Joe Rogan says will vote for Bernie, people mad.

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

(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.

I have a name you know.

My point wasn't that he should knuckle down under Warren[footnote]I didn't even mention her beyond a disclosure about my preferences so that I was upfront about it[/footnote] (that's a whole different thread), but that the controversy stems from his apparent willing to toss the LGBTQ, African Americans, and even women under the bus to appeal to a demographic that is ranges from passively to actively hostile against them for... reasons. It tells us about the character of the politician on whose endorsements they tout, whose endorsements they stay mum on, and whose endorsements they actively disavow. Sanders essentially said to the rest of us "it's okay to be transphobic/racist/misogynistic if you vote for me/my agenda." Do I think his administration would be transphobic/racist/misogynistic in practice? Unlikely, but it does send the signal that our basic respect and rights are not a priority for him, and, at least in terms of who Sanders promotes through endorsements of and by the campaign, seems to fall into a pattern of a lack of concern for transphobic/racist/misogynistic statements.



PS: in 2016, I was repeatedly warning that we needed every goddamn vote for Clinton because (a) Trump was looking like an existential threat to the country and (b) a generational balance on the US Supreme court was at stake. Since that time, we've seem democratic norms erode at an extremely fast pace both in the US and abroad, emboldening of authoritarianism and nationalism, and massive domestic backsliding in labor and civil rights due to judicial picks and decisions, which can't be reversed just by presidential fiat or even legislation in some cases. Many of these decisions are having day-to-day impacts on individual lives (some of people like me get to feel daily) and we just narrowly avoided a massive war that we only got so close to because this president drank conservative propaganda on the Iran deal (ironically killing one of Iran's most prominent domestic critics of the deal and thereby achieving scoring an own-goal on Iran). I made it goddamn clear what the stakes were and why we shouldn't have taken a democratic victory for granted. And here we are, trying to pick someone to triage a system that is beyond restoration and potentially beyond repair. I fucking hate being right about that

 

[Seanchaidh]

Since that time, we've seem democratic norms erode at an extremely fast pace both in the US and abroad

Yeah.

For example, Jair Bolsonaro, who was elected in part because Obama's justice department helped Sergio Moro carry out lawfare against Lula de Silva, preventing the most popular left-wing politician in Brazil from running. What you're describing is way bigger than Trump.

 

[Satinavian]

For example, we had a scheme in my country called the Baby Bonus. You got $5k for having a baby. (Its a way to dilute all the immigrants in our country, gotta prop up the number of Australians we have.) Guess who had more babies? Low socioeconomic area. Guess what the parents bought? Cars, xboxes, new clothes for themselves.

Similar projects exist elsewhere. With similar complaints. Well, not completely similar, in most countries people want the money going mostly to poor families and sometimes only poor families can get it in the first place.

But at least the complaint about parents using the extra child money for cars, booze or similar stuff for themself does exist.
Sooo that claim has been investigated. And in all cases i know of it has been proven wrong. Poor families tend to spend the extra child money primarily for the benefit of the child. Outliers exist but those are outliers.

(Also $5k once per child seems low. Germany e.g. has at least 200? per month until the child is 18 or, if still in education up to until 25. For every child.)

 

[Trunkage]

For example, we had a scheme in my country called the Baby Bonus. You got $5k for having a baby. (Its a way to dilute all the immigrants in our country, gotta prop up the number of Australians we have.) Guess who had more babies? Low socioeconomic area. Guess what the parents bought? Cars, xboxes, new clothes for themselves.

Similar projects exist elsewhere. With similar complaints. Well, not completely similar, in most countries people want the money going mostly to poor families and sometimes only poor families can get it in the first place.

But at least the complaint about parents using the extra child money for cars, booze or similar stuff for themself does exist.
Sooo that claim has been investigated. And in all cases i know of it has been proven wrong. Poor families tend to spend the extra child money primarily for the benefit of the child. Outliers exist but those are outliers.

(Also $5k once per child seems low. Germany e.g. has at least 200? per month until the child is 18 or, if still in education up to until 25. For every child.)

I worked in low socioeconomic school since its been introduced. The example I gave were specific examples stated by siblings about why they were getting a new sibiling. All were middle school. I recognize this is anecdotal and second hand but the recently changed the system from a lump sum to weekly payouts to combat similar issue.

It is a conservative government so they could be telling fibs about how people were using the money. I probably wouldn't have believed any of it if it wasn't a frequent and abundant occurance over years in the situation I was in

 

[Silvanus]

I worked in low socioeconomic school since its been introduced. The example I gave were specific examples stated by siblings about why they were getting a new sibiling. All were middle school. I recognize this is anecdotal and second hand but the recently changed the system from a lump sum to weekly payouts to combat similar issue.

It is a conservative government so they could be telling fibs about how people were using the money. I probably wouldn't have believed any of it if it wasn't a frequent and abundant occurance over years in the situation I was in

Yeah, I'm not going to give much credence to this, honestly.

We've heard the same stuff about how feckless poor people are with money here in the UK in the tabloid press... almost always used to justify gutting social security or welfare measures. When investigates it invariably turns out to be bollocks-- unrepresentative examples blown out of proportion to get people angry.

Of course, it would be much better as an ongoing thing rather than a one-off payment.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

So, what happened to tolerance?

Why can't people just be different or think different things without groups of people banding together to declare you persona non grata?

 

[Avnger]

So, what happened to tolerance?

Why can't people just be different or think different things without groups of people banding together to declare you persona non grata?

Because it entirely depends on what those "different things" are.

1. My friend thinks peanut butter and jelly together are gross - OK, cool
2. My friend thinks people who like peanut butter and jelly together need to be rounded up and put in camps - Not cool

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Kinda tangential to the heart of this topic but Rogan just had that black dude who converted away from the KKK a bunch of people including their leaders on his podcast and it's an incredible listen. Anyone who still thinks he's right wing or alt right after watching that podcast is insane lol.

So, what happened to tolerance?

Why can't people just be different or think different things without groups of people banding together to declare you persona non grata?

Because it entirely depends on what those "different things" are.

1. My friend thinks peanut butter and jelly together are gross - OK, cool
2. My friend thinks people who like peanut butter and jelly together need to be rounded up and put in camps - Not cool

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I would say that both of those should be allowed, only 3: "My friend is actually putting people who like pb&j in camps." should be not cool.


We do not police what people THINK in this country.

 

[Avnger]

Kinda tangential to the heart of this topic but Rogan just had that black dude who converted away from the KKK a bunch of people including their leaders on his podcast and it's an incredible listen. Anyone who still thinks he's right wing or alt right after watching that podcast is insane lol.

So, what happened to tolerance?

Why can't people just be different or think different things without groups of people banding together to declare you persona non grata?

Because it entirely depends on what those "different things" are.

1. My friend thinks peanut butter and jelly together are gross - OK, cool
2. My friend thinks people who like peanut butter and jelly together need to be rounded up and put in camps - Not cool

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I would say that both of those should be allowed, only 3: "My friend is actually putting people who like pb&j in camps." should be not cool.


We do not police what people THINK in this country.

Except we do... all the fucking time.

Every single election is an example of "policing what people think." - a winner and losers are picked for a position of power based on their thoughts on issues

Every single job interview is an example of "policing what people think." - winners and losers are picked for a job based on their thoughts on everything a multitude of topics including ethics, leadership, technical philosophies, etc

Every single friendship made or broken is an example of "policing what people think." - winners (friends) and losers (acquaintances) are picked based on how their thoughts and beliefs line up with our own.

In order to remove "policing what people think," you'd have to remove others' right to free association. Social, political, professional, and even sometimes legal consequences for "what people think" have existed in the US since its birth. You're utterly naive to think otherwise.

The first 2 examples of legal consequences that came to mind: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-Sedition-Act-of-1798/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Laws_and_arrests

 

[Pseudonym]

The first 2 examples of legal consequences that came to mind: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-Sedition-Act-of-1798/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Laws_and_arrests

Owned 'em. And now that we've established that McCarthism and an expired and hated law from 200 years ago are representative of a good and natural state of affairs we can move to act. So when is the US instituting its own social credit system, controlled by oligarchs and not the government of course, because that would make it better, somehow.

Every single job interview is an example of "policing what people think." - winners and losers are picked for a job based on their thoughts on everything a multitude of topics including ethics, leadership, technical philosophies, etc

But usually their competence and ability to get along with others. But sure, let our employers be able to hold our livelihoods over our heads over our political stances. What could possibly be the downside of that? Just make it a roman style patronus cliens relation, while we are at it.

Every single friendship made or broken is an example of "policing what people think." - winners (friends) and losers (acquaintances) are picked based on how their thoughts and beliefs line up with our own.

Speak for yourself. Most of us have friends across the political spectrum and with contrary positions on all manner of topics.

In order to remove "policing what people think," you'd have to remove others' right to free association. Social, political, professional, and even sometimes legal consequences for "what people think" have existed in the US since its birth. You're utterly naive to think otherwise.

Or you could stop being wildly disingenuous to justify a terrible line of thought in its most extreme form, just because an anti-feminist on the internet disagrees with said terrible line of thought. Yeah, you don't have to be friends with anyone and you can disassociate with people over petty disagreements, but doing so is not desirable, even though it is legal. There has to be some middleground between pretending any disagreement is just as acceptable as any other and insinuating McCarthism is a positive example.

 

[Avnger]

The first 2 examples of legal consequences that came to mind: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-Sedition-Act-of-1798/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Laws_and_arrests

Owned 'em. And now that we've established that McCarthism and an expired and hated law from 200 years ago are representative of a good and natural state of affairs we can move to act. So when is the US instituting its own social credit system, controlled by oligarchs and not the government of course, because that would make it better, somehow.

Something being unpopular doesn't negate it happening. I also never stated those legal consequences were a good thing (they're not). They did happen though and in this country whether we like to acknowledge it or not. You're criticizing an argument I never made.

Every single job interview is an example of "policing what people think." - winners and losers are picked for a job based on their thoughts on everything a multitude of topics including ethics, leadership, technical philosophies, etc

But usually their competence and ability to get along with others. But sure, let our employers be able to hold our livelihoods over our heads over our political stances. What could possibly be the downside of that? Just make it a roman style patronus cliens relation, while we are at it.

Again, you're criticizing an argument I never made. Employers used to have, currently have, and will always have the right to hire or not hire someone based on their political beliefs. That right is (and should be) a limited one, but it does exist.

Example: If I believed it is my moral duty to steal and cheat any company I am employed by because companies shouldn't exist. That would be a political belief. Any employer I interviewed with should be able to deny me a job for that regardless of how otherwise skilled I may be.

On the other hand, they should not be able to deny me a job because I prefer the color blue over red or believe that public funding of libraries is better for the country than outsourcing that service to Amazon.

Every single friendship made or broken is an example of "policing what people think." - winners (friends) and losers (acquaintances) are picked based on how their thoughts and beliefs line up with our own.

Speak for yourself. Most of us have friends across the political spectrum and with contrary positions on all manner of topics.

If you're friends with literal neo-nazis, that says a lot about you. Personally, I could never be friends with anyone like, for example, Donald Trump, David Duke, or Ted Bundy. My original post was literally about how these actions are taken on a spectrum. Smaller disagreements (such as a friend who might truly and honestly believe that conservative economics is what is best for every person in the country) can be ignored. Larger ones (such as all LGBT people being spawns of Satan who need extermination) would throw all kinds of red flags.

I try to hold myself to a high moral standard. There's no reason not to hold the people I call my friends to similar ideals (while always acknowledging no one is perfect, of course).

In order to remove "policing what people think," you'd have to remove others' right to free association. Social, political, professional, and even sometimes legal consequences for "what people think" have existed in the US since its birth. You're utterly naive to think otherwise.

Or you could stop being wildly disingenuous to justify a terrible line of thought in its most extreme form, just because an anti-feminist on the internet disagrees with said terrible line of thought. Yeah, you don't have to be friends with anyone and you can disassociate with people over petty disagreements, but doing so is not desirable, even though it is legal. There has to be some middleground between pretending any disagreement is just as acceptable as any other and insinuating McCarthism is a positive example.

And finally, you've outright shown you entirely misread the argument I was making. I never stated it was all or nothing or that McCarthyism was positive. Take a look at my original post. It literally says what you are arguing for https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/707.1057706-Joe-Rogan-says-will-vote-for-Bernie-people-mad?page=2#24328283.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Kinda tangential to the heart of this topic but Rogan just had that black dude who converted away from the KKK a bunch of people including their leaders on his podcast and it's an incredible listen. Anyone who still thinks he's right wing or alt right after watching that podcast is insane lol.

So, what happened to tolerance?

Why can't people just be different or think different things without groups of people banding together to declare you persona non grata?

Because it entirely depends on what those "different things" are.

1. My friend thinks peanut butter and jelly together are gross - OK, cool
2. My friend thinks people who like peanut butter and jelly together need to be rounded up and put in camps - Not cool

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I would say that both of those should be allowed, only 3: "My friend is actually putting people who like pb&j in camps." should be not cool.


We do not police what people THINK in this country.

Except we do... all the fucking time.

Every single election is an example of "policing what people think." - a winner and losers are picked for a position of power based on their thoughts on issues

Every single job interview is an example of "policing what people think." - winners and losers are picked for a job based on their thoughts on everything a multitude of topics including ethics, leadership, technical philosophies, etc

Every single friendship made or broken is an example of "policing what people think." - winners (friends) and losers (acquaintances) are picked based on how their thoughts and beliefs line up with our own.

In order to remove "policing what people think," you'd have to remove others' right to free association. Social, political, professional, and even sometimes legal consequences for "what people think" have existed in the US since its birth. You're utterly naive to think otherwise.

The first 2 examples of legal consequences that came to mind: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-Sedition-Act-of-1798/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Laws_and_arrests

That's not policing what people think, that's just taking it as character evidence and adjusting how we treat individuals based on their beliefs.

People are still free to think anything, they just have to take into account that others around them may dislike it and act on that dislike. That's vastly different from not being allowed to think something because someone who thinks something strongly enough is free to simply disregard what others may think of him and continue thinking what he thinks. People should be free to abandon running for office or holding certain jobs if their principles are such that they are incompatible with those paths. Life is about making such choices for oneself, no outsider ought to be able to rob one of one's capacity to make such choices for oneself.

Only when you go on and actually physically act onto someone in a way that prevents them from making these choices for themselves do we not allow you to keep going.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

So, what happened to tolerance?

Why can't people just be different or think different things without groups of people banding together to declare you persona non grata?

The response that springs to mind, is the one that's been making its way around progressive circles the past few days.

Those "outraged" over Rogan's endorsement of Bernie, are those who celebrated Kissinger's endorsement of Clinton in 2016.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I thought Alex Jones said he was going to gut Rogan. Did that happen?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I thought Alex Jones said he was going to gut Rogan. Did that happen?

Nah they had a 4 hour podcast that got like 20 million views and made up lol.