The Ultimate Goal of Deplatforming | Joe Rogan and Michael Malice

The deplatforming thing is fascinating because the way this stuff works, folks, is when people get deplatformed, the first people that'll get deplatformed are people that you agree with getting deplatformed. People like, you know, like a real Nazi, like someone who's an avowed white supremacy. Like, yeah, deplatform that guy. And then it's a little slippery because then it's like this guy is a suspected Nazi or this guy is friends with a Nazi or this guy had a Nazi on his show or this guy had a white supremacist on his show. This guy had a guy who thinks it's okay to be white on his show. And then it gets more, as it gets more and more progressive, it gets more and more preposterous, but it really is grades. Once you accept one grade, then you drop below in a little bit more preposterous and then that's acceptable and then a little bit more and then that becomes acceptable. And it's a double standard between people who are orthodox and people who are unorthodox. Barbara Walters sat down with Castro. She sat down with Gaddafi, who's killed how many people? That's fine. You could sit down with the murderous dictator if you're Gaddafi. If you sit down with someone on a podcast with someone who has all point views, that is somehow different. What's a new thing? Right. It's a platforming and deplatforming and you putting this guy on your platform. Like all this, this kind of communication is very new. Like this didn't exist. No one was saying that to Mike Wallace. No one was saying that as you're saying to Barbara Walters. That was my argument to the data and society lady. Oh Jesus. I said Barbara Walters interviewed Fidel Castro. Does that make her a communist? Right. I interviewed Milo. Am I a gay conservative provocateur now? Are you? I don't think so. Need to go to a doctor. Well, I mean, what they're trying to do is, thanks to social media, they no longer have a monopoly. And I don't mean they, I just mean like orthodox thought. You mean left wing or right wing. Orthodox thought no longer has a monopoly on the microphone. And that's very dangerous if you want to basically set the boundaries of what acceptable discourse is. Same thing with it. Forget politics. Talk about music. Right. If you want to say these are the kind, you shouldn't have lyrics like this. People shouldn't dance like this. They shouldn't, you know, dress a certain way. This is what they would like. I mean, back in the nineties, you remember they'd had the warning labels on CDs and says this has explicit lyrics. And that way Walmart could with clean hands say we're not being involved politics. We're following their rules. So that's what this data society lady is trying to do. It's like, okay, I'm giving you target whatever company and excuse. These are the people you don't need to deal with. And then they could say, well, it's not up to us. We're looking at this from an external point of view. Well, and also my perspective on it is that there's certain subjects that I think that we can all agree we need to cover and we need to deal with in terms of laws and in terms of the way the government is run. But a lot of these disagreements aren't on that. A lot of these disagreements seem to be just on political ideologies and like liberal versus conservative ideologies. And people think differently. They have different styles of behavior and thinking. This is why like, if you had a station that played hip hop and all of a sudden you just got a bunch of Aerosmith songs playing, like what the fuck is this? This is not what I want. Get this off the station. Except for walk this way. That's a good, well, the one with run DMC. Yeah, that's the one exception. That was one exception. But that's sort of how a lot of people seem to be approaching conservative versus progressive thinking. Because it's like once you have this mindset, you don't want to hear other opinions as if they're going to influence you or you don't like the way they sound, you don't like what they're doing, and you want to get them off the channel. And this is what it seems like is happening with social media platforms. Right. Because these social media platforms are like, we're a country station. We don't play heavy metal. Get that shit off our network. We are a progressive network. We don't play conservative. Get that stuff off. Well, if they had said that we're a progressive network, we would play conservative, that would be honest and fair. But the claim is, no, we're banning people who are doing X, Y, and Z. Yeah. And for people that are like, oh my God, they're talking about this again. Fuckers, listen, this is really important shit. This is going to decide how we, this didn't exist before. And now it does. We have this unbelievable ability to communicate, and I'm enjoying it right now, talking to you, right? We're all enjoying it if you're tweeting about this or writing comments about this. But if this really branches off until one side gets to do it and one side doesn't, we're going to have a fucking tremendous problem in this country. If you think that this problem that we have right now, when it's just starting to be an issue over the last couple of years, if you think that this is what, this could escalate. Yes. It's a serious conflict, which I mean, almost like it's absolutely reasonable to think that violence could come out of this. Well, the Trump presidency was the escalation. Before Trump, it was, okay, fake news was this left idea that like, you know, these news sites are putting out lies. If your point of view is different to mine, it's not just wrong, it's illegitimate. And a lot of people in that voting booth and said, you want illegitimacy? Okay, I'm voting for Donald Trump for president. And now he's in the White House. So for you to say that, for people to say that these ideas, you know, are evil and shouldn't be discussed, those are separate concepts. Because even if you think they're evil, if from your point of view it's in the White House, are you going to pretend this isn't the most powerful man in the world? There's a big contradiction there. But one of the things progressivism offers many people is this idea of truth and certainty, knowing you're one of the good guys and knowing you're in the majority. And when you find that that is not always true, I think that causes some cognitive stress. Yeah, no, I would absolutely agree with that. I just think there's a real problem that's happening now with some of the accounts that I'm seeing getting banned. Without reason? Without reason for things that are like parody accounts. Carpe d'Anctum, sorry to interrupt you. He's the one who made this great meme during the State of the Union, where he had President Trump and all the footage from the State of the Union of the Democrats looking pissed and he put it over the song, Everybody Hurts. Right, this two minute video. It's a joke. It's funny. You could see it on Star and Live. You could be Republican or Democrat to laugh at sour pusses. They got a copyright strike because it's like you don't have the right to use the music. Trump had retweeted it. He put out another one. He just got suspended for a week. He did the video for my book. So they don't, here's the thing. If someone is a name, you can say, hey, delete this tweet. It violates our guidelines, right? You give them warnings. You could call their manager. They don't do that. You're just vanished overnight. And there's something very Soviet about this. Because when they vanish you, your entire archives get vanished too. And it's like, wait a minute, this person is bad and dangerous. Don't you want to show other people as an example of what to avoid? Like this will get you banned so you can modify your behavior accordingly. But what they want, apparently, it looks like what they want, is for everyone to be self-centering and to be afraid. And that way, it's like, instead of saying we're censorious, it's like you made that decision on your own.