That time Rogan pretended to be nice to a person to get them on the JRE so he can confront them

What does this have to do with that chick on the train you won't talk to?
 
People like that Dunning character <FookIsThatGuy> are intolerable.


After having googled him, I find it fucking hysterical that he got sentenced to 15 months for fraud.
 
That's a bitch move.
 
flat,800x800,070,f.u2.jpg
 
BearGrounds said:
People like that Dunning character <FookIsThatGuy> are intolerable.


After having googled him, I find it fucking hysterical that he got sentenced to 15 months for fraud.
Click to expand...

He's a dick and his approach is terrible, but I agree with him somewhat.

Conspiracy theory sites generate sound bites from observations that are disingenuous and not researched. Some of them gain traction and become part of the zeitgeist (fuel can't melt steel, free fall into own footprint).

If you're Joe Rogan and you have a huge audience, you aren't just having a conversation, you're bringing things to the attention of millions. If you're going to discuss 9/11 theories, you should have someone there that actually has some idea of why they might be true or false.

OK, maybe that isn't really necessary. I just hate how manipulative these theories are, and don't love the idea of Joe giving them free advertising.
 
Loiosh said:
He's a dick and his approach is terrible, but I agree with him somewhat.

Conspiracy theory sites generate sound bites from observations that are disingenuous and not researched. Some of them gain traction and become part of the zeitgeist (fuel can't melt steel, free fall into own footprint).

If you're Joe Rogan and you have a huge audience, you aren't just having a conversation, you're bringing things to the attention of millions. If you're going to discuss 9/11 theories, you should have someone there that actually has some idea of why they might be true or false.

OK, maybe that isn't really necessary. I just hate how manipulative these theories are, and don't love the idea of Joe giving them free advertising.
Click to expand...

He misrepresented Joe's stance, smeared him in his article, and then wanted to act like how Joe conducts his show is morally questionable - while he's the kind of person that gets convicted for fraud.

Joe is just having a conversation - that's the entire point of the podcast. He's not claiming to be an expert nor is he demanding anybody believe anything. People are responsible for themselves, and it's on them to exercise discernment and do their own research. If someone views his show as unadulterated truth dissemination to be followed blindly, the problem is with them (as Joe, to my knowledge, never pitches it as being that).

Hearing what laymen and various guests think about events like 9/11, and the theories surrounding it, I feel, is perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:
BearGrounds said:
He misrepresented Joe's stance, smeared him in his article, and then wanted to act like how Joe conducts his show is morally questionable - while he's the kind of person that gets convicted for fraud.

Joe is just having a conversation - that's the entire point of the podcast. He's not claiming to be an expert nor is he demanding anybody believe anything. People are responsible for themselves, and it's on them to exercise discernment and do their own research. If someone views his show as unadulterated truth dissemination to be followed blindly, the problem is with them (as Joe, to my knowledge, never pitches it as being that).

Hearing what laymen and various guests think about events like 9/11, and the theories surrounding it, I feel, is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
<PlusJuan>
 
BearGrounds said:
He misrepresented Joe's stance, smeared him in his article, and then wanted to act like how Joe conducts his show is morally questionable - while he's the kind of person that gets convicted for fraud.

Joe is just having a conversation - that's the entire point of the podcast. He's not claiming to be an expert nor is he demanding anybody believe anything. People are responsible for themselves, and it's on them to exercise discernment and do their own research. If someone views his show as unadulterated truth dissemination to be followed blindly, the problem is with them (as Joe, to my knowledge, never pitches it as being that).

Hearing what laymen and various guests think about events like 9/11, and the theories surrounding it, I feel, is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course.
 
I watched this one a while back. Dunning was the real douche. Iirc Dunning threw shade at Rogan in his own podcast and Rogan invited him on to clarify issues.

Rogan was very patient in refuting Dunning's claims which a lot turned out to be wrong. Redban even owned Dunning at one point for his douchery.
 
Rogan does push a bunch of bullshit pseudoscience supplements however he does promote some cool stuff like Ghata macebells and kale shakes.
 
This dude isn't even wrong about Joe but he got wrecked anyway lmao
 
That dude is a dishonest person. He tried to slip in some grossly inaccurate comments in order to undermine Joe's position.

Fuck that guy.
 
I met Joe Rogan on the street once, and he talked to me for quite a while even though I'm just a random person, and he was really nice.

I never met the other guy, so fuck him.

The end
 
Peteyandjia said:
I met Joe Rogan on the street once, and he talked to me for quite a while even though I'm just a random person, and he was really nice.

I never met the other guy, so fuck him.

The end
Click to expand...

You come that cheap? A friendly conversation is all it takes?
 
All the guy had to say was “Joe Rogan should be more careful because sometimes disinformation can be spread through podcasts and genuine, honest conversation”. He could have cited some examples and offered a solution or two. That would be fair enough, and it’s Joe perogative if he feels like taking any suggestions from anyone.

- I also don’t think Rogan bringing him on the podcast was a “fake” move or anything like that. He gave the guy a chance to explain his bullshit article in person. Rogan did basically the most honourable thing he could have done. Dude knew what he wrote and what he was getting into. Trash someone in public you might get called out in public.
 
I don't know if I saw the link here or what, but just the other day, I read Dunning's follow up article that was just as scathing but still full of shit.

That dude was really triggered by the podcast. I give Joe credit here. He can sometimes come off as a complete idiot, but he did well to dismantle this prick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,080
Messages
55,466,355
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top