Rogan and Spotify are yet to comment on why at least 70 of his episodes have been deleted, while he apologized for his use of the racial slur and comparing a visit to a Black neighborhood to being in the movie Planet of the Apes.
The real lesson there isn't that people were wrong for saying Joe was left-adjacent (i mean, that is a lesson just not the broader lesson that everyone needs to take). It was thinking that Bernie going on any media program whatsoever mattered at all to the outcome. Now that history has played out, it doesn't matter that he went on Rogan. It didn't matter that he went on Fox News. None of it helped and none of it hurt because we got the same outcome. It's not like he would have won if he went on fewer shows.
This is a lesson we need to take with us going forward and stop freaking out over media appearances all together. It's not what makes things happen.
I don't think that I agree that you can reduce everything to singular outcomes. This would be like saying the Paris commune didn't matter because it failed, it did inspire and provide lessons for future revolutions. Bernie failed but the left is much stronger for his efforts.
I'm not making a comment about Bernie's place in US labor history or what affect his two runs will have on the future. I'm making a comment specifically about how much we value media and media consumption. A lesson you learn from it is that going on Rogan didn't help him win the nomination and for the exact same reasons it didn't hurt him. Same with going on Fox News.
I definitely didn't say Bernie lost because he went on Rogan or why he lost at all. I didn't attribute his loss to a single outcome.
I'm still not sure if we can determine the effectiveness of the media appearances based on the outcome alone given the many other variables, though as a hunch I think you are correct.
That said it's clear that the mainstream liberal media has incredible power over the primaries. This power was not countered by appearing on conservative media or independent media. Is the lesson to not make such media appearances? These appearances if not decisive might still be worth it given the ratio of Bernie's time to the exposure (2 hours of podcast is possibly more effective than 2 hours of door knocking). Independent media is not be strong enough to counter mainstream media but isn't trying to build dual power in media the only counter we have even if it is not a decisive factor in the short term?
I don't think the lesson is to not make media appearances. The lesson is just to realize their importance in the grand scheme of things. It's not that they're totally useless or absolutely necessary, it depends on the moment. If we go back in time and ask me I would say maybe the appearances helped. But since then I just don't feel like they did much. In that moment they weren't important even though at the time it seemed like it was. At any present moment media seems like a big deal because that's how we interface with world events. But in retrospect you can probably tell whether or not it was important. It's like how, at the time, we thought Bernie should be more aggressive with Biden. But would that have really made the difference if you think of how they would have responded to it? Probably not. Bernie is mean to Biden. Media goes nuts over civility. Bernie loses anyways because they would have rallied around Biden all the same.
All the other arguments around media vs groundwork are irrelevant because they all mean the same thing. Bernie's door-to-door didn't win it for him either. The speeches selling out stadiums didn't do it. Absolutely none of it was enough to break through the real problem. You can't beat the system when the system is stacked against you. At least not without directly attacking the root cause. Media wasn't the deciding factor, it was the willingness of Democrats to throw out the rules when push comes to shove. They simply did good politics, even if they did it for the absolute most evil system in the world. It's good to be ruthless and willing to fight for a knife in the mud. Bernie's team should have expected it. It was also pretty easy for them since they have the system on their side. There was no attack on that system coupled with the Bernie campaign. This is where the derision for electoralism comes from.
A lesson is for us to not treat these appearances as something of great importance. Another lesson is that nothing will help unless you go after the real problem. That problem is we need a way to shut off the economy when we have demands. What importance will media appearances play in building that tool? I don't know it hasn't happened yet. They could be important. They may be completely unimportant. We'll have to see.
I thought the message was that Rogan had a lot of reach and Bernie should use that, since Rogan's a yes-man? Like, there was concern trolling calling Bernie racist by assoc. and the sub was rightfully like 'no that's dumb.'
I still believe material politics could move a lot of his audience past their culture war hangups and bring them left. Talking about left politics on his show probably won't compete very well with his circus, but I really think if a high minimum wage and a right to healthcare and housing was on the line, not too many people would keep their commitments to insane conspiracy bullshit.
some people did, but the consensus seemed to be a lot more reluctant and cautious. turns out the people not willing to blindly accept a bernie endorsement as a complete chud redemption arc had the correct take.
He's nonpolitical bro he has liberal guests on sometimes bro just take DMT bro :frothingfash:
deleted by creator
Well I never
deleted by creator
The real lesson there isn't that people were wrong for saying Joe was left-adjacent (i mean, that is a lesson just not the broader lesson that everyone needs to take). It was thinking that Bernie going on any media program whatsoever mattered at all to the outcome. Now that history has played out, it doesn't matter that he went on Rogan. It didn't matter that he went on Fox News. None of it helped and none of it hurt because we got the same outcome. It's not like he would have won if he went on fewer shows.
This is a lesson we need to take with us going forward and stop freaking out over media appearances all together. It's not what makes things happen.
It's as liberal as "exposure" as a form of payment for labor.
I don't think that I agree that you can reduce everything to singular outcomes. This would be like saying the Paris commune didn't matter because it failed, it did inspire and provide lessons for future revolutions. Bernie failed but the left is much stronger for his efforts.
I'm not making a comment about Bernie's place in US labor history or what affect his two runs will have on the future. I'm making a comment specifically about how much we value media and media consumption. A lesson you learn from it is that going on Rogan didn't help him win the nomination and for the exact same reasons it didn't hurt him. Same with going on Fox News.
I definitely didn't say Bernie lost because he went on Rogan or why he lost at all. I didn't attribute his loss to a single outcome.
I'm still not sure if we can determine the effectiveness of the media appearances based on the outcome alone given the many other variables, though as a hunch I think you are correct.
That said it's clear that the mainstream liberal media has incredible power over the primaries. This power was not countered by appearing on conservative media or independent media. Is the lesson to not make such media appearances? These appearances if not decisive might still be worth it given the ratio of Bernie's time to the exposure (2 hours of podcast is possibly more effective than 2 hours of door knocking). Independent media is not be strong enough to counter mainstream media but isn't trying to build dual power in media the only counter we have even if it is not a decisive factor in the short term?
I don't think the lesson is to not make media appearances. The lesson is just to realize their importance in the grand scheme of things. It's not that they're totally useless or absolutely necessary, it depends on the moment. If we go back in time and ask me I would say maybe the appearances helped. But since then I just don't feel like they did much. In that moment they weren't important even though at the time it seemed like it was. At any present moment media seems like a big deal because that's how we interface with world events. But in retrospect you can probably tell whether or not it was important. It's like how, at the time, we thought Bernie should be more aggressive with Biden. But would that have really made the difference if you think of how they would have responded to it? Probably not. Bernie is mean to Biden. Media goes nuts over civility. Bernie loses anyways because they would have rallied around Biden all the same.
All the other arguments around media vs groundwork are irrelevant because they all mean the same thing. Bernie's door-to-door didn't win it for him either. The speeches selling out stadiums didn't do it. Absolutely none of it was enough to break through the real problem. You can't beat the system when the system is stacked against you. At least not without directly attacking the root cause. Media wasn't the deciding factor, it was the willingness of Democrats to throw out the rules when push comes to shove. They simply did good politics, even if they did it for the absolute most evil system in the world. It's good to be ruthless and willing to fight for a knife in the mud. Bernie's team should have expected it. It was also pretty easy for them since they have the system on their side. There was no attack on that system coupled with the Bernie campaign. This is where the derision for electoralism comes from.
A lesson is for us to not treat these appearances as something of great importance. Another lesson is that nothing will help unless you go after the real problem. That problem is we need a way to shut off the economy when we have demands. What importance will media appearances play in building that tool? I don't know it hasn't happened yet. They could be important. They may be completely unimportant. We'll have to see.
:stalin-approval:
I thought the message was that Rogan had a lot of reach and Bernie should use that, since Rogan's a yes-man? Like, there was concern trolling calling Bernie racist by assoc. and the sub was rightfully like 'no that's dumb.'
deleted by creator
I still believe material politics could move a lot of his audience past their culture war hangups and bring them left. Talking about left politics on his show probably won't compete very well with his circus, but I really think if a high minimum wage and a right to healthcare and housing was on the line, not too many people would keep their commitments to insane conspiracy bullshit.
I was like “Joe rogan called women who don’t want kids worse than dogs” and everyone shrugged
some people did, but the consensus seemed to be a lot more reluctant and cautious. turns out the people not willing to blindly accept a bernie endorsement as a complete chud redemption arc had the correct take.
I didn't say that, but then again it was almost impossible to say anything bad about the sweaty cryptochud without angering the flock.
Goofus takeaway