• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

There's a... pretty long laundry list of crazy racist shit Charlie Kirk has spread and conspiracies he's peddled.

You're not trying to reach Republicans by engaging him and Bannon, you're going straight to the extreme right.
 
axlsalinger said:
and here comes worm to virtue signal once again. Okay you guys are right, it's a crime against humanity to (checks notes) talk to Charlie Kirk. Anyone who does so should be thrown out of the Democratic Party and never heard from again.
Click to expand...

Small point of order: Can we stop pretending that platforming someone is the same as "talking" to them?

Yeah, if Gavin Newsom ran into Charlie "women shouldn't go to college, because they should be having babies" Kirk in the line at Starbucks and they had a cordial chat for 5 minutes while waiting for their lattes...cool.

But having him on your podcast absolutely normalizes him and his message when you're the sitting governor of fucking California.

Did we just not watch this movie for the last ~8 years and the plot twist at the end is that the authoritarians win?
 
axlsalinger said:
I guess what I'm saying is, gives away what game? He's trying to launch a podcast, perhaps by starting out with some provocative guests. It's free to say you don't agree with that strategy. I just don't see it as some kind of betrayal.

Newsom is highly skilled at spitting out numbers and facts in a charismatic way, by not being antagonistic to these folks maybe he thinks he can convert some of their fans. And we could use a few of them, quite frankly. There are millions of people walking about believing in fairy tales. They can see the Trump shitshow in real time, but there's a certain cognitive dissonance at play. Telling them that they're idiots does not work. You have to first get their attention, and then explain to them exactly how the facts are on our side.
Click to expand...
Completely agreed. But he picked the Brothers Grimm to platform and peddle more fairytales.

They were both involved in organizing a coup attempt.
 
imo, if Newsom wants to have an actual impact, how about he platforms experts on the issues that important to people? These culture warriors get orders of magnitude more time in front of audiences than we need while actual economists, ecologists, climate scientists, historians and random specialists on authoritarianism, etc, etc all have to pump their own substack tires to get anyone to hear important information. Paul Krugman will talk to anyone who will listen to him, bring him on your fucking podcast Gav. Find good, smart, interesting people who can function in that format and have them on. We don't need to talk to The Booze, we already know he's a nazi.
 
MindzEye said:
Small point of order: Can we stop pretending that platforming someone is the same as "talking" to them?

Yeah, if Gavin Newsom ran into Charlie "women shouldn't go to college, because they should be having babies" Kirk in the line at Starbucks and they had a cordial chat for 5 minutes while waiting for their lattes...cool.

But having him on your podcast absolutely normalizes him and his message when you're the sitting governor of fucking California.

Did we just not watch this movie for the last ~8 years and the plot twist at the end is that the authoritarians win?
Click to expand...
but you know what else is authoritarian? saying you should be excommunicated from the left just because you interviewed Charlie Kirk on a fucking podcast. If you're not allowed to interview anyone on the right who ever said something reprehensible, there'd be nobody left.
 
If Gavin had Charlie on and debunked his dumbass shit, I see no issues with him exposing that grifter. Instead, he licked his cock, agreed with some of Charlie's batshit opinions, and when they did debate he got rinsed despite being objectively right.

It was bad. I know he's trying to fight back on the rights podcast dominance but that was just a poor showing.
 
axlsalinger said:
but you know what else is authoritarian? saying you should be excommunicated from the left just because you interviewed Charlie Kirk on a fucking podcast. If you're not allowed to interview anyone on the right who ever said something reprehensible, there'd be nobody left.
Click to expand...

1668105706-189-5980-lucy-holding-football-original.jpg


Is it "excommunication" to determine by analyzing his own words and actions that he's being an unserious person and hurting society?
 
MindzEye said:
imo, if Newsom wants to have an actual impact, how about he platforms experts on the issues that important to people? These culture warriors get orders of magnitude more time in front of audiences than we need while actual economists, ecologists, climate scientists, historians and random specialists on authoritarianism, etc, etc all have to pump their own substack tires to get anyone to hear important information. Paul Krugman will talk to anyone who will listen to him, bring him on your fucking podcast Gav. Find good, smart, interesting people who can function in that format and have them on. We don't need to talk to The Booze, we already know he's a nazi.
Click to expand...
it would certainly be a huge disappointment if he didn't interview people like Krugman, for sure.
 
Preston said:
If Gavin had Charlie on and debunked his dumbass shit, I see no issues with him exposing that grifter. Instead, he licked his cock, agreed with some of Charlie's batshit opinions, and when they did debate he got rinsed despite being objectively right.

It was bad. I know he's trying to fight back on the rights podcast dominance but that was just a poor showing.
Click to expand...

It's a bad idea. It's no different than Sam Seder debating 20 young nazi muppets. It's a bad communications strategy for a bag of reasons:

- You have to win...every...fucking engagement
- You need a high functioning level of knowledge on every topic that they bring up, no matter how stupid it is
- You have to be able to fact check everything they say, in real time, and a lot of their knowledge base is a mixture of propaganda, half truth, and straight lies

I don't want to hear Gavin Newsom debate tariffs with a drunk in a format that requires Newsom to be an avatar for the left. I want Stieglitz, Piketty, Krugman, etc to dumb fuck the drunk on tariffs, wealth inequality, etc with Newsom acting an impartial referee if we must have this format. I want a climate scientist fist fucking Ben Shapiro about climate change, etc. Except we know these right wing goofballs won't sign up for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top