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

This actually underscores an important point, which is that there are many people who think Rogan "sounds reasonable" enough because they don't actually know anything about the topic at hand

unperson go put yourself in a corner and think about what you've done

"calm down, i've been wrong, am wrong, and will be wrong, so i never have to take responsibility for thinking something hateful"

you're supposed to be a writer, do some fucking research before you agree with a baseless and fucked up assertion. LEARN from being wrong

Oh, you assbags are my fucking teachers now? Settle the fuck down.

your incuriosity about things that are not your own dumbass opinions led you down this path, and i'm sorry for that, but also fuck you

i'm not interested in teaching anybody who's not willing to listen or learn. fp time i guess.

i'm not interested in teaching anybody who's not willing to listen or learn.

I freely admit that I have plenty to learn...but not from you. fp away.

unperson, you do get why your stance might be particularly hurtful to someone for whom this isn't just an abstract intellectual debate?

sigh. this is the hill you're going to die on, huh? longtime respected poster and you're going to go out defending joe rogan.

well, he's a longtime poster at least

unperson, you do get why your stance might be particularly hurtful to someone for whom this isn't just an abstract intellectual debate?

Of course. But I think my "stance" is being mischaracterized.

longtime respected poster and you're going to go out defending joe rogan

I dispute that description, and I suspect plenty of other ILXors would, too. But the point is, I'm not defending Joe Rogan. What I heard him say, about this one particular trans MMA fighter competing against overmatched biologically female fighters, seemed to make sense to me. Now, that's not a reflection (in my mind) on trans people competing in athletics generally. To me, it was about that one case. And if Rogan's wrong about that, and I'm wrong for accepting his version of events, I'll own it.

i would literally douse you with gasoline and light it then kick you into an active volcano while flipping you off

I remember back when everyone Would go get drinks together after lighting each other on fire and kicking each other into volcanos.

Man, Rogan’s sidekick is probably the only human who makes him look smart in comparison

And if Rogan's wrong about that, and I'm wrong for accepting his version of events, I'll own it.

― but also fuck you (unperson)

as long as you don't actually have to listen to any trans people while doing so, sure

What I heard him say, about this one particular trans MMA fighter competing against overmatched biologically female fighters, seemed to make sense to me.

Regarding Fallon Fox, Rogan's exact words were 'You're a fucking man. That's a man, OK? I don't care if you don't have a dick any more.' Is this the episode you're referring to?

Of course. But I think my "stance" is being mischaracterized.

a couple options here.

1. you're not communicating effectively and the best stance would be to try and figure out why what you're saying is making so many people angry or upset
2. everybody else on this board is a screaming snowflake. (why are you still here?)
3. you are communicating effectively, you're just an asshole.

I dispute that description, and I suspect plenty of other ILXors would, too.

in fairness maybe i'm confusing you with unregistered. regardless you've been here a while and before just now you've not incurred my ire, and i'm a complete namby-pamby snowflake, though admittedly a namby-pamby snowflake with a poor attention span. i try to assume the best of people even when there's no real reason to do so.

a couple options here.

It's a little bit of 1 and a whole lot of 3. And I am very clear on why what I said made two or three people angry and upset. I have accepted that I was wrong and I am about to move on with my day.

(it suddenly struck me that there are people here for whom this is a very personal issue and are sensitive to it, and i regret my sarcasm, also shitting up the thread. fwiw i have dealt with severe substance abuse and i often see junkies derided online to little resistance and i get defensive, and aggressive, and didactic...)

i feel you there rvw

rvw fwiw i don't have any issues with what you said, mind you i also didn't take it as sarcasm

Regarding Fallon Fox, Rogan's exact words were 'You're a fucking man. That's a man, OK? I don't care if you don't have a dick any more.' Is this the episode you're referring to?

fwiw unperson is obviously responding to Rogan's commentary in the recent video above, in which he addresses trans listeners to apologise for offence caused, express his love, and separately from causing offence, make a blanket statement that "[I] definitely shouldn't have used those words," about the quote you're citing.

(He apologises in a dumbass way and says plenty of other dumbass things throughout, but also says a) that "I'm a moron" and nobody should be seeking guidance or wisdom from him, and b) that he thinks it's unhelpful in all matters to excise the most provocative pull quotes and wave them around to try and inflame debate, which)

also now I'm gonna have 80% Rogan recommendations in my youtubes for the next six months bcz I played that embed, FPing anvil and everyone else in this thread

Go into your history and delete it. Deleting anything that’s not a music video has become an ingrained habit and it’s been at least a year since I’ve gotten the BILL BURR DESTROYS FEMINISM recommendations.

i'm done trying to teach youtube not to recommend me evil shit, i installed a dodgy plugin to block all recommendations from them and it's doing ok so far

(He apologises in a dumbass way and says plenty of other dumbass things throughout, but also says a) that "I'm a moron" and nobody should be seeking guidance or wisdom from him

― don't care didn't ask still clappin (sic)

mmm. and you find that statement exculpatory?

because i don't. i strongly suspect it to be a dodge, a fairly typical dodge employed by people who want to be influential and powerful but don't want to be held responsible for the things they say. look at the way the president halfheartedly disowns nazis, and the nazis, you know, they don't seem to mind, they don't seem to think he's _really_ disowning them. i have a hard time believing that all of joe rogan's fans are fundamentally misunderstanding him. to me it seems a sop to those poor people, against all evidence, are unable to free themselves from the compulsion to see everyone as a fundamentally _reasonable_ person.

when people say the sorts of things about trans women that joe rogan has said about trans women, i find those statements extremely compelling. because my experience? most cis people aren't going to say that shit in the first place. most cis people, quite frankly, they just don't give a shit about my gender one way or the other. i think it's reasonable for me to thus conclude that people like joe rogan, people like j.k. rowling, _really fucking hate_ trans people, and no amount of "oh i was misunderstood" is going to convince me they've changed their minds.

tldr: not especially, but I was just saying that unperson was more likely talking about the video that revived the thread, five posts above his first post today, than about a 2013 podcast episode that he recalled clearly. if we're gonna tear each other apart let's do it in good faith!


tlbriylsya:

To be fair, he doesn't say "oh i was misunderstood," he says "I said something that anyone could reasonably take as offensive, which I regret. if any listener took this phrase and a half as representing the entirety of my attitude towards trans people, that is entirely my fault, due to the way I expressed myself, and wish to assure them that it doesn't." And he's not issuing it as a thought-out cover-up, he's extemporising in his usual dumbass way, in response to an even dumber ass (Normand keeps noting that he's never voted and doesn't comprehend anything about how politics relate to real people's lives).


mmm. and you find that statement exculpatory?

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 an hour or two of him seven years ago talking to Brian Redban, ffs, just to find out what he said about Fallon Fox. Let alone then find out anything about Fallon Fox myself, whose name I read for the first time afaik a few posts up, to gather context. Let alone form an opinion regarding the exact level to which I would condemn Rogan for his dumb offensive rant. Let alone listen to however many hours of him talking to queer people, or touching on queer issues, in the subsequent seven years, that it would take to ascertain how sincerely I should assess his claims to have "nothing but love" for trans or queer people as a whole, and then to evaluate whether his statement in that video is sufficently exculpatory against the level to which I had condemned him.


On the whole I think it's good that being called out, again, for this March 2013 rant in January 2020 has led him to express love for trans people and praise a trans person as one of his favourite guests of all time. (Citing a person who has very publicly changed how they define themselves, over three decades of internationally-famous life, also bodes well for Rogan seeing value in changing his own opinions over time, too). A large proportion of his audience are likely to be influenced by him making clear statements like this.

I also think it's probably unfortunate that he went on to specify the circumstances in which he was distrustful of Fox, and assume he's likely inaccurate or missing important nuance in his summary of her situation at the time of her second professional fight. But for those of his audience who are receptive to being told not to hate trans people, this is underlining that Rogan's thoughts about MMA are a bugbear, and one presumes that he has rants about individual MMA fights or rules or competitors multiple times every week.

sic i don't want to be rude, but i am a little frustrated. why do you feel like you have to watch hours of joe rogan videos in order to make an informed judgement on this issue? 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?

look i'm not into going around randomly declaring people to be class enemies or anything like that, but if somebody goes out there and says racist shit i at least know that whether or not i personally am willing to forgive them or think of them as "misunderstood" shouldn't matter, because i'm white and therefore i'm not the one who's affected by that. i mean wanting to have healing, reconciliation, understanding, these are all very fine things, but my feeling here is when that someone says transphobic shit it's the people who are the victims of transphobia who need to be at the center of that healing process.

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