325
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
325 points (95.3% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3316 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wonder why that is? The dems where marketing right at them?
There is a sizable group of young men who not only feel like the Democrats (and people on the left, in general) have not only ignored the issues they face, but view them as being inherently bad in some way. The alt-right spaces have been very successful at translating discussions of privilege into a message that everyone but the GOP believes young men, especially young, white men, are doing just fine and are greedy for demanding any sort of help or attention, as well as inherently being oppressors of the marginalized groups that have featured so prominently in contemporary discourse, with no way of redeeming themselves short of complete and total submission to these groups. Basically, painting white guilt on steroids as the only acceptable option for these young men to the Democrats, but with the caveat that nothing they do will ever absolve them of the crime of being born with a penis.
This is obviously nonsense, but it's quite attractive to these people to hear someone say that they acknowledge their problems, those problems are real, and what's more, those problems are not their fault. The absence of acknowledgement or inclusion of these problems in the Democratic talking points lends it some credibility, and there's a robust media apparatus in place, with folks like Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson, that allow them to form some sense of community and identity, while also moving them further on the way to being full-blown MAGA supporters.
It's the same sort of strategic failure that the Dems encountered with working class people more broadly; they dismissed their concerns, told them everything was actually fine, when many acutely feel the struggle of existence, and didn't offer a platform that got them excited and feeling like their economic concerns were being addressed. Then add in policy proposals that specifically target groups like black men, and many of them begin to view the entire field of politics as a zero-sum game, which one side is looking to rig against them.
Of course, this is a misguided take, at best, but it's amplified by podcast bros and alt-right youtubers, and the way the DNC strategists takes the votes of these groups for granted lends further credence to the notion, in their eyes. The DNC desperately needs to come up with some countermeasures for the alt-right media bubble and stop assuming they can count on any votes as safe, especially if they don't have heavy messaging targeting the demographics in question.
I really don't see how Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson are an issue. Literally all Jordan Peterson has said that you should take responsibility for your life and do better, that Joe Rogan sits down and has conversations with people taking a neutral perspective.
Harris had every opportunity to go on Joe Rogan, and she didn't, which I think is possibly one of the main reasons that she lost the election. People are sick of corporatised media, bullshit. They want to hear people have actual conversations about real shit. That is something that the new wave media has become extraordinarily good at. And the left wing just can't play that game because they're too insincere and corporatised to have anything more than a 5 second sand bite.
I wouldn't call it an alt right media bubble. I just think it's individuals exercising their free speech, which has landed us in a situation where the traditional media, which is bought and paid for by big business, can no longer compete.
Trump didn't win the election. The Democrats lost. And the data backs this entirely.
Peterson has said way more bullshit and its all on YouTube.
Rogan supposedly being neutral with everyone is problematic since it puts crazy people on equal footing with experts, and it causes confusion for people who may not know better. As an extreme example, being neutral means you should spend the time and effort to hear out a flat earther as much as an astronomer. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone is entitled to a platform to spew bullshit.
Whata the worste shit peterson has said?
What ur essentially saying is that people are too dumb to be allowed to decide if a flat earther or an astronomer should be listened to and that decision should be made for them? Who makes that decision joe? The government? You? The fucking stazi? Why not give the people the freedom to decide for themselves?
My biggest gripe is that science is really fucking hard and we're unbelievably lucky to have made so many strides in knowledge and technology on the backs of generations of brilliant people lending their genius to the greater good. Flat-earth and other pseudo-sciences degrade the amount of pure brilliance, luck, and hard fucking work involved in getting to where we've gotten. I love the idea that some randos on the Internet could fundamentally turn science on it's head, and perhaps it's still possible. Science is much harder than most of these people even realize though.
Should we be skeptical of things in general--absolutely! Even if you truly believe you have a take that will change science at its core, you won't be taken seriously by the scientific community if you can't provide rock-solid proof that can be vetted and verified by other scientists. Is that unfair?
People are most certainly making their own choices -- remember how hot ivermectin was for a minute there? Completely unsupported evidence of efficacy and guess what -- it didn't work. Personally, i think they should take science in their own hands and figure out why they're wrong about so much. The problem here is what i think is a defining difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist: the scientist will pay attention to the results and will even change their hypothesis/theory when new evidence to the contrary is discovered. The pseudo-scientist already knows the answer they are looking for and will disregard any evidence to the contrary out of hand.
Remember the flat earther documentary where they set out to finally disprove modern science and failed spectacularly? Remember when confronted with hard evidence disproving their theory, they immediately started blaming the testing equipment and methodology, never yielding for a moment that they could be wrong. That is a problem, in my opinion. They regularly begin to reject real indisputable evidence in favor of 'vibes' or whatever leads them to believe hare-brained theories, and next thing you see people venturing further out into Lala Land where everything magically fits into their set of "theories" and they are further disconnected from reality.
I really think we've let down generation after generation with degrading educational standards. Pet theories are one thing but outright rejecting science because you can't understand it or do it yourself is counterproductive. Pseudo science doesn't help anyone and deserves to be relegated to the tabloids like they used to be (of course I'm sure that people believed some of that shit whole-heartedly back then too, again despite lacking any credible evidence)