I agree with this. The global rise of right wing populism is entirely to blame on the closed mindedness of the left. Curse those quasi intellectual libtards forcing all those people into being ignorant racists who follow authoritarian dictators. If only they seriously and earnestly parlayed with holocaust deniers and antivaxxers. The world would be a modern garden of eden where nobody saw colour and sarcasm was something you only read in books of a dark and hateful past.Apologies to all I did not respond to, I came back online after the Wolves game and, somewhat ironically given the subject, found I had been banned. For what, it would be fascinating to hear the reasoning.
I had a look back through the posts, I consider myself a very fair poster and always try and give people a reasoned response/understand both sides to an argument. The same certainly cannot be said for a number of people in this thread. In a normal setting I believe a normal person might apologise to me in a few of these instances, though I appreciate the couple of you who actually bothered to read back and try and understand/gave your viewpoints in a mature way.
The mindset many of you have portrayed is one I sadly have a lot of experience with - I am semi retired and work for my local council and, by far, the biggest issue where I live is not the right wing, they really are tiny minority, but it is the closemindedness of the left (of which I am a part if none of you bothered reading back a page). No better is that demonstrated than in the last few pages. Zero interest in debate, zero interest in different view points, your are right and everyone else is wrong.
Is the close mindedness of the left causing people to be assaulted and killed? Because the far right rhetoric certainly is.Apologies to all I did not respond to, I came back online after the Wolves game and, somewhat ironically given the subject, found I had been banned. For what, it would be fascinating to hear the reasoning.
I had a look back through the posts, I consider myself a very fair poster and always try and give people a reasoned response/understand both sides to an argument. The same certainly cannot be said for a number of people in this thread. In a normal setting I believe a normal person might apologise to me in a few of these instances, though I appreciate the couple of you who actually bothered to read back and try and understand/gave your viewpoints in a mature way.
The mindset many of you have portrayed is one I sadly have a lot of experience with - I am semi retired and work for my local council and, by far, the biggest issue where I live is not the right wing, they really are tiny minority, but it is the closemindedness of the left (of which I am a part if none of you bothered reading back a page). No better is that demonstrated than in the last few pages. Zero interest in debate, zero interest in different view points, your are right and everyone else is wrong.
Ok perfect point here to show some good faith. Explain how it is strawmanning using the posts you can find all within a short time span of each other as examples.You said this, "essentially that because something comes from Rogan, you don't need to watch it to know if it is true or not, is clearly a bad line of logic "
That is not the line of logic people used, thus why your statement was a strawman. What people have actually said is essentially that Rogan is platforming people with extreme and very provably false and dangerous viewpoints and he shouldn't be platforming those people, at the very least he should give a lot more pushback.
You said exactly this "I am semi retired and work for my local council and, by far, the biggest issue where I live is not the right wing, they really are tiny minority, but it is the closemindedness of the left "
So again, what are your examples of this closedmindedness of the left that you see as the biggest issue in your local council? Your only example is older males on the left in your neighborhood allegedly think that someone "slightly right leaning" is an anti-vax, full blown Trumper?
Oh, probably you should define "slightly right leaning" as well.
I hope the irony of this post is not lost on anyone.I agree with this. The global rise of right wing populism is entirely to blame on the closed mindedness of the left. Curse those quasi intellectual libtards forcing all those people into being ignorant racists who follow authoritarian dictators. If only they seriously and earnestly parlayed with holocaust deniers and antivaxxers. The world would be a modern garden of eden where nobody saw colour and sarcasm was something you only read in books of a dark and hateful past.
How is that a question? Like, genuinely explain how you are drawing the parallel?Is the close mindedness of the left causing people to be assaulted and killed? Because the far right rhetoric certainly is.
I hope the irony of this post is not lost on anyone.
How is that a question? Like, genuinely explain how you are drawing the parallel?
What’s the irony?
No interest in debate, just a sweeping sarcastic statement to dismiss something.What’s the irony?
Please point out where I mentioned people getting assaulted and killed? Quite a leap.I'm going by your words about the place you work/live.
Please point out where I mentioned people getting assaulted and killed? Quite a leap.
Forgive me if I misunderstood.I hope the irony of this post is not lost on anyone.
No interest in debate, just a sweeping sarcastic statement to dismiss something.
Let me flip this for you. Do you think that post, which brings up extremely horrible topics, is a genuine response?
Ok but you just said this:Far right rhetoric, such as we often see on rogan, is responsible for people being assaulted and killed. Nothing on the current left comes close to this.
So isn't it logical that we should be more concerned about people opening up these ideas to the world without any pushback rather than some close mindedness you seem to identify on the left?
and you definitely aren't going by "my words" at all?I'm going by your words about the place you work/live.
Ok perfect point here to show some good faith. Explain how it is strawmanning using the posts you can find all within a short time span of each other as examples.
I would say it is an example of (and looking at the posts they back up my point in my opinion) is I made a post with that argument, you can't really deny that, some people addressed that directly, which alone means it's not strawmanning, but many jumped in later and I would say it's relatively obvious many did not read back for context. So because I then replied to each and the topics veered in different directions, I am apparently strawmanning. I would appreciate an apology or acceptance here that I am not doing as you say, or some kind of proof that refutes what I have countered.
I'm not following how you don't understand the second para, it can't really be phrased a different way? I'm pretty sure you know exactly what someone who leans left or leans right broadly means, not sure why you'd want that defined.
Ok understood - thank for the interest + I guess this might get moved to a different thread as it is not Rogan. Main thing is probably not surprising, immigration, in that it really is not a big issue where I live but the way it is portrayed in the media I think affects some of the older generation in a way that really hinders any kind of meeting of minds. Talk of a new house of worship for example, you can probably guess which religions aren't massively popular, and the vast majority of most religious people are completely normal. But you will never convince some of these dudes that is the case, they just won't hear it.I am asking for specific examples. You essentially just gave your vague general impression. So what are specific examples of these older males on the left in your neighborhood closedmindedly not allowing any opinions from people that lean slightly right that support your general impression? Also what is your definition of leaning slightly right?
And I already explained why it looks like you created a strawman:
You said, "essentially that because something comes from Rogan, you don't need to watch it to know if it is true or not, is clearly a bad line of logic "
Which is not what people said thus why your statement was a strawman. What people have said is essentially that Rogan is platforming people with extreme and very provably false and dangerous viewpoints and he shouldn't be platforming those people, at the very least he should give a lot more pushback.
If that's how you think it's hard to understand how you can defend rogan for basically putting a huge megaphone in front of people who are clearly dangerous.Ok but you just said this:
and you definitely aren't going by "my words" at all?
If your point is simply the far right are much worse than the far left, you could just say it and I would agree (as would, I assume, everyone).
As a serious answer to your question, as it is a serious subject, I suspect the level of concern depends massively on where you live. I am lucky that the issue we have is as I described and not the far right who are much worse in about every way possible. if I lived elsewhere, no doubt this would be different. But in the same way they are not in any great number where I live, they are also not here - as far as I can tell - and so we talk about what is in front of us and I reply to who is responding to me.
The point I have made a few times is that I don't see how you can believe in free speech whilst stopping him. I think there's many levels to this argument, many of which have come up through various lines of thought on here, but I can never get round that one. If someone crosses a legal line, of course then delete the episode and take appropriate action.If that's how you think it's hard to understand how you can defend rogan for basically putting a huge megaphone in front of people who are clearly dangerous.
Why does he get massive views for doing it? I never watch it really (once every ten year average or something very small like that) but millions do and that's the problem you're complaining about. He's a symbolic token of a broader type within sociopolitics.you can defend rogan for basically putting a huge megaphone in front of people who are clearly dangerous.
Ok understood - thank for the interest + I guess this might get moved to a different thread as it is not Rogan. Main thing is probably not surprising, immigration, in that it really is not a big issue where I live but the way it is portrayed in the media I think affects some of the older generation in a way that really hinders any kind of meeting of minds. Talk of a new house of worship for example, you can probably guess which religions aren't massively popular, and the vast majority of most religious people are completely normal. But you will never convince some of these dudes that is the case, they just won't hear it.
Re the second part, I can only refer you back to what I already wrote. I think it's a very weak argument that someone responding to a lot of questions from many posters is strawmanning if the arguments evolve into something else. It is disappointing there is not even an acknowledgment from you here given it's in black and white if you spend 5 mins just reading back.
Does anyone with half a brain believe in totally and utterly free speech without limits or restrictions? We have defamation laws and hate speech laws for a reason.The point I have made a few times is that I don't see how you can believe in free speech whilst stopping him.
Why would I object to a dangerous lunatic being censored? That social media, that I don't control, can't or won't is totally irrelevant.It's very easy to say 'this person is giving some dangerous information' but how can you stop that without censoring? Are you also banning these people from all social media, because twitter etc. isn't either.
What an odd question. Often mixing in factual information (often misinterpreted but hey ..) with their dangerous invented nonsense is even more dangerous than 100% nonsense. That is why pseudoscience and intelligent design enthusiasts try their totally dishonest tactics, simply to help spread their dangerous nonsense.If the anti vaxx woman who was in question is like 25% correct, 75% unproven, is that ok? Or is it 50/50?
There you go equating dangerous anti-scientific conspircy theory with entertainment. Which is exactly the problem.Or do we just have no medical people at all on any talkshow saying anything that might be incorrect?
That is a very bold statement. I can think of many posters with high level scientific qualifications. I can think of one with a PhD who very specifically works in the vaccines area including mRNA vaccines during COVID. There are others who work in closely related areas. So your argument from (not having) authority is as unsupported as your advocacy for listening to Rogan.I think it is fair to say none of us are PhDs or doctors with deep knowledge of vaccines, yet even without watching the video or listening to what she said people knew it was all wrong (so I pointed out after spending like 5mins, at least some of it was true so if it's something of interest people could go and research more).
There’s a definitely a separate argument that some people think they might be politically leaning open way and actually be the other. In these cases I’d say it doesn’t apply - most are very solidly left.So this doesn't sound like an example of people on the left being closedminded. It sounds a lot more like the people who are slightly leaning right are the closedminded ones with those views.
Feel free to link a post you think supports your framing. The argument is not "because something comes from Rogan, you don't need to watch it to know if it is true or not" as you stated. One argument is that Rogan platforms a lot of extremists and fringe people with dangerous views (eg. anti-vaxxers) without pushback which means a lot of people don't want to support his show by watching it. You don't need to watch 4 hours of a Rogan podcast to know the anti-vaxxers are completely wrong.
You can say that's not his style to give pushback but therein lies the problem. There is a massive scientific consensus on this issue so platforming one anti-vaxxer gives a false impression. To truly represent the scientific consensus Rogan would have to have 99 doctors and biological researches on to represent reality. But, of course, he won't do that. So he presents a very skewed and potentially dangerous narrative that is not representative of reality. And that's just one issue, there are other issues too and why people won't listen to him which helps him make money.
I find it very interesting you’ve ignored my direct question to you. Then gone through others posts and picked out things you’d like to comment on. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) you banned me for no reason and I can’t ignore you but you won’t be getting a response from me unless you answer the question and explain why I was banned.Why would I object to a dangerous lunatic being censored? That social media, that I don't control, can't or won't is totally irrelevant.
What an odd question. Often mixing in factual information (often misinterpreted but hey ..) with their dangerous invented nonsense is even more dangerous than 100% nonsense. That is why pseudoscience and intelligent design enthusiasts try their totally dishonest tactics, simply to help spread their dangerous nonsense.
There you go equating dangerous anti-scientific conspircy theory with entertainment. Which is exactly the problem.
That is a very bold statement. I can think of many posters with high level scientific qualifications. I can think of one with a PhD who very specifically works in the vaccines area including mRNA vaccines during COVID. There are others who work in closely related areas. So your argument from (not having) authority is as unsupported as your advocacy for listening to Rogan.
I find it very interesting you’ve ignored my direct question to you. Then gone through others posts and picked out things you’d like to comment on. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) you banned me for no reason and I can’t ignore you but you won’t be getting a response from me unless you answer the question and explain why I was banned.
You were temped out because you accumulated too many warning points. Warning points that were given to you from multiple mods, not just Wibble. Personally I'd see that as an indication to improve my posts or posting style, especially when the thread is indicating that it's not only mods who are seeing problems with your posts but fellow forum members.I find it very interesting you’ve ignored my direct question to you. Then gone through others posts and picked out things you’d like to comment on. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) you banned me for no reason and I can’t ignore you but you won’t be getting a response from me unless you answer the question and explain why I was banned.
Bad faith engagement would be my guess if our interactions in this thread are any indication.I find it very interesting you’ve ignored my direct question to you. Then gone through others posts and picked out things you’d like to comment on. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) you banned me for no reason and I can’t ignore you but you won’t be getting a response from me unless you answer the question and explain why I was banned.
Examples?no offense mate but you’re in here acting like the debate team champion or something whilst you’re ducking questions and straw men’ing like a seasoned pro
I’m completely open to this being possible, yet No one seems to want to show these posts which are so different to what others have written. My question to wibble I also think is very fair - why ban someone and then knowing they can’t respond keep replying to them. To me that’s sneaky, if it’s not to you that’s fine but it’s my opinion.You were temped out because you accumulated too many warning points. Warning points that were given to you from multiple mods, not just Wibble. Personally I'd see that as an indication to improve my posts or posting style, especially when the thread is indicating that it's not only mods who are seeing problems with your posts but fellow forum members.
It was a temp, you have the opportunity to reply now. Nobody is obliged to continue debating with you though.I’m completely open to this being possible, yet No one seems to want to show these posts which are so different to what others have written. My question to wibble I also think is very fair - why ban someone and then knowing they can’t respond keep replying to them. To me that’s sneaky, if it’s not to you that’s fine but it’s my opinion.
Examples?
I can point to you literally just above trying to jump in and then ducking out when the irony of a post was explained. That just clogged up the thread.
If by debate champion you mean I try and respond to each person, your bar is very low.
I think it's largely intellectual vanity. They want to believe that they have figured out something that the majority haven't, which makes them more critical and savvy.The challenge is how humans tend to view 'fringe' or 'conspiracy' arguments. There's a huge bias towards wanting to be contrary, to be honest I don't entirely understand it, evolutionarily speaking. But it's undeniable that huge swathes of the populace are attracted to viewpoints outside the 'mainstream' or 'accepted wisdom'.
The challenge is how humans tend to view 'fringe' or 'conspiracy' arguments. There's a huge bias towards wanting to be contrary, to be honest I don't entirely understand it, evolutionarily speaking. But it's undeniable that huge swathes of the populace are attracted to viewpoints outside the 'mainstream' or 'accepted wisdom'. Whether this has been coached into them by the weird right-wing media ecosystem, I'm not sure.
But imo it's what makes Rogan so popular and dangerous. I listened to his frequent guest Dave Smith on Lex's podcast, and it's honestly kind of shocking. He has full confidence to speak on incredibly complex topics of which all he has is 'his own research'. And honestly listening to him for a few hours - he's just factually wrong on so many things it's difficult to know what to say. The real question is - why should anyone care what a comedian/internet-sleuth thinks about Ukraine, or Gaza or vaccines. Why for that matter should we care about what Rogan thinks?
It's so strange to me. If I want to learn more about a topic, we live in age where we have incredible access to people that have dedicated their entire lives to researching it. Those are the people that I want to hear from. Not someone that has spent a few hours or even days of their time 'researching both sides'. Honestly, if scientific consensus is hugely in one direction, that's fine - in fact that's great - let's learn about that.
And if it turns out that the 3%/fringe was right - that's fine, let's learn about it then, acknowledge the reasons why we were wrong and move forward. But the idea that just because the established truth is occasionally wrong does not in any way suggest that fringe ideas are likely right. It's absurd.
What direct question? Ask away and I'll answer one way or another. Or is it the "Why was I banned" question that is answered below?I find it very interesting you’ve ignored my direct question to you.
You do realise that is how a discussion forum works right?Then gone through others posts and picked out things you’d like to comment on.
I didn't ban you. I gave you a Quality Control control warning, that resulted in a temp ban because you had previous warning points, based on your repeated behaviour that many modmins have noted and obviously annoys many posters.Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) you banned me for no reason and I can’t ignore you but you won’t be getting a response from me unless you answer the question and explain why I was banned.
Don't pretend to be dim. You arechere now to respond. Or don't you understand that a discussion forum is an asynchronous system?My question to wibble I also think is very fair - why ban someone and then knowing they can’t respond keep replying to them. To me that’s sneaky, if it’s not to you that’s fine but it’s my opinion.
'no offence mate' but if I jump into a thread and say this:I’m not giving examples others did and you wiggled past it. And besides, I think it’s a waste of time debating anyone who thinks the left is the problem or the right is the problem, or any of that stuff. Up is the problem in the world I live in.
And no I didn’t mean that. I’m not trying to be rude but seeing as you asked you keep saying you are really good at it whilst telling others off for not being up to your high standards.
And then a few posts later jumps in with a post that is critical of the debate, I do wonder about the intention of the poster. It seems extremely easy for a few on here to jump to accusing people of doing/saying things and then not backing it up, if that's how you liver your life, cool, but don't start to insult people if they ask you to simply explain something.Ah okay, I haven’t been following the debate tbh so I was curious
Who has replied against their will? If people want to ignore, they can - just like how people are saying they would choose to ignore Rogan ( a completely normal thing to do).It was a temp, you have the opportunity to reply now. Nobody is obliged to continue debating with you though.
Stop derailing the thread and contact staff via PM if you have an issue.
I think you forget that a lot of people are just dumb as fk. They do not have the capacity to do their own research and come to an educated decision. They don't see it as a conspiracy. They just see someone who seems educated and is using big words and take it as fact. It's the equivalent of the Sun newspaper or trashy magazines or Jerry Springer. It's easy information to absorb and sensationalist and entertaining. Very few people read the Financial Times or PubMed . The influencers like Rogan know this themselves. They know a lot of it is just bullsht. Hack even the guests pedaling sht know its half made up. But that's the business they are in. That is their audience. Thats where the money is.The challenge is how humans tend to view 'fringe' or 'conspiracy' arguments. There's a huge bias towards wanting to be contrary, to be honest I don't entirely understand it, evolutionarily speaking. But it's undeniable that huge swathes of the populace are attracted to viewpoints outside the 'mainstream' or 'accepted wisdom'. Whether this has been coached into them by the weird right-wing media ecosystem, I'm not sure.
But imo it's what makes Rogan so popular and dangerous. I listened to his frequent guest Dave Smith on Lex's podcast, and it's honestly kind of shocking. He has full confidence to speak on incredibly complex topics of which all he has is 'his own research'. And honestly listening to him for a few hours - he's just factually wrong on so many things it's difficult to know what to say. The real question is - why should anyone care what a comedian/internet-sleuth thinks about Ukraine, or Gaza or vaccines. Why for that matter should we care about what Rogan thinks?
It's so strange to me. If I want to learn more about a topic, we live in age where we have incredible access to people that have dedicated their entire lives to researching it. Those are the people that I want to hear from. Not someone that has spent a few hours or even days of their time 'researching both sides'. Honestly, if scientific consensus is hugely in one direction, that's fine - in fact that's great - let's learn about that.
And if it turns out that the 3%/fringe was right - that's fine, let's learn about it then, acknowledge the reasons why we were wrong and move forward. But the idea that just because the established truth is occasionally wrong does not in any way suggest that fringe ideas are likely right. It's absurd.
