Off topic, but 'simp' has to be one of the most misogynistic terms that has come out in quite a while. It started as a play on a remote sub/dom dynamic, and now has morphed into meaning that you are weak if you are not balls deep in something as quickly as possible. It's further being morphed into powerless flaccid submission on any subject. .
The meaning boils down to someone being overly obsessive with another, desperate for their attention/affection/approval. Never heard your definition or that usage before to be honest. Regardless it's an easy word to avoid and I just noticed I used it twice in a row in this thread. Dumb on my part.
Seriously. someone with the reach and influence Rogan has should take the few minutes needed and try to check what he's posting is accurate.
That partly why so many have an issue with him. For the volume of inaccurate info he spews and never corrects.
No, the truth is the guy is a comedian and MMA commentator. People should put less emphasis on the opinions of celebrities and not expect that just because he is in the spotlight that he has particular expertise in these things.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
He's a podcast host first and foremost at this point, it's not even close. He has a huge platform and voice and expecting someone to take two seconds to CHECK IF STEVEN SEAGAL HAS DEPLOYED TO UKRAINE isn't asking much.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FormerPresJamesTaylor For This Useful Post:
No, the truth is the guy is a comedian and MMA commentator. People should put less emphasis on the opinions of celebrities and not expect that just because he is in the spotlight that he has particular expertise in these things.
Yes, that's the way it should be, but it isn't. For some insane reason that I may never truly comprehend, Joe Rogan has become an important source of information and opinion to swaths of people. I suspect this has something to do with the fact he routinely has credible experts on his show and he has the capacity to engage them and appear to play to their level, therefore giving Rogan some semblance of associated expertise that has now become accepted myth.
Either way, this man should not be looked at as an expert on anything of any importance or relevance. Trump should have been seen as the celebrity, populist, air puff he was but he ended up the 45th President of the United States.
Vulnerable people are in this vortex both of them have created, and Rogan needs to recognize his influence and subsequent responsibilities.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
To be fair, Steven Seagal fighting for Russia in Ukraine is sort of a funny headline. I think that Rogan has lost the thread on where he is as a comedian vs. a voice in the media. The gold standard of knowing one's role has to be Al Franken, and Rogan is far from being that controlled and responsible.
As for the language thing, it's amazing how fast words are changing their meaning, and lately not in a very productive way. "Karen" is a good example of that. Started off pretty specific to one situation, but now it's a good way to start a fight, it's so broadly used in a number of contexts. If Textcritic writes a mini-essay on the subject, I'd be interested in reading.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
Joe is just like every other simple guy who gets his news from internet memes these days.
It's sad people look up to him as a source of news credibility.
I enjoy his podcast sometimes, but people need to stop putting guys like him on a pedestal as an authority on anything.
To be fair, Steven Seagal fighting for Russia in Ukraine is sort of a funny headline. I think that Rogan has lost the thread on where he is as a comedian vs. a voice in the media. The gold standard of knowing one's role has to be Al Franken, and Rogan is far from being that controlled and responsible.
As for the language thing, it's amazing how fast words are changing their meaning, and lately not in a very productive way. "Karen" is a good example of that. Started off pretty specific to one situation, but now it's a good way to start a fight, it's so broadly used in a number of contexts. If Textcritic writes a mini-essay on the subject, I'd be interested in reading.
I mean...Segal fighting for Russia? The man is collecting pensions at this point.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
In it's current generalized use, it's never been short for 'simpleton'.
Quote:
The “New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English,” defines it as a shortened version of simpleton, so the phrase’s original meaning is rooted in calling someone stupid. The dictionary lists its first known usage as 1946, though it appeared in The New York Times as early as 1923.
OK, so I wasn't all wrong. *Fuzz adjusts his onion belt*
Yes, but the way you were using it was implying the 'new' definition of simp, which came about around 2018-2019, iirc, has nothing to do with simpleton, and is an acronym for "Sucker Idolizing Mediocre P****".
Last edited by WhiteTiger; 03-02-2022 at 12:29 AM.
Yes, that's the way it should be, but it isn't. For some insane reason that I may never truly comprehend, Joe Rogan has become an important source of information and opinion to swaths of people. I suspect this has something to do with the fact he routinely has credible experts on his show and he has the capacity to engage them and appear to play to their level, therefore giving Rogan some semblance of associated expertise that has now become accepted myth.
Either way, this man should not be looked at as an expert on anything of any importance or relevance. Trump should have been seen as the celebrity, populist, air puff he was but he ended up the 45th President of the United States.
Vulnerable people are in this vortex both of them have created, and Rogan needs to recognize his influence and subsequent responsibilities.
Is Rogan really any different than someone like Oprah? I like Rogan overall, as he strikes me as a curious person who has a lot of varied interests. I have no interest in some of his topics or thoughts (and guests as a result), but he also has some great interviews and conversations.
Bootlicker, toady, suckhole, spaniel. Lots of great words to use in place of simp, if someone is so inclined.
While contemporary usage of simp was orginally geared strictly towards men and popularly used by the incel community to demean other men, it has since been taken over and can either be a favourable term used in jest (people self-proclaiming they "simp" for a celebrity), or used as just a general comment about someone who fawns and is submissive towards someone who will never return their affection (regardless of gender). In this particular circumstance the evolved version of simp is well applied.
Yes, but the way you were using it was implying the 'new' definition of simp, which came about around 2018-2019, iirc, has nothing to do with simpleton, and was a acronym for "Sucker Idolizing Mediocre P****".
To be clear, I was not using it at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I knew what simp meant but had no idea it was an acronym for anything. I learned something today!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Is Rogan really any different than someone like Oprah? I like Rogan overall, as he strikes me as a curious person who has a lot of varied interests. I have no interest in some of his topics or thoughts (and guests as a result), but he also has some great interviews and conversations.
Oprah as in the bring noted snake-oil peddler Dr. Oz into fame Oprah? The legitimize Jenny McCarthy's Anti-Vax Autism Bull#### campaign Oprah? Pretty similar honestly. Just a different target audience.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ZedMan For This Useful Post:
