Thoughts on Joe Rogan?

I'm interested to know, from anyone who follows him, your thoughts on Joe Rogan?

I don't follow his podcast but I occasionally click on YouTube clips from his shows if he is interviewing someone I might find interesting. What prompts the question, however, is the impression I get from others (again, my source is often the occasional YouTube clip from a news outlet or prominent commentator) that Rogan is bracketed with the likes of Steve Bannon or Alex Jones - a fringe or even dangerous conspiracy theorist. I have to say that from my limited viewing, he seems quite reasonable and open to ideas from all directions.

I know that it is tempting to label someone on the basis of the company he keeps so if he interviews, for example, Tucker Carlson, the media will be quick to label Rogan as a right-wing extremist. But he has also interviewed Bernie Sanders. Likewise with the scientific community. I've watched clips of his interview(s) with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michael Shermer but also with Rupert Sheldrake and, one I intend watching as soon as I get a couple of hours free, with Stephen C. Meyer.

https://youtu.be/tb1Ubw1Iu5w?si=TrYb9uzCHanu7kJN

By the way, I have similar confusing impressions of another popular talking head: Jordan Peterson. There's a friendly looking chat with him being interviewed by Bill Maher - two people who I would have thought would be poles apart (and probably are). I also intend to grab a couple of hours to watch that too.

https://youtu.be/0EOkC44ZIfo?si=0EUzo7P3e_o1poWb

Where to start Kam?

Let me start by saying that as is so fashionable these days, the dogmatists on both ends of the political spectrum are only interested in one thing: attaching people to tribes.  I think that has impacted Rogan, Peterson, and even Maher.

I have listened a fair amount to all three.  I find each of them interesting in their own ways.  Of the three, Peterson comes off to me as the most dogmatic yet on a relative scale to many that isn't saying much.

Rogan is generally an interested conversationalist.  I've enjoyed a lot of his shows.  If there is any knock on him its that he isn't a journalist at his core so many times his guests aren't challenged, or at least aren't rigorously challenged, on some of the claims they make.  Yet, its a long form podcast where you, the listener, get to hear what appears to be the complete and unedited conversation.  You can take from it what you want.

More recently he seems to have taken a more anti-establishment turn in my view.  Namely on topics like big technology (the Twitter-files for example) and big pharma (the handling of the COVID pandemic and the administration of the associated vaccines).  Its hard for me (a very much anti-conspiracist) to fault him for this as there is clearly a lot to be criticized when discussing big tech/pharma.

Peterson troubles me as he's aligned himself with the Daily Wire.  This is Ben Shapiro's outfit.  Shapiro is a guy who I do find to be a sell-out to partisan profiteering.  He initially struck me as a thoughtful speaker but has stooped to pandering to the right in what seems to be more of a profit motive than anything else.  I now listen to Peterson with a wariness due to this corporate alliance aspect.

Maher is a guy I happen to like a lot.  Clearly, he makes a ton of money with his Real Time show on HBO but he's been in that 'business' for years and years.  He's smart and he challenges both sides of the political aisle (as they both deserve).

Yet, as I previously stated, you'll find the extreme left hates all three of these guys (ironic in Maher's case as he's been one of the loudest anti-Trump voices).  Meanwhile, you'll find the extreme right adopts them somewhat the moment only because all three criticize the woke-narrative, challenge the democratic executive branch, and are critical of big tech/pharma.  Its not because, necessarily, of their political philosophies.  (Rogan and Maher come of much more as classic liberals while Peterson may also be but seems to present himself more and more as a conservative).

Its a fascinating thing.

Where to start Kam?

...

Yet, as I previously stated, you'll find the extreme left hates all three of these guys (ironic in Maher's case as he's been one of the loudest anti-Trump voices).  Meanwhile, you'll find the extreme right adopts them somewhat the moment only because all three criticize the woke-narrative, challenge the democratic executive branch, and are critical of big tech/pharma.  Its not because, necessarily, of their political philosophies.  (Rogan and Maher come of much more as classic liberals while Peterson may also be but seems to present himself more and more as a conservative).

Its a fascinating thing.

Well, that's an interesting take on these two guys and almost in line with my own impressions based on a very limited exposure. I'm quite interested to see where the observations go when it comes to the philosophical (rather than political) leanings of these guys (Maher included). I get the impression that Rogan would be at home on our little forum here whereas Maher would probably sneer and dismiss our musings. Peterson perhaps somewhere between the two.

Politically, I'm probably closer to Maher and quite far from Peterson but I'm also quite "woke" for someone of my generation.

Maher would probably sneer and dismiss our musings

Hadn't thought about that.  Interesting.

He strikes me more as an anti-organized religion type than a strident atheist but I may be being too generous there.

Hadn't thought about that.  Interesting.

He strikes me more as an anti-organized religion type than a strident atheist but I may be being too generous there.

Perhaps I'm just assuming he is like so may other atheists who have a public persona. It has been my observation over the years that people with a left wing bent tend to be inclined towards atheism and particularly towards skepticism. People on the right of the political spectrum tend, in my view, to be more religious. I am not religious nor an atheist. I tend to think in terms of philosophy rather than faith or its opposite.

Where to start Kam?

Let me start by saying that as is so fashionable these days, the dogmatists on both ends of the political spectrum are only interested in one thing: attaching people to tribes.  I think that has impacted Rogan, Peterson, and even Maher.

I have listened a fair amount to all three.  I find each of them interesting in their own ways.  Of the three, Peterson comes off to me as the most dogmatic yet on a relative scale to many that isn't saying much.

Rogan is generally an interested conversationalist.  I've enjoyed a lot of his shows.  If there is any knock on him its that he isn't a journalist at his core so many times his guests aren't challenged, or at least aren't rigorously challenged, on some of the claims they make.  Yet, its a long form podcast where you, the listener, get to hear what appears to be the complete and unedited conversation.  You can take from it what you want.

More recently he seems to have taken a more anti-establishment turn in my view.  Namely on topics like big technology (the Twitter-files for example) and big pharma (the handling of the COVID pandemic and the administration of the associated vaccines).  Its hard for me (a very much anti-conspiracist) to fault him for this as there is clearly a lot to be criticized when discussing big tech/pharma.

Peterson troubles me as he's aligned himself with the Daily Wire.  This is Ben Shapiro's outfit.  Shapiro is a guy who I do find to be a sell-out to partisan profiteering.  He initially struck me as a thoughtful speaker but has stooped to pandering to the right in what seems to be more of a profit motive than anything else.  I now listen to Peterson with a wariness due to this corporate alliance aspect.

Maher is a guy I happen to like a lot.  Clearly, he makes a ton of money with his Real Time show on HBO but he's been in that 'business' for years and years.  He's smart and he challenges both sides of the political aisle (as they both deserve).

Yet, as I previously stated, you'll find the extreme left hates all three of these guys (ironic in Maher's case as he's been one of the loudest anti-Trump voices).  Meanwhile, you'll find the extreme right adopts them somewhat the moment only because all three criticize the woke-narrative, challenge the democratic executive branch, and are critical of big tech/pharma.  Its not because, necessarily, of their political philosophies.  (Rogan and Maher come of much more as classic liberals while Peterson may also be but seems to present himself more and more as a conservative).

Its a fascinating thing.

I have watched a bit of Joe Rogan - particularly his conversation with Stephen Meyer, in which he got SM talking about the relevance of his work to more than just Christianity - it was the first time I have heard him talk about NDE's. The problem with Rogan'd interviews is that I find them too long.

I have also seen a bit of Jordan Peterson, who is probably at his best talking against the trans movement.

I don't think the terms 'left' and 'right' are much use nowadays, except perhaps in the highway code!

David

Isn't this something for the politics forum?

Isn't this something for the politics forum?

I tried to keep the politics to a minimum and only mention it in a general sense, not to push any political points of discussion. I really don't want to start a political thread at all, anywhere on this forum. I use the terms left and right because that seems to be the way the media still describes certain factions (e.g. Conservative to the right, Liberal/Socialist to the left). The overlap between political leanings and religion/spirituality is something that interests me regardless of how I feel about the political talking points (which, as you say, don't belong here). 

Stephen Meyer and (to a lesser extent) Jordan Peterson talk about things that are relevant to discussions here. I have no idea what Meyer's politics are but his evangelism is representative of certain factions of the US political landscape. Peterson does seem more inclined to express political views than Meyer. When you get such close associations between philosophical metaphysics, religious beliefs and politics it can be difficult to separate them. Yet I constantly find myself agreeing with people like these two guys on some issues but strongly opposed to their views on other issues (such as religion or politics).

All that makes me careful when it comes to reading the views of people here because the same division of perspectives apply. The world out there seems to be happy to spilt issues into two opposing camps: religion/spirituality/right vs atheism/materialism/left but I don't think that I am alone in holding views which are spiritual but not religious, or perhaps left-leaning but not atheist. As Meyer says in the Rogan interview, the DI has at least one atheist who agrees with him about the case for ID.

I tried to keep the politics to a minimum and only mention it in a general sense, not to push any political points of discussion. I really don't want to start a political thread at all, anywhere on this forum. I use the terms left and right because that seems to be the way the media still describes certain factions (e.g. Conservative to the right, Liberal/Socialist to the left). The overlap between political leanings and religion/spirituality is something that interests me regardless of how I feel about the political talking points (which, as you say, don't belong here). 

Stephen Meyer and (to a lesser extent) Jordan Peterson talk about things that are relevant to discussions here. I have no idea what Meyer's politics are but his evangelism is representative of certain factions of the US political landscape. Peterson does seem more inclined to express political views than Meyer. When you get such close associations between philosophical metaphysics, religious beliefs and politics it can be difficult to separate them. Yet I constantly find myself agreeing with people like these two guys on some issues but strongly opposed to their views on other issues (such as religion or politics).

All that makes me careful when it comes to reading the views of people here because the same division of perspectives apply. The world out there seems to be happy to spilt issues into two opposing camps: religion/spirituality/right vs atheism/materialism/left but I don't think that I am alone in holding views which are spiritual but not religious, or perhaps left-leaning but not atheist. As Meyer says in the Rogan interview, the DI has at least one atheist who agrees with him about the case for ID.

Meyer to me seems pretty classy in his ability to separate his political views, whatever they may be, from his discussion of ID.

I don't even consider these other people to be on his level...I recall the old days when Rogan would advertise sex toys for men for extended periods before starting his show. Perhaps ironically the quality of the actual program was better then.

Maher I do tune into from time to time though he seems to overextend his expertise, and last I checked Peterson became a drug addict after telling us addiction is the province of the weak...also he and his daughter only eat meat or something like that...very odd...