Quinn Que

In the summer of 2000, as the Harry Potter series was quickly becoming a global sensation, legendary Yale critic Harold Bloom gave one of his most unpopular takes, calling 35 million readers wrong

I should've probably said this ages ago, but I've largely decamped to other platforms, guys. Click the links on my profile. I still tweet from time to time, but I'm just... burned out on this place. Especially the creeping realization that it was always holding me back. 🤷🏿‍♂️✌🏿

Okay, it's time to do an analysis of relative power, here. How does Joe Rogan derive his immense power and how does that differ from Piker? Specifically: thousands of different people appear on Rogan, including comedians, scientists, UFC fighters, conspiracy theorists, and, also, politicians. This means that Rogan works as a political influence vector BECAUSE people show up for MMA, or weed chat, or whatever Jordan Peterson is yammering about, and they get politics as a byproduct. Rogan ALSO has influence in other domains, not just politics. For example, there's been a long-running intra-hunter debate on whether or not he's had a positive/negative influence on the sport. So Rogan draws people in on one topic, then exposes them to a whole lot else, including politics. This gives him influencer-status *across the board*. Now contrast that with Piker. Piker's content is almost exclusively just one thing: talking about politics from a "far-left" perspective. Now, another, related comparison: Rogan is also politically ambiguous to the *general* public. We Democrats might see him as extremely right-wing, but that's not what draws all his listeners in. So, in Rogan's case, we have a macho dude whose reach is *sprawling* precisely b/c he has content diversity AND political ambiguity. In Piker's case, we have a dude ranting CCP propoganda at like-minded people and occasionally electrocuting his dog. That's it. The entire "Should Democrats accept Piker?" discussion assumes that Piker is bringing people IN, what we would call a "reach" asset. That's what Rogan is for MAGA, to some extent. But Piker is NOT a "reach" asset. He is talking to either 1) like-minded people or 2) people who hate him. And he is speaking on ONE topic (politics) from ONE perspective ("leftism."). He keeps the already converted engaged to what's essentially CCP/Russian style "Leftism." When you engage with him, THAT'S who you're engaging with. STOP comparing Hasan Piker to Joe Rogan. When you do this, you 1) OVERESTIMATE Piker's power and 2) MISUNDERSTAND Rogan's own influence. Personally, I think "Democrats must find their Joe Rogan" is a ridiculous rabbit-hole overall. Democrats should stand on their own two feet. They just look weak when they try to be something they're not. That said, if you DO endorse the white whale of the "Democratic Joe Rogan" it's most definitely NOT Hasan Piker. For that, you'd need someone with content diversity AND more ideological fluidity/ambiguity.