Joe Rogan Redux
Revisiting an old post.
A couple of years ago I engaged in some research by listening to the Joe Rogan Experience. At the time I was concerned about media coverage of Rogan’s positions on COVID and the vaccine and wanted to go beyond what others were saying to see for myself.
I came away unimpressed and agreed that the press coverage about his COVID-related positions were highly problematic. I found Rogan to be an able interviewer and entertainer who nonetheless thought that googling things on the fly was real research and was a person who subscribed to some crackpot ideas.
I am not, therefore, surprised at this:
He willingness to believe Kennedy’s book uncritically (I mean, after all, he would have sued if it wasn’t true!) reminded me very much of the kind of “research” he does on an ongoing basis on his show and that I described in my 2022 post.
Back to the googling, this was done several times during the interview, often over minor things, like one might do at a bar drinking and talking with buddies to confirm what year Tom Brady won his first Super Bowl or somesuch. Further, the sophistication of information sorting was not much better than a B-/C+ undergrad who knows they want information on, say, the history of the sugar trade (a real topic from the show) but really has no idea how to sort through the results of a search for quality information.
Again, if this is how he does his covid research, no wonder he ends up where he does. However, and I will reiterate, I am sure that this kind of thing is convincing to a lot of listeners because Rogan appears to be actually looking beyond himself for information. But what are the odds that most listeners then go and look at the links to assess their quality or to determine if they say what is claimed? (Likely only a weirdo would do that).
That Rogan is a “fan” of RFK, Jr. is highly unsurprising to me and confirms and reinforces my general assessment of Rogan himself. I still don’t think that Rogan is as odious as someone like Alex Jones, but I do think he is a purveyor of serious misinformation that is packaged in a way to appeal to a lot of people who are likely to believe it.
I note this via the Washington Examiner: Joe Rogan likes RFK Jr., and that’s bad news for Trump.
Here’s a key quote from the link above:
“I am a fan. He’s the only one that makes sense to me,” Rogan said of Kennedy during a recent show. “He’s the only one that doesn’t attack people. He attacks actions and ideas, but he’s much more reasonable and intelligent. The guy was an environmental attorney and cleaned up the East River. He’s a legitimate guy.”
Rogan says this is not an endorsement:
“For the record, this isn’t an endorsement. This is me saying that I like RFKjr [sic] as a person, and I really appreciate the way he discusses things with civility and intelligence,” he wrote in a statement Friday afternoon. “I think we could use more of that in this world. I also think Trump raising his fist and saying ‘fight!’ after getting shot is one of the most American f**king things of all time. I’m not the guy to get political information from.”
Still, I do expect that a lot of people do get their political (and other) information from Rogan. And while I am sure that the margins are small, Rogan’s praise of RFK Jr. is certainly worse news from Trump than it is for Harris.
This post circles me back to my post on the Sunday Forum about education.
We need to educate our citizenry – their entire lives – so that the right things happen because they are the right things, not because some corporate interest benefits from them.
Maybe Joe and Junior shared the same brain worm?
@Tony W: Ah the Bobo Left, dreaming eternal of converting the heathen to the true and correct educated culture, novy chelovik encore.
@Lounsbury: I left my decoder ring in my desk, so am unclear on your point.
@Steven L. Taylor: Apparently Lounsbury believes that educating the public so that they gain critical thinking skills — which is I believe what Tony W was advocating — is brainwashing them, because to a certain type of wannabee aristocrat the only proper role for the lower classes is to shut up and do what their betters tell them.
Which is pretty much his response to any poster here who disagrees with him, so it tracks…
@Steven L. Taylor:
I suspect, though I can’t speak for him, that he is taking issue not with educating people, but the “so that the right things happen because they are the right things.”
Perhaps it’s about a notion of a monopoly on knowing what’s right.
FWIW, of that is the case that issues guys far beyond just the “Bobo Left.” It’s also an issue with the “Bobo Right” and “Bobo radical centrists.”
I personally think the last group is the worst when it comes to this–or at least the most annoying.
@wr: You are correct, and I do realize I have an unreasonably high expectation of fairness and justice.
And I’m not changing that for anybody.
@Matt Bernius:
I don’t claim to know what is right or wrong, just what makes sense to me and aligns to my sense of justice. However, I’m also willing to change my stance when new information is presented, as any intelligent person would.
And that’s what I mean by the right things happening because they are the right things. I want ideas that stand up to scrutiny to prevail.
@Steven L. Taylor: ; @Matt Bernius: To an extent. Any observation where one’s solution is to “educate” the masses to achieve correct thinking so that the “right things” happen is quite Soviet New Man-ism, to convert the heathen unbelievers from not-correctly understanding to the Correct Views…
The BoBo Left,, the arch pretences of the Uni educated professional classes that has trended to a sociological identarian basis of Left are rather the most vocal here on converting the incorrect believers to the correct set of specific beliefs. Quite New Man with all that embedded futility.
@wr: What I believe is that the pretentious posturing here about “critical thinking’ and educating is simply an arch repackaging of secularised quasi religious goals of converting the heathen unbelievers – and part and package of the general distortion that the political obessesives (of all political flavours) self-deception that their focus, conerns, value sets, priorities are at once more broadly shared and can be spread. Something similar to the sports fan who can’t grasp that the non-fan really does not care and will never care no matter how much sport-education is done.
Or if I was a fool and thought that the general populace could be converted to enage with and care about proper economic education or statistical propobability analysis – it will never happen (would the world be better if it did, why yes, but humans are humans)
Of course the BoBo Left’s poorly disguised elite snobbery which they are rather evidently in profound self-denial on views (see “critical thinking”) is amusing
Educate away, however messianic conversion projects always fail. People remain people.
@Lounsbury: “Of course the BoBo Left’s poorly disguised elite snobbery which they are rather evidently in profound self-denial on views (see “critical thinking”) is amusing”
No end punctuation or proper grammar. Looks like you’re the one who could use some critical thinking here, Lounsbury.
@Lounsbury:
Isn’t “improved thinking through education” also a fundamental enlightenment ideal?
“I’m not the guy to get political information from.”
He gets points from me for self-awareness. His fanboiz will see it as modesty, though. On net, no effect.
@Matt Bernius: Indeed.
@just nutha: I suspect that this is more a reflexive way of avoiding responsibility (and lawsuits) that he applies to all his opinions than self awareness. But I suppose this opinion just demonstrates my cynicism
No edit button (this line will be removed if I actually get one)
@Lounsbury: That’s a wonderful comment. I can’t understand any of it which means it is really good. Reminds me of Das Kapital that was likewise impenetrable.
@Slugger: ok, but there are at least English translations of Das Kapital. No one can translate Louseberry.
@Erik: Wouldn’t know. Last I saw of Rogan he was playing a Joe Rogan-ish character on News Radio.
@just nutha:
He was the least funny character on that show.
And that show had Andy Dick as a cast member.
@Slugger:
That’s funny. But I understand what @Lounsbury is trying to convey. He has a point–in my view, a limited one. One could choose to compare it to the Soviet New Man or the Cultural Revolution.
Bernius and Taylor respond correctly by pointing out that it can also be compared to the Enlightenment ideal of education. Or Levittown:
*
Shit, add the D.A.R.E. program to the list.
If one interprets institutions, whether public or private, as entities engaged in the production of knowledge, the purpose, far from being some idealistic laboratory of ideas, is to shape thought and behavior.
It’s difficult for a lot of persons, including intelligent, educated, well-read individuals, to see that the Enlightenment project, various forms of socialism, anarchism, and Marxism share the same goal: liberation.
But rebellions, revolutions, and transitions-they get thorny and nasty – quite quickly.
How many pieces of legislation were passed in the first Congress before it enacted a policy that violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution?
And that’s the trick: every single one of the movements/ideologies I listed can credibky accuse the other ones of bounding the masses. (see the below footnote.)
*That fits the far-right, paranoid view of the Civil Rights Movements, considering that Levittown did now allow Black people to own homes. Maybe that’s why Black people went all commie – – demanding rights.
Who could blame one who believes in basic equality to look at Capitalist reasoning as a intimately intertwined with racism–if Levitt could not sell houses to middle-class white people without excluding Blacks, what does that say about Capitalist production of knowledge? How liberatory is it, really?
Even if everyone was “perfectly” educated, it doesn’t make everybody perfectly rationale. That’s not to say a better educated public wouldn’t make better choices overall in a democracy; that’s at least the default expectation.
@Franklin:
Of course not. Experiences will differ. Priors will differ.
The question is not about:
Universal agreement on whether there is or is not a problem; whether a problem should be solved through public policy or not; nor the shape of any potential policy–soft nudges or mandates.
In fact, that would likely be bad.
What the question it is about:
Can we improve education enough such that people can process and sort information effectively? Particularly in the realm of how to spot bullshit, lies, and spin.
Shit, at this point, I would settle for people skilled at distinguishing opinion from fact.
And understanding that opinions come in all sorts of types: thin, yet reasonable; well-evidenced and thoughtful; specific; broad; and of course, flat fucking false.
Is it a panacea? No. Can we get everyone to do it? No. But a functioning democracy does not require universal anything.
@Kurtz:
Indeed!
The Enlightenment led to liberalism (broadly defined). Marxism is largely a critique of liberalism’s failures to achieve its own alleged goals. Fascism is a reactionary response to both.
(That’s a big chunk of the Political Theory class that I taught for about two decades in three sentences!). 😉
@Kurtz:
Back in the Nixon era, Cracker and I had two teachers who insisted on critical thinking.
The English teacher subtitled his class “logic & propaganda,” with an emphasis on not being ignorant sheep.
The European History teacher had joined the Polish Resistance at around age 12-13, iirc. He fought Germans and Russians, and didn’t hold high opinions of either.