I know of someone who says they listen to Joe Rogan podcasts (political I assume) but I don’t know what this means or what the connotations are. Both this person and I live in east asia.
I know of someone who says they listen to Joe Rogan podcasts (political I assume) but I don’t know what this means or what the connotations are. Both this person and I live in east asia.
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan they are easily susceptible to authoritarian propaganda and should be avoided.
Rogan brings on guests who argue in bad faith for topics which they are unqualified to comment upon. They provide no evidence and Joe immediately agrees with whatever random bullshit they spew out. Doing this creates the image of credibility (big podcast man agreed with psycho, maybe I should agree with psycho), and since perception is reality that image has value.
What if they’re just talking about his previous acting career?
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan’s previous acting career they are easily susceptible to bad acting and worse comedy and should be avoided.
Newsradio was a fantastic show. You think it was filled with bad acting? How much of it did you watch?
Phil Hartman, Dave Foley, pre conviction andy dick, kathy griffin, maura tirney, and a slew of others.
Did not suck, was very good.
Joe Rogan was not a huge part of why. He was just to show up, look hot, say his lines, dont try too hard, just be near the funny when it happens.
Exactly but I’ve been crucified in conversation for bringing the show up because he was on there.
Which is weird. You can not like him and enjoy the show, especially since his lines were written for him and he was a small part of it. You could enjoy Fear Factor too, it’s not anything like how he is now.
Right? Like the person who was insisting he was always bald due to some weird blind hatred. Like the guy use to just be a dumb stand up comedian/actor. As far as I remember he wasn’t outspoken in the 90’s like he is now.
That’s entertaining, and for frequent listeners it lowers the threshold of disbelief. Because obviously Joe has some areas or guests of true expertise. How to distinguish that from bullshit? He talks about all of these things in the exact same mannerisms.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about in regards to what I was saying?
Basically even if someone it talking about the previous acting career, which on the surface should seem credible. It’s really hard to properly judge if the person actually is creditable because of how often Joe will interview uncredible people and spin them as creditable.
Basically Joe’s creditability has be harmed so it’s hard to trust anything or anyone he talks to at face value
You know, I once tried to explain to someone on reddit that Joe Rogan wasn’t always bald and there is evidence of this when he was on Newsradio and he had a full head of hair back then.
Idiot on reddit just kept arguing that he was always bald and didn’t even care that video evidence was being posted because it was more important to hate Rogan than to accept factual evidence of something so incredibly minimal on the scale of things.
Like why would it be important if he was bald or not? And why would hating him be more important than something being a fact?
Anyway, I asked cause I love Newsradio but often can’t talk about it because people will either figure out that Joe Rogan was on there, or they already know and then think I’m a psychotic alt right idiot.
All because I watch a show that existed before that guy was ever doing a podcast.
Soich… bits…
I got lost in that sentence.
Fixed it for you…
The user you are responding meant “what if that someone that brings up Joe is just talking about his previous acting career?”, not “what if that someone that Joe brings to his show is just talking about his previous acting career?”
I think you read it as the second sentence but it’s quite clear since they quoted your first sentence, not the second one. And somehow they got downvoted for being confused with your response.