Joe Rogan Is the New Mainstream Media(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Joe Rogan Is the New Mainstream Media
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/opinion/joe-rogan-spotify-podcast.html
404 comments
Don’t make too many assumptions about Stern just because he dropped off your radar in ‘06. His show on SiriusXM continues to be renewed (though it might actually end soon - he’s getting exhausted).
As of 2015 his contract was worth $80 million PER YEAR and the estimates were that his audience is around 3.5 million highly engaged listeners. Yes, a fraction of what JRE gets in downloads, but hey...$80 million per year.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/business/media/howard-ste...
As of 2015 his contract was worth $80 million PER YEAR and the estimates were that his audience is around 3.5 million highly engaged listeners. Yes, a fraction of what JRE gets in downloads, but hey...$80 million per year.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/business/media/howard-ste...
> As of 2015 his contract was worth $80 million PER YEAR
Yeah and stephen marbury went to china and made millions, but he became irrelevant. We all know why stern went with sirius, for the money. But he became culturally irrelevant in the process. But the writing was on the wall. He was getting old and "shock jock" is a young man's game. So he was going to get irrelevant no matter what.
Yeah and stephen marbury went to china and made millions, but he became irrelevant. We all know why stern went with sirius, for the money. But he became culturally irrelevant in the process. But the writing was on the wall. He was getting old and "shock jock" is a young man's game. So he was going to get irrelevant no matter what.
Not to say that $80 million/3.5 million listeners is anything to scoff at, but it's hard to argue that his cultural significance is vastly diminished. Others have said he was reaching 25 million listeners at his peak so 3.5 million is quite a step down from that.
Now that might be just fine for Howard Stern, like it might be just fine for Joe Rogan, but I think it's fairly likely that this kind of deal does come down to trading cultural cache, and one's status as a household name for cold hard cash at the end of the day. In that sense, Rogan's move to spotify might be more like a popular touring act being put to pasture as a headliner in Vegas than it represents him taking on the mantle of mainstream media.
I suspect Rogan will see somewhat less of a drop-off than stern since the barrier to entry for Spotify is significantly less than satellite radio, but I suspect we will see that the medium has been a major component of his success: his show is pretty good when it's free and when it's everywhere. In other words, like Howard Stern was the best thing you could find when flipping channels on the way to work, Joe Rogan's content is often worth a click in a sea of mediocre content. Whether people will actively seek it out remains to be seen.
Now that might be just fine for Howard Stern, like it might be just fine for Joe Rogan, but I think it's fairly likely that this kind of deal does come down to trading cultural cache, and one's status as a household name for cold hard cash at the end of the day. In that sense, Rogan's move to spotify might be more like a popular touring act being put to pasture as a headliner in Vegas than it represents him taking on the mantle of mainstream media.
I suspect Rogan will see somewhat less of a drop-off than stern since the barrier to entry for Spotify is significantly less than satellite radio, but I suspect we will see that the medium has been a major component of his success: his show is pretty good when it's free and when it's everywhere. In other words, like Howard Stern was the best thing you could find when flipping channels on the way to work, Joe Rogan's content is often worth a click in a sea of mediocre content. Whether people will actively seek it out remains to be seen.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think more casual users use Spotify than use podcasts. Anything that isn’t available in my podcast player is invisible to me personally. But I’m probably in the minority. Just like anything that doesn’t have an RSS feed is invisible to me. But again, I realize that I’m in the minority.
I sort of wonder if I would like using Spotify for podcasts. One thing that I like is that I have one button on my phone which I press when I want to listen to music, and another when I want to listen to podcasts. If I have mixed content, and for instance if autoplay will sometimes play music and sometimes a podcast I feel like this will make Spotify worse for music as well.
This isn't an issue on Spotify. You can't heart/star a podcast in the same way you can add music to your library. Podcasts have a separate library tab. The playback interface actually changes as well, instead of shuffle/repeat you have skip forward/back 10 seconds like an audio book.
I have premium, so one gotcha maybe whether you can download podcasts for free? I would be annoyed if I had to sit through both Spotify's ads and the product placement in podcasts. (does Spotify insert inline ads into podcasts as well?)
I have premium, so one gotcha maybe whether you can download podcasts for free? I would be annoyed if I had to sit through both Spotify's ads and the product placement in podcasts. (does Spotify insert inline ads into podcasts as well?)
From what I understand, no. The initial purpose of getting podcast is not for advertising, but every minute someone spends listening to a podcast is a minute they are not spending listening to music that Spotify has to pay the music industry. They won’t embed advertising in third party podcast - for now.
It’s assumed that the second phase is to allow podcasters to embed ads to allow them to monetize their podcasts, but it will be opt in.
It’s assumed that the second phase is to allow podcasters to embed ads to allow them to monetize their podcasts, but it will be opt in.
I feel like generic embedded advertising would be a step backwards in podcast monetization. It seems to me that interstitial adds in podcasts are incredibly powerful because they are usually in the voice of the pod-caster, so on average the listener is probably going to be much more attentive to the add since it's closely related to the content they're actively paying attention to. Without that people will just tune them out like every other ad
You probably spend most of your time listening to popular podcasts with a large enough listenership that they can get advertisers. There are thousands of smaller podcasters that can’t get advertisers.
Also, most podcast ads are for direct response ads where the effectiveness of the ad campaigns can be tracked somewhat via coupon codes and that either are for large purchases (Casper, Warby Parker) or for subscriptions where the lifetime value of the customer and churn rate can be estimated.
You don’t hear that many brand advertisements on podcasts. That’s the market Spotify wants to go after.
Besides, an advertiser doesn’t need fine grained targeting to know that for instance anyone listening to “The Talk Show” or “Accidental Tech Podcast” is a probably a computer geek with lots of disposable income.
Also, most podcast ads are for direct response ads where the effectiveness of the ad campaigns can be tracked somewhat via coupon codes and that either are for large purchases (Casper, Warby Parker) or for subscriptions where the lifetime value of the customer and churn rate can be estimated.
You don’t hear that many brand advertisements on podcasts. That’s the market Spotify wants to go after.
Besides, an advertiser doesn’t need fine grained targeting to know that for instance anyone listening to “The Talk Show” or “Accidental Tech Podcast” is a probably a computer geek with lots of disposable income.
Stern had bonuses to grow the sirius audience if I remember correctly. Amazing considering Sirius had like 600k subscribers at the time!
Stern was at his height in 2001-2004 I think was peaking at 25m listeners in the mornings on terrestrial radio. Which was fucking massive. Dropped off huge on day 1 at Sirius and I don't think ever recovered most of his audience.
Interesting that audience size != what's a good deal for the broadcaster. Like music however I suspect the REAL value is in the 'back catalog'.
Stern was at his height in 2001-2004 I think was peaking at 25m listeners in the mornings on terrestrial radio. Which was fucking massive. Dropped off huge on day 1 at Sirius and I don't think ever recovered most of his audience.
Interesting that audience size != what's a good deal for the broadcaster. Like music however I suspect the REAL value is in the 'back catalog'.
> Like music however I suspect the REAL value is in the 'back catalog'.
Really?
As a semi frequent JRE listener, if I missed an interesting guest I'll still go back and listen, but I'm not particularly motivated to go and listen to an interview from 1 year ago, or any historical one for that matter.
It needs to be current for me, I'm not convinced it has the replayability of music, or a tv show like friends say.
Really?
As a semi frequent JRE listener, if I missed an interesting guest I'll still go back and listen, but I'm not particularly motivated to go and listen to an interview from 1 year ago, or any historical one for that matter.
It needs to be current for me, I'm not convinced it has the replayability of music, or a tv show like friends say.
Really? If a guest I'm interested in did an interview two years ago and none since, I don't really have a choice, I'm going to listen to that interview.
There's a 3rd option between latest vs replay called older episodes you haven't watched yet.
He has almost 1500 episodes covering thousands of hours. Many people listen to the back catalog while waiting for the latest episodes or more content from the interesting guests and topics.
He has almost 1500 episodes covering thousands of hours. Many people listen to the back catalog while waiting for the latest episodes or more content from the interesting guests and topics.
The ones with Duncan Trussell are highly rewatchable if you like him. He's always talking about philosophy and mysticism and other crazy shit he reads/talks about with others on his podcast. He just teamed up with the creator of Adventure Time to animate some of his podcasts for a show called The Midnight Gospel on Netflix, so they age pretty well.
Agreed. Most of what he talks about is timely/topical. I suspect maybe in 5-10 more years it could get interesting again.
If Reddit, HN and similar sites are any indication, you're right. Views, clicks, comments, etc., fall of a cliff for content older than N units of time.
Is the back catalog valuable without a system like YouTube's? There are countless small clips of the Joe Rogan show that are constantly recommended by the algorithm. Is there any indication that Spotify is capable of replacing that?
The clips stay on YouTube.
The long-form format is a huge part. The regular media is not incentivized to air a 3-hour interview with a thoughtful interviewer. No, you'll get a 2-minute clip on CNN designed to extract click-bait soundbites from the guest.
I have been watching his podcast for a while but I won’t follow him to Spotify. I would switch to Spotify if Spotify would create a proper Apple Watch app with LTE streaming. Unfortunately, Spotify seems intent on trying to “punish” Apple.
I think the JRE brand will be diminished but only time will tell.
I think the JRE brand will be diminished but only time will tell.
Don't get it mistaken. Spotify hate all of their users, not just the Apple crowd. They tinker with their app too much, and with seemingly little value.
Yep, I'm still pissed about removing long press to preview
Yep, I'm still pissed about removing long press to preview
At least the Spotify UX is still better than Apple Music! I'd love it if Spotify would let you sort your playlists by last listened to like Pandora somewhere in the app. Currently I have to search and scroll every time to nearly the bottom of the library to find my Workout playlist which I use religiously at the gym.
I don't get the love for video podcasts. I find it far more efficient to just listen while doing something else (such as driving or working at my computer).
As long as I can get Rogan on my podcast app, nothing really changes for me.
As long as I can get Rogan on my podcast app, nothing really changes for me.
To each their own. JRE is the only podcast I watch. You miss detail on his show if you can’t see the discussion. The episodes with Elon Musk come to mind. Seeing his facial expressions and reactions is more powerful than just hearing it. And, obviously, seeing him smoke a blunt was surreal and not something you can capture in an audio feed.
My point was that you could enjoy JRE the way you wanted to. Now you’ll have to enjoy it the way Spotify tells you to. As far as I know his episodes will be pulled off other platforms in September.
My point was that you could enjoy JRE the way you wanted to. Now you’ll have to enjoy it the way Spotify tells you to. As far as I know his episodes will be pulled off other platforms in September.
I feel like that's one example that everyone cites - sort of proving the rule that 99% of his podcasts can be listened to without missing anything.
It’s the most obvious one. But I don’t need to explain myself to you further. I prefer JRE video podcasts.
Agreed. But I did enjoy watching the podcast more when they actually showed the videos they were talking about. Now they still talk about videos, but never show them due to copyright concerns. That can be a bit annoying, although I know it's not JR's fault.
I would wager most people who watch podcasts on youtube are using it as a second screen while on their phone, tablet, laptop etc
[deleted]
Undoubtedly that is what will happen with Joe Rogan too. Money talks. PewDiePie went through roughly the same transition.
I don't think they are exactly comparable circumstances because podcasts on Spotify are still free, where as Stern made the switch to a paid-platform.
In my case, I'll probably stop listening because my specific podcast app (podkicker) doesn't look like it can pull from spotify (maybe none can).
In my case, I'll probably stop listening because my specific podcast app (podkicker) doesn't look like it can pull from spotify (maybe none can).
> ... shows the power of independent media
Yes, as in "it's possible", the same as it's possible for an unknown author to be a best selling author (like JK Rowling). No as in it's an outlier or the exception. How many cases like this do we have? , esp. considering the consolidation of mass media in a few companies?
Yes, as in "it's possible", the same as it's possible for an unknown author to be a best selling author (like JK Rowling). No as in it's an outlier or the exception. How many cases like this do we have? , esp. considering the consolidation of mass media in a few companies?
I'm curious what your point is. Do you expect that anyone with a mic ought to be able to experience Rogan's success?
The point I believe is that you can't say that "independent media" is now such a strong force when the amount of people that have achieved success within that field is incredibly small (compared to existing large media). Can agree or not, but i believe it's the point.
I disagree. There are many YouTube political commentators pulling in more daily views than CNN. Younger people hate the typical mainstream media outlet because they know it's full of propaganda.
Does propaganda here mean organized baloney as opposed to individual baloney?
Yes. Someone stating their honest-to-god opinion and how they came to it is not propaganda but organised attempts to push certain narratives are. Individuals can definitely shill for their side, but then they wouldn't be very popular with the audience.
I don't have data, but I suspect if you surveyed the viewing habits of people 25 and under you would find they spend a massively disproportionate amount of time on youtube/podcasts/twitch compared to traditional media.
With moves like this one, and also the acquisition of Gimlet for 200+ million, I think we're starting to see the shift of these kinds of outlets from the periphery to the center of media.
With moves like this one, and also the acquisition of Gimlet for 200+ million, I think we're starting to see the shift of these kinds of outlets from the periphery to the center of media.
> But there is also a very practical reason Rogan can say whatever he thinks: He is an individual and not an organization. Eric Weinstein, another podcaster and a friend of Rogan, told me, “It’s the same reason that a contractor can wear a MAGA hat on a job and an employee inside Facebook headquarters cannot: There is no HR department at ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’.”
I think that might be the takeaway for me: modern companies have over-optimized for political correctness. I wish more companies would be honest about their politics and that of their employees.
I think that might be the takeaway for me: modern companies have over-optimized for political correctness. I wish more companies would be honest about their politics and that of their employees.
I thought “keep religion and politics out of the workplace” was advice that had been in place for a while? Not sure that staying away from sensitive political discussion while at work is a modern trend.
It's not that long ago that a significant fraction of people worked on farms and did what they wanted.
It's not that long ago that workers discussed so much politics that they got together and had shootouts with their employers.
It's not that long ago that workers discussed so much politics that they got together and had shootouts with their employers.
> It's not that long ago that a significant fraction of people worked on farms and did what they wanted.
Up until 1860 or so, most people across the world were working on farms. And most of those people were at best sharecroppers, if not serfs or slaves. Something tells me there wasn't a lot of freedom going around :-)
Up until 1860 or so, most people across the world were working on farms. And most of those people were at best sharecroppers, if not serfs or slaves. Something tells me there wasn't a lot of freedom going around :-)
>“keep religion and politics out of the workplace” was advice that had been in place for a while
Sure, but said Facebook employee has a greater chance of having action taken against him for wearing a MAGA cap than for wearing an Antifa shirt. Of course Facebook have all rights to do so since they're a private corporation but that sort of thing is what GP was talking about.
Sure, but said Facebook employee has a greater chance of having action taken against him for wearing a MAGA cap than for wearing an Antifa shirt. Of course Facebook have all rights to do so since they're a private corporation but that sort of thing is what GP was talking about.
Sure, and I'll probably get into greater trouble at the lunchroom of a conservative law firm if I read the Communist Manifesto rather than Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, and I probably shouldn't whip out one of Dawkins books at a church gathering.
What has always confused me about this discussion about say, a left leaning bent at Facebook or whatever is that this has always been the norm in virtually every conservative place, which is like 90% of provincial small towns, from which all the liberal and creative people have to run away in the first place.
What has always confused me about this discussion about say, a left leaning bent at Facebook or whatever is that this has always been the norm in virtually every conservative place, which is like 90% of provincial small towns, from which all the liberal and creative people have to run away in the first place.
An interesting point, but I don't think that's actually true. I doubt there are many places where you'd actually get in trouble for reading the Communist manifesto.
(But admittedly, this is spoken as someone who mostly has exposure to more liberal workplaces - so I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.)
(But admittedly, this is spoken as someone who mostly has exposure to more liberal workplaces - so I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.)
Since when is thinking about others you work with called "political correctness"?
I go to work to do my job and get a paycheck, ideally without drama. I don't give a day's ass about your MAGA hat.
I go to work to do my job and get a paycheck, ideally without drama. I don't give a day's ass about your MAGA hat.
jeromegv(7)
Why would a company actively alienate half of their customers by publicly aligning with one party or the other, when they can just donate quietly with the same effect? I have friends that still don't eat at Chick-Fil-A after the CEO political donations scandal.
Interestingly he says one of the great attractions of podcasts is that you don’t really have to pay attention. It’s like sitting in front of two interesting people on a plane.
Most modern media is too stimulating. Massive budget 3 hour long movies, epic TV series, clickbait websites kaleidoscopic with ads, shrieking tabloids, overproduced hypersexualised pop music... podcasting is just two people talking. It’s a relief, a comfort, it’s humanising. But it will no doubt develop the same perversions as other forms of media now that serious $$$ have arrived. I suspect this will really come into play as the US election approaches.
Most modern media is too stimulating. Massive budget 3 hour long movies, epic TV series, clickbait websites kaleidoscopic with ads, shrieking tabloids, overproduced hypersexualised pop music... podcasting is just two people talking. It’s a relief, a comfort, it’s humanising. But it will no doubt develop the same perversions as other forms of media now that serious $$$ have arrived. I suspect this will really come into play as the US election approaches.
There already exist a plethora of over produced podcasts, the thing is they just aren't as good as the more basic interview centered ones. Podcasts didn't invent anything new, conversation is probably one of the oldest human activities after all, and long form interviews and discussions have been popular before even on broadcast media. Podcasts just democratized the media and allowed the audience to find the content that they wanted. Sure people will try to copy its success while also forcing it into the legacy system and they will probably have some degree of success but the portion of the audience that doesn't like that will just seek out the shows that stay true to form. The accessibility of this media means there is a never ending flood of new podcasts being created daily. This is what happens when you successfully lower the barriers that prevent the dissemination of information/content/entertainment/art. Think of it as doing the same thing for interviews as the printing press did for books or what YouTube did for video.
A lot of it has to do with the discovery mechanism. Compare it with Youtube: the content which does well there is inflammatory by nature, because the discovery mechanism is that the thumbnail and title has to grab the user's attention from a grid of similar content.
Podcasts AFAIK (or as far as I experience) are largely discovered by word-of-mouth. If I discover a podcast, it is probably because one particular episode was interesting enough that someone brought it up in a conversation. Relevant, thought-provoking conversations lend themselves much better to that form of discovery than cheap emotional appeals. Podcasts are a lot like books in that way.
Podcasts AFAIK (or as far as I experience) are largely discovered by word-of-mouth. If I discover a podcast, it is probably because one particular episode was interesting enough that someone brought it up in a conversation. Relevant, thought-provoking conversations lend themselves much better to that form of discovery than cheap emotional appeals. Podcasts are a lot like books in that way.
I think there are a few strata of types of content that make up YouTubes base. The most viewed layer which seems to be what you're talking about seems to consist of short, outrageous or viral clips that people share all over social media. Then there is a layer of more organic content that makes up the other big chunk of time people spend on the platform. The channels are smaller but the engagement is orders of magnitude higher. It's similar to reddit and a lot of other platforms that have a clickbait viral layer that they're monetizing through ads and placement and then the actually valuable content that is hard to monetize but makes up the core engagement of the site. It's a good example of how monetization is deeply broken since it prioritizes the garbage over the quality material.
>Compare it with Youtube: the content which does well there is inflammatory by nature
Except that Rogan's 3-hour-long interviews are massively popular on Youtube, which undermines your point. (The interviews include video.)
Except that Rogan's 3-hour-long interviews are massively popular on Youtube, which undermines your point. (The interviews include video.)
But Rogan's discovery mechanism on youtube is largely short clips of the most controversial or attention-grabbing moments from his long-form content. I would wager to guess that many of his youtube-only viewers probably learned about him from a short clip and went on to watch the full interview out of curiosity.
I like podcasts for exactly this reason. I often listen when I'm running and it's a great way too keep my heart rate down and smooth out my cadence. Sometimes I go a bit farther if it's a really interesting conversation and I want to hear more.
I keep seeing Joe Rogan's name on Reddit and sometimes on HN. Why does he seem to strike a chord with the demographic that hang out on Reddit and HN? Why is his podcast good? Is he really a good moderator? Does he provide good insights to the listeners about people he interviews or topics he discuss in his podcast?
I've watched a few episodes.
- He gets high-profile guests across a decently wide spectrum and at an overall high volume. >95% of his interviews don't interest me, but for the 5% that do - say, John Carmack - the name is the main draw. These people just don't get interviewed all that often so it's an event regardless of the MC. Probably the same for his entire audience, just different 5% slices.
- If you know the old mystery TV anthology show Columbo, he does a similar routine to the titular character: He plays the unassuming everyman and then asks unexpectedly smart/pointed questions, using simple terms but with reasonably deep implications. His interviews seem generally well-prepared. They don't go particularly deep on any subject matter, but if you're familiar with the subject matter they still prompt interesting responses from the guests - you can see someone like Carmack or Musk go into rubber-duck debugging mode trying to digest complicated thoughts into succinct answers and that has an interesting information side-channel to it (it tells you what they really think is important to say or highlight, and Rogan seems to be aware of this - he is good at getting the bits they personally find important).
- Related to the above, the macho/masculinity slant aside he acts humble and un-obnoxious. I might feel differently if I watched any episode with a guest I really dislike (because he seems to be more accommodating than challenging/critical, for sure), but in the episodes I watched I wasn't annoyed with him.
- Part of his prep is also clearly to read up on recent/controversial things related to a guest and probe for it during the interview, so there's the shock value/titilation factor that adds to the entertainment. His skill is that both him and the interviewee anticipate this but he still puts his subjects at ease enough in the moment to make the responses compelling. It has your brain constantly working to sort through what is guarded and what is not (=real), just like quality reality TV (everyone knows reality TV is scripted -- the entertainment is in trying to identify the sliver of authenticity in people's emergent behavior on camera).
- He gets high-profile guests across a decently wide spectrum and at an overall high volume. >95% of his interviews don't interest me, but for the 5% that do - say, John Carmack - the name is the main draw. These people just don't get interviewed all that often so it's an event regardless of the MC. Probably the same for his entire audience, just different 5% slices.
- If you know the old mystery TV anthology show Columbo, he does a similar routine to the titular character: He plays the unassuming everyman and then asks unexpectedly smart/pointed questions, using simple terms but with reasonably deep implications. His interviews seem generally well-prepared. They don't go particularly deep on any subject matter, but if you're familiar with the subject matter they still prompt interesting responses from the guests - you can see someone like Carmack or Musk go into rubber-duck debugging mode trying to digest complicated thoughts into succinct answers and that has an interesting information side-channel to it (it tells you what they really think is important to say or highlight, and Rogan seems to be aware of this - he is good at getting the bits they personally find important).
- Related to the above, the macho/masculinity slant aside he acts humble and un-obnoxious. I might feel differently if I watched any episode with a guest I really dislike (because he seems to be more accommodating than challenging/critical, for sure), but in the episodes I watched I wasn't annoyed with him.
- Part of his prep is also clearly to read up on recent/controversial things related to a guest and probe for it during the interview, so there's the shock value/titilation factor that adds to the entertainment. His skill is that both him and the interviewee anticipate this but he still puts his subjects at ease enough in the moment to make the responses compelling. It has your brain constantly working to sort through what is guarded and what is not (=real), just like quality reality TV (everyone knows reality TV is scripted -- the entertainment is in trying to identify the sliver of authenticity in people's emergent behavior on camera).
To add to that:
- No gotcha questions. On TV, the interviewee might be on for 5 minutes and the interviewer asks a bunch of preloaded questions, especially "gotcha" questions if there's a political divide. Rogan never tries to undermine his guests.
- The conversations usually last as long as they need to. His show sometimes go over 3 hours if it's necessary. I don't ever listen for 3 hours and feel like I've wasted my time.
- Joe is clearly good at making his guests feel comfortable, which brings out a different side of people that you might not see in a traditional setting. How is anyone supposed to be uptight around a pot smoking, MMA fighting comedian who asks you if you've used DMT?
- No gotcha questions. On TV, the interviewee might be on for 5 minutes and the interviewer asks a bunch of preloaded questions, especially "gotcha" questions if there's a political divide. Rogan never tries to undermine his guests.
- The conversations usually last as long as they need to. His show sometimes go over 3 hours if it's necessary. I don't ever listen for 3 hours and feel like I've wasted my time.
- Joe is clearly good at making his guests feel comfortable, which brings out a different side of people that you might not see in a traditional setting. How is anyone supposed to be uptight around a pot smoking, MMA fighting comedian who asks you if you've used DMT?
TV/Radio is slave to the show clock and ads, where-as Rogan isn't. I don't think I've seen ads because I use ad block, but if there are, they just stop the show for a minute or so. TV producers and anchors have to plan around all that and it interrupts your attention and affects how they deliver. Pretty much everyone on TV is trained this way and used to this. Rogan would be bad if he had TV's format and ads. To say nothing of being on YouTube and being able to ignore FCC regulations compared to TV/Radio. The format is just so much nicer. Colbert doesn't even get 2 hours and he is massively successful.
It is a similar trick Hello! Magazine uses. Allow guests to be themselves and in a positive light, with no scary surprise. The guests open up and share more about themselves and what they are up to.
How is being a welcoming host a trick?
It's like saying serving good food and making your guest feel at home is a trick for a successful diner.
It's like saying serving good food and making your guest feel at home is a trick for a successful diner.
Hello! don't roast people so they get A list people open their homes and hearts. Hence they are a safe place for people of celebrity significance to be shown in.
In British English 'trick' can mean many things. You can do a trick on a skateboard but the usage I have is
a clever or particular way of doing something.
"the trick is to put one ski forward and kneel"
I hope that clarifies the British English usage. Elsewhere 'trick' probably means deception but in British English there are other uses, e.g. the trick to explaining something is to cite Wikipedia.
In British English 'trick' can mean many things. You can do a trick on a skateboard but the usage I have is
a clever or particular way of doing something.
"the trick is to put one ski forward and kneel"
I hope that clarifies the British English usage. Elsewhere 'trick' probably means deception but in British English there are other uses, e.g. the trick to explaining something is to cite Wikipedia.
Compare 'knack'? A positive skill but simple at heart. "There is a knack to it."
I understand knack not to mean a learned skill but instead a natural aptitude. For example, a knack for humor, figuring out mechanical things, putting people at ease, debugging code, etc.
A lot of people mistakenly thing that Joe is not very smart because he asks "dumb questions". I think it's the exact opposite, he leads his guests with well chosen questions that he probably already knows the answer to, but the guest can surely elaborate on from deep experience.
When I see mainstream media interview people that are expert in topics I'm well versed in, the questions are cringe worthy at best.
For comparison with someone trying to create a similar show, Lex Fridman regularly asks some stupid, stupid questions. He's clearly approaching his guests from his own personal perspective, and not letting the individual perspective of their guests be front and centre.
When I see mainstream media interview people that are expert in topics I'm well versed in, the questions are cringe worthy at best.
For comparison with someone trying to create a similar show, Lex Fridman regularly asks some stupid, stupid questions. He's clearly approaching his guests from his own personal perspective, and not letting the individual perspective of their guests be front and centre.
> For comparison with someone trying to create a similar show, Lex Fridman regularly asks some stupid, stupid questions. He's clearly approaching his guests from his own personal perspective, and not letting the individual perspective of their guests be front and centre.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.
I had high hopes for Fridman's podcast after the JRE revered him as a sort of young, genius, intellectual version of JRE. He's highly respected among JRE online communities, I think because he presents himself the way most JRE listeners expect a generic smart person to sound. Yet every time I listen to him, I'm left scratching my head.
It feels like he's working hard to copy-and-paste the JRE format, but like many other imitators it exposes why Rogan is so popular in the first place: Rogan is a expert conversationalist who makes both the guest and listener feel at ease, like the listener is part of the conversation. His charisma isn't entirely obvious until you start comparing him to imitators.
I'm still hopeful that Lex Fridman's podcast will get more enjoyable over time as he relaxes a bit and masters the art of the podcast. He's been able to get some high profile guests on his show, so the potential is there.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.
I had high hopes for Fridman's podcast after the JRE revered him as a sort of young, genius, intellectual version of JRE. He's highly respected among JRE online communities, I think because he presents himself the way most JRE listeners expect a generic smart person to sound. Yet every time I listen to him, I'm left scratching my head.
It feels like he's working hard to copy-and-paste the JRE format, but like many other imitators it exposes why Rogan is so popular in the first place: Rogan is a expert conversationalist who makes both the guest and listener feel at ease, like the listener is part of the conversation. His charisma isn't entirely obvious until you start comparing him to imitators.
I'm still hopeful that Lex Fridman's podcast will get more enjoyable over time as he relaxes a bit and masters the art of the podcast. He's been able to get some high profile guests on his show, so the potential is there.
I have a similar gripe with Eric Weinstein's podcast mentioned in TFA.
I've quite enjoyed the episodes I've listened to, however they can be difficult to parse at times - somewhat defeating the oft-mentioned benefit of listening to a podcast while performing other activities.
He is obviously very intelligent, but often uses language and analogies that appear to be aimed more at showing off this intelligence than engaging the guest or audience. It distracts from the point he or his guest is attempting to make, which is frustrating.
I've quite enjoyed the episodes I've listened to, however they can be difficult to parse at times - somewhat defeating the oft-mentioned benefit of listening to a podcast while performing other activities.
He is obviously very intelligent, but often uses language and analogies that appear to be aimed more at showing off this intelligence than engaging the guest or audience. It distracts from the point he or his guest is attempting to make, which is frustrating.
I think Fridman is very smart, but he needs to prepare for his interviews a bit better and/or edit them.
Too often he can't quite put the question he wants to ask into words, and if he prepared slightly better it would improve the podcast a lot.
Too often he can't quite put the question he wants to ask into words, and if he prepared slightly better it would improve the podcast a lot.
It's strange, there are some interviews where he seems to reach a much better rapport with his guest. These tend to be guests who are also in the computer science and software domain. I think his biggest hinderance is his reliance on his notes and his apparent fear of looking dumb or unprepared. I get it, I'd probably do the same thing if I were interviewing the same calibre of people but I think he just needs to relax a bit and look for common ground with his guests. Maybe there's too much fear of missing the opportunity to ask certain questions of these high profile people but it's a bit of a turn off. Rogan seems to get this right, maybe even going too far sometimes by not being afraid to just shoot the shit and talk about random incongruous interests. It shows you a side of his guests that you would never get to see elsewhere and it's a lot more humanizing than just question-answer style interviewing.
In the Sean Caroll episodes, he clearly exaggerates his level of confusion in the face of quantum physics.
He’s definitely smarter than he lets on, but there are lots of funny moments where he clearly has no idea what the guest is talking about.
Elon Musk: We need some kind of like, mind-viral immunity. So that’s, that’s a bit concerning.
Joe Rogan: Mind-viral immunity. Meaning that once something like Neuralink gets established, the real concern is that it’s something, that, I mean you said it’s Bluetooth, right?
Elon Musk: We need some kind of like, mind-viral immunity. So that’s, that’s a bit concerning.
Joe Rogan: Mind-viral immunity. Meaning that once something like Neuralink gets established, the real concern is that it’s something, that, I mean you said it’s Bluetooth, right?
I think the "wide spectrum" part is really important. I'm on the far left by American standards and Rogan still has a lot of interviews that interest me even though I think he's more traditionally associated with conservative-ish or libertarian-ish views.
Joe Rogan has self-claimed liberal views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ctTmQn8w7A
He's kind of all over the place, which is why I think he appeals to a lot of people (myself included). It's hard to put him in a box.
I hate the fact that Americans say “liberal” when they mean “left-wing”, or vice versa.
Classical liberalism / neoliberalism are not left-wing ideologies. They are, at best, centre-right if the Overton window is set to Western standards.
Edit: I love being downvoted because I care about the meaning of words. I clearly stepped on some American nerves. Thanks HN.
Classical liberalism / neoliberalism are not left-wing ideologies. They are, at best, centre-right if the Overton window is set to Western standards.
Edit: I love being downvoted because I care about the meaning of words. I clearly stepped on some American nerves. Thanks HN.
people probably don't like this nitpick because the core meaning of "liberal" is relative, just like "left" and "right". "liberal"/"conservative" may have a different connotation than "left"/"right" depending on context, but they have roughly the same meaning. you always need to know (at least implicitly) what position is being compared against to know what "liberal" means.
But that's exactly what I'm arguing against! The core meaning of liberal is not relative, it's a pretty well defined ideology (with multiple strands, to be sure, but still).
The whole reason you think the meaning depends on the context is because you have been mislead to believe that liberal == left-wing, or something approaching that.
This is completely and utterly false, hence my "nitpick". Changing the meaning of these words causes the exact type of confusion you seem to be suffering from!
Left-wing is a term with a very loose definition, and depending on the Overton window, "liberal" places somewhere on the left/right axis. "Liberal", however, does have a well-defined meaning, since it refers to a specific ideology, unlike "the left".
TLRD: "liberal" is not a direction on an axis, rather it's a point on an already existing axis, the left/right one.
The whole reason you think the meaning depends on the context is because you have been mislead to believe that liberal == left-wing, or something approaching that.
This is completely and utterly false, hence my "nitpick". Changing the meaning of these words causes the exact type of confusion you seem to be suffering from!
Left-wing is a term with a very loose definition, and depending on the Overton window, "liberal" places somewhere on the left/right axis. "Liberal", however, does have a well-defined meaning, since it refers to a specific ideology, unlike "the left".
TLRD: "liberal" is not a direction on an axis, rather it's a point on an already existing axis, the left/right one.
I'm being downvoted too lol, politics on HN are so ridiculous.
Classical liberalism is basically the opposite of liberalism as it is mostly understood in the West today.
Interestingly, you see this most in Australia, where the Centre/Right party is called the Liberal Party.
But it hasn't been used like that since the 1970s really, except in the "Liberal Democracy" sense. I think that has actually caused a lot of issues where the US right says they don't support Liberal Democracy, whereas - generally speaking, with the exception of the authoritarian arm - they mostly do.
Interestingly, you see this most in Australia, where the Centre/Right party is called the Liberal Party.
But it hasn't been used like that since the 1970s really, except in the "Liberal Democracy" sense. I think that has actually caused a lot of issues where the US right says they don't support Liberal Democracy, whereas - generally speaking, with the exception of the authoritarian arm - they mostly do.
The meaning of words change over time. Always have and always will.
do you not remember when all of cancel police on twitter got mad at Bernie for accepting Rogan's endorsement in the primary? he can call himself whatever he wants that doesn't mean it's true.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-r...
"Rogan, a libertarian-leaning broadcaster with a public persona in the mold of Howard Stern"
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-r...
"Rogan, a libertarian-leaning broadcaster with a public persona in the mold of Howard Stern"
He has intriguing diverse guests and let them do most of the speaking, for an extended period of time.
It's refreshing.
There are plenty of people I would never have listened to otherwise, because they are outside my bubble or just because they would represent something against my view of the world.
But because I also saw people I view as interesting or people I already knew from somewhere else, and because they have the time and space to elaborate, I gave the others a chance.
This allowed me to be exposed to new topics, points of views, etc, in a relaxing and human format.
Just like regular media, it's full of bullshit. But I'm full of it too.
It does, however, feel way more genuine than regular media.
It's refreshing.
There are plenty of people I would never have listened to otherwise, because they are outside my bubble or just because they would represent something against my view of the world.
But because I also saw people I view as interesting or people I already knew from somewhere else, and because they have the time and space to elaborate, I gave the others a chance.
This allowed me to be exposed to new topics, points of views, etc, in a relaxing and human format.
Just like regular media, it's full of bullshit. But I'm full of it too.
It does, however, feel way more genuine than regular media.
RandomTisk(2)
I only recently discovered him, and the biggest thing I noticed is that he lets his guests talk. Probably because he's not constrained to a particular amount of time, but I find gems in his interviews of people that I don't from the same people interviewed elsewhere
>Why is his podcast good?
High profile guests, long form content. Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal".
If I'm settling into some work and don't want to listen to music, I can put on Rogan and know I've got 3 hours of filler. You can pay attention only to the parts you want to and not be concerned you're missing anything important. After hundreds of hours, part of what makes it special is continuity and familiarity.
High profile guests, long form content. Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal".
If I'm settling into some work and don't want to listen to music, I can put on Rogan and know I've got 3 hours of filler. You can pay attention only to the parts you want to and not be concerned you're missing anything important. After hundreds of hours, part of what makes it special is continuity and familiarity.
>Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal".
I don't really like Rogan personally but this behavior is intentional and quite smart in my opinion. Rogan (and his team) preps quite a bit, the vibe he is going for is an everyman who does not know anymore about the situation than you do. This is not reality. The idea is that this style makes the listener not feel stupid or embarrassed to learn about the viewpoints of the interviewee. He's among the most listened to interviewers in the world, so I guess it works.
I don't really like Rogan personally but this behavior is intentional and quite smart in my opinion. Rogan (and his team) preps quite a bit, the vibe he is going for is an everyman who does not know anymore about the situation than you do. This is not reality. The idea is that this style makes the listener not feel stupid or embarrassed to learn about the viewpoints of the interviewee. He's among the most listened to interviewers in the world, so I guess it works.
A BBC reviewer [1] of his podcast picked up on this as well and called him the "Bruce Springsteen of chat" and said:
"His listeners get him, like him; maybe even want to be him. He's not a show-pony, or a light-entertainment phoney: he's the all-American do it yourself modern man, tough but intelligent."
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804
"His listeners get him, like him; maybe even want to be him. He's not a show-pony, or a light-entertainment phoney: he's the all-American do it yourself modern man, tough but intelligent."
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804
> he doesn't even read the books of his guests
In a 3 hour interview format, I don't think he really needs to. The interview itself is a similar medium, and by not already knowing all of the details, it probably makes it easier to genuinely bring along listeners from zero information to a full picture.
In a 3 hour interview format, I don't think he really needs to. The interview itself is a similar medium, and by not already knowing all of the details, it probably makes it easier to genuinely bring along listeners from zero information to a full picture.
>he doesn't even read the books of his guests
Does he lie when he claims he has? I've heard him discuss books with guests on many occasions, though I'm sure he hasn't read everyone's books given the number of guests he has now.
Does he lie when he claims he has? I've heard him discuss books with guests on many occasions, though I'm sure he hasn't read everyone's books given the number of guests he has now.
I think its a combination of a lot of things:
1) He is a good listener, that asks questions that non journalists would ask. Listen to Ezra Klein interview the same guest and you see the exact opposite type of interview. Klein comes off as more "intelligent" and more "informed", his questions are more journalist in nature, and he has usually read the book (opposite of Rogan). I like both Rogan and Klein, but I get the Rogan appeal, and I think Klein interviews can come off annoying sometimes (the 10th "That's a great question Ezra" is trite)
2) He is not a political partisan. It is refreshing to hear someone who is not "toeing the dem/rep line" (or is it towing). A lot of people in here are saying he is alt-right, which is a joke, he is not at all.
3) He has great guests for all walks of life
4) He comes off as a normal guy (but clearly is actually in the top 1% at this point)
5) He is a comedian, and does not care about political correctness and gives two shits about cancel culture
1) He is a good listener, that asks questions that non journalists would ask. Listen to Ezra Klein interview the same guest and you see the exact opposite type of interview. Klein comes off as more "intelligent" and more "informed", his questions are more journalist in nature, and he has usually read the book (opposite of Rogan). I like both Rogan and Klein, but I get the Rogan appeal, and I think Klein interviews can come off annoying sometimes (the 10th "That's a great question Ezra" is trite)
2) He is not a political partisan. It is refreshing to hear someone who is not "toeing the dem/rep line" (or is it towing). A lot of people in here are saying he is alt-right, which is a joke, he is not at all.
3) He has great guests for all walks of life
4) He comes off as a normal guy (but clearly is actually in the top 1% at this point)
5) He is a comedian, and does not care about political correctness and gives two shits about cancel culture
He just has a very natural talent for appealing to a vast range of interests/tastes/preferences in the audience.
I once heard him half-jokingly say he's at the intersect between the meat-heads and the pot-heads. I.e., those into MMA, bodybuilding, cars, hunting (a giant audience) and those into psychedelics, new-age philosophy, yoga, nature (also a giant audience). And there's a lot in between those categories (people into more mainstream science/astronomy, entertainment, business, politics, health etc).
I probably only listen to 1 out of 10 or 15 of his episodes, but that still has me listening to him for an hour or two every week or two, and so I still feel more familiar with him than most other media/public figures these days.
I once heard him half-jokingly say he's at the intersect between the meat-heads and the pot-heads. I.e., those into MMA, bodybuilding, cars, hunting (a giant audience) and those into psychedelics, new-age philosophy, yoga, nature (also a giant audience). And there's a lot in between those categories (people into more mainstream science/astronomy, entertainment, business, politics, health etc).
I probably only listen to 1 out of 10 or 15 of his episodes, but that still has me listening to him for an hour or two every week or two, and so I still feel more familiar with him than most other media/public figures these days.
Personally, for me it's because he gets big names on his shows and, much like on Stern, they like to open up, and unlike other hosts of other shows in different media, Joe is not trying to outshine them either intentionally or with annoying idiosyncrasies.
Take Jimmy Fallon for example. Can't watch 1 minute of that guy without wanting to smash my TV. His incessant laughing, at everything the guest says whether it really is funny or not is insufferable.
I don't know if Jimmy is fake laughing or not, but the net result, is that the show's flow is constantly interrupted by that cackle. Also, Jimmy is kind of a sycophant. Afraid to disagree or challenge and opinion. It makes for a boring show.
Then you got other hosts like Kimmel and/or Colbert who are trying to be super political which is obnoxious.
Then you've got people like James Corden who are, again, not comfortable shutting up but need, instead, need the center of attention along with the guest and instead of having real conversations, they need to do segments that are essentially games like the carpool karaoke.
I know it's different formats but it's an example how certain hosts drown out the guest whether intentionally or not.
The appeal of Joe's podcast is in the conversations and the minutiae of those conversations, and even when the guest, isn't necessarily interesting at first, if they converse long enough they're bound to go into an interesting topic.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with Joe's politics or other opinions but I always enjoy his podcasts mainly cause he's a good conduit for his guests to open up and start waxing about whatever they normally wouldn't on other shows.
Also, let's not forget, Joey Diaz. So many classic moments with Joey and Joe.
Take Jimmy Fallon for example. Can't watch 1 minute of that guy without wanting to smash my TV. His incessant laughing, at everything the guest says whether it really is funny or not is insufferable.
I don't know if Jimmy is fake laughing or not, but the net result, is that the show's flow is constantly interrupted by that cackle. Also, Jimmy is kind of a sycophant. Afraid to disagree or challenge and opinion. It makes for a boring show.
Then you got other hosts like Kimmel and/or Colbert who are trying to be super political which is obnoxious.
Then you've got people like James Corden who are, again, not comfortable shutting up but need, instead, need the center of attention along with the guest and instead of having real conversations, they need to do segments that are essentially games like the carpool karaoke.
I know it's different formats but it's an example how certain hosts drown out the guest whether intentionally or not.
The appeal of Joe's podcast is in the conversations and the minutiae of those conversations, and even when the guest, isn't necessarily interesting at first, if they converse long enough they're bound to go into an interesting topic.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with Joe's politics or other opinions but I always enjoy his podcasts mainly cause he's a good conduit for his guests to open up and start waxing about whatever they normally wouldn't on other shows.
Also, let's not forget, Joey Diaz. So many classic moments with Joey and Joe.
This is a great summary of his persona and podcast: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my...
-He was one of the early entries in the era of the podcast.
-He is pro-pot-smoking, drug-taking, conspiracy talk, and generally being open-minded about everything, sometimes to his detriment. Especially early on he was very curious about a wide range of things, but as he has aged and bought into his own press I think he's become a bit less openminded.
-His podcast format is basically a couple of friends shooting the shit, often while stoned or drunk, but his "friends" are typically smart interesting experts in a particular subject matter. When that is the case he will usually let them do most of the talking.
-Due to the above format, Rogan rarely questions or challenges his quests in a manner that might make them look bad or feel uncomfortable/defensive. Though if what they are saying goes against his own internal beliefs or views, no matter how ill-informed, he will push back aggressively. In general, he's not very knowledgable or well-read outside of Twitter/YT/etc which helps the conversation flow.
-At the same time due to his success and the power of his show most of his guests will bend over backward to not question anything he asserts as fact or make him look dumb/misinformed. They all want to be invited on again as its massive for their career/product they are selling/etc. This helps make the conversations interesting but also light and fluffy to be easily consumed.
-He appeals to an overly male skeptic type audience that is fascinated by the fringe across news, information, media, science, history etc.
-He cranks out a ton of content with lots of different guests which is really the key to his success. Rogan has been wealthy and successful since the 1990s and has a unique and interesting lifestyle that affords him the ability to do his show exactly how he wants, invite any guest he wants, and do it often. So whether you are into MMA, hunting, scientists, tech CEO's, alt-right political figures, comedians, conspiracy wonks, etc...there is a sub-genre of content available for you to binge.
-He is pro-pot-smoking, drug-taking, conspiracy talk, and generally being open-minded about everything, sometimes to his detriment. Especially early on he was very curious about a wide range of things, but as he has aged and bought into his own press I think he's become a bit less openminded.
-His podcast format is basically a couple of friends shooting the shit, often while stoned or drunk, but his "friends" are typically smart interesting experts in a particular subject matter. When that is the case he will usually let them do most of the talking.
-Due to the above format, Rogan rarely questions or challenges his quests in a manner that might make them look bad or feel uncomfortable/defensive. Though if what they are saying goes against his own internal beliefs or views, no matter how ill-informed, he will push back aggressively. In general, he's not very knowledgable or well-read outside of Twitter/YT/etc which helps the conversation flow.
-At the same time due to his success and the power of his show most of his guests will bend over backward to not question anything he asserts as fact or make him look dumb/misinformed. They all want to be invited on again as its massive for their career/product they are selling/etc. This helps make the conversations interesting but also light and fluffy to be easily consumed.
-He appeals to an overly male skeptic type audience that is fascinated by the fringe across news, information, media, science, history etc.
-He cranks out a ton of content with lots of different guests which is really the key to his success. Rogan has been wealthy and successful since the 1990s and has a unique and interesting lifestyle that affords him the ability to do his show exactly how he wants, invite any guest he wants, and do it often. So whether you are into MMA, hunting, scientists, tech CEO's, alt-right political figures, comedians, conspiracy wonks, etc...there is a sub-genre of content available for you to binge.
I don't listen to him, but he is basically the essence modern masculinity. Reddit and HN skew very heavily on the male side, so it's not surprising he's this popular.
I personally think of him as King of the Bros and think it's kind of sad that he's become the model man, but it is what it is.
I personally think of him as King of the Bros and think it's kind of sad that he's become the model man, but it is what it is.
I won’t disagree with Joe being sort of “bro-like”, but I will disagree with him being the “model man”. I occasionally watch his show and have several friends who do, and none of us would say we aspire to be like Joe Rogan. Like many have said here, it’s simply the fact that sometimes he has good guests on (many physicists, biologists, tech people) and he actually lets them talk, which is a refreshing change from the shocking-soundbite driven news media that had been dominant for so long. Respecting this aspect of his show is completely different from viewing Joe as some sort of role model.
Lots, if not all, of those people are available by themselves though and usually in much better form. To use a famous example, watching Musk's talk on Neuralink, or the orignal MCT/ITS talk was fascinating, but watching him "smoke" weed or pronounce the name of his kid is pretty boring.
99.9% of people listening to JRE have no idea what the ‘original MCG/ITS talk’ is. Rogan’s usefulness is that he is often the first exposure to a person or idea.
> Lots, if not all, of those people are available by themselves though and usually in much better form.
For anyone that enjoys the medical / health guests on Rogan's podcast, I'd recommend "The Peter Attia Drive" podcast. (Not to be confused with Peter Attia's appearance on Rogan's podcast).
Many of the same guests are on both, but on Attia's, they are speaking to an MD and start at a way higher level.
It's a great fit for my 100/200 college level basic understanding of biology and chemistry, it usually starts from there and goes up. There's quite a bit I don't follow exactly because of that, but I certainly prefer that than a dumbed down version of everything.
For anyone that enjoys the medical / health guests on Rogan's podcast, I'd recommend "The Peter Attia Drive" podcast. (Not to be confused with Peter Attia's appearance on Rogan's podcast).
Many of the same guests are on both, but on Attia's, they are speaking to an MD and start at a way higher level.
It's a great fit for my 100/200 college level basic understanding of biology and chemistry, it usually starts from there and goes up. There's quite a bit I don't follow exactly because of that, but I certainly prefer that than a dumbed down version of everything.
> watching him "smoke" weed or pronounce the name of his kid is pretty boring.
Agreed, but those were not the only things Musk did in each of those episodes and they contained a lot of content (that didn't involve just smoking weed) that was probably interesting to people outside of the HN crowd who wouldn't watch Musks's actual Neuralink presentation or the original MCT/ITS talk.
Agreed, but those were not the only things Musk did in each of those episodes and they contained a lot of content (that didn't involve just smoking weed) that was probably interesting to people outside of the HN crowd who wouldn't watch Musks's actual Neuralink presentation or the original MCT/ITS talk.
The thing I always think about Joe Rogan and his podcast is that there will always be a huge audience for a talkative meathead, but Joe is about the best possible version of a popular meathead we could ask for.
What makes it sad?
What’s not sad about mediocrity being held up as a model? Someone once asked “Is Joe the smartest dumb person or the dumbest smart person?” That question captures him so well.
Mediocrity? He's just licensed his podcast for three years for over $100m. He's a very successful comedian. He's one of the most well known personalities in the MMA world. If that's what you judge as mediocre I'd love to know what you judge as successful.
But that’s also sad, that the amount of a signed contract is what makes someone worth emulating today. Beyond sad: it’s tragic. The world is full of all kinds of people who happen to make money. That shouldn’t make them all models.
There's plenty of people way smarter than him, making way more money and making the world objectively a worse place. I don't really see much substance in this sadness point.
If some people out there has Rogan as role model I honestly, comparing him with most media figures, I can't be bothered.
He has a format that people enjoys, and he's not trying to make people swallow any narrative. That's good in my book.
If some people out there has Rogan as role model I honestly, comparing him with most media figures, I can't be bothered.
He has a format that people enjoys, and he's not trying to make people swallow any narrative. That's good in my book.
Joe Rogan is successful across multiple domains. He's the UFC's main color commentator, a successful TV personality, a successful touring comedian, a state champion in martial arts, has a podcast worth $100 million etc. etc.
The top answers are good at explaining why he is popular in general. As for why he’a mentioned here: he has the number 1 podcast in the world. So, it’s natural to see him mentioned. His audience also skews male (~70%), and so do the audiences of reddit and HN.
So you would expect to see a fair bit of mentions. Finally, he interviews people from many walks of life, so you can expect an episode to be relevant to a variety of conversations.
So I don’t think he necessarily has an outsized share of the HN/reddit demographic. He’s just damned popular, and easy to mention.
So you would expect to see a fair bit of mentions. Finally, he interviews people from many walks of life, so you can expect an episode to be relevant to a variety of conversations.
So I don’t think he necessarily has an outsized share of the HN/reddit demographic. He’s just damned popular, and easy to mention.
He is a good listener, that is something I lookout for when listening to his shows. He can teach you a lot about how to listen and talk to people who you disagree with.
He has a lot of humility, he admits when he is wrong or if he doesn't know something. But also he is not shying away from calling BS when he hears it.
I would divide his show into 3 categories: - his comic fiends - a casual convos with a bit insight into comedians world + tons of shit talking - MMA + hunting guests/talks - random invitational guest - literally random - he would talk to dem/rep candidate, dieting, book writers etc. anything that is interesting.
also he has fight companion shows for mma fights.
I listen primary to invite guest shows, occasionally to others but those get bit repetitive.
He has a lot of humility, he admits when he is wrong or if he doesn't know something. But also he is not shying away from calling BS when he hears it.
I would divide his show into 3 categories: - his comic fiends - a casual convos with a bit insight into comedians world + tons of shit talking - MMA + hunting guests/talks - random invitational guest - literally random - he would talk to dem/rep candidate, dieting, book writers etc. anything that is interesting.
also he has fight companion shows for mma fights.
I listen primary to invite guest shows, occasionally to others but those get bit repetitive.
There are a few more categories in there 4) conspiracy theory guests that he wants to get more information out of or find out if they're full of shit 5) subject matter experts on topics that he's interested in, and more recently 6) the ones that feel like they're looking for the Rogan Bump and have probably been told to "go on Rogan" by their publicists, I have mixed feelings about this group since it's good to see them react to Rogan's interview style but it also feels like he sometimes softballs them out of deference or maybe just general politeness.
Only listened to one Joe Rogan episode: with John Carmack. He doesn't know shit about the field but he did wonderfully inviting him. Don't know if it's his editing or questioning or JC himself but it was great.
There's no editing
I've only heard the audio and didn't realize. Wow! He's great then. A superlative interviewer.
[deleted]
He strikes a chord with a lot of people simply because he puts out so many shows. I think it would be hard to look at his list of guests from the past few months and not find anything that interests you.
He's Oprah for dudes.
[deleted]
You visit the sites as well, since you're seeing his content directed your way... maybe you're also his demographic or view content that is related?
This BBC review (consider JR is basically unknown in the UK) of his show helped me get a feel for this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804
I find that Joe Rogan can be sometimes hit or miss, but for the most part, he has some interesting guests, the conversation with his guests are "natural" and does not seems forced, and I find that he knows how to ask good questions
[deleted]
Why don't you just watch / listen and find out ?
Other responses say why people do listen to him; I don't listen to him because I don't like long podcasts. His are way too long for me.
Authenticity. Deep conversation on interesting topics rooted in genuine curiosity. The long form is a rarity.
His type of long form interviews would be simply impossible on traditional television (even though it's a podcast, I always watch on Youtube as do many others). He tapped into an unexplored demand that lives directly in the blindspot of the traditional media.
Edit to add: it's pretty hard to imagine a TV broadcaster would try to tap into this niche, imagine a TV channel that has 3 hour interviews uninterrupted by ads (experience using ad blockers), on a wide variety of topics, no filter, across a wide varity of political views.
Edit to add: it's pretty hard to imagine a TV broadcaster would try to tap into this niche, imagine a TV channel that has 3 hour interviews uninterrupted by ads (experience using ad blockers), on a wide variety of topics, no filter, across a wide varity of political views.
it's funny, it'd be easy for TV to do it. There's a lot of empty 24hour news channels out there.
Putting a 3 hour interview on at 10pm and running it till 1am and then on repeat at 10am the next day would be a pretty simple way to build out some really intersting content.
The only thing you'd need would be discipline to keep the producers from cutting into it.
But there's a lot of channels out there. There's a lot of space.
Traditional TV executives would never go for it. Even if they did, the inflexibilty of regular TV schedules would still be inferior to listening when you want. Plus as you mention they would have the discipline to not cut into it.
Yes if I had to sum it up in one word "authenticity" would be it. It seems like he truly doesn't care what other people think of him. If he thinks something, he'll say it (but not in an arrogant way like Trump). If the "mainstream media" doesn't approve of a guest on his show, doesn't bother him, he's still willing to hear them out - and more importantly will call them out on their bullshit. He doesn't even pretend to give in to the identity politics bullshit that for whatever reason I can not comprehend has taken over the public narrative.
This is not something you see on mainstream media, where everyone is carefully crafting their words and hedging every statement to ensure they offend as little people as possible, ultimately saying little of interest and disillusioning the public because everyday people feel that no one in power is a real human being who understands them. When someone will just bluntly say the obvious that for whatever reason the establishment won't, it's refreshing.
In addition, he is radically open-minded in a way that's very rare from these kinds of hosts, and people in general. Most people are very rigidly set in their ideologies, which leads to many people sounding like carbon copies of one another (boring). Rogan will consider any idea no matter how outlandish. And he is very curious and asks insightful questions, while knowing when to shut up and let the guest speak (helps that the interviews last 1.5-3 hours).
Also as a comedian, he's significantly more entertaining than your average dry newscaster.
I'm not glorifying Rogan here, just trying to articulate why I enjoy his show, despite the fact that I don't really listen to many other podcasts. He certainly is not perfect and has his weaknesses - for example when discussing technical topics he doesn't dive as deep as I'd like (eg. Elon Musk, John Carmack, Neil DeGrasse Tyson). But overall, he does a great job of bringing interesting guests and getting interesting conversations out of him, so it's not surprising to me that he's so successful.
This is not something you see on mainstream media, where everyone is carefully crafting their words and hedging every statement to ensure they offend as little people as possible, ultimately saying little of interest and disillusioning the public because everyday people feel that no one in power is a real human being who understands them. When someone will just bluntly say the obvious that for whatever reason the establishment won't, it's refreshing.
In addition, he is radically open-minded in a way that's very rare from these kinds of hosts, and people in general. Most people are very rigidly set in their ideologies, which leads to many people sounding like carbon copies of one another (boring). Rogan will consider any idea no matter how outlandish. And he is very curious and asks insightful questions, while knowing when to shut up and let the guest speak (helps that the interviews last 1.5-3 hours).
Also as a comedian, he's significantly more entertaining than your average dry newscaster.
I'm not glorifying Rogan here, just trying to articulate why I enjoy his show, despite the fact that I don't really listen to many other podcasts. He certainly is not perfect and has his weaknesses - for example when discussing technical topics he doesn't dive as deep as I'd like (eg. Elon Musk, John Carmack, Neil DeGrasse Tyson). But overall, he does a great job of bringing interesting guests and getting interesting conversations out of him, so it's not surprising to me that he's so successful.
Exactly. People are starved for authenticity and truth, and the freedom to both express and enjoy it.
threeseed(2)
In my brief viewing he pretends to be unbiased. Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic.
Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. Joe Rogan: "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/joe-rogan-s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5qbaxYhbL8
Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. Joe Rogan: "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/joe-rogan-s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5qbaxYhbL8
Everything is worthy of discussion and everyone's opinion is valuable no matter how much I may dislike them/disagree with them.
I feel like this because the alternative is having a gatekeeper who tells everyone whose opinion is worth spreading and whose should be silenced and I prefer living in a non-totalitarian society.
Unless I'm that gatekeeper of course: I'm down for subjugating society to my personal preference of what's right and wrong.
edit: I may think that Alex Jones is an idiot but I still want him to be able to get as much exposure as someone I like.
I feel like this because the alternative is having a gatekeeper who tells everyone whose opinion is worth spreading and whose should be silenced and I prefer living in a non-totalitarian society.
Unless I'm that gatekeeper of course: I'm down for subjugating society to my personal preference of what's right and wrong.
edit: I may think that Alex Jones is an idiot but I still want him to be able to get as much exposure as someone I like.
Everyone's opinion is NOT valuable. That thinking is exactly why 5G towers are being burned down. The media - Joe Rogan included - has decided that your OPINIONS carry the same weight as scientific FACT and "let the listeners decide". That'll absolutely attract viewers from all walks of life - and it's a disservice to all of them.
I get what you're saying but letting the people decide what policy to follow is what a democracy is all about: if enough idiots in a sovereign nation decide to go "fuck 5g" then that's exactly what that nation should do. Do I think it's stupid and wrong? Yes. Do I think they should be allowed to choose that? Yes.
So you're suggesting we let people be misinformed? Where do you draw the line? Do we let our teachers teach the earth is both flat and round and "let the students decide"? The earth is the center of the universe and just a part of the milky way? The holocaust happened and didn't happen?
You can't possibly expect people to make rational decisions about science they don't understand. And letting people straight up LIE and expect the common man to spend hours researching a topic they probably don't even understand to figure out they're being lied to is RIDICULOUS. There's a reason why we have ethics in journalism...
You can't possibly expect people to make rational decisions about science they don't understand. And letting people straight up LIE and expect the common man to spend hours researching a topic they probably don't even understand to figure out they're being lied to is RIDICULOUS. There's a reason why we have ethics in journalism...
Who/what decides who is “misinformed”. Again, there needs to be a gatekeeper if you go that direction, and that direction leads to exactly what the mainstream media of today is.
The fact you’d advocate putting someone on tv to tell the world that 5g towers cause covid—19 and give them the same courtesy as a scientist explaining factual information about the world around us tells me you’re either delusional or upset that the media “gatekeeps” fascists and racists.
Who decides what’s misinformed? Science, the same thing that allows you to post on HN.
Who decides what’s misinformed? Science, the same thing that allows you to post on HN.
Just because you think the state should allow any discussion and any opinion, doesn't mean you need to think its content is worthy or valuable. Do you think nazism should get as much exposure as something you like? Creationism? Flat-earthism? Any fringe idea with five believers?
Creationism is not a fringe idea! I think that illustrates the major flaw of your mindset. If you screen off entire categories of ideas as not worth thinking about, you're going to get a systematically incorrect view of the world.
> Creationism is not a fringe idea!
When people discuss creationism they're usually talking about Young Earth Creationism which is absolutely a fringe idea
When people discuss creationism they're usually talking about Young Earth Creationism which is absolutely a fringe idea
It is not. Over a third of American adults believe humans were created by God in their present form.
It really depends on how you ask them the question:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-many-c...
> When asked the single-question version, just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
For example, most of these folks wont say the Earth is 10,000 or 6,500 years old. When asked they'll say the planet is much older.
> When asked the single-question version, just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
For example, most of these folks wont say the Earth is 10,000 or 6,500 years old. When asked they'll say the planet is much older.
[deleted]
Why would screening off entire categories of ideas lead to a systematically incorrect view of the world? Or why would entertaining those ideas lead to a less incorrect view of the world?
It stops you from noticing what other people believe and why, which stops you from understanding them even if you ultimately believe they're wrong.
Which pressures them into either keeping it to themselves or being pressured by society to change their beliefs. The “respect everyone’s opinion” is how we got Charlottesville. Tolerance can and should have limits.
Yes, actually. I legitimately think that no viewpoint or idea should be censored no matter how distasteful I may find it to be.
Would I prefer to live in a nazi or communist society? No, but I prefer to live in a society that in theory can, in a worst case scenario, turn into either of those eventually than in one that cannot.
edit: unless we include some sort of utopian society where we're ruled by some perfect AI or where everyone has perfect information access and decision-making of course but that's science fiction.
Would I prefer to live in a nazi or communist society? No, but I prefer to live in a society that in theory can, in a worst case scenario, turn into either of those eventually than in one that cannot.
edit: unless we include some sort of utopian society where we're ruled by some perfect AI or where everyone has perfect information access and decision-making of course but that's science fiction.
I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about all ideas getting equal exposure. If you follow that "equal exposure" idea to its conclusion, then what should be taught in "biology" class for example is evolution, protestant creationism, catholic creationism, sunni creationism, shia creationism, scientologic creationism, last thursdayism etc ad nauseam. Now, there isn't much to talk about regarding last thursdayism. But if everything should get equal exposure, then logically you must teach as much about evolution as last thursdayism, which is to say not a lot. So eventually you'd reduce ideas to the minimum viable size of an idea . And then there might be so many ideas that you'll die of old age before you're done being taught all the ideas.
He sometimes has "toxic" lefty guests also though. I don't see his showing being biased.
If anything listening to Alex Jones for half an hour made me realize how nutty Jones is. Because I never would have searched out Jones on my own. Nor am I interested in what Vox has to say about Jones.
It's a good thing to hear other points of view without frothing at the mouth and demanding they are shut up. It's also a good thing to separate the point of view from the person. Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. This point seems to be lost in much of modern discourse.
If anything listening to Alex Jones for half an hour made me realize how nutty Jones is. Because I never would have searched out Jones on my own. Nor am I interested in what Vox has to say about Jones.
It's a good thing to hear other points of view without frothing at the mouth and demanding they are shut up. It's also a good thing to separate the point of view from the person. Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. This point seems to be lost in much of modern discourse.
>Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life.
Because I disagree? Of course not, disagreement doesn't make someone evil.
What makes him evil is running around claiming the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre were lying about their children dying as a conspiracy theory to take people's guns away. I can't think of a more spineless, thoughtless, ridiculous thing to do than attack people who just lost their children. He parroted that shit again and again for money. "Disagreement" has nothing to do with the stain on society that is Alex Jones being an evil person.
Because I disagree? Of course not, disagreement doesn't make someone evil.
What makes him evil is running around claiming the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre were lying about their children dying as a conspiracy theory to take people's guns away. I can't think of a more spineless, thoughtless, ridiculous thing to do than attack people who just lost their children. He parroted that shit again and again for money. "Disagreement" has nothing to do with the stain on society that is Alex Jones being an evil person.
It took you a half hour to realize that Jones was nutty?
> Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate.
I downvoted because of this comment:
> Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic.
By what process did you arrive at this conclusion (which I assume is a personal opinion, even though it is presented in the form of a fact)? In a system as complex as global human society, where we have almost no understanding (or even knowledge of the existence) of some of the most important sub-processes contained within, how do you believe that you have individually arrived at the objectively correct ("what I posted is accurate") assessment of what "is" "worthy of discussion"?
> "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic.
Do you actually think that Alex Jones' comprehensive worldview is fully understood, both by yourself and others? What data have you used to arrive at your conclusion? The the single "fact" that he "ran with" the Sandy Hook conspiracy and "was likely" a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide? Surely you wouldn't form a confident conclusion on an infinitely complex subject (the understanding of someone's comprehensive worldview) based on one individual data point, would you?
I don't pose these questions in a rhetorical manner by the way - I would genuinely like to hear an "actual RESPONSE", if you are willing to provide one.
I downvoted because of this comment:
> Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic.
By what process did you arrive at this conclusion (which I assume is a personal opinion, even though it is presented in the form of a fact)? In a system as complex as global human society, where we have almost no understanding (or even knowledge of the existence) of some of the most important sub-processes contained within, how do you believe that you have individually arrived at the objectively correct ("what I posted is accurate") assessment of what "is" "worthy of discussion"?
> "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic.
Do you actually think that Alex Jones' comprehensive worldview is fully understood, both by yourself and others? What data have you used to arrive at your conclusion? The the single "fact" that he "ran with" the Sandy Hook conspiracy and "was likely" a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide? Surely you wouldn't form a confident conclusion on an infinitely complex subject (the understanding of someone's comprehensive worldview) based on one individual data point, would you?
I don't pose these questions in a rhetorical manner by the way - I would genuinely like to hear an "actual RESPONSE", if you are willing to provide one.
How do I know an apple will fall to the floor when I drop it? Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion. That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made. Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts, but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does...
> How do I know an apple will fall to the floor when I drop it?
You need a model with predictive power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power
>> The concept of predictive power, the power of a scientific theory to generate testable(!) predictions, differs from explanatory power and descriptive power (where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained or described by a given theory) in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding.
>> A classic example of the predictive power of a theory is the discovery of Neptune as a result of predictions made by mathematicians John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier, based on Newton's theory of gravity.
>> If a theory has no predictive power, it cannot be used for applications.
Considering this, does:
>>> "A MAGA hat is just another way of saying "Mexicans are rapists"
...have predictive power? A useful technique I use to measure the intelligence of a theory is to implement it in the form of a boolean function. Try it out with that statement, just for fun, and see if your opinion on it changes at all.
Or, before we get ahead of ourselves...what does that sentence actually mean? It's purpose and origin are rather obvious (at least to me), but I'm interested in its literal meaning. Since the original author seems to have lost interest in the discussion (despite the prior "Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE..." complaint), perhaps you can decipher the literal meaning for me?
> Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion.
You need to understand the complex workings of whatever system you are working with well enough to produce testable predictions. If you do not have that, then you should not be forming confident conclusions. Very often, "it is not known" is the correct answer, and it wasn't all that long ago that most technical people could manage that stance. But as they say, time marches on.
> That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made.
You are absolutely correct - and observe the result: a scary number of people who work largely in pure logic all day long, are no longer able to differentiate between actual facts and heuristic predictions their subconscious spits out, at least on certain topics. A large percentage of the population is no longer capable of applying logic across diverse domains in a mentally disciplined manner, and they are also unable (and unwilling) to realize this. How did this happen seems like a good question.
> Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts
Science itself doesn't present itself as having absolute facts, but people who believe they are followers of science, or scientific thinkers, regularly speak as if science does have absolute facts, including here on HN on certain topics (generally, anything culture war related).
> but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does
Bravo.
You need a model with predictive power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power
>> The concept of predictive power, the power of a scientific theory to generate testable(!) predictions, differs from explanatory power and descriptive power (where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained or described by a given theory) in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding.
>> A classic example of the predictive power of a theory is the discovery of Neptune as a result of predictions made by mathematicians John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier, based on Newton's theory of gravity.
>> If a theory has no predictive power, it cannot be used for applications.
Considering this, does:
>>> "A MAGA hat is just another way of saying "Mexicans are rapists"
...have predictive power? A useful technique I use to measure the intelligence of a theory is to implement it in the form of a boolean function. Try it out with that statement, just for fun, and see if your opinion on it changes at all.
Or, before we get ahead of ourselves...what does that sentence actually mean? It's purpose and origin are rather obvious (at least to me), but I'm interested in its literal meaning. Since the original author seems to have lost interest in the discussion (despite the prior "Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE..." complaint), perhaps you can decipher the literal meaning for me?
> Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion.
You need to understand the complex workings of whatever system you are working with well enough to produce testable predictions. If you do not have that, then you should not be forming confident conclusions. Very often, "it is not known" is the correct answer, and it wasn't all that long ago that most technical people could manage that stance. But as they say, time marches on.
> That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made.
You are absolutely correct - and observe the result: a scary number of people who work largely in pure logic all day long, are no longer able to differentiate between actual facts and heuristic predictions their subconscious spits out, at least on certain topics. A large percentage of the population is no longer capable of applying logic across diverse domains in a mentally disciplined manner, and they are also unable (and unwilling) to realize this. How did this happen seems like a good question.
> Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts
Science itself doesn't present itself as having absolute facts, but people who believe they are followers of science, or scientific thinkers, regularly speak as if science does have absolute facts, including here on HN on certain topics (generally, anything culture war related).
> but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does
Bravo.
Money is good demonstration of how media is changing.
Rogan reportedly makes 30 million per year from the show already. He makes more than TV talk show hosts. He really is the new mainstream.
Rogan reportedly makes 30 million per year from the show already. He makes more than TV talk show hosts. He really is the new mainstream.
He's just another Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh etc. We've had personality talk show hosts for decades and will continue to have them in the decades to come. The media landscape is not fundamentally changing.
And how much Spotify paid him is not a reflection of his mainstream popularity. It's a reflection of how much the LTV of his audience is worth. Two very different things.
And how much Spotify paid him is not a reflection of his mainstream popularity. It's a reflection of how much the LTV of his audience is worth. Two very different things.
> It's a reflection of how much the LTV of his audience is worth.
That may not be it exactly either. What they are paying him to do is bootstrap the spotify podcasting ecosystem. Spotify hopes the publicity will bring in people who don't listen to Joe Rogan as well.
That may not be it exactly either. What they are paying him to do is bootstrap the spotify podcasting ecosystem. Spotify hopes the publicity will bring in people who don't listen to Joe Rogan as well.
> What they are paying him to do is bootstrap the spotify podcasting ecosystem.
Similar to what Sirius paid Howard Stern to do for them, circa 2004 (for $500 million), for their personality / talk content. Sirius needed a major anchor.
Similar to what Sirius paid Howard Stern to do for them, circa 2004 (for $500 million), for their personality / talk content. Sirius needed a major anchor.
It's not like Rogan is inaccessible right now. He appeals to a different age group, but a similar political demographic.
Anyone with an iPhone can listen to him easily. I suspect Android was similar.
It's pretty unfair to compare him to Limbaugh, Rogan's brand is not based on being an ideologue. Certainly he has an opinion, but he frequency brings on guests with diametrically opposing views and is quite courteous and introspective towards them.
The estimates I’ve seen put it closer to $60 million annually on the low end. Perhaps as high as $240 million.
if he makes 60-240MM/year, then taking 100MM for a multi-year spotify contract makes absolutely no sense.
It makes sense when you consider that before Spotify, he/his team were having to chase down that money with no guarantee, subject to the whims of sponsors and audience and YouTube.
Now the money is guaranteed and they can just focus on the content in the show. Sounds like an amazing deal.
Now the money is guaranteed and they can just focus on the content in the show. Sounds like an amazing deal.
if the number was 240MM/year, i still think it makes no sense but i guess i do not know how much energy they were spending "chasing down" money
I think the effort is mostly around copystrikes. YouTube demonetizes and removes his videos whenever he plays even a snippet from a copyrighted work. If Spotify's lawyers handle those issues then Rogan can focus more on the show.
[deleted]
>Rogan is laddish and generous with everyone he sits across from
I think this is a big problem for him. I cherry pick some episodes to listen to (depending on the guest). I listened to the Alex Jones interview and was totally appalled by how much he agreed with Jones' wingnut theories. But I've also heard his interview with Alex Honnold (free solo climber) and it was great. I'm afraid his openness with some guests, and his wide audience will just introduce more people to people like Alex Jones.
I think this is a big problem for him. I cherry pick some episodes to listen to (depending on the guest). I listened to the Alex Jones interview and was totally appalled by how much he agreed with Jones' wingnut theories. But I've also heard his interview with Alex Honnold (free solo climber) and it was great. I'm afraid his openness with some guests, and his wide audience will just introduce more people to people like Alex Jones.
I think it's a both a weakness and a strength. In an era of cancel culture, I think there has been a counter movement to avoid cancelling people, which may lead to an over abundance of tolerance and politeness toward genuinely noxious people. I wouldn't argue Joe Rogan hasn't stepped over the line. But since nobody will ever toe the line perfectly, I've become more tolerant toward people who err on the side of hearing someone out, rather than shutting someone down, and I suspect a lot of other people have too.
I call this "rotten cherry" picking, where you scour someone's background and find the top 10 worst things about them, and use that to introduce the person. The conversation goes like this.
T: "Frederick Douglass wrote insightfully about slavery during the..."
C: "Frederic Douglass? You mean that sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-native American guy?"
T: "Wait, what? What did he say?"
C: "Well let me tell you", (gleeful in C's eyes pulls out his laminated card of the worst 10 things Douglass said about women, Irish immigrants, and condescending jokes about American Indians).
See, a lot of us have been through enough of this that we'd like hear for a few hours from the person who just got cancelled through rotten cherry picking. And yeah, this means that now and then, we will end up hearing out someone who shouldn't have been (an this, in turn, will be rotten cherry picked against the person who gave them that platform).
I call this "rotten cherry" picking, where you scour someone's background and find the top 10 worst things about them, and use that to introduce the person. The conversation goes like this.
T: "Frederick Douglass wrote insightfully about slavery during the..."
C: "Frederic Douglass? You mean that sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-native American guy?"
T: "Wait, what? What did he say?"
C: "Well let me tell you", (gleeful in C's eyes pulls out his laminated card of the worst 10 things Douglass said about women, Irish immigrants, and condescending jokes about American Indians).
See, a lot of us have been through enough of this that we'd like hear for a few hours from the person who just got cancelled through rotten cherry picking. And yeah, this means that now and then, we will end up hearing out someone who shouldn't have been (an this, in turn, will be rotten cherry picked against the person who gave them that platform).
I'm mostly puzzled by the inconsistency: "big companies have more power than individuals, and we should decide more things democratically, but when big companies deplatform individuals, it's ok due to companies' rights".
Modern politics is ultimately driven by rationalization. Each team cheers when a large powerful entity's actions pisses off the other team, because it's the only concession they're going to get. Compare with how the plague got a political party.
I thought customers say what corporations do by leaving. Certainly large platforms like Patreon have alternatives for customers looking for product that Patreon doesn’t sell.
Is this really bad though? If people like Alex Jones have bad ideas, it will be evident when they discuss them. I don't see how censorship is a better alternative.
Censorship is not a viable alternative. Even if someone holds extreme views they have the right to talk about it. Views shift and change over time. Change is good.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but, I think being choosy about the guests one hosts is not censorship.
Alex Jones was censored (deplatformed) by all the major platforms, which acted in unison against him. Joe Rogan bringing him on his podcast helped break that veil of censorship.
I think it is probably true that a bunch of platforms acted in unison against Alex Jones, but it is also possible for someone to have no platform at all without there being any "veil of censorship". For instance, I have fewer (zero, rather than a few) large platforms available to me. But I'm not being censored by all the platforms, there's just no reason for them to think I have anything interesting to say. The people invited onto any mass market platform are a tiny tiny minority of humanity. Nobody has a right to have their views magnified by such platforms, being included is the exception, not a common thing.
Why do you have so few platforms available to you?
I am talking about platforms with audiences, like Joe Rogan's show, other podcasts, and more traditional competitors like talk radio and cable news. Alex Jones has much more access to platforms like this than the vast majority of no-name people. I can shout into the void all I want here or on twitter or youtube without getting invited onto a big show. And that's not because they are censoring me, it's because they can only invite on a tiny number of people.
Yep, if you don't have anything interesting to say, people won't be interested in listening to you. If you get deplatformed, then you're even further shit out of luck, because even if you did have something interesting to say, there is a small group of extremely powerful anonymous people actively working to silence you.
You have now introduced this "interesting things to say" metric as if that is an objective thing. But it isn't. Alex Jones doesn't have more interesting things to say than I do, the difference is that he seeks an audience, and I don't. But just because someone seeks an audience, does not mean that platforms that have audiences must oblige them.
Alex Jones was rightly ignored by major platforms. He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say.
He wasn't ignored, he was deplatformed.
>He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say.
Agreed, though corporate mass media in general also takes advantage of their audience and likewise has nothing interesting to say.
>He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say.
Agreed, though corporate mass media in general also takes advantage of their audience and likewise has nothing interesting to say.
Sure, but plenty of other people find him entertaining. He's no different in that regard than any number of vulgar comedic acts. The 2nd episode with Joe, Alex and Eddie was some of the best content from JRE.
>>doesn't have anything actually interesting to say.
I listened to a clip of Alex Jones on the subject of drugs and how they are used to fracture communities. He drew parallels between the crack epidemic in the black community in the 70s/80s and the opium epidemic that is mostly affecting the white community now. He argued that crack was a "beta test" so to speak of techniques to create a permanent underclass of malleable serfs, with the "production environment" rollout being opioids and prescription abuse. I think he also argued other methods of controlling slaves went back to chattel slavery in the US and even the Roman Empire.
That might sound kooky but around the same time I also read about this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Doihara#Criminal_activit...
Doihara waged a deliberate campaign to undermine the social and political cohesion of Manchuria, and he did it with opium. People understood these methods of breaking communities as far back as the 1930s (and into the 1800s, depending on how deliberate the Brits were leading up to the Opium War). Are there lessons that can be learned from Doihara that can shed light on malicious people in power from the 1970s to the present? Especially since many of America's politicians and business leaders cover both US epidemics (example: the Sacklers). Alex Jones argued that the parallels between America's drug epidemics are too similar to be coincidence. The guy has a VERY low signal-to-noise ratio but if you ignore EVERYTHING he says you will miss out on some thought-provoking gems that are rarely discussed by anyone else.
I listened to a clip of Alex Jones on the subject of drugs and how they are used to fracture communities. He drew parallels between the crack epidemic in the black community in the 70s/80s and the opium epidemic that is mostly affecting the white community now. He argued that crack was a "beta test" so to speak of techniques to create a permanent underclass of malleable serfs, with the "production environment" rollout being opioids and prescription abuse. I think he also argued other methods of controlling slaves went back to chattel slavery in the US and even the Roman Empire.
That might sound kooky but around the same time I also read about this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Doihara#Criminal_activit...
Doihara waged a deliberate campaign to undermine the social and political cohesion of Manchuria, and he did it with opium. People understood these methods of breaking communities as far back as the 1930s (and into the 1800s, depending on how deliberate the Brits were leading up to the Opium War). Are there lessons that can be learned from Doihara that can shed light on malicious people in power from the 1970s to the present? Especially since many of America's politicians and business leaders cover both US epidemics (example: the Sacklers). Alex Jones argued that the parallels between America's drug epidemics are too similar to be coincidence. The guy has a VERY low signal-to-noise ratio but if you ignore EVERYTHING he says you will miss out on some thought-provoking gems that are rarely discussed by anyone else.
[deleted]
It’s bad in a world where we prefer admiring idols instead of critical thinking. Just see anti-vaccination, or heck how people get so passionate about their JS framework and silo themselves missing the trees for the forest.
There's a difference between censorship and discernment.
Like if some equally famous podcaster didn't find some Joe Rogan guest as "interesting" as Joe Rogan does, it isn't censorship when they don't invite that guest on.
Of course, "Joe Rogan has bad taste" is a different criticism than the one made up thread.
Like if some equally famous podcaster didn't find some Joe Rogan guest as "interesting" as Joe Rogan does, it isn't censorship when they don't invite that guest on.
Of course, "Joe Rogan has bad taste" is a different criticism than the one made up thread.
What are you talking about? He disagrees with most of the junk alex spouts. Hell, most of that podcast is joe trying to pull him out of the deep end.
Its a hilarious episode, and the comic comentary bits are gold.
Its a hilarious episode, and the comic comentary bits are gold.
It was a few years ago I listened to it, but I came away thinking Joe gave him the time to spout the theories and didn't push him on it. He has interviewed him a few times, not sure which one I listened to.
People are free to talk, listen and make their own conclusions. This constant need to judge and control what others see is both tiring and dangerous.
Yup, i dont like the cop out "im a comedian" line very much but at the end of the day he has a point.
This line of thought that he has some social responsibility is fucking moronic.
This very article points out that he is so well listened too because it is uncensored, unlike the main stream media of today, where they report of very narrow views and dont dare to explore anything interesting.
Dont the new york times have a social responsibility to do some fucking journalism? Cant they say, im a journalist, im just reporting facts, shut the fuck up about whatever idiologic bullshit your whinging about in my twitter feed?
The hypocrisy is astounding.
This line of thought that he has some social responsibility is fucking moronic.
This very article points out that he is so well listened too because it is uncensored, unlike the main stream media of today, where they report of very narrow views and dont dare to explore anything interesting.
Dont the new york times have a social responsibility to do some fucking journalism? Cant they say, im a journalist, im just reporting facts, shut the fuck up about whatever idiologic bullshit your whinging about in my twitter feed?
The hypocrisy is astounding.
He's entertaining. Getting information from him requires a level of scrutiny, everyone on his show has an agenda. Think of it like when actors go on late night television to promote their movie.
Most conspiracy theories have elements of truth backing them. It's what makes it believable.
There was 0.000000% truth behind the conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of the basement of Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. No basis in fact whatsoever.
If you don’t believe me, ask the guy who went there with a semiautomatic weapon and discovered the complete lack of truth for himself.
If you don’t believe me, ask the guy who went there with a semiautomatic weapon and discovered the complete lack of truth for himself.
The basic truth there is the complete unaccountability of the elites. People chase extreme power for some vice, and sex is one of the oldest. More concretely, Epstein.
Holding an abstract truth in your head is tough when it's pitted against simplistic narratives pumped out by cross-spectrum mass media. Creating and subscribing to an unsubstantiated story with glaringly baseless details is ultimately harmful to understanding (for one, it's a straw man), but appeals to most people's need for straightforward answers. They know they're being had, they know the (competing) mainstream narrative is false, and so they congregate around a popular counter-narrative regardless of its truth.
Holding an abstract truth in your head is tough when it's pitted against simplistic narratives pumped out by cross-spectrum mass media. Creating and subscribing to an unsubstantiated story with glaringly baseless details is ultimately harmful to understanding (for one, it's a straw man), but appeals to most people's need for straightforward answers. They know they're being had, they know the (competing) mainstream narrative is false, and so they congregate around a popular counter-narrative regardless of its truth.
Such comments are silly because if someone would offer even the slightest insight of how that might not be entirely like that, he would be killed on the spot.
edit: as in killed by HN downvoters
edit: as in killed by HN downvoters
Right that's a total conspiracy theory. But people are ready to believe it because they're so disillusioned with the elites, they're ready to believe they're total psychopaths and pedophiles, because they sense there is something wrong with the system.
One of the most amusing conspiracy theorists is David Icke, I don't know if you've ever read any of his books. They're hilarious and crazy, but as always you can find elements of truth in between everything.
One of the most amusing conspiracy theorists is David Icke, I don't know if you've ever read any of his books. They're hilarious and crazy, but as always you can find elements of truth in between everything.
I dunno, James Alefantis's Instagram has got to count for 0.000001% at least. [1], previous HN discussion: [2]
And Podesta's pizza map handkerchief for another 0.000001% as well. [3] Throw in Marina Abramovic and her creepy spirit cooking [4]and other antics[5]...yeah, you'll definitely end up at a non-zero number. An infinitesimally small number..... but non-zero.
[1]https://steemit.com/pizzagate/@rebelskum/james-alefantis-onc...
[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13033946
[3]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795
[4]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893
[5]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVfxLEmX0Ac7E1L.jpg
And Podesta's pizza map handkerchief for another 0.000001% as well. [3] Throw in Marina Abramovic and her creepy spirit cooking [4]and other antics[5]...yeah, you'll definitely end up at a non-zero number. An infinitesimally small number..... but non-zero.
[1]https://steemit.com/pizzagate/@rebelskum/james-alefantis-onc...
[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13033946
[3]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795
[4]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893
[5]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVfxLEmX0Ac7E1L.jpg
He takes an issue with people being appalled though. Why give him a platform? - https://youtu.be/-5yh2HcIlkU?t=48
This is exactly the reason I've never been a fan of his.
First of all, Jones didn't just happen to show up for the recording that day; he was either invited on the show on purpose or his publicist asked and Rogan's production said yes. You're responsible for the sort of people and ideas you expose your audience to, especially when it's predominantly teenage boys.
Second, as you mentioned, he didn't challenge any of Jones's insane beliefs.
Providing an unquestioning platform for dangerous people like that really does a lot to whitewash their reputation and make their ideas more palatable to a wider audience. It's very dangerous.
At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism.
First of all, Jones didn't just happen to show up for the recording that day; he was either invited on the show on purpose or his publicist asked and Rogan's production said yes. You're responsible for the sort of people and ideas you expose your audience to, especially when it's predominantly teenage boys.
Second, as you mentioned, he didn't challenge any of Jones's insane beliefs.
Providing an unquestioning platform for dangerous people like that really does a lot to whitewash their reputation and make their ideas more palatable to a wider audience. It's very dangerous.
At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism.
I think this comment more or less epitomizes the lack of understanding of conversational media and is probably the reason why traditional media is failing so badly right now.
People can think for themselves, they don't want a self-righteous gatekeeper to spoon feed them the bits of information that they think are correct, relevant, or acceptable. People don't want more spin and more production value and more hot takes and more dunking. Censorship is ultimately counter productive in the same way that sterilizing everything in your environment is for your immune system, you need exposure to a variety of information and viewpoints including incorrect, toxic and down right whacky ones in order to learn the metacognitive skills that you can use to think about how that information impacts you and the viewpoints you hold. If you just funnel the "correct" information into people you wind up with a bunch of infantile paper tigers that can only parrot back what they've heard and collapse in a heap of sputtering rage the moment their prepackaged world view is challenged. Nobody is pretending that Joe Rogan is a journalist, least of all himself. He isn't there to challenge anyone's beliefs or to discover the truth or fiction of what his guests are saying. That's your job you lazy fuck, as he would say.
People can think for themselves, they don't want a self-righteous gatekeeper to spoon feed them the bits of information that they think are correct, relevant, or acceptable. People don't want more spin and more production value and more hot takes and more dunking. Censorship is ultimately counter productive in the same way that sterilizing everything in your environment is for your immune system, you need exposure to a variety of information and viewpoints including incorrect, toxic and down right whacky ones in order to learn the metacognitive skills that you can use to think about how that information impacts you and the viewpoints you hold. If you just funnel the "correct" information into people you wind up with a bunch of infantile paper tigers that can only parrot back what they've heard and collapse in a heap of sputtering rage the moment their prepackaged world view is challenged. Nobody is pretending that Joe Rogan is a journalist, least of all himself. He isn't there to challenge anyone's beliefs or to discover the truth or fiction of what his guests are saying. That's your job you lazy fuck, as he would say.
People can think for themselves and censorship is ultimently counterproductive, right - but what should be done when people "think for themselves" and come to horrendously wrong conclusions?
Clearly the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists have done some amount of the above and come to the wrong conclusions, so something is obviously wrong in their thought process that led them thinking in such a way.
I'm not sure what is the best way of correcting people's broken though processes and beliefs like those are, I don't think just stating evidence at them really works. At the very least I fail to see what value is to be gained by letting such thoughts be granted a platform to continue the cycle of flawed reasoning.
Clearly the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists have done some amount of the above and come to the wrong conclusions, so something is obviously wrong in their thought process that led them thinking in such a way.
I'm not sure what is the best way of correcting people's broken though processes and beliefs like those are, I don't think just stating evidence at them really works. At the very least I fail to see what value is to be gained by letting such thoughts be granted a platform to continue the cycle of flawed reasoning.
It really sounds like you haven't fully grasped the concept of freedom of thoughts if you think that something "should be done" about wrongthinkers.
People acquiring and holding wrong ideas is entirely the point. Because otherwise you need to have an entity deciding that an idea is wrong and should be suppressed. Do you trust Google with that power? Do you trust Facebook with it?
The only trustworthy judge of an idea is reality and its consequences.
Some people think that 5G causes coronavirus? Let them ban 5G from their towns, from their countries. Other countries will not, and after a few years they will not be any sicker and be a little ahead in technological infrastructure. The 5G-phobics will eventually give up, or worst case, they will die of old age and their children will learn.
People acquiring and holding wrong ideas is entirely the point. Because otherwise you need to have an entity deciding that an idea is wrong and should be suppressed. Do you trust Google with that power? Do you trust Facebook with it?
The only trustworthy judge of an idea is reality and its consequences.
Some people think that 5G causes coronavirus? Let them ban 5G from their towns, from their countries. Other countries will not, and after a few years they will not be any sicker and be a little ahead in technological infrastructure. The 5G-phobics will eventually give up, or worst case, they will die of old age and their children will learn.
Exactly, and it works when those ideas succeed as well (although they are then post facto correct). We forget that there were times when things like inter-racial marriage, atheism, women's suffrage, union organizing, abortion and being homosexual were decidedly "wrongthink" and were actively suppressed by existing laws and power structures. The only reason we have what we consider a modern society with broad human rights and freedoms is because there were people that went against the commonly accepted morals and institutions of their day. I'm not defending people who attempt to force their beliefs on or harm others here but people should be free to fail (often) and succeed (occasionally) in their own spectacular and stupid ways. Society never progresses without people who challenge its assumptions.
No, I completely under the point of freedom of thought and letting people think whatever they like. My sticking point is that I believe letting some ideas being carried to fruition in reality to measure their worthiness via their consequences is an extremely flawed metric. I see some consequences as holding nothing but irreversible harm and thus outweighing any benefits free expression of those ideas may bring.
I mean take anti-vaxxers for example, if enough people become anti-vaxxers and don't have their children vaccinated - herd immunity is compromised, children get sick, some of them die. I do not see how easily preventable deaths can ever be held as worth the unfettered spread of the ideas that directly contributed to them.
The other gripe with consequences as the sole value metric of an idea is just because an idea doesn't work when carried out, doesn't mean the idea is discarded everyone at large. Some awful ideas keep resurfacing again and again despite all evidence to their contrary.
You are right though that suppressing such opinions would have to be done by large, controlling institutions like governments or corporations. However as much as I distrust such institutions like anyone else, I think the compelling interest of society is enough to grant them the ability to censor - at least in specific instances of universally condemnable opinions like anti-vaccinations, eugenics, etc.
Take from this what you will.
I mean take anti-vaxxers for example, if enough people become anti-vaxxers and don't have their children vaccinated - herd immunity is compromised, children get sick, some of them die. I do not see how easily preventable deaths can ever be held as worth the unfettered spread of the ideas that directly contributed to them.
The other gripe with consequences as the sole value metric of an idea is just because an idea doesn't work when carried out, doesn't mean the idea is discarded everyone at large. Some awful ideas keep resurfacing again and again despite all evidence to their contrary.
You are right though that suppressing such opinions would have to be done by large, controlling institutions like governments or corporations. However as much as I distrust such institutions like anyone else, I think the compelling interest of society is enough to grant them the ability to censor - at least in specific instances of universally condemnable opinions like anti-vaccinations, eugenics, etc.
Take from this what you will.
Actions are not the same as speech. You can mandate vaccinations without restricting people's right to protest against vaccines. Just like you can prohibit marijuana without restricting people's ability to protest for legalization.
Though he actually actively fact checks them, and himself, during interviews. I am not aware of any other interviewer doing that.
> At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism.
But it's NOT masquerading as journalism. That's Rogan's excuse, whether you accept it or not: He's just a bro having conversations with interesting people.
But it's NOT masquerading as journalism. That's Rogan's excuse, whether you accept it or not: He's just a bro having conversations with interesting people.
Apparently they've been friends for 30+ years.
>At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism
This is the problem: people coming to the podcast expecting it to be some intellectual journalistic endeavor, when Rogan has never promised anything of the kind. It's a bro-y meat head drinking and smoking weed with some guests. People take it way too seriously and impose their ideas of how Rogan should run his own show.
>At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism
This is the problem: people coming to the podcast expecting it to be some intellectual journalistic endeavor, when Rogan has never promised anything of the kind. It's a bro-y meat head drinking and smoking weed with some guests. People take it way too seriously and impose their ideas of how Rogan should run his own show.
> This is the problem: people coming to the podcast expecting it to be some intellectual journalistic endeavor.
This misconception is furthered by some of his fanbase (who apparently have never experienced actual high-level intellectual dialogue). I have repeatedly seen discontented young men contrast Rogan to content for women and claim that the latter is just vacuous cosmetics talk and gossip, while "Rogan is all about deep stuff like philosophy".
This misconception is furthered by some of his fanbase (who apparently have never experienced actual high-level intellectual dialogue). I have repeatedly seen discontented young men contrast Rogan to content for women and claim that the latter is just vacuous cosmetics talk and gossip, while "Rogan is all about deep stuff like philosophy".
That is absolutely a misrepresentation of the average JRE listener. Look at the youtube comments under any clip of the show and you'll see close to all are just making fun of Joe. Nearly every meme shared about the show is making fun of Joe's lack of intellectual rigor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKrf7mX_R6M
1) I don’t like stupid people
2) stupid people like ‘X’
3) X should be banned.
2) stupid people like ‘X’
3) X should be banned.
But with millions of viewers, does he not have some moral responsibility to question Jones' view that Sandy Hook was faked?
I'm curious why you think he does?
Im also curious why you think he didnt when i've seen that episode and he basically laughs in his face about it.
You got the timestamp for this where he just lets alex run his mouth with unsubstantiated bullshit?
Im also curious why you think he didnt when i've seen that episode and he basically laughs in his face about it.
You got the timestamp for this where he just lets alex run his mouth with unsubstantiated bullshit?
That was the first thing he asked about.
[deleted]
They've both known each other since the early 2000s and appear to be somewhat friends, so it's no surprise they've both gone on each others shows. I think Joe expects his audience to interpret Jones much of the same way he appears to, which is entertaining but insane.
"His success was made possible, at least in part, by legacy media’s blind spots."
Blind spots generally persist because someone isn't held to account for reality. In this case, perhaps the editors are not being held to account. But how can that be fixed without just perpetuating the media meta-argument?
I guess the answer is variety: if you don't like the editorial decisions here, go somewhere else. That is a necessary solution with a free press, but ideally would not be the first line of defense.
The answer in this case is that Joe Rogan is simply taking on all of the roles: editor, interviewer, commentator, and sometimes the subject. But I have to imagine the separate roles were created for a reason... is it a net win?
Blind spots generally persist because someone isn't held to account for reality. In this case, perhaps the editors are not being held to account. But how can that be fixed without just perpetuating the media meta-argument?
I guess the answer is variety: if you don't like the editorial decisions here, go somewhere else. That is a necessary solution with a free press, but ideally would not be the first line of defense.
The answer in this case is that Joe Rogan is simply taking on all of the roles: editor, interviewer, commentator, and sometimes the subject. But I have to imagine the separate roles were created for a reason... is it a net win?
I discovered his podcast about 6 weeks ago, but only listened to a few of his recent guests. I liked the episodes I listened to, but I won't bother with Spotify, there is enough great stuff out there. This is much my attitude about "inconvenient" web sites with rollovers, painful Javascript, popups, etc. - I simply immediately leave if content is not easy to digest. I don't mind advertisements but I don't want ads to try to take over my browser.
I hope that Spotify works out for Joe Rogan. He seems like a very nice guy.
I hope that Spotify works out for Joe Rogan. He seems like a very nice guy.
Probably, but that still doesn't make the NYT the independent alternative edgy medium it would like to be.
More like the buggy-whip manufacturer being supplanted by the auto industry
I’m surprised they didn’t try to take him down as a “white nationalist” like they did with PewDiePie. Maybe this is their way of admitting defeat?
NYT is currently publishing a series of podcasts called "Rabbit Hole" which, in its latest episode, portrayed PewdiePie as a misunderstood guy who is definitely not a white nationalist or alt-right. That said, what you are saying could be true at the same time. I don't read the paper and certainly don't care to follow the PewdiePie story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/podcasts/rabbit-hole-PewD...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/podcasts/rabbit-hole-PewD...
NYT was all over WSJ’s takedown of PewDiePie like a fly on a turd. It’s not really that charitable of them to correct the record now that they’re done milking their clickbait controversy for ad revenue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/tech...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/tech...
Title is one of those obviously farfetched and barely supported assertions that the editor must have forcefully decided upon late in the game.
Just proves nothing has replaced old mainstream media exactly, it has merely dwindled the more slack it gets for willfully risking a misunderstanding to take place.
The definition of Mainstream Media is still the same, as a setter and destroyer of definitions, since it has vast retrospective powers for editing out context to control the degree of controversy seen by the masses. Helped along by a collective of adversarial journalists able to limit discussion with a barrage of assertions and hold sway over mass sentiment through an implied consensus.
A one man interviewer does not give any semblance of consensus, it is at best a battle of convictions, but at least you can argue a conviction head on, no arguing with a consensus -- no learning from one either.
Just proves nothing has replaced old mainstream media exactly, it has merely dwindled the more slack it gets for willfully risking a misunderstanding to take place.
The definition of Mainstream Media is still the same, as a setter and destroyer of definitions, since it has vast retrospective powers for editing out context to control the degree of controversy seen by the masses. Helped along by a collective of adversarial journalists able to limit discussion with a barrage of assertions and hold sway over mass sentiment through an implied consensus.
A one man interviewer does not give any semblance of consensus, it is at best a battle of convictions, but at least you can argue a conviction head on, no arguing with a consensus -- no learning from one either.
Some of problems they mention on content are real, but ugh I hate the pace of podcasts (even if I adjust the speed, the problem is I don't want a constant rate) and much rather read. Are the reading > listen types really a dying breed?
It's nice to see someone else say this. I would much rather read than listen (or watch, as well). Perhaps it's because I can go at my own pace, and easily go back and to review something already said or connect ideas, but I just find it a struggle to stay focused on listening/watching anything for that long.
I've never been a Joe Rogan fan, I've only followed him in the news whenever he pops up or in some short clips that get milled around social media. So my opinion of him might be misinformed, but I've only ever gotten the impression that Rogan only ever really cares about selling a "neutral" but enticing experience. The focus isn't serious discussions or prodding the arguments of his guests, it's just about him playing the "dumb but curious everyman" as a stand in for the audience letting whoever has the most appealing mantra freely speak their mind. I think this identity as someone who just listen and doesn't question is genuine to him, but it also makes a great selling point as "politically neutral" or "both sides" speak.
Some of these ideas are genuinely worthwhile, but when those same thoughts are given even equal weight to the ravings of Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro - I don't see how anyone who is looking for intellectual rigor can derive value from consuming his podcast. If that's a good or bad thing is a value judgment someone has to make personally.
Some of these ideas are genuinely worthwhile, but when those same thoughts are given even equal weight to the ravings of Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro - I don't see how anyone who is looking for intellectual rigor can derive value from consuming his podcast. If that's a good or bad thing is a value judgment someone has to make personally.
Given it's hosted by a comedian and has a diverse range of guests from entertainers to scientists to wackos, I've always thought of it as a show meant to entertain (which occasionally informs). I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion.
> I don't think it has ever pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion
I agree, but many vocal fans on Twitter and YouTube disagree.
I agree, but many vocal fans on Twitter and YouTube disagree.
I almost included a point on this in my original comment. You’re right but I get the impression those are the same type of people that think only “intellectuals” like them can truly understand Rick & Morty.
Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"?
One thing about Joe Rogan is that he covers a far broader spectrum of people than anyone else. Who has Alex Jones/Elon Musk/Neil deGrasse Tyson on?
To be frank I find most "robust intellectual discussion" stultifying e.g. hacker news has exactly this problem.
One thing about Joe Rogan is that he covers a far broader spectrum of people than anyone else. Who has Alex Jones/Elon Musk/Neil deGrasse Tyson on?
To be frank I find most "robust intellectual discussion" stultifying e.g. hacker news has exactly this problem.
>Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"?
Sam Harris and Tim Ferriss have great long form interviews with interesting people.
Sam Harris and Tim Ferriss have great long form interviews with interesting people.
I used to listen to Tim Ferris years ago, even bought the 4 hour workweek but for whatever reason I eventually lost interest. I think he was a bit predictable and bland also a bit too deep into "Tech" culture.
Never really paid much attention to Sam Harris so might have another look at him.
One of the most interesting things about Joe Rogan is that he's not a one trick pony e.g. Comedy/Fighters/TV personality etc. I find him more interesting as a result.
Never really paid much attention to Sam Harris so might have another look at him.
One of the most interesting things about Joe Rogan is that he's not a one trick pony e.g. Comedy/Fighters/TV personality etc. I find him more interesting as a result.
Worth looking into Tim Ferriss again. He's done so many episodes of his podcast now that there is a wide range of guests. I'd say if it leans towards any subject it wouldn't be tech but maybe health/body related subjects.
The difference for me is that Harris and Ferris don't make as much room for the interviewee, will often talk more than their guests, and their shows in-general focus more on their own guru egos and view points.
Rogan doesn't self-promote on his podcast, and he creates space for his guests to go deep on their specialties.
Rogan doesn't self-promote on his podcast, and he creates space for his guests to go deep on their specialties.
Alex Jones is a great example. Who let's Jones rave on for 3 hours? No one. Broadcasters are not going to want to be associated with him. Rogan just lets him go. I disagree with 95% of what Jones says but I'm not going to take anyone's word for it. I watch the 3 hours and then conclude on my own Jones is nuts. Free speech isn't just lip service on that show and kudos for that cause it's rare.
Bonus for Rogan is controversy/media coverage which attracts viewers. Rogan is savvy about the media and Internet.
Bonus for Rogan is controversy/media coverage which attracts viewers. Rogan is savvy about the media and Internet.
I have to say those 3 hours are some of the best entertainment I've ever seen. It's completely crazy loony stuff, but I was literally laughing out loud.
I mean from all the conspiracy theories to asking Eddie Bravo to choke him out... It is absolutely hilarious.
So who's going to let him rave for 3 hours? Someone who wants to entertain millions of people. This isn't a criticism of Rogan, more that that main stream media would never allow that type of thing. For a start they don't have 3 hours. Yet it's at 19m views as of now.
I mean from all the conspiracy theories to asking Eddie Bravo to choke him out... It is absolutely hilarious.
So who's going to let him rave for 3 hours? Someone who wants to entertain millions of people. This isn't a criticism of Rogan, more that that main stream media would never allow that type of thing. For a start they don't have 3 hours. Yet it's at 19m views as of now.
I mean, I'm watching Tiger King right now, that's pretty much the same level of entertainment. I don't see the issue with Alex Jones being given 3 hours.
How is it that you put Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones in the same category? Your bias is clear and so I can see why Joe Rogans openness might not appeal to you
Because I think they're both figures who are focused on catering to a specific audience with a specific type of bunk. With Jones its incoherent, conspiracy riddled rants on his show to sell more "health supplements" and "survival gear", with Shapiro its fast talking emotional whataboutism to promote his media sites and books. I would lump left leaning figures like Gwyneth Paltrow and her company Goop, or any other similar figure pushing "alternative medicines", with them as well.
Even if I take your description of them their not in the same category. Conspiracy theorist and someone who promotes their own site and books is in the same category? You might disagree with Ben Shapiro and that’s fine but he’s not purposefully pushing misinformation.
If you are equating Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro to each other than it doesn't seem like you hold yourself to this intellectual rigor that you expect Joe Rogan to adhere to. How can you expect more from others when you don't seem to practice what you preach?
I never said I expected Joe Rogan should adhere to intellectual rigor, rather that people shouldn't expect that from him in any shape because that's not necessarily the point of his show.
I do not think Jones and Shapiro are equal on every front, I think Shapiro is certainly the more sane and sensible one of the two, but as I mentioned in another comment - I think both are equal commentators selling a specific narrative and view of reality to a specific demographic. To me they both twist and bend the truth, or simply flat out lie, to sell their view of reality to a type of person.
I do not think Jones and Shapiro are equal on every front, I think Shapiro is certainly the more sane and sensible one of the two, but as I mentioned in another comment - I think both are equal commentators selling a specific narrative and view of reality to a specific demographic. To me they both twist and bend the truth, or simply flat out lie, to sell their view of reality to a type of person.
This is true but I think getting less so as Joe is getting more confident in opining his ideas, look no further than his latest takes on the covid response
I don't get the appeal either. Joe Rogan is the personified midwit, he manages to make conversations with even the most interesting guests dumb and bland.
I don't think that's a really fair characterization to say he tries to remain "neutral" because he does take stances on things, sometimes very radical. In his last interview with David Pakman (a man who by the way runs a progressive Youtube talk show, not exactly a politically neutral guest) he said that Twitter should probably be regulated like a public utility, and perhaps even purchased outright by the government. That's a fairly radical stance, and even if it was said more in jest or posed as a hypothetical that is certainly not someone a host selling a "neutral" experience would say.
I enjoy Joe Rogan's podcast, but I'm not going to start using Spotify just to listen to his podcasts. Hell Spotify isn't even available in my country. I'm sure the episodes will leak out elsewhere, and if I run into them I'll listen. If Spotify really goes hard on the copyright striking and I don't see the podcasts anymore, well then I guess I'll miss out.
> ... I still find the extent of his popularity mind-boggling. Imagine if I had told you, a dozen years ago, that ...
A list of stuff that leaves out...
Joe Garrelli on NewsRadio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsRadio
If you had told me that the guy who plays Joe Garrelli was going to be a superstar I would have been surprised, but only a little.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Joe+Garrelli+NewsRadio&iar=videos&...
A list of stuff that leaves out...
Joe Garrelli on NewsRadio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsRadio
If you had told me that the guy who plays Joe Garrelli was going to be a superstar I would have been surprised, but only a little.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Joe+Garrelli+NewsRadio&iar=videos&...
His last name is Garrelli?
The character's name is Joe Garrelli.
NewsRadio Trivia: Joe Rogan wasn't the first Joe Garrelli, a different actor played him in the pilot.
NewsRadio Trivia: Joe Rogan wasn't the first Joe Garrelli, a different actor played him in the pilot.
Yeah, I was basically quoting the show. I'm a big fan. In the show, people repeatedly say when they hear the character's last name "Your last name is Garrelli?"
Examples: https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/73188705-1624-4d6a-9d25-6508f82c0b...
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/2e4d1f95-e913-43b6-b41b-74822ea...
Examples: https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/73188705-1624-4d6a-9d25-6508f82c0b...
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/2e4d1f95-e913-43b6-b41b-74822ea...
OMG right! "whoosh!" The sound of that going over my head. Ha ha!
My sister just dug out from storage the complete box set of DVDs of the series! Binge watchin' those this week. :)
My sister just dug out from storage the complete box set of DVDs of the series! Binge watchin' those this week. :)
nah, I jut unsubscribed all his content because I don't like spotify, feeling a little blue but this will wear off soon.
This wouldn't be so bad if spotify would be accessible in my country. (they are coming to anytime soon for the past 8 years or so)
On the other hand i am sure people will keep uploading his stuff ti youtube.
On the other hand i am sure people will keep uploading his stuff ti youtube.
Ironically, I know more about JRE from YouTube videos. Never heard one podcast proper.
But, on the other hand, I am glad I have Spotify subscription cause now I get to continue to enjoy him.
But, on the other hand, I am glad I have Spotify subscription cause now I get to continue to enjoy him.
The Joe Rogan episodes with Bari Weiss (the author of this piece) have some of the worst like to disliked ratio in the catalog. She is no friend of the podcast.
[deleted]
Sitting here in Asia: No he isn't :)
If Rogan is MSM, then Spotify killing the open RSS ecosystem is even worse that I thought.
This will probably turn out to be capex made as effectively as when Apple bought Beats.
Whatever media outlet he's on is the new mainstream media
I listen to JRE on and off. He's not the new 'mainstream media' at all. The majority of his guests are entertainers, athletes, and occasionally health and science-related people. I include people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson in the 'entertainment' category.
That being said, he will occasionally have politicians on, and those discussions are interesting as it's not the superficial 5-minute interviews you see on cable news, buttressed by 5 minutes of ads for cars and ED pills.
I've really enjoyed Patriot Act w/ Hasan Minhaj on Netflix. 25-minute deep dives into a specific topic, and often international in scope. Great production value, often humorous interviews and I love the on-screen graphics.
That being said, he will occasionally have politicians on, and those discussions are interesting as it's not the superficial 5-minute interviews you see on cable news, buttressed by 5 minutes of ads for cars and ED pills.
I've really enjoyed Patriot Act w/ Hasan Minhaj on Netflix. 25-minute deep dives into a specific topic, and often international in scope. Great production value, often humorous interviews and I love the on-screen graphics.
Any insight into Spotify's podcast buying spree?
[deleted]
Paywall protected, could anyone provide the full text? ^[ref](https://pastebin.com/)
Frequently, if you paste the link into "archive.is" or "outline.com", you can create (and post!) a link to such content yourself. Outline.com doesn't work for NYT articles, but archive.is currently does: http://archive.is/YamoB
On NYT and many other sites you can bypass the paywall by editing the URL and adding a '.' between the .com and the rest of the URL (nytimes.com./2020/...)
I'm not particularly a fan of Rogan - too shouty/sweary/jockish, and I can't read this paywalled article, but its good to see a centrist voice breaking through the oftentimes liberal-left stranglehold on mainstream media.
More voices like that will help to keep them honest, which is dearly needed at times.
More voices like that will help to keep them honest, which is dearly needed at times.
> The right has always insisted that the elite left controls the culture. But Rogan’s popularity shows that perhaps that’s no longer true.
Is this whole thing just trying to paint joe rogan as alt right again?
Is this whole thing just trying to paint joe rogan as alt right again?
Probably.
But here's an interesting sequence of events:
- The alt-right emerges as an influential bloc
- Our self-appointed explainers and meaning-makers try and fail to understand it; unable to understand it they're completely unable to explain it
- The term "alt-right" is bandied about more or less carelessly, often as an insult or as a way to discount ideological opponents, until:
- The term "alt-right" loses much of its meaning and is applied to people with only the most tenuous links to the original group.
The same basic thing has happened before and since: think of the neocons and the dirtbag left for example.
So, yes, they probably are trying to paint him as alt-right, but not at a level much above "lololol Bro Rogan sux !!!!!!!!". Reassured?
But here's an interesting sequence of events:
- The alt-right emerges as an influential bloc
- Our self-appointed explainers and meaning-makers try and fail to understand it; unable to understand it they're completely unable to explain it
- The term "alt-right" is bandied about more or less carelessly, often as an insult or as a way to discount ideological opponents, until:
- The term "alt-right" loses much of its meaning and is applied to people with only the most tenuous links to the original group.
The same basic thing has happened before and since: think of the neocons and the dirtbag left for example.
So, yes, they probably are trying to paint him as alt-right, but not at a level much above "lololol Bro Rogan sux !!!!!!!!". Reassured?
[deleted]
Fox News has been the hyper-profitable and true mainstream media for awhile now. They make a lot of money because they're pandering to a slight minority opinion that is often not well supported by other organizations. Put another way: they manufacture and distribute information that otherwise wouldn't exist and this is actually in very high demand by people with a message. In short, supply is scarce for reactionary messaging and when effective communicators do emerge in that market they immediately find a ton of interested parties throwing money at them.
Rogan is an extension of that phenomenon, and it's the reason he makes lots of money. He's a lot like Limbaugh or Hannity in his career path; by showing a willingness to cater to authoritarian reactionary views, he's opened himself up to a lot of media opportunities.
What's weird about the narrative around Rogan is that he was ever "alternative" to begin with. He's been indistinguishable in methodology from the average conservative pundit for some time. His guest lists are very similar to the average conservative pundit. That he used a different broadcast media isn't that significant. He panders to the same sorts of audience segments in a younger audience.
Rogan is an extension of that phenomenon, and it's the reason he makes lots of money. He's a lot like Limbaugh or Hannity in his career path; by showing a willingness to cater to authoritarian reactionary views, he's opened himself up to a lot of media opportunities.
What's weird about the narrative around Rogan is that he was ever "alternative" to begin with. He's been indistinguishable in methodology from the average conservative pundit for some time. His guest lists are very similar to the average conservative pundit. That he used a different broadcast media isn't that significant. He panders to the same sorts of audience segments in a younger audience.
You realise he's hugely popular outside of the US? In other words I doubt Fox News and American conservative politics has very much to do with his popularity. It maybe affects some of audience but there is a large contingent that doesn't care about that nonsense.
I'm confused how this would damage my point. It's not like conservative media isn't wildly more profitable in many other countries.
This has to do with a scarcity of friendly and popular media outlets for authoritarian, reactionary, and conservative views.
This has to do with a scarcity of friendly and popular media outlets for authoritarian, reactionary, and conservative views.
I’m not sure there is a scarcity. In the UK at least the vast majority of newspapers have a conservative view point.
Joe Rogan is an “average conservative pundit?” He’s an agnostic who is antagonistic to the Catholic Church. And, from his Wikipedia page:
> He has described himself as being "pretty liberal" and supports gay marriage, gay rights, women's rights, recreational drug use, universal healthcare, and universal basic income, while also supporting the Second Amendment. He also has criticized American foreign policy of military adventurism.
He’s basically Howard Dean; and to the left of Joe Biden for the most part.
> He has described himself as being "pretty liberal" and supports gay marriage, gay rights, women's rights, recreational drug use, universal healthcare, and universal basic income, while also supporting the Second Amendment. He also has criticized American foreign policy of military adventurism.
He’s basically Howard Dean; and to the left of Joe Biden for the most part.
Most leftists I know consider Rogan to skew conservative. (And Biden is hardly Left, so that might not be the best yardstick.)
The no true leftist meme.
You can't just redefine the political spectrum every four years and pretended there's no history or global context.
Bernie Sanders is a slightly left-of-centre person in a global context with slightly left-of-center politics which appeal more to the libertarian landscape then to the Communist, Anarchist or even Mutualist landscape.
The fact that the average American can have this conversation and not seeing any contradiction and labeling Bernie Sanders far left as opposed to, say, Sweden or Finland just shows how distorted this conversation can become.
Bernie Sanders is a slightly left-of-centre person in a global context with slightly left-of-center politics which appeal more to the libertarian landscape then to the Communist, Anarchist or even Mutualist landscape.
The fact that the average American can have this conversation and not seeing any contradiction and labeling Bernie Sanders far left as opposed to, say, Sweden or Finland just shows how distorted this conversation can become.
> You can't just redefine the political spectrum every four years and pretended there's no history or global context.
You shouldn't, but you certainly can. It's why so many Americans don't realize that their country's politics doesn't even have a left.
You shouldn't, but you certainly can. It's why so many Americans don't realize that their country's politics doesn't even have a left.
Maybe this was true in 1995, when Bill Clinton killed the left wing of the Democratic Party. But that refrain has become obsolete. Progressive democrats’ brand of socialism plus open borders is probably one of the furthest left mainstream ideologies in a western country. Green New Deal would be massively to the left of anything that has happened in Europe since the continent flirted with actual socialism in the 1970s. Implementing Warren’s or Sanders’ proposals would push government spending as a percentage of the economy past Sweden into Denmark territory. (And Denmark current social democratic government is far to the right of American democrats on immigration issues.)
[deleted]
What?
EU members (a broadly popular and enviable status) have much more open borders and broader refugee responsiblities that anything that has gotten out of draft status in the house or Senate.
What's more, leftists are split on the actual subject of borders. Communists like them, everyone else hates them, excepting decolonialists who essentially want them enforced only for indigenous peoples.
It's very odd to suggest that the EU open immigration policy and One Currency is somehow not an open borders policy.
EU members (a broadly popular and enviable status) have much more open borders and broader refugee responsiblities that anything that has gotten out of draft status in the house or Senate.
What's more, leftists are split on the actual subject of borders. Communists like them, everyone else hates them, excepting decolonialists who essentially want them enforced only for indigenous peoples.
It's very odd to suggest that the EU open immigration policy and One Currency is somehow not an open borders policy.
The EU system is not an open borders policy any more than the US system is one. EU countries have made the deliberate decision to enter into a political union. Membership into that union is an arduous process that involves meeting myriad benchmarks. EU citizens are one polity, governed by supreme EU law, and who vote in EU-wide elections. Legally, it’s not much different than the US federal system. But the EU’s external borders are no more porous, and the politics of guarding those borders is significantly to the right of US progressives. The EU took more refugees, sure, but that’s within the framework of otherwise low undocumented immigration. Adjusted for population, the US has had many illegal border crossings per month as the EU did all of last year.
For example, US progressives want to decriminalize illegal entry. But illegal entry is a crime in the three largest EU countries (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and all of the Scandinavian countries: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php. Likewise, progressives want free healthcare for people here illegally. That’s left-wing even by European standards. Spain’s socialist government restored universal healthcare for undocumented immigrants, which a previous conservative government had eliminated. Macron is trying to reform France’s universal healthcare to restrict benefits for illegal immigrants. And Germany and most of Scandinavia only provide undocumented people emergency services, just like in the US. Countries like Denmark and New Zealand have recently combined left-wing economics with right-wing immigration policy. New Zealand’s Ardern, a darling of American liberal media for her liberalism in healthcare and women’s and LGBT issues, campaigned in reducing legal immigration, and came to power by forming a coalition government with the “New Zealand first” party. Denmark’s new social democrat PM is to the right of Trump on immigration issues.
The platform espoused by people like Sanders and Warren is very liberal in comparison to mainstream ideologies in other western countries. Not only do they want to spend 50-60% of GDP on the government, like the Scandinavian countries, but they want to enable massive immigration, which the Scandinavian countries generally do not support. They are also anti-corporation and anti-free markets, which the Scandinavian countries generally embrace.
For example, US progressives want to decriminalize illegal entry. But illegal entry is a crime in the three largest EU countries (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and all of the Scandinavian countries: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php. Likewise, progressives want free healthcare for people here illegally. That’s left-wing even by European standards. Spain’s socialist government restored universal healthcare for undocumented immigrants, which a previous conservative government had eliminated. Macron is trying to reform France’s universal healthcare to restrict benefits for illegal immigrants. And Germany and most of Scandinavia only provide undocumented people emergency services, just like in the US. Countries like Denmark and New Zealand have recently combined left-wing economics with right-wing immigration policy. New Zealand’s Ardern, a darling of American liberal media for her liberalism in healthcare and women’s and LGBT issues, campaigned in reducing legal immigration, and came to power by forming a coalition government with the “New Zealand first” party. Denmark’s new social democrat PM is to the right of Trump on immigration issues.
The platform espoused by people like Sanders and Warren is very liberal in comparison to mainstream ideologies in other western countries. Not only do they want to spend 50-60% of GDP on the government, like the Scandinavian countries, but they want to enable massive immigration, which the Scandinavian countries generally do not support. They are also anti-corporation and anti-free markets, which the Scandinavian countries generally embrace.
You're both talking about the Schengen Area. There's a lot of overlap with the European Union but members of one aren't necessarily members of the other.
The peculiar part about the comparisons you're making is that even the German AfD, who are regarded by everyone outside the AfD as only slightly to the left of the Nazi Party, would back away from putting as many immigrants in camps and prisons as we've done. The Fox News/AM radio listener demographic will experience a lot of heartburn in the months and years after the Trump administration as we unwind our current immigration policy and replace it with something sane - and literally anything we do will probably be viewable through a certain kind of lens as a move "leftward" - but none of that should be regarded in isolation as a measurement of the country's political leanings. It will just be about repairing damage.
The peculiar part about the comparisons you're making is that even the German AfD, who are regarded by everyone outside the AfD as only slightly to the left of the Nazi Party, would back away from putting as many immigrants in camps and prisons as we've done. The Fox News/AM radio listener demographic will experience a lot of heartburn in the months and years after the Trump administration as we unwind our current immigration policy and replace it with something sane - and literally anything we do will probably be viewable through a certain kind of lens as a move "leftward" - but none of that should be regarded in isolation as a measurement of the country's political leanings. It will just be about repairing damage.
> The fact that the average American can have this conversation and not seeing any contradiction and labeling Bernie Sanders far left as opposed to, say, Sweden or Finland just shows how distorted this conversation can become.
This is disputable. Did you have thoughts on the story a from a couple months ago about the Swedish journalist making the point that Sanders supporters would be considered far left in Sweden: https://theweek.com/speedreads/896948/democratic-socialist-b...
This is disputable. Did you have thoughts on the story a from a couple months ago about the Swedish journalist making the point that Sanders supporters would be considered far left in Sweden: https://theweek.com/speedreads/896948/democratic-socialist-b...
1) Bernie sanders thinks that we should have a tax system that is more progressive than Sweden, has higher capital gains taxes than Sweden, higher corporate taxes than Sweden and an individual wealth tax which Sweden does not have.
At least on the issue of taxation, it's clear that he is to the left of that country (and basically every other country on the globe).
2) He also is for virtually abortion on demand where in Sweden it is largely prohibited after the 22nd week.
3) On health care Bernie Sanders has said that individuals should have "no premiums, no deductibles, no copays" which is also to the left of Sweden where individuals are expected to pay for some of their own medical care (before the government steps in to cover all expenses past a certain point).
To be honest I can't think of any issue off the top of my head where Bernie Sanders is to the right of Sweden's current policies.
Do you seriously think that if Bernie moved to Sweden he would start calling their politics too left wing and start arguing for conservative market reforms? That is very hard to imagine.
At least on the issue of taxation, it's clear that he is to the left of that country (and basically every other country on the globe).
2) He also is for virtually abortion on demand where in Sweden it is largely prohibited after the 22nd week.
3) On health care Bernie Sanders has said that individuals should have "no premiums, no deductibles, no copays" which is also to the left of Sweden where individuals are expected to pay for some of their own medical care (before the government steps in to cover all expenses past a certain point).
To be honest I can't think of any issue off the top of my head where Bernie Sanders is to the right of Sweden's current policies.
Do you seriously think that if Bernie moved to Sweden he would start calling their politics too left wing and start arguing for conservative market reforms? That is very hard to imagine.
> At least on the issue of taxation, it's clear that he is to the left of that country (and basically every other country on the globe).
Sorry, but the basis for comparison isn't "What policies currently exist" but "what the 'left' in those regions claims is the next course of action." Otherwise, you're suggesting Sweden is somehow the yardstick of the global left, which is confusing. They're somewhat famously on the wrong side of several issues associated globally with the left, like sex work.
> 2) He also is for virtually abortion on demand where in Sweden it is largely prohibited after the 22nd week.
Sanders's platform remained extremely light on details of this policy. Anytime a critique of a policy includes the words "virtually" you're equivocating.
> 3) On health care Bernie Sanders has said that individuals should have "no premiums, no deductibles, no copays" which is also to the left of Sweden where individuals are expected to pay for some of their own medical care (before the government steps in to cover all expenses past a certain point).
It's not clear to me if this is "left" or "right". "The Government Pays for Everything" is not inherently a "leftist" position or even a Libertarian (classical) position. Nor is, "The Individual Is Responsible For Health Care" essentially a rightward or authoritarian (classical) position.
> Do you seriously think that if Bernie moved to Sweden he would start calling their politics too left wing and start arguing for conservative market reforms?
I uh... really can't engage with a hypothetical like this? I have no idea what fictional New Somehow Fully Citizen Bernie Sanders would do? But I suspect he'd advocate for the use of military force against other countries to secure prosperity for his new hypothetical fellow citizens, since he holds that position in America.
Sorry, but the basis for comparison isn't "What policies currently exist" but "what the 'left' in those regions claims is the next course of action." Otherwise, you're suggesting Sweden is somehow the yardstick of the global left, which is confusing. They're somewhat famously on the wrong side of several issues associated globally with the left, like sex work.
> 2) He also is for virtually abortion on demand where in Sweden it is largely prohibited after the 22nd week.
Sanders's platform remained extremely light on details of this policy. Anytime a critique of a policy includes the words "virtually" you're equivocating.
> 3) On health care Bernie Sanders has said that individuals should have "no premiums, no deductibles, no copays" which is also to the left of Sweden where individuals are expected to pay for some of their own medical care (before the government steps in to cover all expenses past a certain point).
It's not clear to me if this is "left" or "right". "The Government Pays for Everything" is not inherently a "leftist" position or even a Libertarian (classical) position. Nor is, "The Individual Is Responsible For Health Care" essentially a rightward or authoritarian (classical) position.
> Do you seriously think that if Bernie moved to Sweden he would start calling their politics too left wing and start arguing for conservative market reforms?
I uh... really can't engage with a hypothetical like this? I have no idea what fictional New Somehow Fully Citizen Bernie Sanders would do? But I suspect he'd advocate for the use of military force against other countries to secure prosperity for his new hypothetical fellow citizens, since he holds that position in America.
Otherwise, you're suggesting Sweden is somehow the yardstick of the global left
I didn't suggest this. You did: "labeling Bernie Sanders far left as opposed to, say, Sweden".
You also mentioned Finland. TBH I just picked the first one on your list. I could have made very similar comparisons between Sanders and Finland. I stuck to only one for brevity.
Sanders's platform remained extremely light on details of this policy.
"Oppose all efforts to undermine or overturn Roe v. Wade, and appoint federal judges who will uphold women’s most fundamental rights." (under Women's Rights on https://berniesanders.com/issues/)
Also the sentiment on his twitter feed is clear:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ABernieSanders%20abortion...
Finally, Planned Parenthood gives Sanders a 100% rating: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/congressional-scorec...
It's not clear to me if this is "left" or "right".
It is generally accepted that the greater government intervention in the health care system the more "left" you are. The more health care is left up to individuals and private enterprise the more "right" you are.
I didn't suggest this. You did: "labeling Bernie Sanders far left as opposed to, say, Sweden".
You also mentioned Finland. TBH I just picked the first one on your list. I could have made very similar comparisons between Sanders and Finland. I stuck to only one for brevity.
Sanders's platform remained extremely light on details of this policy.
"Oppose all efforts to undermine or overturn Roe v. Wade, and appoint federal judges who will uphold women’s most fundamental rights." (under Women's Rights on https://berniesanders.com/issues/)
Also the sentiment on his twitter feed is clear:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ABernieSanders%20abortion...
Finally, Planned Parenthood gives Sanders a 100% rating: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/congressional-scorec...
It's not clear to me if this is "left" or "right".
It is generally accepted that the greater government intervention in the health care system the more "left" you are. The more health care is left up to individuals and private enterprise the more "right" you are.
> I didn't suggest this. You did: "labeling Bernie Sanders far left as opposed to, say, Sweden"
Sorry, that was unclear. Swedish leftism in politics. Not currently enacted Swedish law.
> It is generally accepted that the greater government intervention in the health care system the more "left" you are. The more health care is left up to individuals and private enterprise the more "right" you are.
This is just flatly wrong. Chomsky, for example, believes in non-government health care solutions and cites numerous ways individual communities have pursued this. We might imagine short-term pursuing these interventions because they reduce harm, but there are massive segments of the left that are deeply uncomfortable with a state run health care system.
Sorry, that was unclear. Swedish leftism in politics. Not currently enacted Swedish law.
> It is generally accepted that the greater government intervention in the health care system the more "left" you are. The more health care is left up to individuals and private enterprise the more "right" you are.
This is just flatly wrong. Chomsky, for example, believes in non-government health care solutions and cites numerous ways individual communities have pursued this. We might imagine short-term pursuing these interventions because they reduce harm, but there are massive segments of the left that are deeply uncomfortable with a state run health care system.
When your politics are to the left of currently enacted Swedish law (and the law of virtually every other country on earth) you're not really a "slightly left-of-centre person in a global context."
I'm a "leftist" and I consider Rogan progressive, just like anyone else who chooses to vote for Bernie Sanders.
I am too, you'll find me at the local Socialist meetups, but there's no way I'd consider Rogan progressive.
I mean it's all relative I guess. Bernie Sanders was by far the most progressive U.S. presidential candidate in this election, so that would put Rogan's "progressiveness" in the country's minority.
Anyways I think this is a stupid argument. My point wasn't to debate his progressiveness, just to point out how absurd it is to call a Bernie Sanders supporter "conservative".
Anyways I think this is a stupid argument. My point wasn't to debate his progressiveness, just to point out how absurd it is to call a Bernie Sanders supporter "conservative".
Who's Rogan voting for now, remind me?
The truth is that Sanders cut across a different axis than a lot of Democrats.
The truth is that Sanders cut across a different axis than a lot of Democrats.
Certainly in relative terms Bernie Sanders would represent some aspects of progressive politics. However it's very important to know how regressive American politics are.
While the loss of life is extremely unfortunate, the timely object lesson of America's ridiculously inferior health care infrastructure is on full display globally right now. Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world we also can't deal with aglobal pandemic because we simply lack the infrastructure for Public Health and we've spent 20 years arguing about whether we should have it.
Bernie Sanders's policies are slightly right of Macron, and he's pretty much the poster child for neoliberal centrism globally. He wants the same thing many other similar capitalist Nations have, which is essentially using tax dollars to ensure business prosperity by offsetting high-risk costs like healthcare.
While the loss of life is extremely unfortunate, the timely object lesson of America's ridiculously inferior health care infrastructure is on full display globally right now. Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world we also can't deal with aglobal pandemic because we simply lack the infrastructure for Public Health and we've spent 20 years arguing about whether we should have it.
Bernie Sanders's policies are slightly right of Macron, and he's pretty much the poster child for neoliberal centrism globally. He wants the same thing many other similar capitalist Nations have, which is essentially using tax dollars to ensure business prosperity by offsetting high-risk costs like healthcare.
Bernie is significantly to the left of Macron. Macron is a pro-business former investment banker who has campaigned on reforming labor unions in France, privatizing entities like SNCF, and deregulation generally.
Macron is also an excellent example of why the notion that American politics is significantly more conservative Thani n Europe is overstated. In the first round, Macron won 24% of the vote. Fillion (center-right), Dupont-Aignan (Gaullist), and Le Pen (far-right) together had 45% of the vote. That is, nearly half the French electorate was to the right of Macron. The same is true in the UK, Ireland, Germany, and the Netherlands. All are headed by staunch neo-liberals, and have been for some time. Boris Johnson just blew out his socialist challenger; Merkel's hand-picked successor is now a leader of one of Germany's right-wing parties.
Sanders' brand of liberalism is antediluvian. The "social-democratic" countries he admires have moved to a model better described as "welfare capitalism." See: https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/.... The conservative Heritage Foundation consistently ranks Denmark in the top 10 when it comes to economic freedom. While Sanders rails against corporations and calls for sweeping regulations, Denmark, Sweden, etc., have lowered corporate taxes to below U.S. levels and dramatically deregulated their economies. Over the past two decades, while Sanders stood still, almost the whole of Europe became more like America: they privatized state-owned industries, pursued aggressive deregulation, and increased individual choice. For example, while Sanders opposes charter schools, Sweden and Denmark have school vouchers for private schools, just like American Republicans want to do.
As to COVID-19: it has been an eye-opening illustration of how socialized medicine doesn't help a whit when it comes time to dealing with a global pandemic. COVID-19 deaths per day per million peaked in the U.S. at half of what it did in Spain, Italy, and the UK: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-mi....
Macron is also an excellent example of why the notion that American politics is significantly more conservative Thani n Europe is overstated. In the first round, Macron won 24% of the vote. Fillion (center-right), Dupont-Aignan (Gaullist), and Le Pen (far-right) together had 45% of the vote. That is, nearly half the French electorate was to the right of Macron. The same is true in the UK, Ireland, Germany, and the Netherlands. All are headed by staunch neo-liberals, and have been for some time. Boris Johnson just blew out his socialist challenger; Merkel's hand-picked successor is now a leader of one of Germany's right-wing parties.
Sanders' brand of liberalism is antediluvian. The "social-democratic" countries he admires have moved to a model better described as "welfare capitalism." See: https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/.... The conservative Heritage Foundation consistently ranks Denmark in the top 10 when it comes to economic freedom. While Sanders rails against corporations and calls for sweeping regulations, Denmark, Sweden, etc., have lowered corporate taxes to below U.S. levels and dramatically deregulated their economies. Over the past two decades, while Sanders stood still, almost the whole of Europe became more like America: they privatized state-owned industries, pursued aggressive deregulation, and increased individual choice. For example, while Sanders opposes charter schools, Sweden and Denmark have school vouchers for private schools, just like American Republicans want to do.
As to COVID-19: it has been an eye-opening illustration of how socialized medicine doesn't help a whit when it comes time to dealing with a global pandemic. COVID-19 deaths per day per million peaked in the U.S. at half of what it did in Spain, Italy, and the UK: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-mi....
Look, this shouldn't be seen either as for or against socialized medicine. Sweden has that, but their political infighting rendered their infrastructure moot, and they're now the single worst offender.
It has to do with if the systems in place are accessible and capable of responding in times of crisis. South Korea and Mongolia have very different looking political structures and medical infrastructure, but their ability to effectively provide and enable their infrastructure to those who need it sets them leagues apart from the US and Sweden.
It has to do with if the systems in place are accessible and capable of responding in times of crisis. South Korea and Mongolia have very different looking political structures and medical infrastructure, but their ability to effectively provide and enable their infrastructure to those who need it sets them leagues apart from the US and Sweden.
You're the one who mentioned America's supposedly "ridiculously inferior health care infrastructure." Whatever political problems we had in terms of coordinating a response, our "health care infrastructure" itself held up admirably. NYC got hit harder than Italy, but unlike Italy did not run out of hospital beds.
No, it hasn't. Suggesting unutilized capacity is "our infrastructure" working as intended is a ludicrous metric. It can be gamed simply by refusing to provision some capacity. The numbers that matter are what actually prevents death and injury (and the count of death and injury that represents the human costs of these failures).
America still isn't testing at sufficient scale. Contact tracing isn't happening at scale. The federal government is actively discouraging these effective strategies.
Also: Italy faced a national outbreak, New York did not. It's simply a category error to expect overflows even if those numbers do matter to you.
America still isn't testing at sufficient scale. Contact tracing isn't happening at scale. The federal government is actively discouraging these effective strategies.
Also: Italy faced a national outbreak, New York did not. It's simply a category error to expect overflows even if those numbers do matter to you.
America still isn't testing at sufficient scale. Contact tracing isn't happening at scale.
America is now running more tests per capita than the socialized healthcare systems of Western Europe. These systems don’t do contact tracing either.
The argument here is not that the US healthcare system is perfect, but rather that socializing it is not going to solve any problems it has.
America is now running more tests per capita than the socialized healthcare systems of Western Europe. These systems don’t do contact tracing either.
The argument here is not that the US healthcare system is perfect, but rather that socializing it is not going to solve any problems it has.
The whole point of universal healthcare is that everybody gets access to care, regardless of their employment status or wealth, and doesn't have to pay exorbitant fees or declare bankruptcy for it.
Also testing in the U.S. during the last couple months of the coronavirus pandemic was very hard to get and extremely inadequate. None of my friends in NYC who requested tests were able to get access to tests.
Also testing in the U.S. during the last couple months of the coronavirus pandemic was very hard to get and extremely inadequate. None of my friends in NYC who requested tests were able to get access to tests.
the timely object lesson of America's ridiculously inferior health care infrastructure is on full display globally right now
The US is currently expected to have fewer per capita deaths from COVID19 than the UK, France, Spain, Italy & Sweden.
See: https://covid19.healthdata.org/
The US is currently expected to have fewer per capita deaths from COVID19 than the UK, France, Spain, Italy & Sweden.
See: https://covid19.healthdata.org/
Looks like May 14 and later are still projections. It's now May 25. Given the spikes we've seen since states have started reopening, I'd want to see more up-to-date stats.
I certainly agree that predictions are hard. And things could go in another direction. I'm just saying that the progress of the disease to date has not been an "object lesson of America's ridiculously inferior health care infrastructure."
It's outrageous, bordering on disingenuous, to compare anyone to Italy and Sweden and go, "See? Your health care infrastructure isn't so bad."
Sweden deliberately elected not to use their infrastructure. Italy was the first critical European outbreak and their difficulties were information most other nations had.
Why not look at South Korea or Mongolia? You know, actual success stories.
Sweden deliberately elected not to use their infrastructure. Italy was the first critical European outbreak and their difficulties were information most other nations had.
Why not look at South Korea or Mongolia? You know, actual success stories.
You're mixing up two very different things. When you talk about Sanders and "health care infrastructure" people naturally assume you're talking about hospitals, insurance coverage, etc. That naturally raises the response of "well, Italy has socialized medicine, like Sanders wants, and that hasn't really helped it."
South Korea's success does not have anything to do with left versus right--which is the topic at hand--or even really health care infrastructure. South Korea has experience dealing with respiratory virus outbreaks from China. It also has a population that is able to follow instructions and defer to authority, unlike people in western countries.
Comparisons of the US to South Korea or Japan are "outrageous, bordering on disingenuous." In terms of social organization and ability to get things done, comparing New York City to Italy is actually very generous.
South Korea's success does not have anything to do with left versus right--which is the topic at hand--or even really health care infrastructure. South Korea has experience dealing with respiratory virus outbreaks from China. It also has a population that is able to follow instructions and defer to authority, unlike people in western countries.
Comparisons of the US to South Korea or Japan are "outrageous, bordering on disingenuous." In terms of social organization and ability to get things done, comparing New York City to Italy is actually very generous.
> You're mixing up two very different things. When you talk about Sanders and "health care infrastructure" people naturally assume you're talking about hospitals, insurance coverage, etc. That naturally raises the response of "well, Italy has socialized medicine, like Sanders wants, and that hasn't really helped it."
Quite the opposite. You're the one doing that. I didn't name specific mechanisms and instead said "infrastructure" precisely to avoid this conversation. It doesn't matter how it's implemented; what matters is that effective medical care and clear information can reach citizens in times of crisis.
All the examples folks have named have clearly shown a total failure to do this. So despite how many great resources they may have amassed, they could not mobilize that into an effective civic infrastructure.
You're the one who wants to argue about socialized medicine. From the look of it, that's because you want to gloss over the profound failure of the US to do anything resembling a credible disaster response or address the profound inequalities that exist in American health care.
> South Korea's success does not have anything to do with left versus right
I agree!
> which is the topic at hand
No, the topic is, "Is Rogan a reactionary?" The answer there is yes, and even recently he's been sympathetic to the ludicrous claims that doing nothing is a reasonable strategy during this pandemic. The man is a conspiracy theorist. He has been in the past and he'll continue to be so in the future because he's a reactionary and that's how they operate.
> South Korea has experience dealing with respiratory virus outbreaks from China. It also has a population that is able to follow instructions and defer to authority, unlike people in western countries.
South Korea had to enact an emergency law letting cities detain people for violating stay at home and mask orders because compliance was bad. I don't know why you think these pacific asian counties are "obedient" but that's... Not a good characterization. I will follow the site guidelines and assume you have an unconscious bias there as opposed to an active one.
> Comparisons of the US to South Korea or Japan are "outrageous, bordering on disingenuous." In terms of social organization and ability to get things done, comparing New York City to Italy is actually very generous.
New York was a worse individual outbreak than any Italian city from the last numbers I saw, so doesn't this invalidate harryh's comparison?
Quite the opposite. You're the one doing that. I didn't name specific mechanisms and instead said "infrastructure" precisely to avoid this conversation. It doesn't matter how it's implemented; what matters is that effective medical care and clear information can reach citizens in times of crisis.
All the examples folks have named have clearly shown a total failure to do this. So despite how many great resources they may have amassed, they could not mobilize that into an effective civic infrastructure.
You're the one who wants to argue about socialized medicine. From the look of it, that's because you want to gloss over the profound failure of the US to do anything resembling a credible disaster response or address the profound inequalities that exist in American health care.
> South Korea's success does not have anything to do with left versus right
I agree!
> which is the topic at hand
No, the topic is, "Is Rogan a reactionary?" The answer there is yes, and even recently he's been sympathetic to the ludicrous claims that doing nothing is a reasonable strategy during this pandemic. The man is a conspiracy theorist. He has been in the past and he'll continue to be so in the future because he's a reactionary and that's how they operate.
> South Korea has experience dealing with respiratory virus outbreaks from China. It also has a population that is able to follow instructions and defer to authority, unlike people in western countries.
South Korea had to enact an emergency law letting cities detain people for violating stay at home and mask orders because compliance was bad. I don't know why you think these pacific asian counties are "obedient" but that's... Not a good characterization. I will follow the site guidelines and assume you have an unconscious bias there as opposed to an active one.
> Comparisons of the US to South Korea or Japan are "outrageous, bordering on disingenuous." In terms of social organization and ability to get things done, comparing New York City to Italy is actually very generous.
New York was a worse individual outbreak than any Italian city from the last numbers I saw, so doesn't this invalidate harryh's comparison?
NYC has been hit the hardest in the world, there weren't enough masks and ventilators, and testing wasn't available except to those in the most dire conditions (despite what the politicians claimed).
Also I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare the entire countries given the enormous size differences, the drastically lower population density of the U.S. (outside NYC), and again the lack of testing which is definitely drastically underestimating the real amount.
Also the bigger problem in the U.S. is that tens of millions are uninsured and/or have health plans tied to jobs that they lost, have no sick leave, and are criminally overcharged for basic health services leading to medical disaster being the #1 cause of bankruptcy. This kind of precarity and suffering isn't captured in coronavirus case statistics.
Also I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare the entire countries given the enormous size differences, the drastically lower population density of the U.S. (outside NYC), and again the lack of testing which is definitely drastically underestimating the real amount.
Also the bigger problem in the U.S. is that tens of millions are uninsured and/or have health plans tied to jobs that they lost, have no sick leave, and are criminally overcharged for basic health services leading to medical disaster being the #1 cause of bankruptcy. This kind of precarity and suffering isn't captured in coronavirus case statistics.
We'll need to wait and see for data on UK and France. Those countries certainly botched up their handling similarly (although not quite as long as we have).
Comparing us to Sweden (which has essentially elected to do nothing at all except politely suggest large gathering should be cancelled and decline to enforce that suggestion) or Italy (the first European pandemic outbreak site, with a large population of older people who cohabitate with younger families, and extremely dense outbreak zones)seems like a low enough bar to be called "failure" given the economic resources the US has at its disposal.
Comparing us to Sweden (which has essentially elected to do nothing at all except politely suggest large gathering should be cancelled and decline to enforce that suggestion) or Italy (the first European pandemic outbreak site, with a large population of older people who cohabitate with younger families, and extremely dense outbreak zones)seems like a low enough bar to be called "failure" given the economic resources the US has at its disposal.
Lots of countries can't deal with the pandemic, including ones that were universally agreed before 2020 to have great health systems.
Within American politics (who else's politics would we be talking about here?) Rogan is squarely on the left. As evidenced by Biden, he's to the left even of many Democrats. (Remember, a big chunk of the Democratic Party is religious African Americans, half of whom are opposed to gay marriage, and hispanic Americans, many of whom are opposed to abortion.)
> Rogan is squarely on the left. As evidenced by Biden, he's to the left even of many Democrats.
I think an awful lot of American leftists disagree strongly with you. Being left of Biden is hardly an accomplishment.
I think an awful lot of American leftists disagree strongly with you. Being left of Biden is hardly an accomplishment.
I think Biden is too far left, so being to the left of him is definitely not an "accomplishment." But my point is about the meaning of words. In discussing an article about an American media personality, describing Rogan as a "conservative pundit" is simply incorrect.
Maybe if I did that I'd be more concerned. I said he profited from and resembled one, but that he's an American centrist with strong reactionary sympathies.
If your entire engagement here has been to dispute that I said this, then wow have we both wasted a lot of time.
If your entire engagement here has been to dispute that I said this, then wow have we both wasted a lot of time.
Reactionary conservatism is not limited to religious communities in America.
As an extreme example Richard Spencer said he was an atheist in many of the violent Nazi communities don't refer to a literal or specific God but rather a racial will. It's difficult not to call those people reactionary.
I do think people are misunderstanding my comparison. I think Joe Rogan is a reactionary, but I don't know if he's a conservative. I know that he profits and Norma sleep from the same machine that creates other conservative media. In that sense I don't think he's very different from Limbaugh, Hannity or Crowder or Shapiro.
As an extreme example Richard Spencer said he was an atheist in many of the violent Nazi communities don't refer to a literal or specific God but rather a racial will. It's difficult not to call those people reactionary.
I do think people are misunderstanding my comparison. I think Joe Rogan is a reactionary, but I don't know if he's a conservative. I know that he profits and Norma sleep from the same machine that creates other conservative media. In that sense I don't think he's very different from Limbaugh, Hannity or Crowder or Shapiro.
Sorry, I used dictation for this comment.
"and Norma sleep" is a hilarious interpretation of "enormously".
"and Norma sleep" is a hilarious interpretation of "enormously".
The average conservative pundit supports Bernie Sanders? I hate to just fire off a gotcha, but I honestly don't understand how to interpret the idea that Joe Rogan is similar to a Fox News pundit.
Timmy Pool purports to be a leftist / Sanders supporter but his audience are fringe rightwing/alt-rightists who after listening to his show for awhile tend to become full blown alt-right.
Part of his schtick is that he claims to be a leftist while concern trolling for the alt-right.
Not saying Joe does this but claiming to support Bernie and then publicly saying you'd prefer to vote for trump than Biden doesn't make me confident in his progressive bonafides.
Part of his schtick is that he claims to be a leftist while concern trolling for the alt-right.
Not saying Joe does this but claiming to support Bernie and then publicly saying you'd prefer to vote for trump than Biden doesn't make me confident in his progressive bonafides.
Several of the conservative podcasters have come out for Bernie Sanders and Yang had broad support from a lot of them as well. This isn't because they're somehow more left; it's because Bernie Sanders cut much more along anti-capitalist libertarian.
While we're not used to hearing a ton from that wing of the libertarian party in the media, they've been regaining ground in their political spaces over the last 5 years.
While we're not used to hearing a ton from that wing of the libertarian party in the media, they've been regaining ground in their political spaces over the last 5 years.
What conservative podcasters came out as pro-Bernie?
> He's been indistinguishable from the average conservative pundit for some time.
He's voting for Bernie Sanders, and you think he's a "conservative pundit"? I don't think you know what you're talking about.
He's voting for Bernie Sanders, and you think he's a "conservative pundit"? I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Aaaaaand now he is voting for Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/04/joe-rogan-do...
Saw this a mile away months ago, got downvoted by the Rogan fans. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22144939
An awful lot of conservative people were moved by certain aspects of Bernie Sanders rhetoric. The notion that Bernie Sanders was a deep leftist is propaganda by the authoritarian right. compared to the majority of politics elsewhere in the world he's a Centrist. many leftists in America viewed him as a compromise candidate, not a representative candidate. This is probably because he's much closer to an anti-capitalist Libertarian position. Thus he cut across many traditional political aisles along a different axis.
And if you think for a few minutes I'm positive you can proposed people who are much further "left" of the political spectrum in American politics then Bernie Sanders. AOC comes to mind.
And if you think for a few minutes I'm positive you can proposed people who are much further "left" of the political spectrum in American politics then Bernie Sanders. AOC comes to mind.
AOC wasn't running for president. Bernie Sanders was THE most progressive candidate running for U.S. president in 2020. I mean he identified himself as a socialist.
He didn't quite do that, but even if he did that wouldn't matter. He's a slightly left of center in a global sense, anymore than it'd make sense to call Biden "the progressive" candidate.
I'm not disputing you on U.S. politics being conservative on the global scale, just that it's not fair or accurate to call Rogan a "conservative" when he's voting for the most "socialist" candidate on the ballot in his country and endorsing policies like a universal basic income, something considered "leftist" in basically every single country including the Scandinavian countries who have still yet to implement it.
Sure overall perhaps he's still a "conservative" on the global scale, but by that definition the entirety of U.S. politics is conservative (including CNN, MSNBC, etc), and that speaks more to the state of politics in the country itself than Joe Rogan.
Sure overall perhaps he's still a "conservative" on the global scale, but by that definition the entirety of U.S. politics is conservative (including CNN, MSNBC, etc), and that speaks more to the state of politics in the country itself than Joe Rogan.
> 'm not disputing you on U.S. politics being conservative on the global scale, just that it's not fair or accurate to call Rogan a "conservative" when he's voting for the most "socialist" candidate on the ballot in his country
Fair, but please note I called him a reactionary. I said he profits from the same sources as conservatives. I've said elsewhere in this thread, I think he's a "centrist" which is "conservative" anywhere else.
UBI has an interesting status in Libertarian circles, but I'm not going to go any further off topic here.
Fair, but please note I called him a reactionary. I said he profits from the same sources as conservatives. I've said elsewhere in this thread, I think he's a "centrist" which is "conservative" anywhere else.
UBI has an interesting status in Libertarian circles, but I'm not going to go any further off topic here.
Joe Rogan has voted liberal his entire life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ctTmQn8w7A
This is probably not an appropriate conversation for Hacker News but essentially you can vote Democrat in America and still be a reactionary conservative and those are not inconsistent positions.
American politics is shifted so far to the right that any honest categorization of it suggest that almost no "leftism" actually exist in the politics. America's notion of liberalism is largely defined economically.
Looking is clearly a Centrist with strong reactionary leanings. He has all the hallmarks of this. For example he's historically been very soft on conspiracy theory culture and is even been part of some of those movements himself. He clearly profits from the same system that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ben Shapiro also profit from.
Nor do hosts of said shows need to believe the profitable aspects of their work to profit from them. Ben Shapiro does not seem like the kind of person who's so stupid that he believes that a permanently flooded house could be resold, but he's definitely said that and then subsequently defended it. I also suspect that Crowder doesn't believe many of the things that he says, but it's his business.
American politics is shifted so far to the right that any honest categorization of it suggest that almost no "leftism" actually exist in the politics. America's notion of liberalism is largely defined economically.
Looking is clearly a Centrist with strong reactionary leanings. He has all the hallmarks of this. For example he's historically been very soft on conspiracy theory culture and is even been part of some of those movements himself. He clearly profits from the same system that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ben Shapiro also profit from.
Nor do hosts of said shows need to believe the profitable aspects of their work to profit from them. Ben Shapiro does not seem like the kind of person who's so stupid that he believes that a permanently flooded house could be resold, but he's definitely said that and then subsequently defended it. I also suspect that Crowder doesn't believe many of the things that he says, but it's his business.
> American politics is shifted so far to the right
I saw this and stopped reading. Just about spit out my coffee. Do people really think American politics are shifting to the right, when somebody like Bernie Sanders for President was unimaginable 15 years ago, yet is somewhat popular today?
I saw this and stopped reading. Just about spit out my coffee. Do people really think American politics are shifting to the right, when somebody like Bernie Sanders for President was unimaginable 15 years ago, yet is somewhat popular today?
I think a better way to put it is, American politics are polarizing. It's shifting left and right (and thinning out the middle).
Missing the tense is important.
But it's worth noting Obama was considered a "progressive" candidate. While his appointment was a meaningful milestone for American race politics, his actual politics were... disappointing to many leftists and progressives.
But it's worth noting Obama was considered a "progressive" candidate. While his appointment was a meaningful milestone for American race politics, his actual politics were... disappointing to many leftists and progressives.
How is this any different from Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, or Art Bell signing distribution contracts?
Who the fuck is Joe Rogan?
Shock jock radio hosts are nothing new. Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
I really wish we could get an editorial/opinion tag on articles.
I really wish we could get an editorial/opinion tag on articles.
>Shock jock radio hosts are nothing new. Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
If you classify Joe Rogan as a 'shock jock', then I can only assume you've never listened to the show. The content is nothing like those you mention.
If you classify Joe Rogan as a 'shock jock', then I can only assume you've never listened to the show. The content is nothing like those you mention.
Disappointing ad hominem, expected a better analysis about viewpoints instead of the people he invites. Joe Rogan is unique not because of his guests but what he talks about with his guests, these topics are not covered by the mainstream.
If the institutional gate keepers want to declare a new main stream than also embrace people with a more nuanced point of view instead of this fully scripted narrative they publish 24/7.
When was the last positive article published by the NYTimes about Russia, the Republican party or even number 45?
I wish the main stream isn't as compromised as it is. Until then I have to listen to Joe Rogan & the portal to tap into nuanced thoughtful content.
If the institutional gate keepers want to declare a new main stream than also embrace people with a more nuanced point of view instead of this fully scripted narrative they publish 24/7.
When was the last positive article published by the NYTimes about Russia, the Republican party or even number 45?
I wish the main stream isn't as compromised as it is. Until then I have to listen to Joe Rogan & the portal to tap into nuanced thoughtful content.
Considering Joe has millions of listeners I would say he is mainstream, but then again I am probably talking to a wall by making this comment.
I think that is more a quantification of the unmet need mainstream media creates by not discussing topics like DMT and the simulation hypothesis. The long form of content enables conversations even about the most fringe topics.
The Overton window doesn't magically shifts when millions of people are serviced by a 3th party outside the Overton window.
The Overton window doesn't magically shifts when millions of people are serviced by a 3th party outside the Overton window.
Exactly, the mainstream has always been there; but the "mainstream" media has long been talking down to it rather than with it, and this void in respect of the common man and woman is something that centrist people like Rogan fill by just being open to a variety of opinion and ideas, and refusing to demonise people because they don't sign up to ivory tower prescriptions and proscriptions.
At the same time, it's super interesting that Rogan negotiated a deal which appears to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars for Spotify to licence his content for 3 years, after which point he could put it all back on YouTube if he wanted. The fact that he had that kind of leverage as an independent creator who started by recording his friends clowning around at his house and now has presidential candidates knocking at his door begging for an interview shows the power of independent media