Name: Joe Rogan Experience #1599 - Tulsi Gabbard
Uploaded: 2021-01-21T00:00:00.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1599 - Tulsi Gabbard' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2021-01-21. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1599 - Tulsi Gabbard' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2021-01-21. Transcript available.

Joe Rogan Experience #1599 - Tulsi Gabbard

Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out.
The Joe Rogan Experience.
Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day.
Hey, what's up, folks?
Good to see you, my friend.
Good to see you, too.
You got notes.
Look at you.
You're prepared.
Yeah, you know.
What are you, a congresswoman or something?
Something like that.
I was.
I was.
Does it feel weird to be a former congresswoman?
I don't know.
It's a crazy time, and I'm back in Hawaii.
I'm getting a lot of surf in and yoga, meditation, and yeah.
Does it feel better?
Yeah.
Yeah, you know, I'm so grateful to the people of Hawaii that I had the
privilege of being
able to serve them and represent them.
It's getting crazier and crazier to see the divisiveness in the country and the
divisiveness in Congress, and unfortunately, it's just getting worse.
I mean, it seems to be getting progressively worse over the time that I've been
there, but
especially now.
The thing that really concerns me is that I don't see a way it turns around.
Like, I don't see a method.
I don't see a mechanism where this ship just goes, and turns back into the port
of Normalville.
It seems like once the division becomes so strong and so polarizing, the other
side wants to destroy
the other side.
And the two are locked in mortal combat.
And there's no recognition that we're all part of one gigantic continental
community called the United States.
I mean, that's what it's supposed to be.
We're supposed to be a part of this.
We're a country.
We're supposed to be a part of a community.
The United States of America.
We're literally in a, I want to say completely nonviolent, but semi-nonviolent
civil war.
Yeah.
I mean, that's what it seems like.
It's, I mean, it's not rocket science on how and why we got here.
When you look at politicians, people in both parties capitalizing off of this
divisiveness
for fundraising for themselves, their campaigns, their political parties, stoking
these divisions
so that they can win elections and so on.
And then you have so much of the mainstream media doing the exact same thing.
Big tech and social media doing the exact same thing, stoking these divisions,
fueling that
fire because they figured out it gives them better ratings.
They get more eyeballs watching.
And same thing on social media.
They start pushing so much of this divisive rhetoric towards people that stokes
more of
these flame and gets more clicks and more attention and more views, which goes
to kind of the heart
of, okay, so how do we start to turn this ship?
I mean, it comes down to, it comes down to leadership.
It comes down to who we as voters choose through our elections to lead us in
this country.
People not motivated by, you know, their hunger for power and also making
decisions about, you know,
hey, where are we getting our information?
How are we responding to kind of this divisive rhetoric and this hate?
Yeah, I, when I, I'm in the middle of Matt Taibbi's book, Hate Ink, which is
excellent.
I haven't read it yet.
It's very good.
Although I sent him a message today.
I'm like, why don't you read your own books?
Because I'm listening to the audio book.
And it's some other dude.
Those are always best when the author reads their own book, right?
That's what I think, especially when it's someone who's distinct as Matt.
Like, his voice is very, I want to hear him read it, but it's probably annoying
to do.
But also, I think a lot of the publishers don't want the authors to read it.
They want to hire a professional to do it.
Really?
Yeah, I've had friends that have written books that have encountered that.
But anyway, the book is excellent.
And it sort of highlights how all these factors sort of coalesced together and
created this tsunami of shit that we're living in right now.
And it's really confusing because you could sit around with total peace of mind
and try to imagine a way that this resolves itself.
And I don't see it other than, like you said, some spectacular leader.
Like someone who, but even that, if you find someone, the other side will find
some way to demonize them or distort their positions or take anything they've
said out of context and paint them as the worst person that's ever lived.
We live in this world of no nuance.
We live in this world of clickbait and the social media algorithms that really
fuel hate in the most spectacular way I think that our civilization has ever
seen.
I don't think we've ever seen like a force like social media, like the
algorithms that people are locked into with Facebook and with all these other
platforms that literally send all the things that piss you off your way.
Because those are the things that we engage with more.
Yeah, I agree.
There's not been a phenomenon like social media that our country, or the world
for that matter, has dealt with before.
It's going to take more than just one phenomenal leader to unify the country
and to start to deescalate the kinds of divisive tensions that we're seeing.
It's going to take a whole host of leaders at every level that we as voters
choose to serve the people and to serve the best interests of the country and
who will then take the kinds of legislative action necessary to start to rein
in this almost unlimited power that these big tech monopolies have to
manipulate the information that people are seeing.
The kinds of posts that people are, you know, people are exposed to, again,
without consideration for what the consequence is, but instead saying, hey,
this will get the most clicks.
This is how we can sell this information to get more ads and make money and so
on.
And that's where I've seen as much as politicians today may complain about the
censorship that they're seeing through big tech and the kinds of power that
they have.
and this is on both sides of the aisle, how come they're not actually doing
anything about it?
They've held some hearings and they've done some things.
But when you look at the legislative changes that that can and should be made
to this Section 230 provision that essentially gives big tech legal immunity to
do kind of whatever they want.
What why aren't they doing something about this is where you have leaders who
take money from all these big tech monopolies and, you know, raise money from
them and all their friends for their campaigns and whatever they're they're
almost beholden to them.
And therefore, I don't expect that we'll see any action on on meaningful
reforms to address this unless we get new people in office or we say, you know,
hey, you can't you can't take money from these PACs.
We've talked about this before, about the corrosive and corruptive influence
that it has on leaders who are supposed to be serving the people.
Yeah, rather than Google or Facebook.
Yeah, and Google at this point and Facebook have so much money.
Yeah, to be on their bad side, to have them support a candidate that's contrary
to your position, like if you're in a position of censorship and there's
another candidate that's like, listen, we don't have to censor.
Oh, help me out. Like, I'll let you guys do. I think you're good people. You're
just trying to do your best work. And it's a crazy world. Like, there's no need.
Yeah, there's no, no, no, no, no need for Congress to legislate. The Senate
doesn't have to come down on you. The president should never say, you're a
private company.
And this is the argument. And I see I legitimately see both sides of it.
Because when this parlor ban thing came out, I was very concerned.
But I was also concerned that parlor was allowing these people that were on
there that were organizing violence. So if there's no moderation at all, and
they're on and they're saying, hey, we're bringing pipe bombs, I don't know
what they were saying. But if they were saying something along those lines, we're
going to attack the Capitol, we're going to zip tie and kill every politician
we have. Like, aren't you should probably do something about that.
Yes.
So where's the line get drawn as to what you censor and what you don't, what
you report and what you don't. And the argument that Tim Cook laid out was that
the things that were on parlor, the reason why they pulled it from the app
store, is that they need some moderation. That's what he was saying. And he was
saying, once they have that moderation, they'll be allowed back on the app
store, which seems fairly reasonable.
The problem is it's kind of a slippery slope. Like, okay, you take that out
threats of violence, you know, plans of attacks on federal buildings. But then
where does where does that line get drawn? Like, when when do you allow free
speech to just rain? Is it can you dock someone? Because, you know, can you
like, they don't, they don't censor anything at parlor, right?
So I don't know the full extent of their rules. But I've listened to some of
the interviews that the founder has done and the CEO has done over the last
couple weeks, because I shared the exact same concern that de-platforming an
app like parlor could very easily happen to any other entity that is trying to
provide an alternative to the big, you know, the Facebooks and the Twitters and
the YouTubes and so on.
And what they have said is that they have, they had some jury system set up
where they have like 100 people who sit on a virtual jury, where if a post is
reported, this jury looks at it and makes that decision, is this protected
speech under the First Amendment or not?
And so what the founder of parlor said was basically that if there were posts
that were inciting imminent violence, they weren't up for longer than 24 hours
and it was because they just got backlogged.
Like there was more than they could handle in in moderating it. This is what he
said. I haven't, you know, verified all this or looked into it myself.
But that's the argument they're making. But the bigger argument is whether it's
parlor or this is happening on Facebook or Twitter or any other social platform
is the line is drawn on speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
And as we're talking with this example, that is speech that is in inciting
imminent violence.
That's that's that's the precedence that's been set with the First Amendment
and ruled by the Supreme Court as speech that is not protected under the First
Amendment.
And there are a few other a few other a few other examples on that.
And I think that's that's exactly what should happen, because under the law
right now, this Section 230 that gives these online companies legal immunity,
the language specifically says that they have the power to remove, quote,
objection, otherwise objectionable content.
What does that mean?
Exactly. It can mean anything to anybody, whether it is protected under the
First Amendment or not.
And it's shocking. I don't know how that phrase was allowed to be passed into
law, but it's there.
So those two things are the things that can be changed very easily by law, amending
that Section 230.
Take away that provision that says that they can censor objectionable content
and take away things are objectionable.
But, you know, something objectionable to you may not be objectionable to me
and vice versa.
That's the issue. And then change that line that that basically says if it is
speech that is protected under the First Amendment, you don't touch it.
If it's if it's outside of the First Amendment, like the example that we're
talking about, then you have the power to delete those posts.
And and there's, you know, decades of Supreme Court precedents that can be
pointed to as the guideway for these tech companies to make those decisions of,
OK, is this something that is a violation of the First Amendment or is not
protected by the First Amendment or not?
That is those are the reforms that I believe need to be made.
Yeah, that is only reasonable.
The idea that otherwise objectionable or something that's objectionable, that
is so open and exactly.
It's so bananas.
And that's why we're seeing what we're seeing with with big tech.
Another big fear of something like shut