Re: The Joe Rogan Thread

[Watch Out Pylon!]

Here's an excellent example of a guest I do listen to.

Just finished this one on my drive and I ironically picked up right on the Twitter outrage culture part right after my post. 41:30-47:00 mark is dead on.

I was thinking about sending Steve to this same timestamp (especially the sound-byte discussion), but then I decided "why bother".

Edit: I guess I'm doing it now. Hey Steve, check out 41:30-47:00. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on what Rogan is saying about sound-byte videos. I'll hang up and listen.

[Cameron]

See, the issue is that you are imputing to Rogan the views of his most controversial guests. Discussing a topic is not the same as promoting it. You have yet to demonstrate any white supremacism or homophobia on Rogan's part.

Rogan disagreeing with Ben Shapiro about gay marriage evidently upsets you. When Ben Shapiro shows up on cable news to be the counterpoint on the same topic, does that also upset you? Do you also accuse the cable news pundits who disagree with Shapiro about gay marriage of promoting homophobia?

Well I don’t know about all of that.

How about "discussing a topic is not necessarily the same as promoting it," that work for you?

[Cameron]

It just clicked for me why steve has such a hard on for this subject. Steve is a Biden bro, and he's still butthurt that Rogan "endorsed" Bernie and said he probably won't vote for Biden. It's a shame that Biden is running such a toxic campaign.

Semi-relevant Atlantic article

Are people to be judged for their overall record or for their worst moments? If a public figure makes an off-the-cuff comment grounded in a pernicious stereotype, generalization, or internalized bias, then quickly and publicly regrets it, where does that leave him? Irredeemable? Forgiven? Toxic for a year? Should Democratic candidates reject endorsements from anyone who believes it is unsafe for trans women to fight women in MMA? Or is it okay to express that position as long as one’s tone is polite? Should interviewing someone with bigoted views one doesn’t share trigger shunning? Is any association with a person who has uttered a bigoted view the “coddling” of a bigot and an “accommodation” of bigotry? Does failing to shun a bigot render someone a bigot?

[Nordic]

See, the issue is that you are imputing to Rogan the views of his most controversial guests. Discussing a topic is not the same as promoting it. You have yet to demonstrate any white supremacism or homophobia on Rogan's part.

Rogan disagreeing with Ben Shapiro about gay marriage evidently upsets you. When Ben Shapiro shows up on cable news to be the counterpoint on the same topic, does that also upset you? Do you also accuse the cable news pundits who disagree with Shapiro about gay marriage of promoting homophobia?

Well I don’t know about all of that.

It depends on the discussion. I listened to the Ben Shaprio episode. I've never heard of him before and haven't heard of him since. Both clearly say they have nothing against gay people, gay marriage, it shouldn't be a State issue, people can do whatever the fuck (no pun intended) want, to each is there own, etc. Where they divert - and Rogan questioned him on - was Shaprio's religious aspect of it. I'm not even going to try to paraphrase it. Shaprio expressed his religious viewpoint clearly and in a way I've never heard anyone articulate it before. Religion is not my bag, but it was an interesting discussion.

I'm going to assume Steve did not listen to the episode. Listen below and formulate your own opinion (or not). But formulating an opinion without listening is (insert outrage buzzword here).

[steveschneider]

Well I don’t know about all of that.

It depends on the discussion. I listened to the Ben Shaprio episode. I've never heard of him before and haven't heard of him since. Both clearly say they have nothing against gay people, gay marriage, it shouldn't be a State issue, people can do whatever the fuck (no pun intended) want, to each is there own, etc. Where they divert - and Rogan questioned him on - was Shaprio's religious aspect of it. I'm not even going to try to paraphrase it. Shaprio expressed his religious viewpoint clearly and in a way I've never heard anyone articulate it before. Religion is not my bag, but it was an interesting discussion.

I'm going to assume Steve did not listen to the episode. Listen below and formulate your own opinion (or not). But formulating an opinion without listening is (insert outrage buzzword here).

I didn’t listen to that show but I’ve heard enough from Shapiro to know what he’s a about. He thinks homosexuality is a sin. He doesn’t think gay people should be able to adopt. I disagree with him.

He’s also the type that says controversial shit and then cries about outrage culture when he says that stuff. It’s his right to do it but I think at the core of it all he’s just intolerant.

[Rocinante]

I never said he was a conservative. I said Steve is like your mother in law. Please read my posts before saying I said something.

[Cameron]

I never said he was a conservative.  I said Steve is like your mother in law. Please read my posts before saying I said something.  

Fair enough if that's not what you meant, but I think it was a reasonable inference on my part. You equated steve to a mother-in-law overreacting to conservatives. Pardon me.

I never said you said he was a conservative. Please read my posts before saying I said something.

[steveschneider]

I never said he was a conservative. I said Steve is like your mother in law. Please read my posts before saying I said something.

You are like his uncle that tries to stay above the fray while being condescending.

[steveschneider]

I never said he was a conservative.  I said Steve is like your mother in law. Please read my posts before saying I said something.  

Fair enough if that's not what you meant, but I think it was a reasonable inference on my part. You equated steve to a mother-in-law overreacting to conservatives. Pardon me.

I never said you said he was a conservative. Please read my posts before saying I said something.

Yeah, I read your post an hour ago and I never saw you call him conservative.

[Rocinante]

I never said you said I said he was a conservative.

[Rocinante]

Cameron have you watched the new season of rick and morty?

[Cameron]

Cameron have you watched the new season of rick and morty?

Not yet.

[Watch Out Pylon!]

I'm impervious to acid! Let's do this shit!

[steveschneider]

Just finished this one on my drive and I ironically picked up right on the Twitter outrage culture part right after my post. 41:30-47:00 mark is dead on.

I was thinking about sending Steve to this same timestamp (especially the sound-byte discussion), but then I decided "why bother".

Edit: I guess I'm doing it now. Hey Steve, check out 41:30-47:00. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on what Rogan is saying about sound-byte videos. I'll hang up and listen.

Watched it, my take away was that he's sensitive to what he sees on twitter. I'm in a different position than him, I just go on and read the news where  he's had stuff that has trended on twitter and I'd imagine impossible for him to avert himself from it. Also, he made it clear that's not a very comfortable spot for him to be in which I get. Not sure what he meant about the 'sound bite' and wish he provided an example. Most of the sound bites I've seen are pretty clear what he's saying and the normal reaction to it is 'oh boy that's not good'.

I liked J Stewarts perspective on it and he seemed more at peace with it all and accepting of it but then again he's rarely had the same level of gaffes as Rogan.

[Nordic]

I never said you said I said he was a conservative.  

You're a conservative 

[steveschneider]

Also, Rogan came off as pretty like able in that video and I enjoyed listening to it. Will probably listen to the whole thing later. I think he's one of those dudes that puts on a lot of hats and I think he works best when he has a really strong guest like Osterholm, Taibbi, Jon Stewart, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

Well I don’t know about all of that.

How about "discussing a topic is not necessarily the same as promoting it," that work for you?

I mean I guess. But if your two choices are taking your platform with a bunch of people listening and having a white supremacist talk on it or not doing that, then by choosing to do that thing you’re taking the option that amplifies their message to people and whether you personally agree with it or not is sort of irrelevant. Someone somewhere heard the conversation and agreed with the racist and started themselves down that path. To me, that’s promoting it whether you personally agree with it or not or if you say “this is bad!” A bunch of times.

As far as my personal opinion of rogan, for anyone who cares, I think he’s a meathead idiot and I’d rather not waste my time on it. But to each their own I guess. Also to nordics comment about most of us here not knowing more than a wiki article- hard disagree for most of the people here tbh.

[Watch Out Pylon!]

Also, Rogan came off as pretty like able in that video and I enjoyed listening to it. Will probably listen to the whole thing later. I think he's one of those dudes that puts on a lot of hats and I think he works best when he has a really strong guest like Osterholm, Taibbi, Jon Stewart, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc.

Now you're coming around to my way of thinking. Somewhere else in that episode he says he was just egging Bill Burr on about the masks. Not sure I'm gonna buy that, but whatever. I've stated enough times that I think he's a meat head with some really dumb takes. On the other side of the coin he really is pretty intelligent about certain topics, as you might see in this episode.

Also, thanks for indulging me about the edited sound byte bit. I'm of the mind that heavy editing can easily cast someone in a false light and I'd rather get the context of the whole conversation before jumping to conclusions.

[Nordic]

I was thinking about sending Steve to this same timestamp (especially the sound-byte discussion), but then I decided "why bother".

Edit: I guess I'm doing it now. Hey Steve, check out 41:30-47:00. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on what Rogan is saying about sound-byte videos. I'll hang up and listen.

Watched it, my take away was that he's sensitive to what he sees on twitter. I'm in a different position than him, I just go on and read the news where  he's had stuff that has trended on twitter and I'd imagine impossible for him to avert himself from it. Also, he made it clear that's not a very comfortable spot for him to be in which I get. Not sure what he meant about the 'sound bite' and wish he provided an example. Most of the sound bites I've seen are pretty clear what he's saying and the normal reaction to it is 'oh boy that's not good'.

I liked J Stewarts perspective on it and he seemed more at peace with it all and accepting of it but then again he's rarely had the same level of gaffes as Rogan.

A sound bite is a small clip of a video, a leading headline, a 140 character or less rant, etc. that makes people go 'oh boy that's not good'.

[Watch Out Pylon!]

Since we're on the subject of Jon Stewart, the man is a fucking hero. If you have not heard his speech before Congress discussing the 9/11 first responders health insurance bill give it a listen.

I'd vote for him for president in a second.

[Rocinante]

Cameron have you watched the new season of rick and morty?

Not yet.

Ok. I won’t spoil it but our idiotic argument was reminding me of one of the episodes.

[steveschneider]

Watched it, my take away was that he's sensitive to what he sees on twitter. I'm in a different position than him, I just go on and read the news where  he's had stuff that has trended on twitter and I'd imagine impossible for him to avert himself from it. Also, he made it clear that's not a very comfortable spot for him to be in which I get. Not sure what he meant about the 'sound bite' and wish he provided an example. Most of the sound bites I've seen are pretty clear what he's saying and the normal reaction to it is 'oh boy that's not good'.

I liked J Stewarts perspective on it and he seemed more at peace with it all and accepting of it but then again he's rarely had the same level of gaffes as Rogan.

A sound bite is a small clip of a video, a leading headline, a 140 character or less rant, etc. that makes people go 'oh boy that's not good'.

That wasn’t clear on my part. I meant I wish he gave an example of which sound bite he was referring to that he had a problem with.

[Cameron]

A sound bite is a small clip of a video, a leading headline, a 140 character or less rant, etc. that makes people go 'oh boy that's not good'.

That wasn’t clear on my part. I meant I wish he gave an example of which sound bite he was referring to that he had a problem with.

Oh, I don't know, maybe the one of him saying the N word with absolutely all context removed...

[steveschneider]

That wasn’t clear on my part. I meant I wish he gave an example of which sound bite he was referring to that he had a problem with.

Oh, I don't know, maybe the one of him saying the N word with absolutely all context removed...

I watch Bill Maher and saw the episode where he used the N word in a joke and saw the fall out from it. If you use that word you are setting yourself up for controversy. How much context do you really need?

[Cameron]

Oh, I don't know, maybe the one of him saying the N word with absolutely all context removed...

I watch Bill Maher and saw the episode where he used the N word in a joke and saw the fall out from it. If you use that word you are setting yourself up for controversy. How much context do you really need?

More than zero would be helpful.

[Turtleneck]

Here you go, Steve. Peterson has been on Rogan’s podcast more than once, right? One appearance is mentioned in the article.

[tw]1278168409637863426?s=21[/tw]

[steveschneider]

Here you go, Steve. Peterson has been on Rogan’s podcast more than once, right? One appearance is mentioned in the article.

[tw]1278168409637863426?s=21[/tw]

Yeah, I mean that's the thing I think most of Rogans controversies are of his own doing. I mean I respect he's a comedian that goes over the line at times but it's like baseball when you pitch inside there can be a price to pay.

The other part when you invite on tons of guests that are the who's who of people the anti defamation league and southern poverty law center are documenting their bigotry and giving them a safe space to promote their hate well it's going to get people worked up. Also, when you have on all sorts of people that are transphobic or religious homophobes or whatever well then you are going to have the LGBTQ community worked up about you as well. I think Rogan is responsible for a good chunk of the outrage.

Also, I'm on team Pylon I think we have a similar appreciation for Rogan's shows with his better guests.

[Cameron]

Here you go, Steve. Peterson has been on Rogan’s podcast more than once, right? One appearance is mentioned in the article.

[tw]1278168409637863426?s=21[/tw]

Yeah, I mean that's the thing I think most of Rogans controversies are of his own doing. I mean I respect he's a comedian that goes over the line at times but it's like baseball when you pitch inside there can be a price to pay.

The other part when you invite on tons of guests that are the who's who of people the anti defamation league and southern poverty law center are documenting their bigotry and giving them a safe space to promote their hate well it's going to get people worked up. Also, when you have on all sorts of people that are transphobic or religious homophobes or whatever well then you are going to have the LGBTQ community worked up about you as well.  I think Rogan is responsible for a good chunk of the outrage.

Also, I'm on team Pylon I think we have a similar appreciation for Rogan's shows with his better guests.  

Tons, steve? By my count, there's the Stefan Molyneux guy, Gavin MacInnes/Proud Boys, and Alex Jones.

I'm referring to =61]ADL profiles, where I don't notice any Rogan guests, and SPLC groups and SPLC individuals lists. Is three tons, or have I missed some? Because there's no way you were just talking out your ass in bringing up the ADL and SPLC in response to a post about Jordan Peterson, who is not named as a bigot by either group, as far as I can tell.

[steveschneider]

Yeah, I mean that's the thing I think most of Rogans controversies are of his own doing. I mean I respect he's a comedian that goes over the line at times but it's like baseball when you pitch inside there can be a price to pay.

The other part when you invite on tons of guests that are the who's who of people the anti defamation league and southern poverty law center are documenting their bigotry and giving them a safe space to promote their hate well it's going to get people worked up. Also, when you have on all sorts of people that are transphobic or religious homophobes or whatever well then you are going to have the LGBTQ community worked up about you as well.  I think Rogan is responsible for a good chunk of the outrage.

Also, I'm on team Pylon I think we have a similar appreciation for Rogan's shows with his better guests.  

Tons, steve? By my count, there's the Stefan Molyneux guy, Gavin MacInnes/Proud Boys, and Alex Jones.

I'm referring to =61]ADL profiles, where I don't notice any Rogan guests, and SPLC groups and SPLC individuals lists. Is three tons, or have I missed some? Because there's no way you were just talking out your ass in bringing up the ADL and SPLC in response to a post about Jordan Peterson, who is not named as a bigot by either group, as far as I can tell.

Give it a few days Peterson will make it. Holocaust denial not good.

Also, what about that homophobic and hateful guy Crowder who got the boot from YouTube for harassing a homosexual writer from Vox. Just such a toxic culture who blames others for their actions.

[kingstonlake]

JFC. Are we really debating Joe Rogan and whether he’s a racist or promotes it? I get it’s a Joe Rogan thread.... But Jesus, he’d be like the pimple on cancer Lump The size of the sun of people we should be discussing on the “racist radar”. A vast majority of his guest are MMA, music, outdoors, comedian related. You got heavily funded on air terrestrial mega millionaires spewing REAL racism.

End rant.

[Cameron]

Tons, steve? By my count, there's the Stefan Molyneux guy, Gavin MacInnes/Proud Boys, and Alex Jones.

I'm referring to =61]ADL profiles, where I don't notice any Rogan guests, and SPLC groups and SPLC individuals lists. Is three tons, or have I missed some? Because there's no way you were just talking out your ass in bringing up the ADL and SPLC in response to a post about Jordan Peterson, who is not named as a bigot by either group, as far as I can tell.

Give it a few days Peterson will make it. Holocaust denial not good.

Also, what about that homophobic and hateful guy Crowder who got the boot from YouTube for harassing a homosexual writer from Vox. Just such a toxic culture who blames others for their actions.

Steven Crowder is a moronic ass, but I didn't see his name on any of the lists.

[CORNER BLITZ]

Here you go, Steve. Peterson has been on Rogan’s podcast more than once, right? One appearance is mentioned in the article.

[tw]1278168409637863426?s=21[/tw]

Man twitter/modern media is terrible. Great use of "sound bites"

The literal name of one of the speeches referenced to say he's ?promoting? Hitler is "How Hitler was Even More Evil Than You Think" and talks about Hitler being a pos
The article links to random tweets that are gone/reference nothing it's supposed to be "quoting"...
The article links youtube videos at random intervals that don't equate to the partial "quotes"...
The article just links the start of a couple 3hr podcasts so just peruse through to find one "word" taken out of context...Also the Rogan one was with a Jewish guy and they were both talking/agreeing on Hitler being terrible

Multiple to choose from but article again randomly "quoting" just "parts" of talks out of "context"

Peterson’s endless barrage of falsehoods includes the outrageous claim that "Hitler was elected" and "by a large majority too. It was a landslide vote; the kind of vote that no modern democratic leader ever gets." Hitler was not elected, and the NSDAP never received more than 37.27 percent in a free election (in July 1932). A small camarilla of conservative politicians, led by Franz von Papen, convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor in a coalition cabinet.

vs. history.com
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-becomes-president-of-germany

A plebiscite vote was held on August 19. Intimidation, and fear of the communists, brought Hitler a 90 percent majority. He was now, for all intents and purposes, dictator.

Maybe they were just being loose with the "free election" part


Just brutal all around. I saw it on twitter so it's true because I saw it on twitter #facts because #facts

[steveschneider]

lol!

https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/status/1278372741360619521?s=21

Btw fun discussion and I love all the pushback.

[InTenSity]

No one, outside of this thread, gives a shit about Joe Rogan.

[Turtleneck]

Here you go, Steve. Peterson has been on Rogan’s podcast more than once, right? One appearance is mentioned in the article.

[tw]1278168409637863426?s=21[/tw]

Man twitter/modern media is terrible. Great use of "sound bites"

The literal name of one of the speeches referenced to say he's ?promoting? Hitler is "How Hitler was Even More Evil Than You Think" and talks about Hitler being a pos
The article links to random tweets that are gone/reference nothing it's supposed to be "quoting"...
The article links youtube videos at random intervals that don't equate to the partial "quotes"...
The article just links the start of a couple 3hr podcasts so just peruse through to find one "word" taken out of context...Also the Rogan one was with a Jewish guy and they were both talking/agreeing on Hitler being terrible

Multiple to choose from but article again randomly "quoting" just "parts" of talks out of "context"

Peterson’s endless barrage of falsehoods includes the outrageous claim that "Hitler was elected" and "by a large majority too. It was a landslide vote; the kind of vote that no modern democratic leader ever gets." Hitler was not elected, and the NSDAP never received more than 37.27 percent in a free election (in July 1932). A small camarilla of conservative politicians, led by Franz von Papen, convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor in a coalition cabinet.

vs. history.com
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-becomes-president-of-germany

A plebiscite vote was held on August 19. Intimidation, and fear of the communists, brought Hitler a 90 percent majority. He was now, for all intents and purposes, dictator.

Maybe they were just being loose with the "free election" part


Just brutal all around. I saw it on twitter so it's true because I saw it on twitter #facts because #facts

The plebiscite was actually a referendum to combine the powers of the two German executive offices: the chancellor and president. It was not a free election. It was 1934, violent suppression of political opposition was underway, and the interwar German democracy had been undone. There were plenty of reports that significant intimidation was used at the polls, as well as fraudulent ballots. So the referendum was not what would be considered a free election.

I didn't click any of the links, but I have listened to Peterson enough to A) have context, and B) not need Twitter to tell me he speaks about a lot of topics he doesn't understand all that well.

[steveschneider]

It just clicked for me why steve has such a hard on for this subject. Steve is a Biden bro, and he's still butthurt that Rogan "endorsed" Bernie and said he probably won't vote for Biden. It's a shame that Biden is running such a toxic campaign.

Semi-relevant Atlantic article

Are people to be judged for their overall record or for their worst moments? If a public figure makes an off-the-cuff comment grounded in a pernicious stereotype, generalization, or internalized bias, then quickly and publicly regrets it, where does that leave him? Irredeemable? Forgiven? Toxic for a year? Should Democratic candidates reject endorsements from anyone who believes it is unsafe for trans women to fight women in MMA? Or is it okay to express that position as long as one’s tone is polite? Should interviewing someone with bigoted views one doesn’t share trigger shunning? Is any association with a person who has uttered a bigoted view the “coddling” of a bigot and an “accommodation” of bigotry? Does failing to shun a bigot render someone a bigot?

Just saw this and cracked up. I had no issue with Joe saying he’d vote for Bernie and I had no problem with Bernie accepting it as there are a bunch of reasonable people that listen to Joe. I also had no problem with the LGBTQ community being put off by it and I also had no problem with people circulating that disgusting video of Rogan where he was ‘joking’ about Hillary getting paid to perform oral sex on men. Again he creates his own controversy and back lash.

[steveschneider]

Loving the Jon Stewart conversation. Jon is obviously frigging briliant, and I think this is giving me insight to myself and what I like about the Rogan show. It's the format and looseness of having someone that is absolutely brilliant just speaking freely.

[steveschneider]

Finished the Jon Stewart episode - I give it a 9 out of a 10. Very compelling conversation and I felt like I gained a lot out of listening to it.

[Rocinante]

I heard Glenn Greenwald was on Rogan complaining that he got censored by his own website so he was leaving to start his own website. Good for him. I’m sure Joe asked him tough questions about his vetting of the Hunter Biden story he’s so pumped about and his dubious activities surrounding the Snowden stories. He’s always been a hack and he’s knowingly or unknowingly been doing Russia’s work for them for a long time.

[Cameron]

I've never liked Glenn Greenwald. I don't remember the details, but the first time I ever heard of him was in the context of misrepresenting Sam Harris's position on something or other (pretty sure it was related to Islam) in a very dishonest, bad-faith way. Same for Cenk Uygur, come to think of it. I've never been able to really take either of them seriously ever since.

[Sponsored content]