Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 306: McMuffin Times Matter

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i meant that there was no good reason for him to not invite the other dem candidates.

i'd get it if he were like "i don't want to have a bunch of assholes on the show" but that argument goes out the window when you do invite fucking stefan molyneux and alex jones.

You are asserting theres a bad reason, so say what it is.

What is it about Yang, Tulsi, and Bernie that hed have them on and none of the other candidates?

Mr Lasastryke posted...

if you're stupid and you don't get it, why should we care about what you have to say

Its your right to not care, but also:

Theres a reason hes a comic and not Professor of Political Discussions

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You are asserting theres a bad reason, so say what it is.

What is it about Yang, Tulsi, and Bernie that hed have them on and none of the other candidates?

you're the rogan fan here, you tell me.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

if you're stupid and you don't get it, why should we care about what you have to say

Because he has an audience tbh. Like the Rogan types are the types that need to get it for change to actually stick. Those that are stupid and don't get it but don't actively fight against it. That's the whole game.

---

I think the answer is that they are the ones who accepted an invitation?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Its your right to not care, but also:

Theres a reason hes a comic and not Professor of Political Discussions

what the fuck does him being a comic have to do with anything?

the thing i was criticizing was his serious rant about the protesters, not one of his stand-up acts.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you're the rogan fan here, you tell me.

I know exactly why, I figured the guy making the assertion that its obvious bullshit could succinctly explain what he finds obvious.

Its because theyre all in a political tier where he knows he can speak frankly with them and not just get political talking points.

He has explained that people like Kamala and Biden dont interest him because he doesnt expect them to be real with him and it wouldnt be funny or interesting otherwise. He has no interest in people being on his show purely for a PR bump.

---

https://twitter.com/OdoyleCharlotte/status/1271216204997439488

...

---

We can't just upend 11 years of history, man. Think of the children!

---

Noted Confederate stronghold, South Dakota
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Noted Confederate stronghold, South Dakota

A state that literally didn't exist during the Civil War (it was still the Dakota Territory) but that based on location would have very likely been part of the Union.

The stupidity, ignorance, and idiocy of racists knows no bounds.

---

I swear my mom has given up. She thinks Trump has the luck of the devil and will come out of this fine. I wouldn't be surprised but literally EVERYTHING we know does not point in that direction.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Because he has an audience tbh. Like the Rogan types are the types that need to get it for change to actually stick. Those that are stupid and don't get it but don't actively fight against it. That's the whole game.

This is true, but you're also gonna need a better and more consistent spokesperson for that than Joe fucking Rogan

---

Eh, we have better and more consistent spokespeople. It is better today than 50 years ago. Slow progress, unfortunately. Rogan types being the way they are is... progress.

---

Just watched the Rogan clip. Haven't read the discussion since minus one or two posts.

To me it sounds like he's just saying it's important to have clearly defined and understood goals, particularly so when in large groups of passionate people. He doesn't see what the clearly defined goal is, so it's a concern. Seems like a rational thought to have. I don't think he is trying to stand in anyone's way or even disagree with the movement at all.

Nah, I'm sorry, but his stance in the clip is bullshit. He isn't just saying "oh I'm dumb I dont get it." The biggest giveaway is that he says if you pulled a young person away from the protest, they wouldn't be able to explain their slogans.

Really? Rogan thinks that people voluntarily made the choice to protest during a global pandemic and can't explain why they're there? Keep in mind also that these protests also contain rallies with community leaders espousing at length the dangers of systemic racism, capitalism, the PIC and the police state, which is how you can tell he has never seriously interacted with the current movement. It is patronizing and self aggrandizing that he would make this argument when the reality is that every single person at a BLM rally he is talking about is more informed than he is.

Why would I or anyone else give a single shit about Rogan's dudebro socialism when he is constantly undermining the message like this?

---

Rogan is very much intentionally and maliciously being ignorant in that clip because he is a trash human.

---

turbopuns3 posted...

To me it sounds like he's just saying it's important to have clearly defined and understood goals, particularly so when in large groups of passionate people. He doesn't see what the clearly defined goal is, so it's a concern.

like SEP said, they're constantly saying "black lives matter" and "defund the police." i'd say it's pretty damn clear what their goals are.

there's been movements where this was a valid complaint (occupy comes to mind) but in this case it's nonsense.

---

like SEP said, they're constantly saying "black lives matter" and "defund the police." i'd say it's pretty damn clear what their goals are.

Except that both of those slogans are incredibly misleading, most likely intentionally so...

You know because if you ask them "are you saying only black lives matter and no other ones do?" they'd say no (then give you an hour long speech reconciling how that works) and if you asked them "does that mean there should be no police at all anymore" they'd say no (then give you an hour long speech reconciling how that works).

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Rogan is very much intentionally and maliciously being ignorant in that clip because he is a trash human.

Eh, I don't get that vibe at all tbh

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Except that both of those slogans are incredibly misleading, most likely intentionally so...

You know because if you ask them "are you saying only black lives matter and no other ones do?" they'd say no (then give you an hour long speech reconciling how that works) and if you asked them "does that mean there should be no police at all anymore" they'd say no (then give you an hour long speech reconciling how that works).

they're slogans. obviously, you shouldn't be taking them 100% literally.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

You know because if you ask them "are you saying only black lives matter and no other ones do?" they'd say no (then give you an hour long speech reconciling how that works)

Some guy: "Grass is green."
Muffin: "Oh, you're saying grass is the only thing that's green? Obviously you are stupid and wrong!"
Some guy: *spends an hour explaining that's not what he said*
Muffin: "Nope, I don't get it. You're the idiot!"
---

Black Lives Matter isn't even intentionally misleading. It's literally saying "black lives matter" because at this point in time, a decent chunk of society thinks that black lives DON'T matter (as evidenced by the fact that said chunk would rather believe the slogan means "black lives matter MORE").

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Eh, I don't get that vibe at all tbh

Do you agree that ignorance can itself be malice, or lead to it? Because that's basically what Rogan is doing.

Putting it another way, if this viewpoint was coming from Joe Schmo it's understandable, and an opportunity for education. But this is noted multimillionaire celebrity media host and entrepreneur Joe Rogan. He is literally part of the 1%. He SHOULD and COULD know better. He's not as important an ally as he needs people to think for his career. Why make excuses for him?

---

Yeah I have never gotten how anyone in good faith could ever be confused by Black Lives Matter

I can see it for Defund the Police
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

literally EVERYTHING we know does not point in that direction.

so, just like 2016?

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I swear my mom has given up. She thinks Trump has the luck of the devil and will come out of this fine. I wouldn't be surprised but literally EVERYTHING we know does not point in that direction.

As long as she votes, that's all that matters. If anything, being convinced we're going to lose should convince more people to get out and vote. Republicans want us to be complacent and not vote. That's their only hope.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

like SEP said, they're constantly saying "black lives matter" and "defund the police." i'd say it's pretty damn clear what their goals are.

It's not damn clear what the goals are. Not like I think you are thinking it is.

Look at it this way. People are protesting because they want to make a change, right. They don't accept things the way they are so they are acting out to improve the situation. Now imagine a world where somehow magically there was a person who could just wave their magic wand and put us in the world the protesters want. Now imagine the movement had a spokesperson whose job it was to go in a room and sit down with the magic person and tell them "here are all the things we want your magic wand to do and then we will be happy and no longer need to protest because everything will be fixed." And they write them all down and agree to it and poof it happens.

Joe is just asking "what are the concrete, actionable items that comprise this list?" And he is speculating that a huge portion of protesters could not on demand give you a concrete list. And that if you pulled every protester aside individually and asked them, you'd end up with a million different things as opposed to a unified list.

And it's hard for me to think he's wrong there. Nothing at all wrong with the movement or the protests, he is just offering a critique or a questioning if you will of its organization and concrete goals, which is allowed.

SmartMuffin posted...

Except that both of those slogans are incredibly misleading, most likely intentionally so...

You know because if you ask them "are you saying only black lives matter and no other ones do?" they'd say no (then give you an hour long speech reconciling how that works) and if you asked them "does that mean there should be no police at all anymore" they'd say no (then give you an hour long speech reconciling how that works).

explaining black lives matter doesnt require an hour long speech

you ask are you saying only black lives matter? the answer is no. Its not more complicated than that. youre the one inserting the only into the phrase.

Anyone who has trouble understanding it has to be willfully ignorant at this point or just dumb as shit.
---

I think the video as-is is embarrassing and seems like Joe showing his age.

But the replies to that tweet say he said moments later that the movement needs spokespeople with more specific positions, so Im (naturally) inclined to think Puns is right on the money.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah I have never gotten how anyone in good faith could ever be confused by Black Lives Matter

I can see it for Defund the Police

This.

They should have adjusted it to "reduce funding for police" like immediately.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

This.

They should have adjusted it to "reduce funding for police" like immediately.

the problem is who is they?

there is definitely a significant group that wants to completely defund our current police system and replace it with something else
---

I mean ignorance can be malice but considering whole police departments are walking out over police being suspended for shoving a 75 year old man he is pretty far down my list of people to worry about.

I don't get what is lost by just being earnest with people like him tbh. Bad actors get exposed eventually.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

the problem is who is they?

there is definitely a significant group that wants to completely defund our current police system and replace it with something else

And those people should still accept a slogan of "reduce funding to police".

Just in their opinion it should be reduced to 0 instead of (insert more realistic amount)

But they damage the optics with a slogan that can easily be lambasted by conservatives.

---

turbopuns3 posted...

It's not damn clear what the goals are. Not like I think you are thinking it is.

Look at it this way. People are protesting because they want to make a change, right. They don't accept things the way they are so they are acting out to improve the situation. Now imagine a world where somehow magically there was a person who could just wave their magic wand and put us in the world the protesters want. Now imagine the movement had a spokesperson whose job it was to go in a room and sit down with the magic person and tell them "here are all the things we want your magic wand to do and then we will be happy and no longer need to protest because everything will be fixed." And they write them all down and agree to it and poof it happens.

Joe is just asking "what are the concrete, actionable items that comprise this list?" And he is speculating that a huge portion of protesters could not on demand give you a concrete list. And that if you pulled every protester aside individually and asked them, you'd end up with a million different things as opposed to a unified list.

And it's hard for me to think he's wrong there. Nothing at all wrong with the movement or the protests, he is just offering a critique or a questioning if you will of its organization and concrete goals, which is allowed.

i mean, if rogan is asking "what concretely needs to happen to solve the problems?" he can ask that, though i still think that's a pretty dumb question. it's like when MLK gave his speech, someone would have said "uh yeah that's nice but what are you actually going to do to solve racism?" obviously there is no super simple solution that's going to solve the problem of racist cops next week and i doubt any of the protesters think there is one.

i don't even get from the clip that that's actually rogan's criticism, though. seems to me like he's saying "all these impressionable young people feel good being part of a movement but if you'd ask them what the protest is actually about, you'd receive a blank stare in reply." he's definitely coming off very patronizing and slightly ageist to the protesters to me.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

This.

They should have adjusted it to "reduce funding for police" like immediately.

How would that help? That's the part that people don't like.
---

the only people you have to explain BLM to are people who don't want to understand BLM

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But they damage the optics with a slogan that can easily be lambasted by conservatives.

they can still do that with reduce funding for the police (which has way too many syllables for a good slogan). Theyd still just say look at these socialists who love crime so much they want to take money from the police who keep you safe and use it to pay for abortions for illegal immigrants

this feels to me like a similar case as to when people had concerns that if Bernie was the candidate conservatives would attack him as a communist. Theyre going to do it no matter who the candidate is and they were going to attack an anti police slogan no matter how tame. We may as well just go for the thing we actually want.
---

Grimlyn posted...

the only people you have to explain BLM to are people who don't want to understand BLM

This isn't true tbh. Thinking this just helps no one but the self righteous.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

This isn't true tbh. Thinking this just helps no one but the self righteous.

nope, it takes absolute willful ignorance to append "Only" to BLM

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

But the replies to that tweet say he said moments later that the movement needs spokespeople with more specific positions, so Im (naturally) inclined to think Puns is right on the money.

This is kind of the opposite of what the organizing is though. There are community leaders but the movement basically shuns the idea of national spokespeople.

It really is mostly up to people to educate themselves. And sympathetic media figures to be the bridge between the movement and the general public. That's why the activists aren't going to change the Defund slogan but you get all these journalists going "well, here's what this means and looks like." Rogan is in that media sphere, but he uses his influence not to explain but be explained to, so of course he's taking that position.

---

Grimlyn posted...

nope, it takes absolute willful ignorance to append "Only" to BLM

This world view really helps no one but sure.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

This isn't true tbh. Thinking this just helps no one but the self righteous.

I would say this was the case when the movement started, but at this point it would have to take years of willful ignorance to still think this way

Data shows that the recent protests are pretty dramatically turning public support of BLM positive, so we are quickly heading to the point where people who don't understand it are true ops.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

they can still do that with reduce funding for the police (which has way too many syllables for a good slogan). Theyd still just say look at these socialists who love crime so much they want to take money from the police who keep you safe and use it to pay for abortions for illegal immigrants

this feels to me like a similar case as to when people had concerns that if Bernie was the candidate conservatives would attack him as a communist. Theyre going to do it no matter who the candidate is and they were going to attack an anti police slogan no matter how tame. We may as well just go for the thing we actually want.

And then you show them a graph of the city budget and explain that crime can be reduced with other programs and we wont need to pay ALL The money to cops to kill people after the crimes are committed and sometimes when crimes aren't even committed.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And then you show them a graph of the city budget and explain that crime can be reduced with other programs and we wont need to pay ALL The money to cops to kill people after the crimes are committed and sometimes when crimes aren't even committed.

You think the conservatives arguing in bad faith are gonna believe graphs?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

You think the conservatives arguing in bad faith are gonna believe graphs?

only when they're prageru graphs

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And then you show them a graph of the city budget and explain that crime can be reduced with other programs and we wont need to pay ALL The money to cops to kill people after the crimes are committed and sometimes when crimes aren't even committed.

that sounds complicated, youre probably trying to trick me.
I have this simple graph that shows crime going down as police budgets are going up and my common sense tells me that if police stop crime then less police means more crime and I dont like that.
---

Play Phantom Dust

---