Credulous is the word.
Under the guise of objectivity he gives all fringe opinions equal significance.
Edit: here's a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZAQYI_hYp0
I'm okay with skeptical and verifying but he doesn't challenge all his guests equally. I'm not saying he should be perfect, but there are some really far out ideas that need more questioning before I'm personally satisfied.
I love that though. I want to hear these wack jobs talk. I don’t listen to get smarter, just like I don’t go to McDonalds for a fine cooked meal.
Yeah if people go to a game show host/sports commentator for their political or scientific worldview that isn’t my problem.
It is your problem when they start using the views these dumbass hosts are spewing to elect fuckwits.
How did you find out about the iChickens? That's a trade secret.
Is the part above his eyelashes something else or is it just clown top?
The apotheosis of what a dumb guy thinks a smart guy sounds like.
The manifested avatar of a crowd of drunk college kids having an uninformed debate.
The patron saint of mansplaining.
From my knowledge of them (which is sadly non-zero), I think Ben Shapiro fits the first description better.
my favorite Shabibo moment was when he had a "debate" with a famous Tory broadcaster in the UK and got dunked on so hard he called him a leftist.
He was promoting a book about how the left is quick to anger and intolerant at the time to boot, but of course his go to insult was to call someone a leftist.
Casual racism about Eurasian people on 4chan? It's more likely than you think.
Eurasian nomads were quite technically advanced, which is why they spent centuries wrecking Europe.
It's just Horse Archers are very OP and it took the devs a long time to nerf em.
Not just horses - everything from the first fiat currency to the first widespread use of hand cannons and rapid communication networks. It's often forgotten (or never learned) that the Yuan dynasty was a Mongol-led successor state to the Mongol empire.
That used to be true. He got sucked into the right wing echo chamber real though and he has getting worse as time goes on.
Every post that hits /all/ from this comm is either misogyny or casual racism like this.
Yeah, that's what I noticed about the 4chan-related subreddits, too. It's basically all 4chan has to offer. "haha, we're racist!" or equivalent.
Because that's what people upvote after all. Rage always gets more engagement.
It's not what "people" upvote, it's what white people upvote, because they're racists.
The problem with Rogan is that he doesn't have the knowledge or qualifications to push back against people spewing bullshit on his show, and so he ends up essentially making fringe, pseudo-scientific ideas seem equal to the mainstream expert consensus view.
And the outspoken wrong on the show people are oftentimes cool and charismatic, so people trust them.
the problem with rogan is that he agrees with the worst people on his show. he doesn't push back because he doesn't want to. he peaked on news radio.
I stopped listening to his podcasts when I realised he doesn't know the facts and spews what he believes are facts. I admire him to hold a conversation for as long as he does and keep it somewhat entertaining but beyond that it's nothing more than pseudo science.
Barbarian Khan
yes the culture that happens to adapt/improve/recruit tech, culture and people from all over the place is the ''barbarian''
I was always under the assumption that 'barbarian' was specifically the term Romans used to refer to any non Romans north of the empire?
Still, funny shitpost.
Against Mongols. But it is also incredibly chuavanist in general toward all tribal people.
Is it though? I'm not sure the various Mongol empires are exactly your typical tribal people. I'm not sure you can even call them tribal people at all in the modern sense. They were an empire spanning a vast region of the world at one point.
yeah I mean, if anything, mongols were imperialistic, expanding their empire during the 13th and 14th centuries and using violence to do so.
They were tribal PRIOR to Khan uniting them in to a single empire that then spread in to the largest contiguous empire in the known history of mankind.
Seems to me a lot of people here pretty hostile to Joe. I can only say he has been more than open and interacted with good faith with guests that I listen to than anyone in "media". His talk with Bernie Sanders and his agreement with certain aspects of Sanders agenda should dismiss the claim that he's a libertarian shill. I try to approach him as a topic in good faith as well.
He's being called a neandertal because he seems to agree with a lot of fringe opinions. I try to think of how I would react if talking to a person who I have no idea about their area of expertise and how I would deal with claims that they make. Sure he gives a voice to cranks, but he also gives voice to people across the spectrum, some that I actually want other people to hear from. That's kind of what free speech is about right there.
Joe's fundamental problem isn't that he's biased or somehow hostile to leftist critique. Its that he's a shameless sellout far more focused on promoting his sponsors than providing useful information to his audience. Fundamentally, you have to see the Joe Rogan Show as a two hour long advertisement.
Just like any of those dippy morning shows that feature two drunk New York socialites giggling about the day's news, the primary purpose of the programming is to sell self-help books, nutrition supplements, entertainment, and sleazy investment products. These "open" interactions are ultimately just sponsored content. His guests are overwhelmingly just sales guys making a pitch for their snake oil. And his blank gormless reception of every bow tie nerd and hack fitness guru is the canvas against which these hucksters pitch their product.
That's kind of what free speech is about right there.
Its not "free speech" because these people are paying to be here. Rogan isn't talking to these dipshits pro bono. He's taking his cut of all their merch. That's the whole reason he's worth nine-figures.
Dude's running the toxically masculine version of the Home Shopping Channel.
I haven't heard that people pay to be on his show, if that's true that certainly changes things in my mind.
Rogan doesn't just talk to any cranks, he gives a voice to incredibly bigoted cranks like Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, and Jordan Peterson.
These types are more than simple fringe eccentrics, they're outright racist, transphobic lunatics who shouldn't feel comfortable showing their faces in polite society. Nothing can be gained from talking with these people unless we're all laughing at them or we're learning how to identify their type of fascism.
That would be funny though, if Rogan had these folk on his show specifically to mock them and show everyone what clowns they are, like what Zizek did to Peterson. But Rogan doesn't clown on them. He talks to them as seriously as he does anyone else, and even occasionally agrees with them, so what value does that provide? Should freedom of speech include racist screeds or calls for violence against trans people?
Sure he gives a voice to cranks, but he also gives voice to people across the spectrum
That's the problem though isn't it? By giving the same platform to cranks as he would people with expertise in their field while offering very little pushback, he signals to his audience that these fringe, nonsensical ideas are just different opinions being debated.
It's coverage like that across the media, that has allowed unscientific views like antivax to fester.
Thanks for your response. Are you suggesting that indecisive movement on the part of the media is what causes antivax sentiments to rise? I mean one of the biggest slurs they throw is that you're antivax. I can't remember a time when antivaxing was talked about on the media as a reasonable standpoint. Yet the prevalence of antivax sentiments is increasing. Couldn't it also be attributable to institutional decline?
Did the CDC behave in a consistent and transparent way during covid? Or did they issue contradictory recommendations, and disinformation regarding lab leak. My point only is, if our institutions weren't failing us on the reg, maybe we'd find it easier to take their word for things.
I'm going to talk about a specific event to try to highlight my point if you don't mind.
In 1998, (ex-)Dr Andrew J Wakefield published an article in the lancet that used sketchy methodology to push the idea that the MMR vaccine was the primary cause of autism.
Peer review would eventually lead to the lancet retracting the study and evidence of his tampering with collected data and other unscientific processes lead to him resigning from the hospital he worked at in 2001 and losing his medical license in 2010.
Despite all this, British media platformed him as an alternative voice that had been silenced by big pharma.
During this coverage, MMR vaccination rates in the UK dropped from ~92% to ~73% between 1998 and 2008 and only returned to pre-coverage rates (in England, Scotland and Wales recovered a lot quicker but notably had less coverage of Wakefield's study prior to its retraction) in 2021. In some London boroughs it dropped as low as ~50% and is recovering at a much slower rate.
For reference WHO targets for MMR inoculation is a vaccination rate of ~95%.
British media essentially took an entire decade off progress to eliminate Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.
Freedom of speech is about not being censored by the government, not private citizens hosting a platform for a spectrum of opinions.
Compare it to something like freedom of religion: should private citizens engage in a spectrum of religious rituals, including violent rituals of extreme cults?
The issue isn't how enthusiastic individual private citizens are about the freedoms granted to them from the government. Someone may truly enjoy yelling "fire" in public buildings, but the effect on the public is what causes concern.
Should you censor a person for this? That's another debate, but I'm just explaining where the concern, assuming you have concern, should be placed.
True, there are limits to freedom of speech. But aren't you disturbed by the control that people in society are exerting on the narratives that we are allowed to question? With or without government involvement. I'm talking about big techmedia here, and the power they have to set the narrative entirely with or without the government involved. I mean the tools that they put into play to stop right wing misinformation (not saying most of it isn't misinformation) can be just flipped over on the left when the left starts threatening institutions down the road.
Then the left should continue to build decentralized alternatives. Dual power is the only practical solution for when institutions are captured by reactionaries to suppress the left.
this has to include more than platforms for people to talk on - in a moment of crisis, no one involved is going to be posting on lemmy or mastodon, except to give public reports. real resilient communications infrastructure needs to be point to point, encrypted, and it must avoid normal internet infrastructure. if it touches a corporate router, it can and will be suppressed by the state in the name of crushing the left.
moreover, dual power must include mutual aid and mutual defense if it's to actually live up to the name. platforms to talk online with comrades are nice and all but it doesn't on it's own build any kind of base of power.
Absolutely true, social media presence is hardly the material conditions necessary for a revolution. The structures to be replaced run deeper than which website you use
Idk Joe's podcast helped galvanize my former friend's radicalization to the right so I don't really have much sympathy for a fair look at what he does. He'll say "oh he had Bernie on though" too but meanwhile only talk about how awesome Peterson and Shapiro are.
