Some on the Left Calling for Bernie to stop highlighting Joe Rogan saying he'll probably vote for Bernie.

[blankslate]

Bernie Sanders draws criticism for touting Joe Rogan endorsement

The Sanders campaign touted the endorsement in a tweet on Thursday afternoon, featuring a clip of Rogan's supportive remarks.
"I think I'll probably vote for Bernie. Him as a human being, when I was hanging out with him, I believe in him, I like him, I like him a lot," Rogan said on an earlier episode of his show.
"What Bernie stands for is a guy -- look, you could dig up dirt on every single human being that's ever existed if you catch them in their worst moment and you magnify those moments and you cut out everything else and you only display those worst moments. That said, you can't find very many with Bernie. He's been insanely consistent his entire life. He's basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from."


Rogan, a libertarian-leaning broadcaster with a public persona in the mold of Howard Stern, is a divisive figure who has said the N-word on his show and in 2013 questioned -- using offensive language -- whether a transgender MMA fighter should be able to compete against other women.

Apparently some think Bernie should reject the enforsement. However, a spokesperson said this of the controversy.

"The goal of our campaign is to build a multi-racial, multi-generational movement that is large enough to defeat Donald Trump and the powerful special interests whose greed and corruption is the root cause of the outrageous inequality in America," Gray said, echoing the argument made by many Sanders supporters on social media. "Sharing a big tent requires including those who do not share every one of our beliefs, while always making clear that we will never compromise our values. The truth is that by standing together in solidarity, we share the values of love and respect that will move us in the direction of a more humane, more equal world."

I have watched the Joe Rogan podcast having discovered it by looking up and old interview on a very early podcast that he did with Dave Foley who Joe Rogan co-starred with on the underappreciated (criminally so imho) show NewsRadio.

After watching several episodes based on who was the guest, I don't think Joe Rogan is overtly sexist racist or homophobic and the reason most cite for claiming he is trans-phobic that I know of is that he questions whether a person born as male should be able to compete in MMA or boxing against people born as females after they transition to be born as female. This is of course an issue with no easy answers that is still being debated as the number of people who transition and are competitive athletes in sports is small and people who have recently transitioned from male to female probably do have a competitive advantage for a while after their surgery.

Transgender people in sports - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The biggest thing critics continually get wrong about transgender athletes competing in women's sports

It's been suggested a man could wake up and "decide" to become a woman, win titles, then go back to being a man.

www.businessinsider.com

Personally I think Bernie should not reject the endorsement even though some may object to Joe Rogan being politically incorrect in their eyes, I don't think he is hateful/prejudiced perhaps uninformed on some issues but given his history in competitive MMA I'm thinking not on various aspects of how size and weight are factors in unarmed combative sports.

*e2a* I thought about posting this as a reply in this thread

Bernie Sanders is on Joe Rogan Experience today

Should be interesting no matter what position you have on him. Joe puts on a great show, will be interesting if he can get Bernie to hit a doobie. The Andrew Yang one is great too if you haven't seen, a much better dive into the candidate and their actual positions than the political mantra you...

forums.anandtech.com

as it is somewhat related but it's different enough I guess


___________


_________________

 

[interchange]

After watching several episodes based on who was the guest, I don't think Joe Rogan is overtly sexist racist or homophobic and the reason most cite for claiming he is trans-phobic that I know of is that he questions whether a person born as male should be able to compete in MMA or boxing against people born as females after they transition to be born as female.

Like you I think he is ordinary racist, sexist, homophobic. He's no paragon of liberal virtue -- quite far from it. But he's not representing himself as that, and those things don't nullify the positive values he has which align with Bernie. It's a damn shame if we can't appreciate that. And it shouldn't stop us from calling out where Joe is racist, sexist, homophobic. It enhances those call-outs because someone who receives criticism from someone they recognize still values and respects them is much more likely to receive that feedback in a way which helps them challenge themselves. Moreover, it's just a more realistic standard to expect from ourselves and our neighbors.

 

[blankslate]

humorous Onion piece on this

Liberals Say Sanders’s Acceptance Of Rogan Endorsement Sends Dangerous Message He Trying To Win Election

“This is just the Sanders campaign opening the gates to a plurality of people who would vote for him and help him win the presidency,” said political commentator Scott Griffin, who called the campaign’s promotion of Rogan’s endorsement a true “mask off” moment, exposing Sanders’s goal of winning the Democratic primary and eventually the general election. “It’s very unnerving to see a Democratic candidate like Bernie Sanders try to court voters from varying constituencies and demographics. It’s like his whole strategy is beating Trump.

this actually very well satirizes the concern trolling about Bernie actually being able to pull voters in a general election should be become the nominee


___________

 

[alcoholbob]

Remember, when a centrist like Hillary goes on Howard Stern, nobody cares. When a leftist like Bernie goes on Rogan, who hasn't said half the retrograde stuff Stern has, he gets slammed by the DC media sphere who elevates fringe twitter noise. Quite a few Republicans strategists have had the clarity to point out that (selectively) weaponizing identity politics is mainly a game played by the Neoliberal centrists in the Democratic party to keep out progressives from advancing their economic goals--typical divide and conquer strategy. Of course the Republican establishment should be experienced with this since tokenism and running minstrel shows is their bread and butter.

 

[Commodus]

I don't mind that Sanders has Rogan's endorsement. I only mind that Rogan isn't particularly discriminate, and sometimes gives attention to people who don't deserve it -- particularly intellectual charlatans like Ben Shapiro, who sound smart only if you never dig beneath the surface.

 

[Blackjack200]

Bernie Sanders draws criticism for touting Joe Rogan endorsement



Apparently some think Bernie should reject the enforsement. However, a spokesperson said this of the controversy.



I have watched the Joe Rogan podcast having discovered it by looking up and old interview on a very early podcast that he did with Dave Foley who Joe Rogan co-starred with on the underappreciated (criminally so imho) show NewsRadio.

After watching several episodes based on who was the guest, I don't think Joe Rogan is overtly sexist racist or homophobic and the reason most cite for claiming he is trans-phobic that I know of is that he questions whether a person born as male should be able to compete in MMA or boxing against people born as females after they transition to be born as female. This is of course an issue with no easy answers that is still being debated as the number of people who transition and are competitive athletes in sports is small and people who have recently transitioned from male to female probably do have a competitive advantage for a while after their surgery.

Transgender people in sports - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The biggest thing critics continually get wrong about transgender athletes competing in women's sports

It's been suggested a man could wake up and "decide" to become a woman, win titles, then go back to being a man.

www.businessinsider.com

Personally I think Bernie should not reject the endorsement even though some may object to Joe Rogan being politically incorrect in their eyes, I don't think he is hateful/prejudiced perhaps uninformed on some issues but given his history in competitive MMA I'm thinking not on various aspects of how size and weight are factors in unarmed combative sports.

*e2a* I thought about posting this as a reply in this thread

Bernie Sanders is on Joe Rogan Experience today

Should be interesting no matter what position you have on him. Joe puts on a great show, will be interesting if he can get Bernie to hit a doobie. The Andrew Yang one is great too if you haven't seen, a much better dive into the candidate and their actual positions than the political mantra you...

forums.anandtech.com

as it is somewhat related but it's different enough I guess


___________


_________________

ive struggled with this one quite a bit. Most of the criticism coming at sanders is poor faith criticism from liberals that don’t give two shits about trans people. But then Adam Johnson came out against it:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1221229687017562118

if you don’t know who Adam Johnson is, he writes (and podcasts) about media bias, and he has an extremely reliable moral compass. His point about protecting vulnerable populations is particularly important to me.

I’m not saying that just because Adam is normally right about these things that he’s right here. There are very persuasive arguments that I’ve heard about the need to build coalitions and not engage in purity politics.

 

[woolfe9998]

Maybe the best solution is for Bernie to not trumpet this endorsement, but not reject it either. He really doesn't have to say anything about it. If some people on the left are pissed off at Rogan, it's probably best not go touting this in the dem primary. OTOH, there is no reason to alienate any of Rogan's fans. He tends to cater to an anti-establishment center-right crowd who aren't very fond of Trump.

 

[Xcobra]

I haven't watched/listened to very much of Rogan's podcasts so I can't speak much about him specifically. But I think people have gotten too much into the purist agenda when it comes to electing a leader. It's as if they expect Jesus/Buddha to come and represent their wonderland dreams. We're human; no one is ever gonna meet those ridiculous standards. Although Joe is right that Bernie has mostly been consistent and the Dems have a hard time attacking him (thus, we get pieces like this one).

We just need to get off our high horse and judge based on the ideals that are most important to us. I'm not saying past actions don't matter but we have to be as objective as possible. There's also no reason to alienate any person or group in this case. Voters gonna vote, get over it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't mind Bernie having rogans endorsement, seems like a great way to swing some independents

 

[Starbuck1975]

Rogan is in the same spectrum as Trey Parker and Matt Stone...uniquely GenX voices who have witnessed a lifetime of petty politics, respect the authenticity of Sanders’ voice and who find Trumpers and the Twitter woke crowd equally dogmatic and ridiculous.

Another + in the Sanders column.

 

[Commodus]

Rogan is in the same spectrum as Trey Parker and Matt Stone...uniquely GenX voices who have witnessed a lifetime of petty politics, respect the authenticity of Sanders’ voice and who find Trumpers and the Twitter woke crowd equally dogmatic and ridiculous.

Another + in the Sanders column.

It is a plus of a sort, but I don't want to give Rogan too much credit. He has a tendency to play that "both sides" angle where, in a bid to appear neutral, he gives legitimacy to people who deserve none. Like it or not, most of the dishonesty and toxicity in the modern American landscape is on the right, and I wish he'd do more to acknowledge that observable truth.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1220549497320685577

Thread...


another take on this that i thought was worth reading

 

[Starbuck1975]

It is a plus of a sort, but I don't want to give Rogan too much credit. He has a tendency to play that "both sides" angle where, in a bid to appear neutral, he gives legitimacy to people who deserve none. Like it or not, most of the dishonesty and toxicity in the modern American landscape is on the right, and I wish he'd do more to acknowledge that observable truth.

The observable truth is that the same toxicity exists on the left, just dispersed across broader factions and tribes.

The woke cancel culture cry wolf alarmist thought crime Twitter snowflakes of the left are more of a threat to a guy like Rogan, and his mocking them does not make him a fascist or racist, nor does it legitimize the far right just because they may be like minded on this topic.

 

[Vic]

The observable truth is that the same toxicity exists on the left, just dispersed across broader factions and tribes.

The woke cancel culture cry wolf alarmist thought crime Twitter snowflakes of the left are more of a threat to a guy like Rogan, and his mocking them does not make him a fascist or racist, nor does it legitimize the far right just because they may be like minded on this topic.

Then how come, in all your bothsidesing, you never ever criticize 'the right' for doing the same bullshit? The evangelical, conservative, and right-wing groups are engaged in constant boycotts, and continuously attacking and namecalling anyone who disagrees with them, including calling them fascists, socialists, etc, and yes on twitter too, and yet never one peep about that out of you except for deflection like "the observable truth is that the same toxicity exists on the left" so that you can steer the discussion away from that same toxicity on the right and focus on your hatred of 'the left.'
That's some bullshit hypocrisy on your part, and worse still that you think anyone falls for it.

 

[Vic]

On topic, I doubt Bernie could do a better job of ensuring Trump wins if he joined the Trump campaign. I suspect he's going to out-do his 2016 antics by pulling full-blown Perot this year.

 

[woolfe9998]

On topic, I doubt Bernie could do a better job of ensuring Trump wins if he joined the Trump campaign. I suspect he's going to out-do his 2016 antics by pulling full-blown Perot this year.

You mean in relation to the Rogan endorsement, or in general?

 

[Commodus]

The observable truth is that the same toxicity exists on the left, just dispersed across broader factions and tribes.

The woke cancel culture cry wolf alarmist thought crime Twitter snowflakes of the left are more of a threat to a guy like Rogan, and his mocking them does not make him a fascist or racist, nor does it legitimize the far right just because they may be like minded on this topic.

You just did the very thing I was warning about: the false equivocation, the refusal to acknowledge that one side is disproportionately problematic.

Here's the thing: if someone is overly 'woke' or a 'snowflake,' the most that usually happens is that they become a nuisance. They're still being honest and compassionate, if misguidedly so. But Alex Jones? He knowingly put lives in danger by spreading lies about Sandy Hook, among other bogus conspiracies. Jordan Peterson? Promotes sexism under a mask of pseudoscientific crap. Ben Shapiro? Homophobic and islamophobic (among other forms of bigotry), again using a false aura of intellectualism. I'd rather have someone whose fault is to care too much than someone who fosters hatred and death threats.

I don't think Rogan is a fascist or racist -- it's that he sometimes mistakes offering equal airtime with offering objectivity. Actual objectivity means rejecting ideas that are demonstrably junk, no matter how disproportionately that hurts one side or the other... and right now, it's mostly conservatives peddling the junk. Certainly the junk that gets people harassed or physically attacked.

 

[Vic]

You mean in relation to the Rogan endorsement, or in general?

In general.

 

[soulcougher73]

I like both Bernie and Rogan. I dont see the issue.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't mind that Sanders has Rogan's endorsement. I only mind that Rogan isn't particularly discriminate, and sometimes gives attention to people who don't deserve it -- particularly intellectual charlatans like Ben Shapiro, who sound smart only if you never dig beneath the surface.

He graduated Harvard Law at age 23. Calling him an intellectual charlatan is foolish.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If anyone thinks Joe Rogan has any sort of questionable take on todays LGBTBBQ - or think he is anything other than far left you need your head examined.

He is pretty far left overall (especially being for Bernie). The one caveat he has ever talked about as far as LGBTBBQ is he is 100% adamantly against trans-folks having hormone-based advantages inside sports (ie: Former male 'transitions' to female) and beats the shit out of ACTUAL women. Thats it.

If you don't agree with that then you're pretty out of touch with reality.

 

[Vic]

You just did the very thing I was warning about: the false equivocation, the refusal to acknowledge that one side is disproportionately problematic.

Here's the thing: if someone is overly 'woke' or a 'snowflake,' the most that usually happens is that they become a nuisance. They're still being honest and compassionate, if misguidedly so. But Alex Jones? He knowingly put lives in danger by spreading lies about Sandy Hook, among other bogus conspiracies. Jordan Peterson? Promotes sexism under a mask of pseudoscientific crap. Ben Shapiro? Homophobic and islamophobic (among other forms of bigotry), again using a false aura of intellectualism. I'd rather have someone whose fault is to care too much than someone who fosters hatred and death threats.

I don't think Rogan is a fascist or racist -- it's that he sometimes mistakes offering equal airtime with offering objectivity. Actual objectivity means rejecting ideas that are demonstrably junk, no matter how disproportionately that hurts one side or the other... and right now, it's mostly conservatives peddling the junk. Certainly the junk that gets people harassed or physically attacked.

Righties don't bothsides to create a false equivocation, or the refusal to acknowledge that one side is disproportionately problematic, as you put it. In fact, they're doing the opposite, they bothsides in order to argue that the left side is disproportionately problematic. Because they agree with that Alex Jones, etc crap, but are too often ashamed to admit it, and so they bothsides to redirect or even suppress (drown out) any speech critical of those things without having to actually come to their defense.
Otherwise, what is 'woke' besides expressing a strong opinion?
What is 'cancel culture' besides boycotting?
Bothsides do those things, and bothsides behave absolutely atrociously on twitter, but notice how the narrative is constantly being manipulated so that it's only bad when one side does it?
There's a tremendous amount of bad faith in today's political climate. Most of it is unintentional, but that doesn't change what it is.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It is a plus of a sort, but I don't want to give Rogan too much credit. He has a tendency to play that "both sides" angle where, in a bid to appear neutral, he gives legitimacy to people who deserve none. Like it or not, most of the dishonesty and toxicity in the modern American landscape is on the right, and I wish he'd do more to acknowledge that observable truth.

We get it - typical woke liberal cancel culture rationale of "SOMEONE is saying SOMETHING that I DISAGREE WITH! Cancel them! Protest the platform! Silence anything that disagrees with me regardless of if it is factual or not!"

 

[Vic]

We get it - typical woke liberal cancel culture rationale of "SOMEONE is saying SOMETHING that I DISAGREE WITH! Cancel them! Protest the platform! Silence anything that disagrees with me regardless of if it is factual or not!"

And what is it that you think you're doing here?

 

[Commodus]

He graduated Harvard Law at age 23. Calling him an intellectual charlatan is foolish.

Graduating from an ivy league school doesn't make you honest, or qualified to speak with authority on every subject.

I call Shapiro and his kind intellectual charlatans because they dress ignorance and lies in the trappings of intellectualism. Shapiro sounds wise only if you've never seriously investigated what he's saying. He takes things out of context, distorts and makes basic factual errors; he'll directly contradict himself without a trace of irony. It's not clear to what degree he's purposefully misleading people versus simply being ignorant, but he certainly hopes you're not insightful enough to call him out on his bullshit.