5 ms·

> At some point just being "dumb" and listening to every rando person makes you susceptible to / a target of a bunch of horrible randos with bad ideas ... An op

by timr 4y ago

> At some point just being "dumb" and listening to every rando person makes you susceptible to / a target of a bunch of horrible randos with bad ideas ... An open approach is admirable, but not learning along the way is not. I don't know what show you're listening to. I'm not a regular listener, by any means, but I hear Rogan routinely bring up things that he learns from other/prior guests. Often to challenge whatever he's hearing in the moment. It really feels to me that people are just looking for reasons to attack him because he "platforms" voices they don't like. That was fine when he was just a comedian with a podcast, but now he has An Audience (tm), so it's Bad. Rogan has certainly had some cranks on his show (IMO), but I'm comfortable enough with my intellect that I can listen to these (or not) without having my brain turned to mush.

nomel 4y ago
I constantly hear “Well what about <idea from book or person>? They say <>. I had them on a while back”.
btown 4y ago
> I'm comfortable enough with my intellect that I can listen to these (or not) without having my brain turned to mush It's an interesting turn of phrase, because there's a very real pipeline in which people with less-trained critical thinking skills listen to Rogan -> cannot distinguish openness from endorsement -> believe Rogan is endorsing anti-vaxx voices -> contribute to an aggregate increase in community transmissibility of communicable diseases with proven neurological impacts -> said diseases turn immunocompromised people's neurons to "mush" at an increased rate, through no fault or Rogan-listening of the victims' own. Rogan has consistently made a decision to prioritize the "vibe" of his podcast over pushing his interview subjects in a way that would make it clear that his provision of a platform is not endorsement. Sure, he challenges things as you have mentioned, but when he challenges anti-vaxx voices no more or no less than he would a guest who, say, had an opinion about hunting he didn't like, that creates a responsibility that I think does scale with audience size. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-c...
- Domenic_S 4y ago
  What you're talking about is nuance, and there's unfortunately little-to-no room for it in modern discourse largely because of opinions like yours which could be summed up as "if this person doesn't robotically toe the line, then the dumbs will believe things we don't want them believing." Strategic lying is employed for the "greater good" in the context of this way of thinking frequently, the most egregious example probably being Fauci telling the public not to wear masks because privately the government believed that there wouldn’t be enough protective equipment for health care workers -- they didn't want the dumbs to panic-buy and leave hospitals vulnerable. Not looking to get into a covid debate, just pointing out that even governments will lie to keep the dumbs from doing something they don't like, and I think that's bad.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    It’s basically like treating adults as if they are children. Something that all these public health “experts” did to people for 2.5 years. They talked down to people. Acted like they knew what was best for everybody (which they didn’t). You don’t get to treat adults like children. They are adults who might know something you don’t. It’s just toxic discourse.
    - matwood 4y ago
      Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. It's debatable if acting like children is the cause or the reason for treating them that way.
      - spookthesunset 4y ago
        > Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. True, but it could also be their priorities are somewhere other than yours. Which might be okay or might not depending on whatever. What these "experts" and politicians did though... treat people like dumb children... completely inexcusable.
        4y ago
lazyeye 4y ago
Agree completely. Joe Rogan gets attacked because he is successful ( large audience) and he doesnt constrain himself to the narrow railroad tracks of a particular ideology (which would be incredibly boring).
joe_the_user 4y ago
My main experience with jre recently was watching his interview with Robert Lazar. Lazar has considerable reputation in the UFO community and is a fraud and a criminal (convicted pimp and sanctioned for selling illegal poisons through his chemical supply operation). One of the thing about Rogan's interview with Lazar is he fails to ask the obvious questions - such as "what are your credentials". 'Cause with Lazar, that question already takes you to dubious territory since Lazar's answer is "I have a PhD but MIT erased my records" (and his thesis advisor went along with this?). And this kind of left a nasty taste in my mouth concerning Rogan. Sure, his questions might be just naive but it seems more likely he's using that naive pose to avoid the mine fields of the guests he likes.
- Keyframe 4y ago
  David Fravor seems to speak favorably of Lazar, at least from what I've gathered from his JRE interview, but I see your point absolutely.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Teever 4y ago
  What I found most odd about the Lazar interview was that if you contrast it with the Robert Bigelow interview you see that Rogan is totally capable of being highly skeptical with his kooky guests and willing to hold their feet to the fire. The fact that he didn't with Lazar but did with Bigelow indicates to me that he favours Lazar, and considers his story to be genuine, and that kind of bias is detrimental to the interview process.
  - twic 4y ago
    Considers his story to be genuine, or thinks the show will be more entertaining if he doesn't immediately discredit a fun kook?
  - monkeywork 4y ago
    Rogan has addressed this since then saying basically he doesn't know if Bob is full of shit but knows that he (Rogan) wants to believe in aliens so much that sometimes he goes lighter than he should.
Kye 4y ago
I listened to a few episodes. I concur with the assessment of Rogan as not being too bright. And not in a wholesome way. He isn't just ignorant, he's fiercely defensive of positions that are based entirely on the strength of "I'm just saying! Who can really say? Here's what I say:" no matter how many times people try to reach him.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  Lol

by timr 4y ago

nomel 4y ago

I constantly hear “Well what about <idea from book or person>? They say <>. I had them on a while back”.

btown 4y ago

> I'm comfortable enough with my intellect that I can listen to these (or not) without having my brain turned to mush It's an interesting turn of phrase, because there's a very real pipeline in which people with less-trained critical thinking skills listen to Rogan -> cannot distinguish openness from endorsement -> believe Rogan is endorsing anti-vaxx voices -> contribute to an aggregate increase in community transmissibility of communicable diseases with proven neurological impacts -> said diseases turn immunocompromised people's neurons to "mush" at an increased rate, through no fault or Rogan-listening of the victims' own. Rogan has consistently made a decision to prioritize the "vibe" of his podcast over pushing his interview subjects in a way that would make it clear that his provision of a platform is not endorsement. Sure, he challenges things as you have mentioned, but when he challenges anti-vaxx voices no more or no less than he would a guest who, say, had an opinion about hunting he didn't like, that creates a responsibility that I think does scale with audience size. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-c...

Domenic_S 4y ago
What you're talking about is nuance, and there's unfortunately little-to-no room for it in modern discourse largely because of opinions like yours which could be summed up as "if this person doesn't robotically toe the line, then the dumbs will believe things we don't want them believing." Strategic lying is employed for the "greater good" in the context of this way of thinking frequently, the most egregious example probably being Fauci telling the public not to wear masks because privately the government believed that there wouldn’t be enough protective equipment for health care workers -- they didn't want the dumbs to panic-buy and leave hospitals vulnerable. Not looking to get into a covid debate, just pointing out that even governments will lie to keep the dumbs from doing something they don't like, and I think that's bad.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  It’s basically like treating adults as if they are children. Something that all these public health “experts” did to people for 2.5 years. They talked down to people. Acted like they knew what was best for everybody (which they didn’t). You don’t get to treat adults like children. They are adults who might know something you don’t. It’s just toxic discourse.
  - matwood 4y ago
    Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. It's debatable if acting like children is the cause or the reason for treating them that way.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      > Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. True, but it could also be their priorities are somewhere other than yours. Which might be okay or might not depending on whatever. What these "experts" and politicians did though... treat people like dumb children... completely inexcusable.
      - 4y ago

lazyeye 4y ago

Agree completely. Joe Rogan gets attacked because he is successful ( large audience) and he doesnt constrain himself to the narrow railroad tracks of a particular ideology (which would be incredibly boring).

joe_the_user 4y ago

My main experience with jre recently was watching his interview with Robert Lazar. Lazar has considerable reputation in the UFO community and is a fraud and a criminal (convicted pimp and sanctioned for selling illegal poisons through his chemical supply operation). One of the thing about Rogan's interview with Lazar is he fails to ask the obvious questions - such as "what are your credentials". 'Cause with Lazar, that question already takes you to dubious territory since Lazar's answer is "I have a PhD but MIT erased my records" (and his thesis advisor went along with this?). And this kind of left a nasty taste in my mouth concerning Rogan. Sure, his questions might be just naive but it seems more likely he's using that naive pose to avoid the mine fields of the guests he likes.

Keyframe 4y ago
David Fravor seems to speak favorably of Lazar, at least from what I've gathered from his JRE interview, but I see your point absolutely.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Teever 4y ago
What I found most odd about the Lazar interview was that if you contrast it with the Robert Bigelow interview you see that Rogan is totally capable of being highly skeptical with his kooky guests and willing to hold their feet to the fire. The fact that he didn't with Lazar but did with Bigelow indicates to me that he favours Lazar, and considers his story to be genuine, and that kind of bias is detrimental to the interview process.
- twic 4y ago
  Considers his story to be genuine, or thinks the show will be more entertaining if he doesn't immediately discredit a fun kook?
- monkeywork 4y ago
  Rogan has addressed this since then saying basically he doesn't know if Bob is full of shit but knows that he (Rogan) wants to believe in aliens so much that sometimes he goes lighter than he should.

Kye 4y ago

I listened to a few episodes. I concur with the assessment of Rogan as not being too bright. And not in a wholesome way. He isn't just ignorant, he's fiercely defensive of positions that are based entirely on the strength of "I'm just saying! Who can really say? Here's what I say:" no matter how many times people try to reach him.

lazyeye 4y ago
Lol