No it goes way back to the 80s and 90s when radio consolidated. You had guys like Limbaugh reading off lists of men who died of AIDS and laughing at them. Same grift, different generation.

Oh Limbaugh! He was popular before my time, and the more I learn about him the more I am puzzled by who would enjoy listening to something like what you describe.

People with a darkness at the center of their being, I’m afraid.

I wouldn't say that my dad has darkness at the center of his being.

At a certain point there's a real lack of political power in the US-- specifically, I am thinking of Mark Fisher's understanding of Capitalist Realism.

In that system, it feels as if nothing material will ever change, and so all that is left is the aesthetic and apolitical hatred of other groups of people.

My dad was a substitute teacher who mostly took care of the kids and went to church on Sundays and played trombone with a bunch of Shriners. He was never politically plugged in, he just was raised in a house that operated very much like the setting of Leave it to Beaver.

So for him, watching cultural changes and being outraged over them were pretty much the only surface on which he felt connection to politics, as far as I can tell. From my standpoint, those cultural markers are pretty much the main differentiation between liberal Democrats and the GOP. They are both centrist capitalist parties that need to maintain US hegemony through foreign wars and who are both owned by the folks who own the business of the US.

It's a shit substitute for action, but for a lot of folks falling into the tribalism of that culture war is the only possibility they see for political action.

And while I find his political aesthetic to be both self-contradictory and profoundly alienating I have enough awareness to see how people who aren't evil in their intent can take up one side of culture war instead of the other.

And as someone who finds the anonymously penned "Desert" to be a plausible understanding of the current ecological/economical/political climate, I am not sure that short of a wholesale rejection of the politics of the spectacle there is a lot to be gained from these aesthetics... even if I know where I fall and who I support in that game and whose defeats I will happily cheer.

But like I said, I think that's more a product of a shitty situation rather than some evil spot in someones' soul.

I don’t know enough about your situation so not talking about your dad specifically… but there must be something else involved here than just culture war and political powerlessness. Eg going to church and laughing at people who die from AIDS are not easily compatible (or at least _should not_ be easily compatible) parts of one’s life.

He specifically laughed at gay people who had aids as he regarded it as their fault.

He later apologized.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-rush-limbaugh-mock-a...

Well, I can't disagree that there is not some deep hypocrisy in being both a christian and mocking dying people.

In my experience, this combination of things are quite common. Their (Episcopal) church started doing a different communion process simply because it was revealed that the organist was out and parishioners did not want to share a common cup with him.

There are a lot of ways of describing why that doesn't seem cruel to those folks. To me, "culture war and political powerlessness" could be short hand for a number of things, ranging from neurosis to Žižek-ian "Ideology" to the contradictions of capitalism or the unworkability of philosophical idealism at the core of liberal practices.

It's a fact that these seemingly incompatible positions have gone together, though. So I suppose you could just say folks are "evil" but, that feels like it misses some nuance.

Thanks for your analysis. To clarify my earlier remark: there must be something _personal_ that is at play here. While political, social, cultural dissonances are all often very visible and clearly externalized, personal grievances and deep confusion can be left unseen.

(Again, to be sure - not talking about your dad specifically since I am just a stranger on the Internet.)

I am hinting at depression of a kind a person experiences late in their life when all hope for change and personal growth starts to fade away. But I also don't want to limit the discussion to this observation only, there are other emotional and intellectual hardships involved: resentment, unhappiness, feeling of injustice, etc.

Same reason people today listen to Maddow, Carlson, or Olbermann. Same reason people gossip about what that bitch Becky or that asshole Brent did the other day in your friend group.

A daily dose of bias confirmation and drama, no matter what the politics, no matter how devoid of truth the monologue is, soothes the soul of humans everywhere.

I might be wrong but I like to believe that there is a critical difference between gossiping about Becky and laughing at people dying from AIDS. Saying that… maybe I just don’t know - I don’t like either and in my head there is a clear distinction.

I recall several left-leaning commentators celebrating the (unvaccinated, COVID) deaths of Phil Valentine and Marc Bernier. Is it on the same level as AIDS? No, but the broader point is that all ingroups have their cheerleaders, and those cheerleaders can get incomprehensively nasty.

It doesn't really matter time, nor place, nor politics. It's part of the human condition. My tribe is superior to your tribe, and if we have to piss on the graves of the other side to make ourselves feel good, By God, we'll do it.

edit: I just remembered the deaths of both Scalia and RGB. Right or left, both tribes celebrated, in PARTICULARLY DISGUSTING WAYS, the passing of SCOTUS justices of the opposing tribe. This is just what we, as humans, do.

Good point! I must admit I am not immune to that. While I wasn’t celebrating Covid deaths I certainly wasn’t mourning anyone who died because of what I considered was their own “fault” (Eg not following quarantine guidelines). Which is still quite un-empathetic.

Historically, I think they've been called provocateurs – colloquially known as assholes. They've always attracted media coverage, but now every site & app has the power to deliver media coverage to you, so you see a lot more about them.

Right, that’s the word I was looking for!

However, my, perhaps incomplete, recollection of famous provocateurs of the past was centered around acts like Salvador Dali walking around with his anteater, rather than a misogynist kickboxer ranting about “weak men”.

I think that's just a part of society changing. What used to be weird or outrageous might be considered tame now. I'd probably raise an eyebrow at someone walking their anteaters, but I'd probably shrug it off after a second and continue on my way.

They can't be THAT new; punk culture got its start nearly SIXTY years ago, as an example of a subculture that was intentionally inspiration insulting

As far as I can tell, the difference is past counterculture was about punching up, not down.

Yeah punk is fighting for liberation, Tate and his acolytes are fighting for the ability to oppress, abuse, and (if the allegations are true) literally enslave people.

That sounds like the right distinction. I wonder if in someone else’s eyes Tate is fighting for men’s liberation from the oppressive (in their view) constraints that the society forced on them?..

This reads like you think women are below men though. I assume you don't mean that, but it's hard to think up an alternate explanation. Power dynamics maybe? I dunno, I could list thousands of women more powerful than a youtuber or whatever he is.

I guess you are right! I just personally can relate much more to punk culture than to Tate. But the focus on the insult is probably very similar.

There’s a good new podcast called The New Gurus from the BBC which explores this.

Attention is the currency of the digital age.

Everybody wants to be a spokesperson or a politician because essentially it’s a job where you get paid to say stuff or today you don’t even have to say anything, just tweet.

In this case a rivalry was shaping up between 2 such characters:

Thumberg and Tate

The former representing the perma-concern and the latter representing the perma-carefree persona

Have you listened to Tate in a more than 15 sec clip? I don’t agree with everything he says but he does speak the otherwise unspoken truth on many topics. His attention is justified.

I watched a bunch of his "Hustler's University" thing on youtube. It was a really entertaining mix of alright business advice mixed in with what sounded like incitement to commit fraud (And I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me on this). It's mostly bereft of making any misogynistic comments or anything like that which he's known for otherwise.

I'll give him one thing, he is a pretty entertaining showman, I just would like to remind people that a ton of what he says probably would make a lawyer balk. He has a whole section about doing shit that makes you money first and caring about legal later which is especially insane.

Oh yeah and then there's that video of him hitting a girl with a belt. Yeah, don't do shit like that.

Care to provide examples of such topics and truths?

I have not. I prefer finding these unspoken trusts in other sources, personas like Tate are too mind-polluting for me.

You're attributing equal value to all his views.