My 27 yr old sibling is a hard core follower of Joe Rogan 💩
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. He’s another fake.]
Thank you!
Make him watch early Joe Rogan content. Back when he actually had an open mind and interesting guests.
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 he’s done with everyone’s 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 it’s easy to hate Joe Rogan now but there’s a reason why he was the #1 most downloaded podcast for years. Huge range of guests and Joe’s, “Jack of all trades master of absolutely nothing besides MMA” knowledge base of questions got some good stories out of people.
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.
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.
most cringey clickbait thumbnails I’ve ever seen.
My man, is this the first YT thumbnail you’ve ever seen?
he’s for sure not someone the Joe Rogan crowd would be interested in watching.
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.
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.
Tom Segura
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.
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.
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.
Preferably something that has a similar flavor - example: male host, muscular, easy to digest. I think that will make the transition easier.
You don’t think much of your sibling do you?
Would you?
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?”
I mean if they listen to Joe Rogan, they don’t seem to think much of themselves either tbh. That counts as self-harm.
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”.
You’ll 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. I’m betting OP’s sibling has a similar diet of media consumption.
Yeah, the unbiased style of debate/news reporting is very dangerous.
What are you gullible about?
What exactly is the problem with the JRE?
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
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 doesn’t know enough to press them on questionable or disingenuous statements, his many many listeners are led to believe there’s something to the bullshit they’re 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.
The rabid fascism, I imagine.
Edit: Going through all the suggestions now - thank you! I hadn’t heard of these before. I appreciate it!
Funny that you want a muscular male host, 😅
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, 😅, always interested in seeing evidence on his fakeness.
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 😅
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.
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:
- He had a primary partner who was in a serious relationship with him and on IVF so they could have a baby, but he was cheating on her with FIVE other women
- These women all believed they were in an exclusive relationship with him and he spun an astounding web of lies to maintain these relationships
- He exposed all of these women to a form of HPV that can cause cancer for women, without telling them that he was a carrier or that he was having unprotected sex with all of these other people (is this the kind of health advisor you want?)
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:
Taken together, this review advocates revisiting the current safety and regulation of specific sunscreens and investing in alternative UV protection technologies.
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:
Although most studies reviewed in this paper reported adverse neurotoxic effects of UV filters at concentrations substantially higher that those observed in environment and human tissues, these studies should not be disregarded, as they afford potential pathomechanisms which might occur in other conditions or sensitive populations.
Aka, these studies only found that it’s toxic in doses no human would use as sunscreen.
Unfortunately, the effects of repeated, long-term and low-dose exposures to single compounds and mixtures of various UV filters is also poorly studied.
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
Modern Wisdom
