This is nonsensical. There is one truth. You’re discussing perspective and belief while awarding truth to everyone with perspective and belief. That is a very odd path.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'The Joe Rogan Experience' Returns to Apple Podcasts After 3-Year Hiatus
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is nonsensical. There is one truth. You’re discussing perspective and belief while awarding truth to everyone with perspective and belief. That is a very odd path.
Cool. I hate spotify's app. But need to hold on to Spotify, because you never know when one of the platforms will censor.
Deplatforming doesn't 'amp up' their exposure.
How much have you heard from Milo lately?
Anybody who thumbed-down these comments should stick with Mastadon, where you can surround yourself exclusively with like-minded folk who never disagree with you.
Maybe that’s because the Mastodon community tends to value facts over beliefs.
Not sure if it's been said, but Rogan is a funny guy with an interesting background. He has that "regular guy" appeal who realized he was curious about a lot of things and likes to talk about it. I like him when he interviews celebrities, comedians and athletes so I'm fine with him getting out from under Spotify. But when he starts talking with serious intellectuals, experts or self professed experts he seems out of his element. So I don't listen to those interviews.
I think an issue folks have is that now that he has become a cultural voice (and he clearly has), expectations for what he does have also changed. It's one thing to hang out in your basement and talk s**t with your buddies, which is how the podcast can feel. That was and is fun. Some things he says and believes are ridiculous and his biases are pretty evident but with a smaller audience those beliefs and biases can be dismissed as cringy and maybe even funny because he's such a good guy. But now he's gotten a huge platform and those things that you could once dismiss are now potentially a problem. This issue gets amplified when the guests he chooses are also questionable. He started out as an entertainer and he is now more than that- whether he wants to admit it or not.
I think an issue folks have is that now that he has become a cultural voice (and he clearly has), expectations for what he does have also changed. It's one thing to hang out in your basement and talk s**t with your buddies, which is how the podcast can feel. That was and is fun. Some things he says and believes are ridiculous and his biases are pretty evident but with a smaller audience those beliefs and biases can be dismissed as cringy and maybe even funny because he's such a good guy. But now he's gotten a huge platform and those things that you could once dismiss are now potentially a problem. This issue gets amplified when the guests he chooses are also questionable. He started out as an entertainer and he is now more than that- whether he wants to admit it or not.
Last edited:
Careful with that, many things once considered "fact" aren't any more.
I don't believe it, that is an excuse for the lazy or weak minded. JR is an entertainer, nothing more. He just happens to entertain a lot of people.
The responsibility rests solely with the individual. If you are dumb enough to take any position because you heard something once on a popular show, you are an idiot. If you take that thing you heard, research it, listen to other viewpoints, research them and THEN form your own opinion you have properly wielded power.
Way too many people (the idiots referenced above) believe what they hear from single sources, or worse yet, echo chambers as fact.
It's disturbing the number of people on this thread who have a lot of vitriol to hurl over a show they obviously haven't even remotely listened to...
Imagine putting the word fact in scarequotes because you don’t trust facts anymore. That’s the Joe Rogan experience right there.
People debating over Joe Rogan reminds me of people hotly debating about Apple products in these forums, and just heated arguments in general. They many times devolve into one person just trying to shut up or discredit the other—ultimately having the end goal of just trying to sever any reach the other person and their ideas might have. Because it’s easier and faster. Having to break down ideas and separate fact from assumption/fallacy and come up with solid convincing arguments is very difficult and time-consuming. So people take the easier path. They also do this because they don’t think the other person/idea is worth the effort.
Here’s why I think that’s unwise.
If it’s truly not worth the effort, then it could just be ignored because who cares, it’s not worth it. If it is worth the effort for a subject that actually matters, then trying to shut up or discredit (severing reach) is at best only a short term fix, and at worst only incendiary, but it’s extremely unlikely to convince anyone except those who are already convinced.
To truly convince people who aren’t already convinced, one can’t use shortcuts. One has to use solid arguments and ideas, ones that lean positive I think, because then the argument will speak for itself, and one won’t need to continually try to silence people. The idea will likely need to be repeated or amplified so that it is actually heard over the noise, but once it is, it starts to carry its own weight. It slowly convinces those who are at least somewhat open to reason. And yes it is a slow process, it’s almost never the glorious immediate victory that usually comes with silencing opposition. But the slow change is usually the only lasting change.
Trust in the strength of your ideas… if they are right…
Of course if someone is breaking the law/forum rules, that’s another thing altogether.
Here’s why I think that’s unwise.
If it’s truly not worth the effort, then it could just be ignored because who cares, it’s not worth it. If it is worth the effort for a subject that actually matters, then trying to shut up or discredit (severing reach) is at best only a short term fix, and at worst only incendiary, but it’s extremely unlikely to convince anyone except those who are already convinced.
To truly convince people who aren’t already convinced, one can’t use shortcuts. One has to use solid arguments and ideas, ones that lean positive I think, because then the argument will speak for itself, and one won’t need to continually try to silence people. The idea will likely need to be repeated or amplified so that it is actually heard over the noise, but once it is, it starts to carry its own weight. It slowly convinces those who are at least somewhat open to reason. And yes it is a slow process, it’s almost never the glorious immediate victory that usually comes with silencing opposition. But the slow change is usually the only lasting change.
Trust in the strength of your ideas… if they are right…
Of course if someone is breaking the law/forum rules, that’s another thing altogether.
Clearly many people have no idea what the concept of free speech in America even means.
Rogan decides who can be on his show. Apple decides who can be on their app. Free speech.
Also, Rogan calling “all kinds of people” doesn’t make him neutral as many of you seem to believe. A teacher who tells kids not to do meth but also adds that some people love meth and say it feels really good, for the sake of neutrality, is a crappy teacher, not a neutral one.
Ok, lets not make this into something it is not. I was clearly using quotes to indicate that something that is accepted as "fact" today might not be tomorrow. History is loaded with such examples. That is the funny thing about "facts".
On one hand, I don't care about that dude. On the other, I don't want my apple one membership cost going up just because they decided to pay money to carry him on their service.
The stereotype is listening to any MMA or WWF celebrity is a waste of time. I listen to Joe Rogan a couple time, he is nothing special and just validates the stereotype.
Fortunately we live in the United States where we can say whatever we want with a few exceptions. I do not want to live in any country where someone is telling me what I can and cannot say or I am scared to say something I believe true or is in fact true. Individuals have the freedom to decide what they believe.
You chose to miss him. The show is available and always has been available for free on Spotify.
If you want to freedom of speech you have to give it to everyone whether you like what they are saying or not. You cannot choose what cannot be said because you do not like what is being said.
"Listening to
Last edited by a moderator:
People actually have to want to listen to Jon Stewart for his show to keep going, and nobody did so it got cancelled.
The definition of fascism is when minority tries to dictate to majority. So any "activist" are walking a very fine line. So in a true George Orwell style you can see how antifa can be easily seen as fascists by being aggressive plus they are using the colors of a Nazi flag in their symbol which is never a good sign.
Nuremberg Tribunal has clearly defined who Nazis are and that is the definition Russia is using. Everybody else is playing "I label you, you label me" game.
I guess there is a reason why Churchill insisted on quietly killing the Nazis after the WWII and not making a big international trial(obviously because he did not want Russia to take advantage of it later on). What a kind fat man...
No one is being silenced. People are just sharing their opinions. Are you trying to silence their opinions?