Pretty reductionist. He made himself a success in more than one industry. And you haven’t listened to him. So what qualifies your opinion of him more than his opinion about anything?
I'm a regular listener, but he 'made himself a success in more than one industry' only if you count "TV presenter" and "radio presenter" as different industries. Most of his comedy specials are self-published.
I’m conflicted about him too, but the man tours with Dave Chapelle. He’s inarguably a successful comedian. He was a working MMA trainer. An actor in a sitcom. A TV presenter. The voice of the UFC. Host of one of the most popular podcasts.
He’s open to many criticisms, but dismissing his potential to have valid opinions because he was a TV presenter doesn’t seem like a strong argument. Especially if one is unwilling to listen to at least a few of his shows. I, myself, listened regularly 10 years ago (it was fun and funny) but can’t really stomach him anymore. I do check-in and listen to whole shows though. Clips almost never do his actual positions justice.
Also, we’re told to consult our doctors, etc. His controversial guests had PhDs. So, credentials alone don’t necessarily qualify people.. and that’s in either direction: having them (PhD credentialed guests), or not having them (Joe).
Joe, while no genius, is smarter than he gives himself credit for. He’s not touting ignorance, he is being humble and implying that his audience should think for themselves.
