this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
124 points (84.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35809 readers
1613 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 99 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan they are easily susceptible to authoritarian propaganda and should be avoided.

What if they're just talking about his previous acting career?

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Newsradio was a fantastic show. You think it was filled with bad acting? How much of it did you watch?

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly but I've been crucified in conversation for bringing the show up because he was on there.

[–] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what you're talking about in regards to what I was saying?

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Soich... bits...

I got lost in that sentence.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Fixed it for you...