Pushing right? In what regard?
I recently started listening to his stuff, around ep 1100 up to current stuff (skipping mostly over episodes centered around MMA, comedian, hunting guests).
From that he had few small rants about ppl calling him "right", which he seems to have quite strong feelings.
He openly supports Dem candidates, he is pro drugs, he is pro equality, he drives tesla and loves nature.
He seriously entertains idea of UBI (multiple episodes).
He gets called "right" wing because he talks to people of all spectrum and/or goes after ultra-left, ultra-right ideas.
I find it extremely interesting that UBI is considered a left policy. It's actually more right-leaning/libertarian IMO.
Firstly, a $1,000/mo UBI is essentially free if you roll the various other welfare into it (excluding food). Housing, part of disability and social security, medicare, medicaid, student loans, etc all go away. This would also greatly simplify the bureaucracy and reduce overhead for the programs leaving more people to do jobs actually productive to society.
The central theme of UBI is individual economic freedom. The general idea is that the government is going to be involved helping others regardless. Instead of shoving everyone into the same box, let people choose. No being stuck in government housing. Let the markets play that out. With guaranteed income, getting a housing loan should be much easier.
The US government already pays out on average $550 per month per person via healthcare alone. UBI goes a long way toward subsidizing health insurance and it could be garnished if "free" healthcare services like ER are used.
It's a moral call, but I don't believe we should spend millions to keep a person alive (and miserable) for another year or two when that money could help hundreds or thousands of other people. If a person can afford millions to keep theirself alive and miserable, go for it, but don't expect everyone else in the country to pay for it. This handles a lot of medicare and medicaid issues and would probably save money overall. With the boomer generation getting close to tapping out the system for those last couple years of life, the savings could be enormous.
Food subsidies remain separate simply because some people will always make foolish decisions. Foolish decisions with medical costs can be garnished, but food is a more immediate need. Separate food-only subsidies would be necessary to ensure against these decisions.
Another great outcome is children. Rather than giving the total sum over to the parents, a portion could be set aside for healthcare ensuring every child has healthcare no matter the circumstances. Another portion could be used to subsidize K-12 education which would undoubtedly result in improved resources in under-privileged districts.
Another portion would be set aside in savings to be paid out upon turning 18 or graduating. $300 per month for 18 years would give $64,800 in principle alone. No more student loans would be necessary. Student loans are perverse incentives that encourage colleges and universities to inflate bureaucracy and price (at a rate hundreds of times faster than cost of living and inflation combined). Moreover, colleges would have to justify why a potential student should spend their savings in school rather than getting a head start in life or opening a business.
Finally, a little money would be sent directly to parents to help raise children. This would not only help struggling families, but would help solve foster-care costs and give foster kids a huge leg up when they finally leave the system where savings and UBI would give at least some kind of support.
As you can see, UBI offers right-wing's push for more economic freedom, less bureaucracy, eliminating student loans, reducing government involvement in healthcare choices, eliminating government housing, etc.
If there were ever a right-wing proposal for social welfare, I imagine UBI is exactly what it would look like.
Dems != left. Dems can be centre right. Driving a Tesla makes you left wing? Pro drugs people can be Pro drugs on the right. He doesn't like antifa, which if you look at it antifa is disregarding or opposite of fascism. If you're not anti-fascist you are sitting on the fence and are silent, so are siding with the fascists.
> If you're not anti-fascist you are sitting on the fence and are silent, so are siding with the fascists.
Saying "if you don't support antifa you're a fascist" is like saying if you want to "make America great" you should vote for Trump or that patriots should support the patriot act.
Isn't what you saying, that given opinions of given person are not good enough qualifiers to describe if someone have left/right leanings?
If it is qhat you are saying then, what gives you right to say he is/is not right/left?
And how do you determine what does qualify to categorize someone as left/right?
Honest question. What in your opinion make Joe Rogan rightwing? Is it his stance on antifa?
Why do you even spend energy on categorizing Rogan’s politics? It doesn’t matter. This whole need of putting people into a category is ruining public discourse.
It’s easier to entirely dismiss anything someone says when you label them as something that you don’t identify with. It’s the lazy way out. For those interested, here he is talking about some of his positions. Make of it what you want.
He's an advocate of universal healthcare, and universal basic income. I'd say that's left-wing.
He hosts many people on the political right, and his interview style is generally sympathetic and non-adversarial, so it would be easy to mistake him for right-wing, in a world where conventionally people do not entertain political ideas other than their own.
Can't say I know the guy so well but the impression I've gotten is that he:
a) has a disproportionate number of right leaning types one who...
b) tend to be more likely to make absolute statements which he tends to let pass by without much argument
Now (b) is pretty subjective on my end so it's not worth discussing, but I wonder if there's been any kind of attempt to cover what way his guests tend to skew? Does it lean right because more left leaning types are unwilling to go on (out of a perception that he's right leaning) or does Joe/whoever picks the guests unintentionally skew the show by the kind of guests they find most appealing to talk to (not necessarily agree with).
That was my impression too. Just looking through recent interviewees (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/list-of-people-interview...), I'm not sure that it's a valid one. Most of the interviews seem non-political, with comedians seeming to feature most commonly.
Maybe the sense of bias is driven more by what Youtube prefers to promote, or that right-wing interviewees generate more controversy and interest. In turn, that may incentivise right-wing characters to feature on the show or associate with Joe Rogen.
Ok I'm back. I'm European so probability is I see political spectrum slightly different to US sees it. In most interviews I have watched he's very down to earth in not supporting any left wing policies. He hates antifa which for me means you are silent when fascism comes crawling. I would categorise him as center. Don't call me right wing, well don't allow them to spread shit on your show and argue against it.
Antifa's methodology is to use direct action, including violence and harassment. The idea that one should attempt to silence or bully people who disagree with them is fundamentally illiberal.
To say that one cannot be left-wing without supporting political violence is authoritarian ideology not espoused by all leftists.
>He hates antifa which for me means you are silent when fascism comes crawling.
This is your misguided statement. Not only is it logically flawed, it's the, "if you aren't for us, you're against us" reasoning. Maybe you should research antifa a little more before you get in bed with them ideologically. I see a bunch of goons in masks punching people.
Don't spread misinformation about people, JR is not in any way left wing. He's centrist, libertarian, pushing on the right.