I know of someone who says they listen to Joe Rogan podcasts (political I assume) but I don’t know what this means or what the connotations are. Both this person and I live in east asia.
Joe Rogan is a clueless buffoon, and admits such, and leans libertarian. He also thinks he’s a neutral philosopher and doesn’t recognize his subjectivity.
A lot of uneducated people think they’re enlightened by listening to him but most of the time the show’s material is not really based in reality.
He’s a “libertarian” in the sense that like most libertarians…
he’s a conservative that’s too afraid to commit to the bit.
Libertarian has become just a code word for pushing conservative views to people who dismiss conservatives.
Mostly agreed. It’s also a label that conservatives who are not evangelical Christians and/or like drugs will apply to themselves. In that one sense, they can sometimes be easier to deal with on a day-to-day basis, but their entire political mindest is still a variation on “I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
There’s usually a healthy added spice of “and particularly fuck anybody who thinks studying a lot in college and putting in long hours at a finance-bro job where everybody looks like me means anything other than I’m a self-made man.”
could you give a few examples? This person was listening to something about Joe Biden
His recent viral moment discussing Biden was about how he’s no longer lucid, and shouldn’t be let to run for a second term. His guest was trying to say how much worse trump was, but Rogan doesn’t really think either ought to be president in 2024.
any chance you could give a time period for this? was this a few months ago? this might have been what they were listening to
He’s pushed pseudoscience from ice baths to loonie egypt bullcrap to just about all of the facebook posts your grandpa shares around with no critical thinking at all, conspiracy theories, discouraged young people from getting the vaccine, given a blank check of a platform with no opposition or fact checking to climate skepticism, transgender hate in sports, made LOTS of racist comments that just keep popping up, liberal use of the n word, fearmongering some slippery slopes about “the wokes”
I don’t know but if someone told me they listened to Joe Rogan, I would assume, the best case scenario is they are Libertarian. Worst case is Qanon nut job.
i don’t think he (the person I know) is a qanon, i don’t really know what that is but i don’t think we have those kind of people here in asia (our politics are focused on different things)
I don’t think he’s QAnon. I don’t think he believes MOST of the nutjobs that he lets on his show, or even cares what they believe. But he lets a bunch of QAnon people on his show, so a bunch of QAnon people listen to him. And he keeps letting weirdos on his show because that’s what his listeners want.
I would agree that the context is entirely different in Asia, his show is mostly harmful to Americans and wouldn’t affect other countries much.
I don’t think he’s separable from qanon or the alt-right. Enabling them to the extent he does means he’s one of them tacitly, if not officially.
i meant that the person i know is not qanon, i was responding to “I don’t know but if someone told me they listened to Joe Rogan, I would assume…Worst case is Qanon nut job.”
I feel like the latter conclusion isn’t entirely true. If this is other countries’ exposure to political discourse, you should be concerned about the generations to follow, if we even make it that long as a species.
i don’t think we have those kind of people here in asia
qanon is a 4chan/8chan thing that is part of www - that includes people posting from Asian countries. There are definitely Asians on there. There were definitely Asians who went along with that movement.
I’m Asian too. Has nothing to do with the qanon movement.
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan they are easily susceptible to authoritarian propaganda and should be avoided.
Rogan brings on guests who argue in bad faith for topics which they are unqualified to comment upon. They provide no evidence and Joe immediately agrees with whatever random bullshit they spew out. Doing this creates the image of credibility (big podcast man agreed with psycho, maybe I should agree with psycho), and since perception is reality that image has value.
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan they are easily susceptible to authoritarian propaganda and should be avoided.
What if they’re just talking about his previous acting career?
I immediately assume that once someone brings up Joe Rogan’s previous acting career they are easily susceptible to bad acting and worse comedy and should be avoided.
Newsradio was a fantastic show. You think it was filled with bad acting? How much of it did you watch?
That’s entertaining, and for frequent listeners it lowers the threshold of disbelief. Because obviously Joe has some areas or guests of true expertise. How to distinguish that from bullshit? He talks about all of these things in the exact same mannerisms.
The user you are responding meant “what if that someone that brings up Joe is just talking about his previous acting career?”, not “what if that someone that Joe brings to his show is just talking about his previous acting career?”
I think you read it as the second sentence but it’s quite clear since they quoted your first sentence, not the second one. And somehow they got downvoted for being confused with your response.
He is a right wing extremism gateway. Also an antivaxxer, but I repeat myself.
He wasn’t originally. He examined some pretty neat subjects. Such as aliens and effects of marijuana and other recreational drugs. Amongst many doctors and experts on niche subjects that were interesting.
But somewhere around episode 500 shit started getting wonky. I just stopped enjoying his podcast.
This is exactly what happened to a friend of ten years of mine. Exactly; he was the gateway drug to this: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/aug/02/everything-youve-been-told-is-a-lie-inside-the-wellness-to-facism-pipeline
Well first his show is one of the biggest podcasts in existence and spent a lot of time at the #1 spot - it’s not just a new thing.
Compared to other career interlocutors we might name from old media like Barbara Walters or Michael Krasny, Joe Rogan is a major step down on intellect. He doesn’t really prepare for interviews - reading the subjects book or whatever. He just wings it and spends a lot of time nodding and saying “wow.”
This is a problem when he invites on guests who spew misinformation. Joe doesn’t know it’s misinformation because he doesn’t research. And in fact he seems to think he’s a rebel journalist who hosts people that others want to silence. And he himself falls for many conspiracy tropes, frequently throwing out phrases like “they don’t want anyone to know this.”
So you’ve got a big dumb show full of misinformation that reaches a lot of young people. This is a problem for a lot of folks.
Others love Joe and find his lack of intellect relatable. He’s just a “regular Joe” to them. Maybe they don’t want a fancy interviewer who’s read all the books. Maybe they want someone just as uninformed as them so the information conveyed in the interview arrives at their level.
Sadly, Joe’s now hosted many of the top minds in the world. People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson just see him as a podcast host who’s popular with the youths. So why not go on his show. These people have boosted his numbers even more and legitimized him. Then he brings on a vaccine denier and it all goes to shit. He seems to thrive in the criticism, too, doubling down on the fact that he wants to investigate the things everyone else wants to bury (when his critics say he’s just giving the worst people in the world a platform).
You make it sound like he just uses the Socratic method to give weirdos the rope they need to hang themselves. And maybe that’s true for a sophisticated audience who already come in with solid critical things skills in place. When they don’t, as is often the case for his under-25 audience who are still coming up, the appearance is that he treats them as legitimate - the same as he treats NDGT.
I listen to Oh No Ross and Carrie frequently, and it does a similar thing except they actually do research and make sure to inform the listener about what they say that’s wrong, misconstrued, or a lie. They look into the background of the people and their history and a whole lot of detail into what they’re pushing. They don’t just give them a platform that doesn’t push back. It’s irresponsible to do otherwise.
I stop listening to anyone who uses the word “misinformation” unironically.
You know that’s a real word that applies to things right? If someone is saying the earth is actually flat and making up things to prove it, that’s misinformation.
It’s just used as an excuse to shut down speech the government/tech companies don’t like because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
So what if someone believes the earth is flat, let the people hear and decide for themselves. That’s a bedrock of democracy, people are capable of making decisions for themselves. Not you or anyone else has a right to tell them what to believe or filter down the information they get.
