LogFAQs > #941094537

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 307: Tulsa Staggered
CoolCly 06/22/20 7:38:20 PM #50:	xp1337 posted... I'm always a bit puzzled by the Rogan defenses because it feels to me like looking into a twisted mirror version of "Why are Democrats trying to appeal to right-leaning people who clearly aren't good faith allies?" in terms of the defenders typically being the attackers there. I think his history/past comments re: LGBTQ, race, sexual assault, and more kind of makes the case itself that that is not a platform that needs to be supported or defended by people who actually want progress on those issues. In these topics specifically it kinda feels like Gabbard 2.0 where a good ~60-70% of the topic regulars were highlighting that "No, she's not some kind of rising progressive star, if you look at her history it's actually filled with some really bad stuff." that got fought about here for like two+ years until finally enough information finally broke through - whether it was the publicizing of the literal cult or her "present" vote on impeachment - that everyone finally got on the same page there. Perhaps unsurprisingly there's a link between the two here. I mean, anyone who is out there leaning into the "Biden is losing his mind" narrative in distraction to literally Trump is just... not someone expressing any valuable opinions here. I'm just not sure what to make out about this post at all Like, I guess you have some measure of what value someone gives to the goals you want achieved, and if they aren't contributing to that goal - then they are bad? What kind of way is this to view the entire rest of the world? Rogan doesn't need to be in support of issues you want progressed to have value. He doesn't have to say things you agree with to have value. He can say things you completely disagree with to have value. I think that's my strongest point on Rogan.... somebody doesn't have to be for all of the things you are for to be worthwhile as a person or a commentator. In fact, you SHOULD expose yourself to people who think differently than you. You aren't right on every issue, so not only should you not have that expectation when judging other people, you should get into the habit of seeing what people who think differently than you. That's the best thing about Rogan. I see all kinds of cool and intelligent and crazy and weird and stupid viewpoints I would never have even known about without listening to him. . In response to Kupo - why would I want to only listen to people who always agree with me? I think it's shortsighted to only want to listen to people you agree with, and i think it's CRAZY to want people you don't agree with to be deplatformed. --- The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG <cite>CoolCly posted [p:941094537] in Politics C... [t:78793749]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted... </cite> <quote>I'm always a bit puzzled by the Rogan defenses because it feels to me like looking into a twisted mirror version of "Why are Democrats trying to appeal to right-leaning people who clearly aren't good faith allies?" in terms of the defenders typically being the attackers there. I think his history/past comments re: LGBTQ, race, sexual assault, and more kind of makes the case itself that that is not a platform that needs to be supported or defended by people who actually want progress on those issues. In these topics specifically it kinda feels like Gabbard 2.0 where a good ~60-70% of the topic regulars were highlighting that "No, she's not some kind of rising progressive star, if you look at her history it's actually filled with some really bad stuff." that got fought about here for like two+ years until finally enough information finally broke through - whether it was the publicizing of the literal cult or her "present" vote on impeachment - that everyone finally got on the same page there. Perhaps unsurprisingly there's a link between the two here. I mean, anyone who is out there leaning into the "Biden is losing his mind" narrative in distraction to literally Trump is just... not someone expressing any valuable opinions here.</quote> I'm just not sure what to make out about this post at all Like, I guess you have some measure of what value someone gives to the goals you want achieved, and if they aren't contributing to that goal - then they are bad? What kind of way is this to view the entire rest of the world? Rogan doesn't need to be in support of issues you want progressed to have value. He doesn't have to say things you agree with to have value. He can say things you completely disagree with to have value. I think that's my strongest point on Rogan.... somebody doesn't have to be for all of the things you are for to be worthwhile as a person or a commentator. In fact, you SHOULD expose yourself to people who think differently than you. You aren't right on every issue, so not only should you not have that expectation when judging other people, you should get into the habit of seeing what people who think differently than you. That's the best thing about Rogan. I see all kinds of cool and intelligent and crazy and weird and stupid viewpoints I would never have even known about without listening to him. . In response to Kupo - why would I want to only listen to people who always agree with me? I think it's shortsighted to only want to listen to people you agree with, and i think it's CRAZY to want people you don't agree with to be deplatformed. --- The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1