I feel like his main issue is that no matter who he has on and what crazy shit they say, he offers zero pushback. He just goes with it. He’s not there to argue, he’s just there to hang out. He doesn’t want people to leave there unhappy. When he has on comedians and actors and athletes, that’s fine. When he has on Alex Jones, that’s a fucking problem.
Here’s a post I saw awhile back that pretty much sums up Rogan IMO;
Rogan makes clear that he’s an idiot and that no one should listen to him.
But, likewise, Trump says that he’d work with foreign intelligence to win an election; there was good reason to think that Michael Jackson was doing inappropriate things with children; popular sports teams will regularly have a bunch of guys that are known to be wife beaters. If you’re giving people the entertainment that they need in their life, most seem to be pretty happy to turn a blind eye and shame those who complain.
Yet watch when, for example, the topic of vaccines comes up, where he will suddenly perk up and rattle off a set of facts (that just happen to be false).
To me it seems like the get out of jail that climate deniers use; of quickly saying “IANA scientist”, “do your own research” etc, and then proceeding to make many, many baseless claims. They very clearly want to push an opinion, but want a defence ready when anyone points out they have zero qualifications on the topics that they are speaking confidently on.
Two things here:
Firstly, it’s not true, or at least it’s a lot more nuanced than you’re implying. People absolutely turn away from entertainers on the basis of accusations or abhorrent views. Not always, but often. Especially stuff like “inappropriate things with children”. We had one recently in the UK: evidence against generally liked TV presenter Huw Edwards? Career over. And rightly so.
Secondly, it’s not relevant here because you’re talking about things that people are doing privately and not related to their main job. Whereas we were alluding to Joe getting sucked into whatever conspiracy theories and new age crap on his actual show.
Likewise, many scientists agree that Climate Change is a hoax. That’s, as written (and nothing more), an absolutely true statement. True statements aren’t necessarily meaningful or reasonable arguments.
Yes, there are many people who turn away from entertainers for good reason. And yes, sometimes some particular entertainer becomes the scapegoat for the rest - Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, etc. In some cases, that person was justifiably chosen, in others - e.g. Paul Reubens - less so. For the fickleness of the mob, that seems to largely rest on whether it’s the moment in time for a scapegoat to be needed, and whether and how well the next candidate that came up for consideration apologized. That’s not a reliable or worthwhile methodology, before even getting to the question of whether scapegoats are good and worthwhile.
Ignoring the minority case where people make note and take action, and where a majority takes on a scapegoat, what’s the more important and general case?
Firstly, not many climate scientists. This is an important distinction, because without expertise in the field that they are stating opinions about, it’s meaningless. We may as well say many plumbers don’t believe in climate change.
Secondly, I don’t understand how this addresses the point I was making at all. It seems like a non sequitur. An argument you could use in any thread on any topic.
What are you talking about?
I haven’t suggested anyone boycott Rogan. So where are you going with this tangent?
And I also think it’s disingenuous to suggest people are “scapegoating” when they choose not to watch someone any more because of what that person has said or done.
Since “many” is up to interpretation, no, that is not an absolutely true statement.
yes, many scientists, with tears in their eyes, calling me sir …