5 ms·

This is exactly the reason I've never been a fan of his. First of all, Jones didn't just happen to show up for the recording that day; he was either invited on

This is exactly the reason I've never been a fan of his. First of all, Jones didn't just happen to show up for the recording that day; he was either invited on the show on purpose or his publicist asked and Rogan's production said yes. You're responsible for the sort of people and ideas you expose your audience to, especially when it's predominantly teenage boys. Second, as you mentioned, he didn't challenge any of Jones's insane beliefs. Providing an unquestioning platform for dangerous people like that really does a lot to whitewash their reputation and make their ideas more palatable to a wider audience. It's very dangerous. At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism.

tc313 6y ago
> At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism. But it's NOT masquerading as journalism. That's Rogan's excuse, whether you accept it or not: He's just a bro having conversations with interesting people.
chance_state 6y ago
Apparently they've been friends for 30+ years. >At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism This is the problem: people coming to the podcast expecting it to be some intellectual journalistic endeavor, when Rogan has never promised anything of the kind. It's a bro-y meat head drinking and smoking weed with some guests. People take it way too seriously and impose their ideas of how Rogan should run his own show.
- giarc 6y ago
  But with millions of viewers, does he not have some moral responsibility to question Jones' view that Sandy Hook was faked?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - banads 6y ago
    That was the first thing he asked about.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    I'm curious why you think he does? Im also curious why you think he didnt when i've seen that episode and he basically laughs in his face about it. You got the timestamp for this where he just lets alex run his mouth with unsubstantiated bullshit?
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > This is the problem: people coming to the podcast expecting it to be some intellectual journalistic endeavor. This misconception is furthered by some of his fanbase (who apparently have never experienced actual high-level intellectual dialogue). I have repeatedly seen discontented young men contrast Rogan to content for women and claim that the latter is just vacuous cosmetics talk and gossip, while "Rogan is all about deep stuff like philosophy".
  - DaniloDias 6y ago
    1) I don’t like stupid people 2) stupid people like ‘X’ 3) X should be banned.
  - nprz 6y ago
    That is absolutely a misrepresentation of the average JRE listener. Look at the youtube comments under any clip of the show and you'll see close to all are just making fun of Joe. Nearly every meme shared about the show is making fun of Joe's lack of intellectual rigor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKrf7mX_R6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKrf7mX_R6M
pharke 6y ago
I think this comment more or less epitomizes the lack of understanding of conversational media and is probably the reason why traditional media is failing so badly right now. People can think for themselves, they don't want a self-righteous gatekeeper to spoon feed them the bits of information that they think are correct, relevant, or acceptable. People don't want more spin and more production value and more hot takes and more dunking. Censorship is ultimately counter productive in the same way that sterilizing everything in your environment is for your immune system, you need exposure to a variety of information and viewpoints including incorrect, toxic and down right whacky ones in order to learn the metacognitive skills that you can use to think about how that information impacts you and the viewpoints you hold. If you just funnel the "correct" information into people you wind up with a bunch of infantile paper tigers that can only parrot back what they've heard and collapse in a heap of sputtering rage the moment their prepackaged world view is challenged. Nobody is pretending that Joe Rogan is a journalist, least of all himself. He isn't there to challenge anyone's beliefs or to discover the truth or fiction of what his guests are saying. That's your job you lazy fuck, as he would say.
- tacitusarc 6y ago
  Though he actually actively fact checks them, and himself, during interviews. I am not aware of any other interviewer doing that.
- ausbah 6y ago
  People can think for themselves and censorship is ultimently counterproductive, right - but what should be done when people "think for themselves" and come to horrendously wrong conclusions? Clearly the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists have done some amount of the above and come to the wrong conclusions, so something is obviously wrong in their thought process that led them thinking in such a way. I'm not sure what is the best way of correcting people's broken though processes and beliefs like those are, I don't think just stating evidence at them really works. At the very least I fail to see what value is to be gained by letting such thoughts be granted a platform to continue the cycle of flawed reasoning.
  - 6y ago
nprz 6y ago
They've both known each other since the early 2000s and appear to be somewhat friends, so it's no surprise they've both gone on each others shows. I think Joe expects his audience to interpret Jones much of the same way he appears to, which is entertaining but insane.
pdubs1 6y ago
>You're responsible for the sort of people and ideas you expose your audience to, especially when it's predominantly teenage boys. Eh, it takes two to tango: Speaker, and listener. The listener also has a responsibility (or the listener's legal guardian in the case of "teenage boys"-- or youth in general). The responsibility to decide if they want to continue engaging in listening. Constitutional rights and all. Plus, no one is forced to listen. Adding a prefix or suffix of "bro" to things indicates your bias-- and is likely a projection of misandry (and virtue signaling, predicated by a social engineering campaign which placed those thoughts within your mind, as "virtuous").

tc313 6y ago

> At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism. But it's NOT masquerading as journalism. That's Rogan's excuse, whether you accept it or not: He's just a bro having conversations with interesting people.

chance_state 6y ago

Apparently they've been friends for 30+ years. >At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism This is the problem: people coming to the podcast expecting it to be some intellectual journalistic endeavor, when Rogan has never promised anything of the kind. It's a bro-y meat head drinking and smoking weed with some guests. People take it way too seriously and impose their ideas of how Rogan should run his own show.

giarc 6y ago
But with millions of viewers, does he not have some moral responsibility to question Jones' view that Sandy Hook was faked?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- banads 6y ago
  That was the first thing he asked about.
- waheoo 6y ago
  I'm curious why you think he does? Im also curious why you think he didnt when i've seen that episode and he basically laughs in his face about it. You got the timestamp for this where he just lets alex run his mouth with unsubstantiated bullshit?
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> This is the problem: people coming to the podcast expecting it to be some intellectual journalistic endeavor. This misconception is furthered by some of his fanbase (who apparently have never experienced actual high-level intellectual dialogue). I have repeatedly seen discontented young men contrast Rogan to content for women and claim that the latter is just vacuous cosmetics talk and gossip, while "Rogan is all about deep stuff like philosophy".
- DaniloDias 6y ago
  1) I don’t like stupid people 2) stupid people like ‘X’ 3) X should be banned.
- nprz 6y ago
  That is absolutely a misrepresentation of the average JRE listener. Look at the youtube comments under any clip of the show and you'll see close to all are just making fun of Joe. Nearly every meme shared about the show is making fun of Joe's lack of intellectual rigor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKrf7mX_R6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKrf7mX_R6M

pharke 6y ago

I think this comment more or less epitomizes the lack of understanding of conversational media and is probably the reason why traditional media is failing so badly right now. People can think for themselves, they don't want a self-righteous gatekeeper to spoon feed them the bits of information that they think are correct, relevant, or acceptable. People don't want more spin and more production value and more hot takes and more dunking. Censorship is ultimately counter productive in the same way that sterilizing everything in your environment is for your immune system, you need exposure to a variety of information and viewpoints including incorrect, toxic and down right whacky ones in order to learn the metacognitive skills that you can use to think about how that information impacts you and the viewpoints you hold. If you just funnel the "correct" information into people you wind up with a bunch of infantile paper tigers that can only parrot back what they've heard and collapse in a heap of sputtering rage the moment their prepackaged world view is challenged. Nobody is pretending that Joe Rogan is a journalist, least of all himself. He isn't there to challenge anyone's beliefs or to discover the truth or fiction of what his guests are saying. That's your job you lazy fuck, as he would say.

tacitusarc 6y ago
Though he actually actively fact checks them, and himself, during interviews. I am not aware of any other interviewer doing that.
ausbah 6y ago
People can think for themselves and censorship is ultimently counterproductive, right - but what should be done when people "think for themselves" and come to horrendously wrong conclusions? Clearly the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists have done some amount of the above and come to the wrong conclusions, so something is obviously wrong in their thought process that led them thinking in such a way. I'm not sure what is the best way of correcting people's broken though processes and beliefs like those are, I don't think just stating evidence at them really works. At the very least I fail to see what value is to be gained by letting such thoughts be granted a platform to continue the cycle of flawed reasoning.
- 6y ago

nprz 6y ago

They've both known each other since the early 2000s and appear to be somewhat friends, so it's no surprise they've both gone on each others shows. I think Joe expects his audience to interpret Jones much of the same way he appears to, which is entertaining but insane.

pdubs1 6y ago

>You're responsible for the sort of people and ideas you expose your audience to, especially when it's predominantly teenage boys. Eh, it takes two to tango: Speaker, and listener. The listener also has a responsibility (or the listener's legal guardian in the case of "teenage boys"-- or youth in general). The responsibility to decide if they want to continue engaging in listening. Constitutional rights and all. Plus, no one is forced to listen. Adding a prefix or suffix of "bro" to things indicates your bias-- and is likely a projection of misandry (and virtue signaling, predicated by a social engineering campaign which placed those thoughts within your mind, as "virtuous").