Support NeoGAF

[Nvzman]

I abandoned the video eventually because the dude likes the sound of his own voice a little too much for my taste but I bet he doesn't even address how Joe Rogan who is admittedly mid af as a comedian became this unstoppable force. By the mid to late 2010s his pretentious kind had alienated most comedians by trying to ban certain jokes they didn't like, cancel comedians that were too edgy for their strict standards while promoting shockingly unfunny comedians like Amy Schumer, so people like Joe Rogan saw a power vacuum and exploited it. Rogan would never become what he is now if liberals hadn't become so fucking insufferable and self-sabotaged all the institutions they had co-opted and tbh I'll take Joe Rogan and his buddies' mid comedy over the horrific Amy Schumer slop the other side was trying to promote

Of course because I couldn't watch the full video I'm making assumptions here and the video might address all that so please correct me if I'm wrong

Yea, full disclosure, I don't give a shit about Rogan and I think literally the ONLY funny episodes he has are with Joey Diaz, but the amount of hate he generates just for being a popular podcaster is absurd. He's not openly picking slapfights, he's not really saying anything hateful or hurtful, to be honest he's an incredibly bland host. But I think that's partially the point, he's just trying to have a wide variety of guests on from different backgrounds to give them time to speak.

I've never heard his comedy but I'm positive it probably sucks to me just because nothing I've heard about it sounds like my kind of humor. But whenever the "he gives a platform to undesirables" argument comes up, I know its coming from some pseudo-intellectual dunce who probably uses the word "chud" unironically. Wow, you mean he's letting an actual diverse group of people come on the podcast and not just a bunch of douchey college kids/professors or milquetoast stale bread celebrities on? Joe himself doesn't even agree with most of the bullshit his guests say, he just enjoys hearing the conversation, and I think thats the entire point of the podcast, its to be entertaining conversation.

I at least appreciate newer comedians trying to bring back some edge to comedy, because it really is true that the late 00s/2010s comedians were fucking insufferable, douchey, preachy, unfunny hacks. Amy Schumer was trying to push the feminist angle by saying legitimately disgusting (not in a funny way either) crap, and a lot of late night comedy hosts were just running full swing with the very partisan, extremely condescending humor. Its cool to make fun of old conservative Christian white people because they're racist, out of touch, and hate Obama, who is definitely a cool dude, but don't you dare make fun of anything else! Thats not cool bro!

The only people I know who unironically think crap like Colbert, Trevor Noah, John Oliver, or Sarah Silverman were funny were the type of people in college who actually thought that just going to college and having a degree automatically made them more intelligent than those who did not. Because they were the type of people blindly listening to their professors (who were just as flawed as them) and taking everything they said as direct fact instead of actually using their minds and doing the research and questioning what they are being taught. Thats exactly what I feel like that audience was at the time, and now with Rogan (and some other fringe comedians like Sam Hyde) being very much built upon conspiracy and edgy humor, its a direct counter to that way of thinking, and I think it drives some people up the wall at how "hateful and dangerous it is". As in, they feel offended. And thats what comedy should be doing! Even if its not exactly my type of humor, I support that much more than every comedian doing a shitty job aping George Carlin.

 

[jason10mm]

Goddamn, so he is a schizo, did the previous videos have this unhinged ranting tone in them or is he getting worse? Because if he is someone needs to alert Rogan's security team, the next video might not be a youtube one

Oh, I'm sure the former SEALs on his team are well aware of this guy.

 

[Boo Who?]

Is this YT channel the Liver King's alt account?

 

[Mistake]

Comedy is directly proportionate to the amount of fucks you have. Bill Burr is the perfect example. Before his wife and kids, almost no fucks. Now he's a bitch.

Rogan I feel still falls in the middle. He will apologize when he feels he did something wrong, but he also doesn't hold back when he needs to let loose. I'd like to see his more private stand up performances someday and get a better gauge on it. From what he's said, him and his comedian friends get a lot more raunchy in person

 

[P:axMagellanic]

It's a tragedy that patrice isn't around to absolutely belittle and take the piss out of the lot of them.

 

[Wimbledon]

This video is fuckin amazing. Took me 2 or 3 days to watch it fully but it was worth it.

Saw this yesterday really eye opening stuff made me reconfirm my stance a lot on the political landscape. Made me realize even more where were headed, found a great article on it https://harmoniousdiscourse.substack.com/p/the-new-fascist-international-technocratic

His take on Joe was amazing and how people will become part of a cult following and will ignore any negative things about a person or whom they associate with EVEN if the person is a horrible human being. Even if you agree with that stance it doesn't dismiss who they are morally.

The take Elon was perfect. I loved what i saw made more centrist, i did lean right but this presidency and how it's been handled. How alot of the right has became more tone deaf to certain things has been questionable I don't like what im seeing. Seeing that on display with rogan with friends and how they deal any criticsm or how they weaponize their position it was great seeing that break down. Or how Joe is being used by these very powerful controversial individuals, and his cult following eats it up.

Showed colleagues at work that video some of the best discussion i had in along time, about the state of things.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

The only people I know who unironically think crap like Colbert, Trevor Noah, John Oliver, or Sarah Silverman were funny were the type of people in college who actually thought that just going to college and having a degree automatically made them more intelligent than those who did not. Because they were the type of people blindly listening to their professors (who were just as flawed as them) and taking everything they said as direct fact instead of actually using their minds and doing the research and questioning what they are being taught.

This was literally me. Imagine my level of disillusionment after entering the workforce and getting more real-world experience.

 

[Sushi_Combo]

His videos are masterful.

 

[Nvzman]

Saw this yesterday really eye opening stuff made me reconfirm my stance a lot on the political landscape. Made me realize even more where were headed, found a great article on it https://harmoniousdiscourse.substack.com/p/the-new-fascist-international-technocratic

This article is complete drivel, I'm sorry. What a waste of words to argue such an incredibly disingenuous and loaded article without almost ANY citated evidence of anything the writer is accusing of.

Again, this is what I'm talking about with the "people blindly listening to their professors (who were just as flawed as them) and taking everything they said as direct fact instead of actually using their minds and doing the research and questioning what they are being taught". This article is desperately trying to come off as so intelligent and astute, but it reads like all the writer did was read some Vox articles about fascism obsessively and never once researched anything beyond that.

Elon Musk is a complete ass and I have no sympathy for him, but him having administrative control over X content is no different from how Jack Dorsey handled Twitter prior, how Zuckerberg handles Facebook/Instagram, or any of that bullshit. Hell, with the logic this article employs, the other Reee website is a complete Hitler-style return to facism. Its called moderation and all social media platforms go through the exact same thing. I also find it extremely ignorant when articles like this pop up trying to tie the facism angle with Musk, Trump, and Rogan, when Zuckerberg himself has said the previous administration was actually screaming and cursing at him to censor information that wasn't even incorrect. How on Earth is THIS not information control that borders on authoritarian? Its only okay when one political party does it? Its the easiest way to tell the type of writer at helm with the piece, its just partisan bullshit from people suffering from a severe cases of lack of self-awareness. Puff piece crap. Its amusing too because MSNBC's home page looks just like this:

Literally every single article has a headline that reads more like an opinion piece than actual unbiased content. And this is supposed to be a major news source. Then you have the blinded dummies going "well these headlines wouldn't be so negative if he wasn't so evil!", not realizing that this is exactly how the media has treated anyone that isn't favorable to their donors since the dawn of time. Its an endless loop of believing one side is evil and the other is good.

The idea that this is media fascism because Musk is peddling certain bias on his website and Rogan has a lot of different guests on is fucking moronic considering the opposite side of the fence has been doing this shit for like 40+ years now, its just ramped up significantly in the past 15 or so years.

 

[Wimbledon]

This article is complete drivel, I'm sorry. What a waste of words to argue such an incredibly disingenuous and loaded article without almost ANY citated evidence of anything the writer is accusing of.

Again, this is what I'm talking about with the "people blindly listening to their professors (who were just as flawed as them) and taking everything they said as direct fact instead of actually using their minds and doing the research and questioning what they are being taught". This article is desperately trying to come off as so intelligent and astute, but it reads like all the writer did was read some Vox articles about fascism obsessively and never once researched anything beyond that.

Elon Musk is a complete ass and I have no sympathy for him, but him having administrative control over X content is no different from how Jack Dorsey handled Twitter prior, how Zuckerberg handles Facebook/Instagram, or any of that bullshit. Hell, with the logic this article employs, the other Reee website is a complete Hitler-style return to facism. Its called moderation and all social media platforms go through the exact same thing. I also find it extremely ignorant when articles like this pop up trying to tie the facism angle with Musk, Trump, and Rogan, when Zuckerberg himself has said the previous administration was actually screaming and cursing at him to censor information that wasn't even incorrect. How on Earth is THIS not information control that borders on authoritarian? Its only okay when one political party does it? Its the easiest way to tell the type of writer at helm with the piece, its just partisan bullshit from people suffering from a severe cases of lack of self-awareness. Puff piece crap. Its amusing too because MSNBC's home page looks just like this:

Literally every single article has a headline that reads more like an opinion piece than actual unbiased content. And this is supposed to be a major news source. Then you have the blinded dummies going "well these headlines wouldn't be so negative if he wasn't so evil!", not realizing that this is exactly how the media has treated anyone that isn't favorable to their donors since the dawn of time. Its an endless loop of believing one side is evil and the other is good.

The idea that this is media fascism because Musk is peddling certain bias on his website and Rogan has a lot of different guests on is fucking moronic considering the opposite side of the fence has been doing this shit for like 40+ years now, its just ramped up significantly in the past 15 or so years.

I think the article paints a great picture of where I believe things are heading, (This isn't sole news source i use) it's piggy backing off that video. Also I don't believe its just ONE side of the aisle that's the problem, i believe both sides are leading toward the same result , i just think this current presidency seems to be accelerating that.

I don't think its moronic i think you need to have some level of discernment about who you give a platform too and Joe has a massive reach. I also do think its more of a problem when you do see the podcast space, that more or less surrounds Rogan. like the Nelk boys giving Benjamin Netanyahu to speak on there podcast the man heading a genocide i would speak more on that but i dont want to get banned. another example Peter theil on Jordan peterson and Rogan podcast etc.

Thats actually the reason why i stopped watching Rogan because hes bringing on these powerful individuals and not really checking them but trying to humanize these individuals. Who i don't believe are geninune or good but your giving them access to your fanbase which i do believes plays in how things are ramping up for the worst.

 

[Nvzman]

I think the article paints a great picture of where I believe things are heading, (This isn't sole news source i use) it's piggy backing off that video. Also I don't believe its just ONE side of the aisle that's the problem, i believe both sides are leading toward the same result , i just think this current presidency seems to be accelerating that.

I don't think its moronic i think you need to have some level of discernment about who you give a platform too. I also do think its more of a problem when you do see the podcast space, that more or less surrounds Rogan. like the Nelk boys giving Benjamin Netanyahu to speak on there podcast the man heading a genocide i would speak more on that but i dont want to get banned. another example Peter theil on Jordan peterson and Rogan podcast etc.

Thats actually the reason why i stopped watching Rogan because hes bringing on these powerful individuals and not really checking them but trying to humanize these individuals. Who i don't believe are geninune or good but your giving them access to your fanbase which i do believes plays in how things are ramping up for the worst.

Your own gif answered your own reply. Its not even that I agree or disagree with your opinion of Netanyahu or anything but the entire idea that certain people are not allowed to be platformed because of their beliefs, ideas, or even actions is exactly what I meant in my post. Thats inherently much more authoritarian and wrong than you realize, because reality is more gray than just "this man is doing something that I believe is wrong and therefore is not allowed to have a voice". One sentence about someone is not enough to describe and paint the full picture. If anything, the article is a great picture of everything wrong with what you are saying. There is nothing wrong with humanizing someone, because we are all people at the end of the day with our own thoughts, desires, and wishes. What matters is your interpretation and using your best judgement to avoid taking bad advice, bad thoughts, or being with bad people.

This is exactly why Rogan blew up in popularity. Do you seriously think he agrees with Alex Jones? Of course not. He's not having him on there to convince anyone that Alex Jones is right either, thats exactly where your (and the article's) line of thinking is completely wrong. He's having a conversation just to give you the perspective of what someone like that thinks, and there is nothing wrong with that. Also, its because its fucking hilarious to watch Alex wig out on camera.

I quite distinctly remember when the conservative religious "proper" groups in the 90s/early 00s would constantly cry for shows with offensive content like South Park and Family Guy to be taken off the air because the content was considered influential or harmful to people, and most people completely laughed at the protesting because it was a parenting and perception problem, not a content problem. This is more or less the same thing. The problem here is people thinking that just for having someone who has done something wrong or said something harmful on a show, that inherently equates to endorsement of said issues. It doesn't, and most people watching it do not think its an endorsement either. Stop trying to dictate who can and who can't speak, thats actual fascism. End of story.

 

[drotahorror]

It's a brilliant video, truly. I watched it a couple days ago. Really well done, thoughtful and also fucking hilarious. Recommend all the Rogan videos from this guy's channel before you get to this one as this is his Magnum Opus. He also has a good one shitting on Seinfeld that is a must watch.

Watched the Seinfeld one yesterday. So good.

 

[Wimbledon]

Your own gif answered your own reply. Its not even that I agree or disagree with your opinion of Netanyahu or anything but the entire idea that certain people are not allowed to be platformed because of their beliefs, ideas, or even actions is exactly what I meant in my post. Thats inherently much more authoritarian and wrong than you realize, because reality is more gray than just "this man is doing something that I believe is wrong and therefore is not allowed to have a voice". One sentence about someone is not enough to describe and paint the full picture. If anything, the article is a great picture of everything wrong with what you are saying. There is nothing wrong with humanizing someone, because we are all people at the end of the day with our own thoughts, desires, and wishes. What matters is your interpretation and using your best judgement to avoid taking bad advice, bad thoughts, or being with bad people.

This is exactly why Rogan blew up in popularity. Do you seriously think he agrees with Alex Jones? Of course not. He's not having him on there to convince anyone that Alex Jones is right either, thats exactly where your (and the article's) line of thinking is completely wrong. He's having a conversation just to give you the perspective of what someone like that thinks, and there is nothing wrong with that. Also, its because its fucking hilarious to watch Alex wig out on camera.

I quite distinctly remember when the conservative religious "proper" groups in the 90s/early 00s would constantly cry for shows with offensive content like South Park and Family Guy to be taken off the air because the content was considered influential or harmful to people, and most people completely laughed at the protesting because it was a parenting and perception problem, not a content problem. This is more or less the same thing. The problem here is people thinking that just for having someone who has done something wrong or said something harmful on a show, that inherently equates to endorsement of said issues. It doesn't, and most people watching it do not think its an endorsement either. Stop trying to dictate who can and who can't speak, thats actual fascism. End of story.

1. I believe an individual needs to have a level of Discernment about who they let on their platform. I just need to clarify this , everyone has a voice and everyone is allowed a platform but i don't agree that everyone deserves to have a platform because i do think they're many people who are net negatives on society. i'm not saying it need to be written in law, because i'm for free speech. But i also think it's important to recognize volatile or controversial individuals can lie, and also badly influence people who don't know any better, and because of such reach can change social dynamics for the worst.

2. I'm sorry but i disagree with the humanizing part IF your not checking them. Especially individuals who are actively involved in controversial or questionable acts....if your simply going to gloss over that just to have an interview with them. I'm sorry but I think that's incredibly naive, your better off not having the interview. I think good and evil exist, and i think having the ability to see through that guise is an important thing. I do agree on building your interpretation of that individual yourself...IF the conversation is genuine and not because he's sponsoring you.

3. Do you know if he agrees with Alex Jones? I don't know what joe believes , more than you do were not inside his head. I do know his position changes every presdiency but i also think Joe is more or less being used, and i think he's fine with that as long as he gets money. I don't think he's a good individual not in the sense of like he's just straight EVIL but Elephant Graveyard does a good job of my perspective largely on him at least in the comedian sphere. I don't think he takes into account really who he's bringing on and I think that's problem.....and thats why i stopped watching. I'm not saying he should be deplatformed , i saw how he changed i didn't agree and i stopped watching. I think thats a fair take, and i think people who voice their concern or animosity toward his platform and many others are also justified in their take.

4. Thats your opinion and if you want to make that comparison thats fine, i dont agree. As far at the endorsement he is sponsored by these indivudals(LOL) Pelantir sponsors him. He also had trump on his pod and went to his show/gala whatever. its no different from a videogame journalist getting paid to give a game great reviews and being flown out and being wined and dined, yes he is being influenced and for the worst. IF telling people to be more educated and cognisant about who your bringing on, and the effect it can have on your audience , if that is what you consider facism than dude we can just end the conversation.

You have a good day.

 

[SmokedMeat]

They're all hilarious, but they can't hold a candle to the prophetic, George Carlin. The Man was ahead of his damned time and he should have lasted until 200.

George Carlin was incredible. We saw him around 2002 in Vegas. I've grown to appreciate him so much more.

 

[jason10mm]

1. I believe an individual needs to have a level of Discernment about who they let on their platform. I just need to clarify this , everyone has a voice and everyone is allowed a platform but i don't agree that everyone deserves to have a platform because i do think they're many people who are net negatives on society. i'm not saying it need to be written in law, because i'm for free speech. But i also think it's important to recognize volatile or controversial individuals can lie, and also badly influence people who don't know any better, and because of such reach can change social dynamics for the worst.

2. I'm sorry but i disagree with the humanizing part IF your not checking them. Especially individuals who are actively involved in controversial or questionable acts....if your simply going to gloss over that just to have an interview with them. I'm sorry but I think that's incredibly naive, your better off not having the interview. I think good and evil exist, and i think having the ability to see through that guise is an important thing. I do agree on building your interpretation of that individual yourself...IF the conversation is genuine and not because he's sponsoring you.

3. Do you know if he agrees with Alex Jones? I don't know what joe believes , more than you do were not inside his head. I do know his position changes every presdiency but i also think Joe is more or less being used, and i think he's fine with that as long as he gets money. I don't think he's a good individual not in the sense of like he's just straight EVIL but Elephant Graveyard does a good job of my perspective largely on him at least in the comedian sphere. I don't think he takes into account really who he's bringing on and I think that's problem.....and thats why i stopped watching. I'm not saying he should be deplatformed , i saw how he changed i didn't agree and i stopped watching. I think thats a fair take, and i think people who voice their concern or animosity toward his platform and many others are also justified in their take.

4. Thats your opinion and if you want to make that comparison thats fine, i dont agree. As far at the endorsement he is sponsored by these indivudals(LOL) Pelantir sponsors him. He also had trump on his pod and went to his show/gala whatever. its no different from a videogame journalist getting paid to give a game great reviews and being flown out and being wined and dined, yes he is being influenced and for the worst. IF telling people to be more educated and cognisant about who your bringing on, and the effect it can have on your audience , if that is what you consider facism than dude we can just end the conversation.

You have a good day.

I think you are treating Joe Rogan like he is a voice of authority, a Walter Cronkite type figure, when he is anything BUT. He will often say that no one should take his word as gospel, and it's pretty clear in his 'talks' with people that while he has some firm beliefs, he is not wedded to many, particularly political ones. If you challenge him on the utility of the rear naked choke then perhaps he will dig in, but almost anyone can push some political opinion with him and while he may pick at it a bit, he just doesn't care enough or have the knowledge base to seriously discuss these topics, nor the interest to want to moderate such a debate. The few 'debates' he does host tend to be about ancient civilizations or whatnot, a topic where he has more interest at least, than ending homelessness or closing the borders.

Joe has no obligation to maintain consistent beliefs for your sake, he in fact is pretty adamant that holding beliefs close to your chest is a NEGATIVE trait.

Folks with truly wacko ideas are best defeated by ALLOWING THEM TO TALK, because then their loony ideas are most obviously exposed. Denying folks a platform only fuels the extremists that might follow a person, it makes a martyr of them in a sense. But instead LET THEM TALK. Bernie Sanders is like this. He makes a lot of nice sounding bullet points, but then ask him "so, how would you go about making college free for everyone?" and he totally breaks down because such a socialist concept is crazy-talk from the get go and doesn't survive any close scrutiny. Same is true for most politicians as they don't really know how to achieve their stated goals, so its the long form conversation where they can be revealed for the snakes they are. Same with most conspiracy theorists, ideologic whacka-doodles, etc.

 

[Wimbledon]

I think you are treating Joe Rogan like he is a voice of authority, a Walter Cronkite type figure, when he is anything BUT. He will often say that no one should take his word as gospel, and it's pretty clear in his 'talks' with people that while he has some firm beliefs, he is not wedded to many, particularly political ones. If you challenge him on the utility of the rear naked choke then perhaps he will dig in, but almost anyone can push some political opinion with him and while he may pick at it a bit, he just doesn't care enough or have the knowledge base to seriously discuss these topics, nor the interest to want to moderate such a debate. The few 'debates' he does host tend to be about ancient civilizations or whatnot, a topic where he has more interest at least, than ending homelessness or closing the borders.

Joe has no obligation to maintain consistent beliefs for your sake, he in fact is pretty adamant that holding beliefs close to your chest is a NEGATIVE trait.

Folks with truly wacko ideas are best defeated by ALLOWING THEM TO TALK, because then their loony ideas are most obviously exposed. Denying folks a platform only fuels the extremists that might follow a person, it makes a martyr of them in a sense. But instead LET THEM TALK. Bernie Sanders is like this. He makes a lot of nice sounding bullet points, but then ask him "so, how would you go about making college free for everyone?" and he totally breaks down because such a socialist concept is crazy-talk from the get go and doesn't survive any close scrutiny. Same is true for most politicians as they don't really know how to achieve their stated goals, so its the long form conversation where they can be revealed for the snakes they are. Same with most conspiracy theorists, ideologic whacka-doodles, etc.

1. Not at all your also missing the point, Imagine bringing on someone like this




I can understand a journalist who is willing to check an individual of such controversy. But if your just bringing them on so they can spew whatever they want off TO YOUR AUDIENCE without any sort've of say because your out of your depth why do you have them on.

"he just doesn't care enough or have the knowledge base to seriously discuss these topics" lol

Both you and Nvzman are making my point. Your bringing individuals on who have committed war crimes, genocides, who are on questionable list, and are giving them a platform unchecked, because its worth humanizing them?!?!

If you are in a position of influence you need to be careful who you choose to deal with or associate with, BECAUSE you can also be used as a funnel for others to push a narrative that have negative far reaching impacts on your viewers and social dynamics in general. Words have power and people have done questionable acts throughout history because of it.

2. "Joe has no obligation to maintain consistent beliefs for your sake, he in fact is pretty adamant that holding beliefs close to your chest is a NEGATIVE trait."

We don't have to share the same beliefs , this is my criticism of him i don't think he's a good dude. I'm not going to go march and try to get him deplatformed i don't care , i just don't watch him. Along with many podcast who i feel have been infiltrated/comprimised.

3. I don't disagree with your point if the interviewer is genuinely sound and is able to challenge the interviewee on his stances critically even if it gets heated. Joe is sponsored by X (elon), is sponsored by Paltir (Peter Theil), he's also had polticians on the show, and many other billionaires , also our preseident which he's also been seen with parties shows etc. I hear what your saying but your arguing for someone who is comprimised to some degree whether you like him or not.

If it's my platform i have a right to choose whom i let on, IF i don't want to let someone on because of their positions i have every right to do that. If you have an audience of people you have a resposibility to steer the ship in the right direction you have to consider the people who are listening. Especially if your not well equiped to have those in depth conversations with these indivudals. If i lose listeners it is what it is, its the cost of doing business. Joe isn't crying about Wimbledon no longer listening to him, but i still think he deserves alot of criticsm.

This concept of I don't want certain individuals , cults, groups influencing people/children and framing that position as a negative trait. Is the weirdest thing I've ever heard

 

[Wilhelm_85]

I'm not saying he should be deplatformed

You kind of are, though, aren't you? I mean, deep down, that's what you really want and would happily do if you had the power.

 

[Wimbledon]

You kind of are, though, aren't you? I mean, deep down, that's what you really want and would happily do if you had the power.

Not what i said at all. I do wish you put the full quote or at least the section of what i said.

 

[Wilhelm_85]

Not what i said at all. I do wish you put the full quote or at least the section of what i said.

It was a long post, but you made it clear that you do not approve of Joe having certain people on his show and that he "needs to have a level of discernment about who he lets on his platform." How is that not a call for deplatforming or denying a platform to certain people? You clearly agree with the idea that there is a certain discernment threshold and people who do not meet it should not be allowed on other people's platforms.

 

[SpiceRacz]

Netflix and podcasting did more damage to comedy. Not comedians moving to Texas.

 

[Wimbledon]

It was a long post, but you made it clear that people you do not approve of Joe having certain people on his show and that he "needs to have a level of discernment about who he lets on his platform." How is that not a call for deplatforming or denying a platform to certain people? You clearly agree with the idea that there is a certain discerment threshold and people who do not meet it should not be allowed on other people's platforms.

1. Discernment - The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.
Cognisant - having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization or perception.

I do not think he has good judgement or knowledge on who he brings on his show.

"How is that not a call for deplatforming or denying a platform to certain people?"

Brother I've not once said that i want him deplatformed. You are creating that narrative I have not typed that.

I do think he should be smarter on who he brings on, and who he exposes his audience too. Because they can have a bad influence.


"You clearly agree with the idea that there is a certain discernment threshold and people who do not meet it should not be allowed on other people's platforms."

Personally yes IF you allow a questionable , controversial figure on your platform. In the case of the two examples Joe or Nelk boys who are far below their means and understanding of who they are bringing on. Then YES i don't think they should expose their audience to these individuals. Because you run the risk of individuals of their stature pushing narratives, lies etc, on audience of people who don't know better.

 

[Dane]

I think you're probably spot on. I didn't make it much past this point, but he does the typical leftist thing of basically complaining about how Rogan "platformed" undesirables and served a "PR washing machine."



Just insufferable wokescold rhetoric that dominated the 2010s like you say. These people cannot fade into obscurity fast enough.

I can't even get myself surprised anymore when I predict how those videos are going to be by the title and thumbnail.

Yea, full disclosure, I don't give a shit about Rogan and I think literally the ONLY funny episodes he has are with Joey Diaz, but the amount of hate he generates just for being a popular podcaster is absurd. He's not openly picking slapfights, he's not really saying anything hateful or hurtful, to be honest he's an incredibly bland host. But I think that's partially the point, he's just trying to have a wide variety of guests on from different backgrounds to give them time to speak.

I've never heard his comedy but I'm positive it probably sucks to me just because nothing I've heard about it sounds like my kind of humor. But whenever the "he gives a platform to undesirables" argument comes up, I know its coming from some pseudo-intellectual dunce who probably uses the word "chud" unironically. Wow, you mean he's letting an actual diverse group of people come on the podcast and not just a bunch of douchey college kids/professors or milquetoast stale bread celebrities on? Joe himself doesn't even agree with most of the bullshit his guests say, he just enjoys hearing the conversation, and I think thats the entire point of the podcast, its to be entertaining conversation.

I at least appreciate newer comedians trying to bring back some edge to comedy, because it really is true that the late 00s/2010s comedians were fucking insufferable, douchey, preachy, unfunny hacks. Amy Schumer was trying to push the feminist angle by saying legitimately disgusting (not in a funny way either) crap, and a lot of late night comedy hosts were just running full swing with the very partisan, extremely condescending humor. Its cool to make fun of old conservative Christian white people because they're racist, out of touch, and hate Obama, who is definitely a cool dude, but don't you dare make fun of anything else! Thats not cool bro!

The only people I know who unironically think crap like Colbert, Trevor Noah, John Oliver, or Sarah Silverman were funny were the type of people in college who actually thought that just going to college and having a degree automatically made them more intelligent than those who did not. Because they were the type of people blindly listening to their professors (who were just as flawed as them) and taking everything they said as direct fact instead of actually using their minds and doing the research and questioning what they are being taught. Thats exactly what I feel like that audience was at the time, and now with Rogan (and some other fringe comedians like Sam Hyde) being very much built upon conspiracy and edgy humor, its a direct counter to that way of thinking, and I think it drives some people up the wall at how "hateful and dangerous it is". As in, they feel offended. And thats what comedy should be doing! Even if its not exactly my type of humor, I support that much more than every comedian doing a shitty job aping George Carlin.

Comedians alongside journalists were the biggest sell outs in the mid 10s when the culture war started, the people you'd expect the most to be anti-censorship were the ones gloating and campaigning for it. That Midwit IQ meme is probably the most shockingly accurate meme i've ever seen so far, college people thought that just because they had a diploma that meant they were the absolute authority on anything and looked down anyone who opposed them.

 

[Sonik]

Not what i said at all. I do wish you put the full quote or at least the section of what i said.

You're dancing around the deplaftorming issue in the most insincere ways possible, aside form what Wilhelm_85 mentioned you're defending the schizo youtuber who is absolutely seething about Rogan platforming people he dislikes and then you pretend it's just criticism. Hell, I'll say it, he dude is so unhinged and his rants so insane that it's pretty obvious he would do much more than just deplatform the people he despises

 

[Wimbledon]

You're dancing around the deplaftorming issue in the most insincere ways possible, aside form what Wilhelm_85 mentioned you're defending the schizo youtuber who is absolutely seething about Rogan platforming people he dislikes and then you pretend it's just criticism. Hell, I'll say it, he dude is so unhinged and his rants so insane that it's pretty obvious he would do much more than just deplatform the people he despises

I'm guessing you meant to message me, i think?

Their is no dancing around, if i don't agree with someone I just stop watching them. I stopped watching Joe Rogan years ago, because i think he's compromised like a lot of podcast. I used to watch Lex Friedman too eventually i stopped watching.

Its funny because you guys are trying to paint sound criticism as a negative trait. Dude if you think Elephant graveyard is schizo then hey man your free to think that.

i think he makes a sound argument, just subbed to him, lays out a lot of my fears on the state of things.

I just think you guys might have a little bit of a hard on for Joe.

 

[Sonik]

I'm guessing you meant to message me, i think?

Their is no dancing around, if i don't agree with someone I just stop watching them. I stopped watching Joe Rogan years ago, because i think he's compromised like a lot of podcast. I used to watch Lex Friedman too eventually i stopped watching.

Its funny because you guys are trying to paint sound criticism as a negative trait. Dude if you think Elephant graveyard is schizo then hey man your free to think that.

i think he makes a sound argument, just subbed to him, lays out a lot of my fears on the state of things.

I just think you guys might have a little bit off a hard on for Joe.

Yeah, I quoted the wrong post, thanks for pointing it out. Joe Rogan's comedy is mid and his podcast fell off, I'm definitely not a fan but your posts are still such a clusterfuck of conflicting ideas. But let's say that's just criticism, do you actually believe that fucking schizo youtuber is also just criticizing, because if you do then you're definitely being dishonest. The man is one step away from going on a killing spree

 

[Wimbledon]

Yeah, I quoted the wrong post, thanks for pointing it out. Joe Rogan's comedy is mid and his podcast fell off, I'm definitely not a fan but your posts are still such a clusterfuck of conflicting ideas. But let's say that's just criticism, do you actually believe that fucking schizo youtuber is also just criticizing, because if you do then you're definitely being dishonest. The man is one step away from going on a killing spree

1. "Joe Rogan's comedy is mid and his podcast fell off"

He's one of the biggest podcast , IF not the BIGGEST PODCAST. He has a lot of reach an influence regardless of how we personally view him.

"such a clusterfuck of conflicting ideas"
2. My stance has been consistent , you need to tread carefully on who you allow on your platform, because of bad influences and i don't believe he's done that. Because of that i stopped watching like many other podcast or commentary channels etc.

"do you actually believe that fucking schizo youtuber is also just criticizing"
3. YES and NO i do believe he doesn't like Joe but he also doesn't like the current omedy space he and others have created and influenced to a large degree. But also the dangers that come with being a simple minded comedian allowing powerful people in to influence them and their audience.

Just looking at his channel...do i believe he wants him to fall or be deplatformed..i don't know? Because if your willing to expose a space and be critical of that individual and others their associated with does that mean i want you to lose everything? Or do i want you to change or at least take notice of the damage your potentially causing. I've seen the content nukes or people going at other individuals and still have active channels. Now whether those individuals change for the better i don't know but i tend to lean toward EG trying to get joe to wake up to the damage he and others are causing.

 

[Sonik]

1. "Joe Rogan's comedy is mid and his podcast fell off"

He's one of the biggest podcast , IF not the BIGGEST PODCAST. He has a lot of reach an influence regardless of how we personally view him.

I was talking quality-wise

My stance has been consistent , you need to tread carefully on who you allow on your platform, because of bad influences and i don't believe he's done that.

Like I said, clusterfuck, your sentence here basically is in favor of deplatforming, you know, for our safety, but since you're saying you'll just not watch him you think you're not supporting it?

 

[Wimbledon]

I was talking quality-wise



Like I said, clusterfuck, your sentence here basically is in favor of deplatforming, you know, for our safety, but since you're saying you'll just not watch him you think you're not supporting it?

Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a boycott on an individual or group by removing the platforms used to share their information or ideas.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#cite_note-1"><span>[</span></a>

Your going to keep getting the same answer from me, and i'm not sure why it's not clicking.

So i have a question and i'd like a genuine answer, are you fine with a school taking your child (assuming you have a kid) to a conference with Drag queens showing what they do dance wise, getting the kids involved , learning about LGBTQ understanding their plight etc.

 

[Sonik]

Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a boycott on an individual or group by removing the platforms used to share their information or ideas.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#cite_note-1"><span>[</span></a>

Your going to keep getting the same answer from me, and i'm not sure why it's not clicking. So i will ask a question.

So i have a question and i'd like a genuine answer, are you fine with a school taking your child (assuming you have a kid) to a conference with Drag queens showing what they do dance wise, getting the kids involved etc.

Fuck no, what does this have to do with deplatforming though?

 

[Wimbledon]

Fuck no, what does this have to do with deplatforming though?

Thank you for your answer.

You are not comfortable exposing your child to LGBTQ , you do not want them influenced by them. Because they do not align with your position.

Deplatforming goes beyond just social media I'm not asking for Joe and others to be deplatformed. I'm questioning the negative influences they are allowing on their platform that can negatively influence people who don't know better, i'm well within my right to say that and not watch THEM.

Just like you are well within your right to not want your child to be influenced. You are allowed to give that criticism.

I don't understand why this is hard to understand. I can live in a world where Rogans platform exist, it doesn't mean he and others are somehow beyond criticism. lol

 

[Wilhelm_85]

I just think you guys might have a little bit of a hard on for Joe.

I'm pretty neutral on him personally. I think he has some wildly retarded takes and frequently disagree with him, but he often puts on a good show and has interesting discussions with a wide range of guests who have interesting things to say. Overall, I think his show has definitely been a positive thing. I don't think I've ever found him very "funny," though. I've also never cared to watch any of his stand up stuff.

 

[Wimbledon]

I'm pretty neutral on him personally. I think he has some wildly retarded takes and frequently disagree with him, but he often puts on a good show and has interesting discussions with a wide range of guests who have interesting things to say. Overall, I think his show has definitely been a positive thing. I don't think I've ever found him very "funny," though. I've also never cared to watch any of his stand up stuff.

I disagree , but its your perspective and thats fair.

 

[jason10mm]

I disagree , but its your perspective and thats fair.

Rogan on Hot Ones would be fuuuuuuuuuunnnnn

 

[Wimbledon]

Rogan on Hot Ones would be fuuuuuuuuuunnnnn

Whats hot ones?

EDIT: oh that show...eh mid not into celebrity worship

 

[jason10mm]

Whats hot ones?

EDIT: oh that show...eh mid not into celebrity worship

The clip you lonked. It's a show where the guest goes through increasing sadistic levels of hot wings while being grilled by the host, who is also eating the wings. It's fantastic with many great guests.

 

[Dithadder]

Theos an interesting one: he randomly interjects spite about the sackler family or benjamin netanyahu meanwhile hes doing sports betting ads.

 

[SJRB]

That was a great video. I was totally unprepared for how esoteric it was going to be, but that was a brutal takedown.

Especially the part about Tony felt savage, he really hates that fucking guy. You could feel the mood shift and hear the disdain in his voice.

 

[Sonik]

Thank you for your answer.

You are not comfortable exposing your child to LGBTQ , you do not want them influenced by them. Because they do not align with your position.

Deplatforming goes beyond just social media I'm not asking for Joe and others to be deplatformed. I'm questioning the negative influences they are allowing on their platform that can negatively influence people who don't know better, i'm well within my right to say that and not watch THEM.

Just like you are well within your right to not want your child to be influenced. You are allowed to give that criticism.

I don't understand why this is hard to understand. I can live in a world where Rogans platform exist, it doesn't mean he and others are somehow beyond criticism. lol

Are you seriously comparing not allowing kids, who are dumb and gullible, to be brainwashed by an institution I trusted to teach them, with adults watching a podcast they chose? Your example is indicative of woke mentality where they treat adults like children who "don't know any better" if they dare to disagree with them, and it's the reason why so many people despise wokies, it's not only extremely condescending but it's also used as an excuse in support of censorship

 

[Major Insano]

Couldn't take any more than 8mins of this nihilistic drivel.

"Anti-reality doomsday cult"?
Get over yourself you prick!(EG)

If anything's destroying comedy, it's the censorship and deplatforming called for by clowns like EG and Marc Maron who, ironically, think Rogan and his circle are fascists.
I don't find Joe and his crew that funny tbh, but if anything, they've done more to save comedy than destroy it.

I think by having guests like Trump, Elon and Bernie Sanders on his show recently, it's put him right in the middle of the culture wars.
And I don't think this is where his show belongs.
It was much more interesting to me, when he would have relatively unknown guests on to talk about obscure and fringe subjects, or even just chatting shit with his stoner friends.

We have a similar situation in the UK, where certain 'comedians', who made career out of being edgey and offensive, often punching down, now complain and criticise comedians for doing the same. Frankie Boyle here and Howard Stern in the US are good examples of this.

 

[Porcile]

Probably the shittiest comedian I have ever had the misfortune of listening to. And yes, Joe indeed ranks among even the other really shitty comedians so don't tell me there are worse ones because Joe is also on their level.

His podcast and the utter drivel he talks about with his guests is fucking awful too.

 

[Wimbledon]

Are you seriously comparing not allowing kids, who are dumb and gullible, to be brainwashed by an institution I trusted to teach them, with adults watching a podcast they chose? Your example is indicative of woke mentality where they treat adults like children who "don't know any better" if they dare to disagree with them, and it's the reason why so many people despise wokies, it's not only extremely condescending but it's also used as an excuse for support of censorship

YES I am comparing a group of people lgbtq who have a platform. That is using that platform in order to be funneled through the educational system. The same system you trust to teach your kids that same system is introducing that influence to your kids. Growing up we had motivational speakers come to the school, had soldiers parachute in, these are all influences is my point.

Just like a podcast is a platform that is being funneled through social media space and many other platforms as a channel for you to watch and consume.

Your picking and choosing what your okay with. I don't fucking care about woke this or base that.
The fact that you still don't get it shows how deeply you are in your echo chamber. You are exactly the type of person elephant graveyard is describing in that video.

just because your free to say what you want doesn't mean you are free of CRITICISM or CONSEQUENCES for the things you say or do.

Reasoning below

I don't agree with the biggest podcast in the world bringing politicians from both sides , technocrats,the president , CIA,/FBI director and is being sponsored by these same individuals. Similar podcast in that space also had these individuals on. Benjamin netanyahu is on also on a podcast .

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would be within reason to say any individual is compromised in some way or that is at least questionable. which is why I stopped watching!

Breakfast club use to be another podcast I used to watch until they brought on Hilary Clinton years ago. I stopped watching because they also became an extension imo of the democratic party. Neither podcast is well versed in politics, economics so your bringing on individuals who they wont push back too much on cause they're out of there depth.

I don't like what Im seeing and just because I don't watch doesn't = deplatform. i don't like his content and I moved on. The video echoes alot of the issues i have with it. If you want to support him go ahead it doesn't change my view of his platform. Like God damn this isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[Wilhelm_85]

YES I am comparing a group of people lgbtq who have a platform. That is using that platform in order to be funneled through the educational system. The same system you trust to teach your kids that same system is introducing that influence to your kids. Growing up we had motivational speakers come to the school, had soldiers parachute in, these are all influences is my point.

Just like a podcast is a platform that is being funneled through social media space and many other platforms as a channel for you to watch and consume.

This is retarded, man. Kids are required to go to school and participate. That makes all the different when it comes to what material is presented.

No one is forced to watch Joe's show or anyone else's. It's 100% a choice.

 

[Wimbledon]

This is retarded, man. Kids are required to go to school and participate. That makes all the different when it comes to what material is presented.

No one is forced to watch Joe's show or anyone else's. It's 100% a choice.

Holy shit the example given is about influence.

I'm not arguing about the different platforms that work through schools or the requirements. The main point of that question is he okay with his kids being influenced by that.

he is completely justified in his criticism of the LGBTQ and not wanting there platform to influence his children. I agree with his answer.

BUT there platform still exists their still fighting for a cause. He can live without watching/supporting them and he's free to do that and still have criticism for that group/platform.

 

[Atomicfear]

I dislike these sort of videos.

Find a topic that revolves around someone a lot of folks dislike, twist the truth with out-of-context clips and music, and use sarcasm and be vague so you can't be held responsible or be taken serious. And find a long dramatic psuedo-title for the video.

As long as it's well edited, it's satisfying to watch, no matter what it is.

This. The video is a massive overstatement that takes itself way to seriously.

 

[SJRB]

Couldn't take any more than 8mins of this nihilistic drivel.

"Anti-reality doomsday cult"?
Get over yourself you prick!(EG)

If anything's destroying comedy, it's the censorship and deplatforming called for by clowns like EG and Marc Maron who, ironically, think Rogan and his circle are fascists.
I don't find Joe and his crew that funny tbh, but if anything, they've done more to save comedy than destroy it.

I think by having guests like Trump, Elon and Bernie Sanders on his show recently, it's put him right in the middle of the culture wars.
And I don't think this is where his show belongs.
It was much more interesting to me, when he would have relatively unknown guests on to talk about obscure and fringe subjects, or even just chatting shit with his stoner friends.

We have a similar situation in the UK, where certain 'comedians', who made career out of being edgey and offensive, often punching down, now complain and criticise comedians for doing the same. Frankie Boyle here and Howard Stern in the US are good examples of this.

Buddy you can't state that you didn't watch the video and then proceed to have all kinds of opinions about the subject.

 

[Major Insano]

Buddy you can't state that you didn't watch the video and then proceed to have all kinds of opinions about the subject.

Why not?

Does anyone need to watch more than 10minutes of a 2hr Brendan Schaub comedy special to realise the rest of it sucks?

Do we need to see more than 5-10 pictures of Sydney Sweeny to think she is a total smoke show?

This isn't the only pathetic take down of Joe and his circle out there. There are loads of them, and some vary, but most of them are the same sort: I don't like his comedy/politics/lifestyle or the guests on his show. Therefore he's a dangerous fascist.

EG is another depressed clown, who is still bitter his team lost.

 

[bighugeguns]

Holy shit the example given is about influence.

I'm not arguing about the different platforms that work through schools or the requirements. The main point of that question is he okay with his kids being influenced by that.

he is completely justified in his criticism of the LGBTQ and not wanting there platform to influence his children. I agree with his answer.

BUT there platform still exists their still fighting for a cause. He can live without watching/supporting them and he's free to do that and still have criticism for that group/platform.

You sound like you're a laugh a minute.

 

[Punished Miku]

Buddy you can't state that you didn't watch the video and then proceed to have all kinds of opinions about the subject.

Of course they can. That's how they uphold the shared reality construct. It's pretty much the main thing they do.

 

[nkarafo]

Couldn't stand the pretentious narrative style and melodramatic tone after 3 minutes. At first i thought it's probably just the intro then i clicked at random time stamps and the whole video is like that.

I'm sure the topic and message are good, but couldn't watch.

 

[Sonik]

YES I am comparing a group of people lgbtq who have a platform. That is using that platform in order to be funneled through the educational system. The same system you trust to teach your kids that same system is introducing that influence to your kids. Growing up we had motivational speakers come to the school, had soldiers parachute in, these are all influences is my point.

Just like a podcast is a platform that is being funneled through social media space and many other platforms as a channel for you to watch and consume.

Your picking and choosing what your okay with. I don't fucking care about woke this or base that.
The fact that you still don't get it shows how deeply you are in your echo chamber. You are exactly the type of person elephant graveyard is describing in that video.

just because your free to say what you want doesn't mean you are free of CRITICISM or CONSEQUENCES for the things you say or do.

Reasoning below

I don't agree with the biggest podcast in the world bringing politicians from both sides , technocrats,the president , CIA,/FBI director and is being sponsored by these same individuals. Similar podcast in that space also had these individuals on. Benjamin netanyahu is on also on a podcast .

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would be within reason to say any individual is compromised in some way or that is at least questionable. which is why I stopped watching!

Breakfast club use to be another podcast I used to watch until they brought on Hilary Clinton years ago. I stopped watching because they also became an extension imo of the democratic party. Neither podcast is well versed in politics, economics so your bringing on individuals who they wont push back too much on cause they're out of there depth.

I don't like what Im seeing and just because I don't watch doesn't = deplatform. i don't like his content and I moved on. The video echoes alot of the issues i have with it. If you want to support him go ahead it doesn't change my view of his platform. Like God damn this isn't that difficult to understand.

My dude, are you pretending to be dumb? I don't know how else to express this to you, your comparison is terrible and only exposes that you view adults as children that need someone else to make choices for them, preferably of course that someone else is the woke cult