Thanks
I will actually have a listen to those to see what I thinkJoe Rogan
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
I will actually have a listen to those to see what I thinkI've got thousands of hours in podcast recommendations, there's no reason for anyone to listen to Joe Rogan.
Says the former fan.
I liked him on Fear Factor and UFC. Never listened to a single episode of his podcast, because why would I want to listen to the Fear Factor and UFC guy talk to people?
If you're interested in (Roman) history at all they're both amazing. Mike Duncan has also done a podcast on most of the revolutions of the last 300 years (French, Russian, Mexican, Haiti among others).Thanks
Suspiciously defensive.
Why waste your time listening to an utter twat interview people who predominantly feed you utter rubbish? It is like you want to be misinformed. Same with Fox News.
Last edited:
With rare exception, a majority of his guests are non-political and generally uninteresting.
Joe Rogan’s whole “just asking questions” shtick isn't naive curiosity, it is just a tactic that he uses to avoid taking responsibility for the guff he pedals or allows to be pedaled. It gives a false sense of balance when he platforms the guests who spout misinformed, conspiracy theory or outright dangerous anti-science views. The problem isn't just who he talks to or their views, but rather it is how their views are presented uncritically or challenged, giving them credibility they don't deserve, due to the false perception of balance. That has real-world consequences, especially concerning science, public health, and politics. Remember he has form for spreading COVID conspiracy theories and false vaccine misinformation, which fuels confusion and vaccine hesitancy that still remans today.
And Rogan isn’t just one unbiased guy asking questions. He is part of a much larger range of weaponised right-wing media, ranging from YouTube nutters, and podcasters, to Fox News, who thrive on misinformation, political bias, lies, and false outrage, with the goal to distract and divide, so as to push a hugely regressive agenda.
The asymmetry is as infuriating as it is disingenuous. The right have been fueling and driving the "culture wars" for years and bizarrely they get away with framing themselves as the victims. Meanwhile, the left is mostly still trying to play fair, naively thinking that facts, context, empathy and nuance will win the day, while the right continue to flood the world with propaganda. Unless more people start pushing back clearly and consistently, we’ll keep watching the mainstream drift further toward extremism. And maybe that will happen anyway.
However you look at it Rogan is an enemy of the people and anyone who consumes his product is part of the problem.
Last edited:
Apologies to all I did not respond to, I came back online after the Wolves game and, somewhat ironically given the subject, found I had been banned. For what, it would be fascinating to hear the reasoning.
I had a look back through the posts, I consider myself a very fair poster and always try and give people a reasoned response/understand both sides to an argument. The same certainly cannot be said for a number of people in this thread. In a normal setting I believe a normal person might apologise to me in a few of these instances, though I appreciate the couple of you who actually bothered to read back and try and understand/gave your viewpoints in a mature way.
The mindset many of you have portrayed is one I sadly have a lot of experience with - I am semi retired and work for my local council and, by far, the biggest issue where I live is not the right wing, they really are tiny minority, but it is the closemindedness of the left (of which I am a part if none of you bothered reading back a page). No better is that demonstrated than in the last few pages. Zero interest in debate, zero interest in different view points, your are right and everyone else is wrong.
I had a look back through the posts, I consider myself a very fair poster and always try and give people a reasoned response/understand both sides to an argument. The same certainly cannot be said for a number of people in this thread. In a normal setting I believe a normal person might apologise to me in a few of these instances, though I appreciate the couple of you who actually bothered to read back and try and understand/gave your viewpoints in a mature way.
The mindset many of you have portrayed is one I sadly have a lot of experience with - I am semi retired and work for my local council and, by far, the biggest issue where I live is not the right wing, they really are tiny minority, but it is the closemindedness of the left (of which I am a part if none of you bothered reading back a page). No better is that demonstrated than in the last few pages. Zero interest in debate, zero interest in different view points, your are right and everyone else is wrong.
What a load of nonsense. What you seem to not grasp is that there is no "both sides to an argument" when we are dealing with some of the people that Rogan is platforming. He is allowing far right extremists, conspiracy theory loonies and anti-vaxxers to spread their nonsense - unopposed - to a huge audience. That is dangerous. It is not "closemindedness" to not want these people to have a platform - it is common fecking sense.
Firstly, why swear? Chill.
Some of them certainly are individuals I would not listen to, but look at his guest list, he will speak with anyone from left to right, from extreme to conservative. You cannot name someone with a more diverse guest list. The people you are referring to are a small % of the total and, as pointed out, what are you actually asking for? It's very easy to say 'this person is giving some dangerous information' but how can you stop that without censoring? Are you also banning these people from all social media, because twitter etc. isn't either.
The second part of this, which is how this all began and what annoys people, is there's a huge amount of presumption at work as to who you are calling a loony. If the anti vaxx woman who was in question is like 25% correct, 75% unproven, is that ok? Or is it 50/50? Or do we just have no medical people at all on any talkshow saying anything that might be incorrect? I think it is fair to say none of us are PhDs or doctors with deep knowledge of vaccines, yet even without watching the video or listening to what she said people knew it was all wrong (so I pointed out after spending like 5mins, at least some of it was true so if it's something of interest people could go and research more).
None of this should annoy or antagonise you, it is literally just questions.
I will create a podcast. I will invite three people. A leftist, let’s say @moses . He will talk a bit about the economy, about how the gap between rich and poor should be closer and so on. I will also invite a centrist. Let’s say @Pogue Mahone . He will talk about how the middle ground is always right, brag about his money but will also say that he doesn’t think poor people should die for being poor.
I will also invite Adolf Hitler. He will argue that all Jews must be destroyed, that Germany needs more living space in the east and he will make a call to arms for all his followers to hear, demanding they march on the Reichstag to take over power.
I will not check if any of their claims are true. I won’t check with Moses, with Pogue or Hitler. Their claims will all receive equal time, no pushback and they will get the same time talking.
Now my question is for you, @tomaldinho1 : do you think this would be okay or not?
I will also invite Adolf Hitler. He will argue that all Jews must be destroyed, that Germany needs more living space in the east and he will make a call to arms for all his followers to hear, demanding they march on the Reichstag to take over power.
I will not check if any of their claims are true. I won’t check with Moses, with Pogue or Hitler. Their claims will all receive equal time, no pushback and they will get the same time talking.
Now my question is for you, @tomaldinho1 : do you think this would be okay or not?
Rogan not inviting dangerous whack jobs is not censorship. Banning someone who spreads dangerous disinformation from social media would not be censorship either. That would be a privately owned company taking responsibility for the content on its platform. These people are free to spread their views out on the street at any time. Put up a sign! And no, the anti-vaxx idiot who is "25% right" can also feck off.
This is hilarious. This is exactly what we take the piss out of these idiots for saying: "bro, I'm just asking questions huehuhe".
I'm not going on with that monster. Hitler alone would test my patience.
I meant to use an extreme example. But yeah, choosing pogue might have been too much.
You have to admit having him on after you two is a genius method to limit his reach. (mind, not resurrecting him might be even better)
To be pernickety that is still censoring, not sure how being a private company would change that.
Rogan not inviting dangerous whack jobs is not censorship. Banning someone who spreads dangerous disinformation from social media would not be censorship either. That would be a privately owned company taking responsibility for the content on its platform. These people are free to spread their views out on the street at any time.
This is hilarious. This is exactly what we take the piss out of these idiots for saying: "bro, I'm just asking questions huehuhe".
You have ignored a number of question so I assume you don't wish to answer them. Completely fine if so but am making you aware.
HTG has defo studied the algorithm.
What are your examples of this closedmindedness of the left you reference? And by contrast, how is the right wing more open minded?
The anti-vaxxers are more like <1% correct and >99% provable false, so no that is not okay.
The bold, you are wrong about. If you read the COVID thread, you'd know there are several medical doctors here as well as some medical/biological researchers.
Oh, thank you for making me aware. I didn't answer because the questions were silly and disingenuous. The solution is easy: do not invite conspiracy idiots. It's not difficult, man. By all means, debate "normal" right wingers etc. That's fine. Engaging with the likes of "catturd" from Twitter is not. Again, it's not complicated. You are being willfully obtuse - or just an abnormal huge fan of Rogan. Which would be quite odd.
I’m not going to claim to be an expert on algorithms. But I got my Spotify to the point where I actually like my smart-shuffle recommendations. So I think it’s fair to say I’m an expert on algorithms.
The fact that a very simple argument - essentially that because something comes from Rogan, you don't need to watch it to know if it is true or not, is clearly a bad line of logic (no matter what you think of him). It would be like me telling you I did not watch the United v Wolves game but that a certain player I disliked was terrible.
I don't really get where the second sentence has come from? The paragraph very clearly explains the issue.
Edit. You added to your post, I will respond to that separately given this was already posted.
+1
From what I see, you are strawmanning what actually happened. You referenced your work on the local council as an example of the closemindedness of the left. What are examples of that from your experience on your local council. I presume you witnessed something besides someone at your local council dismissing Joe Rogan. So what are your examples?
Also, by your statement, it implies you feel the right wing are more open minded at your local council. Is that what you believe?
I mean, it was an open goal but still. Well played.
Right place, right time. It's a talent! Ask Gary Lineker!
How would you choose who qualifies for this? I have no idea who cat turd is.
By the way, @tomaldinho1 , this is a genuine question.
I would encourage you to look up what strawmanning means. You can literally go back about 1-2 pages and just read yourself if you can bothered. If you disagree please provide examples of why. That is a fair thing to do?
No, I am pointing out that I live in a very left heavy area and the biggest issue with engaging with people is that many on the left are so certain that every single person on the right is the Trump supporter like caricature of anti vaxx, flat earther, Rogan lover etc. and therefore wrong about literally everything, the engagement never happens. The reality is the majority are slightly right leaning (and will share many leftist views with me for example) but many on the left, particularly older males to be specific, simply will not accept there can be a difference. Assuming you agree most issues need some kind of debate/middle ground to be reached, what I feel is evident on this thread is exactly what I see in those cases; any view that does not conform is met with belligerence.
This is very good.
If we can figure out why people knowingly and willingly feed themselves trash, maybe we can eventually fix this disease. Fox News started out banging the drum for Christianity , and came up with the idea that Christians were under threat. This gathered the sheeplike flock to their banner, and from there the slowly pushed the boundaries of believability and truth.
Much like Rogan. Excusing things that are obviously distortions/lies/misrepresentations, and platforming racists, kooks, and grifters - as he does - pushes the boundary of what is acceptable. It’s a long slow march to having zero reality checks, as you can see everyday on Fox.
I can’t tell if Rogan is as addle-brained as he appears, or if it’s a grift. What is clear is that he’s basically poisoning the minds of his listeners who either have no clue about how to use reputable sources, or they simply don’t care. My fear is that it’s actually worse, that Rogan and his ilk are softening up the resistance for some kind of final blow against the enlightenment.
Has this happened in an actual prominent podcast ? Not Hitler himself obviously, but someone who espouses similar views and who wasn't fact checked along side a centrist and a left winger who weren't fact checked either ?
It doesn’t matter. It is a hypothetical question supposed to give me a better understanding of the poster‘s believes.
You said this, "essentially that because something comes from Rogan, you don't need to watch it to know if it is true or not, is clearly a bad line of logic "
That is not the line of logic people used, thus why your statement was a strawman. What people have actually said is essentially that Rogan is platforming people with extreme and very provably false and dangerous viewpoints and he shouldn't be platforming those people, at the very least he should give a lot more pushback.
You said exactly this "I am semi retired and work for my local council and, by far, the biggest issue where I live is not the right wing, they really are tiny minority, but it is the closemindedness of the left "
So again, what are your examples of this closedmindedness of the left that you see as the biggest issue in your local council? Your only example is older males on the left in your neighborhood allegedly think that someone "slightly right leaning" is an anti-vax, full blown Trumper?
Oh, probably you should define "slightly right leaning" as well.
Maybe an actual example of a scenario that happend on Rogan might be a better way to look at this. There are countless situations where Rogan hasn't fact checked his guests and allowed them to ramble on because he presumably agreed with them about some aspect of whatever view they were advocating.
No. I want to find out of the poster is a free speech absolutist or if they believe there are things that shouldn’t be allowed to be said.
Does this require a farcically unrealistic straw man to accomplish ?
I think an extreme example is a very good way to do this. Also I see little sense in asking about something Rogan did, as the poster seems to be a huge fan of his and has so far not made the impression that they think what Rogan does might be an issue.
With regards to your question, it’s a shame we live in the society we do. In a happy rainbow world, if you had hitler talking that shit on a podcast he would be rightfully shunned by the listeners, I think he still would actually. But your example is too extreme and obviously out there. It’s the drip feeding ‘hitlers’ that are the trouble and that’s what leads to people thinking stuff should be censored as they don’t trust the general population