4 ms·

I've never been a Joe Rogan fan, I've only followed him in the news whenever he pops up or in some short clips that get milled around social media. So my opinio

by ausbah 6y ago

I've never been a Joe Rogan fan, I've only followed him in the news whenever he pops up or in some short clips that get milled around social media. So my opinion of him might be misinformed, but I've only ever gotten the impression that Rogan only ever really cares about selling a "neutral" but enticing experience. The focus isn't serious discussions or prodding the arguments of his guests, it's just about him playing the "dumb but curious everyman" as a stand in for the audience letting whoever has the most appealing mantra freely speak their mind. I think this identity as someone who just listen and doesn't question is genuine to him, but it also makes a great selling point as "politically neutral" or "both sides" speak. Some of these ideas are genuinely worthwhile, but when those same thoughts are given even equal weight to the ravings of Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro - I don't see how anyone who is looking for intellectual rigor can derive value from consuming his podcast. If that's a good or bad thing is a value judgment someone has to make personally.

kjakm 6y ago
Given it's hosted by a comedian and has a diverse range of guests from entertainers to scientists to wackos, I've always thought of it as a show meant to entertain (which occasionally informs). I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion.
- raydev 6y ago
  > I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion I agree, but many vocal fans on Twitter and YouTube disagree.
  - kjakm 6y ago
    I almost included a point on this in my original comment. You’re right but I get the impression those are the same type of people that think only “intellectuals” like them can truly understand Rick & Morty.
- iorrus 6y ago
  Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"? One thing about Joe Rogan is that he covers a far broader spectrum of people than anyone else. Who has Alex Jones/Elon Musk/Neil deGrasse Tyson on? To be frank I find most "robust intellectual discussion" stultifying e.g. hacker news has exactly this problem.
  - chance_state 6y ago
    >Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"? Sam Harris and Tim Ferriss have great long form interviews with interesting people.
    - iorrus 6y ago
      I used to listen to Tim Ferris years ago, even bought the 4 hour workweek but for whatever reason I eventually lost interest. I think he was a bit predictable and bland also a bit too deep into "Tech" culture. Never really paid much attention to Sam Harris so might have another look at him. One of the most interesting things about Joe Rogan is that he's not a one trick pony e.g. Comedy/Fighters/TV personality etc. I find him more interesting as a result.
      - kjakm 6y ago
        Worth looking into Tim Ferriss again. He's done so many episodes of his podcast now that there is a wide range of guests. I'd say if it leans towards any subject it wouldn't be tech but maybe health/body related subjects.
    - sojournerc 6y ago
      The difference for me is that Harris and Ferris don't make as much room for the interviewee, will often talk more than their guests, and their shows in-general focus more on their own guru egos and view points. Rogan doesn't self-promote on his podcast, and he creates space for his guests to go deep on their specialties.
JSavageOne 6y ago
I don't think that's a really fair characterization to say he tries to remain "neutral" because he does take stances on things, sometimes very radical. In his last interview with David Pakman (a man who by the way runs a progressive Youtube talk show, not exactly a politically neutral guest) he said that Twitter should probably be regulated like a public utility, and perhaps even purchased outright by the government. That's a fairly radical stance, and even if it was said more in jest or posed as a hypothetical that is certainly not someone a host selling a "neutral" experience would say.
crisdux 6y ago
If you are equating Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro to each other than it doesn't seem like you hold yourself to this intellectual rigor that you expect Joe Rogan to adhere to. How can you expect more from others when you don't seem to practice what you preach?
- ausbah 6y ago
  I never said I expected Joe Rogan should adhere to intellectual rigor, rather that people shouldn't expect that from him in any shape because that's not necessarily the point of his show. I do not think Jones and Shapiro are equal on every front, I think Shapiro is certainly the more sane and sensible one of the two, but as I mentioned in another comment - I think both are equal commentators selling a specific narrative and view of reality to a specific demographic. To me they both twist and bend the truth, or simply flat out lie, to sell their view of reality to a type of person.
jcroll 6y ago
This is true but I think getting less so as Joe is getting more confident in opining his ideas, look no further than his latest takes on the covid response
dpweb 6y ago
Alex Jones is a great example. Who let's Jones rave on for 3 hours? No one. Broadcasters are not going to want to be associated with him. Rogan just lets him go. I disagree with 95% of what Jones says but I'm not going to take anyone's word for it. I watch the 3 hours and then conclude on my own Jones is nuts. Free speech isn't just lip service on that show and kudos for that cause it's rare. Bonus for Rogan is controversy/media coverage which attracts viewers. Rogan is savvy about the media and Internet.
- zpeti 6y ago
  I have to say those 3 hours are some of the best entertainment I've ever seen. It's completely crazy loony stuff, but I was literally laughing out loud. I mean from all the conspiracy theories to asking Eddie Bravo to choke him out... It is absolutely hilarious. So who's going to let him rave for 3 hours? Someone who wants to entertain millions of people. This isn't a criticism of Rogan, more that that main stream media would never allow that type of thing. For a start they don't have 3 hours. Yet it's at 19m views as of now.
  - zpeti 6y ago
    I mean, I'm watching Tiger King right now, that's pretty much the same level of entertainment. I don't see the issue with Alex Jones being given 3 hours.
MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
I don't get the appeal either. Joe Rogan is the personified midwit, he manages to make conversations with even the most interesting guests dumb and bland.
befeltingu 6y ago
How is it that you put Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones in the same category? Your bias is clear and so I can see why Joe Rogans openness might not appeal to you
- ausbah 6y ago
  Because I think they're both figures who are focused on catering to a specific audience with a specific type of bunk. With Jones its incoherent, conspiracy riddled rants on his show to sell more "health supplements" and "survival gear", with Shapiro its fast talking emotional whataboutism to promote his media sites and books. I would lump left leaning figures like Gwyneth Paltrow and her company Goop, or any other similar figure pushing "alternative medicines", with them as well.
  - befeltingu 6y ago
    Even if I take your description of them their not in the same category. Conspiracy theorist and someone who promotes their own site and books is in the same category? You might disagree with Ben Shapiro and that’s fine but he’s not purposefully pushing misinformation.

by ausbah 6y ago

kjakm 6y ago

Given it's hosted by a comedian and has a diverse range of guests from entertainers to scientists to wackos, I've always thought of it as a show meant to entertain (which occasionally informs). I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion.

raydev 6y ago
> I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion I agree, but many vocal fans on Twitter and YouTube disagree.
- kjakm 6y ago
  I almost included a point on this in my original comment. You’re right but I get the impression those are the same type of people that think only “intellectuals” like them can truly understand Rick & Morty.
iorrus 6y ago
Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"? One thing about Joe Rogan is that he covers a far broader spectrum of people than anyone else. Who has Alex Jones/Elon Musk/Neil deGrasse Tyson on? To be frank I find most "robust intellectual discussion" stultifying e.g. hacker news has exactly this problem.
- chance_state 6y ago
  >Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"? Sam Harris and Tim Ferriss have great long form interviews with interesting people.
  - iorrus 6y ago
    I used to listen to Tim Ferris years ago, even bought the 4 hour workweek but for whatever reason I eventually lost interest. I think he was a bit predictable and bland also a bit too deep into "Tech" culture. Never really paid much attention to Sam Harris so might have another look at him. One of the most interesting things about Joe Rogan is that he's not a one trick pony e.g. Comedy/Fighters/TV personality etc. I find him more interesting as a result.
    - kjakm 6y ago
      Worth looking into Tim Ferriss again. He's done so many episodes of his podcast now that there is a wide range of guests. I'd say if it leans towards any subject it wouldn't be tech but maybe health/body related subjects.
  - sojournerc 6y ago
    The difference for me is that Harris and Ferris don't make as much room for the interviewee, will often talk more than their guests, and their shows in-general focus more on their own guru egos and view points. Rogan doesn't self-promote on his podcast, and he creates space for his guests to go deep on their specialties.

JSavageOne 6y ago

I don't think that's a really fair characterization to say he tries to remain "neutral" because he does take stances on things, sometimes very radical. In his last interview with David Pakman (a man who by the way runs a progressive Youtube talk show, not exactly a politically neutral guest) he said that Twitter should probably be regulated like a public utility, and perhaps even purchased outright by the government. That's a fairly radical stance, and even if it was said more in jest or posed as a hypothetical that is certainly not someone a host selling a "neutral" experience would say.

crisdux 6y ago

If you are equating Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro to each other than it doesn't seem like you hold yourself to this intellectual rigor that you expect Joe Rogan to adhere to. How can you expect more from others when you don't seem to practice what you preach?

ausbah 6y ago
I never said I expected Joe Rogan should adhere to intellectual rigor, rather that people shouldn't expect that from him in any shape because that's not necessarily the point of his show. I do not think Jones and Shapiro are equal on every front, I think Shapiro is certainly the more sane and sensible one of the two, but as I mentioned in another comment - I think both are equal commentators selling a specific narrative and view of reality to a specific demographic. To me they both twist and bend the truth, or simply flat out lie, to sell their view of reality to a type of person.

jcroll 6y ago

This is true but I think getting less so as Joe is getting more confident in opining his ideas, look no further than his latest takes on the covid response

dpweb 6y ago

Alex Jones is a great example. Who let's Jones rave on for 3 hours? No one. Broadcasters are not going to want to be associated with him. Rogan just lets him go. I disagree with 95% of what Jones says but I'm not going to take anyone's word for it. I watch the 3 hours and then conclude on my own Jones is nuts. Free speech isn't just lip service on that show and kudos for that cause it's rare. Bonus for Rogan is controversy/media coverage which attracts viewers. Rogan is savvy about the media and Internet.

zpeti 6y ago
I have to say those 3 hours are some of the best entertainment I've ever seen. It's completely crazy loony stuff, but I was literally laughing out loud. I mean from all the conspiracy theories to asking Eddie Bravo to choke him out... It is absolutely hilarious. So who's going to let him rave for 3 hours? Someone who wants to entertain millions of people. This isn't a criticism of Rogan, more that that main stream media would never allow that type of thing. For a start they don't have 3 hours. Yet it's at 19m views as of now.
- zpeti 6y ago
  I mean, I'm watching Tiger King right now, that's pretty much the same level of entertainment. I don't see the issue with Alex Jones being given 3 hours.

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago

I don't get the appeal either. Joe Rogan is the personified midwit, he manages to make conversations with even the most interesting guests dumb and bland.

befeltingu 6y ago

How is it that you put Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones in the same category? Your bias is clear and so I can see why Joe Rogans openness might not appeal to you

ausbah 6y ago
Because I think they're both figures who are focused on catering to a specific audience with a specific type of bunk. With Jones its incoherent, conspiracy riddled rants on his show to sell more "health supplements" and "survival gear", with Shapiro its fast talking emotional whataboutism to promote his media sites and books. I would lump left leaning figures like Gwyneth Paltrow and her company Goop, or any other similar figure pushing "alternative medicines", with them as well.
- befeltingu 6y ago
  Even if I take your description of them their not in the same category. Conspiracy theorist and someone who promotes their own site and books is in the same category? You might disagree with Ben Shapiro and that’s fine but he’s not purposefully pushing misinformation.