4 ms·

Joe Rogan’s Galaxy Brain

11 points by smacktoward 7y ago

shrewduser 7y ago
Author writes a lot but says very little.
- htk 7y ago
  And a lot of hate and insults to the guests on the show. If he doesn’t like them, just don’t watch it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ALittleLight 7y ago
I just don't get why slate would poison their brand by writing things like this. >The proximate cause of Harris’ smarm was neither a teenager nor a Twitter troll but an actor who had made the rather old-fashioned mistake of saying something dumb to a journalist. In an interview promoting a movie, Liam Neeson had bizarrely volunteered that as a younger man, he had once roamed the streets hoping to be provoked into killing a black man—any black man—in retaliation for a friend’s rape. Harris, who has a practiced eye for these things, saw great liberal hypocrisy in the way that many people online had read racism into Neeson’s statement. Liam Neeson was talking about something bad he did a long time ago. In the interview he calls it horrible. Neeson privately thought bad and racist things decades ago, and then volunteered that and his reflections and condemnations on it. This was then distorted by sensationalist news headlines to make Neeson seem like a racist. In slate, the author summarizes it to make Harris's view seem absurd and Neeson clearly racist. If you don't follow things like this, I can't imagine why you'd care. If you do, slate's misrepresentation is obvious and transparent. They are confusing the issue to slander Harris, Rogan, and Neeson.
chriselles 7y ago
That’s a LOT of venom directed at Joe Rogan. I occasionally listen to episodes if the guest appeals to me. Clearly, the article author views Rogan as a political partisan adversary with the non stop attack. If I had to guess, Rogan is center-right politically, but with a pretty wide left to right issue-based range. And I think a lot of Americans in the middle would prefer an adult conversation over individual issues rather than being forced to choose a side. And I think it’s hit piece content like this that is far more likely to create active resistance to it, rather than passive support for the points raised. One of the things I credit Rogan with is providing me broader and deeper understanding of Tulsi Gabbard and Jordan Peterson. I really like Tulsi as a person and a holder of elected office. I reckon Rogan’s popularity is due to the fact he mirrors the beliefs of many(maybe half?) men 20’s to 50’s who listen to podcasts. Many average in the middle-ish, but support a broad range issue to issue, who enjoy going down rabbit holes. It’s like listening to a clone go down an internet rabbit hole for 2 hours. Perhaps the author is really attacking Rogan for his fast growing social influence and financial success out of anger that the author’s more traditional medium is losing relevance and financial sustainability.
ehmish 7y ago
The only person who has ever recommended Joe Rogan's podcasts to me was quite a leftie so I find this article's thesis a bit odd. This could be because of this new concept of "left = acceptance" and ignoring the more historical definition of "left = strong labour rights and taxation of the rich".

11 points by smacktoward 7y ago

shrewduser 7y ago

Author writes a lot but says very little.

htk 7y ago
And a lot of hate and insults to the guests on the show. If he doesn’t like them, just don’t watch it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ALittleLight 7y ago

I just don't get why slate would poison their brand by writing things like this. >The proximate cause of Harris’ smarm was neither a teenager nor a Twitter troll but an actor who had made the rather old-fashioned mistake of saying something dumb to a journalist. In an interview promoting a movie, Liam Neeson had bizarrely volunteered that as a younger man, he had once roamed the streets hoping to be provoked into killing a black man—any black man—in retaliation for a friend’s rape. Harris, who has a practiced eye for these things, saw great liberal hypocrisy in the way that many people online had read racism into Neeson’s statement. Liam Neeson was talking about something bad he did a long time ago. In the interview he calls it horrible. Neeson privately thought bad and racist things decades ago, and then volunteered that and his reflections and condemnations on it. This was then distorted by sensationalist news headlines to make Neeson seem like a racist. In slate, the author summarizes it to make Harris's view seem absurd and Neeson clearly racist. If you don't follow things like this, I can't imagine why you'd care. If you do, slate's misrepresentation is obvious and transparent. They are confusing the issue to slander Harris, Rogan, and Neeson.

chriselles 7y ago

That’s a LOT of venom directed at Joe Rogan. I occasionally listen to episodes if the guest appeals to me. Clearly, the article author views Rogan as a political partisan adversary with the non stop attack. If I had to guess, Rogan is center-right politically, but with a pretty wide left to right issue-based range. And I think a lot of Americans in the middle would prefer an adult conversation over individual issues rather than being forced to choose a side. And I think it’s hit piece content like this that is far more likely to create active resistance to it, rather than passive support for the points raised. One of the things I credit Rogan with is providing me broader and deeper understanding of Tulsi Gabbard and Jordan Peterson. I really like Tulsi as a person and a holder of elected office. I reckon Rogan’s popularity is due to the fact he mirrors the beliefs of many(maybe half?) men 20’s to 50’s who listen to podcasts. Many average in the middle-ish, but support a broad range issue to issue, who enjoy going down rabbit holes. It’s like listening to a clone go down an internet rabbit hole for 2 hours. Perhaps the author is really attacking Rogan for his fast growing social influence and financial success out of anger that the author’s more traditional medium is losing relevance and financial sustainability.

ehmish 7y ago

The only person who has ever recommended Joe Rogan's podcasts to me was quite a leftie so I find this article's thesis a bit odd. This could be because of this new concept of "left = acceptance" and ignoring the more historical definition of "left = strong labour rights and taxation of the rich".