Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly toxic and anti-science when campaigners for transgender rights attempt this kind of censorship and deplatforming?
If people can't even question the science, treatments or effects on children then it feels like a political ideology is at the wheel.
I've noticed this online in traditionally liberal-leaning forums. There's no room for nuance in discussion without being the recipient of vicious attacks, deplatforming or bans. If the case for transgender rights is so strong, you should not need these tactics to make your case. Make your case, don't attack those who respectfully question the policies and science.
I agree, I've got nothing against transgender people. I've got a problem with transgender activists going after people like J.K. Rowling, and trying to deplatform her, for her completely reasonable opinions. Fortunately in her case, she's too successful to deplatform, no publishing company is that stupid to turn her away.
I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding they're trans and transitioning when much of the time they're simply confused teenagers. You merely have to look at how it clusters in friend circles like a contagion of the mind for proof it's a social phenomenon and not a biological one. Adults who should know better are encouraging them to do irrevocable harm to their bodies. I don't care where you fall on trans rights, that's going to be looked upon as a terrible tragedy down the road that we allowed this to happen.
>After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
This is probably the time to plug this wonderful extension [0] that directly warns you, whenever a link to a scholarly article is posted, that said article has had comments on its PubPeer entry.
For those who don't know, PubPeer was designed as a kind of forum where people can discuss articles after they're published (with or without a pseudonym). Of course, it almost instantly turned into a place for anonymous whistleblowing and call-outs for fraud, replication failure, etc. So while it's not an absolute rule, an article having one comment or two on PubPeer is usually a middling red flag for that article being generally dubious.
The reason I'm talking about all this is that the parent's link has twenty-five (25) comments on PubPeer. See for yourself, read the discussion and make of that what you will.
I actually explained why this is often, but not always, a contagion of the mind. I'll spell it out for you "dude":
If there's some property "being trans" which functions like we think "being gay" does, either set biologically or early on in life or some combination of those, then you expect this property to be relatively randomly distributed in the population.
What you see instead is one teenage girl transitions and then her friends are far more likely to also transition. The effect clusters around social relationships. Hence it's a social contagion of the mind.
Again not in all cases, I'm not denying there are real trans people out there who benefit from transitioning.
This whole second paragraph is FUD, as should be obvious from the phasing "irrevocable harm to their bodies". Dismissal as a "social phenomenon" is naive in the extreme, as is the author's revealed ignorance of mainstream medicine's approach to transgender minors.
Actually, there's evidence some of the hormone blocking drugs given to children are not reversible and have serious side effects in some cases, including the loss of bone density. [1]
It's my understanding that multiple studies have affirmed this. So your claim of FUD is unfounded in this case.
If they want to transition back, they can’t do it fully since they won’t be able to have children anymore. So technically it is irrevocable harm to their bodies.
You think taking male hormones as a teenage girl is harmless - you know it can make them sterile right? How about a radical double mastectomy?
This has real, irreversible effects. Shame on the adults for pushing parents or forcing parents to accept this, and shame on you for dismissing my very valid concerns as FUD.
> If people can't even question the science, treatments or effects on children
People absolutely can do this. Research is done and presented in journals regularly without controversy. It is just that not all criticism is valid. "I'm criticizing the research" is not an invincible shield that one can hide behind. The research must be methodologically sound and dispassionate. The specific transphobic guests that Rogan has brought on have not done this kind of research.
I think Joe Rogan is so popular because he openly espouses ideas that MANY people feel and believe. It almost has to be the case. Basically, I think he believes that everyone should be free to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone -- unless they are trying to hurt each other in a fight, which is where the trans debate he's had is born from. It's a sort of "liberaltarian" approach that holds a lot of appeal and seems like an antidote against extreme views from the Left and Right. He seems like a genuinely good guy that is super interested in lots of different viewpoints.
I think it is far simpler than that. He is macho, and that is popular due to evolution. The meanest monkey has the most offspring, but the meanest monkey has turned into the one no one wants to fight, so he can risk being cuddly, but it is a act. The meanest monkey is still there.
FWIW Libertarianism is super trendy, but misguided, because, in a nutshell, it leads to tragedy of the commons, and ultimately, pure socialism.
Leaving aside the usual quip about HN being an endless source of entertainment when it comes to attempting to comprehend basic concepts in biology that they weren't taught in high school, I'm wondering about something.
What's with the propensity for the typical HNer, and the tech demographic in general, to subscribe to the whole alpha/beta charade in the first place? Your average programmer isn't usually a bodybuilder or even what you may call a 'Chad'. Even on social media, blogs, and generally speaking the whole ecosystem of believing dumb evopsych crap, the most prominent speakers aren't exactly paragons of traditional masculinity themselves. And conversely, Joe Rogan himself (if you're willing to consider an MMA pro 'alpha') probably doesn't care at all about the Google memo.
So, like, if you're soft-spoken, introverted, maybe effete, maybe overweight, what's the point of doing all this? Why fantasize about an immutable, evolutionary-driven hierarchy of males if you're not even putting yourself at the top? Does that stem from self-loathing? Maybe a fetish of some kind? I'm curious to read different perspectives from HNers.
I’d argue that we have a lot of smart but hormonal and insecure teens on this site that are just trying to make sense of the world, especially what’s important to them.
Isn't the self help section one of the largest in the bookstore? I don't see any great mystery - cults of personality, money, power, genius - aspirational culture. As far as we know haven't those things always been part of human nature? You can put a negative spin on it and call it self-loathing or fetishism but for some people it's motivation.
The HN bubble is real and it's easy to be derisive but the OP you replied to doesn't seem to be a troll. Sincere people are easy targets for the cynical but the flawed opinions of real people are more interesting than whatever sanitized death waits by appeasing something like n-gate.
Did you notice GP's hasty generalization wrapped in a straw man? Not to mention the implied ad hominem. Also, the false equivalence of macho = alpha. GP's argument is fallacy upon fallacy, and thus weak. FWIW, I was sincere, and GP is somewhat of a ridiculing bully that took it off the rails. I was not suggesting Rogan was a monkey... he is a man. With evolution, I was suggesting the reasons for which macho is attractive. Is GP saying the the meanest monkey didn't produce the most offspring? And that it was the most sensitive monkey? I can't make heads or monkey tails of it.
I really don't know what you're talking about. But I do recognize a hasty generalization wrapped inside a straw man.
Not sure why I'm bothering with your bully's argument.
I said Rogan was "macho." Macho is not the equivalent of alpha, so that's another fallacy right there. I explained in simplest terms how macho could be the reason why the attention is there, which is due to evolution. Rogan isn't the meanest monkey, he's not a monkey, he's a man. So you're saying maybe the meanest monkey didn't produce the most offspring? That's evopsyche crap? Maybe the meanest monkey was outcast, and the most sensitive monkey produced the most offspring? I don't understand what you're saying.
Why would it matter to those that tune in to him how Rogan sees himself? How could anyone know that?
I've always figured it was an ego-preservation mechanism. Subscribers to this belief don't see themselves as successful or attractive, but being successful or attractive is a major part of their sense of self-worth. The emotionally healthy response would be to address why they don't see themselves as attractive or successful, or maybe to question whether those make sense as part of their self worth.
Some people can't or won't do those options though, so their brains move to the next option to preserve their sense of self-worth: deflection. They believe they are unsuccessful or unattractive, but they can preserve some of their self-worth by believing that their perceived lack of success or attractiveness is due to factors outside their control. They were born into a hierarchy stacked against them, or they just weren't born with the right genes to concede. They're caught between a rock and a hard place; they either tell themselves that they're failures but it's okay because it's someone else's fault, or they tell themselves that they're failures and they only have themselves to blame. They literally can't see the third option, which is to tell themselves they aren't worthless.
People who would genuinely consider themselves alphas don't generally subscribe to these beliefs. There are some that claim it, but I'm frankly convinced that deep down theyre terrified they might be a beta, which is what causes the constant dick measuring in those communities as they fight to prove to themselves they really are alpha. Joe Rogan doesn't give a shit about the alpha/beta male thing because he's confident that his life has value. I'm a casual, occasional listener, and I wouldn't accuse him of being overly macho. He speaks confidently, but I don't think arrogantly. I don't think he's as clever as he's often given credit for, but that's not a mortal sin. Schwarzenegger is an even better example. Physically, the man is a paragon of traditional masculinity, but he bears no resemblance to the alpha male persona.
I genuinely have a lot of empathy for people that subscribe to the alpha male thing. I can't imagine the mental anguish of living an existence where you construct a mental hierarchy you are at the bottom of, because it's the best light you can think of yourself ever being in. It's easy to get lost in hating them because of how toxicly they expose their views, but underneath it all is just a person who's lashing out because they hurt.
How far can one take the GP's hasty generalizations straw man ad hominem argument? Well, pretty far, I guess. Fallacy hat trick! There sure is no accounting for logic at HN. Wow. When you can't speak to the argument, introduce a new topic and attack the man, but then, of course, lose the argument.
The neo-darwinian appeal is, unfortunately, not supported by evidence. The myth of the Alpha wolf is just that, a myth [0]. There is some evidence in pre-colombian contact societies that the Emperor and his cadre were responsible for many of society's children [I can't find the link right now, my bad]. However, if anything, this reinforces the societal aspect over the more 'base'/darwinian aspect.
Also, this doesn't explain Joe's appeal toward men. If the meanest monkey has the most offspring, then his appeal should be with women.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism. Calling criticism "liberal backlash" is just using name calling instead of actually disputing those criticisms. If I say "Joe Rogan is a bit of a hack IMO", that isn't the same thing as "there is growing backlash to Joe Rogan from the hn liberal tech elite."
Agreed - I've seen right wing friends who criticise Rogan get called "leftist" as an insult for it. I have no strong opinion on him, but I think he hits nerves with extremists on both sides of politics, despite the false image of being anti-liberal which has been hoisted on him, mostly by the right.
My problem with Rogan isn't political in nature but with his uncritical attitude towards his guests, and his mixture of inviting respectable scientists (say, Roger Penrose, Robert Sapolsky) and then two episodes later inviting someone like Alex Jones, some complete quack or conspiracy theorists.
Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
The article frames this as 'elitist' and implies it's bad, but I think this 'here's a real guy who broadcasts from his garage and tells you the truth the mainstream won't tell you' attitude is harmful, it feeds into a particularly American culture of anti-intellectualism, it's the modern extension of talk radio.
Ymmv but for myself I prefer not to have my hand held entire life and explained “the one true way” I’m supposed to think. There’s a ton of programming out there that already does this (for your personal definition of “the one true way”)
This is a straw man argument. There's a big difference between simply vetting your guests to weed out quacks, and pushing some single-minded idea of orthodoxy.
No it isn’t. As I said if you want your microwaved lasagna go watch 60 minutes. I want to see Dorsey, Jones etc for the lunatics that they are and be thoroughly entertained by it
So you'll trade the lasagna for a bag of Doritos and some Slim Jims? If you think there is something "authentic" about people like Alex Jones, you're delusional. They are media creations, just as surely as Dan Rather. Just less coherent.
That’s actually one of the reasons I watched that episode - to see how much of it is an act and what drove him to these levels of insanity where it’s not. This is what good interview supposed to show imo and jre is certainly not best at this but better than most interviewers out there (at least american ones)
Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from his appearance on the podcast. I think having guests from all over the political and 'quack' spectrum is a great example of sunlight being the best disinfectant. It is also a powerful bubble popping feature - very few media outlets entertain serious conversations with such a wide variety of guests.
No doubt, you can draw the line at different points. And obviously, in terms of audience and profit, Joe has found a sweet spot, with enough crazy people to be interesting but not so crazy as to make it a nonstop freak show. My point was that there's a wide band there, and that simply excluding a guest whose beliefs are demonstrably incorrect or morally reprehensible is not the same as pushing a single orthodox belief. Hence my reference to the Straw Man Argument.
So you’re praising him for keeping the balance but the show is somehow “problematic” as some folks like to say bc he invited that one crazy guest? Sounds like more of strawman to me. And yes jre style is very much softball questions I don’t think anyone really disputes that
So in your mind, the ideal show would be one where the guests are chosen at random? Otherwise, there is always the possibility that pernicious orthodoxy would play a role in setting the agenda. And of course it couldn't be on Spotify; the free version plays ads, which definitely push a consumerist orthodoxy. And it couldn't all be in a single language, because as we all know, each language embodies certain cultural orthodoxies. Quite the dilemma, putting together the show of your dreams. ;-)
How about you just skip those episodes? I cannot understand your form of reasoning at all. You are morally reprehensible if you think your standards of acceptance should be used as a template.
Thank you for explaining this. De-platforming is an annoying liberal tick that ends up creating an information disparity. When trying to get more information the only thing that comes up are a few intelligentsia-approved articles that lack an accurate description of the de-platformed individual.
I see the "who decides" argument used a lot like this, where the implication is that the mere nature of something being subjective means one must not leverage discernment, or that a single authority must be able to be established. I feel like the engineering types of minds attracted to HN are more prone to accidentally committing this kind of fallacy, as it involves a bias towards black and white objective processes.
I certainly think there is room and use for discernment in guest selection. My "who decides" is a bit of hyperbole in this case but my point is more that Rogan's podcast has a much wider band of guests across the political / scientific / psuedoscientific spectrum. It lets the listener be 'the decider' much more than most if not all other podcasts and media more generally.
Your memory is faulty here. Yiannopolous made his comments on a much smaller podcast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Peasants), and the hosts challenged Milo in ways that Joe and JRE doesn't.
I'm not sure declining to invite Alex Jones onto one's platform would qualify as forcing one's definition of "the one true way" on others. That's kind of an over-deep reading of that person's character.
I haven’t watched anything he did since the Waking Life time so it was interesting to see the downward trajectory there. I hate twitter and other “social” networks with a passion so jre and couple other independent voices are my only window into these sort of cultural phenomenons
But it also doesn't hurt to have him, you don't need to buy his man pills. To declare him dangerous is rather counter-productive. Especially since there are alternatives for that where you never need to see him. So what exactly is the problem?
They've been friends for over 20 years. The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion. And love him or hate him, Alex Jones is one of the most interesting people on this planet. It'd be a disservice to his listeners to not invite him on the show.
> The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion.
Sure. And that doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Rogan's format freely mixes experts, non-experts, and faux-experts in ways that contribute to an overall undervaluing of expertise in our culture. That's worth criticism even if he is friends with a conspiracy nut and wants to shoot the shit.
Me too, that's why when someone tries to feed me bullshit, like Joe Rogan has many times, I decide to ignore them, because they are untrustworthy and misinforming me. And I happily share that information with others, because that's the nice thing to do.
That's what people who don't need their hand held do.
And if you didn't write Joe Rogan off a long time ago then, I hate to tell you, you do still need some hand holding apparently.
Your morally superior attitude of telling others what's correct is exactly what people dislike about other shows. People who "don't need their hand held" can separate the information from the host and think for themselves.
I find that there is still something to learn from the guests that are batshit crazy.
You learn what aspects of their message resonates with their audience, even if their reasoning is clearly flawed. Rogan is unique in that he frequently let's guests speak freely enough that they divulge the reasons they believe the things they do. And that insight can be incredibly enlightening.
As Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Of course, you prefer the “alternative” which tells you actually the truth is just the opposite of what “they want you to believe” and you figured it out because you’re so smart and not afraid to offend people and go against the grain.
I don't listen to that many podcasts. Tyler Cowen has an excellent podcast called Conversations with Tyler, Russ Roberts is a long time podcaster/blogger with a focus on economics, Lex Fridman has a good science/compsci focused podcast and Sean Carroll's Mindscape as well as Ezra Klein's podcast I think have almost always high quality, fairly diverse guests.
I'm well aware none of these have the audience that Joe Rogan has, but I find that a weird metric for comparing quality or how informative something is.
Agreed that those are excellent podcasts! Ezra Klein is one of my favorites and I am always delighted by how he seems to productively engage with people on his show. His guest list is also pretty diverse although it is mostly intellectuals.
I don’t think much is lost to the world by not engaging with Trolls or Quacks. There seems to be a weird kind of “both sides” going on where people seem to think that they should be heard from whereas there are so many interesting folks I would rather choose to listen to instead.
Do you instantly know the truth in every conversation? Do you argue every point or do you let the topics flow naturally? Joe Rogan is no different. He's not an interviewer but just a guy who has long conversations. That's why many guests are his close friends, and also why people are eager to be guests in the first place and talk for hours.
The long-form uncritical nature is what made the show popular and gives you a chance to really see how someone thinks and speaks. It's a rare thing in the world of quick soundbites and prepared presentations. What you do with the information is up to you. Judge it, ignore it, research it, refute it - but that's for you to do.
Also for all the claims of anti-intellectualism, the show has introduced me to more interesting guests of all kinds than anything else.
People are so used to shows and popular voices pushing agendas that it seems they're flummoxed when one isn't doing that. Apparently under the impression that Rogan is endorsing everything his guests say and that his listeners just blindly absorb/repeat.
But he isn't pushing an agenda, isn't telling you what to think, doesn't filter by ideology. He's just having conversations with people that he thinks are interesting and treats them respectfully, like a friend would in real life. That's why it resonates, is refreshing, and will continue to mystify those that expect everything to fit neatly in a pre-defined, pre-approved box.
This is a false dichotomy of filtering vs non-filtering. It’s sad that we are at that point in polarization where we can’t have a discussion or debate anymore and everything has to be either labeled or unfiltered. A knowledgeable host or other guest challenging a guest about a scientific fact is not having an agenda, it’s critical thinking than can lead to a healthy discussion and it used to be interesting for listeners to make their own opinion, it’s not hand guiding. There is a large spectrum between being completely passive/complacent and confrontational/insulting/canceling.
Joe Rogan is already in the middle. There are plenty of arguments and introspections where he strives to get more details and confirm the truth.
He just doesn't do it all the time with every guest and topic; but that's a side-effect of having long casual meandering conversations so people get upset when it doesn't happen with intensity they want against the content they disagree about.
In order to be in the middle you need to express an opinion. He seems to not be anywhere on the political spectrum, and that annoys me. Why listen to a political nihilist host morally depraved, political extremist crackpots?
In the context of this thread, being in the middle means he neither accepts everything blindly nor argues every single point, but questions refutes topics where he's knowledgeable or curious about while letting the conversation flow freely. It produces the greatest insight into how the guests think and what they really believe.
Rogan has expressed many strong opinions and has changed those opinions over the years. He's definitely not a nihilist and very clearly leans left on most issues with a few conservative points regarding individualistic rights and personal freedom. He also hosts many interesting people from many disciplines that I've learned a lot from.
It seems like you've never actually listened to any episodes and your comment represents the ignorant and shallow views that people accuse the JRE show of having.
Someone might listen because they believe the world is more complicated than a one-dimensional 'political' model would imply, and that the vast majority of reality and the human experience lies outside of the select few categories that exist in any given society at the moment.
"Forgive him; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
Yes, and Rogan would fall into the healthy part of that spectrum. People who say he's totally passive or unchallenging aren't actually familiar with the show - they're just echoing a tired tribal talking point.
The mere act of having someone insane on a podcast elevates them and gives them attention. Makes them look like you could consider taking them seriously.
Most people are not capable of critical thinking. To pretend like every viewpoint should be given equal attention and people will sort it out for themselves is astonishingly naive. You must know people in real life who believe in insane conspiracy theories propagated on, for instance, facebook. When Joe Rohan hosts Alex Jones, this is the kind of thing he’s enabling.
But he chooses his guests. You can’t say he exercises no editorial control over the content of the show because he just lets the conversation flow. He chose to have Alex Jones on.
> To him, he's just another friend on the podcast.
I know. And to people critical of Rogan's editorial choices, he is a malicious liar who was given a massive platform with which to share his views in an uncritical setting.
Have you actually watched any of the shows with Alex Jones on JRE? What I’ve seen is Rogan doing a great job of calling him on his BS, while still being friendly. I wouldn’t call it an ‘uncritical setting’.
And those people should perhaps listen to the episodes to see that it was far from uncritical, or they will ironically continue in the same ignorance they claim the show to have.
Alex Jones is a terrible human being. Rogan is another con man in Jones’ vein, and the fact that they’re friends should tell you that Rogan isn’t a good person, either. Nobody who chooses to amplify Jones can be considered a decent person.
What's interesting is that all these warnings against Jones and guilt-by-association is generally from people blindly repeating the same thing while being ignorant and uninterested in the real details. The very episodes that people are worried about are actually the best explanations of who Jones is and his friendship with Rogan, and they include disclosures and harsh criticisms against what he's said and done.
Overall I don't understand the big deal about him. I've met truly evil people (from cartel members to death row inmates) and Jones doesn't come close. He's full of extremist conspiracies but he's also extremely easy to ignore. He barely makes a mark compared to the typical social media drivel these days anyway.
I don't really get the 'truth from the garage' vibe from Rogan's podcast. To me the space he creates by not strongly challenging his guests and by keeping the guests list so varied is that of a sort of neutral ground that people can sample other viewpoints from. Almost all other podcasts are easily filtered into the left/right buckets, end up with their respective entrenched audience and help build that audiences bubble. If someone listens to Rogan's podcast they might hear some quackery along the way but they certainly won't end up in a bubble. I prefer sifting through the sludge to find what resonates with me rather than having hosts do it for me.
Those scientists must've felt some appeal going on Rogan's show, despite guests like Jones. That's probably why they agreed to it. How does that feed into a culture of anti-intellectualism?
This type of ethical dualism can be dangerous to your critical thinking long term. Implying that he needs to keep his guests straight suggests an agenda to be pushed. Having either Jones or Penrose on the show does not give it credibility or take it away.
> Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
I don't think it makes sense to criticize Joe Rogan for casual run your mouth conversation when we all know Joe rebranding to be more scientific and educational would destroy him and anyone else who tries. Trying to be sciency while winning isn't really a thing in US broadcasting.
The late Mr Rogers suggests that those in broadcasting have elevated responsibilities as per their elevated stature in society, but maybe those who follow such advice have all but disappeared, undernourished by the market.
As I’ve said before, I’m terribly sad that Mister Rogers is no longer with us, but I’m so happy he didn’t live to see what television and the internet have become.
I think Mr Rogers would have carved out a niche in the internet just as surely as you and I are having a reasonable discussion involving hackers from all over the world.
Him not being Yet Another Gatekeeper of the Anointed Opinions is actually pretty nice. Having a blank slate, laying out all options, even fringe ones, and letting people form their own opinions, it's a huge advancement in a media world where everything is ultraprocessed and spoonfed to the audience.
You shine light on conspiracists and fools, for everyone to see, not just hide them in the shadows. That feeds them.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but people on HN eat up the argument of "do your own research, make up your own mind" as an excuse for not challenging even obvious the most obvious BS.
I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to do quality research of every guest he has on. Even if I did, I can't match the manpower or experience of a professional media outlet to do even basic fact checking. For stuff that isn't decided fact, I also don't necessarily have the breadth of knowledge to even know where to look for the competing opinions on a subject.
If I, a student, don't have the time to do that research, then what percent of a percent actually does? Like I was describing, what small fraction of that can even do that research effectively? My guess is that it goes to zero pretty quickly with the complexity of the subject.
That might not be a problem for the most controversial guests where I already have my defenses up. But, what about the more subtle guest who is pushing extreme views based on literal misinformation, but sounds plausible enough that I buy into it?
That is solely your problem that you don't understand it's on you to verify information. You as a student don't have time to quickly look up basic information on topics? Then I suggest that you also don't have time to listen to 3-4 hour podcasts for enjoyment. I work 60 hours a week and I never understand that frail argument. If you buy into information spoken freely, it is solely on you. I understand that by you mentioning you are a student, you are likely quite young. 10 or even 20 years from now you many not even hold these opinions you are forming currently. You may wish to actually preserve free speech.
Who is fact checking your teachers if you don't have the time to do these things? Do you just accept that whatever your teachers are now telling you within a school setting are true, fact, or something you should follow?
I can think back 15-20 years ago to multiple things teachers told me to accept as true or fact that were really just a teacher pushing their own agenda/ideology or belief on an entire classroom of impressionable youths.
I enjoy this very much. I believe in giving the audience the choice to determine that for themselves, you seem to prefer the paternalistic approach we had in the past.
> Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
If anything, that is wonderful. Having multiple opinions put forward without context is a great way to engage critical thinking skills. The audience then has to decide what they 'feel' is correct. If the people with the facts can't sway the audience with said fact, then they should go back and figure out why that is. That will help them in the future and make the facts all the stronger.
"liberal" is too wide of a brush, basically; most folks are liberal (and also conservative!) and so the label brings in too many folks. Rogan's further to the left than the "liberal" centrist media; if it were not for all of the "signaling" that he does, like being a person who enjoys MMA, then he would be branded as a "socialist" just like his guests Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang.
Ten words or less to answer the headline: Because mass media is actually quite illiberal.
The article makes this distinction. There are people who have liberal beliefs and people who are embedded in liberal culture. That liberal culture is directed by the liberal intelligentsia.
And I think your suggestion that liberal intelligentsia and the legacy media aren't intertwined is unfounded.
Rogan is an individualist. By this I mean he supports telling people to take control of their own lives, better themselves, hear different ideas and make their own opinions. Enjoying combat sports such as Boxing, MMA, and Football means you approve of people making their own conscious decision to potentially scramble their brain. I also enjoy these sports, and if someone wants to scramble their brain playing football or getting their skull bashed in by a fist, that’s their decision and they can accept my entertainment dollar.
The concept of individualism is anathema to many on the left. In general, they want everyone to see themselves as part of a collective, blame society (or just “someone else”) when they have a problem, and expect the government to provide with sustenance cradle to grave. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad - but someone with this belief system will not approve of someone whose an individualist that advocates for personal responsibility, relying on one’s own skills, and not expecting society to put a band aid on every boo boo one receives.
There is also a belief in “toxic masculinity” which is hard to define, but beating the shit out of someone else in a ring probably triggers some people to see toxicity. However a lot of males need this sort of outlet for aggression, and by saying “males” need something specific it probably also triggers a lot of people who reject concepts of inherent male and female traits and major differences between the genders in preferences based on sex alone.
You missed the important takeaway, that undeniably the best outcome includes a mix of individualism AND collectivism. The UN, Red Cross, US Military, a billion other examples of societal good stemming from collective institutions exist and they cannot be ignored when listing the merits of individualism.
I agree there is a healthy balance. But when trying to analyze why Rogan is extremely popular with a mostly male audience, and the major left wing talking heads completely ignore him or react very negatively, we need to assess the values of the political left in regards to what Rogan represents. That was the point of the article and also my comment.
The problem is that at least two of the things you mentioned would be heavily disputed in being "societal good". The UN and US military have both done some incredibly screwed up stuff.
Honestly the media hating on Rogan isn't more complicated than getting eyeballs and ad revenue.
"How X makes you fat" or "Why X is more dangerous than you think" where X is something common and popular. In this case X is just Joe Rogan instead of coffee or chocolate.
> many on the left. In general, they want everyone to see themselves as part of a collective, blame society (or just “someone else”) when they have a problem, and expect the government to provide with sustenance cradle to grave
I'm on "the left" but I think your viewpoint here is too extreme.
Individual responsibility is very important but society at-large should also help : taxes for healthcare, elder-care, infrastructure, education.
The same reason Howard Stern ridiculed podcasters - 'the media' is threatened by anyone who isn't part of 'the media' but can take a chunk of their audience away.
Joe Rogan's podcast is not about politics, the only people upset with a dude who likes to tell jokes and has a sensible set of opinions, are people who don't like anyone who has a set of opinions that happens to differ from theirs on subjects they 'deeply care about'.
The media and liberals(the overlap there is large) have insulated themselves from the rest of society. So when they’re confronted with (many times majority) other opinions and views, they go berserk.
I’ve never really watched Joe Rogan and haven’t followed the current controversy, but I was surprised when Spotify signed his big deal because I knew enough to know he was polarizing.
The people who made the decision were probably focused more on the popularity and potential revenue than worrying about the content because it's already been widely available for years.
That's also why the backlash is strange and unexpected since the content hasn't changed, just the hosting platform.
How did you know he was polarizing? Did you know why? Did you care?
When someone gets labeled "polarizing" I tend to check it out and decide for myself, because those are the people with the most interesting ideas.
The only thing you really need to do to be polarizing these days is bring up any topic that’s been politicized. I guess it would be more accurate to say his show covers polarizing topics.
Even though I don’t watch his show I’ve seen enough internet fights about it that I know it’s not easy, safe, PC content.
You seem to think I was saying he’s bad or something, which I wasn’t.
But it is apparent that you are commenting, just to comment. Why comment if you have no knowledge of the topic at hand? Is being totally fair and rational about any topic "polarizing?"
There literally is no controversy. It's more like 20-30 people screaming loudly that they aren't getting their way. If you listened to the podcasts the past few months/years you'd notice nothing. Unless it's a controversy that a very small handful of individuals wish to censor Joe Rogan's 2k+ hours of podcast episodes because they truly believe they have some right to do so. It's absolutely insane to me personally that anyone could try to stick the label "polarizing" to Joe Rogan, as it shows they don't know what they're talking about. He is dead in the center and purely logical to topics. He has an open mind, can listen and be kind to any person from any walk of life, and he leans towards being pretty progressive. I think it shows when someone tries to label him in such a way that they both admittedly don't know enough about him to make such classification, and that they wish to label him to signal they are in some camp or don't agree with a certain thing he has said. It's totally absurd. He is one of the kindest human beings on this planet, bar none. If he is labeled unfairly and tarred and feathered, there is virtually no hope for humanity.
I went carnivore a week ago and so far the results are amazing. Thank you Joe, sincerely, for talking to Mikhaila, Jordan, Shawn, etc. Surfacing stuff like that is why his platform grows.
Rogan is a target because outwardly reasonable people just get in the way of radical agendas. When they come for the comedians, I think it's really truth they're afraid of.
But Rogan isn't provocative about much at all. He appears unapologetically honest about his feelings toward the people and topics he's presented with, and I think that guileless honesty is a contagious threat to a mainstream that trades in outrage. He reminds me a lot of the way when John Stewart utterly took down Tucker Carlson by just in-effect appealing to the principle of being a good man. At the time, Carlson represented a neocon movement that had become just as cynical about truth and power as regular people see ostensibly progressive elites in media being today.
Personally I think as an emotion, most anger originates somewhere in shame, and Rogan's avuncularity and basic good nature triggers people in proportion to their other issues - which the outrage-trade is designed to elevate and exalt. A self-described meathead who is professionally funny and who people genuinely like is anathema to humourless true believers who can't see past their own sense of purity, and in a social media culture that thrives on hysteria, together, are a perfect storm for backlash. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Joe Rogan espouses a mindset that is not conducive to skeptical inquiry. He will readily accept for face value anything that fits into his assimilated world view. Oftentimes those ideas are unscientific, pander to conspiratorial mindsets, and are often just down right wrong. Furthermore, he will often make his show a platform for people who are either full of shit, full of hate, or crackpots and snakeoil salesmen. I think the best term described for his show is that he is Oprah for Men, and she's just as bad. In my opinion he is only one or two steps removed from Alex Jones. Once in a blue moon he'll have an interesting guest on but no one that's willing to stand up to him and hold him accountable.
Hold an comedian accountable? How much anger does the population have when people, that makes others laugh for a living, have to be accountable for others?
The JRE show has very little in the realm of comedy, and is more driven by Joe's philosophical views and opinion than any semblance of comicality. If his show was generally a stand up routine I would not have the same critique or hold it to the same level of skepticism.
I like the JRE podcast a lot, but I come for the guests. Joe Rogan is an entertainer and taking what he says on the podcast as authoritative "news" is poor judgement.
I've always looked at it this way as well. Echoing some other commenters here, I don't understand why he's polarizing. I haven't heard he himself present a lot of polarizing views on things. His guests on the other hand, some are absolutely off the charts in terms of how polar their views are.
The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.
He is polarizing because some people think he is perpetuating what to them is “wrong think”, sadly that notion comes primarily form the more left leaning people in society, the amount of times I’ve heard him described as Alt-Right and thinking really?
What Joe reminds me is of is the era of old school broadcasting where you had giants like Mike Wallace who were willing to interview pretty much anyone of note.
And while Joe’s format is pretty much free form rather than researched guided interview it’s very different than what you have on the media today where you have essentially people form only one side of the spectrum or worse the BBC style of “balance” where on each subject they’ll get the two biggest loons they can find to balance eachother out.
IDGAF that Alex Jones was on his show I didn’t watch that episode because he doesn’t interest me, just like I didn’t watch the episodes with Abby Martin who’s pretty much the left wing version of Jones.
Exactly. It's not a news program, it's a podcast for entertainment. It kind of takes a special kind of something to believe anything otherwise. Go read a mathematics textbook if you want authoritative news.
It is a talk show podcast. It's not a news program and I often see this conflated to the point that people say things as you've just said "not to take it as authoritative news."
Nobody with a brain is doing that, and further more, there is no authoritative news. We are at a point where everyone wants to be an internet celebrity for likes and social clout and where the government agencies and employees themselves have been spreading their own forms of misinformation. I'll never forget for the rest of my life how the Surgeon General both __tweeted__ and went on national news coverage to tell people to stop buying masks, we don't need them. That's your scammy, bullshit "authoritative news."
Isn’t Joe Rohan a libertarian rather than a liberal? The article lost me on that in the very beginning. Not saying anything against Rogan (or for Rogan for that matter), but I’ fairly certain his ideals align with libertarianism, not liberalism.
You know what Joe is? Joe is that fun friend I had in high school that I could just shoot the shit with. He's that dude I got high with in university and discussed all manner of topics with. Joe is the person who in my professional world, does not (and possibly cannot) exist.
I miss the Joes in my life, and I think that's what originally led to me picking up his podcast. Sometimes I'm just tired of all the engineering discussions and want to enjoy something _else_. I didn't listen to him because of some deep seated desire to push against "the left's" control of speech, or because I thought he was a particularly polished interviewer. No, I could tell from the beginning he was way too into pseudoscience and that a lot of his guests were not well informed. But again, it was something different, and something interesting to think about. Something that in my day to day I would never consider, even if what's espoused on his podcast is complete bologna. It's almost a form of creative thinking.
Every now and then, however, he would say things that didn't sit well with me. But I liked Joe, and I could ignore a few small misgivings, we're all human after all, right? However, as time passed, these small things kept piling up. Like when he had a Native lawyer on who wanted to speak about the atrocities committed against her people and all Joe wanted to do was grill her about what great bloodthirsty warriors the Comanche were. Or when he asked Owen Smith what the benefit of having a woman of color in the Vice President's seat would be.
Eventually, after all the misinformation about corona started, I just couldn't look away from the pile. It had just gotten too big. And given the possible seriousness of the situation, I think it's reasonable to hold people like Joe responsible for the misinformation they spread. And for me, he failed.
I still have a soft spot on my heart for Joe, but I just can't listen to him anymore.
What misinformation about corona did he spread? It's my understanding that governments all around the world and the WHO were also responsible for spreading massive misinformation at the start of the pandemic.
For example, WHO were vehemently against border closures with China and they parroted the CCP's lies of no community transmission in late January (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
Even Dr Fauci worked hard to spread the misinformation (he knew it was false at the time) that masks were not protection against the virus. He later admitted he spread this misinformation in order to protect supplies for healthcare staff.
The BI article does not say Fauci spread misinformation,
> "I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people"
He told people not to wear masks because they were not effective. This statement is patently false and he knew it to be false at the time he made it. Since then, he has made opposite claims about masks.
> "When it became clear that we could get the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," he said.
"And also, it soon became clear that we had enough protective equipment and that cloth masks and homemade masks were as good as masks that you would buy from surgical supply stores," Fauci added. "So in the context of when we were not strongly recommending it, it was the correct thing."
I enjoy the Joe Rogan podcast because it is unique in the current world of media.
The host is a comedian and a MMA commentator, yet he talks to people from all walks of life, ranging from politicians, scientists to musicians and instagram celebrities. He doesn’t have any strong political agenda or affiliating with certain groups. He’s a regular dude just curious about other people’s life and views, and really gave his quests enough room to express themselves. This is important to many of us, that we want a platform where we can see the real, the human side of the guests, letting them explain themselves, rather than just snippets of soundbites clipped with different intentions by different groups, or 2-minute quick debates that’s often confusing than informative. That’s what makes the show more trustworthy to some people than some big networks.
There are warts that I frown upon as well. I disagree with some of this diets and views on intravenous supplements and stem cell treatment. And I never listen to his shows about aliens. But I have come to acceptance that aren’t and will not be a perfect show. The balance between informative and entertainment and eye-opening is quite a compromise. I think an educated person should treat the platform as a source of information, rather than THE source of information.
I guess what I really appreciate about the show is that people with vastly different views can still chat, drink and have a good time. For example, as someone outside US, I nevered had a good impression of Bernie Sanders until I watched the show seeing him talk and reason. I never imagined Richard Dawkins’s response about consuming weed and mushroom. I have learned a lot from Joe about being an interviewer on how to get along with people you don’t fully agree with, especially on how to handles some of his consipiracy-loaded friend. Many of the TV interviews are too “heated” and “confrontational” for my liking. Sometimes I just enjoy listening to some silly and relaxing conversations. Bullshit from the guests can be distinguished without the interviewer actually calling them out on the show.
In the age of chaos and cancelling, I really appreciate such a platform. I hope the deal with Spotify will not direct the show to a narrower road. As his popularity rises and being closer to the political war zone, I wish him and the show good luck.
I like him because he challenges the trans mafia. They tend to be unhinged and cause a lot of noise against anyone that doesn't submit to their fanatical views.
JRE espouses beliefs that resonate with many people but have become more taboo in recent years which is partly why I think he is successful. It's reassuring to know that the extremists haven't completely won yet.
Whenever I read about Joe Rogan on HN I wonder how many people have actually listened to one of his podcasts or are just mad/concerned he had X crackpot on his show.
You should check it out one day. It's not nearly as controversial or dangerous to society as apparently some people want you to believe. I found a coffee I really like from a guest he had on once.
Lol what a loaded title. Rogan is the next shock jock, and this kind of article is built to generate more publicity for him. Not much else to be said. Enjoy it for entertainment- it's not a substitute for journalism.
Rogan is no different than Larry King or Phil Donahue. They're all talk show hosts, entertainers at best. Nothing of substance is gleaned from talk show entertainers. Besides the ways and means to fiddle with "view" numbers is well known to anyone who makes the effort to investigate it.
I don't like him moving to Spotify. With regard to idealism I think Vimeo f.x. would have been cool. But just practically speaking - originally the show might be a podcast but I nonetheless need the video with the audio to enjoy it. Also the interviews are way too long for me to sit them through which is why I liked the JRE Clips Channel.
184 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 225 ms ] threadIf people can't even question the science, treatments or effects on children then it feels like a political ideology is at the wheel.
I've noticed this online in traditionally liberal-leaning forums. There's no room for nuance in discussion without being the recipient of vicious attacks, deplatforming or bans. If the case for transgender rights is so strong, you should not need these tactics to make your case. Make your case, don't attack those who respectfully question the policies and science.
I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding they're trans and transitioning when much of the time they're simply confused teenagers. You merely have to look at how it clusters in friend circles like a contagion of the mind for proof it's a social phenomenon and not a biological one. Adults who should know better are encouraging them to do irrevocable harm to their bodies. I don't care where you fall on trans rights, that's going to be looked upon as a terrible tragedy down the road that we allowed this to happen.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/
And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.
>Notice of republication
>After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
For those who don't know, PubPeer was designed as a kind of forum where people can discuss articles after they're published (with or without a pseudonym). Of course, it almost instantly turned into a place for anonymous whistleblowing and call-outs for fraud, replication failure, etc. So while it's not an absolute rule, an article having one comment or two on PubPeer is usually a middling red flag for that article being generally dubious.
The reason I'm talking about all this is that the parent's link has twenty-five (25) comments on PubPeer. See for yourself, read the discussion and make of that what you will.
[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/pubpeer/
If there's some property "being trans" which functions like we think "being gay" does, either set biologically or early on in life or some combination of those, then you expect this property to be relatively randomly distributed in the population.
What you see instead is one teenage girl transitions and then her friends are far more likely to also transition. The effect clusters around social relationships. Hence it's a social contagion of the mind.
Again not in all cases, I'm not denying there are real trans people out there who benefit from transitioning.
Dr. Debrah Soh lays the argument out in much greater detail and with supporting citations in her book: https://www.amazon.ca/End-Gender-Debunking-Identity-Society/...
It's my understanding that multiple studies have affirmed this. So your claim of FUD is unfounded in this case.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5647/rr-0
This has real, irreversible effects. Shame on the adults for pushing parents or forcing parents to accept this, and shame on you for dismissing my very valid concerns as FUD.
People absolutely can do this. Research is done and presented in journals regularly without controversy. It is just that not all criticism is valid. "I'm criticizing the research" is not an invincible shield that one can hide behind. The research must be methodologically sound and dispassionate. The specific transphobic guests that Rogan has brought on have not done this kind of research.
FWIW Libertarianism is super trendy, but misguided, because, in a nutshell, it leads to tragedy of the commons, and ultimately, pure socialism.
What's with the propensity for the typical HNer, and the tech demographic in general, to subscribe to the whole alpha/beta charade in the first place? Your average programmer isn't usually a bodybuilder or even what you may call a 'Chad'. Even on social media, blogs, and generally speaking the whole ecosystem of believing dumb evopsych crap, the most prominent speakers aren't exactly paragons of traditional masculinity themselves. And conversely, Joe Rogan himself (if you're willing to consider an MMA pro 'alpha') probably doesn't care at all about the Google memo.
So, like, if you're soft-spoken, introverted, maybe effete, maybe overweight, what's the point of doing all this? Why fantasize about an immutable, evolutionary-driven hierarchy of males if you're not even putting yourself at the top? Does that stem from self-loathing? Maybe a fetish of some kind? I'm curious to read different perspectives from HNers.
The HN bubble is real and it's easy to be derisive but the OP you replied to doesn't seem to be a troll. Sincere people are easy targets for the cynical but the flawed opinions of real people are more interesting than whatever sanitized death waits by appeasing something like n-gate.
Not sure why I'm bothering with your bully's argument.
I said Rogan was "macho." Macho is not the equivalent of alpha, so that's another fallacy right there. I explained in simplest terms how macho could be the reason why the attention is there, which is due to evolution. Rogan isn't the meanest monkey, he's not a monkey, he's a man. So you're saying maybe the meanest monkey didn't produce the most offspring? That's evopsyche crap? Maybe the meanest monkey was outcast, and the most sensitive monkey produced the most offspring? I don't understand what you're saying.
Why would it matter to those that tune in to him how Rogan sees himself? How could anyone know that?
Some people can't or won't do those options though, so their brains move to the next option to preserve their sense of self-worth: deflection. They believe they are unsuccessful or unattractive, but they can preserve some of their self-worth by believing that their perceived lack of success or attractiveness is due to factors outside their control. They were born into a hierarchy stacked against them, or they just weren't born with the right genes to concede. They're caught between a rock and a hard place; they either tell themselves that they're failures but it's okay because it's someone else's fault, or they tell themselves that they're failures and they only have themselves to blame. They literally can't see the third option, which is to tell themselves they aren't worthless.
People who would genuinely consider themselves alphas don't generally subscribe to these beliefs. There are some that claim it, but I'm frankly convinced that deep down theyre terrified they might be a beta, which is what causes the constant dick measuring in those communities as they fight to prove to themselves they really are alpha. Joe Rogan doesn't give a shit about the alpha/beta male thing because he's confident that his life has value. I'm a casual, occasional listener, and I wouldn't accuse him of being overly macho. He speaks confidently, but I don't think arrogantly. I don't think he's as clever as he's often given credit for, but that's not a mortal sin. Schwarzenegger is an even better example. Physically, the man is a paragon of traditional masculinity, but he bears no resemblance to the alpha male persona.
I genuinely have a lot of empathy for people that subscribe to the alpha male thing. I can't imagine the mental anguish of living an existence where you construct a mental hierarchy you are at the bottom of, because it's the best light you can think of yourself ever being in. It's easy to get lost in hating them because of how toxicly they expose their views, but underneath it all is just a person who's lashing out because they hurt.
This biological essentialism is something that has become popular on both poles of the political spectrum.
Libertarianism isn't the smartest choice in my opinion, but a solid defense if discussions seem to get derailed.
Also, this doesn't explain Joe's appeal toward men. If the meanest monkey has the most offspring, then his appeal should be with women.
[0] https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/how-to-really-be-alp...
I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue.
Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
The article frames this as 'elitist' and implies it's bad, but I think this 'here's a real guy who broadcasts from his garage and tells you the truth the mainstream won't tell you' attitude is harmful, it feeds into a particularly American culture of anti-intellectualism, it's the modern extension of talk radio.
Sure. And that doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Rogan's format freely mixes experts, non-experts, and faux-experts in ways that contribute to an overall undervaluing of expertise in our culture. That's worth criticism even if he is friends with a conspiracy nut and wants to shoot the shit.
That's what people who don't need their hand held do.
And if you didn't write Joe Rogan off a long time ago then, I hate to tell you, you do still need some hand holding apparently.
Your morally superior attitude of telling others what's correct is exactly what people dislike about other shows. People who "don't need their hand held" can separate the information from the host and think for themselves.
I can already tell from your comment what a nice wholesome person you are
You learn what aspects of their message resonates with their audience, even if their reasoning is clearly flawed. Rogan is unique in that he frequently let's guests speak freely enough that they divulge the reasons they believe the things they do. And that insight can be incredibly enlightening.
As Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
I can go on CNN or Foxnews to see that.
Let's have a list of programming that's excellent by your standards that also has millions of listeners for each episode for comparison.
I'm well aware none of these have the audience that Joe Rogan has, but I find that a weird metric for comparing quality or how informative something is.
I don’t think much is lost to the world by not engaging with Trolls or Quacks. There seems to be a weird kind of “both sides” going on where people seem to think that they should be heard from whereas there are so many interesting folks I would rather choose to listen to instead.
I want raw and unfiltered content.
The long-form uncritical nature is what made the show popular and gives you a chance to really see how someone thinks and speaks. It's a rare thing in the world of quick soundbites and prepared presentations. What you do with the information is up to you. Judge it, ignore it, research it, refute it - but that's for you to do.
Also for all the claims of anti-intellectualism, the show has introduced me to more interesting guests of all kinds than anything else.
People are so used to shows and popular voices pushing agendas that it seems they're flummoxed when one isn't doing that. Apparently under the impression that Rogan is endorsing everything his guests say and that his listeners just blindly absorb/repeat.
But he isn't pushing an agenda, isn't telling you what to think, doesn't filter by ideology. He's just having conversations with people that he thinks are interesting and treats them respectfully, like a friend would in real life. That's why it resonates, is refreshing, and will continue to mystify those that expect everything to fit neatly in a pre-defined, pre-approved box.
He just doesn't do it all the time with every guest and topic; but that's a side-effect of having long casual meandering conversations so people get upset when it doesn't happen with intensity they want against the content they disagree about.
Rogan has expressed many strong opinions and has changed those opinions over the years. He's definitely not a nihilist and very clearly leans left on most issues with a few conservative points regarding individualistic rights and personal freedom. He also hosts many interesting people from many disciplines that I've learned a lot from.
It seems like you've never actually listened to any episodes and your comment represents the ignorant and shallow views that people accuse the JRE show of having.
"Forgive him; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
Most people are not capable of critical thinking. To pretend like every viewpoint should be given equal attention and people will sort it out for themselves is astonishingly naive. You must know people in real life who believe in insane conspiracy theories propagated on, for instance, facebook. When Joe Rohan hosts Alex Jones, this is the kind of thing he’s enabling.
And in case you didn't know, Joe Rogan has been personal friends with Alex Jones since the 90s. To him, he's just another friend on the podcast.
I know. And to people critical of Rogan's editorial choices, he is a malicious liar who was given a massive platform with which to share his views in an uncritical setting.
Overall I don't understand the big deal about him. I've met truly evil people (from cartel members to death row inmates) and Jones doesn't come close. He's full of extremist conspiracies but he's also extremely easy to ignore. He barely makes a mark compared to the typical social media drivel these days anyway.
I don't think it makes sense to criticize Joe Rogan for casual run your mouth conversation when we all know Joe rebranding to be more scientific and educational would destroy him and anyone else who tries. Trying to be sciency while winning isn't really a thing in US broadcasting.
The late Mr Rogers suggests that those in broadcasting have elevated responsibilities as per their elevated stature in society, but maybe those who follow such advice have all but disappeared, undernourished by the market.
I also don’t view him as anti-intellectual at all. He also calls his guests out constantly.
You shine light on conspiracists and fools, for everyone to see, not just hide them in the shadows. That feeds them.
I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to do quality research of every guest he has on. Even if I did, I can't match the manpower or experience of a professional media outlet to do even basic fact checking. For stuff that isn't decided fact, I also don't necessarily have the breadth of knowledge to even know where to look for the competing opinions on a subject.
If I, a student, don't have the time to do that research, then what percent of a percent actually does? Like I was describing, what small fraction of that can even do that research effectively? My guess is that it goes to zero pretty quickly with the complexity of the subject.
That might not be a problem for the most controversial guests where I already have my defenses up. But, what about the more subtle guest who is pushing extreme views based on literal misinformation, but sounds plausible enough that I buy into it?
Who is fact checking your teachers if you don't have the time to do these things? Do you just accept that whatever your teachers are now telling you within a school setting are true, fact, or something you should follow?
I can think back 15-20 years ago to multiple things teachers told me to accept as true or fact that were really just a teacher pushing their own agenda/ideology or belief on an entire classroom of impressionable youths.
This is actually the part I like the most, and I think contributed the most to his success.
I don't like conflict and arguing, that is also why I stay away from the news.
His podcast feels like you meet some interesting person at the bar, and keep talking to them until the late hours.
Nobody needs to convince anyone about something.
And at the end of the night, you go home and think what you want to think.
> attitude is harmful
I disagree completely.
If anything, that is wonderful. Having multiple opinions put forward without context is a great way to engage critical thinking skills. The audience then has to decide what they 'feel' is correct. If the people with the facts can't sway the audience with said fact, then they should go back and figure out why that is. That will help them in the future and make the facts all the stronger.
This is quite condescending..
Also people fail to understand that the appeak of extreme right has never been a matter of facts.
Ten words or less to answer the headline: Because mass media is actually quite illiberal.
And I think your suggestion that liberal intelligentsia and the legacy media aren't intertwined is unfounded.
In a capitalist system, we're a liberal society because we _have to_ be. Don't take my word for it, read some John Locke - the Father of Liberalism.
The concept of individualism is anathema to many on the left. In general, they want everyone to see themselves as part of a collective, blame society (or just “someone else”) when they have a problem, and expect the government to provide with sustenance cradle to grave. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad - but someone with this belief system will not approve of someone whose an individualist that advocates for personal responsibility, relying on one’s own skills, and not expecting society to put a band aid on every boo boo one receives.
There is also a belief in “toxic masculinity” which is hard to define, but beating the shit out of someone else in a ring probably triggers some people to see toxicity. However a lot of males need this sort of outlet for aggression, and by saying “males” need something specific it probably also triggers a lot of people who reject concepts of inherent male and female traits and major differences between the genders in preferences based on sex alone.
Does the mainstream “anything” care about JRE ?
He is a successful podcaster, not in the mainstream (and when he gets there he will be accused of selling out anyway)
Should CNN, MSNBC or Fox have him on as a commentator or discuss his views?
"How X makes you fat" or "Why X is more dangerous than you think" where X is something common and popular. In this case X is just Joe Rogan instead of coffee or chocolate.
> many on the left. In general, they want everyone to see themselves as part of a collective, blame society (or just “someone else”) when they have a problem, and expect the government to provide with sustenance cradle to grave
I'm on "the left" but I think your viewpoint here is too extreme.
Individual responsibility is very important but society at-large should also help : taxes for healthcare, elder-care, infrastructure, education.
I think we're called democratic-socialist now
Joe Rogan's podcast is not about politics, the only people upset with a dude who likes to tell jokes and has a sensible set of opinions, are people who don't like anyone who has a set of opinions that happens to differ from theirs on subjects they 'deeply care about'.
Did Spotify know what they were buying?
That's also why the backlash is strange and unexpected since the content hasn't changed, just the hosting platform.
knew enough to know he was polarizing
Even though I don’t watch his show I’ve seen enough internet fights about it that I know it’s not easy, safe, PC content.
You seem to think I was saying he’s bad or something, which I wasn’t.
But Rogan isn't provocative about much at all. He appears unapologetically honest about his feelings toward the people and topics he's presented with, and I think that guileless honesty is a contagious threat to a mainstream that trades in outrage. He reminds me a lot of the way when John Stewart utterly took down Tucker Carlson by just in-effect appealing to the principle of being a good man. At the time, Carlson represented a neocon movement that had become just as cynical about truth and power as regular people see ostensibly progressive elites in media being today.
Personally I think as an emotion, most anger originates somewhere in shame, and Rogan's avuncularity and basic good nature triggers people in proportion to their other issues - which the outrage-trade is designed to elevate and exalt. A self-described meathead who is professionally funny and who people genuinely like is anathema to humourless true believers who can't see past their own sense of purity, and in a social media culture that thrives on hysteria, together, are a perfect storm for backlash. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.
What Joe reminds me is of is the era of old school broadcasting where you had giants like Mike Wallace who were willing to interview pretty much anyone of note.
And while Joe’s format is pretty much free form rather than researched guided interview it’s very different than what you have on the media today where you have essentially people form only one side of the spectrum or worse the BBC style of “balance” where on each subject they’ll get the two biggest loons they can find to balance eachother out.
IDGAF that Alex Jones was on his show I didn’t watch that episode because he doesn’t interest me, just like I didn’t watch the episodes with Abby Martin who’s pretty much the left wing version of Jones.
No one that knows this podcast takes JR serious on anything else than MMA/fighting, hunting, or the stand up comedy world.
Guests supply everything else, which is the point of bringing in people so different to each other.
I remember reading a quote that said "the golden rule of conversation is to know nothing accurately."
Something along the lines:
> I am a moron and you shouldn't trust anything I say, I am a comedian having fun talking to people
Nobody with a brain is doing that, and further more, there is no authoritative news. We are at a point where everyone wants to be an internet celebrity for likes and social clout and where the government agencies and employees themselves have been spreading their own forms of misinformation. I'll never forget for the rest of my life how the Surgeon General both __tweeted__ and went on national news coverage to tell people to stop buying masks, we don't need them. That's your scammy, bullshit "authoritative news."
I miss the Joes in my life, and I think that's what originally led to me picking up his podcast. Sometimes I'm just tired of all the engineering discussions and want to enjoy something _else_. I didn't listen to him because of some deep seated desire to push against "the left's" control of speech, or because I thought he was a particularly polished interviewer. No, I could tell from the beginning he was way too into pseudoscience and that a lot of his guests were not well informed. But again, it was something different, and something interesting to think about. Something that in my day to day I would never consider, even if what's espoused on his podcast is complete bologna. It's almost a form of creative thinking.
Every now and then, however, he would say things that didn't sit well with me. But I liked Joe, and I could ignore a few small misgivings, we're all human after all, right? However, as time passed, these small things kept piling up. Like when he had a Native lawyer on who wanted to speak about the atrocities committed against her people and all Joe wanted to do was grill her about what great bloodthirsty warriors the Comanche were. Or when he asked Owen Smith what the benefit of having a woman of color in the Vice President's seat would be.
Eventually, after all the misinformation about corona started, I just couldn't look away from the pile. It had just gotten too big. And given the possible seriousness of the situation, I think it's reasonable to hold people like Joe responsible for the misinformation they spread. And for me, he failed.
I still have a soft spot on my heart for Joe, but I just can't listen to him anymore.
For example, WHO were vehemently against border closures with China and they parroted the CCP's lies of no community transmission in late January (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
Even Dr Fauci worked hard to spread the misinformation (he knew it was false at the time) that masks were not protection against the virus. He later admitted he spread this misinformation in order to protect supplies for healthcare staff.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...
https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152
> "I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people"
> "When it became clear that we could get the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," he said.
"And also, it soon became clear that we had enough protective equipment and that cloth masks and homemade masks were as good as masks that you would buy from surgical supply stores," Fauci added. "So in the context of when we were not strongly recommending it, it was the correct thing."
The host is a comedian and a MMA commentator, yet he talks to people from all walks of life, ranging from politicians, scientists to musicians and instagram celebrities. He doesn’t have any strong political agenda or affiliating with certain groups. He’s a regular dude just curious about other people’s life and views, and really gave his quests enough room to express themselves. This is important to many of us, that we want a platform where we can see the real, the human side of the guests, letting them explain themselves, rather than just snippets of soundbites clipped with different intentions by different groups, or 2-minute quick debates that’s often confusing than informative. That’s what makes the show more trustworthy to some people than some big networks.
There are warts that I frown upon as well. I disagree with some of this diets and views on intravenous supplements and stem cell treatment. And I never listen to his shows about aliens. But I have come to acceptance that aren’t and will not be a perfect show. The balance between informative and entertainment and eye-opening is quite a compromise. I think an educated person should treat the platform as a source of information, rather than THE source of information.
I guess what I really appreciate about the show is that people with vastly different views can still chat, drink and have a good time. For example, as someone outside US, I nevered had a good impression of Bernie Sanders until I watched the show seeing him talk and reason. I never imagined Richard Dawkins’s response about consuming weed and mushroom. I have learned a lot from Joe about being an interviewer on how to get along with people you don’t fully agree with, especially on how to handles some of his consipiracy-loaded friend. Many of the TV interviews are too “heated” and “confrontational” for my liking. Sometimes I just enjoy listening to some silly and relaxing conversations. Bullshit from the guests can be distinguished without the interviewer actually calling them out on the show.
In the age of chaos and cancelling, I really appreciate such a platform. I hope the deal with Spotify will not direct the show to a narrower road. As his popularity rises and being closer to the political war zone, I wish him and the show good luck.
You should check it out one day. It's not nearly as controversial or dangerous to society as apparently some people want you to believe. I found a coffee I really like from a guest he had on once.
> one of the largest and most influential media platforms in U.S. politics, if not the single most influential