8 ms·

Joe Rogan is too big to cancel

42 points by seibelj 5y ago

underseacables 5y ago
Ah to have such freedom to express one’s opinion with little worry of losing one’s job, livelihood, and family. What a true luxury. The ability to speak openly, without worry, is the new privilege.
- okareaman 5y ago
  There's a lot of truth in this. I retired recently on not a lot of money because of poor planning, but I am wealthy in time and the option to say what is on my mind. It's not bad.
- hacknews20 5y ago
  True.
- fellowniusmonk 5y ago
  I saw this all the time in Nashville after my family moved there, a person couldn't even admit to being gay and keep their job. I got fired once for admitting I had gotten a divorce in the past. I shit you not. Definitely saw people get fired for being pro-choice. Maybe I've been in the workforce too long but I don't think this is entirely a new thing.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    I think it goes much further than that, and it is the employers to blame. A person should be able to speak their mind politely and non-threatening, without fear of losing their job, or their safety threatened. Unfortunately it is the employers that are bullied into believing that to keep that employee, for example, who said that the arson and fires of Kenosha were absolutely wrong, might somehow jeopardize the entire company or their safety. [a] Consequently they cave to this paranoia, or perhaps fear of violence, and fire the person. I think it’s abhorrent, cowardly, and companies should be held liable for doing so. Eventually we are going to reach some point where companies start to fear lawyers and civil judgements more than they fear the Internet mob. Once a company has to shell out millions for improperly dismissing an employee Because they exercised a nonviolent freedom of speech outside of the workplace, then perhaps they will grow a spine. {a}. https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...
    - engineer_22 5y ago
      Employee opinion is linked to company opinion. Insofar as the market cares what a company thinks about politics, having the wrong opinions can hurt the company. If you force a company to keep a "disruptive" employee, can you force a customer to purchase from that company?
      - underseacables 5y ago
        But what is a disruptive employee? Someone who speaks their mind respectfully and politely outside of work? A company should not be able to claim but someone is disruptive simply because they exercise their right to speak on an issue outside of the workplace. You may have just identified the legal action. Was the employee disruptive? If courts ruled that the employee was not disruptive to the company, then it’s possible a court could rule that their termination was not justified. I’m not sure what company you work for, but I certainly hope it’s not as dictatorial and all powerful
- jfengel 5y ago
  Just the opposite. It's a very old privilege. And a ton of people have never had it. Some people who have gotten used to that privilege are starting to lose it. That makes them pretty angry. The problem is that they're angry at the people who never had the privilege. And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. So the people who got used to it are pretty grumpy. I suppose I understand that. But for a lot of people, their response is "Hi, welcome to my Tuesday, or any other day ending in 'y'".
  - textgel 5y ago
    > And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Cite proof of this, this is exaggeration at best or more accurately a complete falsehood. > Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. Certain opinions deemed "Hurtful" include, we should have right to fair trial, we shouldn't discriminate based on race, we shouldn't bring back book burning, and sins of the father is archaic and ridiculous.
mbg721 5y ago
And the Times found this out because they've been trying long enough?
- type0 5y ago
  Certainly sounds like it, very strange and angry unsatisfying article that it is
rvz 5y ago
Learning the hard way are we NYT? Since they don't like anyone who is successful and who wants to have a free conversation with anyone (and made a fortune out of it) whilst somehow hurting some of their feelings, cancelling them is how they cope. Well the big 'surprise' is that his audience doesn't care and watch on happily, whilst the NYT continue to cope with the show going on. He's $100m+ up and they're still 'hate-watching'. Good for Joe.
coldtea 5y ago
See the positive side, NYT: you might be lamenting being unable to cancel a more popular person, but you can always celebrate your ability to cancel the little person. And of course you can always continue profitably suck up to real corporate and political power - nothing will take that away from you! Personally, I just wish "hollier than thou", WMD-peddling, Scott-Alexander-expose, US foreign policy lapdog, petty coastal elitist NYT itself got cancelled...
- hyperdunc 5y ago
  Right. Is there anything more insufferable than the sanctimonious prose of the NYT?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  > US foreign policy lapdog, petty coastal elitist NYT itself got cancelled... Well said. NYT is insufferable and has been for a while. Maybe it always has been.
okareaman 5y ago
I guess big in this sense means he has a very large number of fans who agree with his opinions who are mostly young single men in the 25-40 demographic with disposable income.
- dustymcp 5y ago
  What is wrong with him i heard a few of them and they been pretty good ?
  - okareaman 5y ago
    Nothing as far a I know. He has strong opinions but he understand why some might not agree with him. He considers information he might not agree with. Whatever ever he's doing with that microphone, it's working.
    - esyir 5y ago
      >He considers information he might not agree with. I've never watched his stuff, but this line alone sounds like a roaring approval to me.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    I love how you jumped from "liked by young single men" to "it must be bad". That's the same way people try to attack Jordan Peterson. That said, Joe Rogan thinks for himself, interviews left and right wing people and he has a mix of left and right wing opinions. He's been labeled controversial by some left wing outlets multiple times last I checked. Lastly because he advised young healthy people to not vaccinate.
jlos 5y ago
Modernity is marked by the requirement to choose a worldview as technology increases our interactions with others who's alternative perspectives of reality challenge and conflict with our own. This is the basic conclusion Sociologists of religion came to in the 90's when they saw the rest of the world wasn't modernizing like Europe did by secularizing. The challenge of competing worldviews is really one of the central sociological challenges today. The natural tendency seems to be to try to push the contaminating thoughts to the margins of society - and all groups (left, right, religious, secular, etc) engage in this basic tendency. Its disturbing to live with people who's basic view of reality challenges your own. The NYT represents mainstream left's attempt maintain worldview solidarity (and again, each group engages in this activity) so it seems natural they take issue with Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice in responding to the smorgasbord of modernity: engage with all the alternatives openly. Rogan states several times the format of his podcast is designed for this - 4 hour conversations. Not scripted, not planned, just conversation. Such conversations are apparently deeply interesting to people who'd rather not spend their time in parochial attempts to shore up their own worldview across society. I do find it hard to tell (sometimes) whether Rogan's guests are on the level, but maybe that reflects the inherent ambiguity of life. I mean relativity in epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics has been mainstream for decades, if not generations. I expect the attempt to turn back the clock on modernity from conservative religious groups, but its always seems strangely inconsistent when coming from the NYT.
- frozenport 5y ago
  `Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice` but in reality this a marketing gimmick. As the article argues, his view is actually mainstream and popular and leads to commercial success.
  - jlos 5y ago
    I didn't mean to imply Rogan is some underdog, but that Rogan and the NYT represent different approaches to the ambiguity of modernity. The NYT aims for worldview solidarity while Rogan accepts and embraces the ambiguity. I also suspect his topics just appeal to young men (fitness, comedians, Elon Musk) and that accounts for a portion of his base.
ffggvv 5y ago
he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. but short of that he’s fine
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. but short of that he’s fine His metrics would take a tumble but he’d end up being the big draw to another platform as soon as he published to it. Word would get around and he’d have a big audience again. I would be surprised if he didn’t have something up his sleeve already.
- newsbinator 5y ago
  At this point? If he got canceled, he probably has the name recognition to start his own thing and 2~5 years later be at the same audience numbers.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  >he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. You saying he would be cancelled if he got cancelled?
- type0 5y ago
  He canceled himself out of youtube, "good for him" I'd say
fruityrudy 5y ago
I think we just need new content ratings. We don’t show children 18+ content because they are emotionally and mentally unable to process it. A lot of the left seem unable to do the same for a lot of content. I personally cannot emotionally handle seeing all this cancel culture stuff constantly so I block as much as I can on Twitter, YouTube, web, etc. And life is better this way. I would prefer a single toggle to block all identity politics though cross platform.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  This is just “trigger warning” by another name.
  - type0 5y ago
    And we all would feel healthier with a block-list for identity politics so that our lymbic system can once in a while take a break and not be triggered by the latest outrage.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      I just stay away from platforms that are full of outrage porn. Another plus is that I have more time for other useful or enjoyable stuff.
renewiltord 5y ago
He’s also like a great interviewer, man. The one he has with John Carmack is great. He doesn’t know shit about Carmack’s stuff but he interviews him so well. Carmack is a great guest but also Rogan is a great interviewer. Anytime I see American interviewers they’re always trying to gotcha the guy. Joe Rogan just lets the guy say his piece. Then I can judge afterwards. Masterwork compared to all these hacks like Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson. “Oh, he didn’t challenge him on the X”. Yeah, bro, he’s not your personal attack dog. If the dude is a Nazi, JR lets him say Nazi shit. Then I know the dude is a Nazi. All these other interviewers are like it doesn’t matter who they’re interviewing. You’re watching the host. With Rogan, I get the other guy.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  There really is a need for an unfiltered, long form, respectful interview. Rogan does that better than anyone right now.
- synaesthesisx 5y ago
  Spot-on. It’s all about the guests, rather than the host.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  The left hates Rogan for 2 reasons: 1) he won't agree with them slavishly, and won't filter his guest selection either, thus platforming non-leftists (Rogan is actually an old-school Liberal, but not leftist/Marxist) 2) his audience numbers dwarf leftist hosts, which literally is unthinkable to them - their heads explode. (Pelosi acts like a rabid pit bull chasing Trump for a similar reason to #2 - Trump can draw 500,000 supporters (and 89 million Twitter followers) to rallies, while Biden got around 15 people to his last two pre-election road appearances.)
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  I also like Lex Fridman's show for the same reason [0] - but Lex has the technical chops. In fact Joe Rogan and Lex have interviewed each other on their own shows. [0] https://lexfridman.com https://lexfridman.com
aestetix 5y ago
Had to check a few times to make sure it was published as news and not as an editorial...
Gravyness 5y ago
I disagree. He's not cancelable because his followers don't have the "cancelling" mindset. "He says mean things" is not a convincing argument.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  I would go eve further and say that having a PK mindset is the real problem today.
  - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
    what is a PK mindset? I am reading it as primary key, but that doesn't sound right. Googling didn't turn up anything that seemed to fit.
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.md/DHm1A https://archive.md/DHm1A
engineer_22 5y ago
https://archive.is/BYA4X https://archive.is/BYA4X
monkeyboyz 5y ago
You cant cancel Freedom folks. No matter how hard the Liberals try, Freedom and America go hand in hand and always will. This is Gods nation and so long as the majority is God fearing and seeking personal Liberty & Sovereignty there is no such thing as cancel culture. They can pretend all they want the past never happened, but as they say "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!" I dont do social media and I dont watch the news, because I dont care what other people think about MY Freedom:) Cheers, God Bless, Best Wishes and Happy 4th of JULY AMERICA, We LOVE You :)

42 points by seibelj 5y ago

Ah to have such freedom to express one’s opinion with little worry of losing one’s job, livelihood, and family. What a true luxury. The ability to speak openly, without worry, is the new privilege.

okareaman 5y ago
There's a lot of truth in this. I retired recently on not a lot of money because of poor planning, but I am wealthy in time and the option to say what is on my mind. It's not bad.
hacknews20 5y ago
True.
fellowniusmonk 5y ago
I saw this all the time in Nashville after my family moved there, a person couldn't even admit to being gay and keep their job. I got fired once for admitting I had gotten a divorce in the past. I shit you not. Definitely saw people get fired for being pro-choice. Maybe I've been in the workforce too long but I don't think this is entirely a new thing.
- underseacables 5y ago
  I think it goes much further than that, and it is the employers to blame. A person should be able to speak their mind politely and non-threatening, without fear of losing their job, or their safety threatened. Unfortunately it is the employers that are bullied into believing that to keep that employee, for example, who said that the arson and fires of Kenosha were absolutely wrong, might somehow jeopardize the entire company or their safety. [a] Consequently they cave to this paranoia, or perhaps fear of violence, and fire the person. I think it’s abhorrent, cowardly, and companies should be held liable for doing so. Eventually we are going to reach some point where companies start to fear lawyers and civil judgements more than they fear the Internet mob. Once a company has to shell out millions for improperly dismissing an employee Because they exercised a nonviolent freedom of speech outside of the workplace, then perhaps they will grow a spine. {a}. https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    Employee opinion is linked to company opinion. Insofar as the market cares what a company thinks about politics, having the wrong opinions can hurt the company. If you force a company to keep a "disruptive" employee, can you force a customer to purchase from that company?
    - underseacables 5y ago
      But what is a disruptive employee? Someone who speaks their mind respectfully and politely outside of work? A company should not be able to claim but someone is disruptive simply because they exercise their right to speak on an issue outside of the workplace. You may have just identified the legal action. Was the employee disruptive? If courts ruled that the employee was not disruptive to the company, then it’s possible a court could rule that their termination was not justified. I’m not sure what company you work for, but I certainly hope it’s not as dictatorial and all powerful
jfengel 5y ago
Just the opposite. It's a very old privilege. And a ton of people have never had it. Some people who have gotten used to that privilege are starting to lose it. That makes them pretty angry. The problem is that they're angry at the people who never had the privilege. And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. So the people who got used to it are pretty grumpy. I suppose I understand that. But for a lot of people, their response is "Hi, welcome to my Tuesday, or any other day ending in 'y'".
- textgel 5y ago
  > And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Cite proof of this, this is exaggeration at best or more accurately a complete falsehood. > Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. Certain opinions deemed "Hurtful" include, we should have right to fair trial, we shouldn't discriminate based on race, we shouldn't bring back book burning, and sins of the father is archaic and ridiculous.

mbg721 5y ago

And the Times found this out because they've been trying long enough?

type0 5y ago
Certainly sounds like it, very strange and angry unsatisfying article that it is

rvz 5y ago

Learning the hard way are we NYT? Since they don't like anyone who is successful and who wants to have a free conversation with anyone (and made a fortune out of it) whilst somehow hurting some of their feelings, cancelling them is how they cope. Well the big 'surprise' is that his audience doesn't care and watch on happily, whilst the NYT continue to cope with the show going on. He's $100m+ up and they're still 'hate-watching'. Good for Joe.

coldtea 5y ago

See the positive side, NYT: you might be lamenting being unable to cancel a more popular person, but you can always celebrate your ability to cancel the little person. And of course you can always continue profitably suck up to real corporate and political power - nothing will take that away from you! Personally, I just wish "hollier than thou", WMD-peddling, Scott-Alexander-expose, US foreign policy lapdog, petty coastal elitist NYT itself got cancelled...

hyperdunc 5y ago
Right. Is there anything more insufferable than the sanctimonious prose of the NYT?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
vagrantJin 5y ago
> US foreign policy lapdog, petty coastal elitist NYT itself got cancelled... Well said. NYT is insufferable and has been for a while. Maybe it always has been.

okareaman 5y ago

I guess big in this sense means he has a very large number of fans who agree with his opinions who are mostly young single men in the 25-40 demographic with disposable income.

dustymcp 5y ago
What is wrong with him i heard a few of them and they been pretty good ?
- okareaman 5y ago
  Nothing as far a I know. He has strong opinions but he understand why some might not agree with him. He considers information he might not agree with. Whatever ever he's doing with that microphone, it's working.
  - esyir 5y ago
    >He considers information he might not agree with. I've never watched his stuff, but this line alone sounds like a roaring approval to me.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  I love how you jumped from "liked by young single men" to "it must be bad". That's the same way people try to attack Jordan Peterson. That said, Joe Rogan thinks for himself, interviews left and right wing people and he has a mix of left and right wing opinions. He's been labeled controversial by some left wing outlets multiple times last I checked. Lastly because he advised young healthy people to not vaccinate.

jlos 5y ago

Modernity is marked by the requirement to choose a worldview as technology increases our interactions with others who's alternative perspectives of reality challenge and conflict with our own. This is the basic conclusion Sociologists of religion came to in the 90's when they saw the rest of the world wasn't modernizing like Europe did by secularizing. The challenge of competing worldviews is really one of the central sociological challenges today. The natural tendency seems to be to try to push the contaminating thoughts to the margins of society - and all groups (left, right, religious, secular, etc) engage in this basic tendency. Its disturbing to live with people who's basic view of reality challenges your own. The NYT represents mainstream left's attempt maintain worldview solidarity (and again, each group engages in this activity) so it seems natural they take issue with Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice in responding to the smorgasbord of modernity: engage with all the alternatives openly. Rogan states several times the format of his podcast is designed for this - 4 hour conversations. Not scripted, not planned, just conversation. Such conversations are apparently deeply interesting to people who'd rather not spend their time in parochial attempts to shore up their own worldview across society. I do find it hard to tell (sometimes) whether Rogan's guests are on the level, but maybe that reflects the inherent ambiguity of life. I mean relativity in epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics has been mainstream for decades, if not generations. I expect the attempt to turn back the clock on modernity from conservative religious groups, but its always seems strangely inconsistent when coming from the NYT.

frozenport 5y ago
`Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice` but in reality this a marketing gimmick. As the article argues, his view is actually mainstream and popular and leads to commercial success.
- jlos 5y ago
  I didn't mean to imply Rogan is some underdog, but that Rogan and the NYT represent different approaches to the ambiguity of modernity. The NYT aims for worldview solidarity while Rogan accepts and embraces the ambiguity. I also suspect his topics just appeal to young men (fitness, comedians, Elon Musk) and that accounts for a portion of his base.

ffggvv 5y ago

he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. but short of that he’s fine

nyokodo 5y ago
> he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. but short of that he’s fine His metrics would take a tumble but he’d end up being the big draw to another platform as soon as he published to it. Word would get around and he’d have a big audience again. I would be surprised if he didn’t have something up his sleeve already.
newsbinator 5y ago
At this point? If he got canceled, he probably has the name recognition to start his own thing and 2~5 years later be at the same audience numbers.
shapefrog 5y ago
>he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. You saying he would be cancelled if he got cancelled?
type0 5y ago
He canceled himself out of youtube, "good for him" I'd say

fruityrudy 5y ago

I think we just need new content ratings. We don’t show children 18+ content because they are emotionally and mentally unable to process it. A lot of the left seem unable to do the same for a lot of content. I personally cannot emotionally handle seeing all this cancel culture stuff constantly so I block as much as I can on Twitter, YouTube, web, etc. And life is better this way. I would prefer a single toggle to block all identity politics though cross platform.

renewiltord 5y ago
This is just “trigger warning” by another name.
- type0 5y ago
  And we all would feel healthier with a block-list for identity politics so that our lymbic system can once in a while take a break and not be triggered by the latest outrage.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    I just stay away from platforms that are full of outrage porn. Another plus is that I have more time for other useful or enjoyable stuff.

renewiltord 5y ago

He’s also like a great interviewer, man. The one he has with John Carmack is great. He doesn’t know shit about Carmack’s stuff but he interviews him so well. Carmack is a great guest but also Rogan is a great interviewer. Anytime I see American interviewers they’re always trying to gotcha the guy. Joe Rogan just lets the guy say his piece. Then I can judge afterwards. Masterwork compared to all these hacks like Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson. “Oh, he didn’t challenge him on the X”. Yeah, bro, he’s not your personal attack dog. If the dude is a Nazi, JR lets him say Nazi shit. Then I know the dude is a Nazi. All these other interviewers are like it doesn’t matter who they’re interviewing. You’re watching the host. With Rogan, I get the other guy.

rsj_hn 5y ago
There really is a need for an unfiltered, long form, respectful interview. Rogan does that better than anyone right now.
synaesthesisx 5y ago
Spot-on. It’s all about the guests, rather than the host.
redis_mlc 5y ago
The left hates Rogan for 2 reasons: 1) he won't agree with them slavishly, and won't filter his guest selection either, thus platforming non-leftists (Rogan is actually an old-school Liberal, but not leftist/Marxist) 2) his audience numbers dwarf leftist hosts, which literally is unthinkable to them - their heads explode. (Pelosi acts like a rabid pit bull chasing Trump for a similar reason to #2 - Trump can draw 500,000 supporters (and 89 million Twitter followers) to rallies, while Biden got around 15 people to his last two pre-election road appearances.)
CodeGlitch 5y ago
I also like Lex Fridman's show for the same reason [0] - but Lex has the technical chops. In fact Joe Rogan and Lex have interviewed each other on their own shows. [0] https://lexfridman.com https://lexfridman.com

aestetix 5y ago

Had to check a few times to make sure it was published as news and not as an editorial...

Gravyness 5y ago

I disagree. He's not cancelable because his followers don't have the "cancelling" mindset. "He says mean things" is not a convincing argument.

peakaboo 5y ago
I would go eve further and say that having a PK mindset is the real problem today.
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  what is a PK mindset? I am reading it as primary key, but that doesn't sound right. Googling didn't turn up anything that seemed to fit.

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.md/DHm1A https://archive.md/DHm1A

engineer_22 5y ago

https://archive.is/BYA4X https://archive.is/BYA4X

monkeyboyz 5y ago

You cant cancel Freedom folks. No matter how hard the Liberals try, Freedom and America go hand in hand and always will. This is Gods nation and so long as the majority is God fearing and seeking personal Liberty & Sovereignty there is no such thing as cancel culture. They can pretend all they want the past never happened, but as they say "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!" I dont do social media and I dont watch the news, because I dont care what other people think about MY Freedom:) Cheers, God Bless, Best Wishes and Happy 4th of JULY AMERICA, We LOVE You :)