I think Rogan is best at giving someone space to spool out their stories and perspectives, not at analyzing or even debating ideas. Even when he's pushing back on someone he clearly disagrees with, he's not particularly good at it and doesn't seem to do research. But it's really valuable to hear someone expound on their views, right or wrong, for three hours and get past, if they can, the usual talking points.
I'd also note that the episode list is a little misleading in terms of his views, because he does talk about his fairly liberal political views on issues like police misconduct or UBI in the middle of conversations about a different topic, even with his "anti-woke" focused guests.
What I initially liked about JRE is that he is a legitimately curious interviewer. He is not waiting for his turn to talk. Some of the "anti-woke" spin of the show, including trans issues, has been pretty recent. He's been attacked in the press for his fairly mainstream views on Fallon Fox and he's just gotten more and more defensive. It shows up in the guests he picks. Whether this is an emotional reaction or he's trying to drive controversy for more press/visibility, the answer is probably some of both.
Great article. I'm more of a fan than you but thats OK. (Because no need to be emotionally overinvested..right?)
I'm a JRE fan because there are a lot of cool guests and good topics. I revel in episodes with Duncan Trussel. Clearly, two men dressed up in space suits talking about various trips and the meaning of the universe isn't for everyone but I think it's great.
Kyle Kulinski gotten on there and reportedly is the one that got Bernie and Dore on there. And even got invited to cover the election with Joe.
It be great if you got on there. Ditto Brihana. I wish Michael Brooks got on their..he had a decent take on Rogan.
But back to me being a fan. My Dad is a bit of a legend in the family for staying up late and carrying on, but also having the kind of conversations you have late at night when there are only a few people left. Really good sessions..yes booze is involved but the conversations finally get beyond the weather, and sports. To me, long form podcasting with an interviewer like Rogan is a formalized version of this different level of conversing.
Now compare that to say Bill Maher. Who was on his show a year or so ago after inviting himself on, clearly frustrated that the buzz has moved on to YouTube and podcasts. Maher had a point. His show, and News has a job. Compress the information people want to hear about. But the counter of that is to do a deep dive into a topic..and that is what you get from JRE>
In general the main reason I casually listen to JRE is because Joe seems like a nice, authentic guy who has some interesting guests. But I like how Freddie shows how close-minded he can be. Another good example of this is UFC fighter pay. Google "Joe Rogan UFC Fighter Pay" and see how he basically parrots the Dana White company line about how the UFC cannot afford to pay its fighters properly despite constantly being confronted with evidence to the contrary. I also really dislike how a lot of media members have tried to turn him into a culture war avatar and wish they would just let him be a stoner podcaster who's good at interviewing with some funny & thoughtful guests .
While no one wants to get into trans issues a few thoughts: trans or gender ideology has not been particularly well scrutinized within the mainstream media. Looking at what the actual data is or doing research can land you in hot water quick (Singal, Herzog, Littman, etc.).
So it's not just that there is an ideological monoculture. It's that the ideological monoculture is required for the suppositions of the ideology because they couldn't stand to scrutiny within the framework of liberal discourse.
Rogan is beloved in part because he has a platform to puncture these ideas, because again they only need a small amount of scrutiny to be called into serious question. A trans woman MMA fighter will create doubts about core precepts of gender ideology. It's that simple.
This is stand in for (and easily illustration of the fact that) when you get into issues of social contagion, data on criteria for medical management and outcomes, and some other basic things, huge questions arise related to gender identity.
Rogan points in the right direction with easy to understand examples. The issue isn't that Rogan is 'platforming bigots,' it's that these ideas are so fragile that someone like Rogan can easily call them into question.
Regarding the vaccine/ivermectin stuff, there have been a number of public health missteps by elites that should have had more scrutiny and more discussion. Generally there should be robust open discussion about the vaccine that I think would have led to more people feeling comfortable getting it (examples include myocarditis signal for young/men teens and whether 2nd rna vaccine should be given - UK decided not to give 2nd dose, lack of meaningful clinical outcomes for a booster shot, overexaggerating risk to children from delta given we have good data from UK, etc. etc. etc.) The elision of evidence and institutional authority and experts and politics has not been a good thing.
OK, now regarding Marxism, I think only a tiny number of elites are truly interested in Marxism in 2021. What they are interested in is materialist critiques that have been transmogrified by the Frankfurt School and Gramsci and then given strange postmodern appendages by 90s critical theorists. So, you get a shorthand ('Marxists!') that's used by Rogan. But I think the popular explanation of this ideology by Pluckrose/Lindsay and how it has been translated into praxis in institutions and culture by Yang and Rufo is pretty good. In fact, these figures will give you a better account of these intellectual developments in an accessible way than anyone on the Left. So again, Rogan is pointing in the right direction.
I'm not a huge Rogan enthusiast (I listen to maybe 1/10 of his content and I don't follow MMA at all) but I do think some of it is pretty good: specifically I like deep interviews with rock climbers and extreme athletes and hunters et al. as well as some of the comedians.
But it's easy to understand why his political stuff is appealing - it's because he generally points in the direction of what are credible issues that other people are terrified to address and makes you feel sane in the process. This includes even technical issues where I am sure I know much more than he does.
Indoor kids who can't tell Santos from Silva, or Carlin from Chappelle watch an episode or two and are now experts on JRE. They really miss the point.
This was a refreshing take though. And the best thing is that it doesn't matter at all. The vast majority of guests are comics, fighters, or just interesting people. They have a drink or a smoke and talk shit for hours. Joe is the best in the world at making these people relaxed and talking freely.
I think the Cornel West episode was a pretty fair treatment of ideas that would be popular around here.
I say the following while largely agreeing with your overall take that Rogan is overrated by both his defenders and critics: your critique of Rogan's position on "Marxism" is, to steal a line from Scott Alexander, an isolated demand for rigor.
I think when Rogan, or 98% of people in general, say "Marxism" they mean "communism". And when they talk about the goals of "Marxism" they aren't talking about what Marx said one way or the other, they're talking about the general goals of communists (some of whom may call themselves Marxists). This is a problem of precision for sure, but hardly one that only Rogan is guilty of in general or on this topic specifically.
This relates to a thought I've had before about liberal political critiques. I think they give reactionary figures too much credit by labeling them dangerous, offensive, problematic, etc. Ultimately, conservative and right-wing positions are dumb, and don't have any compelling arguments in their favor. I think that's a much better approach to them than treating right-wing positions as so compelling that they're "dangerous." Liberals have conceded a lot of intellectual territory to the write by refusing to engage in certain discussions
Not to sound like a high schooler pretending they're too cool to have heard of the thing everybody else is into, but I find essays like this fascinating because I know nothing about Joe Rogan *except* as an abstract cultural phenomenon. I do listen to podcasts, but lacking Spotify, I've heard about him exclusively through other people - some talking about him favorably, some unfavorably, but all seeming to agree that he is, somehow, vitally important to some conversation, somewhere. I can't picture his voice but I know why he's controversial. It's weird.
I very much appreciate the sentence: "[L]ife has taught me that curiosity and incuriosity can live very comfortably together, that in fact often the former fuels the latter, as one’s voracious desire to learn everything new keeps them too busy to invite complications into what they already know." I don't know enough about Joe Rogan to know how true it is of him; but it's put a more personal flaw into words for me.
...And, for the record, I don't know how good any of his other guests are, but I heard Megan Murphy on a different podcast more recently and was disappointed. Like you, I both disagree with her on almost every point and would defend her right to her position and its expression; but I was sold a bold truth-teller silenced by the woke surveillance state, and instead got a litany of the most boring, reductive, obvious gender-critical arguments filtered through a pointed provocation that has turned into outright meanness. It felt to me like even the gender-critical argument has moved far past her at this point. Mileage may vary, of course, but I wonder the extent to which her alleged censorship is her greatest selling point at this point--if there's anything at all about her actual position that made her attractive as a Rogan guest.
I enjoy Joe Rogan although I only listen to maybe 1 episode a month if that. I did happen to listen to the Megan Murphy one and I think the thing that needs to be addressed is that Murphy is not a serious person, clearly could not make a serious defense of Marxism even if she was still dressed in her leftist costume, and that Joe Rogan was completely aware of that. If I remember correctly, the brief discussion about Marxism wasn’t even really about Marxism it was more about making fun of college kids, particularly Megan Murphy’s former self (which lets face it, is entirely deserving of mockery). I found the Murphy episode a perfect illustration of the “give people a mic and let them show you who they are” principle completely destroying any mystique or power they had in the haziness if your mind. The woman is an idiot, with an annoyingly affected “cool girl” persona who does seems to genuinely dislike and have bigotry toward trans people in a way someone like Rogan does not.
More broadly I think Rogan is both a curious and open minded person and a human who has predisposed interests and opinions and all that seems…fine to me?
I'm pretty curious as to what evidence we're basing "ivermectin should absolutely not be taken to treat COVID-19" on. I'm not a medical doctor, but my understanding is that if this said "should absolutely not be seen as a cure for" it would be correct. It also seems to me like this is a ludicrous statement for someone who isn't a medical doctor to make. There's lots of doctors, particularly outside the US, who do prescribe it, and although I'm suspicious of being too deferential to expertise I'd trust them more than I would a professor of rhetoric and composition, said with no offense intended.
This just seems like a bizarrely culture warrior statement I'm not used to seeing here. One tribe has decided Ivermectin is an awful horse dewormer. One side has decided it's a secret cure They don't want you to know about. Claiming it's not a dewormer but still should not be taken seems like the same problem: an evidence free assertion designed only to signal. With the added benefit of being more exciting than the bland reality of it being likely useless but unharmful with no real evidence in any direction.
As an aside, the fact that some random medicine no one had heard of before is now a culture war signifier is probably a sign we need to reboot all this shit.
I think Rogan is best at giving someone space to spool out their stories and perspectives, not at analyzing or even debating ideas. Even when he's pushing back on someone he clearly disagrees with, he's not particularly good at it and doesn't seem to do research. But it's really valuable to hear someone expound on their views, right or wrong, for three hours and get past, if they can, the usual talking points.
I'd also note that the episode list is a little misleading in terms of his views, because he does talk about his fairly liberal political views on issues like police misconduct or UBI in the middle of conversations about a different topic, even with his "anti-woke" focused guests.
What I initially liked about JRE is that he is a legitimately curious interviewer. He is not waiting for his turn to talk. Some of the "anti-woke" spin of the show, including trans issues, has been pretty recent. He's been attacked in the press for his fairly mainstream views on Fallon Fox and he's just gotten more and more defensive. It shows up in the guests he picks. Whether this is an emotional reaction or he's trying to drive controversy for more press/visibility, the answer is probably some of both.
Great article. I'm more of a fan than you but thats OK. (Because no need to be emotionally overinvested..right?)
I'm a JRE fan because there are a lot of cool guests and good topics. I revel in episodes with Duncan Trussel. Clearly, two men dressed up in space suits talking about various trips and the meaning of the universe isn't for everyone but I think it's great.
Kyle Kulinski gotten on there and reportedly is the one that got Bernie and Dore on there. And even got invited to cover the election with Joe.
It be great if you got on there. Ditto Brihana. I wish Michael Brooks got on their..he had a decent take on Rogan.
But back to me being a fan. My Dad is a bit of a legend in the family for staying up late and carrying on, but also having the kind of conversations you have late at night when there are only a few people left. Really good sessions..yes booze is involved but the conversations finally get beyond the weather, and sports. To me, long form podcasting with an interviewer like Rogan is a formalized version of this different level of conversing.
Now compare that to say Bill Maher. Who was on his show a year or so ago after inviting himself on, clearly frustrated that the buzz has moved on to YouTube and podcasts. Maher had a point. His show, and News has a job. Compress the information people want to hear about. But the counter of that is to do a deep dive into a topic..and that is what you get from JRE>
In general the main reason I casually listen to JRE is because Joe seems like a nice, authentic guy who has some interesting guests. But I like how Freddie shows how close-minded he can be. Another good example of this is UFC fighter pay. Google "Joe Rogan UFC Fighter Pay" and see how he basically parrots the Dana White company line about how the UFC cannot afford to pay its fighters properly despite constantly being confronted with evidence to the contrary. I also really dislike how a lot of media members have tried to turn him into a culture war avatar and wish they would just let him be a stoner podcaster who's good at interviewing with some funny & thoughtful guests .
Good article but a couple quibbles.
While no one wants to get into trans issues a few thoughts: trans or gender ideology has not been particularly well scrutinized within the mainstream media. Looking at what the actual data is or doing research can land you in hot water quick (Singal, Herzog, Littman, etc.).
So it's not just that there is an ideological monoculture. It's that the ideological monoculture is required for the suppositions of the ideology because they couldn't stand to scrutiny within the framework of liberal discourse.
Rogan is beloved in part because he has a platform to puncture these ideas, because again they only need a small amount of scrutiny to be called into serious question. A trans woman MMA fighter will create doubts about core precepts of gender ideology. It's that simple.
This is stand in for (and easily illustration of the fact that) when you get into issues of social contagion, data on criteria for medical management and outcomes, and some other basic things, huge questions arise related to gender identity.
Rogan points in the right direction with easy to understand examples. The issue isn't that Rogan is 'platforming bigots,' it's that these ideas are so fragile that someone like Rogan can easily call them into question.
Regarding the vaccine/ivermectin stuff, there have been a number of public health missteps by elites that should have had more scrutiny and more discussion. Generally there should be robust open discussion about the vaccine that I think would have led to more people feeling comfortable getting it (examples include myocarditis signal for young/men teens and whether 2nd rna vaccine should be given - UK decided not to give 2nd dose, lack of meaningful clinical outcomes for a booster shot, overexaggerating risk to children from delta given we have good data from UK, etc. etc. etc.) The elision of evidence and institutional authority and experts and politics has not been a good thing.
OK, now regarding Marxism, I think only a tiny number of elites are truly interested in Marxism in 2021. What they are interested in is materialist critiques that have been transmogrified by the Frankfurt School and Gramsci and then given strange postmodern appendages by 90s critical theorists. So, you get a shorthand ('Marxists!') that's used by Rogan. But I think the popular explanation of this ideology by Pluckrose/Lindsay and how it has been translated into praxis in institutions and culture by Yang and Rufo is pretty good. In fact, these figures will give you a better account of these intellectual developments in an accessible way than anyone on the Left. So again, Rogan is pointing in the right direction.
I'm not a huge Rogan enthusiast (I listen to maybe 1/10 of his content and I don't follow MMA at all) but I do think some of it is pretty good: specifically I like deep interviews with rock climbers and extreme athletes and hunters et al. as well as some of the comedians.
But it's easy to understand why his political stuff is appealing - it's because he generally points in the direction of what are credible issues that other people are terrified to address and makes you feel sane in the process. This includes even technical issues where I am sure I know much more than he does.
Indoor kids who can't tell Santos from Silva, or Carlin from Chappelle watch an episode or two and are now experts on JRE. They really miss the point.
This was a refreshing take though. And the best thing is that it doesn't matter at all. The vast majority of guests are comics, fighters, or just interesting people. They have a drink or a smoke and talk shit for hours. Joe is the best in the world at making these people relaxed and talking freely.
I think the Cornel West episode was a pretty fair treatment of ideas that would be popular around here.
I say the following while largely agreeing with your overall take that Rogan is overrated by both his defenders and critics: your critique of Rogan's position on "Marxism" is, to steal a line from Scott Alexander, an isolated demand for rigor.
I think when Rogan, or 98% of people in general, say "Marxism" they mean "communism". And when they talk about the goals of "Marxism" they aren't talking about what Marx said one way or the other, they're talking about the general goals of communists (some of whom may call themselves Marxists). This is a problem of precision for sure, but hardly one that only Rogan is guilty of in general or on this topic specifically.
This relates to a thought I've had before about liberal political critiques. I think they give reactionary figures too much credit by labeling them dangerous, offensive, problematic, etc. Ultimately, conservative and right-wing positions are dumb, and don't have any compelling arguments in their favor. I think that's a much better approach to them than treating right-wing positions as so compelling that they're "dangerous." Liberals have conceded a lot of intellectual territory to the write by refusing to engage in certain discussions
Not to sound like a high schooler pretending they're too cool to have heard of the thing everybody else is into, but I find essays like this fascinating because I know nothing about Joe Rogan *except* as an abstract cultural phenomenon. I do listen to podcasts, but lacking Spotify, I've heard about him exclusively through other people - some talking about him favorably, some unfavorably, but all seeming to agree that he is, somehow, vitally important to some conversation, somewhere. I can't picture his voice but I know why he's controversial. It's weird.
I very much appreciate the sentence: "[L]ife has taught me that curiosity and incuriosity can live very comfortably together, that in fact often the former fuels the latter, as one’s voracious desire to learn everything new keeps them too busy to invite complications into what they already know." I don't know enough about Joe Rogan to know how true it is of him; but it's put a more personal flaw into words for me.
...And, for the record, I don't know how good any of his other guests are, but I heard Megan Murphy on a different podcast more recently and was disappointed. Like you, I both disagree with her on almost every point and would defend her right to her position and its expression; but I was sold a bold truth-teller silenced by the woke surveillance state, and instead got a litany of the most boring, reductive, obvious gender-critical arguments filtered through a pointed provocation that has turned into outright meanness. It felt to me like even the gender-critical argument has moved far past her at this point. Mileage may vary, of course, but I wonder the extent to which her alleged censorship is her greatest selling point at this point--if there's anything at all about her actual position that made her attractive as a Rogan guest.
I enjoy Joe Rogan although I only listen to maybe 1 episode a month if that. I did happen to listen to the Megan Murphy one and I think the thing that needs to be addressed is that Murphy is not a serious person, clearly could not make a serious defense of Marxism even if she was still dressed in her leftist costume, and that Joe Rogan was completely aware of that. If I remember correctly, the brief discussion about Marxism wasn’t even really about Marxism it was more about making fun of college kids, particularly Megan Murphy’s former self (which lets face it, is entirely deserving of mockery). I found the Murphy episode a perfect illustration of the “give people a mic and let them show you who they are” principle completely destroying any mystique or power they had in the haziness if your mind. The woman is an idiot, with an annoyingly affected “cool girl” persona who does seems to genuinely dislike and have bigotry toward trans people in a way someone like Rogan does not.
More broadly I think Rogan is both a curious and open minded person and a human who has predisposed interests and opinions and all that seems…fine to me?
I'm pretty curious as to what evidence we're basing "ivermectin should absolutely not be taken to treat COVID-19" on. I'm not a medical doctor, but my understanding is that if this said "should absolutely not be seen as a cure for" it would be correct. It also seems to me like this is a ludicrous statement for someone who isn't a medical doctor to make. There's lots of doctors, particularly outside the US, who do prescribe it, and although I'm suspicious of being too deferential to expertise I'd trust them more than I would a professor of rhetoric and composition, said with no offense intended.
This just seems like a bizarrely culture warrior statement I'm not used to seeing here. One tribe has decided Ivermectin is an awful horse dewormer. One side has decided it's a secret cure They don't want you to know about. Claiming it's not a dewormer but still should not be taken seems like the same problem: an evidence free assertion designed only to signal. With the added benefit of being more exciting than the bland reality of it being likely useless but unharmful with no real evidence in any direction.
As an aside, the fact that some random medicine no one had heard of before is now a culture war signifier is probably a sign we need to reboot all this shit.
"The spaces without that constant fear of sitting at the wrong table feel refreshing"
I really liked this line. "Constant fear of sitting at the wrong table" is very much the Twitter vibe nowadays, at least in certain areas.