Trump working Rogan

[Prefect]

It is kind of silly how easily Trump works people. With OAN, their reporters and show says the most inane things because they see that they can get the Trump fan base. Trump blares out that he wants to do a debate on Rogan's show and Rogan gets some criticism based on some stuff he has said about LGBT groups. So, Rogan just sides with the right and Trump for publicity and acclaim from some fans. It might conscious or subconscious but after todays show, it is kind of transparent that Rogan be a Trump propaganda machine at least to the election. He says a lot of stuff on his episode with Douglas Murray that he probably wouldn't have said to Eddie Izzard's face last year. Either Rogan is just a lazy unchallenging interviewer that goes along with anything or he is just a phony.

 

[TheMinority]

I suspect we will see Rogans transition from alt-lite to full-blown alt-right as it coincides with his move to Texas.

Rogan is the gateway drug to all sorts of right wing debauchery.

 

[COTUR1@43]

 

[hillelslovak87]

How can someone how constantly talks to people arguing widely divergent opinions, yet always agrees with who he's talking to at the moment not be a phony?

If that's not phony, what possibly could be?

 

[Bald1]

He's more a conversationalist than an interviewer. Letts his guests say their peace and helps them flesh out their points. There's value in that as people tend to articulate their points more and better during a 3 hour chat than most formats which favour sound bites. I dig it as people are complex and you tend to get a feel for who they are during a long form broadcast. And Joe has said he's more interested in having talks than debates. I can relate.

Looking forward to this one with Murray.

 

[King in the North]

Rogan doesn’t have the intellectual capacity or information readily available to challenge his guests on their outrageous claims. It’s why right-wingers who thrive on misinformation use him as a mouthpiece.


I don’t think Rogan is a right wing guy though. I’ve never gotten that impression. He’s just not that smart.

 

[Ornife]

I had no idea that so many people apparently held such deep disdain for Joe Rogan.

I've never developed the impression that he is a fanatic or a fool. The man is simply a socially adept individual able to amicably carry on conversations with a variety of guests.

 

[Prefect]

I had no idea that so many people apparently held such deep disdain for Joe Rogan.

I've never developed the impression that he is a fanatic or a fool. The man is simply a socially adept individual able to amicably carry on conversations with a variety of guests.

That isn't accurate. You can be amicable and not be argumentative. If you had a guest that said the sky was green, be amicable doesn't mean you have to agree that it is green.

 

[TheMinority]

@hillelslovak87

When I was an ideologue I thought the same. Over the years as I began gathering more and more data to my sense making system I began to sympathize more with views I instinctually opposed.

There's an internal dialetic that plays out that's as old as man...the idea of good vs evil, emotion vs reason, order vs chaos, Apollo vs Dionysus.

I know some here refuse to acknowledge that progressive and conservative philosophies both serve a useful purpose in our republic but its true.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

Joe “Heat shock proteins” is an idiot you say.

 

[Ornife]

That isn't accurate. You can be amicable and not be argumentative. If you had a guest that said the sky was green, be amicable doesn't mean you have to agree that it is green.

Can you please restate your argument?

 

[Prefect]

Can you please restate your argument?

That isn't accurate. You can be amicable and not be argumentative. If you had a guest that said the sky was green, be amicable doesn't mean you have to agree that it is green.

 

[Ornife]

That isn't accurate. You can be amicable and not be argumentative. If you had a guest that said the sky was green, be amicable doesn't mean you have to agree that it is green.

Okay.

 

[Eusung]

It is kind of silly how easily Trump works people. With OAN, their reporters and show says the most inane things because they see that they can get the Trump fan base. Trump blares out that he wants to do a debate on Rogan's show and Rogan gets some criticism based on some stuff he has said about LGBT groups. So, Rogan just sides with the right and Trump for publicity and acclaim from some fans. It might conscious or subconscious but after todays show, it is kind of transparent that Rogan be a Trump propaganda machine at least to the election. He says a lot of stuff on his episode with Douglas Murray that he probably wouldn't have said to Eddie Izzard's face last year. Either Rogan is just a lazy unchallenging interviewer that goes along with anything or he is just a phony.

Your take on Rogan and Douglas is pure cringe.

Douglas Murray brought up great points. Great conversation.

 

[hillelslovak87]

@hillelslovak87

When I was an ideologue I thought the same. Over the years as I began gathering more and more data to my sense making system I began to sympathize more with views I instinctually opposed.

There's an internal dialetic that plays out that's as old as man...the idea of good vs evil, emotion vs reason, order vs chaos, Apollo vs Dionysus.

I know some here refuse to acknowledge that progressive and conservative philosophies both serve a useful purpose in our republic but its true.

uh, what?

 

[A.S. Deep]

How can someone how constantly talks to people arguing widely divergent opinions, yet always agrees with who he's talking to at the moment not be a phony?

If that's not phony, what possibly could be?

I do that all the time. Assuming one has a lot of nuance in their thoughts, it should be the norm, in fact.

Also, in my experience, both "sides" of an arguement are usually correct (with obvious exceptions, but that goes without saying). I can and have talked to people on both sides of the police/BLM issue, for example, and ended up agreeing on 80% of what they were saying. I've done it on this forum even.

It's really easy and natural for certain personality types (like me).

 

[ocean size]

I do that all the time. Assuming one has a lot of nuance in their thoughts, it should be the norm, in fact.

Also, in my experience, both "sides" of an arguement are usually correct (with obvious exceptions, but that goes without saying). I can and have talked to people on both sides of the police/BLM issue, for example, and ended up agreeing on 80% of what they were saying. I've done it on this forum even.

It's really easy and natural for certain personality types (like me).

Yeah I'm the same. I know Myers Briggs is unscientific etc. but taking one of those quizzes and reading the description for INTP personality type was like someone understanding me for the first time ever. Doesn't quite work as well on forums, especially political ones and esp.x2 this one though.

 

[A.S. Deep]

Yeah I'm the same. I know Myers Briggs is unscientific etc. but taking one of those quizzes and reading the description for INTP personality type was like someone understanding me for the first time ever. Doesn't quite work as well on forums, especially political ones and esp.x2 this one though.

I get INTJ like 90% of the time on those tests, and INTP the other 10%... so I feel you. My natural inclination is to be as nuanced as possible and try to find as many similarities and agreements between all sides as I can... which is a HORRIBLE idea on a political forum lol.

And yeah, every description of INTJs is me to a scary degree. The main difference I have from the descriptions is that love/romance comes easy to me... and I guess we INTJs are supposed to suck with romantic bonding.

 

[Prutfis]

He's more a conversationalist than an interviewer. Letts his guests say their peace and helps them flesh out their points. There's value in that as people tend to articulate their points more and better during a 3 hour chat than most formats which favour sound bites. I dig it as people are complex and you tend to get a feel for who they are during a long form broadcast. And Joe has said he's more interested in having talks than debates. I can relate.

Looking forward to this one with Murray.

This

 

[hillelslovak87]

I do that all the time. Assuming one has a lot of nuance in their thoughts, it should be the norm, in fact.

Also, in my experience, both "sides" of an arguement are usually correct (with obvious exceptions, but that goes without saying). I can and have talked to people on both sides of the police/BLM issue, for example, and ended up agreeing on 80% of what they were saying. I've done it on this forum even.

It's really easy and natural for certain personality types (like me).

When making basic claims, there often need to be delineations. It's not being an ideologue, noting someone taking diametrically opposed positions.

Is the carnivore diet a good idea? Surely there is a spectrum of answers here, but most people are likely to take a moderate opinion that humans should have omnivorous diets.

Now, when one doctor comes onto a show and says it's the best diet you've ever heard of, then another doctor says it's all hogwash? Well well, we can't be in agreement with both statements, can we?

All Joe Rogan does is take the word of the person he's talking to, and agreeing with it because he has no means in which to argue against them, much less in their own terms.