What's new

Joe Rogan's Podcast


NAOS

Well-Known Member
Idiot!


Edit: epithet used without permission.
Let me be clearer: I’m referring to the moment in a debate/conversation when one party alters the direction of things by claiming that another party insulted them.
 


NAOS

Well-Known Member
Al-O makes a huge gaffe, keeps a straight face, then claims he was offended as he slides out of the conversation.

That’s a classic right-wing strategy
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
Al-O makes a huge gaffe, keeps a straight face, then claims he was offended as he slides out of the conversation.
I’m still not seeing this supposed gaffe or corner you insist is there. It was a quip. When I said “that would be news to Ben Santer”, I didn’t actually think IPCC author Benjamin Santer is scanning JazzFanz for news about climate science. That line of banter missed its mark. Oh well.

As for being offended, I am not. I didn’t take offense because I don’t *TAKE* offense. I have extremely thick skin. When someone slaps me with some label intended to offend, it doesn’t bother me. I simply ignore it and continue on. When someone instructs me to ‘prove to me you know how to read’, it also doesn’t bother me. I simply ignore it and continue on.

I didn’t slide out of the conversation as much as don’t find myself to be that interesting of a topic.
 
Last edited:

NAOS

Well-Known Member
I’m still not seeing this supposed gaffe or corner you insist is there. It was a quip. When I said “that would be news to Ben Santer”, I didn’t actually think IPCC author Benjamin Santer is scanning JazzFanz for news about climate science. That piece of banter missed its mark. Oh well.

As for being offended, I am not. I didn’t take offense because I don’t *TAKE* offense. I have extremely thick skin. When someone slaps me with some label intended to offend, it doesn’t bother me. I simply ignore it and continue on. When someone instructs me to ‘prove to me you know how to read’, it also doesn’t bother me. I simply ignore it and continue on.

I didn’t slide out of the conversation as much as don’t find myself to be that interesting of a topic.
Lol

This guy is JazzyFresh, right?
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
So let’s hear from Gupta…

What Gupta says in that article dodges the important part, which is that CNN lied repeatedly. An outlet that claims to be informing you is actually purveying lies. In the clip Archie Moses posted, Sanjay Gupta admits CNN was lying. He openly admits “we shouldn’t have said that”.

It is important because it ruins credibility. If CNN will lie about that, why wouldn’t they lie about other things? This isn’t a case of making an error and later correcting it. CNN knew from the outset that it wasn’t true and still broadcast it on multiple shows through a number of their on-air personalities.

The debate over the effectiveness of Ivermectin is nothing compared to the society-wide breakdown in social trust. CNN, in using its platform to knowingly broadcast something Sanjay Gupta admitted was a lie, did far more damage than did Joe Rogan opting to treat his infection with Regeneron and Ivermectin.
 


Top