He’s also like a great interviewer, man. The one he has with John Carmack is great. He doesn’t know shit about Carmack’s stuff but he interviews him so well. Carmack is a great guest but also Rogan is a great interviewer.

Anytime I see American interviewers they’re always trying to gotcha the guy. Joe Rogan just lets the guy say his piece. Then I can judge afterwards.

Masterwork compared to all these hacks like Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson.

“Oh, he didn’t challenge him on the X”. Yeah, bro, he’s not your personal attack dog. If the dude is a Nazi, JR lets him say Nazi shit. Then I know the dude is a Nazi. All these other interviewers are like it doesn’t matter who they’re interviewing. You’re watching the host.

With Rogan, I get the other guy.

There really is a need for an unfiltered, long form, respectful interview. Rogan does that better than anyone right now.

I also like Lex Fridman's show for the same reason [0] - but Lex has the technical chops. In fact Joe Rogan and Lex have interviewed each other on their own shows.

[0] https://lexfridman.com

Spot-on. It’s all about the guests, rather than the host.

Learning the hard way are we NYT?

Since they don't like anyone who is successful and who wants to have a free conversation with anyone (and made a fortune out of it) whilst somehow hurting some of their feelings, cancelling them is how they cope.

Well the big 'surprise' is that his audience doesn't care and watch on happily, whilst the NYT continue to cope with the show going on. He's $100m+ up and they're still 'hate-watching'.

Good for Joe.

I disagree. He's not cancelable because his followers don't have the "cancelling" mindset. "He says mean things" is not a convincing argument.

I would go eve further and say that having a PK mindset is the real problem today.

what is a PK mindset? I am reading it as primary key, but that doesn't sound right. Googling didn't turn up anything that seemed to fit.

I think we just need new content ratings. We don’t show children 18+ content because they are emotionally and mentally unable to process it. A lot of the left seem unable to do the same for a lot of content.

I personally cannot emotionally handle seeing all this cancel culture stuff constantly so I block as much as I can on Twitter, YouTube, web, etc. And life is better this way.

I would prefer a single toggle to block all identity politics though cross platform.

This is just “trigger warning” by another name.

And we all would feel healthier with a block-list for identity politics so that our lymbic system can once in a while take a break and not be triggered by the latest outrage.

I just stay away from platforms that are full of outrage porn. Another plus is that I have more time for other useful or enjoyable stuff.

Modernity is marked by the requirement to choose a worldview as technology increases our interactions with others who's alternative perspectives of reality challenge and conflict with our own. This is the basic conclusion Sociologists of religion came to in the 90's when they saw the rest of the world wasn't modernizing like Europe did by secularizing.

The challenge of competing worldviews is really one of the central sociological challenges today. The natural tendency seems to be to try to push the contaminating thoughts to the margins of society - and all groups (left, right, religious, secular, etc) engage in this basic tendency. Its disturbing to live with people who's basic view of reality challenges your own.

The NYT represents mainstream left's attempt maintain worldview solidarity (and again, each group engages in this activity) so it seems natural they take issue with Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice in responding to the smorgasbord of modernity: engage with all the alternatives openly. Rogan states several times the format of his podcast is designed for this - 4 hour conversations. Not scripted, not planned, just conversation. Such conversations are apparently deeply interesting to people who'd rather not spend their time in parochial attempts to shore up their own worldview across society.

I do find it hard to tell (sometimes) whether Rogan's guests are on the level, but maybe that reflects the inherent ambiguity of life. I mean relativity in epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics has been mainstream for decades, if not generations. I expect the attempt to turn back the clock on modernity from conservative religious groups, but its always seems strangely inconsistent when coming from the NYT.

I understand and agree with your point, but I do not agree that the NYT represents the mainstream left anymore. The 1619 project is one of the most polarizing and radical points of view (not to mention being fundamentally wrong on many pretenses) in the west today. They’ve been sliding further and further to the radical side of the progressive left for years all for the clicks. They got rid of Bari Weiss for crying out loud. This piece is weird in that it’s treating someone with whom they fundamentally disagree with kid gloves.

The radical progressive left is effectively the mainstream these days; the NYT is one of many high profile representatives of its beliefs.

I don’t know that you could really call the 1619 project leftist/progressive though. A good portion of the criticism came from Marxists, such as the series of articles and books that came from the World Socialist Web Site.

https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/04/intr-d04.html

It's a perfect representation of progressivism. It's a complete fabrication used to forward malicious progressive agendas that received enthusiastic support when first seen and is only now being distanced because it's position is untenable. It's practically cookie cutter.

`Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice` but in reality this a marketing gimmick. As the article argues, his view is actually mainstream and popular and leads to commercial success.

I didn't mean to imply Rogan is some underdog, but that Rogan and the NYT represent different approaches to the ambiguity of modernity. The NYT aims for worldview solidarity while Rogan accepts and embraces the ambiguity.

I also suspect his topics just appeal to young men (fitness, comedians, Elon Musk) and that accounts for a portion of his base.

This feels like the same argument as giving airtime to climate change conspiracy theorists. "We have to give both sides equal airtime".

Embracing ambiguity is fine when there is genuine ambiguity. Portraying minority or fringe ideas as 'ambiguity' is dangerous.

The lab leak hypothesis was seen as fringe just 4 months ago.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're setting yourself up as an arbiter of reason, or sanity, or safety in the realm of ideas. This is a fine aspiration, but you can clearly see that not all, or even many, will accept your analysis.

So you go into problem solving mode - and end up with government, or trust and safety boards, or religion, or any of the myriad of communities humans develop to corral the marketplace of ideas.

All of those systems suffer from humanity's profound fallibility and until that stops being the case, actually talking out all issues will be the only reasonable method of handling freedom of speech.

Some limits are obvious, but because human fallibility is so profound, we should be equally as profound in allowing ambiguous ideas the space to be understood and charity in interpretation. To do otherwise is embracing ignorance and folly.

Then don't listen to it if you think it's dangerous. But don't try to control what others are doing. I'm perfectly fine listening to people saying stupid things about climate change or other topics. That should be the case for virtually any adults.

This feels like a demand for 1930s and 40s style book burning of 'dangerous' ideas.

See the positive side, NYT: you might be lamenting being unable to cancel a more popular person, but you can always celebrate your ability to cancel the little person. And of course you can always continue profitably suck up to real corporate and political power - nothing will take that away from you!

Personally, I just wish "hollier than thou", WMD-peddling, Scott-Alexander-expose, US foreign policy lapdog, petty coastal elitist NYT itself got cancelled...

> US foreign policy lapdog, petty coastal elitist NYT itself got cancelled...

Well said. NYT is insufferable and has been for a while. Maybe it always has been.

Right. Is there anything more insufferable than the sanctimonious prose of the NYT?

You cant cancel Freedom folks. No matter how hard the Liberals try, Freedom and America go hand in hand and always will. This is Gods nation and so long as the majority is God fearing and seeking personal Liberty & Sovereignty there is no such thing as cancel culture. They can pretend all they want the past never happened, but as they say "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!" I dont do social media and I dont watch the news, because I dont care what other people think about MY Freedom:) Cheers, God Bless, Best Wishes and Happy 4th of JULY AMERICA, We LOVE You :)

Had to check a few times to make sure it was published as news and not as an editorial...

Ah to have such freedom to express one’s opinion with little worry of losing one’s job, livelihood, and family. What a true luxury. The ability to speak openly, without worry, is the new privilege.

I saw this all the time in Nashville after my family moved there, a person couldn't even admit to being gay and keep their job.

I got fired once for admitting I had gotten a divorce in the past. I shit you not.

Definitely saw people get fired for being pro-choice.

Maybe I've been in the workforce too long but I don't think this is entirely a new thing.

I think it goes much further than that, and it is the employers to blame. A person should be able to speak their mind politely and non-threatening, without fear of losing their job, or their safety threatened. Unfortunately it is the employers that are bullied into believing that to keep that employee, for example, who said that the arson and fires of Kenosha were absolutely wrong, might somehow jeopardize the entire company or their safety. [a] Consequently they cave to this paranoia, or perhaps fear of violence, and fire the person.

I think it’s abhorrent, cowardly, and companies should be held liable for doing so.

Eventually we are going to reach some point where companies start to fear lawyers and civil judgements more than they fear the Internet mob. Once a company has to shell out millions for improperly dismissing an employee Because they exercised a nonviolent freedom of speech outside of the workplace, then perhaps they will grow a spine.

{a}. https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...

Employee opinion is linked to company opinion. Insofar as the market cares what a company thinks about politics, having the wrong opinions can hurt the company.

If you force a company to keep a "disruptive" employee, can you force a customer to purchase from that company?

But what is a disruptive employee? Someone who speaks their mind respectfully and politely outside of work? A company should not be able to claim but someone is disruptive simply because they exercise their right to speak on an issue outside of the workplace. You may have just identified the legal action. Was the employee disruptive? If courts ruled that the employee was not disruptive to the company, then it’s possible a court could rule that their termination was not justified. I’m not sure what company you work for, but I certainly hope it’s not as dictatorial and all powerful

Just the opposite. It's a very old privilege. And a ton of people have never had it.

Some people who have gotten used to that privilege are starting to lose it. That makes them pretty angry. The problem is that they're angry at the people who never had the privilege. And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them.

Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you.

So the people who got used to it are pretty grumpy. I suppose I understand that. But for a lot of people, their response is "Hi, welcome to my Tuesday, or any other day ending in 'y'".

> And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them.

Cite proof of this, this is exaggeration at best or more accurately a complete falsehood.

> Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you.

Certain opinions deemed "Hurtful" include, we should have right to fair trial, we shouldn't discriminate based on race, we shouldn't bring back book burning, and sins of the father is archaic and ridiculous.

There's a lot of truth in this. I retired recently on not a lot of money because of poor planning, but I am wealthy in time and the option to say what is on my mind. It's not bad.

True.

And the Times found this out because they've been trying long enough?

Certainly sounds like it, very strange and angry unsatisfying article that it is

he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. but short of that he’s fine

> he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content. but short of that he’s fine

His metrics would take a tumble but he’d end up being the big draw to another platform as soon as he published to it. Word would get around and he’d have a big audience again. I would be surprised if he didn’t have something up his sleeve already.

>he would be instantly cancelled if youtube and facebook and twitter (and spotify) all decided to ban his content.

You saying he would be cancelled if he got cancelled?

At this point? If he got canceled, he probably has the name recognition to start his own thing and 2~5 years later be at the same audience numbers.

He canceled himself out of youtube, "good for him" I'd say

I guess big in this sense means he has a very large number of fans who agree with his opinions who are mostly young single men in the 25-40 demographic with disposable income.

What is wrong with him i heard a few of them and they been pretty good ?

Nothing as far a I know. He has strong opinions but he understand why some might not agree with him. He considers information he might not agree with. Whatever ever he's doing with that microphone, it's working.

>He considers information he might not agree with.

I've never watched his stuff, but this line alone sounds like a roaring approval to me.

I love how you jumped from "liked by young single men" to "it must be bad". That's the same way people try to attack Jordan Peterson.

That said, Joe Rogan thinks for himself, interviews left and right wing people and he has a mix of left and right wing opinions.

He's been labeled controversial by some left wing outlets multiple times last I checked.

Lastly because he advised young healthy people to not vaccinate.