Joe Rogan

[moses]

Who has replied against their will? If people want to ignore, they can - just like how people are saying they would choose to ignore Rogan ( a completely normal thing to do).
The thread is about Rogan and these newer posts are about freedom of speech, which is a big question relating to Rogan's show, so I am unsure how it is 'derailing' but if it's not something we can discuss in this thread that's fine if it's made clear.

There you go again. Nobody said anyone replied against their will. Stop trying to escalate and accuse with every post. It's tedious.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I’m not reading all that

I’ll just point out you’re on the internet writing walls of text because… someone asked you a question, and then thanked you for the answer. I didn’t understand the context so asked, apologies if that upsets you

Conveniently forgetting you then wrote this, not in response to anything:

no offense mate but you’re in here acting like the debate team champion or something whilst you’re ducking questions and straw men’ing like a seasoned pro

I didn't have a go at you for asking a question, I gave you the explanation. I've criticised you for the above with the context of you also saying you've not followed the debate.

 

[tomaldinho1]

There you go again. Nobody said anyone replied against their will. Stop trying to escalate and accuse with every post. It's tedious.

I can't ignore you moses so I'll just not reply again to you as I'd rather avoid getting banned, I think the bolded was a very strangely worded thing to write. If it was not and you were simply saying something (which I'm not sure anyone has ever debated) then obviously I agree that no one is obliged to continue debating with anyone.

 

[Tarrou]

Conveniently forgetting you then wrote this, not in response to anything:

I didn't have a go at you for asking a question, I gave you the explanation. I've criticised you for the above with the context of you also saying you've not followed the debate.

I didn’t forget Jesus Christ what is wrong with you?

You just wrote a wall a text specifically about my posts and I was clearly responding to that. Or did you conveniently forget?

Look, this is going terribly for you, just stop

 

[Wibble]

I didn’t forget Jesus Christ what is wrong with you?

You just wrote a wall a text specifically about my posts and I was clearly responding to that. Or did you conveniently forget?

Look, this is going terribly for you, just stop

His posting does look like a car swerving down an icy hill at speed, just looking for a place for the crash to happen.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I didn’t forget Jesus Christ what is wrong with you?

You just wrote a wall a text specifically about my posts and I was clearly responding to that. Or did you conveniently forget?

Look, this is going terribly for you, just stop

It was omitted from your post below, so why would I not think you forgot it?

I’ll just point out you’re on the internet writing walls of text because… someone asked you a question, and then thanked you for the answer. I didn’t understand the context so asked, apologies if that upsets you

You know very well this isn't what happened - you can literally go and see that I responded to your next post, where you jumped back into the thread and said something that served no purpose other than to insult. I'm just pointing out that within a short space of time you've said that you have not followed the debate but then are commenting on the debate and saying things clearly written without a positive intention.

 

[Beachryan]

I think you forget that a lot of people are just dumb as fk. They do not have the capacity to do their own research and come to an educated decision. They don't see it as a conspiracy. They just see someone who seems educated and is using big words and take it as fact. It's the equivalent of the Sun newspaper or trashy magazines or Jerry Springer. It's easy information to absorb and sensationalist and entertaining. Very few people read the Financial Times or PubMed . The influencers like Rogan know this themselves. They know a lot of it is just bullsht. Hack even the guests pedaling sht know its half made up. But that's the business they are in. That is their audience. Thats where the money is.

I agree, but I like to think even 'most' people who read hte Sun or whatever wouldn't go there for information about, say, a medical diagnosis or investing advice. Like, there should still be a deliniation between info we absorb casually versus when the rubber hits the road and we need ot get it right. But hey, that's probably naive these days!

 

[KirkDuyt]

Examples?
I can point to you literally just above trying to jump in and then ducking out when the irony of a post was explained. That just clogged up the thread.

If by debate champion you mean I try and respond to each person, your bar is very low.

Care to follow up on my none sarcastic reply to you?

Or perhaps the fact that the Cutter incident you brought up has nothing to do with modern vaccines and their effectiveness?

Or @HTG's hypothetical a few pages back?

When absolutely everyone is arguing against you in the same manner, everyone else might be crazy or there might be another explanation. You're misrepresenting a lot of facts in your posts and are putting words in other people's mouths which distorts their points completely. No one is arguing the government should sanction Joe Rogan for platforming malignant fringe grifters. They're saying he's an arsehole and is damaging society.

And he is.

 

[UpWithRivers]

I agree, but I like to think even 'most' people who read hte Sun or whatever wouldn't go there for information about, say, a medical diagnosis or investing advice. Like, there should still be a deliniation between info we absorb casually versus when the rubber hits the road and we need ot get it right. But hey, that's probably naive these days!

Oh when the rubber hits the road they change their tune sharpish. If they get covid or sick generally, then they are straight to A+E crying for meds that they think are evil. When they want Trump to get rid of all immigrants and then ICE turn up at their door or their family then all of a sudden they are crying for the lawyers they hate. When some fkd up drug head breaks into their house then its straight to the police when they think all police are evil and should be defunded. As I said. People are just dumb a fk.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

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.

I'm not sure this is particularly on the money any more. Nowadays, the vast majority of Rogan's guests are right-wingers who are at the very least sympathetic to the Trump administration if not blindly devoted to it.

Putting politics aside for a second (kind of), even on scientific matters I think Rogan's idea of "balance" is terribly misguided and honestly fairly harmful to public discourse. The reason for this is that I think, in trying to "give a voice to all viewpoints", Rogan ends up amplifying positions that are on the fringes of the scientific community precisely because they're based on science that can at best be described as flimsy.

If, for instance, 99 out of 100 climate scientists are in agreement that man-made global warming is taking place, it may well be "balanced" from a coverage standpoint to give equal time to both sides of that argument. With that said, I think it's also unarguable that you'd be massively amplifying the viewpoint of that one dissenter.

I think Rogan essentially presses his hands down on the scales of scientific consensus in favour of the fringes for the benefit of what he would call "balance", without critically thinking about why such an "imbalance" exists in the first place. Many of the "balanced" mainstream media outlets are guilty of this too, to be fair. I think it's an absolutely massive issue for public discourse as it leads to extreme positions founded on dubious reasoning and little-to-no evidence being given more airtime than they're perhaps due.

 

[Badunk]

Rogan was only really interesting to me when he had amazing science guys on, like Prof. Brian Cox, and someone really engaging like Dan Carlin. Joe's style of sitting back, going "Whoa!" a lot, then asking a few more questions about what he'd just heard was fine. It kept the conversation flowing, and those types of guests were hugely entertaining and informative.

Sitting back and going "Whoa!" when Alex Jones spouts some absolute horseshit conspiracy theory, or when pseudoscience pushers mix 10% facts with 90% 'Big Pharma', is potentially very damaging to the uninformed listener. The recent attacks on a genuine expert in archaeology, just because he destroyed Rogan favourite, Graham Hancock, in a debate, is proof that this show can be toxic.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I'm not sure this is particularly on the money any more. Nowadays, the vast majority of Rogan's guests are right-wingers who are at the very least sympathetic to the Trump administration if not blindly devoted to it.

Putting politics aside for a second (kind of), even on scientific matters I think Rogan's idea of "balance" is terribly misguided and honestly fairly harmful to public discourse. The reason for this is that I think, in trying to "give a voice to all viewpoints", Rogan ends up amplifying positions that are on the fringes of the scientific community precisely because they're based on science that can at best be described as flimsy.

If, for instance, 99 out of 100 climate scientists are in agreement that man-made global warming is taking place, it may well be "balanced" from a coverage standpoint to give equal time to both sides of that argument. With that said, I think it's also unarguable that you'd be massively amplifying the viewpoint of that one dissenter.

I think Rogan essentially presses his hands down on the scales of scientific consensus in favour of the fringes for the benefit of what he would call "balance", without critically thinking about why such an "imbalance" exists in the first place. Many of the "balanced" mainstream media outlets are guilty of this too, to be fair. I think it's an absolutely massive issue for public discourse as it leads to extreme positions founded on dubious reasoning and little-to-no evidence being given more airtime than they're perhaps due.

This actually might be true and is actually an interesting argument - I don't watch Rogan unless it's someone I want to listen to (save listening to the anti vax woman as she was being discussed) so last ones for me were Bill Murray, Woody and Magnus Carlson. I have no idea who many of these other people are: https://jrelibrary.com/episode-list/ except Topuria who I will listen to at some point as well.

If that's the case, that it's demonstrable his show is becoming 'more' right focused, then I guess the question becomes what is balance? On your climate point I think it's more - specifically as we are discussing Rogan - about the split of who he specifically has one. For example, if he has one 1 normal scientist vs 1 conspiracy theory focused scientist it kind of challenges my thinking as it is technically 'fair' but then essentially allowing 50/50 to me would be dangerous. My take is the real nutters he has on remain in the minority though and so it is still heavier on 'normal' people by far.

 

[Raoul]

Rogan was only really interesting to me when he had amazing science guys on, like Prof. Brian Cox, and someone really engaging like Dan Carlin. Joe's style of sitting back, going "Whoa!" a lot, then asking a few more questions about what he'd just heard was fine. It kept the conversation flowing, and those types of guests were hugely entertaining and informative.

Sitting back and going "Whoa!" when Alex Jones spouts some absolute horseshit conspiracy theory, or when pseudoscience pushers mix 10% facts with 90% 'Big Pharma', is potentially very damaging to the uninformed listener. The recent attacks on a genuine expert in archaeology, just because he destroyed Rogan favourite, Graham Hancock, in a debate, is proof that this show can be toxic.

Trouble with the so called "interesting" guests is they are usually much smarter than Rogan and his reactions and follow up questions usually have a tendency of dumbing down the value of having them on. Fridman is usually better for such guests because at least he's an educated guy (PhD Computer Scientist background) who can do some degree of justice to have guests talk about everything from Putin's Russia to Quantum Mechanics. Rogan on the other hand, is more suited for MMA guys and comedians.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Was listening to another show that covered a bit of Rogan's latest discussion with Jordan Peterson (God knows why he has him on at this point). Peterson described the prospect of Carney being elected in Canada as the US getting a "seasoned enemy in the West", partly because he has "strong links to Europe". Then Rogan goes on to elaborate about how "Europe is a total mess", because apparently you get arrested for social media posts in the UK or whatever.

Fascinating stuff. Joe Rogan is basically a MAGA mouthpiece. Insanely moronic person.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Was listening to another show that covered a bit of Rogan's latest discussion with Jordan Peterson (God knows why he has him on at this point). Peterson described the prospect of Carney being elected in Canada as the US getting a "seasoned enemy in the West", partly because he has "strong links to Europe". Then Rogan goes on to elaborate about how "Europe is a total mess", because apparently you get arrested for social media posts in the UK or whatever.

Fascinating stuff. Joe Rogan is basically a MAGA mouthpiece. Insanely moronic person.

Him being a MAGA mouthpiece is really no surprise at all. His podcast is like the elephant’s foot in Chernobyl. There’s no way he could survive being that close to the core without ending up in a red baseball cap.

 

[Shinjch]

The mediocre comedian to right wing grift pipeline is a problem.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Him being a MAGA mouthpiece is really no surprise at all. His podcast is like the elephant’s foot in Chernobyl. There’s no way he could survive being that close to the core without ending up in a red baseball cap.

Yeah, it's not new or surprising, but sometimes it still gets me how blatant it is. Calling Canada a potential enemy in the West, when it's the US posturing to take it over is so dumb that it's hard to believe. And Joe Rogan and his free speech grift doesn't seem too concerned about the Feds busting down door to university pro-Palestine university students. It comes down to a childlike "US good, EU/Canada bad" take.

Anyone still listening to Joe Rogan for his "interesting guests" or to hear "both sides" is enabling this stuff.

 

[Tarrou]

Was listening to another show that covered a bit of Rogan's latest discussion with Jordan Peterson (God knows why he has him on at this point). Peterson described the prospect of Carney being elected in Canada as the US getting a "seasoned enemy in the West", partly because he has "strong links to Europe". Then Rogan goes on to elaborate about how "Europe is a total mess", because apparently you get arrested for social media posts in the UK or whatever.

Fascinating stuff. Joe Rogan is basically a MAGA mouthpiece. Insanely moronic person.

it's almost feels like maga have deliberately been working on turning him

 

[Mike Smalling]

it's almost feels like maga have deliberately been working on turning him

They definitely have, but I don't think it would have taken much effort. Rogan is a moron, so he is predisposed to their way of thinking. He would have gotten there in the end no matter what.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yeah, it's not new or surprising, but sometimes it still gets me how blatant it is. Calling Canada a potential enemy in the West, when it's the US posturing to take it over is so dumb that it's hard to believe. And Joe Rogan and his free speech grift doesn't seem too concerned about the Feds busting down door to university pro-Palestine university students. It comes down to a childlike "US good, EU/Canada bad" take.

Anyone still listening to Joe Rogan for his "interesting guests" or to hear "both sides" is enabling this stuff.

I was being a bit glib. It’s always weirdly fascinating to follow one of these grifters along the process of being radicalised.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Finally, Someone Said It to Joe Rogan’s Face​

(Trigger warning: that person is Douglas Murray.)

'In the olden days, we had a tradition where people who wanted to find out stuff spoke directly with people who had firsthand information. You guys laughed at it and said that it was dumb and elitist.' -- Helen Lewis, in The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/roganverse-split/682593/

 

[Raoul]

Finally, Someone Said It to Joe Rogan’s Face​

(Trigger warning: that person is Douglas Murray.)

'In the olden days, we had a tradition where people who wanted to find out stuff spoke directly with people who had firsthand information. You guys laughed at it and said that it was dumb and elitist.' -- Helen Lewis, in The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/roganverse-split/682593/

Its primarily his guests that would be in question here. Its less that they don't travel to regions to learn more about what they're talking about, and more about normalizing random misinformation and Rogan not having a mechanism to push back on it. Unless he himself vehemently disagrees with something said, there's often little to no pushback.