Joe Rogan volunteers to host/moderate a debate (2 Viewers)

[tomwaits]

Joe Rogan says he would host and moderate a 4 hour debate for Trump and Biden.
Trump say he is in.

Trump jumps on offer to have Joe Rogan moderate debate with Joe Biden

President Trump on Monday jumped on an offer from mixed martial arts commentator and Spotify podcast host Joe Rogan to moderate a four-hour debate with former Vice President Joe Biden.

nypost.com

I think having a long form debate like this would allow the candidates to fully explain their positions instead of talking in sound bites like in the usual debates.

 

[MT15]

Rogan’s approach, from what little I have observed, would be a field day for Trump, IMO. He would be allowed free reign to lie, obfuscate and gaslight. Rogan’s approach is okay when you have a person on the other side who is operating in good faith. But it falls flat when the person on the other side has no moral compass and feels no obligation to be truthful. That’s when Rogan is just basically amplifying the lies.

 

[insidejob]

If the proposal was to have each candidate on his show at different times, then have at it. It’s just not a suitable debate format. You all act like it’s a personal affront that people don’t like him and don’t like his show.

This is something I'd be cool with. But having him actually moderate a debate for the POTUS race just isn't something I believe he is capable of. Yeah, he lets people give really long explanations and all that but that isn't how debates work. Even in debate club in high school. There's a clock for a reason. You have to actually know your shirt so you can give an answer in the time allowed.

ETA: And if they were to do a two separate interview with Rogan type deal, I'd want real time fact checking for it for it to mean anything at all.

 

[Brennan77]

I don’t think expressing an opinion of Rogan’s qualifications to moderate a debate is really an ad hominem attack, is it? I have listened to him, or at least tried to, a couple of times. Couldn’t get through a whole show. He doesn’t appeal to me at all. But that is a personal opinion.

He has no debate experience, that I’m aware of, and his type of show is not suited to a debate. If the proposal was to have each candidate on his show at different times, then have at it. It’s just not a suitable debate format. You all act like it’s a personal affront that people don’t like him and don’t like his show.

If you didn't engage in that activity, then why would you feel the need to defend yourself? Perhaps I wasn't talking to you.

....but since you asked.

Joe has already come out against one of the candidates IIRC. How in the world could he function as a moderator? Not to mention he‘s just an arrogant insufferable bore, IMO.

Calling someone arrogant and insufferable is the very definition of an attack on the person rather than the argument. You did better in your last post exploring whether his format was conducive to a debate. FWIW, I don't think anyone cares whether you like his show so I doubt anyone is taking it personally.

 

[NoPartyMike]

I like his format, but honestly, I've only really listened to him talk to Maynard from Tool. I can't recall any others. There are a few things I've heard him say that make me turn sideways, but I think the idea of the format is good. I just don't know if he's the guy who should be doing it.

I also don't know how his format plays with two people on opposite sides.

He has a lot of great interviews with special forces operators on YouTube, you may want to check out. He's good at letting his guests tell their stories, without berating them. Even when extremely difficult topics are being discussed he keeps the convo calm and collected.

 

[Brennan77]

Rogan’s approach, from what little I have observed, would be a field day for Trump, IMO. He would be allowed free reign to lie, obfuscate and gaslight. Rogan’s approach is okay when you have a person on the other side who is operating in good faith. But it falls flat when the person on the other side has no moral compass and feels no obligation to be truthful. That’s when Rogan is just basically amplifying the lies.

You should probably observe more then. That said, I think it's time we (collectively, not you specifically) stop obsessing with this notion of 'amplification' and 'platforming', etc. We need to allow even those we disagree with to speak so that we can explore exactly what they say and how/why they say it. We need to trust in our own ability to decipher truth (or falsehood) through dialogue. Reducing communication to a power struggle leads to exactly what we are witnessing now and worse things than that.

 

[Complex Kid]

We need to trust in our own ability to decipher truth (or falsehood) through dialogue.

I think the public's ability to do this has been proven to be lacking again and again and again and...

 

[Brennan77]

I think the public's ability to do this has been proven to be lacking again and again and again and...

So we just need a benevolent dictatorship to do it for those losers, amirite?

 

[RobF]

You should probably observe more then. That said, I think it's time we (collectively, not you specifically) stop obsessing with this notion of 'amplification' and 'platforming', etc. We need to allow even those we disagree with to speak so that we can explore exactly what they say and how/why they say it. We need to trust in our own ability to decipher truth (or falsehood) through dialogue. Reducing communication to a power struggle leads to exactly what we are witnessing now and worse things than that.

Mass communication is inherently a power struggle, there's no reduction there. Time places inherent limits on ability to consume and hence limits availability of platforms. All ideas cannot be accommodated on any given platform; hence hosting a platform necessarily involves judging ideas and determining which ones to amplify and which ones not to.

This is distinct from allowing ideas to be available. If I want to share my notion that Boris Johnson is in reality two small children in a Boris Johnson suit, I should be absolutely free to publish my blog, newsletter, and podcast. But it does not follow that I should be given a platform with someone who disagrees with me so that people can explore the how and why, or that if someone did choose to give me such a platform they shouldn't be roundly criticised for wasting everyone's time with my nonsense. Now apply the same principle to equally bogus but actually harmful notions, like white supremacy.

Choosing to give a platform to an idea can imply it has a certain level of merit over other ideas; there is inherently a choice being made, and the choice carries the suggestion of validity, meriting discussion. The choices the host of a platform make have consequences, and they have a responsibility accordingly.

In summary, the idea we should give platforms to terrible ideas we disagree with so we can say we disagree with them is, in itself, a terrible idea, and I'm regretting giving it the platform of my response.

 

[LA - L.A.]

We need to allow even those we disagree with to speak so that we can explore exactly what they say and how/why they say it.

A person can be allowed to say whatever they want and also be corrected for saying anything that is factually incorrect. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why would anyone be opposed to making sure that the things said to mass audiences are held to a standard of being factually correct?

 

[MT15]

If you didn't engage in that activity, then why would you feel the need to defend yourself? Perhaps I wasn't talking to you.

....but since you asked.



Calling someone arrogant and insufferable is the very definition of an attack on the person rather than the argument. You did better in your last post exploring whether his format was conducive to a debate. FWIW, I don't think anyone cares whether you like his show so I doubt anyone is taking it personally.

I offered my opinion, clearly labeled as such. [IMO]. It was an aside, said after I said that I thought he wasn’t qualified to moderate a debate. So an opinion offered is an ad hominem attack? slightly ironic that you think so, once again, IMO.

Suggesting that I don’t care for a celebrity who chooses to give national exposure to Alex Jones, and worse, is a far cry from calling for him to be “deplatformed”. That’s the second time in this thread alone that it has been suggested that someone wants to possibly silence Rogan. The first time was the reason I made the comment about you guys being a tad defensive or touchy about him.

I think we are in the middle of a huge social experiment with letting every voice be heard, without any fact checking or any judgement about what’s true and false right now, as an aside. So far the results are not ideal, at least from my perspective. We have millions of people who actively believe the Q nonsense, that vaccines cause autism, that the planes never hit the towers on 911, that no children were killed at Sandy Hook, and on and on.

I do believe in free speech, but what we are seeing right now is active disinformation being spread faster than anyone can fact check. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do think people like Rogan should feel something of a responsibility that comes with a platform the size of the one he has.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The primary commodities of the industrial age were physical goods, so in the early days when there was no regulation, physical pollution was rampant.

The primary commodity of the digital age is information, so in these early days with no regulation, information pollution is rampant.

 

[V Chip]

Regardless of whether you like Joe Rogan (and some of you throwing ad hominems seem to have never listened to his interviews), the long format conversation would be incredibly useful in today's climate.

I like some Joe Rogan interviews, and I like his long interview format. But from the dozens of his interviews I have seen, he rarely pushes his guests or contradicts/challenges them. It’s more of a conversation instead of an interview, and because of this a lot of his interviews are basically like really long talk-shows, where he and the guest talk like friends or like a facilitator for the guest’s ideas rather than any digging to find truth or present much of a counter to the guest. I don’t know how well that kind of format would be for a Presidential “debate.”

 

[not2rich]

So we just need a benevolent dictatorship to do it for those losers, amirite?

This country isn't as immune to a "benevolent dictatorship" as you may think. We live in two different Americas, and the one you live in depends on what media you consume.

 

[SaintForLife]

I like some Joe Rogan interviews, and I like his long interview format. But from the dozens of his interviews I have seen, he rarely pushes his guests or contradicts/challenges them. It’s more of a conversation instead of an interview, and because of this a lot of his interviews are basically like really long talk-shows, where he and the guest talk like friends or like a facilitator for the guest’s ideas rather than any digging to find truth or present much of a counter to the guest. I don’t know how well that kind of format would be for a Presidential “debate.”

What makes you think the corrupt Presidential Commission on Debates moderators would do any legitimate digging to find truth or even cover the issues that are important to the average American? They are a complete joke and are there to protect the Republican and Democratic parties.

 

[V Chip]

What makes you think the corrupt Presidential Commission on Debates moderators would do any legitimate digging to find truth or even cover the issues that are important to the average American? They are a complete joke and are there to protect the Republican and Democratic parties.

Did I mention anything about the current "debate" structure?

No, I did not. Build your straw man elsewhere.

 

[SaintForLife]

Did I mention anything about the current "debate" structure?

No, I did not. Build your straw man elsewhere.

Well who is supposed to do the digging for truth that you said Rogan couldn't do? What about those softball interviews that Biden has been getting? There isn't any truth digging there, but we do see the scripted questions about the latest Trump controversy.

 

[V Chip]

Well who is supposed to do the digging for truth that you said Rogan couldn't do? What about those softball interviews that Biden has been getting? There isn't any truth digging there other than the scripted questions about the latest Trump controversy.

I didn't say Rogan *couldn't* do, I said Rogan *doesn't* do.

Misrepresenting other people's positions, building straw men and Whataboutisms.

 

[SaintForLife]

I didn't say Rogan *couldn't* do, I said Rogan *doesn't* do.

Misrepresenting other people's positions, building straw men and Whataboutisms.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me who would be the moderator that we can depend on to do some truth digging! I'll hang up and listen.