Podcast Joe Rogan - Tricked again!

[HirdsTheWord]

Wait, so should we listen to more Rogan and not just clips? Or just switch it off?

Well for starters if you are going to be a critic of someone, you should be listening to the entire thing and not just clips, but in any case. If you dont like the content or guests he has on than my advice would be to switch it off.

Maybe 15% of Joes guests are right wing nutjobs, probably less if i actually went and counted them. He has plenty of content if you dont want to partake in right wing nut jobs.

 

[Gethelred]

The Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are far more than just freedom of speech..........

One is the declaration of rights, and the other is the desire to remove themselves from sovereign rule......

I'm not sure how you draw a parallel between these and freedom of speech of people on a podcast?

You said this:

I personally draw the line when something is illegal and it's just easier. There are definitely people out there who say god awful things, that may not be illegal, but not sure how we draw the line clearly otherwise.

This is a tangent, concerned with how you decide what speech should be free.

Both the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence would not constitute legitmate uses of free speech under your viewpoint, because both documents constituted treason. I might also add it would make the Australian Constitution an invalid use of free speech, as it contravened the laws of Australian First Nations via Terra Nullius.

As I stated, if you don't want to discuss this and let this tangent wither on the vine, you're welcome to. Don't be surprised if you continue to receive kickback when you try to use the following as your justification for why Rogan should not be criticized based on the assumption that the line on speech is legal/illegal:

Like i have said before, if you dont like something, best not to tune into it. I dont listen to things that i dont like, nor see value in. Dont know why it's so hard for others.

 

[Bloods86]

Well for starters if you are going to be a critic of someone, you should be listening to the entire thing and not just clips, but in any case. If you dont like the content or guests he has on than my advice would be to switch it off.

Maybe 15% of Joes guests are right wing nutjobs. He has plenty of content if you dont want to partake in right wing nut jobs.

Absolutely no-one does this. People on all sides criticise politicians, public figures, journalists, content creators without having listened to every second the person has produced.

I get your point about % of RWNJs, but there's fair criticisms to be made about those instances and how Joe approaches it, as well as his own held views.

And re: switching it off, we've been over why this is a superficial take before.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You said this:

This is a tangent, concerned with how you decide what speech should be free.

Both the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence would not constitute legitmate uses of free speech under your viewpoint, because both documents constituted treason. I might also add it would make the Australian Constitution an invalid use of free speech, as it contravened the laws of Australian First Nations via Terra Nullius.

As I stated, if you don't want to discuss this and let this tangent wither on the vine, you're welcome to. Don't be surprised if you continue to receive kickback when you try to use the following as your justification for why Rogan should not be criticized based on the assumption that the line on speech is legal/illegal:

i'm talking in the context of podcast dude.

Not as it pertains to a country seeking independence from another. Dont really sure what you are trying to get at here lol

 

[Gethelred]

i'm talking in the context of podcast dude.

Not as it pertains to a country seeking independence from another. Dont really sure what you are trying to get at here lol

The point here is consistency: if you want to be consistent, something has to be true in all circumstances. Free speech as an ideal either has limits or it doesn't; where those limits are need to be defined, or the right is subject to abuse.

If you promote Rogan as legitimate use of free speech (as in, you say as you've said multiple times, "What he says/what is said is not illegal, you can choose not to watch" ) then you need to be willing to justify your use of the term free speech. I'm sure you've noticed that you've received criticism for your opinion; without putting words in other people's mouths, this is some of the reasons why.

Your justification of free speech as legal/illegal speech is at odds with how free speech has functioned throughout history, both in a literal and a philosophical sense. That inconsistency needs to be resolved should you wish your argument to stand up.

Anyway, back to the thread topic.

 

[Bloods86]

i'm talking in the context of podcast dude.

Not as it pertains to a country seeking independence from another. Dont really sure what you are trying to get at here lol

You realise those movements/documents didn't just spring up at the end result right?

It's because all the conversations and events that led to them weren't stamped out, because they were illegal.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The point here is consistency: if you want to be consistent, something has to be true in all circumstances. Free speech as an ideal either has limits or it doesn't; where those limits are need to be defined, or the right is subject to abuse.

If you promote Rogan as legitimate use of free speech (as in, you say as you've said multiple times, "What he says/what is said is not illegal, you can choose not to watch" ) then you need to be willing to justify your use of the term free speech. I'm sure you've noticed that you've received criticism for your opinion; without putting words in other people's mouths, this is some of the reasons why.

Your justification of free speech as legal/illegal speech is at odds with how free speech has functioned throughout history, both in a literal and a philosophical sense. That inconsistency needs to be resolved should you wish your argument to stand up.

Anyway, back to the thread topic.

Let me summaries my opinion, maybe that will provide clarity maybe not.

My view on Rogan's guests use of free speech is in no way different to my view of yours.

If you want to be a critic of something than go for it, I have never said once you should not if you want too. I just personally dont get it though, if i dont like something i just dont pay attention to it. But then again i'm much less inclined to champion for something i have no interest in, that's not to say others shouldn't.

Now as it pertains to the declaration of independence and the magna carter, if you have evidence that the government or sitting authority at the time (IE a Monarchy) is persecuting against and has actual power over people's rights via violence etc than i would agree, however guest on a podcast is a bit different.

Context matters IMO.

I suppose at the end of it i have never once you are not free to criticize whomever you want, so if you want to go for it.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You realise those movements/documents didn't just spring up at the end result right?

It's because all the conversations and events that led to them weren't stamped out, because they were illegal.

I have never once said you should not criticize something.

My personal view can be different to yours.

In the context of a podcast i think they can discuss whatever they want. In the context the of declaration of independence or the magna carta where the monarchy or the government is persecuting people via violence etc, that's a different argument and i agree with you.

Context matters....

 

[Gethelred]

Now as it pertains to the declaration of independence and the magna carter, if you have evidence that the government or sitting authority at the time (IE a Monarchy) is persecuting against people's rights via violence etc than i would agree, however guest on a podcast is a bit different.

Context matters IMO.

This'll be my last post on this, because the thread topic isn't really served by an in depth exploration of free speech, but I'd like to say that I do appreciate that you've actually tried to explore this a bit. An awful lot of time on this forum is wasted through pointless acrimony.

If context matters, then you also need to justify the context. If it is the difference in harm potential, then pointing to free speech isn't really the problem but the difference in power relations between the two positions is; misinformation from a government source is more dangerous than from a podcast. Pointing to free speech here then becomes an irrelevant pivot.

But that then leaves you with another series of questions: while it might be true that the level of harm in spreading misinformation is less from a popular podcast than the government, that does not entail that no harm is done. You've already pointed to the censoring of Alex Jones by Rogan as a good thing, but due to his speech being proven to have legal consequence; and now we're in a circular argument.

This is why that inconsistency needs to be resolved. You need a metric by which to measure harm, you need to define the limits on free speech and if context matters you need to define how.

 

[Bloods86]

In the context of a podcast i think they can discuss whatever they want.

Unless they're saying something that the government of the day (which could be anyone) has passed a law about, rendering it illegal.

Anyway I'm done on this theme too.

 

[owen87]

An awful lot of time on this forum is wasted through pointless acrimony.

I feel personally attacked by this.

 

[the_interloper]

Halfway through the JP one. Fair bit of the same for him, he’s talking a lot about Bible stories. Rogan hasn’t said anything for at least 5 mins I reckon, he listens more than any other podcaster I can think of.

Some could interpret this as not “pushing back” I guess, but at least he lets the guest get their point across unfiltered, that’s why people listen.

(* I’ve had this conversation 7 times on here I reckon)

 

[Chief]

Uh-oh!

Another leftist streamer reaction video!

Rogan tricked into thinking Andrew Tate is "playing a role" and says "very wise things, he's a very smart guy".

* me. Rogan you're a dope.

 

[bourbons]

Halfway through the JP one. Fair bit of the same for him, he’s talking a lot about Bible stories. Rogan hasn’t said anything for at least 5 mins I reckon, he listens more than any other podcaster I can think of.

Some could interpret this as not “pushing back” I guess, but at least he lets the guest get their point across unfiltered, that’s why people listen.

(* I’ve had this conversation 7 times on here I reckon)

I've gotten to the 2 hour mark, bailing I reckon. There's listening and there's listening - 5 mins? Felt like Joe didn't say a word for about half an hour there at one point, I was legit drifting off listening to Jordy bang on about bible stories lol. I'm not even talking about him ideally pushing back more, its just makes for a less interesting podcast when the guest is essentially monologue-ing for most of it. I only listen semi-regularly these days but can't really recall a recent ep where he's been as quiet as this.

On the content, Jordy is rapidly disappearing up his own a-hole imo. Just seemed so consumed with culture war talking points, at least in the first hour. So much vitriol and anger in his voice when talking about trans/drag queen stuff. I'll admit I did find it a bit strange that Joe didn't push back even slightly on any of it considering he did so with Matt Walsh - Jordy calling it a psychological 'epidemic', kids being prescribed puberty blockers etc - which we know from the Walsh interview Joe specifically called out and identified that the numbers were no where near what he was pretending. Listening to Jordy you'd think every kid who sees someone about body anxiety issues walks out with a puberty blocker script and a mastectomy appointment. Also a pretty dishonest framing (implication that his concern is only about trans kids), Elliot Page is 35 years old.

Just seems a bit detached from reality. Stuff like painting the reaction he gets online as a furphy or invented outrage and "I've basically had only positive interactions face to face over the last 3 years". Just lol - might wanna compare apples with apples ie. try telling a large group of gay people celebrating pride week "remember when pride was a sin" face to face and see how positive your real world interaction is Jordy

 

[Chief]

Rogan hasn’t said anything for at least 5 mins I reckon, he listens more than any other podcaster I can think of.

Have a listen to something like Aaron Mate (ironically his podcast is called The Pushback) who often just lets his guests deliver a lecture. You'd probably like his stuff, he gets lots of whackos on

 

[PT Bar None]

I've gotten to the 2 hour mark, bailing I reckon. There's listening and there's listening - 5 mins? Felt like Joe didn't say a word for about half an hour there at one point, I was legit drifting off listening to Jordy bang on about bible stories lol. I'm not even talking about him ideally pushing back more, its just makes for a less interesting podcast when the guest is essentially monologue-ing for most of it. I only listen semi-regularly these days but can't really recall a recent ep where he's been as quiet as this.

On the content, Jordy is rapidly disappearing up his own a-hole imo. Just seemed so consumed with culture war talking points, at least in the first hour. So much vitriol and anger in his voice when talking about trans/drag queen stuff. I'll admit I did find it a bit strange that Joe didn't push back even slightly on any of it considering he did so with Matt Walsh - Jordy calling it a psychological 'epidemic', kids being prescribed puberty blockers etc - which we know from the Walsh interview Joe specifically called out and identified that the numbers were no where near what he was pretending. Listening to Jordy you'd think every kid who sees someone about body anxiety issues walks out with a puberty blocker script and a mastectomy appointment. Also a pretty dishonest framing (implication that his concern is only about trans kids), Elliot Page is 35 years old.

Just seems a bit detached from reality. Stuff like painting the reaction he gets online as a furphy or invented outrage and "I've basically had only positive interactions face to face over the last 3 years". Just lol - might wanna compare apples with apples ie. try telling a large group of gay people celebrating pride week "remember when pride was a sin" face to face and see how positive your real world interaction is Jordy

Re the bolded: I do wonder if this sort of stuff depends on how high Joe is at the time?

 

[owen87]

Re the bolded: I do wonder if this sort of stuff depends on how high Joe is at the time?

I tried to read Peterson's book once, if this interview sounds anything like the way he writes I'd want to be on something to get through it.

 

[bourbons]

Re the bolded: I do wonder if this sort of stuff depends on how high Joe is at the time?

Ha, possibly. Although I wasn't stoned and still almost fell asleep fwiw

 

[Chief]

Oh you know the world's favourite YouTuber has a bit to say!

 

[Bloods86]

Oh you know the world's favourite YouTuber has a bit to say!

I'll be honest, he makes some good points and some of his voices/effects work, but it's hard to take him seriously.

 

[the_interloper]

I'll be honest, he makes some good points and some of his voices/effects work, but it's hard to take him seriously.

Who are you talking about, Rogan or JP?

 

[Bloods86]

Who are you talking about, Rogan or JP?

RM Brown, the commentator in the video post I replied to.

 

[the_interloper]

RM Brown, the commentator in the video post I replied to.

Yeah I know was just being a dickhead (for a change)

 

[Bloods86]

Yeah I know was just being a dickhead (for a change)

Well of course, we all know I would never accuse Rogan or JP of making any good points, and I never try to take them seriously.

 

[Bloods86]

Watched a few segments of an old Adam Greentree episode recently. I've only lived down south, though holidayed up north, but I do agree with him on the difference between Australia and the US in terms of dangerous animals. Have camped/fished my whole life, never been that scared of snakes etc, but even just walking a bit off the trail at Yellowstone etc meant I was scanning every treeline for Bears (tbf I did see 4 or 5 of them and wasn't far from one of them). That said, visiting my Dad in Kununurra and being anywhere near a riverbank heightens the tension.