'The Joe Rogan Experience' Returns to Apple Podcasts After 3-Year Hiatus

[aloysiusfreeman]

Yeah fair enough, removed that part because JKR feels a bit off topic here anyway. (If anyone is curious, you made a backup in your quote.) It probably just resonated with me because I‘m personally surrounded by clones of the "invisible student".

There's a lot of invisible students on all sides. The thing that irks me is when people like Ben Shapiro and that video you shared exploit people who are right about something but aren't articulate on their stance and in turn make it seem like their stance is actually wrong.

It's like a math teacher - sure you got the answer right but you have to show the work, but not showing your work doesn't mean the answer is wrong.

 

[delsoul]

Interesting to see so many posts where they blame one man for the actions of others, instead of blaming individuals for their own actions. Humans were born with brains and higher thinking power. They can choose to believe, or disbelieve, claims from other people. What they choose to do is of their own doing. Do these same people also blame inanimate objects for problems, as well?

 

[redbeard331]

After hearing so much about this guy I still don’t really know who he is and why he’s semi-famous? I once tried listening to one of his shows and found it to be extremely boring, and he seemed very slow and mid-informed. Not sure if it’s an act or what, so I find it strange he has such a large following. However, seeing who his fan base is, it doesn’t make me want to go and listen to him again, the childishness and misinformation is a waste of time and boring. Hearing people bring free speech into it, as if everyone has a right to be on every podcast is very strange.

When people rant about “free speech” it just means they want their versions of it rammed down everyone’s throats, and don’t have any idea what it even is. For decades in America the government has actually censored, imprisoned, and murdered people for free speech, but you won’t hear a peep about these things anywhere. If you’re an anti-war activist, a civil rights activist, you’ve probably been spied on and have a file somewhere, and for people like Fred Hampton, you were asassinated by the United States government.

So what does this have to do with Joe Rogan and his fans, who apparently are deathly afraid of soybeans and various levels of hormones? Well instead of advocating for the free speech of historically marginalized groups, who actually have had their rights trampled….. it’s Nazi’s, nazi’s are the people we should be standing up for, really?? The whole all sides crowd can only think of the worst elements of society when they bring up the free speech canard? Nah bro, we know what giving Nazi’s platforms leads to, they don’t need anymore, how about you all worry about those that are being silenced, and are worth listening to?

The Assassination · The Assassination of Fred Hampton · Digital Chicago

digitalchicagohistory.org

 

[grover5]

So what? Still not a boomer.

The so what was included. If you only wanted to make the chronological argument then you can walk away knowing I agreed with you. If you are making the behavioral argument then…so you are incorrect. Thanks for the talk.

 

[Timpetus]

He’s very good at his job. Which makes it even more dangerous.
Kids come for good interviews with rockstars and actors, the next week there’s a neofascist, a climate change denialist, an antivax, some other conspiracist.
All in the name of “listening to both sides”. So if someone is pro-child-molesting, should we broadcast their opinion or can we draw a line somewhere?

Yes, because it's better than keeping it a secret. If someone's views, fairly understood instead of mischaracterized, are abhorrent to normal people, it can only hurt them to have those views broadcast. If you prefer to let others think for you, I can see why you'd be in favor of censorship and name-calling to signal that the powers that be don't like this person, so don't you dare engage in thoughtcrime!

 

[ThaGoochiestMane]

I don't understand all the vitriol towards Rogan. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but silencing dissenting opinions isn't a good idea. It's a podcast, there are thousands if not millions of podcasts you could choose to listen to or not listen to.

I just wish so many people wouldn't listen to a person who (presumably) suffers from CTE.

 

[grover5]

Interesting to see so many posts where they blame one man for the actions of others, instead of blaming individuals for their own actions. Humans were born with brains and higher thinking power. They can choose to believe, or disbelieve, claims from other people. What they choose to do is of their own doing. Do these same people also blame inanimate objects for problems, as well?

I’m just curious here but has this argument ever worked for you before?

 

[ThaGoochiestMane]

After hearing so much about this guy I still don’t really know who he is and why he’s semi-famous?

He used to have a show where he got people to eat bugs, so the people who already ate bugs really like him.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I love how people rattle on about disinformation as if people should be listening to the stand up comedian who commentates at the UFC for medical advice.

 

[jonathan1683]

Great news!

 

[FineWoven]

It's not 'a dissenting voice'. It's someone with massive social capital who abuses it to spread grossly ignorant and hateful rhetoric.

Oh give me a break. I listen to his podcast more than any other and I can tell you clearly haven’t listened to him very much at all outside of some purposefully selected and cleverly edited clips of his show. He uses his immense platform for good the vast majority of the time like advocating for criminal justice reform, mental health discussions, good-faith philosophical and religious debates, and so much more.

And when he does make claims that he’s not fully confident in, he always follows them up with something like “That may not be true though” or “Maybe we should look that up - I could be wrong.” And if he is found to be wrong when presented with new information, he has no issue admitting he was wrong and moves on. Regardless of what they think of him personally, how can anyone think that’s a bad character trait to have? That’s miles ahead of what most of the media does these days which has been reduced to spewing opinion and biased conjecture and reporting it as if it were fact. Or perhaps CNN is more your cup of tea I suppose?

 

[aloysiusfreeman]

Interesting to see so many posts where they blame one man for the actions of others, instead of blaming individuals for their own actions. Humans were born with brains and higher thinking power. They can choose to believe, or disbelieve, claims from other people. What they choose to do is of their own doing. Do these same people also blame inanimate objects for problems, as well?

I'd rather criticize one person(or organization) with considerable influence and make a case for it rather than directly criticize individuals with far less influence who may hold said person/organization in some favorable light.

Because ultimately I don't give a **** about Joe Rogan or (fill in any controversial figure), I care more that they have an influence over others and would like that to end.

 

[aloysiusfreeman]

Oh give me a break. I listen to his podcast more than any other and I can tell you clearly haven’t listened to him very much at all outside of some purposefully selected and cleverly edited clips of his show.

Because his episodes are 3 hours long. I have a life that I rather spend doing better stuff, not listen to a podcast host that endorsed Ron Desantis.

 

[topmounter]

The Pearl Clutchers are out in force!

 

[IIGS User]

There are not multiple versions of the truth.

One person's truth is another person's falsehood.

You can call something "truth" or "science" or "consensus" all day in an effort to make others believe your viewpoint is just that.

But there are in fact multiple versions of the truth. By the very nature that disagreements concerning important issues abound.

When someone tries to tell me their viewpoint is the "truth", I immediately begin to figure out how that all unravels when put up against competing versions of the "truth".

There used to be a saying in Soviet times about the 2 state run organs of information. "There's no Pravda in Tass, and there's no Tass in Pravda". Meaning there's no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.

The only real truth or science is skepticism. Understanding that every interaction is somehow an attempt at manipulation.

It's not always done by design. Our interaction here right now is an example. Once one understands this and has the introspection to question their own beliefs no matter how painful that may be. That's when one finds the "truth".

Otherwise, you're just regurgitating what you've been told to believe as "truth".

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

So no Jon Stewart but Joe Rogan is cool?
Seems the EU judgement really broke the Apple leadership.

Apple had nothing to do with this Rogan news.

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

Bernie, Abby Martin, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard?

Hmmm, one of these is not like the others.

 

[DFZD]

Oh give me a break. I listen to his podcast more than any other and I can tell you clearly haven’t listened to him very much at all outside of some purposefully selected and cleverly edited clips of his show. He uses his immense platform for good the vast majority of the time like advocating for criminal justice reform, mental health discussions, good-faith philosophical and religious debates, and so much more.

And when he does make claims that he’s not fully confident in, he always follows them up with something like “That may not be true though” or “Maybe we should look that up - I could be wrong.” And if he is found to be wrong when presented with new information, he has no issue admitting he was wrong and moves on. Regardless of what they think of him personally, how can anyone think that’s a bad character trait to have? That’s miles ahead of what most of the media does these days which has been reduced to spewing opinion and biased conjecture and reporting it as if it were fact. Or perhaps CNN is more your cup of tea I suppose?

How are religious debates for the good of the majority? Did you really think that mentioning this is going to help improve his image?

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

He’s very good at his job. Which makes it even more dangerous.
Kids come for good interviews with rockstars and actors, the next week there’s a neofascist, a climate change denialist, an antivax, some other conspiracist.
All in the name of “listening to both sides”. So if someone is pro-child-molesting, should we broadcast their opinion or can we draw a line somewhere?

Absolutely spot-on point. By many people's measure, free speech is free speech and should be heard no matter how harmful it is, apparently. Is there a line to be drawn?

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Oh give me a break. I listen to his podcast more than any other and I can tell you clearly haven’t listened to him very much at all outside of some purposefully selected and cleverly edited clips of his show. He uses his immense platform for good the vast majority of the time like advocating for criminal justice reform, mental health discussions, good-faith philosophical and religious debates, and so much more.

And when he does make claims that he’s not fully confident in, he always follows them up with something like “That may not be true though” or “Maybe we should look that up - I could be wrong.” And if he is found to be wrong when presented with new information, he has no issue admitting he was wrong and moves on. Regardless of what they think of him personally, how can anyone think that’s a bad character trait to have? That’s miles ahead of what most of the media does these days which has been reduced to spewing opinion and biased conjecture and reporting it as if it were fact. Or perhaps CNN is more your cup of tea I suppose?

The guy gets paid a lot of money. Should he know what the F* he's talking about and not be guessing about things?
I'm sure there's a term for it, but spewing misinformation first does the damage and most people won't care about a 5 second correction 3 days later. They will remember what he said first. I'm sure that's not by accident.

 

[Razorpit]

Now you too can listen to an unfunny pretend comedian boomer who can’t decipher what’s real & what’s not on the internet rant about vaccines & covid in 2024 .

Hey, no one here mentioned Rachel Maddow or Morning Joe. 😂

Ahahaha I wouldn’t consider any time I spent listening to him a waste or a rancid opinion. Just listen to the one with Bernie Sanders or thousands of others where he has open conversations with people. I mean he grew up in California and his parents’ best friends they hung out with all the time were a gay couple. He doesn’t judge or hate anyone. He doesn’t give medical or legal advice.

I’m genuinely curious what everyone is so upset about.

People don’t like it when alternative information collides with ”something they already know“.

Where’s the strawman? Does he not invite neofascists, climate change denialists and antivax wackos? Are we talking about the same show? You call it strawman because you don’t know what a strawman is.

About the “think of the children”, you completely misunderstood my point. I was just taking an example of opinions that exist but are universally considered unacceptable and unworthy of broadcasting.
But since you mentioned that aspect… he did invite Milo Yiannopulous a few times, right? That makes my hyperbole wrong because he actually invited someone who doesn’t even agree with basic common sense about child molesting. So… sorry about that, I guess.

Not sure if you have no idea of who you’re talking about or just don’t care or even condone the dangerous ethical consequences of his “open-mindedness”.

Just because you give them names doesn’t mean they are what you say they are. Are there wackos out there? Absolutely, but who gets to decide who ”the wacko” is? Is it only you? Rogan has all kinds of people on his show.

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

Absolutely spot-on point. By many people's measure, free speech is free speech and should be heard no matter how harmful it is, apparently. Is there a line to be drawn?

It's worse than that. By many peoples' measure, free speech should not only be heard no matter what, but also must not be criticized and must be hosted/enabled by uninvolved third parties, who somehow are NOT permitted to exercise their own free speech by declining to disseminate speech they don't like.

 

[subjonas]

He’s very good at his job. Which makes it even more dangerous.
Kids come for good interviews with rockstars and actors, the next week there’s a neofascist, a climate change denialist, an antivax, some other conspiracist.
All in the name of “listening to both sides”. So if someone is pro-child-molesting, should we broadcast their opinion or can we draw a line somewhere?

Yes, I think you can draw the line at illegal. Otherwise it’s legal and everyone can simply choose to listen or not, and if they listen they can judge what is valuable and what is not. That’s life. You can’t use kids as an excuse to give the green light to censor ideas. Parents can censor for their own kids if they wish. Guiding kids through a world of differing (but legal) views until they are able to make judgments for themselves is the responsibility of parents alone, not Joe Rogan or MR users or anyone else.

 

[McG2k1]

Hard yes? I don’t even want to know what that means.

This rogan character was decent before he got all into conspiracies, right wing, etc.

Truths are tough, I know.

 

[subjonas]

Being openly racist is not exactly challenging controversial ideologies.

Please cite your claim.