7 ms·

> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn'

> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn't know the subject you would think that Joe did, when many many times he clearly does not. I agree they are interesting when he lets the guest speak (even if completely disagree with them) or it is on something Joe does know about / has researched. But that is far from all the time. Joe also has a habit of ignoring the guest at times and carrying on down his own little conversation alley, usually when he got too stoned - which ruins the conversation IMO

claudeganon 7y ago
Yeah, I’ve noticed he likes to do this around issues I imagine are red meat for his audience (e.g. the rights of trans people). It really detracts from what are otherwise decent interviews.
np_tedious 7y ago
He certainly spouts some "bollox" but I don't think I agree about "authoritative". He tends to show a lot of humility and asks a lot of questions rather than making statements
- claudeganon 7y ago
  It really depends. Go listen and to his interview with Adam Connover where he uses him as a foil to spout off a lot of nonsense about trans people and their agency.
  - platz 7y ago
    Connover was doing a lot of hemming and hawing as well I recall
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Yes because he’s not an expert on trans issues, he’s a comedian, which Rogan knows, but chose to use him as a foil for his equally misinformed stances. Connover, to his credit, went so far as to provide additional context for his defense of trans people’s agency post-interview: https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussion-of-trans-issues-on-joe-rogans-podcast/ https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussio...
      - anongraddebt 7y ago
        Multiple commenters have stated his stances are misinformed. Are his stances misinformed or is he simply poor at arguing for one of the many stances people can take on trans issues (issues which, if everyone is honest, are pretty complex)? The stance that it is wrong that there should only be male and female sports leagues AND that trans people should automatically be included in whichever their identification maps to, is a completely defensible and not misinformed stance. It may be wrong, but so might the opposite stance held by trans activists (which is also likely completely defensible and not misinformed).
        resters 7y ago
        I listened to that episode by accident (autoplay). He was just venting ignorantly about his prejudices toward trans people. It was honestly quite an ugly spectacle. It was the kind of commentary one might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.
        stOneskull 7y ago
        There has to be conversation. There are some who just want to shut it down with 'bigot-transphobe' type spit-words. Gotta let it grow. Transcend the offended feeling.
        resters 7y ago
        Not sure why you characterize my comments that way. I was just mentioning how I reacted to it, not calling for it to be shut down.
  - shapiro1 7y ago
    What is his “nonsense”? It’s reasonable to not allow people to cross their biological gender league. He’s seen how biological males have absolutely destroyed in biological female leagues.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      He kept repeating that trans women were “confused gay men” on the basis of one very shoddy Swedish research paper, as if that was somehow authoritative.
      - ralusek 7y ago
        That was in regards to using puberty blockers on children, I believe. The study stated that many children that believe themselves to be trans ended up simply being gay, and that this lack of certainty (as well as the fact that we don't think of children as rational consenting entities for most things) makes the issue of using puberty blockers controversial. I could be wrong, but I am almost positive that this is what was being argued.
        rpmisms 7y ago
        That matches with what I remember, and I don't understand why that's a controversial thought here. Changing gender is a big deal, it can wait a few years so you're sure.
        resters 7y ago
        That’s not what it was. The guy was venting about how irritating he finds trans people.
        rpmisms 7y ago
        That's also a valid view, even if it's insensitive. You can be annoyed by whomever you like.
  - axaxs 7y ago
    I feel like you're picking one thing you feel strongly about and disagree with to discredit the entire show. I don't agree with a lot of what Rogan believes, but I feel this is an unfair characterization of him and his show.
  - resters 7y ago
    Correct, that episode was so bigoted and off putting that I decided not to listen to any more. Hearing someone vent/whine about the orientation and life choices of others is just not my cup of tea. It was the kind of commentary one might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.
lawn 7y ago
He even does this in an area he should be knowledgeable in: MMA. For example how he went on how you should destroy yourself in training, and always go 110%, while his guest (I can't remember who, maybe Firaz Zahabi the coach of GSP) said the exact opposite.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > how he went on how you should destroy yourself in training, and always go 110% I've been listening to him forever and watch MMA every single weekend. I have hard time imagining him saying this. Infact, one of his MMA pet peeves is over training.
- mmaaggyy 7y ago
  You'll want to provide a citation here as the claim you are making is likely false, or perhaps you've just mis-remembered.
- oiasdjfoiasd 7y ago
  yeah, no. i've never heard him say anything like this. i've also watched the entire Firaz episode.
gurkendoktor 7y ago
I thought the episode with James Damore was a good example of Joe ruining what could have become an interesting interview: lack of direction, ranting, pushing James towards particular statements. But I don't mind his show being hit or miss, given the sheer number of episodes.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  Exactly, he generally seems to get dragged on by the guest, especially if they have a strong personality. Someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson will call out Joe on make he starts saying bollox like the moon landing conspiracies. But then other people will go on the conspiracy path with him and let him spew shit neither of them understand.
- bmurphy1976 7y ago
  It didn't help that Damore was a terrible interviewee. He was clearly nervous and awkward and not particularly good at arguing his viewpoints. I put more blame on Damore sucking for that one than Joe.
jumpman500 7y ago
I think you’re right. But... Joe Rogan often claims he’s not a genius, and not an expert in many topics. I also feel his fan community strongly understands this. There are a lot of YouTube videos making fun of his mannerisms and when he might be too high on an interview. To me this is as good as it gets for a talk show that has a wide ranging set of topics like the JRE. Joe Rogan isn’t an expert and doesn’t pretend to be unbiased on all issues. His community, I think, understands his limitations. He just runs a good conversation, and that’s all I want to hear.
- puranjay 7y ago
  I'm a frequent listener and the only subject I assume Rogan is an authority on is martial arts and nutrition. I ignore much of what else he says, but I respect his knowledge on those two topics. Other listeners I've spoken to feel the same way. And I reckon Rogan knows that too
  - fluffything 7y ago
    I would say martial arts and being a comedian. But he knows a lot about nutrition as well.
    - top_kekeroni_m8 7y ago
      He is very biased toward the carnivore/keto kind of diet and dismisses any kind of plant-based diets with "bro science". I would never listen to his nutrition advice, it's just incredibly biased and factually incorrect.
      - fluffything 7y ago
        There is some research nowadays showing that different diets work differently well for different people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z03xkwFbw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z03xkwFbw4 Most of our current long-term (>1 year long) studies about diets deal with the problem of "subjects not sticking to the diet" by just saying that X% of participants stopped the diet and then proceeding to analyze the health benefits for the Y% that stuck to it. That's a fair thing to do, but what's not supported from those results is the conclusion that such a diet would have worked very well for the X% had they stuck to it.
yodsanklai 7y ago
I really like Joe Rogan, and the format of its podcast. I don't know other medias where they let people speak for three hours. I was suspicious the first time I listened to him. I thought, can this beefy archetypical MMA dude say anything interesting? actually he can. He's at ease with all types of guests, he just seems to be an outspoken, honest guy. I agree that he tends to bring up his favorite topics all the time, which gets a bit repetitive but it's ok. You can't expect him to run hundred of conversations without being repetitive.
- MrGLaDOS 7y ago
  I am sure there are many others, but these three shows feature long-form interviews which feature interesting guests: The Ezra Klein Show - Ezra Klein Making sense podcast - Sam Harris 80000 hours podcast - Rob Wiblin [1] https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast [2] https://samharris.org/podcast/ https://samharris.org/podcast/ [3] https://80000hours.org/podcast/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/
  - extra__tofu 7y ago
    In the same vein as those: Conversations with Tyler and Sean Carroll's Mindscape. https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/
  - NoGravitas 7y ago
    Whatever you think of Chapo Trap House, and there's a lot to criticize them on, from both the left and the right, when they let Virgil Texas do an interview for a whole episode, it's damned good. Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman is also a very good interviewer, but her guests are often too niche for me to recommend to a general audience.
  - pastor_elm 7y ago
    old Charlie Rose episodes as well, although only usually an hour. But good for guests who are currently dead.

claudeganon 7y ago

Yeah, I’ve noticed he likes to do this around issues I imagine are red meat for his audience (e.g. the rights of trans people). It really detracts from what are otherwise decent interviews.

np_tedious 7y ago

He certainly spouts some "bollox" but I don't think I agree about "authoritative". He tends to show a lot of humility and asks a lot of questions rather than making statements

claudeganon 7y ago
It really depends. Go listen and to his interview with Adam Connover where he uses him as a foil to spout off a lot of nonsense about trans people and their agency.
- platz 7y ago
  Connover was doing a lot of hemming and hawing as well I recall
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    Yes because he’s not an expert on trans issues, he’s a comedian, which Rogan knows, but chose to use him as a foil for his equally misinformed stances. Connover, to his credit, went so far as to provide additional context for his defense of trans people’s agency post-interview: https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussion-of-trans-issues-on-joe-rogans-podcast/ https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussio...
    - anongraddebt 7y ago
      Multiple commenters have stated his stances are misinformed. Are his stances misinformed or is he simply poor at arguing for one of the many stances people can take on trans issues (issues which, if everyone is honest, are pretty complex)? The stance that it is wrong that there should only be male and female sports leagues AND that trans people should automatically be included in whichever their identification maps to, is a completely defensible and not misinformed stance. It may be wrong, but so might the opposite stance held by trans activists (which is also likely completely defensible and not misinformed).
      - resters 7y ago
        I listened to that episode by accident (autoplay). He was just venting ignorantly about his prejudices toward trans people. It was honestly quite an ugly spectacle. It was the kind of commentary one might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.
        stOneskull 7y ago
        There has to be conversation. There are some who just want to shut it down with 'bigot-transphobe' type spit-words. Gotta let it grow. Transcend the offended feeling.
        resters 7y ago
        Not sure why you characterize my comments that way. I was just mentioning how I reacted to it, not calling for it to be shut down.
- shapiro1 7y ago
  What is his “nonsense”? It’s reasonable to not allow people to cross their biological gender league. He’s seen how biological males have absolutely destroyed in biological female leagues.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    He kept repeating that trans women were “confused gay men” on the basis of one very shoddy Swedish research paper, as if that was somehow authoritative.
    - ralusek 7y ago
      That was in regards to using puberty blockers on children, I believe. The study stated that many children that believe themselves to be trans ended up simply being gay, and that this lack of certainty (as well as the fact that we don't think of children as rational consenting entities for most things) makes the issue of using puberty blockers controversial. I could be wrong, but I am almost positive that this is what was being argued.
      - rpmisms 7y ago
        That matches with what I remember, and I don't understand why that's a controversial thought here. Changing gender is a big deal, it can wait a few years so you're sure.
        resters 7y ago
        That’s not what it was. The guy was venting about how irritating he finds trans people.
        rpmisms 7y ago
        That's also a valid view, even if it's insensitive. You can be annoyed by whomever you like.
- axaxs 7y ago
  I feel like you're picking one thing you feel strongly about and disagree with to discredit the entire show. I don't agree with a lot of what Rogan believes, but I feel this is an unfair characterization of him and his show.
- resters 7y ago
  Correct, that episode was so bigoted and off putting that I decided not to listen to any more. Hearing someone vent/whine about the orientation and life choices of others is just not my cup of tea. It was the kind of commentary one might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.

lawn 7y ago

He even does this in an area he should be knowledgeable in: MMA. For example how he went on how you should destroy yourself in training, and always go 110%, while his guest (I can't remember who, maybe Firaz Zahabi the coach of GSP) said the exact opposite.

dominotw 7y ago
> how he went on how you should destroy yourself in training, and always go 110% I've been listening to him forever and watch MMA every single weekend. I have hard time imagining him saying this. Infact, one of his MMA pet peeves is over training.
mmaaggyy 7y ago
You'll want to provide a citation here as the claim you are making is likely false, or perhaps you've just mis-remembered.
oiasdjfoiasd 7y ago
yeah, no. i've never heard him say anything like this. i've also watched the entire Firaz episode.

gurkendoktor 7y ago

I thought the episode with James Damore was a good example of Joe ruining what could have become an interesting interview: lack of direction, ranting, pushing James towards particular statements. But I don't mind his show being hit or miss, given the sheer number of episodes.

ehsankia 7y ago
Exactly, he generally seems to get dragged on by the guest, especially if they have a strong personality. Someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson will call out Joe on make he starts saying bollox like the moon landing conspiracies. But then other people will go on the conspiracy path with him and let him spew shit neither of them understand.
bmurphy1976 7y ago
It didn't help that Damore was a terrible interviewee. He was clearly nervous and awkward and not particularly good at arguing his viewpoints. I put more blame on Damore sucking for that one than Joe.

jumpman500 7y ago

I think you’re right. But... Joe Rogan often claims he’s not a genius, and not an expert in many topics. I also feel his fan community strongly understands this. There are a lot of YouTube videos making fun of his mannerisms and when he might be too high on an interview. To me this is as good as it gets for a talk show that has a wide ranging set of topics like the JRE. Joe Rogan isn’t an expert and doesn’t pretend to be unbiased on all issues. His community, I think, understands his limitations. He just runs a good conversation, and that’s all I want to hear.

puranjay 7y ago
I'm a frequent listener and the only subject I assume Rogan is an authority on is martial arts and nutrition. I ignore much of what else he says, but I respect his knowledge on those two topics. Other listeners I've spoken to feel the same way. And I reckon Rogan knows that too
- fluffything 7y ago
  I would say martial arts and being a comedian. But he knows a lot about nutrition as well.
  - top_kekeroni_m8 7y ago
    He is very biased toward the carnivore/keto kind of diet and dismisses any kind of plant-based diets with "bro science". I would never listen to his nutrition advice, it's just incredibly biased and factually incorrect.
    - fluffything 7y ago
      There is some research nowadays showing that different diets work differently well for different people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z03xkwFbw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z03xkwFbw4 Most of our current long-term (>1 year long) studies about diets deal with the problem of "subjects not sticking to the diet" by just saying that X% of participants stopped the diet and then proceeding to analyze the health benefits for the Y% that stuck to it. That's a fair thing to do, but what's not supported from those results is the conclusion that such a diet would have worked very well for the X% had they stuck to it.

yodsanklai 7y ago

I really like Joe Rogan, and the format of its podcast. I don't know other medias where they let people speak for three hours. I was suspicious the first time I listened to him. I thought, can this beefy archetypical MMA dude say anything interesting? actually he can. He's at ease with all types of guests, he just seems to be an outspoken, honest guy. I agree that he tends to bring up his favorite topics all the time, which gets a bit repetitive but it's ok. You can't expect him to run hundred of conversations without being repetitive.

MrGLaDOS 7y ago
I am sure there are many others, but these three shows feature long-form interviews which feature interesting guests: The Ezra Klein Show - Ezra Klein Making sense podcast - Sam Harris 80000 hours podcast - Rob Wiblin [1] https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast [2] https://samharris.org/podcast/ https://samharris.org/podcast/ [3] https://80000hours.org/podcast/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/
- extra__tofu 7y ago
  In the same vein as those: Conversations with Tyler and Sean Carroll's Mindscape. https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/
- NoGravitas 7y ago
  Whatever you think of Chapo Trap House, and there's a lot to criticize them on, from both the left and the right, when they let Virgil Texas do an interview for a whole episode, it's damned good. Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman is also a very good interviewer, but her guests are often too niche for me to recommend to a general audience.
- pastor_elm 7y ago
  old Charlie Rose episodes as well, although only usually an hour. But good for guests who are currently dead.