Why do women think Joe Rogan is bad?

Hard to be bad if you are 5'8

If you believe people should listen to the BS spewed by Joe Rogan's guests, because it may contain some elements of truth, why don't you take the same approach to what intersex and transgender people say about their sex and gender?

Seems utterly random written by someone without much knowledge of or experience with science. Science is not tied to or care about anything other than the scientific method, which implicitly relies on a system of quantification and logical refutability (aka math).

The fact that all modern higher knowledge has its roots in philosophy is irrelevant to the practice of science today.

A Indian cook whose specialty is Rogan Josh.

Nice.🫡

I am not name calling. I am accurately describing your behavior.

You said using the term "conspiracy theorist" in reference to Jogan is "weaponizing language." Without evidence, Jogan has claimed the government has conspired to hide information about aliens and genetic mutations via vaccines. He has floated the possibility that the federal government instigated the Jan 6 insurrection to frame Trump. He has claimed that global warming is caused by shifts in Earth's magnetic poles. At one point, he did not believe the US landed a man on the moon. By definition, the man is a conspiracy theorist. Claiming this is "weaponizing language" is baseless and also, at a time when supporting gay marriage or drinking the wrong beer gets you called a pedophile by right wingers, unbelievably sensitive/infantile.

You simply can’t accept that I disagree with you on trans issues, or entertain the possibility that you’re wrong. Unlike you, I have read the scholarship upon which current popular conceptions of trans are based, and I understand the claims they make. I’ve demonstrated my grasp of these topics in multiple threads, sometimes discussing the relevant scholars by name. However, you never respond with an actual counterargument. Instead, you join others in making fun of me for talking about obscure theories. You think I don’t know about developmental disorders related to sex, or that I’ve never encountered the many debates about sex and gender. If I’m wrong, tell me how. Tell me what “queer” means and where the term arose. Explain the difference between second wave feminist conceptions of gender and those advanced by people like Judith Butler. Discuss the influence of Foucault on postmodern feminist theories of the body. Tell me how enzyme deficiencies in some male fetuses falsify the theory that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Pictures of people who have had puberty thwarted by drugs and/or their bodies masculinized or feminized with hormones won’t cut it.

Predictably, you are "appealing to authority" instead of addressing the question asked.

Have you ever considered that any of the "truth" you so firmly believe could turn out to be false? Unlike you, I openly admit that there are many things about sex and gender that we don't know. And I understand that many new things are discovered as we discuss. I am open to new discovery that challenges our understanding of sex and gender. Are you?

The actual issue here is that you have learned the scientific method, but you don’t understand the philosophy behind it. This leads people to fetishize particular methods (quantification, experiments) and erroneously reject potentially effective methods. Not all science is based on probability. Likewise, not all knowledge is grounded in science.

Ask yourself how you get through day-to-day life without quantifying everything if math-based science is the only way to generate knowledge about the world. Ask how you know anything about Joe Rogan or his show if you haven’t administered him and his guests a battery of validated psychological tests or quantified their interactions. Your entire worldview and the scientific enterprise itself are based primarily on liberalism. That system is under threat today because people no longer understand what it is and why we adopted it in the first place. My point is, once again, that science is part of a much larger knowledge-producing system grounded in liberal principles.

My argumentation is exactly the opposite of authoritarian. You accuse me of not entertaining alternative points of view, but on letsrun, I have shown you repeatedly that I DO understand these points of view. I have demonstrated my knowledge, not made claims to it based on identity, credentials, or special status.

The same issue is happening on this thread. I have made arguments grounded in logic and my understanding of the Enlightenment, and my detractors simply say I’m wrong or enact the very error I pointed to as being antithetical to science (conflating the character of the person and the veracity of the claim)

So he doesn't talk about science?

Sir Roger Penrose, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Sean Carrol, Brian Cox, Michio Kaku, Brian Keating, weren't talking science on his show?

He talks to a lot of people, and that have differing viewpoints. That's what a curious mind should do. He also talked with Stephen Meyer about intelligent design in the universe. Many people disagree with Meyer, but is it a conspiracy theory? No. But it is an idea that doesn't get much serious discussion, and Rogan is one of the few people who will give him a couple hours to talk about it. The world is better off for having a show like that.

Yeah. It’s midwit catnip. Nothing wrong with that, pays the bills.

The best thing about Rogan's show is that you get to hear the whole story from someone's perspective, and you need the whole story to get a full understanding. And Rogan will push back on extraordinary claims without evidence.

Unlike some of the commenters here, who think all they need is a 5 minute sound bite to know the whole story, and declare "fact or lie" with nothing in between.

Rogan is for people who know that to make informed opinions you need to hear than a few minutes. In other words, people who want to understand, not people who act like know-it-alls.

Listening to the Joe Rogan podcast when interesting guests are on is fine. But the army of morons who worship Rogan as a deity are just intolerable ass clowns. They invariably think that they have the answer to all of life's problems based on something they heard on his podcast. They consistently use Rogan's words as a substitute for real knowledge, and they have no clue how to fact check or compare/contrast Rogan's views with other reliable sources.

I don't get the impression that Rogan considers himself to be especially wise. On the contrary, he comes off as surprised/amused that he has attained guru status. That's something that I like about him... he just comes off as a relatively nice and humble guy compared to other celebrities. He makes you feel like he is just being himself hanging out with his friends and enjoying some stimulating conversation over a nice joint.

I think that women see his hardcore fans as hopelessly stupid... brainwashed sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Plenty of young men are idiots. But good women can help them change for the better. Joe Rogan addicts, on the other hand, are usually set in their ways and doomed to be annoying manchildren to the day that they die.

If you've got fat thumbs, you almost assuredly are a Joe Rogan fan.

>>They consistently use Rogan's words as a substitute for real knowledge, and they have no clue how to fact check or compare/contrast Rogan's views with other reliable sources.<<
What views are you talking about? Outside of thinking healthy people shouldn't be forced to take the COVID vaccine, what views or opinions does he really push? He mainly just interviews people. Lots of people from all walks of life, with a huge variety of backgrounds. Scientists, comedians, sports figures (especially fighting and pro-wrestling), historians, nutrionists, people who talk about psychedelics like DMT, etc.
I am really baffled by the idea that he mainly talks to conspiracy theorists. Those interviews are quite rare. It just shows me those people are just ignorant, and really haven't watched much of his show (or any at all).

Before that, it also depends if she likes human men or male wolves.