Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 307: Tulsa Staggered

(+) Yeah! (+)

MoogleKupo141 posted...

maybe you cant find one person who has talked to all the same people he has, but there must be someone better who has talked to any individual guest he has on

Most people are way too lazy to do that. I know I am. The only other podcast I sometimes listen to (keep in mind that between all the snippets, I get maybe a few hours of Rogan a year) is Stone Cold Steve Austin's, and here's a take: Austin seems better than Rogan in just about every way, and considering he's literally Stone Cold Steve Austin, I'm surprised his show hasn't blown up like a nuke. I have to awesome it's because he's happy just shooting the shit with other pro wrestler guests and has little interest interviewing doctors and academics, because he'd be great.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

it feels to me like anyone good who likes joe rogan defends him while acknowledging that hes a flawed meathead person and it just makes me wonder why you cant find someone else to listen to who is less of a dumbass

yeah, this is what i find funny about that cly post. "rogan is GREAT! ...but he's also a meathead, he says all kinds of dumb things, he has bad takes and he misunderstands things all the time."

for clarity's sake, i don't think rogan is terrible or anything. sometimes, i'll listen to him - i certainly prefer the episodes where he has a comedian on or something than ones where has a politician on and he has to have a conversation that's obviously out of his league. but i don't think he's "great" and i'd rather listen to a podcaster who's not deeply flawed at the job.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I always find it super weird when people go after Biden on gay marriage when he literally forced the Obama administration's hand to come out in support for it earlier than they were planning to

Lets ignore his legislative career where he said gay people in the military were security risks and that schools that teach homosexual acceptance shouldnt get funding because he had a slip of the tongue and blurted out support before the administration, which was surely discussing it behind the scenes, was ready.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I always find it super weird when people go after Biden on gay marriage when he literally forced the Obama administration's hand to come out in support for it earlier than they were planning to

Wasn't that just Biden screwing up, as opposed to actually trying to take a moral stand for what he believed?
---

CoolCly posted...

Like, I guess you have some measure of what value someone gives to the goals you want achieved, and if they aren't contributing to that goal - then they are bad?

Well, that's entirely not what I said so that's an interesting take.

---

Xeybozn posted...

Wasn't that just Biden screwing up, as opposed to actually trying to take a moral stand for what he believed?

Yeah, it was a gaffe. He came out in support for it before Obama did which forced the administration's hand.

Which was a good thing!

---

why is Biden the comparison here? I feel like I'm witnessing some alternative universe Godwin's Law here. At least compare to other comedian-pundits and talk show hosts like John Oliver or Colbert. Hell, if you want a low bar then Rogan's good friend Alex Jones is right there

Also forgive me if I'm skeptical about Joe Rogan the leftist ally when the initial clip was about him not understanding one of if not THE largest leftist movements of our time, BLM.

---

So apparently Trump's next rally is in fucking Phoenix. As you may know, AZ appears to be the state in which coronavirus cases are growing the fastest.

The church hosting the rally is now claiming to have a miraculous device that magically eliminates covid from the air:
https://twitter.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1275145487851458561

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lets ignore his legislative career where he said gay people in the military were security risks and that schools that teach homosexual acceptance shouldnt get funding because he had a slip of the tongue and blurted out support before the administration, which was surely discussing it behind the scenes, was ready.

Progress is progress, my friend. I used to hate gays when I was a kid because hatred and judgment was the only opinion toward gay people that I ever saw being expressed by the people in charge, including my parents. Yes, we have our courageous luminaries who are decades ahead on some of these social issues (Bernie), and we should rightly be thankful for them, but most of us have to get dragged into improvement over time, and as long as we get there... that's good lol

---

xp1337 posted...

Well, that's entirely not what I said so that's an interesting take.

Then I guess I have no idea what your post was trying to say at all.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Also forgive me if I'm skeptical about Joe Rogan the leftist ally when the initial clip was about him not understanding one of if not THE largest leftist movements of our time, BLM.

Well, this is why anti Rogan takes always seem so silly to me. They are always based on having no idea what Rogan actually does or thinks.

Rogan talks about this movement all the time, all of the things he's in support of and all the parts of it he's critical of. For example, he 100% thinks Floyd was murdered by Chauvin and Chauvin should be convicted for it. But he also thinks looting 100% needs to be stopped somehow. So is he in support of BLM or not? Do you have any idea? Should you just dismiss him entirely for not supporting BLM?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

So apparently Trump's next rally is in fucking Phoenix. As you may know, AZ appears to be the state in which coronavirus cases are growing the fastest.

We're up to 8 Trump staffers at the Tulsa rally who tested positive as well (From 6 before, 2 of which were Secret Service.)

LordoftheMorons posted...

The church hosting the rally is now claiming to have a miraculous device that magically eliminates covid from the air:

like a miracle

---

In response to Kupo - why would I want to only listen to people who always agree with me? I think it's shortsighted to only want to listen to people you agree with, and i think it's CRAZY to want people you don't agree with to be deplatformed.

I think its crazy to not want those people deplatformed. If you actually believe in the things you believe in then why would you want to give the opportunity for the opposition to spread? I mean this in regard to serious things like trans rights, not whether or not stars is good or whatever.

I think Ben Shapiro is a bad dude. If Joe Rogan has Ben Shapiro on his show and some dummy listening thinks Shapiro is making sense and starts seeking out more stuff along those lines, Joe Rogan has acted as a gateway to Ben Shapiro, which is bad.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I think its crazy to not want those people deplatformed. If you actually believe in the things you believe in then why would you want to give the opportunity for the opposition to spread? I mean this in regard to serious things like trans rights, not whether or not stars is good or whatever.

I think Ben Shapiro is a bad dude. If Joe Rogan has Ben Shapiro on his show and some dummy listening thinks Shapiro is making sense and starts seeking out more stuff along those lines, Joe Rogan has acted as a gateway to Ben Shapiro, which is bad.

Lol you just said you want to deny people information so they can't make choices on what they think makes sense on their own and instead want to drown them with information you want them to hear so they have no other information to think upon/are brainwashed.

Wild days.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I think its crazy to not want those people deplatformed. If you actually believe in the things you believe in then why would you want to give the opportunity for the opposition to spread? I mean this in regard to serious things like trans rights, not whether or not stars is good or whatever.

I think Ben Shapiro is a bad dude. If Joe Rogan has Ben Shapiro on his show and some dummy listening thinks Shapiro is making sense and starts seeking out more stuff along those lines, Joe Rogan has acted as a gateway to Ben Shapiro, which is bad.

Sure, and hes had Shapiro on twice.

But! Hes had Kyle Kulinski (a Leftist youtuber) on three times, additionally, when the subject of political Youtubers comes up, he says Kyle is his favorite one all the time.

Is that a net positive or still negative? If for some reason you consider talking to somebody with a belief a zero sum game (which I dont, but it sounds like you do), thats the question that needs to be answered.

Personally, as funny as it sounds, Joe Rogan helped me become a Leftist! Not that I have ever been Conservative, but I was definitely a typical neolib Dem until I heard more about how there werent two strict teams.


---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I think its crazy to not want those people deplatformed. If you actually believe in the things you believe in then why would you want to give the opportunity for the opposition to spread? I mean this in regard to serious things like trans rights, not whether or not stars is good or whatever.

I think Ben Shapiro is a bad dude. If Joe Rogan has Ben Shapiro on his show and some dummy listening thinks Shapiro is making sense and starts seeking out more stuff along those lines, Joe Rogan has acted as a gateway to Ben Shapiro, which is bad.

This is the scariest take of all to me, and I didn't think anybody would actually say it so boldly.

You really believe that if someone has an opposite opinion of you, then that opinion automatically needs to be silenced and never be heard?

I guess that's the thing I really like most about Joe - he truly believes that the best thing is always to have open discussion about things, and you can't just shut the people you don't agree with up. You have to have an open discussion and present the right thing the best way you can, and in the forum of ideas, the right thing will prevail when enough people see it. It's the only way to properly changes peoples minds.

You see it as "if Ben Shapiro comes on Rogan's show, Joe is allowing that man's toxic ideas to spread" but is it also not possible that it goes the other way? Debating Ben Shapiro might have some impact on the community of people that Shapiro already has control over?

As a very left leaning person on pretty much all issues, shutting down any open discussion is the scariest thing I find about people I find I should be agreeing with...

SmartMuffin has always railed about people doing this, and I always wanted to tell him he was wrong, but I really hate it when you guys prove him right. SmartMuffin should never be proven right about something.


---

CoolCly posted...

Well, this is why anti Rogan takes always seem so silly to me. They are always based on having no idea what Rogan actually does or thinks.

Rogan talks about this movement all the time, all of the things he's in support of and all the parts of it he's critical of. For example, he 100% thinks Floyd was murdered by Chauvin and Chauvin should be convicted for it. But he also thinks looting 100% needs to be stopped somehow. So is he in support of BLM or not? Do you have any idea? Should you just dismiss him entirely for not supporting BLM?

I mean I definitely dismiss his take about the protestors because that's the take of a dumbass who doesn't know what he's talking about and would rather complain than engage. It makes me less likely to consider his opinions in the future. I also will dimiss the other dumb takes he will make or has made in the past. But sure, I don't know all of his opinions, maybe there's some good ones buried under the trash.

How does he feel about abolishing the police?

---

CoolCly posted...

in the forum of ideas, the right thing will prevail when enough people see it.

lmao

---

CoolCly posted...

SmartMuffin has always railed about people doing this, and I always wanted to tell him he was wrong, but I really hate it when you guys prove him right. SmartMuffin should never be proven right about something.

Not voluntarily providing people a platform is not at all the same thing as censorship. I don't really have an issue with him bringing on people like Shapiro either, but exposing more people to complete nutjobs like Alex Jones is actively bad unless he was actively countering all of his garbage.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Not voluntarily providing people a platform is not at all the same thing as censorship. I don't really have an issue with him bringing on people like Shapiro either, but exposing more people to complete nutjobs like Alex Jones is actively bad unless he was actively countering all of his garbage.

You can bring the person on and others can decide if he is a nutjob or not based on what he says.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

How does he feel about abolishing the police?

He doesn't believe that the people shouting defund the police really mean "reallocate the resources to various type of professionals that will work together to solve the myriad of issues that the police have to deal with which they aren't trained for" like people here believe those people mean. They have no real organized spokespeople, so he thinks they are a mob that want the police actually abolished, which he thinks is really stupid.

But he absolutely does agree the longer version would be a great idea.

---

CoolCly posted...

Then I guess I have no idea what your post was trying to say at all.

That was apparent!

My point was folded into a large commentary about the long-running throughline in this topic of the absolutely bizarre - IMO - alliance between Rogan defenders and self-described progressives.

You can break it up into several points but basically there seem to be some blinders on when you're seeing Biden get attacked (rightfully in many cases) for some of the advisors and people in/around his camp based on their past but when it's Rogan/Sanders (this is the only connection that's really of much meaning to me in the context of the politics topic so I'm viewing it from this lens) well shit that's different somehow. I've been arguing this from my own viewpoint but hell even if I'm not trusted/considered credible enoguh the fact that AOC was reportedly of the same mindset that she disagreed I would assume she most definitely should have the credibility. That's not to say you must fall in line and accept that position but you'd think it'd at least be cause for pausing and thinking "well there must be something to this belief then"

I also made no comment as to his worth as a person or commentator. I commented on his worth as an ally for progressive causes and found him wanting. It's like criticizing the Democrats who went on Fox News. I don't think they should be lending their presence to Fox News as a platform. By going on there they lend it credibility it does not deserve. Warren made a very good and very detailed argument on this. When Fox was under tremendous pressure over advertiser boycotts they were able to use Democratic candidates coming on as an argument to potential advertisers for ad buys that "Look, we're safe. You can buy ad space here" and the campaign almost collapsed until Warren dragged it back into the spotlight and ultimately what happened was that Fox failed to sell out at one of the major ad buy-out periods.

This is the lens I'm viewing Rogan through. I think it was a mistake for Sanders to go, I think it was mistake for his campaign to promote his endorsement. I'm actually not passing a judgment on deplatforming Rogan per se, I would have do some more research before I went that far though the research I've done hasn't been particularly helpful to his side. I'm primarily criticizing the Sanders campaign for their decision and expressing bafflement at why self-described progressives are lining up to die on this hill.

God, why are we talking about him at all again? To me this is primary relitigiation and I don't want any part of it. IIRC it was slogans or something? Here's my take: Black Lives Matter is a perfectly fine slogan and anyone who doesn't get it just... doesn't want to get it at this point. Defund the Police is a bad political slogan because even though I 100% agree with its objectives the old saying is "If you're explaining, you're losing" and this one requires explaining to reasonable people at times especially when "Defund X" is synonymous to "Abolish/Defund to 0" in other political contexts like the GOP's "Defund Planned Parenthood."

idk make it "Reform Policing" or "Reform Public Safety." yeah yeah it isn't as strong sounding but it more effectively encapsulates the message to people who aren't willing to look past the lede.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Not voluntarily providing people a platform is not at all the same thing as censorship. I don't really have an issue with him bringing on people like Shapiro either, but exposing more people to complete nutjobs like Alex Jones is actively bad unless he was actively countering all of his garbage.

Actively countering doesn't work. It makes people think the speaker must have something tremendously important to say.

But you sort of need actual discretion to know when an idea should be debated and when it should be ignored (never suppressed). In general, if an idea is wildly popular, it cannot be ignored and if you disagree with it, you should try to figure out why people support it. Absent that, you have little to no chance of persuading people against it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You can bring the person on and others can decide if he is a nutjob or not based on what he says.

What's the purpose of doing that though? You could bring on any number of guests that might actually have something useful to say. If you bring on Jones and just smile and nod as he talks about how Sandy Hook is a hoax or whatever other garbage (I haven't watched this interview, so please correct me if I'm wrong and he actually countered Jones' insanity), 90+% of his viewers do probably say "yeah, this guy's crazy." But maybe 2% of them say "yeah, you know what, the government IS trying to turn the frogs gay!" and they get converted to Jones viewers and pulled into his whole conspiracy theory universe.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You can bring the person on and others can decide if he is a nutjob or not based on what he says.

No.

When you promote someone and welcome them to your platform, unless you explicitly say otherwise, people will assume you support their ideas.

That's how humans work.

I's a fact.

It's why people choose not to support companies with racist/sexist/other offensive activity employees.

If someone you support, trust and believe introduces someone, you are more likely to believe that person. It is the entire principle behind any president campaigning on behalf of other politicians.

---

CoolCly posted...

You have to have an open discussion and present the right thing the best way you can, and in the forum of ideas, the right thing will prevail when enough people see it. It's the only way to properly changes peoples minds.

Yeah no I cant ride this one with you. Have you met people?

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

How does he feel about abolishing the police?

Relating to his comments where he doesnt know what people want, from what Ive seen, with the Minneapolis PD maybe being disbanded and CHOP forcing out the police entirely, Joe thinks it means abolishing the police entirely, and hes not with that.

Knowing that he supports universal healthcare, more money for schools, etc, I think if someone sat down with him and explained it to him properly hed hop right on board.

In other news, Trump may have earned Corriks vote back: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimwang/2020/06/22/president-trump-next-stimulus-check-will-be-very-generous-and-announced-in-a-couple-of-weeks/

---

You really believe that if someone has an opposite opinion of you, then that opinion automatically needs to be silenced and never be heard?

No, I dont think they need to be silenced, I think they shouldnt be amplified. They can say whatever they want, but no one should give them a platform say it.

You have to have an open discussion and present the right thing the best way you can, and in the forum of ideas, the right thing will prevail when enough people see it. It's the only way to properly changes peoples minds.

this is a nice thought and maybe would be true if everyone was presenting their ideas honestly in good faith. I dont think Ben Shapiro is doing that.

You see it as "if Ben Shapiro comes on Rogan's show, Joe is allowing that man's toxic ideas to spread" but is it also not possible that it goes the other way? Debating Ben Shapiro might have some impact on the community of people that Shapiro already has control over?

no, I dont think it really goes that other way, but anyway I thought joe rogans whole thing was staying quiet and letting people talk a lot. He doesnt sound like the person whos going to talk people out of liking Ben Shapiro.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

What's the purpose of doing that though? You could bring on any number of guests that might actually have something useful to say. If you bring on Jones and just smile and nod as he talks about how Sandy Hook is a hoax or whatever other garbage (I haven't watched this interview, so please correct me if I'm wrong and he actually countered Jones' insanity), 90+% of his viewers do probably say "yeah, this guy's crazy." But maybe 2% of them say "yeah, you know what, the government IS trying to turn the frogs gay!" and they get converted to Jones viewers and pulled into his whole conspiracy theory universe.

Alex Jones is the type of speaker who it's probably better to ignore. Not suppress - that is like pumping oxygen and gasoline on a fire.

Donald Trump is a harder case because the ideal strategy is a mixed one. Ignore his trolling, and engage him on the actual issues. I think the center left basically flipped the two, which is why they lost in 2016 - they ignored him on the actual issues, which generally all relate to economic inequality and stress, and engaged him nonstop on trolling.

---

CoolCly posted...

He doesn't believe that the people shouting defund the police really mean "reallocate the resources to various type of professionals that will work together to solve the myriad of issues that the police have to deal with which they aren't trained for" like people here believe those people mean. They have no real organized spokespeople, so he thinks they are a mob that want the police actually abolished, which he thinks is really stupid.

But he absolutely does agree the longer version would be a great idea.

Yeah, so it sounds like he's pretty uniformed! I won't act like I've done all the required reading either, but the abolition movement isn't just a "mob" and has plenty of leaders and decades of writing.

Maybe instead of making bad takes about it he should have one of those people on his show (assuming he can find any that are willing to look past said takes).

---

xp1337 posted...

God, why are we talking about him at all again? To me this is primary relitigiation and I don't want any part of it. IIRC it was slogans or something? Here's my take: Black Lives Matter is a perfectly fine slogan and anyone who doesn't get it just... doesn't want to get it at this point. Defund the Police is a bad political slogan because even though I 100% agree with its objectives the old saying is "If you're explaining, you're losing" and this one requires explaining to reasonable people at times especially when "Defund X" is synonymous to "Abolish/Defund to 0" in other political contexts like the GOP's "Defund Planned Parenthood."

They are both bad slogans and that's apparent by the fact you have to explain them.

Black Lives Matter can be taken multiple ways in different directions, to the point they have to explain the (too) is implied. If it is implied, then what is the harm in making it obvious with Black Lives Matter Too.

People get mad when they are hit back with All Lives Matter, but let's be honest. It is more apt of a statement.

While they aren't responsible for the Dallas Shooter, it also isn't hard to see how the Dallas Shooter who took out like 5 cops took the wrong meaning from the slogan of the movement also. Doesn't put blame on them, but it is a slogan misunderstood on both ends because of the slogan itself having an implied message which could go either way.

Defund the Police and All Cops are Bastards are just terrible slogans and likely are just very extremist slogans that the moderates are trying to walk back to a more logical idea. I have zero doubt the defund the police and all cops are bastards sloganers mean absolutely that thing entirely. It is the ideologically aligned that are trying to walk it back to a more logical and less extreme standpoint.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Alex Jones is the type of speaker who it's probably better to ignore. Not suppress - that is like pumping oxygen and gasoline on a fire.

Donald Trump is a harder case because the ideal strategy is a mixed one. Ignore his trolling, and engage him on the actual issues. I think the center left basically flipped the two, which is why they lost in 2016 - they ignored him on the actual issues, which generally all relate to economic inequality and stress, and engaged him nonstop on trolling.

Wouldn't not inviting him onto your podcast fall under "ignore"?

---

GildedFool posted...

When you promote someone and welcome them to your platform, unless you explicitly say otherwise, people will assume you support their ideas.

That's how humans work.

I's a fact.

Well, you can start by choosing not to be one of these close minded humans.

If you genuinely believe there is only one correct way to think and that everybody else needs to get on board with your way, it's going to be a rough time for everyone. That can only end in conflict. ESPECIALLY if you are so opposed to rational discussion to convince people why your way is the right way...

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Relating to his comments where he doesnt know what people want, from what Ive seen, with the Minneapolis PD maybe being disbanded and CHOP forcing out the police entirely, Joe thinks it means abolishing the police entirely, and hes not with that.

Knowing that he supports universal healthcare, more money for schools, etc, I think if someone sat down with him and explained it to him properly hed hop right on board.

See this is my frustration with Rogan

Why would I trust this man if he has to constantly be spoon-fed information?

I understand that what people like about Rogan is that he has a huge platform and uses it to host a variety of guests. But even setting aside the guests I don't agree with, I have a hard time looking past that Joe Rogan the Entertainer's platform is also used to promote Joe Rogan the Dumbass. And also sell supplements.

---

Actually, let me clarify a point here that I realize could be misinterpreted because I woreded it poorly in my attempt to wrap that post up.

When I say I think "Defund the Police" is a bad political slogan I mean it's toxic to any mainstream politican and for instance, Biden should stay well away from it. That's the kind of slogan that's going to see ad after ad of disingenuous BS and in debates where "if you're explaining, you're losing." It's not realistic to expect a politician in a not-super safe race to be able to roll with it.

It's less bad when it's activists because you can use it to shift the Overton window on the issue where the disingenuous GOP version is seen as the new extreme and you can a hell of a lot more people to line up in support of the actual goals of the movement. It's a game though and requires some gamesmanship on the part of many players. Basically the activists need to hold the politicians accountable but keep track of their policies. If Biden goes to "Reform the Police" and even states it as an explicit counter to the "extreme" "Defund" but his policy proposals are agreeable with the actual point the Defund movement is making, then they should mostly play along and accept the win and realize Biden is helping in this hypothetical even if his rhetoric is at odds with it to placate "LAW AND ORDER mostly white folks"

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

What's the purpose of doing that though? You could bring on any number of guests that might actually have something useful to say. If you bring on Jones and just smile and nod as he talks about how Sandy Hook is a hoax or whatever other garbage (I haven't watched this interview, so please correct me if I'm wrong and he actually countered Jones' insanity), 90+% of his viewers do probably say "yeah, this guy's crazy." But maybe 2% of them say "yeah, you know what, the government IS trying to turn the frogs gay!" and they get converted to Jones viewers and pulled into his whole conspiracy theory universe.

You don't invite someone on to smile and nod with them. You invite them on to have a discussion with them. If you don't agree with something they say, you can disagree, point and counterpoint, and ultimately agree to disagree with having a discussion.

Alex Jones comes on and says Sandy Hook is a hoax. You say you don't believe that and would question how someone came to that conclusion. He says how. You can chuckle and laugh and agree to disagree on it.

The problem is that people seem to realize that a person can have a good idea even if they are wrong about a lot of things.

Now, I do get people have a tendency to find someone they agree with that makes sense to them and then believe everything they say otherwise because you rationally connected to them with something important to yourself. However, that's on the person not thinking on a higher plane. It is not your job to try and force opinions on people. It is your job, if you are passionate enough about something, to tell your opinion and persuade them that your idea makes more sense.

---

Black Lives Matter can be taken multiple ways in different directions, to the point they have to explain the (too) is implied. If it is implied, then what is the harm in making it obvious with Black Lives Matter Too.

theres no need for an implied too and theres definitely no reason to insert an only into it, its a complete phrase on its own

if I say pizza is good that doesnt imply that I think everything else isnt good
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

In other news, Trump may have earned Corriks vote back: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimwang/2020/06/22/president-trump-next-stimulus-check-will-be-very-generous-and-announced-in-a-couple-of-weeks/

Stimulus checks are garbage. Curious to see what ideas for a relief package they have though.

---

I cant believe user mooglekupo thinks pizza is better than literally everything

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wouldn't not inviting him onto your podcast fall under "ignore"?

Yes, I don't see why someone would feel the need to invite Alex Jones onto their podcast. If it were me, I probably would not do so.

But that's because it's not productive to argue against a conspiracy theory. They're usually designed to be unfalsifiable, and their proponents have done much more research into the matter than I or any other host would have. That's why you have events like the Flat Earth Conference, where people gather to share well-thought-out and unfalsifiable flat earth theories.

It should not be because I disagree with the person. For instance, I think it could be productive to have Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden on and talk about economic inequality. Do they not care about the issue or do they really think their policies are good for the poor and lower middle class? They get a chance to explain!

---

mooglekupo wants to eradicate chips wow he said it himself

---

red sox 777 posted...

That's why you have events like the Flat Earth Conference, where people gather to share well-thought-out and unfalsifiable flat earth theories.

Disappointed you wasted the opportunity to say people gather from around the globe
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

theres no need for an implied too and theres definitely no reason to insert an only into it, its a complete phrase on its own

if I say pizza is good that doesnt imply that I think everything else isnt good

I understand you feel the need to defend any and everything on your side, but you should at least acknowledge the points made against it as time as possibly being valid.

If you say Pineapple Pizza is the Shit!

This doesn't mean you don't think other types of pizza aren't the shit also, but it does remove the other types from the messaging.

Thus, it isn't a stretch to think you like pineapple pizza the most. Or that the unique pineapple pizza is in fact superior than the others since you chose to single it out.

You can argue it is implied you don't just like pineapple pizza but you like all pizza too (do you even). Just like you can argue it is black lives matter (but all lives matter too, do some really think this? Ambiguous indeed.).

This is why the message can go the wrong ways as if someone does think black lives matter and fuck everyone else, they can rally behind this slogan just as easily. Especially when arguing All lives matter is racist in return. (I get they want to single out Black Lives because of the platform, which is why the too could have made the slogan much better instead of implied).

Black Lives Matter is a flawed slogan. Defund the Police and All Cops are Bastards are extremist slogans that people want to try and explain why it means something else when they aren't extremists.

---

All Lives Matter is a false slogan, because All Lives DON'T Matter. That's the whole reason why "Black Lives Matter" is a thing, because as it stands, society DOESN'T think black lives matter, thus "All Lives Matter" is just a way to ignore the complaints of black people who are treated like third-class citizens while pretending to take the moral high ground. It's like when self-centered people try to turn "police brutality isn't a RACE thing, it's a CLASS thing" into an argument for why changes should be made that benefit them, while addressing none of the issues facing the black community.

---

Inviso posted...

All Lives Matter is a false slogan, because All Lives DON'T Matter. That's the whole reason why "Black Lives Matter" is a thing, because as it stands, society DOESN'T think black lives matter, thus "All Lives Matter" is just a way to ignore the complaints of black people who are treated like third-class citizens while pretending to take the moral high ground. It's like when self-centered people try to turn "police brutality isn't a RACE thing, it's a CLASS thing" into an argument for why changes should be made that benefit them, while addressing none of the issues facing the black community.

All encompasses all. You are just not singling out one group as specifically above the rest whether intended or not. Which is why the Too at the end instead of implied would have solidified that slogan for what it intended, if truly intended.

---

Corrik7 posted...

All encompasses all. You are just not singling out one group as specifically above the rest whether intended or not. Which is why the Too at the end instead of implied would have solidified that slogan for what it intended, if truly intended.

No, it doesn't. Maybe you should add the word "Should" to your slogan to be more clear and accurate.

---

Corrik7 posted...

This is why the message can go the wrong ways as if someone does think black lives matter and f*** everyone else, they can rally behind this slogan just as easily.

Glad to see Corrik once again acknowledging that the singular they is a common part of the English language
---

I understand you feel the need to defend any and everything on your side, but you should at least acknowledge the points made against it as time as possibly being valid.

I could do that if they were but theyre not

If you say Pineapple Pizza is the s***!

This doesn't mean you don't think other types of pizza aren't the s*** also, but it does remove the other types from the messaging.

Thus, it isn't a stretch to think you like pineapple pizza the most. Or that the unique pineapple pizza is in fact superior than the others since you chose to single it out.

yes it removes other types from the messaging because thats the type im talking about at the moment. Nothing about the statement suggests anything about my opinion about anything other than pineapple pizza, it just means pineapple pizza is the one pizza I am currently discussing. Any other meaning is you reading into something that isnt there.

You can argue it is implied you don't just like pineapple pizza but you like all pizza too (do you even). Just like you can argue it is black lives matter (but all lives matter too, do some really think this? Ambiguous indeed.).

I would argue theres no implication about my feelings on any other pizza, positive or negative. There is no ambiguity. I said one statement about one thing and made no reference to anything else.

This is why the message can go the wrong ways as if someone does think black lives matter and f*** everyone else, they can rally behind this slogan just as easily. Especially when arguing All lives matter is racist in return. (I get they want to single out Black Lives because of the platform, which is why the too could have made the slogan much better instead of implied).

In a vacuum, the statement all lives matter wouldnt be racist. What makes it seem racist is that it is used in response to black lives matter as if its a rebuttal. No one should be defensive about the statement black lives matter because, again, the statement makes absolutely no implication about other lives.

Black Lives Matter is a flawed slogan.

the slogan isnt flawed, the flaw is in the people taking it the wrong way. The statement is completely unambiguous
---

Inviso posted...

No, it doesn't. Maybe you should add the word "Should" to your slogan to be more clear and accurate.

When in desperation to try and be on your side you inadvertently hurt your own argument. That same argument, if you wanna stick with it, would apply to Black Lives Matter also. As it should be, Black Lives Should Matter, according to you because they don't. You just argued in a circle against yourself in the argument that it isn't a flawed message.

There is a reason why All Lives Matter is the counter slogan and why people who say those people are racist are met with we aren't the ones singling out a race as mattering.

Black Lives Matter is simply flawed and with just explicitly adding the supposedly implied part could have not been flawed. The fact they have to come out and say there is an implied part of the message by default admits it is flawed.

---

Lets split the difference and call the future of the movement

Black Lives Matter 2
---

Anyways, this topic has been done at least 5 times already in the past. Nothing is going to change.

All I am saying is they would have broader support and be more able to pin opponents of the slogan as truly being racist if their slogan wasn't flawed. Because it is very hard to argue against Black Lives Matter Too without being racist. It is a pretty universally accepted message from the normal person.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Lets split the difference and call the future of the movement

Black Lives Matter 2

wow so now you're saying black lives are worth 2 and all other lives are only worth 1???

---