5 ms·

I listen to some of Rogan's podcasts (usually not comedians or MMA commentary) because of the long conversation format. For me, it's more about who Rogan is tal

I listen to some of Rogan's podcasts (usually not comedians or MMA commentary) because of the long conversation format. For me, it's more about who Rogan is talking to rather than being interested in listening to Rogan talk. Whether it's POTUS candidates (Bernie, Yang, Gabbard), intellectuals (Dr. Cornell West, Eric Weinstein), interesting individuals (musicians, nutritionists, etc.), or the more 'controversial' guests you get to hear a 'real' conversation and understand more about the person he's talking to. You can't get away with canned soundbites in this format, so I think it leads to less propaganda and BS and more considerate dialogue and thinking. Whether Joe Rogan is the best person to host these conversations is negated by the fact that he's one of the only people doing this. To that end, I support him 100%.

chank 7y ago
> For me, it's more about who Rogan is talking to... > he's one of the only people doing this... I skip a lot of episodes because I also don't care for the MMA talk and most of his guests, but these two statements pretty much sum up why I've been a long time subscriber to his podcast.
- puranjay 7y ago
  I used to think the same way but I've found that beating people up for a living tends to give a lot of MMA fighters a great deal of wisdom.
dagw 7y ago
One of Rogan's both strength and weaknesses as a host is that he never pushes back or challenges his guests on anything, asks really probing questions or even really prepares for the interview. He basically just lets his guests talk about whatever they want for as long as they want with him nodding along and throwing the occasional softball. This does lead a very natural flowing conversation where the guest can freely present whatever information they wanted to present. I do however dispute your claim that this leads to "less propaganda and BS". Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want, safe in the knowledge the Rogan posses neither interest or the background to challenge them on any of it.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience decide for themselves what is BS and what is not? Whose job is it to police thought crimes? If you want the mainstream viewpoint on whatever someone is talking about, go read or watch the mainstream, there's no shortage of people telling you what is acceptable already.
  - dagw 7y ago
    Whom are you arguing against? Where did I say anything about policing "thought crimes" or wanting mainstream viewpoints?
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      You said the following: > Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want Who is Rogan to question or push back? And, if he were to do so, on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? Could you provide an example of something you expected him to 'push back' against, and why you think he should have pushed back? > wanting mainstream viewpoints Clearly, it's implied that if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. That most likely is some mainstream viewpoint of which you might find objectionable to unfiltered discussion. Allowing objectionable discussion to take place is surely a thought crime that needs policing, in many people's view point. You might not agree with the wording or implied context, but not everything is about what you think, and I would characterize that as policing 'thought crime'.
      - dagw 7y ago
        on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? On the basis that that is the interviewers role. Have you watched skilled interviewers? An interviewer pushing back against a statement is not a signal that he disagrees with the statement or believes there to be anything wrong with it. A skilled interviewer will often challenge statements they 100% agree with and believe to be true as a tool to strengthen and clarify the point. if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. You're putting the cart before the horse. The interviewer shouldn't be pushing back because they a priori believe a statement to be BS, but to test if the statement is BS. Questioning someone and giving them the opportunity to defend and clarify their viewpoint is surely the opposite of policing and filtering it.

chank 7y ago

> For me, it's more about who Rogan is talking to... > he's one of the only people doing this... I skip a lot of episodes because I also don't care for the MMA talk and most of his guests, but these two statements pretty much sum up why I've been a long time subscriber to his podcast.

puranjay 7y ago
I used to think the same way but I've found that beating people up for a living tends to give a lot of MMA fighters a great deal of wisdom.

dagw 7y ago

One of Rogan's both strength and weaknesses as a host is that he never pushes back or challenges his guests on anything, asks really probing questions or even really prepares for the interview. He basically just lets his guests talk about whatever they want for as long as they want with him nodding along and throwing the occasional softball. This does lead a very natural flowing conversation where the guest can freely present whatever information they wanted to present. I do however dispute your claim that this leads to "less propaganda and BS". Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want, safe in the knowledge the Rogan posses neither interest or the background to challenge them on any of it.

linuxftw 7y ago
Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience decide for themselves what is BS and what is not? Whose job is it to police thought crimes? If you want the mainstream viewpoint on whatever someone is talking about, go read or watch the mainstream, there's no shortage of people telling you what is acceptable already.
- dagw 7y ago
  Whom are you arguing against? Where did I say anything about policing "thought crimes" or wanting mainstream viewpoints?
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    You said the following: > Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want Who is Rogan to question or push back? And, if he were to do so, on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? Could you provide an example of something you expected him to 'push back' against, and why you think he should have pushed back? > wanting mainstream viewpoints Clearly, it's implied that if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. That most likely is some mainstream viewpoint of which you might find objectionable to unfiltered discussion. Allowing objectionable discussion to take place is surely a thought crime that needs policing, in many people's view point. You might not agree with the wording or implied context, but not everything is about what you think, and I would characterize that as policing 'thought crime'.
    - dagw 7y ago
      on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? On the basis that that is the interviewers role. Have you watched skilled interviewers? An interviewer pushing back against a statement is not a signal that he disagrees with the statement or believes there to be anything wrong with it. A skilled interviewer will often challenge statements they 100% agree with and believe to be true as a tool to strengthen and clarify the point. if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. You're putting the cart before the horse. The interviewer shouldn't be pushing back because they a priori believe a statement to be BS, but to test if the statement is BS. Questioning someone and giving them the opportunity to defend and clarify their viewpoint is surely the opposite of policing and filtering it.