Veraticus

If we didn’t evolve to have gay sex why are gays so good at sex? QED.

It’s not perfect and especially a huge amount of rockets can overwhelm it. Also it’s much more effective on slower homemade rockets, not the faster kind Iran typically sells Hamas.

I am simply shocked!

I’m only going to answer the first part of your question, not the AI/generated part.

No one really chooses what or who they’re attracted to; it kind of just happens to you. For example, you might be watching a TV show and someone gets lightly, comically spanked… and suddenly a light bulb goes off above your head and you think, “whoa, that might actually be kinda fun.” People are wired in ways we don’t understand to want things we don’t even know we want.

To that extent, pedophiles are themselves victims of their own desires; there’s no “logic” behind it. It’s simply an urge they experience.

Of course that doesn’t make succumbing to this urge excusable, and any children who are impacted are of course victims and the pedophiles, predators. But no one is training pedophiles in pedophile camp. It’s just humans being human, unfortunately.

What

This title definitely makes it sound like this is a Democrat policy goal or that Democrats are actually responsible for this, when actually, as the article gradually makes clear, the people responsible for this are opposed to mainstream Democrat goals:

Democratic lawmakers and the Joe Biden administration have touted a wealth tax as a way to tackle record levels of inequality and fund programs that slash poverty and expand access to health care and education.

The people involved are not politicians. They are an advocacy group and apparently unaffiliated with the Democratic organization at large. The main guy seems as “Democrat” as Tulsi Gabbard, since he spent a lot of time and energy defending Trump and his policies on various talk shows.

Anyway, kind of a disingenuous framing.

I migrated entirely to Lemmy and I don’t regret it. I do miss the amount of content on Reddit, but at least I know I’m not supporting them anymore.

Exactly.

Probably he should be.

The US wields a huge amount of influence generally in the world, and specifically in the Hague. Behavior that would get other leaders called to task is generally ignored if it’s done by the US.

It’s not fair, but it is the way that the world works.

He is a war criminal, and also, apparently, a paranoid madman.

Yeah he does confront his guests (though not any of the alt-right or qanon ones). It’s pretty clear he has an agenda, despite everyone claiming he’s just some kind of enlightened centrist.

In what sense would their numbers make Rogan’s any better?

You didn’t really think about this whataboutism moment too hard, did you.

That’s not true. You want to imagine he’s centrist because it gratifies your ego, but he is simply right-wing.

As are the people who he appeals to.

I don’t know what the connotations of him are in East Asia. I think the question might be geographically biased against a good answer from most English speakers.

We can tell you what he means over here (and many people are in these replies), but that might be very different from his meaning over there, so keep that in mind.

I don’t think he’s separable from qanon or the alt-right. Enabling them to the extent he does means he’s one of them tacitly, if not officially.

“Censorship?” Does everyone deserve to get on his talk show? Are those that aren’t “censored?”

No. He has to draw the line somewhere, and he has. Where he’s drawn it – who he invites to speak to his enormous audience – is very instructive indeed.

By looking at all the alt-right, conservative, and qanon guests he invites on his show, we can tell who Joe Rogan is: a useful idiot for the alt-right, if not an enthusiastic enabler of them. And he is as bad at interviewing guests as he is at selecting them. He lobs dangerous, loaded questions at the worst people in the world, fails to challenge even the most basic errors they make with their answers, and idiots lap it up because they want to imagine they’re smart.

If he was alive a hundred years ago, he’d have been enthusiastically debating the Jewish question and “free speech” people around the globe would be nodding sagely and being happy someone is finally willing to stand up against “censorship” and “international Jewry.” Because he’s alive now, he’s just doing that about vaccines, racism, trans people, police violence… basically anything where it’s possible to have a bad take, he’s interviewing someone about it.

I mean that’s the difference right there, right? If you quit your job, you’re homeless. If you don’t pay taxes, you’re arrested.

I get this sucks but you can quit your job and walk away from your employer, theoretically.

If the government decides to separate you from your possessions, your freedom, or your life, you can’t walk away from it and find a new government.

Your boss and your government are just totally different.

I don’t think most people would consider this slowly killing you, except in the most metaphorical sense.

This is true. On the other hand, it is the government’s job to uncover and persecute this. Obviously it could do a better job of it, but OSHA and the EPA actually do police employers for exactly these sorts of violations.