A Political Thread pt. 2

[TRF_Olyy]

Who was the UFC fighter whonrecently went on a podcast and called Hitler a great guy and someone to tongo fishing with before

Bryce Mitchell
Just got choked unconscious on Saturday night while thousands of people booed him

Hope he remembers that one, but doubt he has the brain capacity

Depressingly he did say he's gained a ton of fans recently, though - however most of those are anonymous twitter accounts

 

[dirty harry]

There's an outside view, then there's someone talking about it as though they have any authority or information about it like Farage did. He was clueless, never there and had no idea, but was allowed time to talk about it on BBCQT as though he did. That was dangerous.

I just disagree with the idea people talking about things is dangerous, even despite the platform.

How do you feel about celebs discussing politics, let's use Cardi B as an example. Is her discussing politics yobher audience dangerous?

 

[McTallshort]

Bryce Mitchell
Just got choked unconscious on Saturday night while thousands of people booed him

Hope he remembers that one, but doubt he has the brain capacity

Depressingly he did say he's gained a ton of fans recently, though - however most of those are anonymous twitter accounts

Had to Google him. What a nutter

 

[dirty harry]

Bryce Mitchell
Just got choked unconscious on Saturday night while thousands of people booed him

Hope he remembers that one, but doubt he has the brain capacity

Depressingly he did say he's gained a ton of fans recently, though - however most of those are anonymous twitter accounts

It's almost like outrage and rage bait works a treat... IMO it's way social media is actually dangerous, not that people are discussing things they don't know, but because then strategies that work hurt the fabric of society.

IMO that's the problem, not those idiots saying outrageous things, it's the effectiveness of rage baiting and outrage online that literally creates careers.

 

[dirty harry]

Had to Google him. What a nutter

But now a more famous, richer nutter...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's almost like outrage and rage bait works a treat

Nah, it's not rage bait - he's genuinely a nazi apologist and can't comprehend people not being one, it's not a bit
He's also a flat earther and doesn't believe in gravity

 

[Welsh Exile]

I can't comment on the guy, mostly because I'm not interested...

But I can't agree him being stupid on camera is 'dangerous', I just can't get on board with censorship.

You can't see any downsides to letting unqualified people spread lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories? I'm not saying he shouldn't have the right, it's actually people like Rogan and Smith that have more responsibility to their audiences than the nutters themselves which is why Murray was right to remind them of their power and their responsibility but there general attitude just seems to be to shrug their shoulders and say "what can I do"

Well, as Murray said you can take an active role in weeding out extremists in your audience and if you insist on speaking to these charlatans make sure there's appropriate push back and challenges so that your audience knows the facts rather than letting some idiot waffles for 3 hours unchallenged so your audience goes "this guy knows what he's talking about"

History is no different from science in the sense that proper historians have their work peer reviewed, there's lots of disagreement among historians about lots of stuff but there's also a consensus amongst stuff like, I dunno, Hitler was the bad guy and started WW2. What benefit is there to unqualified people coming onto massive platforms and lie unchallenged for 3 hours. It certainly doesn't further the discourse or inform people does it.

 

[dirty harry]

You can't see any downsides to letting unqualified people spread lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories? I'm not saying he shouldn't have the right, it's actually people like Rogan and Smith that have more responsibility to their audiences than the nutters themselves which is why Murray was right to remind them of their power and their responsibility but there general attitude just seems to be to shrug their shoulders and say "what can I do"

Well, as Murray said you can take an active role in weeding out extremists in your audience and if you insist on speaking to these charlatans make sure there's appropriate push back and challenges so that your audience knows the facts rather than letting some idiot waffles for 3 hours unchallenged so your audience goes "this guy knows what he's talking about"

History is no different from science in the sense that proper historians have their work peer reviewed, there's lots of disagreement among historians about lots of stuff but there's also a consensus amongst stuff like, I dunno, Hitler was the bad guy and started WW2. What benefit is there to unqualified people coming onto massive platforms and lie unchallenged for 3 hours. It certainly doesn't further the discourse or inform people does it.

The benefit is free speech, and thenfree exchange of ideas.
Let's use COVID as an example, there were literally thousands if not more medically qualified people who were censored for making very sensible and very accurate claims, but they weren't the codified opinions according to the government. So social media platforms went on an aggressive censorship campaign. Take the Hunter laptop story, that may well have been a game changer, Zuckerberg suppressed it then later came out and said oopsie my bad, I shouldn't have, the FBI told me too.

The same way there are people in Hyde park, ranting about how Islam is going to conquer the UK for hours on end, and is played to millions of people on YouTube...

You have to accept people sayingbthings you don't like is a net benefit to being allowed to speak publicly. Free speech isn't eroded by the sensible speech, it's eroded by taking away the unpopular and working it's way inward.

Look at the BLM protests, the pallets of bricks, the free zones allowed, it was designed to make the protests violent, so the government could amend powers to crack down on protesting.

 

[dirty harry]

Nah, it's not rage bait - he's genuinely a nazi apologist and can't comprehend people not being one, it's not a bit
He's also a flat earther and doesn't believe in gravity

And is he becoming more well known and is his following increasing?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

And is he becoming more well known and is his following increasing?

He's lost a load of sponsors, is genuinely hated be the fans that pay his salary and has had to cancel his podcast, so....not really 4D chess

 

[dirty harry]

And is he becoming more well known and is his following increasing?

And byw Trump helped this, or utilised it depending on your position...

Trump 2016 strategy was basically, no publicity is bad publicity. He said 3 things a week that should tank his campaign, and they all seemed to mysteriously coincide with Clinton speeches or announcements...

Clinton gives a speech on policy update, media are only interested in Trump in a sombrero shouting I love Mexicans. Total media blackout of Clinton's message.

 

[dirty harry]

He's lost a load of sponsors, is genuinely hated be the fans that pay his salary and has had to cancel his podcast, so....not really 4D chess

Unless he's a bang average fighter with a limited career option, little prospects of making long term money in the UFC and needs a longer term side hustle alla Hawk Tuah girl.

 

[Welsh Exile]

The benefit is free speech, and thenfree exchange of ideas.
Let's use COVID as an example, there were literally thousands if not more medically qualified people who were censored for making very sensible and very accurate claims, but they weren't the codified opinions according to the government. So social media platforms went on an aggressive censorship campaign. Take the Hunter laptop story, that may well have been a game changer, Zuckerberg suppressed it then later came out and said oopsie my bad, I shouldn't have, the FBI told me too.

The same way there are people in Hyde park, ranting about how Islam is going to conquer the UK for hours on end, and is played to millions of people on YouTube...

You have to accept people sayingbthings you don't like is a net benefit to being allowed to speak publicly. Free speech isn't eroded by the sensible speech, it's eroded by taking away the unpopular and working it's way inward.

Look at the BLM protests, the pallets of bricks, the free zones allowed, it was designed to make the protests violent, so the government could amend powers to crack down on protesting.

You're maybe misunderstanding me. I'm not saying he shouldn't have the right to say these stupid lies but as I said earlier, back in the day this guy would've been relegated to standing on a box in a town center alongside the bible bashers shouting "Churchill was the real villain of WW2" and everyone could just walk past them and go about there day. But now they're not only on the biggest online platforms in the world, not only do their views go unchallenged they also have these guys like Dave Smith calling cooper "a national treasure" which gives them, obviously, a lot of validation. Bit different to Hyde park which by the way would be infinitely better than him going on Rogan or Smith's podcast as at least they're views would be challenged in Hyde park.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Unless he's a bang average fighter with a limited career option, little prospects of making long term money in the UFC and needs a longer term side hustle alla Hawk Tuah girl.

You didn't even know his name 25minutes ago and now you're an expert on him and his career

 

[McTallshort]

My worry isn't that these people preach this ********, it's there is a massive willingness to believe it. Joe Rogan has the largest podcast audience in the world and since COVID (and before a bit) it's just been a conspiracy theorist, MAGA, alt right cesspool of disinformation and stupidity. Yet people want to hear it. As we know people don't go online or listen or read news to have their beliefs challenged, they do it to have their prejudices confirmed. So the reason Joe Rogan has the largest audience in the world is because that's what people actually believe and that's far more worrying than some slap headed wanna be comedian and his circle of morons.

Interestingly Bill Burr hasn't been back on Rogan for a while..

 

[Weldit]

I just disagree with the idea people talking about things is dangerous, even despite the platform.

How do you feel about celebs discussing politics, let's use Cardi B as an example. Is her discussing politics yobher audience dangerous?

Depends what she says, surely? If it's a generic comment about something, then no. Would you say what Farage kept saying was dangerous? He consistently given a platform despite talking utter rubbish that lead to brexit.

 

[McTallshort]

Depends what she says, surely? If it's a generic comment about something, then no. Would you say what Farage kept saying was dangerous? He consistently given a platform despite talking utter rubbish that lead to brexit.

What I would say about Farage is he is an elected member of parliament and he was at the time and elected member of the European parliament so as much as it's distasteful to some he has absolutely the right to interviewed by the likes of the BBC. It's really up to the interviewer to challenge what he is saying.

 

[McTallshort]

What we are missing is someone like Christopher Hitchens who had a great nack for calling out these dickheads. Yes he was wrong on Iraq but on almost everything else he wasn't and he absolutely wasn't afraid to have a go. Imagine him sitting on a podcast with Rogan and Smith?

 

[ncurd]

What I would say about Farage is he is an elected member of parliament and he was at the time and elected member of the European parliament so as much as it's distasteful to some he has absolutely the right to interviewed by the likes of the BBC. It's really up to the interviewer to challenge what he is saying.

I agree but also as a member a fringe party he was also given a platform far larger than other parties of similar or larger sizes.

Look at now how often to the Greens gets platformed compared to Reform? Hell the LDs get far less coverage.

 

[McTallshort]

I agree but also as a member a fringe party he was also given a platform far larger than other parties of similar or larger sizes.

Look at now how often to the Greens gets platformed compared to Reform? Hell the LDs get far less coverage.

And I suppose who's that down too?