Hacker News Reader

Given it's hosted by a comedian and has a diverse range of guests from entertainers to scientists to wackos, I've always thought of it as a show meant to entertain (which occasionally informs). I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion.

> I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion

I agree, but many vocal fans on Twitter and YouTube disagree.

I almost included a point on this in my original comment. You’re right but I get the impression those are the same type of people that think only “intellectuals” like them can truly understand Rick & Morty.

Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"?

One thing about Joe Rogan is that he covers a far broader spectrum of people than anyone else. Who has Alex Jones/Elon Musk/Neil deGrasse Tyson on?

To be frank I find most "robust intellectual discussion" stultifying e.g. hacker news has exactly this problem.

>Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"?

Sam Harris and Tim Ferriss have great long form interviews with interesting people.

I used to listen to Tim Ferris years ago, even bought the 4 hour workweek but for whatever reason I eventually lost interest. I think he was a bit predictable and bland also a bit too deep into "Tech" culture.

Never really paid much attention to Sam Harris so might have another look at him.

One of the most interesting things about Joe Rogan is that he's not a one trick pony e.g. Comedy/Fighters/TV personality etc. I find him more interesting as a result.

Worth looking into Tim Ferriss again. He's done so many episodes of his podcast now that there is a wide range of guests. I'd say if it leans towards any subject it wouldn't be tech but maybe health/body related subjects.

The difference for me is that Harris and Ferris don't make as much room for the interviewee, will often talk more than their guests, and their shows in-general focus more on their own guru egos and view points.

Rogan doesn't self-promote on his podcast, and he creates space for his guests to go deep on their specialties.

Alex Jones is a great example. Who let's Jones rave on for 3 hours? No one. Broadcasters are not going to want to be associated with him. Rogan just lets him go. I disagree with 95% of what Jones says but I'm not going to take anyone's word for it. I watch the 3 hours and then conclude on my own Jones is nuts. Free speech isn't just lip service on that show and kudos for that cause it's rare.

Bonus for Rogan is controversy/media coverage which attracts viewers. Rogan is savvy about the media and Internet.

I have to say those 3 hours are some of the best entertainment I've ever seen. It's completely crazy loony stuff, but I was literally laughing out loud.

I mean from all the conspiracy theories to asking Eddie Bravo to choke him out... It is absolutely hilarious.

So who's going to let him rave for 3 hours? Someone who wants to entertain millions of people. This isn't a criticism of Rogan, more that that main stream media would never allow that type of thing. For a start they don't have 3 hours. Yet it's at 19m views as of now.

I mean, I'm watching Tiger King right now, that's pretty much the same level of entertainment. I don't see the issue with Alex Jones being given 3 hours.

How is it that you put Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones in the same category? Your bias is clear and so I can see why Joe Rogans openness might not appeal to you

Because I think they're both figures who are focused on catering to a specific audience with a specific type of bunk. With Jones its incoherent, conspiracy riddled rants on his show to sell more "health supplements" and "survival gear", with Shapiro its fast talking emotional whataboutism to promote his media sites and books. I would lump left leaning figures like Gwyneth Paltrow and her company Goop, or any other similar figure pushing "alternative medicines", with them as well.

Even if I take your description of them their not in the same category. Conspiracy theorist and someone who promotes their own site and books is in the same category? You might disagree with Ben Shapiro and that’s fine but he’s not purposefully pushing misinformation.

If you are equating Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro to each other than it doesn't seem like you hold yourself to this intellectual rigor that you expect Joe Rogan to adhere to. How can you expect more from others when you don't seem to practice what you preach?

I never said I expected Joe Rogan should adhere to intellectual rigor, rather that people shouldn't expect that from him in any shape because that's not necessarily the point of his show.

I do not think Jones and Shapiro are equal on every front, I think Shapiro is certainly the more sane and sensible one of the two, but as I mentioned in another comment - I think both are equal commentators selling a specific narrative and view of reality to a specific demographic. To me they both twist and bend the truth, or simply flat out lie, to sell their view of reality to a type of person.

This is true but I think getting less so as Joe is getting more confident in opining his ideas, look no further than his latest takes on the covid response

I don't get the appeal either. Joe Rogan is the personified midwit, he manages to make conversations with even the most interesting guests dumb and bland.

I don't think that's a really fair characterization to say he tries to remain "neutral" because he does take stances on things, sometimes very radical. In his last interview with David Pakman (a man who by the way runs a progressive Youtube talk show, not exactly a politically neutral guest) he said that Twitter should probably be regulated like a public utility, and perhaps even purchased outright by the government. That's a fairly radical stance, and even if it was said more in jest or posed as a hypothetical that is certainly not someone a host selling a "neutral" experience would say.