181–185 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The JRE show has very little in the realm of comedy, and is more driven by Joe's philosophical views and opinion than any semblance of comicality. If his show was generally a stand up routine I would not have the same critique or hold it to the same level of skepticism.
It has been nominated for best comedy podcast year after year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn’t. As I said if you want your microwaved lasagna go watch 60 minutes. I want to see Dorsey, Jones etc for the lunatics that they are and be thoroughly entertained by it
So you'll trade the lasagna for a bag of Doritos and some Slim Jims? If you think there is something "authentic" about people like Alex Jones, you're delusional. They are media creations, just as surely as Dan Rather. Just less coherent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Joe Rogan is already in the middle. There are plenty of arguments and introspections where he strives to get more details and confirm the truth. He just doesn't do it all the time with every guest and topic; but that's a side-effect of having long casual meandering conversations so people get upset when it doesn't happen with intensity they want against the content they disagree about.
In order to be in the middle you need to express an opinion. He seems to not be anywhere on the political spectrum, and that annoys me. Why listen to a political nihilist host morally depraved, political extremist crackpots?
"Forgive him; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've been friends for over 20 years. The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion. And love him or hate him, Alex Jones is one of the most interesting people on this planet. It'd be a disservice to his listeners to not invite him on the show.
> The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion. Sure. And that doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Rogan's format freely mixes experts, non-experts, and faux-experts in ways that contribute to an overall undervaluing of expertise in our culture. That's worth criticism even if he is friends with a conspiracy nut and wants to shoot the shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole second paragraph is FUD, as should be obvious from the phasing "irrevocable harm to their bodies". Dismissal as a "social phenomenon" is naive in the extreme, as is the author's revealed ignorance of mainstream medicine's approach to transgender minors.
You think taking male hormones as a teenage girl is harmless - you know it can make them sterile right? How about a radical double mastectomy? This has real, irreversible effects. Shame on the adults for pushing parents or forcing parents to accept this, and shame on you for dismissing my very valid concerns as FUD.