Joe Rogan Podcast

[DCAllAfrican]

Well, I see in the comments folks saying he was anti-mandate and not anti-vax

 

[Mark Antony]

Funny how many lawmakers were able to ride his rhetoric to office or use it to rally around him and his base folks still see no harm in talky talk joke man.

 

[ilike turtles]

I aint even up in arms about Rogan or nothin, but the thing that does irritate me the most is goin thru his comments and seeing a bunch of "No need to apologize! They dont need an apology!" from a bunch of white folks. It aint your place to tell black ppl we cant be offended at a white guy throwing the n-word around freely like that. Just shut up.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Went to Joe Rogan subreddit, them folk in shambles. Nothing but whataboustisms and post about Joe's black friends

Complaining about libs trying to cancel Joe

So canceling, in this case, is posting a video of things Joe said, and Joe just tried to apologize for.

Pathetic

 

[Maximus Meridius]

Even The Rock backed away from this fool

 

[Mark Antony]

Some folks refuse to see the actual point though it's clear as day. They make it micro or specific and detract from it.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

I wonder if Dave Chappelle will speak on this ("defend" Rogan) on the next special.

 

[Brownstone]

I know Cornel West has been on before, he should have him on while Cornel roasts him over the coals for 3 hours about what he said

 

[1995]

Very happy to see a comedian finally said this

It's ridiculous how so many comics try to overstate their importance

PS Whitney Cummings has never been funny

"spooky mental haunted house"

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Then why is his show's popularity increasing while being featured and promoted on Spotify instead of decreasing?

You're obviously just making this up as you go.

and you are basing this on what exactly?

Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

Going exclusive has its effects

www.theverge.com

I dunno it seems like someone is making stuff up, I don't think it's me.

You said the boycotts weren't going to matter and yet they've already pulled over 100 episodes and counting.
So now, even if we take your argument at full face value, Rogan's greatest hits of racism are "locked into a premium streaming app" that will no longer stream them.

this logic, is what I mean when I say accusations of racism have become an intrawhite conflict.

is the goal to reduce racism?
or is the goal some kind of point scoring against ideological opponents?

if it's this is the result you wanted fine then, it seems to me everyone should be happy.
joe rogan apologized, spotify removed the n word episodes, joe rogan gets to continue to be on the platform


if that's really goal in all this, then everyone should happy at the outcome.
and there should be no more controversy on JRE continued existence.

Okay, so now we're getting into your actual grievance: a certain type of White progressive. That's all fine and well, but the problem is you then generalize this grievance to anything a person in this category might potentially support, which is ridiculous.

Not only has it gotten you so turned around that your "culture war" positions tend to align with Laura Ingraham's, but you're also acting as though White progressives are the leaders on all such issues, instead of cheerleaders. It's the equivalent of believing that Elvis Presley invented rock and roll.

None of this is new. The Gen-Z activists you're shooing off your lawn weren't responsible for getting Don Imus fired. Joe Rogan's racism has been eminently well documented for a long, long time. Now some White celebrities are suddenly "Columbus discovering" them, and you're acting like they're the only ones who ever had a problem with it. Neil Young didn't even mention Rogan's racism in his initial statement. He took issue with the vaccine misinformation. India Arie seized the opportunity to build momentum around this issue and bring renewed focus on Rogan's racism, but you just lump her into the same category and belittle what she has now successfully accomplished because you have this kneejerk revulsion to anything that you associate with this certain type of performative White activism. You're using them as a cudgel against her, and everyone else who has a legitimate and personal stake in this.

If Billie Eilish joined the Freedom Riders, you'd be defending Bull Connor.

try as you might, you are not telepath.

I agree with progressives on like 90% of of subjects,
i don't think ive never voted for a conservative candidate in any election.
if i had a vote in american primary I was a pete and bernie suporter in the politics thread,

so if im really some reactionary person who would side with Bull Connor over Billie Eilish
it's funny how it seems to literally only to extend to sneaker forum discourse.

its seems like you just simply can't comprehend that someone of good faith can come to a come to a different conclusion on these matters.

You already conceded the point that sharing a platform with Trick Daddy isn't the same as doing business with a company that whose exclusive flagship podcast has at least a hundred episodes containing racist content.
It was a tangential strawman argument to begin with, you admitted it, and now you're for some reason still trying to mount this argument from beyond the grave, while tying me to a position I've repeatedly and explicitly argued against.

You're acting in bad faith.

"bad faith" jeez man are incapable of disagreeing without tarring opposition as illegitimate?

I was trying to make point that many progressives do not accept that line of argument.
and would just quickly try to go after NT as they would spotify.

so imo it's convenient that you accept the progressive argument on these matter
right up until the point it implicates YOU.

So if a company you worked with became their biggest sponsor, you'd just shut up and dribble, so as not to be confused with a Gen Z White progressive?


Hate for profit is not a strictly symbolic "culture war" issue. You know this, because you understand the impact of White Nationalist propaganda outlets like Fox News.

Rogan is hardly an aggrieved underdog, and none of this is restricting Rogan's rights. It's countering speech with speech, and corporate financing with consumer spending. There is no "anti-CTE bill" circulating around Democratic statehouses designed to ban Joe Rogan from the Internet.

no I would not try to supress or ban, ben shapiro, or fox news, or any conservative news source.
it's not about gen z whatever, because as I said I don't think it accomplishes anything, often time it leads to backlash
and enforces a speech environment that I think is bad.

You don't get to have it both ways. If you believe that private companies, including service providers and platforms, have the right to moderate user/partner content, then your issue is where the line should be drawn – not over whether a line should be drawn at all.

If you believe the line should be drawn somewhere else, show your work and explain why limiting that content won't result in the same unspecified future risks as speaking out against Spotify's massive sponsorship of Joe Rogan.

And if you like our moderation policies, it's worth noting that they explicitly disallow the very content in question.

My problem is the process, how we determine where the line is drawn.
I think it best when it has happen through more speech not less

and I don't think it often works well when you try to take broadley popular ideas or media figures
and try to draw line through elite consensus.

 

[1995]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Even with your explanations, it is will weird to me that this is the strongest level of rebuke you ever muster for people like Rogan.

Yet you seemingly have an infinite about of smoke for someone that has done way less than him. In this case, a couple of musicians that pulled their music from Spotify

I mean you went off over a Tweet, but here you are agreeing that Rogan is doing exactly what you claim pisses you off and want to argue against

And this is all you got

again, it may just be my disposition,
but I do not see point of stating obvious things, that most people around here already agree with
most people here think Joe Rogan is bad, what do I need to add to it that hasn't already been said?

Yeah, and?

All these people are bad, the country would be better if they didn't exist.

But I have to live in a world where they do and challenge them

But their existence doesn't negate Rogan's actions in any way.

The fact that he can make people believe that he is this non-political centrist while he peddles nonsense to millions is a unique problem. Worth calling out and drawing attention to. And look what it took for Spotify to finally do the bare minium in regards to him

Look at what you were saying about just months ago....

the reason I mention them, is to say that banning those programs would accomplish nothing.

despite however harmful I think they are, banning would not eradicate far right conservatism
and I think it would create a toxic environment around speech.

and I take the same stance with Rogan.

He was peddling blatantly covid conspiracies and bragging about it, he had a long record of racism that had already been called out in this thread.

Yet this has made aware to you and your response has basically been: yeah it is bad, I don't agree....but the real issue is not going on his show, or not seeing how talented he is, or coming at you for enjoying some of his content, or musicians for trying to silence him, or circling back to repurposing the same arguments I was making in the Chapelle so about these elites trying to force their views on people

Im confused of what the criticism here is. What should my response be?
If the my stated principle is that trying to supress or ban popular media or ideas is counter productive.

why would more descriptions of how bad joe rogan make me change my mind that principle?
I know he does bad things. Im aware.

The chappelle issue is a similar issue just with a different person, so naturally the same arguments are going to apply.

I never claimed that it did. Bad ideas exist and it is people's responsibility to challenge them

But if you are gonna stand on the principle that you hate what elites are doing, and go on and on and on and on about it

But then when it comes to people like Rogan, the most you can muster is "It is bad, I wish they didn't do it"

Behavior like that really undercuts your claim that you are taking issue on principle

Clearly some things bother you more than others

I do not see the point of going into a room full of people who know joe rogan is bad, and reiterating that he's bad.
that to me is not an interesting conversation,
believe it or not I hope to try to persuade people to my line of thinking,

i don't think I need to persuade any of you that Joe Rogan does bad things.

Yeah ok. The future is unknown

It is clear you think the line should be drawn somewhere. And the debate is where

But it is clear you were wrong about how innocuous is, you agree about bad it is, but at every step along the way, the problem you have taken is how people take issue with this elite, conspiracy theory pushing racist with a massive audience.

Sorry, but there is hard for me to see what you doing coming from a place of principled objection.

I don't know where I said he was completely innocuous.

I said that like many regular people his views are often contradictory and incoherent
and don't all light up neatly on the left right spectrum.

I think that's still true, ben shapiro is ideologically consistent,. Rogan is not.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This whole "elite consensus" thing in regards to Rogan makes little sense if I give it 5 mins of thought

Elites are coming Rogan's defense. Elites helped Rogan's rise. Elites cosign helped make him mainstream

The fact artist got mad at Spotify makes sense to me. For the longest artist have had issues with Spotify and the rates they pay for streaming. Spotify justifies the rates they pay as all the money they can give out given the market. Then they go ahead and give Rogan 100 million to peddle his ******* exclusively on their platform.

If I was an artist mad about streaming payouts, why wouldn't that sit well with me? If I am an older artist making my money off touring, what I'm I losing by sacrificing streaming on one platform.

Then dude is allowed to peddle all kinds of *******, unchecked, and instead of Spotify trying to manage the situation they want to put their head in the sand.

Fast forward months later, and just like that, a couple of musicians was able to bring mainstream attention to the problem. All of a sudden Spotify realizes that maybe they should at least have some disclaimers up.

Now Rogan has been a scumbag for yearsssssss. It has not been just elites complaining about it. The racism thing gain traction because someone literally edited clips of Rogan's behavior. Rogan has been ignoring this criticism, Spotify has been ignoring this, Rogan tried to get ahead of it. Spotify again, races to look like they are managing the situation

So now what, all the regular people that had an issue with Rogan is supposed to be like "Well let us not pile on, we can't have a negative elite consensus formed about Rogan, that would be unfair"

This framework seems to being deployed as a way to argue that the blowback Rogan is receiving for his bad behavior is worse than what he Rogan has done

And that is a tough sell to me

 

[osh kosh bosh]

This whole "elite consensus" thing in regards to Rogan makes little sense if I give it 5 mins of thought

Elites are coming Rogan's defense. Elites helped Rogan's rise. Elites cosign helped make him mainstream

The fact artist got mad at Spotify makes sense to me. For the longest artist have had issues with Spotify and the rates they pay for streaming. Spotify justifies the rates they pay as all the money they can give out given the market. Then they go ahead and give Rogan 100 million to peddle his ****ery exclusively on their platform.

If I was an artist mad about streaming payouts, why wouldn't that sit well with me? If I am an older artist making my money off touring, what I'm I losing by sacrificing streaming on one platform.

Then dude is allowed to peddle all kinds of ****ery, unchecked, and instead of Spotify trying to manage the situation they want to put their head in the sand.

Fast forward months later, and just like that, a couple of musicians was able to bring mainstream attention to the problem. All of a sudden Spotify realizes that maybe they should at least have some disclaimers up.

Now Rogan has been a scumbag for yearsssssss. It has not been just elites complaining about it. The racism thing gain traction because someone literally edited clips of Rogan's behavior. Rogan has been ignoring this criticism, Spotify has been ignoring this, Rogan tried to get ahead of it. Spotify again, races to look like they are managing the situation

So now what, all the regular people that had an issue with Rogan is supposed to be like "Well let us not pile on, we can't have a negative elite consensus formed about Rogan, that would be unfair"

This framework seems to being deployed as a way to argue that the blowback Rogan is receiving for his bad behavior is worse than what he Rogan has done

And that is a tough sell to me

He's the most popular english language podcaster in the world.
you don't get that popular without have a large and broad casual fanbase.

and it seems pretty clear to me that most regular casual consumers of media
do not think that whatever joe rogan has done rises to the level where his content should not be available for consumption.
or must be excised from spotify.

The view that it does need to be removed from spotify I think is a relatively fringe view
and from what I can tell is mostly shared by college educated progressive and cultural elites.

If musicians are mad at spotify and want to boycott spotify as an expression of that anger, i mean okay I get it.

but I just assumed that the reason they were mad was because they wanted to reduce misinformation
or reduce racism.

 

[Mark Antony]

I wonder if Dave Chappelle will speak on this ("defend" Rogan) on the next special.

It'd be best for him to stay away.

 

[maxelite]

america gonna have a civil war over joe rogan. Can't believe it.

Fixed

 

[spiderjericho]

Or maybe Chapelle and Chris Rock can have a joint comedy special defending it. Misinformation on critical race theory. Misinformation on vaccines. Misinformation on the use of the N word.

I, personally, don’t think Rogan is a “bad” guy. I just think in this new Information Age, it’s problematic because Web 2.0, has proliferated misinformation. And his platform is one of the greatest echo chambers. I watched another podcast where the hosts defended Rogan on the racism thing. Problem is the hosts were white. And it’s not up to the victimizer to determine if the N word is okay to say because of hip hop music.

 

[Magic33]

Andy, this is shocking, I didn't know he had it in him

 

[1995]

I find the premise that deplatforming actually benefits the people who are deplatformed to be really flimsy

Still just seems like lazy reverse psychology to me

 

[Brownstone]

Funny, its always the same white people that love to claim how obsessed black people are with the N word but it's really them who are obsessed with the word. They are pressed that not only can they not say the word, it's usage by black people takes place without any of their insights or monitoring. IE they are so pissed their opinion doesn't matter on something AND they can't participate.

The dialogue around this is actually a good opportunity to have nuanced conversations around why Rogan thought it was ok to even say the word in the context he said it in. What changed for him? Was it his fear of being cancelled? Did somebody close to him explain why? I am actually curious.

Also, the planet of the apes explanation doesn't fly with me. He thought he was in Africa? Lol what? Was he high? That would have been more believable

Lastly, are him and Dave Chapelle close friends? I just never knew that...

 

[HEATHEN]

I don’t **** with folks on either side of the discussion.

Those coming for Joe just as grossly misinformed as those defending him.

Everyone & everything is disappointing. Cancel humanity.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I don’t **** with folks on either side of the discussion.

Those coming for Joe just as grossly misinformed as those defending him.

Everyone & everything is disappointing. Cancel humanity.

 

[HEATHEN]

On one hand you got *******s who can’t admit Joe has given misinformation a platform and he waffles on his stances.

On the other you got folks buying into sound byte cancel culture who never watched the show. Don’t know what the **** they’re talking about. And just looking to hitch their outrage wagon to the latest most convenient target.

Both sides suck. JRE been wack since it stopped airing on YouTube. What kind of weirdos use Spotify to listen to podcasts anyways?

 

[HEATHEN]

Cats in here surprised to find out that he & Dave Chapelle are friends? Yeah y’all legitimately don’t have a clue. Go yell at the clouds.