Wednesday assorted links


The real truth about Red China's assault on America:

It's all good.

China is intervening in the 2020 election to defeat Trump. This go-around, the traitors don't have the CIA, FBI, DoJ, British Intel, et al to do the dirty work.

I am not so sure it is good. It means Red Chinese are pretending to be Americans and infiltrarion our country to durther their own agendas. It is doubleplus ungood.

You'd rather Xi Jinping was president of America than Trump was? _Whatever_ it takes?

I can't understand such a reasoning either. I am very concerned with foreigners using the internet to fool Americans and further their own agendas.

Bingo. Trump is bad, but outside interference is much worse.


Do you know of any good football prediction or odds websites I can go to, to get info on live football games? I sometimes like placing a small bet whenever my favorite team is playing

America has its own asian neo-nazi problem at home. Some wackjob making threats of violence against a lot of different groups. This ethnic cleanser also happens to be a big fan of Trump:

“I thank God everyday President Donald John Trump is President and that he will launch a Racial War and Crusade.”

Can't wait for misguided free speech advocates to come defend this idiot.

But this problem is easier to fight because it is done openly. The Red Chinese are acting in a covert way.

Interesting how using the right keywords you can get your message spread everywhere quickly and reliably, by your enemies.

This is very much like the old newspaper trick where a strip show needing publicity would have the journalist interview a few ministers decrying the immorality and corrupting influence of these shows, guaranteeing that everyone read it and guaranteeing a sold out show.

But you do have the right to repeat what this idiot said, to make sure that as many people was possible read his deranged ramblings.

3: Perhaps my favorite genre of the Cowen Posts -- "lefty links to another lefty who cannot fathom why a non-lefty is popular."

Neither of them ever spends five seconds wondering why the ancient, dried, decaying husk of Joe Biden is leading the Dem primary polls. To them, THAT makes crystal-clear sense!

"Because he's the least crazy one and has name recognition and Obama Aura".

It's not exactly rocket surgery.

I don't know, it's not a good sign when you have to say your brain surgeon will vouch for you

It's also not a good sign when you have to assure people you're a very stable genius.

RTFA. It's entirely a guy saying "I am not Joe Rogan's target audience but I definitely see his appeal."

Quite often more like, "But enough about me, here's what I think about Joe Rogan. Oh, and some more about me."

It's a guy dredging the riverbed for reasons to hate Joe Rogan, and finally settling on the idea that Rogan's "fatal flaw" is that he won't write people off, even if lefty media hates them.

Would someone explain this comment in the Rogan article to me?

"... but neither of them seems to grasp that a good point coming out of the wrong mouth doesn’t count for squat."
What am I missing? It seems a good point is a good point. Or is it that people like the writer can only accept truth if the correct person utters it.

"And it’s an expensive bump. The 500+ program pays out about $1,800 per eligible child. "

Given that lifetime earnings are in the order of €2MM in present value, a very very cheap bump.

Fear God.
Honor the Queen.
Shoot Straight.
Keep Clean.

GOD BLESS THE NYT COMMENT SECTION!! Best satire in the Internet.

Pretty funny!

Many howlers here (the relatively "excellent" Cuck Manelli excluded) are almost as severely afflicted as the rank idiots commenters at the NYT. "They live in a fantasy land, predicated on fear and gossip, and entirely unrelated to reality." See Bookworm Room Blog

NYT won't let me read the story but I can wallow in the entire comment string -- I'll take that trade any day

#3 Because it's largely unscripted. Similar to Howard Stern in my view but without the edginess. It's not like he's throwing softballs either, it's the way the conversation develops. It's using a 'light-touch' to guide the discussion and letting those interviewed stumble into responses they wouldn't have otherwise made.

I've listened to hundreds of his podcasts (didn't read article though). Couple things I like: a) the atmosphere of most of his podcasts is like buddies hanging out talking - but often his guests are experts in their fields. b) he's willing to provide a forum for "out there" ideas that are fun to think about even if not true, and there's no harm in speculating; c) speculative: many people don't have many friends or have long stretches of dull time, and listening to his podcast (unlike most) might help with loneliness. In his reddit forum there are many who comment how his podcast helps them get through the day in the mailroom or running a forklift, or whatever.

1) The articles agenda is kind of repulsive.

For one, the cited program really isn't that expensive at all, yet the article says "This would be an enormous expenditure".

"Such a program, then, would cost between $100 and $185 billion per year."

Social Security in $945B per year, several times the cost cited for an American version of this benefit. We can spend that on the old, but not on trying to promote births of the people whose taxes will one day have to fund that $945B???

If such a relatively small expenditure can make a meaningful boost in TFR, then perhaps getting back to replacement is within our means if we just increase the program a bit more.

"Several European countries, such as Germany and Sweden, are staving off severe fertility declines by accepting immigrants, a path Poland has eschewed. Time will tell whether Poland’s expensive bet on tight border control and moderately higher native birth rates will prove wise."

So we have a relatively easy solution to the TFR problem, but instead its a wise move to turn out countries into a new caliphate?

I thought Poland has a million Ukrainian immigrants? From yesterday’s post.

They are white immigrants, so they don't count too progressives.

#3: I'm amazed that this kind of dissent from the party line was actually published in The Atlantic. How did the editors allow this to slip through?

Not exactly dissent if it ends with a hand-wringing indictment that handily wrecks any bridge built in the first two-thirds, is it?

The profile telegraphs enough disdain for non-Atlantic readers to make clear the writer had to don latex gloves just to type it all out.

I love the line in Atlantic's Greenland story suggesting the idea was a deliberate distraction from real problems -- like Trump's "failure to deal with white supremacy"

Trump? Pffft. A real white supremacist would attempt to buy Iceland. Greenland is merely populated with Eskimos.

Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.

Who is Joe Rogan?

We choose truth over facts.

If you agree with me go to Joe 30030303

I’d rather elect Joe Rogan than Joe Biden.

I’d rather re-elect the President though you fucking cuck traitor.

It is a transparently Straussian piece. Anyone with half a brain can tell the guy was required to disavow any real affinity with Rogan or his audience to keep his job. Those without even half a functioning brain will believe that the writer doesn’t actually like or admire Rogan, in spite of the transparently hollow protests to the contrary.

Either way, the writer reserved most of his admiration for himself

That's crazy man. Have you ever tried DMT?

Joe Rogan is not a cuck I like the authors of this blog as well as the dedicated readers and fans who are all Cucks.

sorta makes you wonder who all the peeps were
calling J.R. " alt right" and worse
they seemed pretty sure about it

Alt right can mean anything from "once voted for a Republican" to "wears a swastika armband around the house." Its only meaning is as a kind of slur, a way to mark someone as "not one of us" without having to go into specifics.

"In 2019, men feeling thwarted and besieged is a bipartisan experience."

I really don't get this. It might just be because I am securely male and successful .. but I don't see the world lacking of opportunity for anyone to be male and successful. In fact, I think it's less likely society blocking you than you inventing a villain to cover your own lack of initiative.

Anyone can get stronger doing calisthenics. It doesn't cost money, though a good diet helps. There are probably dangerous and rewarding sports in your area. Not everyone has room in the garage for a table saw, but for many that's easy enough. Get some tools and learn to use them.

The electrician was in yesterday to repair some bad wiring (put in by a fairly respected appliance store's bad installers) so now I've got a little drywall job for the day. Don't think I'll listen to Rogan or blame society while I do it.

What happened to you, to make you cuck-boy? Maybe if you share it with us you can experience some growth.

And so now .. a crack in the foundation and subterranean termites were discovered .. just to keep you all informed. Ah well, as a sage once said, it is what it is.

You’re quoting the Atlantic author. Not Joe Rogan.

He never says anything like that in the entire article.

Actually this is more ridiculous.

Your argument/approach seems to be almost completely in line with Joe Rogan’s.

-5 points for reading comprehension fail.

Actually, for a large number of people excercise gives no strength improvements.

That's an interesting claim. With 30g of protein per meal?

Right, just like reading a book confers no knowledge. You have to do more than just get through the book. You have to pay attention to what it says and think about it. Same deal with exercise. I know people who have been running 10-minute miles for 30 years. Imagine running for 30 years and never once breaking a 6-minute mile. They're putting in the time, but not mindfully.

Now, the wrong conclusion to draw from that is "Exercise doesn't help most people." The right conclusion to draw is, "Don't just go through the motions when you're living your life. Do things deliberately." But do you think the average person even wants to become aware of the difference? Inevitability is the mental inertia that drives all other psychological defense mechanisms.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to re-blog this comment...

"but I don't see the world lacking of opportunity for anyone to be male and successful." True, but also "but I don't see the world lacking of opportunity for anyone NOT to be male and successful." It's been a long time since being a female or minority hasn't been a slight advantage.

"you inventing a villain to cover your own lack of initiative." Yes, for everyone, not just white guys.

Being female has some advantages, being male has different ones.
Being white has some advantages, being non-white has different ones.
Same for disadvantages.
We can argue who has more of each, or we can grow up and realize it's all just people.

I'm inclined to agree, although I don't think it really averages out equal, and it's okay to acknowledge that inequities exist without making that into an attack on people whose average turns out to be on the positive side.

We can never scientifically declare if it averages out to 'equal', or to determine exactly how each group is more or less equal from another. It's not quantifiable, and people have different preferences.

For some women, having advantages in the family court system doesn't make up for disadvantages in achieving corporate leadership roles. For others the opposite is true. For some minorities, university entrance preferences outweigh police harassment, for others not so much.

That's why I wish we didn't spend so much time in places like this going back and forth about whether women or men or whites or blacks are better/worse/advantaged/disadvantaged. We should acknowledge how those differences change the perceptions and life experiences of the groups, but make a good faith effort to move past all of it.


"Me and my co-authors: White people feeling that their ethnic group is deprived relative to other groups, even though it is objectively not, predicts Nationalistic sentiments.

Quilette: This study shows that liberals are causing White Nationalism"

Such are these times.

The test items in that paper ( seems pretty silly: “I’m frustrated by what my ethnic group earns relative to other groups in NZ” and “People from my ethnic group generally earn less than other groups in NZ”.

Well, of course they do for members of most subgroups in the White majority relative to some other groups, both within the White majority and other ethnic groups in NZ (Chinese and the like), and especially smoothing for all things being equal in age terms.... It's not specifically talking about "All other groups, considered together".

And the less said about ' "Generally, the more influence NZ has on other nations, the better off they are” and “Foreign nations have done some very fine things but they are still not as good as New Zealand” as 'nationalism' and ' “I feel a great pride in the land that is our New Zealand” and “Although at times I may not agree with the government, my commitment to New Zealand always remains strong” as 'patriotism' the better ("national pride" is 'patriotism' and believing NZ is a positive influence is 'nationalism'?

How is that objectively different from white nationalism. You’re now firmly on the level of “there’s fine Neo-Nazis” both sides nonsense that we hear from Trump.

You clearly didn’t read the Twitter comments. They’re more factual than our Liar in Chief.

“Another reminder that Quillette is a Neo Nazi rag.”


Anonymous's parody is the best anonymous.

But really you've got to be impressed with the chutzpah of that Sengupta hustler. Pulling off a bunch of cherry picked survey items, ascribing his own biased interpretation of what they would mean, using weak correlations between them to bolster a dubious and spurious psycho-social model.... agitprop with a statistical sheen for dumbly pedestrian Voxxers.

But to then call the Quilletter on stretching his "research" into her rhetoric, when the original "research" was almost pure rhetoric masquerading as scientism, and getting the dumb Voxxers to buy it... Chutzpah.

(And the guys is open that he starts from a deeply biased position - "For example, our theorizing started from the premise that white people in white-majority countries often hold a particular belief about intergroup relations that conflicts with reality". It's research that starts from the basis of the idea that the White majority must be more wrong about reality than other ethnic groups and then decides to bolster that with the claim that this is related to "dominance" and "nationalism", on whatever statistical grounds he can find which seem like his audience will swallow it).

It’s not incorrect though. They surveyed white men and found their perception of their economic situation strongly correlated to white nationalist propaganda statements. Such as perception of relative economic status in regards to race correlating to Neo-Nazi statements regarding the value of the New Zealand nation state in the world.

To dumb it down for the Trump crowd: white people that think white people aren’t doing well economically are more inclined to support the Holocaust. They’re committed white nationalists and believe that New Zealand is overall a positive effect on the world.

New Zealand had their own Holocaust, of the Maori. They’re incapable of having a positive influence on the world due to their enslavement and mass murder of the local Polynesian idyllic population and tribal culture. Who lived in peace for millennia before the white devil arrived.

Twitter was correct, as it is always minus Trump. Rural whites in Democratic countries think their country is a positive player in the world, and that’s literally what Hitler thought.

Ban all rural areas from internet uploads. Warren 2020.

The troll distilled:

Yes white nationalists are killing a lot of people right now, but if we send that up as a big joke no one will notice.

All this trolling effort for nothing. You lie about who posts and sacrifice your sanity to attack your own posts (fentanyl?)

"Ban all rural areas from internet uploads. Warren 2020."

Who are the fascists in this story?

The trolls. Anyone not standing foursquare for constitutional democracy, but especially the trolls who think it's cute to stand in the way.

Bonus link:

Article 25, in defense of constitutional democracy.

Frankly, it's sad that this idea that members of the dominant culture do indeed have advantage is upsetting to you.

It is a fair starting point, because it is not an assumption, rather it is demonstrated by essentially all demographic studies of income, wealth, health or lifespan.

Depends entirely on a place's migration policy. But certainly do not have an advantage relative to all groups; in the US, even, others than "the dominant culture" have an advantage in education relative to prior attainment, Hispanics have an advantage in lifespan, many groups have an advantage in household income relative to age.

(In fact, I'd worry that a focus on fighting is a bit "performatively male" if you know what I mean.)

You don't mean "performatively male," you mean performatively masculine, and that's not an unimportant difference. Anyone can be masculine but, at least for a few more years, not anyone can be male. My question is, what's wrong with masculine performance? Why should we secretly worry or snicker about what's behind the performance? Gays, women, transsexuals, and lesbians can all engage in masculine performance for different reasons. Most of those reasons are, if not good, at least not-bad.

So, what's the problem?

Joe likes Jack. He likes Milo Yiannopoulos. He likes Alex Jones. He wants you to know that he doesn’t agree with much of what they say, but he also wants you to know that off camera they’re the nicest guys. If we all have fatal flaws, this is Joe’s: his insistence on seeing value in people even when he shouldn’t, even when they’ve forfeited any right to it,

Agree 100%. Judging people by what they do or how they treat others rather than by what they say is hopelessly regressive. What kind of retrograde neanderthal is able to see the humanity in people who hold the wrong political beliefs? Disgusting!

You sound like a woman with a boyfriend on death row. No one else understands him!

Some lilly-livered cowards among my fellow progressives, like you, probably, might be tempted to say that even bad people have value as human beings, but the courageous among us know that someone who has said things that we disagree with has forfeited their right to any expectation of common decency as well as any value they might have had as humans. The lessons of history tell us that dehumanizing our fellow citizens is the only healthy way to approach political conflict.

Nazis held the wrong beliefs. Why didn't Churchill and Roosevelt just talk to them?

That's a great analogy, because Jack Dorsey, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Alex Jones are just like Nazis, when you think about it. Didn't the three of them invade Poland once a few years ago?

"You sound like a woman with a boyfriend on death row. No one else understands him!"

That was pretty funny!

Rogan allegedly once told a friend that the poor ain't so bad.

Jumped out at me, too. Joe sounds a lot like Jesus there

#3 " (No, Joe, Twitter banning white nationalists from its privately held publishing platform is not censorship—it might be a risky corporate policy, but it is not censorship.)"

Yes, it is censorship. Not that it's bad for a private company to censor some people, but that's a different topic. I think the author here is conflating this with 1st amendment rights.

It's amazing how many people conflate censorship with 1st Amendment protections. It is a good indication that the author isn't very smart.

Businesses don't do censorship. They have terms and agreements. You follow them or you don't get to use their service.

'Yes, it is censorship.'

It is no more censorship than a home owner telling someone to leave their house because they don't want to listen to them.

Private entities not wanting to listen to you - or distributing what you wish other people to pay attention to - is not, and has never been, censorship.

Agreed. When AMC re-runs episodes of the Sopranos and bleeps the swear words, nobody calls that censoring.

Oh wait, yes they do. Moving to Germany must have caused half my brain to quit working, or maybe it never did.

'... nobody calls that censoring. Oh wait, yes they do.'

So people who don't want to hear swear words are supporting censorship? Wait, I forgot, incels aren't parents concerned with what words their children may repeat, for example.

Did AMC also get to bleep all the swear words on DVDs?

And does writing f**K also meet your demanding standards for censorship? How about f-bomb? Or fricking?

Self-censorship is a term I am familiar with, yes. Glad to know we're on the same page.

'Self-censorship is a term I am familiar with, yes.'

So, when you visit someone, do you shout at the top of your lungs during the entire conversation? And when your host politely asks to speak in a more normal volume or you will have to leave, do you start screaming that this is censorship?

And if you are not shouting in the first place, do you feel this is self-censorship, that when one follows the customary rules of polite social interaction, this represent the basest variety of self-censorship?

"Oh wait, yes they do."


"It is no more censorship than a home owner telling someone to leave their house because they don't want to listen to them."

Correct, and it is censorship, just legal. Some people are even able to self censor their comments so not to get thrown out.

'and it is censorship, just legal'

Someone not wanting to listen to someone else is not, and has never been, censorship. After they have you leave their house and close their door behind, you remain completely free to stand on the public sidewalk, and talk to yourself to your heart's content.

Not being listened to is not censorship, and a private entity is under zero obligation to distribute whatever it is you want distributed for other people to pay attention to.

If twitter could effectively stop you from posting your information everywhere on the Internet, which of course they cannot do, then we could start to have a discussion about twitter being a censor.

But there are people who want to listen. That's the thing. The people who don't want to listen are overruling the people who do want to listen, and that's called censorship.

It's not censorship, its contractual. Either you agree to their terms of service or not. If you do not, you get kicked out.

Sometimes the rule is: "Don't be a commie".

#4. GOP control has been succcessful in driving political economic policy in the States overall, but its been a failure, mitigated by cities almost entirely controlled by Democrats. Where there are no cities, the GOP policies force the GOP to tap into Democratic created Federal programs.

The one GOP success has been to get has been to define the success of Democratic policies as failures in the eyes of both the GOP, Democrats, and independents.

Ie, the immigration of refugees from GOP controlled areas to Democratic cities is a failure because the high costs are the opportunity to earn higher wages, and the housing shortage is caused by too many people coming for the higher income jobs in excess of housing, etc.

The GOP does not claim that cutting housing costs by driving out youngg people to Democratic cities is a success of GOP policies, but if lower housing costs, lower living costs are the primary economic policy goal, the GOP is a success. If low unemployment rates is the objective because young workers have left and Social Security and Medicare creates high demand by those over 65 far beyond their labor income, then the GOP is a success.

If getting rid of public employees like teachers is a GOP objective, the GOP is succeeding in driving teachers out, and toward Democratic Party controlled areas. And rural schools closed abd the rural kids shipped to Democratic run cities.

Globally, migration is from conservative controlled areas toward more liberal areas, primarily cities.

#3 The profile includes this: "After all, how many mainstream entertainers routinely expose their audiences to Harvard biologists? Or climate-change experts? (The Uninhabitable Earth author David Wallace-Wells, episode No. 1259.)..."

Wallace-Wells, an author/journalist with no science background is a "climate expert."

To the Atlantic, that's good enough

3. More proof on the ascent of nationalism: China and Poland in earlier blog posts today, and the U.S. with this one. If every nation is pursuing its own zero sum nationalist goals, doesn't that present something of a problem. On the other hand, expressing sympathy (or not hostility) for the nationalists may help the fever to subside. Earlier this week Cowen posted a Straussian social media post from Hong Kong, seemingly expressing sympathy for the China nationalists. That the social media post was so easily decoded suggests the protesters aren't very good Straussians. I liked Jamie Dimon's approach to the rising fever against business: surrender.

What’s the opposite of nationalism? Or nationalist?

Tribalism? Liberalism? Globalism?

rayward keeps throw about words that end in "ian,""ism," and "ist" that don't mean what he thinks.

He isn't shallow. No. He lacks background and context in almost every topic he with which he muddles.

I note that progressives push race and gender as the primary group affiliation factors a person should recognize. They seem situationally schizophrenic on traditional cultural affiliation.

But their anti-nationalist “My (Western) country, always wrong and uniquely evil” seems ... suicidal.

Poles aren’t supposed to be Polish? Why should the Poles abandon their culture in favor of someone, anyone, else’s?

Yeah, there's a thread of thought on the left that puts race and gender and sexual orientation as the really important bits of identity. This is really bad for society, but good for political movements based on race and gender and sexual orientation. Since most whites, men, and straights won't organize along these identity lines right now, it's a short-term win. Long term, this will likely erode the norm among white men against such identity politics, to everyone's costs. But that's the future and they want to win political battles today.

5.) is a great list to peruse just for a bit of daily optimism. The low-cost space tugs, DNA data storage, and pay-to-drive ridesharing app all stood out to me. Best of luck to all these endeavours.

Here's day 2:

#3 So, Will Joe be interviewing Tyler, or will Tyler be conversing with Joe? And when?

How can we make this happen?

If you are linking to the tech crunch article on YCombinator companies, you might as well also link to the second one, for the companies that presented on day two. So far away from the previous recession, classes are very big, casting a fast wider net.

My company presented on day 1, and it's amazing how much YCombinator exposure changes VC perspectives: Investors that would immediately screen us out because we didn't have any Stanford Ph.Ds on staff suddenly are interested in our next funding round.

The Atlantic article was just too off -- sure Rogan is kind of a macho guy, but that's completely missing the point. People listen to Rogan's podcast because he consistently gets top of the line guests and goes in-depth with them for 3 hours. Full-stop.

Honestly, it's not too different than Conversations with Tyler.

Conversations with Tyler, which I enjoy immensely, are too short. The Rogan Jonathan Haidt interview is interesting because it is probably longer than anything Jonathan had done, and you could hear in his voice that he was having a blast. He probably could have talked for another hour or more and I felt it was cut short.

Another interesting one is Bari Weiss, the resident hard right NYT journalist. She isn't even close to right wing, she had to use the bathroom and the show kept on with a bit of a monolog by Rogan, and the most interesting were the throw out tropes that everyone uses for sound bites or short interview lines, how they sounded hollow, shallow and annoying compared to the longer conversations and discussions.

So Tyler shouldn't edit so fiercely. Dead air doesn't apply to podcasts.

Except Conversations with Tyler don't last three goddamn hours. And they have transcripts that you can quickly read instead.

The other thing is CwT is usually incredibly low testosterone and very beta even when the guest is ostensibly a man.

My testicles descend when I listen to Rogan then they go back up when I listen to Tyler. It all balances out.

3. Now I know what Devin Gordon thinks, and I have a deep abiding feeling that I just wasted a bunch of my time.

Why, oh why do these media dweebs insist on being a secular priesthood declaring with such authority the awful sinfulness of what they don't like? It is so tiresome. We, (the royal we) have Declared that (insert name here) is Beyond the Pale, and is Not to be Mentioned Except as an Example of Evil. Oh please.

Rogan lets people talk. For a long long time. He doesn't play the Religious Authority shtick because he finds it tiresome, as his millions of listeners do. If you don't like what someone says, then don't like it. Rogan refuses to be a gatekeeper, a moral arbiter of Right and Righteous.

What I really like is what happens after an hour has passed. All the thoughts and wisdom are out and said, now it is two people just talking. The interesting people get really interesting, the more common people run out of steam.

By the way, I listened to the Twitter episode with Jack and his sidekick and Pool. My conclusion from that episode is that Twitter is hopeless; the quantity of messages makes it impossible to curate, and the curation process will make everyone unhappy. It cemented in my mind the perversity of the platform, and a deep distrust of anyone who uses it as a source of information. I think Jack Dorsey knows that.

I tried to get through it and just couldnt. Paragraph after paragraph of Gordon flapping his gums. I didnt even get to the part where he lets us know that we have all decided that Rogan is bad but im not at all surprised to hear that was the nut of it.

In effect the writer demonstrated why Rogan is so good, by doing the exact opposite.

4 is related to this Reihan article about how governors and states in general don't have a lot of power, in large part because most spending is controlled by the federal government-- and not with open ended block grants aimed at equalizing fiscal capacity, as in Canada, Germany, Australia, and other federal countries, but with matching programs that give more money to richer states and achieve little to no inter-state redistribution but have lots of strings attached to achieve intra-state redistribution and other federal policy goals.

States thus have a lot less power to experiment than Canadian provinces, but also there's a lot less redistribution from rich to poor states than between Canadian provinces. (With more redistribution from rich to poor states we would, like Canada, see poor states as more left and rich states are more right, as they once were.)

#3: I tend to suspect it's mostly because most folk are generally fairly easygoing centrists who are underserved by most mass media -

Typical centrists that, as opposed to "the radical centre" which basically does not exist at any level that matters in vote share or market share.

#3: It is hilarious how this guy bumps around the reasons why JR is so popular and still cannot see it. If I had to summarize it, it is this: JR is not a pompous ass like you, dear Devin. People are tired of whinny, passive-aggressive people like you who pretend to be PC but are actually just as tribal and nasty. Joe is a guy that at least lets the other guy (or "laday"!) talk, and he is not really trying to convince anyone of anything.

Rogan has the wrong background, mannerisms, accent, and verbal tics to be standard-issue broadcast journalist. He interviews the wrong people in the wrong way, relative to what respectable media sources do. Thus his popularity is really upsetting to them.

#3...Dr. Johnson now said, a certain eminent political friend of ours [Burke] was wrong, in his maxim of sticking to a certain set of men on all occasions. "I can see that a man may do right to stick to a party," said he; "that is to say, he is a Whig, or he is a Tory, and he thinks one of those parties upon the whole the best, and that to make it prevail, it must be generally supported, though, in particulars, it may be wrong. He takes its faggot of principles, in which there are fewer rotten sticks than in the other, though some rotten sticks to be sure; and they cannot be well separated. But, to blind one's self to one man, or one set of men (who may be right to-day and wrong to-morrow), without any general preference of system, I must disapprove."
Boswell: Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides

This is my view of politics. You hold your nose and choose a party. not voting for your own party if you find the candidate vile enough to take a pass on based upon your fundamental principles. And so you never sacrifice your core beliefs, certainly not for politics. Nothing on this Earth could compel me to listen to Joe Rogan. I don't need to understand him or even be aware he exists. There are plenty of places I find views different from myself, which is important, without pulling Joe Rogan from the compost bin of talk radio as he oozes out. Spare me the vacuous genre of people I must understand in order to understand the country. There is no such person.

What does anything in that wall of text have to do with Joe Rogan?

You think Rush Limbaugh/talk radio is interviewing Bernie Sanders, tulsi Gabbard, Dr Cornell West, and Andrew Yang for hours each? And letting them speak freely without nonsense interruptions or gotcha punditry ?

The left wing hatred of Joe Rogan, a self admitted left wing “almost socialist” entertainer and podcast host is so 2019.

Dem candidates are given the opportunity to make their pitch on the podcast. For hours, not in soundbites. And be taken seriously. With an audience of millions. Cable news gives you Dem debates with “raise your hand if X” and 5 minutes of gotcha questions and somehow Joe Rogan is so awful “no one could make” you listen to him.

You Boomers. Smh

I lean left but am a Rogan fan. His invites to alt-right guests are ok with me but it is fair to debate if tolerance of intolerance is the correct move. The paradox of tolerance is still unresolved in the US.

I noticed that Boomers don't like the amount of cursing on the show. Personally I don't mind as I'm a bit younger but if you think about it, Howard Stern was the edge of their decency boundary and that generation used the government (FCC) to go after him. Rogan isn't nearly as raunchy as Stern but his language rubs the older people the wrong way.

What, Number 3 was a profile of him and why people should read him. Get a clue. I don't know or care what his politics are. He's vulgar and uninteresting to me. I never watch debates. I read transcripts afterwards. Last time around, my candidate was James Webb. My current favorite political book is George Will The Conservative Sensibility. I am not a Republican because I loathe Trump and MaConnell, who aren't a million miles within being conservatives. Baby Boomers fought the Vietnam War, assuming "baby boomer"s has any real significance. I don't support Sanders because he didn't support TARP, which I believe was essential. In a fair debate, Rush Limbaugh couldn't debate Mr. Potato Head. Try not to use stereotypes so slavishly, if you can. Read Hayek The Road to Serfdom, which is dedicated to Trump supporters.

Kat, I don't care who watches him. I was bothered by the idea that "He understands men in America better than most people do. The rest of the country should start paying attention."

I paid attention, and , after retching, have gone on with my life. I can't stand Howard Stern either.

Fair enough. It looks to be a generational thing. Rogan is definitely popular with the 25-55 demographic and some of his speech and content would be considered vulgar to a crowd older than that for sure. If you can stomach a few more episodes however, you will understand a lot of American men.

Can’t compare Howard Stern to Joe Rogan. Howard Stern is a vulgar shock jock most of whose guests were close to being morons.

The few occasions I viewed Stern he belittled people. I don’ t find that funny. Fair enough, Kat.

"I don't support Sanders because he didn't support TARP"

THAT's the part you don't like?

Well obviously parasite-host arms races increased human variability! Didn't read the article yet, but MHC (immune) genes are maybe the most variable in the species, exactly as you'd expect from people being affected by different pathogens in different places.

Yeah, monocultures are vulnerable to being wiped out by a single pathogen whereas diversity gives the species resilience.

What could be interesting is the question of where in the body does this diversity express itself and in what ways? As the article says and as you predicted, the immune system is the number one place. But this may have caused variations that we might not expect, not just in drug uptake and responses as mentioned in the article, but who knows what else -- our bodies' ability to benefit from exercise? Ability to sleep fewer hours? Tendency to obesity or diabetes? Maybe those differences arise from different causes but it's interesting to contemplate if they arose from our ongoing battles against parasites and infections.

#3: Joe Rogan seems a cool guy to drink a beer with, even become friends. Albeit, I don't listen to my best friend for 2 hours straight without shutting him up.

Also, 3 episodes a week? More than 6 hours of audio peer week? This means the podcast is made by a team with a producer, editor(s), marketing, web manager, sound technicians, etc. So, the article should have been about the producer and his decisions, not the performer Joe Rogan.

PS. I'll enjoy popcorn and beer while listening to Joe Rogan rants when Elon Musk ends up in jail.

The Joe Rogan article is classic "how about those weird "angry white men" who aren't like us content city folks?" artlcles that has that weird "Gorillas in the Mist" quality of exploring a strange and faintly bizarre realm that is unknown to proper readers of The Atlantic, who confess their White Privilege while knowing exactly which fork to use when.

Joe Rogan's interview of Bernie Sanders was about the worst interview I have ever heard. A 5 year old child could have done better.

#3 I'm anxiously awaiting the follow-up pieces on why problematic segments of the population enjoy opening presents on Christmas, eating pizza, and watching football on Sundays.

Comments for this post are closed