9 ms·

I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan. He has a circus of quacks and conspiracy theorists on the show and when he does occasionally have a

I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan. He has a circus of quacks and conspiracy theorists on the show and when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind”

emsy 5y ago
Yes, there are occasional episodes with quacks. But using those to dismiss the whole show is blatantly ignorant.
- subpixel 5y ago
  No - ignorance is downplaying the results of giving quacks a megaphone and an endorsement. All the Joe Rogans of the world want is audience stats - let him pivot to exposing quacks and continue to take fools money.
  - emsy 5y ago
    What happened to the idea that you should make up your own mind? And if you’re not allowed to do that, who vets the information? And who vets the vetters?
- dave_sullivan 5y ago
  "Occasional" is generous I think. This is the best explanation I've heard of the show's appeal: Back when I was a kid you didn’t need Joe Rogan. Your best friend had a 27 year-old brother who was a fucking loser who would smoke pot in a room with blacklight posters and tell you that the Mayans invented cell phones.
  - drewcon 5y ago
    Such an awful credentialist meme. Joe Rogan facilitates discussion with interesting people and not much more. Mainstream news has done just about as poorly as it could have reporting facts, unknowns, and probabilities with Covid...as the anointed truthsayers, they most definitely created a vacuum by dismissing credible questions and skepticism (lab leak, mask effectiveness, how to think about vaccines long term). And they have been eager to bless the opinions of those who have been far too optimistic https://youtu.be/_FvWnlIEHVo https://youtu.be/_FvWnlIEHVo There is no way we just deplatform or content moderate our way out of honestly misguided information like Malone and McCullough. Misinformation and disinformation cannot include people who are trying in good faith to present a pov that happens to just be just wrong…at some point in time that would include…everyone.
    - f6v 5y ago
      > they most definitely created a vacuum by dismissing credible questions and skepticism What I hate about “skeptics” these days is that they think an opinion is a valid scientific argument. I mean, just go work with the published data and prove it isn’t valid. Instead, we have guys who go around saying things like “Covid is not a virus, it’s our own EXOSOMES duh”. And clueless idiots who amplify those. Ben Shapiro is a funny guy sometimes, but his recent episode on JRE was disgusting. “We don’t need any measures because I got sick and I was fine!”. That ignores all of the scientific and clinical evidence on the population scale.
- driverdan 5y ago
  Look at the list of deleted episodes. The majority of the shows are with far right, hateful people who should never be platformed. It's not even quacks, it's pure hate.
  - emsy 5y ago
    I wouldn’t know, because they’re deleted.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
factsaresacred 5y ago
Isn't that his appeal though? He lets the guests speak without much interjection beyond "wow" and "really". Unlike many other media hosts, he doesn't have his thumb on the scale trying to steer conversations towards his own political leanings. And while he's featured a few conspiracy theorists, they're a minority and are balanced out by credentialed 'serious' scientists. That's all beside the point though - purging conversations from the internet is bad, and the culture that cheers this on is worse.
- digitcatphd 5y ago
  Fair points, but holistically one could argue he causes more misinformation and controversy than he contributes to scientific progress and education. Regarding censorship, where does one draw the line? Misinformation? A conversation encouraging self-harm? The harm of others? Without holding media to some reasonable standard an anything goes mentality develops.
- willis936 5y ago
  Selecting guests is a palm on the scale.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    It’s almost like Joe Rogan is the one doing the censoring by refusing to host guests who are actual, credentialed experts in their respective fields.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - musingsole 5y ago
      Who has he refused to host?
avl999 5y ago
I used to listen to the "quacks" and the "conspiracy theorists" on Joe Rogan because back in the past most of the conspiracy theorists he had on were pretty harmless... people like Graham Hancock, Jacques Vallee, Stephen Greer. Additionally back in the day he used to have a good balance of scientists and those discussions were interesting esp since he would ask questions from a layman perspective. I haven't been listening to it in recent months because it seems the show has become has obsessed with covid and is all covid all the time with some comedians thrown in now and then, not to mention Spotify as a platform is kind of a chore to use for podcasts.
- loceng 5y ago
  Have you seen this yet? "COVID-19: A Second Opinion" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMONZMuS2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMONZMuS2U "On January 24, 2022 Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion." The 38 minute compilation is a great, easily consumable summary - however here's the link to the full 5+ hours of testimony - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html - which obviously has far more depth to it. The reason I ask if you've seen it is Joe's had multiple of these highly credentialed, front-line workers (doctors, researchers, etc. with expert domain knowledge and experience), on his podcast - some multiple times. It's going to get harder to ignore these people and what they have to say the more formal the setting the information is shared. Another video everyone should watch is Maddie De Garay's mother giving testimony for 10 minutes of their experience of her daughter being in Pfizer's 12-15 year old vaccine clinical trial. The limitations designed into the clinical trial reporting app might be most obvious to UX designers, but I think everyone will be able to understand the design implications: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ
  - claudenm 5y ago
    Noted Pro-Covid Senator, Ron Johnson. This is all quackery. The description is just an appeal to authority ("highly credentialed") when in reality they are regularly debunked despite their credentials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malone-vaccine-misinformation-rogan-mandates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malo...
_l4jh 5y ago
Indeed. As I saw someone say a while back Joe Rogan is Gwenyth Paltrow for men and that is spot on. The biggest problem, for me, with Rogan’s podcast is he brings on people that know nothing about a subject but let’s them talk as if they are some kind of expert. They have long conversations where Rogan as little if anything of value and just let’s a lot of weirdos that will get views ramble on endlessly for 2 hours. Then things get cut and paste around social media and misinformation spreads like wild fire. A recent example is Dr Jordan Peterson talking about climate change. He lacks even a basic understanding but was sitting there talking about it with the confidence of a climate expert and as he is a Doctor people take him seriously about everything and it’s just god damn awful. The same problem exists on a lot of “news” shows/channels where they have a genuine expert that has studied a subject for 20+ years and is known and respected world wide and sit them next to someone that read something on Facebook then got very vocal about it as it matched their feelings on the subject. This whole “we need two sides” concept is bullshit when the two sides are not equals but are presented and treated as equals. It gives credibility to people that deserve none as they have done nothing to earn it. I think multiple points of view are extremely important but you need to ensure the people involved are as close to equal as possible with regards to their professional standing and experience. Not some random blogger.
- busyant 5y ago
  > A recent example is Dr Jordan Peterson talking about climate change. He lacks even a basic understanding but was sitting there talking about it with the confidence of a climate expert and as he is a Doctor people take him seriously about everything and it’s just god damn awful. Ironically, I see this on HN, too. Not always, but frequently enough. What I'm talking about is comment sections (often about economics, climate change, etc.) with commenters who post with iron-clad confidence, only to be contradicted by other commenters who take the opposite position with the same confidence. I read these dueling comments and think, "Everyone seems so sure of themselves. But I have no clue as to who is correct here." I find this jarring because: a) somebody has to be wrong in these wars of dueling facts and b) I'm surprised because I feel that HN is enriched with reasonably bright people who I'd expect would be more circumspect with their comments. I'm not surprised about the abject confusion that the general public has when discussing similar topics, especially since I am often confused reading HN comments. I know that's arrogant of me, but there's truth in there, too. tldr: If I can't get a handle on dueling "facts" when reading HN, how the hell can I expect Joe Rogan or his listeners to do the same?
darkhorse13 5y ago
Exactly why I listen to him. What makes you think we all want to only listen to mainstream opinions filtered by media "experts" and journalists? Also I'm absolutely fascinated by some of the fringe people and their ideas, particularly Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, Robert Schoch, i.e. the ancient civilization stuff. Literally nobody else in the media discusses these things with so much earnestness as Joe Rogan.
- sprkwd 5y ago
  > Graham Hancock Just discovered he lives in the same town as me.
- cainxinth 5y ago
  From the wiki pages for the people you mentioned: > Graham Bruce Hancock… promotes pseudoscientific theories… An example of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals. > Mark Lehner, an American archaeologist and egyptologist, has disputed Schoch's analysis, stating, "You don't overthrow Egyptian history based on one phenomenon like a weathering profile... that is how pseudoscience is done, not real science." > Historian Ronald H. Fritze has described Schoch as a "pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific writer". Randall Carlson doesn’t have a wiki page. I hope anyone who is interested in these people is listening to them out of morbid curiosity and not because they think they are deserving of any credence whatsoever. The scientific method is not optional. If you don’t use it, you’re not a scientist. Rogan, however, appears to genuinely want to believe (and promote) these theories, whether they have any factual basis or not.
  - thebigspacefuck 5y ago
    Any worse than “Ancient Aliens” on the “History” Channel?
  - darkhorse13 5y ago
    Notice how I never mentioned "science" or "scientist" in my post, because I knew exactly the type of retort I would get - "Look at what Wikipedia says about these guys!". Do I believe everything Graham Hancock peddles? Absolutely not. Some of his ideas are just plain ridiculous. But do I believe that civilization first started with Mesopotamia? Again, absolutely not. There are tons of actual solid evidence out there that we go way back. And my God, everything isn't about science or the scientific method. Some of this stuff is just plain entertaining to me. Is it really so wrong to listen to these things and just have a great time thinking about crazy and out there stuff?
misiti3780 5y ago
Watch his interviews with Elon Musk, Billy Corgan, Bob Saget, Edward Snowden, Bob Lazar, Bernie Sanders, etc. That is why we are listening to him.
- michaelcampbell 5y ago
  Ah, so the modern equivalent of "I buy Playboy for the articles". Ok.
  - misiti3780 5y ago
    I'm not sure I understand.
    - zmk5 5y ago
      It was a common refrain from people who were afraid to admit they read playboy to people in public that they just "read it for the articles" because they had surprisingly in-depth articles, interviews, etc. It's also why that persons analogy falls flat since no one is afraid to admit they listen to Joe Rogan.
      - misiti3780 5y ago
        lol thanks!
- zo1 5y ago
  Google is a big problem here. Joe Rogan is like the Reddit for all our broken Google searches. So Joe Rogan + random topic = high probability of genuine, good and arguably reliable content. Everything else is blogspam and regurgitated content from "hit like and subscribe" bros.
jdrc 5y ago
So you extrapolate from your own preference to 'anyone'.that s by definition many things that i m not allowed to mention here
perryizgr8 5y ago
If it is so hard to listen to him why do people want him censored? Just don't play his podcast!
smokey_circles 5y ago
> I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan I can't speak for others, but I'm there for the guests. Not all of them, but I find Joe to be an entertaining host, mostly because it's just different. The ones I enjoy the most are the ones where it feels like some random dude has recognised he's on a train with a leading world expert in a field he finds interesting but knows nothing about. It's just earnest conversation from someone curious. > when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind” I love watching Joe explore complex subject matter with experts. There are so few interesting interviews with scientists just talking about why they do what they do and what it is that they find fascinating and why they love their craft. There are some real good interviews where they just geek out and Joe asks them really stoned questions. It's not for everyone, I guess. More to the point, as long as people hold elitist opinions like this, then there will be people who distrust science (and people abusing that to make money)
ComradePhil 5y ago
There are "conspiracy theorists" because there are conspiracies which are uncovered every now and then. Why would there not be when a lot of money and power is involved? A lot of inequality comes not from some people being inherently superior/inferior or deserving/undeserving but from information management, a crucial part of this is to secure it from competing actors while sharing it with those with overlapping interests. That is the definition of a conspiracy. Even if there were actually no known conspiracies, we can't know they don't exist unless something comes out... so it would be healthy to have some conspiracy theories around and events being tested against those theories. The mere motivation to suppress them is very likely to come from either ignorance or malice. I believe the very fact that "conspiracy theories" are treated with such hostility is a tell that there are much bigger conspiracies that we need to uncover. I find Julian Assange's take on something similar from back in the day very interesting: https://www.frontlineclub.com/julian_assange_the_state_and_terrorist_conspiracies/ https://www.frontlineclub.com/julian_assange_the_state_and_t...
jayfae 5y ago
Because he's a compassionate and free thinking interviewer who approaches a conversation like a real human being. With respect for the individual whether the person has controversial opinions or not, which seems to be something lost in media these days with the constant need to be 'right'. His interviews aren't template question a, template question b, it comes across like a natural conversation, an opportunity to talk to experts in a plethora of different topics and gain an insight to the distilled wisdom of individuals who have spent their life researching their respective fields. Personally anyway ^^
foogazi 5y ago
I’ve listened to him interview Neil deGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders It was entertaining to me - I can’t tell how what he does now or in 10 years affects what is said in the previous episodes
notapenny 5y ago
"I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan". Maybe you should start there. It pays to learn to empathise with and try to understand other people. You don't have to like someone else, but its not that hard to see why people do listen to his podcast. You don't have to be that dismissive of other people.
choward 5y ago
Cool, so are you for or against censorship? And I don't know about you but I like listening to people I disagree with. I don't like living in an echo chamber and don't want to send "conspiracy theorists" to a different echo chamber.

emsy 5y ago

Yes, there are occasional episodes with quacks. But using those to dismiss the whole show is blatantly ignorant.

subpixel 5y ago
No - ignorance is downplaying the results of giving quacks a megaphone and an endorsement. All the Joe Rogans of the world want is audience stats - let him pivot to exposing quacks and continue to take fools money.
- emsy 5y ago
  What happened to the idea that you should make up your own mind? And if you’re not allowed to do that, who vets the information? And who vets the vetters?
dave_sullivan 5y ago
"Occasional" is generous I think. This is the best explanation I've heard of the show's appeal: Back when I was a kid you didn’t need Joe Rogan. Your best friend had a 27 year-old brother who was a fucking loser who would smoke pot in a room with blacklight posters and tell you that the Mayans invented cell phones.
- drewcon 5y ago
  Such an awful credentialist meme. Joe Rogan facilitates discussion with interesting people and not much more. Mainstream news has done just about as poorly as it could have reporting facts, unknowns, and probabilities with Covid...as the anointed truthsayers, they most definitely created a vacuum by dismissing credible questions and skepticism (lab leak, mask effectiveness, how to think about vaccines long term). And they have been eager to bless the opinions of those who have been far too optimistic https://youtu.be/_FvWnlIEHVo https://youtu.be/_FvWnlIEHVo There is no way we just deplatform or content moderate our way out of honestly misguided information like Malone and McCullough. Misinformation and disinformation cannot include people who are trying in good faith to present a pov that happens to just be just wrong…at some point in time that would include…everyone.
  - f6v 5y ago
    > they most definitely created a vacuum by dismissing credible questions and skepticism What I hate about “skeptics” these days is that they think an opinion is a valid scientific argument. I mean, just go work with the published data and prove it isn’t valid. Instead, we have guys who go around saying things like “Covid is not a virus, it’s our own EXOSOMES duh”. And clueless idiots who amplify those. Ben Shapiro is a funny guy sometimes, but his recent episode on JRE was disgusting. “We don’t need any measures because I got sick and I was fine!”. That ignores all of the scientific and clinical evidence on the population scale.
driverdan 5y ago
Look at the list of deleted episodes. The majority of the shows are with far right, hateful people who should never be platformed. It's not even quacks, it's pure hate.
- emsy 5y ago
  I wouldn’t know, because they’re deleted.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

factsaresacred 5y ago

Isn't that his appeal though? He lets the guests speak without much interjection beyond "wow" and "really". Unlike many other media hosts, he doesn't have his thumb on the scale trying to steer conversations towards his own political leanings. And while he's featured a few conspiracy theorists, they're a minority and are balanced out by credentialed 'serious' scientists. That's all beside the point though - purging conversations from the internet is bad, and the culture that cheers this on is worse.

digitcatphd 5y ago
Fair points, but holistically one could argue he causes more misinformation and controversy than he contributes to scientific progress and education. Regarding censorship, where does one draw the line? Misinformation? A conversation encouraging self-harm? The harm of others? Without holding media to some reasonable standard an anything goes mentality develops.
willis936 5y ago
Selecting guests is a palm on the scale.
- threeseed 5y ago
  It’s almost like Joe Rogan is the one doing the censoring by refusing to host guests who are actual, credentialed experts in their respective fields.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - musingsole 5y ago
    Who has he refused to host?

avl999 5y ago

I used to listen to the "quacks" and the "conspiracy theorists" on Joe Rogan because back in the past most of the conspiracy theorists he had on were pretty harmless... people like Graham Hancock, Jacques Vallee, Stephen Greer. Additionally back in the day he used to have a good balance of scientists and those discussions were interesting esp since he would ask questions from a layman perspective. I haven't been listening to it in recent months because it seems the show has become has obsessed with covid and is all covid all the time with some comedians thrown in now and then, not to mention Spotify as a platform is kind of a chore to use for podcasts.

loceng 5y ago
Have you seen this yet? "COVID-19: A Second Opinion" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMONZMuS2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMONZMuS2U "On January 24, 2022 Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion." The 38 minute compilation is a great, easily consumable summary - however here's the link to the full 5+ hours of testimony - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html - which obviously has far more depth to it. The reason I ask if you've seen it is Joe's had multiple of these highly credentialed, front-line workers (doctors, researchers, etc. with expert domain knowledge and experience), on his podcast - some multiple times. It's going to get harder to ignore these people and what they have to say the more formal the setting the information is shared. Another video everyone should watch is Maddie De Garay's mother giving testimony for 10 minutes of their experience of her daughter being in Pfizer's 12-15 year old vaccine clinical trial. The limitations designed into the clinical trial reporting app might be most obvious to UX designers, but I think everyone will be able to understand the design implications: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ
- claudenm 5y ago
  Noted Pro-Covid Senator, Ron Johnson. This is all quackery. The description is just an appeal to authority ("highly credentialed") when in reality they are regularly debunked despite their credentials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malone-vaccine-misinformation-rogan-mandates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malo...

_l4jh 5y ago

Indeed. As I saw someone say a while back Joe Rogan is Gwenyth Paltrow for men and that is spot on. The biggest problem, for me, with Rogan’s podcast is he brings on people that know nothing about a subject but let’s them talk as if they are some kind of expert. They have long conversations where Rogan as little if anything of value and just let’s a lot of weirdos that will get views ramble on endlessly for 2 hours. Then things get cut and paste around social media and misinformation spreads like wild fire. A recent example is Dr Jordan Peterson talking about climate change. He lacks even a basic understanding but was sitting there talking about it with the confidence of a climate expert and as he is a Doctor people take him seriously about everything and it’s just god damn awful. The same problem exists on a lot of “news” shows/channels where they have a genuine expert that has studied a subject for 20+ years and is known and respected world wide and sit them next to someone that read something on Facebook then got very vocal about it as it matched their feelings on the subject. This whole “we need two sides” concept is bullshit when the two sides are not equals but are presented and treated as equals. It gives credibility to people that deserve none as they have done nothing to earn it. I think multiple points of view are extremely important but you need to ensure the people involved are as close to equal as possible with regards to their professional standing and experience. Not some random blogger.

busyant 5y ago
> A recent example is Dr Jordan Peterson talking about climate change. He lacks even a basic understanding but was sitting there talking about it with the confidence of a climate expert and as he is a Doctor people take him seriously about everything and it’s just god damn awful. Ironically, I see this on HN, too. Not always, but frequently enough. What I'm talking about is comment sections (often about economics, climate change, etc.) with commenters who post with iron-clad confidence, only to be contradicted by other commenters who take the opposite position with the same confidence. I read these dueling comments and think, "Everyone seems so sure of themselves. But I have no clue as to who is correct here." I find this jarring because: a) somebody has to be wrong in these wars of dueling facts and b) I'm surprised because I feel that HN is enriched with reasonably bright people who I'd expect would be more circumspect with their comments. I'm not surprised about the abject confusion that the general public has when discussing similar topics, especially since I am often confused reading HN comments. I know that's arrogant of me, but there's truth in there, too. tldr: If I can't get a handle on dueling "facts" when reading HN, how the hell can I expect Joe Rogan or his listeners to do the same?

darkhorse13 5y ago

Exactly why I listen to him. What makes you think we all want to only listen to mainstream opinions filtered by media "experts" and journalists? Also I'm absolutely fascinated by some of the fringe people and their ideas, particularly Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, Robert Schoch, i.e. the ancient civilization stuff. Literally nobody else in the media discusses these things with so much earnestness as Joe Rogan.

sprkwd 5y ago
> Graham Hancock Just discovered he lives in the same town as me.
cainxinth 5y ago
From the wiki pages for the people you mentioned: > Graham Bruce Hancock… promotes pseudoscientific theories… An example of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals. > Mark Lehner, an American archaeologist and egyptologist, has disputed Schoch's analysis, stating, "You don't overthrow Egyptian history based on one phenomenon like a weathering profile... that is how pseudoscience is done, not real science." > Historian Ronald H. Fritze has described Schoch as a "pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific writer". Randall Carlson doesn’t have a wiki page. I hope anyone who is interested in these people is listening to them out of morbid curiosity and not because they think they are deserving of any credence whatsoever. The scientific method is not optional. If you don’t use it, you’re not a scientist. Rogan, however, appears to genuinely want to believe (and promote) these theories, whether they have any factual basis or not.
- thebigspacefuck 5y ago
  Any worse than “Ancient Aliens” on the “History” Channel?
- darkhorse13 5y ago
  Notice how I never mentioned "science" or "scientist" in my post, because I knew exactly the type of retort I would get - "Look at what Wikipedia says about these guys!". Do I believe everything Graham Hancock peddles? Absolutely not. Some of his ideas are just plain ridiculous. But do I believe that civilization first started with Mesopotamia? Again, absolutely not. There are tons of actual solid evidence out there that we go way back. And my God, everything isn't about science or the scientific method. Some of this stuff is just plain entertaining to me. Is it really so wrong to listen to these things and just have a great time thinking about crazy and out there stuff?

misiti3780 5y ago

Watch his interviews with Elon Musk, Billy Corgan, Bob Saget, Edward Snowden, Bob Lazar, Bernie Sanders, etc. That is why we are listening to him.

michaelcampbell 5y ago
Ah, so the modern equivalent of "I buy Playboy for the articles". Ok.
- misiti3780 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand.
  - zmk5 5y ago
    It was a common refrain from people who were afraid to admit they read playboy to people in public that they just "read it for the articles" because they had surprisingly in-depth articles, interviews, etc. It's also why that persons analogy falls flat since no one is afraid to admit they listen to Joe Rogan.
    - misiti3780 5y ago
      lol thanks!
zo1 5y ago
Google is a big problem here. Joe Rogan is like the Reddit for all our broken Google searches. So Joe Rogan + random topic = high probability of genuine, good and arguably reliable content. Everything else is blogspam and regurgitated content from "hit like and subscribe" bros.

jdrc 5y ago

So you extrapolate from your own preference to 'anyone'.that s by definition many things that i m not allowed to mention here

perryizgr8 5y ago

If it is so hard to listen to him why do people want him censored? Just don't play his podcast!

smokey_circles 5y ago

> I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan I can't speak for others, but I'm there for the guests. Not all of them, but I find Joe to be an entertaining host, mostly because it's just different. The ones I enjoy the most are the ones where it feels like some random dude has recognised he's on a train with a leading world expert in a field he finds interesting but knows nothing about. It's just earnest conversation from someone curious. > when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind” I love watching Joe explore complex subject matter with experts. There are so few interesting interviews with scientists just talking about why they do what they do and what it is that they find fascinating and why they love their craft. There are some real good interviews where they just geek out and Joe asks them really stoned questions. It's not for everyone, I guess. More to the point, as long as people hold elitist opinions like this, then there will be people who distrust science (and people abusing that to make money)

ComradePhil 5y ago

There are "conspiracy theorists" because there are conspiracies which are uncovered every now and then. Why would there not be when a lot of money and power is involved? A lot of inequality comes not from some people being inherently superior/inferior or deserving/undeserving but from information management, a crucial part of this is to secure it from competing actors while sharing it with those with overlapping interests. That is the definition of a conspiracy. Even if there were actually no known conspiracies, we can't know they don't exist unless something comes out... so it would be healthy to have some conspiracy theories around and events being tested against those theories. The mere motivation to suppress them is very likely to come from either ignorance or malice. I believe the very fact that "conspiracy theories" are treated with such hostility is a tell that there are much bigger conspiracies that we need to uncover. I find Julian Assange's take on something similar from back in the day very interesting: https://www.frontlineclub.com/julian_assange_the_state_and_terrorist_conspiracies/ https://www.frontlineclub.com/julian_assange_the_state_and_t...

jayfae 5y ago

Because he's a compassionate and free thinking interviewer who approaches a conversation like a real human being. With respect for the individual whether the person has controversial opinions or not, which seems to be something lost in media these days with the constant need to be 'right'. His interviews aren't template question a, template question b, it comes across like a natural conversation, an opportunity to talk to experts in a plethora of different topics and gain an insight to the distilled wisdom of individuals who have spent their life researching their respective fields. Personally anyway ^^

foogazi 5y ago

I’ve listened to him interview Neil deGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders It was entertaining to me - I can’t tell how what he does now or in 10 years affects what is said in the previous episodes

notapenny 5y ago

"I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan". Maybe you should start there. It pays to learn to empathise with and try to understand other people. You don't have to like someone else, but its not that hard to see why people do listen to his podcast. You don't have to be that dismissive of other people.

choward 5y ago

Cool, so are you for or against censorship? And I don't know about you but I like listening to people I disagree with. I don't like living in an echo chamber and don't want to send "conspiracy theorists" to a different echo chamber.