Joe Rogan - Intellectual Heavyweight

[Trausti]

Or:

Guy who gets high and talks about MMA and aliens, is influencing people on their medical decisions.

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The anti-vaxxers he had spreading and more importantly, normalizing, lies were the problem.

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

 

[Trausti]

View attachment 37081

An aspect of the 2016 election was the beginning of a new political realignment. Dems/liberals had abandoned the working class in favor of cultural/racial identity politics. This assault on Rogan and his listeners just exacerbates that. Rogan is an apolitical guy. He can have a long conversation with anyone. Recent snide remarks are that he’s somehow a dope because he doesn’t prep before his shows. But what MSM taking head can do what he does? Clearly, Rogan’s intention is just to have a conversation, not push a narrative or do a gotcha interview. He’s got an incredible gift for gab. That’s why he’s so popular. Now his 11 million listeners are called idiots by the MSM (Dems/libs). Do the lefties really think they abandon him for CNN and MSNBC and vote Dem?

 

[bilby]

Or:

Guy who gets high and talks about MMA and aliens, is influencing people on their medical decisions.

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The anti-vaxxers he had spreading and more importantly, normalizing, lies were the problem.

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

That is the biggest pile of stinking horseshit I have had the misfortune to read in a long time.

It's founded on the counterfactual claim that we are being asked to "... assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct".

Nobody's asking you to make that assumption.

You are being asked to accept that what you think you know is (insofar it conflicts with what experts say), probably wrong.

Which is absolutely and unquestionably true.

Reality is complex, and it's not subject to your (or anyone's) opinions.

The ability for doubt to contribute usefully to the advancement of science is directly proportional to the expertise of the person expressing those doubts.

The ill-informed are NOT valuable contributors to the advancement of knowledge, and they never have been.

What was conspiracy theory yesterday is almost certainly NOT establishment truth today, or ever. Conspiracy theories are utterly valueless; In the extremely unlikely event that one turns out to contain a grain of truth, it's purely accidental, and is impossible to identify in the ocean of crap until expertise is brought to bear.

Your expression here of popular epistemology is a neat encapsulation of everything that's wrong with modern discourse. Fuck your amateurish, half-baked, nonsensical conspiracist claptrap. It's not in the same league as expertise. Not even close.

The strong desire of non-experts to be able to grasp complex subjects and to thereby be able to contribute usefully to discussion of them, and to thereby reclaim control over their lives in a highly technological age is completely understandable, even laudable.

There are two common approaches to this. The less popular is to go get educated. That's very hard work, takes a long time, and is often expensive.

Much more popular is to simply declare that all opinions are valuable, and that therefore yours should get taken seriously. This has the advantage of being quick, easy, and free of charge; And the disadvantage of being totally batshit insane bullshit nonsense that's not worthy of the slightest scintilla of respect.

Democracy is a last resort solution to problems that are completely impossible to resolve by reference to facts. It's not a good option ever; But for some questions it's the least bad option. Questions of fact are not amongst those 'some questions'. Inexpert opinions on questions of fact are less than worthless; And if being told this makes the ignorant people pushing their opinions feel worhless and sad, then they need to get off their arses, turn off Fox News, Spotify, and all the other light entertainment that fraudulently claims to be informative, and get back to school.

Meanwhile, sit down and shut up. The grownups are trying to have a serious conversation.

 

[Trausti]

Or:

Guy who gets high and talks about MMA and aliens, is influencing people on their medical decisions.

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The anti-vaxxers he had spreading and more importantly, normalizing, lies were the problem.

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

That is the biggest pile of stinking horseshit I have had the misfortune to read in a long time.

It's founded on the counterfactual claim that we are being asked to "... assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct".

Nobody's asking you to make that assumption.

You are being asked to accept that what you think you know is (insofar it conflicts with what experts say), probably wrong.

Which is absolutely and unquestionably true.

Reality is complex, and it's not subject to your (or anyone's) opinions.

The ability for doubt to contribute usefully to the advancement of science is directly proportional to the expertise of the person expressing those doubts.

The ill-informed are NOT valuable contributors to the advancement of knowledge, and they never have been.

What was conspiracy theory yesterday is almost certainly NOT establishment truth today, or ever. Conspiracy theories are utterly valueless; In the extremely unlikely event that one turns out to contain a grain of truth, it's purely accidental, and is impossible to identify in the ocean of crap until expertise is brought to bear.

Your expression here of popular epistemology is a neat encapsulation of everything that's wrong with modern discourse. Fuck your amateurish, half-baked, nonsensical conspiracist claptrap. It's not in the same league as expertise. Not even close.

The strong desire of non-experts to be able to grasp complex subjects and to thereby be able to contribute usefully to discussion of them, and to thereby reclaim control over their lives in a highly technological age is completely understandable, even laudable.

There are two common approaches to this. The less popular is to go get educated. That's very hard work, takes a long time, and is often expensive.

Much more popular is to simply declare that all opinions are valuable, and that therefore yours should get taken seriously. This has the advantage of being quick, easy, and free of charge; And the disadvantage of being totally batshit insane bullshit nonsense that's not worthy of the slightest scintilla of respect.

Democracy is a last resort solution to problems that are completely impossible to resolve by reference to facts. It's not a good option ever; But for some questions it's the least bad option. Questions of fact are not amongst those 'some questions'. Inexpert opinions on questions of fact are less than worthless; And if being told this makes the ignorant people pushing their opinions feel worhless and sad, then they need to get off their arses, turn off Fox News, Spotify, and all the other light entertainment that fraudulently claims to be informative, and get back to school.

Meanwhile, sit down and shut up. The grownups are trying to have a serious conversation.

There you go. Just straight up condescension.

 

[bilby]

Or:

Guy who gets high and talks about MMA and aliens, is influencing people on their medical decisions.

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The anti-vaxxers he had spreading and more importantly, normalizing, lies were the problem.

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

That is the biggest pile of stinking horseshit I have had the misfortune to read in a long time.

It's founded on the counterfactual claim that we are being asked to "... assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct".

Nobody's asking you to make that assumption.

You are being asked to accept that what you think you know is (insofar it conflicts with what experts say), probably wrong.

Which is absolutely and unquestionably true.

Reality is complex, and it's not subject to your (or anyone's) opinions.

The ability for doubt to contribute usefully to the advancement of science is directly proportional to the expertise of the person expressing those doubts.

The ill-informed are NOT valuable contributors to the advancement of knowledge, and they never have been.

What was conspiracy theory yesterday is almost certainly NOT establishment truth today, or ever. Conspiracy theories are utterly valueless; In the extremely unlikely event that one turns out to contain a grain of truth, it's purely accidental, and is impossible to identify in the ocean of crap until expertise is brought to bear.

Your expression here of popular epistemology is a neat encapsulation of everything that's wrong with modern discourse. Fuck your amateurish, half-baked, nonsensical conspiracist claptrap. It's not in the same league as expertise. Not even close.

The strong desire of non-experts to be able to grasp complex subjects and to thereby be able to contribute usefully to discussion of them, and to thereby reclaim control over their lives in a highly technological age is completely understandable, even laudable.

There are two common approaches to this. The less popular is to go get educated. That's very hard work, takes a long time, and is often expensive.

Much more popular is to simply declare that all opinions are valuable, and that therefore yours should get taken seriously. This has the advantage of being quick, easy, and free of charge; And the disadvantage of being totally batshit insane bullshit nonsense that's not worthy of the slightest scintilla of respect.

Democracy is a last resort solution to problems that are completely impossible to resolve by reference to facts. It's not a good option ever; But for some questions it's the least bad option. Questions of fact are not amongst those 'some questions'. Inexpert opinions on questions of fact are less than worthless; And if being told this makes the ignorant people pushing their opinions feel worhless and sad, then they need to get off their arses, turn off Fox News, Spotify, and all the other light entertainment that fraudulently claims to be informative, and get back to school.

Meanwhile, sit down and shut up. The grownups are trying to have a serious conversation.

There you go. Just straight up condescension.

No, it was accurately described, well thought through, and completely justified condescension.

It's impossible not to look down on people who refuse to pull themselves up out of the gutter of ignorance, particularly when they are so gleeful about how great it is to have utterly stupid and ill-advised opinions, and so loudly insistent on having their nonsense treated with respect it has done nothing to earn.

There's a reason why the teachers are in charge in kindergarten, and that control isn't handed to their much more numerous and vocal charges.

You are not entitled to respect. And you haven't earned any. Condescension is your due, and you have brought it upon yourself. If you don't like being treated like an ignoramus, your only effective solution is learning.

 

[Trausti]

Or:

Guy who gets high and talks about MMA and aliens, is influencing people on their medical decisions.

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The anti-vaxxers he had spreading and more importantly, normalizing, lies were the problem.

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

That is the biggest pile of stinking horseshit I have had the misfortune to read in a long time.

It's founded on the counterfactual claim that we are being asked to "... assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct".

Nobody's asking you to make that assumption.

You are being asked to accept that what you think you know is (insofar it conflicts with what experts say), probably wrong.

Which is absolutely and unquestionably true.

Reality is complex, and it's not subject to your (or anyone's) opinions.

The ability for doubt to contribute usefully to the advancement of science is directly proportional to the expertise of the person expressing those doubts.

The ill-informed are NOT valuable contributors to the advancement of knowledge, and they never have been.

What was conspiracy theory yesterday is almost certainly NOT establishment truth today, or ever. Conspiracy theories are utterly valueless; In the extremely unlikely event that one turns out to contain a grain of truth, it's purely accidental, and is impossible to identify in the ocean of crap until expertise is brought to bear.

Your expression here of popular epistemology is a neat encapsulation of everything that's wrong with modern discourse. Fuck your amateurish, half-baked, nonsensical conspiracist claptrap. It's not in the same league as expertise. Not even close.

The strong desire of non-experts to be able to grasp complex subjects and to thereby be able to contribute usefully to discussion of them, and to thereby reclaim control over their lives in a highly technological age is completely understandable, even laudable.

There are two common approaches to this. The less popular is to go get educated. That's very hard work, takes a long time, and is often expensive.

Much more popular is to simply declare that all opinions are valuable, and that therefore yours should get taken seriously. This has the advantage of being quick, easy, and free of charge; And the disadvantage of being totally batshit insane bullshit nonsense that's not worthy of the slightest scintilla of respect.

Democracy is a last resort solution to problems that are completely impossible to resolve by reference to facts. It's not a good option ever; But for some questions it's the least bad option. Questions of fact are not amongst those 'some questions'. Inexpert opinions on questions of fact are less than worthless; And if being told this makes the ignorant people pushing their opinions feel worhless and sad, then they need to get off their arses, turn off Fox News, Spotify, and all the other light entertainment that fraudulently claims to be informative, and get back to school.

Meanwhile, sit down and shut up. The grownups are trying to have a serious conversation.

There you go. Just straight up condescension.

No, it was accurately described, well thought through, and completely justified condescension.

It's impossible not to look down on people who refuse to pull themselves up out of the gutter of ignorance, particularly when they are so gleeful about how great it is to have utterly stupid and ill-advised opinions, and so loudly insistent on having their nonsense treated with respect it has done nothing to earn.

There's a reason why the teachers are in charge in kindergarten, and that control isn't handed to their much more numerous and vocal charges.

You are not entitled to respect. And you haven't earned any. Condescension is your due, and you have brought it upon yourself. If you don't like being treated like an ignoramus, your only effective solution is learning.

Are you an infectious disease expert? If not, take your own advice: shut up.

 

[bilby]

Or:

Guy who gets high and talks about MMA and aliens, is influencing people on their medical decisions.

Joe Rogan isn't the problem. The anti-vaxxers he had spreading and more importantly, normalizing, lies were the problem.

New ideas and criticism in science often come from the fringe. That Covid has become so politicized may explain why any contrary viewpoint is hasty and forcefully attacked. Yet, why would anyone assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct? Especially with Covid. What was conspiracy theory yesterday is establishment truth today. I don’t know if Rogan’s guests are wrong or not. But it is obvious that he, and not the MSM that hates him, is the one promoting science. To paraphrase Feynman, doubt is an important part of science. And experience is that those who seek to stifle doubt probably have ill motives.

That is the biggest pile of stinking horseshit I have had the misfortune to read in a long time.

It's founded on the counterfactual claim that we are being asked to "... assume that what we know, or “experts” say they know, is unquestionably correct".

Nobody's asking you to make that assumption.

You are being asked to accept that what you think you know is (insofar it conflicts with what experts say), probably wrong.

Which is absolutely and unquestionably true.

Reality is complex, and it's not subject to your (or anyone's) opinions.

The ability for doubt to contribute usefully to the advancement of science is directly proportional to the expertise of the person expressing those doubts.

The ill-informed are NOT valuable contributors to the advancement of knowledge, and they never have been.

What was conspiracy theory yesterday is almost certainly NOT establishment truth today, or ever. Conspiracy theories are utterly valueless; In the extremely unlikely event that one turns out to contain a grain of truth, it's purely accidental, and is impossible to identify in the ocean of crap until expertise is brought to bear.

Your expression here of popular epistemology is a neat encapsulation of everything that's wrong with modern discourse. Fuck your amateurish, half-baked, nonsensical conspiracist claptrap. It's not in the same league as expertise. Not even close.

The strong desire of non-experts to be able to grasp complex subjects and to thereby be able to contribute usefully to discussion of them, and to thereby reclaim control over their lives in a highly technological age is completely understandable, even laudable.

There are two common approaches to this. The less popular is to go get educated. That's very hard work, takes a long time, and is often expensive.

Much more popular is to simply declare that all opinions are valuable, and that therefore yours should get taken seriously. This has the advantage of being quick, easy, and free of charge; And the disadvantage of being totally batshit insane bullshit nonsense that's not worthy of the slightest scintilla of respect.

Democracy is a last resort solution to problems that are completely impossible to resolve by reference to facts. It's not a good option ever; But for some questions it's the least bad option. Questions of fact are not amongst those 'some questions'. Inexpert opinions on questions of fact are less than worthless; And if being told this makes the ignorant people pushing their opinions feel worhless and sad, then they need to get off their arses, turn off Fox News, Spotify, and all the other light entertainment that fraudulently claims to be informative, and get back to school.

Meanwhile, sit down and shut up. The grownups are trying to have a serious conversation.

There you go. Just straight up condescension.

No, it was accurately described, well thought through, and completely justified condescension.

It's impossible not to look down on people who refuse to pull themselves up out of the gutter of ignorance, particularly when they are so gleeful about how great it is to have utterly stupid and ill-advised opinions, and so loudly insistent on having their nonsense treated with respect it has done nothing to earn.

There's a reason why the teachers are in charge in kindergarten, and that control isn't handed to their much more numerous and vocal charges.

You are not entitled to respect. And you haven't earned any. Condescension is your due, and you have brought it upon yourself. If you don't like being treated like an ignoramus, your only effective solution is learning.

Are you an infectious disease expert? If not, take your own advice: shut up.

I never advised anyone to shut up.

I advise everyone to learn first, and speak second. And, more importantly, not to listen to those who do not.

If you feel personally attacked when advised that listening to idiots makes you appear foolish, then you probably should stop listening to idiots.

And you should certainly resile from defending listening to idiots, and pretending that doing so is a noble act of inclusivity and will help to advance humanity through the generation of radical truths.

It's not; It's just stupid.

 

[Trausti]

I never advised anyone to shut up.

Dude, you told me to sit down and shut up.

 

[bilby]

I never advised anyone to shut up.

Dude, you told me to sit down and shut up.

That wasn't advice, it was an instruction.

Which you sadly ignored.

To your detriment and ours.

 

[Emily Lake]

Are you claiming that the US government is, in its majority, racist?

No, I am not.

My claim is right there in my post; I am not sure how you managed to get to here from there, but I suspect it was an attempt to simplify ny position.

Sadly, my position is quite nuanced. I already made it as simple as possible, so you will need to try to understand it as it stands.

Your position is also completely irrelevant with respect to my response to Jimmy Higgins.

 

[bilby]

Are you claiming that the US government is, in its majority, racist?

No, I am not.

My claim is right there in my post; I am not sure how you managed to get to here from there, but I suspect it was an attempt to simplify ny position.

Sadly, my position is quite nuanced. I already made it as simple as possible, so you will need to try to understand it as it stands.

Your position is also completely irrelevant with respect to my response to Jimmy Higgins.

So what? It's 100% relevant with respect to your response to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

Back before Delta. Back then if you were vaccinated and your immune system was ok you weren't going to spread the virus.

You keep using things that were correct when written.

Um, well, no. It wasn't true at the time. To date, NONE of the vaccines are 100% effective in preventing transmission, and a vaccinated person can still spread the virus. In fact, for ALL of the vaccines and covid variants, it has been possible for a vaccinated person to become infected with the strain against which they've been vaccinated. This is true for ALL viruses and ALL vaccines. None of them are 100% effective, and none of them completely prevents the possibility of transmission.

Being vaccinated reduces the likelihood of both infection and transmission, which is why they're a good idea. For some vaccines, that's a very large reduction in likelihood... for others, not as big. Coronavirus and Influenza as virus classes are both notorious for both break-through infection and for transmission by vaccinated persons. Both are also, as I've previously said, known to mutate at a very fast pace, generally multiple times per year.

Maddow's claim was false when she uttered it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Are you claiming that the US government is, in its majority, racist?

No, I am not.

My claim is right there in my post; I am not sure how you managed to get to here from there, but I suspect it was an attempt to simplify ny position.

Sadly, my position is quite nuanced. I already made it as simple as possible, so you will need to try to understand it as it stands.

Your position is also completely irrelevant with respect to my response to Jimmy Higgins.

So what? It's 100% relevant with respect to your response to me.

Unbunch your skivvies.

Jimmy Higgins made a claim that essentially asserted that blacks are "hated" in the US, implying that the hatred is widespread and common.. I responded to him with a question challenging his assertion. You decided to butt in with a whole screed of moral opprobrium based on governments in other countries in the past. Governments have nothing at all to do with what either Jimmy or I had said... but hey, perhaps you were trying to imply that even though it's a small minority of people in the US that are racist, maybe you thought that the majority of the government was racist. Because otherwise, your initial interjection was irrelevant, pointless, and incomprehensible in context.

Basically, what you interjected with was an argument you were having with yourself. I hope you feel that you won against you.

 

[bilby]

Are you claiming that the US government is, in its majority, racist?

No, I am not.

My claim is right there in my post; I am not sure how you managed to get to here from there, but I suspect it was an attempt to simplify ny position.

Sadly, my position is quite nuanced. I already made it as simple as possible, so you will need to try to understand it as it stands.

Your position is also completely irrelevant with respect to my response to Jimmy Higgins.

So what? It's 100% relevant with respect to your response to me.

Unbunch your skivvies.

Jimmy Higgins made a claim that essentially asserted that blacks are "hated" in the US, implying that the hatred is widespread and common.. I responded to him with a question challenging his assertion. You decided to butt in with a whole screed of moral opprobrium based on governments in other countries in the past. Governments have nothing at all to do with what either Jimmy or I had said... but hey, perhaps you were trying to imply that even though it's a small minority of people in the US that are racist, maybe you thought that the majority of the government was racist. Because otherwise, your initial interjection was irrelevant, pointless, and incomprehensible in context.

Basically, what you interjected with was an argument you were having with yourself. I hope you feel that you won against you.

I can assure you that the person who asked me "Are you claiming that the US government is, in its majority, racist?" wasn't me.

But I am glad that you recognise that that person was wrong to use such stupid rhetoric.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Back before Delta. Back then if you were vaccinated and your immune system was ok you weren't going to spread the virus.

You keep using things that were correct when written.

Um, well, no. It wasn't true at the time. To date, NONE of the vaccines are 100% effective in preventing transmission, and a vaccinated person can still spread the virus. In fact, for ALL of the vaccines and covid variants, it has been possible for a vaccinated person to become infected with the strain against which they've been vaccinated. This is true for ALL viruses and ALL vaccines. None of them are 100% effective, and none of them completely prevents the possibility of transmission.

Being vaccinated reduces the likelihood of both infection and transmission, which is why they're a good idea. For some vaccines, that's a very large reduction in likelihood... for others, not as big. Coronavirus and Influenza as virus classes are both notorious for both break-through infection and for transmission by vaccinated persons. Both are also, as I've previously said, known to mutate at a very fast pace, generally multiple times per year.

Maddow's claim was false when she uttered it.

Note that I added the condition "and your immune system was ok". Your chance of getting and spreading it was minuscule at that time.

 

[Emily Lake]

Back before Delta. Back then if you were vaccinated and your immune system was ok you weren't going to spread the virus.

You keep using things that were correct when written.

Um, well, no. It wasn't true at the time. To date, NONE of the vaccines are 100% effective in preventing transmission, and a vaccinated person can still spread the virus. In fact, for ALL of the vaccines and covid variants, it has been possible for a vaccinated person to become infected with the strain against which they've been vaccinated. This is true for ALL viruses and ALL vaccines. None of them are 100% effective, and none of them completely prevents the possibility of transmission.

Being vaccinated reduces the likelihood of both infection and transmission, which is why they're a good idea. For some vaccines, that's a very large reduction in likelihood... for others, not as big. Coronavirus and Influenza as virus classes are both notorious for both break-through infection and for transmission by vaccinated persons. Both are also, as I've previously said, known to mutate at a very fast pace, generally multiple times per year.

Maddow's claim was false when she uttered it.

Note that I added the condition "and your immune system was ok". Your chance of getting and spreading it was minuscule at that time.

That doesn't make a material difference. No vaccine is 100% effective. People who are in otherwise perfect health simply do not respond to the vaccine and do not develop antibodies as a result of it. People who are in otherwise perfect immune health can still be transmission vectors. This is true for all known vaccines, it's not unique to this one. That this one is *less* effective than most other vaccines just amplifies the situation.

At the end of the day, however, Maddow's claim was good propaganda, but entirely false.

 

[repoman]

There are a few clips of Joe Rogan tossing around the word nigger and one with him making an edgy comment about mixed race genetics.





https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1487833329827463170

Funny stuff. I love all racism, non ironically.

 

[repoman]

Spotify getting rid of the nigger bants by Joe Rogan or his guests

Joe Rogan Apologizes for ‘Shameful’ Past Use of Racial Slur

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Race-obsessed Rogan should have free speech in a free market. That means other people, even those I disagree with, can refuse to do business with spotify. It's all freedom.

 

[Ford]

There are a few clips of Joe Rogan tossing around the word nigger and one with him making an edgy comment about mixed race genetics.





https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1487833329827463170

Funny stuff. I love all racism, non ironically.

Downright hilarious. It's almost like he doesn't realize that everything he's ever done in his podcast was recorded.