Support NeoGAF

[EmpressInYellow]

There's a 0% chance I'll ever watch Joe Rogan's Netflix comedy special.

But don't you want to hear his hot take on "this Bruce Jenner thing"? I'm sure it's super insightful.

Perhaps when people make light of the word, they are not automatically making light of all PTSD sufferers as some might jump to claim, but of a certain type of person, which anecdotal and written accounts confirm the existence of. .

But see...you don't get to decide that. That may be what you INTEND, but it's not the message you're sending. It's the same as "Oh, I mean gay as in BAD, not gay as in, y'know, 'gay'."

"Political correctness" was once a self-mocking term of the left. It was adopted by reactionary assholes and quickly morphed into "I'm upset that I get called out when I'm a bigoted piece of shit." "SJW" is much the same, actually, and "triggered' is kind of a similar case (except that the original usage wasn't mocking).

Go on Twitter right now and do a search on "triggered". Look at what the overwhelming majority of people using the term in a mocking way are like. Draw your own conclusions about what that tells us.

 

[ant_]

And people listen to him and think he's cool? So he's an MRA apologist/anti-feminist, a Trump apologist, a conspiracy theorist, a moon landing denier, an anti-vax, he gives a platform to nutcase assholes like Milo... and people don't dismiss him as another foaming-at-the-mouth Alex Jones nutcase (whose radio show he's been on, too), why?

Yes, if you are willing to take singular quotes out of context and create a caricature, sure. If you pay attention to the guy and listen to his work, he is none of the things you've listed. That's Rogan's schtick. He gives everything a fair shake. He plays devil's advocate on his show, he challenges his guest.

It's sad to see someone characterize the entirety of a person from singular quotes. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, it's toxic.

 

[Latimer]

Rogan went pretty hard on Milo from what I remember.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I am fairly certain that the origin of PC was not mockery. It was a serious attempt to increase the usage of inclusive language. Unfortunately, some folks ran wild with the concept and took it to parodic levels. Given the shrillness and extremity, these voices basically became the image for the concept, rendering it useless except as a pejorative.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

I am fairly certain that the origin of PC was not mockery. It was a serious attempt to increase the usage of inclusive language. Unfortunately, some folks ran wild with the concept and took it to parodic levels. Given the shrillness and extremity, these voices basically became the image for the concept, rendering it useless except as a pejorative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

"The term had only scattered usage before the early 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage in the United States when it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times"

It was sort of an ironic, self-critical descriptor used by the left until it began to be co-opted by the right to refer to any effort to treat people outside of the majority as human beings.

 

[Count Dookkake]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

"The term had only scattered usage before the early 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage in the United States when it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times"

It was sort of an ironic, self-critical descriptor used by the left until it began to be co-opted by the right to refer to any effort to treat people outside of the majority as human beings.

As someone who was approaching college then, that is not quite how it went down. Perhaps it existed in pockets as a goof, but in the early 90s when it had spread, it was used by the left as a positive goal. It existing in some small circles as self-deprecation didn't prevent it from being taken seriously by a wider swath for some time, and then being reduced to a joke.

 

[Stumpokapow]

As someone who was approaching college then, that is not quite how it went down. Perhaps it existed in pockets as a goof, but in the early 90s when it had spread, it was used by the left as a positive goal. It existing in some small circles as self-deprecation didn't prevent it from being taken seriously by a wider swath for some time, and then being reduced to a joke.

The article is maybe 5000 words long and has a pretty lengthy and well-cited exegesis of the use of the term--so if it's all wrong it'd probably be a good public service to edit the article and update it with the true facts.

 

[Cronox]

But don't you want to hear his hot take on "this Bruce Jenner thing"? I'm sure it's super insightful.

But see...you don't get to decide that. That may be what you INTEND, but it's not the message you're sending. It's the same as "Oh, I mean gay as in BAD, not gay as in, y'know, 'gay'."

"Political correctness" was once a self-mocking term of the left. It was adopted by reactionary assholes and quickly morphed into "I'm upset that I get called out when I'm a bigoted piece of shit." "SJW" is much the same, actually, and "triggered' is kind of a similar case (except that the original usage wasn't mocking).

Go on Twitter right now and do a search on "triggered". Look at what the overwhelming majority of people using the term in a mocking way are like. Draw your own conclusions about what that tells us.

I mean, I wrote a lot more in there... Too bad it ended up on the bottom of last page, I have terrible timing with these things.

I see you've taken any responsibility away from the audience. Would you say it's reasonable for an audience member to think when they hear a joke involving cancer that the joke is specifically making light of their cancer? Say Doug Stanhope has a bit about how his dad died of "ass-cancer." If someone in the audience has colorectal cancer, should they be offended? Was this a deliberate attempt to offend whoever in the room might possibly have colorectal cancer? When in the movie Team America: World Police, they did a parody of Rent that went "everyone has AIDS," would you naturally come to the conclusion that it was a knowing and hostile trivialization of the suffering of people living with AIDS?

People have a responsibility for what they say, and likewise, others have a responsibility for their reactions. I'm not talking about Twitter trolls who intentionally use words to annoy and anger others. That's something else. That is a different intent, that is harder to reason with. Most people are not those people. And on the subject of Twitter, you may as well tell me to go read YouTube comments. Let's just say both these places do not reflect the real day to day world we walk around and interact in, and shouldn't be considered the standard for anything.

 

[Count Dookkake]

The article is maybe 5000 words long and has a pretty lengthy and well-cited exegesis of the use of the term--so if it's all wrong it'd probably be a good public service to edit the article and update it with the true facts.

I read the relevant portions before posting that to which you respond and I was not convinced, but have no real interest in editing.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Being offended is fine (and part of what comedy is about).

Uh.... no? Comedy =/= being an asshole just because you can.

We already had the "Well Bill Burr made a joke about hitting women so he obviously agrees with it!" fiasco in this thread.

It's incredibly amusing that you're trying to make a huge deal out of something nobody actually said.

 

[HelloMeow]

oops wrong thread..

 

[EmpressInYellow]

I mean, I wrote a lot more in there...

Yes, but I didn't want to quote all of it.

I haven't taken the responsibility away from the audience, and there are certainly occasions where a reaction might be unreasonable, but...words mean things, and that meaning extends beyond the literal meaning into the realm of connotation and cultural baggage. When you're communicating, it's incumbent upon you to take into account what it is you're actually conveying.

Whether you THINK "triggered" carries the meaning under discussion or not, the fact is that, for a lot of people (especially those who spend any amount of time online and/or are plugged in to discussions about "social justice", ie. "basic human decency") it DOES carry that meaning. "Oh, sure, Milo and company use 'triggered' a certain way, but that's not how -I'm- using it." It just...doesn't work that way. It's tainted. It has connotations beyond what you may intend.

And that's why I say to look at Twitter - not because Twitter behavior is reflective of offline behavior (though I think the attitudes on display are, all too often, depressingly telling), but because the overwhelming trend of how the term is being used...tells us something about how the term is often used.

I mean, think about that. Online, the term is overwhelmingly used by reactionary dickheads. They may even consider themselves "liberal" - they're just sick of hearing about, y'know, feminism and LGBT rights and basically anything that doesn't involve people like them. They just wish everyone would shut up about being treated like second-class citizens. They not only use the term to dismiss and mock anyone concerned about that kind of thing; they use it as a form of cultural signalling, as a way of saying "I dislike (those people) and align myself with (these other people)."

You, in an online discussion, then throw "triggered" into some conversation. What do you expect the average onlooker, who doesn't know you from "VivanJames420", to take from that?

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Yes, but I didn't want to quote all of it.

I haven't taken the responsibility away from the audience, and there are certainly occasions where a reaction might be unreasonable, but...words mean things, and that meaning extends beyond the literal meaning into the realm of connotation and cultural baggage. When you're communicating, it's incumbent upon you to take into account what it is you're actually conveying.

Whether you THINK "triggered" carries the meaning under discussion or not, the fact is that, for a lot of people (especially those who spend any amount of time online and/or are plugged in to discussions about "social justice", ie. "basic human decency") it DOES carry that meaning. "Oh, sure, Milo and company use 'triggered' a certain way, but that's not how -I'm- using it." It just...doesn't work that way. It's tainted. It has connotations beyond what you may intend.

And that's why I say to look at Twitter - not because Twitter behavior is reflective of offline behavior (though I think the attitudes on display are, all too often, depressingly telling), but because the overwhelming trend of how the term is being used...tells us something about how the term is often used.

I mean, think about that. Online, the term is overwhelmingly used by reactionary dickheads. They may even consider themselves "liberal" - they're just sick of hearing about, y'know, feminism and LGBT rights and basically anything that doesn't involve people like them. They just wish everyone would shut up about being treated like second-class citizens. They not only use the term to dismiss and mock anyone concerned about that kind of thing; they use it as a form of cultural signalling, as a way of saying "I dislike (those people) and align myself with (these other people)."

You, in an online discussion, then throw "triggered" into some conversation. What do you expect the average onlooker, who doesn't know you from "VivanJames420", to take from that?

What cultural baggage does triggered have? Because Milo uses it, it is forever tainted? Is it because it shuts down conversations? What is this weight you say it has in certain discussions? Got any examples of how it can be used negatively? At best I can see it shutting down discussions but then again saying X is angry lol or annoyed lol accomplishes the same thing. I think it would be helpful if you could show with examples just how awful using "triggered" can be.

Also, the bolded is assumptions. Someone using "triggered" doesn't mean they're sick of hearing about feminism or LGBT.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

What cultural baggage does triggered have? Because Milo uses it, it is forever tainted? Is it because it shuts down conversations? What is this weight you say it has in certain discussions? Got any examples of how it can be used negatively? At best I can see it shutting down discussions but then again saying X is angry lol or annoyed lol accomplishes the same thing. I think it would be helpful if you could show with examples just how awful using "triggered" can be.

I literally just explained the cultural baggage it has. It has become inextricably associated with a certain...subculture, a certain viewpoint. It's not "because Milo uses it" - it's because it has become a symbol and cultural signifier of shitty people.

Like I said, if you want to see examples of "how it can be used negatively", do a simple Twitter search.

Also, the bolded is assumptions. Someone using "triggered" doesn't mean they're sick of hearing about feminism or LGBT.

Nope, read what I actually wrote. I'm describing the mentality of a certain sort of person who tosses the term around. "Overwhelmingly" does not mean "entirely".

Look, if I hear someone complaining about "political correctness", I'm usually pretty safe in making certain assumptions about their attitudes and point of view. The same is largely true of "triggered". If they don't want people making those assumptions, maybe they should reconsider their use of the term. Or not! That's their decision to make. I'm just explaining to you how a lot of people are going to interpret it. The rest is your call.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

I literally just explained the cultural baggage it has. It has become inextricably associated with a certain...subculture, a certain viewpoint. It's not "because Milo uses it" - it's because it has become a symbol and cultural signifier of shitty people.

Like I said, if you want to see examples of "how it can be used negatively", do a simple Twitter search.



Nope, read what I actually wrote. I'm describing the mentality of a certain sort of person who tosses the term around. "Overwhelmingly" does not mean "entirely".

Look, if I hear someone complaining about "political correctness", I'm usually pretty safe in making certain assumptions about their attitudes and point of view. The same is largely true of "triggered". If they don't want people making those assumptions, maybe they should reconsider their use of the term. Or not! That's their decision to make. I'm just explaining to you how a lot of people are going to interpret it. The rest is your call.

If you want to say it's harmful so people should not say it then you'll need something other than to tell people to browse Twitter to find evidence.

The issue I have with your position is you're throwing around "how a lot of people are going to interpret it" as if your viewpoint is the most valid. You're not providing proof except "Milo and the alt-right culture says triggered" or that "check Twitter". Can you at least see why I am skeptical of your claims?

 

[EmpressInYellow]

If you want to say it's harmful so people should not say it then you'll need something other than to tell people to browse Twitter to find evidence.

The issue I have with your position is you're throwing around "how a lot of people are going to interpret it" as if your viewpoint is the most valid. You're not providing proof except "Milo and the alt-right culture says triggered" or that "check Twitter". Can you at least see why I am skeptical of your claims?

To be honest, whether you're skeptical of my claims or not doesn't make a lot of difference. I'm not telling you "my viewpoint" - I'm telling you the viewpoint of many people I have spoken to and witnessed discussing this very thing.

What you do with that information is up to you.

EDIT: I mean, I'm not trying to be an asshole. I'm just not sure what additional explanation or evidence I could provide at this point that would be useful. It's been explained pretty thoroughly in the thread already; any evidence of other people making the same argument could just be dismissed as subjective, etc. Additionally, it's not purely about being "harmful" (though it is pretty dickish to people who actually, y'know, have PTSD triggers). It's about signalling a certain mindset (cf. "SJWs", "political correctness").

Which is why the title of Rogan's Netflix special is so apt - it epitomizes that bro-ish "I don't see why other people are bothered by stuff that doesn't personally affect me" mindset.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Not saying that this is what's happening with Joe Rogan, because I'm not very familiar with his work, but the far right-wing or alt-right are always going to take every legitimate criticism of the left and every phrase used to criticize the left and blow it way out of proportion, use it where it doesn't belong and repeat it ad nauseam all over the internet and social media. And so eventually every single legitimate criticism of the left will be associated with those crazy far right people and become toxic. And so then the left will respond to every criticim of any small part of their ideology with "Oh, you're an MRA or alt-right nut", and immediately dismiss the criticism. There will be no discussion or rational argument, it's just going to be people in an echo chamber thanks to the internet and social media blocking everyone off into their own worlds. This is already happening now all the time, and it'll only get worse in the future.

 

[Lowmelody]

Yes, if you are willing to take singular quotes out of context and create a caricature, sure. If you pay attention to the guy and listen to his work, he is none of the things you've listed. That's Rogan's schtick. He gives everything a fair shake. He plays devil's advocate on his show, he challenges his guest.

It's sad to see someone characterize the entirety of a person from singular quotes. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, it's toxic.

This post has me dying. lol

"How dare you use multiple quotes on multiple topics against him! Accountability is toxic!"

Adorable and frustrating at the same time.

 

[NandoGip]

I check his podcast out when he has someone interesting on, but after skimming through this thread he just seems like a wacko.

 

[Dude Abides]

I didn't realize the fear factor guy had such a following.

 

[dyergram]

Rogan went pretty hard on Milo from what I remember.

Nope just having him on means he agrees with him and is basically the same person. Further anything he's said ever (despite the fact that he's a comedian and completely stoned on many of his podcasts) can be quoted to prove his bias on any subject regardless of context and or if he was joking at the time.

 

[Beerman462]

This thread reminded me to download more JRE for my commute.

 

[black_13]

I have mix feelings about Rogan. I can really relate to some stuff he says but I feel he does generalize some stuff. He can come off as the kind of guy who reads a couple articles and thinks he knows it all now.

I haven't listened to alot of his podcasts so I can't speak on every issue but on the Billy Bush/Trump issue though I don't particularly disagree with what he said. Alot of people say stuff like just to be funny when they are among guys. I've worked plenty of jobs and come across guys on construction sites that talked much worse than that but they don't actually mean it. When a group of guys together, some feel like they need to act macho and pretend they are the "alpha male" when in reality they act normal when they are alone with a women and have regular relationship.s

Now of course having a presidential candidate shouldn't be saying such things and that's why I dislike him but I think Rogan was just saying that video was taken long ago and was supposed to be private and what not.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Nope just having him on means he agrees with him and is basically the same person. Further anything he's said ever (despite the fact that he's a comedian and completely stoned on many of his podcasts) can be quoted to prove his bias on any subject regardless of context and or if he was joking at the time.

I was unaware that being stoned was a "get out of jail free' card when it comes to saying things in a publicly-distributed medium. That's handy.

Same with him being a comedian. I mean, not to beat a dead horse, but does that somehow give him a pass on all the transphobic bullshit he's said?

 

[The Hermit]

Joe Rogan is legitimately insane. He's got a couple decent views, he's a not bad legalization activist.

But he's fucking insane.

That's my take as well.

Sometimes I agree, others disagree, but I try not to tag someone, because once you do that it basically kills any kind of discussion.

 

[getbuff]

Man, I listened to the podcast and I just really don't think the accusations in this thread hold any basis in reality. It's a severe overreaction to a comedy podcast. Not to mention Joe Rogan's new comedy special is pretty funny.

Yes, if you are willing to take singular quotes out of context and create a caricature, sure. If you pay attention to the guy and listen to his work, he is none of the things you've listed. That's Rogan's schtick. He gives everything a fair shake. He plays devil's advocate on his show, he challenges his guest.

It's sad to see someone characterize the entirety of a person from singular quotes. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, it's toxic.

I think that in 15, 20 years, Joe Rogan will be remembered as one of the greatest ambassadors for alternative thought to come out of a maturing internet. No one is claiming he's an academic, but he's an inarguably accomplished and impressive figure - a millionaire beloved by thousands of fans worldwide coming from little education and a working class background. Let's ignore that he's one of the most popular and respected comedians in the country (not an easy accomplishment) and that he's one of the pre-eminent colour commentators in sports. Staggeringly, he created one of world's most popular podcasts from nothing - one that resonates so powerfully with young men that you could safely claim that he's one of the internet's top cultural influencers.

He didn't get there through "pandering to the alt-right" or by being a fucking dummy - the man enjoys an enviably high level of success in many domains and I assure you, he didn't simply bumble his way into it. Shouldn't this deserve your respect? What incredibly facile criticisms you have of someone who could in fact be viewed as a positive male role model in a media landscape essentially bereft of them.

On what basis do you judge him or trivialize his intellectual ability? Is it that he's "anti-feminist" for refusing to buy into the gender pay gap, something that respected feminists and intellectuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia have loudly decried?

I've encountered men of all ages that have an awareness of deep, fundamental topics like the importance of meditation, true environmentalism, a richer understanding and appreciation for physical fitness, a knowledge of the past and present state of America and its complicated role in the world, and a generally enhanced comprehension of man's own place in this world by virtue of Joe's podcast.

I'm seeing a lot of childishly one-dimensional caricatures of Joe here, and it speaks to the fact that people are being very selective about what they do and don't want to hear from a man who, I think, has for years proven to be malleable in terms of his beliefs, and fair in his treatment of a variety of controversial topics.

 

[Infinite]

I didn't realize the fear factor guy had such a following.

Literally the same

 

[Lowmelody]

I think that in 15, 20 years, Joe Rogan will be remembered as one of the greatest ambassadors for alternative thought to come out of a maturing internet. No one is claiming he's an academic, he's a extremely accomplished and impressive figure. He's one of the most popular and respected comedians in the country, one of the most pre-eminent colour commentators in sports, and created one of world's most popular podcasts - one that resonates so powerfully with young men that you could safely claim that he's one of the internet's top cultural influencers.

He didn't get there through "pandering to the alt-right" or by being a fucking dummy - the man enjoys an enviably high level of success in many domains and I assure you, he didn't simply bumble his way into it. Shouldn't this deserve your respect?

I've encountered men of all ages that have an awareness of deep, fundamental topics like the importance of meditation, true environmentalism, a deeper understanding and appreciation for physical fitness, a knowledge of the past and present state of America and its complicated role in the world, and importantly a greater comprehension of man's struggle to come to terms with his own struggles, fault by virtue of Joe's podcast.

What incredibly facile criticisms you have of someone who could be legitimately regarded as an overwhelmingly positive male role model in a media landscape essentially bereft of them. On what basis do you judge him - that he's "anti-feminist" for refusing to buy into the gender pay gap, something that respected feminists and intellectuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia have loudly decried?

I'm seeing a lot of childishly one-dimensional caricatures of Joe here, and it speaks to the fact that people are being very selective about what they do and don't want to hear from a man who, I think, has for years proven to be malleable in terms of his beliefs and fair in his treatment of a variety of controversial topics.

Is this a meme?

 

[EmpressInYellow]

respected feminists and intellectuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia have loudly decried?

...yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there.

"Respected feminists" and "Christina Hoff Sommers" do not belong in the same sentence, unless that sentence is "Respected feminists think Christina Hoff Sommers is a bad joke."

Also, could you explain to me what's "fair" about his treatment of trans issues? Seriously, I'm all ears.

 

[Livingskeletons]

Damn what happened to OP?

 

[jurgen]

This post has me dying. lol

"How dare you use multiple quotes on multiple topics against him! Accountability is toxic!"

Adorable and frustrating at the same time.

I'm not rushing to his defense here, but how about we assume a person is made up of multiple lines of thought and isn't represented fully by cherry-picked quotes or one-hour podcast appearances? I know it's far less difficult for the brain to process your interactions with others by classifying them as "good, bad, racist, misogynist, etc" but it's also cheap and doing yourself a disservice.

Rogan's always been on the periphery of comedians I've followed (Burr, O'Neal, Quinn, etc). I'm by no means a fan of his. But the various encounters I've had with him leads me to believe that he's just like any other human being - not a piece of shit caricature and a sum of good and bad parts/opinions.

Shit, the thread title is exemplary of how eager we are as a culture to grab the fucking pitchforks.

 

[Everdred]

Reading the reactions in this thread as someone that has been listening to his podcast for a couple years is pretty interesting. The thing I like about him is that he is always trying to learn and isn't afraid to change his opinion.

You can pick out all kinds of dumb ass quotes from him but he seeks more information and changes his mind accordingly. Imagine if you spoke in a public forum for 1800+ hours I bet you would say something some dumb things too, and things you don't still believe today.

He doesn't think the mooon landing is fake, 9/11 was an inside job or that chemtrails are real. He admittedly loves to fantasize about conspiracy theories but rarely believes them.

Even in his latest special he stops several times and proclaims "these are just jokes folks, I don't really believe this".

You really get to know a person when you listen to them talk for so long. I frequently disagree with things he says but I understand where he is coming from and how he got there.

 

[getbuff]

...yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there.

"Respected feminists" and "Christina Hoff Sommers" do not belong in the same sentence, unless that sentence is "Respected feminists think Christina Hoff Sommers is a bad joke."

Also, could you explain to me what's "fair" about his treatment of trans issues? Seriously, I'm all ears.

Even if I don't think that Rogan's value is measured by whether or not his opinion on trans issues matches yours, you're welcome to cite specific examples that you take issues with.

I'm not particularly interested in entering an argument on the issue, as these are some of my first posts in about 20 years of reading this forum and am wary of running afoul of the moderators.

 

[Lowmelody]

I'm not rushing to his defense here, but how about we assume a person is made up of multiple lines of thought and isn't represented fully by cherry-picked quotes or one-hour podcast appearances? I know it's far less difficult for the brain to process your interactions with others by classifying them as "good, bad, racist, misogynist, etc" but it's also cheap and doing yourself a disservice.

Rogan's always been on the periphery of comedians I've followed (Burr, O'Neal, Quinn, etc). I'm by no means a fan of his. But the various encounters I've had with him leads me to believe that he's just like any other human being - not a piece of shit caricature and a sum of good and bad parts/opinions.

Shit, the thread title is exemplary of how eager we are as a culture to grab the fucking pitchforks.

Nah hes just a piece of shit meathead.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Even if I don't think that Rogan's value is measured by whether or not his opinion on trans issues matches yours, you're welcome to cite specific examples that you take issues with.

"His opinions on trans issues". Cool. I love how the basic humanity of LGBT folks is often framed as a matter of "opinion".

Leaving aside his unscientific bullshit about Fallon Fox (which at is at least marginally in his wheelhouse as an MMA commentator), there's his recent bullshit about the restroom issue (and how trans people should use bathrooms "matching their chromosomes"), or some transphobic and hateful shit he said about Jenner, or...

I mean, he always tries to offer caveats: "I'm not transphobic" or "More power to them" or whatever...and then goes on to say a bunch of repulsive crap. You know, maybe if you know so little about a subject, you just should shut the fuck up and LISTEN instead of running your mouth.

But I guess that's too much to ask for MMA pot bro.

EDIT: And for what it's worth, I had to go listen to him on Youtube to verify I was remembering things correctly, and I already feel dumber just for having listened to those short excerpts.

Oh, and in that bathroom segment, he and the other guy were going to bat for Curt fucking Schilling, so take THAT for what it's worth.

 

[jurgen]

Nah hes just a piece of shit meathead.

Because he wasn't saying that with any sense of absurdity either.

 

[lawnchair]

i wonder if joe will read this thread

somebody tweet him

 

[uncelestial]

All that said, hasn't the 70-80% wage gap been mostly debunked? Comparing within professions and schedules, isn't it something closer to 90%?

I dunno about debunked, it's just that if you normalize for life choices (time spent in the workforce, choice of profession/major) it's about 94-96%. As for the difference between the raw number (70-80%) and the normalized number, gender roles play a part there; women don't feel welcome in the STEM path (which the highest-paying middle class sector right now), women are expected to stay home and raise kids more often than men, women take longer leave after children are born, that kind of thing. The raw number is still in that 70-80% range, and most of what that reflects is gender roles and discrimination. I'm all for talking about the nuance of those numbers, but for someone to be saying all that in the context of an MRA rant? Nah, fuck that.

Because he wasn't saying that with any sense of absurdity either.

He can say it with a sense of whatever he wants, but these kinds of things are sort of self-branding and serving the audience he wants to have. That audience is basically meatheads who reject men who empathize with women's issues. I mean that's just naked antipathy that is only funny if you agree with it or those kind of men annoy you, too.

 

[Lowmelody]

Because he wasn't saying that with any sense of absurdity either.

Nah I'm over dudes using "comedy" as a both club to hit people with and a shield to deflect any accountability. The sentiment is the hurtful and malicious part, not the inane edgy language anyways.

It's absolutely crazy, the lengths that people go to defend hate. As long as it's dressed up as a joke its utterly sacrosanct. It's not possible to judge this man because it's not fair to use direct quotes or its just a joke brah. This is pathetic and juvenile.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

i wonder if joe will read this thread

somebody tweet him

Tell him NeoGAF is an Illuminati cabal putting fluoride on the moon to control people's minds and I bet he will.

 

[jurgen]

Nah I'm over dudes using "comedy" as a both club to hit people with and a shield to deflect any accountability. The sentiment is the hurtful and malicious part, not the inane edgy language anyways.

It's absolutely crazy, the lengths that people go to defend hate. As long as it's dressed up as a joke its utterly sacrosanct. It's not possible to judge this man because it's not fair to use direct quotes or its just a joke brah. This is pathetic and juvenile.

I'm over comedy being the line of performance that the socially progressive become fucking puritans about and labeling its defenders "dudes" and "brahs." I disagree with the proposal of his joke but also recognize the absurdity and the effort put into the craft in order to create something for his audience. I recognize it the same way I can recognize the craft when an actor portrays a despicable person like Kevin Bacon being a pedophile in the Woodsman or a painter creating a scene with graphic, sexual content.

The onus of offense also exists with the audience. "Comedy" isn't this unique one-way form of expression. I'll defend his right to say shitty hack things like that the same way I'll defend Andres Serrano putting out "Piss Christ."

Edit: Not so much talking about rights here as the ability to operate without bizarre standards for a performer

 

[EmpressInYellow]

The onus of offense also exists with the audience. "Comedy" isn't this unique one-way form of expression. I'll defend his right to say shitty hack things like that the same way I'll defend Andres Serrano putting out "Piss Christ."

But no one is arguing with his RIGHT to say this stuff. They're just arguing that him saying it makes him kind of an asshole.

Because...what's the takeaway, otherwise? We can't ever judge a comedian based on their work because "they're just jokes"?

 

[jurgen]

But no one is arguing with his RIGHT to say this stuff. They're just arguing that him saying it makes him kind of an asshole.

Because...what's the takeaway, otherwise? We can't ever judge a comedian based on their work because "they're just jokes"?

His right wasn't the point I was getting to. My point is that it's never "kind of" an asshole when it comes to comedy. It goes from zero to "misogynist brah" in under a second.

"They're just jokes" isn't an excuse as much as it should be something else to use in understanding context.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

"They're just jokes" isn't an excuse as much as it should be something else to use in understanding context.

Sure, but (and I'm sure you know this) the thing about jokes is, they're not "just jokes". Jokes express a point of view. They tell us something by virtue of the assumptions they embrace and those they reject or mock. They reinforce or tear down stereotypes and preconceptions.

It's absolutely important to evaluate what a joke is actually saying, sure. An out-of-context joke that seems to support a certain point of view could actually be satirizing that point of view when seen in context.

And this isn't to suggest that every single joke needs to be subjected to PhD-level analysis. But when someone makes a joke that, on its surface, seems pretty awful, and there's no mitigating context to be found, well...what conclusion should we draw?

 

[Siegcram]

There are few things more worthless than a perpetual devil's advocate who is also uneducated on every topic under the sun except people beating the shit out of each other.

 

[Alienfan]

Has his all time classic tweet "I view women that don't like children the same way I view dogs that eat their own shit." been mentioned yet? Followed by, "To the white knights coming to the defense of women who hate kids - they're still not going to fuck you weak bitches". He's beyond redeemable, and Bill is a tool

 

[Discotheque]

You guys need to surround yourself with better people in your one life. You choose this over anyone else you could be listening to instead?

Bills podcast is often hilarious. Don't know what the hell you're talking about

Don't gotta agree with all of his opinions to find him humorous

 

[jurgen]

Sure, but (and I'm sure you know this) the thing about jokes is, they're not "just jokes". Jokes express a point of view. They tell us something by virtue of the assumptions they embrace and those they reject or mock. They reinforce or tear down stereotypes and preconceptions.

It's absolutely important to evaluate what a joke is actually saying, sure. An out-of-context joke that seems to support a certain point of view could actually be satirizing that point of view when seen in context.

And this isn't to suggest that every single joke needs to be subjected to PhD-level analysis. But when someone makes a joke that, on its surface, seems pretty awful, and there's no mitigating context to be found, well...what conclusion should we draw?

I would assume that the conclusion you would draw is that a "line" has been crossed. My point is that comedy (at large) is more subject to the absolutism of the lines of other parties than other forms of artistic expression.

The image people have of comedians staring defiantly over a stationary line of good taste is simply inaccurate. They don’t approach this line, put their toes over it arrogantly and then scamper back to safety. The line doesn’t exist. The correct image for people to have is one of a circle, with a comedian standing in the middle of it, surrounded by a myriad of races, religions, social beliefs, sacred cows and political ideologies. And in these groups are endless numbers of sub groups and personal boundaries. There is simply no way to consistently do the type of comedy that addresses these things without upsetting somebody. No matter which direction you turn to aim the joke, someone is getting hit.

Of course, this is venturing far from the original topic because I've been put in the position of defending a hacky tweet in the hopes of trying to illustrate that a comedian isn't a rampant misogynistic caricature of a meathead and might be an actual fucking human being. I do this because shit like "full blown MRA" is just this absolutist language that eliminates all aspects of grey and just turns us into fucking puritans looking for that scarlet letter to pin on everyone else rather than having constructive discussions.

 

[Henkka]

Was just listening to the latest episode, he brings up the male feminist. Essentially says they use feminism to get laid

His female guest says "Ew, male feminist? Oh no..." lol.

 

[Lowmelody]

I'm over comedy being the line of performance that the socially progressive become fucking puritans about and labeling its defenders "dudes" and "brahs." I disagree with the proposal of his joke but also recognize the absurdity and the effort put into the craft in order to create something for his audience. I recognize it the same way I can recognize the craft when an actor portrays a despicable person like Kevin Bacon being a pedophile in the Woodsman or a painter creating a scene with graphic, sexual content.

The onus of offense also exists with the audience. "Comedy" isn't this unique one-way form of expression. I'll defend his right to say shitty hack things like that the same way I'll defend Andres Serrano putting out "Piss Christ."

Edit: Not so much talking about rights here as the ability to operate without bizarre standards for a performer

Yup, not being cool with misogyny or homo/transphobia does imply one is a puritan. That's for sure. hmmhmm

You are equating an actor playing a role of another person to someone spreading and profiting off of actual hate that affects actual people. And that is terrible.

Saying hateful things for the sake of laughs is basic school yard bully shit, no different than Milo or Joey Salads. Their "craft" and "efforts" are stuff for their "audience" as well, should everyone just accept their bile in silence because hay, we aren't puritans after all, are we? Why demean their craft? We can't judge them by a few facets of their complex personalities? To quote them to take them out of context and so on. We have heard it all before.

Also getting a hearty chuckle over getting pressed over the use of brah and dude right after defending that tweet. lol