Rogan is among a group of new talking faces ... - Joe Rogan Discussion

[–] Kowalski (76210) 4 years ago

I ENJOYED HIM ON NEWSRADIO...AND NOTHING SINCE.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

I'm a big fan of his podcast. He is curious about everybody and has on people that other talk shows wouldn't dream of bringing on. His talk with Sir Roger Penrose was amazing. Fallon's not having on a physicist to talk about consciousness.

Fake? I don't see it. I think he's genuinely curious and amicable and he likes talking to people. I don't see him as pandering either; I've seen him challenge plenty of guests.

Plus his stand-up specials on Netflix had me gasping for air.

Dude rocks.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I agree there are things I like about him, and as a well-rounded human being I have an affinity for that, but like lately some of his interviews with right-wing figures and comments just bug me to the point I don't want to watch him any more.

I have a similar reaction to Sam Harris. I remember seeing Sam on the Bill Maher show when he got into the mother or all bad ideas debate on Islam with Ben Affleck and I instantly agreed with him, but now the political dynamics are such that perhaps these guys feel they have a better home with right-wingers because they are always criticizing some stupid aspect of the extreme Left - but in a way that seems to make it about the whole Left, and even Democrats.

I don't do that when talk about the right. I realize there are still a few Conservative and Republicans that have a soul and are retaining their attachment to the human race, but these Right-wingers seem to be an existential threat to the country, and I cannot feel OK about people seeming to side with them in discussions or debate. It is too totalitarian.

I also agree that he challenges his guests. And like I said I admire his ... I'll use the word glibness, but I don't really mean it in the negative way it is defined. He is very good with words and ... emotional intelligence. I wish I had his skill in that regard.

But the bottom line is I don't deal well with ambiguity, I like people who state what side they are on and stick to it, and can justify it with facts and logic. So ... about 60-70 percent of what Joe says I can agree with or understand, but I am unhappy to watch him do what he needs to do to survive in his talk show world because I don't know what side of certain issues he is on, and it is important to me. Hope that makes sense.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

I think it makes sense.

For me, I'm more of a centre person and I like when people appear to not just "check the boxes", so to speak. So, when Rogan is pro trans rights, but also doesn't agree with how sports has been "integrating" trans athletes, it signals to me that Rogan isn't just knee-jerking around. That conversation, that evolving viewpoint, that nuance and finesse are what I admire and, to me, it shows a mind actively engaging with the world, with ideas, and with politics instead of picking a side and getting tribal.

I think a lot of these guys (Rogan, Harris, et al.) who wind up criticizing the Left and the Democrats comes from two places: first, the Left keeps doubling down on some weird ideals. They seem more and more anti-free speech, for instance, often bordering on thought crime type ideas. I think that's so anathema to somebody like Joe Rogan that he goes full-bore on them. The second reason is, I think, because these guys are liberals and are saddened by the Democratic Party and the global Left going nuts like this and embracing this weird SJW culture that often makes no sense and is antithetical to the values that they themselves used to hold.

I can certainly dig where you're coming from; sometimes it's nice to be on firm ground and know the lay of the land. For my money, I like a little ambiguity for the above-stated reasons. One of my favourite activities is good conversation about deep stuff - philosophy, politics, etc. - so I love it when those conversations can be had in a civil way and in a spirit of good will and good faith. Rogan does that, I think. His style works towards presenting viewpoints and moving forward. I get frustrated by "conversation" with somebody who refuses to listen or is content to just exchange platitudes.

For instance, I'm digging this conversation right now. We're expressing views and (hopefully) learning a little something. I've had other conversations on moviechat that were more...fruitless.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

> who wind up criticizing the Left and the Democrats comes from two places: first, the Left keeps doubling down on some weird ideals.

I am really critical of the Left, but I am also very extremely Leftist ... I think. Today I don't know that the boundaries are, and a lot of people on the Left really irk me.

We have a local town web site and a guy who talks environmentalism all the time. So I made a few comments about nuclear and was basically holding off the whole group there because being Lefties they absolutely cannot even open their ears to hear anything about nuclear - it cannot be. So eventually he deleted all my comments with some kind of excuse that I was off-topic. The thing is that I know about anti-nuclear because until years after Fukushima I was very anti-nuclear. Then I started to inform myself and look at the data and the realistic choices we have and I don't see any choice in the long term, which meant we need to get started in the short term.

Then there is the Middle East and Israel that I just cannot understand the Left's hatred of Israel and attachment to the Palestinians - who are anything but democratic or liberal.

The Left doesn't understand strategy or history, at least a certain segment of them. They are just emotional, as the extreme of the right is, but not as violent. The problem is they do not get strategy and how to prioritize or project plan/ project manage. they want everything their way ... right away, and they could make changes if they would find common cause and do one thing at a time - like health care. But they have to weld it to ending the military industrial complex ... which is not going to happen any time soon.

They have to build their coalition and strength, but they are always attacking each other - or it just looks like that because face it, in this country the political opposition is owned by the establishment. What is not owned is monitored and managed very carefully.

> I love it when those conversations can be had in a civil way and in a spirit of good will and good faith. Rogan does that

Rogan does do that, but then he does this pandering and slips so comfortably into sexist and a kind of racist talk that it bothers me.

Yeah, I've been on Moviechat pretty much since it started after IMDB went away and very little connections with anyone intelligent or having anything to say. So it is nice chatting. I get where you are coming from with Rogan.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

I don't get the aversion to nuclear energy, either. I, too, view it as a kind of "stopgap power" as we advance with cleaner fuels. The information I have read indicates that nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels. I think we should get off of gasoline and coal and into nuclear energy while focusing research money towards better batteries and capacitors so we can store solar energy literally and figuratively for a rainy day. We basically have a fusion reactor in the sky giving us energy constantly; we should get better solar panels and slap those suckers on the roof of every skyscraper (and, heck, they think they can make transparent ones; we can just make skyscrapers out of solar panels).

The Left allies itself with Palestine, in my estimation, because they're perceived as an ethnic minority. Right now the vogue with the Left is identity politics, intersectionality, and other "SJW" type stuff. Palestinians/Muslims have more "points" so the Left takes their sides. One of the strangest observances I've made is that the most staunchly "Left" people these days will defend Islam by saying that it's just a few bad apples and we shouldn't judge the ideology based on that, but they won't accept that argument when talking about toxic males. They also perceive it as a race thing, whereas the critics of Islam tend to think of it as an ideology.

This stuff has gotten so ideological, partisan, and tribal. (The Right-wing guys basically do the same, just taking the opposite stance).

Moviechat is a smaller group, so I think what happened is that the people who were maybe a little angry at IMDb for closing its message boards came here and I think a larger percentage of those people are angrier and trollier - if there is such a word. So, yeah, I've encountered some strange folk on these boards... They seem a little right-wing to me, too, often straying into alt-right type territory. I'm critical of the SJW mentality myself, but I've seen people here defend Weinstein.

reply

[–] Stratego (30575) 4 years ago

"They seem a little right-wing to me, too, often straying into alt-right type territory. I'm critical of the SJW mentality myself, but I've seen people here defend Weinstein."

You haven't noticed brux is the left-wing version of that?

"I realize there are still a few Conservative and Republicans that have a soul and are retaining their attachment to the human race"

This is mild compared to other comments brux has made. It's hate speech, plain and simple.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

That's not hate speech. Hate speech is genocidal. Dude just doesn't like Republicans.

I have encountered Left-wing guys on this site, too, but I see a lot more alt-right types than far-Left guys.

Right now I'm having a reasonable conversation with Brux who is saying that he doesn't personally dig Rogan, but he gets why I do. That's not crazy talk.

reply

[–] Stratego (30575) 4 years ago

"Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"."

Say the same about any other group and the mods step in.

Talk like that is NOT "reasonable".

I have a totally different experience and what's worse is that the left-wing fanatics are protected by the mods. Brux has been spreading their hatefulness for years here. I've never said anything that comes even close and received a temporary ban.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

My view on that is that he's expressing a disgust with the current Republican party and right wing of (most specifically American) politics at the moment. I think his saying they aren't people is clearly hyperbolic. Being disgusted with the Republicans' attitudes and actions is not hate speech, so I don't see it that way.

Maybe I'm wrong and this wasn't rhetorical.

Even so, I think there's a difference between hating an ideology (Republican politics) and hating an immutable characteristic (race), and calling for the end of the Trumpian era, for instance, is not the same thing as demanding the genocide, subjugation, or segregation of a population for simply "being different".

I can't speak to any left-wing mod bias - I have neither noted its presence or absence. And without knowing the specifics of the incident(s) to which you refer, I cannot comment or judge one way or the other. I take your word for it that you have had some run-ins which were disagreeable and I will trust that they were unfair, on your word, but other than that, I can't take a hardline stance here or mold my viewpoint to reflect it.

As far as the conversation, I was referring to my having a reasonable conversation with Brux about Joe Rogan where he was saying that Rogan was not to his taste for certain reasons. I said I liked Rogan and that my perception of Rogan was different to Brux's, and Brux - in response - said he saw where I was coming from even if he disagreed.

That's quite reasonable.

reply

[–] Stratego (30575) 4 years ago

Based on the hatefulness brux has been spouting these last couple of years, I'd say you're wrong. It isn't just "hyperbole". He constantly talks crap about people who are right-wing or criticize the left. As soon as he discovers a celebrity is conservative he posts a hateful rant on their board. He's doing the same thing here and only because he feels Rogan isn't hard enough on the conservatives he interviews.

"I realize there are still a few Conservative and Republicans that have a soul and are retaining their attachment to the human race"

Read it again. This is hate speech. Just replace it with gay or black people and pretty much everyone would agree it is. It certainly isn't "reasonable". No need to look for nuance, because brux himself says he prefers things black-and-white.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

I don't think it's a one-to-one analogy here. It is not the same thing to say, "I think Republicans are mostly soulless" as it is to say the same thing about black or gay people. Replace "Republican" with "North Korean Government Officials" or "Islamo-Fascists" and it becomes more understandable (if not, in the case of a fascist, surprising to give them so much credit).

I'm not that familiar with Brux. I am disagreeing with him on the black-and-white v. nuance sentiments. I'm not familiar with rants, rhetoric, or reactions to conservative celebrities.

reply

[–] Stratego (30575) 4 years ago

"I think Republicans are mostly soulless"

He didn't say that. He said;

"I realize there are still a few Conservative and Republicans that have a soul and are retaining their attachment to the human race"

That's a disgusting, bigoted, hateful comment. As far as I know, Republicanism is a internationally legitimate ideology. Replace it with "muslims" and people would condemn such a statement.

I'm just telling you what he's like and that comment (and some others in this thread) show he's far from "reasonable".

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

I'm not sure I understand the difference between "Republicans are mostly soulless" and saying that "...there are still a few Conservative and Republicans that have a soul..." If one is without a soul, I think that's tantamount to saying they aren't attached to the human race. This seems semantic to me.

I see something of what you're saying here, where maybe he ought to have parsed a difference between an ideology and its adherents. But if you think a doctrine is foul, then you must think people who advocate or cling to it are, more or less, foul themselves, yes?

In-general, you're right: most people would flip out if somebody said "few Muslims have a soul and are retaining their attachment to the human race," but if you're talking about an ideology that you perceive as being bigoted and spreading war and hate, how could you not think people who support it are bad? (I tend to differentiate the strains of Islamic thought into "Muslim" and "Islamist", the latter being the repugnant ones who subjugate women, persecute homosexuals, and think cartoonists and filmmakers need to be put to death).

But, yes, I think I see the point you're driving at here: just because somebody belongs to a group, particularly a group as variegated as conservatives (or Muslims) doesn't mean they're evil.

Partly where I'm coming from is that I'm slow to condemn people based on one message (which is my general experience level here), and I'm REALLY slow to take aim at somebody's free speech. We need more speech, not less, and I dislike the idea of hate speech as a concept since most people seem to use it as a "shut up" tool. I'm very, very pro freedom of speech.

reply

[–] Stratego (30575) 4 years ago

He not only accuses them of being soulless, he also claims they're not "retaining their attachment to the human race". He essentially calls most of them inhuman, not unlike how black people have been described in the past.

I believe people can say anything they want, but the rules here on MC don't agree with me. If I said the same thing about muslims it would be considered hate speech and I would receive a ban. Brux has been saying a lot more hateful things than most around here, but is still around for some reason.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

So, again, I think being called soulless is tantamount to saying "inhuman" or "not retaining their attachment to the human race". And, again, I think this is largely semantic.

Rules should be applied unilaterally. If somebody can decry one ideology, that should be true of all ideologies.

One of the things that I do think the 21st century left does that bums me out is equaling Islam with a racial minority. It's not. It's culture and ideology, and there's a big difference.

reply

[–] Stratego (30575) 4 years ago

I have to disagree. If it has the same meaning, he wouldn't have mentioned both. Soulless would suggest that one has no empathy, no feelings. Not being part of the human race implies that they're beings that are below humans, with no worth. It's disgusting. I find brux to be despicable, but not because of his ideology, but because of the way he acts.

I agree, Islam is NOT a racial minority.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

> first, the Left keeps doubling down on some weird ideals.

That is the truth. When I get into a conspiracy theory frame of mind I think that the Left is infiltrated by provocateurs, or all the money is trapped by the right, so they fund the most goofball people on the Left so they can be easily refuted or never really gain a large following. For example, I think Bernie Sanders was a complete surprise and they have to really dial the guy back because they never suspected Americans at heart were so Leftist.

The other thing is that since the Left is not as rich as the Right, with its billionaire donors, they are afraid to condemn some of those weird ideas for fear of losing constituents or donors. But I think the opposite, that if the Left made just a little bit of effort to eject the goofballs, and limit the discussion of issues to sane issues that everyone could relate to, they would wipe the Right off the map. Of course there would be hired mercenaries by the right to come in and start a civil war to put the oligarchs back in power, so, maybe that is why it doesn't happen.

But while the Left may indulge in crackpot ideas, that would eventually get culled out, whereas the right keep getting refreshed with rotten evil anti-social fascist talk all the time, and it never ends and it never changes. If you support the Right you are just working to keep billionaires on top and getting more right and more powerful.

Two bad choices, but for me, the issue of the Right are not real issues. They talk about if we raise taxes there will be no rich any more. No country that exists or ever existed ever got close to anything like that, with the exception of say Cambodia, China or Viet Nam, but that was in reaction to not being able to change governments of such huge gross inequality, exploitation and abuse ... and we are approaching that now in the US.

As .. I think it was John F. Kennedy who famously said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. The Right in the USA, and the top global billionaire elite strata are unifying to oppress the whole world, not taking care of their people are making peace.

reply

[–] durkkouglas (18) 4 years ago

I have a similar reaction to Sam Harris. I remember seeing Sam on the Bill Maher show when he got into the mother or all bad ideas debate on Islam with Ben Affleck and I instantly agreed with him

Ben Affleck was right though, Sam Harris was being a racist tool

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25567) 4 years ago

Not racist, Islam is not a race!

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I agreed with Harris then, in that "radical Islam is the mother of all bad ideas", and I agree with him on that now as well.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

Oh, interesting to use the example of Jimmy Fallon. He is another one who is kind of blubbery shape-shifter. He loves everything and has no personality of his own.

I really like Colbert, who is such a fast comedy genius I cannot believe how clever and smart the man is, and yet he can still talk to people he disagrees with and let us know it while still endearing himself to the person he is disagreeing with.

Kimmel and Myers too but not quite to the extent of Colbert. But they are on TV. My mind is still open on Rogan, but it bothers me to watch him because there are just some issues today that people need to wear their colors on and show what side they are on.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

Fallon always comes off as fakey to me. Yeah, he shape-shifts. He's also just always trying to be goofy and entertaining. On Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, he is the only one I've seen who didn't drop the darn force fields and just behave like himself. Even Jim Carrey and Zach Galifianakis seemed to have dropped their personae. Although, Carrey still was screwy, but I got the feeling he'd behave like that without the camera.

Colbert's great.

I always liked Craig Ferguson. It seemed like he had the perfect number of viewers: enough to keep him on the air, not enough for the network to stop him from doing whatever he wanted.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

Craig Ferguson just starts working my nerves in about 30 seconds ... can't stand the guy.

Fallon has no personality he is empty ... but I have to admit he is really a good mimic. He has an amazing talent for something, but I just don't like him ... or Zach Galifianakis

Jim Carrey is great, but a sphinx, a mystery.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

Fallon was fine on SNL, I thought. Yeah, he corpsed a lot, but he was funny doing impressions and singing silly songs. I feel a similar way about Will Ferrell: he's fine in low doses as a sketch comic, but when he takes his "outrageous/loud" schtick to a feature length film, he wearies me. Stranger Than Fiction excepted - that movie is great.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I'll have to check out Stranger Than Fiction.

I feel the same way about Will Ferrel, but there are a couple of things I thought was he was good it. I almost hate it when someone I don't like is good in something! ;-)

I did like the 2 Daddy's Home comedies.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

I liked Anchorman to some extent, but more because of Steve Carrel than Ferrell. Ferrell was reasonably funny in Anchorman, though. He wasn't bad in Old School, either, but he was also not the focus of that movie, so he was more palatable.

Elf is okay, but overrated.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9569) 4 years ago

Oh, and yeah, I would highly recommend Stranger Than Fiction. It gets quite metafictional, so if that's your bag, it's really great.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I'll check it out.

reply

[–] sslssg (34317) 4 years ago

I agree that there are some issues where a side needs to be picked, but so many issues in this world are many shades of grey and have many stances that can be taken. Not everything is simply left and right. That's why so many countries have multiple political parties and not just two.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1896) 4 years ago

The US has more than two political parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Third_parties

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I don't really think there are that many issues that grey ... they only seem grey because the status quo being disrupted threatens people's position ... often positions they got because of the many problems with injustice over many decades. To find the truth one must be fearless and willing to be equal, and most people want to compete and fight - especially when they have a strong establishment behind them.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21539) 4 years ago

He has tapped into the long interview format that is changing the way we consume information. Would you rather listen to a 3 minute interview of nothing but pre planned talking points or 3 hours? Regardless of what you think of Rogan, you can get a better feel of a guest from his show than you can from watching the same guest interviewed in the conventional way.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

You’re acting like this is something new. Tune in to any radio station or news source and you’ll fine in depth interviews. Joe Reagan is just another alt-right shill for neo-America.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76210) 4 years ago

MY DAD HAS BEEN PUTING ME TO SLEEP WITH LONG ASS INTERVIEWS AND TALK ON THE RADIO FOR DECADES.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21539) 4 years ago

Two and three hour long interviews of one guest? CNN? FOX?

Rogan isn’t alt right, and if anything is left leaning.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

Try BBC or NPR you casual.

Also anyone who gives a spotlight to Ben Cuckpiro or Richard Dawkins is an altright hack.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21539) 4 years ago

BBC and NPR do 3 hour interviews with no commercials? Ok.

He interviews people across the spectrum. Do you believe in blocking voices?

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

Yes they do hour long interviews. What does it matter about commercials. Youtube has commercials too.

Also your second comment is a strawman.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21539) 4 years ago

I said three hour

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

Semantics

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21539) 4 years ago

My points stand. Go back to the politics forum.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25567) 4 years ago

Anyone who thinks Richard Dawkins is right wing is a science-denying Marxist lunatic!

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

Dawkins is a militant atheist nutcase.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6248) 4 years ago

your skirt is up over your head

reply

[–] atarofker (344) 4 years ago

He sounds like a bully. I wouldn't wanna be his friend

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

Yeah, in a way he is a bully that can hide his colors very well under the guise of being intelligent and articulate and having a lot of people, usually on the right who support him. He has to defer to this group, like most of our society does. But as Noam Chomsky says being a wage slave under the control of your masters, supposed betters, is degrading to the human race.

On a dime Rogan seems to be able to turn, like a chameleon, to wink, wink sexism, and on occasion even racism. The game that the right plays is to try to seems reasonable, but then coming up with really bizarre arguments to support the status quo establishment.

The first time I recall hearing this and seeing it a thing, a strategy, when when they wanted to end or modify social security. They always claim it is unsustainable, but they tried to co=opt black people into the right by saying since black people do not live as long as white people, they get less if their social security back - so its racist. This is the kind of deviousness the right has, and so when I see a hint of it in someone, especially someone I think I like, I really have to look closely at them.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Burk48917 (11383) 4 years ago

He's honest, and that means he doesn't pander to special interest groups. Today that means you must be some type of "ist", but if you really listened to his show you'd know he's anything but racist, sexist,or any other ist. He's damn sure not right leaning in the slightest.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 4 years ago

Joe Rogan is a low-hanging fruit level interviewer. He's basically a poorman's Larry King who himself is poorman's Dick Cavett

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11383) 4 years ago

You must not actually listen to the show. He's well known for being an extremely deep and provocative interviewer. He's had some of the greatest minds alive in his show, and holds hour plus interviews. None of that resembles low hanging fruit.

reply

[–] blue1981 (7825) 4 years ago

I applaud him for actually being a tolerant liberal who questions a lot of their actions. He kind of loses me when he supported Bernie Sanders.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

Bernie is an imperfect candidate, as is Biden ... as is the pool we seem to always pick our Presidential candidates from. Going for Biden if Rogan did that ( i was unaware ) would be a pragmatic and correct decision based on what is going on in the country, and something that would count on the plus side for me in terms of Rogan.

But I don't think of Rogan as a Liberal, but as a Conservative who can at least understand and articulate Liberal positions. I don't have any use for Conservatives who don't even understand the Liberal or Progressive positions ... that is deliberate avoidance in my book. The Conservatives that are always "loaded for bear" so to speak, and ready to attack something before they even understand it.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 4 years ago

Joe has stated that he's voting for Trump and that he's relocating to Texas. To me this indicates that he's a country club conservative who loves his tax breaks both Federally and locally, but of course he'll probably move to a major Texas city and probably the most liberal of them, Austin so that he can feel comfortable not looking too conformist.

As for his positions on his radio program I also notice that he's been less critical of his openly right wing guests while he tends to challenge a lot of more openly liberal ones.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I feel like Rogan's got a good manner and can charm people and get along with them, he's a kind of chameleon, but how he really is he hides which indicates to me he is a self-centered egotistical SOB. I watched a few of his shows with interesting, but ultimately think it is a waste of time, kind of like Howard Stern.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 4 years ago

Ultimately, Joe is for Joe. Having a wide swath of different guests with backgrounds that are in line with current events is the only way to stay topical and keep ADHD-ridden audiences dialed in. It is interesting how his side kicks tend to spout off the AltRight ideas without him challenging them but rather just acknowledging them in a manner that implicates that he thinks they're mainstream. The Irony for me about him is that he tries to come off as an outsider who use to be a Hollywood Insider. Truth is, he wasn't much of an insider to begin with and he doesn't bring a fresh perspective as someone claiming to be an outsider. He's just as much a "deep state" corporate media player as the entertainers he and his side hosts claim that Ellen Degeneres, George Clooney, or Steven Spielberg are. Still, it's these kind of stances that give him the attention and following from angry listeners who need someone to blame America's problems on.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

>> It is interesting how his side kicks tend to spout off the AltRight ideas without him challenging them but rather just acknowledging them in a manner that implicates that he thinks they're mainstream.

Well said. I really hate the subliminal ways the Right Wing manipulates the American public, and that the public seems so blind to it, or accepting of it.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 4 years ago

I don't know if you have ever watched or listen to Dr Drew Pinsky but he does almost the same thing Joe does when he had an AM radio show here in L.A. He never proclaimed a position but he was always eager to bring on guests from Milo Yiannopolis to having a "journalist" from Breitbart.com join the broadcast to discuss political topics. He also had listener call in sessions that sounded staged to me.

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I used to listen to Dr. Drew a long, long time ago when he was a call-in doctor on the radio without any political overtones. The guy is disgusting, but he knows who butters his bread. I agree with the staged comment ... I think most of what we see in the news on both sides is architected to manipulate people. Lies and fear work better than anything else to get people to act.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 4 years ago

"Love line". I agree, he's a pop vulture who actually has a shitty record of treating addicted people.

Look at the death toll from Celebrity Rehab as a measuring stick. Sure, you can't blame him directly, but he always touts his expertise on addiction and uses his experience from that series as his curriculum vitae

reply

[–] brux (14729) 4 years ago

I guess some people just have no problem living in and being a part of world of lies and rip-offs. They do seem to be the ones who prosper to the most these days.

reply