Have you considered that your average soft SV male feminist-type isn't the target audience for a couple of east coast comedians - who are by and large complete degenerates, and I use that term with all due respect - riffing on degenerate topics that are humorous to a significant segment of the population?

Much of stand up comedy comes from an extremely dark place, and its successes derived from relating stories about their messed up lives to an audience who for a fleeting moment live vicariously through them or find humorous the complete insanity and barbarity they just witnessed. And this type of comedy is very successful. To deny this is at best naive and myopic and at worst deliberate ignorance of the world around us.

It's not exclusive to the east coast; go listen to some Bobby Lee brothel stories on YouTube and prepare to be uncomfortable. These are real people, telling real stories about their past.

Please understand that people have different tastes; there is a large audience for this type of humor; everyone else try not to choke on your own tears laughing it up with Stephen Colbert.

You don't think that showing laughing acceptance of predatory behaviour normalises that behaviour instead of shaming it? (Apologies for going all Reddit ...)

Sure but that's not the same as assuming that people who laugh at a joke concur with the underlying behavior/idea.

The OP is trying to assassinate character by what a person laughs at.

It's a bit more than that, since it's judging someone by the company they keep and who's voices they amplify.

I think it’s worth taking into account the username of the person defending the humor.

Fwiw, I have an extremely dark sense of humor and I’m not arguing in either direction when pointing out the handle. I do find Rogan problematic, however.

Wow, just wow. Rancid takes like this are exactly why we have to have strong reactions to these things.

These "jokes" are not funny, and in fact are disturbing to folks that have actually internalized and lived the fact that these "jokes" are a reflection of culture.

It wasn't a joke, Jesus Christ, and the fact that you offer that up as a defense is in and of itself telling.

what’s the joke, though?

Raunchy, absurd, dialed up story-telling.

All the HNers coming out to put it on record how disgusted they are with the story remind me of that Daniel Tosh clip where a heckler shouts "rape is never funny" and he goes "it's not... but wouldn't it be funny if someone raped [the heckler]?" and everyone laughs.

It's like watching people get offended on the behalf of babies over some dead baby jokes and then lecturing each other on a forum.

xD!!! It's funny because edgy

Well, yes. But unlike most edginess, it’s edge that people can’t actually handle (just read these threads) which Diaz’s shtick.

People forget that edginess used to mean that but it turned into bits like Chelsea Handler retelling how she got gangbanged over the weekend.

Thanks for at least going full mask off, though I doubt you realized you were doing so. I'm sure I'll get put in my place for this but JFC.

Here's the clip for anyone who's curious:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news...

I'm generally fairly ambivalent about Joe Rogan. I will listen occasionally if he has an interesting guest, and I feel a lot of the outrage about him is overblown. But I agree this is pretty disgusting.

Diaz’s whole shtick as a comedian is that he tells these off the cuff, crazy, somewhat believable, but always totally fictional stories about himself. They’re always super offensive, and paint him as a sort of greasy criminal/mobster.

So this clip alone isn’t really enough to come to any conclusions.

That would be truly awful if the stories he told were at all true, but without additional evidence I’m inclined to believe that they’re nothing more than a comedy routine.

The story in this video is offensive for sure, but in context it also wasn’t really all that taboo to make those types of jokes back when this was recorded.

This was 2010 not 1955 for fucks sake.

Back then! Jesus Christ.

I don't think it's very controversial to point out that kind of shock story-telling was less taboo 12 years ago.

I think this comments section demonstrates it. TFA is a pretty uninteresting retelling of their experience in Rogan's studio. Yet the top HN comment is pearl clutching over that 12-year-old Diaz clip that has nothing to do with TFA and all of HN is going on record to be tough like Scruff McGruff on raunchy stories.

And did you guys, like, see what Joe did? He laughed at it. Like a hyena.

In 1955 the casting couch stuff was common place and acceptable, at least in some circles. In 2010 not so much, but still acceptable to make jokes about. After the “metoo“ movement, it’s a lot more taboo to joke about.

this comment is literally the definition of gaslighting.

Trying to diminish something said in earnest by later claiming it was a joke is definitely a technique that can be used to gaslight.

But right now we’re talking about a comedian who’s essentially recording himself performing. It’s quite obviously different.

It would be silly to assume a comedian is telling the truth during a performance, and absurd to claim said comedian is gaslighting when he later explains that he was joking.

So everything said by Joey Diaz and joe Rohan on their podcast is, in your view, a joke with no truth value?

No, you just have to be a fan so you can pick and choose which problematic bits you claim and which you disavow. No matter that they change over time, or the general cult of personality allows people to think Joe is "unproblematic" at least at stretches of time, even though it's easy to find constant, repeated indicators of his actual character. It's really just amazing the parasocial relationships that even HNera fall for and have zero outside perspective on.

Or it’s a wholly accurate representation of Joey Diaz’s act.

However, that doesn’t have to change the fact that if his comedy’s content (true or not) is offensive to you that you have to like it, accept it, pay to see it…etc.

God, half the reason I didn't look it up is I knew it'd just piss me off again, but I forgot all that about being proud he "broke" someone.

So yeah, I would really not associate my business with this cluster of clowns.

that video is 12 years old. As far as I can tell every episode back then was a bunch of wasted/high comedians talking sht to an audience of basically themselves

Sure, but given multiple opportunities (every time the clip gets brought up) to condemn it, he hasn’t. This should tell you enough.

...so? If anything that's worse because it indicates their true outlook and behaviour.

We should take into account the amount of time he spends being recorded, the frequency of the incidents, and the trends of the incidents over time. I think most everyone has said something wrong in the last 12 years. If it happened 12 years ago and hasn't happened since, then I'll give him a pass. If it's a repeating thing, then I'll judge more harshly.

Did you describe forcing a dozen women to give you a blow job 12 years ago? I didn’t.

Why is that so trivial to you?

I was referring to Joe Rogan laughing at the story. I'm not going to judge someone based solely on their reaction to a story being told to them 12 years ago.

That is not what is described in the joke.

"When people show you who they are the first time believe them." -- Maya Angelou

"Base your morality on internet quotes and don't accept that people and times change." — Mark Twain

That quote is often misattributed to mark twain but it was actually Kaiser Wilhelm the 3rd. It's a common mistake.

Why should we believe he’s changed?

>we You're an individual not a group

‘We’ means this person expects you to agree/comply

You don't even have to go deep into the archives to feel uncomfortable with this whole world's treatment of gender issues. Directly from this article:

>At a long desk in the big main room sits an attractive nurse. She offers us an enhancer of B12 or NAD+, through a shot or an IV.

>I get a shot of NAD+, which is supposed to be good for energy and metabolism. NAD stands for Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide, and I don’t know what the + is. (Actually, I don’t know what any of it is, but the nurse said she takes it, and if you saw this woman, you too would ask for a shot of whatever she’s on.)

What are we supposed to take away from this? Is this nurse actually trained for this? If so, isn't the author completely dismissing that training because the nurse is attractive? If not, isn't Rogan basically just hiring a model to pump his guests full of unknown drugs? Neither option is great. And this was written by the VP of Communication for Substack and is approved by Rogan. This isn't some unauthorized look behind the scenes. This is what they want to advertise. It just gives me the creeps.

Well no, the way I read is quite literal without anything misogynistic - if a person is saying that they personally take X to affect their body, then the appearance of their body is some (weak but still) evidence about what effect X has, and the decision of whether you want to imitate their actions is influenced by whether you want to look like they do, whether the results they're getting seem worth imitating. The author was apparently considering that personal experience as a user of that product (and the visible outcome) was more relevant than whatever some specialist would have read about it.

Like, for an example of the opposite gender, if someone you trust says they did a particular treatment to fix male pattern baldness, then it seems reasonable to put some weight in their personal experience and how their hair looks after the treatment, especially if you don't trust the official descriptions/PR/advertising claims, then even small amounts of anecdotal but real evidence might seem more valuable.

What you describe is fundamental to advertising. Your specific example was literally a decades long advertising campaign, "I'm not only the Hair Club president, I'm also a client."[1]

I'm not going to buy a pair of shoes just because Michael Jordan wears them. The shoes aren't the reason he was good at basketball and there is no reason to believe this nurse was attractive because of these injections.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeFoLdeqG1I&t=55s

> If not, isn't Rogan basically just hiring a model to pump his guests full of unknown drugs?

> Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is a coenzyme central to metabolism. Found in all living cells, NAD is called a dinucleotide because it consists of two nucleotides joined through their phosphate groups...NAD exists in two forms: an oxidized and reduced form, abbreviated as NAD+ and NADH (H for hydrogen), respectively. [0]

It's worth noting that NAD+ is well-known. Artificial supplementation I'm not so sure about, but it's inside you already. I...somehow doubt they're just injecting raw NAD+ but I suppose it could be?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinamide_adenine_dinucleot...

Cyanide is also well-known and probably inside me already and yet I wouldn't be happy with someone injecting it directly into me.

I don't really care about the specifics of what they are injecting. I am objecting to how they are pressuring people, perhaps unintentionally, in the moment to accept the injection of a substance in which the injectee admits they don't understand. It is especially ironic considering Rogan's various comments about vaccines. Thousands of doctors can tell me that the COVID vaccine is safe and I am supposed to doubt them. One nurse tells me NAD+ is safe and I am supposed to believe her.

> I am objecting to how they are pressuring people, perhaps unintentionally, in the moment to accept the injection of a substance in which the injectee admits they don't understand.

I am just guess of course, but I am pretty sure anyone able to achieve a CEO or VP title of a well known internet media company probably has the ability and determination to say the words “no thank you” if they don’t want something injected into their body when asked. I am neither a CEO or a VP of an internet media company, but just a normal dude, and I have no problem telling someone “no”.

Honestly have really reached that place where HN commenters feel that we have to protect wealthy and successful adults from big bad podcasting boogeymen?

>Honestly have really reached that place where HN commenters feel that we have to protect wealthy and successful adults from big bad podcasting boogeymen?

Have we reached the place in which empathy must be conditional? I can feel bad for people who are put in an uncomfortable situation regardless of their level of success.

Angelina Jolie might have won an Oscar, have hundreds of millions in the bank, and was able to turn down his advances, but I will still feel empathy for her for being the target of Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment. Rich and successful people are still people.

> Have we reached the place in which empathy must be conditional? I can feel bad for people who are put in an uncomfortable situation regardless of their level of success.

Empathy…is that what that was? See I took it as someone calling Joe Rogan a bully and belittling two successful intelligent adults as being effectively too simple and stupid to realize they were being bullied. Frankly, that’s far from empathy…that’s elitism.

> What are we supposed to take away from this? Is this nurse actually trained for this?

This a nurse not a metabolism researcher, she might know a fuck ton about NAD+ but it wouldn't be because she's a nurse. Most medical professionals (especially nurses) are trained on the delivery of medical care, not necessarily the ins and outs of supplements.

Is that supposed to make the situation better? I believe there is an inverse relationship between this person's knowledge of NAD+ and the creepiness of Rogan having her offer it to guests. Can this person speak to why someone should get this injection or answer questions about the side effects or potential negative interactions this could have with other drugs? I think that is basic knowledge a qualified nurse would normally have when administering care. Not having someone on site to speak to this would make Rogan's offering of the injections creepy in my opinion.

CBD has way more interactions than NAD but I don't expect my barista to be able to know all of them off the top of her head just because she's selling me a cookie with it in it.

It's a nurse, who's giving you a shot of you want it of a supplement that may or may not do anything.

FYI, the author is female, so I believe this qualifies as a "female perspective".

The author wasn't a mystery to me. I mentioned her by her title. Misogyny isn't limited to men. Many women who run in male dominated worlds such as tech and comedy will often use misogyny as a shield to let the men around them know she is one of the cool ones.

This is not an accusation against the author's character. Like I said in my original comment, I don't know what she is trying to say with that comment. Although I guess that is its own accusation. Maybe the VP of Communication isn't great at her job if I don't understand what she is trying to communicate.

Yeah, that line stood out to me as well in exactly the same way. From reading it I think besides the "I'm one of the cool ones" effect she's doing a bit of if by whiskey. Even when she's criticizing Rogan et all she does it in a way they're likely to just be even more proud of.

The way I read it, she was very clearly communicating the nurse was full of vitality.

"Women better act the way I expect them to act or else they are misogynistic" sounds about as misogynistic as one can get.

Asking one person to speak for a group is a quick way to arrive at personal bias.

Yeah, I don't know if this article is a great look for Substack. Sounds like the author at least suffers from FOMO and falling prey to peer-pressure.

So one clip tells you everything you need to know. Do you judge everyone this way? One mistake and their whole character is defined by that?

Do you live up to that standard, or would someone be able to find some damning evidence of some dark side of you?

Is it possible that people are messy, not always consistent in their behaviour, that they have bad days? That they haven't thought everything through, that they get caught in the moment and regret it later?

Is there any grey area to you?

You know, I've done things I'm not proud of, but I generally try to keep those things to myself rather than broadcast them out for money.

In those days Rogan's audience was very small and he wasn't making much off of the podcast (if at all).

Ah well that makes it ok I suppose. Was he also a much younger man back then and he couldn't have been expected to know better? That usually excuses a lot too.

So denounce it afterward. I've had to admit and come to terms with some bad decisions. It's part of being an adult.

If there was a single clip of me giving zero pushback to someone talking about sexually preying on dozens of women, even as a "joke", I would hope that my peers judge me accordingly.

My degree is in neuroscience. People aren't consistent. The self is mutable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold each other to standards? We're intensely social creatures, the opinions of others has incredible transformative power (positive and negative) on our behavior.

Rogan has had opportunities to apologize for the clip or change his behavior. He has not.

Building a reputation takes years, destroying it takes minutes. Hundred fold for public persons.

Apologizing would help, for example.

Apologizing is (unfortunately) a trap for a public figure in this modern era, it basically never helps, as its viewed as an admission of wrongdoing by your enemies,(who will bring it up at every opportunity going forward) and weakness by your allies who supported you.(who will not support you again if something new happens as they viewed the time they spent prior wasted)

For someone complaining about the lack of nuance between too black or white you sure are being binary abour this. If someone says a mildly sexist remark, sure - grey area, could be a mistake or it could be they're a dick. But if someone says they support Hitler's ideals that's not just a mistake you can overlook.

You are attacking something I didn't say.

Suggesting that gray areas exist would absolutely not imply that everything is gray.

Furthermore, my critique had several angles, each alluding to the possibility of a different interpretation.

How is my post binary in any way?

>Do you live up to that standard, or would someone be able to find some damning evidence of some dark side of you?

Not all dark pasts are created equal

An anecdote like that would be a great opportunity to ask Diaz if he had reflected on the way he had acted and felt remorse, or if he would want his daughter/sister/spouse to be treated that way. Podcasts can sometimes be an excellent venue for having heartfelt conversations about difficult topics. What a shame.

I feel like you'd have to be pretty deep into silicon valley progressive culture to actually ask this instead of presuming that people have the capability of coming to that conclusion on their own. I would assume that someone would laugh at just how absurdly awful it is.

Sounds like a self-flagellating struggle session.

Better take: Joe Rogan has an uncanny ability to make people think he's just a bro asking questions and uses that to get people to admit to truly horrendous behavior, free of judgement, for his profit and your shock.

Seriously, what do you expect him to do when someone says something like that? Immediately end the broadcast and summon the police? What exactly do you think shows like this are for?

>Seriously, what do you expect him to do when someone says something like that?

Instead of "hyena laughing", he could maybe go, "Wait, wait, you actually did that? That's how you hired women? That's pretty fucked up, you know that, right?" and then start having a tough conversation about it.

Is that what you think his audience would prefer?

I don't really care what they would prefer, that's simply the more decent thing to do. It also speaks volumes about the audience itself if they don't wanna hear Rogan "just asking questions" about that subject.

You think that condemning them is the right way to go, rather than being nonjudgemental? The former will make them shut up. The latter will get them to open up and hang themselves with their own words, as he's proven time and again.

I would have hoped that my comments around growth, along with the fact that I have not explicitly said that they should be condemned, would suggest to any reasonable reader that I am not arguing that they should be condemned.

In point of fact, it is perfectly possible to ask hard questions without being judgmental. It's objectively wrong to deny employment to a woman just because they won't blow you, but if Rogan is as skilled of an interviewer as so many people paint him out to be, then surely he is capable of approaching the subject with tact. Give your guest the space and the comfort to feel open with discussing their past experiences and how they may view them now.

If, however, they end up feeling shame and shut up, well - that's on them.

Providing an uncritical lens and an approving audience doesn't encourage someone to change their behavior. Congratulations, we've been shown that the guy is an asshole. He also got a chance to promote his product to people who actually like that product, and arguably given an entire ecosystem that can support him and similar people.

Unless Rogan is secretly operating the world's longest, most elaborate public sting operation, I don't think the "let 'em hang themselves" argument really holds water.

"Seriously, what do you expect him to do when someone says something like that?"

A decent person would waste no time talking to a person like that to begin with, let alone give them a massive platform to be heard far and wide.

Not to dispute any of your points, but one of the reasons I find some of the JRE podcasts interesting is that he gets people to open up and talk about (admit to) stuff they otherwise might not. Joey's comments are repulsive, but it's a good thing we now know what kind of person he is.

Not sure if that's a net positive overall, but it's something to consider.

And both of them have daughters (only). There's a possibility it's a schtick from Diaz, he has this absurd persona, but still in bad taste if so.

Even if that’s true, Ken White’s Rule or Goats applies: “[s]lightly paraphrased — for this family newspaper — the rule states: If you kiss a goat, even if you say you’re doing it ironically, you’re still a goat-kisser.”

That's a really useful expression - thank you and Ken White

It actually derives from an older and more crass joke. Said joke has been slightly modified in many different forms, but here is an example:

(Warning -- Potentially Not Safe For Work)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/26pf4s/an_irishman_a...

It's actually if you fuck a goat...

If you say you are kissing a goat, but never actually kiss a goat are you still a goat kisser?

> And both of them have daughters (only)

I don't think this is really relevant, I know plenty of people that will joke in the same way about other women besides their daughters and mothers.

Maybe I'm getting off on a tangent here, but I have two daughters and I truly don't understand the idea that it's completely fine for sexually-degrading jokes to be made about every single woman except my wife/daughter/mother. If I feel that I'm free to make those kinds of jokes about every woman except the few closest to me, then I am essentially granting that same agency to every other guy, leaving my own kids open for those same degrading jokes from others. It's a double-standard, and our wives/daughters/mothers are going to see that. To me, that's a really shitty thing to do as a parent; we should be leading by example.

And that's without addressing the fact that Diaz' comment is potentially rooted in truth...

> If I feel that I'm free to make those kinds of jokes about every woman except the few closest to me, then I am essentially granting that same agency to every other guy, leaving my own kids open for those same degrading jokes from others.

In my experience (from observations) most of those people do not think the way you do, and if someone will say something like that to their daughters/mothers they will want to just fuck him up.

> It's a double-standard, and our wives/daughters/mothers are going to see that.

They see that already pretty clearly I think. Unfortunately that's the world we are living in, patriarchal world where by the law all genders should be equal but in reality men make more money than woman in same position, leadership positions are dominated by men, if a woman had a lot of partners some people will call her slut but in case of men they call him playboy etc. Double standards are everywhere around us.

Agreed. I'm just asking people to be better.

Anyone I know that followed Rogan usually begins to take on the I'm a victim to things that don't affect me persona. Whether it's those "uppity stupid women", or gays and trans "getting more rights than us". It's the usual toxic masculinity soup that's easy to drink, but poison nonetheless.

In general people aren't keyed into what falls under programming into rightwing extremist views. The formula is simple: make an argument about something that doesn't really matter, make it convincing by cherrypicking the "facts", and glossing over the inconvenient ones - then make it feel pressing and relevant to the audience by citing a [usually exaggerated] example of how this has affected some poor-mans life. It's a process that relies on ignorance, while setting off parts of the brain that lead to attentive behaviour - the exact realisation that facebook also made, hence why they significantly favour anything that gets the "angry" like-response.

Joe Rogan isn't alone in this of course. Talk-back radio does it, Reddit does it, 9gag does it - no matter where you go on the internet you'll find a place where you can be angry and scared about something that doesn't affect you one bit.

As for the media companies and personalities pushing this: yes they know.

> Anyone I know that followed Rogan usually begins to take on the I'm a victim to things that don't affect me persona.

Don't people on the left do this too, though? I mean you don't have to look much further than the comments on this story. Joe Rogan is a podcaster - nobody has to listen to him if they don't want to. And I get that he has a wide audience, but the entertainment that other people choose to consume ultimately isn't a very big concern for me and how I choose to live my life. And yet look how controversial the comments are on this fluff piece about what it's like to visit his studio for a day.

The operative problem is that the ecosystem he is nurturing does, in fact, show up at our front doors. Literal physical anti-trans violence is something I have personally experienced, and it came from a group of people spouting Rogan-esque nonsense as justification for what they were doing. Ignoring Joe Rogan does not solve the problem.

I am a victim to things that literally physically affect me that are caused in part by Joe Rogan et al. creating a narrative that violence against me and people like me is justified and/or funny.

Do you have any specific examples where Joe Rogan says that anti-trans violence is justified and/or funny?

"Don't people on the left do this too, though?"

Why is your first instinct to equivocate instead of holding people responsible? It's a weird impulse a lot of people seem to have.

The parent implied that Joe Rogan listeners were especially prone to to “taking on the I'm a victim to things that don't affect me persona”. I was just pointing out that this is by no means unique to Joe Rogan listeners or the right wing - I’d say it’s just basic human nature really. I also felt a particular sense of irony that the comment was being made in response to a rather benign fluff piece about the show: in my opinion a lot of the outrage about Rogan is overblown and the mere mention of his name seems to whip people up into a frenzy - and I wanted to point that out as well.

Whenever someone is bashing a particular group of people for exhibiting a certain trait, I think it’s worth questioning whether that trait is really unique or unusually common in that group. Many times it is not, and it is just our biases that make it seem that way. And just in general I find that it’s unproductive to make disparaging comments about large groups of people.

I do regret saying "people on the left". I used it as a counter-example to the parent comment which mentioned "right-wingers", but if I could amend it I would probably just say "people in general".

With regards to holding people responsible: I don’t know - I think it’s ok for people to have and express opinions about things that don’t affect them personally. I think where we often fail is in maintaining a healthy perspective and open mind about things - but on the other hand I don’t think it is my place to tell other people what they are allowed to get angry at or how much they are allowed to care about something. But I am all for open dialogue and questioning people about their beliefs, respectful debate, etc. - which I guess is my version of "holding people responsible".

> I’d say it’s just basic human nature really

I'd say it's a learned behavior that feels that way because we live in a society that rewards it far too much and to regularly.

It’s called the political horseshoe - but it’s exceedingly overweighted on the right wing in the USA.

Being external the USA helps provide a reference point that people inside the USA often lack.

However the key difference in my point is that people shouldn't be made to feel as if they are victims to things that don't actually matter - it's verging on propaganda.

I agree that the US has an unhealthy addiction to sensational journalism. And while I agree that it appears to be worse on the right (e.g. "stop the steal" and the ensuing capitol riot), I also find that it's so prevalent in leftwing (e.g. coverage of the Trump/Russia scandal [1]) and even "mainstream" media that it's not really worth trying to frame as a left vs. right issue since it's just what the bulk of Americans are consuming at this point. And I'm not even sure what can be done about it - as you mentioned elsewhere people are actively choosing to be scared and misled by heavily-biased journalism.

> people shouldn't be made to feel as if they are victims to things that don't actually matter - it's verging on propaganda.

I agree with you in principle here, but one issue I have is who gets to decide which things "actually matter"? I think that if you and I were to compare things that actually matter to us, there might be some irreconcilable differences.

[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-c...

We need a new word specifically for these left wing conspiracy theories. The “who radicalized you!” meme comes close but it needs to be shorter.

Reflexive heel-digging is indicative of your priorities, i.e. people you don't disagree with aren't conspiracy theorists. This topic is well covered territory and to touch further on the examples I've given: Facebook's own admissions to weighting the angry reaction 5x more than likes is, again, not a conspiracy theory.(1)

Also politically what I've written doesn't come under "left wing", it actually doesn't come under any political wing. Trying to turn this into some left/right wing disagreement is only a distraction. Indeed if you're feeling challenged in your views, then maybe the Internet isn't for you.

(1)https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/26/faceboo...

What you wrote is a often repeated line from left leaning institutions and people that follow them. I don’t disagree with you but I do disagree with the narrative you’re following.

When one normalises the right wing extremist views, everything is going to look "left wing".

It seems these days that everything that is rightwing even a little is considered extremist in left leaning circles.

There are people that don't let a single mistake sink a person. Yes that episode is bad and leaves bad taste, but everyone makes mistakes.

So yeah, I like Joe Rogan, and I'm fine with associating my brand with him. But if you know rising podcast stars like him - please share.

>There are people that don't let a single mistake sink a person.

Sure, but it's pretty easy to find plenty of similar instances throughout the JRE catalog.

This gens Charlie Rose I guess.

Diaz is absolutely disgusting

He's one of the most entertaining guests though.

>He's one of the most entertaining guests though.

"He won't give women a job unless they suck his dick, but boy is he great!"

It doesn’t make it right, but if you eliminated all popular comedians that haven’t fucked up in the past, the list would be effectively 0.

Everyone fucks up. All of us. That's a basic requirement of existence. The difference is how we react to our fuck ups, how we grow. Talking about a past experience like that, and then "hyena laughing" while moving past it like there is nothing wrong tells me that there is next to zero self-awareness and no effort to better themselves.

That's untrue. There are scores of impressive comedians, many of them women, with zero history of sexual assault or grotesque manipulation. Maybe you're just really drawn to the rapey types. Lots of men are. Many of them Rogan fans.

"I take everything two comics say at face value and it's not funny"

Well, there are "scolds" and there are people who think it's bad to compel female employees or contractors to have sex with their boss.

Hunter S. Thompson was able to interview Nixon, despite a kind of hatred he held for the man that was nearly blinding.

If you want to get people to let their guard down, be agreeable. Draw them out. Smile and nod. Let them hang themselves with their own words. That's a journalistic skill.

If you just want to be angry at them, well, write a letter. Yell at them at the phone.

With that in mind, is he there to 1) Let his guests know how much he agrees or disagrees with them? 2) Get them to say whatever and find out who they really are?

That's not at all what happened between Rogan and Diaz. Diaz tells the story of the time he borderline raped a woman repeatedly to the extent she became depressed and defeated, and Rogan laughs along like it's hilarious. Diaz returned to the show afterwards and the furor about it, to the extent there was, was not raised by Rogan after the podcast, but by would-be Rogan-cancellers.

It's fine if you like and listen to Rogan. Maybe he's grown since then. I think it's less fine to pretend like bad things didn't happen, aren't bad, or that Rogan is a journalist luring his friends to hang themselves by confessing misdeeds.

I don't listen to the guy at all, he seems like a vaguely credulous meathead, but I guess it works out for him.

You should watch or read someone like Hunter S. Thompson interview people he despises. He got his yucks on with Nixon, and this is a guy who purportedly trained his dog to savage a cloth dummy at the word "Nixon." You smile and laugh and let people hang themselves.

Similarly, I've heard the most shameful and shocking things from people you wouldn't guess, because I am told I have a very non-judgemental demeanor. Father Confessor jokes have been made, and I faintly smile and raise my eyebrows, and then people tell me about drinking a full steaming stein of their own urine. I've heard worse, far worse. People like to unburden themselves.

If you aren't judgmental about repeat sexual abuse, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, and here is the crux of it. For you, to judge means you must express it. You have to let people know about it! It's not real unless you shout it from the rooftops, is it?

And therefore, if someone doesn't judge -> scold right then and there, why, there's no judgment at all.

I submit that this is not true.

I think "don't make sexual assault part of the interview" is a good virtue line. Even "don't make jokes about sexually assaulting employees" is good praxis, if it's a joke.

I don't think "being repelled by stories of sexual assault" and "scolds" are the same thing.

so there's definitely no reaction ever that anyone would ever be disgusted by you with, you're a perfect individual with no vices whatsoever

it's not like rogan was the one asking someone to suck his dick, if anything he exposed someone else

plus, why is laughter painted as agreement? it's a mechanism of coping with ridiculous circumstances. i'd probably laugh out of that whole conversation becoming super awkward

Sexual assault is not a ‘Vice’.

when did rogan sexually assault someone?