• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Know Rogan Experience

theprestige said:
I'm just saying, these guys aren't dispassionate analysts of the good and the bad. They're trying to take Rogan down a peg. The audience for that is probably not big enough to sustain the experiment.
Click to expand...
Aren't they? Have you listened to any of the shows?
 
arthwollipot said:
Aren't they? Have you listened to any of the shows?
Click to expand...
I don't have to. You've already explained that their intent is to use Rogan's podcast to highlight logical fallacies. Their intent is antagonistic and one sided on purpose.

Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?

If they do, maybe I'll start listening to Rogan.
 
theprestige said:
Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?
Click to expand...
Like I said...
arthwollipot said:
They actually go out of their way to be as reasonable as possible, even to the extent of having a small segment at the end where they say what they actually liked about the show.
Click to expand...
In this episode they enjoyed the discussion between Rogan and Zuck about martial arts, which is a subject that both of them know quite a bit about. Turns out Cecil is a HEMA practitioner, which is a subject that I also have familiarity with.
 
well there's two problems with listening to rogan directly, really 3, but the two are they're super long and he makes a lot of them. the third is that he lies constantly and you also would need to be fact checking him constantly, which i didn't list among the original 2 reasons because i've found that some people view that as a free speech issue.

so if you want to watch rogan organically, you're dedicating 20 hours a week to it. it's ridiculous.

but, is it important to know what joe rogan is up to, and for someone to sift through it and lay it out? absolutely. rogan and people like him have incredible social influence, much more than some want to admit. but, i don't have time to follow every detail of all the bad faith actors out there, of which rogan is among. that's where shows like this come in
 
theprestige said:
I don't have to. You've already explained that their intent is to use Rogan's podcast to highlight logical fallacies. Their intent is antagonistic and one sided on purpose.

Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?

If they do, maybe I'll start listening to Rogan.
Click to expand...
do you have the impression that on his show Rogan is logically coherent?
 
theprestige said:
Nobody likes a parasite. These guys are never going to get a candid interview with Zuckerberg or Andreesen. All they can hope for is to ride Rogan's coattails, pooping on them all the way.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I mean, what's the point of journalism, when you get right down to it? Pointless!

There's never any point critiquing anything, that's just coat-tail riding. I'm sure it's never done any good anywhere, ever...
 
it is either ignorant or disingenuous to complain about a podcast taking a critical view of the arguments presented by Rogan on his show when most of the Right-Wing mediasphere consists of regurgitating unreflected whatever happened on his show in one for or another.
 
Last edited:
They do indeed riff on this phenomenon quite a bit - how Rogan will hear a claim from someone on one of his shows, then credulously regurgitate it to another guest on a later show, with zero attempt at fact checking.
 
theprestige said:
I don't have to. You've already explained that their intent is to use Rogan's podcast to highlight logical fallacies. Their intent is antagonistic and one sided on purpose.

Do they ever speak favorably, about Rogan's getting candid interviews with controversial figures?

If they do, maybe I'll start listening to Rogan.
Click to expand...
You only want to hear favourable things about Rogan. You just said it. Confirmation Bias to a T.
 
The current episode is set up to be rage-inducing. The interview is with AIDS denier and COVID misinformation peddler Bret Weinstein, in this case talking about USAID. As you may be aware, I have experience in the field of international aid and development through my work with the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), and I am familiar with a lot of the misinformation about the international aid sector.

I'm only a little way in so far and the few clips that have been played so far are pretty infuriating. Joe broadcasts outright lies to his millions of followers and nobody seems to care.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Tu quoque.

You didn't say unbiased, you said positive. Comfirmation bias, admit it.
Click to expand...
I can't possibly have said I wanted only one side, because I don't want only one side. Whatever you thought I said, that wasn't it.

Now that I've clarified your misunderstanding, twice, will you concede that I didn't mean what you thought I meant?
 
theprestige said:
I can't possibly have said I wanted only one side, because I don't want only one side. Whatever you thought I said, that wasn't it.

Now that I've clarified your misunderstanding, twice, will you concede that I didn't mean what you thought I meant?
Click to expand...
You didn't mean what you said? Got it.
 
Orphia Nay said:
You didn't mean what you said? Got it.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it. That's your interpretation. Your interpretation is wrong. You've been corrected three times. Why do you persist in misunderstanding?

Here, let me be entirely honest with you:

I'm not particularly interested in hearing anything about Joe Rogan. I don't listen to him. I don't listen to other people talking about him. I skip over mentions of him and his antics as best I can. Even if this podcast provides an balanced assessment, I still probably won't listen to it.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not particularly interested in hearing anything about Joe Rogan. I don't listen to him. I don't listen to other people talking about him. I skip over mentions of him and his antics as best I can. Even if this podcast provides an balanced assessment, I still probably won't listen to it.
Click to expand...
Then you have no reason to keep participating in this conversation. In fact, you had no reason to start participating in this conversation. Why did you?
 
theprestige said:
Because this conversation is more interesting to me than Joe Rogan is. It's goddamn tautological.
Click to expand...
It's a conversation about Joe Rogan. How can you be interested in a conversation about Joe Rogan when you have expressed zero interest in Joe Rogan?

And for the record, Marsh and Cecil do provide an unbiased analysis. Frequently, that analysis is "Rogan is wrong, and here's why".
 
arthwollipot said:
It's a conversation about Joe Rogan. How can you be interested in a conversation about Joe Rogan when you have expressed zero interest in Joe Rogan?
Click to expand...
The meta nature of it amuses me.
arthwollipot said:
And for the record, Marsh and Cecil do provide an unbiased analysis. Frequently, that analysis is "Rogan is wrong, and here's why".
Click to expand...
Cool cool cool.
 
theprestige said:
Nobody likes a parasite. These guys are never going to get a candid interview with Zuckerberg or Andreesen.All they can hope for is to ride Rogan's coattails, pooping on them all the way.
Click to expand...
I've not listened to Know Rogan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • So autistic kids are telepathic and can read minds?
  • Yes.
  • And communicate via spelling?
  • Absolutely.
  • And some of them know languages that they've never learned?
  • Uh-huh.
  • And they have rich social lives via the medium of The Hill?
  • That's definitely the case.
  • And they have relationships with other telepathic kids?
  • Certainly.
  • And this is all driven by love with nothing commercial or exploitative about it?
  • Absolutely!
  • And you have described all of these amazing things as "spiritual gifts"?
  • That's right.
  • And your expert in autism has been saying for years that vaccines definitely cause autism, right?
  • Uh...
  • So we should be vaccinating all the kids, yes?
  • Wait...
  • Because it would be totally unethical to withhold these amazing gifts from kids just because they were unlucky enough to be born non-autistic, right?
  • Hang on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom