Talk:Joe Rogan

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

	This Conspiracy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

NewsRadio

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?) —107.77.212.98 (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: 96.27.27.76 / talk / contribs}

Yeah fair enough 49.197.14.176 (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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 admit to knowing little of Rogan, but I thought the long and well argued article might be a useful source. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

@Evilatheistheathen Ask Rogan to have Sam Seder on, who is critical of Rogan. Then we can talk about him being "fair". — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Pro-Authoritarianism

I think this post should be added to the article since it demonstrates how far he's jumped into the Libertarian-Fascist pipeline (And Kali Yuga?) https://www.instagram.com/p/CWxaIYWFvfH/?utm_medium=twitter -Ryan1257 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm a weak man in accordance to Rogan, outstanding. But yes, I agree that it should be incorporated into the article somehow.--WMS (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a go at it. I actually don't think he's pro-authoritarian per se (ironically his Twitter feed seems to complain about authoritarianism a lot, mostly in relation to COVID-19). But he seems fond of repeating a lot of alt-right bro shit (as the misuse of Kali Yuga comes from) without really thinking about what he's talking about. (If someone can archive the Instagram post btw that would be great, for some reason that failed spectacularly when I tried so I went with a Reddit post about it instead...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice job! I really like what you added, both informative and have me a laugh. I agree that he isn’t an authoritarian but like you pointed out he has, eh, been influence by less than credible people and that seeps into the shit he posts and does. Also how would you archive an Instagram post? I could give it a go.—WMS (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I usually try either archive.org or archive.is to archive, maybe you'll have better luck. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a lot of trouble archiving the post, so I took a few screen shots and tried to upload them here. That didn't work either, so I just uploaded them to imgur. This is the link: https://imgur.com/a/3n59ini which I then proceeded to archive https://web.archive.org/web/20220107213603/https://imgur.com/a/3n59ini hope that's good enough.--WMS (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That works for me, I'll keep the Reddit post as support but added that as well. Silly walled off Facebook web... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There are two sources of information about Rogan: one is from statements he has made on one of his podcasts, which might be attributed to contextual matters, and the other is social media posts on twitter, et al, which could be supposed to be his true views. I have listened to Rogan on at least a dozen podcasts and he at times sounds like a progressive, a libertarian, a conspiracy monger, a right wing ideologue, to name a few. My opinion of him: he is extremely intelligent for someone who grew up trading head shots with his opponents. He has had the Larry King gift of gab, that has enabled him, with the minimal tools of the ability to focus on one person for hours, and a sound intelligence, to entice wildly diverse types of people into speaking their minds in a 3-4 hour commercial format; leading him to become one of the premier content makers in the podcast-style of media. I would call this style a modern analogue of the old yellow journalism.

One of the references in the article exemplifies this point of view: Celebrities who promote harmful pseudoscience the list starts out with #10, Montel Williams, with Rogan at #8: "Comedian Joe Rogan does what he can to promote virtually any conspiracy theory that he stumbles onto, apparently accepting them all uncritically with a wholesale embrace." Now, #5 is Larry King and "Only Larry gets to talk to heads of state, U.S. Presidents, the top movers and shakers. He hits them hard, asks them the tough questions, puts them on the spot. Unless — and that's a very big unless — they are on the show to promote some pseudoscience or paranormal claim." The list finishes off with Oprah Winfrey in the starting position: "The only person who can sit at the top of this pyramid is the one widely considered the most influential woman in the world and who promotes every pseudoscience." We have an article on Winfrey and it is currently rather brief. Did you get a car? Ariel31459 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not listened to Joe Rogan, so I can't judge much from that angle unfortunately. Occasionally on Reddit a Rogan community post like this one sneaks through on the r/all when I've peaked into that circus, and it's usually negative and/or community war type stuff these days. The general community vibe I get from these posts (for what it's worth) seems like that his show through much of the 2010s had this chill, smokin'-weed type vibe that many liked, and allowed him to "shoot the shit" with people and get good interviews (for those receptive to this style especially). What conspiracy theory stuff there was then sounds more like the Art Bell style, in that it's kind of dumb, but it's easy-going enough in its dumb nature to be entertaining. But lately (again judging from r/joerogan posts), the vibe seems to be that he's getting more political and has fallen down the COVID-19 conspiracy hole in particular, which of course is not going to go over well with everyone. It's Reddit, so "your mileage may vary". But this matches what I see in the archive.org Twitter feed... his 2010s stuff had a whiff of conspiracy, but it also had a lot of MMA and jokes. Now in his current feed, it's about 80%+ conspiracy/COVID, and a *lot* of his retweets are from figures of the alt-right. I mean, one of his recent actions recently was to start a new social media feed on yet another new "conservative Twitter" (Gettr). Of course, the Spotify show list is very far from another Tucker Carlson wannabe (it's mostly comedians and other entertainers, with the occasional WTF conspiracy dum-dum, so not much different than before), so hopefully he really it isn't as bad as these posts sound. IMHO the market for "blowhard conservative conspiracy talk show" is pretty crowded. Changing would be puzzling because it sure sounded like his 2010s schtick worked pretty well. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)