Thread by @DBolelli

This is a long thread... There's a very simple formula for making a post about contentious topics. Take an extreme stance--one way or another--and 50% of the people will support you. Posting about @joerogan these days fits the bill. #JoeRogan

Of course I'll break that wise rule and in the process of doing so, I'll probably upset everybody looking for a black-or-white take on the world.

On one hand, I disagree with lots of the choices Joe has made both in terms of the way he handled some topics and the kind of guests he has invited. I'll skip the specifics because they are tedious, and will try to make a more general point.

Joe's formula when he first started was to smoke weed and shoot the shit with friends. And it worked. Then he kept the same approach when he extended the circle to people like me. Casual, 'shoot the shit' kind of conversations about mostly mildly controversial topics...

And it still worked. Then he started going for celebrities. And it still worked. The problem began when he started having highly controversial guests on ultra-sensitive topics. Why was that a problem? Because Joe never really changed his style.

He always remained the friendly host who doesn't really challenge his guests with hard questions, who essentially agrees with whoever is in front of him, and doesn't push back. That's perfectly fine with friends, non-controversial guests or celebrities.

But it really doesn't work if you choose to dive headfirst in the middle of the culture wars and invite on the show some really disturbed and disturbing individuals. If he wants to deal with those topics, he should either ask harder questions or better yet...

get someone with a different viewpoint and let them hash things out between them while he plays neutral moderator. He didn't do that, and the results are what they are.

Of course, the more pushback he got from one side of the political spectrum, the more he got cozy with the other side that was defending him, and the whole thing turned into a really vicious cycle.

On the other hand, I 100% disagree with some of the criticisms I'm seeing these days. I saw a petition recently asking Spotify to fire 'white supremacist' Joe Rogan. That's just fuckin' stupid. You can accuse Rogan of a lot of things, but white supremacist?!?

That's actually an insult to people who had to deal with real white supremacists. You start using words casually that way, and before you know it they stop having any meaning.

It's sort of like dumb asses who cry about the growth of 'communism' in U.S. today (thereby demonstrating they have no idea what communism actually is.) And speaking of words, the controversy about Rogan's supposed racist statements...

using racist words when you are quoting actual racists, or in a context that makes it clear you are not endorsing racism is not the same as using those words in an actually racist way.

I quote racist language all the time verbatim when analyzing history, within a context that's clearly condemning racism. If you have legitimate critiques, stick to those.

Making some up in order to cast someone as a supervillain is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Same goes for sticking your head in the sand and refusing to see issues with someone's behavior because you have decided they are your hero.
#iamsureiwillbemakingfriendswiththis