circuitfarmer

Backing up claims with facts is not “spoon feeding” people reality. It’s the basic mechanism of knowledge transfer and debate.

If you can’t back up the claims, don’t make them. No amount of ad hominem attacks will make your arguments better without factual support.

Saying, but not supporting with facts.

Whew, good thing I didn’t claim that then.

Perhaps you have fallen into the common trap of thinking “better than Trump” equates to “objectively good”.

At the start of his term we were hiding in houses and fighting for toilet paper and by the end of it things were much better.

Hugely disingenuous to claim that a global pandemic ending was a policy change.

And while the IRA was a decent piece of legislation, I’d love to hear how it was the “most progressive bill” since the New Deal. Hint: expensive ≠ progessive, especially when tangible results are hard to pin down.

(Not saying Biden was a bad president, but it’s fair to say he was a mediocre one)

Can you name some examples?

Biden was the best president in my lifetime

This is impossible unless you’re under 18, which is against the TOS of most/all Lemmy instances.

Because it was lower under Biden. We have numbers.

I’m so tired of living in a timeline where we pretend facts don’t exist to avoid upsetting the MAGAs.

I’m not understanding the logic here. Apple killed their last tower. That isn’t surprising, and their user base is perfectly happy buying nothing but SOCs.

Then there is a still-expanding PC gaming market, where building the machine from discrete parts is a portion of the hobby. By and large, this has never really overlapped with Apple’s user base.

The article does a poor job saying why we should expect non-Apple machines to go the same direction.

On Tuesday, the jury deliberated for only one day before agreeing that Meta should pay $375 million in civil damages for violating state consumer protections and misleading parents about the safety of its apps.

Not enough. These corporations operate on different math. They pay no taxes. They swim in currency. Pick the biggest realistic number you can imagine and then multiply it by the next biggest. Anything less will be factored out as the cost of business.

Case in point: $375 million is a mere fraction of what Meta spends in a bunch of different areas. Compared to profits, it’s practically rounding error. It won’t affect much.

Is this winning?

The sheer amount of vacuum in that orange head surely must be causing issues. I saw what happened to Oceangate. Granted it had more than one vacuum inside.

How many more signs are we waiting for?

Yes, and Tucker Carlson. It’s kind of a thing.

The difference is that Beck and Carlson are actually more straightforward with regards to how they lean. Rogan always suggests he’s a centrist, sometimes even suggesting he is apolitical, which is patently false.

Thanks. I like to be extra careful.

Yes, I agree with that about confused young men. However, at the end of the day, if JRE turns them into toxic men, then they’re still just toxic men.

I would hope that doesn’t happen. In general I think we as a society need to be kinder to these confused young men before they take that path. It’s a more difficult conversation to have and the solution is not very clear.

Either way, JRE is dangerous because it offers propagandistic suppositions as answers to people with big questions.

Because if so, then it seems like even the slightest bit of critical thinking ability would easily steer men clear of it.

Absolutely correct, in my view. “Fear of judgment and a low sense of self worth” is also spot on.

Rogan gave national voice to plenty of people who regularly used the term “snowflake” to describe what they saw as weak people who like to complain (I’m speaking from memory here and generalizing; Rogan probably has also used this term himself, but I’m not searching transcripts, so take all this with a grain of salt). By this logic, a “snowflake” is someone who is perceived as weak because they let so much affect them emotionally.

But these toxic men are “snowflakes” in every sense of the term. They go on Joe Rogan to complain about trans people, or gay rights, or “the war on Christmas”, or the perceived persecution of “alpha males”, or any number of other issues. Some guests are only famous because they complain about such things.

So what is the difference between a toxic “alpha male” on Joe Rogan and one of the “snowflakes” they like to complain about? Absolutely nothing, except that the toxic men believe that anger doesn’t count as an emotion, so their insecurity allows them to show it regularly.

(And to be clear, there is nothing wrong with showing emotion or caring deeply about something – that’s not a point I’m trying to make)

MAGA will never turn on Trump.

They spent years harping on a “deep state cabal” that was trafficking children. When the world learned that the reality was actually much worse, but Daddy Trump was implicated, all of a sudden it was fake news.

If that didn’t do it, nothing will. They won’t turn on Trump because MAGA is a cult of personality. It’s not about facts and it’s not even about principles. It’s about each of them keeping Donald Trump’s tiny penis in their mouth at all times.

Rogan is a great example of a few things:

• The Dunning-Kruger effect

• “I’m just asking questions” being used as an excuse to host an unbalanced number of individuals purporting one specific worldview

• Toxic masculinity posing as intellectualism

He is extremely popular with one particular demographic. That demographic tends to share the toxic masculinity and the Dunning-Kruger-fueled belief that they can be experts at everything from the armchair.

Israel First, amirite MAGA?

WWIII will be caused by hoarding of energy. Green solutions are fantastic, but they have been kicked down the road for too long.