Joe Rogan Podcast

[freeze]

Lol the same people who whine about cancel culture sure are quick to click that report button when I talk about evil racist white men.

 

[deusavertat]

I'm on like my fifth ban on Facebook for stating the obvious. I regret nothing.

 

[Methodical Management]

no it's not. i've been very clear, stop trying to impune my motivations, to delegitimize what i'm saying.

I'm not trying to impugn your motivations, I'm trying to figure out what they actually are - because the only one that seems the least bit consistent is the resentment of any- and everything that carries even the faintest whiff of performative hashtag activism - no matter how legitimate the underlying problem might be or who else might be involved.

People keep asking you to lay out the exact principles in play here and you either can't or won't. There's very little that is clear about this, save for the disdain you hold for progressive "elites."

It's okay to moderate content on discussion forums, but not content that you commission for a podcast network?
It's okay to boycott a business engaged in overt discrimination, but not a business that broadcasts racist hate speech for profit?
It's okay for a private company to fire its #1 talk show host for racist comments, but not its #1 podcast host?

All of this just looks like preference in search of principle.

you can effectively suppress marginal views nazism, it's a marginal view,
you can suppress washed up shocked jocks whose popularity peaked in the 1990's

you can't effectively suppress joe rogan,
banning him from spotify doesn't rid world of those ideas and it doesn't help anyone.

Nazism apparently isn't as marginal as it used to be - thanks in no small part to people that Joe Rogan signal boosts on his show.
Has anything successfully rid the world of racism? And has a boycott, demonstration, or other direct action ever been worthwhile? Okay then.


The idea that the more powerful and more popular someone is, the less subject they ought to be to accountability is, frankly, abhorrent.

At the time of his ouster, Bill O'Reilly had the #1 show on cable news. I'd wager his audience was larger then than Joe Rogan's is now when using comparable metrics.
Donald Trump had about ten times more Twitter followers than Joe Rogan at the time of his ban.
Mel Gibson was one of the most popular actors in the world . We can go on.

A large, publicly traded company has essentially appointed as its mascot a man who's now had over one hundred podcast episodes removed from its service for egregious content ranging from dangerous medical misinformation to racist pseudoscience.
He even meets the vaunted DWalk31 standard of racism: he 1. used a racial slur 2. on tape and 3. publicly admitted it.

Why should I support this company if I have viable alternatives?
That's all that's necessary to justify the boycott. It need not eliminate racism in one fell swoop to be worthwhile.

Alex Jones,? im sure it has is niche product it's not the same as the most popular english podcast on earth.
Joe Rogan is not alex jones, I think thats a dumb idea.

it doesn't get rid of the ideas, and chilling effect on art and free expression.

You can't boycott something if its alleged harms are purely symbolic, and even though, on second thought, the harms caused by commercial hate speech aren't purely symbolic, you still shouldn't boycott because it won't do anything.

How many more of these threadbare rationales do you plan on auditioning?

Did Imus' ouster have a chilling effect on other talk radio hosts?
Did Alex Jones' bans have a chilling effect on other podcast hosts?
It sure didn't stop Joe Rogan with his long, sad history of racism from landing a $100 million payday.

Strip away the flimsy pretenses, and all you're left with is "I don't like it because I don't like I and I think it would be bad because I think it would be bad."
Okay.

do you want to erect a surveillance state to eradicate conservative infotainment?
call me crazy I think that's a bad idea.

I want to hold people accountable for racism. I want those who don't support racism to stop supporting companies that sell or sponsor hate speech for profit.

It's hardly as radical or dystopian as the alternative.

you have the right to make whatever decisions as a consumer,
and I think I have the right to criticize those actions if I think they are unhelpful or counter productive.

And I have the right to criticize your criticism if I think it's nonsensical and self-defeating.

So your suggestion is basically disarmament to appear principled while ignoring the will happen in practice if conservatives regain the power they lost.

Basically lose the culture war now, to lose is better later.

It sounds suspiciously similar Joe Manchin's stance on the filibuster: "If you don't roll over for racism now, the racists might someday cite this as precedent to do something bad that they would've attempted regardless!"

Oh wow, that's compelling.

I agree, I think Rogan is a lost cause.

He fools people into thinking he is reachable because at the end of the day his worldview is motivated by white grievance politics.

Using kid gloves on him isn't gonna work because he won't see it as people being patient or accommodating with him, and return that energy with a true commitment to do better.

He feels that kissing white people's *** should be the natural state of affairs in America

Exactly.

In what other situation is this considered a reasonable expectation?

"Well, he MIGHT have stopped setting fires if you hadn't used such inflammatory language. Calling him an 'arsonist' is just going to make him double down."


People think he's reachable only because he's too ignorant to offer any meaningful resistance to whatever argument is set in front of him.

It's sad that the strategy now is to put on "opposing viewpoints" to cancel each other out, as if his mind is just silly putty bearing the impression of whatever it last came into contact with and the introduction of alternatives will confuse him into "neutrality."

You know you're in trouble when 1980's Donahue is being floated as a "step up" from the current format.
Book Nikole Hannah-Jones and Richard Spencer on the same show, treat them as if they’re both equally legitimate and let Joe’s audience of 6 million goatees decide for themselves. That seems responsible.

Asking Joe Rogan to moderate a substantive debate is like asking a mannequin to direct traffic.

 

[htg designs]

$50 if you can convince me this isnt racist as ****



(Cannot included "he's not racist, he just say racist things")

 

[trynafeelmink]

Video that started this snowball is him saying the N Word for two minutes..... the result 100M for MarGInAlzed GroUPs

 

[deusavertat]

$50 if you can convince me this isnt racist as ****



(Cannot included "he's not racist, he just say racist things")

Let Jim Bob and Joe hold on to this stereotype while black women overtake them in academia. No one mistakes racist whites for being intellectuals.

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

 

[deusavertat]

How is any of that not racist?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

That a wild, wild take.

Did you really mean to say that harms caused by the normalization of the use of slurs and the propagation of pseudoscientific ideas to his 100 of millions of listeners are symbolic?

I don't think you understand the power that your industry has in shaping minds, and why it is imperative that people whose trade is in information have to abide by certain standards of truth. Joe Rogan is not a journalist, but he is not doing something markedly different than you'd get from Chris Hayes or Terry Gross: they're interviewing people and lending credibility to their words. Spotify not caring about Rogan being deliberately loose with the truth is something everyone should be concerned about.

banning Joe Rogan from spotify would not reduce his following.
or eradicate those ideas.

if the thing you want would result in more people hearing him not less
the goal clearly isn't a substantive one, but a symbolic one.

which is fine, we make symbolic stances all the time,
but I don't need to pretend like this is about fighting mis information or racism.

 

[John Wick]

How is any of that not racist?

aint no excuse for that ape part and he even acknowledge it was racist when he said it.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You presented it as some rule, so I was pointing out exceptions. And FB is a major exception because they are radicalizing boomers and Gen-Xers that society.

Conservatives have influence over: the biggest social media website, America's favorite sport by a mile, the most popular cable news network, and a large chunk of local news. Their propaganda infrastructure seems way more powerful than progressives. This seems kinda important to me

And these are hand waved as exceptions, because the cultural taste of progressive are catered to in some programming

I think you severely underestimate the amount of cultural power the conservatives have because of your workplace.

I don't think im underestimating it, but regardless of how you want to estimate things I think
for whatever power conservatives, in culture and media
it's clearly less than progressives.

-If you want to bring up what you do for a living to provide insight, I feel it is fair game for me to do the same.

The economic question is not if Rogan and Chappelle are individually popular, but if defending them and their problematic behavior affects the economics of the Spotify and Netflix brands. Spotify and Netflix compete in markets where substitutes to their product exist. It not only want to keep the consumer they have but grow their base and a decent clip to satisfy investors.

And negative shifts, even on the margins, undermine this goal. Any pressure for outside companies not to work with Netflix, Spotify, etc., undermines that goal. Stockholders expect these goals to be met, failure to do so is a problem

-Secondly, while traditionally in labor econ a macro view is taken and employees are considered suppliers and employers consumers, when it comes to the smaller market high-level tech jobs the roles are reversed. Employers are suppliers and employees consumers. These college graduates operate in a rather tight labor market that is bad for companies like Spotify or Netflix. If people can change the perception of a brand with these potential employees. That has negative impacts on hiring talent and in turn their business.

The median consumer isn't the only thing they worry about, it is about changes in sentiments from the marginal one.

I get what you're saying, (or at least I think I do)
I don't deny that it's within their economic interest to care about some marginal consumers over median ones.

im not saying that they should care about the median consumer more.
everyone is looking to reach the prime demo, for very rational reasons

I was just pointing that the pressure comes from marginal consumers, and not median ones

so to me that's not popular sentiment.
it's the sentamite of a very specific audience with views that are divergent from the broader public.

You are a liberal. One of the basic tenants of being a liberal is believing politics can affect culture

Conservatives are fighting their culture war through political institutions, they clearly believe this too

Corporations can claim to try to appeal to younger audiences and their progressive cultural views but they are doing so while trying to not piss off conservatives too much. That is why they still donate to them, that is one reason why they are trying to deploy the "free speech" argument when someone says someone does something dumb.

yes exactly, and this is part of my frustration.

Cooperate progressivism is done cynically, to win progressives and still secure tax cuts from republicans.

so I'm really skeptical of appealing to these entities to take a stronger hand limiting speech.
because they will just as happily betray all of it, if it becomes profitable to do so.

and I think it let's them off the hook,;they can post black squares on instagram
but still donate to Ted Cruz. it just seems like an obvious shell game.

Defend against who?

The same conservatives will be doing whatever they want, not caring and making bad-faith arguments as they do it?

Or the left-wing progressive critics that already blame progressive for things outside their control that treat things like a game?

So your suggestion is basically disarmament to appear principled while ignoring the will happen in practice if conservatives regain the power they lost.

Basically lose the culture war now, to lose is better later.

I don't think it's disarmament to say be "hey be more judicious about who you choose to try to shun or supress."

there are lots of unengaged people that I think you want to convince to agree with you.
suppressing popular figures like rogan imo makes that more difficult.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I'm not trying to impugn your motivations, I'm trying to figure out what they actually are - because the only one that seems the least bit consistent is the resentment of any- and everything that carries even the faintest whiff of performative hashtag activism - no matter how legitimate the underlying problem might be or who else might be involved.

as I said to rusty not all activist positions are bad.
Trans women in sports is an example where I agree with more with activist position.

but I would also tell them it's a bad idea to try to make
"I don't think trans women should compete in women's sports"
a opinion that you try to shun or suppress people for having.

I agree more with immigration activists than the public.
but I would also tell an immigration activist that "abolishing ice" rhetoric
is counter productive.

the legitimacy of the underlying problem doesn't justify any action to address it.

imo caring about the underlying problem means you should be more sensitive nor less,
to the efficacy of the actions taken.

and not being sensitive to that
I think indicates that the struggle is more about performance than substance.

It's okay to moderate content on discussion forums, but not content that you commission for a podcast network?

a discussion forum goal is different than a platform for art.
banning speech that makes constructive discussion more difficult,
is a productive action, you are protecting the entire purpose of the forum

it's not the same thing distribution of art and culture to a broad and ideologically diverse audience, because of pressure from in group consumers banning rogan totally
imo that's not productive.

It's okay to boycott a business engaged in overt discrimination, but not a business that broadcasts racist hate speech for profit?
It's okay for a private company to fire its #1 talk show host for racist comments, but not its #1 podcast host?

All of this just looks like preference in search of principle.

I don't think the rules of network television should apply to the rest of socitey.

If spotify wants to become CBS, where they are trying to create a narrow anodyne, simulacrum of american culture. banning rogan would make sense.

but I don't think that's what Spotify is trying to do, and I think it's bad to force them to become CBS for podcasts.

I want to hold people accountable for racism. I want those who don't support racism to stop supporting companies that sell or sponsor hate speech for profit.

It's hardly as radical or dystopian as the alternative.

if your goal is cosmic HR manager "accountability" fine go off.
we can agree to disagree on the value of this type of "accountability"

I personally do not care about this, and I never will, and I think it's bad for art and culture.

 

[IATT]

Spotify deleting over 100 episodes and now giving out over 100 mill..

just so 1 white dude can talk crazy

and some of y’all still supporting this mess

 

[IATT]

 

[WASHED KING]

Ok THIS might be enough to get him up outta here.

 

[IATT]

Ok THIS might be enough to get him up outta here.

spotify and his defenders..

 

[gry60]

if the thing you want would result in more people hearing him not less

I don't think it works this way.

Where are Don Imus, R Kelly, Mason Greenwood (removed from FIFA 2022, dropped by Nike), Bill Cosby and a whole bunch of folks past and present who have displayed views and actions we all agree are despicable? Lost access to their platforms. Did their audience grow as a result? Nope.

You simply refuse to look at what we can prove (deplatforming something makes it less accessible) and inventing the rule I quoted above because you just don't like the idea of censorship.

By rejecting functional boycotts without proposing an alternative way of showing disagreement with problematic ideas, you are tacitly supporting the idea that some people can enjoy rights without the responsibilities that come with them.

Sounds very elitist.

or eradicate those ideas.

The point is not to eradicate those ideas. They will outlive every single one of us.

The point is to not normalize them because the end result is not pleasant for a whole bunch of Americans, and we have human history to prove it. It's not a matter of opinions, it's facts. Let them run amock, and the next thing you know, you're barred from the most attractive jobs because "you have a different brain," or "you can't handle all the money that comes with the position;" or you get a smaller amount of numbing medication because "your kind can whistand more pain."

 

[Zainjal26]

Lol a lot of these are hilarous as hell except for that last African one which didn’t even make sense and was disrespectful as hell
Guess family guy and South Park need to be removed too than

 

[RustyShackleford]

Lol a lot of these are hilarous as hell except for that last African one which didn’t even make sense and was disrespectful as hell
Guess family guy and South Park need to be removed too than

Yep, keep exposing yourself

 

[IATT]

Guess family guy and South Park need to be removed too than

 

[uncalled4boy]

Bruh

 

[Zainjal26]

Yep, keep exposing yourself

What I find hilarous is these same jokes and worse are shown on family guy ,south park ,the simpsons
Hell Netflix specials got worse these days

Y’all are just finding **** to throw at Rogan. This is hilarous as desperate. What he said about black people and the n word clip is vile disgusting and he’s a piece of **** for it. If they fine him millions and donate the money to a black charity or organization all good
But y’all being upset at the nonsense up there that IATT posted is hysterical

And don’t know why you keep saying that rusty . I’ll never see you in real life you saying it like it means something . I have alot of respect for you and nothing against you - even prayed for your uncle when you said he got covid - you getting upset at me for my points of view is funny , all good though

 

[WASHED KING]

What I find hilarous is these same jokes and worse are shown on family guy ,south park ,the simpsons
Hell Netflix specials got worse these days

Y’all are just finding **** to throw at Rogan. This is hilarous as desperate. What he said about black people and the n word clip is vile disgusting and he’s a piece of **** for it. If they fine him millions and donate the money to a black charity or organization all good
But y’all being upset at the nonsense up there that IATT posted is hysterical

And don’t know why you keep saying that rusty . I’ll never see you in real life you saying it like it means something . I have alot of respect for you and nothing against you - even prayed for your uncle when you said he got covid - you getting upset at me for my points of view is funny , all good though

Avi and opinion checks out.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I don't think it works this way.

Where are Don Imus, R Kelly, Mason Greenwood (removed from FIFA 2022, dropped by Nike), Bill Cosby and a whole bunch of folks past and present who have displayed views and actions we all agree are despicable? Lost access to their platforms. Did their audience grow as a result? Nope.

again you want to escalate these things to justify suppression

Criminal acts are just not it's not the same thing as podcasts you don't like.
you can suppress child molesters and rapists, you don't actually need to convince the public of that


and even then that has limits.

Kobe was also dropped by Nike, until he wasn't,
I don't get the sense Kobe has been successfully suppressed. he's too big to supress.

Don Imus was a radio host, Joe Rogan is a podcaster.
Podcasts are unregulated, podcasting apps are just RSS feed bookmarks.

unless you plan to ban Joe Rogan from the internet, I think youre fooling yourself.

Joe Rogan leaves spotify and all the people subscribed to his RSS feed,
will resume getting episodes.

it's not the same thing as a radio host with an aging audience.

 

[gry60]

again you want to escalate these things to justify suppression

Actually no, I mentioned "views and actions" deemed despicable.

Podcasts are unregulated, podcasting apps are just RSS feed bookmarks.

Until a major platform pays to produce podcast creators. Then, it becomes a problem.

unless you plan to ban Joe Rogan from the internet, I think youre fooling yourself.

Joe Rogan leaves spotify and all the people subscribed to his RSS feed,
will resume getting episodes.

Im pretty sure I acknowledged that:

The point is not to eradicate those ideas. They will outlive every single one of us.

The point is to not normalize them because the end result is not pleasant for a whole bunch of Americans, and we have human history to prove it.

it's not the same thing as a radio host with an aging audience.

And what could be keeping a radio host from having a podcast? Do older folks not use streaming apps?