This article really turns into an incoherent rant by the end. I can't say that I agree or disagree with the points being made simply because it seems like some logical connections are being left out. Maybe the original writer could clean it up, simply because they're the only person who knows for sure what they were getting at. I guess maybe Corolla said it wasn't fair that he couldn't use the N-word? Also seems to be arguing in favor of content warning labels, which may sometimes work as an individual courtesy but have numerous times resulted in repression and censorship. --Donald Barber --no user account yet.— Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Are the new edits better? The controversies section is still mostly copied from wikipedia but that controversy is the only reason this is even a page. Adam Carolla only meets the criteria under authoritarianism and pseudo science for quantifiable and easy to debunk using studies racism and much harder to quantify and refute with the non existent scientific studies, sexism in comedy. This mirrors other MRA arguments about women in a given field, only in this case one where skill is measured in money instead of correct answers on a test which is much easier to quantify than if someone is good at comedy and why. If there is a psychological study on successful comedians as a group, it would be good to include, though Rationalwiki has no page for comedy just snark and satire which are even more unlikely to have studies as subcategories. X-Factor (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm reading this thing wrong
I haven't really slept, so my skimming of the text was even sloppier than usual... But I'm under the impression that this article could use some community attention.