You do know election season is out so you don't need to campaign for voter apathy?
You do know your reply in which you didn't watch jack shit highlights why this video is actually a big deal.
Oh yeah, I totally need to listen to Joe Rogan the alt-right enabler to tell me how voting is pointless.
Only skipped through the video because I ain't watching 2 hours worth. But the answer to a flawed electoral system shouldn't be to not participate, people should've learned this after 2016.
But what about "it's her turn"? Shit's prevalent on all sides.
I'm not gonna listen to all that shit but here's the guy's TED talk they mention at the beginning
https://youtu.be/mw2z9lV3W1g
the message seems to be exactly the opposite from what the OP title implies?
I don't necessarily feel like my individual vote "matters" in the sense that elections very rarely come down to an exact 50-50. What actually matters is your mindset during an election. People feel like their vote doesn't matter, which leads to thousands of people not voting because of it, which means that an election could result in a difference of a few hundred to a thousand votes that could have swayed if said people voted in the first place.
Apathy hurts.
I'd like to run with this one a little
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGlgunClwxE
Things he's said publically:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fuckthealtright/comments/a4mpvv/choke_a_tranny_get_your_fingers_around_the/
This tells you all you really need to know about Joe Rogan
He doesn't research. He doesn't fact check. He takes the words of men like Gavin McInnes at face value. Gavin McInnes said it's all a joke, so it's all a joke, and everyone else is the dickheads for not believing that it's all a joke
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/style/the-edge-of-hip-vice-the-brand.html
And it's not exactly like this is some kind of new thing. I found this in less than ten minutes of searching, and by all accounts this is just the kind of person McInnes is. It's not a joke. He actually is a white supremacist manboy
He actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. ''I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of,'' he said. ''I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life.''
Mr. McInnes said he was a women's studies major in college. But his magazine would offend many women. An article offering a ''Guide to Guilty Pleasures'' calls Gwen Stefani lovable for ''that pouty face that you kinda want to kiss and slap at the same time.'''' 'No means no' is puritanism,'' Mr. McInnes said, expanding on his view of romance. ''I think Steinem-era feminism did women a lot of injustices, but one of the worst ones was convincing all these indie norts that women don't want to be dominated.''
I mean fuck, even just a basic trip to wikipedia nets you all kinds of different sources about McInnes' views
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_McInnes#Views
How about instead of "why you shouldn't vote" we talk about "Why voting isn't enough, why you should vote, and ballot measures."
https://youtu.be/8oJ92rKnB8A
I like Joe Rogan with certain guests but he really is clueless about politics and lets charlatans like Ben Shapiro, Gavin McInnes, etc. spew bullshit unchallenged.
Unironically using Joe Rogan is up there with using Maddox.
This probably shouldn't be in polidicks
That's cool, have you ever tried DMT?
Yes exactly, I've partcipated in DNC conventions in the past and one individual can be surprisingly influential if you speak up. Most of these are packed with boomers and insiders, and people wonder why the poltical system won't change. You need to participate more besides going to the booth and voting.
Rogan's a bit of a dummy but he's a nice dude. Calling him an "alt-right enabler" is just wrong.
At least he's trying to make an effort and talk to various types of people, even if he isn't the brightest about it.
Or just advocate reformed that aforementioned electoral system like Maine did doing in very hard way in same election, To more little better system?
Rather extremely voting shaming them (if there more national political parties exist beside Democrats or Republicans) so much to cause them to not participate in first place.
he lists three potential soluitions, none of which are apathy.
Watch some of his standup, it makes it pretty clear where his ideologies tend to fall. While he himself may not be a die hard alt-right leader, he allows lots of shitty people to reach a wide audience that actually listens to them. He continually brings on mostly alt-right identifying people and compliments their cause because it nets him viewership. If that isn't enabling, I don't know what is. He gets out of being held accountable as he does exactly what you said.
It's not inherently bad that he does this either, it's just something people need to made aware of. I don't know how you can disagree that he plays up his talks with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson among others. He loves to reiterate that he thinks his guests are smart people.
One thing that always stuck out to me is that you can easily contrast the respect he gives to Alex Jones' conspiracy theories vs Tom Delounge's alien conspiracy theories in their respective episodes. He treats Tom Delounge like an absolute loon but he acts like Alex Jones is a smart guy who gets ahead of himself sometimes. It's bizarre.
He has a shit ton of people on his show, they’re not all alt right and he gets viewership from his wide spread and diverse cast of guests.
He has harvard professors like this guy on, he has ethicists on(one from Portland, so alt right in Portland eh?) he has botanists and biologists and all sorts of people.
I’ve heard him have many disagreeements with his guests over all sorts of stuff, calling him an enabler implies he never questions any of the shit peddled in front of him. He does.
So I listened to the whole podcast.
1) 27X was wrong to call this thread "Why your vote doesn't matter" because that was not the point of the conversation.
2) The talk that was had was very much on the "Left".
3) The points raised by the speaker Lester were incredibly valuable and it's a shame some people here are going to whole sale ignore them because of any association with Joe.
4) Stop judging 3 hour long conversations by 30 second snippets. It's unjustifiable.
Unless you don't live in a swing state, then it becomes the only conversation that matters.
The entire reason conservatives have been able to use the EC as a linchpin pillar is because the population density of the Eastern Triangle and California make a 1:1 counting amongst active registered voters immediately skewed to the left by holding almost a third of the population, ignoring that gerrymandering and vote suppression is almost exclusively a republican phenomenon and has been since the 70s.
Trump basically won by exploiting this myth without even crafting a new visage for it, coupled with democratic arrogance that 'fly-over' states have no business voting thus aren't worth courting or exploring. The only time Clinton acknowledged plains and belt states was four months before the primaries.
The US system and voting paradigms in general have outlived their point, and as long as republicans are able to adapt the current laws and system to represent corporate interests instead of popular interests, it's literally rigged, and the Clintonian method of just do what the republicans do but smile and be nice when you do it ain't improving shit.
Obama spent three and half years trying to play nice and five years actual inching policy along, and Trump undid about 70% of that in six months and is actively getting rid of the rest, and may not even need a second term to do it.
The system is fundamentally broken because it assumes rightness of character and transparency of virtue as a given amongst the elected, which hasn't been a thing after the second Adams was president, with basically only the Roosevelts and Johnson as outliers, and JFK as a guy who talked the talk, but behind the scenes walked a very different walk.
I'm not going to disagree with any of that because it's correct.
What I am going to disagree with is that Lawrence argues things are actually looking better than they have in a very long time due to the bill Nancy Pelosi is looking to pass, the tide that that represents and the effect Trump has had on politics overall is going to galvanize a change like this, hopefully.
He doesn't offer a viewpoint or a perspective of "Your vote doesn't matter", is my main contention with your argument so far. He offers a view point of "your vote is currently held back by the systems. We can work to improve these systems, look at how we're already doing that". Arguing that he actually said "Your vote doesn't matter" would be a relatively large change of his words and his intentions there I believe.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
