HoeMath explains Renee Good
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
Why would I--or anyone--give a shit whether or not he's informed about geopolitics? Why would I--or anyone--watch a guy who goes (went) by "hoe math" for some kind of nuanced treatise on geopolitics?
This is truly very strange to me, just a totally oddball assertion. Not every entertainment product out there has to be some kind of one-stop-shop that delivers to you everything you want to hear about.
H_M is this guy. He has a good data-driven analytical mind, and somehow he's managed to pick up a good amount of psychology and social psychology without absorbing the bullshit liberal baggage that almost always comes with that knowledge. 99% of what he does is apply social psychology, some game theory, some theories of personality (like Myers-Briggs, which I think is kind of bullshit, but it can be used as a lens), and basic microeconomics, to explain modern social behavior, with a focus on the modern woman.
Complaining that what he tweeted about Iran is not necessarily the most informed, is like standing in a Burger King screaming "WHERE'S MY FALAFEL!?"
You can't explain behavior without examining the ruling class that shapes it. If you know nothing about geopolitics, you know nothing about the ruling class. His analysis will thus always be wrong.
This is the most unfounded, bizarre, ridiculous, and frankly stupid things I've heard/read on the internet today.
So far, but the day is young. You got some funny things rattling around in that there brain-box of yours, yessir.
How is it ridiculous to acknowledge that the ruling class shapes society? Do you think the Civil Rights Acts, for example, haven't affected human behavior?
Because that's entirely un-fucking-helpful if you actually want to observe, or report, or predict anything going on with people and how they're acting and how they're treating each other right now.
There are about 15,000,000 different goings-on that affect what modern people are like and how they behave. Just because not every observation fully takes into account, oh, I don't know, Jekyll Island or Hamiltonian politics leading up to the American Civil War, doesn't mean these observations are irrelevant, ignorant, or wrong.
As I said before, not everyone has to be a one-stop-shop that delivers to you all the specific things you want to talk about, when you talk about anything. If you're a savvy participant or just listener to any of these news-ish podcast people, you've long since accepted that you don't have to agree entirely with them to appreciate the truth and insight that comes from them. But you've got to be smart about it, at least. For instance, I like Matt Walsh on a lot of things, when he's speaking truths about things he's knowledgeable about. The dude talks 10 hours a day on camera, so obviously he says a lot of stuff I don't care about, don't think is quite right, or is just riffing for infotainment purposes.
You could say the same about any or all of these people--Tucker Carlson, Sam Hyde, Matt Christiansen, Steve Crowder--whoever. They're folk. Take what's valuable, find enrichment in what you like, check their work and their sources if veracity is a priority for you, and ignore the content you don't like.