- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Rogan- Triggered
Posted on 10/27/16 at 12:45 pm to ManBearTiger
Posted on 10/27/16 at 12:45 pm to ManBearTiger
I love stand-up (saw Kyle Kinane in Birmingham earlier this week), but I just don't find Joe Rogan to be that funny. Not sure what it is about him, but I can't listen to more than a minute or two of his stuff.
1
Posted on 10/27/16 at 12:56 pm to pvilleguru
quote:did he do a bit about a guy in Louisiana at his show? Because I was at that show the bit is about
saw Kyle Kinane in Birmingham earlier this week),
Posted on 10/27/16 at 12:59 pm to Byron Bojangles III
Not that I can remember.
Was it recent? He was working on a lot of new material, since he just released a new special.
Was it recent? He was working on a lot of new material, since he just released a new special.
This post was edited on 10/27/16 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 10/27/16 at 1:01 pm to pvilleguru
Damn I forgot he used it at his special.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 1:03 pm to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
Has to trigger the hell out of everyone. Gay dude, "America IS great" (because he can marry), and wishes he could carry a gun IN SWEDEN.
Actually he thinks gay people should not be allowed to marry. Says it was the feminists way of "domesticating" the gays because they were so much more fun to be around when they were "outcasts from society".
Also thinks the Catholic Church is the best thing to happen to gays, since they gave them safe haven for centuries.
This post was edited on 10/27/16 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 10/27/16 at 4:08 pm to ManBearTiger
You're overdoing it with the "snowflake" stuff.
That word gets used a lot on that ridiculously pathetic forum called Political Talk (where a lot of posters claim to be "libertarians"). The word "snowflake" used in a disparaging way is often ironically dumb if you call yourself a "libertarian" or you consider yourself to be "libertarian-minded" (and I would say that Joe is mostly libertarian) in the sense that the word is being used sarcastically to disparage someone who has a self-image of being a unique individual who's in some ways unique/special/exceptional.
As a slang word, people may be using it in different ways for different reasons, but it seems that most people who use it are trying to insult someone based on common sayings like "no two snowflakes are alike" or "every snowflake is different" or something like that. These sayings are referring to individual differences in snowflakes, and they go right with ideas of Individual Liberty. Libertarians (in theory) want individuals to be free to make their own decisions, be different, be exceptional, have ownership of your body, be and do what you want (provided it doesn't impinge on another's freedom).
Don't misread me. Don't apply any of the above to Joe's special. I haven't seen the special yet. What I said above is meant to apply to this site and the use of the word by "libertarians" or libertarian-minded people. As for Joe, he has been one of my favorite comedians for a long time, and I've listened to hours and hours and hours of his podcast over the years. The topic of SJWs, triggering, etc., has become mostly dull and uninteresting to me. But I understand it's a bigger issue for Joe as a comedian. Living in California and doing as much traveling as he does, I'm sure he encounters a lot more nonsense and obnoxiousness from "SJWs" than I do. I've seen so much nonsense and complaining about these kinds of topics online (e.g., that ridiculously pathetic forum called Political Talk) that I usually just 'pass' when I see/hear the key words, but I'll check out Joe's special -- he's an exception to the rule.
That word gets used a lot on that ridiculously pathetic forum called Political Talk (where a lot of posters claim to be "libertarians"). The word "snowflake" used in a disparaging way is often ironically dumb if you call yourself a "libertarian" or you consider yourself to be "libertarian-minded" (and I would say that Joe is mostly libertarian) in the sense that the word is being used sarcastically to disparage someone who has a self-image of being a unique individual who's in some ways unique/special/exceptional.
As a slang word, people may be using it in different ways for different reasons, but it seems that most people who use it are trying to insult someone based on common sayings like "no two snowflakes are alike" or "every snowflake is different" or something like that. These sayings are referring to individual differences in snowflakes, and they go right with ideas of Individual Liberty. Libertarians (in theory) want individuals to be free to make their own decisions, be different, be exceptional, have ownership of your body, be and do what you want (provided it doesn't impinge on another's freedom).
Don't misread me. Don't apply any of the above to Joe's special. I haven't seen the special yet. What I said above is meant to apply to this site and the use of the word by "libertarians" or libertarian-minded people. As for Joe, he has been one of my favorite comedians for a long time, and I've listened to hours and hours and hours of his podcast over the years. The topic of SJWs, triggering, etc., has become mostly dull and uninteresting to me. But I understand it's a bigger issue for Joe as a comedian. Living in California and doing as much traveling as he does, I'm sure he encounters a lot more nonsense and obnoxiousness from "SJWs" than I do. I've seen so much nonsense and complaining about these kinds of topics online (e.g., that ridiculously pathetic forum called Political Talk) that I usually just 'pass' when I see/hear the key words, but I'll check out Joe's special -- he's an exception to the rule.
This post was edited on 10/27/16 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 10/27/16 at 5:14 pm to inadaze
quote:
The topic of SJWs, triggering, etc., has become mostly dull and uninteresting to me.
I think that opinion explains why you don't think his use of the word snowflake is funny or appropriate. It mocks people who are supposedly too sensitive or delicate to hear different or controversial opinions - and respond to it by shutting down the speech of the person they disagree with.
I do not personally use the term because I think it makes conversation less likely to be successful. But I think the criticism he is expressing is richly deserved.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 6:35 pm to ManBearTiger
Teh funniest part was his bit about it not being sexism that they shouldn't have had a female guard at the whitehouse.
"It's not sexist to say a woman can't do big physical things as good as a big giant man. People will tell you that's sexist but it isn't. My favorite people are all females. I love my wife and three daughters. BUT... I can beat the frick out of all of them."
"It's not sexist to say a woman can't do big physical things as good as a big giant man. People will tell you that's sexist but it isn't. My favorite people are all females. I love my wife and three daughters. BUT... I can beat the frick out of all of them."
Posted on 10/27/16 at 6:40 pm to molsusports
quote:
I think that opinion explains why you don't think his use of the word snowflake is funny or appropriate.
I disagree.
You ignored what I said about why it's not appropriate in a libertarian context (from the libertarian POV). (As I said, Joe is mostly libertarian, although, in the current political framework, he does lean left sometimes. But as OP said, he is refreshingly not "sided" politically/ideologically.) If you want to talk about the word's appropriateness, you have to address that aspect. You're giving it a somewhat different meaning having to do with being averse to different/controversial opinions -- for that definition, some other word would be more appropriate because the common derivation for "snowflake" is what I explained. It would actually make more sense as a disparaging term for libertarians (perhaps used by hardcore social conservatives, fascists, communists -- people who want to restrict individual freedom/uniqueness).
Even if it were appropriate (which it's not in the libertarian context I mentioned), I think the humor would soon fade, at least for me, just because of overuse.
quote:
But I think the criticism he is expressing is richly deserved.
You may want to rethink that opinion. For you to say it is deserved could be construed as you being against individual freedom in some ways. (Also, I want to say that while individual freedom may seem sometimes like a simple view, it is really much more nuanced when you think about how to maximize freedom across the board. Inevitably, a thorough analysis should lead to deep consideration of obligation, situational ethics, etc.)
I understand you want to ignore the derivation of the word and make up your own definition for it, but that's not how language works. And let me be clear, I'm strongly for variety of opinions and free speech (which partly explains why I have issues with that ridiculously pathetic forum called Political Talk). I mean, one of the things I want most in a work or art is something different, something pushing the boundaries, something that I'm unfamiliar with that stimulates me, something I can learn from, something unique -- "a snowflake".
Setting aside the connotational/semantic problems with the word, I disagree that criticism of "SJWs" is "richly deserved". Much of it seems very trivial to me. Also, much of the criticism that I see online is directed at very young people in high school or college. I don't know how old you are, but for the most part, I don't see young people like this, trying to figure out their place in the world, as "richly deserving" of harsh criticism. Perhaps sometimes, and in instances where they try to shut down events, keep speakers off college campuses, etc. But if we're talking about sexual identity or something like that, that is just not something I'm overly worried about. Why would I care if someone wants to be more specific about their sexual identity? Sometimes people make legitimate points about restrictive labels and sexuality spectrums. Now, if someone says something that doesn't make sense, okay, maybe that deserves to be mocked, but for me, I just don't see it as a big issue to mock someone who is sexually confused, or maybe is going through something that I don't relate to. Some of them may have some serious mental issues which could be made worse by being mocked.
On the issue of fat shaming, perhaps shaming may work in some cases, but what some people seem to be missing is that different people respond to different criticisms/motivational tactics in different ways. Insulting a fat person may make them more depressed and more likely to find solace in food for pleasure/distraction. I think many 'fat-shaming warriors'/insulters don't consider these consequences because their main objective is not to help the fat person. I think the main objective for many of the "FSWs"/insulters is some kind of ego game where they get the upper hand.
(Again, none of this is meant to apply to Joe's special -- I haven't seen it yet.)
Posted on 10/27/16 at 6:44 pm to inadaze
Jesus man it's a stand up special fricking relax.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 6:58 pm to Lunchbox48
Why did you post that nonsense to me?
I've said multiple times I haven't seen the special. The words I typed are only indirectly related to the special, not about the special itself.
Some people seem to think that a post with a lot of words = not relaxed. That's not a good assumption. I was very relaxed when I typed out that post.
I've said multiple times I haven't seen the special. The words I typed are only indirectly related to the special, not about the special itself.
Some people seem to think that a post with a lot of words = not relaxed. That's not a good assumption. I was very relaxed when I typed out that post.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 7:08 pm to ManBearTiger
Why are you surprised that it was in San Francisco? Just because the city has a vocal minority doesn't mean the silent majority don't get it.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 7:56 pm to inadaze
You wrote a dissertation length post about your perception of libertarians and a random poster's use of the word snowflake in a thread about a comedy special you haven't even seen. Maybe this was meant for your blog.
I watched the special, several funny moments. Saw him in the early summer so it was mostly that material again, but the White House bit was new and his best I thought.
I watched the special, several funny moments. Saw him in the early summer so it was mostly that material again, but the White House bit was new and his best I thought.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 8:16 pm to inadaze
quote:
understand you want to ignore the derivation of the word and make up your own definition for it, but that's not how language works.
That's actually literally how language works- slang specifically. When enough people coopt it for a certain context a word takes on a new meaning. Take fig and gay for example.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 8:28 pm to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
His podcast is great. 2-4 hours of him just rambling with his guest and it is usually pretty damned entertaining.
Yea, I first came across it on YouTube and decided to check out the on with Neil degrasse Tyson and ended up listening to the entire 3 hours
Posted on 10/27/16 at 10:03 pm to inadaze
quote:
You ignored what I said about why it's not appropriate in a libertarian context (from the libertarian POV).
I think the reason that both Joe and people like me often disagree is the people who view themselves as snowflakes in a libertarian sense really only think they are special in a sense that a narcissist thinks he is special. Most don't offer interesting new ways to view the world or respect the rights of others to their own libertarian rights, they tend to offer the ideas prevalent within their bubble as good and feverishly attack the ideas of others as evil or bad - typically without understanding the opposing point of view or being willing to live in a society where they should be respected.
That operating system isn't intellectual, or intellectual liberalism, or intellectual libertarianism. It is simple narcissism.
Posted on 10/27/16 at 10:07 pm to ManBearTiger
Any Sane person would be against trump becoming our president.
Any sane person would be against hillary becoming our president
Any sane person would be against hillary becoming our president
Posted on 10/27/16 at 10:13 pm to Tiger Ryno
quote:
Any Sane person would be against trump becoming our president. Any sane person would be against hillary becoming our president
Yea, I'm in the "can we vote for a re-do" crowd
Posted on 10/27/16 at 10:14 pm to Lunchbox48
quote:
You wrote a dissertation length post about your perception of libertarians and a random poster's use of the word snowflake
I get it, bud. "TL/DR" for you. Why not just post that and get back to "Ow! My Balls!"? Seriously, why even reply in the nonsensical way that you did? What the frick do you care how long my post is? Just skip over it if you think it's too long.
Would it make you feel better if I deleted my posts? I mean, I just don't know what you're bothered about. I tend to give lengthy replies sometimes. It's just me. That's me as a texter. That's me as a talker. If that bothers you, what can I say?
The OP isn't necessarily "random" to me. I'm somewhat familiar with him from that ridiculously pathetic forum. I think he's familiar enough with the context to understand what I'm saying. Whether he chooses to acknowledge what I'm saying is a different story, though.
I made it very clear (multiple times) that I hadn't seen the special, so telling me "it's a stand up special" didn't make sense. Let's say my posts were about the special, though. Would that preclude someone from analyzing it and giving a lengthy review? I view the relationship between comedy and "thinking" more in the way Bill Hicks did. So does Rogan. He analyzes comedy at length on his podcast.
quote:
I watched the special, several funny moments. Saw him in the early summer so it was mostly that material again, but the White House bit was new and his best I thought.
I think if you'd have just posted this from the start, that would have been much better.
This post was edited on 10/27/16 at 10:19 pm
Posted on 10/27/16 at 10:35 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
When enough people coopt it for a certain context a word takes on a new meaning. Take fig and gay for example.
Yes, language does work that way, but you can't just completely disregard where a slang word comes from, the most common uses for it, and then make up some new definition for it at random and expect to seem coherent when using it in the new way you've made up. That's illogical. If you're going to do something like that, you at least have to make it clear how you're changing the term and who its new definition is meant to insult.
You understand what I'm saying about where the slang usage comes from, right? For people who are using to try to insult others, it seems that at least most (in my experience, all) people are still using the word to try to sarcastically disparage someone for thinking that they're "special" or "unique" or something. I've literally never heard someone define it the way that molsu did while disregarding where the word comes from and the common meaning.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News