10 ms·
> his move to Spotify coincided with him spewing more and more anti-vax and anti-mask drivel that I don't have any interest in listening to I listen to his sho
by timr 5y ago
> his move to Spotify coincided with him spewing more and more anti-vax and anti-mask drivel that I don't have any interest in listening to
I listen to his show sometimes, and while I've heard him have guests on from all sides of these issues, at no point have I heard him be anything less than a thoughtful, critical interviewer.
If that's "drivel", we need more drivel. I'll certainly take it over everything I see on cable news, which is laser-focused on advancing a particular narrative, and demonizing anything and anyone who might deviate from that narrative.
- valine 5y agoGiving a platform to crackpots isn't always dangerous, but in the case of vaccines it's a public health concern. It's definitely not a good idea to give legitimacy to antivaxers during a pandemic when people dying. Save that conversation for another time.
- timr 5y agoI am a free speech absolutist. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- valine 5y agoI'm all for free speech in the sense that you have the right to say what you want without retribution from the government. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to an audience.
- secondcoming 5y agoLooks like your comment is losing its right to an audience
- valine 5y agoYou clearly read it so maybe not.
- suzzer99 5y agoYes, more speech is always the answer. Which is why the unmoderated internet is a such a bastion of enlightened, thoughtful discourse.
- gjs278 5y agoit is if you’re not fragile
- lghh 5y agoSay I'm an interviewer running a podcast about SaaS startups. Which is more useful? 1. I interview a handful of people who have differing opinions on what it takes to lead a SaaS startup who have all had successful exist, but have differing opinions on key issues. Maybe throw in a few people who have experience working in that type of environment, but maybe not leading, if you want a little more variety. 2. I interview someone who has led a successful exit like in (1), but I also interview a full time commission visual artist who has never worked at a SaaS startup. I give both their ideas on how to run a SaaS startup equal weight, even when the visual artist isn't making any sense in the context of the conversation or is spewing nonsense in the context of the conversation. Joe does (2). They are both "free speech", but only one is actually useful.
- manigandham 5y agoWhen did "useful" become a metric for this podcast?
- dexterdog 5y agoNumber 1 is not very good because you're only taking to people who had successful exits so you're already skewing the conversation.
- depaya 5y agoThis has nothing to do with censorship. This person is saying it is irresponsible for Rogan to entertain and provide a platform for these things.
- swayvil 5y agoAnd irresponsible people should be censored. Lol.
- Bud 5y agoPlease don't spread confusion about what "free speech" means. I'm sure you are not actually confused about this, so please do not pretend to be. Having some people not appear on a given podcast is not a "free speech" issue. Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.
- WalterBright 5y agoIt is censorship when the government leans on you to not promulgate ideas the government decides are false.
- likeclockwork 5y agoYou're the only one bringing the Government into this.
- WalterBright 5y agoThe government has been leaning on to social media companies telling them to self-censor or the government will do it for them.
- likeclockwork 5y agoAnd none of that is what this discussion was ever about. Conflating criticism with calls for government censorship is a dishonest rhetorical tactic.
- timr 5y ago> Please don't spread confusion about what "free speech" means. I'm not confused. > Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood. When someone decides for me that "dangerous idiots" should not have a voice -- for whatever justification -- I'm against them having the ability to act on that impulse. The wonderful thing about free speech is that if you don't like it, you're free not to listen to it. Every censor has started from the premise that they're doing good. I don't agree with your opinions, and I'm not so feeble-minded as to be unable to decide for myself what I see.
- djur 5y agoSpeech such as "this guy is full of it, don't listen to him"?
- dexterdog 5y agoWhich is fine to say as long as you are not making it so people can't listen to him if they want it.
- Applejinx 5y agoI'm not… not anymore… after observing stuff like this. Like Joe, like some of his guests, like the results of how things have shaken out. Notably, free speech absolutism is impossible to refute if everyone is arguing in good faith. Since quite a few influential political actors are demonstrably not, and are following well-defined tactics dating back to various fascist regimes such as those who produced WWII, it is insane to pretend everyone is arguing in good faith. And it is both instructive and dismaying to see that the people most obviously arguing in bad faith have a tendency to insist, and get others to insist, that free speech must be absolute and that everyone must be taken with the assumption that they're arguing in good faith. Tactically, it makes perfect sense, but it's a hell of an exploit.
- timr 5y agoThe bottom line is I don't trust you to decide what should be censored. You don't trust me. There is no workable censorship regime that does not devolve into ideological warfare.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rtkwe 5y agoThere's a vast gulf between "Rogan should be more careful about bringing on and platforming people especially if he's going to support or validate what they say" and "Joe Rogan shouldn't be allowed to do his podcast." Also the absolutist position ignores the limited capacity both in raw time and cognitively to take in information and that pushing people to do better about not spewing out or supporting bullshit is also free speech..
- the_third_wave 5y agoEquating any criticism of the strategies pushed by the medical establishment as "antivaxx" is just as counterproductive as calling everything "racist" or "transphobic" or "homophobic" or any of the other epithets being bandied around by the new puritans. Words have meanings, these meanings can change over time (language evolves) but forcing them to change to fit a given narrative leads to an unhealthy political and social climate. It is what Orwell wrote about in "1984", what Solzhenitsyn wrote about in "The First Circle", what Bradbury wrote about in "Fahrenheit 451", none of which were meant as user manuals for a healthy society.
- tshaddox 5y agoI don't think accusations of spewing anti-vax and anti-mask drivel have anything to do with his interviewing skills. They're certainly not mutually exclusive. The parent commenter didn't make any accusations about his interviewing skills.
- kadoban 5y agoWhen you have extremists on and don't challenge what they're saying, that _is_ pushing a narrative. The whole "both sides" thing is the _worst_ of cable news and why I signed off years ago. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? Let's get a crazy person on and see. It's okay because we'll give an expert a few minutes too.
- beaner 5y agoOk great, so you've picked a side and have your ears shut. Don't act like everyone else should adopt that attitude.
- hobs 5y agoWell, we haven't proven you're not an (insert horrible slur here) so let's have an endless stream of guests speculate on whether or not you are!
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> you've picked a side and have your ears shut OP doesn’t claim Rogan should be de-platofrmed. Just that pushing batshit theories is an explanation for his declining influence. I enjoy watching flat earthers from time to time. But I’m not going to make it a part of my information diet.
- throwawayboise 5y agoYou see an equivalency between discussing new vaccine technologies for a novel virus, and discussing whether the Sun orbits the Earth?
- titzer 5y agoYeah, when they spout obviously false, easily-checkable things like "it alters your DNA" that are clearly intended to scare people.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pengaru 5y agoNo, he's become much more narrative/agenda/propaganda propagating and conspiracy theory fueling in recent years. I used to listen when there were an interesting guest just to hear them talk at length about their profession/passions, but it's no longer worth it if the cost is giving rogan a podium for his self-proclaimed-moron-disclaimed pot-stirring efforts.
- lghh 5y agoBut "both sides of an issue" is, in this situation, the right side of an issue and the wrong side of an issue. That's like saying he has guests on both sides of the flat earth issue, except there are actual lives at stake.
- WalterBright 5y agoThe point of listening to "wrong" sides of an issue is to see how well your "right" side stands up to scrutiny. The history of science is full of obviously right things that turned out be be wrong. Even Einstein, who upended Newtonian Mechanics, rejected Quantum Mechanics, since "God doesn't play dice with the universe".
- jessaustin 5y ago"Both sides" is often two wrong sides. The world is not binary. Those who only listen to both sides might never notice that.
- nabla9 5y ago> I heard him be anything less than a thoughtful, critical interviewer. He is the least critical interviewer you can imagine. Being uncritical and hyped up is his trademark. He is Mr. Softball to the extent he is made of fun for it. He is not thoughtful. He has talent of speaking endlessly and keeping it going endlessly.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoSometimes the point of a talkshow is to get the guest to do the majority of the talking. Other talk shows take the opposite approach and the guest is just a vehicle to let the host pontificate. Neither is superior.
- nabla9 5y agoRogan is not critical interviewer.
- paxys 5y agoHow is calling men who wear masks "pussies" while disagreeing with your guest about it being a thoughtful and critical interviewer?