Somewhere, there is a compilation video of Theo Von entertaining himself by seeing what level of transparent ridiculous nonsense he can spout and still have Joe Rogan go along with it, and it generally works every single time.
In general I don’t agree with Rogan hate. He has all kinds of people on, and sometimes they say some nonsense which he then gets blamed for, but he’s mostly just letting them air out whatever they want to say. He even pushed back a little on Trump, told him that he didn’t think that people in Europe rake their forests to prevent forest fires, that kind of thing. But if you’re deliberately trying to lie to him, it’s not hard to do.
Rogan hate is on point. You think he did a good job pushing back on obvious Trump nonsense? LOL. He ended up endorsing the guy because Joe thought he was more honest than Tim Walz! What the fuck is that? Even good ol’ Joe ain’t really that dumb. He’s a paid off hack.
What? No, he definitely didn’t do a good job pushing back on Trump. I said he pushed back a little.
It’s like you guys only have two characters in your internal mental puppet-show, and if I’m not the good puppet, I’ve got to go as the bad puppet. Just read the message, I said what I said the way I said it for a reason.
I’m responding to the entire comment. The fact that you felt his minor pushback on the dozens of non-stop whoppers Trump told is relevant to anything is astounding.
I admit that I extrapolated a bit, but when you mention the pushback and completely omit the dozens of lies that received no pushback, that is open to some level of interpretation.
Correct. My whole point with the comment is that Rogan is susceptible to bullshit, and that it’s a bad thing. I added in a caveat in the middle of my comment that I don’t agree with Rogan hate, and explained why, but my whole point is that Joe is way too gullible.
You don’t have to hoist the we-found-an-enemy flag quite so enthusiastically whenever someone says something that might be taken as something you’ve nominated as an official enemy belief, after you’ve “extrapolated” it.
Joe is gullible because it’s profitable for Joe to be gullible. That’s his schtick, not an incidental personal characteristic. He could afford an entire team of live fact finders if he wanted, but that would hurt his ratings.
If I gave the impression that I see you as an enemy, that was unintentional and I apologize. I do however find your assessment of Rogan to be ridiculously naive.
Tbh your second paragraph being longer and starting with “In general I don’t agree with the Rogan hate” makes it sound very much NOT like a caveat but rather the main point of your comment.
Now this “we-found-an-enemy flag” defense you’ve brought up is just… weird. Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks. That’s just not what happened dude. If you want to argue your point, do it, but as a matter of fact you clearly indicated that you’re okay with what little push back he does give, whereas you did not make it clear that you think him being easily misled is a bad thing.
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you’re trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks.
I still don’t get this. Someone disagreed with a fallacious point that I didn’t make, and I pointed out that I didn’t make it. Surely that should be allowed.
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you’re trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
When your platform is as massive as rogan’s, you have a responsibility not to cause harm through misinfo. He’s worth hundreds of millions. He could have a full time fact-checking team instead of poor Jamie having to debunk the bullshit his guests spew. Even when he does push back, it’s lukewarm and wishy washy. Like when he had crowder on and interviewed him about his anti-trans documentary, and the fucker claimed there were millions of children under 18 on hormone blockers. Jamie looked out up and the number was less than 1000 per year in the US. To which crowder replied that it was at least hundreds of thousands.
Also on the original topic, this lives rent free in my head:
Joe’s audience isn’t there for fact finding. Hiring fact finders would cost more in ratings than it would in salaries. Joe’s entire purpose in existing is to make facts seem boring and irrelevant.
I somewhat agree, but the issue is that people do in fact take rogan as an authoritative source. A month ago a guy was talking to me about litter boxes in schools. That was debunked over a year ago. I told him it was absolutely bullshit and debunked. He insisted it was real. I asked for his source. He said Joe rogan. I lost my chill a bit and said “oh well then I stand corrected” very sarcastically. To his credit he looked it up and realized he was wrong, but this is the kind of issue rogan causes.
I bet he didn’t stop watching Rogan though. It took me a long time to get it, but I finally figured out that people who believe that nonsense don’t want facts.
Like when he had crowder on and interviewed him about his anti-trans documentary, and the fucker claimed there were millions of children under 18 on hormone blockers. Jamie looked out up and the number was less than 1000 per year in the US.
See, this is what I’m talking about. It sounds like you wanted him to get into an extended argument with Crowder, or kick him out of the studio, or something. I think it’s okay if someone makes a claim, you on-the-spot look up the truth and tell your audience what the actual truth is, and then move on. I think people are capable to determine for themselves that it’s an indication that Crowder is full of shit when that happens and start to incorporate it into their mental picture. He’s chill enough about it that Crowder is willing to go on the show, but he’s also not trying to be impartial about what the actual truth is. I can’t off the top of my head think of any other place that would interview Crowder from a “neutral” point of view, but also, not let him get away with bullshit and fact-check him to his face in real time about it, not from an “opposing” guest, but from the official editorial voice.
He could have a full time fact-checking team instead of poor Jamie having to debunk the bullshit his guests spew.
This part, and the greentext about it, I’ll pretty much agree with. It is damaging that Joe’s wading into these complex topics and bringing no qualification whatsoever, which sometimes leads to awful fuck-ups like the Trump endorsement.
More pushback at least to the “hundreds of thousands” comment at the very least. But also, that was one of the better moments in the show. Most of the time he just goes “wow that’s crazy” to whatever ridiculous shit his guests say.
Most of the time he just goes “wow that’s crazy” to whatever ridiculous shit his guests say.
Yeah. That’s a problem. I think he’s popular specifically because he exemplifies the general attitude of “it’s more important to be chill than to be qualified, or get overly excited about the laughable falsehood of whatever charlatan is in front of me right now” that’s popular in the US. And having him around probably snowballs that attitude a little bit further along.
Honestly my favorite thing is watching Theo spew absolute bs and people believing him. My only experience with Rogan is select clips like that with Theo making him believe total nonsense, if only for a moment
I think it’s Theo’s way of entertaining himself, and also checking whether the person he’s talking to has a functioning brain in the conversation. He’s been doing it to Rogan for years and as far as I know, Rogan has never passed the test.
Somewhere, there is a compilation video of Theo Von entertaining himself by seeing what level of transparent ridiculous nonsense he can spout and still have Joe Rogan go along with it, and it generally works every single time.
In general I don’t agree with Rogan hate. He has all kinds of people on, and sometimes they say some nonsense which he then gets blamed for, but he’s mostly just letting them air out whatever they want to say. He even pushed back a little on Trump, told him that he didn’t think that people in Europe rake their forests to prevent forest fires, that kind of thing. But if you’re deliberately trying to lie to him, it’s not hard to do.
Edit: Found a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasSXNjgWhI
I greatly enjoy Theo’s subtle nod of victory when he says everyone thinks owls can read, and Joe Rogan says, “Yeah…”
Rogan hate is on point. You think he did a good job pushing back on obvious Trump nonsense? LOL. He ended up endorsing the guy because Joe thought he was more honest than Tim Walz! What the fuck is that? Even good ol’ Joe ain’t really that dumb. He’s a paid off hack.
What? No, he definitely didn’t do a good job pushing back on Trump. I said he pushed back a little.
It’s like you guys only have two characters in your internal mental puppet-show, and if I’m not the good puppet, I’ve got to go as the bad puppet. Just read the message, I said what I said the way I said it for a reason.
I’m responding to the entire comment. The fact that you felt his minor pushback on the dozens of non-stop whoppers Trump told is relevant to anything is astounding.
Okay. That doesn’t mean you can make things up that I didn’t say, and then “respond” to them.
I admit that I extrapolated a bit, but when you mention the pushback and completely omit the dozens of lies that received no pushback, that is open to some level of interpretation.
Correct. My whole point with the comment is that Rogan is susceptible to bullshit, and that it’s a bad thing. I added in a caveat in the middle of my comment that I don’t agree with Rogan hate, and explained why, but my whole point is that Joe is way too gullible.
You don’t have to hoist the we-found-an-enemy flag quite so enthusiastically whenever someone says something that might be taken as something you’ve nominated as an official enemy belief, after you’ve “extrapolated” it.
Joe is gullible because it’s profitable for Joe to be gullible. That’s his schtick, not an incidental personal characteristic. He could afford an entire team of live fact finders if he wanted, but that would hurt his ratings.
If I gave the impression that I see you as an enemy, that was unintentional and I apologize. I do however find your assessment of Rogan to be ridiculously naive.
Tbh your second paragraph being longer and starting with “In general I don’t agree with the Rogan hate” makes it sound very much NOT like a caveat but rather the main point of your comment.
Now this “we-found-an-enemy flag” defense you’ve brought up is just… weird. Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks. That’s just not what happened dude. If you want to argue your point, do it, but as a matter of fact you clearly indicated that you’re okay with what little push back he does give, whereas you did not make it clear that you think him being easily misled is a bad thing.
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you’re trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
I still don’t get this. Someone disagreed with a fallacious point that I didn’t make, and I pointed out that I didn’t make it. Surely that should be allowed.
Yeah, maybe so, this one is valid I think.
When your platform is as massive as rogan’s, you have a responsibility not to cause harm through misinfo. He’s worth hundreds of millions. He could have a full time fact-checking team instead of poor Jamie having to debunk the bullshit his guests spew. Even when he does push back, it’s lukewarm and wishy washy. Like when he had crowder on and interviewed him about his anti-trans documentary, and the fucker claimed there were millions of children under 18 on hormone blockers. Jamie looked out up and the number was less than 1000 per year in the US. To which crowder replied that it was at least hundreds of thousands.
Also on the original topic, this lives rent free in my head:
Joe’s audience isn’t there for fact finding. Hiring fact finders would cost more in ratings than it would in salaries. Joe’s entire purpose in existing is to make facts seem boring and irrelevant.
I somewhat agree, but the issue is that people do in fact take rogan as an authoritative source. A month ago a guy was talking to me about litter boxes in schools. That was debunked over a year ago. I told him it was absolutely bullshit and debunked. He insisted it was real. I asked for his source. He said Joe rogan. I lost my chill a bit and said “oh well then I stand corrected” very sarcastically. To his credit he looked it up and realized he was wrong, but this is the kind of issue rogan causes.
I bet he didn’t stop watching Rogan though. It took me a long time to get it, but I finally figured out that people who believe that nonsense don’t want facts.
See, this is what I’m talking about. It sounds like you wanted him to get into an extended argument with Crowder, or kick him out of the studio, or something. I think it’s okay if someone makes a claim, you on-the-spot look up the truth and tell your audience what the actual truth is, and then move on. I think people are capable to determine for themselves that it’s an indication that Crowder is full of shit when that happens and start to incorporate it into their mental picture. He’s chill enough about it that Crowder is willing to go on the show, but he’s also not trying to be impartial about what the actual truth is. I can’t off the top of my head think of any other place that would interview Crowder from a “neutral” point of view, but also, not let him get away with bullshit and fact-check him to his face in real time about it, not from an “opposing” guest, but from the official editorial voice.
This part, and the greentext about it, I’ll pretty much agree with. It is damaging that Joe’s wading into these complex topics and bringing no qualification whatsoever, which sometimes leads to awful fuck-ups like the Trump endorsement.
More pushback at least to the “hundreds of thousands” comment at the very least. But also, that was one of the better moments in the show. Most of the time he just goes “wow that’s crazy” to whatever ridiculous shit his guests say.
Yeah. That’s a problem. I think he’s popular specifically because he exemplifies the general attitude of “it’s more important to be chill than to be qualified, or get overly excited about the laughable falsehood of whatever charlatan is in front of me right now” that’s popular in the US. And having him around probably snowballs that attitude a little bit further along.
Honestly my favorite thing is watching Theo spew absolute bs and people believing him. My only experience with Rogan is select clips like that with Theo making him believe total nonsense, if only for a moment
I think it’s Theo’s way of entertaining himself, and also checking whether the person he’s talking to has a functioning brain in the conversation. He’s been doing it to Rogan for years and as far as I know, Rogan has never passed the test.