Yep, I think Ethan is right on the money here. Fuentes is the zoomer Howard Stern, he's a shock jock. Whenever he has tried to make a real world political impact (being pro-Kanye, being pro-Kamala in 2024, going after Joe Kent), that impact is minimal.
And Dreher's number of 30-40% of young DC Republicans being groypers is insane, there is no way that is right. Emily Jashinsky had a much better breakdown at Unherd.
Pretty much every single young Republican male in DC is a Groyper. Yes, there are more women than men in these spaces but I wouldn't say his guess is insane.
There is a big difference between listening/watching Fuentes and being a groyper. Every young Republican who is super politically engaged has read Bronze Age Mindset, it doesn't make them all agree with BAP.
The basic definition of a groyper is a follower of Fuentes, right? So the question is how is that defined. I'd say it would be someone who does a specific action that Fuentes calls for, like showing up at that Joe Kent rally.
The tweets curated by the New Right Poast are exactly this - many are frigging hilarious with sublime wordplay, but they’re not exactly the kinds of things shouted from rooftops, and not just because the left can’t take a joke or whatever. They scratch an uncomfortable itch and do it well, even if too much scratching will prolly leave society in a dismal, ugly state. This is why people can’t be relentless scolds AND humor gatekeepers. It makes the itching worse, and the next thing you know, some poor lad has Fuentes standing over him with a paddle, telling him to assume the position.
Yeah, I’m gonna pushback somewhat. There has always been room for funny retards to make a buck. There has also been room for brazenly offensive comedy — Tate has nothing on a comic I saw years ago doing a bit where he is a slave who has run across an old mentor at the plantation hanging from a tree after a lynching — “Ah…I see Ol’ Ed finally retired”
The difference is that Andrew Dice Clay was not a serious political player. I can point to the TV/iphone/social media etc…as causes, or Jon Stewart as template, or Idiocracy, or just generally tell people to go read “Amusing Ourselves to Death” or whatever.
But regardless, the point is that we are giving dumb, poorly adjusted people the tools to rapidly get dumber and less well adjusted, while also giving them more voice. Whether with incel groypers or cluster b social justice neurotics we are now reaping the consequences.
Good points. They're insult comics, and that's fun.
"anti-semite" should be unpacked when things turn more serious. We need foundational definitions when dealing in heated topics. Fuentes doesn't do this, but those who are ignored by NYT ect. definitely do, perhaps one major reason for the gatekeep. For example, Catholic trads like E. Michael Jones, talking about 70 AD, the bad turn of accepting Wilhelm Marr's definition away from the ethnicity (shared characteristic) of language and toward "race..." We need details in such conversations.
This is something I heard Tyler Cowen say about Trump - that Trump is really funny
Yep, I think Ethan is right on the money here. Fuentes is the zoomer Howard Stern, he's a shock jock. Whenever he has tried to make a real world political impact (being pro-Kanye, being pro-Kamala in 2024, going after Joe Kent), that impact is minimal.
And Dreher's number of 30-40% of young DC Republicans being groypers is insane, there is no way that is right. Emily Jashinsky had a much better breakdown at Unherd.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/are-30-40-of-conservative-gen-z-staffers-really-groypers/
Pretty much every single young Republican male in DC is a Groyper. Yes, there are more women than men in these spaces but I wouldn't say his guess is insane.
There is a big difference between listening/watching Fuentes and being a groyper. Every young Republican who is super politically engaged has read Bronze Age Mindset, it doesn't make them all agree with BAP.
I'll bite, what's your definition of a groyper?
The basic definition of a groyper is a follower of Fuentes, right? So the question is how is that defined. I'd say it would be someone who does a specific action that Fuentes calls for, like showing up at that Joe Kent rally.
The tweets curated by the New Right Poast are exactly this - many are frigging hilarious with sublime wordplay, but they’re not exactly the kinds of things shouted from rooftops, and not just because the left can’t take a joke or whatever. They scratch an uncomfortable itch and do it well, even if too much scratching will prolly leave society in a dismal, ugly state. This is why people can’t be relentless scolds AND humor gatekeepers. It makes the itching worse, and the next thing you know, some poor lad has Fuentes standing over him with a paddle, telling him to assume the position.
Yeah, I’m gonna pushback somewhat. There has always been room for funny retards to make a buck. There has also been room for brazenly offensive comedy — Tate has nothing on a comic I saw years ago doing a bit where he is a slave who has run across an old mentor at the plantation hanging from a tree after a lynching — “Ah…I see Ol’ Ed finally retired”
The difference is that Andrew Dice Clay was not a serious political player. I can point to the TV/iphone/social media etc…as causes, or Jon Stewart as template, or Idiocracy, or just generally tell people to go read “Amusing Ourselves to Death” or whatever.
But regardless, the point is that we are giving dumb, poorly adjusted people the tools to rapidly get dumber and less well adjusted, while also giving them more voice. Whether with incel groypers or cluster b social justice neurotics we are now reaping the consequences.
Good points. They're insult comics, and that's fun.
"anti-semite" should be unpacked when things turn more serious. We need foundational definitions when dealing in heated topics. Fuentes doesn't do this, but those who are ignored by NYT ect. definitely do, perhaps one major reason for the gatekeep. For example, Catholic trads like E. Michael Jones, talking about 70 AD, the bad turn of accepting Wilhelm Marr's definition away from the ethnicity (shared characteristic) of language and toward "race..." We need details in such conversations.