new | show | ask | jobs Github

djeastm 2 days ago

>only served to push him and his listeners rightward

Kind of takes the agency away from full-grown adults, doesn't it?

How about people have principles and don't change them to chase audience/money/fame, eh?

▲

csallen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You're right. Change the words "they were pushed" to "they chose". There's your agency.

> How about people have principles and don't change them to chase audience/money/fame, eh?

You assume that "having principles" means having your principles, and that for someone to disagree must mean they are unprincipled and simply chasing money/audience/fame. This kind of attitude comes across as incredibly arrogant and un-self-aware, and people/voters en masse want nothing to do with it.

The reality is that many millions of people are principled, and they simply have different principles.

For example, "opposing views should be aired and discussed" is a principle widely held by many millions of voters that the left has had an incredibly hard time understanding, respecting, and digesting.

	▲	amanaplanacanal 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I suspect the people that really think that are a small minority. "The South was right, black people are subhuman and needed to be taken care of by slave owners" is not going to be a popular discussion topic, for example. Or suggesting that Hitler was right about how people should be treated in Europe.

▲

Levitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For a communicator, no audience means you lose everything. Why would he, or for that matter, anyone do that?

Look at JK Rowling. Stood her ground, if it wasn't for her books allowing her advocacy, she'd have disappeared. Instead she has to endure being among the most hated millionaires for a good bunch of the left.

Say Rogan sticks to his guns. He would face similar, never-ending attacks, no left-leaning figure could attend his podcast without becoming guilty by association, so he'd end up interviewing basically the same people as he does now, only he wouldn't cater to some people that, given somewhat recent events, would most probably celebrate him getting murdered.

I reckon we shouldn't take away the agency away from the adults who made purity testing a common practice, given the utter disaster we are experiencing as a consequence.

▲

chownie a day ago | parent [-]

> Stood her ground, if it wasn't for her books allowing her advocacy, she'd have disappeared. Instead she has to endure being among the most hated millionaires for a good bunch of the left.

This framing is laying on the narrative a little bit thick don't you think? It makes it seem like she's hated for being wealthy, when it is actually because she has been funding hate groups and calling for trans people to be physically attacked.

The "standing up for women" rhetoric is a little bit hollow in the face of her non-existent feminism when the subject isn't physically attacking trans women, she didn't make a single comment during the recent uptick in abortion debates taking place in the UK for example.

▲

wastle 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> she has been funding hate groups and calling for trans people to be physically attacked

She has done neither of these things you claim. Please refrain from spreading misinformation.

▲

Levitz 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are just proving my point. Statements like this show that it's worthless to engage.

Can you provide any source for her "calling for trans people to be physically attacked"? Because you seem fixated on it, and I've just spent the last 15 minutes looking for one, and I can't find it.

What I can find is her spending so much goddamned money on philanthropy that she stops being a billionaire, while not dodging a dime of taxes precisely because she considers it her obligation. A fortune amassed in what is probably the most ethic way possible, through exploitation of nobody, writing books.

Related to this I can find the foundation of the Volant Charitable Trust, "a grant-making trust to support charitable causes in Scotland, helping vulnerable groups with an emphasis on women, children and young people."

I can also find a comment of "every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them".

And that's the point. You want to paint her as some lunatic who would like to hunt trans people down for sport, when it's crystal clear that she has the "radical" (standard 2018 radical leftist) notion that trans women are not the same thing as biological women and that the definition of women shouldn't be changed to appease to them.

But again. It's not worth it to engage, because we both know I can spend 20+ minutes working on this reply and you are not going to change your stance. An apostate is worse than a heathen, which is why people complain about Rowling rather than anyone who is actually right wing. Because you are scared that if you defended her, you would face the same judgement. Making the world a worse place through and through.

▲

chownie 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I posted that earlier without checking and recalled wrongly, rather than calling for people to physically assault she instead called for her following to take photographs of trans women in public toilets and disseminate those photos to the public[1].

That was my bad, I knew that she had done something abhorrent and indefensible but it was 5 months ago and I'd forgotten which kind of hatred she had been producing specifically. I'll cite the source first next time.

1: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLPG5DlIFIz/ -- I don't have a twitter account to forward the original, but there are news stories about this from the time if you're unsatisfied with that link.

	▲	Levitz 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean it honestly when I say thanks for the correction.