Is it cancelling if he just moves somewhere else?
Joe Rogan
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Don't think anyone is trying to cancel him, they just don't think Spotify should be paying him handsomely to be an asshole and spread misinformation.
As for the bolded bit:
You did the equivalent of going out and buying a pair of Nike's just to burn them to protest Nike.Nope, not exactly. If Spotify already cancelled him then I would be doing what you are saying. I contemplated getting Spotify premium for a long time and never had a good enough reason to. If they keep Rogs, I am gonna be a paying customer who will enjoy listening to music with less ads, once they cancel Rogs, I will go back to regular status and listen to music with ads (which I have been doing for years now).Don't think anyone is trying to cancel him, they just don't think Spotify should be paying him handsomely to be an asshole and spread misinformation.
As for the bolded bit:
One thing I can promise you is that I have not lived a sheltered lifestyle. That doesn’t mean I’m not capable of taking care of my own behaviour though.
Rationalise it however you want, you're still paying them money to (potentially) tell them you disagree.
Abbey Martin is pretty fringe isn't she?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Found this quite interesting. This is just 3-4 years ago, but here Joe is making some good points that lean heavily to the left, and he delivers them quite passionately.
This action just fits so well with the image I have of the people rabidly defending him in hereI literally can't believe that's not a thing you added to this quote to satirize him.
Surely he’s got more freedom on Spotify than on YouTube? A lot of YT content creators have complained they’ve had their freedom nerfed due to YT bowing to the pressure of advertisers on things like swearing or rude topics. At least on Spotify he can generally say what he wants without that same pressure. Nobody cares if he swears or uses course humour, just as long as he doesn’t spout obvious bollocks or compare black people to simians. It’s a pretty easy thing to get right.
Wait what? You actually pay extra to listen to Rogan? Why on earth would anyone do that?
true
its not just my way. Many MANY people. Look how many times people getting exposed for watsapp mesages in private. Every time watsapp messages are made public people get in trouble. I wonder why? I even heard a rapper from London talk about this just this week abouut his group chat with Russ millions where he said "if you guys saw what we call each other you would think we hate each other and are heartless guys but its just banter" guess its cultural differences
I just had a Spotify face tattoo done so when they cancel Rogan I will add a swastika next to it to tell the world they're a bunch of canceling nazi's. That'll teach em. Libtard cnuts.
Seriously though. Can the world stop with all the attention for this 2 digid IQ dudebro.
Seriously though. Can the world stop with all the attention for this 2 digid IQ dudebro.
How have you been a member for 16 years and only in the last month or so outed yourself as a headcase
Normal and healthy thing to do.
I'd classify the attack on Rogan as rabid and orchestrated. A lot of you attacking the guy probably don't even care, but it is cool to be outraged. This all got started by a homophob who is after Spotify and used Joe Rogan as an excuse.
Yep.
N-a means 'my fellow black person who is as oppressed as me but I still see as an equal'.
N-er means 'subhuman who's beneath me'.
They're two different words cognate with each other. There's been plenty of linguistic research that looks into the difference.
That doesn't make it okay though, it just means people should be looking at the types of things they joke about.This was actually mild. Also we aren't comedians but yes you could if you listened to a group of lads getting stoned, hammered and pissing around with their mates. Check any lads watsapp group with their closest mates and
JFC
Rogan is a tee total gowl and it's gotten worse since he left YouTube. He used to be half palatable with the right guest. Now he's a washed-up snake oil merchant with no charm or humour whatsoever.
Majority Report is an interesting show. On the one hand, its really funny how they analyse right wing/populist media personalities in the same manner that a nature documentary would decipher the behaviour of animals in the wild. On the other hand, I think they represent the kind of snobbish and elitist side of left wing politics that puts people off. I'd really like to see Seder have a podcast with Rogan or other similiar people, and in doing so I think he could have a really positive influence on the casual/centrist/disillusioned left elements of that audience, but I don't think he can contain himself to be civil enough, and I don't think he's interested in a discussion that isn't more of a debate.
I suppose she is, and although she is a lefty, she's an ex 911 truther. I wouldn't be picking her to bat for the left in an ideal world, but like the Chomsky, Sanders, and Stewart analogies already brought up, what is the worst-case scenario material harm from what they say? 911 nonsense apart, but that's not a left-wing idea.
This whole issue is about the harm that Rogan's high-profile media presence causes. This conversation has gone all over the place to mitigate that and failed in my opinion. Firstly it was attempted along the lines that he was a good bloke or that criticism was just begrudgery. So how do you mitigate racist speech and medical misinformation? Can it be achieved by letting a millionaire presidential candidate representing one of the largest centre-right political parties on the planet speak? Or an ex 911 Truther with Marxist inclinations? Again, no in my opinion.
Maybe if it was just the content of his overwhelmingly right-wing guests and not his own words. He has invited Gavin McInnes of the proud boys, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos. If you think Abby Martin and Bernie Sanders are from the other end of any spectrum to them then I will need that explained to me. Is it just the former all hate and the others don't? Is that balance? Vitriol v the desire for a more controlled economy? While he may openly espouse the views, giving them unchallenged or unqualified airtime is dangerous as that is what they crave. Joe is not mentioned here but this is good for context https://time.com/5627494/we-analyze...pread-online-the-trends-reveal-deep-concerns/
I've been aware of Rogan for years and I initially dismissed him as a brash macho chauvinist and all that entails on very little evidence I may add, but I do see the dog whistles quite clearly due to my predilection for equality. Over the years the trickle of Rogan into my sphere did nothing to counter this, his background, his stream of predominantly alt-right guests just reinforced this. Same for the covid nonsense and now the racism. It all seemed a slam dunk.
In the last 24 hours, I've listened to him and read about him and I have to say my gut seems to have been right. And yes he has had a list of what you would describe as lefties by American standards but what does that prove? Life is not a Christmas panto, where characters are one-dimensionally good or bad, every lunatic on the news has some neigbour saying what they did was out of character. Just because Rogan is not a 24/7 Klan activist doesn't prove anything, We are complex animals, and every villain has a day off being a dick or has some redeeming qualities and conversely, also nobody is an angel.
Rogan as I said repeats a lot of the dog whistles of the alt-right. This is from an article in Esquire. "While interviewing comedian Joe List, Rogan went on a tangent about his fear of "woke culture" silencing "straight white men." “You can never be woke enough that’s the problem, it keeps going,” Rogan said. “It keeps going further and further down the line and if you get to the point where you capitulate, where you agree to all these demands, it’ll eventually get to straight white men are not allowed to talk, because it’s your privilege to express yourself when other people of color have been silenced throughout history.” On Twitter, he says ... "If you're a man and you call yourself a feminist I hope you choke to death on vegan pizza while crying over a lady gaga song".
It's not the establishment he hates, it's the tiny section of it that after centuries of struggle is slowly moving towards elements of an equal society. And an equal society is a nightmare for the gender, races and classes that have hitherto held the cards, and they won't let go without a struggle. So that's not anti-establishment, that's uber conservativism and a desire to keep the status quo. His anti-establishment schtick is only against the small section of government that is progressive. Over half of his Government's budget is spent on the military, is he against that? Not that I can see.
If there is an argument to hear what neo-fascists have to say then I think the host has to be more Paxman than Rogan, because otherwise, you are just giving a megaphone to dangerous and often hateful cnuts. That recent episode with Peterson was a festival of stupidity. Peterson made zero sense and Rogan just wowed along. The bit about the poor causing the climate problem that he had just said didn't exist was an early highlight of the utter nonsense. Also neither of them knowing the difference between an accident and the law of unintended consequences as they smugly giggled was beautiful. It was more cutting than any parody could have been.
None of ths is new. When he moved to Spotify two of the episodes featuring that other Canadian loon Stefan Molyneaux were not included because of presumably the content that got Molyneaux booted off Youtube. The Gavin McInnes episode also never made it to Spotify. The Proud Boys are Nazis no? Replacement theory? Southern Poverty Law Centre has them listed as a hate group? Openly misogynistic and anti-LBGTQ Rights? Rogan said of McInnes that He had him on because he knew him and that he didn't even know what the Prouds Boys were. The Trump defence.
Anyone who doesn't know Molyneaux can find out a bit here on this NYT Podcast about the youtube algorithms. Well worth a listen IMO
So do I want to ban him, no, I don't to ban anyone, but the idea that he is a free thinker, objective, balanced etc does my head in so I'll be using my free speech to qualify his whenever possible. When he has episodes from Maoists and Revolutionary Marxists taken of his playlist we can start the conversation about both fringes. Til then it's just obfuscation and not a real argument.
Last edited:
Spot on. They are really at their best when mocking the absurdity of the right, but I think they operate in somewhat of an echo chamber. I don't think they convince a lot of people.
The show died with Michael Brooks. He was the best thing about it and was one of the best voices out there.
If you don't know the difference between private casual conversation and a corporate media giant broadcasting to 11 million people then I don't know how to begin to explain.
I don't think we'd have 64 pages if this was a dude who said something racist to his mate as you passed them on the street.
Personally I have zero tolerance for a lot of this. My old man won't get into a cab with me because twice I have caused a massive scene when the cabbie made racist comments as we drove through Dublin. The idea he felt he could say that really fecking annoyed me. Both times it was after Dublin matches so its as if the laddishness of going to games gave him licence to be racist. Infuriating.
This was in relation to the comments that were highlighted from 10+ years ago when it really was just Joe and his friends having a casual conversation with a very small audience. If he had said any of those stories in the last year or so the narrative would be completely different.
Good for you though. A lot of people aren’t as comfortable with confrontations with random people or even people they know.
Sorry, I missed that context. Apologies.
The scale of the audience is a huge context, I agree. There is a huge difference between a small comedy club and the BBC comedy roadshow.
It doesn't change the morality of the content, or the person delivering it just the potential effect of it.
This was a program that millions litsened to? Big difference mate. And no It's not common to see someone take a mic and joke about how a lot of black people in a room are comparable to Planet of the Apes, especially for a white person.
I don't know what kind of people you hang out with but me and my mates don't go around calling eachother the n-word nor have we ever compared black people to apes.
There were not millions listening to Rogan in 2011.
Have you ever worked on a building site? Or with lorry drivers? In a factory? I never once mentioned my “mates” - Most of my experience with this has come at work.
Do you think the likes of UKIP, Farage, Tommy Doherty and these trash don’t have pretty substantial support?
Honestly I seriously envy you if you’ve managed to live your life completely avoiding these folk but to act that discourse isn’t commonplace in certain spheres is laughable.
What is your overall point other than there are toxic feckers all over society?
maybe you are rightThat doesn't make it okay though, it just means people should be looking at the types of things they joke about.
Not to play devils advocate here but I do feel the planet of the apes analogy was in very bad taste and a terrible comparison, which he admitted at the time but when I watched the whole conversation it "appeared" that due to him going to watch "planet of the apes" a film about a lone outsider in a foreign planet/place, he likened that to him being white in a neighbourhood in Philly surrounded by black people as opposed to "black people are just apes because that's how they behave and act". The problem was the racial history and use of ape to describe black people which made it problematic and he realised that right away. most people will default think "he was just calling black people apes because he thinks black people are apes like the supremacist that he is" which didn't seem like that when I saw the full context but he should not have used that comparison based off the history. I have seen others say dumb stuff like that before and you can either see it as just blatant racism or an error, dependent on how you feel about the person
No I've never worked in any of those professions. Worked as as police officer for many years that also has a very "macho" culture I guess but anyone even going in a direction that's disguisting as Rogan did was shut down very quickly by his colleagues. I know some of my colleagues most likely had some terribly racist beliefs but they were NOT accepted. Just because people make racist jokes in some workplaces as you mentioned doesn't make them ok. Same applies for everyone, including a multi-millionare white podcaster with million of fans. He stepped way over the line.
Rogan took a mic and said those things. It wasn't among work colleagues or friends. It was meant for anyone litsening and that's a huge difference. Me whispering a racist joke to a friend and me going on the rooftop screaming it out is a huge difference. The first atleast implies that I know it's wrong to make that joke.
I would interpret this as more of a reflexive anti-establishment rant; as in, "the system is fecked up and this is why". Rogan does of course intersect with a fair number of orthodox progressive positions ranging from healthcare to drug legalization/decriminalization to anti-interventionism, to free education; less so because he is progressive and more so because he probably doesn't know what his own politics are and often defaults to anti-establishmentarian views, which also happen to conveniently sync up with a lot of his libertarian tendencies. It would be fair to say he's in political flux at the moment and can't be tidily shoehorned into one category since his libertarian views clearly do not sync up with his progressive ones.
I always saw him straddling the middle. I saw him as too on the edge to be a "liberal/leftist" but also someone who pushed back against some conservative propaganda. He was teaching Ben Shapiro about systematic racism and got Ben to relinquish his aggressive tone
Yeah. So much of the belligerence around Rogan is born of the online debating discourse that presumes the World is (or at least should be) governed entirely by ideological principles, rather than what is largely beneficial and workable for a populace at any given time…. I’ve fallen prey to this myself on here, it’s easy to do, but it’s also the epitome of the kind of “student politics” that ironically ‘the left’ gets accused of a lot, often by the kind of people who appear on Rogan! - the idea that fastidiously believing that the only “correct” thing is some blanket ideological absolute that might work in a fictional utopian world, but is farcically unsuited to the one we actually live in (or in Right Wing parlance: what regular, decent common sense people actually want!)
You’ve even got left wing people in here arguing that it’s some kind of moral panic to want to slap a content warning on a very popular and influential show thats spreading provable misinformation in a once in a lifetime pandemic… which is pretty mental. All kinds of things we consider perfectly sensible and beneficial can be accused of being ‘moral panics’ or ‘slippery slopes’ in inception… seatbelts in cars, age ratings for films, warnings on cigarettes, even the smoking ban (which even as a smoker, im reluctantly in favour of) etc etc…. You can make a plausible argument for all of them being the products of overly concerned curtain twitchers, but no one actively cares that much because most people agree they’re largely beneficial to the function of society as is… things only garner the negative idea of ‘moral panic’ or ‘slippery slope’ when they aren’t ultimately on the right side of history… but countless things born of a very similar sort of public concern are, and many more lie somewhere debatable inbetween…
It takes a certain type of wilful obtuseness to decide that the “wrong” side of the slippery slope is one that might see some people unfairly censored by private enterprises they make a lot of money from, and the “right” side one that might see Alex Jones allowed to continue hassling behreaved parents as long as he’s popular….
If you’re arguing that Joe Rogan can’t be held to account because free speech is absolute, without any caveats, because (in Godwin terms - oh yes, I’m going there!) authoritarian regimes have flourished by selecting what speech they deem appropriate (which again, is obviously nothing to do with private companies or ‘cancelling’ in this context’) then you’d also have to concede that the same hard rules were also used to insist that the kind of dehumanising propaganda employed by these same regimes against minorities and opponents, were defended (and perfectly defendable) by the same token…
The only thing worth discussing is whether Rogan has outsized influence to peddle misinformation, during a once in a century global crisis… and if he does, a fecking content warning is the least a reasonable society should agree on.