Hacker News Reader

Nah - I refused to be held to a standard that our identities don't change, that we're static beings, and that anything we said / thought 20-30 years ago still represents us today.

Whether or not he seriously considered the moon landing a hoax when he was on a tv show 25 years ago (!) is irrelevant, as he clearly doesn't believe it today. (He's also talked about how he faked that bit to get his character on the show during the audition, but that's mostly hearsay....)

If you disagree, think about the shit you said in high school and college, and how you'd feel if that had to represent you in a job application, for example.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I think it’s fine that he once believed something stupid, and then grew up and changed his mind or whatever. And I do think he's a pretty great entertainer.

My problem is that he’s reducing intellectualism to a game where you take skepticism to its logical extremes and we wind up with anti-vaxxers and a resurgence of polio.

It this not just a variation on, "if the wrong idea gets out, society will collapse?"

When do we people actually take some responsibility?

To me, it is entirely unreasonable to hold Rogan, or anyone presenting people and their ideas to us, to such a standard.

Secondly, look at how often we see some bat shit crazy paired with a scientist on supposedly "news" oriented major media?

We, personally have to be able to have conversations, learn how to be wrong, ignorant, and critical to grow.

Given that, Rogan is fine. He is airing a lot of interesting humans.

I am not sure I want to participate where such strong thought management is a must for fear of collapse.

The problem with that is most people don't have the time or inclination to open up and review and learn about every aspect of all the issues facing the world today. Because of that people with large audiences should be careful of trying to be a neutral platform for ideas in general because just by bringing a person on you're saying something about the worth of listening to that person.

For example news shows have for decades presented both sides of issues like climate change by having a representative from both the denial and the pro side on their shows on equal footing, out of a fear of seeming biased. That from the jump without framing puts the two sides on equal footing making it look like it's two equally supported side of the argument where it's not.

Ideally the fix would be for everyone to have and take the time to examine everything they're being shown on the news (though this gets hard because Google is much better for finding things that support your existing views than what goes against it and there's plenty of places out there with interests in misinforming, whether it's for their own business interests directly or it's just profitable to be the contrarian view point) but changing everyone's habits is hard so it's more effective to hold the people giving platforms to these fringe viewpoints and try to get them to realize that just putting a person on your show is taking a stance on saying these ideas are worth listening to (at the very least).

edit: In addition just bringing people on to a show has the effect of exposing them to new people who hadn't seen them before and may not know the context of who they are which can drastically change the interpretation of what they're saying.

> The problem with that is most people don't have the time or inclination to open up and review and learn about every aspect of all the issues facing the world today. Because of that people with large audiences should be careful of trying to be a neutral platform for ideas in general because just by bringing a person on you're saying something about the worth of listening to that person.

Nah - I don't want, need, nor trust someone else to tell me how to think - unless I ask for it (example: I won't read ALL of the the data/studies on vaccines, so I'll choose to trust the 99% of authoritative perspective on the topic that they're good for society.) Recall the metaphor that is often used against censorship:"Just because a baby can't chew his/her food doesn't mean I shouldn't be served a steak."

> just putting a person on your show is taking a stance on saying these ideas are worth listening to (at the very least).

This is pretty specious reasoning. Saying "this position exists or can exist" and that there are real human beings that hold that idea is not the same as _endorsing_ that position or idea, or even saying that every idea deserves equal weight.

People have time to discuss and learn. We are just not that stupid. And given we can make wages sane, there is ample time. Our First Amendment is predicated on that reality.

If they actually do not, and in my experience they do, but for sake of argument, say they do not, ok?

Then we need an actual public service with a charter to inform, not profit. That is something I totally support, and the very first thing it does is remedial education.

I am fine either way, but much prefer we educate people to think for themselves as I was educated in freaking grade school.

Yes, 6th grade. The topics were:

Advertising forms and compare contrast to propaganda forms. (This was awesome. Everyone loved it, and we all made our own ADS and propaganda to boot.)

Bias in news and opinion. Identify it, labor, big business, right, left, etc... determine whether the entity represents its bias honestly, or not. Why?

Seek diversity of info. Bias is always there. Not a problem once identified. Liars about bias often miss facts and publish low clarity info, making it hard to differentiate fact from opinion too. Never a bad thing to think about. Drives seeking diversity.

All the domestic major media today misrepresent their bias, and it is most often an economic misrepresentation. Almost nothing is published from the labor POV, for example.

The little backassward town I came from got this right. Was not hard, was interesting, useful and became a part of who we were and how we operate.

We could put an end to this garbage in a generation with similar education, coupled with a follow up on critical thinking basics. (Which I also got along with solid civics a couple years later.)

Our ongoing efforts to water down basic, primary education has costs and risks attached.

We are discussing those today. Time for a fix.

Given this perspective, the Rogan show is good value, frankly and honestly presented. Many do much worse, and they claim a lot more legitimacy too.

Put it another way:

If we lack time to consider and shape our society, cultivate the public good, neither will be worth much.

Look around. It is crappy.

We own that. US. Nobody else.

There is time. There is always time.

Or, we live with the outcome of those making a business out of it all. Has not gone well.

He actually discussed his moon landing hoax beliefs in a recent episode. He talked about how there were a lot of sound arguments going on at the time, and interesting valid evidence (like the proven faked photographs). He then said after some more more time and education he changed his views. All humans should get better at being ok with being wrong.

You summed up my issue's with him perfectly. I used to have a lot of the same dumb conversations he has with his guests with my roommates in college. The difference was our conversations were limited to a couple of dumb college kids and anyone else in the dorm room at the time. He has one of the most popular podcasts in the world and has the clout to attract some really powerful/smart people, but also some real scumbags who get to leverage his platform unchallenged.

Do you assume that the listener is incapable of challenging the guest? Just because Rogan doesn’t correct all of his guests absurdities doesn’t mean they go unchecked. After listening to the Alex Jones podcast, for example, I have come to my own conclusion that the guy is not worth paying attention to. I didn’t need the host to do that for me.

Dumb ideas need to be exposed as dumb by the hearer, not by some special class of elites who filter information for us.

There's clearly a decent number of people who listen to Jones all day on his own channel who don't make that realization so it's a fair assumption that there are people who won't come to the correct conclusion about Jones who hadn't been exposed to him before he went on Rogan's podcast.

It's not even strictly about filtering information it's about appropriately presenting the information, giving both sides of an argument equal time and legitimacy is how we've gotten such high levels of climate change denial in the US. News networks, afraid of being seen as taking a side by framing the denial side appropriately as the scientifically unsupported side, would just present two people each arguing their own sides with equal weight given to both the denial and the pro side which gives the appearance there's equal evidence supporting both points where really there split is pretty much all vs a few every specific studies that only support denial in a vacuum.

Are you suggesting that both sides of the climate change debate get equal time in the media?

Pretty much, used to be every climate change story would have the 3 person panel setup with the host, a climate change denier and a climate scientist with the question of "is climate change a real threat."

I regularly see climate change stories, on TV, print, and the internet, and I can't recall any time in the last several years where any time/space, let alone an equal amount, was provided for dissenting opinions. At best, they might include mention of a strawman example of an opposing argument.

Perhaps you and I are consuming different news sources - do you have any recent examples demonstrating this equal allocation to both sides?

Then why do you need a host at all? Why even have journalists? If as you say listeners and viewers are perfectly able to get the truth out of speech, wouldn't the best to only have direct unfiltered speach with nonody in between?

The host provides an available platform to an audience. If I was a guest on a Joe Rogan podcast, I can be certain that some non-trivial amount of people will hear me. If I make my own one-off podcast and upload it to soundcloud, youtube, thepodcasthost, whatever, It is close to assured that I will have a lesser audience, if not close to no audience.

Joe Rogan's platform brings listeners to a topic, not to any specific opinion.

Not really. The host serves a purpose to proke and prod the guest to direct and dissuade the flow of conversation.

>anti–intellectualism masquerading as intellectual curiosity.

Joe can be kinda dumb, but there's nobody smarter than him that's conducting interviews where the guest isn't just a prop to get the interviewer's opinions across [1]. Those are even more flagrant masquerades at intellectual curiosity.

[1] People who cover esoteric topics that nobody pays attention to but the weirdos already obsessed with that subject matter don't count.

>probably the craziest thing that the interviewers had ever heard (we didn’t have vocal flat-earthers on the Internet back then)

Talk about fake news. The moon landing hoax is up there with the JFK assassination in terms of popular conspiracies. I'm in my early 40s and the Arthur C. Clarke / Kubrick moon landing conspiracy has been omnipresent since the late 80s early and early 90s; online and in real life.

Yeah that's a bit of my worry. Granted I've only listened to Rogan a few times so maybe my view is skewed.

I don't mind "Hey let's hear this idea out." but at some point hearing an idea out without really identifying that the idea or theory has so much BS behind it is kinda questionable.

He doesn't tell the interviewee they're full of shit, but he does ask pointed questions and won't agree if he doesn't agree.

See his interview with Candace Owens where she tells him he doesn't believe in climate change, he doesn't destroy her, but asks questions that make her look very intellectually lazy.

It feels like people in this thread are confusing "that's interesting" with agreement. Which isn't particularly intellectual on their own part.

Just an observation: a lot of people who criticise Joe Rogan for believing in conspiracy theories also believe Donald Trump is a Russian asset.

I've seen people praise him for changing his mind about the moon landing being a hoax, but the fact that he accepted that idea at all to me is just totally indefensible. I can't take anyone seriously that could even countenance that for a second.

What is it "totally indefensible"? Frankly, the virtue that someone can change their opinions when presented with further convincing evidence is far more a sign of maturity than one who rigidly accepts something based on authority.

To make my point clearer, the vast majority of people accept their understanding of the world around them based on what others have explained to them or what kinds of media they have consumed. If those sources are faulty, our understanding will be similarly faulty.

I cannot intuitively, by myself, derive that the Moon landings are real nor that they actually happened. The technology to fake the videos (amongst the clearest evidence) is and has been around for longer than the Apollo program. The good character of the astronauts that landed (thus, they are believeable) has been emulated by figures in movies and actors and even politicians until they fell from grace. Large-scale lies by governments and other powerful entities have long been propagated and continue to be so (hence why we're even having this discussion, so I guess this a bit self-referential) include the doubts about environmental or health impacts of large-scale industry and commercial consumption.

Societies have long accepted ideas that are later proven to be regressive, backwards, or just plain wrong. Slavery of blacks, ownership of women, geocentric universe, 6000 year old world. Moreover, these things come-and-go, and we'll find ourselves backtracking on some ideas that we think are good now once the consequences catch-up to us (plastic, lifestyle choices, and more).

The fact is, lots of people hold contradictory world/universe views, beliefs, and more. People will never all be unanimously agreed on something. In fact, it may be considered a hallmark of our nature. Therefore, the virtue is not in accepting one blessed set unconditionally. It lies in being able to adapt and grow closer to truth once a clear, convincing evidence has been presented.

He’s amused by ideas. I think that’s where it came from.

I’ve been listening to him for years now, most often on BART. I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, but what I have come to terms with is this: almost everyone I really know has some crazy or indefensible belief. For many it’s their family or partner relationship. Dig into that, and people are living lives premised on an externally unacceptable belief. Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow.

Joe puts his out there. He’s not embarrassed by himself. From there, he makes more sense.

That said, he has a platform. I think he’s a net positive.

>I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, >Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow.

I don't really enjoy Joe Rogan due to the college dorm room style mentioned above, but I don't understand this sentiment against Joe for being too accepting. There are people who get very unhappy whenever they are reminded that their opinions are not universal, and even further beyond them is a position that in my opinion is pretty dangerous: people who dislike anyone that doesn't share their militancy. People who really hate Joe Rogan because he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's polarization problem.

> he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's polarization problem.

This statement is a bit ironic no? Then again I have no clue what helps get rid of polarisation.

>People who really hate Joe Rogan because he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's polarization problem.

Grammatically, that sentence is saying that the people who hate Joe Rogan for his liberality are contributing to polarization.

Ah, I misread it. Cheers!

The most curious responses on Twitter to the article were those that went something like, "You have to read this article about Joe Rogan. Proves it."

This article seems to have been embraced by both pro- and con- Roganites alike.

I've only seen clips of "late stage" Alex Jones where he's very clearly gone off the deep end, but it's interesting that earlier Richard Linklater cast him in "Waking Life" (2001) and "A Scanner Darkly" (2006) as a ranting blowhard shouting into a bullhorn.

I get the sense that Linklater saw him as basically a harmless crank local to Austin. I don't really know much about the arc of Jones' career but it seems his rantings carried him off into a very dark place indeed and one I assume Linklater would totally disavow.

Jon Ronson also met Alex Jones before his fame skyrocketed and occasionally reflects on it:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/670/beware-the-jabberwock/a...

I've seen myself make mistakes that in retrospect should be have been "obvious", and if you've ever taking a test (a la education), you've obviously made mistakes others deem "obvious" as well. Humans are complex beings, and I don't deny people opportunities to improve -- or even blacklist them.

Which leads me to why one such as yourself would be so adamant in your position to not include that empathy -- its not like moon hoaxers killed and murdered your family in 1990... right? I suspect its more of a philosophy you have regarding treatment of people in the bunch "gullible, anti-science" crowd. Anti-vaxxers, horoscope readers, etc. If thats the case, well, I too enjoy punching down.