Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
Ohio is a classic. Great tune.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Joe Rogan's Podcast |OT|
- Thread starter Winter John
- Start date
- |OT| Social
Reasonable statement. He’s going to try to balance out his controversial covid-related guests with mainstream scientist/doctor guests around the same schedule, and will have a disclaimer in front of controversial guests.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Imagine the conversation these three probably had that night.
"bro, DMT" "Fuck these neo-Marxists" "I'm putting someone on Mars!"
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
I'm honestly surprised this whole thing has even prompted a response. I do wonder how many users canceled their premium? How many hardcore Rogan fans that weren't premium previously became premium to balance it out? We don't truly know much at the end of the day.
I do agree that long-form discussion is the future. I wish the rest of the media landscape would wake up and realize this. But, I suppose, the sooner old media dies out, the better.
I do agree that long-form discussion is the future. I wish the rest of the media landscape would wake up and realize this. But, I suppose, the sooner old media dies out, the better.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Didn't expect this for Draiman. Supports Spotify's decision to remove Neil Young.
loudwire.com
Disturbed's David Draiman Praises Spotify for 'Preserving Free Speech'
He said it was the 'right call.'
loudwire.com
Trying to control speech is pretty scary and it would come back on those who would want that if every fully implemented. It is the same mentality and type of people who oppose people discussing things and viewpoints they don't like on college campuses or any place and trying to cancel people over stuff, truly awful people
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
I would change her second sometimes to “the vast majority of the time” and also: the latter group tends to be more interesting and entertaining, so they’re great podcast guests and make for interesting conversations…but once you’ve figured out the tells of people like this, it becomes increasingly apparent and obvious that they’re full of shit. JBP’s little aside about his brother in law that’s a total microchip genius that just invented a chip more powerful than the human brain struck me as one of those moments I’d just start backing away from someone at conference or something. You really gotta wonder about people who know about all these amazing things that nobody else knows about, but because of x y or z they’re just ignored by the mainstream.
I had a guy tell me once he had a source on a compound that when added to motor oil, it would increase fuel efficiency of an ICE by around 50%. He believed it whole heartedly and had this messianic complex about getting it out to the world. Needless to say he’s still living in a double wide.
Last edited by a moderator:
In fairness, Peterson's brother in law is Jim Keller, former lead architect at AMD and current CTO of Tenstorrent, which specializes in cutting edge AI computing hardware.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
See, for someone to be successful at the game, the claim does have to be something at least in the orbit of the truth to keep it going. So upon examination, you could say yeah he's a brilliant engineer and was perhaps leading a team that made an amazing breakthrough in a chip, so he's not lying per se. But the way it's presented isn't quite that, and the association is akin to some kind of stolen valor for clout: I know someone really smart who did something you don't know about, aren't I impressive? Name dropping stuff like that is a huge red flag in my experience.
So if someone were to look into it, it pretty much passes the smell test, which is what keeps this charade going. But what he said wasn't really true. What these types count on is the fact that parsing all of that out would take a hundred times as long as them just saying it, and by the time you're done they've moved on. And I don't even think they're aware of the fact they're doing it, so when they feel aggrieved by the "haters" calling them out, the feelings are genuine. That's part of why I have sympathy for someone like JBP: while cringe and delusional, I don't think he's doing anything purposefully bad or selfish. I think he's just gotten pretty high on his own supply and susceptible to the psychological shortcomings we all have when it comes to coming to logical conclusions. He's not a bad guy, just a bit of a loon.
Peterson was much more grounded and academic prior to his breakdown. It may have helped that he was still actively within academia as well.
Hearing that climate change denial nonsense from him the other day was certainly a disappointment. I unfollowed him in response. His thinking appears to have become credulous and anti-scientific since his return to the public forum. That interview with Yeonmi Park comes to mind. She said a lot of BS about the current state of academia that he believed out of hand and even moved him to tears.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Things like this is exactly why I don't believe 100 percent of everything anybody has to say. Peterson is objectively very intelligent but he's a psychologist. He's also been through a lot of trauma that may have skewed him a good bit. I'll still listen to him when it come to matters of the human mind and condition. Things like climate change though? Nah man.
And yes I do understand that people can have mastery in more than one field. I'd say Peterson probably does. Climate change ain't it though.
It's so sad that climate change has been politicized so much. It's hard to know who to look into for objective data.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Agreed, a few years ago I found him to be pretty insightful on a number of topics. But since then I've seen those "high on his own supply" red flags where I'm like...oh man, he's becoming a parody of himself. And the climate change stuff was all of that in its most purified form. The way he talks now reeks of being surrounded by yes men, and of someone who thinks their own farts smell like roses. He brought up "something I just figured out last week" as if it's some eureka epiphany worth sharing and really, if you're a serious thinker...you're not going to just be dropping these thoughts you have out there as groundbreaking realizations without running them by a few people, are you? Well...you might be, if you're really just convinced anything you put out there is gold.
It all makes me wonder about his handlers, especially his daughter...but there I go into my own sort of conspiracy-laced thinking, which we're all susceptible to.
strange headache
Banned
Peterson is a good example of why an expert should generally stick to his field of expertise. While obviously quite knowledgeable about psychological and socio-political issues, he's quite evidently not your go-to-guy when it comes to climate change. He should take his own advice and try to be less opinionated and one-sided about such issues.
He obviously suffered immensely from being ostracized by the mainstream and his academic environment, but is now catering a bit too much to the audience that he has found. Previously he didn't care as much about public perception and just wanted to say his truth, but now that his livelihood is largely depended on a certain demographic, his more focused on trying to please the people that support him.
I'm also not a big fan of his daughter who quite evidently is trying way too hard to emphasize on her father's fame for her own personal gain. It's a bit sad to see him commit the very same fallacies that he tried to make people aware of in the first place. He seems to be in desperate need of some critical distance.
He obviously suffered immensely from being ostracized by the mainstream and his academic environment, but is now catering a bit too much to the audience that he has found. Previously he didn't care as much about public perception and just wanted to say his truth, but now that his livelihood is largely depended on a certain demographic, his more focused on trying to please the people that support him.
I'm also not a big fan of his daughter who quite evidently is trying way too hard to emphasize on her father's fame for her own personal gain. It's a bit sad to see him commit the very same fallacies that he tried to make people aware of in the first place. He seems to be in desperate need of some critical distance.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I'm not trying to armchair psychoanalyze them, but I get the sense that this happened to Bret too. They both got royally fucked for frivolous reasons by people who should have been their allies in academia. They are now so opposed to "the mainstream", for lack of a better term, that they seem to have an irrational, visceral, overcorrected reflex reaction as a kind of defense mechanism response. As men of science they should try to remember that the default position is skepticism and that evidence trumps emotion. If the default position becomes "anti-whatever the mainstream media says", then that abandons the principles of skepticism and turns into the same group think but on the other side.
Shai-Tan
Banned
If you look into accounts from former colleagues before they were famous both of them were already like that with the "galaxy brained" takes, pet theories etc. I saw some 2009 tweets from Bret recently that are in line with what he has been saying recently but that wasn't apparent initially when he was just that guy who was hounded out of a job by woke college students. I didn't think much of it when he was on Rogan because he was a random prof from a shitty college spouting some bullshit on the fumes from the Evergreen fiasco. Apparently some people found that compelling because it gives a scientific veneer to their pre existing attraction to pseudoscientific woo and anti establishment posturing (Rogan loves that shit but you can only hear so much about Bret’s revolutionary theories before tuning out, hence the hot takes about COVID and everything else)
Peterson is a bit more complicated because he published in a boring area of personality psychology, had a fairly normal clinical practice despite being denied tenure at Harvard due to what became "Maps of Meaning". Probably no one would think twice about Maps of Meaning if he were a literature professor hanging on to Freud and Piaget well beyond their expiration date and a Joseph Campbell/Northrop Frye spin on religion that make it safe to be a believer in a world increasingly disenchanted with religion. The conjunction of psychotherapy and bible studies is already a potent self help combination for religiously inclined people unsatisifed with how sterile cognitive behavioral therapy is before even considering how he became famous as the brave professor standing up to the woke mob, yelling no, as their champion destroying the liberal media. If you pay attention it’s all inflected with the ideology which is really what is behind his hot takes on e.g. climate change, or progressive students i.e. he’s a prairie conservative who came of age during Reagan, anti-communism, etc dressing up the same talking points in intellectual sounding language. Similar to Bret, the average person can only hear so much of their idiosyncratic big brain theories before wondering how it actually hangs together so the transition is made into guy who has opinions on stuff people are mad about on Twitter
Peterson is a bit more complicated because he published in a boring area of personality psychology, had a fairly normal clinical practice despite being denied tenure at Harvard due to what became "Maps of Meaning". Probably no one would think twice about Maps of Meaning if he were a literature professor hanging on to Freud and Piaget well beyond their expiration date and a Joseph Campbell/Northrop Frye spin on religion that make it safe to be a believer in a world increasingly disenchanted with religion. The conjunction of psychotherapy and bible studies is already a potent self help combination for religiously inclined people unsatisifed with how sterile cognitive behavioral therapy is before even considering how he became famous as the brave professor standing up to the woke mob, yelling no, as their champion destroying the liberal media. If you pay attention it’s all inflected with the ideology which is really what is behind his hot takes on e.g. climate change, or progressive students i.e. he’s a prairie conservative who came of age during Reagan, anti-communism, etc dressing up the same talking points in intellectual sounding language. Similar to Bret, the average person can only hear so much of their idiosyncratic big brain theories before wondering how it actually hangs together so the transition is made into guy who has opinions on stuff people are mad about on Twitter
Last edited:
Bragr
Banned
You can write negatively like this on almost everyone though, there is still value in the ideas of Freud and Campbell. Peterson is absolutely amazing at putting words to his ideas, his lion king analysis is great.
Speaking wide and large about religion and vaxing about archetypes is fine, and he's good at it. The problem with Peterson is that when he started to speak about the horrors of communism he got such a massive response that he felt it important to air his opinions on politics and history. And he has a terrible tendency to use facts and statistics out of context and ramble about every possible problem on the planet. I bet you could ask him about the captivity of Tigers and he would answer like he was an expert on the topic.
But if I had the choice of either having people like Bret and Peterson out there or not, I would take them every single day. These are not irrational people, they are not hillbillies. People do a terrible job of arguing with them and usually just attack them which strengthens their stance.
Shai-Tan
Banned
I don't agree with that last line but I can see how some people view them as useful co-partisans. A lot of what they say falls apart under critical scrutiny (of both the content and rhetoric). What they've transitioned to is audience triangulation. They haven't lost their mind and overstepped - it's the expected evolution of media talking head to have an opinion on everything to stay relevant. It should be more obvious going in the other direction e.g. Ben Shapiro writing a few books with intellectual pretense among the liberals are lying liars who lost their mind theatrics. It doesn't matter that Bret's book is armchair cargo cult science because for his audience it provides luster and cover for their anti establishment conspiratorial vaccine scepticism
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
The interviewers should get a lot of blame too for when guys like Peterson or Bret, Harris, etc. go into subjects where they aren't especially educated in. We've labeled these guys as 'intellectuals' which they are but they don't know everything. That's the problem with that label. You're an intellectual. What do you think about this?
strange headache
Banned
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
Ever notice whenever Rogan is in the spotlight, no matter what it’s for. The crazies out there try to toss in other labels to bring him down that have nothing to do with the controversy at hand?
He’s been in the news for the COVID guests he’s had on and then this petition comes out and says he needs to be fired because of “transphobia, white supremacy, bigotry”
sign.moveon.org
He’s been in the news for the COVID guests he’s had on and then this petition comes out and says he needs to be fired because of “transphobia, white supremacy, bigotry”
Remove the Joe Rogan podcast from Spotify NOW!
By giving Joe Rogan an exclusive $100 MILLION deal, @Spotify's giving a platform to white supremacist propaganda, lies, & vaccine misinformation. Sign the petition to tell them: Remove racist, transphobic, & conspiracy theorist Joe Rogan’s podcast NOW!
sign.moveon.org
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Ah, well, nevertheless…
Jsisto
Member
The whole thing is a joke at this point. People are spreading misinformation about a comedian and podcaster they know nothing about, because they claim he is spreading misinformation about something he knows nothing about. I really feel for Joe right now. Regardless of how you feel about the covid stuff, I can't imagine how infuriating it must be to be called racist by.....angry white people who probably like....have a black coworker they ate lunch with once.
I'm probably gonna have to step away from this subject because it's beyond aggravating seeing otherwise logical people fall victim to this nonsense.
I'm probably gonna have to step away from this subject because it's beyond aggravating seeing otherwise logical people fall victim to this nonsense.
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Member
Just remember, these are the people accusing Rogan of "spreading misinformation" involving "conspiracy theories" that have been "debunked."
And not that I think Rogan has been perfect on this issue, and he has said things that I either disagree with or wish he would have worded differently, but THESE are supposed to people the people who are the self-appointed arbiters of truth? You've got to be kidding me.
Even crazier is the fact that Rogan just wants to be a podcast host talking with his friends and other people he finds interesting, but the media is unknowingly pushing him into taking responsibility for his "reporting" and they're likely going to make him an even better "journalist" as a result.
And not that I think Rogan has been perfect on this issue, and he has said things that I either disagree with or wish he would have worded differently, but THESE are supposed to people the people who are the self-appointed arbiters of truth? You've got to be kidding me.
Even crazier is the fact that Rogan just wants to be a podcast host talking with his friends and other people he finds interesting, but the media is unknowingly pushing him into taking responsibility for his "reporting" and they're likely going to make him an even better "journalist" as a result.
Last edited:
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23215198/acastro_220202_1777_spotify_0001.jpg)
Spotify CEO defends Joe Rogan deal in tense company town hall
“Exclusivity does not equal endorsement.”
www.theverge.com
I think Rogan's attitudes on vaccines and the opinions of a good deal of his guests are beyond stupid, but I despair of this world we live in where people aren't trusted to be able to be subjected to contrary (even stupid) viewpoints and be able to retain their own views.
Perhaps that's a logical line of thinking in this world. But it's sad. I enjoy listening to Rogan and plenty of people I disagree with on many subjects, whether I'm enjoying his MMA knowledge, amused by tinfoil conspiracies or rolling my eyes at anti-vax tirades. It's still content that I can engage with and make my own mind up on.
It feels as though that ability to engage with disparate viewpoints is more and more being something that makes you a bad agent in the eyes of some, and even this post might probably be considered enough to have me dismissed as a hostile entity through tacit support and such.
When did opposing opinions become dangerous, and not something we can choose to argue with? I do think there are limits to that, but this is hardly hate speech or anything deserving of the current storm.
Maybe I'm missing something key to explaining it.
Perhaps that's a logical line of thinking in this world. But it's sad. I enjoy listening to Rogan and plenty of people I disagree with on many subjects, whether I'm enjoying his MMA knowledge, amused by tinfoil conspiracies or rolling my eyes at anti-vax tirades. It's still content that I can engage with and make my own mind up on.
It feels as though that ability to engage with disparate viewpoints is more and more being something that makes you a bad agent in the eyes of some, and even this post might probably be considered enough to have me dismissed as a hostile entity through tacit support and such.
When did opposing opinions become dangerous, and not something we can choose to argue with? I do think there are limits to that, but this is hardly hate speech or anything deserving of the current storm.
Maybe I'm missing something key to explaining it.
Last edited:
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
When half of the United States decided they'd rather drop dead than take a vaccine to save themselves and protect the people around them. When the Capitol was stormed. When we entered a post-truth world of mutually exclusive social media narratives.
Is it really half? I didn't realise vaccine skepticism was that high there.
It's a huge problem but one I don't see a way out of in current society except for censorship and proscription, which opens an entirely new can of worms and sets bad precedents.
Instead of raging against the talking heads who peddle bullshit, we should focus on investing in education so the populace have the good sense to be able to tell when someone is speaking rubbish.
Should have been investing since a long time ago. The establishment's longstanding practice of keeping the general populace politically and media illiterate, so as to enshrine their agendas in the analogue age, has totally collapsed in the wake of the internet and social media.
Jsisto
Member
You can literally walk into a book store and buy Hitlers Mein Kampf. Some will view it through a historical lens, another, significantly smaller group will buy it for nefarious reasons and be influenced by it. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to buy it? Book publishers are profiting off of one of the most vile people in human history. This is the cost of living in a mostly free society where people are able to form their own opinions. I don't feel it's fair to apply some modern context such as covid 19 or January 6th to suggest that censorship of controversial voices is somehow now okay, when we know people have said outrageous things throughout all of human history.
I believe you need to be an absolutist about these things. If someone thinks our way of life or constitution is insufficient or should be changed, fine. At least you're consistent in your beliefs, but recognize it's a slippery slope. I'm not going to sit here and tell people any one particular form of government is the best, hardly....but the government pressuring private institutions to silence particular voices, and a large number of the populace cheering it on, is a pretty big perversion of the principles this country was founded on and claims to be about.
I believe you need to be an absolutist about these things. If someone thinks our way of life or constitution is insufficient or should be changed, fine. At least you're consistent in your beliefs, but recognize it's a slippery slope. I'm not going to sit here and tell people any one particular form of government is the best, hardly....but the government pressuring private institutions to silence particular voices, and a large number of the populace cheering it on, is a pretty big perversion of the principles this country was founded on and claims to be about.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This is a good conversation about Jon Stewart's take on Rogan, censorship, identifying actual bad actors, and striking a good balance between open dialogue and protection.
June
Member
a free society also includes the right for people to voice opinions about what they think is acceptable or not. spotify are then free to listen, or not, and also take into account the business side of things too.
maybe ive missed something but i dont see where the censorship is. joe rogan isnt going to be outlawed from making his podcast
Jsisto
Member
You're mostly right, but that IS what a lot of people want out of all of this. But that's not even the main issue to me. The bigger issue is the government campaign against “misinformation”, the word is ever changing and can be applied to anything even dubiously problematic. I know there is false information out there about covid and the vaccines, but like I said, the government should NOT be pressuring private institutions to censor themselves. They are doing that and I consider it an abuse of power that they will undoubtedly use again in the future to justify another war now that they've seen how effective it is in the Internet and social media age.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
"Half" is a colloquial way of saying that this issue is unnecessarily divided along party lines, as roughly half the population is Republican, or at least votes that way. If you look at who's vaccinated and who isn't, the numbers are striking.
For COVID-19 vaccinations, party affiliation matters more than race and ethnicity
There's no reason to believe that these gaps in vaccination rates will disappear anytime soon.
www.brookings.edu
The Red/Blue Divide in COVID-19 Vaccination Rates | KFF
This post examines a growing COVID-19 vaccine gap in Red and Blue America, with the share of the population that have been fully vaccinated in counties that voted for President Biden in 2020 increasing more rapidly than the share in counties that voted for President Trump.
www.kff.org
KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: The Increasing Importance of Partisanship in Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Status | KFF
This analysis shows that as COVID-19 vaccination rates have increased over time, Republicans make up an increasingly disproportionate share of those who remain unvaccinated and that political partisanship is a stronger predictor of whether someone is vaccinated than demographic factors such as...
www.kff.org
The Red/Blue Divide in COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Continues: An Update | KFF
This analysis is an update to a previous analysis conducted in September 2021. Using county-level data, we analyzed trends in COVID-19 vaccination rates in counties that voted for President Trump in the 2020 election compared to counties that voted for President Biden. We find higher vaccination...
www.kff.org
Jsisto
Member
Love Kyle and Krystal so much....while not exactly journalists, they're some of the most honest, unbiased sources of commentary out there. Where they are biased they're pretty transparent about it. Have to add Krystal and Sagaars show Breaking Points, too.
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Member
Opposing opinions are always dangerous to those in power. It became something "we can't argue with" when a political riot and global pandemic gave those in power an excuse to take more power. Just like 9/11 before it, say goodbye to more of your rights as two political parties with a proven record of doing almost nothing to improve the lives of the American people (even during a worldwide crisis) continue to make you hate and fear your neighbor while ignoring their inaction and corruption. And sadly, there are those who enable that sort of thing.
That's your real reason. Never let a crisis go to waste. And Rogan isn't being targeted due to "misinformation" or hate speech or whatever authoritarian buzzword is in vogue today. He's being targeted because people trust him more than the media, ANY of the media, and they can't stand it. If you want to know why Rogan is being targeted, look no further than this chart:
And Rogan somehow needs to be responsible with HIS platform? Okay, how about you go first CNN and Fox News. I'd love to see responsible journalism again. It's been a very long while.
SpiceRacz
Member
Unfuckingbelievable.
Some of those previous removals are understandable because of the guests’ slides into extremism afterwards, but this wave…Tim Ferriss? Theo Von? Maynard?
Unfuckingbelievable.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Some of those deletions don't make any sense at all. Overzealous automatic script?
BadBurger
Banned
They appear completely random. Some episodes removed feature guests who are in other episodes that are still available.
Maybe it has to do with advertising deals - like, Company X paid to have their ad read and then available for X number of months.
ikbalCO
Member
I really liked Bill's segment on real time surronding the whole joe rogan controversy.
In retrospect CDC and the goverment spread so called "misinformation" more than joe could ever do.
I wish some common sense before big stars start to leave and this situation gets out of hand but i am not hopeful since the left wing media are so forward with their anti free speach narrative.
In retrospect CDC and the goverment spread so called "misinformation" more than joe could ever do.
I wish some common sense before big stars start to leave and this situation gets out of hand but i am not hopeful since the left wing media are so forward with their anti free speach narrative.
Jsisto
Member
I’ll grant that this was one apology that probably needed to be made, even taken of context…but we know it won’t end here. There’s no satiating these people when they smell blood. Undoubtedly there’s people going through thousands of hours of clips to find anything incriminating to pile on to the list of sins. Fucking psychos.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
What a stupid path we are spiraling downward.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
Spotify confirms Joe Rogan removed episodes with racially offensive language
Spotify's CEO also said the company would invest $100 million in creators from "historically marginalized groups," matching the amount of Rogan's exclusivity deal.
www.cnet.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked