Common Sense 316 - The Day of the Dove

[Ex-California]

if you want to talk about some altright terms how bout "western society"

lol nigga what?

Yeah I was like "what?" on that one even though I'm way more of a Dan apologist than you guys are.

The idea of the country divided roughly around the NCAA Football divisions is exactly what Speaker To Animals has been saying for years

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

[Hwen Hoshino]

Pretty sure you're not talking to me. I was terrified by it, because I was told that there were Russian soldiers at the base. Turns out it was just some kabuki theater though, so w/e.

Fairly certain you tacitly endorsed intervention because some civies got gassed but w/e. I didn't see you protesting Trump over that. Iirc you had your head stuck up the MSM's ass making prediction about what a Pence presidency would look like because MUH RUSSIA

hmmm Not Russia, per se, but I still predict (even now) that Trump doesn't go a full term. Moderate chance that he doesn't even make it long after the midterms.

I was all for intervention in Syria, until I learned (shortly before the missile attack) that Russia had declared them an ally. I don't want any part of Russia, and their arsenal. Yes, we all know the US could walk all over them in any war, but those nukes are not something to fuck with.

Who should be fired for Libya being a disaster? What makes you think it will go better this time?

[Hastur]

Dan should have called his latest show Day of the Dope, in reference to his own declining relevance.

What would you want him to say to be more relevant?

Covering the 2016 election in a way that was different than MSM would have been good for starters. As people have pointed out, Dan talked about wanting someone stirring up shit with the system, then when Trump did just that, Dan largely stayed quiet. It was weird. I'm not saying Dan should have been a Trump supporter, but his take on Trump just doesn't feel so "martian." Its like the usual stuff I see on blogs and tv. I would go out on a limb and say that the people who post on here were some of Dan's strongest supporters. Now, when Dan is mentioned on MHF, he is usually the but of jokes, or dismissed outright. Sometime in the last 2 years, Dan alienated a core group of his followers. I'm not sure exactly why, but I can say that his Common Sense show is a shadow of what it once was.

I don't get how Dan can still be so stuck in the old media landscape. He only quotes from the the old "respectable" press and routinely dismisses new media actors. It's like having someone reviewing steam engines after everyone's switched to internal combustion.
I guess that's where the declining relevance comes from.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

I don't get how Dan can still be so stuck in the old media landscape. He only quotes from the the old "respectable" press and routinely dismisses new media actors. It's like having someone reviewing steam engines after everyone's switched to internal combustion.
I guess that's where the declining relevance comes from.

You're exactly right.
Dan might've hopped aboard the "New Media" a while back, but that ship has already put to port. And it's not like a bunch of youngsters have taken the reins either: the newer podcasters and youtubers sometimes do thrice daily shows--tweeting around the clock and around the world--and sleep as frequently as Trump. There's no such thing as a slow news day anymore, and Dan can't hang.

[Dand]

More dumbass hypotheticals in this episode.

Maybe the baseball shooter was inspired by hateful talk radio. (Bernie Sanders talk radio?)

Maybe the hateful people online are actually Russian paid shills. (Did they vote in our election?)

And then liberal progressive Dan bemoans our society's lack of respect for our elders. Bitch, that's a pillar of your side.

edit: And the baseball shooter was "allegedly" a Bernie Sanders supporter. Dan is a hack, the man posted Bernie all over his facebook page and there is nothing "allegedly" about it.

[Hwen Hoshino]

What would you want him to say to be more relevant?

Covering the 2016 election in a way that was different than MSM would have been good for starters. As people have pointed out, Dan talked about wanting someone stirring up shit with the system, then when Trump did just that, Dan largely stayed quiet. It was weird. I'm not saying Dan should have been a Trump supporter, but his take on Trump just doesn't feel so "martian." Its like the usual stuff I see on blogs and tv. I would go out on a limb and say that the people who post on here were some of Dan's strongest supporters. Now, when Dan is mentioned on MHF, he is usually the but of jokes, or dismissed outright. Sometime in the last 2 years, Dan alienated a core group of his followers. I'm not sure exactly why, but I can say that his Common Sense show is a shadow of what it once was.

I don't get how Dan can still be so stuck in the old media landscape. He only quotes from the the old "respectable" press and routinely dismisses new media actors. It's like having someone reviewing steam engines after everyone's switched to internal combustion.
I guess that's where the declining relevance comes from.

New media is better at op ed and commentary, but investigative journalism still costs money.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Covering the 2016 election in a way that was different than MSM would have been good for starters. As people have pointed out, Dan talked about wanting someone stirring up shit with the system, then when Trump did just that, Dan largely stayed quiet. It was weird. I'm not saying Dan should have been a Trump supporter, but his take on Trump just doesn't feel so "martian." Its like the usual stuff I see on blogs and tv. I would go out on a limb and say that the people who post on here were some of Dan's strongest supporters. Now, when Dan is mentioned on MHF, he is usually the but of jokes, or dismissed outright. Sometime in the last 2 years, Dan alienated a core group of his followers. I'm not sure exactly why, but I can say that his Common Sense show is a shadow of what it once was.

I don't get how Dan can still be so stuck in the old media landscape. He only quotes from the the old "respectable" press and routinely dismisses new media actors. It's like having someone reviewing steam engines after everyone's switched to internal combustion.
I guess that's where the declining relevance comes from.

New media is better at op ed and commentary, but investigative journalism still costs money.

Thank you!

[Hastur]

Covering the 2016 election in a way that was different than MSM would have been good for starters. As people have pointed out, Dan talked about wanting someone stirring up shit with the system, then when Trump did just that, Dan largely stayed quiet. It was weird. I'm not saying Dan should have been a Trump supporter, but his take on Trump just doesn't feel so "martian." Its like the usual stuff I see on blogs and tv. I would go out on a limb and say that the people who post on here were some of Dan's strongest supporters. Now, when Dan is mentioned on MHF, he is usually the but of jokes, or dismissed outright. Sometime in the last 2 years, Dan alienated a core group of his followers. I'm not sure exactly why, but I can say that his Common Sense show is a shadow of what it once was.

I don't get how Dan can still be so stuck in the old media landscape. He only quotes from the the old "respectable" press and routinely dismisses new media actors. It's like having someone reviewing steam engines after everyone's switched to internal combustion.
I guess that's where the declining relevance comes from.

New media is better at op ed and commentary, but investigative journalism still costs money.

So what? When did Dan last comment upon a piece of investigative journalism?

[Hwen Hoshino]

I don't get how Dan can still be so stuck in the old media landscape. He only quotes from the the old "respectable" press and routinely dismisses new media actors. It's like having someone reviewing steam engines after everyone's switched to internal combustion.
I guess that's where the declining relevance comes from.

New media is better at op ed and commentary, but investigative journalism still costs money.

So what? When did Dan last comment upon a piece of investigative journalism?

I have to listen to it first. I think it explains his preference for respectable press somewhat.