sundin13 said:
And why should we validate this brand of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, where he regularly makes dumb-ass statements about things that he knows nothing about? Like, after the recent controversy regarding vaccination, he said something to the effect of "I'm a fucking moron and I'm not a respected source of information". I agree. I think it is damaging to validate this type of "Idiot talks about things that he knows nothing about" content as being more than worthless drivel. If you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't be talking about it to millions of people, and you shouldn't be welcoming far-right voices to talk on your show when you lack the tools to challenge them. As for "who said anything about not criticizing him", well, Krystal Ball wants the left to treat Rogan more like the right treats Rogan, and how does the right treat him? Largely by celebrating when he says something they like and not paying much attention to the rest. |
You're dumbing down the conversation by taking whatever he or Krystal or me said and turning it into another labels & silly questions game. Well-done, the twitter left has taught you well.
Validation? lol. That ship has sailed long ago, and the left has embraced him whether the twitter-left like to admit it or not. Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi, Sam Harris, Krystal & Saagar, the co-founder of Justice Democrats (Kyle), and David Packman are some of the few who have no problem appearing on his show and helped bridge the gap and he has the fastest growing podcast among whichever demographic, even the crazy lefties that I don't follow anymore like Dore and TYT don't have a problem with the guy. That's ignoring the Hollywood and Billboard Hillary-loving figures like Miley Cyrus and Demi Lovato. More importantly, if you step out of the tribalistic shithole, you'd know that Harvard professors like the amazing David Sinclair and other renowned biologists, doctors, and tech CEOs make regular valuable appearances on his show and chime in with the latest scientific discoveries or emphasising old-new knowledge. His show can be as intellectual as it can get for most people but also can be casual chats that people enjoy listening to. Your poor attempt at boxing his show under "pseudo-intellectual" is baseless, tell it to the scientists appearing on his show. He's a learner and he's doing more to educate his listeners by bringing such diverse talents to his table. And hey, Biden might want to leverage his new position and send another interview request to JoRo, he just might be able to fit him in now that he is a president. Would that "validate" him for you?
And what is the twitter-left bar for validating (lol) anything or anyone anyway? Both the left and the right have set the bar so low for TV pundits from Fox or MSNBC or CNN are lying hacks who only challenge what they feel like challenging and let BS fly all the time. Rachel Maddow is one of the most popular lefty TV shows and got a court case against her dismissed because she's not a source of information:
- "Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda")."
As for your benchmark on how to "treat JoRo" from a left-wing perspective, your benchmark is copying what the right-doing but from a different angle? Bravo? You're basically happily engaging in mischaracterisation, smearing, besmirching, or whatever you want to call it. Miss me with your tribalistic BS.
