-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Joe Rogan goes full blown MRA; defends Trump, denies gender wage gap
- Thread starter Chumley
- Start date
- Status
Seductivpancakes
Member
Aside from his MMA commentary, I don't take him, his opinions or his podcast seriously.
Rogan = Trump? What?
Talking about ACTUALLY assaulting women and joking about social issues aren't equatable. Not even remotely.
Telosfortelos
Advocate for the People
I could only speculate about the reasons why, and it seems like most researchers are in the same boat. Ability to negotiate pay and aggression in the pursuit thereof is often suggested to be part of it.
But the links do go over the pay gap within the same occupation. The last link is a simple table that goes over it: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf. The same "title" is difficult, because different companies use different titles for different positions.
Glassdoor used their data to try to find the adjusted pay gap for the same titles from the same companies, though, and they found a 5.4% pay gap:
https://www.glassdoor.com/research/studies/gender-pay-gap/
I don't think Rogan is a terrible person for his statement. There's a lot of noise supporting what Rogan says on the internet. Better to try to engage in conversation than frame those that disagree as some some terrible other unworthy of consideration or conversation. I think that way of thinking has entrenched a lot of the alt-right style outrage.
I also think the potentially more important problems have to do with things like occupational segregation and what it'll take to get the future generation of girls to get into high paying technical fields. There are a lot of cultural barriers that are hard to break down. As someone that works in the tech industry, I feel terrible for women trying to enter the field. It's fucking hard to deal with the sexism and near frat-boy culture that exists in a lot of departments. It's also hard to deal with being the exception, being different from everyone else, and of course dealing with nerdy guys flirting awkwardly when you're trying to advance your career.
Sorry I didn't get to reply last night. Not sure if you'll see this.
And finding that talk to be hilarious says something about your character. Deflect all you want, but it's true.
partyphone
Banned
yeah. jokes based on racist/sexist/etc stereotypes are predictable, unimaginative and unfunny.
capitalCORN
Member
"Don't blame us, God made us do it!"
NoblesseOblige
Banned
If this only was the first time Rogan has revealed to be a complete butthat about feminism and gender equality. At this point he shows a pretty clear pattern that leaves little room for questioning.
gutter_trash
Banned
Burr is a funny guy granted and I have enjoyed his podcasts but he is too nihilist to take seriously when it comes to social issues and politics
Roegan is an airhead soft conspiracy theorist
Both are still decades behind in defending old school machismo culture and holding onto an old schoolyard mentality into adulthood
I haven't heard this podcast in full, but I've heard Rogan mention in some other podcast (I've only heard a few episodes) that the pussy grabbing comment is ridiculous and unacceptable. So what if he finds it funny? Tons of horrible things are funny.
How does it make you hateful though?
Insensitive, ignorant, fucking idiot? Absolutely you could apply those terms, but not hateful.
Butthat? As in not agreeing with it? I consider myself largely a feminist, but I also don't think people who disagree with me ideologically are "butthats".
I like listening to people with opposing viewpoints - it expands my horizons.
What podcast has Lance Armstrong talking for 3 hours? Maynard james keenan? Chris hatfield? Sam Harris, Brian Cox, Dan Carlin, etc etc Let me know
Comedy is subjective. Telling people what they are allowed to laugh at speaks volumes about your character though.
Edit: still love the Rohan is a conspiracy theorist line. You know given he made that show about debunking conspiracy theories.
Sure does. Say whatever you want about me, I think people who find Trump's shit funny are hateful and I'm not even remotely ashamed to say it.
partyphone
Banned
i love how this always gets twisted this way. you're absolutely allowed to be a shithead.
capitalCORN
Member
If you're really serious about the discussion. Don't stop to bellyache, and give a reply you think would add to more value to the matter at hand.
partyphone
Banned
what?
I was talking more in general not defending trumps retarded statements but I personally feel his private 'locker room' talk can hardly be taken as actual opinions.
Believing you can do anything because you're famous and sexually assault women isn't an actual opinion? Ok.
JR got popular before all of those though. The fact is, he was just one of the first on the podcast boat.
Riposte
Member
I agree, after listening to the episode (I irregularly listen, and enjoy, to both of these guys' podcasts, so I was going to listen to it anyway). For one, the segments in question are about one minute and two or so minutes, respectively, and including a part where they make fun of the claim "being pregnant is the hardest job in the world", I think that's about it when it comes to "MRA"-tinted material (which is surprising because we are talking about Bill Burr, who's now apparently the lifelong feminist compared to Rogan here). He (and Burr) are not defending Trump (Billy Bush, yeah), but are joking about how dirty and bullshit men are, but they also acknowledge that Trump could probably actually be doing this shit. Rogan is more serious when he talks about the wage gap, which may be a MRA-talking point, but I've seen many left-minded folk walk away from 77 cents/dollar comment despite that being what the President went with. At the very least, it's an indecisive matter for a lot of people even on the left. Going off by what he actually said, what really seems to bother him is when things get repeated without verification (a little ironic, I know). I also think he would be receptive to an argument about it, but I don't think OP's link would be one of them, as it doesn't really address the common arguments against the wage gap (by profession, negotiation, etc).
I think I saw a comment that made it seem Rogan wouldn't stop talking about it and Burr was made uncomfortable, which I see is a ridiculous interpretation now. Anyway, putting what aside what people feel about Rogan (personally think he is a good guy that just buys into anything he finds interesting, which is going to be a lot of confirmation bias and some pseudo-science), I can't shake the feeling very few people actually listened to this podcast and are simply saying the first thing that comes to mind when they think of the man (e.g., tweets from 2013).
SparkleMotion
Member
Who did she fight? A man?
Conkerkid11
Member
That lord of the rings pivot.
If Sauron wants to end the world of man, does this mean he's against MRA?
Funny that your next response did exactly what I said you had spent our discussion doing. Do you realize that your argument style in this thread boils down to "what you wrote doesn't matter, what about this conflation/other thing I just came up with?"
Here I was responding to someone who questioned if Milo had many TV appearances, giving them exactly the information they required. The argument style you use implies that others are wrong without ever actually refuting their points. Ironically, given you accused another of doing it yourself, it is based on deflection.
Can I summarize this?
-You're wrong because I feel you're wrong, my opinion is fact.
-Misrepresentation of the other side's argument.
-(Including information from previous posts) I was a fan, but this podcast episode in particular pushed me over the edge, and now I slander the person I was a fan of with clickbait titles (please don't ever become my fan).
Remember when I reasoned against some of your previous truthfacts and you ignored it entirely? Apparently you feel strongly about the subject of the thread, for reasons I can't fathom. But outright ignoring responses, intentionally or not, illustrates that your thoughts aren't open to discussion and would be better placed on a blog.
Another example of conflation. Yeesh.
This thread is built on the particularly shaky structure of its title, which only allows agreement or defense of the OP's claims. At this point, I reject the premise.
You're upset I besmirched Joe Rogan. I get it. You're still not actually making a point about anything, maybe you should give it a rest and walk away if you reject the premise. I think he's an MRA fuckwit and have backed it up with years of quotes and guests, and you don't think that warrants being called an MRA fuckwit. Good for you. I disagree.
That's your opinion, guy. And weren't you the one who knew absolutely nothing about Milo Yiannapolis yet you went to bat defending him?
No one cares that you besmirched him. He's done that enough to himself.
What people care about is you're mischaracterizing someone, making sweeping generalizations, picking and choosing what fits your narrative, and arguing illogically (ad hominem, moving goalposts, etc.).
Fucking bullshit to all of this. I backed up everything I've said about him. Just because he has on guests who aren't assholes doesn't make his years of totally backwards-ass right wing nonsense go away.
Well I do hate Trump a lot.
Some days I find it to be hilarious that his supporters call out Clinton as a liar when Trump does it every day. It's even better when Trump asks for donations to his campaign and flips it to support his businesses and debts. The height of his funding hijinks is when it turned out the money he put into his campaign was earmarked as a loan so when his supporters offered their money he pocketed it for himself. They'll defend this tactic because he's a great businessman. A man with multiple bankruptcies. Their collective narcissism is off the charts.
If you can't find that funny what about his various debate performances.
He threw Invanka, his wife and Pence under a buss during the second debate.
He said he shows great respect to women twice even though he was laughed at the first time.
Sniff sniff sniff.
The guy is national threat and I feel his supporters are worse but to say you can't find humor in what he does is sad.
NoRéN;222169451 said:
This was a clever response.
They created the division around her.
Gave her the belt and they brought on fighters for her to compete against.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Joe Rogan a cool dude. Evidently fear is not a factor for him.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Naw, Joe is quite insane.
maquiladora
Member
Tyson talked science rationally and patiently. Rogan was like "yeh yeh yeh but look at this youtube video some conspiracy theorist dude uploaded, that looks weird to me, that's some fuckery!" It was infuriating.
I listen in 30 minute increments and come away offended when he expresses anguish at not being able to culturally appropriate language that others use.
It sucks that he defended Trump and denied the gender pay gap. Realize that Joe is a contrarian seemingly Libertarian. I am not surprised that a known contrarian defended Trump at all. I'm talking all this shit about Joe but Alpha Brain is a damn good substitute for Adderall, allegedly.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
the last thing I've heard from him was when he had that ex-cop on there, which was actually a good interview, not because of Rogan though.
Usually any enjoyment I get from an interview comes from him having a good guest not from him.
Haha, great now I feel like watching FF re-runs.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Cool post
I mean, look- He has a point. There are something like 800+ episodes of his podcast, most over 3 hours long and most of him while stoned. Rogan is often so high he repeats himself and contradicts himself. You'll often hear him argue the opposite point in another context.
But, while I've not listened to the podcast in a long time, I can tell you, that I've never detected malice or that he is anything but critical about the Alt-Right and all that.
He dislikes labels because he feels its a cheap way to pre-judge someones complex character and dismiss them entirely. He calls himself ignorant on most things and says he made the podcast just to have a conversation with people. He didn't want to do a show where he researched, vetted or read up or interviewed or moderated the conversation. He just wants to talk about things that interest him.
Given that he is also naive, the podcast has had many guests who are straight up crazy, and the format itself just leads itself to him giving a soapbox to crazy people, but he doesn't see it as his job to moderate or tone things down. He seems himself as just a dumb comedian who enjoys crazy shit.
When I think of Rogan I think of hippie go-self-improvement shit; Kettlebells, be the best you can be, kale shakes, yoga, mindfullness, ayauascha, alan watts, terrence mckenna, being kind to others and being good to others. He is like a male meathead version of Oprah. And he has had some really interesting guests on from time to time.
I've really enjoyed his talks with Christopher Ryan and Duncan Trussel.
I don't disagree he doesn't say a lot of shit, but I don't think he is this right-wing figure that he is being portrayed as by some here.
And like Entrement says- It's not a GAF thing or a Rogan thing. This is a general tendency we see more and more. Rogan calls himself a feminist, but hates feminism as a label. His point is that everyone is a feminist if they believe in equality between the sexes. And thats where he jumps off and views the rest of the feminist movement as tumblr feminism. That is all he sees, because, like with Burr his job as a stand up is saying shit that upsets people.
Burr is the same- He has defended rapists. Is he MRA too? Sam Harris has argued for racial profiling- is he a racist? I'd argue that any fair reading of those peoples entire spectrum of views, that it is not fair to summarise them just that easy.
Sometimes people hold positions that are wrong, but because you have some positions where you are wrong, doesn't mean that they are bad people. And thats the problem with a label. It's like, if someone can cherry pick just enough clips from out of thousands and thousands of hours of material it is enough to label someone as as a certain label while ignoring or dismissing all the other stuff where he has a fairly liberal view.
I absolutely agree that Rogan is naive. I think though that the Rogan Experiences biggest asset is his curiousity. He is not highly educated or an expert on anything other than martial arts. He intentionally goes in blind, and often while stoned.
But Rogan does have a large base, so I ponder if you can perhaps make the argument that if some of Rogans base are trump supporters and toxic conservatives who cherry pick some of his endorsements (like they do with south park) to serve their agenda, does Rogan have a responsibility? Is Rogan reaching so many people that he really shouldn't hide behind his "im just a dumb comedian, don't take me seriously"- That's the discussion I would like to have.
I think we will not reach concensus on this. I see Rogan as a well intentioned dude- and I am pretty sure that you dont have to dig deep to find stuff he has said out of sheer ignorance that is a lot worse. he is often so stoned he doesn't know what he is saying, and this careless of lack of moderating himself is probably one of the things that gave him his audience. Rogan doesn't bring unique insight into anything. He is just curious.
If what you say is true that he is evolving towards the right, that would make me sad. Because it's his inspirational and motivational points he sometimes have had that are really nice. I skate through his dumb opinions and I don't take him seriously. He is a comedian and some of his guests have been entertaining or interesting like the cop who was outed for talking up against police brutality, or the one with Kevin Smith, the real rick ross, the ones with Duncan, Anthony Bourdain, abby martin (she fanatical left-wing), the CNN lady who went down on a Ayuascha trip.
You cannot defend the dumb things he says- It just is. The question is if its fair to sum him up as MRA. We see this with Harris all the time.
Sam Harris has some fucked up opinions. When he gets into justifying racial profiling and washing away the horrors of Israeli brutality with these arbitary analogies, it's not a good look either. But most people can see that Sam Harris is more than a few bad/insensitive/ignorant opinions.
.It's just more and more on GAF lately. I get the sense that these threads are not about discussing something topical but just made so we will all jump on the fuck-this-guy bandwagon. It's petty and too easy to cherry pick so little while ignoring everything else. As a community we've collectively become worse at this. I've sensed a lot worse tone since this election began. Discussions rarely move to become satisfying, and it always ends up with these labels and group oriented language that is just reductionist.
And It's just that this thread is the same argument as a few weeks ago of South Park being enjoyed by the alt right and so that is enough coupled with a few one sided examples to asser that South Park courts the alt-right.
I'm convinced Rogan means really well- he is just not setting himself to be taken seriously. And that is okay.
Demoskinos
Member
Yup. Hot get there Netflix. =|
Depends on the context. Very possibly, yes.
Yes. Harris can be smart and a racist xenophobe at the same time.
This is the same line of thought that people use to defend Trump and anyone who's ever said objectively horrible things. It doesn't work. People are accountable for their actions and the things they say, and are free to apologize for them if they regret saying them.
Pandering to the alt-right crowd is despicable and should be called out as such. If South Park is doing it, fuck them.
Anything else?
I'm going to notify a mod if you shitpost like this again.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
Some comments on earlier stuff in the thread:
"SJW", like "political correctness", started out as a term by people on the left to mock certain tendencies within the left.
They have both since been co-opted by garbage reactionary people, and that's who you sound like if you use those terms. They throw up a giant red flag to anyone who's actually tuned in to conversations surrounding politics and treating people decently.
Further, if you use "triggered" to mean "annoyed", as in "LOL triggered", you are being a garbage person. Don't do that.
Rogan's shtick about how he's ignorant of a lot of stuff and "just wants to have conversations" fails when he flips out and pushes back on stuff where he is, once again, totally ignorant (see: anything relating to trans people).
As a trans person, am I not allowed to say, "Wow, that guy's transphobia pretty much makes him garbage." Am I being insensitive to the stoned, willfully ignorant rich dude?
"SJW", like "political correctness", started out as a term by people on the left to mock certain tendencies within the left.
They have both since been co-opted by garbage reactionary people, and that's who you sound like if you use those terms. They throw up a giant red flag to anyone who's actually tuned in to conversations surrounding politics and treating people decently.
Further, if you use "triggered" to mean "annoyed", as in "LOL triggered", you are being a garbage person. Don't do that.
Rogan's shtick about how he's ignorant of a lot of stuff and "just wants to have conversations" fails when he flips out and pushes back on stuff where he is, once again, totally ignorant (see: anything relating to trans people).
As a trans person, am I not allowed to say, "Wow, that guy's transphobia pretty much makes him garbage." Am I being insensitive to the stoned, willfully ignorant rich dude?
- Status