Joe Defenders

https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2022/...ends-joe-rogan

"HOUSTON – It wasn’t even a question directed at Israel Adesanya, but he passionately intercepted it when it was asked.

At the UFC 271 pre-fight news conference, promotion president Dana White was asked about recent controversies involving commentator Joe Rogan, which included hosting controversial guests and a resurfaced montage video of him using a the “N-word.”

White didn’t get a chance to answer, as Adesanya took it upon himself to hold court. The UFC middleweight champion passionately defended the UFC commentator and advised him to block out negative comments.

“First off, let me take this one,” Adesanya said. “Hold up. I’m Black. I can take this one. Look, there’s a lot of c*nts in this game. There are a lot of snakes in this game. I’ve been in this fight game since 2008. Joe Rogan is one of the nicest, coolest, humble motherf*ckers I’ve had the pleasure of working with. Understand that.

“F*ck the noise. You know what they’re trying to do. You can’t control the man. He’s got the biggest platform in the world right now. That’s my n*gga Joe Rogan. F*ck the noise. … Just keep doing you, Joe. Have some mushrooms. Keep doing you.”"

And even Jon Stewart is trying to slow down the cancel culture train:

https://nypost.com/2022/02/11/jon-st...isinformation/

"“The New York Times, right, was a giant purveyor of misinformation, and disinformation,” Stewart said of the newspaper’s editorial support for the Iraq war.

“And that’s as vaunted a media organization as you can find, but there was no accountability for them.”

The Times and other mainstream news organizations were criticized for unquestioningly reporting the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that those efforts justified the US invasion.

No such weapons were ever found in Iraq after American troops removed Saddam from power and installed a friendly government in Baghdad.

Stewart said Thursday that while he was “very vocal” in opposing the Iraq war in 2003, he was in the minority.

“Couldn’t I have gone down and fallen down this — if Viacom or Comedy Central had wanted to censor me — or had wanted to take me off the — look, I’m not owed a platform. Nobody is,” he said.

Stewart then added: “But my point is, these are shifting sands, and I think I get concerned with, well, who gets to decide?”"

It seems fairly clear that there's an ongoing effort to target Rogan. So far it looks like an uncomfortable compromise of removing some of the episodes but keeping Rogan around on Spotify. What will happen next?

I am shocked that you'd support the guy who equated African Americans with a certain other species, goaded his guests into saying the N-word, and used the word himself on numerous occasions long after it was clear this was unacceptable. I could see why you wouldn't want an example made out of someone like him. After all, if a racist like Rogan can be punished, how long before they come after you?

I guess you've given up on at least pretending to not be racist. You know there are other forums where someone like you can feel at home, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I am shocked that you'd support the guy who equated African Americans with a certain other species, goaded his guests into saying the N-word, and used the word himself on numerous occasions long after it was clear this was unacceptable. I could see why you wouldn't want an example made out of someone like him. After all, if a racist like Rogan can be punished, how long before they come after you?

I guess you've given up on at least pretending to not be racist. You know there are other forums where someone like you can feel at home, right?

---

Loki, do you think if black people who use that word that means they are racist? That's a Y/N question. If you say Yes then you have a lot more racists to go after than Rogan who use it far more frequently. If you say no than you are a hypocrite for your Rogan stance and believe people should be treated differently *literally* for no other reason than their skin color. So which is it?

If you treat people differently because of their race you are a racist. I'm one of the few people on this board that does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Loki, do you think if black people who use that word that means they are racist? That's a Y/N question. If you say Yes then you have a lot more racists to go after than Rogan who use it far more frequently. If you say no than you are a hypocrite for your Rogan stance and believe people should be treated differently *literally* for no other reason than their skin color. So which is it?

If you treat people differently because of their race you are a racist. I'm one of the few people on this board that does not.

---

You're both the dumbest and the most racist person on this board, as you have once again demonstrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Loki, do you think if black people who use that word that means they are racist? That's a Y/N question. If you say Yes then you have a lot more racists to go after than Rogan who use it far more frequently. If you say no than you are a hypocrite for your Rogan stance and believe people should be treated differently *literally* for no other reason than their skin color. So which is it?

If you treat people differently because of their race you are a racist. I'm one of the few people on this board that does not.

---

Do you have any siblings, Lewk? Have you ever called any of them an idiot out of the blue? Is it the same if a random person on the street does the same?

Do you think equating African Americans with apes is racist?

He wants to say it so badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you have any siblings, Lewk? Have you ever called any of them an idiot out of the blue? Is it the same if a random person on the street does the same?

Do you think equating African Americans with apes is racist?

---

Are you inferring that people with similar skin color are family and those that don't share the same skin color aren't? You see how this game is played? The bottom line is that if you share some special allegiance to people of the same color as you, that's racist. Treating people favorably or unfavorably based on their skin tone is racist. And you can play all the mental gymnastics you want but you know deep down inside you are a filthy racist who had repeatedly advocated for racist discrimination in academia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You're both the dumbest and the most racist person on this board, as you have once again demonstrated.

---

Do you treat people differently based on their skin color?

To paraphrase Lewk:
https://i.imgur.com/HgOs9y5.jpeg

Absolutely livid at the idea idea that he can't say slurs, Lewk starts this thread so he can angrily demand to know how it can be possible that words can take on different meanings depending on the situation. Convinced this is some kind of winning play, he just keeps repeating "but you treat people differently based on skin colour, that's a racism" while people try and find the form of words which will somehow penetrate the mental wall he built where he simply refuses to allow the notion of 'context' to enter his awareness. Classic TWF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Absolutely livid at the idea idea that he can't say slurs, Lewk starts this thread so he can angrily demand to know how it can be possible that words can take on different meanings depending on the situation. Convinced this is some kind of winning play, he just keeps repeating "but you treat people differently based on skin colour, that's a racism" while people try and find the form of words which will somehow penetrate the mental wall he built where he simply refuses to allow the notion of 'context' to enter his awareness. Classic TWF.

---

Not really paying attention much are you? I've never suggested that we should all be using the slurs, the carve out exception for some people to be able to use slurs is the racist part. Calling someone a derogatory racial epitaph isn't obviously a dick move. Your argument appears to be that racial slurs in the right context is ok, that's not my argument, that's your argument.

No, my argument is that a one used in one context is a racial slur, but the same word in another context isn't. Except it's not 'my argument' is just how language and communication generally work.

I have this clear memory of being in primary school ("elementary school" in US speak) and a teacher was giving an assembly on like World War 1, and talked about a very 'bloody battle' or something and a bunch of kids laughed because like oh-ho teacher said a bad word. I think even then I understood on some level that the word is only bad if used in a certain way. I must have been, like 10.

Dick would be easier for Lewk to understand.

Bloody works better because the (currently very mild) swear word and the descriptive adjective have exactly the same meaning. It only seems to turn into an expression of annoyance if the blood is not literal.

Also, that was something that actually happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

No, my argument is that a one used in one context is a racial slur, but the same word in another context isn't. Except it's not 'my argument' is just how language and communication generally work.

---

So the context is based on the skin color of who said it? And you don't think you are racist? Any other 'words-that-must-not-be-said' by the wrong skin toned folk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If you treat people differently because of their race you are a racist. I'm one of the few people on this board that does not.

---

https://c.tenor.com/AKLbToyCifQAAAAd...ray-liotta.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So the context is based on the skin color of who said it? And you don't think you are racist? Any other 'words-that-must-not-be-said' by the wrong skin toned folk?

---

I mean, yeah, if the word is about someone's skin colour then fucking obviously the skin colour of the person saying it changes the context of the word, as does the history of the word, and the concepts it was associated with.

You have a child's level of understanding of this stuff. It's honestly embarrassing.

The discussion of whether or not the n-word is racist in and of itself often gets mired in this sort of bullshit. One thing most people understand, though, is that the way in which a person uses or discusses the n-word can be a marker for their racism—ie. you can tell when it's a dumb fucking racist using the n-word, or obsessing about how they can't use the word, or trying to use a debate about the word in order to uphold a racist order. People can always tell. Racists don't understand this, because they are, frequently, just really fucking dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I mean, yeah, if the word is about someone's skin colour then fucking obviously the skin colour of the person saying it changes the context of the word, as does the history of the word, and the concepts it was associated with.

You have a child's level of understanding of this stuff. It's honestly embarrassing.

---

So let's break this down. The word isn't racist if used by someone with a certain skin shade? Can one black person use a racist term to describe other black people in a racist way or not? Or does their skin color make it impossible for them to be a racist? Should we go back and look at what the definition of racism is? You know, discrimination on the basis of race?

Out of curiosity in your weirdly color based world, is Kelly Curtis allowed to use the n slur or nah? Is it based on family heritage or is based on the literal skin tone. What about people with Albinism who have black parents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So the context is based on the skin color of who said it? And you don't think you are racist? Any other 'words-that-must-not-be-said' by the wrong skin toned folk?

---

It means it's based on context. If someone with a degradation kink likes his/her partner calling them words like bitch, whore, or fag in the bedroom, that doesn't mean it is always acceptable to call them such labels, that they must always like it, or that it doesn't indicate misogyny, homophobia, or other such issues in other contexts. You call out skin color. Has it occurred to you that most who accept the use of that particular word in certain contexts are accepting it based on personal familiarity with or prior respect for the user? That they would also be unhappy if, say, Condoleeza Rice referred to them by it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It means it's based on context. If someone with a degradation kink likes his/her partner calling them words like bitch, whore, or fag in the bedroom, that doesn't mean it is always acceptable to call them such labels, that they must always like it, or that it doesn't indicate misogyny, homophobia, or other such issues in other contexts. You call out skin color. Has it occurred to you that most who accept the use of that particular word in certain contexts are accepting it based on personal familiarity with or prior respect for the user? That they would also be unhappy if, say, Condoleeza Rice referred to them by it?

---

So what I'm hearing you say is that racist slurs aren't racist themselves unless they are used in a way the recipient of the word would view it as racist? So if Biden quotes someone using the-word-that-must-never-be-said that's acceptable? I assume you aren't that blatantly hypocritical to have one standard for one Joe and another standard for the other Joe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So what I'm hearing you say

---

You hear what you want to hear, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else has been telling you on the topic, that's been repeatedly made clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You hear what you want to hear, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else has been telling you on the topic, that's been repeatedly made clear.

---

How is that an incorrect rephrasing of your statement? You stated that if the recipient of a slur was ok with it (due to a kink or pet familiarity) it wouldn't be considered racist. Tbh I actually agree to a certain extent but I'm trying to pin your perspective down and make it as universally applicable as possible. Here's your shot to explain specifically when its acceptable to use the-word-that-must-never-be-said. So was Biden's use of the term appropriate in your eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

but I'm trying to pin your perspective down and make it as universally applicable as possible.

---

This right here is the fundamental disconnect, it's why you're hearing what you want to hear, and it's why you never get what "it depends on context" means. The fact that you want to play "gotcha" games, generate false outrage, to express your baseless internal certitude "that it's not fair" only exacerbates the issue.