Of course, not Tomi Lahren though…
Add to this list:
- Andrew Tate
- Jordan Peterson
- TP USA
We see you guys and you make us drier than the Sahara. Please grow a personality that isn’t hating women
What is Toilet Paper USA?
Turning point USA is Charlie Kirk’s (I think) organization. It’s your typical right-wing “you’re anti-capitalist, yet you live in a capitalist society. Curious.”
Toilet paper USA is that format, but with Charlie Kirk’s head subtly photoshopped (maybe).
Hoarding things unrelated to a feared potential outcome?
Fun Fact: Rot Brain Peterson has, on the record, unironically advocated that “society needs to work to make sure men are married” so they don’t become violent.
And he says feminists are the ones besmirching masculinity.
Incredible, he’s infantilized men into big dangerous toddlers that throw a violent fit when they don’t get what they want.
The best part is his incel base ate it up and assumed he meant government-issued sex slaves, so he clarified that he just meant society, aka the literal patriarchy, needs to shame the very idea of not being in a monogamous hetero couple so hard it is socially unacceptable to do anything else (you know, again)
Literally nobody thinks this
To be fair it’s a really bad sign for the stability a country if there is a large population of unemployed men.
Military aged men (usually aged late teens to mid 40s) have historically been the drivers of society. If a significant chunk of this demographic feels lost, hopeless, and close to the brink, then that’s when all hell breaks loose. From insane crime rates to extremism to war to riots to revolutions to you name it. I don’t think Peterson is suggesting that society should do mandatory marriages or anything like that. He’s just pointing out that the data shows that marriage improves the happiness and quality of life for men (and women), and it will be a net benefit to society to try and increase the marriage rates as opposed to doing nothing and keeping the current trends going.
Don’t you think that group also contains homosexuals, transgender, etc, who have a much harder standing in “our society”? Or what about people who just don’t work monogamous?
Shaming them into (hetero) marriages doesn’t make them happier.
With an intolerant society, there will always be unhappy people.
So IMO the only way to evolve would be to become fully tolerant and just let people be who they want to be without having to fear, that someone else condemns them for who they are.
What would you suggest be done to promote marriage among that demographic?
A good start would be getting people to learn how to socialize properly. Either by creating programs for young people to meet up and do stuff together or by restructuring the education system to place a bigger emphasis on co-ed socialization. There’s an uncomfortably large amount of people who do not know how to socialize. By that I mean they’re really clueless. They don’t know how to carry a conversation or how to properly react to situations or understand basic social etiquette or ask somebody out that they find attractive or anything really. I’ve seen a lot of these people when I was in university, and they are as awkward as they sound. It’s not just anecdotal either, the loneliness pandemic is backed up by data. There’s huge chunk of people with few or no friends and this demographic is growing. If we can find ways as a society to encourge young people to socialize again, the benefits will be huge. Their mental health would improve, their confidence would get a boost, their social circles will expand, and from their new social circles they have greater opportunities to meet a partner.
I don’t get why you’re getting so much hate. The statement boils down to people need to be invested in their society, or society isn’t stable.
People with families want stability, want to make society better, care about the community more. That’s not to say people without families don’t, but the incentives are there for people with families.
So when talking about entire populations, pointing out the statistically populations with large numbers of uncommitted men are less stable, shouldn’t be controversial
Whenever I see a person who talks down to others for not appealing more to them, I always wonder what causes their sense of entitlement. Always an interesting story.
55% seems low
Maybe the other 45% never heard about it.
Nah, the alternative answer was “it doesn’t turn me off, it slam shuts my vagina”
The 55 % are the ones saying ‘no’ to the other 45%
I searched for JRE the other day expecting a link to Java Runtime Environment.
Now Google thinks I like Joe fucking Rogan.
JRE, you are a fucking nerd. Java is for bitches /s
This just in: 55% of women said they would not date a man that programs in Java.
My response: “Really? How is it not 85%‽ Factory.Factory jobs have been on the way out for decades…”
I know what all women want…
A guy who can escape Vim and save the file you are working on.
Some spicier women do prefer a man who uses Nano, but beware they can be wild!
deleted by creator
It’s hilarious to me that Republicans have now decided that whole generations of Americans are the enemy. They love to shit on millennials especially but any young generation is a weak, woke, twisted mob come to ruin the world. Hating all young people (aside from Kyle Rittenhouse) is not a well-thought-strategy.
Millennials are not young anyway. I’m a millennial and I’m 40.
Definitely: they got this “millennials” idea stuck in their heads 10 years ago and they still use it as shorthand for “these kids today.” You try to talk to them about GenZ and Alpha and they roll their eyes and say “the who now?”
they got this “millennials” idea stuck in their heads 10 years ago and they still use it
They started on about it in the mid 90s and just like all their shitty ideas, they’ve never changed any opinion with new evidence ever. Look at this focus group (@23:10) of republicans and after half of them say they’d vote for trump even if he’s in jail, one guy says there’s no line for the supporters, and that they’d vote for him even if he died. The response from the trumpet is to complain about biden.
You see, it’s because they’re stupid.
Daily Show had it right 20 years ago: Republicans are either stupid and/or evil.
My daughter proudly told me she’s “generation Alpha” the other day, first I’d ever heard the term. We then argued over what sounds cooler, gen alpha, or gen x.
I always get a kick out of this, I tell people that I am one of the younger millennials and I’m 32. Older people just have millennial=young person in their head.
and I’m 32
I mean we are kinda young still… no? Aren’t we? Guys??
Older people just have millennial=young person in their head.
And younger people just have boomer=old person in their head, which as a Gen-Xer drives me nuts every time I’m labeled as a Boomer.
It’s funny because a lot of Millennials are starting to shit on the generations younger than them. It’s something that happens to every generation.
I’ve mostly seen the opposite, Gen Z is pretty great
Yeah, I’m a millenial and I don’t understand Gen Z sometimes and sometimes I feel old as I’m rolling my eyes and going “kids these days” but damn they were dealt an even shittier hand than we were and while we’re a bunch of cynical bastards Gen Z is out there rolling with the punches.
Maybe this doesn’t apply to you, but a lot of older millennials are doing the same thing gen x and boomers used to do when you were growing up. It’s the ol’ cycle of “damn kids these days”
I guess I just haven’t seen it.
Fucking “woke” man… it’s kinda nice in a way, because now I know whenever I see that word brought up I can safely ignore what comes after it as the person has proven that they’re brainwashed by Reich wing media…
It’s absolutely fucking ridiculous seeing the “discussions” section on Steam about a goddamn video game be filled with “Is this game woke?” “BOYCOTT WOKE GAME” “Remove the option to have pronouns or we’ll cancel you!”
Absolutely fucking brainwashed… Literally a bunch of Pavlov’s dogs running around getting triggered by options in a video game because they were conditioned to.
I actually remember before the term “woke” got stolen by Fox News and was frequently used across Black Twitter as a shorthand for taking the red pill on seeing racism and intersectional grief in our society. Once your eyes are open to these truths, you can’t stop seeing them.
Ah OH BOY some people have a PROBLEM with the truth being plainly seen and spoken about. Can’t have that!
Has it ever occurred to you that you don’t know the troof? It always annoys me when I see people claim to know the troof and others are too dumb to see it. It’s just so arrogant.
It pleases me that I am able to block you and your off-gassing about invented offenses.
Removed by mod
“Ain’t nobody goan screw mah sister but me! I done put the work in!”
This is a weird way to expose your incest fetish.
It’s actually kind of a tragedy that the word has taken on that perception. There are some things that can and should be discussed that fall under the “woke” definition. But there’s no good alternative word. DEI is commonly used, but it’s not applicable in some instances when woke still would be. So we’re left kind of floundering around looking for words to describe a concept that is easily summed up as woke, just to avoid the perception of being a close-minded bigot. This isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last thing that the right has taken, bastardized, and used until it’s tired and worn out.
It’s okay, we had to deal with being called SJWs for a long time as well. This kind of idiotic cock blocking isn’t going to stop people from slowly evolving out of the unjust systems of thought we’ve inherited.
Same with social justice. To me it’s one of the most important topics. I hate the SJW memes.
What are you talking about? SJW memes carried the internet from 2014 to 2018. They provided us with cultural changing cringe and jokes
That’s how language naturally evolves. People either give new definitions to words to describe a new phenomena or they come up with new words entirely. In either case, it’s dumb to avoid using words to achieve some sort of political purity. Different words have different meanings in different contexts. If somebody can’t pick up on that, that’s their problem, not yours.
That’s honestly a really shitty take. “Hey, I’m going to take this word that means one thing and how people are fighting for true equality and I’m going to shit all over that word and make it meaningless. It’s just how language evolves.”
Such brain dead logic. Your political views aren’t superior to anyone else’s and language doesn’t bend to your personal biases. If a word is used or invented organically by a large amount of people to describe something, then that word has a new definition, and is thus expanding the vocabulary in the dictionary. That is literally how language evolves. It’s like how the word bug used to mean insect or a small annoyance but then expanded to include concealed devices used for spying and then expanded again to include computer errors. Validity in the world isn’t limited to your myopic views.
Idk what’s more dumb the fact that you think the same thing doesn’t apply you or the fact that you got so triggered over nothing.
The debate surrounding millennials is a challenging and nuanced topic, increasingly rising at an accelerating rate of percentage growth expansion velocity, per year per capita. For instance, many would agree that Albert Einstein was a great millennial, but Adolf Hitler not so much.
I haven’t seen any Republican call any generation the enemy. The only time I’ve ever seen anybody blame any generation was a couple of years ago on Reddit when a bunch of mentally deficient teenagers on Reddit who were rooting for more boomers to die so the political landscape can become more Democrat, but other than that nobody demonizes generations. It’s not something that’s political. Older generations always think their upbringing was harder, that their youth was better, and that the younger generations are ungrateful, lazy, and entitled. It’s a tale as old as time.
You may have not seen it, but it’s very common.
Your in the wrong place to be spewing forth moderation and unbiased opinions.
You should know Reddit and now lemme are left wing echo chambers.
Any comment resembling moderate views or pointing out the fact this is an echo chamber will get downvoted.
Lemmy was literally created by a couple of tankies. I’m not expecting any intelligent discussions on this platform. Most of the users are probably just high school students going through their edgy phase. I honestly don’t care if they all downvote me, I’m just here to shitpost for a couple of hours a week lol
our hero
OK Boomer.
While I agree that Republicans have absolutely marked younger generations as the enemy, Democrats are doing the exact same thing with older generations.
Mm no, we’re not going to “both sides” this. First of all, OK Boomer was not invented by the democrats nor is it a democratic harping point. The democrats have some of the oldest politicians of all time in The White House and running Congress.
Secondly, the Democrats don’t actively legislate against the interests of old people, as Republicans do with their war on reproductive rights, resistance to college debt forgiveness, and terrible environmental record.
So no: it is not in any way or degree “the exact same thing.”
Oh no… You killed him :(
Also they really don’t tolerate college students voting.
Democrats on Reddit were literally cheering for more boomers to die in the pandemic so Republican voters would die out. Denying that it happens doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.
I didn’t realize everyone on Reddit wore their voter registration on their profile.
I have a hard time believing that Republicans would be cheering for old people to die so their states can become more blue.
Qhahahhahaha wow you need to wake the fuck up or get out of the boomers basement. Lmfao
I nearly noped out on a date with someone when she revealed that she thought the Joe Rogan experience was “funny”.
Weirdest thing about listening to jre is that you realize that Joe is deeply unfunny. He has a few funny friends though.
Even his old stand up was just not very good. He seems to be likable on a personal level though so he got along well with the actually funny comedians. I think the Golden age of his career started when he went on Tom Green’s internet TV show and got the idea to do the Joe Rogan experience.
Tom Green is often unrecognized as one of the earliest pioneers of video podcasting or whatever you want to call it. His home studio and webcast show were quite ahead of their time, and also had some really great guests and content. I loved the one with Norm Macdonald
Most comedians will bend over backwards to compliment Joe and gas him up about how influential a comedian he is, just so they can use his show as a promotional tool.
He is influential.
What other platform can showcase a comedians unscripted wit for 2 hours?
Rogans just not a good comedian. He’s probably better than me, but I’m a pretty low bar.
Depending on the guests it can be. Some of his comedian friends are quite funny. I like watching Bill Burr tear into him.
Nearly? There’d be a me shaped hole in a wall. Get some real standards bro.
Him: [I might’ve found my other half!]
Her: “I find Joe Rogan funny”
Him […it could still be a one night stand]
Get some real standards bro.30-odd years ago someone told me on a BBS: “if you’re horny, and can’t help it, get a brick and deal with it”. I got standards… /s
That’s even worse than watching his podcast. I’ve never thought he was funny.
I’m Gen X and I’d rather sew my vagina shut than go near any man into Musk/Peterson/Trump/Rogan, etc, for what it’s worth. Can’t speak for the boomers though.
Thank you for your service
Real question, what’s wrong with Rogan? I get that he says some things that I might not agree with myself, but he’s still fun to watch in my opinion.
I agree he’s fun to watch
But he’s also a sneako right winger. he always claims to be just asking questions but he platforms primarily people on the right, including his ghoul of a friend Alex Jones, with occasional responses from the other side, but it’s heavily skewed. He’s a hard r republican even in violation of his own beliefs, supporting politicians who would re-criminalize weed
Shapiro might be a smarmy queef, but at least he wears his allegiance on his sleeve, Rogan, Peterson, and Musk play coy for broader appeal like they’re not fully in line with the party and they don’t understand the allegation, when they absolutely are and they absolutely do. To quote one of them “I can’t say I respect that”
smarmy queef
lmao
right lol, feel like i have to wash my mouth out with soap just get some of the residuals out
His podcast used to be like sneakily listening to your dad and uncle shoot the shit. It would be funny, insightful, philosophical etc.
Now it’s like listening to your senile grandpa bitching about the same thing over and over again telling the same story and shitting on the youth for doing the same thing he did when he was younger.
Best way I can describe it.
This but if your granpa is often inviting antivaxxers and transphobes over to chat and every time they say something fucked up he’s just like “Ya… totally…wow… you’re right…”
deleted by creator
Not gonna lie, people throw around the word ‘fascist’ too much. The word has basically lost all meaning at this point.
deleted by creator
How does this apply to Rogan?
deleted by creator
Who though? Who is the fascist?
Somehow I doubt any of them want to get near you to begin with so you have nothing to fear.
This is definitely the kind of thing that men with healthy self-esteem need to say. I’m sure you’re just drowning in your options
Perhaps, sadly, that is one of the reasons why some men gravitate towards the content highlighted in the OP. And so the culture wars will continue because you all eagerly lap it up. Smokes and mirrors.
Edit; goodness me, I guess you lot are as close minded as the very people you are attacking.
Goodness me, I think the real problem here is you guys aren’t fooling anyone with your silly little “both siiiides” pretend to be centrist acts anymore and we’re over it.
deleted by creator
Incorrect. Bye bye 👋
deleted by creator
I like the attempt, but the assumption is wrong. You know nothing about me or my ideals and you can label me however you wish if it makes you feel better, although I am curious; what have I done in one comment for you to assume anything? Can you predict my political leanings and beliefs without discussion?
Lmao and I’m sure that you have a social life as equally rich as the terminally online middle aged woman who makes comments threatening to sow her vagina on a platform filled with edgy teenagers.
Goodness you’re an angry little fellow.
I can smell your cope from across the screen
I am a middle aged woman! But I’m married so I don’t know where all your unhinged shit about my vagina came from. Women don’t have to settle anymore so get over yourself or get a lifetime supply of lotion and tissues 🤗
Removed by mod
That’s absolutely fine by me. Stay as far away as possible.
Kindest shitjustworks user
What’s dumber than these surveys which are always filled with loaded questions and questionable sampling methods, is the fact people take them as fact without even looking into them. I spent so much time trying to track down where the original survey is, and it doesn’t exist. It’s not on the Change Research website, it’s not linked by any article that mentions it, and it’s not reported by any credible outlet. It’s reported on by 5 or so tabloids like The NY Post, The Daily Mail, and Teen Vogue and nothing more.
2 minutes of Googling led me to the poll: https://changeresearch.com/post/poll-young-voters-facing-tough-economic-reality/
The question asked was “Do you consider each of the following behaviors or traits a green, beige, or red flag in a partner?”.
Hmm, not seeing that in the link provided…maybe it’s been updated, or an issue on my end?
It’s question 78. You have to actually go into the sample and methodology document.
Thanks kind internet stranger! Also, am I just obtuse, or did the last questions not have response data?
As an unrelated aside, who the hell has that kind of time for a survey?!
Okay, mild progress… But where’s the data for it?
Also, this is from the methodology pdf:
We used the following sources to recruit respondents: ● targeted advertisements using the Meta advertising >platform ● SMS text messages
Regardless of which of these sources a respondent came from, they were directed to a survey hosted on SurveyMonkey’s website.
Ads placed on social media targeted likely voters nationwide. Those who indicated that they were not registered to vote were terminated. Those who indicated they were over the age of 34 were terminated. As the survey fielded, Change Research used dynamic online sampling: adjusting ad budgets, lowering budgets for ads targeting groups that were overrepresented, raising budgets for ads targeting groups that were underrepresented. The survey was conducted in English.
So this is a self reported online poll with 84 oddly phrased questions that was advertised primarily on Instagram and Facebook and conducted on a redirected website. The methodology seems dodgy, and even the people conducting it agree:
We adopt The Pew Research Center’s convention for the term “modeled margin of error”(1) (mMOE) to indicate that our surveys are not simple random samples in the pure sense, similar to any survey that has either non-response bias or for which the general population was not invited at random. A common, if imperfect, convention for reporting survey results is to use a single, survey-level mMOE based on a normal approximation. This is a poor approximation for proportion estimates close to 0 or 1. However, it is a useful communication tool in many settings and is reasonable in places where the proportion of interest is close to 50%. We report this normal approximation for our surveys assuming a proportion estimate of 50%
Thanks for the link regardless
GOP politician : The younger generation isn’t voting for us!
GOP strategist: We need to make fun of their beliefs and concerns more!
The actual strategists have long since left or are in an alcohol induced stupor. The “strategists” remaining are true believers that are horrible at strategy.
And yet the current strategy continues to ensnare young and old people alike. I think you need to reconsider that the wolfs are in the henhouse and things are going according to plan.
They barely took the House, lost a Senate seat, and lost significant state seats in the first midterm against a president with a trifecta and a rocky economy. Abortion has become a gigantic millstone around their neck, and they can’t figure out what to do with it. Their excuse for strategists aren’t being listened to.
That was at the end of a redistricting cycle, in a Senate year favorable to Dems. Next election will be more difficult.
GOP have gerrymandered their way into a majority in the House, the Senate is pre-gerrymandered for them (because establishment Dems visibly abandoned the working class during and after NAFTA), and they don’t even pretend to expect to get a straight popular majority in any upcoming Presidential elections.
They’ve abandoned democracy. They know they can’t get a majority of popular votes in a straight-up count, and they know they don’t need to. All they need to do is continue ratfucking the system and keep a strategic fringe endlessly outraged, and they’re set.
The GOP pushed their message so hard now the cart is leading the horse and there’s nothing they’re willing to do to stop it.
This is just partisan propaganda point. The median age among Republican registered voters is 52 and among Democratic registered voters its 49. Another way to look at is this, 56% of the Republican voter base is above the age of 50, while it’s 50% for Democrats. They’re both very old and the gap is substantially small. It’s not only the Republicans who are losing the younger generations. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/
It’s almost as if even regular young people can see that Rogan’s show is a prototype of how to normalize stupidity and give platforms to manipulative grifters. Medical misinformation, not-so-subtle right wing agenda (read: anti-science, anti-LGBTQ, or at least the willingness to platform people with those views) and giving safe space to regressive “common sense” type debate. Panty melting shit, that.
“You just need to float in my tank, bro. It’s filled with rhino blood and gorilla jizz. Man you right up.”
IDK if I’d come to that conclusion since 45% don’t consider it a turn off.
a) how many women simply don’t know him, or don’t know him well enough to warrant an instant turn off?
b) how many women see it as a red flag, but are willing to give the benefit of the doubt?
Surveys like these are always a bit tricky, because you often don’t actually see the phrasing of the questions and you also can’t see, what the thought process was behind coming to a yes/no conclusion.
But then how do you account for the fact that he was a very large Bernie Sanders supporter? He is also against the polarization of America.
Additionally, he has called out that nearly 19 of the top 20 Facebook Christian pages were actually fronts for Russian information operations to divide America.
The more our adversaries make us hate each other and dehumanize people we disagree with, the more they succeed.
Both the PRC and Russia are doing active information operations on the US based on what has been going on. They want division. They are making us give up our faith in democracy.
Focusing on only the small bits that confirm your conclusion while ignoring all the things that go against it (like his huge amount of support for right wing politics, anti-vaxx sentiments, science denialism, constant stream of misinformation, and platforming people like Alex Jones, restating that same Russian propaganda you’re complaining about) is confirmation bias.
Also he’s one of the biggest dividers in America. If he’s against it so much, you’d think he’d take a step back and figure out how to stop doing that. But no, he doesn’t actually give a shit.
Why does it have to be an all or nothing judgment on an individual?
Why can’t we be more nuanced?
Have you actually finished any of his episodes or are you operating off of what someone else told you? I figure you aren’t going to openly admit to that because it goes counter to your argument.
If you haven’t already seen it I would recommend the video Johnny Harris, a YouTube journalist, gives an in depth take on Joe Rogan. He is critical of Joe Rogan on some aspects. Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/sLaXSvpfDZs?feature=shared
I don’t agree that he hosts some conspiracy theorists on his shown but does that make him a bad person? No.
None of this is actually a response to anything I said, it’s just flailing in other directions.
The confirmation bias you displayed is antithetical to the nuance you’re claiming to aim for.
Of course I’ve watched his show. He’s been on for years and it’s a very prominent show that has had all kinds of people on that are worth listening to.
Classic selfawarewolves
Preeetty sure she’s a skeleton key’d husk piloted by some awful antebellum ghost
Jamie, pull that up.
Damn… That would’ve been a much better title for this post.
I really cannot wait until millenials and GenZ grow older take over the world. The youth of today are just so much smarter than us, and I feel like they are more exposed to internet media that they aren’t easily influenced. I just hope there is enough of the world left for them after we are done with it.
As a millennial, I disagree. Plenty of my friends, whom used to be outspoken idealist have taken industry jobs for known bad actors. Not being poor, not living in squalor, and being able to afford a visit to the doctor, being able to afford housing, being able to afford to raise a family, these are not minor things. And at a certain point many will just give up, and give in to those who offer security and comfort. And also there’s just a ton of youth media whose only core value is wealth obtainment. I’ve several friends proudly proclaiming they can’t wait to be rich, will grind and hustle, but can’t be bothered to vote; including a couple with graduate degrees.
I think a lot of people put way too much weight on these terms: baby-boomer, genz, millennial etc. They’re primarily used for marketers to try and segment us into targetable demographics. And by lazy journalist to make very broad sweeping categorizations of huge groups of people. Sociologists and economists probably use the terms with a bit more specificity on average, but that gets lost when communicating with a general audience. I think we have way more in common then a lot of us like to think. I typically get down-voted for having this opinion, because a lot of people don’t want to hear that, no they are not actually special. There have been many amazing people that came from the generations prior to our own, there will be some from our own, but most of us will behave the same way humanity always has when put in similar conditions.
I have little hope that future generations will be better at running the planet. So far they appear to be arguably just as easily influenced, open to fads and greedy as their parents.
“True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.”
Born in the upper half of the 90s - yeah, maybe. 2000+ - I’m not sure at best. Sometimes I meet amazingly smart people on the first look from that group, but then there are gaping white spots in their worldview.
and I feel like they are more exposed to internet media that they aren’t easily influenced.
That’s wrong. They are fscking clueless.
I’m tail end of the 90s and my half brother is late 00s, the difference in attitude, work ethic and learnings is astounding.
I have personally witnessed this kid (I love him I swear) throw a controller through a TV because Fortnite lost connection (old man turning the wifi off because it’s the only way to get his attention).
It fucking disgusts me, I know I was bad when I was younger, but nothing like that.
I’m not even sure Millennials will get their time in the sun at this rate, some numpty in politics will find a new idea for legislation to ensure the millennial suffrage continues unabated.
Yes. If you can condition mice to do things, you can condition humans.
So - with that generation the benefit from possibilities they technically have is negated and more by the conditioning which wasn’t quite there when we were growing (it both wasn’t as easy to do and the companies doing it were still developing).
I can absolutely point to the exact moment my grades started going down, and it was when I started taking a phone to school. I have no clue why they’re not banned outright, and in some instances in my country they provide these kids with laptops. It was of great use to me in my final school years, however it was borderline necessary to complete many of my studies on a PC. All I hear regarding these newer ones, is that they’re constantly subverting the schools lockdowns of the devices to play Fortnite etc. I remember pulling the exact same shit when Minecraft came out, and we were already making a mess of the library with CS1.6
Preach. When I was growing up, no one gave a shit about climate change, no one gave a shit about Wall Street, they just wanted to get a sweet job and join the stealers instead of the stolen-from. Today’s youth actually seem like they care and want to work for change.
Yet they can’t even get a job as a cashier because of self checkout, and can’t get an entry level job because the listing requires 8 years experience…
Maybe the two go hand in hand. I knew a lot of people when I was young who wanted to change the world, then as soon as they could start doing pretty well if they stopped caring, they stopped caring. Maybe if you can’t ever do pretty well, you never stop caring.
There were some exceptions to that, but it was pretty upsetting to me how quick most people folded once rent was due. I mean, I get it. But also it was quick.
How does any of that have anything to do with my comment?
Willpower doesn’t get you anywhere when corporations have replaced so many jobs with robots, computers and AI, or require 5 to 8 years experience for an ‘entry level’ job.
Eat the rich.
Willpower will get you far. There was already industrial revolution in the past and thousands of people lost their livings duento bwing replaced by machines. Those who had willpower managed to pull through and even change quaifications and become successful e.g. in service industry. Those who give up before they even try are deem to doom
Have you not seen the very true meme about a job listing that requires 5 years experience with a particular programming language, when the author of the language himself called them out and said the language he created was only 2 years old?
Even with the strongest willpower, 5 years experience simply isn’t possible. And there are many other examples out there of the same sort of thing, where job listings are posted with prerequisites that are simply impossible to meet.
It’s bullshit I tellz ya.
I’m not sure I follow. It was just stupidity of their HR department. I’m sure there were tons of bs that HR departments have released into the world in the past.
Also, what even is an ‘entry level’ job if it requires years of prior experience? That’s a literal catch-22, if it’s impossible to set your foot in the door in the first place, how’s one to gain any experience?
Never seen Junior position to require 22 years of exp. Doesn’t make sense for companies to look for impossible, they would simply not look for anyone. And if they would look for 22 yrs of exp that would be senior because peeps carriers are about that long in some cases.
Are you a millennial? Because I am, and everything you just mentioned is what was championed when I was in my early 20s. The sweet job was wanted once we hit the recession and couldn’t get a job at fuckin Target as a cashier even if you had a MBA.
I’m a menial
To me it seems you just described youths in general. 🤔
Aren’t easily influenced?
Have you been living under a rock?
In the past 5-10 years all the populist idiot politicians came to power because of internet media, young people sharing hod knows what bullshit with eachother without ever thinking what’s true and not.
The pandemic and climate change are two enormous problems (one likely terminal) that were riddled with misinformation that caused so much suffering for nothing…
The next generation is just as bad as the current, and previous
Have you been living under a rock?
What you’re describing is simply the Big Tobacco playbook from the 1950s being adapted into modern communications methods. If we didn’t have internet media, I guarantee you we’d still be seeing pandemic misinformation on AM radio and climate change lies on news networks funded by Shell and BP.
isn’t OP making same point? That is, every generation is similar innterms of being influeced. Why are you guys arguing? 😅
deleted by creator
I dunno, around here we only use AM radio as an emergency source of information for weather and road hazards.
I’ve never heard a political nutjob advertising any AM radio station. Only ads I see for AM radio is on the side of the highway in case of emergencies.
deleted by creator
On related news, their standards are pretty low, as a whooping 45% of Millenial and GenZ
womanwomen would drop as low as having a partner that listens to “The Joe Rogan Experience”.On related news, their standards are pretty low, as a whooping 45% of Millenial and GenZ woman women would drop as low as having a partner ONCE that listens to “The Joe Rogan Experience”.
I made it more clear.
You know, some just don’t know what that potentially means, but the number who would be willing to do this again (after the definitve breakup or breakdown, which ever comes first) is way, way, way lower.
Hey he has some good old episodes, I listen to them when I need white noise
There are plenty of other podcasts with great episodes that don’t platform Nazis.
He doesn’t platform Nazis. Unless you think somebody like Ben Shapiro is a Nazi, which in case you’re an idiot, he doesn’t do such a thing. Even if he did, then so what? He has all sorts of people on his show from Bernie Sanders to Bob Lazar to Elon Musk to Neil deGrasse Tyson to Mike Tyson. His incredibly wide range of guests is what makes his show interesting.
Yeah and? That doesn’t erase the fact that he had really interesting guests, in fact I love that aliens/DMT phase, even if the rest is straight up garbage.
There is no more nuance on the world? Are we are now living in a black and white world?
the “alien/DMT phase” was literally the conspiracy and Alt-right pipeline
deleted by creator
How is he an alt-right pipeline when he also had people like Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders on, and even endorsed Sanders?
Yeah, Joe Rogan describes himself as a liberal. He has guests who he thinks will be interesting, not who he agrees with. I understand the idea of wanting to know what makes those people tick.
There is still a great point to be made that he’s giving awful people a large platform to spew hateful or wrong messages to millions of people, and while Rogan often plays devil’s advocate, he doesn’t do much to delegitimize people who don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Ultimately, I think that Rogan does more harm than good because he allows hateful and stupid people to influence his audience.
Ultimately, I think that Rogan does more harm than good because he allows hateful and stupid people to influence his audience.
He literally has the most listened to podcast in the US and by a huge mile. It’s stupid to generalize his audience as well as his guests. His list of guests is comically huge and so diverse that it’s hard to wrap your head around. He has guests ranging from Bernie Sanders to Elon Musk to Mike Tyson to Neil deGrasse Tyson to Kevin Hart to Bob Lazar. That’s why people find his podcast so interesting, and the fact that he’s good conversationalist makes it easy to understand why his podcast is as popular as it is. The amount of guests he had that could be described as genuinely hateful is miniscule, and even then it’s better to listen to them and understand how their views came to be than to remain ignorant and pretend that you know everything about them based on what others told you. It’s not his place to legitimize or delegitimize people. That’s up to the individual in the audience to decide. He’s just there to have a fun conversation with interesting people and provide an hour or two of entertainment.
deleted by creator
When the nazis start marching, no, there’s no room for nuance. You squash them, grind them to dust, and do the same for all their supporters.
Are the nazis with us in the room right now?
Hahahahahaha so tough, Nazis are running at this instant at your virtual threat.
Where are these nazis… Im living the same as i always have… Not really seeing any burning crosses around 🤔
Not a big news follower, are ya?
You wanna show me the news with rampant increae of nazism impacting daily life? Or just cry that people are saying words…
Not really seeing any burning crosses around
Well, that would be the KKK so it explains why you haven’t noticed Nazis if that’s what you’re looking for.
You like using the word “nazi” too much there bud. I think you mean’t to say “There are plenty of other podcasts with great episodes that don’t platform people I was programmed to hate and want cancelled.”
Alex Jones is a white supremacist. He has had Jones on the podcasts, ergo platforming him. Therefore “Rogan platforms Nazis” is, pretty much, a true statement.
And no, I’m not programmed to dislike Jones, I’ve come to that opinion after listening to his unedited show for years. He uses the terminology, rhetoric, and arguments found in white supremacy talking points. Jones isn’t going to out right say “I’m a Nazi” or etc. (unlike Kayne – who he suspiciously didn’t boot immediately alongside Nick Fuentes when they explicitly say that), because it’s the third rail you can’t touch and be a propagandist for the masses. Which is his aim.
Alex Jones is a complete nut, nobody is arguing otherwise. However, he is not a Nazi. He’s not a racial supremacist like Richard Spencer or David Duke. Not every conspiracy theory lunatic is a Nazi.
He’s had both of them on his show, and didn’t push back on either of them.
Edit:
And you’re right, not every conspiracist is a supremacist, but Jones had supremacists on regularly throughout his career and didn’t address their position.
I don’t care who he has on his show. A lot of people, including a ton of normal sane people, don’t subscribe to this brain dead idea of political purity. ESPN having Kyrie Irving on for an interview does not make them antisemitic, Jimmy Fallon having Trump on his issue doesn’t make him pro-Jan 6th, Joe Rogan having Alex Jones on his podcast doesn’t make him a conspiracy theory nut, and Alex Jones having Richard Spencer on his show doesn’t make him a Neo Nazi. At the day what matter is their personal views. Alex Jones is a lot of things, he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist, gun fanatic, he’s an awful person who made money off the deaths of kids, he defamed people, he harassed people, he pushes a lot of false information, and the list goes on and on. Nobody is disagreeing with any of that. However, one of the things that he is not is a racial supremacist. It just discredits your point when you attack Alex Jones for the one thing he’s not.
Alex Jones is a white supremacist. He has had Jones on the podcasts, ergo platforming him. Therefore “Rogan platforms Nazis” is, pretty much, a true statement.
Alex Jones is a nutjob, not a nazi. So claiming “Rogan platforms nazis” is completely false.
And no, I’m not programmed to dislike Jones
Chill out dude. If you listened to JRE hours upon end and think Joe Rogan is an nazi soapbox, there is something wrong with you man. For one, why do you tune into to JRE if hes sooooo evil and gives meanies a platform? And second I am calling BS that you listen to JRE for hours. If you do not like Joe Rogan, you will not consume his content, especially hours of it.
I didn’t say I listened to Joe Rogan for hours — I said I listened to Alex Jones for a considerable amount of time. I only gave a counter example to show that Joe Rogan does, in fact, platform Nazis. To do that I only need to show one example where he does. And it’s one white supremacist I’m familiar with.
To my knowledge, being a nut-job doesn’t preclude somone from being a white supremacist. If they’re propagandizing white supremacists talking points to a large audience, even if “mad”, they’re still a fucking white supremacist. Honestly, the cogent ones are more scary. But, If they’re talking about the ‘fall of the western civilization’, the threat of the ‘globalists’, or aping rhetoric from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: they’re a white supremacist. Which Alex spins into current events around a narrative to have people believe the world is ending in a month or so just in time before the lovely ad pivot. Again, it’s not something he’ll directly say, but its something that gets picked up over time after listening to him for way too long. A through line, of sorts, as he dons and shifts positions, or the conspiracy ‘flavor of the week,’ as he picks up whatever narrative he finds helpful so he can continue to doomsay.
I will say Jones has some sort of illness, but I don’t know the exactly where it ends and his act that enriched him begins. For example, 2008-2012 era Jones hits differently than 2016 onward.
I’d be more than happy to pick out audio clips where he does precisely this, if you want. However that will take me a bit cause I don’t have a perfect recollection of all the vile shit he’s said. There’s always the Knowledge Fight podcast, where they debunk the idiot, but that’s your call. They, weirdly enough, were expert witnesses at Jone’s Sandyhook civil trial.
Edit: A good day Knowledge Fight covers of Alex’s show is episode 796: February 4, 2004. Start at 11:07 to avoid the podcaster bloat. It’s a case where everyone who is a guest just so happens to be Nazis. Of course, there are many of other days like this, of course.
Man, you need to get a different hobby. Spending time thinking some nutjob snake oil salesman is nazi because he dabbles in conspiracies. The fact you just admit you watched a lot of Alex Jones tells me your as crazy as any Alex Jones fanboy.
Honestly, there are like no nazi left out there except for a dozen trailer park bikers and a few weird teenagers. WWII came to an end almost 80 years ago. The “Nazi empire” got destroyed by the west and the Soviet Union. I know you lefties like to think there is a nazi around every corner and rock, but I cannot take you seriously with your over the top opinion.
It is safe to assume that you think 30% - 60% of the population are nazis because they like watching and following so and so online that had connections or a talk with so and so that has been labelled a nazi by your prophets.
That was a solid joke…sorry for the downvotes.
I was going to leave it at that but it seems internet warriors are incapable of understanding a joke just as their conservative counterparts are unable to understand satire… So it’s just a bunch of morons in a different political spectrum, and I love to provoke morons.
In a lot of ways this place is worse than Reddit. This is one of them.
I have to confess that I don’t really know who Joe Rogan is, sorry.
He was the electrician in the 90s sitcom NewsRadio. Then he told people to eat weird stuff for a while. Now he’s just super into drugs and platforming right-wing nutjobs as far as I can tell.
But NewsRadio was pretty great.
OK. Never heard of NewsRadio. Sorry.
So as far as I’m concerned, he’s yet another Internet lunatic with a following of cretins peddling the usual (I suppose)…
I sometimes wonder what the hippies would have made of the Internet. Would they have spread love through the fibre?
A lot of hippies are now into Q-anon and shit. It’s really sad.
There’s still plenty of people who were hippies in the 60s around and on the internet today… No need to wonder… Find one and ask them.
Maybe.
I don’t know how to put this, maybe it’s just me, I know that nowadays it seems weird…
But if a link is a video, I just close it.
If it’s text, I can parse it and get a feel for it because I’ve spent a lifetime browsing text.
You can’t browse video.
You can’t search video.
You can’t have an overview of video.
Video plain sucks for almost everything.
Video is great for monetization.
Unless you can’t read. Videos suck.
I can read.
Sorry about the rant. I’m really pissed off about the video everywhere trend. So, anyway, I don’t watch videos.
I’m not going to reply with videos, you sicko.
You right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCMxnS1438g
I don’t go out of my way to listen to him, but some of his episodes with people like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Brian Cox come up in my YouTube feeds. As long as Rogan isn’t talking then they’re ok.
And that is exactly the problem. He did some episodes with reputable media figures/science communicators, so it seems to a naive listener, like these are just regular interviews. And then he has a bunch of weirdos that just spout conspiracies, bullshit and hate, but since it’s in the exact same style as the interviews with reputable people, a naive listener might assume that the conspiracy nut is as trustworthy as all the other people. And that’s dangerous.
The appeal of his show is that he has a wide range of guests who are all willing to sit down and have a fun conversation. His podcast isn’t NPR, and he has no reason to exclusively seek out “reputable” people. He said many times that he hosts people who he thinks are interesting enough to have a conversation with. Besides nobody in their right mind thinks that Bob Lazar is as reputable as Neil deGrasse Tyson or Alex Jones is as reputable as Jon Stewart. The naive listener that you’re talking about doesn’t exist anywhere but in your head.
Sorry, but this is utter garbage.
Rogan’s audience are primarily young men. They have no idea, who Lazar is, not because they’re stupid, but because they are young and Lazar simply does not exist in their world - because he’s fringe. But since Rogan does not object even the most outrageous arguments, for someone who knows nothing about a field, this can seem pretty plausible - that guy’s an expert after all.
He said many times that he hosts people who he thinks are interesting enough to have a conversation with.
… and then takes every of their arguments at face value. If he’d be even a tiny bit of a journalist, he would ask actual questions and maybe even contextualize some of their arguments. He treats even the most obscure, deranged ufologist just like a proper astrophysicst. And that is what adults call false balance.
He legitimizes dangerous people, his stupidity is not a persona - he is actually stupid. That’s extremely problematic.
As a contrast: In Germany there’s a podcast called Jung&Naiv (young & naive), where the host plays a naive young person and asks naive, seemingly stupid questions, and he has a pretty wide range of guests. But in actuality he is not stupid and unprepared, but highly intelligent and actually really really well prepared - he managed to force the ukrainian ambassador to be recalled for not being willing to admit that a ukranian nazi in WW2 was, in fact, a nazi.
But since Rogan does not object even the most outrageous arguments, for someone who knows nothing about a field, this can seem pretty plausible - that guy’s an expert after all.
Somehow I highly, highly doubt that your average typical 20 year old is going to seriously think that a guy talking about spooky aliens in area 51 is an expert, let alone accept what they say as true. Even in the extremely rare off chance that somebody does believe someone like Bob Lazar, they’re literally a 10 second Google search from figuring out that he’s a nut. Again, the premises that you give don’t exist anywhere but in your mind. If you can figure out that Bob Lazar is a nut and I can figure out he’s a not, then so can anybody else.
… and then takes every of their arguments at face value. If he’d be even a tiny bit of a journalist, he would ask actual questions and maybe even contextualize some of their arguments.
He’s not a journalist… I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty grasping this. His podcast is not about fact checking his guests or grilling them with hard questions or making them uncomfortable. His podcast is literally about having interesting conversations with interesting people. Like normal, lighthearted, organic conversations.
He legitimizes dangerous people, his stupidity is not a persona - he is actually stupid. That’s extremely problematic.
No he doesn’t. I’m sure you listen to a few podcasts and watch a few TV talks shows, do you legitimize every guest that comes on them? If you don’t then it’s the same for others, and if you do really legitimize every person you see on the shows you consume then your statement applies more to you than to him.
As a contrast: In Germany there’s a podcast called Jung&Naiv (young & naive)
Again, Joe Rogan’s podcast is not meant to be political or journalistic or anything of that nature. It’s meant to be interesting and entertaining. You can’t compare it to some political podcast in Germany because they’re not even the same thing. It’s like questioning why Family Guy isn’t like Painting with Bob Ross. Like yes, they’re both podcasts, but they do completely different things, serve different audiences, and have different intentions behind them.
That’s why his podcast is as popular as it is. He’s a very good conversationalist, he knows how to navigate through a conversation while letting the guests do most of the talking.
The people who hate Joe Rogan are almost always tankies who never listened to his podcast, ever. They just get their information about him from their heavily vetted and propagandized echo chamber. If you actually ever listened to him, you would know that he’s just a good conversationalist who talks with wide range of guests. This reminds me of when tankies convinced themselves that PewDiePie was neo Nazi for some reason back in 2018
They called pewdiepie a Nazi for wearing an ALLIED officer uniform from WWII. Hahahaha they can’t even discern their nazi iconography
Is she the one who passed out and pooped her pants at a party or is she one of the other dumb blond assholes?
No that was the one from TPUSA. Tami is the one who got the nose job and was fired from Breitbart (I think? One of the right wing rags) for saying “hey maybe a women’s right to choose what to do with her body isn’t completely evil” and then got a job at Fox news and someone threw a cup of water on her whilst she was eating lunch
Ohhh that one! stage one meth addiction! When pumpkin spice isn’t enough anymore.
So diverse, women in the GOP.
I’m reminded of photos of governor’s signing bills that end access to abortions or criminalize gender affirming care or sinilar within the state. It’s always a collection of white women with long blond hair who all look extremely similar
No that’s Jennifer
Is this the same Tammy Loreen who was too dumb to foresee that her party of fascists would be against her views that women should have rights?
Don’t forget Jordan Peterson being a turn off!
JP’s advice (at least pre-benzo) is much more female-friendly. For instance,
One of the things I’ve told men over and over and over and over is if you’re being rejected by all the women that you approach, it’s not the women!
Not that I doubt that mentioning listening to JP is a turn off. Seems like there should be a million better things to talk about than what celebrities you follow.
[>“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.
“‘Half the men fail,’ he says, meaning they don’t procreate. ‘And no one cares about the men who fail.’
“I laugh, because it is absurd.
“‘You’re laughing about them,’ he says, giving me a disappointed look. ‘That’s because you’re female.’”](https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy)
