darrylgorn
Member
Where do other countries fit into the comedy death hypothesis?
They've just never been funny?
They've just never been funny?
How Comedy Was Destroyed by an Anti-Reality Doomsday Cult | Austin TX Comedy Scene (rogan kill tony etc)
- Thread starter drotahorror
- Start date
Wimbledon
Member
I'm really trying not to talk down to you bro. Because we're going to keep going in circles. You clearly have a hard on for Joe. Because there is no way we're still doing this.
Kids are susceptible to influence, teenagers are susceptible to influence, grown adults are just as susceptible to influence.
Yes people are susceptible to doing stupid things. They do it all the time. There are entire channels dedicated to hating on several groups based on religion, race, gender pick your poison etc. people with power can normalize beliefs , social dynamics that can make people worse or go against their best judgment.
You are the only one playing dumb. What year do you think it is? have you not seen the last decade of people who have a platform and influencing people to do stupid s*** that affects other people, what are we talking about.
The right and left is two sides of the same coin to me. You can say woke bro I don't care. Because you keep going round the point.
Joe is not in any position intellectually to have powerful people like that on his platform and not be negatively influenced in some way. That's not normal actual comics have called that out because they know he's compromised.
This isn't rocket science it's common sense. You can't tell me that him having billionaires, and those same billionaire sponsoring him and him not pushing back at all against these individuals and what they say because he's way out of his depth, and somehow that's not cause for alarm
.I want you to answer that. Do you not see that as a problem?
Last edited:
Wilhelm_85
Gold Member
No, dude. That's the point. If they are, then they are not grown adults. They are manchildren.
If everyone were just as susceptible to influence as everyone else, regardless of age, then how on Earth would you begin establishing criteria for who gets to decide what kind of messaging is appropriate?
Joe is not in any position intellectually to have powerful people like that on his platform and not be negatively influenced in some way. That's not normal actual comics have called that out because they know he's compromised.
This isn't rocket science it's common sense. You can't tell me that him having billionaires, and those same billionaire sponsoring him and him not pushing back at all against these individuals and what they say because he's way out of his depth, and somehow that's not cause for alarm
Like, seriously, who are you or anyone else to decide what position Joe is in or what common sense is in your paradigm of everyone being basically the same as children?
Last edited:
Wimbledon
Member
It doesn't matter if YOU consider them man children, they're still adults. There is enough to suggest that grown adults can and have been influenced to do questionable, or controversial things.
Sometimes based on whom they follow.
if everyone were equally susceptible to influence, then the question isn't who gets to decide what's appropriate—it's how we define "appropriate" in the first place. The assumption that equal susceptibility erases the need for discernment is flawed. Influence isn't inherently negative; it's the intent and impact that matter.
So instead of obsessing over gatekeepers, we should be asking: What values guide the messaging? Is it transparent, truthful, and empowering—or manipulative and divisive? Criteria shouldn't hinge on age or susceptibility alone, but on ethical standards, cultural context, and the capacity for critical engagement.
Besides, pretending there's a vacuum of influence is naïve. Influence is everywhere—algorithms, media, peer groups. The real challenge is building systems that encourage informed choice, not enforcing top-down control.
First off, no one's claiming everyone is "basically the same as children that's a strawman dressed up as outrage. Yall been doing this the entire time! Recognizing that people can be influenced doesn't mean we strip them of agency or nuance. It means we acknowledge that influence is a universal force, not a personal flaw.
As for "who gets to decide," it's not about some elite panel handing down decrees from a moral mountaintop. It's about collective responsibility, transparency, and accountability. Joe's position like anyone's is shaped by context, not condescension. And "common sense"? That's not some fixed doctrine it's a cultural construct that evolves with discourse, not dogma.
If you're defending the idea that influence should be unchecked because gatekeeping feels icky, then you're not protecting freedom—you're abandoning discernment.
When people reject any form of accountability or responsibility under the banner of "freedom." It's this strange idea that any critique of a public figure's influence like Joe Rogan's is somehow an attack on free speech or personal liberty. Calling for thoughtful messaging or ethical standards isn't censorship. It's not about silencing voices; it's about recognizing that influence carries weight. Denial, in this case, is pretending that someone with a massive platform doesn't have a role in shaping public thought. When that denial is framed as "freedom," it becomes a shield against scrutiny. Real freedom includes the freedom to question, to critique, and to expect better.
But In my case i don't expect better from him, which is why i stopped watching.
Last edited:
Wilhelm_85
Gold Member
What made you uniquely able to do that and why do you seem to think most other adults are not able to exercise the same level of individual judgment?
Wimbledon
Member
Interesting question
It's not about being uniquely able , it's more about being willing. I prioritize reflecting over reaction, and i apply that same lens to the media i consume. If something consistently clashes with my values, i disengage....I'M OUTTA THERE.
That's not superiority like your heavily implying in your question, it's just discernment. I also don't assume others can't exercise judgement. I just recognize that many people are conditioned to stay engaged even when something no longer serves them.
People are conditioned by repetition by social proof, the fear of possibly missing out. They stay engaged not because they're convinced , but because disengagement feels like abandonment of a community, a routine or even an identity and platforms know this.
That's not a flaw , its a consequence of how influence works and i just choose not to play that game. I choose to opt out , others can too IF they want to.
Last edited:
Wilhelm_85
Gold Member
I strongly believe that this is what most people do.
Risible
Member
Patently false. We know for a fact that hate/dislike/disagreement is one of the things that drives engagement, major sectors of media and other things are driven by the fact that people are driven to engage with things that they don't agree with or hate. It's even spawned terms like "hate-watching" for TV shows. It's like this KXCD comic: https://xkcd.com/386/
Toons
Member
State of YouTube. Ou don't get views unless you garner some reaction. Usually that one is outrage.
Atomicfear
Neo Member
are they self aware about this god awful, sanctimonious delivery? Is it an aesthetic choice or is that how seriously they naturally take themselves?
Wilhelm_85
Gold Member
That's quite different. Those people aren't doing it for enjoyment, but more as research to be able to better talk shit about whatever the thing is to their preferred in-group or to create "content" on their social media channels.
Last edited:
Wimbledon
Member
I don't though, which Is why I'm speaking up about the podcast space and how there shaping public opinion (IE: elephant graveyards video).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll