• JoeySteel [comrade/them]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    All I'm saying is I appreciate the energy here

    If we could somehow get an angry commie equivalent I'd patreon the fuck outta that

  • Blottergrass [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    How tf does he square the circle of being against globalism but in support of the police? Who do you think enforces the globalists rules, dipshit? Like when the global elite buy up all your country's residential property and make a financial commodity out of it, thus jacking up the price and making it unreachable for half the population, who do you think enforces all those property rights? Who do you think takes advantage of all this surveillance software? Am I remembering it wrong or weren't all these libertarian doofuses suuuuper anti cop like 2008-2012ish?

    • medrenace1818 [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      The entire lifestyle of American anti-communists/reactionaries is squaring the circle. It's extremely contradictory, but effective. Their interests are generally in line with those of the "global elite" and the police, but unlike many liberals (who seem to have an infallible love for technocracy and its institutions), they try to distance themselves from those entities when it benefits them. Alex Jones and his followers know there's something wrong with American capitalism, but because they are vehement anti-communists and can't think materially, they go right back around to thinking the problems inherent in capitalist society are the plot of MArXiSt BiLLiOnAiReS. Of course, when they see their enemies (leftists) get beaten by the cops, they cheer it on. They don't necessarily always love the cops, (see Waco, the Bundy ranch), but when the interests of the police state align with theirs (which is most of the time), they are going to cheer it on.

      And this is why pointing out the hypocrisy/brainworms in these people doesn't work. It's like the Republicans and their appointment of court justices. They will be against appointing a justice in an election year under a Democrat, but will rush to appoint one under a Republican. They don't give a shit about hypocrisy or logic, they care about getting/maintaining political power. And it's effective. Which is why its so funny to see liberals struggle with these people, because they think the solution is to "outsmart" or "outwit" the reactionaries by pointing out how illogical and uncivil they're being, rather than try to achieve political power of their own.

    • mazdak
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

    • RNAi [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      He gets paid to make people angry to vote conservative eagerly. So his job is to bait people with real shit and then instead of bend over backwards to make it square in the shit he's selling, he just screams VOTE CONSERVATIVE TO STOP BEZOS, it's simpler and very effective.

  • quartz242 [she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I know a couple of people unironically super into him and I'm baffled

      • quartz242 [she/her]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        Yea I know I love him he is hilarious but ppl who dont see he is doing a bit worry me

    • Birdy [they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I used to house share with a guy who would play AJ on full volume while cackling with laughter. One time he tried to get me to go halves on a water filter

  • mazdak
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • LangdonAlger [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      even with the democratization of information in the internet age, this is still nigh-impossible. if it's something like Chapo, they're called sexist bros. if it's Bernie, they're called sexist bros. if it's Briahna Joy Gray, they're called misfit black girls. beyond that, you get feckless libs. the closest there is right now is John Oliver.

      • uzi [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        yes. the word "propaganda" has only recently gotten bad connotations

  • Not_irony [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I'd watch a reboot of The Office, but now Michael Scott is an Alex Jones type character. Jim is the camera operator, Pam is Jones assistant. Balancing the edge of Jones being crazy without being abusive would tough (it would 95% have to an act, which I don't think is the case), otherwise I think it could be good.

  • diode [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Ahh, who could forget the notorious supporters and financiers of marxism - the globalists and billionaires.

    • Randomdog [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      I am 1000% sure he's just doing a bit. He must be, right?

      • LangdonAlger [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        when his wife was divorcing him, he swore under oath the whole thing is a performance piece. he was trying to not lose everything in a divorce, but he still said it.

      • Phish [he/him, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Of course it is. He knows how much airtime the turning the frogs gay clip got. The more outrageous he is the more exposure he gets. All part of the grift, baby.

      • furryanarchy [comrade/them,they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I watched his interviews with Joe Rogan. Apparently when he was a teenager, he and his friends liked to choke each other unconscious for fun. I suspect he had brain damage.