US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4508

On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:

The sad part is it really doesn’t

Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair

Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding

On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:

My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive.

The calculus here is simple. Grifters gonna grift. He doesn’t make money from people who don’t buy into this alternative media with alternative facts shit. He never will. It costs him nothing to alienate them while he stands to benefit from aligning with them. They won’t even recognize a contradiction between endorsing a candidate and being independent.

On November 05 2024 12:13 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Very surprised that no one has mentioned that Musk claims to be one of the top 20 Diablo 4 players in the world! Top by what metric, would be my first question. Do they have tournaments like SC2? I don't know anything about Diablo.

This has massive implications for Maxpax! Perhaps he is not the Prince of Denmark, but a very high achieving figure in some other realm. CEO of Maersk? Inventor of Ozempic at Novo Nordisk?? Scarlett Johansson???

On November 05 2024 12:27 WombaT wrote:

While I frequently accede to your wisdom Kwawk, Rogan’s numbers probably transcend mere maladjusted dipshits. They just do. Spotify didn’t pay the big bucks otherwise

I don’t think this is entirely fair with his historic output, although a fair assessment of some recent pivots. He gave Bernie a platform, indeed I think he endorsed him one time

He can just be wrong, that doesn’t make him a grifter. If he believes his shtick, hey. Dave Rubin or Candace Owens, now there’s some grifters.

I think he’s just shifted from his previous politics to being an avowed supporter of right wing politics, but I see that as a genuine shift rather than jumping on a grift.

On November 05 2024 13:17 KwarK wrote:

...And that's why we have people like GH insisting that voting for Harris is wrong, not because he's right wing but because he's firmly in the perpetually online maladjusted dipshit group.

On November 05 2024 13:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


It's obvious to me how Trump winning can lead to fascism, but how does Harris winning also lead to fascism?

On April 24 2024 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:

Republicans/Fascists also frame pro-Palestinian protests as antisemitic and will find the fact that Biden already laid the foundation for that framing in Democrat's minds and provided a program to help fascists crack down on such protests quite useful.

Then fascists can point to it being a critique and product/policy that came from Democrats, that "the libs" accepted it when Biden/Democrats did it, and any opposition now is just them being bitter partisans. If Democrats push it, they'll be labeled as sympathizers or terrorists themselves, so they won't, and will call that "pragmatism".

Same for the Cop City in ATL, domestic spying, the (still in use) 2001 AUMF, policing the public in NYC using the military, cracking down on "illegals", and the list goes on and on.

After Democrats lay down all these foundations for fascism and eventually lose control of them (since they won't win every election in perpetuity) they'll pick up their batons in a vain attempt to avoid being the targets of those policies, institutions, etc. by finding "bipartisan compromises" on where to direct that fascism among the US public and oppressed people around the globe. Which is uncomfortably acceptable to relatively affluent cishet white men. Because to be clear, Democrats have been making these kinds of "compromises" with less overtly fascist Republicans for decades (like consistently increasing police budgets, DOMA, and so on).

Which brings us back to the bipartisan framing of pro-Palestinian actions as "antisemitic protests" that is already aligning Democrats and Republicans around cracking down on these purportedly "antisemitic protests" in a tiny, comparably placid, preview of what is to come if they aren't stopped (organized civil disobedience, like Biden is joining Republicans to crack down on, will be required) before then.

Hopefully that helps you understand my point?

On November 05 2024 13:17 KwarK wrote:

There are an awful, awful lot of maladjusted perpetually online dipshits. The ones who were insisting that Bernie can still win after the election for example. Bringing on the likes of Bernie doesn't conflict with that point, it aligns with it, because it's the kind of dipshittery that occurs all over the spectrum.

This election isn't really about right vs left. It's about dipshits vs everyone else. That's why the Harris coalition includes people from the right on the political spectrum who still understand that dipshits shouldn't get the keys to power. And that's why we have people like GH insisting that voting for Harris is wrong, not because he's right wing but because he's firmly in the perpetually online maladjusted dipshit group.

Normal people don't watch his show for the same reason they don't watch Pewdiepie or whoever, it's a weird rabbit hole with niche appeal and for the average person there isn't really interest there, just like you don't wake up one morning and think "I'm going to get really into Logan Paul". The pipeline to getting really into Joe Rogan first requires you to be the kind of person who falls into online media rabbit holes which means a certain amount of isolation, a lack of validation, and generally sucking at life.

I'm not saying Rogan is right or left, I'm saying that he, like the election as a whole, transcends the right vs left meta. He's a product of a new meta in which you can get online, spew bullshit, sell fake herbal supplements, and get rich, the dipshit meta. A meta in which his ignorance is just as important as an experts expertise and that who to believe is an individual choice in which there is no right answer, only the answer that gives you the most self validation. His audience is composed of dipshits and Donald Trump is absolutely the dipshit candidate this election. It would be profoundly weird for Rogan to come out against dipshits given that he, and everyone who surrounds him, is one.

On November 05 2024 13:23 GreenHorizons wrote:

The reason voting for Harris is "wrong" is because supporting genocide is "wrong".

That Dems and their supporters have already rationalized their support for genocide pretty much means fascism is winning regardless of the 2024 election outcome.

On November 05 2024 13:29 Husyelt wrote:

when the chips are down we find a -

a vote for third party goes to trumps benefite, because you coulda voted for Harris, who is the VP and has no power, but will soon have power to kick Bibi and crew to the curb. its been clear she wants a different FP administration, but i hope you find peace not voting for her and getting Trump to win and he paves over Gaza with a Hotel + Casino. and in your heart of hearts you know you did the right thing + Show Spoiler +

On November 05 2024 13:41 WombaT wrote:

Well sure if your ‘normal’ is just pretending the world’s biggest podcast doesn’t exist

Should this new media world exist as it does? Is it shit. I mean I’d answer no and yes to those questions, but intellectual piety, no matter how well-founded, indeed perhaps correct, doesn’t stick Pandora’s toys back in the box

The world according to Kwark basically 100% aligns with the world as Id like to see, but alas it’s not the world I currently gaze out on

On November 05 2024 13:45 KwarK wrote:

Dipshits gonna dipshit.

On November 05 2024 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
How is genocide not fascism to you?

On November 05 2024 13:46 KwarK wrote:

It's no different than how a minority of people are super into Kim Kardashian and the rest of us wouldn't recognize her on the street.

On November 05 2024 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:

How is genocide not fascism to you?

On November 05 2024 14:00 WombaT wrote:

Politics and culture are really just a manifestation of collective will, and regardless of intellectual surety of one’s stance, to be ignorant of the former leaves you largely powerless against it.

Like x might be stupid, I may well agree but saying x is stupid because I say so doesn’t make it considered so by the majority, or a sizeable minority of folks.

At the very least with Ms Kardashian she’s probably due some credit for having one of the great arses of our time, I imagine she’s put in the hours of work

On November 05 2024 14:09 KwarK wrote:

I may well be powerless against Ms Kardashian but my hope is that nobody was expecting me to defend us against her or her arse.

I am dismissive of Joe Rogan not because I think he has no influence, he's quite literally an online influencer, but because of what he is. He's a grifter. Obviously grifters are dangerous, one may well become President again, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend they're not grifters. Joe Rogan only exists in a world in which what you pretend to be on social media matters more than what you are, just as Trump does. They're natural allies. The kind of person who think Joe Rogan has anything of value to add on any subject is also going to be the kind of person who thinks that Trump, a man who clearly lacks a basic understanding of his own economic policy, is going to make us all millionaires by raising trillions with tariffs. It's a perfect overlap. Of course one endorses the other, they were both shit out by the same disease ridden anus and they're both oozing into the public square from the same leaking sewer. The inverse would be nonsensical, why would either of them state that we shouldn't listen to the ramblings of idiots on social media but instead defer to expert career technocrats.