Think part of the problem with polarisation on the internet is the way we interpret words changes. For instance people on the internet interpret someone being called a gobshite as something irredeemable, so if someone else thinks they’re fine then it becomes quite the stark contrast as the seem like polar opposites. However in real life we’ve all got friends who are gobshites, or friends of friends who we don’t like but don’t argue with our friend over even though they think that person is fine, we just accept it, get on with it and don’t
Another problem is the camp who like an influential person of interest are likely to see more good in the person because they see more of said person, so can see their indiscretions as lapses of judgement rather than a testament of who that person is, whereas those who don’t like them, are quite clearly going to see less of them, and therefore are likely to judge them more harshly on the tidbits of information they see online or in the news.
For Joe Rogan, I think it’s been a slow path to being a polarising figure which I put down to a few things, with the recent more news worthy controversies pouring gas on that fire. Early on, this is a guy who would mainly interview his comedian buddies, none of whom were particularly famous and MMA fighters due to his history in the sport. At that point, him recording his long conversations whilst having a few drinks and smoking the odd spliff meant discussions about psychedelics, exercise, hunting, fighting, the occasional politics and conspiracy theory was what you’d expect, not only that, he was harmless as he wasn’t all that popular.
The level and diversity of his guests slowly expanded as his popularity did which increased both his exposure, beginning a cycle that brought bigger guests and more listeners, but whilst his audience and guests changed his interests didn’t, so whilst the conversations would be conducted through a different lens focusing initially on the persons area of expertise, they would often be steered toward the original hubs of conversation getting quite a chunk of time spent with an expert talking about Joe Rogan’s interests, not to mention his extra pull allowed him to talk to more people in the fields he was interested that were more controversial.
Despite this, I can’t see any controversies from these initial years, not that arose at the time anyway. He first became a news story when he started interviewing the self proclaimed Intellectual Dark Web (an odd name for people who believe themselves to be on the right side of the debate), however I don’t think Joe Rogan was seen as anything particularly dangerous within this, but I think it’s when he first drew severe critics. His part in this really was as a left wing proponent of free speech though as far as I can tell, so his harshest critics were those on the left who are most in favour of government regulations around speech, and certain words in particular. He didn’t win any fans on this with his strong opinions on transgender involvement in women’s sport.
The real controversies come through the pandemic though as his conspiracy theory and alternative medicine interests came to front and centre, which meant he was probably the biggest platform for the anti-vaccine scientists and advocates, which people rightly saw as dangerous given the negative influence that could have on a solution to a global pandemic that relied on a extremely high take up to be effective. This is where I think he became most polarised, and although I don’t think he was ever accused of pushing the views particularly himself, he had enough guests on of that viewpoint to make it clear that he felt it was a valid opinion.
This line of ideology around free speech to the point where you question science is an interesting one since not only does science encourage questions, peer reviewed papers can be disproven and tried and tested medicines could potentially have unseen side effects in the long run that are not spotted in shorter trial periods, though this is more of a potential risk than one that actually has many real world examples to back it up. It is however the best system we’ve got and whilst the outcomes it produces aren’t perfect, they are the most accurate representations of each field we have to date. It therefore doesn’t matter if the outcomes are right, what matters it’s the best approximation of right that we currently have, so to argue against that is bound to be tied with a fair level of unsubstantiated nonsense or conspiracy theories around motive, so whilst you can make an argument for free speech, it doesn’t hold much weight in this area as years of research are more than a match for anything else.
This does indeed uphold the idea that he’s a gobshite, but I guess different people will have different opinions on how much that taints Joe Rogan and his podcast as a whole, since either they agree, and they’re gobshites too, or they can put that aspect of him to one side and enjoy other aspects, taking us back to the idea around how you’d react if someone you knew and liked offline was anti-vax or a sceptic on scientific output. You might stop talking to them, but more likely you’d role your eyes and avoid the subject.
His later controversies more fall into a more minor category, I think but other people may have their opinions on that. He’s talked for that long a record with a sense of humour that tries to be edgy and a view on life that boldly pushes freedom of speech, so I don’t think they’re the most surprising of controversies and I don’t think they’re altering anyone’s world view, or view on him, so whilst they’re hurtful comments for some, those who were hurt by them who previously should have known it was coming and if they were fine with what came previously then it probably makes them somewhat of a hypocrite or gobshite themselves.
So overall, I think it makes sense that he’s a decisive figure in todays context but he’s probably somewhere in between everyone’s opinion. He’s a bit of a gobshite but not as bad as some, though he gives a mouthpiece to some of the bigger ones. He’s got the potential to be have a negative influence on society but realistically I don’t think anyone’s viewpoints are being moved by him, though maybe they might be emboldened. And so whilst he may not be fine, he’s probably okay to listen to as long as you do so with a critical ear, and whilst being selective. You probably shouldn’t listen to every episode, for a number of reasons, but you probably can listen to a few as long as you are prepared to have to still sift through a fair amount of varied nonsense to get the gems you’re looking for.
And most of all, if you’re going to listen do it for the guest he’s got on rather than him, because he’s really not worth the time, off his on merits.
