On Experiencing Joe Rogan | Hacker News Reader

On Experiencing Joe Rogan

currentaffairs.org

7 pointsnoduerme17 comments

Remember articles like this?

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/its-time-for-a-little...

So please don't tell anyone about critical thinking skills. I know there are different standards in elections, but the journal is certainly guilty of making information less reliable for everyone. In contrast voices like Rogan are relaxing. I don't watch his show, but he probably deserves his listeners.

He should not have to appologize to anyone. Not before some others with far more baggage do so as well.

I've never read Current Affairs, don't know their politics, and this wasn't posted to upvote them. I just thought the author was spot on in his analysis of Rogan's interview style. I found the article because I was halfway through listening to the climate change interview and I googled "Joe Rogan climate denier".

[edit] But on reading that article, my only thought is that the writer would be a perfect interviewee on the Joe Rogan Experience. I can just picture Joe going, "wait, what? We invaded Guatemala? So we're the bad guys?"

I mean the question he poses may sound naive, but we have suffered propaganda because naive question were not asked. I get the criticism as such questions can indeed distort a discussion. But I don't think that is the current problem with disinformation.

Yeah I don't know if you listen to Jon Stewart's podcast at all, but he talks a bit about Rogan and the difference between disinformation and misinformation. Rogan's definitely the latter. I don't think he's actively trying to spread lies, and he's frankly fun to listen to sometimes. It also annoys me that the woke train have suddenly gotten their panties in a knot over him when they've probably never listened to him. But as someone who has listened to him, I think where I got pissed off is exactly what this author is talking about... it's not that he has lousy people on his show, it's that he plays this role of the naive supplicant, and puts his guests on a pedestal where it seems like they're exposing some amazing secret truth. It's like old time radio, except that was at a time where it was accepted as fiction. Times where these kinds of conspiracy theories are widely aired on the radio as nonfiction or more than ghost stories are like, Rwanda, and Nazi Germany. I don't think he's malign (or like, maybe he is now? I don't think he used to be malign a couple years ago)... but it's like, you can't be that big and act that credulous toward crazy people on air for an audience of millions at the same time without their smell tainting you. I can see him having Louis Farrakhan on and being like "No way... Jews are the synagogue of Satan?" Or equally having, IDK, some supporter of the Myanmar military or someone who says Blacks were happier when they were slaves. And maybe it's okay to air all of those things in the name of free speech. But a dude who's willing to nod along with any of them, in the end, deserves to get some shit.

I get what you mean, I don't like it either. I just prefer it to the guilt by association and the allegedly clean vest requirements classical PR has. That won't work in a fully connected world anymore and rules have to be revised and they constantly are.

The Malone interview ruffled some feathers and he might be wrong. I think it is a valuable opinion and hearing it provides a benefit. Of course he isn't perfect either. Maybe he has a bruised ego because others get the recognition of work he was involved in. Perhaps he wants to see his own miracle cure. I just think it is more interesting to listen to him than to any contemporary "fact checker" which ironically are often declared as opinion mouthpieces in any legal context if they have to defend what they are saying.

I believe this is plainly a power struggle of some outlets to stay relevant. Is Rogan better than good journalism? No, but there is an absence of good journalism today. Steward is great, I much prefer him to Rogan and believe he is on another level when it comes to question things. Many see him as woke and therefore don't listen to him. That is stupid as well, but neither Steward nor Rogan are always correct and that should not be the expectation.

I think that's a fair summary. I don't think it's anyone's job to say "no one should be allowed to listen to this guy." But that Malone interview and the one I heard tonight... there's just so many things that a rational person would want to stop and say hey, that sounds like bullshit. Malone said if you die of a gunshot wound and have covid, it's counted as a covid death. He also said a bunch of times that doctors get paid every time they declare a covid death. That can't possibly be true. But Rogan just let it fly and was like "no way!" This is what I mean, the woke make it worse because they get angry over the identity politics of it and make it seem like people like Malone might have some real points that are just being suppressed. But actually without the woke twitter backlash, those people would have nothing to ride on... they wouldn't be able to claim anyone was trying to silence them. And Rogan's leaning more into it now, since the woke brigade came after him. But I think he's actually damaging himself if he goes too far into loony-bin territory.

"That can't possibly be true"

Read this and tell me that it couldn't possibly be true -

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-...

I'm not saying there's a bunch of greedy doctors rubbing their hands together thinking about all the sweet sweet covid money they could make, but there are definitely perverse incentives there.

Is it so difficult to imagine that a hospital would err on the side of declaring a death as caused by covid if there is a financial incentive for doing so? And if you're willing to accept that as a possibility, then perhaps you might be willing to entertain the possibility that a small percentage of them might be willing to outright fabricate covid deaths.

Very good article, I agree with most of the author's viewpoints. I find the urge to censor someone like him much more dangerous than his own dumb show, and worryingly some very influential people disagree with that.

I don't think it was a very good article at all. In fact, it was terrible. The first paragraph is a unsubstantiated smear of his character.

A certain percentage of hacker news readers will appreciate this: if you subscribe to Spotify and have not yet listened to Joe Rogan, please do so-- just for 5-10 minutes. They're throwing a lot of money at him.. just check and see if it's the kind of thing you want more of your money associated with. For me it was a super easy decision, and I'm glad I listened to him for a bit, because otherwise I might have kept paying money to spotify.

Again, this won't apply to everyone.

No it won't, thank god.

Joe Rogan - tells it like it is. No forced vaccine mandates, no social credit system and paper over the mouth does nothing...

I have found that the expression "tells it like it is" practically always means "affirms my biases".

From the article: >>> Joe Rogan seems like an affable guy. He reminds me of many men I have met in the gym: cheerful bros who are open-minded to an alarming degree, meaning to the point where no idea is so insane that one can be sure they won’t find it persuasive. They could vote for Bernie, they could go Nazi, they could start believing in alien abductions or QAnon or chemtrails. They are not deep thinkers, so they can be excessively impressed by the fact “a study found” something, or “a doctor says” it. They are sincere in wanting to know the truth, they are not outright malicious, they change their minds (sometimes daily), but they are not trained in the research and critical thinking skills that are vital in sorting science from pseudoscience (or the loopy conspiracies from the true ones). >>>

Admission, I've listened to Rogan here and there for a few years, rarely getting to the end of a podcast. I happened to pick one randomly last month, after not listening to any for awhile, and it was the one with the doctor who claims to have invented mRNA vaccines.

I listened with an open mind, but my alarms went off as the guy started injecting more and more hyperbole and FUD into the conversation. There were a lot of things he said that made me go, "well, what about this?" E.g. my gf and my ex both missed their periods the month after the vax. But they came back, and there hasn't been some mass sterilization event that we'd surely be aware of if, as this guy claimed, the vaccine produced spike proteins in sufficient quantities and that those were attracted to and decimating womens' eggs and ovaries. What I heard was a guy trying to use his science degrees and a vague history in immunology to push a long-running antivax fearmongering tactic about women being sterilized, which as a conspiracy theory goes back to the old "great replacement" and antisemitic theory. And I was kinda angry listening to it, because my question to him would be, if it sterilizes people then how come Israel gave it to everyone? I'm pretty sure that Israel is in the business of keeping Jews alive and having (us) reproduce, and avoiding another genocide.

But Rogan didn't ask anything, and I had to turn it off after about an hour and a half, because Rogan kept just saying "oh, wow." and "oh, no really?" Like... give the guy room to talk, sure, but the whole incredulous act and like, really, doctor, you don't say thing... it just struck me as BS. As insincere.

And that episode I randomly listened to turned out to be the one that Neil Young went nuts about, and all that. So I listened to Rogan's apology and thought I'd try one more time tonight; and his newest is with a climate scientist from BP who talks like my dentist and is about as convincing, while Joe keeps going "oh no, really? And they're suppressing you? Omigod!"

At some point you have to just accept that he isn't the openminded bro with no agenda that you want him to be, and he's actually just trolling and platforming trolls. OTOH maybe this is the point where a lot of gullible people kind of realize that (myself included).

They are sincere in wanting to know the truth, they are not outright malicious,

I disagree with that last part. Or perhaps it's just that the author is making the word "outright" do a fair bit of work there.

In my experience, there's a level of malice in the way they preferentially seek out the contrarian and deprecate genuine experts in favor of the ones who seem more exciting. They may like to imagine that they're doing no harm, but they will ignore the complaints of anybody experiencing harm. The longer they do that, the harder it is to attribute it to ordinary ignorance and self-centeredness, and it seems more likely to be an active malice that seems casual because it's so effortless.

It's the "just asking questions" guy, like the guy who's "just asking questions" about whether six million Jews really died in the Holocaust. The first time, you can pretend it's sincere ignorance. The second time, it's so clear that you should never have given the benefit of the doubt.

Reminds me of a saying: “Keep an open mind, but don’t let your brain fall out.”

Yep! If you pay money to Spotify, you are voting for this content in a big way. Use your speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com