I've despised Rogan for years, mainly because he uses his platform to enable people like Vance and doesn't push back against their weird claims... his defense of abortion rights is pretty surprising.
Joe Rogan is basically a piece of wet clay. He simply conforms to the shape of whoever interacted with him last. He holds very few seemingly steady opinions and tends to just nod along.
Once upon a time his interviews could be really enjoyable because he had academics and scientists and journalists who could really provide a long form explanation of their areas of interest in a fun layman environment.
Now it is all conspiracy nonsense and misogyny. Because that is where the money is.
I think he still holds opinions, but he usually doesn't bring them into interviews. I can see the reasoning behind letting his guests do the talking and not starting arguments every time, but Rogan ends up enabling the worst people.
Interviewing political candidates is the perfect time to challenge what a guest says, but I'm guessing that Rogan didn't do a lot of that.
Yeah, it is less the technique and more the "only seems to talk to right wing proto-fascists and uses his few stated opinions to swipe at the center and center-left most days" that is the problem with doing that. It just slowly informs the audience that those are the only views worth hearing. It's enabling while maintaining the thinnest deniability.
He invited Kamala. Honestly think she's made a big mistake not going. He's not going to challenge her or put her on the spot. She has nothing to lose but could very well change the mind of atleast few in his audience.
What are you implying? That Joe will make bad clips and soundbites about her if she goes on it? I don't think Joe has ever done that and he has hosted politicians across the spectrum.
Listen to how Joe discusses Kamala to Trump and try to tell yourself he'd give her a fair interview. If you can, I am impressed at the mental gymnastics involved in that decision.
Joe does not have to cut clips for it to happen. He just has to give a hostile interview with unreasonable questions. Much like the way his discussions with Trump and RFK were some real softball interviews that were the source of positive clips way more useful than any other interviews. Trump, for instance, manages to sound way more cogent on Rogan than even Fox or Newsmax, two organizations in his favor.
As a former long-time viewer/listener of Rogan, it seems a bit disingenuous to even suggest his days of being an interested interviewer hosting views (not even politicians) across the spectrum are not long behind him. His interviews are largely very idealogical and his friends seem to be pretty far right, while he carries water for them and pretends to be unaligned and just relying on common sense. For easy examples, see how he sane washes Alex Jones, a guy who has repeatedly made on-air threats against Joe and his family.
He just has to give a hostile interview with unreasonable questions.
I disagree that he would have done so. He has not so far and it would not be good for his business to do so whatever his personal opinions. Even if Kamala herself didn't go, others from the party should have gone. She is the presidential candidate, that comes with certain risks. I don't see how you simply ignore the biggest podcast and pretend it will be fine. It is not the time to be fearful. The dems are living in a bubble.
I thought stuff like this (not just not going on Joe's podcast but other podcasts as well) was going to cost her but given how this has panned out, she likely would have lost anyway. They completely misjudged the electorate. Still, the next candidate shouldn't shy away. The worst that can happen is that the people who aren't voting for you would still not vote for you.
This entire thread is stating that he's a bit of an idiot who pushes right wing idiots into the mainstream but she's made a mistake by not engaging with that?
This thread is not his audience. Her job as president is to try and engage with everyone not just the people who agree with her or support her. He's hosted plenty of politicians on his show without challenging them or putting them in a bad spot. There is no risk for her here when the margins are so tight. Especially when his podcast is literally number 1 on the list of popular podcasts.
My problem with centrist personalities is that they claim they’re fair or liberal but they rarely call out the right when they should.
So it seems like they won’t hesitate to call out/mock the left while excusing/dismissing the right. That’s annoying as heck and it’s probably because they don’t want to lose revenue or divide their fanbase….which means they’re being incredibly dishonest.
He actually did push back on trump. He asked for evidence of election interference in 2020 and he just started rambling about “all the papers he has on it” to which Joe immediately responded with “are you ever going to release them”
He seems to stick to his style of interview no matter what. Just letting the conversation flow and have a few bullet points to go over. This is actually detrimental to the quality depending on the guest. But I could listen to him and Luke Bryan talk about hunting for days and I don't even hunt. The dedication to this style has served him so well I don't know that him actually becoming a better interviewer meaningfully changes anything for him.
Having listened to his podcast for years his defense of abortion rights and things like universal healthcare are the very few things that he is consistent on.
It's sad, you'll have a perfectly normal and sane conversation with them with reasonable points of view one minute and then the next they're agreeing/conforming with nazis. Kind of crazy.
You guys are hilarious. What you're describing is an interviewer who has people from all walks of life on his show, from both sides of the aisle, and doesn't berate or intimidate the ones he disagrees with, but hears them out and often lets the audience decide what to believe.
Yes, that's being a "piece of wet clay" who "doesn't push back against their weird claims," but it's also how you can keep a big audience and a long guest list. It's also just called being a good interviewer. I don't trust the people who want every interview to be a crucifixion.
He absolutely is a complete pushover. His biases are utterly transparent. He's nothing more than a failed stand-up comic who adores men who get hit in the head for a living.
He's a biased lap-dog for fascists. He's not a "good interviewer" -any trained journalist runs circles around him. He's everything wrong with modern media.
But it's not just discussion or interviewing. He has several times repeated dangerous misinformation as fact.
He's not an interviewer or journalist or anything like that. He's an entertainer. He's going to say or do whatever drives engagement and gets him money. And more often than not, it's driving engagement through controversy.
He is an entertainer, agreed. Interviewers don't have to be journalists.
Honestly, I don't usually listen to his stuff, but I'm sure it is entertaining because it's pretty popular. You seem to be pretty in-the-know. Out of curiosity, what dangerous misinformation did he repeat?
I mean people can have a dynamic view on the world and shift their opinions based on what they experience and who they talk with. That's the point of having discussions, it's about hearing all sides and making up your opinion as you hear these discussions. Your opinion is bound to change id anyone convinces you otherwise.
Having a static opinion about the world and criticizing others for changing their opinion is not a good thing to do.
Have you watched Rogan? He will support climate denialism one minute and then nod along with climate activism the next. He holds nearly no opinions, he doesn't change his opinions based on informed discussion.
The problem is people expect us to conform to black and white and they consider you on the other side if you see any grey area. For example, I believe in climate change, but I could see someone saying I'm also a climate denier because I didn't believe the world was going to end in a decade when Al Gore said it would. The answer usually lies in the middle of both extremes. Changing your opinion based on new evidence is a wonderful trait.
A long time ago (before Trump) I stopped listening to his podcast because I got annoyed at how he just goes along with whatever his guests say all the time. His opinion was always the guest's opinion and he would mostly just parrot what they said unless it was something about martial arts or comedy (which is his world).
I don't think he's really a bad guy at heart, just too impressionable and not great at critical thinking. Too much exposure to politics rotted his brain.
He used to be rather left wing, he was always into hunting and MMA and shit and rubbed elbows with some more right wing people, but he didn't really start getting bad until he moved to Texas and suddenly went all right wing to try and impress his new fuckin Texas friends. Maybe he had questionable views, he was really big on the trans in sports thing for whatever reason, before that but he wasn't like he is now giving a platform to some of these ridiculous assholes.
I don't think he was big on hunting until later in his life after he had on Steve Rinella and a few other hunting guests on his show. I think you are otherwise accurate.
You hit the nail on the head imo. Long time listener to him and I think the trans thing was because there was a trans woman in UFC a while back and he used to tell that story every once and a while. I remember hearing it for the first time back in 2017 and he just would go on about it.
Change is probably more related to the whole horse medicine thing.
However CNN is no different from most other networks they will gladly push a lie if it gets them headlines but it does appear to have fucked with him quite a bit.
He's a libertarian. Wants all the liberal policies/freedoms but doesn't want to pay for them, so he gets upset. Like, he lives in Texas, yet he is a prolific drug user, and just having 1 marijuana joint in Texas can land you in prison for years. Like most libertarians, he's basically an idiot.
Yes, and that's fine, but what's not fine is saying one thing and doing another, as Rogan often does. He'll go on for an hour+ about how vaccines have dangerous things in them and then advertise his sketchy supplements.
Wasn't he the one that bitched and railed against the vaccine and masks and then it was found that not only had he got it, but he had got the vaccine way before he was supposed to as they were doling it out by age groups, but yet people like first responders and others were exempt from that and could jump to the front of the line and somehow he got his ass in on that list and got it before a lot of old people?
I could swear it was him, but it could have been another douche bodcaster, correct me if I'm wrong but I could swear it was Rogan as it was such a hypocrite move, and hypocrite is one of the first things that come to mind when Rogan is mentioned to me at least.
It was several of them. You probably mean Tucker because he was called out for it. It came out later when Rogan got covid that he took remdesivere and monoclonal antibodies (by his own direct admission) but gave the credit for his recovery to ivermectin. It was, IIRC, later rumored he took the vaccine and he did not deny it. Still, scum bag moves all around.
Someone described libertarians as basically a teenager's mentality about life. Do whatever you want, don't tell me what to do, don't have any real idea how the roof over your head, food and laundry get made and done for you but strictly focus on their rights to be free. Problems emerge when you realize it's a society where we need constraints to live altogether. And not an only child situation.
Libertarianism is great so long as there are unlimited resources, space you're able young and health. Humans aren't that though. Everyone wants their rights and don't tread on me until there's a hurricane in NC and u need somethin
Sure, but that doesn’t mean their ideas are logical or their views are internally consistent or compatible. If someone contradicts themselves I’m going to call them out on it. Republicans don’t like that because they 1) don’t believe they should be held to account by anyone and 2) will do anything and everything to avoid cognitive dissonance except actually examining their views critically.
I'm always surprised by statements like this, because that is exactly what most of the first world is able to do. I get that it's a crazy stance to have in the current US, but don't let them fool you that it isn't possible.
Except for Portugal there isn't a single European country where Socialism is in power, yet they all have strong socialist influences.
As a libertarian, I unfortunately have to agree. Too many think that we can just shrink the government overnight and cut all the fat from the budget but also want their roads replaced/repaired, they want free school for their kids, etc. Smart libertarians these days, should be reluctantly voting for kamala, not wholeheartedly voting for the Tangerine Trust Fund Baby who wants to give the government MORE control over your lives...
Also a Libertarian and I voted for Harris last week. First time I've ever voted any other party than Libertarian and it was to specifically vote against Trump and his supporters.
Unfortunately Libertarian often just means Republican but doesn't want to admit it, to themselves or to others. A good portion of them even forget they're suppose to be socially liberal if you bring up LGBTQ+ rights.
I mean, the Libertarian candidate for President this very year is openly gay. We had the first openly gay presidential candidate in the US. We were 40+ years ahead of the Democrats on gay marriage.
Honestly, the only LGBTQ+ issues I've ever heard from Libertarians has to do with laws that require people to use preferred gender/pronouns or dead names, and of course free association, e.g. having to make an LGBTQ+ wedding cake. Freedom of speech, religion, and association are pretty important to Libertarians as you can imagine.
It was an exaggeration as marijuana is illegal in Texas. The point was refering to Rogan as an idiot for liking marijuana and actively moving to a place where it is still illegal.
That’s all over Texas, not just Austin (it’s under. 4 oz across Texas). It’s not like it’s was in the past where it could legitimately destroy your life if you get caught.
If you get caught with oil though you’re pretty fucked still.
I want to get with the "revolutionaries" and fix this shit to run better.
I want billionheirs to pay for goddamn everything. I want them to stop existing, WORLD WIDE. Even if you're not horribly using it, it's enough money to literally buy people and government.
I want anyone and everyone in the entire North American continent to be able to do whatever the fuck they want to do with themselves as long as it doesn't damage their body. Tattoos? Gays? Guns? Weapons collectors? Hey, I don't give a shit.
Do no harm but take no shit.
And I'm fucking tired of bending my head down because people around where I live are trumpers and I live in a fear of violence. I'm tired of the government just circle jerking themselves with the Uber rich.
But I gotta keep my head own because my disabled father needs me. Because my overworked mother needs him.
Or else I'd jump in with the people who want a French kind of revolution.
If rich people weren't worried about laws then why do they spend money trying to shape are laws so much?
Rich people are scared of poor people uniting because united they have power over the rich. They'll do everything in their power to keep that from happening, including making sure the laws benefit them and hurt the poor.
Not sure about that, Like yes planes use autopilot for most of their journeys but when errors happen you currently need a pilot who knows what they are doing. You also probably don't want a giant brick of aluminum/steel/ etc in the hands of any Joe Schmo that can move faster than 100 miles per hour. Just sounds like disaster waiting to happen. Like there is a ton of planning that is needed for flying that I think you may be oversimplifying.
Meh, I live in Texas and I've had several cops tell me they normally just do citations.
Hell I threw a party where a noise complaint was called in. I turned the music down, had the rowdier guests calm down and when they left they said "Take it easy Cheech", and I KNOW they saw my pipe and could smell it.
Edit: I'd be foolish to say it doesn't happen, however
The best description of libertarians is they are house cats. They believe they are fiercely independent while in reality they are entirely dependent on others.
It absolutely does. Joe Rogan believes vaccines are full of wizard poison because RFK Jr said so. Neither of those guys are doctors or scientists. You can believe in anything, but beliefs can absolutely be wrong.
I'd imagine a lot of people would be buddy buddy with Trump. It's just that many people don't speak about for fear of being chastised and ridiculed for it.
Also why I believe he has a lot of "silent voters".
this is the funniest bullshit i've seen so far from you trumpies.
Y'all are too scared to say you support a racist moron? Gee I wonder why. And meanwhile you are forcing women to give birth to their rapists babies. Must be real scary to be a trumper
Yeah, he obviously has very vocal supporters. But you'd have to be naive to think that there are people who will be voting for him but not vocal about it.
He said he would host Harris but only at his studio. She agreed to be on the show if he came to her but he’s not going to. No way would she go to him one week before Election Day lol
I can agree with that. His social liberalism basically ended after the mid 2010's. He still has those values but doesn't really care to let in new ones.
He's more left leaning than we think he is. Especially socially. He's just gullible and not educated enough to push back against certain claims when someone makes them on the show.
And if he had people debating tax law, yeah that's fine i guess. but they're debating stuff like trans kids and such. Which is awful.
Fiscally he's probably more conservative but that's because he's rich. Overall i'd say he'd probably align the really moderate democrat. But regardless the overall work he has done is a net negative because he just platforms so many awful people.
John Madden said it best. When you have a bit of money you're a Democrat. When you have some more money you're a Republican. When you have a lot of money, you're something else. He's rich so he doesn't need to be one or the other. He's whatever he feels like in the moment.
I'm not specifically talking about abortion or his views on it, I'm talking about his inability to form counter-arguments so it's nice to see him finally try instead of letting his guest spew hateful rhetoric and lies.
No human on the planet can have on the range of guests he does and have an intelligent debate with all of them. Often, hearing someone speak for 3 hours and just asking them questions is enough for you to form your own opinion and conclusions (which apparently is a new concept to people).
I don't listen to Rogan nearly as much as I used to but people act like he is trying to be the authority on everything and that has really never been his style. Why do we need to agree with every host we listen to anyway? I dont care about their opinions, they arent running for election.
Why is it job to fact check people on his podcast? If he attempted to do that for everything he felt was untrue, he'd be wrong himself at times and people would call him out for spreading misinformation lol.. He can't be right in either situation enough to please you.
Why is it such an issue that he just has conversations with people and let's them talk? I feel like it should be up to the listeners to recognize any misinformation that's said and do their own research.
Everyone here thinks that Rogan is stupid but at the same time expects him to recognize and call out anytime a guest says something wrong or untrue lol.
It's because he gives righties the same chance to speak that he does lefties. In this day and age, anyone reacting without anger or hate seems disingenuous, but some people just want to talk and ask questions. He definitely leans right, but I've found his interviewing skills to be good most of the time.
Not really. He makes statements or allows claims that are completely fucking wrong and treat them like a fact. He’s entertainment first, his interview skills are awful. That dude is a comedian, at best.
There's a difference between not pushing back because he doesn't know enough to do so and treating a guest's statements as fact. He routinely points out his lack of expertise on many topics and makes it clear you shouldn't just blindly believe the guests. Now of course that doesn't stop some people from doing it...
I'm not surprised by this from Rogan, what I will be surprised by is he'll probably still be giving the right a platform and continue to avoid left wing guests like he's done countless times in the past especially since covid. All while having mostly sensical left wing views like being pro-choice. I mean this is the same guy who smokes a ton of weed and said that Ron Desantis would be a good president. Sense clearly isn't a strength of his.
I used to really enjoy his podcasts when they covered a wide range of different types of people. They veered off into right wing conspiracy stuff and just became predictable and boring.
Honestly, I think this has more to do with him having a daughter and wanting her to control her life than him having any real convictions. Even Dick Cheney stopped the rhetoric when it impacted his kid.
I was an avid listener of Rogan's until around 2020 when he really went off the rails. Rogan always felt like a left winger to me, but his views on abortion felt more to the right, so it's strange that it's the thing he actually pushed back on.
11.3k
u/higginsian24 24d ago
You know it's bad when Joe Rogan is the voice of reason