You're viewing a single thread.
Seems to me a lot of people here pretty hostile to Joe. I can only say he has been more than open and interacted with good faith with guests that I listen to than anyone in "media". His talk with Bernie Sanders and his agreement with certain aspects of Sanders agenda should dismiss the claim that he's a libertarian shill. I try to approach him as a topic in good faith as well.
He's being called a neandertal because he seems to agree with a lot of fringe opinions. I try to think of how I would react if talking to a person who I have no idea about their area of expertise and how I would deal with claims that they make. Sure he gives a voice to cranks, but he also gives voice to people across the spectrum, some that I actually want other people to hear from. That's kind of what free speech is about right there.
Do not hide behind "freedom of speech" - you are completely misinterpreting why people don't like Joe Rogan.
The #1 criticism of Joe Rogan is that he gives an equal platform to real science and pseudoscience on the biggest podcast in the world. He's turned plenty of nutjobs with absolutely terrible theories into household names.
Fair enough. I don't feel like I'm hiding behind freedom of speech as much as I'm saying that it's fundamentally important to the functioning of a healthy society. With that comes knowledge that some people out there are going to be dishonest shits. If what I'm saying about it's importance is true, then that should be the starting point for any discussion like this.
The question is then, who get to decide what is appropriate to talk about? What percentage of the people he talks to have to be agreeable before he comes off as a good actor? I would never have become a leftist if it weren't for information out there that didn't fit the national narratives that we get from existing im the US.
This whole covid fiasco has been an excellent example of people who were off narrative (lab leak, anti shutdowns etc) being at least partially vindicated by the actual outcomes later in the game. It's not always the case, but it happens and we should be aware of that.
The problem with freedom of speech is that not everybody has an equally sized platform to be heard from.
Who gets to be heard isn't based off of who has the best ideas or has everybody's interests at heart, it's based off of who is willing to say the most outlandish things, or is willing to tell people what they want to hear, or sometimes simply because they have alot of money/power.
I used to listen to Rogan a lot, but I remember a few instances adding up over the years and I distinctly remember the instances that made me eventually say "this guy is not a good person."
When he interviewed Milo Yiannapolis, I was genuinely upset Joe gave him a platform to spew his hateful rhetoric. Milo is a toxic person whose xenophobic, misogynist, and transphobic rhetoric directly hurt a lot of people and Joe simply gave him more ammo.
When his old friend Duncan Trussell visited the podcast for one of the last times, Trussell and Joe were celebrating his move to Spotify deal, and in the middle of a drunken ramble, Trussell warned Joe not to field Ben Shapiro, that Shapiro was not a good person, to which Joe simply shrugged it off.
While I'm unsure if the two are on good terms today as I no longer listen to either podcasts, Trussell is one of Joe's long term friends and it made me respect Joe a lot less that he wouldn't engage with his friend on this topic with a genuine discussion/debate. This struck me as one of the first instances where Joe drew a line in the sand, displaying that criticism of Shapiro was somehow off limits.
His indulgence of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris has not aged well as both have been revealed through the careful scrutiny of time to have been vectors that infiltrate, manipulate, and inject grade school level philsophical viewpoints into the mainstream public discourse as if these belabored arguments haven't already been repeatedly disproven in academic circles. This is made very apparent when they encounter actual intellectual debates like the Peterson/Zizek debate which demonstrated Peterson didn't understand even the most elementary aspects of Marxism.
The harm of Joe's platform can be exemplified by the fact that Peterson is still more culturally relevant. This is due in part to the fact that Zizek could never be on the Rogan podcast because his ideas are honestly too intellectually robust to be of interest to the majority of Joe's audience, and pose a strong existential antithesis to capitalism, much stronger than Bernie Sanders, I might add. But a philosophical mind like Zizek's is exactly who anyone respectable on the right would need to contend with in order to pose a legitimate argument for capitalism. The fact that Peterson was posed as some sort of equal to Zizek, and that their debate was one of the most watched in recent history, points to the power of Joe's influence in adding legitimacy to Peterson's platform when honestly Peterson shouldn't have any. Instead he was, and, to a lesser extent, still is, considered to be the greatest proponent for capitalist and traditionalist thought.
Lastly, Joe stood up for his long time friend Alex Jones multiple times, making excuses for him when things looked bad, and failed repeatedly to call him out on his bad faith conspiracy lunacy. The last time Alex Jones was on Joe’s show, which I believe was one of his last Youtube shows, I stopped watching. I disavowed Joe as a shill for the right wing, and I'm honestly ashamed I gave him so much of my time and attention.
Sure he has some left-leaning guests, but he also claims that January 6th was instigated by the FBI, and pushes an anti-healthcare agenda. The ire he gets is well earned and justified.
Do you really trust someone who took numerous traumatic hits to the head to give solid political and health advice?
I'd have to look at those claims to know if that's actually true. It may be, but media/internet hyperbole is so overplayed I'd wager it isn't actually true. Like I said though. I don't know about that specific instance.
The thing is, if the FBI hadn't framed so many Muslims in the US, during the war on terror or fascilitated the Whitmer kidnapping, maybe claims like that wouldn't gain traction as easily.
Rogan doesn't just talk to any cranks, he gives a voice to incredibly bigoted cranks like Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, and Jordan Peterson.
These types are more than simple fringe eccentrics, they're outright racist, transphobic lunatics who shouldn't feel comfortable showing their faces in polite society. Nothing can be gained from talking with these people unless we're all laughing at them or we're learning how to identify their type of fascism.
That would be funny though, if Rogan had these folk on his show specifically to mock them and show everyone what clowns they are, like what Zizek did to Peterson. But Rogan doesn't clown on them. He talks to them as seriously as he does anyone else, and even occasionally agrees with them, so what value does that provide? Should freedom of speech include racist screeds or calls for violence against trans people?
Joe's fundamental problem isn't that he's biased or somehow hostile to leftist critique. Its that he's a shameless sellout far more focused on promoting his sponsors than providing useful information to his audience. Fundamentally, you have to see the Joe Rogan Show as a two hour long advertisement.
Just like any of those dippy morning shows that feature two drunk New York socialites giggling about the day's news, the primary purpose of the programming is to sell self-help books, nutrition supplements, entertainment, and sleazy investment products. These "open" interactions are ultimately just sponsored content. His guests are overwhelmingly just sales guys making a pitch for their snake oil. And his blank gormless reception of every bow tie nerd and hack fitness guru is the canvas against which these hucksters pitch their product.
That's kind of what free speech is about right there.
Its not "free speech" because these people are paying to be here. Rogan isn't talking to these dipshits pro bono. He's taking his cut of all their merch. That's the whole reason he's worth nine-figures.
Dude's running the toxically masculine version of the Home Shopping Channel.
I haven't heard that people pay to be on his show, if that's true that certainly changes things in my mind.
Sure he gives a voice to cranks, but he also gives voice to people across the spectrum
That's the problem though isn't it? By giving the same platform to cranks as he would people with expertise in their field while offering very little pushback, he signals to his audience that these fringe, nonsensical ideas are just different opinions being debated.
It's coverage like that across the media, that has allowed unscientific views like antivax to fester.
Thanks for your response. Are you suggesting that indecisive movement on the part of the media is what causes antivax sentiments to rise? I mean one of the biggest slurs they throw is that you're antivax. I can't remember a time when antivaxing was talked about on the media as a reasonable standpoint. Yet the prevalence of antivax sentiments is increasing. Couldn't it also be attributable to institutional decline?
Did the CDC behave in a consistent and transparent way during covid? Or did they issue contradictory recommendations, and disinformation regarding lab leak. My point only is, if our institutions weren't failing us on the reg, maybe we'd find it easier to take their word for things.
I'm going to talk about a specific event to try to highlight my point if you don't mind.
In 1998, (ex-)Dr Andrew J Wakefield published an article in the lancet that used sketchy methodology to push the idea that the MMR vaccine was the primary cause of autism.
Peer review would eventually lead to the lancet retracting the study and evidence of his tampering with collected data and other unscientific processes lead to him resigning from the hospital he worked at in 2001 and losing his medical license in 2010.
Despite all this, British media platformed him as an alternative voice that had been silenced by big pharma.
During this coverage, MMR vaccination rates in the UK dropped from ~92% to ~73% between 1998 and 2008 and only returned to pre-coverage rates (in England, Scotland and Wales recovered a lot quicker but notably had less coverage of Wakefield's study prior to its retraction) in 2021. In some London boroughs it dropped as low as ~50% and is recovering at a much slower rate.
For reference WHO targets for MMR inoculation is a vaccination rate of ~95%.
British media essentially took an entire decade off progress to eliminate Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.
Freedom of speech is about not being censored by the government, not private citizens hosting a platform for a spectrum of opinions.
Compare it to something like freedom of religion: should private citizens engage in a spectrum of religious rituals, including violent rituals of extreme cults?
The issue isn't how enthusiastic individual private citizens are about the freedoms granted to them from the government. Someone may truly enjoy yelling "fire" in public buildings, but the effect on the public is what causes concern.
Should you censor a person for this? That's another debate, but I'm just explaining where the concern, assuming you have concern, should be placed.
True, there are limits to freedom of speech. But aren't you disturbed by the control that people in society are exerting on the narratives that we are allowed to question? With or without government involvement. I'm talking about big techmedia here, and the power they have to set the narrative entirely with or without the government involved. I mean the tools that they put into play to stop right wing misinformation (not saying most of it isn't misinformation) can be just flipped over on the left when the left starts threatening institutions down the road.
Then the left should continue to build decentralized alternatives. Dual power is the only practical solution for when institutions are captured by reactionaries to suppress the left.
this has to include more than platforms for people to talk on - in a moment of crisis, no one involved is going to be posting on lemmy or mastodon, except to give public reports. real resilient communications infrastructure needs to be point to point, encrypted, and it must avoid normal internet infrastructure. if it touches a corporate router, it can and will be suppressed by the state in the name of crushing the left.
moreover, dual power must include mutual aid and mutual defense if it's to actually live up to the name. platforms to talk online with comrades are nice and all but it doesn't on it's own build any kind of base of power.
Absolutely true, social media presence is hardly the material conditions necessary for a revolution. The structures to be replaced run deeper than which website you use
100% Love it!
Freedom of speech is about not being censored by the government, not private citizens hosting a platform for a spectrum of opinions.
The government can deny someone freedom of speech, but the government isn't the only thing that can deny someone freedom of speech.
That's kind of what free speech is about right there.
Nothing you described has anything to do with free speech.
What listening to Joe does to a mf.
Nothing irks me more than 'free speech' troglodytes who have no idea what free speech means.
He’s being called a neanderthal because he seems to agree with a lot of fringe opinions.
I mean that's just a symptom of the biggest complaint about him. He's really gullible. He's not malicious, but god damn he does not notice a liar when a liar is in front of him. Genuinely I do love his long form content, I love how people can go off topic with him, but some of the people he brings on really should be going in front of Jon Stewart instead.
Like... here's an example of someone clearly lying, dodging questions, and genuinely being sketchy. He's gotten a bit better but would Joe Rogan push this hard against somebody? If someone dodges his question, how well does he bring the topic back to it? Joe Rogan is great when everyone is there in good faith, but would you want him in your corner if you're stuck in a timeshare conference?
This is kind of where I'm coming from. I'm not a regular listener of his so my views may be outdated. I just think a lot of malice is dumped on him that I don't think is necessarily fair. That being said, he is a public figure so being dumb only gets you so far as an excuse.
I also like long form stuff, and I like to talk to people who know things, so at least in an ideal sense I'm positive on his format. B
😂 for the timeshare conference
I can only say he has been more than open and interacted with good faith with guests that I listen to than anyone in "media". His talk with Bernie Sanders and his agreement with certain aspects of Sanders agenda should dismiss the claim that he's a libertarian shill.
"He agreed with Bernie on like 2 things (because he just goes along with whatever the last person to talk to him beleives) so all of his comments about covid being fake or Jan 6th being a false flag are irrelevant and he's definitely nit a right wing shill guys. Freeze peach!!"
He endorsed Bernie Sanders in the election, unless i'm confused.
Hes now endorsed Desantis, a person aggressively at odds with Bernie Sanders on a every single political position.
Still think he supports Bernie?
I don't think anyone has said he never supports things that are true or positive. That might almost be better because it would make it clear that he's just a nut job like Alex Jones. The complaint is that he gives an equal platform and equal credibility to factual and unsupported ideas, so people end up giving equal credence to both.
It's like when news platforms felt they needed to give equal time to both sides of everything, so they gave as much coverage to climate change deniers as climate scientists, fueling the public scepticism, even though climate change deniers were a fractional percentage of the scientific community. Most agree now that that was a mistake and is partially responsible for the issues we're facing today.
He's friends with Alex Jones. Fuck off.
Idk Joe's podcast helped galvanize my former friend's radicalization to the right so I don't really have much sympathy for a fair look at what he does. He'll say "oh he had Bernie on though" too but meanwhile only talk about how awesome Peterson and Shapiro are.
You're dealing here with mostly teeanagers and bots... they just follow the herd... fairness isn't really something they care about. All they care about is "is he one of us and agrees with every nut job agenda that appears on main stream media".
It's not a coincidence that the top posts here always agree with all main talking points of mainstream media. You're basically facing the most brainwashed people out there, that have the will to defend everything that makes them miserable. Anyone who says anything against it will be called names and disqualified. Joe Rogan is one of those people.
They say "dead internet theory" explains all the botting... I think it's just that the majority of dumb people, who have intelligence comparable to basic bots, are now prominent. Let's not forget that half of the people in the world have below average intelligence. So, don't waste your time. Just read and laugh.
Pushing a livestock dewormer as effective protection against COVID puts him about the same level as Gwyneth Paltrow selling pussy candles and whatever other dumb shit she's hawking these days.
I'm also tired of "libertarian" being a dirty word. Far as I know, classical libertarians aren't the Randian capitalist sociopaths the right fawns over, yet it's another thing the right has co-opted and fucking soiled, much like the Gadsden Flag.