• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Know Rogan Experience

arthwollipot

Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
102,444
Location
Ngunnawal Country
Michael Marshall (Skeptics with a K, The Skeptic magazine) and Cecil Cicirello (Cognitive Dissonance, Citation Needed) have started a podcast where they listen to Joe Rogan so that you don't have to. They're three episodes in so far so if you'd like to get in on the ground floor it's a good time. I have subscribed, but not listened yet.

https://www.knowrogan.com/
 
Rogan just parrots or enables what they say. It isn't journalism if it is a megaphone.

I don't think anyone is claiming it's journalism, just that knowing what he's saying, who he's talking to and the bull ◊◊◊◊ information he's espousing is relevant due to how many people listen to it.
 
If it's that important, why aren't you just listening to Rogan already?

Some people don't like the format of the show, some don't like Rogan's voice, some people don't have 3 hours a day to invest, and perhaps they just don't want to give him the listens. Why do you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ care?
 
Sorry, but I don't care one iota what Rogan has to say about anything. The fewer people listening to him the better.
He is arguably the most listened to person on the planet right now. His reach is enormous.

In the first episode they discuss Rogan's interview with billionaire crypto-bro Marc Andreessen, who complains that the regulators like the SEC are making it hard for him and people like him to do business.

Here's the thing. The regulators are there to prevent dodgy business practices. If they are preventing you from doing business, that means that your business practices are dodgy, not that they are persecuting you because you're a Trump supporter.

"The fox is trying to convince you that the fence oppresses the chickens."
- Michael Marshall
 
And he should not be. Why should anyone contribute to that, directly or indirectly?
If you think this podcast is contributing to that, then you definitely need to listen to it.

Incidentally, they mentioned that on their Patreon they have a behind-the-scenes commentary in which the tone is very different.
 
Here's the thing. The regulators are there to prevent dodgy business practices.
No. The regulators are there to prevent politically undesirable practices. Which are often but not always dodgy practices.

I'm sure even Australian politics has examples of regulation going too far.

Also, do you want to search for easy local girls? I'm full up, but I've got an eager lady on this forum looking for a dollar or two.
 
Last edited:
No. The regulators are there to prevent politically undesirable practices. Which are often but not always dodgy practices.

I'm sure even Australian politics has examples of regulation going too far.

Also, do you want to search for easy local girls? I'm full up, but I've got an eager lady on this forum looking for a dollar or two.
In the US, where everything down to the dog catcher is a partisan political position, of course politics gets into everything like a bad smell. But regulation is not a dirty word.

And I'll exchange you for an ATSU Doctor of Audiology.
 
Looks like they are trying to copy the Knowledge Fight format - unfortunately, the two don't have the same chemistry or witticism. They are also hampered by their desire to be seen as impartial (understandable in Marshall's case) but there would be no harm but potentially a lot of fun in Something Italian taking a much more ideological position.

I wish them luck, but I don't see this going further than the Venn diagram of people who already listen to the Puzzle in a Thunderstorm crowd.
 
If you think this podcast is contributing to that, then you definitely need to listen to it.

Incidentally, they mentioned that on their Patreon they have a behind-the-scenes commentary in which the tone is very different.
I mean it in this same sense: Just because Covid is still pervasive world-wide does not mean I want to encourage interest in spreading it. Ditto Rogan.
 
I mean it in this same sense: Just because Covid is still pervasive world-wide does not mean I want to encourage interest in spreading it. Ditto Rogan.
the pipeline of listeners who moved from Knowledge Fight to Infowars is very narrow indeed. It is doubtful that this podcast will increase Rogan's listenership.
And I assume there are already dozens of Meta-Rogan podcasts out there.
 
the pipeline of listeners who moved from Knowledge Fight to Infowars is very narrow indeed. It is doubtful that this podcast will increase Rogan's listenership.
And I assume there are already dozens of Meta-Rogan podcasts out there.
I would be surprised if Marsh and Cecil - both podcasters with a lot of experience - so completely failed in their research that they are basically duplicating something other people are doing.
 
I mean it in this same sense: Just because Covid is still pervasive world-wide does not mean I want to encourage interest in spreading it. Ditto Rogan.
But here's the thing. You're not spreading it. You're not contributing to Rogan's listenership. You're not being exposed to his advertising partners. You're not spreading Rogan an any way by listening to this show. Marsh and Cecil are, but they're adding a total of two people to Rogan's listenership while potentially speaking to thousands about what Rogan is saying.

One thing I like is that the second part of the show is a segment they call the Skeptical Toolbox, in which they take one of the tools of skepticism and apply it to what Rogan and his guests are saying. In the first episode they examined the strawman argument, and highlighted several segments of the show where this kind of fallacy was used, and in the second it was cherry-picking. So they're essentially doing skeptical education using a direct, practical example to illustrate it. They chose a good subject for this, since Rogan appears to use pretty much every logical fallacy in the book on a regular basis.

The other thing that struck me after listening to the second episode is that Rogan appears to have zero curiosity, despite what he and others claim. He comes to a statement that boils down to "someone somewhere is doing a thing". Now for me, the next obvious questions would be "who, where, and what?" but Rogan never goes there. "Someone somewhere is doing a thing" is the entire argument.
 

Back
Top Bottom