I'm not sure he's a great entertainer either, but for sure he's a great conversationalist.

His opponents aren't arguing he's not entertaining. The argument is that he platforms dangerous misinformation.

Militant extremists, climate change deniers, COVID misinformation, antivaxxers, etc. And he's generally credulous. He had Jordan Peterson in doing climate change denial just the other day.

This misinformation has material negative impact on all our lives. He's like Paltrow's Goop but for men.

And while we have freedom of speech, we also acknowledge as a society that some lies are too dangerous to allow -- that's why fraud, perjury, slander, filing a false report, false advertising, etc. are all illegal. It's just that reality itself can't sue for defamation.

What about people who deny great replacement?

Oh, wait wait wait, no, those people are actually right, it's the ones saying it _is_ happening who are wrong-thinking. Got it. Let me check my notes again; it's the global warming that is definitely happening and cannot be denied, and the great replacement that is definitely not happening and must be denied (or alternatively you can acknowledge it but say it's actually a great thing).

Do you see where I'm getting at? We must debate all those things in a healthy democracy. We can debate whether Russia or the US is right regarding the Ukraine. We can debate immigration. We can debate vaccines. We can debate whether or not it's true that Saddam actually has WMDs and whether it's wise to invade Iraq. We can debate whether or not smoking causes cancer. We can debate whether or not there is actually a risk with asbestos. We should debate all this stuff.

In case my point is not clear in a sarcastic form let me be more explicit: history has shown that we have been wrong about so many things in so many fields (medical, diplomacy, etc.) over the years. And conventional wisdom about certain things can completely flip over time. Thus we should never exclude debate and skepticism.

> This misinformation has material negative impact on all our lives.

Can you give a specific example of a material negative impact that Joe Rogan's show has had on your life?

He says what people want to hear. People like having their sensibilities pandered to, so they tune in and the whole thing turns into a pretty lucrative cycle.

But not what you want to hear though, right? Why not?

Because the median human is as stupid as a rock. As Rolling Stone illustrates today, Joe Rogan is what an idiot thinks a smart person sounds like.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-pet...

The average person isn’t stupid or dumb and I’ve found when people claim they are it’s usually a projection.

The average person is not stupid, but the average person is irrational about some topic that has high visibility, usually due to tense emotions. I find that this is usually what people are referring to when they say people are "stupid" - not that they aren't clever or don't have good instincts or are low IQ.

That’s definitely the case, I just take issue with calling them stupid.

Rolling Stone, the publication that lied about Oklahoma ERs over ran by "horse dewormer overdoses" who had a room of gun shot victims that could be seen? (bc you know... Oklahoma rolls hard with those gun shot victims)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rolling-stone-cov...

Rolling Stone - the publication that ran fake rape accusations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

And you want to talk about dumb as a rock and cite that shit hole rag?

Weird. A publication that has gotten a few things wrong in its 60 year history. Unprecedented.

Show your sychophancy to authoritarianism harder.

Yes, having the reasonable expectation that publications with long histories occasionally get things wrong is definitely an immutable support for authoritarianism...

> Joe Rogan is what an idiot thinks a smart person sounds like.

Could replace Joe with either of the Weinsteins as well.

And the Weinsteins are both very smart. But being smart can mean you’re very good at making a compelling argument for something that’s wrong.

That’s what they do. Same with Jordan Peterson.

If only we could have the world run exclusively by smart people. Let me guess, you’d be one of them?

I don't think an appeal to popularity is a useful or interesting challenge, even on topics so closely related to popularity like this. It's perfectly valid to have an opinion that some piece of entertainment media is "bad" while acknowledging that it is popular. There are plenty of reasons a non-fiction content creator in particular can gain popularity without being good at entertaining. E.g. if he gets guests that are perceived by a large group of people as challenging a status quo that they hate, he may develop a religious-like following among that group, and that certainly is viable outside the context of entertainment value.

For the record, I am coming from the perspective of having listened to very few episodes, but enjoying what I heard.