I know of someone who says they listen to Joe Rogan podcasts (political I assume) but I don’t know what this means or what the connotations are. Both this person and I live in east asia.
Joe Rogan is a clueless buffoon, and admits such, and leans libertarian. He also thinks he’s a neutral philosopher and doesn’t recognize his subjectivity.
A lot of uneducated people think they’re enlightened by listening to him but most of the time the show’s material is not really based in reality.
He’s a “libertarian” in the sense that like most libertarians…
he’s a conservative that’s too afraid to commit to the bit.
Libertarian has become just a code word for pushing conservative views to people who dismiss conservatives.
Mostly agreed. It’s also a label that conservatives who are not evangelical Christians and/or like drugs will apply to themselves. In that one sense, they can sometimes be easier to deal with on a day-to-day basis, but their entire political mindest is still a variation on “I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
There’s usually a healthy added spice of “and particularly fuck anybody who thinks studying a lot in college and putting in long hours at a finance-bro job where everybody looks like me means anything other than I’m a self-made man.”
could you give a few examples? This person was listening to something about Joe Biden
His recent viral moment discussing Biden was about how he’s no longer lucid, and shouldn’t be let to run for a second term. His guest was trying to say how much worse trump was, but Rogan doesn’t really think either ought to be president in 2024.
any chance you could give a time period for this? was this a few months ago? this might have been what they were listening to
The most recent viral moment I can remember is the Bill Maher episode from Sept 2
Here it is, jumping in talking about Biden https://youtu.be/4btqj2Ghk04?si=Ug6eNsPM67kcatDN
Wow… Maher on Rogan.
That’s such a mass of overconfidence bias in one place that it seems like they should’ve collapsed into some sort of Dunning-Kruger singularity.
Yeah, that feedback loop is so intense it should be able to accelerate matter past the speed of light.
Wow… Maher on Rogan.
Can we pause and talk about how Maher is wearing a fucking Family Guy Star Wars shirt.
Indeed. It’s like the world championship of cosplaying as a smart person.
thank you!
You’ll see him try to criticize Biden but Maher doesn’t let him, because he just keeps going back to how much worse trump is. While probably correct, Rogan just wanted to dump on the prez without talking about trump, and Maher can’t seem to do that.
Because that’s always what Joe wants to do. Maher bringing up Trump was a breath of fresh air and a conversation Joe has tried to avoid.
but Rogan doesn’t really think either ought to be president in 2024.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
He’s pushed pseudoscience from ice baths to loonie egypt bullcrap to just about all of the facebook posts your grandpa shares around with no critical thinking at all, conspiracy theories, discouraged young people from getting the vaccine, given a blank check of a platform with no opposition or fact checking to climate skepticism, transgender hate in sports, made LOTS of racist comments that just keep popping up, liberal use of the n word, fearmongering some slippery slopes about “the wokes”
I don’t know but if someone told me they listened to Joe Rogan, I would assume, the best case scenario is they are Libertarian. Worst case is Qanon nut job.
Yup, 100%. People don’t realize…
i don’t think he (the person I know) is a qanon, i don’t really know what that is but i don’t think we have those kind of people here in asia (our politics are focused on different things)
I don’t think he’s QAnon. I don’t think he believes MOST of the nutjobs that he lets on his show, or even cares what they believe. But he lets a bunch of QAnon people on his show, so a bunch of QAnon people listen to him. And he keeps letting weirdos on his show because that’s what his listeners want.
I would agree that the context is entirely different in Asia, his show is mostly harmful to Americans and wouldn’t affect other countries much.
I don’t think he’s separable from qanon or the alt-right. Enabling them to the extent he does means he’s one of them tacitly, if not officially.
Posted elsewhere, but what do you call 4 nazis drinking with a 5th person? 5 nazis.
Exactly.
i meant that the person i know is not qanon, i was responding to “I don’t know but if someone told me they listened to Joe Rogan, I would assume…Worst case is Qanon nut job.”
i meant that the person i know is not qanon
Part of this is bad phrasing because you are unaware of the movement but no one knows who Qanon is.
What people are talking about in this thread are people who follow the movement, and not who Qanon is. Of course your friend isn’t Qanon. That would be absurd.
But how do you know they aren’t posting on 4chan and following the movement? Is that what you are trying to say, that they don’t follow that sort of thing because you think its a movement that solely rooted in American politics?
What people are talking about in this thread are people who follow the movement, and not who Qanon is. Of course your friend isn’t Qanon. That would be absurd.
i didn’t mean i thought they were qnon, i meant they are not part of the qanon movement
I feel like the latter conclusion isn’t entirely true. If this is other countries’ exposure to political discourse, you should be concerned about the generations to follow, if we even make it that long as a species.
Fair, I think what I’m trying to say is that I wouldn’t expect Joe Rogan’s show to be as immediately offensive to those outside of America, who are missing the context of all the internal conflicts we have here.
i don’t think we have those kind of people here in asia
qanon is a 4chan/8chan thing that is part of www - that includes people posting from Asian countries. There are definitely Asians on there. There were definitely Asians who went along with that movement.
I’m Asian too. Has nothing to do with the qanon movement.
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan they are easily susceptible to authoritarian propaganda and should be avoided.
Rogan brings on guests who argue in bad faith for topics which they are unqualified to comment upon. They provide no evidence and Joe immediately agrees with whatever random bullshit they spew out. Doing this creates the image of credibility (big podcast man agreed with psycho, maybe I should agree with psycho), and since perception is reality that image has value.
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan they are easily susceptible to authoritarian propaganda and should be avoided.
What if they’re just talking about his previous acting career?
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan’s previous acting career they are easily susceptible to bad acting and worse comedy and should be avoided.
Newsradio was a fantastic show. You think it was filled with bad acting? How much of it did you watch?
Phil Hartman, Dave Foley, pre conviction andy dick, kathy griffin, maura tirney, and a slew of others.
Did not suck, was very good.
Joe Rogan was not a huge part of why. He was just to show up, look hot, say his lines, dont try too hard, just be near the funny when it happens.
Exactly but I’ve been crucified in conversation for bringing the show up because he was on there.
Which is weird. You can not like him and enjoy the show, especially since his lines were written for him and he was a small part of it. You could enjoy Fear Factor too, it’s not anything like how he is now.
Right? Like the person who was insisting he was always bald due to some weird blind hatred. Like the guy use to just be a dumb stand up comedian/actor. As far as I remember he wasn’t outspoken in the 90’s like he is now.
That’s entertaining, and for frequent listeners it lowers the threshold of disbelief. Because obviously Joe has some areas or guests of true expertise. How to distinguish that from bullshit? He talks about all of these things in the exact same mannerisms.
The user you are responding meant “what if that someone that brings up Joe is just talking about his previous acting career?”, not “what if that someone that Joe brings to his show is just talking about his previous acting career?”
I think you read it as the second sentence but it’s quite clear since they quoted your first sentence, not the second one. And somehow they got downvoted for being confused with your response.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about in regards to what I was saying?
Basically even if someone it talking about the previous acting career, which on the surface should seem credible. It’s really hard to properly judge if the person actually is creditable because of how often Joe will interview uncredible people and spin them as creditable.
Basically Joe’s creditability has be harmed so it’s hard to trust anything or anyone he talks to at face value
You know, I once tried to explain to someone on reddit that Joe Rogan wasn’t always bald and there is evidence of this when he was on Newsradio and he had a full head of hair back then.
Idiot on reddit just kept arguing that he was always bald and didn’t even care that video evidence was being posted because it was more important to hate Rogan than to accept factual evidence of something so incredibly minimal on the scale of things.
Like why would it be important if he was bald or not? And why would hating him be more important than something being a fact?
Anyway, I asked cause I love Newsradio but often can’t talk about it because people will either figure out that Joe Rogan was on there, or they already know and then think I’m a psychotic alt right idiot.
All because I watch a show that existed before that guy was ever doing a podcast.
Soich… bits…
I got lost in that sentence.
Fixed it for you…
He is a right wing extremism gateway. Also an antivaxxer, but I repeat myself.
He wasn’t originally. He examined some pretty neat subjects. Such as aliens and effects of marijuana and other recreational drugs. Amongst many doctors and experts on niche subjects that were interesting.
But somewhere around episode 500 shit started getting wonky. I just stopped enjoying his podcast.
Yeah I don’t remember exactly when he went completely off the rails, but early on it was just a chill podcast that talked about the kinda shit you’d bullshit with your buddies about
This is exactly what happened to a friend of ten years of mine. Exactly; he was the gateway drug to this: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/aug/02/everything-youve-been-told-is-a-lie-inside-the-wellness-to-facism-pipeline
Removed by mod
Well first his show is one of the biggest podcasts in existence and spent a lot of time at the #1 spot - it’s not just a new thing.
Compared to other career interlocutors we might name from old media like Barbara Walters or Michael Krasny, Joe Rogan is a major step down on intellect. He doesn’t really prepare for interviews - reading the subjects book or whatever. He just wings it and spends a lot of time nodding and saying “wow.”
This is a problem when he invites on guests who spew misinformation. Joe doesn’t know it’s misinformation because he doesn’t research. And in fact he seems to think he’s a rebel journalist who hosts people that others want to silence. And he himself falls for many conspiracy tropes, frequently throwing out phrases like “they don’t want anyone to know this.”
So you’ve got a big dumb show full of misinformation that reaches a lot of young people. This is a problem for a lot of folks.
Others love Joe and find his lack of intellect relatable. He’s just a “regular Joe” to them. Maybe they don’t want a fancy interviewer who’s read all the books. Maybe they want someone just as uninformed as them so the information conveyed in the interview arrives at their level.
Sadly, Joe’s now hosted many of the top minds in the world. People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson just see him as a podcast host who’s popular with the youths. So why not go on his show. These people have boosted his numbers even more and legitimized him. Then he brings on a vaccine denier and it all goes to shit. He seems to thrive in the criticism, too, doubling down on the fact that he wants to investigate the things everyone else wants to bury (when his critics say he’s just giving the worst people in the world a platform).
deleted by creator
You make it sound like he just uses the Socratic method to give weirdos the rope they need to hang themselves. And maybe that’s true for a sophisticated audience who already come in with solid critical things skills in place. When they don’t, as is often the case for his under-25 audience who are still coming up, the appearance is that he treats them as legitimate - the same as he treats NDGT.
deleted by creator
OMG now you sound like him. “They want to silence this!”
I said nothing about disallowing discussion. Or any other action that should be taken. We have someone here asking what’s up with JRE and I’m telling them. Are you trying to silence me!!! You want to censor this!!!
But more seriously:
Is it possible for media to spread disinformation? Can that be dangerous?
These are unambiguous “yes” and “yes” answers. And that’s what happens with this show. Period.
deleted by creator
One way I celebrate his great heights is by treating him as the major media source he is. You want to have it both ways: celebrate his massive success but treat him like just some jackass talking about conspiracies. #unclebenwasright
Dude, you’re misunderstanding. No one is saying the ideas can’t be discussed. People are saying he’s irresponsible for giving his platform to these people without doing his due diligence to inform the audience when they lie or say things that just aren’t true. It’s his platform and his responsibility to not send the information out in a vacuum that gives it space to spread without informing people of its (il)legitimacy.
Check out ONRAC for what I’d say is a pretty responsible way to discuss fringe (or just plain wrong) ideas.
I listen to Oh No Ross and Carrie frequently, and it does a similar thing except they actually do research and make sure to inform the listener about what they say that’s wrong, misconstrued, or a lie. They look into the background of the people and their history and a whole lot of detail into what they’re pushing. They don’t just give them a platform that doesn’t push back. It’s irresponsible to do otherwise.
I stop listening to anyone who uses the word “misinformation” unironically.
I can’t believe you would tell on yourself like this
You know that’s a real word that applies to things right? If someone is saying the earth is actually flat and making up things to prove it, that’s misinformation.
It’s just used as an excuse to shut down speech the government/tech companies don’t like because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
So what if someone believes the earth is flat, let the people hear and decide for themselves. That’s a bedrock of democracy, people are capable of making decisions for themselves. Not you or anyone else has a right to tell them what to believe or filter down the information they get.
No one is shutting down anything, they’re using their speech to classify things as misinformation. You’re allowed to note things are lies or untrue just as much as the people spewing it. There’s a reason regulations and rules exist in the first place, you can’t just lie about ingredients in food for example to protect from harm.
Regardless, misinformation is a real word that applies to things. If you tell someone that says they heard “if I drink bleach it’ll cure my cancer” that is not true and is false information (which can cause harm), there’s nothing wrong with that.
lol this ain’t the flex you think it is, chief.
The connotation is that Rogan is an idiot who might be a decent guy, but he will say and do anything to prevent his guests from being pissed at him. This includes, but is not limited to, agreeing with some of the most toxic, misogynist, people you probably know.
He has never struck me as idiotic. Quite the opposite actually, he seems like he is probably pretty intelligent. But he’s not a decent guy. Basically I think you got both of those backwards. He’s a smart guy who has decided to sell whatever is most profitable, and what is most profitable for him is right-wing fascist bullshit.
I think you’re giving him far too much credit. Hanlon’s razor and all that
I really dont think hes as intelligent as youre giving him credit for. This clip where he rudely dismisses an expert showed me that he doesnt value anything more highly than his own overinflated ego.
Joe Rogan is a bigot. If your friend subscribes to bigot content, they probably harbor some bigoted beliefs. Any sane, non-bigoted person would recognize the fucked up shit that gets platformed on Joe Rogan content, and promptly unsubscribe.
well, i don’t know fully. neither of us speaks english as a first language
For all Comments:
If this just keeps going down. We are forced to remove this comments here or lock/delete this post.
Directed especially to @Varyk@sh.itjust.works @AncientFutureNow@lemmy.world
Thanks
You mean our comment threads are crashing the post somehow?
It gets in the Rule 5 area. Already removed enough comments.
Users kept calling people bigots without evidence, but you’ve only removed the comments requesting evidence of bigotry rather than the unsupported original insults.
That reaction is not in accordance with the posted rules of NSQ.
Its against the rules that i didnt banned you both. The first one is personal opinion. The rest was just insulting. And not relevant to the post.
Thanks for responding, by the way
The first comments by the other party are unsubstantiated accusations, I agree, although my first reply is a direct contradiction providing evidence from within the podcast they mentioned.
After that, the person called me a bigot and gaslighting, words they are using incorrectly and have no evidence for, which I pointed out.
I understand if you are basing this decision on your personal opinion of rogan, but this person is just name-calling without evidence, baiting comments(against NSQ posted rules) and I’m providing contradicting evidence to their incorrect and unsupported name-calling.
Thank you.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Bigot is a strong word for him. I guess if you are pro-trans athletes in sports you would find him that way, but I can’t really think of other issues where he expresses close minded views? Fucking guy learns and changes his mind when presented with evidence, which is a huge reason I can listen to him. Even if some of the subjects and guests are kinda fucked up or dull or misinformed.
Like, tulsi gabbard last week reading a thing from the UN and totally either misunderstanding it, or worse, twisting it into saying something it 100% wasn’t. And Rogan was just kinda like “I dunno maybe” as he’s not very confrontational, very often.
I mean off the top of my head, he laughed at a friend who “joked” about coercing women in to giving blowjobs by threatening to withhold gigs from them, he’s hosted Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh, the first “merely” transphobic, the second, a self confessed fascist and transphobe. He’s also suggested that supporting trans folk is a sign of society collapsing
As the person you’re replying to said, if someone subscribes to Rogan, they likely hold some bigoted beliefs, because the guy is absolutely a bigot, and actively chooses to spotlight and empower other bigots
The connotations are that they aren’t too bright. Joe Rogan is a comedian turned political influencer of sorts, and this same dude once said, on set, “I am an idiot. I don’t know shit. Nobody should take anything I say seriously.”
broken clock yada yada
Joe Rogan is in the business of making reactionary content for people who respond (regardless of whether that response is good or bad) to reactionary content. A bit more advanced that YouTube videos of prank fake bank robberies or filling a car with cement. But still in the same vein. He says things about hot button issues that I don’t necessarily think he believes just to be controversial. He also tries to legitimise those opinions (even ones he doesn’t believe in), and his fans believe him and therefore hold him in high esteem.
There is the potential for the person you know to like him or his show because it’s absurdist in content. However it’s more likely that they like it because it feeds certain biases of theirs. A world view that they embrace that doesn’t necessarily match reality. The politics in your country may not be the same. But the politics in the US definitely have an effect on just about every other country in the world. Not all of Rogan’s takes are political. He spreads a lot of general misinformation. I wouldn’t be surprised if your acquaintance was just looking for validation in his content.
In the way that white middle class housewives watched Oprah, white fitness bros tend to like Joe Rogan for all the same reasons:
Its where they get their news, their political misinformation, their performance enhancement drug info, and their pseudoscience wellness products.
Used to be Art Bell, then a breif flash of a Johnny Carson … that got turned into an Oprah.
And now it seems, from afar, to be filling the vaccum formerly occupued by Alex Jones.
Why would you do art bell like this lol. I get the conspiracies but he wasnt only boosting the right wing like the rest.
Most of the first thousand were either comics, bjjbros, or guests from CoastToCoast.
The McKenna brothers, Ghram Handcock before the fame, etc.
It was kinda neat then.( Except for a few of the regulars.)
Im just a sucker for coast to coast tbh though most of my life its been George Noory
Politics aside I would say the connotation here is that this person isn’t very intelligent. I don’t mean that as a statement on their intelligence but instead that Joe Rogan falls into the category of anti-intellectual, low bar entertainment. I’d consider Joe Rogan to be the equivalent of a tabloid paper but for people who listen to podcasts.
Rogan has 2-3 hour interviews with people from every walk of life but got obsessed with COVID misinformation.
Rogan has explicitly supported gay rights/marriage, drug legalization, prison reform, and other leftist positions, but recently appears to have become swayed by right-wing talking points to the point that he is unnecessarily confrontational.
He has some amazing podcasts in the bank with amazing people, and has some newer podcasts that are garbage. He has like 1500 3-hour podcasts.
So look up some of the athletes, the biologists, the astronomers, geologists, a lot of interesting non-political podcasts before covid happened and you’ll probably learn a bunch of interesting things.
But anything remotely political in the past few years is pretty rough to the point that I haven’t listened to any of his podcasts since.
I’ll try to give an unbiased answer. Joe Rogan podcasts aren’t just political, but they do discuss political topics frequently in conversation. The connotation for a regular listener is that they are very likely to be misinformed, plain and simple as that. As many have already said, it’s likely that they are libertarian at best or into conspiracy theories and alt-right at worst. I’ll explain why:
He brings in a lot of different guests to his podcasts. These guests could be celebrities, athletes, book authors, researchers, actors, etc. Sometimes he would have politicians, from left and right. He would also bring in people who spread conspiracy theories, aka “qanon” types.
He never confronts any of his guests. Some people hate him for it, others listen to him precisely because of that.
Rogan gives a platform equally to all of his guests and presents and treats them all as if on the same level of legitimacy. This means, today he interviews a scientist who is an eminence in their field, with 30 years experience in research… and next week he brings in some influencer on the same topic, who doesn’t understand the science behind what they say. Both guests sound equally knowledgeable to the average listener.
The problem with this is that this spreads misinformation, and if you as a listener are not already well informed on the topic then you are likely to fall for it. Most people don’t question everything they hear, let alone understand in depth anything discussed superficially over a podcast. This is evident with science, but it gets really hairy when you add politics and personal values/morals to the mix.
I hope this helps you understand better.
"He never confronts any of his guests. "
This is false as of the past year or two (post-Covid). Now whenever he has a scientist on, he’ll argue and disagree with them, especially if the topic is Covid, vaccines, or climate change. He really likes the gish-gallop argument method where he spews a bunch of long since discredited claims on the topic.
Yeah he does confront his guests (though not any of the alt-right or qanon ones). It’s pretty clear he has an agenda, despite everyone claiming he’s just some kind of enlightened centrist.
I’ll take your word for it, I haven’t listened to any of his for several years now.
I mean before COVID there was also that time he furiously berated a primatologist for telling him he was mistaken for thinking Bondo Apes were a unique species.
He’s always been an angry meathead when facts make him feel stupid. He’s just doing it in more mainstream ways now so he gets more exposure.
Lot of unhelpful answers here. I’ll try my best.
In a nutshell, Joe was a UFC commentator who also avidly practices various martial arts. He’s also a successful stand-up comedian. Being personable and well connected, he started his podcast interviewing friends, comedians, and celebrities.
It should be fairly obvious how he appeals to people interested in masculine personalities. In particular teenagers, young men, and people who aren’t very secure in their masculinity tend to like him.
He had/has a rule of letting nearly anyone on the show so long as he felt he could have an interesting conversation with them. To massively simplify, this ultimately led to him having some questionable political provocateurs on the show, many right wingers. Combine this with Joe’s non-combative interview style, and his show ended up being a platform for some pretty out-there political theory. The way he talked about COVID struck many people as pretty irresponsible, for example.
Eventually, many who are left-of-center were scared of even associating with him. That’s a problem for your public image if you claim to be a centrist, as Joe does. Or at least he did, I haven’t kept up with him in a while.
TL;DR: if you listen to Joe Rogan’s podcast people might think you’re overly concerned with your masculinity or that you’re being indoctrinated into extreme right-wing politics.
For me, it kind of depends. If Rogan is interviewing an actor, comedian, or MMA/UFC fighter, he’s more in his element, and the interview can be alright. The problem is he’s kind of an “all sides” show and he doesn’t really understand all the stuff some of his guests pedal. This is problematic when he has folks on pedaling stuff where he doesn’t recognize and call out the potential toxicity. A good example is someone like Jordan Petersen. A guy whose credentials would seem to indicate he knows what he’s talking about. In reality, a lot of the MRA-adjacent BS he spews sounds somewhat reasonable, if a bit “edgy,” on its surface. Petersen knows it isn’t actually backed up by any research (which is where his credentials are), it’s just his musings that he’s found an audience, and quite a bit of money, espousing. This is a problem because Rogan doesn’t usually call this stuff out for the dog whistle that it is, and he has a massive audience.
FWIW, I haven’t listened to him in years, and didn’t listen to him very long to begin with.
