JOE ROGAN VS. CARLOS MENCIA... FITE!!!

My apprehension is that Rogan is a doofus who is too credulous and stoned and non-bright to have a coherent worldview on most matters, too macho-masculine for me to personally be interested in listening to him talk on topics that genuinely engage him, and far far too tediously unconcise in his mental processing to listen to

i dislike Rogan because Fear Factor, UFC, his dumbass podcast logo, and that intro "What's up Freak Bitches!!" or however it goes. what a fucking dork.

i worry the discussion has moved past this but, with fallon fox, she was not, as rogan described, like, waking in there like the hulk and crushing opponents. (there's not even video of most of the fights.) even the infamous fight, she caught her opponent with knees, which is a great way to break orbital bones, and, these fights, even with a commission involved, are barely a step above bar fights in the talent of the fighters. fallon fox met someone with talent, she got smoked. she stopped fighting years ago.

rogan falling for transgender panic stuff is one of the least likeable things about him. the trt and hgh keeps him looking youthful but the show is 95% boomer talk radio shit.

Rogan's appeal is pretty much the same as Marc Maron's or any interview/conversation podcast, casual talk without being a Tonight Show promo for a new movie (even Maron has more of that) and devoid of the NPR monotone, with an aspirational overtone from all the fitness bullshit.

He got in early on the podcast boom (like Maron) and has reaped the benefits in terms of audience.

sic i don't want to be rude, but i am a little frustrated.

I'm sorry; either bear with me for one more reply, or just do tldr it this time.

why do you feel like you have to watch hours of joe rogan videos in order to make an informed judgement on this issue?

why do I feel like I... ought to be informed in order to make an informed judgement?

like it only counts if you go back to the primary source? why is it that trans people are apparently not considered trustworthy on issues affecting them?

you didn't ask if I trust trans people on issues affecting them - you asked whether I personally assessed Rogan's words in the 16-minute video excerpt posted ITT earlier today to be exculpatory of his outbursts in eight minutes of a possibly-three-hour-long podcast from seven years ago, additionally taking in his interactions with queer guests he's had on, and other things he's said on queer-rights-adjacent topics, as in that 16-minute video excerpt he suggested that these are important contextual matters to consider when assessing whether he is personally, inherently hateful.

I answered your direct question to me in detail because I respect you, and your feelings, and the place you're in on your journey. I don't care for Joe Rogan enough to follow his general entreaty to put in work to assess exactly where he sits on the spectrum of 'hateful menace' to 'extremely insensitive clod who fails to see how his words and thoughts are often still hurtful despite his stated efforts to learn and develop his language.'


...need to be at the center of that healing process.

Yes: in the Bernie thread, iirc, a few people were wishing for Contrapoints to go on Rogan (though you, Kate, I think have expressed disdain for her?). One fervently hopes that trans speakers and PRs for trans personalities and thinkers have spent the last two days hitting him up for bookings in light of his "nothing but love for trans people" lines in that excerpt. As discussed by others, the credulous openness that makes it dangerous for him to platform pellet-brained Ben Shapiros and Jordan Petersonses also makes him ready to consider and endorse the plain moderate ideas of a Bernie Sanders, after a single conversation. Having public non-confrontational chats about life and politics and jokes and trans rights issues should demonstrate his sincerity, if it exists, expand his empathy, and counter the deleterious effect upon the susceptible elements of his audience of whatever he's said about non-athlete trans women.

I agree that forgiveness and reconciliation are wasted on the hateful. My impression is that Rogan himself has shown propensity to have some of his attitudes and behaviours changed, and can regardless provide a valuable platform that's worth taking advantage of, when it's on offer.

I thoroughly regret clicking on the video upthread, and spending so many subsequent hours thinking about Mr Rogan at all, let alone going beyond my default of "oh there's a Joe Rogan video in that sidebar: I am not interested in listening to what he says." Sorry for party rocking ILXing.

I think it’s good for Rogan to be critiqued for his comments on trans athletes and other uncomfortable aspects of his podcast, like how it launched the careers of a number of right wingers and conspiracy theorists. If nothing else, he is not - a part of the left—especially not today’s left, and doesn’t say he is.

One thing I don’t like is this idea that he is a credulous, knuckle dragging moron who doesn’t know what he is saying. He plays into that idea—as did jon stewart back in the day—but it’s stupid. He created this massively popular podcast where he interviews leading psychologists, journalists, nutritionists etc in addition to the mma guests. He’s responsible for the things he says and if he wants to defend them, he should, and not dodge by saying he is a moron. And the critics and half-assed defenders shouldn’t say he is brain dead either bc he is obviously of at least average intelligence.

As if politicians, journalists and social media pundits are that much smarter than an mma commentator with a knack for marketing. It’s not an intelligence issue, it’s a matter of different values and ideas

I know he did that dumb restore sanity rally or whatever but otherwise I’m not squaring your remembrance of Jon Stewart with reality.

And the critics and half-assed defenders shouldn’t say he is brain dead either bc he is obviously of at least average intelligence.

George Carlin: "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that."

Just in terms of deflecting responsibility for his influence by saying he is “just a comedian.” Stewart was a liberal so he’s not like Rogan in other ways.

xp

Stewart was expressing discomfort with people treating him like a journalist. I don't think he was pretending to not know what he was talking about.

That’s true—and a difference. Not the main point of my post though, let’s just leave it out.

He, true, sorry. Never include asides in an ilx post :)

I'm sorry; either bear with me for one more reply, or just do tldr it this time.

we're cool, i don't feel it's my _responsibility_ to talk about this stuff but i honestly do really like it when i get the opportunity to do it, if someone's treating me with kindness and respect (which you are) and listening i am perfectly happy to talk :)

honestly it's an interesting conversation because i haven't spent a lot of time watching joe rogan's videos or listening to the stuff he said, so i'm learning a lot by listening to you talk about your experiences. i appreciate you taking that bullet.

i think your approach to these is sort of how i used to view the world and that's sort of changed over the past few years. i'm starting to understand the limits of objective analysis, the assumptions implicit in it. i used to be fairly adamant that you should pay attention to what people say, and not how people say it, that presentation and personality are distractions from the central message. nowadays, i think there are preconditions for successfully conducting rational discourse, that if those preconditions, which for me personally are kindness and respect, aren't met then that discourse is not going to be effective.

i don't know that much about joe rogan. maybe he just is a wet noodle with no personality of his own who will parrot whatever the last person he's talked to said. i know there are a fair number of people like that. (and imo jon stewart sure as hell isn't one of them - he was one of the best interviewers on late night, thoughtful, critical, incisive)

and i don't think that's good enough. i mean, someone like that, i just fundamentally can't trust them. they say the right things now and is that going to stay? i guess that depends on if they ever talk to a transphobe again in their life. it's not about sincerity, it's about the fundamental shallowness of the conversion experience. even more so than people who are actively malicious, somebody who can be led by the nose into saying or doing literally anything is about the most dangerous thing i can imagine.

i don't see any benefit in listening to or engaging with what that person says because... to get wonky about my day job, there's all this push in data analysis about more data, more data, more data. despite "garbage in garbage out" being a long-established principle of data processing, a surprising number of people seem to operate on the principle that the solution to bad data is more data (or, to put it another way, that the solution to hate speech is more speech). that's not how i operate. i'm more interested in data quality than data quantity, and maybe deliberately ignoring everything the joe rogans of the world have to say makes me less informed than those who listen, i'm certainly not an objective judge of that, but my personal belief tends more towards the opposite.

as far as natalie wynn goes, i wouldn't say i have "disdain" for her, but again, i don't trust her. i don't think she does a very good job speaking for the trans community, and i'm frustrated at the extent to which well-meaning cis people take whatever she says as representative of the larger trans community.

apparently wynn and rogan are very different people - natalie is completely brilliant and comes off as kind of a control freak - but the thing they have in common is this underlying Influencer nature. they are powerful people. what they say counts more than what the rest of us say. and people who are in power nowadays... they seem to spend a lot of time disclaiming any responsibility for their actions. and so we arrive at this imbalance, where "influencers" have power but no responsibility, and the rest of us have responsibility but no power. i would like to correct that imbalance.

And the critics and half-assed defenders shouldn’t say he is brain dead either bc he is obviously of at least average intelligence.

I know plenty of people of average intelligence and I can’t imagine wanting to listen to them host a multi-hour podcast show while half-baked.

No argument there

I can't imagine wanting to listen to intelligent people host a multi-hour podcast.

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/celebrity-joe-rogan-made-30-million-last-year-as-a-podcaster-20200204.amp.html

$30 mil for being dumb + smoking weed w tesla 😎👽

can we kill this thread

i don't think so, lemme check...

sorry, no

how about falling on the sword, taking the thread's place....

Forbes numbers are a half-step up from celebritynetworth.com aren't they?

Unless all your money is visible in Microsoft stock or something

Rogan going Spotify exclusive is going to decimate the FEMINIST GETS OWNED YouTube recommendation ecosystem.

what am I going to do without my Roganmendations, bruh (shovels palmful of protein powder into gaping maw)

Did Rogan actually do a better job than Andrew Neill in handling Ben Shapiro?

The flounce on Neill was theatrical but he didn't concede or backtrack on anything at all. He had nowhere to go and couldn't do his usual react to the tone thing, because thats not how Rogan works

Seen some fat-shaming clips from his show that annoyed the shit out of me but that David Choe interview I enjoyed immensely, it was pretty stunning.

Joe Rogan was NOT ready for that 😭 pic.twitter.com/DdBr3gvySM

— ً (@wtfdoik) September 2, 2020

I mean, I don't know if "he was NOT ready for that" but it was a nice pwn by Miley.

lol Miley 27 going on 50 there.

No one could have foreseen this:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/550532-spotifys-joe-rogan-says-healthy-young-people-dont-need-to-worry-about-getting

Joe Rogan is basically an entertainer who talks a lot of shit. People who see him as smart or thoughtful are essentially people who have an even shakier, less informed basis for thinking about the world than Rogan does, because at least Rogan reads things sometimes, just so he'll have something to talk about.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5693031001

Hope this meathead dies.

i'll take carlos mencia

It doesn’t work as well as Ivermectim

I would watch a 3 hour JRE of him trying to manually extract this

Brazilian viper venom shows promise as drug to combat Covid https://t.co/zgDB9e33oE pic.twitter.com/BkYnoL4cea

— The Hill (@thehill) September 2, 2021

We probably won't see Josh Zepps on Rogan's podcast for a while 😂 pic.twitter.com/Eyff4FJn6p

— Borrachinha Depot (@FullContactMTWF) January 13, 2022

its wild to watch how, when hes confronted with clear evidence that he was wrong, how quickly he goes through the process of "this doesnt apply to what we were talking about" --> "who even said this, whats the source" --> "there must be underreporting". whats the term for that conspiracist thought process where contrary evidence just proves their point further?

yeah so my older brother is a huge JoeBro and sometimes he really gets into it about something fucking dumb and I find you can actually pin him down on something specific and point out how they're wrong and sometimes they will accept it and move on. BUT then they watch one more episode of the Rogan podcast and they're back on it again

one example - he thinks that Covid deaths are greatly overreported, and buys fully into that "if you get shot in the face while you have Covid, it's a Covid death" talking point. I tell him okay, lets look at the deaths per capita rate and see if there's an increase, because if deaths per capita are notably going up, then it's concrete evidence that *something* is killing a bunch more people. (Anyway, he sends me a chart and tells me it dismantles my argument, and he gets real cocky about it too. The problem: his chart ends at 2019. When you look at 2020 and 2021, then yes indeed a LOT MORE PEOPLE ARE DYING. He then invents some weird bullshit about how these charts aren't really accurate for a few years anyway (??) but that yes, his chart does not prove anything. HE HAS SENT ME THIS CHART FIVE TIMES NOW. There is no reasoning with these people.

It's amazing how many people get the order wrong wrt "gather data--->form a hypothesis"

will never ever ‘get’ this dude. tbf the only time I listened to him for more than a 3-5 minute clip is a good bit of the David Lee Roth interview. he didn’t really say much, just let DLR rip (smart move). but he’s not even funny? and he was a standup? (tho I did I love Newsradio and enjoyed his character). if you’re not a already firmly in this zeitgeist-y right-leaning, online conspiracy prone, masculinity in cRiSiS bro shit, I simply can not wrap my head around the appeal.

and yet! I’ve got like 3 friends, early-to-mid 40s, pretty liberal, definitely Democratic voters, who I understand listen, at least on occasion. maybe even semi-regularly, depending on guest? and only one seemed even a touch embarrassed. what am I missing?

idk I think he's just good at portraying that free thinker/"I do my own research" persona. he's also like, a living mancave. all he really knows about is UFC & getting fucked up. I get the appeal I guess but the fact that people spend like 4 hours a week listening to him is insane. he's just so remarkably dull and dumb

Nothing.

Kinda wild to look back on how his Newsradio character incorporated his actual love of conspiracies, and how differently that dude would come across now.

xp

He was into conspiracies when it was still cool!

the fact that people spend like 4 hours a week listening to him is insane

I think he's on about 15 hours a week