Yes, and Tucker Carlson. It’s kind of a thing.
The difference is that Beck and Carlson are actually more straightforward with regards to how they lean. Rogan always suggests he’s a centrist, sometimes even suggesting he is apolitical, which is patently false.
Thanks. I like to be extra careful.
Yes, I agree with that about confused young men. However, at the end of the day, if JRE turns them into toxic men, then they’re still just toxic men.
I would hope that doesn’t happen. In general I think we as a society need to be kinder to these confused young men before they take that path. It’s a more difficult conversation to have and the solution is not very clear.
Either way, JRE is dangerous because it offers propagandistic suppositions as answers to people with big questions.
Because if so, then it seems like even the slightest bit of critical thinking ability would easily steer men clear of it.
Absolutely correct, in my view. “Fear of judgment and a low sense of self worth” is also spot on.
Rogan gave national voice to plenty of people who regularly used the term “snowflake” to describe what they saw as weak people who like to complain (I’m speaking from memory here and generalizing; Rogan probably has also used this term himself, but I’m not searching transcripts, so take all this with a grain of salt). By this logic, a “snowflake” is someone who is perceived as weak because they let so much affect them emotionally.
But these toxic men are “snowflakes” in every sense of the term. They go on Joe Rogan to complain about trans people, or gay rights, or “the war on Christmas”, or the perceived persecution of “alpha males”, or any number of other issues. Some guests are only famous because they complain about such things.
So what is the difference between a toxic “alpha male” on Joe Rogan and one of the “snowflakes” they like to complain about? Absolutely nothing, except that the toxic men believe that anger doesn’t count as an emotion, so their insecurity allows them to show it regularly.
(And to be clear, there is nothing wrong with showing emotion or caring deeply about something – that’s not a point I’m trying to make)
MAGA will never turn on Trump.
They spent years harping on a “deep state cabal” that was trafficking children. When the world learned that the reality was actually much worse, but Daddy Trump was implicated, all of a sudden it was fake news.
If that didn’t do it, nothing will. They won’t turn on Trump because MAGA is a cult of personality. It’s not about facts and it’s not even about principles. It’s about each of them keeping Donald Trump’s tiny penis in their mouth at all times.
The FCC added that Charter and other cable firms will continue to face competition from fiber, fixed wireless, and satellite broadband providers. Competition from those sectors “will have a significantly greater impact on their pricing decisions than the possible increased ability to benchmark due to the loss of a single cable provider (Cox) in a different territory,” the FCC said.
Horseshit. Only in America is the literal handful of ISPs available considered healthy competition. This makes a couple near monopolies into nearer monopolies.
Rogan is a great example of a few things:
The Dunning-Kruger effect
“I’m just asking questions” being used as an excuse to host an unbalanced number of individuals purporting one specific worldview
Toxic masculinity posing as intellectualism
He is extremely popular with one particular demographic. That demographic tends to share the toxic masculinity and the Dunning-Kruger-fueled belief that they can be experts at everything from the armchair.
Microsoft will have plenty more missteps as they continue to fall from relevance.
Israel First, amirite MAGA?
WWIII will be caused by hoarding of energy. Green solutions are fantastic, but they have been kicked down the road for too long.
What’s your actual fucking goal?
I’d wager that the part they aren’t saying out loud has to do with a few different things:
Distraction from Epstein, which seems to be working. Iran operations now dominate the news cycle.
War offers some economic gains, at least in the short term for a few big players.
War fits into the “law and order” narrative Trump is desperately trying to milk, in a way that the DHS debacles have not done. Unprovoked attack on Iran even just as a show of force has been a conservative wet dream since at least the Bush Jr. days.
On one hand, nukes have been a clear deterrent for most of the time they have existed. Their use in these operations against Iran wouldn’t just be unprecedented, but it would be wasteful too: what targets require such firepower instead of other, more sensible options? It’s ironic, but nukes are arguably worse weapons when deployed versus sitting in their silos while deployment is threatened.
That said, “unprecedented” doesn’t mean much any more, and Trump is totally the kind of person who would drop one just because he can. Instead of “I am become death” we’d get “I am dropping a big, beautiful bomb. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
But the repercussions would be massive. On a scale not yet seen. I’m not talking about repercussions from Iran: the world would need to stand up against MAGA in a big way. Much bigger than has happened so far. I’m not even sure what it would look like, frankly.
Along with anything else costing less than $500.
So which executives are going to jail?
None?
They like freaking out over social issues that don’t affect them, like the men currently on an anti-trans crusade.
They don’t like freaking out over actual problems we could fix in theory, like health care or income disparity. For those, they obstruct to stay relevant.
Not enough. These corporations operate on different math. They pay no taxes. They swim in currency. Pick the biggest realistic number you can imagine and then multiply it by the next biggest. Anything less will be factored out as the cost of business.
Case in point: $375 million is a mere fraction of what Meta spends in a bunch of different areas. Compared to profits, it’s practically rounding error. It won’t affect much.