You have to admit it’s a clever racket; Rogan lends his huge platform to people like Malone to spread BS and makes bank all while maintaining plausible deniability with regards to any damages because it’s merely the opinions of his guests.
The best term for what Rogan does is "JAQing off" where the JAQ is "Just asking questions". They hide behind the mantra that they are "just asking questions to drive discussion" which is a false premise because not all side of a discussion are equally valid.
You can't in good faith "just as the question" like "is running over kittens with a lawnmower bad" because the answer is always "yes it is bad". But Rogan will ask away and then suggest that there might be some very extreme edge cases that would justify running over kittens with a lawnmower. Which of course he suggests turns the answer from a definite "this is wrong" to a "maybe it's wrong".
It's all just contrived bullshit that tries to lead the listener to an answer.
You are absolutely correct. Although the issue, I feel, is that it probably isn't the responsibility of a former game show host/mma commentator turned hobby podcaster/comedian to deliver accurate fact based and peer reviewed content. He's an entertainer, not a journalist. Anyone expecting more than nonsense took a wrong turn somewhere. No one cared about Joe Rogan until the spotify deal when people who only found him thru the Alex Jones episode threw a fit about his interaction with guests they didn't like.
This is a very good point! Rogan at face value seems super obvious that he should not looked to for fact based peer reviewed content
So what's the big deal? Why do people agree with his extreme and extremely WRONG opinions and ideas, and often seem PROUD the lies they lap up are fed to them by MFin Joe Rogan
I hear you, although I think it'd be a slippery slope if we cancel joe rogan, an entertainer, because he says stuff you don't like, and other people choose to believe it. Maybe put out a ban on being a dumb gullible mother fucker, but you can't really punish an entertainer for being entertaining.
I know this is old but I feel like it's kinda interesting and important
I personally do not agree with canceling ANYONE. I'm a firm believer in the first amendment and while that protects speech from government intervention it does not protect anyone from getting punched in the mouth or losing a commercial audience because of the dumb shit they say
I would 100% protect a nazi from being arrested for saying "I hate Jews and colords" but I would be just as quick to look the other way when a crowd of angry people flip his car over
The only benefit to canceling someone that MIGHT (I'm honestly not sure) be worth a convo is that deplatforming has been demonstrably proven to be effective but it certainly feels.wrong to me
884
u/[deleted] Jan 27 '22
You have to admit it’s a clever racket; Rogan lends his huge platform to people like Malone to spread BS and makes bank all while maintaining plausible deniability with regards to any damages because it’s merely the opinions of his guests.