347
Joe Rogan Is Weirder Than J.D. Vance in Gay Sex-Obsessed Live Netflix Special
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
347 points (90.1% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2198 readers
181 users here now
This is a community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Keep discussion civil and on topic.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They’ll have a harder time appropriating “weird” and making it work as a self-label for their normative, dominance-oriented ideology. They’re quite happy with being seen as fearsome hordes, barbarians at the gates, deplorables even, but they need to be seen to be representing the silent majority, and pushing back against a diversity imposed from above by (((those people))). “weird” punctures that and appropriating it whilst maintaining the rhetoric about purifying American society and purging it of liberal degeneracy would be one hell of a jiu-jitsu move.
"Yes I'm weird, and I should be. Jesus didn't tell us to be of the world, he only told us to be in the world. We don't conform to that world, and we never will. Don't hide your light under that bushel, but stand against the darkness that threatens to creep in. Stand against the devil and his minions. Stand against transexuals, leftists, and the woke mob. Stand against the abortionists, the evolutionists, and the false god of science. And when you do, every brother and sister here will stand with you. And all God's people say-" [crowd] 'Amen!'.
A preview of things to come. Please excuse me while I go rinse my brain out.
They’d first need to make “weird” an exclusionary term referring only to their particular weirdness, and nobody else. Foreign cultures, obscure hobbies, unusual sexual kinks, religious cults, psychedelic countercurrents and so on don’t get to be “weird” unless they’re part of the conservative counterrevolution. Which would require effectively stripping the word of its meaning. And then, a short time later, somebody would point out that they’re no closer to the great American norm they profess to defend than all these this that used to be called weird.
Also, “in the world but not of the world” may work for initiates into the cult, but is no good for convincing swing voters that one represents the Silent Majority. Fundamentalists need to couch their dogma (no pun intended) in rationalisations that sound like something a normal person who’s not a cultist might believe.