824
Time travel
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
824 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
8553 readers
1328 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Somewhere, there is a compilation video of Theo Von entertaining himself by seeing what level of transparent ridiculous nonsense he can spout and still have Joe Rogan go along with it, and it generally works every single time.
In general I don't agree with Rogan hate. He has all kinds of people on, and sometimes they say some nonsense which he then gets blamed for, but he's mostly just letting them air out whatever they want to say. He even pushed back a little on Trump, told him that he didn't think that people in Europe rake their forests to prevent forest fires, that kind of thing. But if you're deliberately trying to lie to him, it's not hard to do.
Edit: Found a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasSXNjgWhI
I greatly enjoy Theo's subtle nod of victory when he says everyone thinks owls can read, and Joe Rogan says, "Yeah..."
Rogan hate is on point. You think he did a good job pushing back on obvious Trump nonsense? LOL. He ended up endorsing the guy because Joe thought he was more honest than Tim Walz! What the fuck is that? Even good ol' Joe ain't really that dumb. He's a paid off hack.
What? No, he definitely didn't do a good job pushing back on Trump. I said he pushed back a little.
It's like you guys only have two characters in your internal mental puppet-show, and if I'm not the good puppet, I've got to go as the bad puppet. Just read the message, I said what I said the way I said it for a reason.
I'm responding to the entire comment. The fact that you felt his minor pushback on the dozens of non-stop whoppers Trump told is relevant to anything is astounding.
Okay. That doesn't mean you can make things up that I didn't say, and then "respond" to them.
I admit that I extrapolated a bit, but when you mention the pushback and completely omit the dozens of lies that received no pushback, that is open to some level of interpretation.
Correct. My whole point with the comment is that Rogan is susceptible to bullshit, and that it's a bad thing. I added in a caveat in the middle of my comment that I don't agree with Rogan hate, and explained why, but my whole point is that Joe is way too gullible.
You don't have to hoist the we-found-an-enemy flag quite so enthusiastically whenever someone says something that might be taken as something you've nominated as an official enemy belief, after you've "extrapolated" it.
Joe is gullible because it's profitable for Joe to be gullible. That's his schtick, not an incidental personal characteristic. He could afford an entire team of live fact finders if he wanted, but that would hurt his ratings.
If I gave the impression that I see you as an enemy, that was unintentional and I apologize. I do however find your assessment of Rogan to be ridiculously naive.
Tbh your second paragraph being longer and starting with "In general I don't agree with the Rogan hate" makes it sound very much NOT like a caveat but rather the main point of your comment.
Now this "we-found-an-enemy flag" defense you've brought up is just... weird. Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks. That's just not what happened dude. If you want to argue your point, do it, but as a matter of fact you clearly indicated that you're okay with what little push back he does give, whereas you did not make it clear that you think him being easily misled is a bad thing.
I don't mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you're trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
I still don't get this. Someone disagreed with a fallacious point that I didn't make, and I pointed out that I didn't make it. Surely that should be allowed.
Yeah, maybe so, this one is valid I think.