Strong disagree. There are so many Rogan fanbros who have used the South Park defense in the past. Joe going ever more explicit into MAGA territory makes it more difficult for them to pretend they aren’t in it for the white dude grievance bullshit.
My Twitter feed right now is full of them displaying no such difficulty whatsoever.
1 Like
Yea, they’ll go to the right, only because the mean cancel culture libs made them do it
I have just seen another clip where he applauds Freddie Lockhart for being the body of a black man mixed with the brain of a white man and having best of both worlds.
That’s some toothsayer shit.
1 Like
So what? We’re not supposed to oppose hateful ignorance? You know what else has the opposite effect as intended? No pushing back on hateful ignorance.
2 Likes
I think it’s fair to point out the incredible power of the Streisand effect.
It’s a real effect people need to understand in cases like this. It doesn’t mean we don’t pushback but we should understand the very pushback can have the opposite effect.
1 Like
Of course, but this is a big “so what” situation. A common weakness in reasoning is this kind of “useless wisdom” and it is very common on the centrist/left end of the spectrum. The knowledge that there is an unintended consequence of Action X doesn’t rule out Action X as an option. This is a really, really common logical fallacy that the right pushes constantly because it causes people that think that it’s Smart Governing to seize up and not take any action. This puts us really deep in Irony Territory, you get people that are ostensibly leftists calling for government inaction because they like the self congratulation of feeling the technocratic wisdom of understanding unintended consequences. Congrats, we’re allowing hate speech now.
3 Likes
This doesn’t follow from understanding the Streisand effect. If your goal is to have less of something but your strategy makes more of it then you need to obviously take that into effect in your actions.
2 Likes
There is a difference between
Awareness of Rogan
And
Awareness of Rogan being a racist/douche/shamed into taking different positions.
Sure, no problem. I’m not seeing the “so what” here. It was kind of left hanging in the original comments, and usually that’s done because it is assumed that the implication is that Unintended Consequence X proves that the action is Actually Bad.
What, specifically, are we supposed to conclude in this case? Should Spotify put back up the 70 episodes they had already taken down before Neil Young raised a stink? Were we not worried about the Streisand Effect then? Is that what made Joe Rogan popular in the first place?
I think that years and years and years of a) conservative propaganda that frames every potential unintended consequence as a deal breaker and b) technocratic navel gazing that over rewards But Actually takes because they are Important Insights, is sending people into hysterics here. We don’t want to be jumping at ghosts every time the clearly right thing to do is to oppose toxic conservative narratives. This fancy play syndrome.
I don’t think this is going to happen because he’s too stupid and impulsive and reactive. He may be able to control himself for a little while, but if his fragile masculinity is poked he will reactively reach for toxicity. I think Spotify can be shamed into doing something, I think that Rogan is a lost cause.
Who is in hysterics man?
You are acting like I’m arguing we should just throw our hands in the air and ignore Rogan. Even a slightly generous reading of my posts makes it clear I’m not.
I’m saying we should optimize our strategy in the context of how we know the world actually works.
Sure it feels cathartic when we seen the compilation video mined from his archive and we can say “man I was right he is a scum bag”. Just spitballing here but isn’t there a case to be made that by bringing those long past episodes to light now they are getting more attention than needed especially when we know for sure it will not end his show.
Maybe this argument is wrong but I don’t think it’s obviously so. It seems super weird to frame this as some kind techno bro argument where what I really want is to ignore Rogan.
2 Likes
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to project any hysterics on you specifically. I’m talking about the general American reactiveness to FREEZE PEACH which is more cultural than anything. Jumpiness about slippery slopes is an epidemic in the American political space (which is where most of the Rogan arguments are happening), and it’s mostly just wrong. America is actually an outlier on speech protection, other Western countries (including Canada) have limits on freedoms and rights, because absolutism on rights is basically always wrong. Something like the Streisand Effect is great to know, but ideas like that are often abused, particularly by conservatives, to support otherwise indefensible positions. It’s a weird kind of debate judo where they turn the momentum of liberals’ own knowledge against them to muddy waters because they value obfuscation over sincere argument. I think we need to be very, very sensitive to these lines of thinking because I think we’re all susceptible to having our natural thoughtfulness weaponized against us in this way.
4 Likes
On the other hand, whatever happened to Bill O’Reilly?
1 Like
His name is Tucker Carlson and he is (amazingly) way worse. 
1 Like
Roger Ailes died and so Bill had nobody cleaning up his sexual harassment messes for him.
I just want to induce more conflict with the libertarian Bros who just want to smoke weed, drop an occasional n-word, and go unmasked and unvaccinated.
wtf does weed have to do w that
Are you saying libertarians don’t want to smoke weed?
I guess you’re joking somehow? You list Weed+BadThing+BadThing, so I guess I assume the idea was weed was bad? Dunno, but I’m 100% sure not all librarians smoke week.