Joe Rogan is a both-sides-ist. He shows people who speak the truth, and people who speak lies, and then claims to be impartial because he showed both sides.
Imagine this in any other field. It is not exactly reasonable to separately bring both a Nazi and a non-Nazi and claim to be impartial. In that scenario, most likely the normal person would sound relatively ambivalent, while the Nazi would be extremely agitated and emphatic that urgent action must be taken.
Did Joe Rogan literally proclaim himself as a neo-nazi or is it a hyperbole? Genuinely curious, since a quick web search didn't shed any light in that question
You should shut down conversations with nazis and the far right figures he regularly has as guests. Joe Rogan platforms these people for profit. Joe Rogan is not a good person.
He’s also like a great interviewer, man. The one he has with John Carmack is great. He doesn’t know shit about Carmack’s stuff but he interviews him so well. Carmack is a great guest but also Rogan is a great interviewer.
Anytime I see American interviewers they’re always trying to gotcha the guy. Joe Rogan just lets the guy say his piece. Then I can judge afterwards.
Masterwork compared to all these hacks like Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson.
“Oh, he didn’t challenge him on the X”. Yeah, bro, he’s not your personal attack dog. If the dude is a Nazi, JR lets him say Nazi shit. Then I know the dude is a Nazi. All these other interviewers are like it doesn’t matter who they’re interviewing. You’re watching the host.
Do people not realise how dangerous a viewpoint this is, to stop people you don't agree with talking / deplatforming.
How do the left not realise how authoritiarian they actually are in this regard?
And making someone out to be a right wing nazi because of who they spoke to on their show is madness.
I'm not even sure it's honest on the part of these people, I think they know Joe Rogan isnt some right wing nazi but they say it just to fit in with their "group".
I'm a fan of Joe Rogan, but the "doesn't have a conflict of interest" argument doesn't seem correct to me. The point of Joe's podcast is that his biases and motivations are transparent, not that they don't exist. Joe is interested, like many people, in contrarians. It's a heuristic that leads him to interesting conversations, and those kinds of interesting conversations are why the podcast is so popular. Oftentimes people who seem one-dimensional in media coverage are shown to be much more than meets the eye when placed in a long-form non-confrontational setting. There is no guarantee of factualness or good faith in any conversation on the podcast, and in many cases he will bring in verifiably crazy people just to see what they're really like -- these are some of the most popular episodes, by the way.
I've listened to enough Joe Rogan to find him vaguely middle-right (overall, and somewhat inconsistent and hard to pin down).
Deliberately mischaracterizing people as alt right (something he actually talks about) if anything backfires. It's an exaggeration and it reduces the credibility of criticizer.
When it's systematically wrong (e.g. wrong in print) it thus goes on to undermine objectivity of the media that is so important in times like these.
Actually I think you see what you want to see. A month ago he had an interesting podcast with Jimmy Dore. That man is as far left as the most right wing guest Joe has ever had on.
If I could sum up Rogan’s podcast guests it would be whatever side they lean, they tend to be a bit outside the orthodox right or left. For that I give him kudos because I think it’s much more interesting to hear from those off the beaten paths.
I don’t remember Joe Rogan having said anything close to this, but I haven’t seen him a lot besides some random highlights. Is this an accurate representation or is it your wild media-induced fantasy of a Nazi alt-right reincarnation of the devil?
Rogan is intellectually curious and he's not afraid to have conversations with people who have unpopular opinions, even opinions with which he disagrees. His interviewing style is a great example of "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." I have heard several times when someone explains something to Joe and he replies "I think that's all bullshit" and then proceeds to explain why he thinks that person's view/opinion is wrong. People (and the mainstream media, for that matter) are far too sensitive these days to hearing anyone say anything that disagrees with their worldview. It's easier, albeit intellectually lazy, to say "That's misinformation: BAN IT!" than to have an intelligent discussion, understand what someone else is saying, counter them with logic and more information, and end in a state where everyone is more informed on all sides of an issue.
But that won't translate into ratings so don't hold your breath waiting for it.
Right, but they’re angry because Rogan occasionally brings right wing people on his show and lets them speak. Can you imagine? Allowing opposing perspectives to speak...
That's unrelated. Rogan's interviewing process wouldn't be improved by having leftists on. The point is that "we have a guy who points out contradictions" is not enough to produce productive discourse.
Joe Rogan sits squarely at the intersection of "intelligent and curious people who don't vet their sources particularly well" and "batshit-insane folks looking for confirmation of their abhorrent views".
Hahah! :) In this case it doesn't matter, because Rogan does not affect the truth or falsity of what he's saying. But regarding JR, do you have any evidence to support that about Rogan?
You suggest that you can't tell whether he's rational in conversation with Rogan because Rogan doesn't challenge, but you don't need another to challenge, you merely need to listen to him talk and decide yourself.
Rogan is merely helpfully providing a platform where the guy is talking. Hahaha! :)
Joe Rogan is the one who's polarizing. I don't fully know why myself, as I'm not really a fan of the interview format anyway. I've just observed that he seems to be.
Only in a world where facts don't exist and truth is just a matter of opinion are conspiracy theorists and grifters simply people you disagree with.
And in any case, it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Rogan claims to be some kind of innocent, open-minded guy who wants to talk to all kinds of people, when in fact he has clearly chosen a side on most issues and treats guests differenly in order to push people to that side.
There's a vast gulf between "Rogan should be more careful about bringing on and platforming people especially if he's going to support or validate what they say" and "Joe Rogan shouldn't be allowed to do his podcast."
Also the absolutist position ignores the limited capacity both in raw time and cognitively to take in information and that pushing people to do better about not spewing out or supporting bullshit is also free speech..
He interviewed with Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. Also who on the left would interview him? That's the issue with claiming that he only talked to one side.
Imagine this in any other field. It is not exactly reasonable to separately bring both a Nazi and a non-Nazi and claim to be impartial. In that scenario, most likely the normal person would sound relatively ambivalent, while the Nazi would be extremely agitated and emphatic that urgent action must be taken.
reply