Joe Rogans Spotify apology

slant

slant

Capitalist pig
Donor
MBTI
None
Hello everyone,

I cannot find a YouTube link to this apology, but it is free on Spotify under the JRE podcast so feel free to explore it.

I understand that Joe Rogan is a controversial figure to many; I do not agree with everything he says or does, but I do enjoy many aspects of his show such as how it's long form and he interviews a lot of different type of people. I know that many people will get into arguments about whether Joe Rogan is a good or bad person, that's not really what this thread is about but many people view him this way so I get it.

My point of bringing this up is not specifically about Joe Rogan.

I want to discuss the concepts behind this, it's more an illustration of belief systems and what belief systems are dominant and less dominant and how that might impact the United States or the world.

I know the typical arguments are going to be:

a. Misinformation is dangerous and we need to stop people from spreading it

And

B. Information that is suppressed becomes more appealing to people so yes if it's wrong talk about it but we can't just hide/delete information that is wrong, freedom of speech

I'm interested in other perspectives besides these (but these are welcome) also maybe just a reflection on people and how to manage public opinion in a good way.

I know we have had this conversation in MANY threads, and I know people have very set opinions. I know myself personally I'm more on the "censorship is concerning me" side, but, I'm beginning to realize that everything is situational and it's good to be open to all angles *especially* ones that are not talking points and you mostly came up with yourself/by your own research. I get we are not experts in topics but it's frustrating to argue talking points when both people aren't listening.

Thanks for hanging in on my ramble.

The question is, when you see this story, what do you think it says about society's culture from your own perspective? Do you feel like it's a positive thing, negative thing, mixed? What motivated this decision, motivated Neil young and Spotify and others involved? I think it is an interesting case study and curious to hear what you all think! Again respect everybody's opinions!
 
Which apology, for what?
 
Wyote said:
Which apology, for what?
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken it's about how Neil Young started an outcry about how JRE spread false information about Covid vaccines.

If this is the case, I believe that while it is harmful to spread misinformation, if it comes with disclaimers like "This is just my opinion, I'm not stating it as fact" etc... then I don't think it even falls under the category of "misinformation" because it is simply people discussing their beliefs which is perfectly acceptable. I'm like @slant on this. I lean more towards "censorship is concerning" and that "everything is situational" meaning that yes, there are rules but it should also be looked at on a case to case basis. Because Joe Rogan will often turn around and have another professional come onto his podcast with the opposing view, just to discuss it.

I read that Joe Rogan in his apology said JRE is "out of control" and he wants to try and make it more balanced. I personally think it's fine the way it is. I have not heard the entire apology nor have I looked up the episode where all this started, nor have I looked up Neil Young to see what all was said, so take my words with a grain of salt, it's just how I feel in general.
 
Last edited:
slant said:
also maybe just a reflection on people and how to manage public opinion in a good way.
Click to expand...

People have a natural distrust of authority, no matter what.
It's best to force things upon people, because they are generally too stupid to even understand what they want or need.
Trying to reason with stupidity is wasted energy.

If we had kind people in leadership, it would naturally follow that people would be given better options at the cost of some strength.
You can see this very obviously in smaller pockets where miraculously this does occur, but it is not the norm.
Humans enjoy being ruled by sociopaths, power and strength at the helm gives people a false sense of security.

Things will never change. It's a human psychological structure built for survival.
Perhaps when technology reaches an inflection point where everyone truly realizes how insignificant they are, we can restructure.
But I doubt it. Zuck, Bezos, their descendants will simply vie for control of those mechanisms.
 
I guess it's about vaccines specifically.
I think this kind of stuff is needed, there's no way to disprove people's moronic shit if you can't even discuss it.
 
Wyote said:
Is this about Ivermectin again or some other shit?
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure what the details are, maybe @slant knows but I think he had a professional on there sharing some things about the vaccines and it triggered a bunch of people... and Neil Young even took his music off Spotify over it. Which is dumb to me but oh well.
 
Wyote said:
I guess it's about vaccines specifically.
I think this kind of stuff is needed, there's no way to disprove people's moronic shit if you can't even discuss it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Wyote said:
they are generally too stupid to even understand what they want or need.
Click to expand...

:tearsofjoy:I would've used the word "ignorant" but I agree. I get it. People don't often know what is best for them or what consequences their actions will have etc...
 
I don't really follow Joe Rogan. I know who he is and that he's lauded in certain circles that push misinformation. But I'm really surprised he apologized and that he even said he thinks his own show has gotten out of control and he wants to make it more balanced and to be more informed esp on controversial topics and guests. Gotta respect that. I really like that he's going to have people on both sides on his show. Give equal time to debate. I might actually give it a listen now just to see what it's about if he's actually serious about that.
 
Last edited:
April said:
:tearsofjoy:I would've used the word "ignorant" but I agree. I get it. People don't often know what is best for them or what consequences their actions will have etc...
Click to expand...

Yes, ignorant. I didn't mean it in an entirely negative sense. Figuring things out in life is difficult and complicated.
It's mostly that we all only have limited cognitive resources to sort things out.
 
Wyote said:
Yes, ignorant. I didn't mean it in an entirely negative sense. Figuring things out in life is difficult and complicated.
It's mostly that we all only have limited cognitive resources to sort things out.
Click to expand...
I knew what you meant. <3 You're right.
 
acd said:
I really like that he's going to have people on both sides on his show. Give equal time to debate. I might actually give it a listen now just to see what it's about if he's actually serious about that.
Click to expand...

He's always had a very wide range of guests and topics. Depending on the media outlet they will spin it wildly one direction or another.
Making more of an effort to be balanced and give counter-opinions is probably a good move though.
 
Wyote said:
He's always had a very wide range of guests and topics. Depending on the media outlet they will spin it wildly one direction or another.
Making more of an effort to be balanced and give counter-opinions is probably a good move though.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. Present both sides equally. Not just the controversial ones. If he's not doing that I can definitely see why there's an uproar about him esp since his show is very popular.
 
Last edited:
acd said:
That's the thing. Present both sides. Not just the controversial ones. If he's not doing that I can definitely see why there's an uproar about him esp since his show is very popular.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, his format is generally a deep dive into a specific person's ideologies/knowledge etc.
Guests from other episodes will serve as a counterbalance at times.
I like the deep dive because it really gives you a solid sense of the guest's train of thought.
I don't think he should change his format, but he should have more guests that specifically counter balance others.
 
acd said:
That's the thing. Present both sides. Not just the controversial ones. If he's not doing that I can definitely see why there's an uproar about him esp since his show is very popular.
Click to expand...
Well I mean he has done that before. Had guests with opposing views. From what I have seen anyway. But I don't watch him much, it's really when my bf watches him.
 
Wyote said:
What I'm saying is, his format is generally a deep dive into a specific person's ideologies/knowledge etc.
Guests from other episodes will serve as a counterbalance at times.
I like the deep dive because it really gives you a solid sense of the guest's train of thought.
I don't think he should change his format, but he should have more guests that specifically counter balance others.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan and don't listen to him so it's really no skin for me if he changes nothing. I did happen to come across him acknowledging that his show could be more balanced and even embracing Spotify disclaimers on misinformation (of course he's got a $100m contract to think of lol). Whether he follows through with that we will see. I expected him to double down and play the victim in all this and I'm just surprised he hasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top