He's also written over 100 other pieces this year alone, most of them having nothing to do with Rogan.
And I'm only speculating here, because I don't have insight into Michael's inner experience, but perhaps that's why he said he's "largely irrelevant" and not "completely irrelevant."
He's also written over 100 other pieces this year alone, most of them having nothing to do with Rogan.
And I'm only speculating here, because I don't have insight into Michael's inner experience, but perhaps that's why he said he's "largely irrelevant" and not "completely irrelevant."
The very next day, he wrote about Rogan again. Likely because he realized writing about Rogan gets him attention. At least, he acknowledges as much in the first sentence/paragraph.
Guys, guys. I'm standing right here! Yes, Joe Rogan is largely irrelevant to my life, as I said in the piece, but I recognize he has enormous relevance to the culture at large, which is why I wrote the original piece. His words are important to a lot of people. Not to me, but I wrote about him because he's reflective of a trend I dislike - the libertarian/rightwing/conspiracist lunkhead movement that seems to have taken deep root among the nation's young men. It's a problem (to me) because the movement contradicts what I believe to be the best path forward for, in particular, young white men who comprise the foundation of his audience.
And yes, I wrote about him again the next day because I found I had more to say in particular after getting so much pushback from people defending the joke. His irrelevance to me isn't to slag on him; I'm not his audience. But jokes like the one I discussed affect real people. As I said in the follow-up, it's not that any single joke has any particular effect but the cumulative worldview from which this joke springs, does. And I worry about it. So I wrote about it. Hope that clears up any confusion.
This is disingenuous on two front. First, you claim to be against using terms that тАЬaffect real people,тАЭ and yet freely belittle тАЬlurkheads,тАЭ all of whom are real people.
Secondly, You claim Joe Rogan is irrelevant to you, and that you are more concerned by the use of potentially offensive terms, and yet you also implicitly claim that the icons of the тАЬlurkhead movementтАЭ is Joe Rogan. But you canтАЩt have your cake and eat it too -- does this sound convincing to you: тАЬI am a critic of Marxism, but Marx is mostly irrelevant to meтАЭ?
In his writing, although seemingly bilaterally because heтАЩs white, Michael actually punches up on lurkheads above his pay grade. Joe punches down on R words. ThatтАЩs the summary here and it was missed.
I think I said "lunkheads," not "lurkheads." And yes, I feel comfortable calling people who are lunkheads lunkheads, which I feel like is a pretty gentle (and funny) way to castigate somebody for expressing unintelligent opinions. Yes, Joe Rogan is a real person and I think he can probably handle it.
And yes, I am concerned about these terms as perpetuated by those in the lunkhead movement, of which Rogan is certainly an icon. So while you're further correct that the movement as a whole concerns me, Rogan as an individual does not. He's a good avatar for the movement in this piece, but I don't spend a lot of time thinking/worrying about him in particular. And yes, I think it would be totally fair to say I am a critic of Marxism the movement, while Karl Marx the person does not play much of a role in my personal life. One can study something without having it play an important role in one's day-to-day life. For example, I have read a lot about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, but they are not particularly relevant to my day-to-day life until their modern equivalent starts parading down the streets of Nashville. I'm not suggesting Rogan is either a Marxist or a Nazi, nor do I think the loose confederation in which he travels are those things, either. I have now spent more time writing/thinking about Joe Rogan with you than I think I spent writing/thinking about him while publishing the two pieces. Again, thanks for the input.
Michael, you're interrupting my speculation as to what your experience of all this is with telling us what your experience of all this is is. How do you expect me to keep on speculating about what you think if you just tell us what you think?
Michael often writes about what's going on in the news and in the world of comedy, and since this week Rogan put out a new special, it makes sense that that's what he's chosen to write about this week.
And yes, like many people who write, he enjoys when people read what he writes. Sounds like you and I and Michael agree about a great many things!
Glad you're enjoying reading what he writes! Everyone wins!
That's true!
He's also written over 100 other pieces this year alone, most of them having nothing to do with Rogan.
And I'm only speculating here, because I don't have insight into Michael's inner experience, but perhaps that's why he said he's "largely irrelevant" and not "completely irrelevant."
Thanks for sharing again!
The very next day, he wrote about Rogan again. Likely because he realized writing about Rogan gets him attention. At least, he acknowledges as much in the first sentence/paragraph.
Guys, guys. I'm standing right here! Yes, Joe Rogan is largely irrelevant to my life, as I said in the piece, but I recognize he has enormous relevance to the culture at large, which is why I wrote the original piece. His words are important to a lot of people. Not to me, but I wrote about him because he's reflective of a trend I dislike - the libertarian/rightwing/conspiracist lunkhead movement that seems to have taken deep root among the nation's young men. It's a problem (to me) because the movement contradicts what I believe to be the best path forward for, in particular, young white men who comprise the foundation of his audience.
And yes, I wrote about him again the next day because I found I had more to say in particular after getting so much pushback from people defending the joke. His irrelevance to me isn't to slag on him; I'm not his audience. But jokes like the one I discussed affect real people. As I said in the follow-up, it's not that any single joke has any particular effect but the cumulative worldview from which this joke springs, does. And I worry about it. So I wrote about it. Hope that clears up any confusion.
This is disingenuous on two front. First, you claim to be against using terms that тАЬaffect real people,тАЭ and yet freely belittle тАЬlurkheads,тАЭ all of whom are real people.
Secondly, You claim Joe Rogan is irrelevant to you, and that you are more concerned by the use of potentially offensive terms, and yet you also implicitly claim that the icons of the тАЬlurkhead movementтАЭ is Joe Rogan. But you canтАЩt have your cake and eat it too -- does this sound convincing to you: тАЬI am a critic of Marxism, but Marx is mostly irrelevant to meтАЭ?
In his writing, although seemingly bilaterally because heтАЩs white, Michael actually punches up on lurkheads above his pay grade. Joe punches down on R words. ThatтАЩs the summary here and it was missed.
I think I said "lunkheads," not "lurkheads." And yes, I feel comfortable calling people who are lunkheads lunkheads, which I feel like is a pretty gentle (and funny) way to castigate somebody for expressing unintelligent opinions. Yes, Joe Rogan is a real person and I think he can probably handle it.
And yes, I am concerned about these terms as perpetuated by those in the lunkhead movement, of which Rogan is certainly an icon. So while you're further correct that the movement as a whole concerns me, Rogan as an individual does not. He's a good avatar for the movement in this piece, but I don't spend a lot of time thinking/worrying about him in particular. And yes, I think it would be totally fair to say I am a critic of Marxism the movement, while Karl Marx the person does not play much of a role in my personal life. One can study something without having it play an important role in one's day-to-day life. For example, I have read a lot about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, but they are not particularly relevant to my day-to-day life until their modern equivalent starts parading down the streets of Nashville. I'm not suggesting Rogan is either a Marxist or a Nazi, nor do I think the loose confederation in which he travels are those things, either. I have now spent more time writing/thinking about Joe Rogan with you than I think I spent writing/thinking about him while publishing the two pieces. Again, thanks for the input.
I was going to respond, тАЬokay, lunkheadтАЭ but it felt rude. IтАЩll let you go on about your business then.
Michael, you're interrupting my speculation as to what your experience of all this is with telling us what your experience of all this is is. How do you expect me to keep on speculating about what you think if you just tell us what you think?
Thank you!
hahaha
It's true!
Michael often writes about what's going on in the news and in the world of comedy, and since this week Rogan put out a new special, it makes sense that that's what he's chosen to write about this week.
And yes, like many people who write, he enjoys when people read what he writes. Sounds like you and I and Michael agree about a great many things!
Glad you're enjoying reading what he writes! Everyone wins!