Summary

The “Rogansphere,” a sprawling ecosystem of podcasts and online shows led by figures like Joe Rogan, has become a powerful cultural force for younger audiences, functioning as a “Fox News for the young.”

With its mix of anti-establishment rhetoric, distrust of Democrats, and casual conversations blending left-leaning and conservative ideas, it normalizes figures like Donald Trump for a disillusioned, lonely audience—particularly young men.

Democrats risk underestimating its influence, as this ecosystem fosters deep listener loyalty and has contributed to a significant shift in young male voters toward Trump.

  • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    She didn’t. If they weren’t voting for trump she didn’t call them deplorable. Also, she was referring to only a subset of trump voters. She said you could separate trump supporters into two groups, one was a basket of deplorables. They seem fine with "murderers rapist and thieves and some I assume are good people ", but “there are neo nazis supporting this man, we need to reach the non nei nazis on his side” is too far.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Regardless, the rhetoric is aggressive and alienating, the opposite of what a candidate who wants votes should be.

      • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I would agree that it was aggressive and alienating. Another issue is that it was extremely easy to take out of context, which it widely has been. It’s so it of context that people who didn’t know the context proudly labeled themselves as “deplorable” showing solidarity with David Duke. Never realizing that’s who the original context was about. But it’s hard to speak in a way that will never be taken out of context. “You didn’t build that” for another example.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Did Hilary ever actually clear up the ambiguity though or did we have to give her the benefit of the doubt to a degree?

          I dont quite understand what she had to gain from making the statement even if it was said different. She had a strange way of carrying herself thats for sure.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              Okay well how about I say I want to murder someone and later take it back and say I only want to murder their bad half. It still sounds sorta like I feel the same either way right?

              You can’t say words like clearly unless you know her intent. She was happy to say it at the time, she liked the reaction in the room. Saying later she regretted it could just be an acknowledgement that it caused more trouble than it was worth.

              Conversely, she could say, “It was wrong for me to call any group of americans deplorables.” If she wanted to be a leader, take responsibility for your mistakes. Using clever words to make it sound like you might have maybe made a mistake but not really, and then acting like the victim of the story isnt a good look.

              Edit: after reading the quote, it was delivered as a joke, very similar to the Puerto Rico joke that got bipartisan condemnation in this election.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I’m arguing calling any of his supporters deplorable is a bad move, not that she did intend to mean all. In other words, it doesnt matter because its offensive either way.