If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasts



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,091 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭ Dyr

    Our regulatory overlords are eyeing up Rogan for existing without their approval

  • "Conspiracy theories should be called Spoiler alerts these days".

    Funny quote i saw just now on the internet.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,091 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09

    Can't even agree to call them conspiracy theories in this thread.

  • Agreed. I think the reason is that the term Conspiracy Theory is quite loaded and conjures images of inbred American farmers claiming they were abducted by aliens in a flying saucer. Most people don't particularly like to be associated with that.

    It's like people who were suspicious of the Covid vaccines but would not declare themselves "anti-vaxxers" because it conjures a very specific image. Ditto for women describing themselves as feminists a lot of women shy away from the label.

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    The issue is that at this point, the functional definition of a "conspiracy theorist" is the same as "right-wing", "anti-vax," "white supremacist," "contrarian," "misogynist," i.e. anyone who questions or defies liberal orthodoxy. It's a phenomenon that’s become ubiquitous in mainstream press, where “conspiracy-theorist” has become a stand-in for “heterodox” or “dissenting” or even just “open-minded.”

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ The Nal

  • Posts: 0 Elliott Old Hawk

    The Digital Services act has been coming for ages so not exactly new or shocking. The EU have been actively pursuing the area since 2015. It also doesn't necessarily mean requiring a provider to remove legal content. Eg content advisories and such might become a norm in scenarios where conspiracy theories show up in podcasts. Such efforts are also responsible for social media platforms being transparent around political advertising etc.

    Fyi, absolute free speech doesn't exist in Ireland or plenty of other countries. France and Germany get specialised abilities to report Nazi propaganda for example. Equally the above act does not override the nation's individual laws.

    The US may at best be able to require content providers to include a content advisory. (Not sure if there's much traction to do so)

    You've previously taken issue in this thread over references to ivermectin not being a legit treatment for COVID and in relation to the US election being won by Biden. I can categorically say that Trump didn't win the election and that there is no credible proof that ivermectin is a treatment for COVID. People that claim otherwise are subscribing to a conspiracy, no?

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,091 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09

    The q anon conspiracy theorists are just "open-minded"?

    I don't use the term to cover "open-minded". I just use it for conspiracy theories.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ The Nal

    Yeah lots of open minded people around thinking Obama wasn't born in America and Hilary Clinton drinks the blood of murdered babies.

    We're lucky to have these free thinkers.

  • You know I don't really disagree too much. I suppose it makes sense that you can call them conspiracy theories but I can understand why some people don't like the term when some of the theories that appear to be true.

    I mean an underage sex island for the rich and famous was something only Alex Jones would have talked about a few years ago. It would have been labelled a conspiracy theory and would have been laughed out of the room. But since then the names Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell have come to the fore and everybody goes around acting like "of course this was happening everyone knows powerful people get up to all sorts of naughty stuff". You wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory today surely?

  • This is a common misstep of conspiracy theorists. They take one crazy event that actually happened and that is somehow proof that every other crazy conspiracy is true.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    A lot of people still think that Hilary Clinton the 2016 U.S. election and that Vladimir Putin was blackmailing Donal Trump but their open mindedness goes in the right direction.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,091 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09

    It depends. If Alex Jones is a reliable source of information. And he bases his assertions on preponderance of the evidence and is generally pretty correct and is quick to correct the times he's wrong with better, more up to date evidence, then he'd be a good source. If he spouts a whole load of conspiracy theories and every now and then one of the hundreds of conspiracy theories he throws out turns out to have a bit of truth to it, then he's a conspiracy theorist and not a reliable source of information.

    Which of those 2 descriptions is closer to a how Alex Jones behaves?

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭ Cienciano

    Ah, that's where you're wrong again. They didn't vote for him because they thought he was up to the job. They voted for him because he wasn't Donald Trump and they'd rather absolutely anyone but him back in the white house

  • I am wrong? So you are "right"? Interesting that you are able to read the minds of 80 million people. So they voted for someone they knew wasn't up to the job? That kind of flawed cartoonish good versus evil way of viewing the world was rewarded with an absolutely shambolic first year of the presidency. Can't believe there are a full 3 more years of Biden. Poor Americans.

  • Jones is definitely the latter option. He fires a lot of dung at the wall and occasionally some of it sticks. But if he has some diamonds in among the coal, it doesn't taint those diamonds just because it is coming from him. I think what I'm trying to say is you can't suppress or censor information because it might also sit adjacent to rubbish info. You need to allow it all out in the open and trust the public to discern the reliable info.

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭ Cienciano

    Better than the alternative which was more Trump. Hence the vote.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,966 ✭✭✭✭ alchemist33

    I was curious about all the hoopla so I listened to my first Joe show today. His guest was Dave Smith, who I hadn't encountered before.

    They had some good points, like about US foreign policy and people who say stupid things in the media (e.g. Whoopi Goldberg) should be debated with and educated rather tham cancelled.

    But after a while a lot of things started to grate, especially all the self-references and prolonged rants against CNN and other news orgs. Dave went on at length about news orgs lying, which is why Joe is so popular - I had a look at Dave's website later and he highlights all his appearances on Fox. And then they complained about a doctor talking about public health when it wasn't their specialty, nothing you could accuse Joe of.

    They struck me as smug guys far too convinced they were right about everything and with little capacity for self-reflection that it overpowered the message.

    Last week on reddit, I'd defended his right to be on spotify, and I still do (a very Joe-like stance, I'd imagine) but he's not for me.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ The Nal

    Believing things out of hand with no evidence is called gullibility.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭ completedit

    Rogan is not as open-minded as he likes to think(none of us are) we're open minded to our own biases and Rogan is no exception. IN GENERAL, you know exactly what Rogan's take will be on something. I can't think of examples but if there's a topic and Rogan is lending his opinion I'd be confident I would know his view 100% of the time.

    *TBH you probably need to have an element of open-mindedness to run a Podcast series where you interview a wide range of guests mutliple times a week but to me that's more selective curiosity than being open-minded. A true open-minded person wouldn't be able to critique or have an opinion/stance on anything

  • Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭ deholleboom

    You would have a legitimate point if it wasnt for the fact that mainstream media is mainly one sided. If you dont want to go to Fox news et al one would be better off watching a JR program for a counter view. He is not forcing you to accept any or everything. If it only points people to Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer it is a win in my book. None of the ufo/alien/atlantis theories interest me. The issue of misinformation has to be seen in the light of the political side of Covid, not from a scientific point of view. Then everything starts to make more sense. I mean, do we really have to point to the 1984 playbook time after time? Be..more...skeptical. and journalists are supposed to question those in power, especially those in power who sense the competition is overtaking them and act accordingly. This attack on JR has been gathering momentum for a while. Neil Young was only a catalyst. Ironic for someone who wrote 'Cortez the killer' which is full of misinformation. Great song though!

    All those people very eager to jump on the bandwagon, an appropriate metaphor i would say..

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭ Dyr

    its kinda funny to see lads shiteing on about conspiracy theories, misinformation

    This time last year claiming that the virus came out of a lab that was doing research on these viruses in Wuhan, was misinformation,a conspiracy theory with a dollop of white supremacy that would get you banned from social media.

    Same with claiming that the vaccinated could still spread Covid.

    The game is up lads, the politicized attempts to convey certainty regarding "the science" when there was none are now out in the open. The people who did'nt toe the line, like Rogan, are now more credible than those who tried to silence them. That doesn't mean they're correct but it does mean a lot of people trust them more than the now defrocked experts.

  • Posts: 0 Elliott Old Hawk

    It very much so was because there was not enough evidence to substantiate it. Also those conspiracies frequently claimed it was man made which we're pretty confident that it's not and the lab leak is far from certain too. Meanwhile the likes of Malone etc haven't produced any evidence to substantiate their claims even though there's a wealth of research.

  • If the Wuhan laboratory which was researching novel Corona viruses was found to be the source of this novel Corona virus from Wuhan, would you accept it, or do you think it's mostly bats in a wet market

    Those guys in government were just acting on best information, but those other guys.... They're terrorist disinformation activists.

    Fuck sake guys.

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    The Malone is classic "but he knew something about mRNA over 20 years ago but hasn't worked in the area since BUT LOOK mRNA Scientist" rubbish, ignoring the fact that

    • the data from billions of mRNA vaccines administered doesn't support his misinformation
    • he has no proof for the rubbish that he's peddling
    • he's completely discredited by actual researchers are working in the area currently (and not over 20 years ago like him)
    • he openly holds a grudge for apparently not getting enough recognition for his work in the 1980's
    • he's standing behind studies that have been retracted due to being erroneous
    • he has shared outright lies about Covid vaccines and and the parents of a dead man had to issue a "cease and desist" order against him spreading false crap about their dead son
    • he only appears on forums where he will not be challenged (Fox News with Tucker Carlson, GB News with Farage and now Rogan)
    • he is aligned with far-right anti-vax movements such as that of Robert F Kennedy Jr's