Joe Rogan

[2 man midfield]

Children don't make the decision, doctors do. They understand the complexities and as that study shows they have been able to significantly reduce the suicide risk through the use of puberty blockers both during adolescence and in the long run.

It's not a lifelong commitment. The effects are fully reversible simply by no longer using them.

I don't know why you think you know better than doctors on this.

But a doctor won’t make that decision unless asked to by a child’s parent on their behalf though right? Which surely comes from the child. So what happens if a 10 year old boy takes hormone blockers, then when they’re 20 regret it? Aren’t they just going to look like a woman for the rest of their life? I’m not pretending I know more than the doctors either, I’m horribly uninformed on the whole subject.

 

[DOTA]

But a doctor won’t make that decision unless asked to by a child’s parent on their behalf though right? Which surely comes from the child. So what happens if a 10 year old boy takes hormone blockers, then when they’re 20 regret it? Aren’t they just going to look like a woman for the rest of their life? I’m not pretending I know more than the doctors either, I’m horribly uninformed on the whole subject.

Absolutely not. They will not have gone through female puberty. If you were to give them female hormones at that stage then they would grow breast tissue and their facial features develop in more traditionally female ways but puberty blockers do not do that and once this person decided they wanted to stop them in order to masculinise their appearance, then their appearance would transform.

EDIT - I do understand why puberty blockers sound scary but the reality is they're a brilliant thing that buys these kids time in order to make a decision when they're more able to, rather than have their body make the decision for them. This is why they reduce suicide rates so much and this is why doctors will use them where they deem appropriate.

 

[psychdelicblues]

 

[2 man midfield]

Absolutely not. They will not have gone through female puberty. If you were to give them female hormones at that stage then they would grow breast tissue and their facial features develop in more traditionally female ways but puberty blockers do not do that and once this person decided they wanted to stop them in order to masculinise their appearance, then their appearance would transform.

EDIT - I do understand why puberty blockers sound scary but the reality is they're a brilliant thing that buys these kids time in order to make a decision when they're more able to, rather than have their body make the decision for them. This is why they reduce suicide rates so much and this is why doctors will use them where they deem appropriate.

So they just don’t go through any puberty at all? It just delays the whole process indefinitely? So in my scenario, if the 20 year old decides that they’d actually like to remain a man, could they start taking male hormones and undergo an otherwise normal puberty? And develop hairy legs and muscles etc to the extent they otherwise would have? Basically what I’m asking is are there any irreversible effects, I suppose.

 

[DOTA]

So they just don’t go through any puberty at all? It just delays the whole process indefinitely? So in my scenario, if the 20 year old decides that they’d actually like to remain a man, could they start taking male hormones and undergo an otherwise normal puberty? And develop hairy legs and muscles etc to the extent they otherwise would have? Basically what I’m asking is are there any irreversible effects, I suppose.

Short of identical twins studies where one took puberty blockers and one did not I don't see how we can know that. We do know they generally have hairy legs, facial hair and in general... they look like a bloke. That's without taking male hormones. They would not need to take male hormones to develop the features of an adult man, as once the blockers aren't there then their natural male hormones do the work.

 

[Raoul]

He is as politically left wing as an American gets without drinking the hippy kool-aid. 90%+ of his guests are left leaning too.

People Complaining about him talking to anyone with right wing political views are feeble of mind or deliberately obtuse.

He's generally apolitical imo, which is what allows him to get away with inviting people from either side on and not lose viewers because one of the two sides are offended about a particular guest.

 

[DOTA]

He's generally apolitical imo, which is what allows him to get away with inviting people from either side on and not lose viewers because one of the two sides are offended about a particular guest.

Are you a regular listener? I know at least one of yourself or Pogue is but I don't know if it's you, him or both of you.

 

[duffer]

Say's he has turned down requests from Biden, Warren and Buttigieg to be on his podcast.

 

[Raoul]

Are you a regular listener? I know at least one of yourself or Pogue is but I don't know if it's you, him or both of you.

I just watch the ones with short clips of interesting guests these days.

 

[caid]

I'm a pretty regular listener. I just have too much free time. I'm not sure anyone regards Joe Rogans opinion that highly, including Joe Rogan. Its partly the format, its partly the guests and he's just ... professional i guess? Its well produced, he understands basic shit like avoiding dead air and that isn't that common tbh. Listening to some right wing shit bags is interesting at times too and then theres people like Abbey Martin who I'm sure many others hate but I quite enjoy catching up with every so often.

 

[2 man midfield]

Short of identical twins studies where one took puberty blockers and one did not I don't see how we can know that. We do know they generally have hairy legs, facial hair and in general... they look like a bloke. That's without taking male hormones. They would not need to take male hormones to develop the features of an adult man, as once the blockers aren't there then their natural male hormones do the work.

So what does the hormone blocker do then? If they look like a hairy bloke even when taking the blockers, what is it actually stopping?

 

[noodlehair]

I've always just thought of him as a bloke who gets high and does a podcast thing with basically anyone who wants to come on it who he doesn't think will be boring...which means basically anyone since even if they spout utter gibberish he seems to either find it facinating or hilarious.

Always found him a bit dull but don't get why it matters who political view he has or who he "endorses". He's allowed an opinion.

The transgender thing is blown out of proportion. It's a hot topic at the moment. He doesn't like transgender women fighters, and he makes silly jokes because his particular brand of being a public figure doesn't require him to have a PC filter. I don't agree with the jokes or comments but they're no worse than you hear from your mates or randoms at work.

It's just a bit of a nothing event blown into an issue because election season in America turns people into maniacs and ups the media propaganda by roughly 50,000%.

 

[Prometheus]

I tend to like Joe as he's a pretty chill guy and chats random shit like me. I have to say though that at times he can be a pussy when he doesn't push back on some of the RW stuff his guests some time say, he just nods along and maybe interjects with a question for clarification but he neither condemns nor condones his guests views... Sometimes being a middle of the road presenter can be quite stupid but I understand him not wanting to put future guests off.

Finally I'm happy with his endorsement of Bernie and I tend to overall agree with his trans stance.

Half the time he's baked out of his mind that he's largely impervious to what the guest is saying. Part of it strategy as well; he wants to appease his no doubt large subset of male fans who entertain far-right-ish views.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Say's he has turned down requests from Biden, Warren and Buttigieg to be on his podcast.

Good on him. Terrible politicians that go against the things that he believes in.

He’s amplified Democratic candidates that he supports.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Half the time he's baked out of his mind that he's largely impervious to what the guest is saying. Part of it strategy as well; he wants to appease his no doubt large subset of male fans who entertain far-right-ish views.

I don’t think he ever looks to appease anyone. There’s no nuance. No hidden message that people need to parse.

He just has conversations with interesting people. Some of them you will like. Others will boil your piss.

He definitely talks out of his butthole on so many occasions, but anyone that criticises him for speaking to people that cover a huge range of Economic / moral / political standpoints is plain daft.

 

[Prometheus]

I don’t think he ever looks to appease anyone. There’s no nuance. No hidden message that people need to parse.

He just has conversations with interesting people. Some of them you will like. Others will boil your piss.

He definitely talks out of his butthole on so many occasions, but anyone that criticises him for speaking to people that cover a huge range of Economic / moral / political standpoints is plain daft.

I'm not criticising him for that, nor am I saying there are hidden messages. What I'm saying is that he sometimes is either too baked to properly question the people he talks to, or he relaxes his attitude/suspends judgement towards certain views from his guests express - namely, those held by large subsets of his audience. Majority of the "intellectual" dark web group basically share more or less the same fanbase: majority male, largely far-right-ish audience. I mean, it's just good business. I don't think it's anything too damning personally, and I like Rogan. (I can't say comment on his views regarding trans people because I can't find it, besides it's a very complex issue that I'm not even near knowledgeable enough to be able to comment).

 

[Raoul]

I'm not criticising him for that, nor am I saying there are hidden messages. What I'm saying is that he sometimes is either too baked to properly question the people he talks to, or he relaxes his attitude/suspends judgement towards certain views from his guests express - namely, those held by large subsets of his audience. Majority of the "intellectual" dark web group basically share more or less the same fanbase: majority male, largely far-right-ish audience. I mean, it's just good business. I don't think it's anything too damning personally, and I like Rogan. (I can't say comment on his views regarding trans people because I can't find it, besides it's a very complex issue that I'm not even near knowledgeable enough to be able to comment).

I'm not so sure the IDW is actually a thing, nor would it be fair to attach Rogan to it. His show is far too ideologically diverse to be a part of that sort of thing. His best interview over the past 12 months was with Bernie Sanders.

 

[DOTA]

So what does the hormone blocker do then? If they look like a hairy bloke even when taking the blockers, what is it actually stopping?

I was describing what would happen should they stop using the puberty blockers there.

 

[Man of Leisure]

Genuinely surprised anyone can be offended by Rogan. Guy hardly takes himself seriously, how can anybody else?

 

[Buchan]

Rogan is liked because he’s a good listener, will engage with you on many topics, respectfully disagree if he so inclines but he doesn’t buy into the absolute batshit crazy element that the modern Left are so hellbent on forcing upon everyone in society, and have been doing so for the past ~5 years or so. If anything, these arseholes are being railed against even more than 2015/2016 when their brazen, arrogant, fascist selves first rose to prominence yet they continue to double-down and double-down.

When will they learn?

 

[Buchan]

P.S. The reaction to Sanders championing Rohan’s endorsement of him tells you all you need to know about the current state of American (worldwide, arguably) politics. Furthermore, looked at the character assassination he’s receiving daily from the corporate media. (CNN etc.) I fully suspect Sanders will be neutered by the DNC like he was in the 2015 Primaries but it’s very interesting to see these attacks on him recently: he’s a very formidable opponent to the do-nothing, careerist arm of the Democrat Party.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not so sure the IDW is actually a thing, nor would it be fair to attach Rogan to it. His show is far too ideologically diverse to be a part of that sort of thing. His best interview over the past 12 months was with Bernie Sanders.

Well, I think Rogan considers himself as a member of that movement. Here he's talking about it, including going to a big dinner/meet up with the rest of the group. He was also posting photos of the dinner, which included Dave Rubin, Shapiro etc. But I digress.

My point was that he has the same audience as many of these individuals. Whatever his views are, his podcast is one of the biggest outlets for varying types of toxic views/speech which he sidesteps because his audience like that stuff. Alex Jones, Gavin Mcinnes, Crowder, Milo, Ted Nugent, Candace Owen, Dave Rubin etc. I don't think his show is ideologically diverse at all. There have been very few leftists on the show.

The toxic nonsense they were preaching largely went unchallenged by Rogan. But when his audience felt he didn't press twitter CEO enough as to why Alex Jones, Milo etc were banned and Kathy Griffin isn't, the podcast got shunned. Look at the like/dislike ratio (and comments). He was forced to make several apologetic videos. He then had to rearrange another meeting months later. It's no secret who makes up large part of his audience.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

There have been very few leftists on the show.

You have got to be kidding. I wrote 90% above In a previous post which is probably a little too high. It’s certainly above 70% liberal guests though.

 

[2 man midfield]

I was describing what would happen should they stop using the puberty blockers there.

So it doesn’t have any permanent effects? It doesn’t stunt your growth? If you decided you weren’t that keen after all, you wouldn’t be 5 foot 2 for the rest of your life?

 

[Prometheus]

You have got to be kidding. I wrote 90% above In a previous post which is probably a little too high. It’s certainly above 70% liberal guests though.

I mean we're talking about whether the show is "ideologically diverse", right? Perhaps you're counting fighters, comedians/entertainers, and scientists - who come to the show to talk about their their professions or haven't been invited for their political commentary. Every single one of the people I've named in the previous post and many more with similar convictions have been invited to talk about their political ideology. How many such people from the left have you seen on the podcast? You can probably count them on the one hand. Cornel West, Bernie Sanders and I guess Russell Brand? I'm struggling.

 

[Raoul]

Well, I think Rogan considers himself as a member of that movement. Here he's talking about it, including going to a big dinner/meet up with the rest of the group. He was also posting photos of the dinner, which included Dave Rubin, Shapiro etc. But I digress.

My point was that he has the same audience as many of these individuals. Whatever his views are, his podcast is one of the biggest outlets for varying types of toxic views/speech which he sidesteps because his audience like that stuff. Alex Jones, Gavin Mcinnes, Crowder, Milo, Ted Nugent, Candace Owen, Dave Rubin etc. I don't think his show is ideologically diverse at all. There have been very few leftists on the show.

The toxic nonsense they were preaching largely went unchallenged by Rogan. But when his audience felt he didn't press twitter CEO enough as to why Alex Jones, Milo etc were banned and Kathy Griffin isn't, the podcast got shunned. Look at the like/dislike ratio (and comments). He was forced to make several apologetic videos. He then had to rearrange another meeting months later. It's no secret who makes up large part of his audience.

That was in 2018 when Peterson and Rubin attempted to latch on to the concept to promote their tour and Rogan somehow got roped into it. You don't really hear much about it these days; probably because it isn't really a thing - a fleeting concept once uttered by Weinstein and written about in a widely mocked article by Bari Weiss.

If you look at Rogan's guests they are pretty diverse from health to neuroscience to MMA fighters to vegan activists (and those who oppose them) to Bernie Sanders etc. He can't therefore be pigeonholed into any sort of category since he has given a platform to everyone from Milo to Abby Martin to Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian to Peterson/Weinstein et al.

 

[caid]

I mean we're talking about whether the show is "ideologically diverse", right? Perhaps you're counting fighters, comedians/entertainers, and scientists - who come to the show to talk about their their professions or haven't been invited for their political commentary. Every single one of the people I've named in the previous post and many more with similar convictions have been invited to talk about their political ideology. How many such people from the left have you seen on the podcast? You can probably count them on the one hand. Cornel West, Bernie Sanders and I guess Russell Brand? I'm struggling.

Hes had about 1500 podcasts. You could probably pick out hundreds of left wing guests discussing politics. If Russel Brand interviewed Candace Owens is he disqualified from being left wing btw?

 

[Prometheus]

That was in 2018 when Peterson and Rubin attempted to latch on to the concept to promote their tour and Rogan somehow got roped into it. You don't really hear much about it these days; probably because it isn't really a thing - a fleeting concept once uttered by Weinstein and written about in a widely mocked article by Bari Weiss.

If you look at Rogan's guests they are pretty diverse from health to neuroscience to MMA fighters to vegan activists (and those who oppose them) to Bernie Sanders etc. He can't therefore be pigeonholed into any sort of category since he has given a platform to everyone from Milo to Abby Martin to Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian to Peterson/Weinstein et al.

Milo, Peterson, and Weinstein... doesn't exactly show variety, does it? Abby Martin - a 9/11 truther (a la Alex Jones).

 

[Raoul]

Milo, Peterson, and Weinstein... doesn't exactly show variety, does it? Abby Martin - a 9/11 truther (a la Alex Jones).

Cenk, Kasparian, Martin (who was affiliated with the occupy movement and worked for RT) are all examples of folks from the left. Sanders was one of his bigger interviews this past year.

 

[Prometheus]

Cenk, Kasparian, Martin (who was affiliated with the occupy movement and worked for RT) are all examples of folks from the left. Sanders was one of his bigger interviews this past year.

So we've a grand total of 6 so far (including Martin). Now, let's be honest, how many guests from the right/far right can you recall just from the top of your head?

 

[Raoul]

So we've a grand total of 6 so far (including Martin). Now, let's be honest, how many the right/far right can you recall just from the top of your head?

I don't really look at it as a number exercise. We've already demonstrated he has a wide range of guests on his show from Milo to Bernie Sanders. Some seem unable to get their heads around the idea that he doesn't fall within a particular category and simply has anyone who he considers interesting on his podcast.

 

[altodevil]

Anyone who has listened to more than one of his podcasts knows he's not a far right looony. He's not even right wing. There's no discussion here.

The whole point of campaigning is to win over Joe public. The endorsement from Joe Rogan should be a good sign for the Bernie camp.

 

[Raoul]

Anyone who has listened to more than one of his podcasts knows he's not a far right looony. He's not even right wing. There's no discussion here.

The whole point of campaigning is to win over Joe public. The endorsement from Joe Rogan should be a good sign for the Bernie camp.

I think the issue with Rogan is he doesn't play the cancel culture deplatforming game which annoys primarily people on the left who only want to see people they approve of on his show.

 

[altodevil]

I think the issue with Rogan is he doesn't play the cancel culture deplatforming game which annoys primarily people on the left who only want to see people they approve of on his show.

Yes that's probably true. Don't get me wrong, the likes of Shapiro and Peterson can do one. But the best way of getting rid of them so to speak, and convert their fans, is to beat them at their own game. This deplatforming only serves to rile their bases up and make them even more entrenched.

 

[Raoul]

Yes that's probably true. Don't get me wrong, the likes of Shapiro and Peterson can do one. But the best way of getting rid of them so to speak, and convert their fans, is to beat them at their own game. This deplatforming only serves to rile their bases up and make them even more entrenched.

Completely agree. I generally ignore guests who don't interest me, which at this stage includes Shapiro, Peterson, Rubin et al., and only occasionally check out the podcast when he has someone interesting on.

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

Yes that's probably true. Don't get me wrong, the likes of Shapiro and Peterson can do one. But the best way of getting rid of them so to speak, and convert their fans, is to beat them at their own game. This deplatforming only serves to rile their bases up and make them even more entrenched.

Not sure about that, Milo has practically completely disappeared and apparently is totally skint after everyone stopped giving him the attention he craved and a platform to spread his shite.

Edit: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/5/18125507/milo-yiannopoulos-debt-no-platform

 

[Prometheus]

I don't really look at it as a number exercise. We've already demonstrated he has a wide range of guests on his shows from Milo to Bernie Sanders. Some seem unable to get their heads around the idea that he doesn't fall within a particular category and simply has anyone who he considers interesting on his podcast.

"I don't really look at it as a number exercise" is somewhat of a cop-out. No one was saying that he had zero left wing guests. I had already give you three myself. However, it remains true that his guests, as far as politics goes, are increasingly on the right/far-right. If he invites those whom he finds interesting like you say then he must find far-right ideologies increasingly interesting. You implied that I'm putting him in a political category; I'm not. I think he just caters to a core audience with political views that roughly match up with those thinkers.

 

[Raoul]

"I don't really look at it as a number exercise" is somewhat of a cop-out. No one was saying that he had zero left wing guests. I had already give you three myself. However, it remains true that his guests, as far as politics goes, are increasingly on the right/far-right. If he invites those whom he finds interesting like you say then he must find far-right ideologies increasingly interesting. You implied that I'm putting him in a political category; I'm not. I think he just caters to a core audience with political views that roughly match up with those thinkers.

Seems you're having difficulty with the idea that Rogan has a broad range of guests on his show. Left, Right, apolitical, etc. A vast majority of his guests don't even fall into any political category at all, so its difficult to make some sort of cogent argument that he is somehow right leaning or catering to alt-right types, when that's obviously not the case.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I mean we're talking about whether the show is "ideologically diverse", right? Perhaps you're counting fighters, comedians/entertainers, and scientists - who come to the show to talk about their their professions or haven't been invited for their political commentary. Every single one of the people I've named in the previous post and many more with similar convictions have been invited to talk about their political ideology. How many such people from the left have you seen on the podcast? You can probably count them on the one hand. Cornel West, Bernie Sanders and I guess Russell Brand? I'm struggling.

So we’re only counting people that fit your criteria? That’s rather daft.

 

[caid]

So we've a grand total of 6 so far (including Martin). Now, let's be honest, how many guests from the right/far right can you recall just from the top of your head?

You named 7 right wingers up above off the top of your head (and i'd say a couple are pretty debatable). How about Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Jon Ronson, Johann Hari, Tim Cook, Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman as left wingers? No ones going to go through his 1500 videos individually to prove the point. The fact everone can reel off half a dozen really obvious examples of left wing political figures hes interviewed recently should probably be sufficient.