Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)HO
Posts
0
Comments
425
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • You might wanna watch his videos to get a feel for him. He's a bit chaotic, very controversial in the way he conducts himself, but there is a bottom line. And usually when he goes after people, there's at least a few pieces of evidence of actual criminal conduct.

    Point being, he's getting a lot more hate than other commentary channels for how he does things, but there's a good argument for the value of his commentary, evident by what happened in his fight against the gambling industry for ignoring extensive money laundering using their machines in their casinos.

  • This sets a dangerous precedent that journalistic pieces could be deemed reputable harm and therefore in any case illegal. Just imagine someone wrote an article about Hitler in his youth calling him out for racist behaviour and they would get a verdict against the journalist, notwithstanding the fact that there's merit in the criticism.

    Of course there is a difference when it comes to unwarranted slander without any evidentiary basis. That's something more akin to Depp v Heard.

    I don't like this at all.

  • Maybe this is my chance to bring a nuanced answer to this.

    First of all, these are all speculations, because you can never diminish a person down to what content they consume.

    That said, let's have a look at Joe Rogan: he is a podcaster who started out with a solid baseline viewership and with a positive perception. His views were very moderate. Because of a lot of circumstances he became very popular fairly quickly (one of them is probably that people found his laugh funny). He then changed his topics a bit, got more prestigious guests on the show and also changed his views from what he let shine through in the podcast. He got very much more libertarian / conservative and his topics got a bit more bizarre sometimes. Nowadays a lot of people don't identify with him anymore and he has had some very controversial situations and takes.

    So if someone watches such a person there's different reasons: maybe they do it for entertainment and don't take it seriously, maybe they take it very seriously and agree with him a lot. Either way, It's like watching trash TV: it's not inherently wrong, but it looks kind of weird to support it, if even just by watching.

    Ok this is my little summary. Hope it helps. Also everything else old correct me if I got things wrong.

  • Kind of. Iirc it's a very controversial practice and whenever the police pulls it out in a public case it gets protested again (for good reason). Also, even if the practice is legal right now, there's a lot of limitations to it. Obviously it's nudging the ethical boundaries of police work either way.

  • Yes that was it. Chinas comments have been over the top for a bunch of issues in the past, there's no reason to just presume their stance has merit.

    Especially since they are starting fires again rn regarding Taiwan and Japan in different context.