Joe Rogan Podcast

[DCAllAfrican]

LOL @ thinking Dave Chappelle and Rogan have the same audience.

I come in peace but you don't think there is a large amount of overlap?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Given the Rock's comments on Rogan, I take it that you are him in this gif

Then that would make me the washed racist whose ex-wife is banging a 28-year-old version of in the house I paid for.

We're cool, but this might cause some beef.

you know it's funnty how that Hogan thing has been memory holed.
totally forgot about that entire thing.

 

[1995]

I always try to bring up how Hogan is a racist piece of on here

I think I'm the only one

 

[stuntman mike]

I come in peace but you don't think there is a large amount of overlap?

def lots of overlap nowadays.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

WWE totally has Joe Rogan beat

as the most flagrantly racist institution
that has provided me the most entertainment.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I come in peace but you don't think there is a large amount of overlap?

this seems to me a totally meaningless distinction,

the most popular podcaster in america
is of course going to have overlap with the most popular comedian in america.

imo its like saying McDonalds has overlap with Tim Hortons/Dunkin Donuts.

 

[Bonafide]

I come in peace but you don't think there is a large amount of overlap?

There has to be some overlap considering the popularity of Joes show but I tend to think the average Chappelle fan is far more intelligent than a Joe Rogan fan.

 

[Hahahaha]

I would guess more than 50% of Dave’s fanbase is MAGAs. Wypipo love Dave, his shows like 85% white. I don’t F with Dave, he move funny.

Feel like we talked about this a few years ago on NT about how white his crowds and fanbase is.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

There has to be some overlap considering the popularity of Joes show but I tend to think the average Chappelle fan is far more intelligent than a Joe Rogan fan.

Why do you think that?

Again, legit asking.

What is it about DC's fanbase that makes you think that?

 

[Methodical Management]

call me crazy, hear me out
but I think horror of jim crow is different in kind from Joe Rogan's bad podcasts.

part the problem is trying escalate things you and I may not like to the level of segregation.
imo it's counter productive.

The problem is, you've been presenting this as if it's some consistent guiding principle when it's actually just your kneejerk reaction, which you then frame as a general principle and need to whittle down once pressed - to the point where all that remains is personal and arbitrary.

So the principle doesn't apply to boycotting companies that engage in overt discrimination - but it does apply when companies produce commercial speech that proliferates racist pseudoscience used to justify overt discrimination and functions as an effective recruiting tool for White Supremacist groups.

Oh, but it also doesn't apply to the threatened boycotts of CBS radio sponsors over Don Imus because.... ???

You have a principle against boycotting that applies only to those situations where a "certain type of progressive" engages in speech you don't like.
Ironic, no?

suspending jimmy would materially reduce the harm, kicking rogan off spotify imo wouldn't.

So there are different rules for "elites?" If you're popular enough, you're "too big to fail" and no one should even try to hold you accountable? And this... protects the 99.9% of people who could never make such a claim?

It's okay to ban someone like blco02 from a message board from using racial slurs, but if Joe Rogan shows up here I should let it go because otherwise he'll just say it somewhere else with a bigger audience?


Would you argue that Apple delisting Alex Jones' podcast and Youtube banning him from their platform had no effect on his reach?

activism in opposition to real and material harms is different than activism in opposition to symbolic ones.

Is the damage done by Fox News et al. "real" or "symbolic?"

NT's rules are productive in the context of a discussion forum.
I don't think they productive in every single context.

Both NikeTalk and Spotify are private platforms offering a service. There are plenty of people out there who don't like the way we enforce our rules - and there are plenty of alternatives available to them.

For example, we don't treat the allegation that someone is "racist" as "name calling." Some people have subsequently complained that we have an unfair double standard that allows members to "say anything about White people" but "nothing" about any other group. This has cost us members. At one point, we even had a moderator leave over it.

Facebook, for all its selective censorship, loves to talk about "free speech" to justify inaction because it is their ambition to monopolize speech online. Were Spotify the only place to find podcasts, one could reasonably argue that lobbying it to behave as though it gives a damn about anything other than profit might impose some broader de facto restriction on personal/creative expression. It's one platform. Rumble already wants to make Rogan a competing offer, assuming he doesn't mind being paid in Mar a Lago shrimp and BrandonCoin.

We have choice as consumers. I see nothing wrong with using it to elevate standards for those businesses that seek our patronage.

At its heart, that's what this is.

education polarization + the over representation of college educated people
in media production. I just use elites because college education is an important class marker in america.

The problem isn't that there are too many educated people in the workforce, but that access to education is privileged, certain fields/institutions have become cloistered and downright hostile to those who don't "fit in," and when these credentials are used to gatekeep, it then perpetuates group disparities and contribute to structural inequality.

Degree requirements can be counterproductive if they are less a proxy for competence than privilege, but it's not as if we need fewer doctors and more Joe Rogans in the medical profession to "balance things out."
And this is where the Fox-style "anti-elitism" is just a patina for anti-intellectualism.

I feel Klein is a must more reasonable and logical thinker than Yglesias but he still has this blindspot of "you guys played it wrong", ignoring all the things that lead up to this point

There's more than a hint of "White fragility" in this. Heaven forefend we hurt the feelings of someone who engages in and promotes hate speech.

When these sorts of discussions are treated as hostage negotiations, and concessions must be made for the aggressor to even consider any revision to their harmful behavior, it only further leverages their unjust privilege.

These are people who HATE being labeled as racist. The entire artifice of anti-CRT hysteria is built on avoiding this stigma. If it hurts people's feelings - GOOD. It ought to.
There has to be an understanding that the shame of racism will not dissipate until the system itself has. And what's he doing about it?


Let's be real: you're not gonna "My Fair Lady" Joe Rogan. I'm sure he would nod along to Michelle Obama, and he might even manage to repeat key phrases from that discussion in such a way as to produce a passable approximation of a cogent thought. In less than 24 hours, though, all of that will have been flushed from what remains of his working memory and he'll be back in his natural environment believing that the serially-concussed are making a lot of interesting points about the cutting edge field of race science.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I agree, I think Rogan is a lost cause.

He fools people into thinking he is reachable because at the end of the day his worldview is motivated by white grievance politics.

Using kid gloves on him isn't gonna work because he won't see it as people being patient or accommodating with him, and return that energy with a true commitment to do better.

He feels that kissing white people's *** should be the natural state of affairs in America

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The problem is, you've been presenting this as if it's some consistent guiding principle when it's actually just your kneejerk reaction, which you then frame as a general principle and need to whittle down once pressed - to the point where all that remains is personal and arbitrary.

So the principle doesn't apply to boycotting companies that engage in overt discrimination - but it does apply when companies produce commercial speech that proliferates racist pseudoscience used to justify overt discrimination and functions as an effective recruiting tool for White Supremacist groups.

Oh, but it also doesn't apply to the threatened boycotts of CBS radio sponsors over Don Imus because.... ???

You have a principle against boycotting that applies only to those situations where a "certain type of progressive" engages in speech you don't like.
Ironic, no?




So there are different rules for "elites?" If you're popular enough, you're "too big to fail" and no one should even try to hold you accountable? And this... protects the 99.9% of people who could never make such a claim?

It's okay to ban someone like blco02 from a message board from using racial slurs, but if Joe Rogan shows up here I should let it go because otherwise he'll just say it somewhere else with a bigger audience?

no it's not. i've been very clear, stop trying to impune my motivations, to delegitimize what i'm saying.


you can effectively suppress marginal views nazism, it's a marginal view,
you can suppress washed up shocked jocks whose popularity peaked in the 1990's

you can't effectively suppress joe rogan,
banning him from spotify doesn't rid world of those ideas and it doesn't help anyone.

again if the goal is some cosmic HR manager justice then sure maybe banning will satisfy that desire.

but again, perhaps wrongly,
I assumed there were more noble ends

Is the damage done by Fox News et al. "real" or "symbolic?"

it's real, I wouldn't favour banning that either,
do you want to erect a surveillance state to eradicate conservative infotainment?
call me crazy I think that's a bad idea.

Would you argue that Apple delisting Alex Jones' podcast and Youtube banning him from their platform had no effect on his reach?

so what you're saying now is Joe needs not only be banned from spotify, but delisted from apple, and removed from youtube?

Alex Jones,? im sure it has is niche product it's not the same as the most popular english podcast on earth.
Joe Rogan is not alex jones, I think thats a dumb idea.

it doesn't get rid of the ideas, and chilling effect on art and free expression.

and I don't think Alex Jones banning has any appreciable impact on the overall levels of racism or misinformation in socitey.

Both NikeTalk and Spotify are private platforms offering a service. There are plenty of people out there who don't like the way we enforce our rules - and there are plenty of alternatives available to them.

For example, we don't treat the allegation that someone is "racist" as "name calling." Some people have subsequently complained that we have an unfair double standard that allows members to "say anything about White people" but "nothing" about any other group. This has cost us members. At one point, we even had a moderator leave over it.

Facebook, for all its selective censorship, loves to talk about "free speech" to justify inaction because it is their ambition to monopolize speech online. Were Spotify the only place to find podcasts, one could reasonably argue that lobbying it to behave as though it gives a damn about anything other than profit might impose some broader de facto restriction on personal/creative expression. It's one platform. Rumble already wants to make Rogan a competing offer, assuming he doesn't mind being paid in Mar a Lago shrimp and BrandonCoin.

We have choice as consumers. I see nothing wrong with using it to elevate standards for those businesses that seek our patronage.

At its heart, that's what this is.

you have the right to make whatever decisions as a consumer,
and I think I have the right to criticize those actions if I think they are unhelpful or counter productive.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

This whole "giant corporations need to take a much firmer hand on what speech is and isn't acceptable"
just assumes a world where the moral majority and the religious right never ever makes a comeback.

you see what the right is up to in places where they do have power.


if you set up environment where companies need to be hyper responsive to certain in groups.
what's going to happen if those in groups suddenly become conservative again?

and Spotify is asking Ben Shapiro to help decide what content is morally acceptable to consume?


"do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

 

[RustyShackleford]

This whole "giant corporations need to take a much firmer hand on what speech is and isn't acceptable"
just assumes a world where the moral majority and the religious right never ever makes a comeback.

you see what the right is up to in places where they do have power.


if you set up environment where companies need to be hyper responsive to certain in groups.
what's going to happen if those in groups suddenly become conservative again?

and Spotify is asking Ben Shapiro to help decide what content is morally acceptable to consume?


"do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

This is a bad argument IMO

You are acting like the right doesn't have power over corporations too. Look at how they turned FB into another propaganda machine.

Large corporations are not just conceding because they fear the left's cultural power, it is because they fear their consumer power too.

And the religious right is hardly powerless, they are probably more powerful than the entire progressive movement right now because of the control of the most powerful institutions in America. Its courts. Our entire political system intentionally and intentionally swings power to them.

-Progressives' actions now (which again are not being done by all progressives, not even on the scale conservatives had formed a consensus on certain subjects) are not gonna stop the religious right in the future if it gains more cultural and consumer influence (this is also a massive assumption based on major cultural trends reversing) from doing what they want.

It just seems like some forward-thinking "blame the progressives" argument

 

[osh kosh bosh]

This is a bad argument IMO

You are acting like the right doesn't have power over corporations too. Look at how they turned FB into another propaganda machine.

Facebook is a platform with an aging audience of boomers.
so much so that Mark Zuckerberg abandoned the brand to pursue a new space that could attract a young audience.

it's an exception, I work in tv and film, any new show or property is built to appeal to progressive cultural values
and if it isn't explicitly built that away, every stage of the production process is dominated by progressives, it just absorbs them through osmosis.

you can point out exceptions here and there but I promise you,
very very few productions companies are out here tryna get the maga audience.

Large corporations are not just conceding because they fear the left's cultural power, it is because they fear their consumer power too.

on the subject of Joe Rogan or Dave Chappelle.

they aren't in fear of popular consumer sentiment, because popular consumer sentiment is on their side.
most people are fine with Dave, most people are fine with Joe Rogan,

the pressure comes internally from their employees and cultural critics.
these companies have to compete for college educated employees,
and they all sell them a story about how slinging app subscriptions is changing the world blah bla

that's why you see Netflix and Spotify CEO feel pressure to do something about Rogan and Chappelle,
DESPITE the fact they are broadly popular with consumers.

And the religious right is hardly powerless, they are probably more powerful than the entire progressive movement right now because of the control of the most powerful institutions in America. Its courts. Our entire political system intentionally and intentionally swings power to them.

I didn't say they were, powerless, they have immense amounts of political power.
but they no longer had the cultural power they did in pre 1990's

i mean for a large chunk of film history all of hollywood film productions basically had to align to catholic church doctrines.
in order to secure nation wide distribution.

-Progressives' actions now (which again are not being done by all progressives, not even on the scale conservatives had formed a consensus on certain subjects) are not gonna stop the religious right in the future if it gains more cultural and consumer influence (this is also a massive assumption based on major cultural trends reversing) from doing what they want.

I think consistent principles are easier to defend.
and if for some reason in the future Hollywood is suppressing content to appeal to conservative moral intuitions

i think it's harder to oppose that in principled and convincing way

 

[RustyShackleford]

Facebook is a platform with an aging audience of boomers.
so much so that Mark Zuckerberg abandoned the brand to pursue a new space that could attract a young audience.

it's an exception, I work in tv and film, any new show or property is built to appeal to progressive cultural values
and if it isn't explicitly built that away, every stage of the production process is dominated by progressives, it just absorbs them through osmosis.

you can point out exceptions here and there but I promise you,
very very few productions companies are out here tryna get the maga audience.

You presented it as some rule, so I was pointing out exceptions. And FB is a major exception because they are radicalizing boomers and Gen-Xers that society.

Conservatives have influence over: the biggest social media website, America's favorite sport by a mile, the most popular cable news network, and a large chunk of local news. Their propaganda infrastructure seems way more powerful than progressives. This seems kinda important to me

And these are hand waved as exceptions, because the cultural taste of progressive are catered to in some programming

I think you severely underestimate the amount of cultural power the conservatives have because of your workplace.

on the subject of Joe Rogan or Dave Chappelle.

they aren't in fear of popular consumer sentiment, because popular consumer sentiment is on their side.
most people are fine with Dave, most people are fine with Joe Rogan,

the pressure comes internally from their employees and cultural critics.
these companies have to compete for college educated employees,
and they all sell them a story about how slinging app subscriptions is changing the world blah bla

that's why you see Netflix and Spotify CEO feel pressure to do something about Rogan and Chappelle,
DESPITE the fact they are broadly popular with consumers.

-If you want to bring up what you do for a living to provide insight, I feel it is fair game for me to do the same.

The economic question is not if Rogan and Chappelle are individually popular, but if defending them and their problematic behavior affects the economics of the Spotify and Netflix brands. Spotify and Netflix compete in markets where substitutes to their product exist. It not only want to keep the consumer they have but grow their base and a decent clip to satisfy investors.

And negative shifts, even on the margins, undermine this goal. Any pressure for outside companies not to work with Netflix, Spotify, etc., undermines that goal. Stockholders expect these goals to be met, failure to do so is a problem

-Secondly, while traditionally in labor econ a macro view is taken and employees are considered suppliers and employers consumers, when it comes to the smaller market high-level tech jobs the roles are reversed. Employers are suppliers and employees consumers. These college graduates operate in a rather tight labor market that is bad for companies like Spotify or Netflix. If people can change the perception of a brand with these potential employees. That has negative impacts on hiring talent and in turn their business.

The median consumer isn't the only thing they worry about, it is about changes in sentiments from the marginal one.

I didn't say they were, powerless, they have immense amounts of political power.
but they no longer had the cultural power they did in pre 1990's

i mean for a large chunk of film history all of hollywood film productions basically had to align to catholic church doctrines.
in order to secure nation wide distribution.

You are a liberal. One of the basic tenants of being a liberal is believing politics can affect culture

Conservatives are fighting their culture war through political institutions, they clearly believe this too

Corporations can claim to try to appeal to younger audiences and their progressive cultural views but they are doing so while trying to not piss off conservatives too much. That is why they still donate to them, that is one reason why they are trying to deploy the "free speech" argument when someone says someone does something dumb.

When the Court strikes down Roe, and news corporations you swear are all controlled by progressives will help normalize the new normal, then that has a downstream cultural impact.

*Sidenote: if you think progressive controlling news stations provide some allyship to the progressive left, I feel you are severely underrating how their need to indulge in horse race politics for rating makes them manufacture consent against substantive progressive politics. Sunday morning news shows are damn near almost are right as Fox's non-primetime television.

I think consistent principles are easier to defend.
and if for some reason in the future Hollywood is suppressing content to appeal to conservative moral intuitions

i think it's harder to oppose that in principled and convincing way

Defend against who?

The same conservatives will be doing whatever they want, not caring and making bad-faith arguments as they do it?

Or the left-wing progressive critics that already blame progressive for things outside their control that treat things like a game?

So your suggestion is basically disarmament to appear principled while ignoring the will happen in practice if conservatives regain the power they lost.

Basically lose the culture war now, to lose is better later.

 

[noblekane]

Whats it with some white people wanting to say the N Word so bad...

white entitlement

 

[noblekane]

WWE totally has Joe Rogan beat

as the most flagrantly racist institution
that has provided me the most entertainment.

Bend_The_Knee
B Sox

 

[gry60]

activism in opposition to real and material harms is different than activism in opposition to symbolic ones.

That a wild, wild take.

Did you really mean to say that harms caused by the normalization of the use of slurs and the propagation of pseudoscientific ideas to his 100 of millions of listeners are symbolic?

I don't think you understand the power that your industry has in shaping minds, and why it is imperative that people whose trade is in information have to abide by certain standards of truth. Joe Rogan is not a journalist, but he is not doing something markedly different than you'd get from Chris Hayes or Terry Gross: they're interviewing people and lending credibility to their words. Spotify not caring about Rogan being deliberately loose with the truth is something everyone should be concerned about.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[gry60]

Let's be real: you're not gonna "My Fair Lady" Joe Rogan. I'm sure he would nod along to Michelle Obama, and he might even manage to repeat key phrases from that discussion in such a way as to produce a passable approximation of a cogent thought. In less than 24 hours, though, all of that will have been flushed from what remains of his working memory and he'll be back in his natural environment believing that the serially-concussed are making a lot of interesting points about the cutting edge field of race science.

This.
I like Ezra, but his take is essentially a variation of "Democrats have to talk more to the deplorables." And look at how that's worked out for the last 3-4 decades...

 

[freeze]

Whats it with some white people wanting to say the N Word so bad...

Lol they say it.

They just want to say it publicly.

 

[wavycrocket]

 

[wavycrocket]

LOL @ thinking Dave Chappelle and Rogan have the same audience.

Half Baked….and the Chapelle show is really what made Dave “take off”.

Ummmmmmmmm what’s with people I only know because of chapelle

Funny enough, Jim Breuer from half baked is going right along the Rogan path…and being rewarded for it too.

Dave was always in line to be a successful black comedian. But he’d be more Martin Lawrence (who put Dave on ironically and is from the same exact place), than the Dave Chapelle who is loved and adored and held up by white comics and that audience. There is a stark difference to Martin Lawrence audience and Dave’s audiences and how they react and the content. This is how I can tell osh kosh bosh really don’t be around real black Americans like that, or really don’t care to explore history in a black perspective. Kings of Comedy was wildly successful. So was Run Tell that. And a host of other Black comedian shows. Even with those successes and ensuing mainstream careers (Ced, Bernie, Steve Harvey, DL, and Martin in the same sphere), Those guys aren’t and will never be “Chapelle” tho….and there are reasons for it.

It’s like, people forgot Dave walked away from a crazy big contract in the midst of his fame, because he rightly at the time realized who his audience and writers were.

Dave Chappelle can't escape white people.

In late 2004, before Dave Chappelle dropped out, he had an incredibly great idea: convince all his favorite musicians to play a free show, in Brooklyn,...

slate.com

The same dude-bro audience and comic circle that made Dave mega successful, is the exact same audience he turned away from. That is the same edgy-white boy humor circle that gets rewarded the most. That is rogans audience…and him and Dave share it. Dave is unique from some of the other black comics because he operates in this space. Which affords him critical acclaim and crazy bread/exposure. But there is a cost to that. And HE realized it.

This article is from 2006. Somehow, it’s memory holes that Dave ran away from the same audience championing him now for other reasons.

Hopefully, he’s still as smart and reflective to see it for what it is….AGAIN.

 

[deusavertat]

Lol the same people who whine about cancel culture sure are quick to click that report button when I talk about evil racist white men.