#Joe Rogan Controversy

[williamknotts]

Unfiltered Influence: How The Joe Rogan Experience Redefined Modern Podcasting and Media Culture

The Influence and Evolution of The Joe Rogan Podcast

The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) has become one of the most influential podcasts globally, drawing millions of listeners and sparking wide-ranging discussions on subjects from science and philosophy to comedy, fitness, and current events. As a key figure in modern media, Joe Rogan has cultivated a unique podcasting platform that breaks traditional media norms, allowing his guests the freedom to speak without constraint. This article explores the success, impact, and controversies of Rogan’s podcast and why it continues to captivate audiences worldwide.

A Brief Background on The Joe Rogan Experience

Joe Rogan launched The Joe Rogan Experience in 2009, initially as a casual experiment with comedian Brian Redban. Since then, it has evolved into a multimedia powerhouse, with Rogan interviewing prominent personalities, including scientists, comedians, authors, athletes, politicians, and cultural influencers. By 2020, Spotify acquired exclusive streaming rights for the podcast in a landmark deal valued at around $100 million. Today, JRE is often a top-trending topic in media circles and remains consistently at the top of podcast charts.

Unique Format and Approach

A major draw of JRE is Rogan’s long-form, open-ended interview style. Unlike traditional news or media outlets that often follow rigid formats, JRE episodes can range from 2 to 5 hours, offering guests ample time to dive deep into subjects. Rogan's conversational style encourages his guests to share perspectives and insights that may be left out of conventional interviews, covering everything from fringe scientific theories to mainstream political discourse.

His approach to interviewing is more conversational and informal, which allows a dynamic range of topics to surface organically. This format resonates with listeners who seek a more nuanced understanding of issues, as Rogan often plays both the skeptic and the layperson, asking questions his audience might ask.

Diversity of Guests

Part of the podcast’s success comes from its eclectic range of guests, which has included prominent names like Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders, Jordan Peterson, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Edward Snowden. The diversity of viewpoints featured on JRE enables listeners to explore topics through various lenses, often leading to enlightening or polarizing discussions.

In particular, Elon Musk’s 2018 appearance, during which Musk smoked cannabis, became a viral sensation and exemplified the spontaneous, unfiltered nature of the show. Such moments highlight Rogan’s ability to provide a platform where high-profile figures feel comfortable revealing different facets of their personality.

Impact on Media and Culture

The impact of The Joe Rogan Experience on the media landscape is undeniable. The podcast has become a major source of alternative information for millions who prefer Rogan's authentic approach to traditional news sources. Rogan’s choice of guests and his laid-back questioning style make it easy for listeners to digest complex subjects, helping boost awareness and interest in topics like cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, psychedelics, and alternative health practices.

This influence has extended beyond entertainment. Political figures, thought leaders, and even healthcare experts view JRE as a platform that can sway public opinion. For example, Rogan’s COVID-19 discussions drew considerable attention and even backlash, with some questioning the accuracy and impact of his views. Despite criticisms, Rogan’s influence remains strong, as listeners appreciate his independence from corporate media pressures.

Controversies and Criticisms

With influence comes scrutiny, and Rogan has faced his share of controversies. Critics have raised concerns over misinformation, especially when he discusses health-related issues, controversial ideologies, or political views. For instance, some of his episodes on COVID-19 and vaccinations were criticized for allegedly promoting misinformation. Spotify even faced internal pushback from employees demanding content moderation for his episodes.

However, Rogan has consistently argued that he values free speech and believes in giving all perspectives a platform. His supporters view him as a rare voice in media who’s unafraid to address contentious topics, while his detractors see him as a risk to public health and societal unity.

The Future of The Joe Rogan Experience

Looking ahead, JRE seems poised to remain a significant force in the world of podcasting and media. As of 2024, Rogan continues to explore new topics, host diverse voices, and stir conversation across various fields. His platform’s success has inspired countless creators to explore podcasting and has set a high standard for authenticity and audience engagement in media.

Conclusion

The Joe Rogan Experience is more than just a podcast; it’s a cultural phenomenon that exemplifies the power of independent media in shaping modern discourse. Joe Rogan has captured a global audience and expanded what’s possible in modern media through his authentic, inquisitive, and sometimes controversial approach. While the podcast may draw critics, its influence on the media landscape and how we consume information is undeniable.

[amandaanddonnie]

Watch "NICOLE ARBOUR Exposed - Lies, False Abuse Claims & MORE!!!" on YouTube

[lean-mean-demon-genevieve]

Is there any evidence Jared and Gen were friends with Joe Rogan? Jared used to follow him but he doesn’t anymore after his political views came out. That doesn’t mean he ever knew him personally.

I got this ask a few weeks ago and life was lifeing and it didn’t get addressed. But answering it today feels extra appropriate.

I planned to say that while I didn’t have any evidence of Jared knowing Rogan personally, I also would like to question anon’s assumption that Jared unfollowed Rogan because of his political affiliations…because that’s not the impression I got. Again it seems anon may be assuming goodwill and good intentions based on overall liking/being a fan of Jared’s.

If anyone has proof of Jared decrying Rogan for his political leanings, I would love to see it.

If you believe this Reddit thread, Jared unfollowed after some Twitter backlash in 2019:

Liking a post doesn’t always mean that you support everything attached to it, but it’s a stamp of approval of sorts. Jared may have liked the comeback story of the guy in the picture. I believe facts and patterns. Call me a cynic, but I try not to attribute good intentions to anyone who I don’t know personally and especially not someone with an image for sale. This is true of any celeb. But Jared has a well documented habit of popping off and then weakly taking it back. So in this case, I’d much rather hear it from him explicitly that he disagrees with Rogan’s views.

Joe Rogan has been a known bro with problematic views long before he became even more openly right-wing in 2020 following the pandemic. Hence the backlash that caused Jared to unfollow in 2019. So basically, Jared didn’t unfollow until people noticed and it caused a dent in his own image. That’s not the same as cutting ties.

Let us not pretend that unfollowing means anything more than PR. In fact, in August of 2020, Gen had this to say in an interview:

Jared may have unfollowed Rogan’s socials but both of the Pads were still listening to the podcast a year later, per her report. And listening enough to proudly endorse Rogan’s “candor” and attach themselves to him in a public interview.

Gen also endorsed some of the same products as Rogan, including Four Sigmatic (mushroom power for focus) and Butcher Box. In this ad for Butcher Box in March of 2021, Jared can be heard to have more knowledge of Rogan’s promo codes than those of his own wife. So it seems 2 years post unfollowing, he is still paying pretty close attention to Rogan’s content:

Even more recently, The Pads and Rogan both endorse Ways 2 Well; a bougie Austin med spa for all things IV, supplements, stem cells, and otherwise “medical anxiety of the rich” related. Is this a crime? No of course not. But I do think it suggests that they all run in the same circles:

(Don’t get me started on Rogan’s anti-trans views while also receiving gender-affirming hormone treatments.)

Cut to this week, and a former Walker bit-part actor is singing the praises of Jared and Rogan in the same post. (To a Jason Aldean soundtrack, no less. You may recall this turd from his song controversy last year.) The post is tagged at Rogan’s comedy club in Austin, Mothership. Rogan himself moved to Austin in 2020, reportedly in part because of the state’s lack of income tax and because LA was too liberal.

And ok, so this says that David is friends with Rogan and also friends with Jared. And to anon’s point maybe we don’t have a documented friendship between Jared and Rogan but I’d argue that it doesn’t matter to me.

On the night before the US election, Rogan endorsed the then presidential candidate Donald Trump in this promo post for his Elon Musk interview:

An endorsement of this nature, I feel, tells us a lot about Rogan’s beliefs. I don’t have the bandwidth nor space in this post to detail all of those points. But from this leftist’s perspective, it includes endorsement of anti-choice/“prolife” (but also anti public assistance), anti trans right, pro war/genocide, anti climate change, and anti vaxx to name a few.

Pada-fans will often cite Jared’s connection to the Austin-based, pro lgbtq+ non-profit organization Out Youth as evidence of his liberalism. But I wonder what the people of Out Youth will think after seeing this photo of Jared and knowing that he came out to Mothership comedy club to see Rogan’s brand of “anti-woke” comedy. (Rogan was performing that night, per this post.)

Here is an article from an Austin newspaper that details the vibe of the club: X

I also think this bit is…interesting. Go ahead and Google the “vibe” of these other comedians if you’re unfamiliar. Big yikes.

And here are a couple other links that detail the content of Rogan’s most recent Netflix special, for further context on the content of his standup: X and X

I have several friends who are also trans. I, unlike Jared, have also never listened to a single Rogan podcast. But regardless of how big of a personality Rogan is, if I had the opportunity to meet him and get my photo taken with him, my values would give me serious pause. If my friends saw me with my arm slung around this guy, what conclusions should they draw from my smile and the comfort they see? Personally, since I do not agree with anything that Rogan stands for, I would opt out. I wouldn’t want to even risk someone assuming my affiliation.

Jared, on the other hand, did.

At the very least you can say that he was willing to risk the misunderstanding. And I think that’s because he knows it still won’t matter to most of his fans. They will always find a way to excuse his choices.

[88y53]

Okay, I wanted to like the new Superman cartoon, but this is really annoying to me:

This is Leslie Willis AKA Livewire.

And I just...

They completely missed the point of Livewire.

Leslie Willis was originally a controversial shock jock who would parrot hate-speech and spread misinformation on her show because it got her the most views. This was to contrast her with Lois Lane and Clark Kent’s more respectable journalism, and to illustrate what she really is–a massive attention whore.

That’s really why she became a villain in the first place–it got her way more notoriety than her previous career.

This is way more topical than it was in the 90s.

Making her a run-of-the-mill gangster/mercenary strips her of what makes Livewire a compelling villain for Superman, and a compelling villain in real life–she’s a person who genuinely does not care who she’s hurting as long as she gets the attention she thinks she’s entitled to.

They could’ve easily made her right-wing podcaster like Candice Owens, or Joe Rogan, or Ben Shapiro, or literally any of the misinformation attention whores we’re currently suffering under.

I know people are upset that they made Deathstroke look like he’s 20 years old, but if you ask me there’s way more mileage in the Livewire controversy because this Deathstroke is still fundamentally the same character.

You can’t say the same for Livewire.

[icedsodapop]

Look, I have been critical of Kamala Harris and her presidential campaign for the past few months. My biggest gripes with her are her support for Israel and her appealing to conservative and rightwing voters, among many other issues typical of liberal and centrist Democrats.

However, declining to appear on Joe Rogan's show is not a bad thing. In fact, I'd say this is one of few things I have to give Harris credit for. There is a subgroup of reactionary White leftists like the OP of the video that I get so frustrated by. This subgroup of reactionary White leftists love Joe Rogan, even tho he has literally hosted White supremacists, MAGA assholes and Zionists like Gavin McInnes and Bari Weiss, allowed his guests to tout islamophobia and transphobia on this podcast, and then there's the antiblackness.

I'm sick and tired of these White leftists thinking that Joe Rogan can be used as a useful idiot for the Left, becos the man is literally complicit in providing assholes a platform to market their products and spread misinformation about minorities. The enemy of our enemy is not our fucking friend, marginalized pple should not have to be thrown under buses just to appeal to reactionaries and criticizing this strategy is not "purity politics".

Refs about Joe Rogan bullshit:

[nando161mando]

A reminder that Spotify continues to find new ways to not pay smaller artists while simultaneously paying hundreds of millions of dollars to white supremacists like Joe Rogan.

Please consider other ways of getting your music.

[vague-humanoid]

I first heard about ghost artists in the summer of 2017. At the time, I was new to the music-streaming beat. I had been researching the influence of major labels on Spotify playlists since the previous year, and my first report had just been published. Within a few days, the owner of an independent record label in New York dropped me a line to let me know about a mysterious phenomenon that was “in the air” and of growing concern to those in the indie music scene: Spotify, the rumor had it, was filling its most popular playlists with stock music attributed to pseudonymous musicians—variously called ghost or fake artists—presumably in an effort to reduce its royalty payouts. Some even speculated that Spotify might be making the tracks itself. At a time when playlists created by the company were becoming crucial sources of revenue for independent artists and labels, this was a troubling allegation.

At first, it sounded to me like a conspiracy theory. Surely, I thought, these artists were just DIY hustlers trying to game the system. But the tips kept coming. Over the next few months, I received more notes from readers, musicians, and label owners about the so-called fake-artist issue than about anything else. One digital strategist at an independent record label worried that the problem could soon grow more insidious. “So far it’s happening within a genre that mostly affects artists at labels like the one I work for, or Kranky, or Constellation,” the strategist said, referring to two long-running indie labels.* “But I doubt that it’ll be unique to our corner of the music world for long.”

By July, the story had burst into public view, after a Vulture article resurfaced a year-old item from the trade press claiming that Spotify was filling some of its popular and relaxing mood playlists—such as those for “jazz,” “chill,” and “peaceful piano” music—with cheap fake-artist offerings created by the company. A Spotify spokesperson, in turn, told the music press that these reports were “categorically untrue, full stop”: the company was not creating its own fake-artist tracks. But while Spotify may not have created them, it stopped short of denying that it had added them to its playlists. The spokesperson’s rebuttal only stoked the interest of the media, and by the end of the summer, articles on the matter appeared from NPR and the Guardian, among other outlets. Journalists scrutinized the music of some of the artists they suspected to be fake and speculated about how they had become so popular on Spotify. Before the year was out, the music writer David Turner had used analytics data to illustrate how Spotify’s “Ambient Chill” playlist had largely been wiped of well-known artists like Brian Eno, Bibio, and Jon Hopkins, whose music was replaced by tracks from Epidemic Sound, a Swedish company that offers a subscription-based library of production music—the kind of stock material often used in the background of advertisements, TV programs, and assorted video content.

For years, I referred to the names that would pop up on these playlists simply as “mystery viral artists.” Such artists often had millions of streams on Spotify and pride of place on the company’s own mood-themed playlists, which were compiled by a team of in-house curators. And they often had Spotify’s verified-artist badge. But they were clearly fake. Their “labels” were frequently listed as stock-music companies like Epidemic, and their profiles included generic, possibly AI-generated imagery, often with no artist biographies or links to websites. Google searches came up empty.

In the years following that initial salvo of negative press, other controversies served as useful distractions for Spotify: the company’s 2019 move into podcasting and eventual $250 million deal with Joe Rogan, for example, and its 2020 introduction of Discovery Mode, a program through which musicians or labels accept a lower royalty rate in exchange for algorithmic promotion. The fake-artist saga faded into the background, another of Spotify’s unresolved scandals as the company increasingly came under fire and musicians grew more emboldened to speak out against it with each passing year.

Then, in 2022, an investigation by the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter revived the allegations. By comparing streaming data against documents retrieved from the Swedish copyright collection society STIM, the newspaper revealed that around twenty songwriters were behind the work of more than five hundred “artists,” and that thousands of their tracks were on Spotify and had been streamed millions of times.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dan Pfeiffer at The Message Box:

Even in a media environment where consumers have unlimited choices, a 60 Minutes interview is the coup de grace. A campaign would do almost anything to be featured. The highly-rated program comes on right after NFL football — making it the one thing on broadcast TV that still draws a mass audience. Donald Trump pulled out of the 60 Minutes interview, ceding the entire show to his opponent. In the campaign's final weeks, Trump also reportedly pulled out of interviews with CNBC and NBC News. He turned down an opportunity to participate in a prime-time CNN town hall. In fact, Trump didn’t do a single interview with a traditional news outlet in the campaign's final stretch. No national broadcast interviews, no sit-downs with local TV anchors or newspapers.

The winning candidate ignored the traditional media, focusing instead on partisan media outlets and politics-adjacent podcasts. While this change isn’t new, it seems clear that 2024 was a pivot point for the role of the legacy media in politics. Democratic communications strategies have evolved over the years — and the Harris campaign did some very innovative things. Nevertheless, our approach to communicating with voters continues to depend heavily on the legacy media. When we have something to say, we look for a cable or broadcast network to say it on. We spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about the morning tipsheets and which surrogates are booked on cable news. New York Times headlines can be a party-wide obsession. Do Democrats need to follow Trump’s lead and break up with the legacy media? The Right Wing media’s advantage was particularly decisive during this election. This is the first in a series of posts discussing how Trump outmessaged us in the 2024 election and what we can do in the future. 

A Changed Dynamic

For a long time, the political press was the most powerful force in politics. So powerful that they were known as the “Fourth Estate” with the capacity to make or break a campaign. The list of failed presidential candidates who were unable to win over the tastemakers in the media is long. One can credibly argue that unfair press coverage from the New York Times and others were a significant factor in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss.

The traditional media has been losing relevance for a while now. The death spiral of the political media is a much longer, more complicated story (I wrote a lot about it in my most recent book), but there have been a few dynamics driving this descent.  The first is the rapid pace of technological innovation. Newspapers were once the most powerful entities in media. A presidential campaign wanted nothing more than a great picture on the front page of the Des Moines Register, Philadelphia Inquirer, or Detroit Free Press. Most local papers are shells of themselves — simply carrion for private equity to drain the last few cents before closing up shop. While the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are thriving, the Washington Post is bleeding money and full of controversy, and USA Today barely registers (I had to Google if it was still published). Cable and broadcast viewership is down as more consumers cut the cord or turn to social media for news. Legacy media is simply reaching fewer people. Second, the media reaches people who are less likely to believe what they read/see/hear. 

[...] A Data for Progress poll found that Kamala Harris won voters who consumed “a great deal” and “a lot” of news but lost the voters who consumed no news by a whopping 19 points.

The New New Media

The biggest media events of the 2024 campaign were not on 60 Minutes or Meet the Press. They didn’t involve the New York Times or any of the major cable channels. They were interviews with podcasters Joe Rogan and Alex Cooper. The media titans are influencers with large followings and parasocial relationships with their audiences. Many voters no longer trust media institutions, but instead trust folks with whom they often spend hours every week. A Pew Knight study found that one-in-five Americans – 37% of adults under 30 – regularly get their news from social media influencers. Trump and the Republicans have better understood this shift than Democrats. At the end of the campaign, nearly all of Trump’s media interactions were with Right-leaning podcasters commanding massive social media followings. During Trump’s victory speech, UFC boss Dana White came on stage and specifically thanked Adin Ross, the NELK Boys, Theo Von, and the folks from Barstool Sports. The GOP has actively tried to support their influencers with interviews and attention. While Kamala Harris did appear on Cooper’s wildly popular Call Her Daddy podcast, most Democrats kept podcasters and news influencers at arms length.

Dan Pfeiffer’s latest Message Box Substack post shows that the Democratic Party’s overreliance on legacy media at the expense of nontraditional media came back to bite them, and that Dems should focus more on nontraditional media outlets in addition to the legacy MSM.

[aloneandforsakenbyfateandbyman]

One of the most psychotic things to me is that people find Joe Rogan’s podcast to be…. Controversial. And some even think it should be banned for “spreading disinformation” LOL. Over time I’ve grown to appreciate Joe because he’s an inquisitive meathead who makes complex topics accessible for Americans who don’t read or engage intellectually with subjects bc their brains are fried by screen damage and tiktok, so I actually think he’s doing our dumbed down society a favour by being the modern day steroided Fear Factor version of Socrates.

Like he’s made zombified reactionary leftists defecate themselves once again bc he had RFK Jr on his show eviscerating big pharma and poor khoevid decisions which led to a literal Great Depression 2.0. They freaked out and called RFK Jr an anti-waxxer and “far right” etc. The latter of which has no meaning anymore because anybody who isn’t on a permanent CNN IV drip is apparently “far right.” We’re living in a timeline where Bobby Kennedy’s son is considered the equivalent of a /pol poster lmao.

It’s not like RFK Jr is a perfect candidate but I think Joe had a lot of guts to bring him on his show. And I’m stunned at how Bobby JR has the nerve to point out that the CIA literally murdered his dad and uncle bc he’s putting his own life on the line to do so. Not only that, but he called out the industrial military complex and the US funding of massive wars etc so I feel like he’s going to be the newest whacked Kennedy soon RIP I hope he and Joe both lift and inject TRT together and have some happy last days

[taylortruther]

I’m not american, but like basically the rest of europe i’m totally fixated on the upcoming US election. We watch with horror, but lately also a lot of empathy and perhaps a little bit of hope. I saw a thread on twitter where a loooooot of people talked about how they’ve lost close family and friends because of MAGA. And I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be. And its just.. so sad. Do you live in a swing/red state? Do you like.. feel how divided the country is on a daily basis?

(Sorry if this is invasive and rude or something, i’m just so curious how it is to be in the middle of it)

i live in a deeply red state (texas), and in a liberal city, so i do feel it pretty regularly. and for anyone who doesn't know, a red state is one that is historically republican, meaning most people vote for republican candidates.

however, i also see - beyond political labels - how broken our system is, period. i live in austin, which is liberal, but the city is deeply racially segregated, gentrified to hell, historically enabled a corrupt police force (shocker!), and has regular power struggles with the very conservative texas government. plus, tech bros and tesla. i think what frustrates me the most is seeing people move here to enjoy a more liberal city and then just completely disengage from politics otherwise.

BUT i also see a lot of protests, since we're the capitol, plus ut is a huge university and located here. day to day, i feel i could easily go to almost any stranger, and commiserate about losing abortion access in texas. but anything more controversial or nuanced and i think i'd lose people. and if i left the downtown area/city limits, i would assume people are republicans, we're basically surrounded by very conservative areas (and that's the case for every major city in texas.)

the biggest thing i notice is that joe rogan fans and elon fans are everywhere, and that skews my above statement lmfao.

[paronymie]

thank you for writing this about joss because I've noticed it too. I'm not even a joss stan but back when people mentioned that he follows donald trump on X I checked out of curiosity and saw that he was following joe biden and barack obama too. then I checked his insta and he was following almost 1300 accounts but only a few were right-wing, I could recognize just 6. so I think it's unfair how people only mention him following these few controversial accounts when he also followed a lot of liberal and neutral accounts. and zero thai right-wingers, none. only pro-lgbt+ accounts. his list was actually surprisingly diverse. now he did a cleanup and doesn't follow anything political anymore. he unfollowed many non-political pages too. I don't know, this "controversy" seems overblown to me and dishonest. I've seen people comparing him to certain actors who have actually shared or expressed bigoted beliefs, and I think it's unfair because afaik joss never did such thing

Yeah i'm weirded out too, and I'm not even someone who likes to voice my opinion much online. I understand the wariness because the far-right figures he followed are very nasty individuals with harmful beliefs, but I am also wary of cancelling someone who has not expressed bigoted beliefs openly and publicly (people saying that he quoted Tate or others on Twitter are welcome to provide a link - I haven't seen anything other than the Joe Rogan quote he's got pinned). And if his American following must mean that he is a bigot, then by following the same logic, his Thai following makes him a liberal? This is a reminder, to me at least, that someone's online presence is in no way a replacement for knowing them personally.

The amount of projecting has got me peeved, and I'm not even a stan, or a fan of Joss either, but what a weird situation.

[beardedmrbean]

In the winter of January 2020, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a member of the party’s informal left-wing House bloc dubbed “The Squad,” temporarily backed away from the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, after enthusiastically supporting him.

Among the reasons she reportedly “grew less interested in helping Sanders’ campaign” was Joe Rogan.

Sanders’ campaign had touted a quasi-endorsement from the wildly popular podcaster, who has a record of inviting controversial guests on to spew conspiracies and bigotry while dabbling in both himself, apparently unnerving Ocasio-Cortez and her team in the process.

Four years later, the Democratic nominee for president, Vice President Kamala Harris, who has Ocasio Cortez’s fervent backing, is in discussions to appear on Rogan’s The Joe Rogan Experience.

It marks a dramatic 180 from the Democratic movement’s response to Sanders merely noting Rogan’s praise four years ago.

Reuters reported Monday that Harris campaign officials were in talks with Rogan’s team about having her on the show, which former president Donald Trump has said he plans to appear on before election day.

The arguments for and against appearing on Rogan remain little changed.

First, there’s the baggage.

Rogan falsely claimed “activists” were behind California wildfires and touted a conspiracy theory associated with climate change denial that claims shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles bring about natural, apocalyptic catastrophes like the flood in the biblical story of Noah’s Ark.

Nearly 300 doctors, physicians and science educators wrote to Rogan's distributor, Spotify, when he spread Covid-19 information, including claiming young people didn’t need to get vaccinated and promoting the taking of veterinary drug ivermectin to treat the disease.

In 2022, he apologized after a compilation of clips of him repeatedly saying the N-word went viral.

Among his past guests are Gavin McInnes, founder of the far-right neo-fascist group Proud Boys, and Alex Jones, the malicious conspiracist who waged a years-long campaign against parents whose children were murdered in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

It could be pointed out that Howard Stern, the reformed shock jock whose show Harris appeared on last week, has a decades long archive of sexist and racist broadcasts. But Stern has backed away from his past antics in recent years—though he’s also paid his way into the Democratic fold, attending top dollar fundraisers.

But, unlike Stern, one need not reach years into the past to find Rogan’s controversies. Earlier this year, his Netflix standup special Burn the Boats was criticized for his mocking trans people and preaching vaccine skepticism—and, arguably more important for a standup special, it was also unfunny, reviewers agreed.

But then there is the case for Rogan, for which the Sanders campaign made a compelling argument for in 2020.

Rogan has a giant audience—tens of millions of subscribers across Spotify, YouTube, Instagram and X. That audience skews heavily male (81%) and young (56% between 18 and 34), demographics relatively immune to legacy media (only 12% of Rogan’s audience says they trust newspapers).

The best way to reach them—agree or disagree with all of their views—is on their turf. If some of them join the Democratic fold and help defeat Donald Trump, great.

Sanders, in fact, had already appeared on Rogan’s show months before the endorsement controversy. In his interview, he took advantage of Rogan’s deferential interview style—part of the reason why right-wing guests on the show frequently make crazed claims without being challenged—to hammer home his message of economic justice directly to the host’s massive audience.

“The goal of our campaign is to build a multi-racial, multi-generational movement that is large enough to defeat Donald Trump and the powerful special interests whose greed and corruption is the root cause of the outrageous inequality in America,” the Sanders campaign told Vanity Fair in 2020. “Sharing a big tent requires including those who do not share every one of our beliefs, while always making clear that we will never compromise our values.”

Sanders was pilloried by Democratic aligned organizations like MoveOn and the Human Rights Campaign. They may yet issue similar reprisals if Harris does ultimately agree to appear on Rogan.

[mmoxie]

say you want to watch youtube and you don't want premium

you turn off your adblocker so you're allowed to use the website

you fire up your favorite iceberg video about the worlds funniest tornadoes

ad 1) don't forget football is on

ad 2) buy our taint shaving kit

video starts

"hey guys thanks for tuning in, today we'll be talking about your favorite E5 nutshot and some you didn't even know about- but first,"

ad 3) hellofresh script read by host

"without further adieu, let's get into it, tier 1,"

ads 4, 5, 6) buy our artisanal beaverskin condoms, get out of debt fast with a predatory loan, holden bloodfeast up for reelection

ads 7-30) just shit exported directly off the tv

ad 31) "well, that was tier 9 of the iceberg, what a ride. but before you go, I've got a few more words from today's second sponsor, extreme restraints dot com"

ad 32) joe rogan interviews a sickly horse

and then autoplay kicks in to get you to the worlds most CONTROVERSIAL tornadoes iceberg, and the cycle repeats

if you aren't being sold something at all times, from all angles, and a bean counter isn't recording the metrics so that a room full of shareholders can achieve erection, are you even fucking human, google asks

[darkmaga-returns]

10 - Exposed: Secret Government Plot to Deploy Aerosolized ‘Vaccines’ Using Drones

People on social media are reporting strange symptoms after exposure to a mysterious fog blanketing their areas. This is happening across the U.S. and, as our research shows, in multiple countries.

The situation has garnered so much attention that even mainstream media outlets are offering their own explanations.

Some witnesses even claim to have spotted drones hovering above the fog. What’s going on here? The similarities to COVID-era controversies might shock you.

While Senators like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, and Roger Marshall have popularized the idea that EcoHealth Alliance’s 2018 DEFUSE proposal to DARPA involved gain-of-function research to make the COVID virus more dangerous, less attention has been given to another alarming aspect of the plan.

According to journalist 

Jon Fleetwood, the same DEFUSE plan talked about “aerosolizing COVID” and using “drones to release these particles.”

One chilling excerpt from the DEFUSE proposal reads: “This technology has a potential application in large-area inoculation of animals/humans.”

Fleetwood stressed, “That’s us!”

He further explained: “There’s a picture that maybe what was actually intended was to outfit drones with spray technology... and use it to release a virus vaccine. The idea is that they created the virus through gain-of-function research and other experiments to make it a self-spreading vaccine that acts like a virus.”

“Senators are saying there’s information in there that talks about gain of function on these viruses. And yes, that gain of function did happen,” Fleetwood continued.

“If that happened from the DEFUSE proposal, then what else also happened that’s inside the DEFUSE proposal?”

Have we been subject to another “Operation Sea Spray” without our consent? This is an eye-opening conversation well worth your time.

Read Jon’s full Substack piece here on the matter here.

Jon Fleetwood

Drones Spray 'Self-Spreading' COVID-19 Vaccine for 'Large-Area Inoculation of Humans' in 'DEFUSE' EcoHealth/DARPA Project

Summary…

Read more

13 days ago · 532 likes · 235 comments · Jon Fleetwood

(See 9 More Revealing Stories Below)

9 - Former CIA Officer Warns: 1,000 Al-Qaeda Fighters in U.S. for Next Homeland Attack

8 - Homeowner Ends Up in Jail After Calling Police to Evict Squatter From Her Own Home

7 - Mosquitoes inject human test subjects with parasite in study at Bill Gates-linked center

6 - CIA Whistleblower Reveals Biden Admin Covered Up Attacks on Officers Injured by Direct Energy Weapons

While you’re here, don’t forget to subscribe to this page for more weekly news roundups.Subscribe

#5 - House Uncovers FBI Coverup in January 6 Pipe Bomber Investigation

#4 - Medical Freedom Attorney Drops Measles Vaccine Bombshell

#3 - Joe Rogan podcast exposes the “miraculous” benefits of a natural compound banned by the US government.

#2 - New Study Finds COVID-19 'Vaccination' Doubles Risk of Post-COVID Death

#1 - Cybertruck bomber Matthew Livelsberger’s “manifesto” claims the U.S. faces a “checkmate” scenario from stealth drone capabilities.

Share

BONUS #1 - Natural Compounds that Target and Disrupt Bird Flu Infection

BONUS #2 - Biden Quietly Bans Most Gas-Powered Tankless Water Heaters

BONUS #3 - Donald Trump’s COVID ‘Game-Changer’ Finds Surprising New Use

BONUS #4 - HORROR: Georgia Judge Kills Himself Inside in His Own Courtroom

BONUS #5 - Jordan Peterson: ‘This is the Worst Scandal I’ve Ever Heard Of'

[affairsmastery]

Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO, lacks the highest-level security clearance required to access sensitive details about U.S. government programs involving his company, according to the Wall Street Journal. These programs, including payloads for the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, are classified as top government secrets, accessible only to select SpaceX employees with special clearances.

The report suggests Musk’s clearance is unlikely due to his alleged drug use and connections with foreign nationals. In 2018, Musk sparked controversy by smoking marijuana on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Additionally, in October, he was reportedly in secret contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

[undertweaker]

I cannot stand the way that stand-up comedians have managed to convince themselves that they're public intellectuals in some way, like they're legitimate thought leaders. They will point and gesture and cry profound tears at George Carlin as the ultimate example of comedy being about being edgy and pushing boundaries and being controversial, but these podcasters don't tell any fucking jokes. They just talk at you, or invite some other oaf to talk at you and wax poetic and jerk off about how important they are. Should they actually make a joke, and it's not immediately met with the laughs these performers are owed, they immediately revert to some combination of the woke mob not being able to handle their cutting edge material and how comedians are just simple clowns that you should point and laugh at, it's just a joke, there's no need to think so deeply about a funny joke.

Like, it's so insane to me that Dave Chappelle can have an entire special where, over the course of that entire hour plus runtime, he will tell you like five jokes. The rest of that time will be a response to a response to his response to a response to his most recent controversy. The worst part is that Dave Chappelle is probably the best among this group! All five of those jokes will most likely be very funny, and when he's not rambling about things he doesn't know anything about, like trans people, he's actually a pretty engaging speaker. He's well-spoken, and can offer some interesting perspectives, only provided he feels the need to speak on something he knows literally anything about at all, and he doesn't have a fuckin' podcast.

The rest of them are usually so much worse, there is nothing I loathe more than the dipshit podcaster who views himself this way. Just, legitimately the dumbest person you can possibly imagine who views himself as a leader in free thought and intellectualism because they continuously platform incendiary conservative political guests. Donald Trump, Gavin McInnes, Candice Owens, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, just whatever series of horrible book-learned ghouls these people can invite to sap an audience from their platform. Can you imagine a world where Joe Rogan is a legitimate political force because thousands of people tune in to watch Jordan Peterson scratch the alphabet into the walls of his enclosure? Where a metrosexual homophobe can just, be racist on stage at a campaign event and call it a bit? One of these guys built a career off of talking to comedians, and the other built theirs off of being needlessly cruel in judging the comedy of others, but neither of them are funny. Joe Rogan doesn't tell any fucking jokes, Joe Rogan is funny in the way a child falling down is funny. He's silly, and you laugh at him because he's goofy and doesn't actually know any better, but he doesn't tell any jokes. Joe Rogan is the joke. Yet still, him and the other guy, and dozens of other middling and/or ageing comedian will consider themselves among the all time greats of comedy, declared only by themselves and their most frequent podcast guests, because they can score an endless stream of interviews with neo-nazis and fascists to come talk to them. They can smile and nod and clap their hands while they're informed, and their inflated audience of manosphere types and crypto geeks are informed, about the Great Replacement theory. Or maybe it's because they can talk at length about why they don't perform at college campuses anymore, or why trans people are annoying on the internet, or how you just aren't allowed to say anything anymore. But it's not because they tell any jokes.

I would legitimately watch Bert Kreischer's stool-humping/pant-shitting routine 30 times over any of these worthless hack comedians, because he's at least attempting to tell jokes. Comedians need to tell more fucking jokes.