You guys are way too fucking hard on DeRosa
0 2014-10-02 by [deleted]
You guys are giving Joe a ton of shit, but I don't think it's that fair. I mean, all those negative reviews on his new album are one thing, but look at all his other albums -- they still have pretty good reviews. And his podcast appears to be pretty popular. I mean, take this classic comedy album, for example:
I don't see any negative reviews on there, so how are you guys going to say he's a shitty comedian when it's nothing but five star reviews across the board? It doesn't add up, fellas.
And here's another great example:
Nothing but five star reviews across the board. So don't sit there and tell me Joe is shit when he clearly has people buying his products and enjoying them.
I know the O and A crowd gets a little rambunctious from time to time, but I want to remind you that there's a lot more to a comedian than a few passing comments on a podcast, or bringing it up over and over again on other podcasts while wearing all manner of faggy hats. For example, Joe also has his own podcast, and as you can see, there are not many negative reviews compared to the positive ones:
I want you guys to look deep inside yourselves and ask "am I down with Joe DeRosa?" I think if you look hard enough, you'll see that you are, and you'll do something about that four star podcast rating. Four stars? Heck, I know Joe is better than that, and I think you'll agree.
12 comments
6 HashtonKutcher 2014-10-02
He's just isn't funny or interesting, other than that I don't care for him.
4 ZombieKetchup 2014-10-02
Are you saying we need to 1 star review his older albums too? Good point op, Good point. Well guys, You heard the man.
3 thesynking 2014-10-02
The only time I found DeRosa funny was on SSTTF2. Other than that, I agree with Troy's summation.
3 [deleted] 2014-10-02
[deleted]
0 [deleted] 2014-10-02
Apparently so. What a bunch of fucking morons.
3 [deleted] 2014-10-02
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2014-10-02
[deleted]
2 BobMugabe35 2014-10-02
Yeah guys, calm it down already. You're fucking with his livelihood here!
2 ghostofshe 2014-10-02
I didn't like him before. I should now because his feelings are hurt? Nah.
2 hankdo 2014-10-02
ok, this is hilarious... Joe sucks.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-02
[deleted]
1 GoJo-JoGo 2014-10-02
Including his mother who rightfully threw him in the trash when he was born.
1 [deleted] 2014-10-02
I tried listening to his podcast once (the topic was suicide) and I didnt like the serious, big picture analysis shit he was trying to do, sort of like the pete holmes show monolouges he helped write. So I click on the link in this post and the most recent episode on DWJD is "The Devil". Is it supposed to be a comedy podcast?
-3 gsbird1065 2014-10-02
He talked about Ant's racism in a disapproving manner.
So naturally the 'fans' want his head on a stick.
. . . because their affection for Ant is all about comedy, isn't it.
2 GroovyBastard 2014-10-02
That's not it at all. He has the right to think and say whatever the fuck he wants to about Ant or anything else. My problem with him though (and the rest of the PC Apology Brigade) is that they want everyone to be held accountable for what they say, but then refuse to be held to the same standard. Derosa pointed out that Ant being fired and shunned by some people is all a "consequence" of his freedom to speak his mind, but yet he is too fucking stupid to realize that it works the same way for what he said. Just like that Gawker douche who wrote the original article that got Anthony fired wanted him to be held accountable for his words, but at the same time made his own Twitter account private after he started to catch shit from O&A fans and wasn't willing to accept the consequences of the article he wrote.
I can't speak for everyone, but that's my number one gripe with these Social Justice cocksuckers that use the "Yeah, you have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom of consequences from your speech" argument to justify trying to get people fired for saying something they don't agree with. If the situation is reversed and someone is fired for having an opinion that fits their ideologies that's suddenly when it becomes wrong to have consequences for speech.
1 gsbird1065 2014-10-02
Derosa pointed out that Ant being fired and shunned by some people is all a "consequence" of his freedom to speak his mind, but yet he is too fucking stupid to realize that it works the same way for what he said. Just like that Gawker douche who wrote the original article that got Anthony fired wanted him to be held accountable for his words, but at the same time made his own Twitter account private after he started to catch shit from O&A fans and wasn't willing to accept the consequences of the article he wrote.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, particularly that people should apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others.
But I think you're missing a critical difference.
There are no official protections from the consequences of free expression . . . but . . . you are free to try to avoid those consequences if you can. Ant's situation and the DeRosa/Man from Gawker examples are night and day because Ant could not avoid the fallout from his tweets, simply because those consequences were enforced by his employer, not random douchebags on Twitter and other social media platforms that he could easily dismiss (and would have dismissed had this been the case, I promise you . . . he would have done everything DeRosa did to get out of it, and more, if he could have). He was trapped by his own contractual imperatives, whereas the others are not.
If the Gawker reporter lost his job for reporting the story . . . or DeRosa had his standup gigs evaporate for what he said on Rogan's podcast (I know it's unlikely, but just for the sake of the discussion let's assume that happened); and then either one or both sued in civil court, claiming free speech protection, then you can say that they're hypocrites, because in those instances they would be facing the unavoidable consequences of their actions, just as Ant did.
By the way, I don't see any ideological component to any of this . . . unless you really think the basic legitimacy of other races as human beings is something that's open for debate.
1 gsbird1065 2014-10-02
Derosa pointed out that Ant being fired and shunned by some people is all a "consequence" of his freedom to speak his mind, but yet he is too fucking stupid to realize that it works the same way for what he said. Just like that Gawker douche who wrote the original article that got Anthony fired wanted him to be held accountable for his words, but at the same time made his own Twitter account private after he started to catch shit from O&A fans and wasn't willing to accept the consequences of the article he wrote.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, particularly that people should apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others.
But I think you're missing a critical difference.
There are no official protections from the consequences of free expression . . . but . . . you are free to try to avoid those consequences if you can. Ant's situation and the DeRosa/Man from Gawker examples are night and day because Ant could not avoid the fallout from his tweets, simply because those consequences were enforced by his employer, not random douchebags on Twitter and other social media platforms that he could easily dismiss (and would have dismissed had this been the case, I promise you . . . he would have done everything DeRosa did to get out of it, and more, if he could have). He was trapped by his own contractual imperatives, whereas the others are not.
If the Gawker reporter lost his job for reporting the story . . . or DeRosa had his standup gigs evaporate for what he said on Rogan's podcast (I know it's unlikely, but just for the sake of the discussion let's assume that happened); and then either one or both sued in civil court, claiming free speech protection, then you can say that they're hypocrites, because in those instances they would be facing the unavoidable consequences of their actions, just as Ant did.
By the way, I don't see any ideological component to any of this . . . unless you really think the basic legitimacy of other races as human beings is something that's open for debate.