https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/business/joe-rogan.html
From Yesterdays NYT cover story “Too Big To Cancel”
“What Mr. Rogan does can be difficult to categorize neatly, his standing as audio’s zeitgeist-iest voice sustained by a heap of surface contradictions….
… While Mr. Rogan has said he did not vote for Donald J. Trump in either of his campaigns, praising Bernie Sanders (a 2019 podcast guest) and promoting left-wing policy like a universal basic income, he has proved uniquely skilled in the kind of cultural combat that lifted the former president: projecting shared disdain for elite groupthink and liberal hypersensitivity. “You can never be woke enough — that’s the problem,” Mr. Rogan complained in May, riffing on the perils of cancel culture and suggesting that “it’ll eventually get to ‘straight white men are not allowed to talk.’”

Yet there is also a hitch in this construction, the bracing counterexample that is Joe Rogan, White Man Talking: He has long said what pleased him, offended polite society and warned of the reputational risks in pursuing such a life. For his sins, he has been burdened with a staggering fortune and a global reach.”

http://www.altuniversebyu.com/2020/09/17/lds-church-offers-slot-to-joe-rogan/

yet unsurprising


(If a guy needs an excuse for why life is hard -- even though everyone's is -- why, Joe's your guy. Victimhood has its attractions.)

(these guys are good)

http://www.altuniversebyu.com/our-team/

Imagine youth retention if he were called as a General Authority.

Ask yourself a question...why does someone need to be bigoted, chauvinistic, or racist? You don't have to be.

What urges or drives someone to be such?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2021 06:26PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ask yourself a question...why does someone need to
> be bigoted, chauvinistic, or racist? You don't
> have to be.
>
> What urges or drives someone to be such?
===============================

Fear that comes of feeling powerless and therefore vulnerable.
It's emotional.

That's why frontal assault (e.g. crusades of mandatory training) not only fail but exacerbate

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fear that comes of feeling powerless and therefore
> vulnerable.
> It's emotional.
>
> That's why frontal assault (e.g. crusades of
> mandatory training) not only fail but exacerbate

So, the problem is that bigots have the emotional maturity of toddlers? And we should try to accommodate that instead of putting those guys in a Time-Out corner?

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, the problem is that bigots have the emotional
> maturity of toddlers? And we should try to
> accommodate that instead of putting those guys in
> a Time-Out corner?
===============================

No direct assault; instead JuJutsu (i.e. "yielding technique")

Understand and Outflank.

------------------
Understand:

Religion/racism (two are always linked) are fear-based-emotional (limbic "lizard-brain") -- not of the thinking-rational (cortex).
So already we know, piling on information will fail.

**It's fueled by Fear**

------------------
and then Outflank:

Optimize conditions to where there is no room for fear.
Prioritize the approach along Maslow's Hierarchy. Right?

Works even on the micro-scale, say you're running a team or department.

Heck, Lao Tzu knew this a long 2500 years ago, writing in part:
"The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies,
by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones." (Gia-Fu Feng translation)

See, if you are reading things to make sense of life, you are already operating within the top of that pyramid

(By reading, I mean reading endeavoring to make sense - not seeking something to believe in or stoke the feeling of righteous indignation/rage. There is a vast difference.)

I understand bigotry's based in the dumb-primate parts of our brains and that outflanking can work on some folks. What I also know is that it won't work on folks who pride themselves on their bigotry. They're the ones who would cause havoc and pain, not caring about the damage as long as they still get the dopamine rush from feeling superior. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" is their attitude.

Or maybe I'm just a cynic.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it won't
> work on folks who pride themselves on their
> bigotry. They're the ones who would cause havoc
> and pain, not caring about the damage as long as
> they still get the dopamine rush from feeling
> superior. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in
> Heaven" is their attitude.
===============================
One certainty about these described:
Left unopposed, ignored, cut-off, eventually these turn upon each other.
Opposed, they strengthen; yet sometimes there is no choice.

The complete man is able to operate effortlessly in the divine and the profane.
Discipline is instilled in the warrior to ensure restraint.

Who becomes this bigot-person?
The un-learned, the deceived, the struggling, the barely-making-it, the drowning, the man standing on the edge of the abyss.

In choosing force, know these will strengthen; yet also that they are our less fortunate brethren.
They are really us, but for sleight of hand, a roll of the dice.

From experience, there is no joy in exercising force.

Again, Lao Tzu from 2500 years ago, wrote in part:
Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao,
Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe.
For this would only cause resistance.
Thorn bushes spring up wherever the army has passed.
Lean years follow in the wake of a great war.
Just do what needs to be done.
Never take advantage of power.

And also:
On happy occasions precedence is given to the left,
On sad occasions to the right.
In the army the general stands on the left,
The commander-in-chief on the right.
This means that war is conducted like a funeral.
When many people are being killed,
They should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow.
That is why a victory must be observed like a funeral.

What I found ironic was that he complains about straight white men being silenced with one of the biggest audiences on planet Earth.
He obviously fills a very large void.

Optimal with a little soy sauce and wasabi.
Sake, too - hot.

Oy, 5 thousand words. More than I wanted to know about Joe.

Sounds like conspiracy-lite, with a side of humor (woefully lacking in most conspiracists) that likes pushing people around. And he really does think the moon landing was faked. I only have so much time for the reality-impaired.

Maybe what he means is that straight white men will no longer enjoy the luxury of speaking whatever baloney they like without pushback.

"Waaaaah! They're criticizing me!"

Wait a second, olderelder. It would be a mistake to disregard the threat from the Left.

I refer of course to Critical Race Theory, which azsteve tells us requires that white men "renounce [their] white privilege publicly" and "force[s] testimony-style public pronouncements out of people." Always the Doubting Thomasina, I asked for his sources on those remarkable claims.

He didn't exactly do that, but he did helpfully add that the forces of CRT darkness compel confessions out of unfortunate American workers like the Chinese military did to captive US soldiers during the Korean War. Steve acknowledges that anything approaching that would be illegal, but he nevertheless insists that government agencies and academic institutions require public self-denunciations all the time. I'm not yet sure whether that occurs in re-education camps with sleep deprivation and torture sessions like in China or North Korea but I'm confident that he will soon enlighten us all.

Before the thread was interred Thomasina hoped, as is her wont, for evidence to sustain those assertions, but there's probably no need for that. After all, azsteve never says anything without sound evidence.

That's why I compared guys like that to toddlers in my reply to Dr. No.

He's a republican who is atheist and likes to smoke weed. That's only difference with him.

What about him do you think makes him a ‘Republican’?
He is NOT Republican. Nothing about him is ‘Republican’ except he’s rich. He’s a socialist Bernie supporter, pothead, MMA fighter, comedian, who is keenly interested in altered states of consciousness, science and pop culture.
But he is critical of the woke Twitter mob.
A lot of comedians are.
Dave Chapell, Bill Maher, Jerry Seinfeld, none of them have anything good to say about the woke mob. I think they are, for the most part, right.

A "socialist" who voted for Libertarians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan
Rogan endorsed Ron Paul in the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign[86] and voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[87] He endorsed Bernie Sanders during the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries,[81] but ended up voting for Jo Jorgensen in the general election.[88]

Government Providing a middle class life, at a minimum, for everybody Seems a lot like socialism to me.

https://youtu.be/LVA7C4uns2w

No, socialism by definition is government ownership of the means of production. It does not refer to fiscal redistribution of resources in a capitalist society.

He may have a point. How far does the Left want things to go? America has a troubled history but our better nature prevailed. Remember it was the civil war where white men fought and died to free the slaves, where a majority of white men voted 'twice' for Abraham Lincoln, even though they had lost so much in a terrible war. Then we had the 1960s movement where again whites of both parties mostly all came together and unanimously passed the civil rights act of 1964, there was no push back to Johnson's legislation. But then we had this new movement that has no president in history, the deconstructionist movement that began to take over academia and in the 1970s the beginning of CRT. It took over the soft sciences, and is spreading like a cancer.

They're taking down Washington, Jefferson, Lee. Rewriting history, silencing those who disagree, deplatforming, ruining careers (for those on the right), How far will straight white men allow this to go?

It feels different now. People (though most are mainly silent) are not generally on board with this new wokeness and hating the system. There will come a point when the push back happens. I'm just not sure how far until it happens.

No one has taken down the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, or the Lincoln Memorial.

Statues of Confederate leaders and generic Confederate soldiers put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy and prominent slave traders Edward Colston have been taken down.

I'll ignore the overall absurdity and focus on a few factual canards.


-------------
> Remember it was the
> civil war where white men fought and died to free
> the slaves, where a majority of white men voted
> 'twice' for Abraham Lincoln, even though they had
> lost so much in a terrible war.

One of the reasons the white North fought that war was for the soul of white people. Slavery ruined the lives of black people but it also perverted white morality much as the proliferation of homelessness does today. Abolition was motivated as much (and very possibly more) by the needs of the white majority as the enslaved minority.

Indeed, there was never a point at which the majority of white Americans favored abolition. Lincoln had to fight the war on other grounds and then, after the conflict was effectively over, slip liberation in at the last minute. The war was not fought to free slaves; it was not an act of noblesse oblige.


---------------
> Then we had the
> 1960s movement where again whites of both parties
> mostly all came together and unanimously passed
> the civil rights act of 1964, there was no push
> back to Johnson's legislation.

Why do you state things that you haven't even investigated? There was immense "pushback" against what Johnson did, which is why blood flowed in the streets. And the Civil Rights Act was NOT "unanimously passed." The House vote was 290-130; and the Senate approved the measure by a margin of 73-27. It took every bit of Johnson's famous cajolery to get that law, and the Voting Rights Act that your modern heroes are now dismantling, enacted.


------------------
> How far will straight white men allow this
> to go? . . . There will come a point when the push back happens.

There it is again: the racism you tried to deny in the other thread.

It seems to me that he is not only speaking just fine, but continuing to earn a living from it. What would pundits do without something to rail against?