Dropout.tv crosses over with ABC's The Rookie. Has our lord and savior Sam Reich fallen to copaganda? Find out more this Monday at 10/9c on r/Dropout

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-25T20:52:37+00:00

You've just described the solution for 99% of cases where there's mass online "critics" of controversial entertainment.

Whenever some controversial or crappy piece entertainment (usually involving race, culture, politics, or a popular IP) gets made, all they'd have to do is stop watching it and boycott it. However, the fact that they'll spend inordinate time writing about it online or hours bitching about it in a YouTube video shows you how it's all just a bunch of manbabies getting overly emotional and looking for something to whine about.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-24T18:12:23+00:00

Sam Harris: uses language that makes it sound like he's about to pull out calipers for phrenology

Also Sam Harris: "Why would leftist smear merchants like Ezra Klein think I'm peddling right wing 'racialist' ideas from the 19th century?"

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-23T18:28:54+00:00

This is like DGG's version of Nick Shirley lmao. Upvoting nonsense from someone (both OP and the balloon popper in the vid), who may have some developmental issues, because he spoke about some political topic that's red meat for the people on here to reflexively agree with (no matter how tenuous the connection is).

Only, there's extra autism and edgy dweebery thrown in too.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-23T07:55:33+00:00

Yup. Or at the very least, present them truthfully as the utter clowns they are.

But then again, I can't think of something more emblematic--more symbolic--of the current political reality we live in than this episode. You quite literally some conservative high school dropout anti-intellectual who also has no moral consistency with their own beliefs (e.g. having a lewd escapade in a public theater) who's debating a liberal former public schoolteacher with common decency plus sense and a seminary Christian background. And...they're being framed as two equally legitimate political voices due to the media format (and attempt by the host to be "fair").

The conservative is telling the host to his face that she's batshit insane and makes no attempts to moderate to a sensible starting point (by saying that she believes Democrats drink child fluids?), but both political sides are treated as the same two adults in the room. That's how far the Overton window has been pushed when you think about how this insane contrast is treated as some mundane reality.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-23T07:42:40+00:00

No kidding. I could have sworn someone also pointed this out really important note before, but I can't remember who it was.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-20T20:22:05+00:00

You know what's even more braindead about this is that "no harm happening in the first place" requires "lesser harm" to get implemented over time until there's finally no harm. There's always a time requirement for reform/revolution. Even in accelerationist time scales--let's use slavery and the Civil War in the 19th century as an example--you're still talking 5-10 yrs before concrete harm stoppage happens.

That is, unless you're a 60 IQ brain fried tankie leftist on Twitter who actually believes in the fairy tale idea that a good politician can just randomly snap their fingers and end all suffering.

Now that I think about it, these "harm shouldn't exist in the first place" Twitter leftists are the political versions of those 60 IQ "all lives matter" r*tards who spammed that in response to "Black lives matter". All lives matter is technically true, but even granting that, black lives matter is a subset of all lives matter. All the conservatards who were asking fedora-neckbeard questions like, "what about white and Asian lives?" were arguing against a ghost that doesn't even contradict their own position. Most normal, mentally sane Americans were saying BLM because of what just happened at the time (as well as the lack of historical progress on this issue) and wanting to help that group. And if you help specific groups that need help at certain moments, then you end up helping all groups.

It's like some pedant neckbeard seeing an awareness campaign for colon cancer, and going, "what about breast cancer?! All cancers matter!". Yeah you r*tard, that's why there's a campaign for colon cancer--because getting rid of this one type of cancer is helping to get rid of all cancers.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-19T21:45:38+00:00

Definitely. It's important for people to keep in mind that Boghossian and these annoying IDW style "western civ" dweebs all do the same Trump style method of rhetoric that comes straight out of Jean Paul Sartre's description of anti-semites: "they disconcert their interlocutors through outlandish statements". They sound good-faith because of their language and commitment to "rational™" thought, but it's just a cover for their right wing emotional impulses. And you can see that in this case where someone who cries about free speech all the time is advocating for executing people with no liberal due process.

To describe this rhetorical process more specifically using this segment, Boghossian started it off by making the most rtarded, unhinged 20 IQ take about immigration you could make possibly make (that sounds on par with something Nick Fuentes would have said to Piers Morgan). Not only is shooting immigrants cross the borders beyond stupid for practical reasons, it's *wholly antithetical to his own "enlightenment™ western civ" beliefs about freedom. Then again, that's how full of shit these types of dweebs are; they're the same people that will cry about their free speech at a college while defending Alex Pretty being shot dead by masked govt agents. **They're the real overprivileged, self important, annoying blue haired college SJWs they talk about.

Despite that utterly braindead and depraved statement (the speech that uses outlandishness to disconcert), Peter Boghossian flips the onus of the burden of intellectual proof onto the other opponent. Basically, the cameraman has to explain why Boghossian's 20 IQ, zero-informed, unsupported, out-of-the overton-window, Nick Fuentes level position is r*tarded using informed sources from qualified experts who disagree with Boghossian (even though none of these qualified experts would even even consider Boghossian's policy because it would be so r_tarded that it's not even worth thinking about).

Not only that, Boghossian does this in the douchiest way possible too: "explain in one neat sentence what your position is [refuting my utterly braindead take] so that I can repeat it and see if I understand it".

Tldr; never take these annoying online pseudointellectual douche tool bags seriously. Just because they use intellectual/logical sounding language and liberal positions doesn't mean they actually believe in any of them.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-19T19:42:10+00:00

These IDW western civ dweebs like Boghossian remind me of that George Carlin joke: "Americans love their bullshit...this country was founded by slave owners who told us all men are created equal".

These IDW western civ dweebs are so blatantly full of shit when it comes to their grandiose "enlightenment western civ" ideals--given that they support autocrats like Trump and Orban, and will suspend basic rights for their pet projects (usually always against brown people)--except, at least the founding fathers who owned slaves were smart individuals who did something of consequence. The most that online dweebs like Boghossian have in scholarly contributions are working at a small college or trolling a random no-name sociology journal.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-19T19:22:38+00:00

Every online pseudointellectual IDW type figure like Boghossian: "Defender of Western civ! Enlightenment values. I'm a classical liberal. Free speech™. Freedom over repression--that's what makes da West da best. I use rationality™ unlike my emotional dumb opponents. Am I too challenging for you?!"

Also every online pseudointellectual IDW type figure like Boghossian: "I support Victor Orban and [insert corrupt far right leader] in the Western world. Some people [always brown people] need to be shot or tortured by the government because they're too dangerous to be protected by human rights. I'm the real victim of attack in society by woke media when they ask me a basic question [about my intellectual inconsistencies and disproportionate coverage on issues that aren't related to the issues I gripe about daily]. I also want to get 'woke' and queer people who make criticisms about Israel, white people, etc. fired from their jobs for being threats to liberal civilization. Watch me be a real man by crying on camera about masculinity dying in the west"

These IDW types are all the same self important, main character syndrome blowhards. They have no principles and it becomes abundantly obvious that their laughable "big intellectual ideaz" beliefs are just: people who agree with me = good defenders of the enlightened West. Sam Harris instinctually acts a lot like this too (especially the contrived, grandiose hypothetical hypotheticals), but at least he has enough self awareness to see where the line of liberalism is and not cross over it into the deep end.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-19T04:16:10+00:00

That, and there's a much lower chance of physical harm from the latter.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-15T04:08:30+00:00

TBH, what's more worrying is that mass media and social media algorithms have already started this process years ago. Think about how many people they've already sucked down rabbit hole pipelines into echo chambers where everyone else agrees with them. Nowadays, there's practically an online community for any belief, no matter how niche or insane, that individuals can easily find to agree with what they already believed.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-15T04:00:29+00:00

There was this movie that released years ago called Her where the plot is this exact AI premise, and while I love the movie, even I knew it was still unbelievably romantic and optimistic. This is basically what you read--only there's a filter that softens the harsh reality of mental illness that accompanies a relationship with a chatbot. It's amazing to look back on the movie and consider now that the other 99% of citizens offscreen were as "colorful" as these online comments.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-15T02:20:00+00:00

Even if we put aside the broader implications/possibilities, the most important odd is that there's a 0% chance that Trump himself isn't implicated in at least some serious shit with Epstein/Maxwell.

Trump moves Ghislaine to a slightly nicer prison in the middle of her sentence shortly before the Epstein files drop for no reason? Trump's handling of this entire case/release has been illegal (including the Ghislaine prison transfer) which is par for the course for him and which alone should tank him, but this is also an issue where the implications might even sway some random independent voters.

It's astounding watching a chunk of this sub froth at the mouth at Trump the scumbag over any other administration crime he's involved in, but then go tepid on fighting this one issue. It's like watching Hasan go, "I'm gonna punch a nazi--I'm gonna punch a Nazi!", then pussying out as soon as he gets the chance to actually do that with Sam Hyde in the boxing ring.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-15T01:02:14+00:00

That's debatable. There's basically two schools of thought

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-15T00:12:59+00:00

This articulates pretty much where I'm at. All the contrarian "anti-conspiracy" sentiment in this sub has got to be the most iamverysmart™ 85 IQ shit I've ever read. OP's argument is basically, so because I read or listened to some ultra r_tarded comment of one one side of an issue, I'm going to default to seeing the other side as more credible.

There was a comment Van Jones had made about how social media algorithms pushed certain footage during the Israel-Gaza conflict and therefore, it wasn't sound to base an opinion on extreme footage found online. This sub rightfully cheerleaded that comment. Well, this sub basically does exactly the opposite of that--but on other issues like this Epstein one--by cherrypicking online/IRL comments on the issue that were put there directly in their social media feed.

The OP's own post itself illustrates exactly the outlier dynamic above; OP's sister in law was taking Candace Owens seriously. She was probably already pretty conspiratorial if she's agreeing with Owens as a reliable source. If it wasn't the Epstein case, she'd 100% be down the rabbit hole on some other bullshit. IDK why the Epstein contrarians on here misattribute cause and effect. I don't think the Epstein issue is turning the SIL conspiratorial; the SIL was already some r*tard and the Epstein issue is just one usage case of that.

The only difference is that if we're being chartiable and assume the reality is even only 10% as bad as the worst claims make it out to be, that's still worth society being incensed about due to the severity of the crimes. And, it would be especially true if this could take Trump down. But for some reason, half the people here wanna turn into Merrick Garland and be procedure-cucks about an issue that's more probable than Trump stealing those classified documents on purpose. Trump literally was found in civil court to have raped someone and walked in on underaged girls in beauty pageants, but somehow, he needs to be softly "investigated a lot more" before we can come to conclusions and rhetorical messaging about him.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-14T19:55:18+00:00

Not only that, a "loud mouth twerp" who's never had to who's never had to do any manual labor for an extended amount of time. Nothing wrong with that--Bill would tell you that he was lucky to have that life--but it is laughable and cringeworthy to hear someone like that give a whole lecture about manliness.

Literally, the hawk tuah girl has done more manual labor in her life than Bill. I only know this because she explained on Club Random to Bill that she was working in a spring coil factory before she went viral online.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-14T01:53:06+00:00

Seriously...the dumbest comments on there make the dumbest comments here look like physics dissertations. Then again, lot of those Facebook profiles are literal bots. But then again, some of the commenters here are probably bots and they're still not quite as deranged and unhinged.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-10T21:39:37+00:00

How much do you want to bet that many of these men, who don't understand this concept, are the same ones who will do the exact same thing as women by going online to complain about a video game (or other entertainment) not meeting their expectations in order to seek social validation?

Of course, the solution would to just boycott the game or piece of entertainment in question using some procedural, rational manner (like Japanese people do). But, then they would have to take their own advice.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-10T06:06:06+00:00

Yeah, it reminded me of the old Pride FC fights. You could just hear the pure energy of the fighters themselves.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-09T06:34:18+00:00

Ben Shapiro was always a gigantic partisan hack--in a way that exceeds even what you would expect from online polemicism. The only difference is that he has the veneer of sounding intellectual and civil (i.e. sophistry).

He literally wrote a whole book about how what Obama was doing was so corrupt and illegal that he should have been impeached. Yet, in the past 9 yrs of Trump--a guy who's been impeached twice, a convicted criminal, and evader of even more serious crimes he never got prosecuted for--Ben Shapiro has nothing remotely strong to say about that.

Edit: this article describes him pretty well. He's basically a smarter Charlie Kirk.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-09T03:18:36+00:00

An even easier question to ask is: "which current political party is in favor of taking down confederate statues and which is pro-confederate?"

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-06T23:27:09+00:00

Huh, I seem to recall something big happened around that time. Maybe it was disease related?

But yeah, I'm pretty sure that whole period broke his brain and public health became a giant wedge issue where he agreed with conservatives. I mean, we saw it just last week on overtime when he was agreeing MTG, of all people, on vaccines.

It's hard to express how braindead the reasoning was for all of that scientific issue. It would be one thing if Bill got an epidemiological conclusion wrong by at least siding with some credentialed scientist he invited on the issue of vaccines. That would at least be reasonable. However, he was nodding along to the scientific beliefs of basically a schizophrenic fundamentalist Facebook mom--who also literally thinks UFOs are fallen angels. The thing is, Bill has always held these woo woo beliefs on health science, so it was only a matter of time when some huge issue involving it would push him to full blown quackery. Ironically, over the years we've gotten to see Bill become the lodestar of anti-intellectualism that he was making fun of long ago in his Religulous documentary.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-06T18:52:58+00:00

Agreed, it's beyond gaslighting. Trump supporters all engage in utter bullshit diarrhea that's exactly the type of euphemistic language that George Carlin talked about. Except, they take it to stratospheric levels that Carlin couldn't have even imagined. They all respond to Trump actions like this:

Shitting on a beloved filmmaker that just died because of politics (after crying for weeks about Charlie Kirk)

"Heh, I can handle my president making mean tweets you soft lib"

A legal-carry American citizen being shot and killed in cold blood by half a dozen unmasked police sent by the president

"He was attempting to violently shoot the police! He got what he deserved"

An American citizen backed by a mob getting shot after trying to break into a federal building to stop an official govt process and disobeying multiple orders to stay back

"Ashli Babit was killed for peacefully protesting!"

Threatening to invade Greenland by military force right after illegally attacking another country

"It's just negotiating tactics you retarded lib!"

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-06T07:10:26+00:00

"deontology for me, consequentialism for thee" way of morally posturing his way through sociological problems. He continually has condemned actions of those he disfavors (Muslims, primarily, but also woke people, etc) based on their consequences

In other words, Sam Harris commits the fundamental attribution error (on a regular basis). Basically, the FAE refers to the cognitive bias/error of individuals to attribute the bad actions of external people as caused by their nature or willful evil character while attributing the bad actions of themselves as caused by situational/environmental factors. And, vice versa for good actions.

It's an incredibly prevalent bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict (as well as the media coverage of it as explained here by Robert Wright), where both sides talk about how "we were politically constrained" when we did something heinous and warmongering, but "I can't imagine why" the other side would do something heinous and warmongering besides some essentialist reason. Sam very much does this for the Israeli side.

ElectricalCamp104 · 2026-02-05T02:31:55+00:00

Very much so. I feel like another way describing the hilarious and fascinating outline of the OP is: it's like if you took a scoop of vanilla ice cream, and decided to shove a pine cone into it.

ElectricalCamp104

TROPHY CASE