6 ms·

The problem with Joe Rogan is that he’s the standard bearer for that weird form of anti–intellectualism masquerading as intellectual curiosity. For a bit of ba

The problem with Joe Rogan is that he’s the standard bearer for that weird form of anti–intellectualism masquerading as intellectual curiosity. For a bit of background: His first big “gig” was on a (rather incredible, imo) sitcom in the mid-nineties called NewsRadio. Somewhere in his audition he mentioned that he thought the moon landing was a hoax, which at the time was probably the craziest thing that the interviewers had ever heard (we didn’t have vocal flat-earthers on the Internet back then). So they decided that his part would be just that, the crazy conspiracy theorist engineer guy. Fast forward. I bet a lot of us had some kind of phase in college where you started to learn a little bit about the virtues of skepticism, then later post-modernism and deconstructionism… Some folks go down that rabbit hole and the next thing you know you’re up at 2am bleary–eyed insisting that this glass of beer in your hand is corporeal. The guy across from you keeps repeating “well, prove it,” and that ostensibly makes him a smart guy. And now we’ve got flat–earth conventions and “fake news” and Joe Rogan on the internet having earnest intellectual conversations with the entire gamut of thinkers, politicians, crazies and scientists. The problem is that at the end of the day, he is, as he’s willing to admit, kind of a dumb guy, and this style of discourse is just making everything else dumber.

ssully 7y ago
You summed up my issue's with him perfectly. I used to have a lot of the same dumb conversations he has with his guests with my roommates in college. The difference was our conversations were limited to a couple of dumb college kids and anyone else in the dorm room at the time. He has one of the most popular podcasts in the world and has the clout to attract some really powerful/smart people, but also some real scumbags who get to leverage his platform unchallenged.
- bollockitis 7y ago
  Do you assume that the listener is incapable of challenging the guest? Just because Rogan doesn’t correct all of his guests absurdities doesn’t mean they go unchecked. After listening to the Alex Jones podcast, for example, I have come to my own conclusion that the guy is not worth paying attention to. I didn’t need the host to do that for me. Dumb ideas need to be exposed as dumb by the hearer, not by some special class of elites who filter information for us.
  - mijamo 7y ago
    Then why do you need a host at all? Why even have journalists? If as you say listeners and viewers are perfectly able to get the truth out of speech, wouldn't the best to only have direct unfiltered speach with nonody in between?
    - mrmuagi 7y ago
      Not really. The host serves a purpose to proke and prod the guest to direct and dissuade the flow of conversation.
    - xboxnolifes 7y ago
      The host provides an available platform to an audience. If I was a guest on a Joe Rogan podcast, I can be certain that some non-trivial amount of people will hear me. If I make my own one-off podcast and upload it to soundcloud, youtube, thepodcasthost, whatever, It is close to assured that I will have a lesser audience, if not close to no audience. Joe Rogan's platform brings listeners to a topic, not to any specific opinion.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    There's clearly a decent number of people who listen to Jones all day on his own channel who don't make that realization so it's a fair assumption that there are people who won't come to the correct conclusion about Jones who hadn't been exposed to him before he went on Rogan's podcast. It's not even strictly about filtering information it's about appropriately presenting the information, giving both sides of an argument equal time and legitimacy is how we've gotten such high levels of climate change denial in the US. News networks, afraid of being seen as taking a side by framing the denial side appropriately as the scientifically unsupported side, would just present two people each arguing their own sides with equal weight given to both the denial and the pro side which gives the appearance there's equal evidence supporting both points where really there split is pretty much all vs a few every specific studies that only support denial in a vacuum.
    - mistermann 7y ago
tosser0001 7y ago
I've seen people praise him for changing his mind about the moon landing being a hoax, but the fact that he accepted that idea at all to me is just totally indefensible. I can't take anyone seriously that could even countenance that for a second.
- jvagner 7y ago
  He’s amused by ideas. I think that’s where it came from. I’ve been listening to him for years now, most often on BART. I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, but what I have come to terms with is this: almost everyone I really know has some crazy or indefensible belief. For many it’s their family or partner relationship. Dig into that, and people are living lives premised on an externally unacceptable belief. Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow. Joe puts his out there. He’s not embarrassed by himself. From there, he makes more sense. That said, he has a platform. I think he’s a net positive.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, >Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow. I don't really enjoy Joe Rogan due to the college dorm room style mentioned above, but I don't understand this sentiment against Joe for being too accepting. There are people who get very unhappy whenever they are reminded that their opinions are not universal, and even further beyond them is a position that in my opinion is pretty dangerous: people who dislike anyone that doesn't share their militancy. People who really hate Joe Rogan because he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's polarization problem.
    - jvagner 7y ago
      The most curious responses on Twitter to the article were those that went something like, "You have to read this article about Joe Rogan. Proves it." This article seems to have been embraced by both pro- and con- Roganites alike.
s3r3nity 7y ago
Nah - I refused to be held to a standard that our identities don't change, that we're static beings, and that anything we said / thought 20-30 years ago still represents us today. Whether or not he seriously considered the moon landing a hoax when he was on a tv show 25 years ago (!) is irrelevant, as he clearly doesn't believe it today. (He's also talked about how he faked that bit to get his character on the show during the audition, but that's mostly hearsay....) If you disagree, think about the shit you said in high school and college, and how you'd feel if that had to represent you in a job application, for example.
- Eric_WVGG 7y ago
  I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I think it’s fine that he once believed something stupid, and then grew up and changed his mind or whatever. And I do think he's a pretty great entertainer. My problem is that he’s reducing intellectualism to a game where you take skepticism to its logical extremes and we wind up with anti-vaxxers and a resurgence of polio.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    It this not just a variation on, "if the wrong idea gets out, society will collapse?" When do we people actually take some responsibility? To me, it is entirely unreasonable to hold Rogan, or anyone presenting people and their ideas to us, to such a standard. Secondly, look at how often we see some bat shit crazy paired with a scientist on supposedly "news" oriented major media? We, personally have to be able to have conversations, learn how to be wrong, ignorant, and critical to grow. Given that, Rogan is fine. He is airing a lot of interesting humans. I am not sure I want to participate where such strong thought management is a must for fear of collapse.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      The problem with that is most people don't have the time or inclination to open up and review and learn about every aspect of all the issues facing the world today. Because of that people with large audiences should be careful of trying to be a neutral platform for ideas in general because just by bringing a person on you're saying something about the worth of listening to that person. For example news shows have for decades presented both sides of issues like climate change by having a representative from both the denial and the pro side on their shows on equal footing, out of a fear of seeming biased. That from the jump without framing puts the two sides on equal footing making it look like it's two equally supported side of the argument where it's not. Ideally the fix would be for everyone to have and take the time to examine everything they're being shown on the news (though this gets hard because Google is much better for finding things that support your existing views than what goes against it and there's plenty of places out there with interests in misinforming, whether it's for their own business interests directly or it's just profitable to be the contrarian view point) but changing everyone's habits is hard so it's more effective to hold the people giving platforms to these fringe viewpoints and try to get them to realize that just putting a person on your show is taking a stance on saying these ideas are worth listening to (at the very least). edit: In addition just bringing people on to a show has the effect of exposing them to new people who hadn't seen them before and may not know the context of who they are which can drastically change the interpretation of what they're saying.
reustle 7y ago
He actually discussed his moon landing hoax beliefs in a recent episode. He talked about how there were a lot of sound arguments going on at the time, and interesting valid evidence (like the proven faked photographs). He then said after some more more time and education he changed his views. All humans should get better at being ok with being wrong.
duxup 7y ago
Yeah that's a bit of my worry. Granted I've only listened to Rogan a few times so maybe my view is skewed. I don't mind "Hey let's hear this idea out." but at some point hearing an idea out without really identifying that the idea or theory has so much BS behind it is kinda questionable.
- nailer 7y ago
  He doesn't tell the interviewee they're full of shit, but he does ask pointed questions and won't agree if he doesn't agree. See his interview with Candace Owens where she tells him he doesn't believe in climate change, he doesn't destroy her, but asks questions that make her look very intellectually lazy. It feels like people in this thread are confusing "that's interesting" with agreement. Which isn't particularly intellectual on their own part.
nailer 7y ago
Just an observation: a lot of people who criticise Joe Rogan for believing in conspiracy theories also believe Donald Trump is a Russian asset.
forgottenpass 7y ago
>anti–intellectualism masquerading as intellectual curiosity. Joe can be kinda dumb, but there's nobody smarter than him that's conducting interviews where the guest isn't just a prop to get the interviewer's opinions across [1]. Those are even more flagrant masquerades at intellectual curiosity. [1] People who cover esoteric topics that nobody pays attention to but the weirdos already obsessed with that subject matter don't count.
verylittlemeat 7y ago
>probably the craziest thing that the interviewers had ever heard (we didn’t have vocal flat-earthers on the Internet back then) Talk about fake news. The moon landing hoax is up there with the JFK assassination in terms of popular conspiracies. I'm in my early 40s and the Arthur C. Clarke / Kubrick moon landing conspiracy has been omnipresent since the late 80s early and early 90s; online and in real life.

ssully 7y ago

You summed up my issue's with him perfectly. I used to have a lot of the same dumb conversations he has with his guests with my roommates in college. The difference was our conversations were limited to a couple of dumb college kids and anyone else in the dorm room at the time. He has one of the most popular podcasts in the world and has the clout to attract some really powerful/smart people, but also some real scumbags who get to leverage his platform unchallenged.

bollockitis 7y ago
Do you assume that the listener is incapable of challenging the guest? Just because Rogan doesn’t correct all of his guests absurdities doesn’t mean they go unchecked. After listening to the Alex Jones podcast, for example, I have come to my own conclusion that the guy is not worth paying attention to. I didn’t need the host to do that for me. Dumb ideas need to be exposed as dumb by the hearer, not by some special class of elites who filter information for us.
- mijamo 7y ago
  Then why do you need a host at all? Why even have journalists? If as you say listeners and viewers are perfectly able to get the truth out of speech, wouldn't the best to only have direct unfiltered speach with nonody in between?
  - mrmuagi 7y ago
    Not really. The host serves a purpose to proke and prod the guest to direct and dissuade the flow of conversation.
  - xboxnolifes 7y ago
    The host provides an available platform to an audience. If I was a guest on a Joe Rogan podcast, I can be certain that some non-trivial amount of people will hear me. If I make my own one-off podcast and upload it to soundcloud, youtube, thepodcasthost, whatever, It is close to assured that I will have a lesser audience, if not close to no audience. Joe Rogan's platform brings listeners to a topic, not to any specific opinion.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  There's clearly a decent number of people who listen to Jones all day on his own channel who don't make that realization so it's a fair assumption that there are people who won't come to the correct conclusion about Jones who hadn't been exposed to him before he went on Rogan's podcast. It's not even strictly about filtering information it's about appropriately presenting the information, giving both sides of an argument equal time and legitimacy is how we've gotten such high levels of climate change denial in the US. News networks, afraid of being seen as taking a side by framing the denial side appropriately as the scientifically unsupported side, would just present two people each arguing their own sides with equal weight given to both the denial and the pro side which gives the appearance there's equal evidence supporting both points where really there split is pretty much all vs a few every specific studies that only support denial in a vacuum.
  - mistermann 7y ago

tosser0001 7y ago

I've seen people praise him for changing his mind about the moon landing being a hoax, but the fact that he accepted that idea at all to me is just totally indefensible. I can't take anyone seriously that could even countenance that for a second.

jvagner 7y ago
He’s amused by ideas. I think that’s where it came from. I’ve been listening to him for years now, most often on BART. I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, but what I have come to terms with is this: almost everyone I really know has some crazy or indefensible belief. For many it’s their family or partner relationship. Dig into that, and people are living lives premised on an externally unacceptable belief. Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow. Joe puts his out there. He’s not embarrassed by himself. From there, he makes more sense. That said, he has a platform. I think he’s a net positive.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, >Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow. I don't really enjoy Joe Rogan due to the college dorm room style mentioned above, but I don't understand this sentiment against Joe for being too accepting. There are people who get very unhappy whenever they are reminded that their opinions are not universal, and even further beyond them is a position that in my opinion is pretty dangerous: people who dislike anyone that doesn't share their militancy. People who really hate Joe Rogan because he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's polarization problem.
  - jvagner 7y ago
    The most curious responses on Twitter to the article were those that went something like, "You have to read this article about Joe Rogan. Proves it." This article seems to have been embraced by both pro- and con- Roganites alike.

s3r3nity 7y ago

Nah - I refused to be held to a standard that our identities don't change, that we're static beings, and that anything we said / thought 20-30 years ago still represents us today. Whether or not he seriously considered the moon landing a hoax when he was on a tv show 25 years ago (!) is irrelevant, as he clearly doesn't believe it today. (He's also talked about how he faked that bit to get his character on the show during the audition, but that's mostly hearsay....) If you disagree, think about the shit you said in high school and college, and how you'd feel if that had to represent you in a job application, for example.

Eric_WVGG 7y ago
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I think it’s fine that he once believed something stupid, and then grew up and changed his mind or whatever. And I do think he's a pretty great entertainer. My problem is that he’s reducing intellectualism to a game where you take skepticism to its logical extremes and we wind up with anti-vaxxers and a resurgence of polio.
- ddingus 7y ago
  It this not just a variation on, "if the wrong idea gets out, society will collapse?" When do we people actually take some responsibility? To me, it is entirely unreasonable to hold Rogan, or anyone presenting people and their ideas to us, to such a standard. Secondly, look at how often we see some bat shit crazy paired with a scientist on supposedly "news" oriented major media? We, personally have to be able to have conversations, learn how to be wrong, ignorant, and critical to grow. Given that, Rogan is fine. He is airing a lot of interesting humans. I am not sure I want to participate where such strong thought management is a must for fear of collapse.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    The problem with that is most people don't have the time or inclination to open up and review and learn about every aspect of all the issues facing the world today. Because of that people with large audiences should be careful of trying to be a neutral platform for ideas in general because just by bringing a person on you're saying something about the worth of listening to that person. For example news shows have for decades presented both sides of issues like climate change by having a representative from both the denial and the pro side on their shows on equal footing, out of a fear of seeming biased. That from the jump without framing puts the two sides on equal footing making it look like it's two equally supported side of the argument where it's not. Ideally the fix would be for everyone to have and take the time to examine everything they're being shown on the news (though this gets hard because Google is much better for finding things that support your existing views than what goes against it and there's plenty of places out there with interests in misinforming, whether it's for their own business interests directly or it's just profitable to be the contrarian view point) but changing everyone's habits is hard so it's more effective to hold the people giving platforms to these fringe viewpoints and try to get them to realize that just putting a person on your show is taking a stance on saying these ideas are worth listening to (at the very least). edit: In addition just bringing people on to a show has the effect of exposing them to new people who hadn't seen them before and may not know the context of who they are which can drastically change the interpretation of what they're saying.

reustle 7y ago

He actually discussed his moon landing hoax beliefs in a recent episode. He talked about how there were a lot of sound arguments going on at the time, and interesting valid evidence (like the proven faked photographs). He then said after some more more time and education he changed his views. All humans should get better at being ok with being wrong.

duxup 7y ago

Yeah that's a bit of my worry. Granted I've only listened to Rogan a few times so maybe my view is skewed. I don't mind "Hey let's hear this idea out." but at some point hearing an idea out without really identifying that the idea or theory has so much BS behind it is kinda questionable.

nailer 7y ago
He doesn't tell the interviewee they're full of shit, but he does ask pointed questions and won't agree if he doesn't agree. See his interview with Candace Owens where she tells him he doesn't believe in climate change, he doesn't destroy her, but asks questions that make her look very intellectually lazy. It feels like people in this thread are confusing "that's interesting" with agreement. Which isn't particularly intellectual on their own part.

nailer 7y ago

Just an observation: a lot of people who criticise Joe Rogan for believing in conspiracy theories also believe Donald Trump is a Russian asset.

forgottenpass 7y ago

>anti–intellectualism masquerading as intellectual curiosity. Joe can be kinda dumb, but there's nobody smarter than him that's conducting interviews where the guest isn't just a prop to get the interviewer's opinions across [1]. Those are even more flagrant masquerades at intellectual curiosity. [1] People who cover esoteric topics that nobody pays attention to but the weirdos already obsessed with that subject matter don't count.

verylittlemeat 7y ago

>probably the craziest thing that the interviewers had ever heard (we didn’t have vocal flat-earthers on the Internet back then) Talk about fake news. The moon landing hoax is up there with the JFK assassination in terms of popular conspiracies. I'm in my early 40s and the Arthur C. Clarke / Kubrick moon landing conspiracy has been omnipresent since the late 80s early and early 90s; online and in real life.