Categories
Articles

I listened to Joe Rogan’s podcast so you don’t have to

Here are all the things I’ve heard about Joe Rogan, mega-popular podcaster:

  • Nazi
  • Transphobe
  • Idiot
  • Genius

I finally gave in and had a listen to a few of his very, very long podcast episodes after Bernie Sanders called out his interview with Rogan.

The result is…he’s okay. Fine. Good. Doesn’t seem like a Nazi. Has some questionable opinions on trans women in sports, but isn’t quite on a level with people screaming slurs at trans women on Twitter. Some of his guests are, and I can’t mince words here, not good. I don’t believe in pure good and evil, but someone like Alex Jones tests that view. He practices malignant ignorance, and Joe has had him on in the last year.

It’s a value judgement. You have values, I have values. We all have lines we don’t cross. I suspect our lines and values are more similar than different. We can have a conversation here.

That’s what I don’t like about politics. Some people just refuse to own the fact that they have an ideology. “Trans rights are human rights” is, aside from being absolutely fucking true, an ideology.

And you know what? Even if you bristle at that slogan, I bet if we sat down and chatted about what it means, you would agree. We’re probably not that different once you get past the slogans and talking points.

I just don’t want to start this newsletter off by giving any impression to my many leftist friends that I wouldn’t stop a Nazi if they threatened any trans person. But I want everyone else to know that, despite some growing images of left-leaning people like myself, I don’t think everyone who holds an ignorant opinion on queer people (also like myself) is a goose-stepping fascist.

So this Joe Rogan guy, right?

He reminds me of Jack O’Neill, team leader on Stargate SG-1. Seems a little dumb, sometimes charges through good sense into bad calls, but his heart is in the right place. And he’s probably a lot smarter than he lets on. In another interview, I think the one with Penn Jillette, they talk about Joe’s past slide into conspiracy theories. He seems to be back to the fun, jokey-serious conspiracy theory nonsense of the ‘90s.

The kind that gave us Stargate.

But that’s not what most people care about in this post-Sanders endorsement world. People want to know if he’s a transphobe. In the strict, academic sense, his expression of his views on trans women in sports is transphobic. His words contribute to an environment that makes trans people unsafe.

By that definition, we’re all transphobes. I laughed at the “she’s a man, man!” scene in Austin Powers when I was younger and stupider. I laughed at the transphobia in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. Like Joe, I realize now how transphobic it was. I don’t find this definition helpful outside contexts where everyone knows and agrees with it. You have to meet people where they are if you want to move them.

Complex human. Calling out transphobic nonsense. Not giving in to all the people yelling “transphobe!” and sticking to trying not to be one. Look past the ableism in the way he expressed it. We’ll all come around on not calling things insane some day.

This human is a conduit for ideas with no filter. He has lines and values that come into focus as I listen to episodes. My impression is that, by American political standards, he’s more left than liberal, and far from right wing.

I can see the appeal. His revised interview with Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, adds Vijaya Gadde and Tim Pool. This was probably one of the best interviews I’ve heard.

Vijaya Gadde is Twitter’s main law/policy/community person. She made a strong case that Twitter is listening, trying to do right. Jack stayed out of the way a lot, saying she needed to be at the front more on this subject as the person responsible for Twitter’s community.

Tim Pool is one of those people I would normally dismiss as an asshole. Asshole, probably, but I heard him. He’s your typical free speech absolutist. He has his lines, and those lines are informed by his ideology. He thinks, and Joe generally agrees, that removing people and content from platforms prevents people from making informed decisions.

He cites an example where a friend of his was going down the alt-right rabbithole by way of a right-wing personality. He wanted to reference a video on YouTube from that personality to show how bad they really are and where his ideas went, but the video was gone. He admitted he didn’t know why it was gone, but the point held: the video wasn’t available as evidence to steer that friend away.

That was actually kind of persuasive. A point of agreement! We might disagree on the solution. I think it’s better to demote the content and people and provide some informed commentary, then provide a path to the full force of their ideas with the benefit of that context. In the same way, I wouldn’t send someone to Joe’s podcast without pointing out some of the troubling people he has on. Context. Lines. Ideology.

I don’t think I would have understood all the viewpoints involved here without the format. The episodes are long. This episode (#1258) is three and a half hours. So long that everyone got out the usual BS, realized they kept repeating themselves, and chilled out enough to hash out their differences and similarities for a couple of hours before calmly conceding they wouldn’t fully agree with each other, but at least understood each other’s positions.

As I do, now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s