As usual, juan's post is incoherent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juan valdez
Rogan gets cited because of his guests. What Rogan offers is a great platform for people to articulate their views. the panel seat on bill mahers show or on MSM is completely lol in comparison. Ok squeeze in your talking points in between commercials on a split screen vs someone else. Its just low hanging fruit for low information viewership. Rogan goes up to 3 hours and gives people the opportunity to fully express their ideas
I suppose from juan's point of view, it's good that Rogan spends 4 hours letting Alex Jones types spread misinformation about pizzagate and HAARP to a wide audience with little or no pushback from the host.
Quote:
its the same childish nonsense from sjw's. zomg youtube is the source, zomg the proffesor or scientist is totally discredited because the host he's talking to is a pothead, zomg the show is some right wing propaganda because they believe in free speech and had milo on to talk about a twitter banning, etc etc. its just such childish nonsense
You seem to forget that when I watched a video of Haidt and pointed out some of his mistakes that you whined and left in a huff. You never responded with any substance at all. You apparently think that people should just accept the received wisdom from youtube anti-SJWs. Anything less is childish nonsense.
Quote:
What we have now is actual liberals, people in the middle, and to the right, all having a people with very intelligent and well articulated opinions, observations, and facts heavily criticizing the far left mob (which is huge and growing). The lefty's don't have anyone speaking for them except openly biased journalists, politicians, and SJW's. There is no intellectual representative of this massive movement. The actual leaders of this are cowardly post modernist professors that don't actual speak or debate, they teach their students to become ideologue activists. Moron SJW's can easily parrot the basic sjw theme because it takes only an hour or two to figure out how to play the oppression olympics
This is the usual nonsense of defining anything you don't like as "SJWs" and then declaring victory based on nothing but a label. No one has any clue what you're talking about here. Try arguing against actual ideas and you might get a response.
"post modernist professors that don't actual speak or debate"
Is this what you think college professors do? Go on speaking tours and try to debate people they disagree with?
Quote:
Who are the intellectuals speaking up on behalf of the identity politics and sjw movement? obama? clinton? anderson cooper? the folks at vox and salon? the young turks? the guy screaming "you're a white man!"?
Who knows? You can't define "identity politics and sjw movement."
Quote:
On the flip side you have a growing number of people speaking up against the sjw and identity politics mob. they have the ability to actually articulate a pov and most of them understand actual science. dr gad saad, dr jordan peterson, jonathan haidt, bret weinstein, and sam harris. These are people (among others) that stand up and challenge all the nonsense. They have no intellectual opposition. think about that. who is standing up to them? sjw's chanting simple nonsense and science deniers. who is offering up intellectual opposition or debate?
This sounds like YOUR problem. You keep saying that there's no intellectual underpinning to this movement that you can't define. I agree. Since apparently this "SJW movement" you are mad about is defined in your own head, I don't think you are going to find many people arguing for it. This isn't some victory for your side. It's an admission that you don't even know what the conversation is about.