Anyone I know that followed Rogan usually begins to take on the I'm a victim to things that don't affect me persona. Whether it's those "uppity stupid women", or gays and trans "getting more rights than us". It's the usual toxic masculinity soup that's easy to drink, but poison nonetheless.
In general people aren't keyed into what falls under programming into rightwing extremist views. The formula is simple: make an argument about something that doesn't really matter, make it convincing by cherrypicking the "facts", and glossing over the inconvenient ones - then make it feel pressing and relevant to the audience by citing a [usually exaggerated] example of how this has affected some poor-mans life. It's a process that relies on ignorance, while setting off parts of the brain that lead to attentive behaviour - the exact realisation that facebook also made, hence why they significantly favour anything that gets the "angry" like-response.
Joe Rogan isn't alone in this of course. Talk-back radio does it, Reddit does it, 9gag does it - no matter where you go on the internet you'll find a place where you can be angry and scared about something that doesn't affect you one bit.
As for the media companies and personalities pushing this: yes they know.
> Anyone I know that followed Rogan usually begins to take on the I'm a victim to things that don't affect me persona.
Don't people on the left do this too, though? I mean you don't have to look much further than the comments on this story. Joe Rogan is a podcaster - nobody has to listen to him if they don't want to. And I get that he has a wide audience, but the entertainment that other people choose to consume ultimately isn't a very big concern for me and how I choose to live my life. And yet look how controversial the comments are on this fluff piece about what it's like to visit his studio for a day.
The operative problem is that the ecosystem he is nurturing does, in fact, show up at our front doors. Literal physical anti-trans violence is something I have personally experienced, and it came from a group of people spouting Rogan-esque nonsense as justification for what they were doing. Ignoring Joe Rogan does not solve the problem.
I am a victim to things that literally physically affect me that are caused in part by Joe Rogan et al. creating a narrative that violence against me and people like me is justified and/or funny.
The parent implied that Joe Rogan listeners were especially prone to to “taking on the I'm a victim to things that don't affect me persona”. I was just pointing out that this is by no means unique to Joe Rogan listeners or the right wing - I’d say it’s just basic human nature really. I also felt a particular sense of irony that the comment was being made in response to a rather benign fluff piece about the show: in my opinion a lot of the outrage about Rogan is overblown and the mere mention of his name seems to whip people up into a frenzy - and I wanted to point that out as well.
Whenever someone is bashing a particular group of people for exhibiting a certain trait, I think it’s worth questioning whether that trait is really unique or unusually common in that group. Many times it is not, and it is just our biases that make it seem that way. And just in general I find that it’s unproductive to make disparaging comments about large groups of people.
I do regret saying "people on the left". I used it as a counter-example to the parent comment which mentioned "right-wingers", but if I could amend it I would probably just say "people in general".
With regards to holding people responsible: I don’t know - I think it’s ok for people to have and express opinions about things that don’t affect them personally. I think where we often fail is in maintaining a healthy perspective and open mind about things - but on the other hand I don’t think it is my place to tell other people what they are allowed to get angry at or how much they are allowed to care about something. But I am all for open dialogue and questioning people about their beliefs, respectful debate, etc. - which I guess is my version of "holding people responsible".
It’s called the political horseshoe - but it’s exceedingly overweighted on the right wing in the USA.
Being external the USA helps provide a reference point that people inside the USA often lack.
However the key difference in my point is that people shouldn't be made to feel as if they are victims to things that don't actually matter - it's verging on propaganda.
I agree that the US has an unhealthy addiction to sensational journalism. And while I agree that it appears to be worse on the right (e.g. "stop the steal" and the ensuing capitol riot), I also find that it's so prevalent in leftwing (e.g. coverage of the Trump/Russia scandal [1]) and even "mainstream" media that it's not really worth trying to frame as a left vs. right issue since it's just what the bulk of Americans are consuming at this point. And I'm not even sure what can be done about it - as you mentioned elsewhere people are actively choosing to be scared and misled by heavily-biased journalism.
> people shouldn't be made to feel as if they are victims to things that don't actually matter - it's verging on propaganda.
I agree with you in principle here, but one issue I have is who gets to decide which things "actually matter"? I think that if you and I were to compare things that actually matter to us, there might be some irreconcilable differences.
Reflexive heel-digging is indicative of your priorities, i.e. people you don't disagree with aren't conspiracy theorists. This topic is well covered territory and to touch further on the examples I've given: Facebook's own admissions to weighting the angry reaction 5x more than likes is, again, not a conspiracy theory.(1)
Also politically what I've written doesn't come under "left wing", it actually doesn't come under any political wing. Trying to turn this into some left/right wing disagreement is only a distraction. Indeed if you're feeling challenged in your views, then maybe the Internet isn't for you.
What you wrote is a often repeated line from left leaning institutions and people that follow them. I don’t disagree with you but I do disagree with the narrative you’re following.
In general people aren't keyed into what falls under programming into rightwing extremist views. The formula is simple: make an argument about something that doesn't really matter, make it convincing by cherrypicking the "facts", and glossing over the inconvenient ones - then make it feel pressing and relevant to the audience by citing a [usually exaggerated] example of how this has affected some poor-mans life. It's a process that relies on ignorance, while setting off parts of the brain that lead to attentive behaviour - the exact realisation that facebook also made, hence why they significantly favour anything that gets the "angry" like-response.
Joe Rogan isn't alone in this of course. Talk-back radio does it, Reddit does it, 9gag does it - no matter where you go on the internet you'll find a place where you can be angry and scared about something that doesn't affect you one bit.
As for the media companies and personalities pushing this: yes they know.