As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
FWIW Libertarianism is super trendy, but misguided, because, in a nutshell, it leads to tragedy of the commons, and ultimately, pure socialism.
What's with the propensity for the typical HNer, and the tech demographic in general, to subscribe to the whole alpha/beta charade in the first place? Your average programmer isn't usually a bodybuilder or even what you may call a 'Chad'. Even on social media, blogs, and generally speaking the whole ecosystem of believing dumb evopsych crap, the most prominent speakers aren't exactly paragons of traditional masculinity themselves. And conversely, Joe Rogan himself (if you're willing to consider an MMA pro 'alpha') probably doesn't care at all about the Google memo.
So, like, if you're soft-spoken, introverted, maybe effete, maybe overweight, what's the point of doing all this? Why fantasize about an immutable, evolutionary-driven hierarchy of males if you're not even putting yourself at the top? Does that stem from self-loathing? Maybe a fetish of some kind? I'm curious to read different perspectives from HNers.
The HN bubble is real and it's easy to be derisive but the OP you replied to doesn't seem to be a troll. Sincere people are easy targets for the cynical but the flawed opinions of real people are more interesting than whatever sanitized death waits by appeasing something like n-gate.
Some people can't or won't do those options though, so their brains move to the next option to preserve their sense of self-worth: deflection. They believe they are unsuccessful or unattractive, but they can preserve some of their self-worth by believing that their perceived lack of success or attractiveness is due to factors outside their control. They were born into a hierarchy stacked against them, or they just weren't born with the right genes to concede. They're caught between a rock and a hard place; they either tell themselves that they're failures but it's okay because it's someone else's fault, or they tell themselves that they're failures and they only have themselves to blame. They literally can't see the third option, which is to tell themselves they aren't worthless.
People who would genuinely consider themselves alphas don't generally subscribe to these beliefs. There are some that claim it, but I'm frankly convinced that deep down theyre terrified they might be a beta, which is what causes the constant dick measuring in those communities as they fight to prove to themselves they really are alpha. Joe Rogan doesn't give a shit about the alpha/beta male thing because he's confident that his life has value. I'm a casual, occasional listener, and I wouldn't accuse him of being overly macho. He speaks confidently, but I don't think arrogantly. I don't think he's as clever as he's often given credit for, but that's not a mortal sin. Schwarzenegger is an even better example. Physically, the man is a paragon of traditional masculinity, but he bears no resemblance to the alpha male persona.
I genuinely have a lot of empathy for people that subscribe to the alpha male thing. I can't imagine the mental anguish of living an existence where you construct a mental hierarchy you are at the bottom of, because it's the best light you can think of yourself ever being in. It's easy to get lost in hating them because of how toxicly they expose their views, but underneath it all is just a person who's lashing out because they hurt.
This biological essentialism is something that has become popular on both poles of the political spectrum.
Libertarianism isn't the smartest choice in my opinion, but a solid defense if discussions seem to get derailed.
Also, this doesn't explain Joe's appeal toward men. If the meanest monkey has the most offspring, then his appeal should be with women.
[0] https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/how-to-really-be-alp...
Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
The article frames this as 'elitist' and implies it's bad, but I think this 'here's a real guy who broadcasts from his garage and tells you the truth the mainstream won't tell you' attitude is harmful, it feeds into a particularly American culture of anti-intellectualism, it's the modern extension of talk radio.
Sure. And that doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Rogan's format freely mixes experts, non-experts, and faux-experts in ways that contribute to an overall undervaluing of expertise in our culture. That's worth criticism even if he is friends with a conspiracy nut and wants to shoot the shit.
I can go on CNN or Foxnews to see that.
Let's have a list of programming that's excellent by your standards that also has millions of listeners for each episode for comparison.
I'm well aware none of these have the audience that Joe Rogan has, but I find that a weird metric for comparing quality or how informative something is.
I don’t think much is lost to the world by not engaging with Trolls or Quacks. There seems to be a weird kind of “both sides” going on where people seem to think that they should be heard from whereas there are so many interesting folks I would rather choose to listen to instead.
I want raw and unfiltered content.
The long-form uncritical nature is what made the show popular and gives you a chance to really see how someone thinks and speaks. It's a rare thing in the world of quick soundbites and prepared presentations. What you do with the information is up to you. Judge it, ignore it, research it, refute it - but that's for you to do.
Also for all the claims of anti-intellectualism, the show has introduced me to more interesting guests of all kinds than anything else.
People are so used to shows and popular voices pushing agendas that it seems they're flummoxed when one isn't doing that. Apparently under the impression that Rogan is endorsing everything his guests say and that his listeners just blindly absorb/repeat.
But he isn't pushing an agenda, isn't telling you what to think, doesn't filter by ideology. He's just having conversations with people that he thinks are interesting and treats them respectfully, like a friend would in real life. That's why it resonates, is refreshing, and will continue to mystify those that expect everything to fit neatly in a pre-defined, pre-approved box.
He just doesn't do it all the time with every guest and topic; but that's a side-effect of having long casual meandering conversations so people get upset when it doesn't happen with intensity they want against the content they disagree about.
Rogan has expressed many strong opinions and has changed those opinions over the years. He's definitely not a nihilist and very clearly leans left on most issues with a few conservative points regarding individualistic rights and personal freedom. He also hosts many interesting people from many disciplines that I've learned a lot from.
It seems like you've never actually listened to any episodes and your comment represents the ignorant and shallow views that people accuse the JRE show of having.
"Forgive him; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
And in case you didn't know, Joe Rogan has been personal friends with Alex Jones since the 90s. To him, he's just another friend on the podcast.
I know. And to people critical of Rogan's editorial choices, he is a malicious liar who was given a massive platform with which to share his views in an uncritical setting.
Overall I don't understand the big deal about him. I've met truly evil people (from cartel members to death row inmates) and Jones doesn't come close. He's full of extremist conspiracies but he's also extremely easy to ignore. He barely makes a mark compared to the typical social media drivel these days anyway.
I don't think it makes sense to criticize Joe Rogan for casual run your mouth conversation when we all know Joe rebranding to be more scientific and educational would destroy him and anyone else who tries. Trying to be sciency while winning isn't really a thing in US broadcasting.
The late Mr Rogers suggests that those in broadcasting have elevated responsibilities as per their elevated stature in society, but maybe those who follow such advice have all but disappeared, undernourished by the market.
I also don’t view him as anti-intellectual at all. He also calls his guests out constantly.
You shine light on conspiracists and fools, for everyone to see, not just hide them in the shadows. That feeds them.
I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to do quality research of every guest he has on. Even if I did, I can't match the manpower or experience of a professional media outlet to do even basic fact checking. For stuff that isn't decided fact, I also don't necessarily have the breadth of knowledge to even know where to look for the competing opinions on a subject.
If I, a student, don't have the time to do that research, then what percent of a percent actually does? Like I was describing, what small fraction of that can even do that research effectively? My guess is that it goes to zero pretty quickly with the complexity of the subject.
That might not be a problem for the most controversial guests where I already have my defenses up. But, what about the more subtle guest who is pushing extreme views based on literal misinformation, but sounds plausible enough that I buy into it?
Who is fact checking your teachers if you don't have the time to do these things? Do you just accept that whatever your teachers are now telling you within a school setting are true, fact, or something you should follow?
I can think back 15-20 years ago to multiple things teachers told me to accept as true or fact that were really just a teacher pushing their own agenda/ideology or belief on an entire classroom of impressionable youths.
This is actually the part I like the most, and I think contributed the most to his success.
I don't like conflict and arguing, that is also why I stay away from the news.
His podcast feels like you meet some interesting person at the bar, and keep talking to them until the late hours.
Nobody needs to convince anyone about something.
And at the end of the night, you go home and think what you want to think.
> attitude is harmful
I disagree completely.
If anything, that is wonderful. Having multiple opinions put forward without context is a great way to engage critical thinking skills. The audience then has to decide what they 'feel' is correct. If the people with the facts can't sway the audience with said fact, then they should go back and figure out why that is. That will help them in the future and make the facts all the stronger.
This is quite condescending..
Also people fail to understand that the appeak of extreme right has never been a matter of facts.
I miss the Joes in my life, and I think that's what originally led to me picking up his podcast. Sometimes I'm just tired of all the engineering discussions and want to enjoy something _else_. I didn't listen to him because of some deep seated desire to push against "the left's" control of speech, or because I thought he was a particularly polished interviewer. No, I could tell from the beginning he was way too into pseudoscience and that a lot of his guests were not well informed. But again, it was something different, and something interesting to think about. Something that in my day to day I would never consider, even if what's espoused on his podcast is complete bologna. It's almost a form of creative thinking.
Every now and then, however, he would say things that didn't sit well with me. But I liked Joe, and I could ignore a few small misgivings, we're all human after all, right? However, as time passed, these small things kept piling up. Like when he had a Native lawyer on who wanted to speak about the atrocities committed against her people and all Joe wanted to do was grill her about what great bloodthirsty warriors the Comanche were. Or when he asked Owen Smith what the benefit of having a woman of color in the Vice President's seat would be.
Eventually, after all the misinformation about corona started, I just couldn't look away from the pile. It had just gotten too big. And given the possible seriousness of the situation, I think it's reasonable to hold people like Joe responsible for the misinformation they spread. And for me, he failed.
I still have a soft spot on my heart for Joe, but I just can't listen to him anymore.
For example, WHO were vehemently against border closures with China and they parroted the CCP's lies of no community transmission in late January (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
Even Dr Fauci worked hard to spread the misinformation (he knew it was false at the time) that masks were not protection against the virus. He later admitted he spread this misinformation in order to protect supplies for healthcare staff.
> "I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people"
> "When it became clear that we could get the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," he said.
"And also, it soon became clear that we had enough protective equipment and that cloth masks and homemade masks were as good as masks that you would buy from surgical supply stores," Fauci added. "So in the context of when we were not strongly recommending it, it was the correct thing."
But Rogan isn't provocative about much at all. He appears unapologetically honest about his feelings toward the people and topics he's presented with, and I think that guileless honesty is a contagious threat to a mainstream that trades in outrage. He reminds me a lot of the way when John Stewart utterly took down Tucker Carlson by just in-effect appealing to the principle of being a good man. At the time, Carlson represented a neocon movement that had become just as cynical about truth and power as regular people see ostensibly progressive elites in media being today.
Personally I think as an emotion, most anger originates somewhere in shame, and Rogan's avuncularity and basic good nature triggers people in proportion to their other issues - which the outrage-trade is designed to elevate and exalt. A self-described meathead who is professionally funny and who people genuinely like is anathema to humourless true believers who can't see past their own sense of purity, and in a social media culture that thrives on hysteria, together, are a perfect storm for backlash. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Are you threatened by Joe Rogan being a kind man and having his own podcast? Why is there so much modern wish to censor someone's good time and speech if you don't agree with them, and to get so enraged about nothing?
Joe Rogan deserves what he has accomplished, if you don't like him don't listen to him. Don't comment about him if you haven't listened to 100+ hours of his podcasts as you don't even know what you're talking about. You do not even understand what you are arguing about at that point, you just decided to at a whim take a harmful stance. The world needs more love, and the world absolutely needs more good people like Joe Rogan.
There are many guests who may be deemed controversial and not everyone will agree with everyone. It used to be that if you didn't like someone, you may say you don't and you move on. The entire pitchfork party campaign aimed at people you vaguely don't like, or even strongly dislike is a new thing in my eyes signaling a larger problem of too much hate and absent love. It's very sad that someone would even take several hours total of their time to constantly put others down they disagree with at all. It's not your fight. Go do something you like and let others have enjoyment. If you wish to be successful and lift yourself up at any point in your life, stop being someone putting out so much negative energy towards others. Be well.
Joe Rogan isn't harming you. Go do what you like. Listen to who you like, but be very careful to have an open mind and listen to all sides of these arguments.This is how we form our own opinions. The world would not be a nice place if everyone had to have the same ideals and opinions. The negatives I see constantly driven towards Joe always sound like they're teeming with unhealthy hatred and a wish for censorship.
You should check it out one day. It's not nearly as controversial or dangerous to society as apparently some people want you to believe. I found a coffee I really like from a guest he had on once.
Joe Rogan's podcast is not about politics, the only people upset with a dude who likes to tell jokes and has a sensible set of opinions, are people who don't like anyone who has a set of opinions that happens to differ from theirs on subjects they 'deeply care about'.
Joe reminds me that most of America is not the people who foam at the mouth on the internet constantly. No, most of America is not extreme. You just won’t find these people on the internet defending their views because it’s too exhausting to ignore with an angry horde.
The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.
What Joe reminds me is of is the era of old school broadcasting where you had giants like Mike Wallace who were willing to interview pretty much anyone of note.
And while Joe’s format is pretty much free form rather than researched guided interview it’s very different than what you have on the media today where you have essentially people form only one side of the spectrum or worse the BBC style of “balance” where on each subject they’ll get the two biggest loons they can find to balance eachother out.
IDGAF that Alex Jones was on his show I didn’t watch that episode because he doesn’t interest me, just like I didn’t watch the episodes with Abby Martin who’s pretty much the left wing version of Jones.
No one that knows this podcast takes JR serious on anything else than MMA/fighting, hunting, or the stand up comedy world.
Guests supply everything else, which is the point of bringing in people so different to each other.
I remember reading a quote that said "the golden rule of conversation is to know nothing accurately."
Something along the lines:
> I am a moron and you shouldn't trust anything I say, I am a comedian having fun talking to people
Nobody with a brain is doing that, and further more, there is no authoritative news. We are at a point where everyone wants to be an internet celebrity for likes and social clout and where the government agencies and employees themselves have been spreading their own forms of misinformation. I'll never forget for the rest of my life how the Surgeon General both __tweeted__ and went on national news coverage to tell people to stop buying masks, we don't need them. That's your scammy, bullshit "authoritative news."
Did Spotify know what they were buying?
That's also why the backlash is strange and unexpected since the content hasn't changed, just the hosting platform.
knew enough to know he was polarizing
Even though I don’t watch his show I’ve seen enough internet fights about it that I know it’s not easy, safe, PC content.
You seem to think I was saying he’s bad or something, which I wasn’t.
The host is a comedian and a MMA commentator, yet he talks to people from all walks of life, ranging from politicians, scientists to musicians and instagram celebrities. He doesn’t have any strong political agenda or affiliating with certain groups. He’s a regular dude just curious about other people’s life and views, and really gave his quests enough room to express themselves. This is important to many of us, that we want a platform where we can see the real, the human side of the guests, letting them explain themselves, rather than just snippets of soundbites clipped with different intentions by different groups, or 2-minute quick debates that’s often confusing than informative. That’s what makes the show more trustworthy to some people than some big networks.
There are warts that I frown upon as well. I disagree with some of this diets and views on intravenous supplements and stem cell treatment. And I never listen to his shows about aliens. But I have come to acceptance that aren’t and will not be a perfect show. The balance between informative and entertainment and eye-opening is quite a compromise. I think an educated person should treat the platform as a source of information, rather than THE source of information.
I guess what I really appreciate about the show is that people with vastly different views can still chat, drink and have a good time. For example, as someone outside US, I nevered had a good impression of Bernie Sanders until I watched the show seeing him talk and reason. I never imagined Richard Dawkins’s response about consuming weed and mushroom. I have learned a lot from Joe about being an interviewer on how to get along with people you don’t fully agree with, especially on how to handles some of his consipiracy-loaded friend. Many of the TV interviews are too “heated” and “confrontational” for my liking. Sometimes I just enjoy listening to some silly and relaxing conversations. Bullshit from the guests can be distinguished without the interviewer actually calling them out on the show.
In the age of chaos and cancelling, I really appreciate such a platform. I hope the deal with Spotify will not direct the show to a narrower road. As his popularity rises and being closer to the political war zone, I wish him and the show good luck.
If people can't even question the science, treatments or effects on children then it feels like a political ideology is at the wheel.
I've noticed this online in traditionally liberal-leaning forums. There's no room for nuance in discussion without being the recipient of vicious attacks, deplatforming or bans. If the case for transgender rights is so strong, you should not need these tactics to make your case. Make your case, don't attack those who respectfully question the policies and science.
I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding they're trans and transitioning when much of the time they're simply confused teenagers. You merely have to look at how it clusters in friend circles like a contagion of the mind for proof it's a social phenomenon and not a biological one. Adults who should know better are encouraging them to do irrevocable harm to their bodies. I don't care where you fall on trans rights, that's going to be looked upon as a terrible tragedy down the road that we allowed this to happen.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/
And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.
>Notice of republication
>After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
For those who don't know, PubPeer was designed as a kind of forum where people can discuss articles after they're published (with or without a pseudonym). Of course, it almost instantly turned into a place for anonymous whistleblowing and call-outs for fraud, replication failure, etc. So while it's not an absolute rule, an article having one comment or two on PubPeer is usually a middling red flag for that article being generally dubious.
The reason I'm talking about all this is that the parent's link has twenty-five (25) comments on PubPeer. See for yourself, read the discussion and make of that what you will.
If there's some property "being trans" which functions like we think "being gay" does, either set biologically or early on in life or some combination of those, then you expect this property to be relatively randomly distributed in the population.
What you see instead is one teenage girl transitions and then her friends are far more likely to also transition. The effect clusters around social relationships. Hence it's a social contagion of the mind.
Again not in all cases, I'm not denying there are real trans people out there who benefit from transitioning.
Dr. Debrah Soh lays the argument out in much greater detail and with supporting citations in her book: https://www.amazon.ca/End-Gender-Debunking-Identity-Society/...
It's my understanding that multiple studies have affirmed this. So your claim of FUD is unfounded in this case.
This has real, irreversible effects. Shame on the adults for pushing parents or forcing parents to accept this, and shame on you for dismissing my very valid concerns as FUD.
People absolutely can do this. Research is done and presented in journals regularly without controversy. It is just that not all criticism is valid. "I'm criticizing the research" is not an invincible shield that one can hide behind. The research must be methodologically sound and dispassionate. The specific transphobic guests that Rogan has brought on have not done this kind of research.
> one of the largest and most influential media platforms in U.S. politics, if not the single most influential
Ten words or less to answer the headline: Because mass media is actually quite illiberal.
And I think your suggestion that liberal intelligentsia and the legacy media aren't intertwined is unfounded.
In a capitalist system, we're a liberal society because we _have to_ be. Don't take my word for it, read some John Locke - the Father of Liberalism.
I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue.
Because all of the criticism of him I read in here stems from what he chooses to talk about (which the critic dislikes or deems less important than other issues) or whom he chooses to talk with (whom the critic hates). Apparently, his deciding to focus on specific topics or talking to specific people somehow constitutes an "endorsement", but if he's no authority nor he has declared himself to be so, I don't see how that criticism is in any way apropos.
If his podcast really is as his fans/apologists describe, long conversation without specific goal. In that case nothing could possibly be an endorsement of, well, anything.
The concept of individualism is anathema to many on the left. In general, they want everyone to see themselves as part of a collective, blame society (or just “someone else”) when they have a problem, and expect the government to provide with sustenance cradle to grave. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad - but someone with this belief system will not approve of someone whose an individualist that advocates for personal responsibility, relying on one’s own skills, and not expecting society to put a band aid on every boo boo one receives.
There is also a belief in “toxic masculinity” which is hard to define, but beating the shit out of someone else in a ring probably triggers some people to see toxicity. However a lot of males need this sort of outlet for aggression, and by saying “males” need something specific it probably also triggers a lot of people who reject concepts of inherent male and female traits and major differences between the genders in preferences based on sex alone.
Does the mainstream “anything” care about JRE ?
He is a successful podcaster, not in the mainstream (and when he gets there he will be accused of selling out anyway)
Should CNN, MSNBC or Fox have him on as a commentator or discuss his views?
"How X makes you fat" or "Why X is more dangerous than you think" where X is something common and popular. In this case X is just Joe Rogan instead of coffee or chocolate.
> many on the left. In general, they want everyone to see themselves as part of a collective, blame society (or just “someone else”) when they have a problem, and expect the government to provide with sustenance cradle to grave
I'm on "the left" but I think your viewpoint here is too extreme.
Individual responsibility is very important but society at-large should also help : taxes for healthcare, elder-care, infrastructure, education.
I think we're called democratic-socialist now