Well said.

People are so used to shows and popular voices pushing agendas that it seems they're flummoxed when one isn't doing that. Apparently under the impression that Rogan is endorsing everything his guests say and that his listeners just blindly absorb/repeat.

But he isn't pushing an agenda, isn't telling you what to think, doesn't filter by ideology. He's just having conversations with people that he thinks are interesting and treats them respectfully, like a friend would in real life. That's why it resonates, is refreshing, and will continue to mystify those that expect everything to fit neatly in a pre-defined, pre-approved box.

This is a false dichotomy of filtering vs non-filtering. It’s sad that we are at that point in polarization where we can’t have a discussion or debate anymore and everything has to be either labeled or unfiltered. A knowledgeable host or other guest challenging a guest about a scientific fact is not having an agenda, it’s critical thinking than can lead to a healthy discussion and it used to be interesting for listeners to make their own opinion, it’s not hand guiding. There is a large spectrum between being completely passive/complacent and confrontational/insulting/canceling.

Joe Rogan is already in the middle. There are plenty of arguments and introspections where he strives to get more details and confirm the truth.

He just doesn't do it all the time with every guest and topic; but that's a side-effect of having long casual meandering conversations so people get upset when it doesn't happen with intensity they want against the content they disagree about.

In order to be in the middle you need to express an opinion. He seems to not be anywhere on the political spectrum, and that annoys me. Why listen to a political nihilist host morally depraved, political extremist crackpots?

In the context of this thread, being in the middle means he neither accepts everything blindly nor argues every single point, but questions refutes topics where he's knowledgeable or curious about while letting the conversation flow freely. It produces the greatest insight into how the guests think and what they really believe.

Rogan has expressed many strong opinions and has changed those opinions over the years. He's definitely not a nihilist and very clearly leans left on most issues with a few conservative points regarding individualistic rights and personal freedom. He also hosts many interesting people from many disciplines that I've learned a lot from.

It seems like you've never actually listened to any episodes and your comment represents the ignorant and shallow views that people accuse the JRE show of having.

Someone might listen because they believe the world is more complicated than a one-dimensional 'political' model would imply, and that the vast majority of reality and the human experience lies outside of the select few categories that exist in any given society at the moment.

"Forgive him; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

Yes, and Rogan would fall into the healthy part of that spectrum. People who say he's totally passive or unchallenging aren't actually familiar with the show - they're just echoing a tired tribal talking point.

But he chooses his guests. You can’t say he exercises no editorial control over the content of the show because he just lets the conversation flow. He chose to have Alex Jones on.

I didn't say that, only that he doesn't limit the conversation. Of course he chooses his guests, and I choose whether to listen or not.

And in case you didn't know, Joe Rogan has been personal friends with Alex Jones since the 90s. To him, he's just another friend on the podcast.

> To him, he's just another friend on the podcast.

I know. And to people critical of Rogan's editorial choices, he is a malicious liar who was given a massive platform with which to share his views in an uncritical setting.

Have you actually watched any of the shows with Alex Jones on JRE? What I’ve seen is Rogan doing a great job of calling him on his BS, while still being friendly. I wouldn’t call it an ‘uncritical setting’.

And those people should perhaps listen to the episodes to see that it was far from uncritical, or they will ironically continue in the same ignorance they claim the show to have.

Alex Jones is a terrible human being. Rogan is another con man in Jones’ vein, and the fact that they’re friends should tell you that Rogan isn’t a good person, either. Nobody who chooses to amplify Jones can be considered a decent person.

What's interesting is that all these warnings against Jones and guilt-by-association is generally from people blindly repeating the same thing while being ignorant and uninterested in the real details. The very episodes that people are worried about are actually the best explanations of who Jones is and his friendship with Rogan, and they include disclosures and harsh criticisms against what he's said and done.

Overall I don't understand the big deal about him. I've met truly evil people (from cartel members to death row inmates) and Jones doesn't come close. He's full of extremist conspiracies but he's also extremely easy to ignore. He barely makes a mark compared to the typical social media drivel these days anyway.