
Joe Rogan’s Galaxy Brain - smacktoward
https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/joe-rogans-podcast-is-an-essential-platform-for-freethinkers-who-hate-the-left.html
======
ALittleLight
I just don't get why slate would poison their brand by writing things like
this.

>The proximate cause of Harris’ smarm was neither a teenager nor a Twitter
troll but an actor who had made the rather old-fashioned mistake of saying
something dumb to a journalist. In an interview promoting a movie, Liam Neeson
had bizarrely volunteered that as a younger man, he had once roamed the
streets hoping to be provoked into killing a black man—any black man—in
retaliation for a friend’s rape. Harris, who has a practiced eye for these
things, saw great liberal hypocrisy in the way that many people online had
read racism into Neeson’s statement.

Liam Neeson was talking about something bad he did a long time ago. In the
interview he calls it horrible. Neeson privately thought bad and racist things
decades ago, and then volunteered that and his reflections and condemnations
on it. This was then distorted by sensationalist news headlines to make Neeson
seem like a racist.

In slate, the author summarizes it to make Harris's view seem absurd and
Neeson clearly racist. If you don't follow things like this, I can't imagine
why you'd care. If you do, slate's misrepresentation is obvious and
transparent. They are confusing the issue to slander Harris, Rogan, and
Neeson.

------
shrewduser
Author writes a lot but says very little.

~~~
htk
And a lot of hate and insults to the guests on the show. If he doesn’t like
them, just don’t watch it.

------
chriselles
That’s a LOT of venom directed at Joe Rogan.

I occasionally listen to episodes if the guest appeals to me.

Clearly, the article author views Rogan as a political partisan adversary with
the non stop attack.

If I had to guess, Rogan is center-right politically, but with a pretty wide
left to right issue-based range.

And I think a lot of Americans in the middle would prefer an adult
conversation over individual issues rather than being forced to choose a side.

And I think it’s hit piece content like this that is far more likely to create
active resistance to it, rather than passive support for the points raised.

One of the things I credit Rogan with is providing me broader and deeper
understanding of Tulsi Gabbard and Jordan Peterson.

I really like Tulsi as a person and a holder of elected office.

I reckon Rogan’s popularity is due to the fact he mirrors the beliefs of
many(maybe half?) men 20’s to 50’s who listen to podcasts.

Many average in the middle-ish, but support a broad range issue to issue, who
enjoy going down rabbit holes.

It’s like listening to a clone go down an internet rabbit hole for 2 hours.

Perhaps the author is really attacking Rogan for his fast growing social
influence and financial success out of anger that the author’s more
traditional medium is losing relevance and financial sustainability.

------
ehmish
The only person who has ever recommended Joe Rogan's podcasts to me was quite
a leftie so I find this article's thesis a bit odd. This could be because of
this new concept of "left = acceptance" and ignoring the more historical
definition of "left = strong labour rights and taxation of the rich".

