The Joe Rogan Podcast Thread

[x Tame Impala]

I don't believe in giving crackpots a platform, especially on irresponsible or dangerous topics that erode the value and trust of expertise in our society. For example, he's had Graham Hancock on the show multiple times and that guy is a pseudoarchaeologist with absolutely zero credibility in the fields he writes about, and is completely at odds with the actual experts in the field of study. Joe Rogan lets him drone on endlessly with little push back to the fantastical things he says, and even when he had him on with Michael Shermer to oppose him Joe Rogan spent more time arguing with Shermer while Hancock Gish Galloped all over the conversation.

That might actually be my least favorite of his podcasts.

1) Michael Shermer is cool, but he's not at all an archaeologist. It sounds like he was there for 3 hours just to say"But where's your proof!?"

2) I don't get the appeal to this Hancock guy. Generally anyone who makes their M.O. criticizing science for being closed-minded is someone with low credibility. What's weird about him though is that he seems to have a lot of people buying into what he has to say. The only critiques of the guy i've been able to find have been from a random thread comment.

 

[x Tame Impala]

This is kind of a hilariously defensive reply to what I said. I have listened to dozens of Joe Rogan podcasts, and still do on occasion. However, I am sure Joe would agree he is not a news service. It is entertainment. Nobody has to justify choosing to give their free time to another entertainment outlet. That is not close mindedness.

You seem to build up a straw man to attack that is a bit silly. Okay, so of all the people you meet who don't like him, they have various reasons that may or may not have validity. So what? Nobody has to justify not listening to Joe Rogan. If someone decides they don't want to because of any of those reasons (guns, UFC commentating, whatever), no matter how silly, then who cares? Nobody has to justify not listening.

Frankly, and I don't mean this in a rude way, your post just reads like a fanboy who can't accept the idea that other people don't share the same interests. He has one of the most popular podcasts on Earth and is in zero danger of being canceled or any other such thing. Nobody is obligated to be a fan or regular listener. You should not take it so personally for others to not hold him or his work in as high esteem as you do.

Finally, it is entirely valid for the quality of guests and his abilities, or lack thereof, to challenge dangerous ideas or be a quality interviewer to impact my view of the podcast. Otherwise your preferred setup would be something like, "Joe Rogan's podcast is great and deserves no criticism for anything because I enjoy it." If you think the good outweighs the bad, then carry on watching/listening regularly. But don't expect everyone else to do the same.

This is kind of a hilariously defensive reply to what I said. I have listened to dozens of Joe Rogan podcasts, and still do on occasion. However, I am sure Joe would agree he is not a news service. It is entertainment. Nobody has to justify choosing to give their free time to another entertainment outlet. That is not close mindedness.

You seem to build up a straw man to attack that is a bit silly. Okay, so of all the people you meet who don't like him, they have various reasons that may or may not have validity. So what? Nobody has to justify not listening to Joe Rogan. If someone decides they don't want to because of any of those reasons (guns, UFC commentating, whatever), no matter how silly, then who cares? Nobody has to justify not listening.

Frankly, and I don't mean this in a rude way, your post just reads like a fanboy who can't accept the idea that other people don't share the same interests. He has one of the most popular podcasts on Earth and is in zero danger of being canceled or any other such thing. Nobody is obligated to be a fan or regular listener. You should not take it so personally for others to not hold him or his work in as high esteem as you do.

Finally, it is entirely valid for the quality of guests and his abilities, or lack thereof, to challenge dangerous ideas or be a quality interviewer to impact my view of the podcast. Otherwise your preferred setup would be something like, "Joe Rogan's podcast is great and deserves no criticism for anything because I enjoy it." If you think the good outweighs the bad, then carry on watching/listening regularly. But don't expect everyone else to do the same.

We're discussing why people don't like him. I think the reasons i pointed out are valid. He might not be everybody's cup of tea, which is fine. You're making my post out to be more than it is.

 

[member 51464]

We're discussing why people don't like him. I think the reasons i pointed out are valid. He might not be everybody's cup of tea, which is fine. You're making my post out to be more than it is.

Okay, so how many of Joe's podcasts does someone need to listen to decide they are not a fan without being called close minded by your standard?

 

[x Tame Impala]

Okay, so how many of Joe's podcasts does someone need to listen to decide they are not a fan without being called close minded by your standard?

How many of his podcasts have you listened to and enjoyed?

 

[Shareefruck]

Which he does. It seems like he’s learned that and has gotten much better with it. Regardless, he’s done 1500 of these things so I don’t see how the very occasional bad guest tarnishes his reputation.

The overwhelming majority of people I’ve come across either in real life or on the Internet don’t like him simply because they’re more left-leaning on the political spectrum. They look at Rogan and see a guy who hunts, likes guns, used to be a fighter, commentates on UFC, and is a shaved-head white guy who has occasional conservative guests on his show or voices a few conservative opinions from time to time.

It is almost entirely political which is a shame because not only the quality and variety of guests this guy gets, but the format he offers them to speak and be heard is phenomenal. I learned more about the Democratic presidential candidates this past year from listening to his podcasts than I have in the decade plus I’ve been able to vote.

Seriously, if having a shitty guest on ruins your whole opinion of a podcast then you’ve made up your mind before you’ve even given it a chance and this is just the excuse you need to justify your close mindedness.

The bolded is by far the most egregious and unfairly dismissive, close-minded, and defensive take in the thread, IMO.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The bolded is by far the most egregious and unfairly dismissive, close-minded, and defensive take in the thread, IMO.

How? Again, the guy has done over 1500 episodes. Not liking the whole body of work because of some bad decisions bringing guests on seems dumb to me

 

[Bring Bak Damphousse]

I like the podcast, but I prefer when he has guests that can carry the conversations, I’ve noticed when Rogan has his friends on, other comedians like Bryan Callen, Joe tends to dominate the conversation. Whereas guests like Jordan Peterson or Bret Weinstein carry the load, with Rogan just asking questions.

 

[member 51464]

How many of his podcasts have you listened to and enjoyed?

Hmm, I don't know. Maybe 15 or so over the years have been worth a full listen in the end. But part of that is proper screening. I know not to listen if it is some lunatic who is a joke in their field or a comedian who I don't find funny, political grifters of whatever side who have nothing of value to say, etc... Plenty of others have just been on as background noise and I was completely neutral on. Nothing gained or lost versus if I had had music on instead for the three hours during work.

The non-straw man criticisms are the well-explained ones by Amerika and Blender about him giving a platform to folks who should not have one because giving an equal voice to both sides is not always a good idea. If you see no issue with Joe doing so, then that about wraps it up.

Again, I am not a hater. I don't think he should be canceled or anything. If Joe Rogan is the reason people are exposed to real scientists, that is good. Unfortunately, there are also many crackpots on his show. Someone who intellectually needs Joe Rogan to be their window into the world of broadening their horizons may not be best equipped to avoid getting tripped up in the gateway to imbibing views of morons.

I also have found the quality of the conversations have gone downhill over the years. I don't finish many that I start anymore since he mostly just wants to talk about his hobby horses and is incredibly repetitive. It is a shame when he steers interesting guests to the same stupid shit about chimps, or whether they have tried DMT, etc... He has also become a bit of a public health hazard since Covid-19 started by saying men wearing masks are bitches. Unfortunately, there are insecure people who won't wear a mask because it is not the "cool" thing to do, and Joe isn't helping.

I also noticed you didn't answer my question

 

[Shareefruck]

How? Again, the guy has done over 1500 episodes. Not liking the whole body of work because of some bad decisions bringing guests on seems dumb to me

The quote pretty much speaks for itself.

It's one thing to merely disagree with someone's perspective for reasons such as this, but to wildly jump to the automatic conclusion/strawman/blanket statement that "Baah, you must therefore just have an agenda/made up your mind before giving it a chance and this is all just a silly excuse to justify your closemindedness" based on that perfectly understandable point of contention alone is not at all an appropriate response and is really a pretty childish and petty overreaction.

Nothing against you personally of course, but I mean, come on, read it again. You don't think that's even a bit overboard and uncalled for? You could have easily just challenged the point itself and left it at that.

 

[member 51464]

The bolded is by far the most egregious and unfairly dismissive, close-minded, and defensive take in the thread, IMO.

Thank you! I feel like the argument should be made of why people should make time for Joe Rogan rather than people who choose to spend their listening time on other things needing to defend choosing not to be regular Joe listeners.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Listen, i'm not trying to promote his podcast. I personally enjoy it for the most part. It depends on the guests for sure. Rogan has made some mistakes bringing guests on like Alex Jones, Milo, this Proud Boys guy, etc...and I generally am not interested in the things people like that have to say. There are some instances where "hearing someone out" isn't justified and Rogan has been guilty of that more than once for sure. I still think the guy gets more flack than he deserves and I think a lot of it is political. Let's agree to disagree.

I will however totally stand by my original comments of how his podcast format of long discussions with high-profile/interesting/important people has made me learn a lot in the last 4-5 years. I think it's a fantastic way to give people a chance to say what they want to say and in most cases that's a good thing.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Okay, so how many of Joe's podcasts does someone need to listen to decide they are not a fan without being called close minded by your standard?

If someone is capable of enjoying some of his content then I would not call them closed-minded. You seem to be able to do so, which is good.

 

[Stylizer1]

Doesn't matter. Giving a large platform to McInness goes beyond giving a voice to all sides of the political spectrum. This is not having a run-of-the-mill Republican stooge on the show. I don't care where Rogan leans politically. He should vet his guests to make sure they at least have some credibility. If he can't do that, he deserves to be criticized for it. 'All sides are valid' is not always an honorable position and posturing like it is (not saying that this is what you're currently doing) is often a sign of vapidness and stupidity.

You want traditional TV.

 

[Stylizer1]

I'm just not sure why people can't interview/make conversation without swearing. It's just so unnecessary. And they do it so often - an "F-Bomb" every 2 minutes. I find it off putting.

Here is the late Harold Bloom being interviewed - he speaks beautifully. Let's count how often he swears...

When he has his buddies on there are no limits but I would say most of his real interviews are pretty straight forward with the occasional shit or f***.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

You want traditional TV.

You don't know me or what the hell you're talking about. Me thinking that somebody should verify the credibility of your guest in regards to the topic matter is not me asking for a poor MSNBC show.

 

[Stylizer1]

The more popular he becomes, the better guests he will get. I've noticed an uptick in the quality of his guests.

He once said he approaches his interviews like he's having dinner with a friend - it works for him.

As for "crackpots" : I believe in letting a guest speak - even if the opinions are "off". Pushing back is always good but I believe the guest should be able to speak his/her mind.

His guest are absolutely fine. If you mean better guests as in more famous he chooses people based on who he is interested in. It's his show.

I love the randomness each week though sometimes he has too many comedians(buddies on) and gets repetitive.

 

[MadDevil]

I used to listen to Rogan and Carolla regularly but over the last year or so find myself listening to both less. They both tend to repeat themselves so I'm more selective about which ones I listen to. It usually depends on the guest.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I like the podcast, but I prefer when he has guests that can carry the conversations, I’ve noticed when Rogan has his friends on, other comedians like Bryan Callen, Joe tends to dominate the conversation. Whereas guests like Jordan Peterson or Bret Weinstein carry the load, with Rogan just asking questions.

Yeah, that's when there tends to be more of a quality discussion of an interesting topic. The guest is the expert, and Joe asks questions that a regular person would be interested in and the conversation evolves. The worst ones are when it's just friends going on weird tangents, when he's had multiple guests that disagree and it becomes a dumb debate, or people with bad opinions. The Adam Conover one was pretty bad, and there's another one that I can't remember the names, but they pretty much just talked at each other the entire time and said the other one was wrong, and Joe wasn't able to get a productive discussion going between them. It was Gary Taubes & Stephan Guyenet.

 

[Stylizer1]

I don't believe in giving crackpots a platform, especially on irresponsible or dangerous topics that erode the value and trust of expertise in our society. For example, he's had Graham Hancock on the show multiple times and that guy is a pseudoarchaeologist with absolutely zero credibility in the fields he writes about, and is completely at odds with the actual experts in the field of study. Joe Rogan lets him drone on endlessly with little push back to the fantastical things he says, and even when he had him on with Michael Shermer to oppose him Joe Rogan spent more time arguing with Shermer while Hancock Gish Galloped all over the conversation.

Hancock has a theory on ancient civilizations and it is interesting.

 

[Stylizer1]

You don't know me or what the hell you're talking about. Me thinking that somebody should verify the credibility of your guest in regards to the topic matter is not me asking for a poor MSNBC show.

He's not using your credibility meter.

 

[ORRFForever]

When he has his buddies on there are no limits but I would say most of his real interviews are pretty straight forward with the occasional shit or f***.

I recently saw an interview with 2 members of the Soprano's crew. It was F-This, F-That. Same with his interview with Bill Maher. It's disappointing. Perhaps it's the education level of everyone involved.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Hancock has a theory on ancient civilizations and it is interesting.

He sounds like either a hack or a stubborn idealist. I hate when he’s on

 

[Blender]

That might actually be my least favorite of his podcasts.

1) Michael Shermer is cool, but he's not at all an archaeologist. It sounds like he was there for 3 hours just to say"But where's your proof!?"

2) I don't get the appeal to this Hancock guy. Generally anyone who makes their M.O. criticizing science for being closed-minded is someone with low credibility. What's weird about him though is that he seems to have a lot of people buying into what he has to say. The only critiques of the guy i've been able to find have been from a random thread comment.

Serious intellectuals and experts don't waste their time going through everything he says because he's as far out there as Ancient Aliens is. His books are much derided, and for good reason. He also admitted in one of his books that he has gained ancients knowledge from the "spirit world" by using psychedelic drugs.

 

[Blender]

Hancock has a theory on ancient civilizations and it is interesting.

No, he has a hypothesis and has absolutely no evidence to substantiate it. In the sciences, a theory is an explanation that has been repeatedly tested and verified using the scientific method. His fantastical ideas have not come anywhere close to even standing up to scrutiny, and are certainly not a theory.

 

[Blender]

He's not using your credibility meter.

As in he doesn't care, he's proven that repeatedly. Rogan will have anyone and everyone on his show, and it's valid criticism of him for choosing to do that. If he were a more aggressive interviewer who challenged people for spewing bullshit on his show, I'd give him a pass for many of his bad guests, but all he's doing is giving them a platform to spew bullshit for 3 hours unchallenged. That's my main issue with his show, he's not selective enough in his guest list, because when he has a good guest it can be a great interview.