What an insane decision. Deciding you won't host adult content on your platform is one thing. Saying "well you can't talk about COVID here" is something else entirely.
The US wields a huge amount of influence generally in the world, and specifically in the Hague. Behavior that would get other leaders called to task is generally ignored if it's done by the US.
It's not fair, but it is the way that the world works.
Yeah he does confront his guests (though not any of the alt-right or qanon ones). It's pretty clear he has an agenda, despite everyone claiming he's just some kind of enlightened centrist.
I don't know what the connotations of him are in East Asia. I think the question might be geographically biased against a good answer from most English speakers.
We can tell you what he means over here (and many people are in these replies), but that might be very different from his meaning over there, so keep that in mind.
"Censorship?" Does everyone deserve to get on his talk show? Are those that aren't "censored?"
No. He has to draw the line somewhere, and he has. Where he's drawn it -- who he invites to speak to his enormous audience -- is very instructive indeed.
By looking at all the alt-right, conservative, and qanon guests he invites on his show, we can tell who Joe Rogan is: a useful idiot for the alt-right, if not an enthusiastic enabler of them. And he is as bad at interviewing guests as he is at selecting them. He lobs dangerous, loaded questions at the worst people in the world, fails to challenge even the most basic errors they make with their answers, and idiots lap it up because they want to imagine they're smart.
If he was alive a hundred years ago, he'd have been enthusiastically debating the Jewish question and "free speech" people around the globe would be nodding sagely and being happy someone is finally willing to stand up against "censorship" and "international Jewry." Because he's alive now, he's just doing that about vaccines, racism, trans people, police violence... basically anything where it's possible to have a bad take, he's interviewing someone about it.
It’s sad that you’re so committed to this you’re willing to literally believe anything but the truth. You have literally no reason to doubt any of these accounts but you’ve elected to do so anyway; I don’t know why anyone would want to simp for a murderous madman and his genocidal regime and their war of territorial aggression. Like you haven’t even linked any sources that disagree with me, you’re simply asserting the sources are wrong and that the generals mean exactly the opposite of what they’re saying.
Why? What have they ever done to you to earn your trust? Why do you believe that literally every source reporting these things is wrong, when you have no proof?
I hope you recover from whatever has led you to apologize for the most brutal regimes and worst people on the planet. But that journey will occur without me because I’m not interested in trying to help you realize the truth any more.
The quote says literally exactly what the article is saying: that Ukraine is a stepping stone to the rest of Europe (Poland probably being next).
Russia has been reversing victim and offender for this entire war. It is clear the general means this in exactly the sense that Ukraine deserved being invaded in a war of territorial aggression and its people deported. Their ambition does not stop in Ukraine, but they will blame the innocent countries of Eastern Europe for forcing Russia to invade them.
It’s literally Hitler’s playbook, just done by Putin.
I actually definitely believe the US was looking to do some light ethnic cleansing in Iraq. But even so, there’s many documented instances of Russia doing it; so no need to compare them to the US. Their war aim seems to include some amount of ethnic cleansing.
Look up the articles I linked you. Children are being shipped to ghettos; adults are being moved to death camps. While not as endemic as Nazi Germany it is still clear what Russia is trying to do. That the machinery is not as advanced as the actual Holocaust doesn’t mean it isn’t a genocide.
It doesn’t matter if their belief is sincere or how real their anxiety is. There is no justification for a war of territorial aggression on territory a dictator has clearly coveted in the past and the genocide of its native population. Literally this is the same level as excusing Hitler’s aggression against Poland. It doesn’t matter how encircled a country feels; it does not justify a war of territorial aggression and the murder of the country’s native inhabitants.
If their goal is not to murder Ukrainians and take their territory, why is that exactly what they’re doing and what they’re claiming? Literally today a Russian general said Ukraine is simply the first stop to an invasion of Europe. How much more proof do you need that this has nothing to do with NATO or the west, and is only Putin’s mad ambitions for expanding the Russian empire?
In what sense does any amount of anxiety justify a war of territorial aggression and the committing of war crimes against a population and the deportation of its children?
If Russia was worried about NATO there are many better ways to handle that than creating a bunch of corpses. Or trying to take Ukraine’s territory, which again they have already demonstrated their desire for after doing it in Crimea.
I have actual sources of the war crimes they’ve committed. Where is the proof they’re not committing the well-documented war crimes against the civilian population that you assert? That it’s simply temporary?
Because it is actually an extermination campaign. Putin wants the land and he doesn’t want the people on it. His actions to this point make that quite clear.
So are you arguing his relationship with BRICS is actually good despite them probably arresting them if he shows up? What would make a bad relationship in your eyes?
That is probably exactly what it is. Disappointing regardless.