this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
449 points (97.1% liked)

politics

31093 readers
2330 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The “Rogansphere,” a sprawling ecosystem of podcasts and online shows led by figures like Joe Rogan, has become a powerful cultural force for younger audiences, functioning as a “Fox News for the young.”

With its mix of anti-establishment rhetoric, distrust of Democrats, and casual conversations blending left-leaning and conservative ideas, it normalizes figures like Donald Trump for a disillusioned, lonely audience—particularly young men.

Democrats risk underestimating its influence, as this ecosystem fosters deep listener loyalty and has contributed to a significant shift in young male voters toward Trump.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Did Hilary ever actually clear up the ambiguity though or did we have to give her the benefit of the doubt to a degree?

I dont quite understand what she had to gain from making the statement even if it was said different. She had a strange way of carrying herself thats for sure.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables

There wasn't ambiguity to clear up in context, but she did regret saying "half" of his supporters. She was clearly never saying all of them. Unless you remove the context.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Okay well how about I say I want to murder someone and later take it back and say I only want to murder their bad half. It still sounds sorta like I feel the same either way right?

You can't say words like clearly unless you know her intent. She was happy to say it at the time, she liked the reaction in the room. Saying later she regretted it could just be an acknowledgement that it caused more trouble than it was worth.

Conversely, she could say, "It was wrong for me to call any group of americans deplorables." If she wanted to be a leader, take responsibility for your mistakes. Using clever words to make it sound like you might have maybe made a mistake but not really, and then acting like the victim of the story isnt a good look.

Edit: after reading the quote, it was delivered as a joke, very similar to the Puerto Rico joke that got bipartisan condemnation in this election.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think I can say clearly if her words put together never meant all by the definitions of those words.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

I'm arguing calling any of his supporters deplorable is a bad move, not that she did intend to mean all. In other words, it doesnt matter because its offensive either way.