Joe Rogan says will vote for Bernie, people mad.

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

So, in a recent episode of his podcast Joe made a comment about voting for Bernie in passing and Bernie's people publicized it further as a means of advertising and people are mad. These are not people who you'd think would be against Bernie. No, you see, they're mad cause Joe is "alt right" apparently (despite his desire to vote for the most left candidate).

Apparently people don't like that Bernie's folks are touting the endorsement because Joe is a sinner, with the heavy sin of racism and transphobia and who knows what else.

Thoughts?


About all I can come up with that Joe said about trans people is the thing pertaining to not letting men who feel like they're women fight in the women's tournaments. I mean, think about it, how many women who feel like they're men have won in men's tournaments? Is there even a single one of them? I think it's pretty obvious that there's an advantage if you're born male and Joe is a pro fighter and fight analyst so he won't take BS on that stuff and for good reason. People shouldn't let politics cloud their basic reasoning skills.

 

[Trunkage]

Joe was targeted by Alex Jones a while ago who was making some really outrageous claims. I'd say Rogan has finally copped the normal Alt-Right spree and realised he wanted to distance himself from them. Just reading the comment section before and after that moment by some of that group was just astounding. They turned on him so quickly and I couldn't pick out what he actually did wrong.

As to trans thoughts, are you talking about this one?


If that's the case, Rogan pretty much said that transpeople just have a condition. Whether he's just agree with Shapiro, that's up to you. Rogan just tends to agree with whoever is in front of him. Shapiro specifically means that the condition its a mental disorder and thus can be fixed in mental hospital. I don't know if Rogan is actually thinking through things or just agreeing

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Not seen this particular video but he's made these comments with various people and they're always consistent. Stuff about growing up and going through puberty as a boy leading to greater bone mass density, irrespective of your feelings about gender and what have you, and how that gives an edge during fights.


As for Alex Jones, he had that issue but then they talked it out and did this one super hilarious podcast, so that's been resolved a while now. People seem to confuse Rogan's interviewing people for agreeing with them simply because he lets them speak their mind lol. That's kinda the point of an interview, you let someone say what they will and the public decides if they agree with them or not.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

(left it for a day hoping someone would address the actual issue, but it appears that's my job today.)

If you're wondering why people are mad, it's less than Joe Rogan endorsed Sanders and more that Sander's touted his endorsement [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders/sanders-touts-controversial-comedians-2020-support-sparking-criticism-idUSKBN1ZN26Y].

Having an awful person endorse you is kind of relatively minor as every politician has some group of endorsers they would rather not associate with because they're racist/bigoted/conspiracy nuts/other really off-brand designation. But when you tout the endorsement, you effectively tout the person as emblematic of who you're trying to appeal to, and that's where the problems lie here.

If you're in Trans circles right now, the touting of the endorsement feels like a pretty hard stab in the back for a fairly large group of people and their allies. A lot of transpeople are Bernie supporters (caveat, I'm a Warren girl, but most of my friends are Bernie people), but the elevation of Rogan is essentially elevating someone who treats transpeople like trash, and it essentially says that people like me don't deserve the basic dignity that we've been fighting for.

Does Sanders himself believe any of the bigotry that Rogan espouses? I doubt it, but even going back to his 2016 campaign [https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-racist-side-of-bernie-sanders-supporters], he through his senior staff and others around him seemed to be weirdly tolerant of misogynists [https://time.com/5749887/why-bernie-sanders-walked-back-his-endorsement-of-cenk-uygur/] and racism [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/bernie-sanders-and-the-lies-we-tell-white-voters.html]. It often feels that instead of trying to elevate his supporters to be better people, he (or more often his surrogates), pander to their existing prejudices under the guise of inclusiveness.

And what it tells those minorities who make up a disproportionate portion of his supporters [https://www.vox.com/2019/3/7/18216899/bernie-sanders-bro-base-polling-2020-president] is that for a guy who touts his civil rights record, he doesn't seem to care about our basic dignity to the extent that he would do more than a mild withdrawing of an endorsement [https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/bernie-sanders-retracts-cenk-uygur-endorsement/index.html] that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Will it make a difference in the primary? Unlikely. The weirdly long primary cycle has essentially calcified Biden, Sanders, and Warren as the top three, with Buttigeg as a wildcard fourth that may make it past Iowa. Safe bet remains Biden as he is more politically aligned with most of the drop outs, but its going to be unclear until a few weeks in who has the ability to make it past Super Tuesday.

 

[tstorm823]

Shapiro specifically means that the condition its a mental disorder and thus can be fixed in mental hospital.

I found this sentence questionable, so I watched the clip. And to be clear, he says it's a mental disorder but also says there isn't a treatment that can fix it. Like, you made it sound like Shapiro wanted to put trans people in mental hospitals, and that's not true.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

(left it for a day hoping someone would address the actual issue, but it appears that's my job today.)

If you're wondering why people are mad, it's less than Joe Rogan endorsed Sanders and more that Sander's touted his endorsement [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders/sanders-touts-controversial-comedians-2020-support-sparking-criticism-idUSKBN1ZN26Y].

Having an awful person endorse you is kind of relatively minor as every politician has some group of endorsers they would rather not associate with because they're racist/bigoted/conspiracy nuts/other really off-brand designation. But when you tout the endorsement, you effectively tout the person as emblematic of who you're trying to appeal to, and that's where the problems lie here.

If you're in Trans circles right now, the touting of the endorsement feels like a pretty hard stab in the back for a fairly large group of people and their allies. A lot of transpeople are Bernie supporters (caveat, I'm a Warren girl, but most of my friends are Bernie people), but the elevation of Rogan is essentially elevating someone who treats transpeople like trash, and it essentially says that people like me don't deserve the basic dignity that we've been fighting for.

Does Sanders himself believe any of the bigotry that Rogan espouses? I doubt it, but even going back to his 2016 campaign [https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-racist-side-of-bernie-sanders-supporters], he through his senior staff and others around him seemed to be weirdly tolerant of misogynists [https://time.com/5749887/why-bernie-sanders-walked-back-his-endorsement-of-cenk-uygur/] and racism [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/bernie-sanders-and-the-lies-we-tell-white-voters.html]. It often feels that instead of trying to elevate his supporters to be better people, he (or more often his surrogates), pander to their existing prejudices under the guise of inclusiveness.

And what it tells those minorities who make up a disproportionate portion of his supporters [https://www.vox.com/2019/3/7/18216899/bernie-sanders-bro-base-polling-2020-president] is that for a guy who touts his civil rights record, he doesn't seem to care about our basic dignity to the extent that he would do more than a mild withdrawing of an endorsement [https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/bernie-sanders-retracts-cenk-uygur-endorsement/index.html] that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Will it make a difference in the primary? Unlikely. The weirdly long primary cycle has essentially calcified Biden, Sanders, and Warren as the top three, with Buttigeg as a wildcard fourth that may make it past Iowa. Safe bet remains Biden as he is more politically aligned with most of the drop outs, but its going to be unclear until a few weeks in who has the ability to make it past Super Tuesday.

The issue here is that people who want to be taken seriously think Rogan is a "terrible person" actually. It's a ridiculous proposition on its face with how nice of a person he is and how generous with his platform he is to all kinds of people of varying degrees of fame or lack of it.


Bernie actually went on his show and talked to the man for over an hour, of course they're gonna promote his endorsement if he's willing to go to the show himself cause it has reach to tons of people from all walks of life. Why take issue with that and not with the fact that Bernie actually went to the show in person and had a very good talk with him and seemed to like him? Doesn't make much sense to make a fuss over it now if Bernie going to the show was fine.


You don't own the left wing. People can still disagree with your pet issue but at the same time not have it matter to them as much as issues they agree with Bernie on and so overall end up supporting him, and that would still make them left wing and good people, even while they disagree with that one issue, cause they're still supporting the guy who is the best for your community too.


Too many times people confuse tolerating things you disagree with or don't care about because of other things that you care passionately about as being disqualifying when in fact that's just being a normal person and not an ideologue fanatic cultist. If we all like Bernie there's no "bad people", even if they have some personal opinions you disagree with. Their voting for your rights purifies all that and then some.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The Onion's take [https://politics.theonion.com/liberals-say-sanders-s-acceptance-of-rogan-endorsement-1841208921]

This is much ado about nothing. Yes, Sanders touted his endorsement because it's actually good to reach a constituency of millions whether or not they agree with you on everything.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/umbyrella/status/1220851220098822145"]

The Sanders platform is powerful enough to persuade someone like Joe Rogan and a substantial portion of his audience without compromising on anything; that's a good thing.

It often feels that instead of trying to elevate his supporters to be better people, he (or more often his surrogates), pander to their existing prejudices under the guise of inclusiveness.

The Sanders campaign is literally one of the only ones that actually does try to elevate his supporters to be better people. For example:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1220907203328122881"]

His competition pandered to segregationists with a mass incarcerating crime bill.

Also, people who Very Serious People? consider valuable endorsements like Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright have MUCH higher body counts than a podcaster who got popular by making people eat bugs for prizes.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/Smooth_Bernie/status/1221136863399940098"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/edburmila/status/1220703922287005702"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/eshaLegal/status/1220879583114924032"]

Safe bet remains Biden as he is more politically aligned with most of the drop outs, but its going to be unclear until a few weeks in who has the ability to make it past Super Tuesday.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1218993363812114432"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/status/1220074839332884480"]

No, not a safe bet at all.

 

[Silvanus]

Too many times people confuse tolerating things you disagree with or don't care about because of other things that you care passionately about as being disqualifying when in fact that's just being a normal person and not an ideologue fanatic cultist. If we all like Bernie there's no "bad people", even if they have some personal opinions you disagree with. Their voting for your rights purifies all that and then some.

Who's using this to "disqualify"? Nobody's said that this is going to stop them voting Democrat in the general.

But just because we support a candidate overall, does that mean we shouldn't criticise them? That we should just ignore or overlook the negative aspects? That sounds more "fanatic" to me.

 

[Trunkage]

Shapiro specifically means that the condition its a mental disorder and thus can be fixed in mental hospital.

I found this sentence questionable, so I watched the clip. And to be clear, he says it's a mental disorder but also says there isn't a treatment that can fix it. Like, you made it sound like Shapiro wanted to put trans people in mental hospitals, and that's not true.

He said treatment right after giving a story about his grandfather going to a mental hospital. But, youre right, he only said treatment.

A common conversation by Conservatives I know is that we need to go back to the state institutions of mental hospitals and putting everyone that needs 'help' (eg. homeless people etc.) in to protect our society and them. Shapiro I don't think has made this claim, but I get very wary of any thought of going back to that system. I have no idea if this is a common conversation in the US, but it is here.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Too many times people confuse tolerating things you disagree with or don't care about because of other things that you care passionately about as being disqualifying when in fact that's just being a normal person and not an ideologue fanatic cultist. If we all like Bernie there's no "bad people", even if they have some personal opinions you disagree with. Their voting for your rights purifies all that and then some.

Who's using this to "disqualify"? Nobody's said that this is going to stop them voting Democrat in the general.

But just because we support a candidate overall, does that mean we shouldn't criticise them? That we should just ignore or overlook the negative aspects? That sounds more "fanatic" to me.

Of course you criticize the candidate, I'm talking about criticizing a supporter on the grounds of lack of ideological purity. Basically, some people act like they own the party or the left wing platform and presume to tell others whether they're appropriate members of it, which in the case of supporters of the most left-wing candidate, is bonkers. Clearly if this guy is supporting Bernie enough to say publicly he'll vote for him he can't be all those bad things people are imagining him to be lol. People aren't saying Bernie did anything wrong, they're saying Rogan did and that Bernie is somehow tarnishing himself for being glad about the endorsement.


I think something to criticize Bernie on is bending to the identity politics side of the debate too much but that is a calculated compromise he does to win in this climate because he can't run as a third party candidate and hope to win. So I can definitely see criticizing him for that for example. I'm all in it for the left wing economic policies here personally so I don't mind if to get this done we have to virtue signal to some SJWs along the way, it's a minor compromise and as an actual mature individual I can accept that there's some political power in that side (just like how there's in Rogan's endorsement).

 

[Silvanus]

Of course you criticize the candidate, I'm talking about criticizing a supporter on the grounds of lack of ideological purity. Basically, some people act like they own the party or the left wing platform and presume to tell others whether they're appropriate members of it, which in the case of supporters of the most left-wing candidate, is bonkers. Clearly if this guy is supporting Bernie enough to say publicly he'll vote for him he can't be all those bad things people are imagining him to be lol. People aren't saying Bernie did anything wrong, they're saying Rogan did and that Bernie is somehow tarnishing himself for being glad about the endorsement.

Ok. So why shouldn't people criticise Rogan, then? Why should people pull criticism of anyone? Again, it seems far more "fanatical" to ignore shitty stuff from someone just because they're on your side this time.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Of course you criticize the candidate, I'm talking about criticizing a supporter on the grounds of lack of ideological purity. Basically, some people act like they own the party or the left wing platform and presume to tell others whether they're appropriate members of it, which in the case of supporters of the most left-wing candidate, is bonkers. Clearly if this guy is supporting Bernie enough to say publicly he'll vote for him he can't be all those bad things people are imagining him to be lol. People aren't saying Bernie did anything wrong, they're saying Rogan did and that Bernie is somehow tarnishing himself for being glad about the endorsement.

Ok. So why shouldn't people criticise Rogan, then? Why should people pull criticism of anyone? Again, it seems far more "fanatical" to ignore shitty stuff from someone just because they're on your side this time.

You can criticize him too of course, you just can't criticize him from the angle of him being a right-winger or alt-right or what have you ever since he endorses literally the most left-wing person that is currently running. You don't get to instantly define as right wing or alt right an opinion about transgender athletes that differs to yours. Words mean things. Someone who is willing to vote for Bernie, by definition, is a left winger, so whatever views they have on transgender people are de-facto left wing views about them.

 

[tstorm823]

He said treatment right after giving a story about his grandfather going to a mental hospital. But, youre right, he only said treatment.

A common conversation by Conservatives I know is that we need to go back to the state institutions of mental hospitals and putting everyone that needs 'help' (eg. homeless people etc.) in to protect our society and them. Shapiro I don't think has made this claim, but I get very wary of any thought of going back to that system. I have no idea if this is a common conversation in the US, but it is here.

I actually think he has said that, I just don't think it's relevant to this conversation. It is an increasingly common conversation with the recent trends in homelessness specifically on the west coast, the fall of involuntary commitment has almost certainly made the most vulnerable people ever more vulnerable. If someone is so far gone as to resist help and stay both homeless and untreated, there's almost nothing that can be done at the moment besides throw them in jail or watch them die. From statistics I've seen, something like 25%+ of the homeless have serious psychiatric conditions that need treatment and likely prevent them from seeking help. You're not wrong to be wary of going back to that system, but scrapping it entirely has probably led to a significant number of people dying on the streets alone.

But I don't think anyone is advocating involuntary commitment for any and all psychological conditions. I don't think anyone wants someone to be indefinitely committed for something like depression. I'm quite confident Shapiro considers gender dysphoria in that camp, and would probably advocate for counseling if that person's life is being negatively impacted, rather than imprisonment.

 

[Pseudonym]

Oh boy, phony 'woke' liberals are mad at Bernie Sanders for touting the support of a wildly popular podcaster. They argue he should make enemies which he doesn't need to make, so as to preserve his ethical purity instead of winning and actually helping people. I'm not saying Bernie should throw these politically toxic vampires under the bus and just focus on the core parts of his message that can appeal to everyone instead of a couple of narrow groups for whom he is the best choice anyway, but I lied and that is exactly what I am saying. And I do mean throw under the bus, loudly and publicly. Sanders has a problem in that he is perceived as weak and caving to the whining of people whose hatred for Joe Rogan makes them unwilling to actually win an election is just bad PR. Especially when it means he doesn't have to distance himself from far more useful and less hateful allies like Zephyr Teachout and Cenk Uygur to appease people who don't like him regardless. Telling people to fuck off on this one could help to remedy that. Very few people like the people wining about Rogan anyway.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Anyone who thinks that Joe Rogan is alt-right or right at all is insanely uninformed.

People also need to stop taking Joe Rogan seriously. He's also just an uninformed comedian/podcast host. Even he acknowledges that by constantly saying that he's a dummy and he doesn't know anything and that he could be wrong about everything. I don't understand why people take his opinions on things seriously when even he doesn't.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Oh boy, phony 'woke' liberals are mad at Bernie Sanders for touting the support of a wildly popular podcaster. They argue he should make enemies which he doesn't need to make, so as to preserve his ethical purity instead of winning and actually helping people. I'm not saying Bernie should throw these politically toxic vampires under the bus and just focus on the core parts of his message that can appeal to everyone instead of a couple of narrow groups for whom he is the best choice anyway, but I lied and that is exactly what I am saying. And I do mean throw under the bus, loudly and publicly. Sanders has a problem in that he is perceived as weak and caving to the whining of people whose hatred for Joe Rogan makes them unwilling to actually win an election is just bad PR. Especially when it means he doesn't have to distance himself from far more useful and less hateful allies like Zephyr Teachout and Cenk Uygur to appease people who don't like him regardless. Telling people to fuck off on this one could help to remedy that. Very few people like the people wining about Rogan anyway.

The thing with Cenk is weird since I am unsure about the timing. I think he first decided to not take endorsements after everyone started smearing him and taking things he said out of context completely and then the Bernie camp withdrew theirs after it was already apparent they had nothing to gain from keeping it, though I'm not sure about that. This was bound to happen ever since he stepped down from the justice democrats though. He and Bernie both should have found a tall red bus with a top view like those in England to throw those folks under lol.

(and yeah, the people who are most mad sound like a mix of woke weirdoes and supporters of other candidates lol, even in this thread we have one of em who is a Warren supporter telling Bernie what to do to...lose to Warren apparently XD)

 

[Trunkage]

He said treatment right after giving a story about his grandfather going to a mental hospital. But, youre right, he only said treatment.

A common conversation by Conservatives I know is that we need to go back to the state institutions of mental hospitals and putting everyone that needs 'help' (eg. homeless people etc.) in to protect our society and them. Shapiro I don't think has made this claim, but I get very wary of any thought of going back to that system. I have no idea if this is a common conversation in the US, but it is here.

I actually think he has said that, I just don't think it's relevant to this conversation. It is an increasingly common conversation with the recent trends in homelessness specifically on the west coast, the fall of involuntary commitment has almost certainly made the most vulnerable people ever more vulnerable. If someone is so far gone as to resist help and stay both homeless and untreated, there's almost nothing that can be done at the moment besides throw them in jail or watch them die. From statistics I've seen, something like 25%+ of the homeless have serious psychiatric conditions that need treatment and likely prevent them from seeking help. You're not wrong to be wary of going back to that system, but scrapping it entirely has probably led to a significant number of people dying on the streets alone.

But I don't think anyone is advocating involuntary commitment for any and all psychological conditions. I don't think anyone wants someone to be indefinitely committed for something like depression. I'm quite confident Shapiro considers gender dysphoria in that camp, and would probably advocate for counseling if that person's life is being negatively impacted, rather than imprisonment.

Look, maybe you're right. Let's just say that I don't want Shapiro touching any new program to deal with the problem. I have no faith in him being fair and balanced and thus leading to poor treatment. What he'd need to do to start to prove he's capable of dealing with the situation would have to start with how he treats people he doesn't like - tearing them to shreds and making bank off it. Maybe show that you're at least interested in helping people. Even Trump can do that, even if it hurts others in the process.

 

[SupahEwok]

(and yeah, the people who are most mad sound like a mix of woke weirdoes and supporters of other candidates lol, even in this thread we have one of em who is a Warren supporter telling Bernie what to do to...lose to Warren apparently XD)

As I recall, the same person spent months in the 2016 election saying Bernie needed to knuckle down under Hillary.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Oh boy, phony 'woke' liberals are mad at Bernie Sanders for touting the support of a wildly popular podcaster. They argue he should make enemies which he doesn't need to make, so as to preserve his ethical purity instead of winning and actually helping people. I'm not saying Bernie should throw these politically toxic vampires under the bus and just focus on the core parts of his message that can appeal to everyone instead of a couple of narrow groups for whom he is the best choice anyway, but I lied and that is exactly what I am saying. And I do mean throw under the bus, loudly and publicly.

No, some of the people who have objected have honest feelings about the subject, or may be merely erring on the side of the most marginalized, even though others who are objecting are completely full of shit-- such as Neera Tanden who has taken millions of dollars from a country which prescribes by law chemical castration for gay people[footnote]And there's plenty more where that came from [https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1221215729376276481], I'm not just cherry picking[/footnote]. It is worth distinguishing between the good faith and bad faith concerns and not needlessly alienating portions of the country who would benefit greatly from a Sanders administration. Sanders should neither apologize nor loudly condemn those who have a problem with Rogan for whatever reason-- apparent transphobia, racism, whatever: both would send precisely the wrong message.

Rogan has kind words for the candidate who would make HRT and gender affirmation surgery free at point of service; kind words for the candidate who would do the most to curb corporate power and restore some semblance of democracy; kind words for the candidate with the strongest social, environmental, and criminal justice platform; these are all good things regardless of anything else Rogan has said or done.

 

[Pseudonym]

No, some of the people who have objected have honest feelings about the subject, or may be merely erring on the side of the most marginalized

Ok, bit calmer today. You do have a point. Bernie does have a good long term strategy of not pissing off anybody needlessly and getting into a big fight over this might not be helpful. But one recurring concern I have heard from people who have mixed opinions on Sanders, the kind that might or might not vote for him is that he comes of as a doormat towards some of his fellow democrats. They would like to see more of this Bernie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk and less of the Bernie who campaigns for Hillary (I personally think campaigning for Hillary was the right call, but I see why it makes him look like the kind of weak guy you can mess with). Now obviously Sanders has a long and good record on social justice and I wouldn't want him to say anything that contradicts that. I think Brianna Joy Gray's statement on the matter was the right course in this instance. Maybe he should reserve his more overt scorn for better targets like Trump or maybe a Bloomberg or Biden on the issue of social security.

As for Rogan. I don't mind people being mad at Joe Rogan for saying transphobic things. He did say those things, some of them rather meanspirited too, and I don't like them either. But taking that as the only point of reference for your judgement on Joe Rogan as a person is stupid and counterproductive. More importantly, being mad at Bernie for touting Joe Rogan's positive words on Bernie is really stupid and counterproductive. Bernie has the ability to listen to almost anyone and to convince many people, he doesn't do that by condemning them for any and all of their faults or ignoring them over some stances he doesn't agree with. The people who are mad at him for this seem to have a trench warfare model of politics: lots of casualties, no progress.