The Joe Rogan Podcast Thread

[x Tame Impala]

I didn't say you said it, but that's what all these critiques come down to on these types of guests or him being a "free speech radical".

The guy has had 1500+ podcasts and hasn't had a guy like Alex Jones on it what feels like 3-4 years. Who was his last mast controversial guest? Ben Shapiro?

It's like I said a month or so ago when this argument first started. So much of this anti-Rogan stuff is purely based on politics.

 

[Stylizer1]

This is a completely ridiculous statement.

Rogan has had multiple people on the show to espouse complete bullshit and not call them on it. He gives a platform to problematic beliefs and makes them become mainstream because his show is so incredibly popular. You can recognize that this is a problem without even starting into politics.

Supporting Trump is hardly even political anymore, Trump is a deplorable human being regardless of politics.

This is a bit of an aside, but if he would vote for Trump over Bernie he is nowhere close to left leaning.

It comes down to are you capable of thinking for yourself or not. Does the world need to be protected from everything?

I would like to think most people are not that impressionable.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The guy has had 1500+ podcasts and hasn't had a guy like Alex Jones on it what feels like 3-4 years. Who was his last mast controversial guest? Ben Shapiro?

It's like I said a month or so ago when this argument first started. So much of this anti-Rogan stuff is purely based on politics.

I think Alex Jones was on in early 2019, but Joe has said how Alex is crazy many different times.

The one real valid critique of Rogan that I see, is sometimes he'll get people a bit too far on the conspiracy side, since it's something he used to be really into. For those people it's about validating if their claims are legitimate, but most of those people don't really interest me. The vast majority of the backlash against him seems to come to what people view as bad opinions, but they don't even know enough to realize that Joe calls them and out and challenges them more often than not, or he just doesn't bring them back as guests.

 

[Stylizer1]

I think Alex Jones was on in early 2019, but Joe has said how Alex is crazy many different times.

The one real valid critique of Rogan that I see, is sometimes he'll get people a bit too far on the conspiracy side, since it's something he used to be really into. For those people it's about validating if their claims are legitimate, but most of those people don't really interest me. The vast majority of the backlash against him seems to come to what people view as bad opinions, but they don't even know enough to realize that Joe calls them and out and challenges them more often than not, or he just doesn't bring them back as guests.

People who get offended are the ones who want you to think like them.

 

[chicagoskycam]

This is a completely ridiculous statement.

Rogan has had multiple people on the show to espouse complete bullshit and not call them on it. He gives a platform to problematic beliefs and makes them become mainstream because his show is so incredibly popular. You can recognize that this is a problem without even starting into politics.

Supporting Trump is hardly even political anymore, Trump is a deplorable human being regardless of politics.

This is a bit of an aside, but if he would vote for Trump over Bernie he is nowhere close to left leaning.

Rogan believes everyone should have a voice, no matter how ridiculous their opinions are and your statement is completely subjective either way. To ostracize and cancel those we don't agree with is worse than some of the so-called "bullshit" you talk about. I think his point is to establish a dialogue and understanding and form your own opinion. Stating he gives a platform to problematic beliefs is your opinion and then ask yourself, why is his show so popular if that's the case?

There is a ton of shit Joe talks about I don't agree with. He even gets the facts wrong on fights he, himself commentated on... lol, but I understand the concept of the show and where he's coming from. Even if his guest has a ridiculous theory, people are smart enough to form their own opinions.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Rogan believes everyone should have a voice, no matter how ridiculous their opinions are and your statement is completely subjective either way. To ostracize and cancel those we don't agree with is worse than some of the so-called "bullshit" you talk about. I think his point is to establish a dialogue and understanding and form your own opinion. Stating he gives a platform to problematic beliefs is your opinion and then ask yourself, why is his show so popular if that's the case?

There is a ton of shit Joe talks about I don't agree with. He even gets the facts wrong on fights he, himself commentated on... lol, but I understand the concept of the show and where he's coming from. Even if his guest has a ridiculous theory, people are smart enough to form their own opinions.

'Canceling' a Stefan Molyneux or Gavin McInness is absolutely not worse than the bullshit they say. You'd have to be an absolute dunce to believe that to be the case.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Its possible to take things for what they are and not have everything be a definitive political statement. If Joe Rogan’s behavior moves the needle for you then I think you should step out of your box for a moment and remember that people sometimes have different opinions than you do and just because they’re different doesn’t mean they’re necessarily immoral or wrong.

It’s a big world, folks. Lots of opinions and experiences in it. If you’re incapable of handling content that deviates slightly from your comfort zone then that’s on you.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Its possible to take things for what they are and not have everything be a definitive political statement. If Joe Rogan’s behavior moves the needle for you then I think you should step out of your box for a moment and remember that people sometimes have different opinions than you do and just because they’re different doesn’t mean they’re necessarily immoral or wrong.

It’s a big world, folks. Lots of opinions and experiences in it. If you’re incapable of handling content that deviates slightly from your comfort zone then that’s on you.

Genuine question: Do you believe that the views shared by Molyneux and McInness is really just a matter of differing opinions and comfort zones?

 

[x Tame Impala]

'Canceling' a Stefan Molyneux or Gavin McInness is absolutely not worse than the bullshit they say. You'd have to be an absolute dunce to believe that to be the case.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Molyneux was last on the podcast in 2014, and about 1000 podcasts ago. Gavin MCInness was on back in February 2017, over 500 podcasts ago.

Again, people define Rogan based on less than a dozen instances out of 1500+ where he’s had a controversial guest on to bear whar they have to say. The guy has a clear set habit of having almost entirely worthwhile guests on that offer interesting perspectives. Personally I enjoy most of his content and am not bothered much by some of his few and far between undesirable guests.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Correct me if I’m wrong but Molyneux was last on the podcast in 2014, and about 1000 podcasts ago. Gavin MCInness was on back in February 2017, over 500 podcasts ago.

Again, people define Rogan based on less than a dozen instances out of 1500+ where he’s had a controversial guest on to bear whar they have to say. The guy has a clear set habit of having almost entirely worthwhile guests on that offer interesting perspectives. Personally I enjoy most of his content and am not bothered much by some of his few and far between undesirable guests.

You didn't answer my question. Again, I don't have a beef with Rogan and don't think that he shouldn't have a platform or anything of the sort. I watch and enjoy some of his podcasts. But claiming that he hasn't been (at best) irresponsible and that some very valid criticism is just political hackery is just...cringy.

 

[x Tame Impala]

You didn't answer my question. Again, I don't have a beef with Rogan and don't think that he shouldn't have a platform or anything of the sort. I watch and enjoy some of his podcasts. But claiming that he hasn't been (at best) irresponsible and that some very valid criticism is just political hackery is just...cringy.

Didn’t see that post until after I already quoted you.

I didn’t listen to either of those guests and haven’t heard any of those podcasts so the context is lacking. But to your point, I neither believe every person deserves to have their opinions shared with the world nor do I believe every opinion is equal.

If it’s deemed socially irresponsible for a guest to offer a platform to someone who is clearly racist or hateful then yes, a host should be more aware of how that will look if they give them a few hours to speak their mind.

However, Im not afraid of hearing controversial opinions if they’re well-thought out and took some actual intellectual-legwork to arrive at. Again I’ve not heard either of these guests and I’m completely unfamiliar with their views. I have heard podcasts with guests saying controversial things and being labeled awful things like: Jordan Peterson, who is routinely called a transphobe and a bigot. Sam Harris, who has been criticized for almost two decades know for being anti-religious (much like Christopher Hitchens before him), Eric Weinstein and his ordeal at Evergreen being called a racist, and general other guests being accused of racism/transphobia/conservative views, etc...

Personally I enjoy listening to what people like that have to say and especially in Rogan’s format because he lets these people talk for 2+ hours and really get to the meat and potatoes of their opinions. It’s a much better means of discourse than the way television gives people at most 11 minutes to say what they have to or on social media where clips and quotes are chopped up with all context removed.

Ideally I would’ve rather heard what someone like McGinnes or Molyneux has to say and formulate an opinion on my own instead of being told that they’re despicable people by angry forum users though. Even though I 99% would have been likely to arrive at the exact same conclusion as yourself, it’s undoubtedly better to get their on my own rather than strictly via the consensus of Internet sensibilities like we’ve seen here.

Inevitably in response to what I just wrote, people will say that there’s a damaging recourse allowing someone like McGinnes to speak that I’m not entirely sure I agree with either. It isn’t a matter of “differing opinions” if this guy really is as outwardly racist as he’s being accused, and again not everyone deserves their opinion to be heard. I’m just generally not in a rush to start throwing buzzwords like the nonsense in that Spotify article around at Rogan because he had previously had guests like that on.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Didn’t see that post until after I already quoted you.

I didn’t listen to either of those guests and haven’t heard any of those podcasts so the context is lacking. But to your point, I neither believe every person deserves to have their opinions shared with the world nor do I believe every opinion is equal.

If it’s deemed socially irresponsible for a guest to offer a platform to someone who is clearly racist or hateful then yes, a host should be more aware of how that will look if they give them a few hours to speak their mind.

However, Im not afraid of hearing controversial opinions if they’re well-thought out and took some actual intellectual-legwork to arrive at. Again I’ve not heard either of these guests and I’m completely unfamiliar with their views. I have heard podcasts with guests saying controversial things and being labeled awful things like: Jordan Peterson, who is routinely called a transphobe and a bigot. Sam Harris, who has been criticized for almost two decades know for being anti-religious (much like Christopher Hitchens before him), Eric Weinstein and his ordeal at Evergreen being called a racist, and general other guests being accused of racism/transphobia/conservative views, etc...

Personally I enjoy listening to what people like that have to say and especially in Rogan’s format because he lets these people talk for 2+ hours and really get to the meat and potatoes of their opinions. It’s a much better means of discourse than the way television gives people at most 11 minutes to say what they have to or on social media where clips and quotes are chopped up with all context removed.

Ideally I would’ve rather heard what someone like McGinnes or Molyneux has to say and formulate an opinion on my own instead of being told that they’re despicable people by angry forum users though. Even though I 99% would have been likely to arrive at the exact same conclusion as yourself, it’s undoubtedly better to get their on my own rather than strictly via the consensus of Internet sensibilities like we’ve seen here.

Inevitably in response to what I just wrote, people will say that there’s a damaging recourse allowing someone like McGinnes to speak that I’m not entirely sure I agree with either. It isn’t a matter of “differing opinions” if this guy really is as outwardly racist as he’s being accused, and again not everyone deserves their opinion to be heard. I’m just generally not in a rush to start throwing buzzwords like the nonsense in that Spotify article around at Rogan because he had previously had guests like that on.

That's clearly the case with Molyneux and McGinnis. A quick Wikipedia glance suffices in their cases. I'm not talking about Peterson/Harris types, who I agree, I'm not going to hold against anyone for having a discussion with them, even if you don't agree with their ethos/arguments/conclusions. I just think McGinnes are clear cases where it's damaging, irresponsible and unethical to give them a platform to talk their bullshit and I'm immediately suspicious when someone who is aware of them (so I'm not pointing this at you right now) thinks that they should be given/entitled to a public space (one that is not government protected) to say and potentially influence feeble minds with their bigoted talk.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You didn't answer my question. Again, I don't have a beef with Rogan and don't think that he shouldn't have a platform or anything of the sort. I watch and enjoy some of his podcasts. But claiming that he hasn't been (at best) irresponsible and that some very valid criticism is just political hackery is just...cringy.

And he's called Molyneux dumb and criticized Gavin on many occasions. We both know this isn't the core argument when people criticize Rogan though. And even if it was, we have a lot of other outlets and individuals to cancel for platforming certain individuals. Richard Spencer on multiple tv networks. Taliban leaders having an op-ed in the New York Times. My view is that you need to expose these people to highlight why they are problems. That's what happened with Milo for example, he got big on Youtube, so bigger platforms took notice and had him on, and that's eventually what destroyed him. If he never went on those platforms, he would've thrived with most people not really knowing him.

The political hackery is when the establishment went after him originally for being a Bernie supporter. For going after him for saying Biden is showing signs of cognitive decline. For calling him right-wing. For calling him a transphobe, and all those other terms. This is where the majority of the pushback he gets. And the notion that he doesn't pushback on any of his guests that he doesn't agree with.

And yes, categorizing him as a free speech radical is political hackery. It's hackery to call free speech, radical.

 

[Stylizer1]

You didn't answer my question. Again, I don't have a beef with Rogan and don't think that he shouldn't have a platform or anything of the sort. I watch and enjoy some of his podcasts. But claiming that he hasn't been (at best) irresponsible and that some very valid criticism is just political hackery is just...cringy.

Why does it matter ? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[Stylizer1]

That's clearly the case with Molyneux and McGinnis. A quick Wikipedia glance suffices in their cases. I'm not talking about Peterson/Harris types, who I agree, I'm not going to hold against anyone for having a discussion with them, even if you don't agree with their ethos/arguments/conclusions. I just think McGinnes are clear cases where it's damaging, irresponsible and unethical to give them a platform to talk their bullshit and I'm immediately suspicious when someone who is aware of them (so I'm not pointing this at you right now) thinks that they should be given/entitled to a public space (one that is not government protected) to say and potentially influence feeble minds with their bigoted talk.

Wikipedia? holy shit batman.

 

[chicagoskycam]

'Canceling' a Stefan Molyneux or Gavin McInness is absolutely not worse than the bullshit they say. You'd have to be an absolute dunce to believe that to be the case.

You're missing the entire point

 

[bigdirty]

It comes down to are you capable of thinking for yourself or not. Does the world need to be protected from everything?

I would like to think most people are not that impressionable.

Rogan believes everyone should have a voice, no matter how ridiculous their opinions are and your statement is completely subjective either way. To ostracize and cancel those we don't agree with is worse than some of the so-called "bullshit" you talk about. I think his point is to establish a dialogue and understanding and form your own opinion. Stating he gives a platform to problematic beliefs is your opinion and then ask yourself, why is his show so popular if that's the case?

There is a ton of shit Joe talks about I don't agree with. He even gets the facts wrong on fights he, himself commentated on... lol, but I understand the concept of the show and where he's coming from. Even if his guest has a ridiculous theory, people are smart enough to form their own opinions.

I'm fully against censorship and cancel culture and all that, but come on guys, you can't possibly believe this. I could cite a hundreds of examples, but I'll just pick the first one that popped into my head:
The Bill Gates ‘microchip’ claim fact-checked
"A new YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggests that 28% of Americans believe that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans."

The fact that so many people all over the world are indeed very impressionable and not smart enough to form their own opinions is why there are so many ridiculous, easy to debunk conspiracy theories out there with so many supporters.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

And he's called Molyneux dumb and criticized Gavin on many occasions. We both know this isn't the core argument when people criticize Rogan though. And even if it was, we have a lot of other outlets and individuals to cancel for platforming certain individuals. Richard Spencer on multiple tv networks. Taliban leaders having an op-ed in the New York Times. My view is that you need to expose these people to highlight why they are problems. That's what happened with Milo for example, he got big on Youtube, so bigger platforms took notice and had him on, and that's eventually what destroyed him. If he never went on those platforms, he would've thrived with most people not really knowing him.

The political hackery is when the establishment went after him originally for being a Bernie supporter. For going after him for saying Biden is showing signs of cognitive decline. For calling him right-wing. For calling him a transphobe, and all those other terms. This is where the majority of the pushback he gets. And the notion that he doesn't pushback on any of his guests that he doesn't agree with.

And yes, categorizing him as a free speech radical is political hackery. It's hackery to call free speech, radical.

And I think it's ridiculous for Richard Spencer to be speaking at a university or on TV networks. Taliban op-ed is a bit different because they're an actual military organization that holds active negotiations with the American government. Of course, it doesn't excuse their terrible acts and rule, but they're not pundits or internet personalities. Milo was also different. Going on bigger platforms and his dumb political ideas being exposed is not what led to his downfall. It was being a pedophilia apologist. I honestly don't know enough about his views on trans people or Biden to criticize him on that front, but I'm also not sure him calling Molyneux dumb and criticizing McInnes also excuses having them on for a couple of hours to say shit like 'Muslims are mostly all inbreds' or whatever and without calling it out for the obvious racist bullshit that it is.

 

[Stylizer1]

I'm fully against censorship and cancel culture and all that, but come on guys, you can't possibly believe this. I could cite a hundreds of examples, but I'll just pick the first one that popped into my head:
The Bill Gates ‘microchip’ claim fact-checked
"A new YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggests that 28% of Americans believe that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans."

The fact that so many people all over the world are indeed very impressionable and not smart enough to form their own opinions is why there are so many ridiculous, easy to debunk conspiracy theories out there with so many supporters.

Guess what, polls are bullshit and people who use them are impressionable.

 

[bleedblue1223]

And I think it's ridiculous for Richard Spencer to be speaking at a university or on TV networks. Taliban op-ed is a bit different because they're an actual military organization that holds active negotiations with the American government. Of course, it doesn't excuse their terrible acts and rule, but they're not pundits or internet personalities. Milo was also different. Going on bigger platforms and his dumb political ideas being exposed is not what led to his downfall. It was being a pedophilia apologist. I honestly don't know enough about his views on trans people or Biden to criticize him on that front, but I'm also not sure him calling Molyneux dumb and criticizing McInnes also excuses having them on for a couple of hours to say shit like 'Muslims are mostly all inbreds' or whatever and without calling it out for the obvious racist bullshit that it is.

My point with Milo was that by going on bigger podcasts is what made public his bizarre takes on how he rationalized being sexually abused as a child. If he wasn't on bigger platforms like that, that wouldn't have been known IMO.

In regards to the stuff with Molyneux and Gavin and any others, is the receipts of them spewing obvious crap and Rogan not pushing back on any of it? I didn't tune in on those, and I know he's pushed back on Shapiro's take on homosexuality, Candace Owens on climate change and her other grifter takes, Rubin's grifter takes on have 0 regulations, etc. This is really my main point with Rogan who say he doesn't push back. When it comes to opinion stuff, he pushes back all the time, it's when he has on the pseudoscience type guests or things that aren't opinion based is where he can get into trouble.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

My point with Milo was that by going on bigger podcasts is what made public his bizarre takes on how he rationalized being sexually abused as a child. If he wasn't on bigger platforms like that, that wouldn't have been known IMO.

In regards to the stuff with Molyneux and Gavin and any others, is the receipts of them spewing obvious crap and Rogan not pushing back on any of it? I didn't tune in on those, and I know he's pushed back on Shapiro's take on homosexuality, Candace Owens on climate change and her other grifter takes, Rubin's grifter takes on have 0 regulations, etc. This is really my main point with Rogan who say he doesn't push back. When it comes to opinion stuff, he pushes back all the time, it's when he has on the pseudoscience type guests or things that aren't opinion based is where he can get into trouble.

I don't want to link but for the McGinnes interview, if I recall correctly, it started around the hour and a half mark.

 

[Stylizer1]

Have at it. lol

 

[Stylizer1]

It is kinda funny listening to Joe shit on Carlos Mencia but then defend Amy Schumer, considering they both did the exact same thing, but one is his friend.

When has he ever defended Amy?

 

[holy]

This new set is next level uggo man.

 

[Stylizer1]

any see a new episode where he interviewed someone dressed up as trump? It was taken down.

It was posted over the day and was in his old studio. It looke like Steven Crowder or that comedian who does all the snapchat impressions.