By your logic, would Ignaz Semmelweis, Giordano Bruno, or Nicolaus Copernicus be allowed on a mainstream platform today? And does that even matter to you?
Their ideas were so shocking they weren't only banned, but were made pariahs of, thrown into asylums, and burned.
The best we can do is hear different ideas with an open mind, and use our logic and discernment to come to our own judgements.
Since the quality of judgement differs greatly from person to person, it's dangerous to allow your flow of information to be filtered by corporate or governmental pressures; let alone by any single segment of society.
I think if you review the biographies of those three individuals, you will find that the stories of their persecutions are a lot more complex than that they were attacked for their novel ideas (though that is certainly an aspect). In most cases it wasn't their scientific ideas that were shocking or banned, but their political affiliations or religious stances. I think all three would have a platform today, because they provided evidence based and extensively reasoned positions. I see Rogan in rather the opposite way: he is contributing noise to the larger discussion by intentionally amplifying particular voices, without regard for whether or not they are in good faith, because they resonate with him or his perception of his audience. If Rogan were finding and amplifying voices that had evidence based arguments that contributed to overall understanding, I would be much more positively inclined.
Though all that said, I'm against deplatforming him.
I'm guessing not. Most of these people calling to censor him have never listened to a second of his show besides the sound bites the corporate media (who see him as competition even though he's never claimed to be a journalist) has played. Or they are articles out headlines. You can tell someone who's never watched him because they claim he's a right winger when really he's further left than they are.
Some of the things that are said are crazy. I listen to a lot of podcasts because I listen to them while I work. A lot of the news shows will just cut up parts of an interviews to make it more controversial than it really is. It is really disingenuous. However I don't think it is effectively anymore as anyone can get just find out for themselves.
>Or, for the last two years, Covid and only Covid.
like jim gaffigan, adam curry, carrot top, beeple, steven pinker, ron white, snoop dog, gilbert gottfried, chuck palahniuk... i mean, i could go on and on.
> Or, for the last two years, Covid and only Covid.
It's the biggest story in the world right now and if affecting everyone. You expect him to have a 3 hour conversation and not talk about covid once? And despite what your echo chambers tell you he doesn't only talk about covid.
> Or, for the last two years, Covid and only Covid.
Like every other TV show, news papers, radio program because it has been a persistent feature of our lives for almost 2 years now. How is this a criticism?
> And anyone who disagrees with him, including the world's leading experts are stupid.
I doubt he said this. I've seen clips where he has questioned orthodoxy surrounding things like mask mandates and vaccine mandates and the effectiveness therein. But I doubt he called people straight out of stupid because they disagree with him.
> Then he has Alex Jones on to say provocative things to boost his audience.
And? Are you saying he should get boring people on his show? That he shouldn't have popular people on there?
Alex Jones was made notorious because of his removal from many social media platforms.
Many people find Alex Jones entertaining. That doesn't mean they agree with his views. I find Alex Jones entertaining but I think many of his views are ridiculous.
> But yes, we will call this open research, and not being a shock jock somehow..
I didn't say it was open research. I was disputing the fact he is a shock jock. A shock jock goes out of their way to be controversial. Think Howard Stern in the 90s. Joe Rogan isn't isn't that.
The controversy around Joe Rogan is drummed up by his competition (tradition news and media) to ironically get views (the thing you were complaining about by him having Alex Jones on the show).
I have never listened to Rogan until a few days ago when this whole Spotify controversy popped up on my radar. Today I listened to an interview with a former Navy SEAL that had nothing to do with controversial issues, vaccines, etc. It was an interesting conversation about life, about learning to deal with balancing family and work (especially when your line of work involved heavy travel and military engagement in foreign lands). Didn't seem "alex jones"-like at all. Maybe best to just pick and choose which topics interest you, and ignore the controversies?
He's a shock jock in the sense that he absolutely knows that his program fuels any kind of outrage and he leans into that in an effort to keep his name relevant.
If you don't think he's aware that his show causes outrage in some form or another, and that he intentionally leans into that aspect in order to keep his profile high and the money flowing, akin to a shock jock, then I dunno what to tell you.
Obviously he’s aware his show upsets people who haven’t watched it, they keep trying to cancel him! I don’t think he really cares.
If someone's decided to be upset over Rogan, there’s not much he can, or should, do about it. The content is not shocking, it’s the intolerant overreaction that shocks the wannabe censors.
And I'm positing that he intentionally feeds the intolerant reaction because it keeps his profile raised and the revenue flowing. That, at a high level, makes him a shock jock.
The content - offensive/inaccurate or not - doesn't matter if the host knows their show causes outrage and chooses to lean into it.
Edit: He's different from other shock jocks, though, in that he's been smart enough to do this in a way that straddles the line - he doesn't look like a Limbaugh or a Stern and can say that he's "just doing research" and "only asking questions", while still intentionally profiting from outrage.
He interviews people with controversial opinions because there are other sides to stories that deserve to be highlighted.
People like him because he appears to genuinely mean that.
It is clear that if arguments like how often he said "cunt" or "nigger" on air get tossed into the debate of censoring his podcasts on covid-related matters, the pitchfork brigade is just out to get him. Not much coherency here.
It is a shorthand for “he editorializes for creating controversy, regardless the results of such, because that’s his business edge. That what allows him to get bigger rewards than others”.
What this thread cries about it Rogan and Spotify trying to minimize the downside of risk they have just suffered - what gives you bigger gain can also cause you bigger losses (and not that big here tbh)
I have watched a lot of longform podcasts, and pretty much most longform podcasts that are just two people talking have little to no editorialization of anything.
Joe Rogan Experience in particular is just him and some other dude/dudette talking for 3 hours straight.
I have never seen media more unscripted than these podcasts, except maybe live sports, but even those have egregious commercial breaks. Given how unscripted and extemporaneous his 3+ hour interviews are, I highly doubt he even has time to make them scripted, contrived and "editorialize(d) for creating controversy". What is he supposed to do prepare 3 hours for every 3 hours of podcasting he does, editorialize that 3 hours, and by the way he has another job as a comedian, so after that would he prepare for his comedy routine, and then by the time the runs his show and hangs out, he wakes up before he has any chance to sleep because he does like 3 of these interviews every week?
There is no editorialization, and if there were it would have to be extremely minimal. Trust me, just watch a few of them, entire episodes that is. Its just two people talking for 3 hours straight, maybe on drugs, maybe a little high, maybe just completely hammered, or completely sober. Its just two people talking, and he puts it up online so others can enjoy it as well, and you're trying to convince yourself he does it for a motive. You can do the exact same thing too, just talk with someone you find interesting for a few hours and put it up online, no need to be mad that he has a big audience.
Go ahead, Downvote me without providing an explanation. What does that even prove except that you have no grounds for your statement and are cowards afraid to even debate anonymously?
I could care less about losing internet points - but you should look at yourself in the mirror and see what it represents about who you are.
