's pretending he's just a truth-seeker/teller and his podcast never caused anyone to make a poor health choice, get sick, and possibly die.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

So as long as someone is saying something you agree with, then their right to free speech should be protected. Got it. 

Please read the first five words of the First Amendment and rejoin the conversation when you're ready.

Posted
1 hour ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

So as long as someone is saying something you agree with, then their right to free speech should be protected. Got it. 

Nah, you ain’t about that life.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...