[HN Gopher] Observations from our Joe Rogan Experience experience
___________________________________________________________________
Observations from our Joe Rogan Experience experience
Author : phgn
Score : 206 points
Date : 2022-08-30 11:41 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lulu.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lulu.substack.com)
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Whether or not you like Joe Rogan, I think there's something
| significant about how far they've come with so little.
|
| They don't have many employees. They don't take much time to
| produce shows. They don't have countless assistants to schedule
| logistics. They keep their operating costs modest. And yet their
| shows reach a mass audience.
|
| I respect how a small team has kept onto their autonomy and
| continues to grow and be in the headlines constantly depending on
| what was discussed. They just push content into the world and the
| world reacts to it.
| threeseed wrote:
| I don't think it's particularly impressive.
|
| He's not that different to a top-tier Youtuber or influencer of
| which there are hundreds who have managed to build successful
| content businesses with very small staff.
|
| They are all just standing on the shoulders of the platforms
| and content creation tools which allows them to affordably
| produce and distribute high quality content to billions.
| Something which has never previously been possible.
| prepend wrote:
| > I don't think it's particularly impressive.
|
| It's the highest listened to podcast for many years now. You
| don't find that impressive?
|
| I'm not a Howard Stern fan, but I'm impressed by the reach of
| his satellite show.
|
| Do you not find podcasts impressing at all? Reaching millions
| of people for hours each week is very rare.
| adammarples wrote:
| I remember Joe podcasting back when there were like 3
| podcasts available. He came out shortly after the iphone, the
| first platform he was available on was probably iTunes. He's
| been doing it a long time where many have failed.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| SyneRyder wrote:
| Podcasting was around long before the iPhone. There's a
| reason it's called _Pod_ casting.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > I remember Joe podcasting back when there were like 3
| podcasts available.
|
| According to [1], JRE launched in late 2009. According to
| [2], podcasts took off spectacularly in 2004 and by 2005,
| every man and his dog had a podcast (paraphrasing, obvs.)
| Whilst he has been doing it a long time, he was relatively
| late to the party.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joe_Rogan_Experience
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting#Tim
| eline
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| I have no evidence to back it, but it felt to me like
| there was a podcasting boom around 2004-2006, and then I
| stopped hearing about them until a revival circa 2014,
| when everyone and their mother was listening to Serial.
| towaway15463 wrote:
| Pretty shitty dig. You'd better get started on creating that
| universe if you ever want to claim credit for anything.
| nomel wrote:
| I don't think this is right. The podcast and YouTube space is
| incredibly competitive. Everyone has the same shoulders to
| stand on.
|
| Nobody watches top tier YouTubers, rather than others
| YouTubers, because of the platform. The platform is
| _absolutely saturated_ with others, making identical content.
| It 's the same with podcasts. The same guests are almost
| always making rounds to all the other podcasts, yet people
| prefer Joe Rogan over all the other podcasts the guests are
| on. Why?
|
| The top tier people have some mix of personality traits,
| physical traits, work ethics, or talents that separate them
| from everyone else. That ability to be so massively separated
| is what should be considered "impressive", since it's
| provably not trivial or common.
|
| I'm always impressed by someone getting to number one, on
| their own merit, because I know the reasons are _extensive_
| rather than simple. Well, except for something like OnlyFans.
| koheripbal wrote:
| The real question is how he got such good guests in the
| beginning.
| jjulius wrote:
| He was already a celebrity before he started his podcast.
| nomel wrote:
| Another question being, since those same guests have been
| present on many other podcasts (most do rounds for
| promotions), why does his podcast seem to be preferred?
| notdarkyet wrote:
| It should be pretty clear if you look at Joes career outside
| of the podcast. For 30 years he has been in the entertainment
| industry with stand up comedy, television (News Radio and
| Fear Factor), to announcing UFC fights.
|
| He was one of the fist big podcasts and livestreamers before
| others started doing the same. Most of his initial (and
| repeat) guests are simply friends from these various
| industries.
| hammock wrote:
| Unless you consider Joey Diaz to be a "such good guest," he
| didn't
| mattwilsonn888 wrote:
| Reread what you responded to. I'm sure it is a large
| component.
| tharne wrote:
| He let his guests talk without trying to put words in their
| mouths. He respects his guests and takes a sincere interest
| in them. In other words, he's the exact opposite of most
| people in the media.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| The same thing that attracts so many to his podcast is what
| drives so many away: his lack of a political agenda. Many
| people find it refreshing that Rogan can talk (mostly listen)
| to nearly anyone without pushing his (or anyone else's) agenda
| on them or acting as some sort of policeman to attack those
| with views that various groups of people don't like.
|
| Unfortunately in today's environment, many people (most of the
| ones who don't like Rogan) think it is incumbent on everyone to
| be a wokescold. They think that having a conversation with
| someone somehow grants them legitimacy or "normalizes" their
| views, while intelligent people with coherent, well-thought out
| principles understand that legitimacy is not something that is
| granted through proxy.
| StrictDabbler wrote:
| Truly, it is incredible that a sitcom star from the peak of
| network television and who hosted one of the first major
| reality television gameshows and the early years of the MMA
| rise has managed to parlay that _tiny_ bit of fame into a
| podcast listenership of 12 million.
|
| If only the rest of us could do so much with so little.
| choxi wrote:
| I think the overpolished and analytics-driven media
| personalities left a vacuum for an authentic voice to fill.
| Someone would have filled it, and it happened to be Joe. It's
| not like someone sufficiently motivated could repeat his
| success trajectory, part of it is always being in the right
| place at the right time too.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| His prior fame undoubtedly helped him get off the ground, but
| if you think the show's success coasts purely on his earlier
| fame, I'm afraid to say this is a story you're telling
| yourself, seemingly in part, to make yourself feel better.
|
| A podcast doesn't stay relevant with a large and loyal
| audience unless it's actually good. To pretend like JRE is a
| continued success purely because he was on TV before 1)
| ignores the countless podcasts started by people far less
| famous than Rogan was when he started which have failed to
| take off and 2) sounds like a cynical, resentful thing you
| tell yourself feel better along the lines of "well, if I came
| from where Rogan did, I'd be just as successful."
|
| Whatever you want to say about the reasons anyone tuned in to
| begin with, it's transparently unfair (and betrays your own
| "issues") to not offer a balanced perspective which includes
| the need to acknowledge the obvious which is that Rogan's
| success just might be _also_ due to the fact that he is a
| good interviewer, that he has good guests on his show, that
| he's able to spark interesting conversations, etc.
|
| The idea that his TV stint and MMA fame makes a listenership
| of 12M an automatic thing is just laughable.
| StrictDabbler wrote:
| I was replying to a comment about *how small Rogan's staff
| is.*
|
| You appear to have missed that context and have launched
| into a passionate defense of his talent, behavior and
| personality. As a bonus you've dipped into the ad hominem
| well at least twice.
|
| If you think it's impressive that somebody very famous can
| make a podcast with only three employees, ok. Go ahead and
| be impressed.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Unreal this amount of effort is spent defending Joe Rogan.
| NeverFade wrote:
| 1. Attack a person incessantly.
|
| 2. Some people come to his defense.
|
| 3. "Why is there so much effort to defend this person?!"
| tharne wrote:
| Unreal this amount of hate toward a man who does not
| claim to be an authority on anything and happens to have
| a popular podcast.
|
| Don't like Rogan? Don't listen to him and leave it at
| that.
| oswald42 wrote:
| Yes, let's ignore he became a successful star first. That was
| obviously just handed to him. Success breeds success only if
| you have some actual ability. Otherwise he'd be a one hit
| wonder. At one point he really only did have as much as
| anyone on HN, and probably even less.
| golemotron wrote:
| > Whether or not you like Joe Rogan, I think there's something
| significant about how far they've come with so little.
|
| Joe identifies as a man.
| ssizn wrote:
| I think he means the entire team.
| bavila wrote:
| The statement was clearly meant as a joke, albeit a flat
| and stale one.
| eachro wrote:
| they as in him + his assistant(s) that produce the show
| bioemerl wrote:
| In addition to what some others are saying here, they is
| often used as a singular gender neutral pronoun and not a
| specific pronoun that excludes the others.
|
| I use singular they all the time, especially online where
| people are accounts and not people.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| If by, "they", you mean the show, then the show's name is The
| Joe Rogan Experience. Joe Rogan is the host.
|
| The team behind the team started small and have managed to stay
| small despite the massive audience. Very cool indeed.
| [deleted]
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Scrolled through the comments here for a bit. Polarization at its
| prime. Good job HN.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| I'm not going to bother digging up the clip cuz it's easy to
| find, but it pretty much tells you what you need to know about
| Rogan.
|
| It's him talking to Joe Diaz, where Diaz is bragging about how
| when he was the manager at Laugh Factory he wouldn't book female
| comics unless they sucked his dick. Rogan asks him how many women
| he did this to and Diaz says a dozen or something, and Rogan
| starts hyena laughing like it's the funniest thing he's ever
| heard.
|
| Rogan gets some great guests on, but don't be fooled by his "aw
| schucks I'm just a bro asking questions" act. He knows exactly
| what he's doing and he's a lot more predatory than his on camera
| character.
|
| Something to consider before you associate your brand with him.
| Probably better to find an up and rising podcast.
|
| Edit: freetime2 dug up the clip below and it's even worse than I
| recalled.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| "I take everything two comics say at face value and it's not
| funny"
| babyshake wrote:
| An anecdote like that would be a great opportunity to ask Diaz
| if he had reflected on the way he had acted and felt remorse,
| or if he would want his daughter/sister/spouse to be treated
| that way. Podcasts can sometimes be an excellent venue for
| having heartfelt conversations about difficult topics. What a
| shame.
| brailsafe wrote:
| I feel like you'd have to be pretty deep into silicon valley
| progressive culture to actually ask this instead of presuming
| that people have the capability of coming to that conclusion
| on their own. I would assume that someone would laugh at just
| how absurdly awful it is.
| bowsamic wrote:
| Diaz is absolutely disgusting
| xdennis wrote:
| He's one of the most entertaining guests though.
| jjulius wrote:
| >He's one of the most entertaining guests though.
|
| "He won't give women a job unless they suck his dick, but
| _boy_ is he great! "
| [deleted]
| EarlKing wrote:
| Better take: Joe Rogan has an uncanny ability to make people
| think he's just a bro asking questions and uses that to get
| people to admit to truly horrendous behavior, free of
| judgement, for his profit and your shock.
|
| Seriously, what do you expect him to do when someone says
| something like that? Immediately end the broadcast and summon
| the police? What exactly do you think shows like this are for?
| jjulius wrote:
| >Seriously, what do you expect him to do when someone says
| something like that?
|
| Instead of "hyena laughing", he could maybe go, "Wait, wait,
| you actually did that? That's how you hired women? That's
| pretty fucked up, you know that, right?" and then start
| having a tough conversation about it.
| slg wrote:
| You don't even have to go deep into the archives to feel
| uncomfortable with this whole world's treatment of gender
| issues. Directly from this article:
|
| >At a long desk in the big main room sits an attractive nurse.
| She offers us an enhancer of B12 or NAD+, through a shot or an
| IV.
|
| >I get a shot of NAD+, which is supposed to be good for energy
| and metabolism. NAD stands for Nicotinamide Adenine
| Dinucleotide, and I don't know what the + is. (Actually, I
| don't know what any of it is, but the nurse said she takes it,
| and if you saw this woman, you too would ask for a shot of
| whatever she's on.)
|
| What are we supposed to take away from this? Is this nurse
| actually trained for this? If so, isn't the author completely
| dismissing that training because the nurse is attractive? If
| not, isn't Rogan basically just hiring a model to pump his
| guests full of unknown drugs? Neither option is great. And this
| was written by the VP of Communication for Substack and is
| approved by Rogan. This isn't some unauthorized look behind the
| scenes. This is what they want to advertise. It just gives me
| the creeps.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Well no, the way I read is quite literal without anything
| misogynistic - if a person is saying that they personally
| take X to affect their body, then the appearance of their
| body is some (weak but still) evidence about what effect X
| has, and the decision of whether you want to imitate their
| actions is influenced by whether you want to look like they
| do, whether the results they're getting seem worth imitating.
| The author was apparently considering that personal
| experience as a user of that product (and the visible
| outcome) was more relevant than whatever some specialist
| would have read about it.
|
| Like, for an example of the opposite gender, if someone you
| trust says they did a particular treatment to fix male
| pattern baldness, then it seems reasonable to put some weight
| in their personal experience and how their hair looks after
| the treatment, especially if you don't trust the official
| descriptions/PR/advertising claims, then even small amounts
| of anecdotal but real evidence might seem more valuable.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| > What are we supposed to take away from this? Is this nurse
| actually trained for this?
|
| This a nurse not a metabolism researcher, she might know a
| fuck ton about NAD+ but it wouldn't be because she's a nurse.
| Most medical professionals (especially nurses) are trained on
| the delivery of medical care, not necessarily the ins and
| outs of supplements.
| nipponese wrote:
| FYI, the author is female, so I believe this qualifies as a
| "female perspective".
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Asking one person to speak for a group is a quick way to
| arrive at personal bias.
| slg wrote:
| The author wasn't a mystery to me. I mentioned her by her
| title. Misogyny isn't limited to men. Many women who run in
| male dominated worlds such as tech and comedy will often
| use misogyny as a shield to let the men around them know
| _she is one of the cool ones_.
|
| This is not an accusation against the author's character.
| Like I said in my original comment, I don't know what she
| is trying to say with that comment. Although I guess that
| is its own accusation. Maybe the VP of Communication isn't
| great at her job if I don't understand what she is trying
| to communicate.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Yeah, that line stood out to me as well in exactly the
| same way. From reading it I think besides the "I'm one of
| the cool ones" effect she's doing a bit of if by whiskey.
| Even when she's criticizing Rogan et all she does it in a
| way they're likely to just be even more proud of.
| Shank wrote:
| > If not, isn't Rogan basically just hiring a model to pump
| his guests full of unknown drugs?
|
| > Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is a coenzyme
| central to metabolism. Found in all living cells, NAD is
| called a dinucleotide because it consists of two nucleotides
| joined through their phosphate groups...NAD exists in two
| forms: an oxidized and reduced form, abbreviated as NAD+ and
| NADH (H for hydrogen), respectively. [0]
|
| It's worth noting that NAD+ is well-known. Artificial
| supplementation I'm not so sure about, but it's inside you
| already. I...somehow doubt they're just injecting raw NAD+
| but I suppose it could be?
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinamide_adenine_dinuc
| leot...
| slg wrote:
| Cyanide is also well-known and probably inside me already
| and yet I wouldn't be happy with someone injecting it
| directly into me.
|
| I don't really care about the specifics of what they are
| injecting. I am objecting to how they are pressuring
| people, perhaps unintentionally, in the moment to accept
| the injection of a substance in which the injectee admits
| they don't understand. It is especially ironic considering
| Rogan's various comments about vaccines. Thousands of
| doctors can tell me that the COVID vaccine is safe and I am
| supposed to doubt them. One nurse tells me NAD+ is safe and
| I am supposed to believe her.
| ryanisnan wrote:
| Yeah, I don't know if this article is a great look for
| Substack. Sounds like the author at least suffers from FOMO
| and falling prey to peer-pressure.
| dshpala wrote:
| There are people that don't let a single mistake sink a person.
| Yes that episode is bad and leaves bad taste, but everyone
| makes mistakes.
|
| So yeah, I like Joe Rogan, and I'm fine with associating my
| brand with him. But if you know rising podcast stars like him -
| please share.
| jjulius wrote:
| >There are people that don't let a single mistake sink a
| person.
|
| Sure, but it's pretty easy to find plenty of similar
| instances throughout the JRE catalog.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| so there's definitely no reaction ever that anyone would ever
| be disgusted by you with, you're a perfect individual with no
| vices whatsoever
|
| it's not like rogan was the one asking someone to suck his
| dick, if anything he exposed someone else
|
| plus, why is laughter painted as agreement? it's a mechanism of
| coping with ridiculous circumstances. i'd probably laugh out of
| that whole conversation becoming super awkward
| gsatic wrote:
| This gens Charlie Rose I guess.
| mduerksen wrote:
| So _one_ clip tells you _everything_ you need to know. Do you
| judge everyone this way? One mistake and their whole character
| is defined by that?
|
| Do you live up to that standard, or would someone be able to
| find some damning evidence of some dark side of you?
|
| Is it possible that people are messy, not always consistent in
| their behaviour, that they have bad days? That they haven't
| thought everything through, that they get caught in the moment
| and regret it later?
|
| Is there _any_ grey area to you?
| hotpotamus wrote:
| You know, I've done things I'm not proud of, but I generally
| try to keep those things to myself rather than broadcast them
| out for money.
| oswald42 wrote:
| xdennis wrote:
| In those days Rogan's audience was very small and he wasn't
| making much off of the podcast (if at all).
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Ah well that makes it ok I suppose. Was he also a much
| younger man back then and he couldn't have been expected
| to know better? That usually excuses a lot too.
| [deleted]
| powerset wrote:
| Not to dispute any of your points, but one of the reasons I
| find some of the JRE podcasts interesting is that he gets
| people to open up and talk about (admit to) stuff they
| otherwise might not. Joey's comments are repulsive, but it's a
| good thing we now know what kind of person he is.
|
| Not sure if that's a net positive overall, but it's something
| to consider.
| tomohawk wrote:
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Well, there are "scolds" and there are people who think it's
| bad to compel female employees or contractors to have sex
| with their boss.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Hunter S. Thompson was able to interview Nixon, despite a
| kind of hatred he held for the man that was nearly
| blinding.
|
| If you want to get people to let their guard down, be
| agreeable. Draw them out. Smile and nod. Let them hang
| themselves with their own words. That's a journalistic
| skill.
|
| If you just want to be angry at them, well, write a letter.
| Yell at them at the phone.
|
| With that in mind, is he there to 1) Let his guests know
| how much he agrees or disagrees with them? 2) Get them to
| say whatever and find out who they really are?
| ALittleLight wrote:
| That's not at all what happened between Rogan and Diaz.
| Diaz tells the story of the time he borderline raped a
| woman repeatedly to the extent she became depressed and
| defeated, and Rogan laughs along like it's hilarious.
| Diaz returned to the show afterwards and the furor about
| it, to the extent there was, was not raised by Rogan
| after the podcast, but by would-be Rogan-cancellers.
|
| It's fine if you like and listen to Rogan. Maybe he's
| grown since then. I think it's less fine to pretend like
| bad things didn't happen, aren't bad, or that Rogan is a
| journalist luring his friends to hang themselves by
| confessing misdeeds.
| exogeny wrote:
| I don't think "being repelled by stories of sexual assault"
| and "scolds" are the same thing.
| Kye wrote:
| I think "don't make sexual assault part of the interview" is
| a good virtue line. Even "don't make jokes about sexually
| assaulting employees" is good praxis, if it's a joke.
| Keyframe wrote:
| And both of them have daughters (only). There's a possibility
| it's a schtick from Diaz, he has this absurd persona, but still
| in bad taste if so.
| _n_b_ wrote:
| Even if that's true, Ken White's Rule or Goats applies:
| "[s]lightly paraphrased -- for this family newspaper -- the
| rule states: If you kiss a goat, even if you say you're doing
| it ironically, you're still a goat-kisser."
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| That's a really useful expression - thank you and Ken White
| hirvi74 wrote:
| It actually derives from an older and more crass joke.
| Said joke has been slightly modified in many different
| forms, but here is an example:
|
| (Warning -- Potentially Not Safe For Work)
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/26pf4s/an_irishma
| n_a...
| lossolo wrote:
| > And both of them have daughters (only)
|
| I don't think this is really relevant, I know plenty of
| people that will joke in the same way about other women
| besides their daughters and mothers.
| jjulius wrote:
| Maybe I'm getting off on a tangent here, but I have two
| daughters and I truly don't understand the idea that it's
| completely fine for sexually-degrading jokes to be made
| about every single woman except my wife/daughter/mother. If
| I feel that I'm free to make those kinds of jokes about
| every woman except the few closest to me, then I am
| essentially granting that same agency to every other guy,
| leaving my own kids open for those same degrading jokes
| from others. It's a double-standard, and our
| wives/daughters/mothers are going to see that. To me,
| that's a _really_ shitty thing to do as a parent; we should
| be leading by example.
|
| And that's without addressing the fact that Diaz' comment
| is potentially rooted in truth...
| freetime2 wrote:
| Here's the clip for anyone who's curious:
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news...
|
| I'm generally fairly ambivalent about Joe Rogan. I will listen
| occasionally if he has an interesting guest, and I feel a lot
| of the outrage about him is overblown. But I agree this is
| pretty disgusting.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| God, half the reason I didn't look it up is I knew it'd just
| piss me off again, but I forgot all that about being proud he
| "broke" someone.
|
| So yeah, I would _really_ not associate my business with this
| cluster of clowns.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| that video is 12 years old. As far as I can tell every
| episode back then was a bunch of wasted/high comedians
| talking sht to an audience of basically themselves
| ruw1090 wrote:
| Sure, but given multiple opportunities (every time the
| clip gets brought up) to condemn it, he hasn't. This
| should tell you enough.
| octodog wrote:
| ...so? If anything that's worse because it indicates
| their true outlook and behaviour.
| jeffy90 wrote:
| We should take into account the amount of time he spends
| being recorded, the frequency of the incidents, and the
| trends of the incidents over time. I think most everyone
| has said something wrong in the last 12 years. If it
| happened 12 years ago and hasn't happened since, then
| I'll give him a pass. If it's a repeating thing, then
| I'll judge more harshly.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| "When people show you who they are the first time believe
| them." -- Maya Angelou
| xdennis wrote:
| "Base your morality on internet quotes and don't accept
| that people and times change." -- Mark Twain
| remote_phone wrote:
| Lulu Cheng Meservey's twitter account is one of the best ever.
| Her mastery of tweets is on par with Donald Trump, but in a good
| way.
| hatware wrote:
| Joe Rogan is more of a journalist than any major news
| organization, and that is the most worrying thing about it all.
| The major organizations know this.
| greenhearth wrote:
| How so? Real investigative journalism is a discipline and a
| craft. There are methodologies, techniques, field history and
| degrees of masterhood, just like any other profession. This guy
| has a talk show on the internet.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Most major news organizations are driven more by ad sales
| than seeking truth. They say what their patrons want them to.
|
| I don't know if I agree with GP, but I understand where the
| sentiment is coming from. It's not that Rogan is a paragon,
| it's that the average quality of MSM journalism is low enough
| he may be able to crawl over the bar.
| nvahalik wrote:
| One of the things I appreciate about Joe Rogan is that, unlike
| other podcasts I've listened to, he actually lets the person on
| the other side talk.
|
| There are several podcasts that I will occasionally listen to
| where the host of the show repeatedly talks over whoever else is
| on the podcast with him. Usually the brunt of it is a "sidekick"
| or co-host.
|
| I get it, it's your show, but like, if someone is talking, let
| them talk!
|
| Maybe it's the longer format that gives that "breathing room." No
| matter: I can listen stress-free without getting upset that
| someone is saying something and he keeps barging in.
| subsubzero wrote:
| I think this is why he is so popular, 90% of the media is all
| saying the exact same message and if you deviate from it you
| get cancelled or your show/platform dropped. Americans are not
| dumb, they don't like being preached to and talked down to
| which is why Rogan's show and guests are so popular as many of
| them are saying things which are not heard on any of the other
| media outlets.
|
| That being said having watched a few JRE podcasts he definitely
| has his dogma that comes out in many episodes, here are a few:
| "hallucinogenics are good for expanding consciousness", "Most
| social media is a bad echo chamber", "tribalism is bad(and is
| the cause of most of todays issues)", "censorship is happening
| at a mass level", "medical solutions are not a one size fits
| all fix", "ufo's are most probably real" etc.. He definitely
| comes across as someone with a open mind and seems to be a life
| long learner but I think some of his ideas are somewhat out
| there. I would not classify him as someone who is dumb, which
| is strange as alot of HN folks seem to peg that on him.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| > I think this is why he is so popular, 90% of the media is
| all saying the exact same message and if you deviate from it
| you get cancelled or your show/platform dropped. Americans
| are not dumb, they don't like being preached to and talked
| down to which is why Rogan's show and guests are so popular
| as many of them are saying things which are not heard on any
| of the other media outlets.
|
| I'm really confused by this stance, because the top podcasts
| are never swarmed by one specific perspective. On my apple
| podcast the podcasts on "top episodes" lists for me both the
| nyt daily and ben shapiro in the same top 5. If I filter to
| news podcasts only, they're the top 2.
| subsubzero wrote:
| > 90% of the media
|
| media being MSM like NBC, NY Times, CNN, etc. Podcasts and
| even the popular ones are longtail so they will have
| divergent messages than the MSM players. But Joe Rogan has
| more viewers than some of the smaller networks top shows
| and that puts him squarely in the field of MSM, and those
| players mentioned before are all seeing ever shrinking
| audiences and JR is seeing his audience expand and he has
| 100x less of the support and administrative staff than
| those networks do, it must infuriate them to no degree and
| I can see why they would want him shut down.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| You're shoehorning "MSM" to mean "non-podcast media I
| don't like".
|
| It's completely dumbfounding to compare staff sizes of a
| podcast to worldwide journalism institutions. It borders
| on bad faith. "They" want them shut down? Who is they?
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I'm confused about your claim that 90% of MSM is the same
| if I'm pointing out that just briefly going to top
| podcasts points out two radically differing MSM taking
| the top 2. That doesn't sound like 90% saying the same
| stuff to me. Especially if you consider Joe Rogan himself
| to also be MSM. I don't even know the definition of MSM
| then or how you can say 90% of them are _anything_.
| panzagl wrote:
| OP is saying top podcasts are not MSM.
|
| But to address the point I think you're making, just
| because two shows have different viewpoints doesn't mean
| they're not the same- 'Fox and Friends' and 'The View'
| might have opposing ideologies, but they're the same
| show.
| nix0n wrote:
| Is there a show that lets the guests talk, except with guests
| who are worth listening to?
| koheripbal wrote:
| People listen to the JRE because he gets great guests. Almost all
| of us know Joe is a moron.
|
| Don't assume that just because we subscribe that we are being
| indoctrinated to every stupid comment he makes. That assumption
| infantilizes is all.
|
| The overreaction to filter content based on that assumption is a
| much more problematic issue than the content itself.
| nvahalik wrote:
| > Almost all of us know Joe is a moron.
|
| I said this in another comment as well--but a lot can be said
| that he actually lets his guests talk rather than talking over
| them as is the habit of some.
| npc54321 wrote:
| > Almost all of us know Joe is a moron.
|
| A moron with a hundred million podcast, after having fairly
| successful careers in both comedy/acting and fighting.
|
| And you're here in an online forum calling him a moron.
|
| He might be a myriad of things, but a moron he isn't.
| mattwilsonn888 wrote:
| You are telling people not to make assumptions about how Joe
| Rogan listeners think, right after speaking for "all of us":
|
| > Almost all of us know Joe is a moron.
|
| I'm quite certain Joe Rogan is above average intelligence, and
| that people who doubt that are usually abusing Joe's public and
| unforgiving curiosity which will sometimes lead to basic
| questions or ridiculous statements - that is the price of
| curiosity, which clearly _we fans_ are not only willing to pay,
| but look forward to.
| stoplying1 wrote:
| I'm having flashes of the episode where he spent 20 minutes
| being obstinate and then crushed about the idea that hot
| sauna air wasnt going to magically protect him from or cure
| COVID. It was hard to listen to.
| gadders wrote:
| Yeah, I wouldn't say Joe is unintelligent. He's an
| autodidact, and as a result he has gaps in his knowledge
| because he's followed his interests, rather than a formal
| curriculum.
| [deleted]
| duxup wrote:
| Years ago I listened to JRE for a while. I enjoyed the approach
| that I would sum up as "I don't know, let's hear what some folks
| think." It felt fair and open and interesting.
|
| But at some point it occurred, "Shouldn't at some point, if we're
| listening to all this that, we stop being a dumb guy who doesn't
| know anything and actually have opinion / challenge some of these
| things with some facts / solid ideas?"
|
| But I never saw that happen, and as time went on the "I don't
| know" excuses just felt ... more and more insufficient, dumb by
| choice, or just excuses.
|
| At some point just being "dumb" and listening to every rando
| person makes you susceptible to / a target of a bunch of horrible
| randos with bad ideas ... An open approach is admirable, but not
| learning along the way is not.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > But I never saw that happen
|
| Can it EVER happen, since he is a talk show host that must be
| dumb and constantly say 'Lets hear what some folks think' and
| bring even more people to his show?
| mistermann wrote:
| The ability to realize one does not know things actually takes
| a lot of intelligence. It is very often the opposite of dumb.
| duxup wrote:
| And yet not learning is dumb.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| A lot of intelligence? I know there are lots of things I
| don't know, and I even know what a lot of those things are,
| but I don't know that this really takes a lot of
| intelligence.
|
| Compared to a clam, maybe. I am definitely smarter than a
| clam. Probably.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"I am definitely smarter than a clam. Probably."
|
| I admire your defensive use of 'probably', as clams can
| contain pearls of wisdom.
| piinecone wrote:
| Depends on the clam!
| monkeywork wrote:
| I think the person who knows and accepts they don't know
| things, and more importantly will refrain from opoining on
| those things is more wise than the average person. Maybe
| not more intelligent but definitely more wise
| EarlKing wrote:
| If he challenged them then they wouldn't open up. This isn't
| Jerry Springer. Instead of demanding he do the thing you want
| to do, maybe you should be doing that after the fact. If
| someone goes on his show and admits to doing horrendous things
| then reach out to them and let them know what you think of
| them. This guy's doing you a service by exposing horrible
| people and all you can do is complain.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >But at some point it occurred, "Shouldn't at some point, if
| we're listening to all this that, we stop being a dumb guy who
| doesn't know anything and actually have opinion / challenge
| some of these things with some facts / solid ideas?"
|
| In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people who think
| they are smart and challenge "dumb" ideas with "facts" are the
| truly dumb people (see anyone in corporate media or government
| for examples of this).
| karaterobot wrote:
| > But at some point it occurred, "Shouldn't at some point, if
| we're listening to all this that, we stop being a dumb guy who
| doesn't know anything and actually have opinion / challenge
| some of these things with some facts / solid ideas?"
|
| Not if that's the format of the show, and the show is wildly
| successful.
|
| Also: what's an example of a really good interview show where
| the interviewer only brings on people they agree with, or else
| brings on people they disagree with in order to tell them
| they're wrong? That sounds like a debate show rather than an
| interview, and it doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Reminds me
| of those political interview shows on TV where the host cuts
| the guest off to yell at them.
| godshatter wrote:
| I'm one of those people who likes to entertain different ideas.
| I like talking with a flat earther, for example, and listening
| to their viewpoint on things. It's interesting and if you're
| not combative you get better information on the topic. It's
| similar to why I read science fiction and fantasy. Take an idea
| and run with it for a while. If someone believes the earth is
| flat, what would that mean? Where would that rub up against
| other things you think you know, and how does it affect them?
| With something like flat earth theory, it doesn't change me
| much except to warn me to be more careful to examine my beliefs
| from different angles so I don't end up in a sort of mental
| trap, but other topics might change me more directly.
|
| I don't look to podcasts like these to make their guests
| conform to my beliefs, I look to them to see novel perspectives
| and to glean what I can from them for my benefit, and simply
| because looking at other perspectives in a format like this
| really does entertain me.
|
| "Horrible randos" got where they were in some way, and it's
| certainly possible that they might have a unique perspective
| that might be helpful or that what they say might actually be
| information I need. I wonder if Edward Snowden, for example,
| would be classified as a "horrible rando" if he hadn't been the
| guy that worked for them and blew the lid off of what the
| government was surveilling but had only speculated about what
| they were doing as an outsider with his actual self as a
| contact in the NSA. He would be saying the same information,
| but his credibility would change. Which doesn't mean it
| couldn't be true, as it obviously was in this case. Dismissing
| him as someone who shouldn't be listened to would have been a
| mistake.
|
| I keep a lot of thoughts flowing in my head to compare new
| information against and to make connections with and rate their
| truthiness as more information comes in. The more information
| the better. You don't find the truth by listening to people
| restate your set of beliefs every day.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| how many times do you need to hear from a flat earther? its
| not really open minded to listen to the same dumb shit again
| and again. its a necessary part of growing up but it makes no
| sense to keep doing it. it takes no investment or skill to be
| a flat earther. id rather listen to people who have expended
| effort in a particular area.
| kube-system wrote:
| Bear in mind, with the Snowden example, that most people with
| expert opinions counter to his have legal and/or privacy
| concerns that prevent them from elaborating too much on the
| topic.
| abnry wrote:
| If you believe them. It is a convenient excuse.
| kube-system wrote:
| Believe what? I am pointing out an availability bias. The
| absence of dialogue is not something that you can believe
| or not believe.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| yeah, that's one of the things that would annoy me about him
| and part of peoples issues with him. Most of the time things
| are reasonable and cool on the podcast. Guys hanging out,
| shooting the shit, talking about their job/book/interests. But
| occasionally he'd have a guest who was pretty out there, and
| Rogan would just be like "wow cool!" to whatever alternate
| reality thing they were talking about.
|
| The other thing that bugged me about him is he pretty much has
| a playlist of topics he hits on most episodes. Hunting, Jiu
| Jitsu, DMT, etc. It's pretty interesting the first few times
| but after a while it's gets a little old. I still have a
| generally favorable view of Rogan but I haven't listened to an
| episode in years. I think the controversy around him is
| probably a bit overblown though.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It's the same tactic Mehmet Oz would do when he trotted out
| medical quacks on his show and let them prattle on with their
| lies unchallenged.
| batman-farts wrote:
| Reminds me of what Coast to Coast AM became under George
| Noory, too. Art Bell would occasionally offer some pushback
| or a sliver of skepticism towards his more out-there guests,
| but Noory typically let them barge ahead with their sales
| pitch unchallenged. (And the last few times I listened to it,
| it always was an explicit sales pitch of some sort.)
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| Art Bell was a national treasure. I didn't realize Coast to
| Coast AM survived him. (I don't think I've heard it since
| 2004 or so.)
|
| I'm surprised the show is still on. I'd have thought its
| niche had been filled several thousand times over by
| podcasts.
| philwelch wrote:
| > I'd have thought its niche had been filled several
| thousand times over by podcasts.
|
| Not at all.
|
| I have a distinct memory in which I'm driving alone, late
| at night, on a long road trip. I don't have any
| unlistened podcasts downloaded, I'm not in the mood for
| music, but it's late and I would like to hear another
| human voice. So I turn on the radio. The night sky is a
| magical sight that implies endless possibility, so I'm
| not in the mood for sports radio or Dave Ramsey. I don't
| know if I ended up listening to Coast to Coast AM or one
| of its imitators, but I found something along those lines
| and it hit the spot.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| *That* is exactly how I discovered Coast to Coast AM in
| the 1990s. It was late at night, I'd listened to all I
| could stand from my collection of cassette tapes, and I
| just hit "scan" with my radio set to AM.
|
| These days my unlistened podcast collection is large
| enough that I rarely get to that point. And my unlistened
| podcast collection is that large in part because the
| radio dial is a little bare lately when I hit "scan" in
| most of the places I'm apt to do so.
| hbn wrote:
| His primary goal is to be a good interviewer. He acts as a
| blank slate so the guest can bounce whatever their thing is
| they have to talk about off him.
|
| But even so, I wouldn't say he never challenges people,
| especially if it's something he actually does have a strong
| opinion on, like MMA and fitness stuff. There's a (in?)famous
| episode where he interviewed Adam Ruins Everything and they had
| a pretty big debate over some of Adam's assertions, like the
| idea that alpha males don't exist, or that men only seem to be
| better at sports because the sport was designed for them to be
| better at it.
| [deleted]
| timr wrote:
| > At some point just being "dumb" and listening to every rando
| person makes you susceptible to / a target of a bunch of
| horrible randos with bad ideas ... An open approach is
| admirable, but not learning along the way is not.
|
| I don't know what show you're listening to. I'm not a regular
| listener, by any means, but I hear Rogan routinely bring up
| things that he learns from other/prior guests. Often to
| challenge whatever he's hearing in the moment.
|
| It really feels to me that people are just looking for reasons
| to attack him because he "platforms" voices they don't like.
| That was fine when he was just a comedian with a podcast, but
| now he has An Audience (tm), so it's Bad.
|
| Rogan has certainly had some cranks on his show (IMO), but I'm
| comfortable enough with my intellect that I can listen to these
| (or not) without having my brain turned to mush.
| nomel wrote:
| I constantly hear "Well what about <idea from book or
| person>? They say <>. I had them on a while back".
| joe_the_user wrote:
| My main experience with jre recently was watching his
| interview with Robert Lazar. Lazar has considerable
| reputation in the UFO community and is a fraud and a criminal
| (convicted pimp and sanctioned for selling illegal poisons
| through his chemical supply operation).
|
| One of the thing about Rogan's interview with Lazar is he
| fails to ask the obvious questions - such as "what are your
| credentials". 'Cause with Lazar, that question already takes
| you to dubious territory since Lazar's answer is "I have a
| PhD but MIT erased my records" (and his thesis advisor went
| along with this?).
|
| And this kind of left a nasty taste in my mouth concerning
| Rogan. Sure, his questions might be just naive but it seems
| more likely he's using that naive pose to avoid the mine
| fields of the guests he likes.
| Teever wrote:
| What I found most odd about the Lazar interview was that if
| you contrast it with the Robert Bigelow interview you see
| that Rogan is totally capable of being highly skeptical
| with his kooky guests and willing to hold their feet to the
| fire.
|
| The fact that he didn't with Lazar but did with Bigelow
| indicates to me that he favours Lazar, and considers his
| story to be genuine, and that kind of bias is detrimental
| to the interview process.
| monkeywork wrote:
| Rogan has addressed this since then saying basically he
| doesn't know if Bob is full of shit but knows that he
| (Rogan) wants to believe in aliens so much that sometimes
| he goes lighter than he should.
| twic wrote:
| Considers his story to be genuine, or thinks the show
| will be more entertaining if he doesn't immediately
| discredit a fun kook?
| timr wrote:
| It's like I said: Rogan has had guests that I consider to
| be cranks. But Rogan is completely transparent about the
| guest list being people he finds interesting. That's not a
| high bar. Therefore, I don't outsource my critical thinking
| or judgment of character to Joe Rogan.
|
| I do feel for Rogan here...he's doing more-or-less the same
| thing he's been doing since the start, but now it's
| "wrong", because other people are _expecting_ him to behave
| in a particular way. He builds an audience by being a good
| conversationalist with a huge variety of different,
| sometimes nutty, people, and suddenly uptight folks expect
| him to be Walter Cronkite.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| First, I think the Lazar example says to me that he's not
| merely naive - it takes effort to not ask someone like
| that basic questions.
|
| Second, the thing with national level news isn't just
| that people are "uptight". It's that there are many
| professional and well-practiced liars out there eager for
| a softball venue (people less obvious than Lazar
| usually). These sorts of people make significant money
| from their deceptions and Rogan is an enabler of this
| stuff, making vast amounts of money himself.
|
| Edit: and just on the question of Rogan's evolution. Just
| by Wikipedia's bio, I'd say he didn't start with small
| nuts and graduate to fronting professional conmen.
| Rather, he started MMA chat, built to national level and
| then moved laterally to interviewing people saying
| "hypothetically true" things about the world in
| generally.
| evol262 wrote:
| Kind of the thing with being in mass media with an
| enormous audience is that you lose the ability to just do
| what you've always been doing. I mean, he can, by
| abandoning his platform and starting over with something
| else, but the piles of money are too attractive.
|
| Public figures who can heavily influence discourse and
| thought have an ethical obligation to not give
| unchallenged credence and a drastically increased
| audience to their nonsense. If Rogan thought that
| Goebbels was interesting and let him do his thing for
| hours to an audience of millions, he would be held to a
| higher standard. If Rogan thought that Ted Bundy was
| interesting and let him tell "his side of the story"
| without challenging it with the truth, he would be held
| to a higher standard.
|
| This is a basic which we should expect of our society.
| jgust wrote:
| We can expect it but I'm not sure that means anything.
| I'd really like people to stop giving Tucker Carlson
| attention, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
| [deleted]
| Keyframe wrote:
| David Fravor seems to speak favorably of Lazar, at least
| from what I've gathered from his JRE interview, but I see
| your point absolutely.
| btown wrote:
| > I'm comfortable enough with my intellect that I can listen
| to these (or not) without having my brain turned to mush
|
| It's an interesting turn of phrase, because there's a very
| real pipeline in which people with less-trained critical
| thinking skills listen to Rogan -> cannot distinguish
| openness from endorsement -> believe Rogan is endorsing anti-
| vaxx voices -> contribute to an aggregate increase in
| community transmissibility of communicable diseases with
| proven neurological impacts -> said diseases turn
| immunocompromised people's neurons to "mush" at an increased
| rate, through no fault or Rogan-listening of the victims'
| own.
|
| Rogan has consistently made a decision to prioritize the
| "vibe" of his podcast over pushing his interview subjects in
| a way that would make it clear that his provision of a
| platform is not endorsement. Sure, he challenges things as
| you have mentioned, but when he challenges anti-vaxx voices
| no more or no less than he would a guest who, say, had an
| opinion about hunting he didn't like, that creates a
| responsibility that I think does scale with audience size.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-
| doctor-c...
| Domenic_S wrote:
| What you're talking about is nuance, and there's
| unfortunately little-to-no room for it in modern discourse
| largely because of opinions like yours which could be
| summed up as "if this person doesn't robotically toe the
| line, then _the dumbs_ will believe things we don 't want
| them believing."
|
| Strategic lying is employed for the "greater good" in the
| context of this way of thinking frequently, the most
| egregious example probably being Fauci telling the public
| not to wear masks because privately the government believed
| that there wouldn't be enough protective equipment for
| health care workers -- they didn't want _the dumbs_ to
| panic-buy and leave hospitals vulnerable.
|
| Not looking to get into a covid debate, just pointing out
| that even governments will lie to keep the dumbs from doing
| something they don't like, and I think that's bad.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| It's basically like treating adults as if they are
| children. Something that all these public health
| "experts" did to people for 2.5 years. They talked down
| to people. Acted like they knew what was best for
| everybody (which they didn't).
|
| You don't get to treat adults like children. They are
| adults who might know something you don't.
|
| It's just toxic discourse.
| matwood wrote:
| Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. It's
| debatable if acting like children is the cause or the
| reason for treating them that way.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children.
|
| True, but it could also be their priorities are somewhere
| other than yours. Which might be okay or might not
| depending on whatever.
|
| What these "experts" and politicians did though... treat
| people like dumb children... completely inexcusable.
| futuretaint wrote:
| If we were able to get to the source of the 'trust
| science' clique, I bet we would be amazed at how
| uninteresting it all is. grievances about hurt feelings,
| mental health issues and moral panic.
| ryandv wrote:
| > It's an interesting turn of phrase, because there's a
| very real pipeline in which people with less-trained
| critical thinking skills listen to Rogan -> cannot
| distinguish openness from endorsement -> believe Rogan is
| endorsing anti-vaxx voices -> contribute to an aggregate
| increase in community transmissibility of communicable
| diseases with proven neurological impacts -> said diseases
| turn immunocompromised people's neurons to "mush" at an
| increased rate, through no fault or Rogan-listening of the
| victims' own.
|
| It's hard to find a more textbook instantiation of the
| slippery slope argument than this. Have you observed this
| "real pipeline" in operation? If so, what quantity of
| people have you seen progress through each stage of the
| funnel? If not, how do you know one exists?
|
| Or perhaps you're simply projecting whatever biases and
| stereotypes exist in your mind unto the digital simulacra
| of the "others" who don't agree with your cultural
| worldviews.
|
| Curious what other stereotypes you harbour.
| mikkergp wrote:
| I'm not confident that censorship is the right answer,
| but it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that
| information flows through complex systems in viral and
| unexpected ways and assume the best outcomes will occur
| naturally when powerful organizations and people
| promoting certain perspectives over others, without
| concern for veracity of those perspectives.
|
| There are people who travel the country after school
| shootings, comforting parents who lost children, and one
| of the first things they have to tell them is to brace
| themselves for all of the harassment and abuse they will
| receive from people who believe that all school shootings
| are false flag operations.
| ryandv wrote:
| > it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that
| information flows through complex systems in viral and
| unexpected ways
|
| Does this principle apply only to information of a
| particular political leaning, or is it a property of
| information in general?
|
| > veracity of those perspectives.
|
| What is the process by which the veracity of any
| perspective is determined?
| mikkergp wrote:
| > Does this principle apply only to information of a
| particular political leaning, or is it a property of
| information in general?
|
| Could you go deeper into why you think political leaning
| would have anything to do with it? I wouldn't think so...
|
| > What is the process by which the veracity of any
| perspective is determined?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
| ryandv wrote:
| I don't think so either. However, I have seen the
| argument made many times that opinions originating from
| particular political ideologies should be suppressed
| (which is a solution I recognize you have stated some
| qualms with), because of "bad faith actors" spreading
| misinformation virally that is too labour-intensive to
| debunk.
|
| > Scientific method Undoubtedly: and
| such teaching suffices on a subject like
| mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be
| said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity
| of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that
| all the argument is on one side. There are no
| objections, and no answers to objections. But on
| every subject on which difference of opinion is possible,
| the truth depends on a balance to be struck
| between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in
| natural philosophy, there is always some other
| explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric
| theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston
| instead of oxygen; [...] - On Liberty (1859)
| mikkergp wrote:
| So you really believe that denying any and all hierarchy
| to knowledge is rhetorically useful? Newton's laws of
| motion and Phrenology equally voratious? You can have
| this opinion but it doesn't seem compatible with building
| a society. Why should a people trying to support a
| functioning society take such anarchic philosophy
| seriously?
|
| > the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two
| sets of conflicting reasons.
|
| This is terrible reasoning, for the opposite reason you
| seem to be arguing:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
| ryandv wrote:
| This is a textbook strawman. Did you understand the
| passage quoted? John Stuart Mill clearly admits of a
| hierarchy of knowledge, ranging from the absolute truth
| of mathematics to progressively less "objective" fields
| (or perhaps, merely "a posteriori" truths), e.g. morals,
| religion, politics. Here is another excerpt from the
| paragraph: But when we turn to subjects
| infinitely more complicated, to morals, religion,
| politics, social relations, and the business of
| life, three-fourths of the arguments for every disputed
| opinion consist in dispelling the appearances which
| favour some opinion different from it. The
| greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left
| it on record that he always studied his adversary's case
| with as great, if not with still greater,
| intensity than even his own.
|
| https://xkcd.com/435/
|
| P.S. Can you demonstrate how the scientific method was
| applied when you reached the conclusion that this
| supposed "real pipeline" exists?
| mikkergp wrote:
| I never talked about a "real pipeline" that was someone
| else, also this is a very let me google that for you type
| question but here goes:
|
| https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-
| fake-n...
|
| This was a great podcast:
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/e
| pis...
|
| The research on this stuff is fascinating.
| dogleash wrote:
| > there's a very real pipeline in which people with less-
| trained critical thinking skills
|
| If this is your opinion, perhaps the problem is that
| society undervalues critical thinking skills. Not that an
| entertainer isn't shilling in the correct directions.
| ryandv wrote:
| If the intellect and judgment of mankind ought to be
| cultivated, a thing which Protestants at least do
| not deny, on what can these faculties be more
| appropriately exercised by any one, than on the things
| which concern him so much that it is considered
| necessary for him to hold opinions on them?
| - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
|
| Perhaps the cause of this problem is refusing society the
| opportunity to exercise their critical thinking skills.
|
| No matter, we can just spoonfeed everyone the received
| and accepted wisdom. Then there will be no need for any
| faculties of discernment. The Catholic
| Church has its own way of dealing with this
| embarrassing problem. It makes a broad separation between
| those who can be permitted to receive its
| doctrines on conviction, and those who must
| accept them on trust.
| Kye wrote:
| I listened to a few episodes. I concur with the assessment of
| Rogan as not being too bright. And not in a wholesome way. He
| isn't just ignorant, he's fiercely defensive of positions
| that are based entirely on the strength of "I'm just saying!
| Who can really say? Here's what I say:" no matter how many
| times people try to reach him.
| lazyeye wrote:
| Agree completely. Joe Rogan gets attacked because he is
| successful ( large audience) and he doesnt constrain himself
| to the narrow railroad tracks of a particular ideology (which
| would be incredibly boring).
| philwelch wrote:
| I've always felt that in a strong episode of the Joe Rogan
| Experience, you don't actually experience too much of Joe
| Rogan. If you're going to do a long form interview show, part
| of being a gracious host is to be open to what the guest has to
| say. And frankly, I'd much rather that people adopt Joe Rogan's
| humble attitude of "I don't know" than cop an overconfident
| attitude because they think they know everything. If you want
| to listen to some opinionated loudmouth like that, you're in
| luck because they all have their own podcasts.
| deebosong wrote:
| Not sure if this is what you're pointing at, but I feel
| similarly about those who very much enjoy talking about new and
| different ideas/ perspectives, but are loathe to test out, live
| out, and integrate new and challenging ideas into their belief
| systems. It's more like, there's a relegated space in their
| minds for "ideas to consider and discuss, even agree with and
| champion," but that relegated space is removed from their core
| value system, which has no intention to be challenged, tinkered
| with, examined, and open to replacing faulty mechanisms and
| functions.
|
| Seems like talking about ideas for some is more a form of
| amusement/ entertainment/ mental stimulation (in the same way
| recreational or escapist drugs can be mentally stimulating),
| especially if there are no outward signs & indications that a
| person is committed to testing out, applying, integrating, and
| even replacing formerly held and inferior ideas - a process
| which involves a lot of trial end error, failures, humility,
| perseverance, and delayed gratification. It might seem open-
| minded and intellectual, but if across time, there's no change
| in belief via deeper understanding from considering new and
| different perspectives, that then results in outward action,
| then all the talk in the world about ideas and perspectives is
| just hot air.
|
| Maybe that's not Joe Rogan and his loyal audience? I dunno!
| robocat wrote:
| Echos of https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/criticism-of-
| criticism...
| philwelch wrote:
| It's useful to be able to run code in a sandboxed
| environment.
|
| Or, in other words, the ideas and values that people live
| their lives by usually work for them, to some degree. Often
| in ways that aren't immediately obvious. Making changes to a
| working system that one relies on isn't something to be done
| lightly. You can see this with a specific subset of
| psychedelics enthusiasts, who end up completely fracturing
| their ability to function in reality. Or in people who don't
| have a working value and belief system in the first place and
| end up being preyed on by cults.
|
| Human life is infinitely complex. None of us have it figured
| out, and none of us are going to figure it out even if we
| lived for a thousand years. What's the biggest code change
| you think you can make to a working piece of software without
| introducing a bug? That entire piece of software is only a
| fraction as complicated as the human condition.
|
| > It might seem open-minded and intellectual, but if across
| time, there's no change in belief via deeper understanding
| from considering new and different perspectives, that then
| results in outward action, then all the talk in the world
| about ideas and perspectives is just hot air.
|
| Sure. Is that so bad? The cautionary tale on the other side
| of the ledger is every failed attempt to build a utopia based
| on theory. This sort of thing was one of the leading causes
| of unnatural death in the 20th century.
|
| To be clear, I think it's definitely possible to err on the
| other side as well. But erring on the other side looks like
| being unwilling to play with ideas at all. You need a
| sandboxed environment if you're going to play with ideas, and
| even when an idea is promising enough that you might want to
| take it out of the sandbox, it's hard to tell whether that's
| because of the merits of the idea or just a vulnerability in
| your sandbox.
| golemotron wrote:
| > Not sure if this is what you're pointing at, but I feel
| similarly about those who very much enjoy talking about new
| and different ideas/ perspectives, but are loathe to test
| out, live out, and integrate new and challenging ideas into
| their belief systems.
|
| This sounds very much like philosophy. In general, readers of
| philosophy enjoy looking at many frames without privileging
| any particular one.
| tsol wrote:
| I think it's a common modern/ academic take on philosophy.
| Traditionally Greek, Christian, Islamic, Chinese, etc
| philosophers all lived their beliefs.
| bko wrote:
| If someone is an expert in their field or has a depth of
| experience, I'd prefer him to be challenged by someone with a
| similar level of expertise. Lex Fridman does this where he
| tries to challenge people but can't articulate it and ends up
| asking "can you steelman some criticisms to what you're doing".
| I get it, but if you can't really articulate an argument, just
| keep the person talking and you'll eventually learn more.
|
| For instance, if you're talking to a Bitcoin developer and you
| ask them "what about the energy use", it's just a boring
| question that's been asked millions of times. You likely know
| the answer. I'd much rather they get in the weeds about some
| proposal or technical issue.
| nomel wrote:
| That requires a podcaster that's an expert in everything, or
| an interview on a super niche, super low subscriber, topic
| specific podcast. Odds are against both.
| SyneRyder wrote:
| I think that just defined what I like about all the
| podcasts I listen to. Topic specific, hosted by someone
| with significant experience in their field.
|
| I would much rather listen to a musician interviewed by
| someone with experience with recording & songwriting &
| making albums, who can ask intelligent questions about the
| craft & process & equipment. (Warren Huart's interviews
| with music producers are a great example.) Not some random
| gossip journalist asking "So what are your inspirations on
| this album" and "what can we expect from your tour".
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Or it requires a podcaster that does some research and
| preps questions, including soliciting questions from the
| guest's peer community. This is like journalism 101 stuff
| but because Joe is a podcaster no one has the basic
| expectation of it.
| bko wrote:
| Right which is fine, in which case I'd prefer to hear the
| person being interviewed just speak candidly and the
| interviewer to offer little guidance. It's a more natural
| conversation style, like one I would have with someone at a
| dinner party about their field of expertise.
| homarp wrote:
| or a podcaster who prepares their interview ?
| nomel wrote:
| No, original comment was:
|
| > If someone is an expert in their field or has a depth
| of experience, I'd prefer him to be challenged by someone
| with a similar level of expertise.
|
| Preparing for an interview will give you some superficial
| understanding, which will probably fall apart during the
| interview, unless the interviewer is very
| intelligent/curious (Sean Carroll's Mindscape and Newtons
| Apple comes to mind).
|
| Another alternative would be to have people on both sides
| present, but I've never seen that work out. The
| discussion you get with hostility is nowhere near the
| discussion you get with curiosity.
| chimineycricket wrote:
| Joe Rogan doesn't interview people. He might have stuff
| that he wants to bring up, but most of the conversation
| is organic which is part of the appeal I think.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| originalvichy wrote:
| I will disagree with things he says and not personally like that
| he gives some people access to a huge audience, but I will never
| discredit the fact that he (and others behind the scenes) have
| made it this far by being sort of podcasting purists.
|
| There might be only two major changes JRE has gone through
| content wise during the hundreds of episodes: no more co-host and
| no live broadcast. That's remarkably good and he had good enough
| taste to not ever take part in things like mid-show ads (as in
| stopping the chat in its tracks and starting to read ads).
|
| It's rare that someone can land it so early on and keep that
| magic recipe going. I bet touring radio shows for his
| entertainment business helped him gauge what kinds of radio shows
| were nice vs. the ones that were cumbersome.
| kyleee wrote:
| there are mid show ads now on spotify
| originalvichy wrote:
| True but they are different from ad reads that hosts do
| during the show. From what I understand they are pre/post-
| recorded ads that are added in digitally. Not live reads.
| hericium wrote:
| "Depressed? Just get over it". This guy is (edit: in my opinion)
| an idiot. He's a successful showman but (edit: in my opinion) a
| moron nonetheless. I've watched a few of his interviews and it
| always seemed like he's lacking personality - he always tried to
| copy the behavior of his guests and lacked own viewpoint.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| >he always tried to copy the behavior of his guests and lacked
| own viewpoint.
|
| Have you ever had to make an effort to be overly agreeable with
| others in order to avoid conflict? I would imagine that a talk
| show host would make a point of trying to keep things civil in
| order to keep the "back and fourth" open.
|
| If the guest and the host were immediately pissed at each
| other, it would be a lot more difficult to carry on a
| conversation.
| hericium wrote:
| No, not "overly". Everything has limits and I hope I won't
| ever have to pretend to be someone else for the sake of
| money. His "show" is made to entertain and to make money.
| Overly quickly turns into overenthusiastically and fake. He
| chooses to be a fake while pretending to be Joe Rogan. And
| Joe Rogan was someone else in every episode I've seen.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| https://www.sellingantiques.co.uk/photosnew/dealer_lornabys
| k...
| seper8 wrote:
| >"Depressed? Just get over it".
|
| Looks like someone doesn't actually listen to JRE but parrots
| some talking head viewpoints instead.
| ilogik wrote:
| seper8 wrote:
| And this link proves that by ..?
| realce wrote:
| i_love_limes wrote:
| realce wrote:
| tomcam wrote:
| From the guidelines
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't
| cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer,
| including at the rest of the community.
|
| I certainly understand not liking Rogan, but your comments
| aren't really on point. Idiot? Moron? Lacking personality?
| "always tried to copy the behavior of his guests and lacked own
| viewpoint"?
|
| These do not appear to be the observations of someone who's
| actually watched the show.
| [deleted]
| hericium wrote:
| I appreciate your comment and indeed two of three statements
| (idiot and moron) lacked opinion wording and were stated as a
| facts. I have edited my comment in a way that doesn't
| invalidate yours.
|
| But you're not right regarding me not watching "the show".
| I've seen the interview with Musk in which Musk said "this
| stuff doesn't work on me" while pretending to inhale smoke
| from a pot joint. I've seen Dan Aykroyd interview which was
| basically Dan Aykroyd advertising his skull-bottled vodka.
| I've seen dr. Rhonda Patrick episode, dr. David Sinclair
| episode and maybe 10 to 15 more episodes.
|
| I'm not ashamed to admit that I went through a very brief
| "this guy is fucking cool!" phase but after really getting to
| hear what he's got to say, my opinion of him is that he's a
| behavioral copycat and a moron.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| threeseed wrote:
| a) The guidelines are meant to govern discourse between
| people in this community.
|
| b) If I want to call Joe Rogan an idiot because I find his
| views and lack of intellectual rigour to be commensurate with
| that of someone who is ignorant and reckless then not sure
| what the issue is. He is a public figure after all.
| [deleted]
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Would be possible he lets his guests talk and expose their
| point of view without the pressure of being immediately
| "opinion bombarded"?
|
| I would argue it's mostly a podcast, not a CNN/FoxNews
| interview. But since I only listen occasionally and feel
| there's a lot of emotion attached to this subject ( for some
| reason ) I might be wrong...
| mattwilsonn888 wrote:
| This thread is a treasure trove of people who have skimmed
| content from JRE yet somehow have more insight into the show
| than the fans they seem to despise.
| stoplying1 wrote:
| Funny, the gutteral emotional reactions seem much stronger
| from people defending their totally not parasocial streamer
| relationship!
|
| It's so hard respecting people that still fall for Joe's
| obvious shtick at this point. A child just asking "why?" over
| and over would be as interesting, and would likely come
| without the platforming of altright folks and semi constant
| COVID misinformation.
|
| Edit: honestly why did I even post in this thread. I guess I
| should've skimmed other posters comments before writing some
| of my replies. Yikes.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > platforming altright folks and semi constant COVID
| misinformation
|
| In other words, he hosts people with viewpoints that some
| disagree with. And with covid there is like about 6-12
| month lag between when something is "misinformation" and it
| becomes "we always knew this'. Example: The vaccines don't
| stop transmission. Covid could have been a lab leak.
| Lockdowns fuck over the working class and kids. Etc, etc,
| etc...
|
| Most of the time "misinformation" is just a derogatory way
| to frame something one disagrees with.
| sn0w_crash wrote:
| I guess many of us enjoy listening to an idiot/moron talk for 2
| hours.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| Is that a problem? Legitimately, we glorify traditional
| metrics of intelligence, but just because someone might not
| be able to ace an SAT test doesn't automatically make their
| perspective invalid or mean they can't be interesting and
| make art (I feel like Joe Rogan would probably be good on
| most intelligence metrics though, but in general)
| threeseed wrote:
| > doesn't automatically make their perspective invalid
|
| It does when they start affecting people's lives in serious
| ways.
|
| For example him pushing ivermectin.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| It's still a valid perspective, just harmful.
|
| Having a large platform/following does not automatically
| make someone trustworthy. Low key, why do we live in a
| country where the opinion of an MMA judge/podcaster
| influences people so much, it's impossible to endlessly
| validate any claim.
|
| We may need to transition to a more authoritarian model
| of speech in which content produced by an individual
| should be truthful, or we just endlessly play wac-a-mole
| on the latest rando who gains a following
| nradov wrote:
| What a horrifying comment. You can't seriously believe
| that we should start censoring speech just because some
| random podcast guest might have stated some medical
| misinformation. Do you really want the government
| deciding whom is allowed to speak? Pretty soon they'll
| decide to censor someone you agree with, for your own
| good of course. Don't be naive.
| sn0w_crash wrote:
| "Do you really want the government deciding whom is
| allowed to speak?"
|
| The answer to this question is yes.
| kyleee wrote:
| it goes to show just how upset it makes people that the
| JRE podcast exists and is successful. a peculiar insight
| into how controlling people are that they'd casually
| suggest we may need "a more authoritarian model of
| speech" just to combat a weird celebtrity talking to
| people for 2-3 hours
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| My point was more complaining about Joe Rogan feels like
| it misses the forest for the trees. We have very liberal
| speech laws, and that means people can say stupid shit
| that some individuals may follow. Holding individuals to
| account for the consequences of their words _is_ more
| authoritarian, I don 't personally inject myself with
| horse dewormer so I don't really care
| [deleted]
| fleddr wrote:
| Joe Rogan is a perfect mirror for the US's ultra polarized
| society, which is humorless, performative, ultra correct, and
| politically intolerant.
| tomasaugustus wrote:
| A profoundly narcissistic people hence: no humor lest someone
| laugh at them, only pretending to project an image, taking
| threats to that image violently as seen by your downvotes
| fleddr wrote:
| Not downvotes, I call them California votes :)
|
| A people so detached from reality, common sense and common
| people that they might as well be considered a separate
| species.
| jimmydddd wrote:
| There are many good/great podcasts out now that don't hesitate to
| conduct 1-3 hour meandering interviews with interesting people on
| a regular basis. I don't recall seeing that before JRE. So even
| if you never listen to his show, I think he has improved the
| media landscape.
| O__________O wrote:
| Curious, beside interview below, are there any other notable
| breakdowns by JRE directly of the show style, process, etc?
|
| YouTube: Joe Rogan Explains His Interview Style
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uP62FNQTI-o
| realce wrote:
| Wow, JRE makes this site lose their minds. That's odd.
| mattwilsonn888 wrote:
| realce wrote:
| someone call the burn ward!
| doliveira wrote:
| You're not really helping his image if the comeback you come
| up with is "they're jealous of Joe Rogan's testosterone".
| God, I certainly hope you're a teenager.
| realce wrote:
| _gasp gulp and gnash_
| user00012-ab wrote:
| conorcleary wrote:
| Because of comments like this.
| user00012-ab wrote:
| have you seen the comments in this thread? I think mine
| actually was actually pretty good.
|
| I was serious, are there any tech news sites out there?
| conorcleary wrote:
| Go back to Digg for a bit and you'll find that HN is a
| great tech news site.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Nothing in this article is particularity unexpected, but this
| line had me chuckling.
|
| "To paraphrase Rule 34: if it exists, Joe Rogan's studio has
| jerky of it."
| danpalmer wrote:
| What concerns me about Joe Rogan, and what this article helped
| solidify, is not necessarily his views, but the power he has as
| one person.
|
| In my opinion he has taken some problematic view points, but
| others would agree with him more, and many would say he just
| plays devil's advocate and likes to talk hypotheticals and dig
| into interesting topics. I don't think any of this really
| matters.
|
| The issue is that the views come from one guy, get amplified in
| some man-cave banter with a few guys paid by him, and then
| broadcast to an audience "larger than Belgium". This isn't
| normal. Media companies have layers of editors, they have at
| least some diversity, a woman will hopefully look at a story or
| script before it goes out, sometimes even a lawyer might tell
| them to tone it down a bit. Even celebrities with big followings
| on social media are likely to have more input on many of their
| postings than Rogan does on his broadcasts.
|
| A bit of a filter is a good thing for everyone, whether it's
| trusted friends who can and do tell you when you're wrong, an
| editor at work, a legal team, whatever. It's also honest. I think
| Joe Rogan could use a filter.
| ElCheapo wrote:
| Joe Rogan is able to produce a podcast in which the topics
| covered and the tones used are not really dictated by
| advertisers. This is as good and independent as it gets. The
| podcast should be a prime example of what the web should be
| about: genuine content free from higher up control and
| censorship.
|
| The problem seems to be that you don't like this kind of
| content and would much prefer "safer" things to be popular, but
| that's exactly how we get harmless TV shows and meaningless
| music ruining the fun for everyone.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| You know, I don't even particularly like Joe Rogan or agree
| with him on many issues, but I'd say that your mentality here
| is just about everything wrong with big corporate media
| companies.
|
| Every opinion that deviates slightly outside of the current
| zeitgeist has to be watered-down, censored, scoffed down upon,
| and diminished.
|
| Everything has to be reviewed by bloodsucking lawyers rather
| than talking like a normal human being.
|
| Somehow a lone white man is not allowed to express his opinion
| without a layer of ''diversity'' to somehow make it acceptable.
|
| Joe has a following bigger than Belgium precisely because the
| rest of the media is such a bland and fake piece of shit for
| the reasons you mentioned. If you want to point the finger at
| anybody for the success of Joe Rogan, look in the mirror buddy.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >In my opinion he has taken some problematic view points
|
| Your comment is more evidence of the notion that "problematic"
| is the woke religion's "blasphemous".
| DharmaPolice wrote:
| Given the responses to this post, I think you should have
| someone in your team read it a few times and filter our some of
| the problematic views.
| seper8 wrote:
| Perfect :)
| thebigjewbowski wrote:
| > Media companies have layers of editors, they have at least
| some diversity, a woman will hopefully look at a story or
| script before it goes out, sometimes even a lawyer might tell
| them to tone it down a bit
|
| Sometimes editors and a corporate machine behind the news isn't
| the best thing.
|
| Take, for example, Amy Robach. A CBS reporter who wanted to air
| the Jeffery Epstein story years before he was arrested for the
| second time. Then ABC tipping off CBS and the leaker being
| fired.
|
| There's also the Chris Cuomo basement scandal.
|
| Or Brian Williams lying about his experience covering Iraq.
|
| Or Glenn Greenwald and Bari Weiss being pushed out of their
| newspapers.
|
| Or studies showing that the media covered Russia's invasion of
| Ukraine far more than the US invasion of Iraq.
|
| Or censoring of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Also haven't
| seen much about the contents of the diary in the mainstream
| press...
|
| The media has failed time and time again on what I outlined
| above and much more. They have an agenda, be it left or right,
| that is larger than any one person and are largely beholden to
| advertisers and whatnot.
|
| I applaud independent media. There are a lot of people doing
| really great work on substack. Jimmy Dore, for example, does
| amazing reporting and really shows the bias of the media.
|
| People like Alex Berenson, Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald, etc are
| doing really great investigative reporting that I once
| respected mainstream outlets for.
|
| Just because someone has a large audience doesn't mean they
| should be censored. Talking to people about things for hours is
| invaluable and Rogan does a great job on his show.
|
| https://nypost.com/2019/11/05/abc-news-amy-robach-claims-net...
|
| https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-glenn-beck-program/cbs-fi...
|
| https://freebeacon.com/media/chris-cuomo-fakes-emerging-from...
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-williams-credibility-ques...
|
| https://www.globalissues.org/news/2022/04/12/30585
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers...
| oliv__ wrote:
| Yes, please someone get him a woman, christ a lawyer,
| something, someone to review his podcast! We can't allow
| someone to simply speak their mind, think of what might happen
| if people got the hang of that!
|
| The amount of authoritarianism in this comment is staggering
| DeWilde wrote:
| The lack of filter is why CNN can only dream to have Rogan's
| viewership numbers.
|
| Maybe we don't need to water down every piece of information
| and discussion that exists.
| mistermann wrote:
| How is a filter (a sort of censorship or constraint) more
| honest than nothing one? I can see it being _more thruthful_
| (and also less), but honest seems off.
| seper8 wrote:
| kranke155 wrote:
| itsthemmrvax wrote:
| mantas wrote:
| > a woman will hopefully look at a story
|
| Sexism much?
| csunbird wrote:
| I am not sure why this was down voted, as sexism work both
| ways. Asking a woman to review a man's content is the same
| thing as asking a man to review a woman's content, and most
| people would not be fine with the second.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| Absolutely, most people wouldn't be fine with the second,
| because most people have grown up in a society where men
| have held the overwhelming majority of positions of
| privilege and power. When we're talking about a woman
| taking looking at a man's work what we're really saying is
| "That work environment might be so dominated by men that
| there isn't even a single woman in the office who could
| provide a different perspective due to her lived
| experience". The counter "Well a man should look over this
| work" invests a world in which a workplace could be so
| dominated by women that they would lack even a single man
| to offer an opinion on a piece of work. The idea that a
| reporter at a news organization could have an entire
| management chain above them of exclusively men isn't far-
| fetched. The counter - a woman only chain of management
| would be incredibly rare.
|
| It's important that we see the world as it is, rather than
| as some theoretical thing out that where we can just plug
| in different variables and go "Well now look!"
| mantas wrote:
| Why should we even go for opinion of opposite gender?
| What's next, ensure that all political groups offer an
| opinion? All socioeconomic classes? All age groups? I'd
| say opinion of average man and woman are much closer than
| other splits.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| Errr... yes. We should basically be aiming to take into
| account a wide range of experiences and perspectives when
| forming our opinions, and by surrounding himself with a
| clique of bro-y young men Rogan provides a very narrow
| perspective on the world, and arguably a big part of the
| reason he's so popular is because he doesn't really
| challenge the perspectives of his audience.
| mantas wrote:
| Yes and no.
|
| We have a wide variety of media outlets to expose
| experience of different groups. That fulfils what you're
| looking for. You can find opinions of pretty much any
| group no matter what.
|
| What your proposal would do, most groups wouldn't get a
| chance to translate their experiences. Biggest and/or
| loudest group would dominate the narrative. Everyone else
| would be tuned out to bigger or smaller degree.
|
| Actually, we already had your solution. Back in TV-
| dominated era. Only vetted content would make it to the
| public. With marginal groups silenced. Well, those
| marginal groups just started tiny podcasts to tell their
| stories :)
|
| What do you think would happen if you take those tiny
| podcasts and force them to act like big media of the old
| days? Can you silence some dude streaming from his
| kitchen?
| Happos wrote:
| Hey Joe, we can't release last week's episode yet because
| focus group #12 is running behind.
| fareesh wrote:
| I don't want this great show to be influenced by what other
| people find problematic. Joe Rogan himself has an opinion
| regarding what is a problem and what is not. Since it is his
| show, he should run it the way he wants and presumably he will
| say something when he has a problem with it. This has always
| been the case.
| itsthemmrvax wrote:
| kranke155 wrote:
| There are always people like this and Joe is not the most
| problematic we've had to be honest.
|
| Yes he's never taken his show as a responsibility/burden to
| seek out some absolute truth to to guide men to an utopian
| future through his influence - but in those respects he would
| have likely failed had he fallen for that trap - the whole
| point of his show is this is who he is and he is not trying to
| make YOU do anything (maybe exercise ?). This is just something
| he does and he does his best not to think about it.
| belval wrote:
| I never listened to his podcast (I don't even know the guy),
| but you might want to re-read your comment and think about the
| totalitarian undertone.
|
| You are not the great enlightened above a sea of unwashed
| masses.
| cfcosta wrote:
| I find this take really surprising. He has a huge reach, but
| you kinda need to go out of your way to watch him, and the
| people that do, do it exactly because of the lack of filter.
|
| If I wanted to listen to something sanitized and approved by a
| legal team I would just watch CNN or Fox News.
| refurb wrote:
| I mean, that's pretty much what the media does. They claim they
| do more fact checking and take an unbias stance, but that's
| been disproven too many times.
|
| I don't see anyone getting worked up that Dan Rather has "too
| much power as one person"
| mfDjB wrote:
| His audience disagrees that he needs a filter. The filtered
| content you are talking about is abundant, authentic content is
| scarce, that's why he pulls the audience size he pulls. His
| reach would be smaller if we took the filters off other
| sources.
| [deleted]
| tomcam wrote:
| You seem awfully concerned about someone who doesn't fit the
| usual media profiles. You may want to look at the rankings of
| more conventional shows. They've been dwindling for decades.
| People are really, really tired of that stuff. Trust in them is
| vanishingly low, below even Congress and lawyers. Diversity? He
| literally is diversity. You just spent a whole post talking
| about how he's different from the usual legacy media
| mouthpieces.
|
| Also... how do you know he doesn't get plenty of input?
|
| > This isn't normal.
|
| Literally no popular media figure is remotely close to normal.
| bioemerl wrote:
| > This isn't normal. Media companies have layers of editors,
| they have at least some diversity, a woman will hopefully look
| at a story or script before it goes out,
|
| Jesus Christ, do you understand what you're saying here? A man
| can't speak and be heard without a woman going over it first?
| sergiotapia wrote:
| seper8 wrote:
| Imagine telling a woman having a podcast to make sure that a
| man looks over the script first before it goes out...
| thrown_22 wrote:
| I mean that sounds like a good idea.
|
| Also a five year old.
| realce wrote:
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Of course, the exact some criticism could be made of anyone
| that famous. Obama for instance had no editors, I doubt Bernie
| Sander's has a woman or a lawyer pre-approve his opinions
| either...
|
| One of the things I respect about Joe Rogan (I am not really a
| listener unless someone wants to discuss a particular show in
| my social circle) is how often he says (and seems to mean)
| "don't listen to me, wtf do I know" or words to that effect.
| lashloch wrote:
| You respect someone who... hedges their statements? And then
| profits from saying those things anyway?
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I respect someone who seems to honestly admit they do not
| know, and that it's ok to not be sure. And I respect anyone
| who encourages others to think for themselves (though that
| failed pretty drastically with Covid).
|
| Compare that any politician who is 100% sure of X until X
| is only supported by 49% of people.
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| We can't pretend like all media companies care about promoting
| balanced, thoughtful and inclusive commentary. That's just not
| reality.
|
| There's a ton of money to be made pushing agendas and peddling
| hate. And then you run into the age-old question: who controls
| the filter? How do you regulate controversial content?
| mindwok wrote:
| Joe doesn't need a filter. Maybe if he wanted to appeal to more
| people, he could use one. But he doesn't really care about
| being controversial it seems. Let people make up their own
| minds I say, the same way you have.
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| > Media companies
|
| HEAVEN FORBID we have a single publication that doesn't have
| four teams of people checking lists of who can't be mentioned
| in a negative fashion....
| ArtWomb wrote:
| It's hilarious for me personally to see the "I trust Joe Rogan
| more than I trust Joe Biden" slogans, because I've never
| listened to a single episode, and I only really know him from
| the 90s cult sitcom "News Radio" ;)
|
| I will say that the Jimmy James Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
| reading is one of my fav things ever to be broadcast on
| American television!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM0dKm9BqT0
| koheripbal wrote:
| I have seen "problematic" viewpoints on CNN and Fox News, both
| of which have audiences orders of magnitude larger than Rogan.
| Should we "filter" those also? Should we filter you too for
| advocating for filters on others?
|
| You inherently infantilize the public when you assume they
| agree with, or are indoctrinated by, media they consume. Adults
| are capable of disagreeing with long form content they consume.
|
| What is more damaging are the sound bytes and headlines that
| get amplified on short form social media like Facebook,
| Twitter, and Reddit, which offer conclusions and misinformation
| and not conversations.
|
| Joe Rogan is a bit of an idiot, but his audience mostly knows
| that. They listen to him because there are nuggets of truth in
| his podcast that most MSM won't report.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| Rogan is claiming 11M listeners per episode, CNN and Fox News
| ratings peak around 1M for their primetime shows. I'm not
| sure how to make a total viewership comparison, but it
| appears like they're in the approximately same scale.
| silvestrov wrote:
| > What concerns me [...] the power he has as one person
|
| What concerns me is that the traditional media are not able to
| make interesting podcasts that connect as well with most
| people.
|
| Don't blame Joe Rogan for what he does, blame everybody else
| for not being able to do the same.
|
| Joe Rogan has no power by himself, only by traditional media
| not wanting to let people talk freely on the radio anymore. No
| one runs unedited interviews anymore. Everything is massaged
| into the viewpoint that the journalist already has.
| mattwilsonn888 wrote:
| The filter is in your brain. If you need a team of editors to
| sift through and analyze thoughts before they reach your brain
| YOU are the problem and YOU CANNOT THINK properly.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Don't mistake the visible for the real.
|
| People like Zuckerberg have orders of magnitude more power, but
| they aren't so easily seen and heard.
|
| There will always be powerful people, and a moderator like
| Rogan isn't anywhere near to the top of the ladder.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| > A bit of a filter is a good thing for everyone, whether it's
| trusted friends who can and do tell you when you're wrong, an
| editor at work, a legal team, whatever. It's also honest. I
| think Joe Rogan could use a filter.
|
| Cool, who do you suggest should do the filtering? We could
| create a ministry of censorship.
| ksec wrote:
| I thought his was cancelled by the woke. But simply judging from
| comments on HN he is alive and kicking.
|
| Edit: And it is funny this is getting downvoted. A thread with
| 400 comments but only 160 points.
| ctf1er wrote:
| I think Neil Young tried to cancel him right? Young is from a
| different generation than me, but I had the notion he'd be more
| free-speak/free-thought/don't trust the man minded. Maybe that
| is what happens when a pharma exec buys your catalog? Or was
| that misinformation?
| raarts wrote:
| And even on HN Joe Rogan succeeds in achieving lots of
| engagement...
|
| Regardless, I like his interviews and his guests are often very
| interesting _especially_ when their views go against the grain.
| Take his recent interview with Alex Berenson for example, the
| only person ever to litigate himself back into Twitter after a
| lifelong ban, great interview.
| Melatonic wrote:
| The problem I have with his stuff is that he used to be a lot
| more self deprecating in his humour. It made the show more casual
| - he took him self less seriously - and there was more comedy
| overall. Now that he seems to take himself so much more seriously
| it seems like he is just following the money in terms of what
| content he knows will be popular vs just having interesting
| guests on his show to have a discussion.
| [deleted]
| ggm wrote:
| Anyone here remember a page or three in "the glass bead game"
| about feuilletonism and the rise of interviewing roller skating
| boxers about politics and politicians about art history?
| kranke155 wrote:
| The size of his man cave is awe inspiring.
|
| Anything that we build is an extension of our mind, and oh lord
| is that an interesting choice of props, pictures and workout
| machines.
| desindol wrote:
| Inspiring? In what form or sense is excess spending for
| signaling purposes inspiring. Do you really believe he uses
| more than 20% of the stuff that's in there?
| kranke155 wrote:
| Ah yes? It looks to me like a personal gym and it has all the
| machines you'd want in a good circuit. I myself must use
| 10-12 machines in my regular weekly routine. I don't see why
| he wouldn't do the same.
| desindol wrote:
| ,,all the stuff" not the gym...
| kranke155 wrote:
| Looking at it again it literally looks like he has 6-7
| machines, mostly cardio, then lots and lots of weights.
| Nothing too crazy to me.
| desindol wrote:
| ,,all the stuff" not the gym...
| Entinel wrote:
| I've listened to a few episodes of JRE at the request of some
| friends and I kind of get it but I also don't get it. Joe ask the
| "dumb questions." The questions you would ask if you as a laymen
| were sitting in front of a Nobel Prize winning scientist like if
| Star Wars lightsabers are actually possible and a lot of people
| find that entertaining and I get it.
|
| But people have this weird way of taking things they like and not
| only rejecting criticism but making it their whole identity. Joe
| can do no wrong and if people dislike him it's because they don't
| "get it" and they are just being soft.
|
| Joe also likes to deflect by saying "I'm an idiot don't listen to
| me" which hey that's fine but if you're going to ramble about how
| the moon is made of cheese then say "don't listen to me" but then
| bring on a guest who is going to talk about how the moon is made
| of cheese; the line that is being pushed is pretty clear even if
| it is unintentional.
| user3939382 wrote:
| I've heard Jon Stewart do this. He puts all this effort into
| political commentary and when he got called out on something
| said "Hey my show comes on after crank yankers!" Oh so when
| you're wrong now you shouldn't be taken seriously, I see.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| The last decade hasn't been kind to the people who I looked
| up to when I was a teen.
|
| Turns out the left wasn't any better than the right, they
| could just be honest when they weren't in power. Once they
| were, well it's obviously your fault for holding them to the
| same standards they held the other team to.
| [deleted]
| nradov wrote:
| Right, I don't take Jon Stewart seriously. He's just a court
| jester.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I'm curious where Jon Stewart ever said he should be taken
| seriously? On his comedy show I mean. In his testimonies to
| congress and whatnot, he doesn't do the comedy thing.
|
| I'd also say the same thing about Al Franken - he was pretty
| deliberate about "de-comedying" or whatever it was he called
| it when he went into his first term in the Senate. I will
| admit that that would not have been as much work for him as
| it would be for Stewart.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Why is he invited to give testimonies to congress, do you
| think? This is not something I have the opportunity to do.
| It's, presumably, on the basis of his comedy show? He
| doesn't want his comedy show to be taken seriously, but he
| wants himself to be taken seriously on the basis of that
| comedy show? What's the difference?
| nradov wrote:
| Congress routinely invites individuals to "testify" for
| propaganda purposes. It's all for show. Remember when
| they invited Tipper Gore to testify based on zero actual
| qualifications?
|
| https://www.npr.org/2005/01/11/4279560/tipper-gore-and-
| famil...
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Pretty sure the GP is referring to the famous Crossfire
| takedown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
|
| There's a play by play of it on Crossfire's Wikipedia page
| also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(American_TV_
| program...
| amalcon wrote:
| They're probably referring to the Crossfire interview
| (which is widely credited with getting the latter show
| cancelled). He basically complained about the lack of depth
| on Crossfire, and when questioned about his own show's lack
| of depth he basically just said "It's a comedy show".
|
| It's sort of a nuanced issue, since a lot of people took
| The Daily Show seriously in that era _anyway_. The
| difference is, of course, that Crossfire and its ilk were
| /are unserious in subtle ways, and seemed meant to be taken
| seriously. I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to decide
| which space Joe Rogan's show lives in (I actually couldn't
| tell you, never having seen it).
| ethbr0 wrote:
| An ancillary point Stewart made was "the Daily Show is on
| Comedy Central" (per memory, this was before peak Daily
| Show popularity, so it was well-known but not famous) as
| opposed to "Crossfire is on CNN."
|
| Presumably people watch CNN for different reasons and
| with different expectations than they watch Comedy
| Central.
|
| Tucker Carlson's rebuttal was that Jon Stewart could book
| political guests that wouldn't come on Crossfire, so he
| had a journalistic duty to ask hard questions.
|
| Which... felt kind of weak to me. For profit media is for
| profit, and both Crossfire and Daily Show were beholden
| to the bottom line, and had to calibrate their behavior
| against that. Edward Roscoe Murrow, they were not.
|
| PS: My favorite Stewart line from that interview remains
| (paraphrasing) "Crossfire isn't theater? Tucker, you're
| 35 year old man wearing a bowtie. This is theater."
| wrigby wrote:
| This sounds like you're referring to his appearance on CNN's
| Crossfire in the mid 2000's; here's a link for context:
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
| monocasa wrote:
| To be fair, he was telling that to CNN presenters who were
| trying to deflect his accusations that they were enabling
| political theater by saying his show does the same thing,
| missing the obvious point that CNN should be held to a higher
| journalistic standard than Comedy Central.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| They are comedians. They are entertainers. Why do Americans
| hold their entertainers in such high regard?
|
| These people may put some thought into what they say. And
| some of them may be smart people. So sometimes they have good
| points. And sometimes they don't. Sometimes they are right.
| And sometimes they are wrong. But you should just laugh. And
| if they give you a new perspective on something, find out
| more reliable source. Why are you taking jokes seriously?
| bnralt wrote:
| The vast majority of new is entertainment. If you're in a
| deep blue area that has never voted for Trump, and you know
| that you'll never vote for Trump, spending hours a day
| reading about how terrible Trump is doesn't inform your
| decision to vote. It's done because you enjoy political
| celebrity gossip, the same way other people spend hours a
| day watching entertainment celebrity gossip. You'd be
| better off spending at least a fraction of the time
| learning about local races, but very few people do that. I
| know lots of people that can't tell you most of the people
| they voted for the day after a primary, but say that
| they're into "politics" because they spend hours reading
| and commenting on national news.
|
| Stewart fits right into the political infotainment
| environment. His show was intentionally laced with jokes,
| but other than that it was very similar to the highlight of
| "top news stories" you'd hear on other cable news stations.
| The depth (shallow) was probably about the same for most
| news stories as well.
|
| Stewart also, despite his claims of being just a comedian,
| would go on serious moralistic diatribes. Someone brought
| up his Cramer interview, and that's a good example. The guy
| clearly doesn't view himself as just a comedian there. Like
| Rogan, they're willing to go after and call out others as
| if they know more than them (whether or not they do is
| another discussion), but when called out on their failures
| they pretend they're just goofballs and never pretended to
| be anything more. It's dishonest.
|
| Personally, I dislike Stewart because he's often prone to
| hypocritical moral posturing. He took a unflattering
| picture of Charlie Rangel up and laughed about his "front
| butt." Then a year later he took Newsweek to task for
| having a bad picture of Michelle Bachmann, saying that you
| can argue with her politics but it's never appropriate to
| attack someone's looks. When the only black writer on the
| show took issue with one of his impersonations, he yelled
| at the guy and cut ties with him. Now he's going around
| lecturing white people about how they have to listen to
| black people.
| wccrawford wrote:
| Perhaps a lot of people can't tell the difference between a
| journalist and a comedian pretending to be a journalist.
|
| I struggled with it for a long time, without even knowing I
| was struggling with it. I fact-checked one of them and
| realized the truth of the whole comedy situation, and I've
| viewed them completely differently ever since.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > a comedian pretending to be a journalist
|
| It's a cop out. Often times he's very serious about the
| political points he's making, even if he packages the
| point in a joke. The point or argument itself isn't a
| joke, at all. So you can't do that but then hide behind
| "I'm just a comedian!" when there's a flaw in your
| argument.
| P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote:
| Go to youtube and look up the Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer
| interview (this happened after the 2008 financial crisis).
|
| Then look up Jon Stewart on Crossfire.
|
| I can't find a version of that interview that isn't edited,
| you really should watch the entire thing as it went out
| over the air.
|
| But here's one that shows the important parts (imo). Note
| the timestamp is 57 seconds
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkqzRs95Sc&t=57s
|
| Jon Stewart was publicly saying what everyone wanted to
| say. The only person he could get ahold of was Jim Cramer,
| but you can FEEL the anger. That anger wasn't just Jon, it
| was your average Americans.
|
| ---
|
| Jon Stewart was consistently getting named in polls as the
| most TRUSTWORTHY news source, and a lot of it was for this.
| As a comedian he was pointing out the ridiculousness of the
| politics, and he wasn't doing it because it was a
| republican in office.
|
| Because Jon Stewart was saying what most people WANTED to
| say.
|
| I can't find the skit, but during the Iraq war the US lost
| _PALLETS_ of money. Think about that. PALLETS OF MONEY. Jon
| Stewart did a skit where he made fun of it because how
| ridiculous is that? You send literal pallets of money and
| don't put enough security on it to prevent it from
| disappearing?
|
| ---
|
| There's this idea of court jester's as being the only
| people who could safely say certain things. I'm no
| historian so I can't speak to that historical accuracy, but
| that's how I view Jon Stewart.
|
| People are aware that he's a comedian, and they're aware
| that he's highlighting very specific things. But given the
| news media then (and today), there's a reason he was
| considered by many people to be the most trustworthy news
| source.
|
| When Jon made those statements about only being an
| entertainer, he was defending himself from attacks by the
| media, not by your every day American people. That
| statement in particular, put in context, was him showing
| how ridiculous it was for these organizations to be
| attacking him.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| If people consider you the most trustworthy news source,
| you have a responsibility to live up to that trust, which
| saying "I'm only an entertainer" is abdicating, he was
| saying "I'm only an entertainer, why are you trying to
| hold me to the standards of news media?" Well, because
| millions consider you a trustworthy news source, that's
| why.
|
| > There's this idea of court jester's as being the only
| people who could safely say certain things. I'm no
| historian so I can't speak to that historical accuracy,
| but that's how I view Jon Stewart.
|
| I believe that's exactly how Rogan's audience views him
| too. I am not a fan of Rogan. But this seems pretty
| similar. The difference is just that you disagree with
| Rogan's fans and agree with Stewarts, ok...
|
| The difference is just that you personally think Stewart
| is generally more trustworthy than Rogan? If so (and I
| generally agree), why didn't Stewart accept that
| responsibility instead of trying to abdicate it with "I'm
| only an entertainer, you can't hold me to the standards
| of news media". Don't both Stewart and Rogan have the
| responsibility to in fact be held to the standards of
| news media, when millions consider them trustworthy as
| news media? I think both of them are irresponsible and
| acting in an _untrustworthy_ manner if they say "I'm
| only an entertainer, I shouldn't be held to the standards
| of a news source", while being considered a trustworthy
| news source by many. How do we know if someone is
| trustworthy as a news source? By evaluating them as a
| news source, not letting them get out of it with "I'm
| just an entertainer, you can't hold me to that standard".
| P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote:
| One wonders if the you believe the negative of this
| holds.
|
| If everyone believes you're an adulterer you have a
| responsibility to cheat on your spouse?
|
| ---
|
| In addition, this is why cherry picking is frowned upon.
| Jon Stewart was responding to the ridiculousness of CNN,
| Fox, et al, running hit pieces on him, and they started
| running hit pieces on him because they were showing up in
| polls as less trustworthy than Jon Stewart.
|
| What you're basically claiming here is that because he's
| more trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al, he has a
| responsibility to trustworthiness. AT THE TIME this was
| happening, the general sentiment was the opposite. That
| the trustworthiness of CNN, Fox, et al was SO BAD, that
| even a comedian, whose job it is to take things out of
| context and stretch the truth for a laugh, was more
| trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al.
|
| This was all going on during the second Iraq war, where
| Bush and Cheney was giving speeches about mission
| accomplished atop aircraft carriers with the banner
| "Mission Accomplished" while we were still sending more
| troops.
|
| It was clearly a political maneuver and Jon Stewart was
| making fun of it whilst CNN, et al, were mostly not
| calling them out. But people aren't _stupid_, they knew
| it was ingenuine. That Jon Stewart, a fricking comedian,
| was the only public forum really highlighting how
| disingenuous it was is WHY he was getting voted as more
| trustworthy in polls. Jon Stewart was pointing this out.
|
| And you know what? The people were fucking right. When
| the 911 responders were getting dicked who was it that
| fought for them? It sure as shit wasn't CNN, Fox, et al.
|
| ---
|
| Without that context, what you're doing here is cherry
| picking, and I suspect it's because the current "social
| politics" surrounding joe rogan are causing younger
| people to let it bleed over onto Jon Stewart.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I'm 46. And a leftist. fwiw, btw.
|
| No, becuase someone thinks you've done something bad
| doesn't mean you have the have the responsibility to do
| something bad.
|
| I think Joe Rogan encourages people to build a worldview
| off of things he says, encourages people to treat him as
| reliable news, and profits from them doing so, both
| monetarily and by influence over what people think. He
| has a huge amount of influence over what people think,
| based on people believing that he's a straight shooter.
| Then when called on whether he's doing so responsibly,
| whether he really is straight-shooting, he says "I'm just
| an entertainer, it's not a relevant question". I think
| it's irresponsible and manipulative.
|
| I don't see how that has anything to do with thinking
| someone is obligated to kill if people believe they are a
| murderer, that's a ridiculous and silly analogy that just
| doesn't work.
|
| I think Jon Stewart did/does the same thing as Joe Rogan.
| He has a huge amount of influence over what people think,
| based on people believing that he's a straight shooter,
| and he likes, _encourages_ , and profits from this trust
| and this influence -- it is intentional. Then when called
| on whether he's doing so responsibly, he says "I'm just
| an entertainer, you can't expect that of me or hold me
| accountable for it, it's not what entertainers do". I
| think it's irresponsible and manipulative.
|
| Can you be specific about how you think the cases differ?
| P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote:
| The point is that people are not obligated, period. This
| obligation thing is just an attempt at trying to find
| fault with actions that are completely reasonable.
|
| As for your question, I've already explained the context
| around Jon Stewart and I have no interest in a culture
| war.
| monocasa wrote:
| It's been common for millenia that a court jester is the
| one that tells the most truths.
|
| That doesn't abdicate the press of their responsibility,
| but is instead a sign that we've reverted back to feudal
| power structures.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It's been going on at least since electing Ronald Reagan
| president in 1980.
|
| And it's not just the USA, see Ukrainian President
| Zelenskyy, whose resume previous to being elected president
| consisted of being a politically relevant comedian.
| esyir wrote:
| The fact that he turned out an extremely solid wartime
| politician came as a massive surprise to me. At the very
| least, whoever is in charge of his image is doing a
| phenomenal job.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I mean, actors excel at "image", that's kind of their
| job?
|
| I saw someone make an argument that the rise of celebrity
| politicians is about television. See also JFK, kind of
| one of the first "celebrity" politicians in the age of TV
| -- not that he was an actor first, but still.
| badpun wrote:
| Yep. America used-to have wheelchair-bound president 100
| years ago, for Christ's sake. Now, it would be completely
| impossible. Presidents have to look good, or at least
| healthy. Even the senile Joe Biden is actually looking
| pretty crispy.
| cafard wrote:
| FDR (not quite 100 years ago) was wheelchair-bound but
| very cagey about it. And FDR was hardly fifteen years in
| the grave before Nixon lost a TV debate to Kennedy by
| looking pasty.
|
| The senile Joe Biden?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| FDR and his administration went to great lengths to hide
| the wheelchair. They even made a panel for the resolute
| desk to hide FDRs lower body when seated. Imaged mattered
| then as much then as it does now.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_desk
| nradov wrote:
| Wheelchair users have been elected to Congress in recent
| times. It's not impossible that one could make it to the
| Presidency. We just don't have enough data points to draw
| firm conclusions about how that impacts electability.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| The fact that he's a war time president at all is a
| massive minus. He ran on a platform of letting the
| Russian minority get more autonomy - the previous
| government's slogan was literally military, language,
| faith - and then launched a major operation against the
| break away regions more or less as soon as he got in
| power.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Yep, I think Jon Stewart basically invented this approach.
|
| I believe that he in fact popularized the phrase "fake news"
| first, to use it to refer to himself, to do exactly this,
| defend himself when called out, saying "hey i'm just fake
| news, why are you trying to hold me to real news standards?"
|
| I think it totally paved the way for a lot of misinformation
| (that now tends to, but not always, be right-wing oriented),
| and I think it's a mess.
|
| Here's someone else making the same connection in 2016: https
| ://www.cjr.org/special_report/trump_jon_stewart_stephen...
|
| It's not just Stewart, it's part of the general merging of
| "entertainment", "news", and "politics". But I think Stewart
| is a fore-runner in serving roles that are actually both
| "politics" (advocacy of positions) and "news" (informing as
| to what's going on) for their audience, while disclaiming
| accountability for performing those roles responsibly because
| "it's just entertainment" -- an approach that has been
| adopted by Rogan, among others.
|
| [In case you think I am making this critique from the "right"
| I am most definitely not]
| bnralt wrote:
| I agree with all of your points. But it's worth pointing out
| that most "public intellectual" interactions become a form of
| Kabuki theater. It might be a friendly interview, where you can
| guess what questions are going to be asked and what the answers
| are. Or it might be an antagonistic debate, where the two sides
| are yelling talking points at each other. But it's rarely
| surprising.
|
| What's interesting about Rogan is you can often find theses
| talking head types getting easily flummoxed by normal questions
| that are outside of the ritualized interactions they're used
| to. Watch Rogan talk to Shapiro about his criticism of Colin
| Kaepernick, or him asking Bari Weiss why she calls Tulsi
| Gabbard an "Assad toady." He seems to like both of them
| (perhaps even to the poitn where both are friends), but his
| simple questions end up making both of them look completely
| foolish. And because he's genuinely curious and doing it in a
| non-aggressive manner, it doesn't get lost in the furor of a
| antagonistic debate format.
|
| Again, I agree with your criticisms of him and could add
| several more myself. I think it's one of those situations where
| in the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king. The
| traditional forms of public debate are so shallow that a
| curious guy just asking random questions can short circuit most
| of the folks there.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > What's interesting about Rogan is you can often find theses
| talking head types getting easily flummoxed by normal
| questions that are outside of the ritualized interactions
| they're used to. Watch Rogan talk to Shapiro about his
| criticism of Colin Kaepernick, or him asking Bari Weiss why
| she calls Tulsi Gabbard an "Assad toady." He seems to like
| both of them (perhaps even to the poitn where both are
| friends), but his simple questions end up making both of them
| look completely foolish. And because he's genuinely curious
| and doing it in a non-aggressive manner, it doesn't get lost
| in the furor of a antagonistic debate format.
|
| If you think that's impressive, listen to Terry Gross's
| interview with Hugh Heffner.
|
| https://freshairarchive.org/segments/playboy-hugh-hefner
|
| I think Rogan is just barely smart enough to know to never
| step into Gross's studio.
| jrumbut wrote:
| As a disclaimer, I have not listened to his show extensively.
|
| But while he may be genuinely curious the sum of his
| questions and his guest choices express a thesis and for avid
| listeners seems to become a program of study that leads
| somewhere.
|
| It seems like it's always freshman year of college at the JRE
| and you're learning all this fascinating stuff that shows you
| the world is larger and more mysterious than you imagined,
| but he never quite gets to sophomore year when those mundane
| details are filled in and you see why all the quirky, obscure
| things remain quirky and obscure.
|
| I guess on some level it's not his job but since he has had
| this success I do wish he would take it on, to give the
| listeners more protein with their sugar.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| The JREs guest roster only has two flavors. Right wing and "I'd
| rather not go too much in depth about my politics". There were
| maybe 5 episodes in the history of the show where Joe is
| confronted with left wing talking points, and aside from the
| Bernie episode it was always an accident.
|
| Notably, the one other exception is Joe calling bullshit on Ben
| Shapiro's claims.
|
| The show has never invited anyone in favor of affirmative trans
| healthcare, for instance. But they did invite Debra Soh and
| Abigail Shier almost purely because they were against it.
|
| But because the JRE pretends it's a free speech zone where no
| opinion is unheard, it creates a very biased view of public
| opinion in viewers. A division into "the woke mob" of
| ideologues and the "intellectual dark web" of people that are
| supposedly free of ideology. The show is massively contributing
| to what it says it hates.
| seper8 wrote:
| You know he had Bernie Sanders on right? And not Trump?
|
| LOL.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| I literally did mention that as one notable exception?
| nradov wrote:
| And Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard and the list goes on...
| sascha_sl wrote:
| I'll be impressed if he has Hasan Piker on.
|
| That's not just a random bar I set, it's been pretty
| heavily requested - but everyone knows it wouldn't happen
| because of prior criticism.
|
| Even Tim Pool invites people to the left of the liberal
| democratic baseline (that I'd call center-right at best,
| but I'm also used to a more european notion of left and
| right) occasionally. Why not the JRE?
|
| The Bernie interview was great, but it was a tactical
| campaign move. He wasn't going to be too contrarian with
| Joe when the audience is Joe's.
| Cesura wrote:
| Are these supposed to be examples of _leftists_? Tulsi
| recently filled in as a host on Tucker Carlson 's
| show...the same show actively peddling the Great
| Replacement theory (among other far-right conspiracies)
| to millions of Americans.
| nradov wrote:
| Yes, Tulsi Gabbard is a _leftist_ based on any rational
| analysis of her actual voting record.
|
| https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tulsi_gabbard/41
| 253...
|
| She might not be as far left as you would prefer, but
| there is no doubt she is on the left side of the US
| political spectrum. (And please don't bother wasting our
| time with that tired old trope about the Democrats being
| equivalent to center-right party in European politics.
| We're not in Europe.)
| screye wrote:
| To add to your point, there is a kernel of truth in the
| 'the left keeps moving goalposts' meme [1].
|
| In present internet discourse, 5-percentile radical
| leftist opinions are peddled as if they represent any
| significant group of people in this nation. Anyone who
| does not agree with their often non-scientific
| ideological framework is labelled as right-wing-fascist
| irrespective of ground realities surrounding the person
| or the topic.
|
| What we're witnessing here is a takeover of the American
| left by a very particular strain of political activism.
| Like all activists, they too care more about ascendency
| in the power struggle and aesthetic markers of cultural
| victory, instead of practical solutions for improving the
| lives of the population they represent.
|
| > We're not in Europe
|
| If Europe had anywhere near the racial/cultural/religious
| diversity of the US, then they'd be on their way to a
| swift turn to the right. Orban is the canary, and the
| rise of the right in Germany/France/Italy is exactly
| representative of that phenomenon. Social safety nets do
| not make for left-liberal ideology. Most of these
| socialist-paragons demand incredible conformity
| (scandinavia) and have restrictive abortion laws [2]
| among other traditionally right-wing traits.
|
| [1] https://preview.redd.it/iwnju4entbw81.jpg?width=1024&
| auto=we...
|
| [2] https://dynomight.net/abortion/
| sascha_sl wrote:
| I do find your [1] oddly compelling, but not for the
| reasons you think. Wide political and social change (or
| progress, if you want to be an optimist) is rarely made
| through convincing people to fundamentally change, but
| generational shifts. You are merely finding yourself on
| the fading side of that shift.
|
| That aside, it's very funny to accuse the left of
| shifting the overton window after a republican president
| that pardoned his co-conspirators, called for
| insurrection and then took top secret documents home - a
| crime he himself increased the penalty for. So much for
| law and order.
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| > If Europe had anywhere near the
| racial/cultural/religious diversity of the US
|
| You fucken serious right now?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Despite your parenthetical attempt to sidestep this fact,
| being barely on the left side of the US political
| spectrum doesn't make one a "leftist". Meaning that
| people who consider themselves leftists don't agree with
| Tulsi Gabbard.
|
| It's hard to point to a voting record as evidence of one
| being a leftist or not, when actual leftist policies are
| not typically put up for a vote in America. Her
| ideological score puts her in line with Tim Ryan, who is
| currently running for Senate in right-leaning Ohio, and
| is competitive because of the very fact he _isn 't_ a
| leftist. Despite what you may hear, not all Democrats are
| socialists. Far from it.
| Cesura wrote:
| Your interpretation makes sense if you consider leftist
| to be a purely relative classification. We don't even
| need to look outside of the US to understand why that's
| not a very meaningful way to think about ideology: the
| Overton window within the Republican party has undergone
| a substantial shift to the right since the 1970s [1].
|
| Without even loosely-defined characterizations of what a
| political ideology _is_ and where it falls on our (albeit
| very imperfect) scale, terms like "leftism" are doomed
| to a future of being weaponized by their opponents, who
| themselves shift right and decry moderates as "radicals".
|
| All of that aside, I'd still like to hear your
| rationalization for her recent appearance as the host of
| a far-right talk show where she, among other things,
| referred to the sitting attorney general's investigation
| of a former President's alleged crimes as one having "all
| hallmarks of a dictatorship". Is hosting Tucker's program
| an endorsement of every position he's ever espoused?
| Surely not. But I'd say it's a level of support akin to
| giving a speech at a political candidate's rally...
|
| [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/03/FT_22...
| Veen wrote:
| > The show has never invited anyone in favor of affirmative
| trans healthcare, for instance.
|
| He's had Blaire White on.
| remote_phone wrote:
| He also had Kristin Beck, former Navy Seal who is
| transgender.
|
| The parent post is someone who doesn't listen to Rogan, and
| a perfect example of someone that casts Rogan as a
| transphobe because he dares to not tow 100% of the views
| that they want him to.
|
| This type of philosophical fascism is what is ruining our
| world today.
| npc54321 wrote:
| These people are just sad man, something lacking in their
| lives whether it's power sex love or money they are
| lacking in it and the left just scoops them up into their
| crusade preying into their shit.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| Veen wrote:
| It's interesting you name two trans women who have said
| how much they enjoy beating the shit out of cisgender
| women. In Fallon's case, she boasted about fracturing an
| opponent's skull.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| What are you appealing to here? It's one of the most
| extreme forms of contact sports, but it's sanctioned.
| Injuries are commonplace, not something trans people
| exclusively inflict.
|
| And how is it related to the question at all? I am not
| interested in discussing if Fallon Fox is a good person,
| good sport or good representative of trans people. I'm
| discussing Joe Rogan calling her a man being indicative
| of transphobia on the JRE. Just like OJ Simpson being
| convicted would not justify calling him the slur with N.
| hirundo wrote:
| > It's one of the most extreme forms of contact sports,
| but it's sanctioned. Injuries are commonplace, not
| something trans people exclusively inflict.
|
| For a competitor who has grown up with the (extreme in
| the case of contact sports) benefit of male hormones to
| compete with someone without that benefit is something
| new, at least in this era. It makes injuries more likely
| ... to the competitor with the female hormone profile.
|
| A lot of us feel that it isn't fair. Whatever the
| explanation, it appears to be a man beating up a woman.
| Because biologically it is. Sanctioned or not, consensual
| or not, that's not my preferred entertainment.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| I didn't sign up to discuss this, but I'm very careful
| with people that have only started claiming to care about
| women's sports after this became a culture war issue.
| There are a lot of armchair takes that are obviously
| misinformed about the mechanics of HRT, and a lot of
| ignoring that most contact sports are already grouped
| into weight classes exactly because gender is a bad
| discriminator.
|
| I would be in favor of sporting bodies deciding these
| things on a discipline-by-discipline basis, but at this
| point christian conservative think tanks (like the ADF)
| became involved and it has all just turned into such a
| shitshow that I don't trust anyone in these bodies to be
| impartial anymore either.
|
| If you're interested in a nuanced discussion, may I
| recommend Mia Mulder[1]? I promise, it's not a straight
| up arguing for one side exclusively video essay.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdT1PvJDRo4
| hirundo wrote:
| I would be much more supportive if the biological
| differences were included along with the weight class,
| such that a lighter person with testosterone muscles and
| bones fights a heavier person with estrogen muscles and
| bones. That is, where the competitors are competitive.
| But the current ideological environment resists the
| inclusion of such sex-based factors, on the absurd
| premise that they are trivial.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| Are you sure this isn't just an assumption you're making
| based on _your_ "ideological environment"? How do you
| know? Have you done the research? Do you actually know if
| someone who has replaced their testosterone with estrogen
| retains their "testosterone muscles"?
|
| Spoiler: It's complicated, in no way straight forward,
| and if you descend into the ugly guts of it you'll learn
| that sports were never fair to begin with, and that we'd
| need better bracketing systems even if trans people
| didn't exist to have any semblance of "individual effort"
| determining outcomes in sports.
| hirundo wrote:
| > Are you sure this isn't just an assumption you're
| making based on your "ideological environment"? How do
| you know? Have you done the research?
|
| I feel that I have direct relevent expertise ... having
| wrestled many boys and girls my age growing up. There was
| at least one girl who could and did kick my ass. But
| there were lots of boys I couldn't beat.
|
| It doesn't take a biologist to make this unsubtle
| observation. Boys in general are considerably advantaged
| over girls in any kind of brawl. An environment that
| doesn't allow a person to learn this growing up is too
| safe.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| Now you're talking about the distribution in cis people,
| but you haven't accounted for HRT. Hormones are an
| immensely important part of sexual dimorphism, so much so
| that people with an XY chromosome and complete
| testosterone insensitivity (CAIS) usually only find out
| they're not XX in their teens when they visit their
| Gynecologist about lacking periods.
|
| It is _very_ hard to maintain "excess" muscle on
| feminizing HRT (the body has different muscle to fat
| target ratios depending on hormones), and impossible to
| (re)build it. Someone would have to work
| disproportionately hard on maintaining most of their
| "male advantage" a year in. I'm not an athlete, but every
| trans person you ask will tell you that the difference in
| strength is quite significant. Even if I can just tell
| from being unable to open jars.
|
| That aside, I really recommend you invest time into that
| essay. It's an interesting tale about why we have
| segregated sports to begin with (believe it or not, women
| doing sports is a relatively recent thing) and how trans
| people really aren't the biggest interference to the
| unfairness of it all.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| Blair White is a hardline transmedicalist who called usage
| of puberty blockers "child abuse" and self-describes as
| "center-right".
|
| She might be trans, but she really is on one ideological
| line with Shrier und Soh. I'm not sure if White would call
| for all transition to be banned when opportunistic (as some
| members of the GOP do now), whereas I have doubts about
| Shrier and Soh being honest about finding transition
| acceptable in principle, but that's really the only
| difference.
|
| Or are we not talking about the same person?
| roenxi wrote:
| A fundamental of the human condition is we don't know who is
| lying and who is telling the truth. You can get a pretty good
| hit rate assuming everyone is lying, but the misses with that
| strategy are catastrophic because the rare truthful and
| productive people are dynamos.
|
| What people really want is someone who, as best they can, is a
| bit humble and a bit curious. A note which Rogan hits a lot
| better than most. It is irrelevant whether he is right or
| wrong, that isn't what people are looking for. They can't
| assess that and frankly most people don't prioritise the truth
| that highly. If they want to be told what is right and wrong
| they can go watch cable and get told by the likes of government
| officials, or the clergy. Neither are popular. People want to
| know what opinions are floating around.
|
| From that perspective, Joe Rogan does no wrong. He is
| fulfilling a role that people are desperate for. It is easy to
| overestimate the confident and noisy moralisers who worry about
| normal people hearing things that are not true - they aren't
| actually popular. That class of people are the sort who staff
| censorship bureaus.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| To add to this, Joe Rogan is higher quality questions than,
| eg, CNN anchors while having on heterodox specialists, eg
| Robert Malone.
|
| Joe Rogan also has lengthy interviews with major figures like
| Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk, which aren't done by
| traditional networks like CNN.
|
| I'm having trouble taking people who don't see the value in
| that seriously -- because it seems obvious to me why people
| would want a diversity of information.
| paulcole wrote:
| > "I'm an idiot don't listen to me"
|
| This is right out of the Jon Stewart playbook. He can say he's
| a "comedian" when criticized but clearly loves the influence he
| has a "journalist." Great schtick if you can pull it off.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| Damn, two people in this comment section brought up some
| random Comedy Central late night host from the mid 2010s. I
| feel like this is some elaborate bit, like Joe Rogan somehow
| has a secret conspiracy of how to reply to that comment, and
| they're all gonna pop out
| paulcole wrote:
| To be fair, I find Joe Rogan, Jon Stewart, and myself
| equally insufferable.
| greenhearth wrote:
| Jon Stewart was just in the news in the past few weeks,
| working to get military health insurance benefits passed
| through the U.S. Senate. It's rumored he might run for a
| political office. P.S. Conspiracy theories are usually
| cases of apophenia, which could lead to dysfunctional
| psychosis.
| romanhn wrote:
| Random host? Jon Stewart was huge, he defined political
| comedy for over 15 years. His audience though likely didn't
| overlap much with JRE due to different political leanings
| (well, that and age).
| chasd00 wrote:
| I, and my friends, were very skeptical of Jon Stewart
| taking over for Craig Kilborn but he really did a
| fantastic job. Think about how many careers were born on
| that show. Steve Carell for one. Stephen Colbert for
| another.
|
| EDIT: for those who don't remember policital
| comedy/commentary shows were not a thing before The Daily
| Show. Sort of like how people forget conversational
| format and ajax weren't really a thing before gmail
| remote_phone wrote:
| He unfortunately taught a generation of millennials that
| simply pointing out hypocrisy was enough.
|
| Trump's presidency showed that it entirely wasn't.
| clucas wrote:
| I'm going to take a guess... you are probably under 30, and
| the people who brought up Jon Stewart are probably over 35.
| He was pretty big (bigger than Rogan, probably) when we
| were forming our political opinions in high school and
| college, and he also blended the line of entertainment and
| political commentary. It's a very natural comparison. Don't
| be too quick to cry conspiracy.
| yalogin wrote:
| May be I am misremembering but I thought Jon always used it
| to mean "if I, a comedian, can ask these questions you should
| do better as you are the supposed expert"
| paulcole wrote:
| We probably can't agree here, but to me it was clear he
| wanted to avoid criticism by hiding behind his comedian
| status while simultaneously relishing the power and
| influence he had as a journalist.
| dwringer wrote:
| It's definitely worth watching again.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
| mattwilsonn888 wrote:
| Joe is an intelligent person. One of the clear signals of that
| is that he is willing to bring on experts and ask basic
| questions without being embarrassed in an attempt to
| understand, that also explains why he has such a general
| audience - for experts its a great venue to break down and
| think neutrally about their topic, since Joe's main agenda is
| to learn.
|
| As for misinformation, the word you seem to avoid saying - you
| clearly don't have any problem identifying when Joe is unsure
| of what he is saying, so I guess you are concerned about what
| other people are thinking. I'm not sure your speculation about
| how other people think is grounds for useful feedback. In fact
| I'm not sure you know much at all 3 episodes in.
| hericium wrote:
| When he doesn't understand someone, he enthusiastically
| agrees. When he's hosting someone with PhD or otherwise
| smarter than him, he just says "ooooooh" a lot and is
| overenthusiastic. He doesn't ask smart questions. He asks
| questions his audience will understand.
|
| He was "intelligent" maybe a few times in his life. Those are
| represented by the third eye on show's emblem/logo.
| stoplying1 wrote:
| It's always something to watch people with certain types of
| relationships to online celebrities construct this entire
| illusory, aspirational set of attributes onto their e-celeb
| and then reverse integrate it as a part of their own
| internal identity effectively.
|
| Resulting in "asking dumb questions and thoughtlessly
| yielding to the last authority that spoke" being portrayed
| as some height of intelligence.
| evv555 wrote:
| >But people have this weird way of taking things they like and
| not only rejecting criticism but making it their whole
| identity. Joe can do no wrong and if people dislike him it's
| because they don't "get it" and they are just being soft.
|
| I see what you're getting at but I think you're putting the
| cart before the horse here. JRE has become a highly politicized
| target and criticism(or praise) of the show is a proxy
| narrative for half-dozen other issues. This is just more
| identity politics spilling over into more facets of our lives.
|
| >Joe also likes to deflect by saying "I'm an idiot don't listen
| to me" which hey that's fine but if you're going to ramble
| about how the moon is made of cheese then say "don't listen to
| me" but then bring on a guest who is going to talk about how
| the moon is made of cheese; the line that is being pushed is
| pretty clear even if it is unintentional.
|
| I think the diversity of perspectives is a valuable part of the
| show. But it's a balancing act with many pitfalls.
| rocqua wrote:
| > This is just more identity politics spilling over into more
| facets of our lives.
|
| Could you elaborate what you mean? Especially the term
| 'identity politics' feels like it is charged and in danger of
| being mis-interpreted.
| evv555 wrote:
| The trend of people forming deep tribal identity around
| political affiliations and institutions. Speech then is
| first and foremost performative signaling of your in-group
| affiliation to the good group or the evil group. At least
| that's the lense any speech or action is looked at within
| identity politics.
| rocqua wrote:
| Thanks for that clear explanation!
| powerhour wrote:
| You say trend like it is a recent phenomenon and not
| something that has been happening for centuries if not
| millennia.
| adamrezich wrote:
| it would be dishonest to ignore the fact that
| "contemporary identity politics" kicked fully into gear
| as a direct response to #Occupy--and its objective was &
| continues to be successful
| powerhour wrote:
| Contemporary identity politics are at least in part a
| response to the contemporary "occupy" movements, sure,
| and that's pretty much by definition.
| kranke155 wrote:
| That's true. Identity politics is just a new name for it,
| but we did use to burn people at the stake for the same
| reason.
| threeseed wrote:
| > JRE has become a highly politicized target
|
| He has deliberately made it that way because it is highly
| profitable for him.
| WithinReason wrote:
| So then why did he reject Trump when he wanted to come on
| the podcast?
| pwinnski wrote:
| All downside, no upside. It wouldn't boost his
| popularity, but would open him up to new levels of
| criticism.
| WithinReason wrote:
| It would boost his popularity with half the country, and
| he would get an insane amount of views on the interview.
| All upside no downside.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > It would boost his popularity with half the country
|
| idk, i feel like the majority of trump supporters already
| listen to JRE. Those that don't support Trump would hate
| Joe giving Trump the time of day and therefore risk
| losing those listeners while gaining none. I don't see an
| upside to Trump being on JRE.
| weberer wrote:
| That's a pretty large estimate. I'd be surprised if even
| 10% of Americans even listen to podcasts at all.
| adamrezich wrote:
| the other half of the country (world?) would hate Rogan
| for having Trump on. imagine if they agreed on anything.
| imagine if they made each other laugh. the "you're giving
| a platform for HATE" rhetoric would be deployed in full
| gear. Rogan would undoubtedly ask tough questions, but no
| matter what he were to ask, it would never be "tough
| enough" for many. I'm not a big JRE guy but I would be
| very interested in watching a Trump episode of the show--
| however, I think Rogan made the right choice by not
| opening that can of worms. at least, at this point in
| time.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| He said he'd have Trump on prior to the election (with no
| pre-screen questions, which the Trump team wouldn't agree
| to).
|
| Post Jan 6, Trump is a pariah for anyone not running in a
| Republican primary.
| screye wrote:
| > Joe can do no wrong and if people dislike him it's because
| they don't "get it" and they are just being soft.
|
| I find that this is a reaction to a reaction.
|
| I have frequently heard women (and some elitist men) make fun
| of those who listen to Joe Rogan, long before Joe was every
| heralded as a hero of the masses. It is only after he started
| receiving what was perceived to be unjust criticism that people
| started leaning into the 'with him or against him'
| polarization.
| jmyeet wrote:
| > Joe also likes to deflect ...
|
| I think there's some truth to what he says here. For some
| topics he actually just does let people talk. And that's fine.
| But there are some topics where Joe isn't just "asking
| questions" but is actively pushing a particular viewpoint.
|
| The first and most obvious one is vaccines. Covid has broken
| this man's brain. If you go back to March 2020, his interview
| with Michael Osterholm [1] was actually really good. It was one
| of the first I saw that recognized how serious this actually
| was. But for whatever reasons, Joe has decided vaccines are bad
| and he's had a parade of grifters and charlatans on to back up
| that view (eg Robert Malone). There is absolutely no evidence
| in the world that will change his mind.
|
| The second is all his manosphere [2] content. He really rode
| the wave of popularity of Jordan Peterson in particular and
| really gave him a platform with no pushback whatsoever. The
| recent rise of Andrew Tate is just the latest manifestation of
| this (fun fact: Tate dated JP's daughter a couple of years
| ago).
|
| The third is transgender people. Trans people broke a lot of
| people in a way that's reminiscent of 1990s era homophobia.
| Bill Maher is another example of this.
|
| So a big part of Joe's popularity isn't just a "dumb guy asking
| questions", it's that he pushes very normative and popular
| opinions.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere
| remote_phone wrote:
| You're wrong on many levels.
|
| Joe Rogan as recently as last week said the vaccine is mostly
| safe and saved millions of lives. What he says is that the
| vaccine is more dangerous to some people than the narratives
| and pharmaceutical companies says. And he despises how you
| can't even talk about the negative effects for some people
| without being cast as an anti-vaxxer. You entirely proved his
| point.
|
| The exact same thing applies to transgender people. He
| believes 100% in their ability to be treated as the gender
| they believe they are. But his main disagreement is
| pretending that it's okay that biological males vs biological
| females is fair. It's not, especially in sports like MMA
| which he is an expert in.
|
| Yet by talking about it, he is cast as a transphobe just like
| you accused him of.
|
| And to correct you further, the 90s were the period where gay
| rights went mainstream so you're even wrong about that. That
| when people started understanding that it wasn't a choice and
| was biological. Shows like Dawson's Creek really humanized
| being gay for an entire generation. That's when Canada made
| gay marriage legal.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
|
| Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (342-67) Passed the
| Senate on September 10, 1996 (85-14)
|
| What happened later is remarkable, but it wasn't even close
| in 1996.
| remote_phone wrote:
| That in response to the growing pro gay rights movement.
| jmyeet wrote:
| > Joe Rogan as recently as last week said the vaccine is
| mostly safe
|
| - "How Joe Rogan Became a Cheerleader for Ivermectin" [1]
|
| - "Fact-Checking Joe Rogan's Interview With Robert Malone
| That Caused an Uproar" [2]
|
| - "What the Joe Rogan podcast controversy says about the
| online misinformation ecosystem" [3]
|
| > But his main disagreement is pretending that it's okay
| that biological males vs biological females is fair.
|
| Sports isn't fair, period. It's why there's no "under 6
| foot" NBA league. It's only with trans people that people
| suddenly (pretend to) care.
|
| > And to correct you further, the 90s were the period where
| gay rights went mainstream
|
| - "ABC shelves Ellen" (1998) [4]
|
| - "Why Laura Dern Didn't Work For A Year, Despite Jurassic
| Park's Success" [5]
|
| - "How 'homophobia' denied Sharon Bottoms custody of her
| son in the 1990s" [6]
|
| Examples here are legion. Homophobia permeated popular
| culture (eg TV and box office movies). There was progress
| made, sure, but homophobia was so normalized at the time. I
| have to wonder if you lived through this era (as I did) or
| just read about it.
|
| I mean, homophobia was still weaponized into the 2000s.
| Many credit Karl Rove with weaponizing state ballot
| measures on gay marriage to win the 2004 presidential
| election [7].
|
| > Dawson's Creek
|
| technically the coming out storyline was 1999-2000 I
| believe and was controversial. Roseanne [8] is probably a
| better example. Picket Fences ended up censoring a kiss
| scene in 1993 [9] and caused quite a lot of controversy at
| the time.
|
| [1]: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-
| features/joe-ro...
|
| [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/arts/music/fact-
| check-joe...
|
| [3]: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-
| doctor-c...
|
| [4]: https://money.cnn.com/1998/04/24/bizbuzz/ellen/
|
| [5]: https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2485962/why-laura-
| dern-didn...
|
| [6]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-homophobia-
| denied-shar...
|
| [7]: https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=230634&page=1
|
| [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Ask,_Don%27t_Tel
| l_(Ros...
|
| [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_%26_Spice_(Picket_
| Fences...
| remote_phone wrote:
| Nothing you posted contradicts what I said. Questioning
| the vaccine doesn't mean that he didn't think it was safe
| for most people. He even almost got the vaccine if not
| for a scheduling conflict.
|
| When I said "mainstream" I didn't mean they were
| generally accepted. I meant that the issue of gay rights
| became a topic. Some places like Canada openly legalized
| gay marriage without much of a protest. Gay rights
| infection point was definitely in the 90s and only got
| stronger. It wasn't like the 80s where gays were openly
| mocked like in Three's Company
| UncleMeat wrote:
| He described Fallon Fox as "a man in a dress." Rogan's
| statements about transwomen are considerably broader than
| "I just want to talk about the impact on sporting
| regulations."
| bhedgeoser wrote:
| > but if you're going to ramble about how the moon is made of
| cheese
|
| Examples of stupid things he's said?
| vlunkr wrote:
| > Joe can do no wrong and if people dislike him it's because
| they don't "get it"
|
| In my experience, it's the opposite with Joe Rogan. His fans
| seem pretty casual, it's the people who don't like the show who
| are extremely outspoken about it.
| mbostleman wrote:
| Exactly. It seems like a common pattern - I often wonder how
| much a rise in popularity is because of those that like it
| vs. those that are somehow angered by it.
| acadapter wrote:
| In other words, he's a glorified talk show host?
| hackerbrother wrote:
| talk, show, host... yes, that is exactly what he is!
| Jhjjjjjjjjrte wrote:
| What guest are you specifically talking about?
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| I think you're underestimating the power of dumb questions to
| an extent.
|
| Like, I wholeheartedly agree, he doesn't achieve good
| interviews by the quality of his questions.
|
| Except... that he kind of does, in a weird way. Experts on the
| show are happy to use those questions as a launching point to
| correct whatever incorrect assumptions he had in asking it.
|
| He's very good at getting people to open up and talk. Perhaps
| dumb questions play a role in that? Perhaps they make people
| feel comfortable by validating their expert status in the room
| or something, I don't know. But I do know that it seems to
| work. I also know he's a comedian. Comedy is fundamentally a
| weirdly manipulative art form... You carefully craft a set of
| jokes and then practice over and over again to make it feel
| like an organic, albeit funny conversation. Every little pause,
| intonation, turn of phrase, it's all intentional. So, being
| that he is a practiced comedian, it's possible some of that
| interview style is pretty intentional too.
| eldenwrong wrote:
| HN is full of IYIs.
| Veen wrote:
| Intellectual Yet Idiot, in case anyone was wondering. It's
| a favourite insult of Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Ironic given he's perhaps the most noteworthy example of
| one
| belter wrote:
| There is a lot to criticize of Nassim Taleb, but your
| statement in unkind, as he did excellent work. I would
| say 1/3 of his audience, can't stand him because they
| don't like his style, but it's ultimately their loss. The
| other 1/3 don't like he is somewhat external to academic
| circles.
|
| I think [1] is a balanced evaluation.
|
| "...In short, Taleb resists categorization. If I had to
| pigeonhole him, I'd call him an anti-guru guru. That is,
| he mercilessly bashes other gurus, pundits and prophets
| and warns you not to fall for them. He depicts himself as
| a brave, lonely truth-teller in a world of fools and
| frauds. In so doing, he becomes a guru himself, with a
| cult-like following...
|
| ...even if you question what Taleb is saying--and you
| certainly should--he forces you to examine your own
| biases and assumptions. Yes, he can be irritating, but so
| are many of our most original thinkers..."
|
| [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-
| check/nassim-tale...
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I think he's a manipulative asshole. He's a one trick
| pony who picks a random group, makes false claims about
| what they believe, which are obviously wrong, and then
| invites the reader to feel smarter than his target group
| by pointing out why the obviously wrong idea is wrong.
|
| Bullshit along the lines of: Did you know statisticians
| believe the normal distribution curve is infallible and
| perfectly describe real world scenarios? This actually
| false. Therefore, statisticians are stupid, and you're
| smarter than them for understanding otherwise. And I am
| smarter than everyone for having pointed it out.
|
| He doesn't force you to examine your own biases and
| assumptions. He tricks you into believing that you have
| done so and have come out wiser. He's just yet another
| fool and fraud in a pit of fools and fraud.
| TMWNN wrote:
| Or as Bertrand Russell said, "This is one of those views
| which are so absurd that only very learned men could
| possibly adopt them."
| gilleain wrote:
| Oddly enough, it also appears to be Turkish for "Good".
| axg11 wrote:
| > Joe ask the "dumb questions." The questions you would ask if
| you as a laymen were sitting in front of a Nobel Prize winning
| scientist
|
| This is exactly why he's so popular. Most people are laymen.
| Joe doesn't have a research team coming up with optimal talking
| points. He's a regular minded guy asking regular questions. He
| achieves depth through the sheer length of interviews.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Joe is playing the same role as the youngest child at the
| Seder. It's a popular format because it serves a genuine
| human need. If no one asks the most basic questions, no one
| gets the most basic answers.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Well sure, but if the youngest child is primarily querying
| the schizophrenic uncle and taking his answers with
| complete credulity, then pawning them off on millions of
| other credulous people, it's reasonable to feel that
| there's a serious downside to such an act.
| dominotw wrote:
| will someone think of the credulous people.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Doing so is essentially a hallmark of a society. Laws
| against fraud, for example, are among the oldest in
| existence, despite fraud overwhelmingly targeting the
| most credulous among us (for obvious reasons). This is a
| good thing, actually.
| dominotw wrote:
| > Doing so is essentially a hallmark of a society.
|
| would this imply something is not right with our society
| because there aren't laws against listening to joe rogan.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Nope! It implies that yes, someone should think of the
| credulous people.
|
| I don't believe censoring Rogan is
| justified/wise/useful/etc. -- even if it _were_ it'd
| still be illegal anyway. But does that mean I think we
| should just throw credulous folks to the wolves with
| snarky remarks like "won't someone think of the credulous
| people?!"
|
| We _should_ think of the credulous people, and take
| society's threats against them and their threat to
| society seriously.
| seper8 wrote:
| Maybe the schizophrenic uncle is telling us the earth is
| not at the centre of the universe, should we censor him?
|
| Humanity has proven to be so wrong about so many things
| before, best let the discussion flow instead of trying to
| kill competing theories...
| ethanbond wrote:
| I didn't suggest killing competing theories. Only
| pointing out that this analogy is missing some fairly
| important characteristics. You know, the ones people are
| actually worried about.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| If "out of my butt" is the best support you have for your
| "theory", then it's not really a theory is it?
|
| Any of us could write an app that generated "theories"
| ... a few may even turn out to be correct or close.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| I am pretty confident that the appropriate place to
| distribute revolutionary new scientific models based in
| factual evidence isn't the joe rogan experience.
| FredPret wrote:
| You'd be hard-pressed to find a _better_ one.
|
| Research shouldn't be locked up behind paywalls and in
| ivory towers. It should be public knowledge and lots of
| basic questions should be asked about it.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Sure. And a growing portion of research is made available
| through places like arxiv. The government is also pushing
| new regulations to make research publicly available when
| funded by the government, which is a dominant force in
| grant funding. This is _wildly_ different than presenting
| findings on JRE.
|
| And, in general, revolutionary new scientific ideas are
| targeted at _scientists_ rather than the lay public.
| Ideas like new models of the solar system don 't tend to
| take hold because the public thinks they are cool but
| instead because they become inevitable within the
| scientific community. Being less able to go on JRE and
| talk about how awesome ivermectin to a massive listener
| base is isn't going to limit scientific breakthroughs in
| the future.
| mcculley wrote:
| This is a straw man. There is a spectrum of choices
| between having Alex Jones on multiple times and treating
| him seriously and censoring him.
| nradov wrote:
| It's not an "act". For better or worse, you're hearing
| the real Joe Rogan. He would have the same conversations
| with guests even if the microphones were switched off.
| criddell wrote:
| The thing about asking the schizophrenic uncle about
| things is that it becomes clear they're schizophrenic,
| even if the child asking is buying it all.
|
| A while ago I read that lots of people were upset with
| Joe Rogan for having Alex Jones on his show. I really
| didn't know anything about Jones other than what you see
| on cable news and Rogan I'm fairly neutral on. So I found
| an Alex Jones episode and played it. Jones came off as
| being entirely unhinged. It was not flattering at all.
| They were basically winding Jones up and then letting him
| explode.
| remote_phone wrote:
| They also fact checked EVERYTHING Jones said. They would
| interrupt the conversation and fact check him real time
| which I really liked.
| aeneasmackenzie wrote:
| And almost all the fact checks came back and Jones was
| right. They kept doing it after an hour of this stuff.
| kranke155 wrote:
| The Alex Jones episodes are well known for being the
| wildest comedy ever aired on JRE.
|
| I think he sees himself a lot in the tradition of Stern
| and Opie and Anthony, where some outrageous stuff is
| cool. He doesn't see himself as a media outlet but a guy
| who wants to have fun and push weird shit. Obviously it's
| caused him trouble with the anti vacc guys he had and
| he's sort of normalised his show a bit, but still I think
| he sees himself in that tradition. He's not looking to be
| Dan Rather.
| ethanbond wrote:
| IMO I think this is the root of both the valid defense
| and the valid critique of Rogan. He doesn't seem to
| properly account for the fact that having the # of
| followers he has is _itself_ a signal of credibility.
| It's very hard to overcome that with offhanded "I'm a
| normal guy don't listen to me!" remarks. I don't feel he
| properly informs his users of just _how fringe_ some of
| his guests are, and in fact once they're on his show
| they're _actually not_ fringe (in the social proof sense
| of fringiness).
| panzagl wrote:
| > having the # of followers he has is itself a signal of
| credibility
|
| Is it though? I assumed it meant people found his show
| entertaining.
| kranke155 wrote:
| I understand your point and partially agree with it - I
| do think Rogan has learnt something from the vacc
| debacle. I'm just trying to explain from what I think is
| his POV on the matter.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > Most people are laymen.
|
| This statement is not even false. One is inevitably a
| layperson in most things, even at one's job (like Rogan is at
| interviewing interesting people), but also usually _not_
| layperson in at least some things.
| FredPret wrote:
| So for any given topic... most people are laymen
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Depends on what the topic is and who is in the audience?
| You can't be a layperson full stop you can be a layperson
| at something, it's not applicable without a topic
| dominotw wrote:
| > But people have this weird way of taking things
|
| I have people in my friend circle who have opinions about joe
| rogan ( and his audience) even though they've never listened to
| him.
|
| Even top comment on this thread is a meta comment about
| unreasonable behavior joe rogan supporters or something.
| [deleted]
| kashunstva wrote:
| > At a long desk in the big main room sits an attractive nurse.
| She offers us an enhancer of B12 or NAD+, through a shot or an
| IV.
|
| There is one and only one indication for parenteral cyancobalamin
| (B12) administration and that is deficiency thereof due to
| inadequate production of gastric intrinsic factor or a disease of
| the terminal ileum. Period.
|
| It's hard to take anyone seriously who would encourage podcast
| guests to receive vitamin B12 injections without documenting
| deficiency. The evidence on this subject is widely available; so
| if Mr. Rogan gets this so wrong, where else are his impaired
| reasoning processes taking his 11M followers?
| rtev wrote:
| While it is kind of absurd, to be fair, B12 has documented
| useful benefits for people that aren't deficient. Also, your
| body eliminates any B12 it doesn't use in urine, so not really
| any risk of overdose.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Why do you completely disown the concept of off-label usage for
| drugs?
| robocat wrote:
| > It's hard to take anyone seriously
|
| So you want an authority, rather than to make your mind up
| yourself?
|
| Watching an interview where both participants are less than
| perfect challenges you to think for yourself.
|
| > where else are his impaired reasoning processes taking his
| 11M followers?
|
| The same place everyone is being taken by all the media we
| consume.
|
| It is ironic, but watching someone like Alex Jones forces one
| to think. The real problem is how do we learn to filter when an
| "authority" is speaking or writing?
| darawk wrote:
| > There is one and only one indication for parenteral
| cyancobalamin (B12) administration and that is deficiency
| thereof due to inadequate production of gastric intrinsic
| factor or a disease of the terminal ileum. Period.
|
| You are aware of a study of B12 injections in non-deficient
| individuals indicating no benefit? "No evidence" is not the
| same thing as "evidence against".
| robbiep wrote:
| Whilst I agree unreservedly about the indications for b12 and
| it's complete lack of medical benefit in any other situation,
| I've also experienced sections of the population that
| definitively require (... not medically, but like present to
| their GP) injections on a quarterly basis.
|
| Specifically Australia's elderly Hungarian and Eastern European
| population, it seems to be literally something inbuilt in them
| to come in and demand it. They swear by it. And as much as I
| absolutely hate tipping the hat to rubbish complementary and
| alternative treatments, or which vitamin supplementation has to
| be amongst the definitively most wasteful, it is simply not
| possible to convince some people
| purple_ferret wrote:
| this is the woman who chided twitter employees for concerns about
| Elon Musk[0] and told them not to come to Substack a couple
| months it was revealed they are essentially broke[1]
|
| [0]https://twitter.com/lulumeservey/status/1511376638487019524?..
| .
|
| [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/media/substack-l..
| .
| [deleted]
| Bhilai wrote:
| I have never a podcast from Joe Rogan but I have definitely heard
| him mentioned around a lot of controversial topics - vaccines,
| Ivermectin and pushing a certain political ideology. Lets say I
| want to start on a clean slate, what episode in your opinion
| truly reflects the best of Joe Rogan?
| wppick wrote:
| #1169 - First interview with Elon Musk
|
| Episodes with Rhonda Patrick
|
| #1555 - Interview with Alex Jones
|
| First couple interviews with Jordan Peterson
|
| Mike Tyson Episodes
|
| Jack Dorsey and Vijayya Gadde - #1258
|
| Paul Stamets - #1035
| nixonpjoshua1 wrote:
| Also #1309 Naval Ravikant
| candiddevmike wrote:
| I blame JRE for the ridiculous amount of "I'm a famous person
| interviewing other famous people" podcasts everywhere.
| Biganon wrote:
| When I reached the NFTs and Elon Musk bit, I was convinced this
| was satire
| [deleted]
| pookha wrote:
| Rogan's sort of like an unfiltered Oprah for men. Some of Rogan's
| content is hilarious, some of it's interesting and some of it's
| boring. But I've never listened to a Rogan podcast and felt the
| urge to be an angry dude behind a keyboard and rage over moron's,
| a "dumb guy", "misinformation" etc. It's just a long form
| conversation with a comedian and martial arts analyst. The people
| that feel that much hate over some casual bro having long talks
| should switch their Chai Lattes to decaf.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| I think you do actually feel the urge to be an angry dude
| behind a keyboard, because whilst explaining to us just how
| cool and unbothered you were you couldn't get through half a
| paragraph without resorting to personally insulting people you
| disagreed with about Rogan.
| pookha wrote:
| What made you think I wasn't bothered by this? The entire
| reason I posted that was to show that I'm bothered by angry
| people behind keyboards attacking people's mental
| capabilities over simple disagreements. I try not to be angry
| though. Life can be very short and you only have so much
| energy and focus (finite resource) and the world already has
| enough suffering. My message is to lighten up and avoid
| feeding into mobs. I know that sounds corny and I'm probably
| an angry-dude to you but that's where I'm at in life. My
| apologies if the snarky coffee quip pissed you off.
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| "Chris gave a great interview by being unscripted, authentic, and
| interesting."
|
| /eyeroll
| CTDOCodebases wrote:
| It was boring.
|
| To an outsider it looked like Chris was there for the
| opportunity not the conversation.
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| Isn't every guest though...really?
| purple_ferret wrote:
| When your comms director chauffeurs you to an interview,
| outlines how they went over talking points with you, and then
| in the writeup gives that assessment...
| [deleted]
| drstewart wrote:
| acatton wrote:
| > At a long desk in the big main room sits an attractive nurse.
| She offers us an enhancer of B12 or NAD+, through a shot or an
| IV.
|
| > I get a shot of NAD+, which is supposed to be good for energy
| and metabolism. NAD stands for Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide,
| and I don't know what the + is. (Actually, I don't know what any
| of it is, but the nurse said she takes it, and if you saw this
| woman, you too would ask for a shot of whatever she's on.)
|
| Am I the only one cringing at people taking random injections
| from random strangers claiming they have a semi-medical degree?
| seper8 wrote:
| "from random strangers claiming they have a semi-medical
| degree?"
|
| Who is claiming this exactly?
| acatton wrote:
| Well she says this person is a nurse. So this person most
| likely introduced themselves as a nurse. So they are claiming
| they are a nurse until it's proven true, right?
| seper8 wrote:
| Who else do you get injections/supplements from other than
| "people claiming to have medical degrees"...
| bad416f1f5a2 wrote:
| Go to any gym with a focus on weightlifting (ie: not a
| Planet Fitness). Lift weights. Strike up a conversation
| with other people who lift weights.
|
| Soon a new world of injections and supplements will be
| yours if you want it.
| kbelder wrote:
| >Strike up a conversation with other people who lift
| weights.
|
| Nightmare fuel.
| ctf1er wrote:
| Nightmare fuel? Yeah, just got a shipment. You're gonna
| be ripped bro.
| acatton wrote:
| I'm not well verse in the US medical system. But in
| Germany, I get my injections from my doctor for which I
| can look up their license online.
|
| If I were to take supplements, which I don't, since I
| consider it to be pseudo-science[1][2], I would get them
| from my local drug store which has the german equivalent
| of a FDA license and regular audits.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v6rNFjlLI
|
| [2]
| https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the-
| vitam...
| nradov wrote:
| There are a zillion different substances classified as
| supplements. It's reductionist and intellectually
| dishonest to lump them all together. Some are effectively
| just placebos, or even harmful in high doses. Others
| appear to have beneficial effects. In many cases those
| effects are subtle, and might only be noticeable to
| people who push their bodies to the limit. Unfortunately,
| this is almost impossible to study through high-quality
| randomized controlled trials given the numerous
| confounding factors.
|
| Let's look at it empirically. Among elite athletes, how
| many take _zero_ supplements? I can 't prove that they're
| getting any benefit but the correlation between
| performance and the use of certain supplements is so
| strong that I suspect there's something real going on.
| (And by supplements I mean real supplements, not PEDS
| which are an entirely separate category.)
| philwelch wrote:
| There is a certain type of person who follows all the
| rules and regulations to the letter, implicitly trusts
| the authorities, and has an undisguised attitude of scorn
| towards anyone who does not live and act the same way. I
| think the relative prevalence of this attitude is a long-
| standing cultural difference between Germany and the US.
| darawk wrote:
| People get B12 injections from nurses all the time. It's
| extremely common in the US. NAD+ is probably less common,
| but it's not the nurse's credibility that's recommending
| the substance. The nurse is just there to inject it
| safely, something any nurse should be perfectly qualified
| to do.
| kube-system wrote:
| Many injections given in the US are administered by
| people _way_ less qualified than a nurse. A CMA can do
| quite a lot after just a one-year certificate program.
| preommr wrote:
| Are you taking into consideration how hot the nurse was?
| koheripbal wrote:
| Are you taking into consideration that none of that happened
| and it's meant to be comical?
| rtev wrote:
| Oh, it certainly happened. Nothing else in the article
| seems to be made up.
| conorcleary wrote:
| uhh you better believe there is a staff nurse at JRE
| handing out NAD.
| bluedino wrote:
| This is one thing that always puzzled me with recreational
| drugs.
|
| People just snort/eat/shoot/smoke whatever? It's been through
| how many shady people on the way to you?
| chasd00 wrote:
| drug users don't care otherwise they wouldn't be drug users.
| Look up Krokodil, addicts don't care what it does to them as
| long as there's a high somewhere in the effects. It basically
| impossible to stop demand side which is why the (futile)
| efforts are spent on the supply side.
| L_226 wrote:
| Yes because generally people who sell shit want to keep
| selling shit to the same people. So there is an incentive to
| sell stuff that is as close as possible to what the customer
| wants. Yes you get cases where people cut coke with fentanyl,
| but in general this is not how it works.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Test kits are available, lab testing is available in some
| places, most drugs are easy to "clean up", and some sources,
| while shady, rely wholly on reputation.
|
| There's also a risk/reward factor - many drugs are
| _incredibly_ enjoyable, and users feel it 's worth the risk.
| bluedino wrote:
| Oh, I've no doubt participated, it's just crazy because who
| knows what's actually in it.
|
| E.g., fentanyl.
| seper8 wrote:
| ... Thats where the mentioned test kits are for :)
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| I read "a shot" as in like, a shot glass, given the alternative
| was an IV (which could also be referred to as a shot?).
| gimmeThaBeet wrote:
| I read it to be a syringe or an iv drip. It definitely feels
| like disparate levels of administering, but going around this
| studio with an iv seems really inconvenient. > Later, just
| before taping, Joe goes over and gets his own jab of NAD+.
| aqme28 wrote:
| I read that the same until the next line
|
| > Later, just before taping, Joe goes over and gets his own
| jab of NAD+.
| obiefernandez wrote:
| No, given the substance he probably did indeed mean
| intravenously. NAD is degraded significantly in the stomach.
| TakeBlaster16 wrote:
| That honestly reminded me of Cuppliance from Black Mirror.
| dfc wrote:
| A nursing degree is a medical degree.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Dressing as a nurse and offering people injections doesn't
| mean you're a nurse.
|
| In fact, I'd be willing to bet that few nursing associations
| would look kindly on offering people unprescribed snake oil
| injections outside of a medical context and with no knowledge
| of their medical history.
| fragmede wrote:
| The way this works is the person giving the injections is
| an actual registered nurse, injecting vitamins from a
| licensed source, so that's legal. The particular
| formulation being injected may not have scientifically
| proven results but that's not required, the customer just
| needs to be willing to pay for the injection.
| [deleted]
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| I'd be willing to bet many NFL teams (for example) has one
| or more such nurses. I wouldn't be surprised if various
| executive suites have such people around, either.
| stripline wrote:
| Why would you find it hard to believe Joe Rogan has an
| actual registered nurse RN working for him? Not like he
| can't afford one.
|
| My wife currently works as a nurse at a hospital. She's
| tired of the poor working conditions at the hospital so
| she's applying to work at an infusion center for better
| hours and pay.
| itronitron wrote:
| There are several IV 'spa' places in Austin where people
| presumably go if they've had too much chardonnay the night
| before. Apparently carrot juice is too out-dated at this point.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| My mother sells random old bric-a-brac on eBay, and came across
| a 1960's era reprint of an early 1900's Sears Catalog which was
| fascinating to me on several levels - the first being that
| clearly it was nostalgic for folks in the 60's. For me it was a
| straight up historical document in that it showed literally
| anything you could order for your house.
|
| Some things would be little changed from today but obviously
| others would be very different. One of the weirdest things was
| the patent medication section. Just things like "Dr Fowler's
| Feminine Medicine" or stuff like that. Lots of promises to help
| out illness and zero lists of ingredients. It's absolutely
| bizarre to me, but I suppose not to everyone.
| tintedfireglass wrote:
| Even these days its no different. I got injured in a small
| Indian town and went to a local health center. The nurse
| never told me what they were injecting into me and frowned
| when I asked them if it was a tetanus injection or an
| antibiotic. Their tone changed to _You should trust us and
| not question our experience_
| faebi wrote:
| Absolutely, also I wonder if it was NMN instead.
| gilleain wrote:
| For reference, NAD is an electron carrier in cells (https://en.
| wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinamide_adenine_dinucleot...). The (+)
| stands for a charge on the molecule. Roughly, it is involved in
| oxidative metabolism, among many other processes.
|
| Calling it 'good for energy and metabolism' in one of those
| wishy-washy ideas about how the body works. It's not clear how
| adding more of one component of metabolism will affect how
| energy is moved around and released from food.
| motohagiography wrote:
| The zoolander reference was brilliant. A lot of the criticism of
| Rogan reduces to "the wrong kind of people" getting wealthy,
| asking questions, having opinions, leading conversations.
|
| The Zuckerberg interview he did was probably the most important
| interview of the last few years, and to go 3hrs with anyone with
| a calm and consistent interest and disposition is a direct result
| of his level of physical fitness and world class expertise as
| both a comedian and martial artist.
|
| There is a mind required for comedy that is transferrable where
| instead of making people laugh, you can use it to disarm people
| and get them to open up and share what they believe. Rogan's
| interview style is very closely related to comedy but just slowed
| down to a Tai Chi level, where there is an arc in the discussion
| where most people run out of neurotic energy after about an hour,
| and then instead of gotcha'ing them, he is just accepting, and
| then nudges them toward challenges, but not to catch them out,
| but to get them to be honest. The effect is beautiful.
|
| There is a lot of middlebrow anxiety about him, but I don't think
| it has standing unless it's from someone who is also pro-level
| funny, fit, and competent in their discipline.
| nix0n wrote:
| > The Zuckerberg interview he did was probably the most
| important interview of the last few years
|
| Why is this the first I'm hearing of it? It didn't seem to have
| any effect on how Facebook operates.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Look, I don't have a problem with Rogan (I grew up watching
| NewsRadio and Fear Factor), but this isn't even the best
| interview with Zuckerberg. That would be when Kara Swisher and
| Walt Mossberg interviewed him at the D Conference back in 2010
| and he sweat through his hoodie. And no, they weren't even
| challenging him or pushing back on him super hard -- he was
| just that unable to answer basic questions about privacy.
|
| Swisher has had him on her podcast multiple times since then
| and also had very good, very substantive interviews with him.
|
| Side note: Zuck has clearly invested many, many, many hours in
| media training over the last decade or so and it has paid off.
| He's still far from a good speaker but he's so much better,
| it's honestly impressive.
| philwelch wrote:
| I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not making people
| sweat is the mark of a good interview.
| ryanisnan wrote:
| When the person in the hot-seat is in direct control over a
| platform that can influence major world events, yeah, I
| think so?
| philwelch wrote:
| There's value to confrontational interviews, but not
| every interview or interviewer needs to be
| confrontational.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| Perhaps when the subject is that powerful, they do?
| oswald42 wrote:
| Perhaps for you, but perhaps you also have a massive chip
| on your shoulder
| philwelch wrote:
| Is this actually a belief that Zuck is so unbelievably
| powerful that he doesn't deserve the courtesy of a less
| confrontational interview, or just a rationalization for
| the fact that you don't like him very much and would
| prefer to see him humiliated?
|
| Confrontational interviews are a difficult style to do
| well, and probably not a great style for Joe Rogan in
| particular. If the guest is smarter or at least more
| quick-witted than the interviewer, the interviewer can be
| made to look like a fool.
|
| Also, it's very easy for that style of interview to make
| people close down and rely on rehearsed talking points.
| If you really want to know what someone thinks, you need
| to create a sense of emotional safety for them to open
| up. Especially these days. You can't make the interview
| feel like an interrogation. Even literal interrogators
| will tell you that.
| ryanisnan wrote:
| I agree that they don't need to be confrontational
| necessarily. However, most platforms of any importance
| will have made contentious decisions that are worth being
| pressed on. So I think a good interview will press on
| those decisions (or lack of), and naturally become
| confrontational.
| philwelch wrote:
| And there's a couple of ways of going about that,
| depending on the guest and the interviewer. If you're
| Chris Wallace interviewing Bill Clinton on Fox News, you
| can just start an argument because Bill Clinton loves
| arguing with people and will rise to the challenge. Other
| times you have to open people up with kindness.
| tharne wrote:
| > I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not making
| people sweat is the mark of a good interview.
|
| Exactly. Part of the reason Joe Rogan is so huge is that a
| lot of people are sick of the current interviewing model,
| where some sneering journalist (who usually lives in
| Brooklyn) asks a bunch of leading questions in an effort to
| humiliate his guest by luring them into a contradiction.
|
| Well-adjusted people don't regularly enjoy watching others
| get humiliated. They'd rather see an interesting
| conversation between interesting people, which is exactly
| what Rogan gives them and exactly what the traditional
| media does not.
| kahrl wrote:
| This is literally the "Well, what color is YOUR Bugatti?"
| defense of Andrew Tate spouted by teenagers.
| standardUser wrote:
| An impressive combination of gate-keeping and fanboyism that I
| think perfectly illustrates why so many people dislike Rogan
| and his devotees. God forbid someone "without standing" dare to
| criticize the man himself, right? Especially if they aren't as
| (checks notes)... fit as him?
| purple_ferret wrote:
| >The Zuckerberg interview he did was probably the most
| important interview of the last few years,
|
| You mean of all interviews done anywhere? Surely, that's
| hyperbole.
|
| What exactly came out of that interview that's worth noting
| other than that Facebook throttled a Hunter Biden story (which
| we already knew had been done across social media platforms)
| rospaya wrote:
| > The Zuckerberg interview he did was probably the most
| important interview of the last few years, and to go 3hrs with
| anyone with a calm and consistent interest and disposition is a
| direct result of his level of physical fitness and world class
| expertise as both a comedian and martial artist.
|
| You should think about the tens of thousands of journalists who
| have done the same thing for a hundred years without being fit,
| comedians or kickboxers or whatever.
|
| The whole comment reads like idolatry.
| aaron695 wrote:
| npc54321 wrote:
| motohagiography wrote:
| To be able to do a 3hr interview without neuroticism requires
| stamina that you can only learn by having become very good at
| something with practice. When you look at journalists who
| can't do that without centering the conversation back on
| themselves or using confrontation, it's pretty clear that
| competence in a physical discipline makes the difference.
|
| Interesting comparison to journalists though. Who would be a
| peer as an interviewer? Maybe George Plimpton, Christine
| Amanpour, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, or Dominick Dunne?
|
| Personally, I respect physical competence, _techne_ over
| _episteme_ , experiment over theory, performance over
| criticism, predictive power over post-hoc explanation, etc.
| It's more of an orientation than an idolatry.
| flycaliguy wrote:
| Howard Stern. I wish Rogan had his level of intelligence
| and insight into the human mind. Howard is also much
| funnier and knows how to keep a show from turning into a
| sleeping aid.
|
| No matter how hard you practice, you can't fake funny.
| programmarchy wrote:
| Hardly. Howard Stern gets views by shocking his audience.
| He's raunchy and sadistic, either asking people about
| their personal sex lives, or bringing on a disabled
| person in order to humiliate them. He's not pursuing any
| intellectual aims. There's no comparing what Stern and
| Rogan are doing.
| twmiller wrote:
| "Who would be a peer as an interviewer?"
|
| Dick Cavett has forgotten more about the art of the
| conversational interview than most people have ever known.
| Intelligent, perceptive, and witty. I'll take his 40-year-
| old youtube clips any day of the week over the wannabe
| everyman that Joe Rogan pretends to be.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| > When you look at journalists who can't do that without
| centering the conversation back on themselves or using
| confrontation, it's pretty clear that competence in a
| physical discipline makes the difference.
|
| It's not clear to me at all, to be honest.
|
| > Personally, I respect [...] experiment over theory
|
| Yet your theory above on how competence in a physical
| discipline confers ability to conduct interviews for longer
| periods without becoming neurotic seems entirely
| unsubstantiated by experiment. Are you aware of any studies
| that back it?
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| You seem unaware that many, many journalists and
| interviewers do indeed spend several hours interviewing
| their subjects....that is then significantly edited down.
| That good interviewers (and their staff) have spent many,
| many hours doing background research to prepare for the
| interview.
|
| If you think Joe Rogan is an impressive interviewer, your
| mind will be blown away by someone like Terry Gross. She
| appeared on the Tonight Show and Fallon showed a photo of a
| book Gross had read before interviewing the author -
| stuffed full of notes, page corners turned down
|
| Stephen Colbert presenting her Peabody award covers her
| show better than I ever could:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl8mkTFY-D8
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Exactly what my comment I spent way too much time writing
| was trying to say.
|
| And as you say, people like Terry Gross and Oprah and
| Diane Sawyer and Mike Wallace and even Howard Stern (who
| is one of the best ever at interviewing) actually do
| research ahead of time. And the interviews are far better
| for it. Having an off the cuff conversation is fine.
| Having awareness of the person you're going to talk to,
| familiarity with their work and with what they are about,
| is even better.
|
| Watching Oprah interview Lance Armstrong remains a master
| class in the art form and her ability to interview such a
| wide range of people about so many things is just
| incredible. Likewise, Terry Gross does what she does so
| well -- and is one of the best audio journalists of all
| time, that it's honestly comical for Rogan to even be in
| the same sentence.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Charlie Rose was one of the GOATs as well, and the exact
| opposite of Rogan: you could immediately tell he'd done a
| super deep dive on the interviewee and the subject at
| hand before the interview ever started.
|
| I think Letterman has been doing some interesting stuff
| lately in the gray area between those extremes. He's a
| humble funnyman that keeps things a little loose, but you
| can still tell he's done some prep and is quite well-
| read.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| >Interesting comparison to journalists though. Who would be
| a peer as an interviewer? Maybe George Plimpton, Christine
| Amanpour, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, or Dominick Dunne?
|
| That's a good list. I'll add more, because I think you're
| being pretty dismissive of journalism and the art of the
| interview that has been born from journalism:
|
| Terry Gross, Diane Sawyer, Mike Wallace, Larry King, Bob
| Woodward, Lesley Stahl, Bryant Gumble, Bob Costas, Walter
| Cronkite, Barbara Walters (who I personally don't love but
| who I can't deny has excelled at the art form and created
| many of its best elements), Jane Pauley, Gwen Ifill, David
| Frost, Audie Cornish, Kara Swisher.
|
| There are many, many more I'm forgetting. Interviewing has
| long been a stable of radio and television broadcasting.
| Not all broadcasters are journalists, but there is
| significant overlap.
|
| The two greatest living interviewers are Oprah Winfrey and
| Howard Stern. Stern isn't a journalist per se, but he is a
| broadcaster and he's absolutely as good as anyone who has
| ever done it (other than maybe Oprah, who has the ability
| to interview anyone and make it tantalizing). And I think
| Joe Rogan is a good interviewer and has absolutely improved
| over the years (as one would hope if you do something for
| hours a day for over a decade), but he doesn't even come
| close to either of them.
|
| And yes, interviewing is a physical act and an act of
| stamina, but I'm not sure what your point is here. Most
| journalists who are adept at the interview (and I'm
| sticking with primarily broadcast interviews here because
| written interviews, while equally important, are a
| different beast that often require far more stamina and
| time than doing a televised or audio broadcast of an
| interview) have that level of stamina, or more.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| > The two greatest living interviewers are Oprah Winfrey
| and Howard Stern.
|
| I would put Terry Gross miles ahead of both, and believe
| Stern's skill as an interviewer laps Winfrey several
| times. But I'd put nearly everyone on your list ahead of
| Winfrey as well.
|
| I'm curious: why did you call out Stern as "not a
| journalist" but not Winfrey? Neither one of them bears
| even a passing resemblance to a journalist as far as I
| can tell.
| freejazz wrote:
| It's not idolatry so much as just being uninformed about
| pretty much everything else in the world.
| adammarples wrote:
| I like Joe Rogan but calling him a world class comedian and
| martial artist is not right. He doesn't compete in BJJ and he
| always was a middling comedian.
| Happos wrote:
| You're not wrong, but Georges St-Pierre says Joe has the best
| turning side kick he has ever seen, and that's gotta count
| for something.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Indeed, and they hand out Netflix specials to anyone who
| can fog a mirror these days so it's probably not a useful
| measure... Maybe I should just do one.
| Happos wrote:
| Indeed. Just remember to keep your knee high - that's
| where the power comes from.
| purpleblue wrote:
| He sold out Madison Square Gardens and headlines along with
| Dave Chappelle. He's not one of the top comedians of all time
| in my opinion (Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock Louis CK, Bill
| Burr), but he is wildly successful for a comedian.
|
| He was a state champion in Tae Kwon Do when he was younger
| and is a black belt in BJJ. He's very experienced in multiple
| types of martial arts. He doesn't compete because he's 54
| years old but he still trains every day.
| greenhearth wrote:
| Your GOAT comedians list needs some work.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _top comedians of all time in my opinion (Dave Chappelle,
| Chris Rock Louis CK, Bill Burr)_
|
| Statistically, "of all time" should probably include some
| dead people...
| freejazz wrote:
| Have you watched his standup?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Is this satire?
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-30 23:01 UTC)