8 ms·

What made me realize the author actually missed the point of Joe Rogan. "...a key thing Joe and his fans tend to have in common is a deficit of empathy. He see

What made me realize the author actually missed the point of Joe Rogan. "...a key thing Joe and his fans tend to have in common is a deficit of empathy. He seems unable to process how his tolerance for monsters like Alex Jones plays a role in the wounding of people who don’t deserve it." and "If we all have fatal flaws, this is Joe’s: his insistence on seeing value in people even when he shouldn’t, even when they’ve forfeited any right to it, even when the harm outweighs the good." As judged by who? This kind of whining is what drives his audience to him. Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy. Hyde Park in the UK, or the wall in Blueberry Park in Daniel Pinkwater's excellent "The Snarkout Boys" series both spring to mind. Yes, these political ideologies are "bad" (I'm not naming any here, fill in your own blank), but every idea, no matter how awful you find it, deserves a voice and public judgement. When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very, right.

squish78 7y ago
It makes me wonder how many millions of teenagers are going to turn on to Alex Jones because their parents project so much outrage towards him.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  Oh, it's guaranteed. He's hilarious to the meme generation. I know my brother listens to him because he's funny.
  - finnthehuman 7y ago
    He’s hilarious. He’s a big blowhard dummy, and if someone can’t watch his show for the entertainment value of laughing at him, then I very seriously doubt they have the mental defenses to watch mainstream political commentary without blindly downloading the opinions of the commentator into their own head.
  - nailer 7y ago
    Exactly. The house remix of "They turned the friggin frogs gay" was a trending meme on TikTok last year. http://vm.tiktok.com/LjvBod/ http://vm.tiktok.com/LjvBod/
  - Simon_says 7y ago
    I tried to listen to his podcast for a while after his Joe Rogan appearance, not because any of his views resonated with me, but because he's (unintentionally) hilarious. I couldn't keep listening because it's so full of ads. Like, it's absolutely ridiculous the ratio of ads to content. And when Alex does speak, he's so repetitive. It gets boring. He's better in occasional short bursts.
pas 7y ago
> As judged by who? People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24 screaming cycle? > This kind of whining is what drives his audience to him. Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid. Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.) > Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy. Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil. > Hyde Park in the UK Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea. Except, well, look how great the UK is doing. > When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very, right. Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen. Which is okay, sure, why not. It's just doesn't make the JRE "great". It makes it bad in the big picture, because it again provides an outlet for those people that are at risk of getting hooked into something extreme.
- reroute1 7y ago
  > Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. No it's not. Any kind of discussion can be valuable it doesn't need to conform to your one way of having a talk. Yes there are echo chambers all over the internet. This is not at all convincing that we need to ALWAYS have ALL critical discussions/arguments. You sound like you are either butthurt or taking it wayyy to seriously
- rpmisms 7y ago
  > People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24 screaming cycle? Not you, apparently > Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid. Not necessarily, but it's completely self-defeating. > Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.) No, it's not. Uncritically discussing ideas in front of an engaged audience is literally the core of democracy. The Roman "Forum" was literally this. > Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil. Depends on who you ask. The current president has gotten record numbers of people active and engaged in political discourse and policy. People are interested in what our country is doing. All other things being equal, isn't that a net positive for democracy? > Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea. > Except, well, look how great the UK is doing. You mean after essentially removing free speech? Yes, look how well they're doing now. Wow, great example. > Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen. JRE adds value by providing an honest environment. You don't get that in the news anymore, as you admitted.
bjourne 7y ago
> Yes, these political ideologies are "bad" (I'm not naming any here, fill in your own blank), but every idea, no matter how awful you find it, deserves a voice and public judgement. Even pedophilia advocacy and Holocaust denial?
- squish78 7y ago
  From the HN Guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rpmisms 7y ago
  Yes. Both of those deserve to be shouted from the rooftops, considered carefully, and then praised or cursed appropriately. If someone wants to hold one of those opinions, that's their right, and doesn't give them less value as a human being.
  - bjourne 7y ago
    I disagree, but I respect you for daring to answer yes on that question. Then you are not a hypocrite.
- rwz 7y ago
  I actually think that tabooing those topics and refusing to even discuss them makes them a lot more powerful than they deserve to be. If a topic is not discussed in public space enough, its counterpoints and refute arguments become less and less obvious and visible, which leads to people colliding with it for the first time not being mentally equipped to muster rational arguments against it out of their own brain due to not being mentally equipped or mature enough. Not everyone can recreate a hundreds of years of mental and cultural progress on the spot without any external references and talking points readily available. So if you know nothing about holocaust and encounter a convincing-looking argument that it's a hoax, it's very easy to adhere to this idea and move on with your life thinking it's the truth, especially if you don't see any moral issues with it. Tabooing controversial topics creates an ideological vacuum that is very easily gets filled with garbage. Especially if the the only actors willing to break the taboo are those who have questionable motives and pushing some sort of angle.
tryitnow 7y ago
Judged by who? By parents whose children were slaughtered. Alex Jones intimidated, harassed and lied about those parents. They deserve our empathy. And you know what? So does Alex Jones. But extending empathy to someone does not mean you give that person what they want. It's possible to empathize with Alex Jones for what he is: a deeply disturbed man who has hurt many people and who regularly engages in either outright lies or unhinged self-deception. Being empathic does not mean we leave our brains at the door, it means being thoughtful and respectful and when Joe Rogan continues to provide a platform for Alex Jones he is showing an extraordinary lack of respect for the parents and families of the children who were killed. True empathy extended toward Mr. Jones would be to reach out as a friend and tell him what he needs to hear: He needs to get serious help. There are a lot of interviewers who would have both Shapiro and Sanders on, so your point on that is just not relevant. Most of those interviewers would not touch Alex Jones with a six foot.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Like it or not, Jones is in the popular zeitgeist - or was. One could make the argument that Rogan having him on exposed him to people who hadn't gone down the Info Wars rabbit hole and now he's somewhat faded from relevance. Jones came off utterly unhinged, you're right. But isn't this a kind of control mechanism for what gets in the popular narrative? >There are a lot of interviewers who would have both Shapiro and Sanders on, so your point on that is just not relevant. Who? Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, is repeatedly slandered as a white supremacist. I'm pretty skeptical that mainstream interviewers who would love to interview Sanders would touch Shapiro. Not necessarily because they aren't interested, but because of the potential wrath from their regular viewers/listeners. Rogan just doesn't have that kind of polarized following, at least it doesn't appear so to me. Interviews with people like Sanders garner just as much interest as his interviews with e.g. Bret Weinstein. People show up because it's interesting, not because they're looking for confirmation of their own views.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- LocalH 7y ago
  I have a real problem with people "deciding" who "gets" to have a platform. I have no problem with individual social media sites setting their own policies as to who they will allow a voice on their site. I have a big problem when people go further than that, and try to prevent certain people from having any platform anywhere. They'll go after hosting, after advertisers, after anything they can to completely shut a person down. It is so unbelievably naive to think that those tools of suppression won't be used against everyone at some point in the future. The collective track record of human governments throughout history with regards to human rights has been, and currently is, absolute dogshit. Whether the true point of "common carrier" should be the internet backbone, I don't know. But there needs to be a point where anyone can run a site to put forth their views, no matter how any individual feels about those views. The problem with restricting speech is that everyone's idea of acceptable free speech infringements is different, and the devil is in the details with something so vitally important.
nimblegorilla 7y ago
> When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very, right. Those three people have diverse political opinions, but are also basically just 3 white males. Rogan doesn't really provide a platform for "anyone" - only a place for people who (generally) appeal to someone on the heterosexual white male spectrum. Sure, he had some women and minorities on his show, but mostly just white males. That's not diversity.
- la_barba 7y ago
  In total, how many people have been on his show and what are the stats? Do you happen to have that data?
  - nimblegorilla 7y ago
    It's pretty easy to find a list of his guests and compile that if you are interested.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      Have you done that?
  - tomtheelder 7y ago
    I'm not who you are responding to, but the gender skew is massive. This [1] is just someone on his subreddit doing their own calculations, but the sample size is 1128 men to 68 women. More recently it's like 10 to 1 [2]. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. One the one hand it's a podcast targeted toward men, which I'm fine with. On the other hand, his whole thing is about open-mindedness so it doesn't seem quite right for him to almost exclusively hear the views of men on his show. I also wonder if he has a harder time getting women to feature because of the demographics of his audience. I have no idea what the demographic breakdown looks like along other axes as I couldn't find much info. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/al8hxn/voting_trends_of_jre_viewers_based_on_guest_gender/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/al8hxn/voting_tre... [2] https://www.mediamatters.org/legacy/joe-rogan-experience-disproportionately-hosts-men https://www.mediamatters.org/legacy/joe-rogan-experience-dis...

squish78 7y ago

It makes me wonder how many millions of teenagers are going to turn on to Alex Jones because their parents project so much outrage towards him.

rpmisms 7y ago
Oh, it's guaranteed. He's hilarious to the meme generation. I know my brother listens to him because he's funny.
- finnthehuman 7y ago
  He’s hilarious. He’s a big blowhard dummy, and if someone can’t watch his show for the entertainment value of laughing at him, then I very seriously doubt they have the mental defenses to watch mainstream political commentary without blindly downloading the opinions of the commentator into their own head.
- nailer 7y ago
  Exactly. The house remix of "They turned the friggin frogs gay" was a trending meme on TikTok last year. http://vm.tiktok.com/LjvBod/ http://vm.tiktok.com/LjvBod/
- Simon_says 7y ago
  I tried to listen to his podcast for a while after his Joe Rogan appearance, not because any of his views resonated with me, but because he's (unintentionally) hilarious. I couldn't keep listening because it's so full of ads. Like, it's absolutely ridiculous the ratio of ads to content. And when Alex does speak, he's so repetitive. It gets boring. He's better in occasional short bursts.

pas 7y ago

> As judged by who? People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24 screaming cycle? > This kind of whining is what drives his audience to him. Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid. Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.) > Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy. Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil. > Hyde Park in the UK Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea. Except, well, look how great the UK is doing. > When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very, right. Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen. Which is okay, sure, why not. It's just doesn't make the JRE "great". It makes it bad in the big picture, because it again provides an outlet for those people that are at risk of getting hooked into something extreme.

reroute1 7y ago
> Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. No it's not. Any kind of discussion can be valuable it doesn't need to conform to your one way of having a talk. Yes there are echo chambers all over the internet. This is not at all convincing that we need to ALWAYS have ALL critical discussions/arguments. You sound like you are either butthurt or taking it wayyy to seriously
rpmisms 7y ago
> People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24 screaming cycle? Not you, apparently > Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid. Not necessarily, but it's completely self-defeating. > Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.) No, it's not. Uncritically discussing ideas in front of an engaged audience is literally the core of democracy. The Roman "Forum" was literally this. > Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil. Depends on who you ask. The current president has gotten record numbers of people active and engaged in political discourse and policy. People are interested in what our country is doing. All other things being equal, isn't that a net positive for democracy? > Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea. > Except, well, look how great the UK is doing. You mean after essentially removing free speech? Yes, look how well they're doing now. Wow, great example. > Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen. JRE adds value by providing an honest environment. You don't get that in the news anymore, as you admitted.

bjourne 7y ago

> Yes, these political ideologies are "bad" (I'm not naming any here, fill in your own blank), but every idea, no matter how awful you find it, deserves a voice and public judgement. Even pedophilia advocacy and Holocaust denial?

squish78 7y ago
From the HN Guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rpmisms 7y ago
Yes. Both of those deserve to be shouted from the rooftops, considered carefully, and then praised or cursed appropriately. If someone wants to hold one of those opinions, that's their right, and doesn't give them less value as a human being.
- bjourne 7y ago
  I disagree, but I respect you for daring to answer yes on that question. Then you are not a hypocrite.
rwz 7y ago
I actually think that tabooing those topics and refusing to even discuss them makes them a lot more powerful than they deserve to be. If a topic is not discussed in public space enough, its counterpoints and refute arguments become less and less obvious and visible, which leads to people colliding with it for the first time not being mentally equipped to muster rational arguments against it out of their own brain due to not being mentally equipped or mature enough. Not everyone can recreate a hundreds of years of mental and cultural progress on the spot without any external references and talking points readily available. So if you know nothing about holocaust and encounter a convincing-looking argument that it's a hoax, it's very easy to adhere to this idea and move on with your life thinking it's the truth, especially if you don't see any moral issues with it. Tabooing controversial topics creates an ideological vacuum that is very easily gets filled with garbage. Especially if the the only actors willing to break the taboo are those who have questionable motives and pushing some sort of angle.

tryitnow 7y ago

Judged by who? By parents whose children were slaughtered. Alex Jones intimidated, harassed and lied about those parents. They deserve our empathy. And you know what? So does Alex Jones. But extending empathy to someone does not mean you give that person what they want. It's possible to empathize with Alex Jones for what he is: a deeply disturbed man who has hurt many people and who regularly engages in either outright lies or unhinged self-deception. Being empathic does not mean we leave our brains at the door, it means being thoughtful and respectful and when Joe Rogan continues to provide a platform for Alex Jones he is showing an extraordinary lack of respect for the parents and families of the children who were killed. True empathy extended toward Mr. Jones would be to reach out as a friend and tell him what he needs to hear: He needs to get serious help. There are a lot of interviewers who would have both Shapiro and Sanders on, so your point on that is just not relevant. Most of those interviewers would not touch Alex Jones with a six foot.

remarkEon 7y ago
Like it or not, Jones is in the popular zeitgeist - or was. One could make the argument that Rogan having him on exposed him to people who hadn't gone down the Info Wars rabbit hole and now he's somewhat faded from relevance. Jones came off utterly unhinged, you're right. But isn't this a kind of control mechanism for what gets in the popular narrative? >There are a lot of interviewers who would have both Shapiro and Sanders on, so your point on that is just not relevant. Who? Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, is repeatedly slandered as a white supremacist. I'm pretty skeptical that mainstream interviewers who would love to interview Sanders would touch Shapiro. Not necessarily because they aren't interested, but because of the potential wrath from their regular viewers/listeners. Rogan just doesn't have that kind of polarized following, at least it doesn't appear so to me. Interviews with people like Sanders garner just as much interest as his interviews with e.g. Bret Weinstein. People show up because it's interesting, not because they're looking for confirmation of their own views.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
LocalH 7y ago
I have a real problem with people "deciding" who "gets" to have a platform. I have no problem with individual social media sites setting their own policies as to who they will allow a voice on their site. I have a big problem when people go further than that, and try to prevent certain people from having any platform anywhere. They'll go after hosting, after advertisers, after anything they can to completely shut a person down. It is so unbelievably naive to think that those tools of suppression won't be used against everyone at some point in the future. The collective track record of human governments throughout history with regards to human rights has been, and currently is, absolute dogshit. Whether the true point of "common carrier" should be the internet backbone, I don't know. But there needs to be a point where anyone can run a site to put forth their views, no matter how any individual feels about those views. The problem with restricting speech is that everyone's idea of acceptable free speech infringements is different, and the devil is in the details with something so vitally important.

nimblegorilla 7y ago

> When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very, right. Those three people have diverse political opinions, but are also basically just 3 white males. Rogan doesn't really provide a platform for "anyone" - only a place for people who (generally) appeal to someone on the heterosexual white male spectrum. Sure, he had some women and minorities on his show, but mostly just white males. That's not diversity.

la_barba 7y ago
In total, how many people have been on his show and what are the stats? Do you happen to have that data?
- nimblegorilla 7y ago
  It's pretty easy to find a list of his guests and compile that if you are interested.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    Have you done that?
- tomtheelder 7y ago
  I'm not who you are responding to, but the gender skew is massive. This [1] is just someone on his subreddit doing their own calculations, but the sample size is 1128 men to 68 women. More recently it's like 10 to 1 [2]. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. One the one hand it's a podcast targeted toward men, which I'm fine with. On the other hand, his whole thing is about open-mindedness so it doesn't seem quite right for him to almost exclusively hear the views of men on his show. I also wonder if he has a harder time getting women to feature because of the demographics of his audience. I have no idea what the demographic breakdown looks like along other axes as I couldn't find much info. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/al8hxn/voting_trends_of_jre_viewers_based_on_guest_gender/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/al8hxn/voting_tre... [2] https://www.mediamatters.org/legacy/joe-rogan-experience-disproportionately-hosts-men https://www.mediamatters.org/legacy/joe-rogan-experience-dis...