• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Know Rogan Experience

theprestige said:
I'm just saying, these guys aren't dispassionate analysts of the good and the bad. They're trying to take Rogan down a peg. The audience for that is probably not big enough to sustain the experiment.
Click to expand...
Aren't they? Have you listened to any of the shows?
 
arthwollipot said:
Aren't they? Have you listened to any of the shows?
Click to expand...
I don't have to. You've already explained that their intent is to use Rogan's podcast to highlight logical fallacies. Their intent is antagonistic and one sided on purpose.

Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?

If they do, maybe I'll start listening to Rogan.
 
theprestige said:
Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?
Click to expand...
Like I said...
arthwollipot said:
They actually go out of their way to be as reasonable as possible, even to the extent of having a small segment at the end where they say what they actually liked about the show.
Click to expand...
In this episode they enjoyed the discussion between Rogan and Zuck about martial arts, which is a subject that both of them know quite a bit about. Turns out Cecil is a HEMA practitioner, which is a subject that I also have familiarity with.
 
well there's two problems with listening to rogan directly, really 3, but the two are they're super long and he makes a lot of them. the third is that he lies constantly and you also would need to be fact checking him constantly, which i didn't list among the original 2 reasons because i've found that some people view that as a free speech issue.

so if you want to watch rogan organically, you're dedicating 20 hours a week to it. it's ridiculous.

but, is it important to know what joe rogan is up to, and for someone to sift through it and lay it out? absolutely. rogan and people like him have incredible social influence, much more than some want to admit. but, i don't have time to follow every detail of all the bad faith actors out there, of which rogan is among. that's where shows like this come in
 
theprestige said:
I don't have to. You've already explained that their intent is to use Rogan's podcast to highlight logical fallacies. Their intent is antagonistic and one sided on purpose.

Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?

If they do, maybe I'll start listening to Rogan.
Click to expand...
do you have the impression that on his show Rogan is logically coherent?
 
theprestige said:
Nobody likes a parasite. These guys are never going to get a candid interview with Zuckerberg or Andreesen. All they can hope for is to ride Rogan's coattails, pooping on them all the way.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I mean, what's the point of journalism, when you get right down to it? Pointless!

There's never any point critiquing anything, that's just coat-tail riding. I'm sure it's never done any good anywhere, ever...
 
it is either ignorant or disingenuous to complain about a podcast taking a critical view of the arguments presented by Rogan on his show when most of the Right-Wing mediasphere consists of regurgitating unreflected whatever happened on his show in one for or another.
 
Last edited:
They do indeed riff on this phenomenon quite a bit - how Rogan will hear a claim from someone on one of his shows, then credulously regurgitate it to another guest on a later show, with zero attempt at fact checking.
 
theprestige said:
I don't have to. You've already explained that their intent is to use Rogan's podcast to highlight logical fallacies. Their intent is antagonistic and one sided on purpose.

Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?

If they do, maybe I'll start listening to Rogan.
Click to expand...
You only want to hear favourable things about Rogan. You just said it. Confirmation Bias to a T.
 
The current episode is set up to be rage-inducing. The interview is with AIDS denier and COVID misinformation peddler Bret Weinstein, in this case talking about USAID. As you may be aware, I have experience in the field of international aid and development through my work with the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), and I am familiar with a lot of the misinformation about the international aid sector.

I'm only a little way in so far and the few clips that have been played so far are pretty infuriating. Joe broadcasts outright lies to his millions of followers and nobody seems to care.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Tu quoque.

You didn't say unbiased, you said positive. Comfirmation bias, admit it.
Click to expand...
I can't possibly have said I wanted only one side, because I don't want only one side. Whatever you thought I said, that wasn't it.

Now that I've clarified your misunderstanding, twice, will you concede that I didn't mean what you thought I meant?
 
theprestige said:
I can't possibly have said I wanted only one side, because I don't want only one side. Whatever you thought I said, that wasn't it.

Now that I've clarified your misunderstanding, twice, will you concede that I didn't mean what you thought I meant?
Click to expand...
You didn't mean what you said? Got it.
 
Orphia Nay said:
You didn't mean what you said? Got it.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it. That's your interpretation. Your interpretation is wrong. You've been corrected three times. Why do you persist in misunderstanding?

Here, let me be entirely honest with you:

I'm not particularly interested in hearing anything about Joe Rogan. I don't listen to him. I don't listen to other people talking about him. I skip over mentions of him and his antics as best I can. Even if this podcast provides an balanced assessment, I still probably won't listen to it.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not particularly interested in hearing anything about Joe Rogan. I don't listen to him. I don't listen to other people talking about him. I skip over mentions of him and his antics as best I can. Even if this podcast provides an balanced assessment, I still probably won't listen to it.
Click to expand...
Then you have no reason to keep participating in this conversation. In fact, you had no reason to start participating in this conversation. Why did you?
 
theprestige said:
Because this conversation is more interesting to me than Joe Rogan is. It's goddamn tautological.
Click to expand...
It's a conversation about Joe Rogan. How can you be interested in a conversation about Joe Rogan when you have expressed zero interest in Joe Rogan?

And for the record, Marsh and Cecil do provide an unbiased analysis. Frequently, that analysis is "Rogan is wrong, and here's why".
 
arthwollipot said:
It's a conversation about Joe Rogan. How can you be interested in a conversation about Joe Rogan when you have expressed zero interest in Joe Rogan?
Click to expand...
The meta nature of it amuses me.
arthwollipot said:
And for the record, Marsh and Cecil do provide an unbiased analysis. Frequently, that analysis is "Rogan is wrong, and here's why".
Click to expand...
Cool cool cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom