What I don't get about Yang's pitch is that $1,000/mo is sold as a basic income. In what part of America can $1,000 pay for rent/food/power? Why bother calling it a basic income and not just a universal tax credit or something, if it isn't in fact a basic income (which means enough to survive on)?

You can live pretty comfortably off of $1000 a month (as a single person) in the Midwest. If you are in some sort of relationship, you have an effective $2k (not including the savings from not having to pay for rent again). If you need more money, save some money up over time and put it into a mutual fund or another financial device.

It seems like he may have switched more recently to calling it "the freedom dividend", rather than UBI. I'm not sure how consistently, though.

Also, in most of the USA, $1,000 is enough for rent, food, and power, at least with a flatmate taking on half of the rent.

He does in fact do just that. He calls it " A freedom dividend"

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

Yang doesn't mean for it to be enough to survive on. He means it to be enough to "supplement people to get out of a scarcity mentality".

That’s the US poverty line for a single person. It can be done. It’s not comfy, but it can be done.

Social security in the united states is on the brink of failing. The problem with UBI has to do with it being virtually identical to social security while doing nothing to fix any of the intrinsic issues present in the structure of state big spending programs.

So how does this work? If Joe Rogan is a "gateway to the alt-right" are you allowed to watch episodes where his guests are liberals or does that normalize his other stuff?

What? Is he alt-right? I thought he's actually liberal leaning.

Many of his episodes is about drugs and his experiences with psychedelics, which would make most conservative folks suspicious. Can you post something that elaborates into those claims?

I think the whole thing is asinine. Just wondering what the rules are this week.

Alt-right is a term devoid of meaning, it has been abused so badly and so often. No one can agree on what it means, so it cannot be parsed as anything more than "those people I don't like, who entertain bad thoughts."

I don't think it's devoid of meaning, but its use is telling. It's usually used to refer to libertarians and classical liberals by those who don't understand them, i.e. it's often a sign of ignorance. Sometimes it's used deliberately as a smear to suggest people are fascists or neo-nazis.

“Joe isn't a bad guy. He genuinely wants to understand the world, and talks to everyone he can find in an attempt to do so. He's just a little too gullible and not quite introspective or rational enough to notice when the guest with the persuasive personality is saying crazy things. For example, he thinks LSD gives you dolphin telepathy.”

(Stolen from reddit. On mobile, can’t link.)

Rogan doesn't describe himself as "alt-right".

Joe Rogan -Wikipedia says: He has "mostly libertarian views" and describes himself as "pretty liberal" and "supports gay marriage".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan

Full paragraph here:

"Rogan is not affiliated with any political party but was described as having mostly libertarian views.[67] He has described himself as being "pretty liberal" and supports gay marriage, gay rights, women's rights, recreational drug use, universal healthcare, and universal basic income, while also supporting the Second Amendment[68"

He may be liberal or not, that is irrelevant. OP said was that he was a gateway to the alt-right, not alt-right himself.

So is Sweden apparently...

https://www.salon.com/2017/06/02/sweden-is-the-gateway-to-th...

And you regard this as strong counter-evidence to the claim about being a 'gateway to the alt-right'?

First, 'libertarian' and 'right' are pretty compatible. See, for example, David Koch. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koch you'll see he also "considers himself a social liberal,[20] supporting women's right to choose,[21] gay rights, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.[2][22] He opposes the war on drugs."

He's also a global warming denialist and major funder of many conservative and Republican causes and candidates.

Second, libertarianism is one gateway for the alt-right. I'll quote from the Wikipedia entry for alt-right, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right :

> There were also links between the American libertarian movement and the alt-right, despite libertarianism's general repudiation of identity politics.[55] Many senior alt-rightists previously considered themselves libertarians,[56] and the libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard has been cited as a particular link between the two movements due to his staunch anti-egalitarianism and support for ideas about differing IQ levels among racial groups. ...

> After Spencer was fired from The American Conservative, in 2008 he became managing director of Taki Theodoracopulos's right-wing website Taki's Magazine.[73][74] The website initially contained contributions largely from paleoconservatives and libertarians, but under Spencer also gave space to white nationalists like Taylor.[75] In 2009, Spencer used the term "alternative right" in the title of an article by white nationalist Kevin DeAnna;[76][77] by 2010, Spencer had moved fully from paleoconservatism to white nationalism. ...

> It was on websites like 4chan and Reddit that the term gained wider usage, and in 2015 began to grow in popularity.[91] Although there had previously been a strong left-libertarian contingent to these online spaces, there was a gradual rightward turn in chan culture centred on 4chan's politics board, /pol/.

Of course "libertarian" does not mean "alt-right", and "not all libertarians." But the topic here was one of gateway to the alt-right.

Since there is a notable connection between libertarian views and the progression towards alt-right, pointing out that someone has libertarian views is not counter-evidence.

Good point on libertarian views having some overlap with a progression towards alt-right and/or not being counter evidence.

Would 'supports gay marriage" be evidence? That seems far from 'alt-right' to me... is that fair?

No? I mean, it seems that you are asking me if there's a litmus test that if someone (honestly) is in support of gay marriage therefore they and their actions cannot reasonably be interpreted providing a gateway towards accepting alt-right ideas?

The Wikipedia page points out "On social issues like attitudes to homosexuality and abortion, the alt-right is divided ... Some on the alt-right consider homosexuality to be immoral and a threat to the survival of the white race ... Others adopt a more tolerant stance and have praised gay white nationalists" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

So, if 0.5% of alt-right, and 2% of alt-lite are in favor of gay marriage (numbers I pulled out of my ass), then clearly it's not conclusive evidence.

However, since I believe David Koch supports gay marriage based on his libertarian beliefs, and he supports efforts that unfairly make it harder for black people to vote, and he support 'stand your ground' which have make it easier for white people to kill black people - both efforts which I believe are generally supported by the alt-right - then I've already given an example of how "supports gay marriage" is not clear evidence of not being a gateway.

Even allowing this link on this website is pretty close to hate speech.

I take it we're hating on the man and not the content of any particular podcast?

I've listened to the podcast repeatedly (Dan Carlin was a guest, that's how I found it), there's nothing alt-right about it, just right/conservative on issues of guns/hunting/gender, but not on issues of finance, for example. I guess "pro speech" is "alt right now". The guests are wide-ranging; some right, some alt-right, some far left.

I dunno he had an episode with Alex Jones that basically didn't press him on anything and gave him a really soft ride. I think that's the sort of thing people are alluding to when they call him a breadcrumb-dropper.

Just because the guests aren't uniformly Alex Jones and co doesn't mean that that claim can't be true, in my opinion.

If you can watch that episode and not be laughing your head off you are taking life far too seriously.

Yeah, I don’t use /s tags, because I like to use the downvote count as a sort of inverse metric.