Quite the rollercoaster for @Sweet Square. He started this thread left wing, veered into quasi anti-regulation libertarianism to own some libs, and ended up a fully blown model Centrist. The inverse hero’s journey.
Last edited:
Joe Rogan
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I get the impression that many of the people castigating him have never actually listened to/watched his podcast, and if they have they've listened to/watched very little.
They watched 8 minutes of content on Twitter. That is more than enough to conclude that Joe Rogan is a danger that needs to be dealt with.
Or they tried years ago and it wasn't for them or they ditched him due to this type of nonsense.
Do you have to have listened this dude spouting shite for thousands of hours before you're allowed an opinion?
Yes, you have to listen to every single minute of every single episode, otherwise you can't opine.
That’s fair enough. Each to their own.
I’d reckon at least 27 hours and 15 minutes.
Unironically this.
Or...Just take thine time, before thou opine.
Last edited:
Do you think everyone critical of him has not listened enough? Or just this thread?
I said I get the impression that many of those critical of him haven't listened to the podcast much or at all, and are voicing a kind of received opinion on the matter. So not everyone, no.
I also stated that I haven't listened to it since it moved to Spotify, but there were people voicing similar opinions back in the YouTube days when he had the likes of Jordan Peterson and others on. I think there's also certain amount of begrudgery around its success which feeds into it all, but that's to be expected I suppose.
Last edited:
the Paul Stamets one on mushrooms is great
I only ever listen to it in had an hour chunks in the gym, you don’t need to listen to the whole thing
I'll give you one thing Joe Rogan haters: Listening to misinformation truly is hard when you know the information is indeed false. Just listened today the episode with Dr. Robert Epstein and as a network engineer by trade some of the things this guy said were false or incomplete/misleading. It was so difficult to listen but somehow I managed to get through the entire episode. It is episode 1768. You will not find a short clip on YouTube from the podcast for obvious reasons. 
Dude, i don't think any one hates Joe Rogan here. If we are going by that logic and we are the haters, you must lube yourself up and let bald men feck you because you think they resemble joe Rogan.. what the feckI'll give you one thing Joe Rogan haters: Listening to misinformation truly is hard when you know the information is indeed false. Just listened today the episode with Dr. Robert Epstein and as a network engineer by trade some of the things this guy said were false or incomplete/misleading. It was so difficult to listen but somehow I managed to get through the entire episode. It is episode 1768. You will not find a short clip on YouTube from the podcast for obvious reasons.
Strange antonym for a "Joe Rogan hater". I am a Man City hater, does that mean I want every Man Utd player to feck me in the ass? Wtf dude.
Wow
Begrudgery? So not the racism and medical misinformation during a global pandemic? If it looks like a duck etc
Err...take time..before you opine
Sorry.
Yeah - begrudgery.
Most of the mentions of 'intellectuals' are just one example of that.
That's a bizarre take, he's an obviously divisive character. What in this thread sniffs of begrudgery and not just a dislike of his persona?
Divisive to a small group of people, yeah.
From the example I mentioned, views like 'Rogan's an idiot's idea of an intellectual' (or words to that effect) expressed over many previous pages on the thread. Which people also apply to the likes of Peterson, but that's another story.
I'd venture that for most people, or at least most people who have listened to/watched some of the podcasts over the years, Rogan is a pretty genuine and open-minded person with a good track record for seeking out different opinions on the more serious topics. The video he uploaded to Instagram the other day providing his take on this 'controversy' just illustrated that - coming across as an authentic, sincere and pretty humble response. And for the less serious topics, the podcast is essentially just two or more people shooting the shit.
I get the the whole Spiderman point people are getting at, i.e 'with great power, comes great responsibility', and perhaps he should be more mindful of that. But these de-platforming and cancellation calls are ridiculous, not to mention utterly ineffective.
Last edited:
He's caused global conversation man!
I don't know, I think he thinks he's a bit smarter than his questions suggest. I don't think humble is the word for a man who takes on the scientific world as he does?
You seem to like his character and that's fine, others don't and it's not necessarily as a result of a character flaw.
You can't cancel someone that famous, and I'm not sure anyone is calling for that, just content moderation like exists in most media,.
A conversation begun by sections of the mainstream media, with the most strident and vigorous inputs coming from particular media personalities and commentators. If you think the general public are particularly excited by it then I'd say you're very much mistaken.
Although if it's America you're referring to it, then it may be me that's very much mistaken.
I used 'humble' in regards to the video response he uploaded.
I think he's a good podcast host and he seems an okay guy, but that's about it.
Spotify are introducing certain disclaimers now and Rogan himself said he would be more mindful of the content in future. So there's been some success for your stance then.
Last edited:
That bloody mainstream media again, amplifying a few Marxist lesbians who just need a bloody good ride!!
I think it's a bit broader than that, there has been a lot of context for this over the last few years regarding respect for science and the like, it hasn't been whipped up to attack him or annoy you. Anyway we disagree, that's ok, but personally I think there needs to be more regulation, akin to the print media. I don't particularly like him, and rarely agree with him, so my position is not begrudgery or even mildly surprising to anyone who knows me. I imagine I'm not alone.
Personally what bothers me a lot is that we don't see enough proper live debates where these misinformation spreaders get called out to their face. Think Robert Malone, Bret Weinstein etc. If you're so confident of your claims, go out there and debate the experts.
yeah this would be good, but it won’t happen
remember the time Shapiro tried to debate a journalist on the BBC? He won’t make that mistake again
I'm only using the term 'mainstream media' because it's something that's come into a kind of common usage nowadays...at least amongst people of a certain age. I also wince a bit when I hear it used.
In the context of Jordan Peterson's rise in popularity for example, I think it's appropriate to use the term because the reaction to him, and treatment of him, by sections of the 'mainstream media' fuelled much of that popularity. It revealed or, perhaps it's better to say, exposed something about the 'mainstream media' that I'd say a lot of people have felt for a long time, whether they had ever articulated those feelings or not. The (in)famous Cathy Newman interview being the most obvious example.
Fair enough. I don't disagree with much of that.
Last edited:
He is a dangerous idiot spreading misinformation to a wide audience. His persona is irrelevant to me.
The biggest danger to free speech is that it has been hijacked by people like the Murdoch press, various right wing nutters and dangerous fools like Rogan who want to enrich themselves by being controversial or contrary, no matter the consequences.
Last edited:
*Slow clap*
Well done. Have a biscuit.
I think that's it in a nutshell, but the conversation gets dragged all over the place with scattergun defences.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cheney's Law
It is very easy to say that he should be fact-checked, canceled, whatever.
It's also very easy to say whatboutery when examples of the MSM getting things wrong are brought up. Without context it can indeed seem like that.
But then we get into the dreary reality of fact-checking. Who does it and on what basis?
1. Social media fact-checkers insinuated that the story about Hunter Biden's laptop was based on wrong information. Ironically, this was a fact-free assertion. Regardless the story was invisible-ised for months.
2. Specifically about Iraq - the US and UK govt and their agencies, and 1st rate journalistic outfits were united in claiming Saddam's WMDs existed. What would the correct fact-checking be for a podcast arguing he didn't have them? A disinformation warning? A removal? What if someone noted the Vice President's old job, and claimed it was the reason for war? What punishment would be appropriate? After all, the US and UK govt and their agencies and the best journalistic outfits knew that the war was motivated by three thing: stopping the spread of WMDs in the axis of evil, to topple a brutal and unpopular dictator, and to give democracy to a people waiting for deliverance and liberty. It was *not* a war for oil or personal enrichment.
3. Go down the line. Iran-Contra. Reagan sabotaging hostage negotiations. Nixon sabotaging peace talks. The FBI spying on MLK and other subversives. These were all conspiracy theories that would be ridiculed by contemporary fact-checkers till they broke.
e - want to clarify, i don't care if there's fact-checking. disinformation obviously killed a ton of people. just that there's no good way to do it, and, both ways are bad.
It's also very easy to say whatboutery when examples of the MSM getting things wrong are brought up. Without context it can indeed seem like that.
But then we get into the dreary reality of fact-checking. Who does it and on what basis?
1. Social media fact-checkers insinuated that the story about Hunter Biden's laptop was based on wrong information. Ironically, this was a fact-free assertion. Regardless the story was invisible-ised for months.
2. Specifically about Iraq - the US and UK govt and their agencies, and 1st rate journalistic outfits were united in claiming Saddam's WMDs existed. What would the correct fact-checking be for a podcast arguing he didn't have them? A disinformation warning? A removal? What if someone noted the Vice President's old job, and claimed it was the reason for war? What punishment would be appropriate? After all, the US and UK govt and their agencies and the best journalistic outfits knew that the war was motivated by three thing: stopping the spread of WMDs in the axis of evil, to topple a brutal and unpopular dictator, and to give democracy to a people waiting for deliverance and liberty. It was *not* a war for oil or personal enrichment.
3. Go down the line. Iran-Contra. Reagan sabotaging hostage negotiations. Nixon sabotaging peace talks. The FBI spying on MLK and other subversives. These were all conspiracy theories that would be ridiculed by contemporary fact-checkers till they broke.
e - want to clarify, i don't care if there's fact-checking. disinformation obviously killed a ton of people. just that there's no good way to do it, and, both ways are bad.
OTOH, if they put this under every podcast link...
Having seen instances of fraud by scientists, political intervention to hush certain studies, and knowing about the replication crisis, I'd rather we don't go down the path of shouting people down for what they openly say and discuss. Personally, I find that to be a slippery slope.
I'm not saying the Covid research is fraudulent, I'm saying we're entering dangerous territory when we let 'authority' check our speech. It's a tough trade-off we make as a society for free speech and people like Rogan are unfortunately testing how valid the trade-off is, but that is my current take on all this.
I'm not saying the Covid research is fraudulent, I'm saying we're entering dangerous territory when we let 'authority' check our speech. It's a tough trade-off we make as a society for free speech and people like Rogan are unfortunately testing how valid the trade-off is, but that is my current take on all this.
Last edited:
Glenn Greenwald has gone loco now but he was not an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Iraq war like some others. He supported it in the same way the majority of US and UK public did.
Agree. It also is futile since Rogan listeners will follow him to any platform he podcasts from so unless you plan to ban him from internet all together, there is no way to 'cancel' him. At best you can reduce his earnings from hundreds of millions to tens of millions.
The percentage of listeners who are just tuning into him due to Spotify platform is likely to be tiny.
According to The Verge he’s been losing viewers and influence since the move. Which makes sense since he’s paid 100m to take that hit.
Rogan isn’t bulletproof, the blowback from his own online fanbase is worse than I’ve ever seen.