Opinion Joe Rogan on Being Called a Far Right Influencer, "They're Liars!!"

[Eusung]

Keep in mind the reason Jordan Peterson is on Rogan's show frequently might have to do with what happens when is is interviewed by mainstream media journalists like Vice interview (terrible editing) and the Cathy Newman interview (trying to strawman him).

It's probably refreshing for him to have a host who just out of curiosity wants to understand him as much as possible and listen. In fact Jordan says this is what makes Rogan successful, that he is a truth seeker who isn't out to prove himself right.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

God, Morely Safer is such a great name. But I wouldn't say I have a problem with Rogan so much as I appreciate the problems that other people have with him (which I hope I have summarized somewhat accurately).

I actually have always liked Rogan a lot as a person/personality. I don't think I could regularly listen to his show, though not because of any political skew, but because of the baseline of knowledge (in that it seems like he operates with a lot of latent suppositions that need to be challenged).

Broadcast Journalist names almost rival porn names in terms of apropos they are to their industry. Walter Cronkite, Morely Safer, Wolf Blitzer...

I agree that is a good reason not to listen to him, he is rather boring in that regard -- but that in of itself is the nature of podcasts. They are more open discussion forums with little structure hosted by anyone rather than actual journalism. At least Joe guests are extremely diverse

 

[Metusalemi]

Cultists worry about "gateways" leading out of the cult.

 

[ElKarlo]

I had no idea that people thought he was alt right. I always thought he was pretty centered myself.

Yeah, and he's Def left of me. A lot of times I don't agree with what he says and thinks. But that's ok he's reasonable, so I value his opinion, except on inter dimensional demons

 

[Trotsky]

Alex Jones is a cartoon character. That should be made VERY evident in his last Rogan podcast.

Explain to me what Ben Shapiro says that has you triggered as labeling him a bad person?

Ben Shapiro hasn't "triggered" me. He is, however, objectively dishonest. His statements range from purposefully reductive (as in economics), to shamelessly hypocritical (identity politics), to outright false (I specifically recall him peddling race statistics that I found were made up within one Google search; I also recall him saying Hitler was a Marxist leftist [in reality, Hitler hated Marxists and leftists and considered them to be taking over the world, just as right-wingers think they are now]). That's separate from Jordan Peterson who, though also reductive in service of his political posture, does not purposefully spread lies.

Broadcast Journalist names almost rival porn names in terms of apropos they are to their industry. Walter Cronkite, Morely Safer, Wolf Blitzer...

I agree that is a good reason not to listen to him, he is rather boring in that regard -- but that in of itself is the nature of podcasts. They are more open discussion forums with little structure hosted by anyone rather than actual journalism. At least Joe guests are extremely diverse

Stone Phillips and Reynolds Wolf are my favorites.

 

[Mcountry]

I would say that a misunderstanding of the demographics of his podcast. I'd also suggest that at this point Rogan doesn't give two fucks about a few over sensitive liberal minded subscriptions to have him start filtering what he is saying. I say that because he's turned down sponsors who wanted to control his speech and that would have cost him much more financially then any few hundred, or even hundred thousand liberal minded subs.

He enjoys just talking. He doesn't seem to filter what he says ever although he makes a conscious effort to not be bias and to be open minded.

So I'm gonna call a big ole pile of bullshit on that one, fella.

 

[Seano]

Joe always struck me as a reluctant liberal.

 

[Seano]

Joe "we're living in a strange time" Rogan

Craaaaazy.......

 

[Joe265]

The enemy of the people are those that try to put you in a binary box where you must either be this or that. We’re not simply defined robots, so even playing the game where you try to label someone is falling for the trap. The spectrum for human expressions and behavior can NEVER be reduced to words. Bruce Lee explained this when he slapped the shit out of that boy and told him not to concentrate on the finger. The finger are words, language. We enslave ourselves in language which hides meaning, individuality, and true diversity of people.

 

[Seano]

I'm curious on what basis he's labelled right wing. Anyone who thinks so care to back up that claim?

Some ass hat saw a thumbnail of his Ben Shapiro podcast on YT, most likely.

 

[Goonerview]

Yeah, but he tells offensive jokes and only believes in two genders.

Literally Hitler.

Aren't you just sick of leftists claiming "moral superiority" over everyone? I know I am.

 

[phoenixikki]

Cultural Marxists think that anybody influential enough who is on the right of the political spectrum is an enemy and must be shutdown.
Of course they will label Joe Rogan a Far Right Influencer. At this point, anybody who dares to speak against their nonsense is a nazi.

 

[Steve-French]

He's far right because he doesn't shut people out, and join the censorship brigade on conservative speech? What a monster.

And no, I don't think most calling him far right get all that deep about. What happens is he says some things that triggers the far left(like the two gender thing), so they work to silence him. That's how they operate.

For real. What's wrong with having discussions with people who want to share different opinions? Isn't that a form of diversity?

 

[nac386]

Joe Rogan is a very agreeable interviewer. He is agreeable with almost every guest he has, which is why he sometimes appears to share political views with everybody he has on. He's pretty regularly accused of adjusting his own beliefs to align with his guests.

He has a lot of right wing type guests, and his agreeable interview style leads people to believe he is also a right wing type guy. But of course when the Twitter guy came on, he was called a shill. When he criticized Alex Jones, he was accused of being a shill.

Hell, even in this thread he is being accused of lying about being fairly liberal to save his career. Guys, news flash...Joe Rogan's career is not dependent on liberals. If anything, it's dependent on his Internet-based fanbase that appears to lean clearly to the right. Just read the thousands of Youtube comments sometime. His other job is working for Dana White. No comment necessary there.

The fact is, he's just an agreeable guy who is fairly easy to sway one way or the other. That style is part of the reason for his success, since you can literally have his show on in the background and not hear people shouting at each other constantly. It comes back to haunt him at times because he has a wide variety of guests on who sometimes spread untruths and he does not have the expertise to condemn them on the spot.

But he's just Joe Rogan. The guy from fear factor. In my opinion, if you don't enjoy his show or his guests, just don't listen. But when people do criticize Joe's willingness to have hacky guests, Joe's fans should be more accepting of that criticism because there's obviously truth to it.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I don't listen to Joe that much. Other than Alex Jones, who has Rogan had on who are legit alt-right?

I'm afraid the answer is going to be Jordan Peterson...

Uhhh Neo Nazi terrorist Gavin McInnes of the literally Hitler Proud Boys??

 

[Not A Theist]

There's a difference between "conservative speech" and people like Alex Jones. Or at least there used to be. And it's not a matter of censoring or shutting people out: it's a matter of giving them a platform sans scrutiny. Even for people less ridiculous than Alex Jones, like Jordan Peterson, it should (arguably) be the responsibility of the interviewer to vet the guest's claims, familiarize themselves with the subject matter, and be prepared to at least earmark disputable claims, instead of just saying "yeah, yeah, you know I guess that does make a lot of sense."

I haven't watched a ton of Joe Rogan but from what I've seen he's not quite the limp noodle people claim he is. That you bring up Peterson is interesting because that's one of the few I've watched and as far as I can tell, Rogan embarrassed Peterson a bit in it.



(you can skip to just a bit after 8 minutes to about 9 minutes - or watch it all if you want. 14:30 to 15:30 is also good when Peterson starts talking about how you should "tilt society" - the antithesis of his usual line)

Rogan asks a pretty pointed question here and I think Peterson gives a bit of a cheeky dodge at best, sort of a "Well, I'm against opportunity of outcome but think of the children" and starts to get caught into a trap where he is suggesting tilting society to lead to an equality of outcomes. He becomes visibly/audibly flustered when he realizes that's where he's going. Joe doesn't bird dog him down and end with some mic drop "Rogan destroys Peterson" moment, but that's not what he's ever claimed to be doing - outside of things to do with marijuana... Frankly Rogan was better at putting Peterson on his heels here than 95% of the people I've seen Peterson talking to - but you're of the opinion that Rogan needed to do more? Sad commentary on most of the people who come in - many of them professional academics well versed in what Peterson tends to say - aiming to lay Peterson low. Except Dillahunty. That guy wiped the floor with Peterson.

I can't help but get the feeling that people are expecting Rogan to run essentially critical interviews but that's never what he set out to do. It is also done to death in the mainstream media, and done heavily on Youtube. As far as I can tell, even with some people he seems to like (like Peterson) he does a lot more to show cracks in their positions than many professional interviewers do. That's precisely what he did with Peterson here in a non-adversarial interview/discussion.

Where I do see Rogan engaging in what I'd consider to be blind fanboyism is when someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson comes on. Given how Rogan was in that discussion, I get the feeling Tyson could have shit on the table and Rogan would have declared it remarkable. I can't help but wonder if this criticism of Rogan isn't starkly politically motivated rather than guided by what he's actually doing? That being said, I have watched *maybe* ten of his podcasts so I don't exactly have a big picture view here.

Hrm... I wonder if Dillahunty ever debated William Lane Craig. I'd like to see that.

 

[lfd0311]

I don't think that's a remotely honest representation of the push back against him. The push back is because he gives a platform to, and serves as a conduit for, charlatans and propagandists that are most often (not always) from the political right. .

ROFL. I.E., People Trotsky doesn't agree with.

 

[Seano]

Aren't you just sick of leftists claiming "moral superiority" over everyone? I know I am.

If it were more genuine, I wouldn't find it so offensive.

 

[Mcountry]

Ben Shapiro hasn't "triggered" me. He is, however, objectively dishonest. His statements range from purposefully reductive (as in economics), to shamelessly hypocritical (identity politics), to outright false (I specifically recall him peddling race statistics that I found were made up within one Google search; I also recall him saying Hitler was a Marxist leftist [in reality, Hitler hated Marxists and leftists and considered them to be taking over the world, just as right-wingers think they are now]). That's separate from Jordan Peterson who, though also reductive in service of his political posture, does not purposefully spread lies.

Sorry sherbro. You don't get to gloss over this. You will need to actually source your statics and then quote me Shapiro's so I too can be "woke"

And prey to christ you are not sourcing me Huntington post or CNN.

 

[lfd0311]

I haven't watched a ton of Joe Rogan but from what I've seen he's not quite the limp noodle people claim he is. That you bring up Peterson is interesting because that's one of the few I've watched and as far as I can tell, Rogan embarrassed Peterson a bit in it.



(you can skip to just a bit after 8 minutes to about 9 minutes - or watch it all if you want. 14:30 to 15:30 is also good when Peterson starts talking about how you should "tilt society" - the antithesis of his usual line)

Rogan asks a pretty pointed question here and I think Peterson gives a bit of a cheeky dodge at best, sort of a "Well, I'm against opportunity of outcome but think of the children" and starts to get caught into a trap where he is suggesting tilting society to lead to an equality of outcomes. He becomes visibly/audibly flustered when he realizes that's where he's going. Joe doesn't bird dog him down and end with some mic drop "Rogan destroys Peterson" moment, but that's not what he's ever claimed to be doing - outside of things to do with marijuana... Frankly Rogan was better at putting Peterson on his heels here than 95% of the people I've seen Peterson talking to - but you're of the opinion that Rogan needed to do more? Sad commentary on most of the people who come in - many of them professional academics well versed in what Peterson tends to say - aiming to lay Peterson low. Except Dillahunty. That guy wiped the floor with Peterson.

I can't help but get the feeling that people are expecting Rogan to run essentially critical interviews but that's never what he set out to do. As far as I can tell, even with some people he seems to like (like Peterson) he does a lot more to show cracks in their positions than many professional interviewers do. That's precisely what he did with Peterson here in a non-adversarial interview.

Where I do see Rogan engaging in what I'd consider to be blind fanboyism is when someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson comes on. Given how Rogan was in that discussion, I get the feeling Tyson could have shit on the table and Rogan would have declared it remarkable. I can't help but wonder if this criticism of Rogan isn't starkly politically motivated rather than guided by what he's actually doing? That being said, I have watched *maybe* ten of his podcasts so I don't exactly have a big picture view here.

Hrm... I wonder if Dillahunty ever debated William Lane Craig. I'd like to see that.

What's amazing to me about this particular video is how the hosts of this video completely misrepresent what Peterson and Rogan were saying. Peterson was in no way talking about college women having children, it's obvious to anyone who has actually listened to that podcast. He was making two points.