61–70 of 185 posts
Rogan is an individualist. By this I mean he supports telling people to take control of their own lives, better themselves, hear different ideas and make their own opinions. Enjoying combat sports such as Boxing, MMA, and Football means you approve of people making their own conscious decision to potentially scramble their brain. I also enjoy these sports, and if someone wants to scramble their brain playing football…
"liberal" is too wide of a brush, basically; most folks are liberal (and also conservative!) and so the label brings in too many folks. Rogan's further to the left than the "liberal" centrist media; if it were not for all of the "signaling" that he does, like being a person who enjoys MMA, then he would be branded as a "socialist" just like his guests Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang. Ten words or less to answer the he…
The article makes this distinction. There are people who have liberal beliefs and people who are embedded in liberal culture . That liberal culture is directed by the liberal intelligentsia. And I think your suggestion that liberal intelligentsia and the legacy media aren't intertwined is unfounded.
In a capitalist system, we're a liberal society because we _have to_ be. Don't take my word for it, read some John Locke - the Father of Liberalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow dude, being trans is not a "contagion of the mind". This is wildly and dangerously hateful.
It isn't hateful if it's true. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/ And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.
>Notice of republication
>After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism. Calling criticism "liberal backlash" is just using name calling instead of actually disputing those criticisms. If I say "Joe Rogan is a bit of a hack IMO", that isn't the same thing as "there is growing backlash to Joe Rogan from the hn liberal tech elite."
A wave of criticism calling for his censorship is backlash. That criticism is coming entirely from the left. Hence liberal backlash is correct. I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't hateful if it's true. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/ And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.
Oops, you "forgot" this part of the study: >Notice of republication >After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly toxic and anti-science when campaigners for transgender rights attempt this kind of censorship and deplatforming? If people can't even question the science, treatments or effects on children then it feels like a political ideology is at the wheel. I've noticed this online in traditionally liberal-leaning forums. There's no room for nuance in discussion without being the re…
I agree, I've got nothing against transgender people. I've got a problem with transgender activists going after people like J.K. Rowling, and trying to deplatform her, for her completely reasonable opinions. Fortunately in her case, she's too successful to deplatform, no publishing company is that stupid to turn her away. I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from…
No doubt, you can draw the line at different points. And obviously, in terms of audience and profit, Joe has found a sweet spot, with enough crazy people to be interesting but not so crazy as to make it a nonstop freak show. My point was that there's a wide band there, and that simply excluding a guest whose beliefs are demonstrably incorrect or morally reprehensible is not the same as pushing a single orthodox belie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incredibly uncharitable and simplistic attack on "many on the left".
Well, what is your explanation for why the mainstream left ignores / hates him? This is my explanation.
Does the mainstream “anything” care about JRE ?
He is a successful podcaster, not in the mainstream (and when he gets there he will be accused of selling out anyway)
Should CNN, MSNBC or Fox have him on as a commentator or discuss his views?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from…
I see the "who decides" argument used a lot like this, where the implication is that the mere nature of something being subjective means one must not leverage discernment, or that a single authority must be able to be established. I feel like the engineering types of minds attracted to HN are more prone to accidentally committing this kind of fallacy, as it involves a bias towards black and white objective processes.