Joe Rogan apologises for using N-word and racist Planet of the Apes story

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2022, 05:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ida know...im skeptical Rumble would offer a 100 million dollar contract to a guy who listens to everyone. 

If they could make Rumble the amount of money that would justify that pay out I absolutely believe they would make the same offer to anyone.

[*Nately120*]

(02-10-2022, 06:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If they could make Rumble the amount of money that would justify that pay out I absolutely believe they would make the same offer to anyone.

So you don't think the political leanings of the parent company shed light on their research into the leanings of his audience?  

The guy is instant profit, so maybe left wing and right wing sources alike are vying to host the guy.  I'd be surprised if he had left-wing platform offers to weigh but money does talk the loudest. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2022, 06:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So you don't think the political leanings of the parent company shed light on their research into the leanings of his audience?  

The guy is instant profit, so maybe left wing and right wing sources alike are vying to host the guy.  I'd be surprised if he had left-wing platform offers to weigh but money does talk the loudest. 

Oh, I'd be surprised if left leaning companies have offered him anything either.  If the past few years have shown us anything, it's that left leaning companies will put appearing woke over their bottom line.  Just look at the entertainment industry, Disney especially.  Could also be why many of those companies are hemorrhaging money.  It's also why you're starting to see a hard reversal of this trend, but the course hasn't changed just yet.

[Dill]

(02-10-2022, 06:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do, literally every single day I'm at work. 

I sound good anywhere.

Ahahaha, seriously?  This is your argument?  My definition would not apply in this one, specific, instance (which you conjured out of thin air, not me).  Is his denial believable?  Is Rogan's explanation on the same level as this guy's denial?  I'll leave it to you to figure that one out by yourself.  Oh man, this is really one of your weakest attempts to twist the argument, and that's saying something.  

What you are calling an "argument" was a question, "seriously."

So your definition would not work with that real life example. Correct. 
If it has to depend on whether denial is "believable," then other, unstated and untestable criteria are in play, making the actual determination. 

So I am not going to "figure out" your definition by myself, if you yoursself cannot actually adapt it to real life cases, or even fully articulate the criteria you are using. 

Until you figure that out, your definition won't apply to many such examples. Your definition looks increasingly like a private one, protected from the challenges faced by any definition facing policy and a legal application. 

Here is another real life example, also conjured from actual news sources. They are very common.

Washington (CNN)A Republican candidate for Kentucky's state legislature posted racist images of President Barack Obama and his family -- and defended those images by saying "Facebook's entertaining."

Dan Johnson, the bishop of Heart of Fire Church in Louisville, posted an edited image of the President and first lady Michelle Obama with ape-like features. He also labeled a photo of a chimpanzee a baby picture of Obama.

"It wasn't meant to be racist. I can tell you that. My history's good there. I can see how people would be offended in that. I wasn't trying to offend anybody, but, I think Facebook's entertaining," Johnson told WDRB, the Louisville TV station that found the images and confronted him with them.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/02/politics/kentucky-republican-facebook-posts/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2022, 07:17 PM)Dill Wrote: What you are calling an "argument" was a question, "seriously."

So your definition would not work with that real life example. Correct.

it actually does, as explained below.

Quote:If it has to depend on whether denial is "believable," then other, unstated and untestable criteria are in play, making the actual determination.

Yes, much like anything to do with knowing what is in someone's head and heart it is open to interpretation.  However, that wasn't your original position.  Moving the goal posts now, are we?

Quote:So I am not going to "figure out" your definition by myself, if you yoursself cannot actually adapt it to real life cases, or even fully articulate the criteria you are using. 

I literally did exactly that with Joe Rogan.  Do try and keep up.

Quote:Until you figure that out, your definition won't apply to many such examples. Your definition looks increasingly like a private one, protected from the challenges faced by any definition facing policy and a legal application. 

I did figure it out, as stated above.  I can't help that you're being deliberately ignorant because you know you're wrong.

Quote:Here is another real life example, also conjured from actual news sources. They are very common.

Washington (CNN)A Republican candidate for Kentucky's state legislature posted racist images of President Barack Obama and his family -- and defended those images by saying "Facebook's entertaining."

Dan Johnson, the bishop of Heart of Fire Church in Louisville, posted an edited image of the President and first lady Michelle Obama with ape-like features. He also labeled a photo of a chimpanzee a baby picture of Obama.

"It wasn't meant to be racist. I can tell you that. My history's good there. I can see how people would be offended in that. I wasn't trying to offend anybody, but, I think Facebook's entertaining," Johnson told WDRB, the Louisville TV station that found the images and confronted him with them.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/02/politics/kentucky-republican-facebook-posts/

They sure are common, one need only go on Twitter to see examples of this regarding every ethnicity.  Thankfully, my refutation of your point isn't predicated on believing anyone who denies racist intent.  You specifically stated it is possible to be a racist without knowing.  I completely disagree.  As you can't argue with my actual point you, typically, try to obfuscate and twist the point being made, trying to make it about something that it wasn't and isn't.


I'll reiterate since you're clearly having trouble.  If you make a racist remark, or commit a racist action, without the intent to be racist then you are not a racist, you're a person who made a mistake.  If you are knowingly a racist, and made those statements, or committed those actions because of that, you are a racist.  As far as what's in the heart and mind of a person, or whether you believe them when they deny racist intent, that's in the eye of the beholder, it's subject to your interpretation.  You, being you, will believe the people who hold the same opinions as you and view those who don't as liars.  However, because Dill thinks it's true doesn't automatically make it so.  This is not complicated, so your obvious confusion is puzzling.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

An interesting fact about this controversy is that an extremely large percentage (no, I don't know the exact number) of Rogan's use of the N word was him quoting others, either statements, lyrics, etc.  So a mashup compilation with no context can look rather damaging, right?  What about this compilation of The Young Turks using the word repeatedly?





I'm sure we'll be getting an apology from them any day now.


Of course, this doesn't cover his Planet of the Apes comment, but he explained that himself, so you'll either accept hiss explanation or you won't.  But I expect equal condemnation for TYT, and I expect it immediately!  

[StrictlyBiz]

I honestly don't listen to Joe Rogan. Although I did subscribe to Spotify to hear in context his Jordan Peterson interview. Spoiler: the climate and trans issues were really nothing, and I gave up on trying to find the racial comment that was buried in a 4 hour conversation. Im just not in to listening to 2-4 hours of an interview with one person and that's why I plan on unsub'ing after my free month is up. But, Neil Young may have changed my mind about that. I am against trying to get anyone 'canceled' for speaking their thoughts on anything regardless of how vile it may be. Full disclosure for consistency...even Whoopi was given a raw deal.  

This was one of today's videos posted by a podcast that I frequently listen to. It is a compilation of Rogan comments specifically for anyone who thinks he's some right winger, conservative, or darling of either of those.

[Dill]

(02-10-2022, 07:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: it actually does, as explained below.

Quote:If it has to depend on whether denial is "believable," then other, unstated and untestable criteria are in play, making the actual determination.

Yes, much like anything to do with knowing what is in someone's head and heart it is open to interpretation.  However, that wasn't your original position.  Moving the goal posts now, are we?

My "position"? We are talking about your definition. If I flag weaknesses in it, like limited application, fuzzy boundaries, and logical inconsistency, that is not "moving the goal posts." Those goalposts are always there for every definition. 

Also, you have a "body of work" in this forum now. This week you plant your definitional flag on the ground of "intention," but that was not the case in past discussions when you "called out" others for "soft" racism or "casual" racism or Dino's "blatant" racism or the "real" racism of civil rights advocates. By your earlier definitions, I was a racist whether I deployed racist categories/rhetoric or not, and whether I "apologized" or not. Just was.

Tucker Carlson style, you have adjusted your definitions to the moment, targeting people/arguments you don't like. This moment is different only in that your current definition absolves people you like, who "accidently" make racist remarks, if they say they are not, and YOU decide to believe them, making your feelings, not your definition, the ultimate determiner. 

Social/political science definitions don't work like that. The point is to set up criteria that free application from "knowing what is in someone's heart."  One cannot actually be a Klan member without consciously deciding to be one, but one can certainly be a "racist" without knowing it, or without believing one is, just as one can be a right wing populist or an authoritarian or a fascist or a malignant narcissist without at all "knowing" those definitions or consciously deciding to be. 

Social scientists/philosophers/historians don't defend their definitions by telling others to do the research themselves or claiming intelligent people don't need explanations. They set up definitions to be tested, and then use the feedback to validate, fine tune, or discard their definitions. They don't defend them with personal insults, telling people to "keep up" while they refuse to address, let alone refute, criticism. They appreciate and work with criticism of definitions because that is what solidifies and validates them.

[Dill]

(02-11-2022, 04:37 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote:  This was one of today's videos posted by a podcast that I frequently listen to. It is a compilation of Rogan comments specifically for anyone who thinks he's some right winger, conservative, or darling of either of those.

If you have been following Fox coverage of the Rogan issue, it's clear he is not a darling of both of "those." 

[Dill]

(02-10-2022, 07:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They sure are common, one need only go on Twitter to see examples of this regarding every ethnicity.  Thankfully, my refutation of your point isn't predicated on believing anyone who denies racist intent.  You specifically stated it is possible to be a racist without knowing.  I completely disagree.  As you can't argue with my actual point you, typically, try to obfuscate and twist the point being made, trying to make it about something that it wasn't and isn't.

Your "refutation" of my point does depend on your actually refuting it though, not just saying "I disagree."

And I am "arguing your actual point" when I note that you granted that people could have "unconscious biases" and I ask why such could not be racist and influence behavior "unknowingly." To "refute" the notion people can be "unknowing" racists, you need to explain why there cannot be unconcious racist biases, and/or why these don't really influence behavior. You have not. 

I also argued your "actual point" when I posited examples of people who called Michelle Obama a gorilla, at which time you threw your own definition out the window to claim it all depends on how we feel about their apologies.

Racist "tropes" like the supposed similarity of blacks to apes don't just circulate neutrally, harmlessly, in the common culture where people may just understandably deploy them for jokes with a sly wink and a nod to "all races do it"; good fun. Such tropes are available precisely because a dominant cultural group defined a dominated one through such devices, making them ok and "natural." 

Were your definition generally adopted, its effect would be to give wider permission to "align" Blacks with apes, commonsensically, for humor and political commentary. Victims who resist or complain just want to make everything about race. So in their face.

[Dill]

(02-10-2022, 07:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll reiterate since you're clearly having trouble.  If you make a racist remark, or commit a racist action, without the intent to be racist then you are not a racist, you're a person who made a mistake.  If you are knowingly a racist, and made those statements, or committed those actions because of that, you are a racist.  As far as what's in the heart and mind of a person, or whether you believe them when they deny racist intent, that's in the eye of the beholder, it's subject to your interpretation.  You, being you, will believe the people who hold the same opinions as you and view those who don't as liars.  However, because Dill thinks it's true doesn't automatically make it so.  This is not complicated, so your obvious confusion is puzzling.

That's why Dill doesn't fashion sociological definitions that leave final determination in "the eye of the beholder," then defend them with petty personal insults. 

The following illustrates the usual pattern of our discussions about racism; I've changed the subject matter to "ducks" so that it is the pattern which stands out.

SSF: All ducks are mallards.

Dill: What about Lesser Scaups or Goldeneye ducks? Are they Mallards then, or just not ducks?

SSF: You're obviously confused so I'll repeat this one more time: All ducks are Mallards. If its not a Mallard it is not a duck. If it is a duck then it is a Mallard. 

Dill: so a Goldeneye is not a duck, or IS a Mallard? You are just repeating your claim without explaining why a Goldeneye doesn't qualify as a duck. Why do biologists think Goldeneyes are a different species? 

SSF: I've already refuted your points. You are just twisting what I say into something I didn't. Looks like another case of Dill "doesn't see it." I can't help that you're being deliberately ignorant because you know that you are wrong.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2022, 04:00 PM)Dill Wrote: My "position"? We are talking about your definition. If I flag weaknesses in it, like limited application, fuzzy boundaries, and logical inconsistency, that is not "moving the goal posts." Those goalposts are always there for every definition. 

Also, you have a "body of work" in this forum now. This week you plant your definitional flag on the ground of "intention," but that was not the case in past discussions when you "called out" others for "soft" racism or "casual" racism or Dino's "blatant" racism or the "real" racism of civil rights advocates. By your earlier definitions, I was a racist whether I deployed racist categories/rhetoric or not, and whether I "apologized" or not. Just was.

Tucker Carlson style, you have adjusted your definitions to the moment, targeting people/arguments you don't like. This moment is different only in that your current definition absolves people you like, who "accidently" make racist remarks, if they say they are not, and YOU decide to believe them, making your feelings, not your definition, the ultimate determiner. 

Social/political science definitions don't work like that. The point is to set up criteria that free application from "knowing what is in someone's heart."  One cannot actually be a Klan member without consciously deciding to be one, but one can certainly be a "racist" without knowing it, or without believing one is, just as one can be a right wing populist or an authoritarian or a fascist or a malignant narcissist without at all "knowing" those definitions or consciously deciding to be. 

Social scientists/philosophers/historians don't defend their definitions by telling others to do the research themselves or claiming intelligent people don't need explanations. They set up definitions to be tested, and then use the feedback to validate, fine tune, or discard their definitions. They don't defend them with personal insults, telling people to "keep up" while they refuse to address, let alone refute, criticism. They appreciate and work with criticism of definitions because that is what solidifies and validates them.

(02-13-2022, 04:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Your "refutation" of my point does depend on your actually refuting it though, not just saying "I disagree."

And I am "arguing your actual point" when I note that you granted that people could have "unconscious biases" and I ask why such could not be racist and influence behavior "unknowingly." To "refute" the notion people can be "unknowing" racists, you need to explain why there cannot be unconcious racist biases, and/or why these don't really influence behavior. You have not. 

I also argued your "actual point" when I posited examples of people who called Michelle Obama a gorilla, at which time you threw your own definition out the window to claim it all depends on how we feel about their apologies.

Racist "tropes" like the supposed similarity of blacks to apes don't just circulate neutrally, harmlessly, in the common culture where people may just understandably deploy them for jokes with a sly wink and a nod to "all races do it"; good fun. Such tropes are available precisely because a dominant cultural group defined a dominated one through such devices, making them ok and "natural." 

Were your definition generally adopted, its effect would be to give wider permission to "align" Blacks with apes, commonsensically, for humor and political commentary. Victims who resist or complain just want to make everything about race. So in their face.

(02-13-2022, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why Dill doesn't fashion sociological definitions that leave final determination in "the eye of the beholder," then defend them with petty personal insults. 

The following illustrates the usual pattern of our discussions about racism; I've changed the subject matter to "ducks" so that it is the pattern which stands out.

SSF: All ducks are mallards.

Dill: What about Lesser Scaups or Goldeneye ducks? Are they Mallards then, or just not ducks?

SSF: You're obviously confused so I'll repeat this one more time: All ducks are Mallards. If its not a Mallard it is not a duck. If it is a duck then it is a Mallard. 

Dill: so a Goldeneye is not a duck, or IS a Mallard? You are just repeating your claim without explaining why a Goldeneye doesn't qualify as a duck. Why do biologists think Goldeneyes are a different species? 

SSF: I've already refuted your points. You are just twisting what I say into something I didn't. Looks like another case of Dill "doesn't see it." I can't help that you're being deliberately ignorant because you know that you are wrong.

I appreciate your eight attempts to make three posts, but, sadly, this is not a case of practice makes perfect.  You do not engage in good faith or actually attempt to answer actual points made.  Stick to circle jerking with GM, it's honestly all your good for at this point.  I know you'll view this as a a victory or a retreat by me, but Trump still views the 2020 election as "stolen."  You have far more in common with this level of delusion then you'll ever actually admit.

Don't bother making ten posts, then deleting nine of them, to respond.  Just stop, because, quite frankly, you bore the ever loving shit out of me.

[Dill]

(02-14-2022, 02:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate your eight attempts to make three posts, but, sadly, this is not a case of practice makes perfect.  You do not engage in good faith or actually attempt to answer actual points made.  Stick to circle jerking with GM, it's honestly all your good for at this point.  I know you'll view this as a a victory or a retreat by me, but Trump still views the 2020 election as "stolen."  You have far more in common with this level of delusion then you'll ever actually admit.

Don't bother making ten posts, then deleting nine of them, to respond.  Just stop, because, quite frankly, you bore the ever loving shit out of me.

You are right to worry about the bolded.   Not the first time you turned the oven to "hot," then had to run out of the kitchen. 

Anyone reading my posts will know that in #50 I isolated and cited and responded to two of your claims so that there could be no question: e.g., you claimed people could not be “knowingly” racist, but granted there could be “unconscious bias.” So any reader can see I am addressing “actual points made” when I ask why that bias could not lead to unconscious racist behavior.

Your acknowledging that question would mean acknowledging that I have responded to “actual points made,” and accepting the onus of either explaining why unconscious bias can’t operate where race is concerned, or granting that it can--i.e., people can be unknowingly racist.  

Instead, you quoted that entire post, still claiming I don't answer "points" actually made with no explanation of why isolating and answering your "points" directly still wasn't answering your points.

That looks like a fail, or worse--if you add the claim that I'm the one acting in bad faith while you are dodging my questions.
 
Maybe no one will notice if you just say I'm delusional as Trump? Or reference Dino? 
 
But if "just saying" fails, then no help for it. Anyone actually reading my posts will see your retreat as a retreat.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2022, 04:22 PM)Dill Wrote: You are right to worry about the bolded.   Not the first time you turned the oven to "hot," then had to run out of the kitchen. 

You're an older dude, who am I to stand in the way of your happiness?  Bottom line, having a discussion with you is like writing a term paper.  You produce a thesis, half of which is irrelevant, but you're forced to wade through the detritus to see if there's anything resembling an on topic point.  Then you claim arguments where made that weren't.  Then you formulate opposing points to this made up argument.  You're as tiresome as you are ponderous.  As I've said before, I get paid to deal with obnoxious people all day, forgive me for not wanting to do it for free with you on the internets.

[Dill]

(02-16-2022, 05:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're an older dude, who am I to stand in the way of your happiness?  Bottom line, having a discussion with you is like writing a term paper.  You produce a thesis, half of which is irrelevant, but you're forced to wade through the detritus to see if there's anything resembling an on topic point.  Then you claim arguments where made that weren't.  Then you formulate opposing points to this made up argument.  You're as tiresome as you are ponderous.  As I've said before, I get paid to deal with obnoxious people all day, forgive me for not wanting to do it for free with you on the internets.

Sorry I am late getting back to this. There are still a few constructive comments to be made.

1. If the bolded were true, it would be very easy to demonstrate. E.g., cite the post and quote the exact claim regarding an argument that wasn't made. If that claim really exists, It should be easy. I must ask again why can't you do this?
 
I find it easy to specify where you have misrepresented my arguments, by quoting my original and then your paraphrase. 

E.g. your "Antivaxers=  the Taliban" thread, starts off on the misrepresentation that I regard it a "duty" to compare political opponents to "scum." It was pretty easy to show, first, that I actually argue the opposite (one reason why I don't engage in verbal abuse), and second, that you frequently engage in the very behavior you are supposedly "calling out"--i.e., you compare your opponents to scum. You even accused me of supporting ISIS and MS-13 for REFUSING to call even them "animals." http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-The-Unvaxinated-the-Taliban?highlight=vaxx  (#s 8,9,14,19.)
 
It is because I take care to insure that I represent your arguments correctly and then contrast them with mine that my posts become "ponderous." I prefer demonstration to "just saying." My posts #s 85 and 88 on your Antivaxer thread illustrate well how this is done.  I can multiply examples from other threads. This is not the first thread in which my calls to "show your work," support it with specific examples, are flat out ignored and the "just saying" continues.

2. So it looks like what is "tiresome" and "boring" is the kind of accountability my "term papers" place on your arguments where they either lack support or distort political issues or other people's arguments. That's what you find "obnoxious."   You can't get away with "just saying." You can't in good faith "call out" people for doing what you actually do. 
If you recognized that I have addressed your argument--Racists can't be racists unknowingly--then you'd have to tackle the counter argument. Too much work. Ad hominem is the easy road as well as the low road.

3. I'm rather a bit more creative than you give me credit for. My posts tend towards term papers when they need to adduce evidence. But I also use parody and story telling to make points. My duck analogy above works pretty well too.

4. Right now I am formulating a response to your #41 on the "no knock" thread--not because I disagree or want to correct it, but because I think it is actually a very good post precisely because your argument rests on careful description and accurate summary.  Your examples do most of your work for you, SHOWING rather than JUST SAYING. If you can do this on #41, why can't that be your standard going forward?