Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#71

Post by 0xy »

jdashg wrote: post #67
eloff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, I've got nothing against transgender people. I've got a problem with transgender activists going after people like J.K. Rowling, and trying to deplatform her, for her completely reasonable opinions. Fortunately in her case, she's too successful to deplatform, no publishing company is that stupid to turn her away. I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding the…

This whole second paragraph is FUD, as should be obvious from the phasing "irrevocable harm to their bodies". Dismissal as a "social phenomenon" is naive in the extreme, as is the author's revealed ignorance of mainstream medicine's approach to transgender minors.

Actually, there's evidence some of the hormone blocking drugs given to children are not reversible and have serious side effects in some cases, including the loss of bone density. [1]

It's my understanding that multiple studies have affirmed this. So your claim of FUD is unfounded in this case.

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5647/rr-0

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#73

Post by [deleted] »

Barrin92 wrote: post #6

My problem with Rogan isn't political in nature but with his uncritical attitude towards his guests, and his mixture of inviting respectable scientists (say, Roger Penrose, Robert Sapolsky) and then two episodes later inviting someone like Alex Jones, some complete quack or conspiracy theorists. Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual…

[deleted]

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#74

Post by throwaway33339 »

catmistake wrote: post #39
stolenmerch wrote: post #4

I think Joe Rogan is so popular because he openly espouses ideas that MANY people feel and believe. It almost has to be the case. Basically, I think he believes that everyone should be free to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone -- unless they are trying to hurt each other in a fight, which is where the trans debate he's had is born from. It's a sort of "liberaltarian" approach that holds a lot of…

I think it is far simpler than that. He is macho, and that is popular due to evolution. The meanest monkey has the most offspring, but the meanest monkey has turned into the one no one wants to fight, so he can risk being cuddly, but it is a act. The meanest monkey is still there. FWIW Libertarianism is super trendy, but misguided, because, in a nutshell, it leads to tragedy of the commons, and ultimately, pure socia…

Leaving aside the usual quip about HN being an endless source of entertainment when it comes to attempting to comprehend basic concepts in biology that they weren't taught in high school, I'm wondering about something.

What's with the propensity for the typical HNer, and the tech demographic in general, to subscribe to the whole alpha/beta charade in the first place? Your average programmer isn't usually a bodybuilder or even what you may call a 'Chad'. Even on social media, blogs, and generally speaking the whole ecosystem of believing dumb evopsych crap, the most prominent speakers aren't exactly paragons of traditional masculinity themselves. And conversely, Joe Rogan himself (if you're willing to consider an MMA pro 'alpha') probably doesn't care at all about the Google memo.

So, like, if you're soft-spoken, introverted, maybe effete, maybe overweight, what's the point of doing all this? Why fantasize about an immutable, evolutionary-driven hierarchy of males if you're not even putting yourself at the top? Does that stem from self-loathing? Maybe a fetish of some kind? I'm curious to read different perspectives from HNers.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#75

Post by newen »

jdashg wrote: post #67
eloff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, I've got nothing against transgender people. I've got a problem with transgender activists going after people like J.K. Rowling, and trying to deplatform her, for her completely reasonable opinions. Fortunately in her case, she's too successful to deplatform, no publishing company is that stupid to turn her away. I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding the…

This whole second paragraph is FUD, as should be obvious from the phasing "irrevocable harm to their bodies". Dismissal as a "social phenomenon" is naive in the extreme, as is the author's revealed ignorance of mainstream medicine's approach to transgender minors.

If they want to transition back, they can’t do it fully since they won’t be able to have children anymore. So technically it is irrevocable harm to their bodies.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#76

Post by hlieberman »

threatofrain wrote: post #59
Barrin92 wrote: post #6

My problem with Rogan isn't political in nature but with his uncritical attitude towards his guests, and his mixture of inviting respectable scientists (say, Roger Penrose, Robert Sapolsky) and then two episodes later inviting someone like Alex Jones, some complete quack or conspiracy theorists. Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual…

> Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. I don't think it makes sense to criticize Joe Rogan for casual run your mouth conversation when we all know Joe rebranding to be more scientific and educational would destroy him and anyone else who tries. Try…

As I’ve said before, I’m terribly sad that Mister Rogers is no longer with us, but I’m so happy he didn’t live to see what television and the internet have become.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#77

Post by throwaway33339 »

hirundo wrote: post #57
gilrain wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow dude, being trans is not a "contagion of the mind". This is wildly and dangerously hateful.

It isn't hateful if it's true. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/ And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.

This is probably the time to plug this wonderful extension [0] that directly warns you, whenever a link to a scholarly article is posted, that said article has had comments on its PubPeer entry.

For those who don't know, PubPeer was designed as a kind of forum where people can discuss articles after they're published (with or without a pseudonym). Of course, it almost instantly turned into a place for anonymous whistleblowing and call-outs for fraud, replication failure, etc. So while it's not an absolute rule, an article having one comment or two on PubPeer is usually a middling red flag for that article being generally dubious.

The reason I'm talking about all this is that the parent's link has twenty-five (25) comments on PubPeer. See for yourself, read the discussion and make of that what you will.

[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/pubpeer/

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#78

Post by aeternum »

freshhawk wrote: post #35
dilyevsky wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ymmv but for myself I prefer not to have my hand held entire life and explained “the one true way” I’m supposed to think. There’s a ton of programming out there that already does this (for your personal definition of “the one true way”)

Me too, that's why when someone tries to feed me bullshit, like Joe Rogan has many times, I decide to ignore them, because they are untrustworthy and misinforming me. And I happily share that information with others, because that's the nice thing to do. That's what people who don't need their hand held do. And if you didn't write Joe Rogan off a long time ago then, I hate to tell you, you do still need some hand hold…

I find that there is still something to learn from the guests that are batshit crazy.

You learn what aspects of their message resonates with their audience, even if their reasoning is clearly flawed. Rogan is unique in that he frequently let's guests speak freely enough that they divulge the reasons they believe the things they do. And that insight can be incredibly enlightening.

As Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#79

Post by JesseObrien »

doopy1 wrote: post #72

I like the JRE podcast a lot, but I come for the guests. Joe Rogan is an entertainer and taking what he says on the podcast as authoritative "news" is poor judgement.

I've always looked at it this way as well. Echoing some other commenters here, I don't understand why he's polarizing. I haven't heard he himself present a lot of polarizing views on things. His guests on the other hand, some are absolutely off the charts in terms of how polar their views are.

The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#80

Post by amw-zero »

Barrin92 wrote: post #6

My problem with Rogan isn't political in nature but with his uncritical attitude towards his guests, and his mixture of inviting respectable scientists (say, Roger Penrose, Robert Sapolsky) and then two episodes later inviting someone like Alex Jones, some complete quack or conspiracy theorists. Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual…

He’s a comedian. The fact that people assume he has any kind of moral responsibility to do anything at all is pretty surprising.

I also don’t view him as anti-intellectual at all. He also calls his guests out constantly.

Post reply on HN