• 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:
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...
I've not listened to Know Rogan.

But there is a lot to be said for having a critical response to 2 or 3 hour interviews with people like Zuckerberg and Andreesen. First off, given the amount of power and insulating wealth these two have, they can presumably avoid any interviewers who would ask probing or difficult questions. The best you can do in that case, is examine what they did say on favourable media and evaluate how much their claims stack up. If they don't, then it is absolutely a good thing to attack those claims.

I used to listen to Rogan. He has had something of a U-shaped progression when it comes to believing conspiracy theories and other kinds of nonsense.

Initially he believed the Moon landings were a hoax, and had all kinds of other wacky theories about the origins of AIDS and alternative health etc... which he discussed with his comedian buddies.

Then, as his podcast became more popular, he started having more sober-minded people on who could explain these things to him in ways he could understand. Rogan did begin to reassess his prior beliefs and to realize where there were holes in his thinking.

BUT... when the pandemic came along he fell right down the rabbit hole again, egged on by cranks like Bret Weinstein (probably the one who did the most to turn him against vaccines and onto alt meds), and finally RFK Jr. When he threw his weight behind Trump, he almost certainly swayed plenty of his audience, as did his three hour long lovefest with Donnie. People like Zuckerberg and Andreesen are just going to go on and say the things that his MAGA-pilled audience want to hear.

Rogan is, for me at least, pretty much unlistenable, now. Even if he has someone relatively non-political on, it won't be long before Rogan is riffing on how much he hates Biden and Harris, etc...
 
i mean, rogan is incredibly influential. anyone may personally not have an interest in him, to each their own. but, someone needs to follow what he's saying, and he needs critics. to be that influential and then also be able to say whatever you want, truth or lies, unchallenged, it's just not how the world works.

anyway, people say it was covid that changed him. i say the spotify deal and his association with peter thiel.
 
dirtywick said:
i mean, rogan is incredibly influential. anyone may personally not have an interest in him, to each their own. but, someone needs to follow what he's saying, and he needs critics. to be that influential and then also be able to say whatever you want, truth or lies, unchallenged, it's just not how the world works.

anyway, people say it was covid that changed him. i say the spotify deal and his association with peter thiel.
Click to expand...
A good way to become influential yourself is to set yourself up as a critic of some other influential figure.
 
if there's merit to the criticism, hopefully many people do listen. in joe rogan's case in particular, he gets paid an extremely large amount of money to push a political agenda, and if it suits him to lie to do it he will, and does, fairly often. that's a problem people are right to address and you've seen the results of ignoring it.
 
theprestige said:
A good way to become influential yourself is to set yourself up as a critic of some other influential figure.
Click to expand...
Much of debunking and skepticism is about being critics of influential figures from the pope to Uri Gellar. There is absolutely nothing disreputable about wanting to debunk the claims of influential figures even if that comes with the side effect of becoming influential yourself. Critics of debunkers and skeptics may then point their fingers and accuse them of coat-tail riding, but that's a deflection from the arguments being made.
 
Ugh. I can see an upcoming episode is going to be with Ky Dickens from The Telepathy Tapes. That's going to be hard to listen to.
 
I, for one, am glad that this thread was started as I had no idea this podcast existed. I used to listen to Rogan back on youtube because he was amusing and it was funny to listen to stoned, drunk people ramble. As he became the disease he is today, I am glad at least some people are still trying to counter with reason. I haven't listened yet but I will when I have the time. Now if you will excuse me, I have to dip into the sports section and let everyone know how uninterested I am in sports.
 
arthwollipot said:
Ugh. I can see an upcoming episode is going to be with Ky Dickens from The Telepathy Tapes. That's going to be hard to listen to.
Click to expand...
I finally listened to this episode, and the whole way through the following dialogue was running through my head:

  • So autistic kids are telepathic and can read minds?
  • Yes.
  • And communicate via spelling?
  • Absolutely.
  • And some of them know languages that they've never learned?
  • Uh-huh.
  • And they have rich social lives via the medium of The Hill?
  • That's definitely the case.
  • And they have relationships with other telepathic kids?
  • Certainly.
  • And this is all driven by love with nothing commercial or exploitative about it?
  • Absolutely!
  • And you have described all of these amazing things as "spiritual gifts"?
  • That's right.
  • And your expert in autism has been saying for years that vaccines definitely cause autism, right?
  • Uh...
  • So we should be vaccinating all the kids, yes?
  • Wait...
  • Because it would be totally unethical to withhold these amazing gifts from kids just because they were unlucky enough to be born non-autistic, right?
  • Hang on...
 
I'm listening to the episode with Peter Thiel, and there was an interesting mis-choice of words in the "longest pause in the universe" segment. It went basically like this:

Joe: What is it about left-wing philanthropists that you find uniquely corrupt?
Peter: (longest pause in the universe) ...uh, sorry, do you mean who I think is the worst?
Joe: No, what makes them uniquely corrupt?
Peter: (second longest pause in the universe) ... uh, ah, I think it's just my personal hermeneutic for suspicion.

He meant "heuristic". Hermeneutics is the analysis and interpretation of text, like Biblical hermeneutics. A heuristic is a method that has been developed over time. Essentially what he is trying to say here is that he doesn't really have an answer to the question, it's just vibes. Left-wing philanthropists just vibe wrong for him. He goes on to say something about how people view philanthropy in America as "good" but in Europe as "evil" which makes no sense at all.

It was just a mistalk. I don't think it means anything except that he reached into his big mental bag of words and pulled out one that was close but wrong. I think we've all done that conditionally.
 
I've only ever listened to Rogan for his MMA takes and occasional distinguished guests. His status as a household name among 20-30-something DudeBros is a serious concern to me.

He was always routinely mocked by MMA fans now that he's on the MAGA train fans are conflicted.
 
Since he still has the largest podcast audience in the history of podcasting, I don't think most of them are all that conflicted.
 
arthwollipot said:
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?
Click to expand...
A right-wing conspiracy theorist was getting criticized, so Prestige rushed to his defense.
 
The Trump episodes were interesting. Especially the second one (it was a two-parter) in which they broke down "The Weave" and showed why it is nothing but utter bull ◊◊◊◊. Both in the colloquial sense, and in the technical sense as defined by Frankfurt. They also demonstrated pretty well that despite Joe's protestations that he was undecided before interviewing Trump, on the contrary he was a wholehearted and full-throated admirer of the then-candidate. It was the softest of softballs. Also, he never had Kamala on his show, which he would have done if he were truly undecided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom