RedDave2 wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Yeah I'm no fan but I strongly suspect he was speaking in some kind of qualifying context, however clumsy. Spotty'll be covering their arse here, clumsily.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/feb/05/joe-rogan-apologises-for-using-n-word-and-racist-planet-of-the-apes-story

Certainly seems to be his angle.

I've listened to a good few rogan episodes over the year. He is alpha male through and through but racist and homophobic seems a reach.

Have you seen the clip where he describes a black neighborhood as 'the planet of the apes, like walking into Africa". That shows what his attitude really is, no matter how much he back peddled or apologies afterwards, those words were what he thought appropriate when describing a black neighborhood. He's a piece of shit.

He describes the community as the planet of the apes. He is also very surprised that he had a positive experience there, which inferes that for whatever reason he didn't think he would have in a black neighborhood. Why is that?

That he felt it appropriate or acceptable to use those terms to describe black people, and the fact that he assumed that going to the cinema in a predominantly black neighborhood would be a negative experience speaks volumes about his actual attitude. And why didn't his co-hosts/guests immediately pull him up on it? It's telling.

The fact he even thinks it's a story worth telling (I went to the cinema in a black neighborhood and survived, this is my story) rings alarm bells.

RedDave2 wrote:

https://youtu.be/nNwxyxdKXh4

There's the clip, worth going to about 3.20 where he makes the point that sitting in a theatre full of black people having to watch trailers for movies with only white people, no wonder they feel disenfranchised.

He fucks up at the start (and he calls himself on it) but hard to say his overall observation is that of a racist.

They removed 70 eps. Now, whether he's dropping n bombs in all of them, I'm not sure, but it seems he's a repeat offender. I also don't get the inevitable responses like this. (have to single you out RD because I've quoted you, but honestly, I promise I'm commenting on the bigger trend rather than trying to aim at you specifically)

Why do folks feel the need to actively go hunting for caveats, context, and generally bend over backwards to find a way give benefit of the doubt? The pearl clutching over someone being called racist is freakin weird.

Anyhoo.

Fuck rogan.

I don’t care either way about Rogan TBH, but i gotta figure that in however many thousand podcasts, each several hours long (?), he’s gonna have come out with a lot of howlers, especially given his need to interview “interesting”/controversial folk to get content that gets listeners, and his skewing towards the “ooh I wanna be an edgy edge-lord that says the thing!”

Ok...

I still fail to understand why you even feel the need to listen to it in depth to try and decide if the context is important.

Dude is a millionaire how many times over and as has been repeated many times (by me, let's be honest, as well as others) he's got a track record of letting charlatans, bigots and conspiracy theorists on his show.

Do I need to listen to Alex Jones on rogan for 3 hours to make sure that I have all the context for saying he's offensively wrong that Sandy hook didn't happen and that all his brain pills are garbage? Really?

Do I need to check for context if Gavin macguiness, founder of the proud boys, goes on rogan and talks about Muslims breading like roaches to check if maybe he's alright and just misunderstood?

See the covid thread for an excellent thread on his interview technique and lack of facts when it comes to covid conspiracy.

Fuck the guy. (my ire aims to be proportionate to his reach and influence.)

Anyhoo.

Mmmm, breaded roaches.

That one hit me hard too.  Had been following it (admittedly from a distance) in the hope we'd get another Chilian miner story.  Gutting.

Yeah I’ve been struggling with that too. Really awful.

GooberTheHat wrote:

I've stayed away from that because I can imagine, and I don't want to.

Same.

Links?

The version I saw (scan/photo from the paper) actually dragged her in the article itself which is quite impressive. Something like “… of course, it would take 37 years of foregoing Netflix, lattes and avocado toast to afford the average deposit …”

I really wished I had an avocado on toast.

Found the whole thing again, for laughs.

She was doing an interview with her bald pal in the Home magazine section of the same newspaper.

The problem isn't really her maths it is the usual sweeping assumptions about how people spend their money and their lifestyles.

I crunched the numbers. A couple with a £25 per month (each) gym membership and buying a £3.50 (about the price of a medium coffee in Costa) coffee 5 days a week could save £10k in 5 years. (actually closer to £12k, £3k Gym, near £8k coffee)
Enough for a 5% mortgage on a £200k property.

The assumptions are huge though. 
Are they a couple? Are both working? Can they buy a £200k property in the area they both work?
And most obviously, are they actually buying a £3.50 coffee every work day?

Then comes affordability checks. Unfortunately these are often based to some degree on average spending and not just your own. You can live like a monk and still get rejected or be offered much lower than you can afford, almost certainly lower than what you already pay in rent.