|
Goddam, I wish I could have seen PFT when Sophie whipped out her machete.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:People here might be interested that the Know Your Enemy podcast (which does deep dives on the history of American conservatism from a leftist perspective) also just released an hour and a half episode on Rush a day or two ago. It might be a good complement to this if anyone is dying (heh) to hear more about Rush, as their episode is less biographical and more about the connections between Rush and the "conservative intellectuals" and how the latter weren't really as different from the supposedly more crass type that Rush unleashed. They also made some interesting observations about the fairness doctrine and how its demise leading to Rush's rise is at least partially a retroactive justification, and how during the 80s some major conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Gingrich championed its use and it getting gutted by Reagan was less a vendetta against the doctrine specifically and more just part of Reagan's general deregulation ideology. Thanks for the recommendation. I listened to it this afternoon, and I agree that it's a nice complement to Robert's episodes, and also it's something to recommend to people who might be off-put by Robert's style of humor but are interested in learning more about Rush's awfulness
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
A related tweet https://twitter.com/pftompkins/status/1370567051677339654?s=21 My first thought was “wait why doesn’t PFT have a blue check” and then “oh man did he get rid of his blue check to make this joke that’s baller” and then I learned he renounced his blue check for an unrelated reason but it’s still a good tweet Kinda like the opposite of that Roger Ebert review where he calls upon his status as a Pulitzer-winner to turn Rob Schneider into a smoking crater for making Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2021 07:54
|
|
|
One of the most personally shocking moments of my life was when I showed someone a Federalist article about how someone who died in a mass shooting in a church had an advantage because they would go to heaven quicker and they sincerely believed it and got upset that someone would think that wasn't the case, so any time one of the Federalist owners or writers make some kind of embarrassing thing it's extra funny to me in a way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2021 08:26
|
|
|
I just got around to listening to the first episode on Rush Limbaugh and the whole thing is quite enjoyable but I want to focus on the two minutes that made me cringe and roll my eyes. For a while I've had a half-formed and vague sense that Robert Evans is primarily a conflict tourist. I think most people who are in his line of work are, so it doesn't really prevent me from enjoying his podcasts, but I think the exchange about the fence in Portland really hammered this home. I listened to it several times to make sure I wasn't mischaracterizing the exchange. "I know that the way I framed it had a significant impact on a lot of people getting hurt, damaging a fence, getting arrested... it was both intoxicating and scared the hell out of me..." In this short exchange he appears to take credit for something that was already happening as well as coining the sacred fence name. Maybe he did coin that term, it popped up in local use right around that time and it would be impossible I think to really say one way or the other whether he was the first or just got in early. But the second part, where he conflates his use of a term with the developing protest activity at the fence and implies that things would have gone differently but for his participation demonstrates well I think that he's there first and foremost for the thrill and the sense of importance, and also some serious pomposity in the way he's taking in events and framing them in his personal narrative. Anyway, it was a good episode overall and I enjoyed it, but it's a real good tangible example of something that's been gnawing at me while listening to him for a while
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Is it flirtations with the gonzo journalistic concept of being necessarily part of the story, not solely an observer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:Is it flirtations with the gonzo journalistic concept of being necessarily part of the story, not solely an observer? Maybe. And I haven't listened to the ten episode mini-series on the Portland protests yet, primarily because I live here and it's all still too close and raw to want to relive it, so I don't know if this kind of self-importance permeates that or not, and I hope it doesn't It's one thing to be part of the story, and like I said I don't even necessarily hold thrill seeker against him because that's the kind of people who get drawn into this kind of work, but especially the reframing of events like his coverage had influence on how people acting in defense of their home acted seemed condescending and pretentious. It kind of seemed like he took away a lesson of his own power, rather than an observation of people demonstrating against injustice. I do feel quite confident saying that if Robert hadn't been there the fence would still have been a focal point because of what it represented and the response it garnered. And maybe he was the one who coined "sacred fence" but if that hadn't taken off, a similar name would have been given to it
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:
I don't know if I agree with you but its reasonable criticism, though I would suspect it was more than likely an off-the-cuff remark in an effort to make parallels and argue that responsible journalism needs to be thoughtful of the power it possesses rather than an articulation of a deeply held belief in the centrality of Evans' role in the Portland protests. lonelylikezoidberg fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Mar 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Maybe. And I haven't listened to the ten episode mini-series on the Portland protests yet, primarily because I live here and it's all still too close and raw to want to relive it, so I don't know if this kind of self-importance permeates that or not, and I hope it doesn't He speaks very little on that podcast, most of it is other local journalists and activists. He did a good job of giving people a platform and mostly getting out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I do feel quite confident saying that if Robert hadn't been there the fence would still have been a focal point because of what it represented and the response it garnered. And maybe he was the one who coined "sacred fence" but if that hadn't taken off, a similar name would have been given to it Yeah, I'm certain most of the events that played out around the fence likely would have happened in some capacity or another anyway, though I didn't get the impression from that portion of the episode--or the live coverage of the protests at the time that I was functionally glued to as it was happening--that his stance was "My coining of this term instigated this situation entirely" and more: lonelylikezoidberg posted:I would suspect it was more than likely an off-the-cuff remark in an effort to make parallels and argue that responsible journalism needs to be thoughtful of the power it possesses rather than an articulation of a deeply held belief in the centrality of Evans' role in the Portland protests. Though along with that I'm curious how you might distinguish between conflict tourism and an alternative--and how much the distinction matters when it comes to on the ground live reporting? I guess my understanding of what capital C/T Conflict Tourism might be starts and ends with knowing what both of those words mean and how they probably apply to a particular kind of reporting, so if there's a more specific understanding that I'm missing like a link or a quick rundown would be dope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
lonelylikezoidberg posted:I don't know if I agree with you but its reasonable criticism, though I would suspect it was more than likely an off-the-cuff remark in an effort to make parallels and argue that responsible journalism needs to be thoughtful of the power it possesses rather than an articulation of a deeply held belief in the centrality of Evans' role in the Portland protests. It's at about 1:04:15 if you're curious. I went back and listened to it several times to make sure I wasn't mischaracterizing it or otherwise being uncharitable. "I know that the way that I framed it had a significant impact..." with significant emphasized. If it was hyperbole or ironic bloviating then it's an interesting choice given the subject matter. Regardless, I was curious if others picked up on it Pinky Artichoke posted:He speaks very little on that podcast, most of it is other local journalists and activists. He did a good job of giving people a platform and mostly getting out of the way. That's good to know and I do plan to listen at some point Sab Sabbington posted:Though along with that I'm curious how you might distinguish between conflict tourism and an alternative--and how much the distinction matters when it comes to on the ground live reporting? I'll start with the easier question and just state that I'm not sure that the distinction does matter much when it comes to live on the ground reporting, at least if the reporter is being fair to the subject and reporting accurately. This is why I caveated that observation the way I did. Having never actually interacted with him my entirely unprofessional read on the guy is that Evans is a thrill seeker and also someone who wants to impress others with his experiences, hence the kind of person who seeks out conflicts and engages with them for a period of time but always with an eye on an exit should it stop being fun (in the larger sense, immediate terror/misery can still be fun) then uses those experiences to build clout. I also don't think this is particularly unique for the type of reporting, nor do I consider it a reason for me to not engage with his work
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I just got around to listening to the first episode on Rush Limbaugh and the whole thing is quite enjoyable but I want to focus on the two minutes that made me cringe and roll my eyes. For a while I've had a half-formed and vague sense that Robert Evans is primarily a conflict tourist. I think most people who are in his line of work are, so it doesn't really prevent me from enjoying his podcasts, but I think the exchange about the fence in Portland really hammered this home. HashtagGirlboss posted:Maybe. And I haven't listened to the ten episode mini-series on the Portland protests yet, primarily because I live here and it's all still too close and raw to want to relive it, so I don't know if this kind of self-importance permeates that or not, and I hope it doesn't I can't speak for those on the ground, but discourse referring to it as "the sacred fence" on Twitter appears to start on June 3rd, 2020. Robert retweets a fun creation myth by @45thAbsurdist, and Robert's twitter followers are all over it. Discussion and description of the fence this way balloons from here into the weekend of June 5-7th. A lot of the people producing coverage of the protests in Portland either knew each other previously or got to know each other at the time (Robert's blossoming friendship with Garrison Davis is plenty evidence of that), so the idea that they'd latch onto it collectively and start perpetuating it from him (Garrison is using the phrase by the 8th) is entirely plausible. There's a LOT of jokes from that time about touching the sacred fence. Were some of them directly influenced by his coverage or a proliferation of the meme thanks to him? Very probably. By association, does that mean that some people were subjected to police violence or arrested as a result of this dumb meme? Also very possible. I don't think it's wrong of Robert to recognise this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Wilekat posted:I can't speak for those on the ground, but discourse referring to it as "the sacred fence" on Twitter appears to start on June 3rd, 2020. Robert retweets a fun creation myth by @45thAbsurdist, and Robert's twitter followers are all over it. Discussion and description of the fence this way balloons from here into the weekend of June 5-7th. A lot of the people producing coverage of the protests in Portland either knew each other previously or got to know each other at the time (Robert's blossoming friendship with Garrison Davis is plenty evidence of that), so the idea that they'd latch onto it collectively and start perpetuating it from him (Garrison is using the phrase by the 8th) is entirely plausible. I think you've got it backwards. He very much tapped into the zeitgiest around the fence, not the other way around. I don't know, I can't say that there wasn't anyone specifically influenced by him, but I think "significant impact" is very much putting the cart before the horse and taking credit for events unfolding around you
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
A lot of the media figures Robert covers on BtB have that whole "minor actions that led to disastrous results accidentally" angle on them so I like him perhaps over-emphasizing his own importance, though I was exposed to a lot of what happened in Portland because of him. I also like saying "I never interacted with him" because, while you probably mean irl, he was doing knife criticism on the last page of this thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:
you've quite literally quoted and argued with him in this thread before
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Yeah I wasn't really including posting when I said that for a variety of reasons, primary being that he's a media personality who I am sure is still "in character" to a degree when posting, in the same way that I'm in character when I interact with my clients at work. I've never encountered the guy in real life or had an actual conversation with him, so I'm making clear what I'm basing my judgement on and what gaps there are in my observations
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Yeah I wasn't really including posting when I said that for a variety of reasons, primary being that he's a media personality who I am sure is still "in character" to a degree when posting, in the same way that I'm in character when I interact with my clients at work. I've never encountered the guy in real life or had an actual conversation with him, so I'm making clear what I'm basing my judgement on and what gaps there are in my observations HashtagGirlboss posted:yeah, I went back and forth with whether or not to bring it up in that thread because I'm not really interested in stirring up drama, but at the same time I am curious if other people notice just how monumentally self important the guy is I've noticed how monumentally selfimportant you seem to be, when you decided in CSPAM to come gently caress with us for daring to like his podcast
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
I think girlboss is just Anderson posting because she doesn't get enough attention https://twitter.com/why_sophie_why/status/1225303048878096390?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:I've noticed how monumentally selfimportant you seem to be, when you decided in CSPAM to come gently caress with us for daring to like his podcast I’m intensely disinterested in cross forum drama and if I was looking to rile people up I would have been far less careful with how I phrased things. I’m interested in the media personality this thread is about and a thing he said and how it plays into my observations over time consuming the media he produces. So chill with the victim narrative please and engage or ignore me
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I’m intensely disinterested in cross forum drama and if I was looking to rile people up I would have been far less careful with how I phrased things. I’m interested in the media personality this thread is about and a thing he said and how it plays into my observations over time consuming the media he produces. So chill with the victim narrative please and engage or ignore me You came in here already having your mind made up and already having an axe to grind about the dude, having freshly come from a conversation wherein we are referring to as "sycophants" What exactly do you want other than for Robert himself to weigh in, or for us to say "You sound like a person who did stuff during the protests. You are very interesting. Here is a cookie."? Armchair psychoanalysis of a person you have a parasocial relationship is bullshit, so analyzing what exactly drives Robert to go do journalism would be an exercise in jerking off. You sound like you did interesting things during the protests. Very cool. But gently caress off with this innocent routine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I’m intensely disinterested in cross forum drama and if I was looking to rile people up I would have been far less careful with how I phrased things. I’m interested in the media personality this thread is about and a thing he said and how it plays into my observations over time consuming the media he produces. So chill with the victim narrative please and engage or ignore me People did try to engage you and you batted it away and dismissed their claims. Either be open or don't but you don't really come off as willing to engage nor highminded in your "careful phrasing".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
Can we please not devolve in a mid-2000s forum e-peen fight? It’s seriously not worth for it for either side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
I think there is some degree of “all frontline journalism is tourism” because, uh, no you don’t have to be there. I got a ton of flak for going to Japan to help with Fukushima, mostly from goons, who were convinced that my being there was clout chasing and wasteful of resources, and there is some degree of truth to that, because I could have said no, and they probably could have found someone else. I went for the same reasons I can only assume Robert went down to the protest war zones every day to gassed and beaten: they were called to action. Something taps you, from within or without, and you are called to be in a place at a time. My friend said he needed my help, his family needed my help, and I wasn’t doing anything better with my life at the time so I went. For a journalist with warzone experience to be living on the cusp of socio-political rebellion in their own city due to an increasingly racist and tyrannical police state... I mean at that point Robert has more reasons to be out in the streets reporting than he does sitting in his house watching twitch feeds, doesn’t he? If it’s not only his career but something he is uniquely keyed into (he did a multipart miniseries about the possibility of American insurrection). In any case this is a better derail/exploration of Robert than the stupid “he’s a fed Bellingcat stooge” bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 03:38
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:I think there is some degree of “all frontline journalism is tourism” because, uh, no you don’t have to be there. I got a ton of flak for going to Japan to help with Fukushima, mostly from goons, who were convinced that my being there was clout chasing and wasteful of resources, and there is some degree of truth to that, because I could have said no, and they probably could have found someone else. You make fair points, and like I said - while conflict tourism is going to influence how I engage with a media personality, I do think it's a trait that leads people to get into the field in the first place. Chasing thrills and chasing clout is a thing that like you said can call people to action. It's not necessarily an insult, or maybe it is necessarily an insult, but it's not unique to Robert Evans by any means and I don't want to seem like I'm uniquely singling him out. Where it gets more problematic is when it starts to seep into how facts and events are presented. Comments like the one that got me to start this thread, if my take on it is correct (and I did include the time stamp and invite anyone to go listen if they want), suggests something more troubling may (and I want to be very clear that this isn't an outright accusation that it is) be present. That is, it plays into a sense that perhaps events aren't being presented as honestly as they should be. Perhaps the journalist might filter the narrative or present the facts in a way that further their own reputation and not inform. Honestly, it could be entirely unintentional. I've been accused of batting back accusations, and I think I'm more pushing back, because that little exchange didn't sound illustrative to demonstrate a point to me, it really felt like he was taking credit for something I don't think it makes sense to credit to yourself, unless you're building in your own head or the heads of others, a personal mythology
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
I'm not sure this is the proper place for this question but, having listened to probably hundreds of episodes of BtB, every episode I always think to myself which Bastard if, removed completely from existence, would have the greatest impact on the state of the world as it is today. Rush Limbaugh ranks pretty high in my opinion, maybe because it's so recent in my mind, or maybe Roy Cohn? Curious what others think (and Robert, too!) edit: I forgot there was a Hitler episode so that's probably it, but my question has an implied "except Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
bilperkins2 posted:I'm not sure this is the proper place for this question but, having listened to probably hundreds of episodes of BtB, every episode I always think to myself which Bastard if, removed completely from existence, would have the greatest impact on the state of the world as it is today. Rush Limbaugh ranks pretty high in my opinion, maybe because it's so recent in my mind, or maybe Roy Cohn? Curious what others think (and Robert, too!) I had this exact thought after the Phyllis Schafly episode. AFewBricksShy posted:Hearing the Phyllis Schafly episode, it makes me wonder: if you took one person out of the timeline "Looper" style, who would it be to fix the poo poo show we are in right now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
I just started thinking about how many gay people would still be alive if Nancy Regan were super into crystals or bonsai instead of astrology and palm reading and just became incredibly sad
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
bilperkins2 posted:I'm not sure this is the proper place for this question but, having listened to probably hundreds of episodes of BtB, every episode I always think to myself which Bastard if, removed completely from existence, would have the greatest impact on the state of the world as it is today. Rush Limbaugh ranks pretty high in my opinion, maybe because it's so recent in my mind, or maybe Roy Cohn? Curious what others think (and Robert, too!) Bust Rodd posted:I just started thinking about how many gay people would still be alive if Nancy Regan were super into crystals or bonsai instead of astrology and palm reading and just became incredibly sad One of my big takeaways from the Dollop two-parter on Reagan was that if you were to take Nancy's stepfather Loyal Davis out of the picture, a lot of the last 40 years changes dramatically. Davis is essentially responsible for the Reagans' right-wing radicalization, to the point where Ronald might not have pursued political ambitions at all without his influence. Granted, you'd probably have ended up with HW Bush taking power eight years earlier, but for all of his CIA ratfuckery, HW Bush probably wouldn't have gotten in bed with the Moral Majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Hey, "conflict tourism" is an aspect of all foreign war correspondent work. There are a few exceptions, like the late Tim Heatherington, who among other things bought a home in Liberia while covering the civil war there, but 99% of journalists who cover conflict don't tend to live where they report on. If you're critiquing my work in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine through that lens, it's a fair point. Journalists who do that sort of work need to be aware of that. I don't think it would be fair to characterize my work in Portland as conflict tourism. I started reporting, from afar, on unrest and fascist/antifascist clashes in Portland back in 2018. I moved to the city in 2019 because I knew something significant was going to occur there in 2020 and I wanted to make sure I was in position and integrated into the community enough to properly report on what was happening. I'd been living in PDX for almost exactly a year when the uprisings started. In that year I was tear gassed (by a few people's counts) somewhere between 100-200 times. I suffered permanent hearing damage, lung damage, and had my hand broken. I went out every night with a group of neighbors who became close friends and eventually like family to me. My work in Portland last year was intensely personal and I remain engaged with and up-to-date on happenings in the city. I still live in Portland. I deliberately avoided making money off of my protest coverage in Portland. I never plugged my cash app or asked for donations, and in fact my fans raised $15,000 to fund the Portland diaper bank, somewhere around $50,000 for the Black resilience fund, and tens of thousands for the Portland Protest Bail Fund over the course of the year. I stopped livestreaming when it became clear said streams were being used to charge individuals with crimes I did not personally believe ought to result in jail time. As for the Sacred Fence stuff; the term started in my livestreams, I believe during tear gas tuesday. It spread on Twitter and in person. From what I can tell it was probably the most significant impact I had on events last year, not just based on people talking online but based on the several hundred people who came up to me in person during actions to talk to me. The conversations I had with them were a major reason I altered the nature of my coverage and grew more careful with how I phrased things. I believe journalists SHOULD have an impact on the stories they cover, but I also believe we need to be cognizant of when that impact is more harm than good. I can't precisely quantify the impact my coverage had on that stage of events, but enough people walked up to me and said "your livestreams convinced me to come out" that I grew concerned. You can either believe that or not. This is not the kind of stuff I wanted to put in Uprising, and honestly I considered deleting it from the Limbaugh episode, but I felt it was worth including. GunFondler42069 fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Mar 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:This is not the kind of stuff I wanted to put in Uprising, and honestly I considered deleting it from the Limbaugh episode, but I felt it was worth including. Good thing, because as we all know, you cannot edit audio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
tbf to Robert, Raytheon means light from the gods and they invented the microwave oven
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:Hey, "conflict tourism" is an aspect of all foreign war correspondent work. There are a few exceptions, like the late Tim Heatherington, who among other things bought a home in Liberia while covering the civil war there, but 99% of journalists who cover conflict don't tend to live where they report on. If you're critiquing my work in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine through that lens, it's a fair point. Journalists who do that sort of work need to be aware of that. I don't deny that you were present and highly visible, nor do I deny that it caused you great pain and injury, nor do I doubt your commitment to being out there. I hope that wasn't what you took away. But I do think that the lesson that you took from your conversations was the wrong lesson, in that you inserted yourself into people's motivations and determined that their actions and courage and defiance was influenced by you and how you presented events. All of these people have agency independent of you, and even if they directly finger you as the motivating factor in their decision making, I think most of those same people would have been drawn out regardless of whether you had been here to stream. I do think you were visibly prominent and so people associated your face and voice with the events that spurred them to action, but I disagree that you rather than the events were the draw, despite the fact that your coverage may offer a tangible thing to point at if questioned. I think it's really dangerous for people who achieve prominence to take at face value people who say they're inspired by them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Dollars to donuts, an episode on NFTs and crypto as a whole? Who would be the bastard?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I don't deny that you were present and highly visible, nor do I deny that it caused you great pain and injury, nor do I doubt your commitment to being out there. I hope that wasn't what you took away. It's honestly becoming less clear over time what you believe he's trying to take credit for here, because at this point it reads like you think he's claiming credit for the protests in general. You're attributing an awful lot to very little.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Mad person is mad
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
I'm not always the most direct writer and I can dance around my point, so I'll say it outright, and you can take of it what you will. I think Robert Evans is over emphasizing his influence on others and his place in these events, intentionally perhaps, or more likely he believes it, and presenting it in a way in his podcast where he builds clout of that influence, even if presented as a humble brag (and again, I'm not clear on the intentionality). I'm not mad, I just think it's a very telling little window into his outlook. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
You're still dancing. "Telling" of what, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I'm not always the most direct writer and I can dance around my point, so I'll say it outright, and you can take of it what you will. I think Robert Evans is over emphasizing his influence on others and his place in these events, intentionally perhaps, or more likely he believes it, and presenting it in a way in his podcast where he builds clout of that influence, even if presented as a humble brag (and again, I'm not clear on the intentionality). I'm not mad, I just think it's a very telling little window into his outlook. The thing is, though, there is a cult of personality type thing that develops around popular podcast personalities like Robert. Where an overly involved Opening Arguments fan may just call P. Andrew Torres and try to sign up for legal services he does not in fact need (and then write a cringey trip report about it on the internet), it's entirely possible that a Robert fan might be inspired to do something dumb at a protest. I think it's good for him to be mindful of that possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Fella he was rating knives 5 minutes ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Parasocial relationships are a legitimate concern in tyool 2k21 but I really don’t see that happening here*. Maybe I’m an old crone but like, this just looks like run of the mill “inside joke! I am a fan!” nonsense. *my obvious lifelong connection with PFT excluded because he WILL answer my boater hat telegrams! I just know it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 17:58
|
|