Joe Rogan - suggestions to switch my sibling to better media
My 27 yr old sibling is a hard core follower of Joe Rogan š©
What are some progressive channels/people/content that I could have my sibling start watching instead?
Preferably something that has a similar flavor - example: male host, muscular, easy to digest. I think that will make the transition easier.
My personal preferences are Seth Meyers and John Oliver, but Last Week Tonight (John Oliver) is even a heavy watch for me sometimes!
[No Andrew Hubbard. Heās another fake.]
Thank you!
Behind the Bastards
Seconding this rec, seems like a good fit
The Weeds and The Gray Area are also decedent topic driven interviews. Except generally with actual experts and well researched interviewers.
In the same CoolZone Media vein, Hood Politics might fit the bill as well.
You don't think much of your sibling do you?
I mean if they listen to Joe Rogan, they don't seem to think much of themselves either tbh. That counts as self-harm.
Would you?
Depends on whether one wants to practice love or control I guess. Much easier to maintain efforts to control another person when you can convince yourself theyāre contemptible.
Their sibling might be young. Young people are gullible idiots.
Their sibling is 27 in this case, I think well past the age of "gullible young".
Youāll find that folks can be gullible at any age. My step-kids, who live with their dad in Texas, are in their early 20s and get about 99% of their information from either YouTube or TikTok. For the youngest, church plays a big part. Generally speaking, they are good kids, but they are both gullible AF. Iām betting OPās sibling has a similar diet of media consumption.
Yeah, the unbiased style of debate/news reporting is very dangerous.
What are you gullible about?
Iām sure thereās something, and I try to remind myself when talking to the kids that theyāre figuring out the world around them all the time just like i did when I was their age. Itās really hard getting them to look outside of YT and TikTok for information. Awhile back, the younger one got into the Atlantis mythology and started talking about it a lot. Theories of Atlantean origin are pretty common in white supremacist circles, so that was kind of stressful!
Not to mention the entire premise of the post being, essentially, "I don't approve of the entertainment my sibling chooses to consume. Please make suggestions for me as to other entertainment that I can then use to regulate said adult sibling, removing their entertainment that I don't like and forcing them to consume something I find more acceptable."
Like...I think Rogan's whole thing is stupid and most I've talked to who like his stuff are similarly ridiculous...but to go from that to full out "I plan to take it away from them and force them to do something I find more acceptable" is really quite a leap.
Or maybe it's "I love my sibling and don't want to see them slip further into this conspiracy rabbit hole. How can I offer them similar content that isn't as harmful?"
āCould it be loving and listening to my sibling? No itās the media thatās the problem!ā
If he's a "hard follower" of Joe Rogan than he likely won't be interested in other content. Rogan is a fool, but that's why people find him appealing. Content that is insightful and educational is the opposite of the junk food of Rogan.
Maybe instead, when Rogan says something like "Bro did you know like the pineal gland of the chimpanzee produces anti-covid hormones? This is just what I've heard. Look it up. By the way did you see the tree growing in my toilet?" You can help your sibling by teaching them ways to think, reason, and critically evaluate the BS that freely flows from the Roganverse.
Hey be careful when you are blatantly misquoting Joe Rogan to benefit your own exaggerations.
He clearly says that the pineal gland produces DMT. And you know how much Joe Rogan loves DMT.
Iām a fan of Joe Rogan and I gotta say, I donāt think he says things like this. And I donāt think youāve ever listened to Joe Rogan, if you think he does.
Doesnāt that bother you even just a little bit, that you form strong opinions about things with no direct knowledge of them?
Make him watch early Joe Rogan content. Back when he actually had an open mind and interesting guests.
Back when he used to be curious about his guests.
I just listened to about 50% of his last episode with Tulsi Gabbard. You know, the Presidential candidate? The whole episode, the entire thing at least up to the 1:45 mark where I gave up, was Joe ranting about shit and Tulsi saying āyeahā.
The Hasan Abi Broadcast
This comes off a little negative but totally get the desire to show a sibling something different,as someone who uses to listen to rogan regularly...
Find whatever guests he liked and nail down what it is he's actually interested in. For me it was history and comedy.
History of Rome with Mike Duncan then lead to youtubers like sandrhomanhistory and the operations room. If he's into more military and masculine show him forgotten weapons also on YouTube.
If you go as left mainstream as John Oliver it's gonna be an uphill battle. Even though I more than likely agree with what he would say have 0 desire to watch it.
Comedy wise the early cumtown episodes are goofy classics.
What I love about Mike Duncan is that you can hear him radicalizing in real time during the Revolutions podcast. By the time he reached the Haitian Revolution heās done with everyoneās shit.
Before COVID Rogan's show was fantastic. As soon as the end of 2019 ramped up it was all down hill from there.
He went full Alex Jones.
Yeah itās easy to hate Joe Rogan now but thereās a reason why he was the #1 most downloaded podcast for years. Huge range of guests and Joeās, āJack of all trades master of absolutely nothing besides MMAā knowledge base of questions got some good stories out of people.
He went full meth addict. All he does is talk at his guests. He doesnāt listen any more he just rants at them.
Or he has a comedian on, and they spend two hours mentioning names from back in the day.
I've never listened to Rogan*, but I think https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcasts does an excellent job of talking about current news and science items in an easily digestible format that mostly avoids bullshit while probably filling the same gee-whiz niche that people expect from Rogan? It's a panel, so not a single muscular male host, but I think if your sibling is pursuing Rogan because they think it's helping expose them to new interesting ideas, SGU is a vastly superior route to that end.
*I actually think my only Rogan exposure has been the SGU talking about how he more or less just believes the last thing anyone told him, whatever that might be, which seems... less good?
Your preference is your preference, but SG1 and SGA are far better than SGU in my opinion.
I assume this is a Stargate thing and that there aren't actually that many Skeptical Guide podcasts out there.
I haven't got any dog in the Stargate fight, I've seen the original movie (good) and watched the Richard Dean Anderson TV series (better than the movie) for a while before it just fell off my radar? I'll take your word for it that Stargate Universe is the lesser of the Stargate properties.
SGU in my comment obviously is referring to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe aka, the linked podcast.
Beau of the fifth column on YouTube is just for this he tries to reach people at that level and doesn't talk down to them and is great on foreign policy concepts.
J Aubrey is a very entertaining long format YTer that explains many of the internet's worst villains. His take down of grifters don't target Joe himself, but help inoculate people from the "natural" hierarchies that dominate conservative thought.
https://m.youtube.com/@jaubrey/videos
Good God, he has some of the most cringey clickbait thumbnails I've ever seen.
And just watching the first 5 minutes of the Steven Crowder episode, he's for sure not someone the Joe Rogan crowd would be interested in watching.
My man, is this the first YT thumbnail you've ever seen?
Why, because popular YT formats are something the millions of normie Joe Rogan viewers all despise? I don't know man, you do you. But popular formats by definition are something the masses are comfortable with.
Edit: Going through all the suggestions now - thank you! I hadnāt heard of these before. I appreciate it!
I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone progressive enough for lemmy to like that will also be interesting to a Joe Rogan fan. I would recommend Destiny though. I wouldn't say he's like Joe Rogan, but he frequently does debates with commentators of all politcal positions including those with similar beliefs to Joe. He has an aggressive, confrontational style that would be your best bet at trying to demonstrate the weaknesses of the views Joe would advocate for.
If you're not familiar with his views, Destiny could probably be described as a left-leaning liberal institutionalist moderate. His community can attract a variety of viewpoints and is relatively accepting of criticism for Destiny so your brother would have an easier time interacting with them than someone like Hasan.
It's nice you are trying to look out for your brother like this. Good luck!
You recommended a right wing pedophile... he said left wing content not borderline nazi propaganda
It's interesting that he seems to get a lot of accusations of being far-right by the far-left and far-left by the far-right. I don't know if there was some controversy I missed that inspired the pedophile comment, but calling him a borderline nazi is frankly ridiculous.
Here's the introduction to his wikipedia page for anyone curious:
He accidentally leaked his porn folder and it was full of animated child porn.
He's also permanently banned on Twitch for saying all the black people protesting during BLM should be shot.
So child porn and calling for the death of peaceful black protesters sound like a fucking nazi to me
I still can't find anything about him being a pedophile. If you have something you can link about it I would genuinely like to know.
He was never given a reason for his permanent ban, but it is thought to be for for his view on trans athletes. He was temporarily banned earlier for saying "the rioting needs to fucking stop, and if that means like white redneck fucking militia dudes out there mowing down dipshit protesters that think that they can torch buildings at ten p.m., then at this point they have my fucking blessing..." in regards to a BLM protest, which was considered inciting violence. Not saying that's a great statement but it's pretty clear he's talking about rioters specifically.
But neither of these thing make him a nazi. That label shouldn't just be thrown around casually.
I read it here before but the best way is deconstructing a specific case of the person in question choosing. The problem is that replacing one influencer with another one won't change the understanding issue of misplaced trust in media/people.
I think that these things should be voluntary by the way. Both for success chances and pure respect for your sibling.
Ask him if they would be interested. Then make them choose an episode. Prepare yourself. Ask them to prepare a little document in which they express their understanding and lesson that they learned from the episode. Ask them if they are willing to investigate how true these things are. Look for evidence together or alone. When done, get together and talk about the truthfulness of the ideas.
Alternatively ask yourself if they have some kind of expertise in something and look if there is a Joe Rogan episode about and suggest them to watch it. The deconstruction would happen automatically. You can help by ask them questions about it. Having to vocalize criticism towards something is an amazing reflection exercise.
Modern Wisdom
Would Lex Fridman fit the bill? He runs in the same circle as Joe Rogan with similar guests, but generally just let's his guests speak instead of actively pushing nonsense, and especially not with the degree of confidence that Rogan does while being wrong. It'll still require you to listen critically, but that might be easier if you don't have someone actively pushing you in one direction.
Tom Segura
Destiny
The same Destiny that has alienated his personal relationships with everyone who's ever cared about him?
The same Destiny threw a debate with shithead Ben Shapiro because he wanted to get invited back?
At least Joe Rogan believes the shit he shovels, Destiny is a pure grifter searching for more and more fame.
is that what happened? we've had very different experience of reality
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1786481491939058131
Did you see the cookie rocket debate? Very entertaining stuff.
yep. those debates seem to be trapped in an endless cycle where one or both sides can't handle certain realities. they all start off vaguely informative and end up as just entertainment.
Funny that you want a muscular male host, š
Currently my most favourite podcast is Andrew Huberman's, which would probably fit the muscular male criteria.
It's also very progressive in the sense that it is basically about science-based protocols to become a healthier human being both physically and mentally.
I strongly recommend listening on YouTube with sponsorblock if possible.
So far, the only truly bad episode was the one with Zuckerberg (that I have found) because, you know, there is really not much to learn from him, specially considering the topics of the podcast.
Oh, I just saw your comment about him, š , always interested in seeing evidence on his fakeness.
Huberman has been a guest on Rogan's podcast and seems to be in the same circles with overlapping guests and ideas. He also peddles pseudoscience and random supplements, so I'm not sure this helps OP's sibling escape the misinformation sphere.
There's also a pretty alarming piece in NY magazine (paywalled) that goes into how much he lies in his personal life to build a narrative that seems to align with the agenda he pushes on his show.
So now everyone that has been on Joe Rogan is a right wing fascist? Cause I couldn't imagine Neil deGrasse Tysson like that.
In terms of the pseudoscience and supplements... It clearly shows people don't watch his stuff. I am SURE it's not perfect, but most of it is clearly WELL referenced on the show description, and anything that hasn't been officially approved he states that clearly with CONSTANT warnings to PLEASE CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL.
I hate Joe Rogan. I hate fascist propaganda. Yes, Huberman makes money with his podcast, all podcasts are business, all big ones, at least.
All the claims about his personal life seem to me like journalists trying to come up with vector attacks to a famous figure for clicks, just like it happens with any other celebrity.
Yeah, he may be a terrible boyfriend, but Einstein married his cousin and Oppenheimer was a cheater and we live in this amazing (or horrible) world thanks to them.
First, he's not in the right wing Rogan group but he's definitely in the grifter circle that preys on insecure young men.
Lol this guy is not Albert Einstein. He spends too much time podcasting and being an influencer for that to ever be the case. The best case you can make for him is as a scientific communicator, but he has been frequently shown to spread shoddy science and pseudoscientific claims about things like sunscreen damaging the brain.
His personal life is very relevant here because it shows he's a pathological liar:
The reason why these 3 points matter are that they show a shocking pattern of deceit. The man was lying like it was oxygen to him, just so he could maintain six ostensibly monogamous relationships. He's also a danger to public health, yet giving millions health advice every week.
He has claimed to have been a bad kid who was locked up in an institution with conditions so bad that kids around him were dying/taking their own lives. That was entirely fabricated. He has more hard-luck stories about how his life was rough as a kid, but he found some hidden truth and became an academic and professional success. But the NY Mag article demonstrates he had a very privileged upbringing and neither his parents nor the kids who grew up with him know what he's talking about. He's obviously an upper-middle class guy selling a rags-to-riches story to his followers. It's classic grifter stuff. "I used to be troubled and unsuccessful, until I found this thing. You can be like me if you do whatever I tell you and buy whatever I'm selling."
This man lies in public about his upbringing to convince people of a narrative about his success. He lies in private to all of these people who care about him. That should concern his daily listeners and fans. If he's lying this much, why wouldn't he lie to you? This isn't a case of a few minor embellishment and a mistress either, this is disturbing shit he's doing because it suits him. Someone like that should not be the trusted advisor of millions about anything, let alone how to be healthy and successful.
You cannot take an article and say it's true and therefore "Andrew bad". It doesn't work like that. I've seen that article a million times already. It presents no proof, it's just a reddit comment as an article for clicks.
The sunscreen thing, here's the first link that comes up when you search online:
In any case I am sure he wasn't saying ALL SUNSCREEN IS BAD but you know, people are going to build up their stories.
No, his personal life isn't relevant if all he does in his podcast is condense evidence about a subject, with all relevant sources right there.
The article is based on interviews and quotes from people who actually know him. Journalism is based on interviewing sources and reporting what they said. I don't know why you think it's equivalent to a Reddit comment but I suspect it's because you're blinded by your admiration for this man.
You linked to a review paper of existing research in the area and its conclusion is: we don't know enough to speak authoritatively about this, more research is needed. From the paper:
Aka, these studies only found that it's toxic in doses no human would use as sunscreen.
Aka we don't actually know what the effects are for regular use.
But we do know that skin cancer is a real concern for people, and sunscreen has been proven to help. Until there is actual research showing sunscreen is toxic at normal usage volumes, it's deeply irresponsible of Huberman to advocate against it. Or make claims that haven't been proven in the literature.
His personal life is relevant because it proves he's a pathological liar. He's also lying on podcast appearances when he talks about his upbringing. If you want to take life advice from a proven and prolific fabricator that's your prerogative, but he is not someone that should be promoted in a public forum like this
Good journalism would be an article going through all the papers from the Huberman podcasts and his analysis of them (which he always cites if it's been peer-reviewed, etc) and debunking all the misinformation. But nope. It's all about talking to enough people hoping they say some crap about the personal life about a private person, cherry picking information and building up a story from that.
The sunscreen thing, I just passed the first link that came to me, showing that in fact there is proof of bad agents in sunscreen.
If you go check the video of Huberman and sunscreen, very easy to find, you'll see how he literally says that sunscreen is important because you don't want to get cancer, it's just that SOME SUNSCREEN has been found to have toxic components that may cross the blood-brain barrier, and he simply advices to BUY A GOOD SUNSCREEN.
See how this "journalism" works? They pick those little things and extrapolate into madness instead of doing actual work. Because why would you do the actual journalism if there is an easier way to get clicks?
And I am sure one could find some contradicting science to Huberman's podcasts and I would LOVE to see that. In fact, I think Huberman would love that too. That's science!!
Science is not about "finding contradicting science." It's not about spouting off on subjects that are not within your research expertise and waiting to be proven wrong. It's not a 'debate me bro' your facts vs mine endeavour.
The worst thing this guy has done is convince a bunch of people, primarily young men, that they too can spout off about scientific matters they barely understand. See also: Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and all the other PhD-turned-grifter figures
First of all: yes, science is about constantly trying to disprove hypotheses. That is what the guys at CERN are doing, that is what people at Stanford are doing. What else could it be?
If you think Huberman is giving these people a right to spout off scientific matters and that's horrible, then we should cancel Veritasium, we should cancel Sabine Hossenfelder, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, MinutePhysics, VSauce, all TED speeches, damn, BURN every science book and magazine, cause it is making people have opinions about these evil things!!
The people who are disproving the hypotheses are doing so through peer-reviewed studies in a research setting. They are not doing it on podcasts.
No, I mostly just think it's horrible in Huberman's case. Most of the people you listed aren't prolific liars who prey on young men to sell a no-fap, buy-my-supplements lifestyle to. I've literally never seen a Brian Cox fan expend as much energy in defence of the man as you Huberman listeners. He's more akin to grifters like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson who trade on their PhD credentials to make claims that go behind their area of expertise and talk almost exclusively to lost and lonely young men who are looking for guidance.
I am not defending the man. I am just trying to get to the meat of why there is so much hate on him.
All that young men, nofap, supplement-seller thing is NOWHERE in his podcast. It just shows that people are just reading clickbait article titles. Please watch one of his episodes about sleep, or alcohol, or whatever. I've explained it in many comments already. This dude is REALLY careful about what he puts in his podcasts, and it shows.
BTW, none of his advice has ever said anything losely related to Peterson's rethoric of male superiority thingie, and I don't even know who that Sam Harris is.
I can tell you something tho. So far in all discussions, NO ONE has brought up what I believe is Huberman's biggest mistake: bringing Zuckerberg in. That was a very bad episode, but everyone (I even remember Veritasium f*cking it up hard once) deserves to make mistakes sometimes (particularly if no illegal action was taken). I think (hope) he learned his lesson because every comment was clear. No highlight videos were made out of that episode which clearly shows they probably realised the mistake.
Huberman just got outed as a big time aerial cheater and quasi bogus scientist just FYI. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html
OMG that is a long, paywalled read. Do I have to go through all that? Will try, tho, and report back.
It's really worth it.
Just got done reading it. (Try adding "12ft.io/" before the URL for a better experience).
Please, everyone, read it fully.
Why does 95% of the text focus on his personal life? What about the podcast's credibility?
There are countless clips of Joe Rogan showcasing his ignorance. Show me Huberman's lies or dangerous advice.
I'm not defending Andrew, but his content is mostly well-reviewed and delivered with delicacy for such complicated topics. If you have SEEN otherwise, tell me.
Again, don't link to articles about his personal life, because now I sadly know all of it and it bores me to death š
The fact he doesn't actually use the lab and it kind of has folded is something worth noting. Also wouldn't you think from the article he's pretty dishonest?
So Veritasium is also a liar because they don't have a lab? I am not going to comment on personal life issues unless there is a legal case there, which there isn't, so the probability of it being bullshit for clicks is high.
Tell me you think your brother is superficial without saying you think he is superficial...
Agreed, my sibling is superficial. They see muscular males as authority figures (for learned reasons I wonāt get into) which is a problem when Rogan (+guests) is spouting nonsense.
Thatās why Iām trying to find similar content that theyāll enjoy, and help break old habits. They are capable of growth and improvement.
What exactly is the problem with the JRE?
The rabid fascism, I imagine.
Adding to what others have said, Rogan often has, at best, a surface level understanding of the topics covered on his show. His guests often have an air of credibility because of their credentials, even when their views are often seen as outliers or plain wrong in their fields of expertise. Because Joe often doesnāt know enough to press them on questionable or disingenuous statements, his many many listeners are led to believe thereās something to the bullshit theyāre hearing.
Huberman does something similar, but is worse because he often knows better.
So they should be censored?
Who said they should?
Everyone trying to stop others from viewing?
Public opinions ain't censorship bro.
Everybody downvoting you for trying to understand something.
Could they have just not upvoted you and moved along? Yes, but no asking questions is something that needs to be suppressed.
Trees of green