This is probably not relevant to the article, but I’m not sure (and it might be interesting to RW readers on its own).
Joe Rogan’s big break came from playing Joe Garelli on NewsRadio. Over the five years of the show, his character became more and more an affectionate parody of Rogan himself by the writers. And a big part of that is that Garelli believes in conspiracies about science, aliens, the electrician’s union he’s a member of, and anything else you can think of. More often than not, he also believes the popular version of the conspiracy is actually part of the conspiracy, meaning he has some stopped clock moments dismissing some silly conspiracies. But then, since the show is an outlandish comedy, often it turns out that he’s right (judges really are part of a Masonic conspiracy), or only wrong because the truth is even wackier than he believed (his rant about DB Cooper early in the series was disproven when it turned out years later that another character on the show was covering for the real Cooper). Obviously the real world isn’t like that. (Or is that just what they want you to think?) —18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
More examples of specific issues, please
Not for a moment suggesting his views on transgender identity do not warrant their own section, but right now, that's the only part of his career that get a special shout-out, which might lead one to believe that that's the primary reason he is viewed with suspicion by the skeptical community. There are about five or six other issues that need to be specifically written about in terms of Rogan's boosterism on specific pseudoscientific, pseudo-historic, or identity issues to make it very clear that Rogan is not a specific-issue crank, but a broad-spectrum crank with a large audience. I believe it will take someone with more experience than I to write those sections, however. — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
A critical Slate article on Rogan’s podcast and its potential effects
Justin Peters had an article published by Slate on March 21st where he criticises Rogan for inviting and soft stroking several of the people we already have critical articles on here at RW (e.g. Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, Sam Harris, and Gavin McInnes) and putting a pro-Milo Yiannopoulos on the story behind the latter being kicked off Twitter.
A simplified summary of the article would be that it doesn’t criticise Rogan for necessarily being a staunch supporter of his guests, but instead a lazy enabler who allow them to ramble on for hours unchallenged, thus literally providing them with free air time. It also links Rogan to the promotion of lazy pseudo and anti intellectualism, advancing the notion that a sinister cabal of “political corrects” have a lockdown on academia and media, constituting a serious threat to public discourse and against which the above mentioned “Great Men” struggle valiantly, as well as the related notion that there’s a quick, easy way to understand difficult topics without having to make much effort studying, researching or analysing them.
- I read the article and it sounds more like a hit piece on Joe Rogan than anything else. It makes him out to be some sort of alt right useful idiot and ignores all the left wing people he's had on the show(he had Kyle Kulinski on 3 times and endorsed Bernie Sanders for president aswell as having him on the show). He's also had on the likes of Cenk Uygur Adam Conover Jon Steward and Daryl Davis. I've also seen him challenge people like Ben Shapiro on the show. Look, nobody's perfect and believe me Joe Rogan's no exception to that rule. He's clearly very misinformed on transgender issues and has played devil's advocate for some very dumb conspiracy theories over the years. But acting like he's some sort of alt right mouthpiece when his political beliefs would be a lot closer to many of us on RW than the likes of Richard Spencer shows an incredible ignorance and arrogance on behalf of the author of that article.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)