The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasts

~Rebel~ · 30-10-2020 6:09pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

When you're right, you're right!

You made two separate statements in your initial post - the first is about people attaching a point of view to him based on the names he hosts, rather than having any knowledge of his own position on those subjects. Totally right there, his own political/social leanings should be based on what he actually says in these interviews, and beyond.

This above point doesn't come up in the article.

The second statement is about the rights or wrongs of providing a massive platform to potentially destructive points of view. I think this is a pretty valid point of discussion, particularly within the context brought up in the article, where it mentions the possibility that he's doing it from a more cynical cash-grab point of view. Now, it's a point of view I disagree with personally, as I think there's a place for dissenting and contrarian opinions, as even if you disagree with them at least you gain an insight into them. And debate and disagreement are what often lead to progress, as you find the little pieces of common ground or see things from a different perspective. But, there is an argument to be had that some points of view hold such little value that giving them a platform as huge as this does more harm than good. Again, I'm not sure I agree, but I think its a very valid position to hold, particularly if the interviewer provides validation, or doesn't challenge them effectively.

MrStuffins · 30-10-2020 6:46pm

~Rebel~ wrote: »

You made two separate statements in your initial post - the first is about people attaching a point of view to him based on the names he hosts, rather than having any knowledge of his own position on those subjects. Totally right there, his own political/social leanings should be based on what he actually says in these interviews, and beyond.

This above point doesn't come up in the article.

The second statement is about the rights or wrongs of providing a massive platform to potentially destructive points of view. I think this is a pretty valid point of discussion, particularly within the context brought up in the article, where it mentions the possibility that he's doing it from a more cynical cash-grab point of view. Now, it's a point of view I disagree with personally, as I think there's a place for dissenting and contrarian opinions, as even if you disagree with them at least you gain an insight into them. And debate and disagreement are what often lead to progress, as you find the little pieces of common ground or see things from a different perspective. But, there is an argument to be had that some points of view hold such little value that giving them a platform as huge as this does more harm than good. Again, I'm not sure I agree, but I think its a very valid position to hold, particularly if the interviewer provides validation, or doesn't challenge them effectively.

While I understand where you're coming from, the questions in the second half of your post can be answered by taking the context of the show into consideration. Once you do, you realise that the concerns being brought up by these people are moot. I bet they didn't actually listen to the episode.

I'm not a Jones fan. I don't subscribe to his ideas and I think when you make extraordinary claims you should have to back them up with extraordinary evidence. But you can't try to ban the likes of Rogan from having people like him in his show.

The "conservation" you speak of should be about the validity of claims, not the right for someone to have certain guests on his show.

jam_mac_jam · 30-10-2020 6:55pm

One of the reasons for his huge popularity is that he interviews a wide range of people. That's why people listen to him.

I think Alex Jones is a lying **** but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be on a podcast. All those people are doing is providing free advertising to Joe Rogan. The minute you want to ban something it becomes more interesting.

It's written into the contract that he can have the guests on that he wants so I think this is going to backfire.

I think there is a backlash against this attempt to control who we can listen to. I don't agree with Joe Rogan on a lot but I admire that he is not listening to this. I suppose he has enough listeners he can ignore it.

~Rebel~ · 30-10-2020 7:21pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

One of the reasons for his huge popularity is that he interviews a wide range of people. That's why people listen to him.

I think Alex Jones is a lying **** but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be on a podcast. All those people are doing is providing free advertising to Joe Rogan. The minute you want to ban something it becomes more interesting.

It's written into the contract that he can have the guests on that he wants so I think this is going to backfire.

I think there is a backlash against this attempt to control who we can listen to. I don't agree with Joe Rogan on a lot but I admire that he is not listening to this. I suppose he has enough listeners he can ignore it.

Yeah, I'm flat out against the 'banning' of any form of expression or idea, ever.

It's a funny switch, where what used to be the remit of right wing fascism -- book burnings, the suppression of public speakers etc -- is starting to become a left wing tool in a very dangerous way. It's one of those things where some people really need to take a step back and look at the larger repercussions of what they're suggesting. Liberalism means being tolerant of other points of view, even if those views themselves are conservative.

But anyway, I think it's valid that these people have these points of view against Rogan's guests, and then it's equally valid that they be met with the responses above. It's not a bad discussion to be had anyway. Ultimately it's all going to come down to Rogan's contract, which I'd imagine he's working within and not breaking by having the likes of Jones on.

completedit · 30-10-2020 7:30pm

I'm always skeptical of people who wouldn't be interesting if you didn't know about their fame/status. I love Kanyes music and some things he has done in fashion but he's not a genius. He's a relatively creative guy with a scatter gun mind.

~Rebel~ · 30-10-2020 7:37pm

completedit wrote: »

I'm always skeptical of people who wouldn't be interesting if you didn't know about their fame/status. I love Kanyes music and some things he has done in fashion but he's not a genius. He's a relatively creative guy with a scatter gun mind.

Broadly I'd agree... though I think the manner of their fame is important. For instance, someone who becomes famous sort of arbitrarily by being on The Voice or something, doesn't automatically have something interesting to offer.

But there's a type of creative famous person that can be interesting to hear from... I think 'creative' is the key part. If someone has created something - beit music, art, film, literature etc - that taps into the shared public subconscious enough to make them famous, then I think there's probably more to be learned from them by digging in, at least for a short-to-medium period of time. Whether you agree with them or not, those sorts of people are often really dialed into the 'feeling' of the masses. I think this is also why some artists flag so badly a little while later, as they're no longer connected to the zeitgeist. And why some artists - Bowie being the king - are so special, transcending generations.

For Kanye, I think he'd have been more interesting to listen to a decade ago.

MrStuffins · 30-10-2020 7:52pm

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Broadly I'd agree... though I think the manner of their fame is important. For instance, someone who becomes famous sort of arbitrarily by being on The Voice or something, doesn't automatically have something interesting to offer.

But there's a type of creative famous person that can be interesting to hear from... I think 'creative' is the key part. If someone has created something - beit music, art, film, literature etc - that taps into the shared public subconscious enough to make them famous, then I think there's probably more to be learned from them by digging in, at least for a short-to-medium period of time. Whether you agree with them or not, those sorts of people are often really dialed into the 'feeling' of the masses. I think this is also why some artists flag so badly a little while later, as they're no longer connected to the zeitgeist. And why some artists - Bowie being the king - are so special, transcending generations.

For Kanye, I think he'd have been more interesting to listen to a decade ago.

Sorry Rebel but I knew there was something dodgy about you.....

~Rebel~ · 30-10-2020 7:56pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Sorry Rebel but I knew there was something dodgy about you.....

Got me!

humberklog · 02-11-2020 7:07pm

Has Joe given any more details on his election night special? I've had a browse of his Twitter and no mention.

CatFromHue · 06-11-2020 10:50pm

Joe Rogans Kanye West Interview In 1 Minute

humberklog · 20-11-2020 2:47pm

Anyone notice that the latest episode Rawlings/Chapelle dropped on Podcast Addict but hasn't yet on Spotify?

I tend to still listen to it on PA because (I could be wrong on this but...) PA seems to download 10 minutes sections so if you go through an area with no coverage the pod will continue to play for a while but on Spotify you need constant coverage so it drops off more often.

MrStuffins · 20-11-2020 3:39pm

humberklog wrote: »

Anyone notice that the latest episode Rawlings/Chapelle dropped on Podcast Addict but hasn't yet on Spotify?

I tend to still listen to it on PA because (I could be wrong on this but...) PA seems to download 10 minutes sections so if you go through an area with no coverage the pod will continue to play for a while but on Spotify you need constant coverage so it drops off more often.

Yah I noticed this. Despite the fact that Joe tweeted saying "available now on Spotify"

deep_dish · 23-11-2020 11:06am

I thought the Rawlings/Chapelle episode was only ok. Maybe I bought into everyone's hype having Chapelle on, but it was a normal enough episode.

Sugarlumps · 24-11-2020 10:34am

Skipped all of Rawlings, offers nothing.

Alf Veedersane · 29-11-2020 11:25am

Turns out the new studio is just a stop-gap

Mic 1972 · 06-12-2020 9:04pm

I found the new episode with Jacques Valle very frustrating. you could clearly tell how Joe wanted to get specific information out of him and your man keep going around in circles. You don't go to Joe Rogan bragging about how your new UFO documentary is going to chance history and literally you have nothing to offer, not a single piece of evidence.

yourdeadwright · 07-12-2020 12:50pm

I really enjoyed the Tom Green one ,
There was nothing really to it but I still fund it enjoyable and I don't really know why ,
I never liked Tom Green as a comic but he came across as a nice guy ,

emo72 · 08-12-2020 2:44am

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I found the new episode with Jacques Valle very frustrating. you could clearly tell how Joe wanted to get specific information out of him and your man keep going around in circles. You don't go to Joe Rogan bragging about how your new UFO documentary is going to chance history and literally you have nothing to offer, not a single piece of evidence.

I'm 90% through it. I thought it was poor too. Does Valle understand what an interview is? Why is he there. Basically saying he knows stuff but isn't going to tell us anything. Very annoying.

humberklog · 28-12-2020 2:32pm

I was checking Spotify for JRE podcasts around *I think* 23rd, 24th and 25th and I didn't see any new episodes but last night I notice that 2 had and are marked as dropping on the 23rd and 24th.
Did I just not see them or did they not drop until yesterday?

28-12-2020 2:35pm

humberklog wrote: »

I was checking Spotify for JRE podcasts around *I think* 23rd, 24th and 25th and I didn't see any new episodes but last night I notice that 2 had and are marked as dropping on the 23rd and 24th.
Did I just not see them or did they not drop until yesterday?

There's one there Wednesday, Thursday and another Saturday for me anyway..

Bobeagleburger · 28-12-2020 6:16pm

Is Spotify the only place to get these?

robwen · 28-12-2020 6:45pm

Are the clips gone off YouTube as well as the full show?

28-12-2020 8:37pm

robwen wrote: »

Are the clips gone off YouTube as well as the full show?

Clips are still going up, just had a look.

Unrelated, I can't stand listening to Joe talking about the corona virus. He hasn't a clue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R59mzw0iPTY

TomSweeney · 29-12-2020 10:59am

Deleted User wrote: »

Clips are still going up, just had a look.

Unrelated, I can't stand listening to Joe talking about the corona virus. He hasn't a clue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R59mzw0iPTY

Yeah he doesn;t fear monger how dare he ....

This is a great podcast :

https://open.spotify.com/show/4rOoJ6Egrf8K2IrywzwOMk

Effects · 01-01-2021 9:16pm

Riff1211 wrote: »

Sorry . Posted 3 times by mistake. New to this :-(

New to posting on forums? Or new to DMT?

bosco12345 · 05-01-2021 1:13pm

Just listened to the Bob Lazar podcast from last year. Amazing stuff

US2 · 05-01-2021 2:30pm

Way too many comedians and political people on these days, suppose he has Aliens, ancient civilizations and Psychedelics covered at this stage. Think Lex Friedmans pod is alot more interesting these days

05-01-2021 2:32pm

The Spotify Xbox App not supporting video is one of the stupidest things I've come across in a while.

bosco12345 · 05-01-2021 5:52pm

Agreed, there are far too much comedians on the show now. Same things talked about every time and have to listen to Joe's views on the same issues again and again.

05-01-2021 7:01pm

TomSweeney wrote: »

Yeah he doesn;t fear monger how dare he ....

This is a great podcast :

https://open.spotify.com/show/4rOoJ6Egrf8K2IrywzwOMk

Two comedians with zero expertise spreading uninformed bro science hot takes to millions; I can't stand it.

The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasts

Comments