Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnzix | Hacker News Reader

> When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss?

Rogan's schtick is that he lets his guests explain their ideology without directly attacking it. Instead he has an assistant fact-check any claims they make, and Rogan is also very forthright about calling them out on logical inconsistencies - "you said x just before, now you're saying !x, can you explain how that makes sense?"

The spirit of open curiosity and honest discourse is important. It also gives some ideologues enough rope with which to hang themselves, eg the Milo Yiannopoulos incident.

View on HN

I don't watch every episode so I probably just missed some but what are episodes where they spend the majority of their time arguing for two different sides? At least with someone like ben shapiro, they might have philosophical differences but they can complain about misguided leftists and woke ideology. I can't imagine him having someone on like a trans rights activist or a BLM spokesperson

Does the assistant apply the same rigor to Rogan’s claims?

He does. Also Rogan himself often glances at Jamie, his assistant, as to say; I’m I right about that fact, right?

This is not a journalistic podcast but casual conversations podcast. He is a comedian afterall.

They google things up and Rogan call people on BS when they contradict themselves, but they are not always right and they fall for some BS themselves.

That's no defense. "I'm joking bro" does not justify spreading harmful lies.

Harmful lies, like what exactly?

You have morons out there saying corona is fake and mask are tool of enslavement + the whole Q mess.

Rogan is saying to wear masks and stay healthy. Only think that he is saying wrong is the amount of vitamins to take (he is actually taking too much).

And he has no "I'm joking bro". As a matter of fact he is quite humble and admits when he is wrong. I don't know what you expect him to do? Fact check every minute of 3h conversation?

Look what you did, you roped me into defending podcast I listen to few time a month...

I’ve never listened to the show and don’t know enough to have an opinion on him. But if you employ a fact-checker they have to be checking both sides. Otherwise it’s biased; people will misremember things even in good faith. And it seems that Rogan was wrong about some claims about the wildfires in Oregon — he admitted it on Twitter, but where was the fact-checker in that case?

Just curious, what are some constructive criticisms or areas of improvement that could make the Joe Roegan podcast better? Also how long have you been listening to his show?

I've been listening since close to the start. I much prefer the episodes around science, music and nutrition but this is HN after all.

My biggest criticism is the new format of recording multiple episodes per day. I totally understand the logistics, but I find Rogan gets tired and interacts less with the guest and the episode falls flat. The best part of JRE is Rogan's engaged curiosity.

I'd rather have one high quality episode per week than gambling on how tired Joe is. I've actually stopped listening regularly because of this format change.

> I've been listening since close to the start. I much prefer the episodes around science, music and nutrition but this is HN after all.

Same here, the casual comedian/friend guest are usually cookie cutter episodes with small rants about their current lives (AND obligatory 15 min segment on how crazyup Comanche were and how badly they are mis-treated now - Empire of the Summer Moon - :) ).

Why does he then use his own voice to breathlessly repeat debunked rumors about left-wing activists in Portland? You think he'll correct the record in the next episode?

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fir...

While he probably should retract that there is a lot of false information going around. I think people are conflating this guy https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thepostmillennial.com/arson... with Antifa. But he just appears to be your run of the mill crazy arsonist.

Also it's worth pointing out Antifa did go around starting fires. Mainly in cities, burning down businesses and police cars.

He used to go around saying the moon landing was fake but did a 180 on that. So he might yet retract his claim.

(Washington, left-wing activist, forest fire): https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-arrest-puyallup-man-...

(Oregon, arsonist, forest fire) https://thepostmillennial.com/arsonist-arrested-after-using-...

I haven't found the trifecta of ('Oregon', 'Left-wing activists', 'forest fires'). But I wouldn't have written an article making a claim that it definitely didn't happen. "falsely claimed" and "debunked" are unjustified claims themselves.

We are living in a strange time where many people think they know more than they do.

Excuse me? Where is there "left wing activist" in the Puyallup brush fire? (Not forest fire, but whatever.)

The article just says it was a streamer

Fair question (I've upvoted you). Here's more detail on the person that started it: https://heavy.com/news/2020/09/jeffrey-jeff-acord/

But narrative goes beyond just logical inconsistencies. People can make entirely bs arguments that appear internally consistent to a surface view. Rogan is absolutely not doing leftists a favor by platforming right wing personalities, even if Milo did self-destruct.

How many times have they had far-left on?

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.

Then don't listen to it?

The problem, as always, is that the plebs will listen to it and get the wrong idea.

Our venerable grandfather, of course, is smart enough to recoil from wrongthink; it's the human masses out there he's aiming to keep fed with the Correct Opinions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com