#but hes definitely a centrist. hes the type of guy to say “both sides are in the wrong here 😔 very sad situation”

[effervescent-fool]

funny how he ends the conversation just as I'm about explain the entire timeline of the isreali occupation

[murasaki-murasame]

The moral of Ao no Flag chapter 44 is that Shingo is definitely the kind of person to be like ‘I vote third party because both political parties seem equally bad to me’.

Anyway, oh boy do I have some Thoughts on this chapter, which will be under the cut.

This is definitely gonna be a really polarizing chapter for a lot of people, and in a lot of ways I’m nervous about where it’ll go, and which characters Kaito is being more sympathetic toward here.

Since this whole chapter was about characters talking about homophobia from different angles, I may as well just jump straight into it as well and talk about the ideas and themes being discussed here.

To be blunt, Shingo’s attitude in this chapter pisses me off because it’s the kind of ‘neutrality’ that actively benefits oppressors and abusers. It’s the kind of attitude that just keeps victims from being able to defend themselves, and that allows abusers to keep hurting people. It’s the type of middle-of-the-road nothingness that supports the status quo, which in practice just means that people like him just end up sitting back and watching homophobes beat up gay people and all they feel like doing is going ‘hmm I dunno guys, both sides seem equally at fault here :/’. This is exactly the sort of situation where the idea of the paradox of tolerance comes into play. If you express universal tolerance toward everything, including intolerance, that just creates a situation where bigots and abusers get free reign to hurt people, which is obviously a bad thing. The only way to actually take any meaningful steps to punishing and preventing bigotry is to accept the fact that not everything deserves to be tolerated, and that punishing hatred is not morally equivalent to hating and hurting innocent people.

The situation with Touma and Kensuke pretty bluntly illustrates the imbalance of power and blame that lies at the heart of this. Literally the only thing that Touma did was being gay and having a crush on his best friend. And on the other hand, Kensuke decided to step into this situation that didn’t involve him at all and physically assault Touma over it. Acting like those two things are on any level meaningfully equivalent is cowardly and selfish. Kensuke’s own feelings and personal history are a separate topic that at this point have nothing to do with the immorality of how he treated Touma. Particularly because what Touma did has literally no direct connection to Kensuke. All Touma did was just tell Mami that he likes Taichi, and Kensuke was outside of the room eavesdropping. He wasn’t involved in the conversation at all, and he wasn’t even the subject of Touma’s feelings. He just went out of his way to force his own insecurities and baggage and bigotry onto a situation that has nothing to do with him. Maybe if it was a situation where, like, Touma had a crush on Kensuke and suddenly kissed him and Kensuke freaked out about it, then his past trauma might at least somewhat excuse it, but that’s not what happened.

Even though on paper the topic of male victims of rape is something that should be discussed and respected, I feel like it was kinda haphazardly thrown into this chapter to try and make Kensuke seem even somewhat sympathetic, even if it didn’t really work. As I said, the fact that Touma was talking about having feelings for someone other than Kensuke, and that Kensuke wasn’t part of the conversation at all, means that there’s absolutely no room to act like Kensuke’s trauma has anything to do with it. Him having past trauma because of some other gay person he knew doesn’t give him the right to randomly beat up any other gay person he knows about. Again, it’d be one thing if Kensuke was actually part of the conversation, or the subject of Touma’s feelings, or if Touma actually acted inappropriately toward him in a way that would be triggering, but, yet again, literally all Touma did was tell Mami that he likes Taichi, and Kensuke decided to go out of his way to barge in and assault him. Besides, if we’re going down the route of moral equivalency, it seems hypocritical for Kensuke to use his own past assault to completely ignore the fact that he also assaulted Touma. If they want to play the both sides card to get sympathy points, they don’t get to have it both ways and ignore Kensuke’s own assault toward Touma.

Which is it’s own thing, really. That most people who try and play the devil’s advocate centrist role aren’t actually what they seem to be. They’re usually not arguing in any sort of good faith. More often than not, they have their own biases and prejudices, and don’t in fact see everything equally. They just use the idea of politeness and tolerance to try and guilt-trip people who want to point out that it’s shitty of them to beat up a gay dude just for him being gay.

On the one hand, you can definitely say that Mami’s friends were inconsiderate and disrespectful toward Kensuke’s past assault, but honestly that whole plot point felt so transparently like ‘a plot point’, so to say, that I can’t even really suspend my disbelief over it, so I can’t exactly blame them for not caring. It’d be one thing if these were real people talking about real experiences, but since they’re just fictional characters, in this sort of situation I think what matters more is the author’s own intentions and methods in how and why they chose to bring this sort of thing up in the first place.

I was kinda hoping that there might be more layers to the whole situation with Kensuke, but nah it really was exactly what it seemed to be right from the get-go, and he really is just inexcusably bigoted and awful. But at least I expected that. I’m more disappointed with Shingo for deciding to completely throw Touma under the bus in order to try and protect Kensuke and his gross homophobic violence. He’s very rapidly losing points with me after this chapter, to be honest. Even on top of how incredibly rude he’s being to Touma by more or less accusing him of being just as bad as Kensuke, it seems really shitty of him to suddenly be defending Mr. “I have literally no choice but to treat men and women differently and to treat all women as sex objects and all gay men as rapists. I am just a smol creacher I cannut help it uwu” after the whole flashback with him sticking up for Mami and validating her desire to just be seen as a person and not as a woman. It kinda makes him seem really fake and two-faced in retrospect.

Not to mention the last minute implication that the blonde girl is apparently Shingo’s girlfriend, which makes his attitude seem even more shitty, honestly.

I honestly have to wonder if there’s some deeper reason why he seems to be pretty much abandoning his morals so he can aggressively double down on defending Kensuke’s actions at all costs. It just seems like a bit of an unnatural 180 for him.

And then there’s the whole scene with Futaba and co at the end of the chapter. Which is it’s own whole thing. I don’t really have much to say about it, but I do gotta admit that the whole way that they’re hammering in this idea of it being rude to Futaba for anyone to wish that Touma and Taichi could have gotten together is kinda feeling more and more uncomfortably meanspirited as time goes on. I dunno exactly how to put it, but especially after the whole “Touma’s apparently just as bad as Kensuke and apparently deserved to get assaulted for being gay” thing, it just seems all kinda of uncomfortable and loaded with all sorts of potential baggage that we immediately then had a whole scene of Mami basically going “you shouldn’t care so much about Touma’s feelings, you should just prioritize yourself and be happy about the fact that YOU’RE the one who ended up dating Taichi instead of Touma”. It really just seems like Touma’s getting shit on from all sides of the equation here. In a lot of ways it doesn’t really help that I don’t even think Taichi and Futaba’s relationship is that interesting or deep, so it’s just kinda annoying to see it get propped up and used as ammunition for this weird guilt-trip-y ‘if you want Touma to be happy, that just means you hate Futaba and her relationship with Taichi’ attitude.

Then there’s the whole thing at the very end of the chapter with Futaba unintentionally striking a raw nerve by being all cliffhangery and suddenly bringing up the [not-so-]hypothetical situation of Masumi being in love with her. I’m curious to see how that goes, but let’s just say that I don’t really want Masumi to also get shit on in the next chapter after what happened in this one, lol.

On the note of Masumi, we also finally got confirmation that she, for one reason or another, suspected that Touma was gay before she eventually became certain of it. I’m still curious to see if there’s any specific reason why she suspected it that early on, but I guess we’ll see.

Most of all I really wanna see more of Taichi’s thoughts on everything, since he’s been kinda non-existent for the last few chapters. Though I’m a bit nervous about whether or not I’ll even like what happens when we get a deeper look into his head.

At least for the time being I’m not going to personally judge Kaito for what happened in this chapter, since at the very least everything the characters said is more or less realistic for how teenagers talk about these things, but the big question is just which side of the argument Kaito wants us to sympathize with more in the long run. It’s one thing to just present different sides of an argument in a piece of fiction, but when it becomes clear that you as the author personally advocate for one over another, then it’s something worth talking about, one way or another.

This was really negative and ranty, but it’s not like I hate the series or anything, lol. I mean, my opinion on it might take a sharp downward turn if it becomes clear that Kaito just wants to throw Touma [and Masumi] under as many buses as possible while cozying up to violent homophobes, but we’ll see if it gets to that sorta point.

I’m just particularly sensitive about these sorts of centrist, willfully ignorant attitudes because they’re so directly at fault for so many of the world’s current political problems.

[thewolvenangel]

Random question: where do you consider yourself, politically? I'm not sure where I'm at but the stuff you and some other ppl I follow is really eye opening - like seeing discussion/critique of antifa action basically doesn't exist in my current circles. I've always felt a little iffy about the "extreme left" but any time I try to talk to my friends about it they just double down or get defensive so... anyways! Dig ur blog a lot. x3

No problem on random questions, I definitely dig them! You got any questions about me or for me feel free to ask, I am always happy to answer and discuss! :D 

Sadly, in my experience, I find that Tumblr is one of the WORST places to discuss things at all... and not just in the political sense. In many cases that I have seen and experienced is that there are no proper discussions, rather just a childish sense of: “I’m right, you’re wrong, that’s the end of it.” 

To Tumblr rhetoric is an afterthought or just completely dead; and the notion of being wrong on something (an idea, thought, opinion, etc) is considered to be sacrilegious to their very identity and being. Vis a vis, personal responsibility and the chance to grow and learn is severely damaged by this mindset. 

Communication and the open and respectable passing around of ideas and thoughts are crucial for the advancement of society and the betterment of man as a whole. 

But I digress. 

Where I stand politically is difficult to answer... Because if you ask my leftist friends they would tell you I am more right. You ask my right friends and they would tell you I am more left than them. So I suppose that makes me a centrist? 

But honestly, I avoid applying such labels to myself as I feel it “boxes” me in. If I were to say I am right-wing then that applies that I must follow every single thought and opinion of the right (let's say as an example their opinion of governing morality and freedom/property rights I do not necessarily agree with) and I don’t. Same as if I were to claim that I was leftist I don’t agree with everything they go for. (Such as anti-gun laws and abortion.) 

My line of thought is education, investigation and concluding my own thoughts and opinions from gathering information from both sides. If one side has something or is vying for something I deem morally or economically right then I agree with them. If one side is doing or saying/spreading stupid shit I call them out on it and disagree. Long story short: I just don’t take sides. 

And yes there are gray areas to both sides, and having a sort of “wishy-washy attitude” many would say is imprudent and even hindering. But I don’t feel I am back and forth because I hold steady to my opinions and I have firm ones at that. I am just willing to look and consider it from all angles, is all. And importantly, consider if I am wrong. 

I will be the first to say as well that I am not as knowledgeable as I should be in certain areas, and I - like any other person - can be and have been wrong before! But I am willing to learn, I am willing to see another side, and I am willing to the research necessary to have a cohesive and factual sense of the situation. 

With that said my opinion on Antifa is that I find them hypocritical, ignorant and self-entitled at the very LEAST. I find them and the movement entirely abhorrent. Antifa has shown time and again that they have become the very thing they claim to be fighting against. At their core, they are vying for a totalitarian regime in which there are no open discussions and that violence is acceptable against those who do not fit their line of thinking and do not follow what they deem is “correct”. (Fascism is loosely defined as “ Fascism is a form of government which is a type of one-party dictatorship. Fascists are against democracy. They work for a totalitarian one-party state.” Which all I have to say to that is: If the boot fits.)

The very worst part is they do it under the guise of having the “moral high-ground.” And while on that high-ground they do not care who they harm along the way, whose lives they destroy, and what other moral injustices they commit to obtaining what they want. Their stance on free speech is disgusting and is ideal for their totalitarian line of thinking and governing; silencing anyone who may oppose them with at the least labeling one as a “nazi” or worst resulting in physical violence or destroying livelihoods. They do not care even if one of their own has been harmed in the chaos, deeming it “par for the course” and a “small sacrifice for the greater enemy.” 

I find them as abhorrent as I would an ACTUAL white supremacist/nazi. To me, there is no difference between the two; as both are hateful, ignorant, violent, and unwilling to change or compromise and will brainwash and destroy and put down anyone and do whatever it takes to fulfill their goals and regime. 

And you wanna know the saddest part? Antifa in the last couple of years has caused MORE damage and violence than the KKK / Neo Nazis have in the last several. You wanna know why? Because every sensible and average Joe agrees that these groups are bad and DESPICABLE. These groups are the MINORITY population, and we as humans are more than willing to agree that these racist and extreme thoughts are abhorrent. And it when it comes to action we are willing to stand against it, when and if it were to occur. 

But Antifa? They use their so called moral high-ground and justice to their advantage BECAUSE majority of the population knows Nazis are disgusting. So they cut the cloth as if you are not with them, you are against them, and thus you HAVE to be a Nazi supporter by default. They use fear mongering and manipulation to paint themselves and their movement in this sparkling glitter-toned light when in actuality they are just as terrible as the people and groups they claim to oppose.

That's the basic of it, I don’t really have time right now to sit down and share more. But I want to say I am proud of you for branching out and looking for more view points, and I hope that I was able to help in some way!If you’d like more blogs to follow and look through, or more people to discuss with I would recommend my partner @earthmindheartsky who is even more politically inclined than I am. 

And I couldn’t recommend @kasaron enough as he is not only a level headed and kind man, but he is very intelligent and knowledgeable and always open for discussions! Not to mention he is a big fuckin nerd who likes/does DnD, who also does wicked cool mech and computer stuff AND sometimes even art! He also reblogs many cute kitties; seriously, half of my cat pictures come from him! He is a real cool guy, even if not for discussion I’d suggest following him anyway!

Thanks so much for the question again, and I am glad you enjoy my blog! Honestly, I just sort of fuck around on here and reblog whatever, and I do my best to keep some politics off of it because it's not something I really discuss unless asked about it. But the way things have been going the past couple of years... It's hard not to. And I feel more and more like I have an obligation to spread more information as I find it, and you are a shining example that it was indeed the right thing to do! I hope you have a stellar day, and if you happen to have any more questions or want to keep the convo going feel free! 

[thisdaynews]

‘The new candidate of the young elite’: Buttigieg battles Biden and Bloomberg for the center lane

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/the-new-candidate-of-the-young-elite-buttigieg-battles-biden-and-bloomberg-for-the-center-lane/

‘The new candidate of the young elite’: Buttigieg battles Biden and Bloomberg for the center lane

But then a funny thing happened last week: Another 70-something candidate beloved on Wall Street — billionaire mogul Michael Bloomberg — made an unexpected splash by suggesting he may still enter the race.

Bloomberg will not steal Buttigieg’s momentum with younger, wealthier Democratic voters and donors, people close to the South Bend mayor say. But the former NYC mayor does give Big Finance, Big Tech and other more corporate-friendly Democrats another progressive prospect as an alternative to Biden, Sanders and Warren.

“My own feeling is that Bloomberg getting in might — if he stays in — might wind up getting rid of Cory Booker and Kamala Harris and others who haven’t done all that well,” said one of Buttigieg’s biggest New York bundlers. “At the end of this year, I still think it’s going to be Warren and Pete and Biden. And Pete will have plenty of money when it’s time to get into the big spending season and I don’t think Bloomberg will hurt his fundraising at all.”

Indeed, multiple Wall Street executives who like Bloomberg suggested in recent days that they see a very narrow path forward for the former mayor. And that could leave Buttigieg hanging around as not-ultraliberal, not inclined to bust up major industries and not as old or potentially shaky as Biden.

And that leaves some young Democrats who work in tech and finance pretty optimistic.

For this group, a strong distaste for Warren and Sanders — mixed with increasing doubts about the viability of Biden — are creating the kind of opening to gain even more political and financial support that Buttigieg has been hoping for among key donor groups like Wall Street and the tech industry.

“I wasn’t expecting to become a recurrent donor to him before I saw him do a TV interview. I didn’t know who he was or how to say his name or anything else,” said Glenn Rockman, a 38-year-old biotech investor at Adjuvant Capital in Manhattan. “I was shocked by the practical and substantive kind of centrist nature of his commentary and how inspirational I thought he could be. And basically I hate how far left the primary has gone.”

Rockman said he and his small group of partners even thought about shutting down their office for a few months to go campaign and raise money for Buttigieg, though they haven’t done it yet. But it’s a reflection of the Buttigieg-fever is running through a contingent of younger, well-heeled Democrats in New York and California.

Buttigieg had three fundraisers in New York last week, two on the Upper West Side and one in Midtown, according to invitations obtained by POLITICO, underscoring the campaign’s interest in mining the Democratic wealth of New York.

The Buttigieg boomlet in the financial community is enough to seriously annoy die-hard Biden backers on Wall Street who think the only way to stop Warren and Sanders is to double down on the former vice president, who still leads in most national polls despite his dips in some early primary states.

And Buttigieg’s youth, inexperience relative to other Democrats and thin support among the African American community are still giving potential donors pause.

“Look, Pete is definitely the new candidate of the young elite,” said a senior executive and major donor at a big Wall Street bank who backs Biden. “The problem is you can’t win the Democratic nomination without African American support. He doesn’t have any and nobody really knows who he is.”

That sentiment — that Buttigieg is unknown — is not borne out by either his rising poll numbers or his large fundraising numbers. Overall, Buttigieg’s campaign has raised over $51 million, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Interviews with nearly a dozen Buttigieg backers in the investment community suggest the South Bend mayor’s mix of progressive stands on social issues and more moderate approaches to taxation, health care and the financial industry more broadly have kicked off a mini-movement among younger investor-types.

“I’ve always been more centrist in my views, socially liberal and more fiscally conservative,” said George Scott, a 48-year old investor and entrepreneur in Sunnyvale, Calif., who has donated $2,500 to Buttigieg so far. “I didn’t really like any of the candidates out there and I saw Pete on a morning talk show a few months back and he was just really smart, and articulate and sharp. He’s a veteran, from the Midwest. He really caught my attention.”

Scott saw Buttigieg speak in San Francisco and was sold. “He won me over. He’s got holistic approaches to issues, and Warren and Bernie are just way too left-leaning on so many issues. And Biden is fading. He’s old and he’s showing it.” Now Scott is going to donor events and talking to friends about getting behind Buttigieg.

Buttigieg checks many of the boxes Wall Street executives are looking for: He’s more moderate on banking and health care than Warren but not too conservative as to turn off progressive voters. And he speaks the Wall Street language, as a Harvard-educated, former McKinsey consultant whose eyes light up at any chance to get technocratic.

Some Buttigieg bundlers say lately, as Biden’s candidacy has faltered, interest for the mayor has increased. “It started to feel like there was a high probability that Biden could falter and then there would be a big opening in the moderate lane,” said a bundler who hosted an event for Buttigieg over the summer but declined to be identified by name to avoid offending the former vice president or other candidates.

“A lot of the other candidates like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris kind of tried to straddle the moderate and progressive lanes and it just hasn’t worked for them. Mayor Pete took the approach of saying, ‘I’m just going to go with what I believe,’” this bundler said.

“The big obstacle really is the African American vote and he’s not proven he can win there yet and that bothers me. And it bothers me that part of that is because he’s gay. If he doesn’t win, fine. But I hope it’s not because he’s gay.”

It’s a sentiment many Buttigieg backers acknowledge: Mayor Pete winning the Democratic nomination is far from a sure thing. And now they face a new wrinkle with Wall Street-favorite Bloomberg possibly entering the race, occupying the lane of a mayor with extensive experience advocating for progressive policy changes.

Other Wall Street donors and bundlers are still holding back, waiting to see if Buttigieg can actually win something, before committing. “There are some people who are impressed with him but they really think he’s the guy in high school with the great future,” said a second Buttigieg Wall Street bundler of his conversations with potential new big donors. “I tell them he’s got a legitimate shot even though it sometimes feels like a crazy thing to tell people.”

Other campaigns are also taking note of Buttigieg’s support from Wall Street and tech donors and using it as a sharp line of attack, arguing that it shows he would lack boldness in reforming big industries and raising taxes on the wealthy to fund big new social programs like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal.

Buttigieg has supported a “Medicare for all who want it” approach. And he’s made the environment a centerpiece of his generational appeal but stopped short of fully embracing the most far-reaching elements of plans like the Green New Deal. Buttigieg praised the approach in a recent interview with POLITICO but stopped short of backing the enormous tax hikes associated with it. “We’re going to take our time doing our math before you see kind of a detailed tax policy framework from our effort,” he said.

Buttigieg’s ties to Wall Street donors probably won’t translate into the precise policies most financiers want. President Barack Obama, for instance, took plenty of donations from the finance world but still pushed and signed the Dodd-Frank law that so much of Wall Street opposed.

Still, some prominent liberals see the mayor as unacceptably close to the community of Wall Street and banking donors.

“He has more donations from billionaires than any other candidate. There are no surprises here. He made it very clear who he’s standing with,” said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, the co-chair of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. The “corporate types, the oligarchs of this country know that if Sen. Sanders wins he’s going to do the bidding of the 99 percent and not them.”

In a statement, Buttigieg campaign national press secretary Chris Meagher said Buttigieg has received a range of contributions from both high- and low-dollar donors.

“Pete will do what is right for our country, and is running to move our country forward by leading with bold ideas that the American people can unify around,“ Meagher said. “He is proud to have support from more than 600,000 people who have given everything from a couple of dollars online to the maximum contribution to his campaign. And he will use those resources to beat Donald Trump in November 2020.”

The younger Wall Street donors who are moving toward Buttigieg refuse to apologize for their belief that the Democratic nominee should want to work within the current system rather than trying to blow it up.

“Despite being liberal and leaning left, I’m a die-hard capitalist,” said Rockman. “I’ve worked on Wall Street almost 20 years now and still think with all its flaws it’s still the best path to prosperity. So I’m much more attracted to candidates like [Andrew] Yang and Buttigieg.”

Read More

[theweeklyration]

The Weekly Ration; Issue #1

Welcome to Working Title!  This is a Rip-Off (read rip-off) of FlyDay by Sean Callahan.  After he announced he was taking a break on Friday, I did feel a little blah about it and a minuscule amount of "oh shut up Sean" about it.  To be fair, he's felt that way about me on multiple occasions and we'd never tell each other this till month's after the event because we are passive aggressive gentlemen.  Anyways here's a piece I worked on that really hurt me because I had to research the subject matter.

Investigating the Trash Heap that is the douche-fuck, steroid chugging, centrist bait for unfunny fuck bois at open mics,  piece of shit Joe Rogan with no ad-hominems (toward Joe Rogan) except the title where I get to berate his stupid fucking face.

Ad-hominem.  In philosophy and debate it is told to us that as soon as you use an Ad-hominem you lose the argument.  The theory is as soon as you get into name-calling you become too passionate with hate or distaste that your stand-points fall apart because they are based in anger.  You can have an argument solid with foundations, truths, and thought out research but as soon as you call someone a poopy head you lose.  You get nothing.  Good day sir.  I personally think this old standpoint is invalid as a passionate argument coming out of the mouth of someone who isn't a robot has more umph to it.  But this is the driving force of these kind of argument freelancers.  With the title out of the way that clearly shows I lose, I present the rest of this article that hurt me and I'll show you on the doll.

Let's begin by explaining what a Joe Rogan is.  A Joe Rogan is a 51 yr. Comedian, MMA Commentator, Actor, and Podcast Guru.  He has a high ranking podcast with a very impressive record of being no. 1 or in the top 5 on Itunes and several other podcast streaming sites continuously for years.  On his podcast he goes into depth with interviews with people of all different walks of life ranging from angry white guys to angrier white guys.  To his credit, I'm only 80% jesting.  To his credit he is a good interviewer for the type of podcast he is presenting.  He's had some interviews that made me see perceived monsters as human and golden gods as flawed specimens.  In the rare times I've checked out his podcast, his interview with fucking angry red-tinted moron and fuck face Alex Jones (see title) actually had Alex Jones out-of-character and being a fairly down-to-earth alright guy.  Until he called liberals pyschic vampires (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkMnwFZyNrw&t=23s), but I imagine doing a show like InfoWars will irreparably have long lasting side effects.

As does doing The Joe Rogan Experience.  Joe Rogan is very into hallucinogens and will appear on his show stoned numerous times, more than not.  He talks about their mental health benefits and existential properties that have helped him and recommends them to his guests, audience, and everyone in the world essentially.  I am very in favor of the good hallucinogens do and support that narrative.  He even talks about the benefits of a deprivation tank which I want to try for myself and encourage anyone to as well.  However, the goal of most "trips" is to destroy your own ego and perceived world view so as to attain a higher plateau of thought.  Joe ignores that side of the journey and with child-like wonder just says "whoa dude".  I mean, it is pretty "whoa dude", but that's not the end goal of those journeys.  You want to come out changed, your perspective advanced, and less depressed.   Joe fails to go past the "oh shiny" phase of trippy drugs, even DMT and Ayahuasca which puts most people on their ass and forever humbled to reality.  His blase approach to taking "whoa dude" drugs has even lead to him emboldening contrarian, damaging viewpoints.

Joe Rogan is essentially a libertarian,although if asked he says he is not affiliated with any political party.  This stance is held-up by many of his viewers/listeners and is basically the "well I'm not them" argument.  It's having your cake and giving it to the 1%.  That stance makes him and many with this worldview, see themselves as bullet-proof and hyperbolic Supermans who can give a platform to any sort of ideological monstrosity because "well I'm not them", "whoa dude", or "I don't know about all of that."  Interviewing Milo Yolopoopmouse (read YolilelaleeTrump) and "hearing him out" as he talks about "Daddy Trump"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8KSh9bd6w)without calling out Milo's fascist viewpoints only makes more Milo YugiOh!cards.  This is where Joe gains so many followers.  Joe Rogan, who "doesn't affilate with any political party" finds himself emboldening centrists.   

Centrism is the agnosticism of politics with much more dangerous, physical, and desperate real world applications.  Agnostics question, compare and contrast while Centrists, at least of late, are just stirring up ill-will and trying to come out of as the better person.  The "I don't give a shit" approach to something like an existential question of God ultimately doesn't have nearly the same impact of seeing an Anti-Fa Militant and a Proud Boy fighting with the response "both sides are bad."  Fence sitting on God, fine.  Fence sitting on the abject horror of quickly rising fascist dictatorship, not fine.  Very not fine.  One of the least fine things you can be doing in this or any other year.

This centrism has found him an allegiance of militant fans who take what he says and doesn't say to the extremes.  Because Joe is so dismissive or non-argumentative with the ideologues he brings on his show it empowers his viewers/listeners to continue their movements.  Joe may hate Trump like any other breathing person with a speck of human decency, but he has Trump fans who have more blood push into their sexual organs when Alex Jones and Milo are guests.  Joe may hate racism, but "hearing out" a radical racist gives entitlement to NRA supporters who have wet dreams of home invasions.  Joe may think you need to get laid,  but having an Incel rant about outright misogyny leads to an asexual self-made eunuch plot his revenge.  Take a fucking stand is what I'm saying.  Just because you yell a lot on your show doesn't mean you're arguing.

I avoid arguing about Joe Rogan as much as I can, however, I am a comedian as well.  I go to open mics regularly, get booked on shows, and want to basically not work so I do comedy.  I've been doing it for over 4 years now, and I love every moment of it.  No surprise, when I first got into comedy I found Joe Rogan endearing and "sticking it to the soy boy beta cucks" (that exact term is from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia.  Obviously 4 years ago it wasn't really around but I'd be sure to say that phrase if it existed back then).  But as with numerous examples in this article and more I can't type as my eye is already twitching enough, I found definite faults with Joe and didn't see him as the hilarious contrarian I once did.

Because I realized he's not even contrarian, he's opinion-lite.  He's centrist.  He's straw man argument.  If this or the rest of this article (obviously disregarding the title) feel ad-hominem now, my only excuse is I'm not very good at this and this is my first time writing one of these articles in several years.  Something that makes me chuckle to this day was a clueless, middle-aged guy trying comedy for his first time.  He came up to the deck, trying to bond, form a connection with us.  His opening remarks were "Wow, Joey Coco Diaz and Joe Rogan are here on the same night!  HOW DO I CHOOSE?" which didn't lead to the glad-handing and praise he wanted but a quick "Joey Diaz" from most of the deck.  We returned to staring at our phones and avoiding eye contact with eachother.  We're comics, we're anti-social weirdos who want to be loved by strangers but only when we have a mic in our hands.  He felt crushed while simultaneously thinking we don't like comedy, which is only true of most of us.  

If you want the anger and passion you hear from Joe Rogan but with a punch and bravado I suggest Doug Stanhope.  Doug Stanhope "doesn't give a shit" but he has real umph and vigor.  He has a contrarian viewpoint to almost anything, is hyperbolic, and hypocritical.  He's everything Joe Rogan wants to be but far more in-depth, entertaining, and outright funny.  Contrarian and definitely not a centrist trying to hide centrism with yelling and looking cool.  Now if you excuse me I have to run away from these new comics.

Hope you enjoyed the first of many of these weekly installments.  If you are interested in becoming part of TheWeeklyRation Comrades you can email me at Kyjot.bunny@gmail.com to get the weeks installment two days earlier on Friday as part of the mass-mailer.  Otherwise you can continue following this blog where it’ll be posted on Sundays.  This is a project of mine that I was directly inspired to do by Sean Callahan, my best friend and wonderful writer who did a weekly mailer called “Happy Flyday”.  Thank you for your interest!