Zuckerberg on Rogan.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:36 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:47 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Oct 2025, 19:47
@George-K said in Zuckerberg on Rogan.:
I was assured that this didn't happen.
By whom? I hope you didn’t believe them.
-
@George-K said in Zuckerberg on Rogan.:
I was assured that this didn't happen.
By whom? I hope you didn’t believe them.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:49 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Zuckerberg on Rogan.:
@George-K said in Zuckerberg on Rogan.:
I was assured that this didn't happen.
By whom? I hope you didn’t believe them.
Probably by somebody who implied it, at some point, by dunking on Schellenberger or Taibi. Probably.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:53 last edited by
It seems like one could hold two thoughts in his head at the same time: Taibbi is and has always been a tool, and that public health authorities proved early on in the pandemic they were willing to lie to us ‘for our own good’.
I think those two things are pretty orthogonal. To suggest otherwise would be really bizarre.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:54 last edited by
But at any rate if you’re right Horace I look forward to George’s link.
-
It seems like one could hold two thoughts in his head at the same time: Taibbi is and has always been a tool, and that public health authorities proved early on in the pandemic they were willing to lie to us ‘for our own good’.
I think those two things are pretty orthogonal. To suggest otherwise would be really bizarre.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:56 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Zuckerberg on Rogan.:
It seems like one could hold two thoughts in his head at the same time: Taibbi is and has always been a tool, and that public health authorities proved early on in the pandemic they were willing to lie to us ‘for our own good’.
I think those two things are pretty orthogonal. To suggest otherwise would be really bizarre.
I think I probably can hold two thoughts in my head at the same time. Maybe I'm doing the suggesting, while you're the innocent bystander. The guy who's bragged on this board that he's got his ten thousand hours in with convincing people of stuff, is the innocent bystander. The guy who's admitted he has few social skills, is the manipulator. Let's see how that plays.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 20:07 last edited by
Doesn't sound like Zuck felt it was "anodyne."
-
Doesn't sound like Zuck felt it was "anodyne."
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 21:13 last edited by -
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 21:29 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Oct 2025, 21:30
That comment was in response to something very specific and election related. Did you think I was talking about every utterance every government official ever made or ever will make?
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 22:29 last edited by
My response, and I can't find it at the moment other than what I linked, is that you, on several occasions, pointed out that President Trump's administration leaned on social media as well. That "tool", Taibbi, pointed it out in the twitter files.
Regardless, you claim that the FBI's pressure was mild, and implied that the rest of the interactions between the administration and social media were equally benign.
Today, Zuck said that the grifter's administration yelled and swore at his employees. Your post said, "the arbiter was Facebook."
Comfortable saying "no"?
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/22211/rogan-and-taibbi/7?_=1736547880840
"Nice business you have there, it would be.....
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2025, 18:48 last edited by