41 votes

How Joe Rogan’s hugely popular podcast became an essential platform for “freethinkers” who hate the Left

Topic removed by site admin

49 comments

  1. [16]
    Deimos
    Link
    This was a good article. I think the real key point of it is the fact that he doesn't push back against his guests much or at all, and just lets them go on for hours. That can seem like being a...

    This was a good article. I think the real key point of it is the fact that he doesn't push back against his guests much or at all, and just lets them go on for hours. That can seem like being a good host (and it is, in some ways), but it's basically also just another form of the same old "it's just a platform" issue.

    And like the article says, the viewers encourage this when it's a guest they're supportive of (or at least not opposed to), but it didn't go over well at all when it was Jack Dorsey (Twitter's CEO). It's a good example of that quote I liked from the Steve Salaita article last month:

    Consumers want heroes, but heroism is contingent on the hero’s willingness or ability to emblematize an audience’s psychic and libidinal needs. In other words, adoration stipulates obedience, which produces a tenuous codependency. Conditions of support supersede the subject’s control (and sometimes the subject’s knowledge). The great paradox of public life is that leadership requires conformity.

    A lot of people love Joe Rogan, but keeping his place as one of their "heroes" will only happen as long as he keeps doing the things they want and expect him to. If he stops playing that role it can reverse very quickly, and I think doing a "redo" of the Jack Dorsey interview shows that he definitely recognizes that.

    19 votes
    1. [16]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [13]
        alyaza
        Link Parent
        token pushback on a couple of points really does not make up for platforming genuinely shitty people like alex jones for like five hours, though. that's a lot of time for people to disseminate...

        Here's an example (timestamped to as close as I could get). The clip is of Joe Rogan pushing back at Jordan Peterson on the issue of "enforced monogamy", and at the five minute mark he really hits home (much to Peterson's dismay).
        Rogan also pushed back against Alex Jones multiple times in the almost five hour long interview, and it turned out, at least on nominal review, that Jones' sources checked out.

        token pushback on a couple of points really does not make up for platforming genuinely shitty people like alex jones for like five hours, though. that's a lot of time for people to disseminate their ideas, and rogan has a massive audience into which such ideas can diffuse. i know people like to say that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" for crazy and terrible, but that doesn't exactly follow if you literally don't contest the majority of the wacky, utterly incorrect and genuinely dangerous shit people say (AND look good or more convincing while doing it, too!) when you put them in front of an audience of say, 100,000 people. just as there are plenty of people like you and i who can identify that jones is a bullshitter, there are plenty of people who will gobble up what jones says because they have deep rooted suspicions that jones confirms.

        Back to the original article: I read as much as I could, but it wasn't balanced enough. At this point, when I see an article that makes ad hominem attacks (such as "white men") more than once, I stop reading and move on. There is a real problem with American journalism today, where you either get five minute pieces on cable news channels designed to either promote a preordained viewpoint or publicly shame someone, and puff pieces that are littered with identity politics (both left and right). I think people are getting sick of this garbage, and shows like Joe Rogan offer an escape.

        the sooner we do away with this idea that we have to give every idea a fair shake and balance it out with some other viewpoint, the better, because jesus am i sick of people being able to act like just because someone can shit out a convincing defense of why we need to kill all the kikes or whatever, that means we have to entertain the idea of actually doing that. just because something is not "balanced" does not make it wrong, does not mean you should tune it out, and does not have any bearing on the reporting itself. let the reporting speak for itself. people holding this viewpoint never seem to do that when it's something like neo-nazism or socialism or anarchism or any other viewpoint that's not in the mainstream, so it's bizarre to me that they suddenly draw the line when it's like, white men and how a lot of them are powder kegs who would sooner support a white ethnostate than accept a demographic destiny which will literally not come at earliest until the tail end of their lifetimes.

        8 votes
        1. [13]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [12]
            alyaza
            Link Parent
            no, because on principle i don't really like the idea of supporting someone who's going to platform fucking alex jones for like five hours. no offense, but given that jones is well known for being...

            Did you actually watch any of that podcast? It was absolutely hilarious. It's the type of video you put on loop for a weekend while you hold up in a room with a couple friends and a bong.

            no, because on principle i don't really like the idea of supporting someone who's going to platform fucking alex jones for like five hours. no offense, but given that jones is well known for being a dangerous bullshitter on every level and has been for over a decade and a half now, there are really only two conclusions that you can draw from rogan bringing him on which are: (1) he cares more about clicks than about preventing further dissemination of jones's batshittery into the broader public; or, (2) he somehow thinks that jones is harmless enough that platforming him and his ideas for five hours will be fine, even though jones has attracted an audience of millions and has literally talked on the phone with the president of the united states.

            let's be clear: jones isn't just gay frogs man and he's certainly not someone you can just dismiss as a harmless loon. there's a reason he's about to get assfucked in court for his culpability in certain actions relating to sandy hook conspiracies. he has, does, and will likely continue to inspire people to take potentially harmful actions against people, and therefore rogan is either the dumbest motherfucker alive, or doesn't give a shit at all--neither is a good look for him.

            I was calling for balanced reporting in journalism, which I think is fair.

            and how do you define "balanced reporting" exactly? that can mean a million different things to a million different people. is it balanced enough to have conservative and liberal columnists and not also anarchist or fascist voices? are we obligated to hear out people who want to commit mass murder or overthrow the state violently and imprison dissident voices in journalism just in the name of balanced reporting? not all ideas or ideologies are made equal. there is a wild difference between balanced reporting in the sense of allowing racial or sexual or gender minorities to be represented and allowing political ones like anarchism or fascism, or minority social views like whether or not gay people should be allowed to be married.

            to treat every voice like it deserves a fair shake in reporting regardless of what the voice says is fairly absurd to me, and curiously whenever the topic comes up, even the people who believe in that principle seem to share my views--but only, of course, when the topic is about how white men tend to be disproportionately conservative and reactionary compared to even white women, or how masculinity in our society is imposed on people in a way that leads to many men expressing their masculinity in negative ways or some other such nonsense. matter-of-factly, i don't know that i've ever met someone who was consistent on the topic (or on the related topic of free speech).

            5 votes
            1. [12]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. [11]
                alyaza
                Link Parent
                who said anything about him not being able to platform who he wants? he can go host whoever he wants, but he then can't be surprised when people don't support him or don't give him the benefit of...

                I fundamentally disagree. I think Joe Rogan should be able to host whoever he wants. Then again, I am a free speech fundamentalist, only making rare exceptions for things like doxing and incitement to violence (as legally defined).

                who said anything about him not being able to platform who he wants? he can go host whoever he wants, but he then can't be surprised when people don't support him or don't give him the benefit of the doubt about anything and lump him in with the shitgibbons. there are eight billion people on this planet. he can pick literally any of them who are not alt-right/far-right/complete asshole figures in alex jones and the various other maladies and miscontents he's had on or, if he must insist on having them, he can at least actually push back on them more than once in a blue moon instead of just letting them have the floor for five hours. it would really not take that much effort.

                Reporting facts, and making it clear when an opinion enters the ring. Not leaving out facts when they don't fit the narrative you're trying to present, etc. It is totally fine to present a bunch of facts in one paragraph, and in the next say "and here is my opinion about them." But the generally accepted standard for news articles is that facts belong in the news, and opinions belong in the opinion section.

                i'm going to let you in on a secret: this is an idealistic view of the media that never was, never has been, and never will be. there is no such thing as objective or balanced media in your definition, and no media has ever attempted to be such because what you are describing is not possible and never has been. every stage of reporting is informed by opinion, every editing process is informed by opinion, and every story selection is informed by opinion. this is why newspapers and TV channels can be categorized by their political slant. what is reported on Fox News will be markedly different from what is reported at Slate, and what they do report on that is the same will be different in what it prioritizes because even if we go by the standard of just "reporting facts", someone gets to decides what facts are and are not reported in the final story.

                4 votes
                1. [11]
                  Comment deleted by author
                  Link Parent
                  1. [10]
                    alyaza
                    Link Parent
                    you're never going to see the "effort" you want because even the truth has a million subjective interpretations and a million stories to reflect that fact. here's a truth: the US government...

                    Sure, but it's an ideal to strive towards. I think we could see guidance from Elements of Journalism, which capstones the tenets of this idealism with: "Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth." Certainly, everyone falls somewhat short, but it's making the effort to meet that obligation that counts. And my point is that I don't see that effort very often anymore.

                    you're never going to see the "effort" you want because even the truth has a million subjective interpretations and a million stories to reflect that fact. here's a truth: the US government engaged in mass regime-change in south america between 1940 and 1980, often supporting the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in favor of dictators who oppressed their peoples. we know for a fact that this happened, and it is an undeniable fact of the historical record. but if you have CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Jacobin, and The Daily Stormer writing articles on the hardships of south america since 1940, how they incorporate that truth--or if they incorporate that truth at all--will differ greatly, because what they prioritize is different. that will always be, so long as there is more than one news outlet in existence, more than one journalist reporting, and more than one editor editing.

                    2 votes
                    1. [10]
                      Comment deleted by author
                      Link Parent
                      1. alyaza
                        Link Parent
                        no, they will absolutely not, lol. ever checked out like, breitbart? breitbart is one of the largest websites in the broader conservative punditry and its relation with the facts and truth is...

                        If a news outlet reports with a subjective interpretation that strays away from the facts, they will start to lose that trust pretty quickly.

                        no, they will absolutely not, lol. ever checked out like, breitbart? breitbart is one of the largest websites in the broader conservative punditry and its relation with the facts and truth is tenuous at best--but it is fairly profitable, has a large readership, and isn't going anywhere any time soon. this is even more true of the growing block of alternative media out there, which is even more liberal with what you talk about but is some of the most explosively growing content on places like youtube. i think you greatly overestimate how many people give a shit about the "facts" or truth insofar as it is possible to attain when reporting.

                        2 votes
                      2. [8]
                        TheJorro
                        Link Parent
                        Uh... how do you reconcile this with FOX News? Or Breitbart? Or any number of fringe extremist news outlets, like the Christian Coalition of Life, the Rebel, or dozens of others? What about when...

                        If a news outlet reports with a subjective interpretation that strays away from the facts, they will start to lose that trust pretty quickly.

                        Uh... how do you reconcile this with FOX News? Or Breitbart? Or any number of fringe extremist news outlets, like the Christian Coalition of Life, the Rebel, or dozens of others? What about when Postmedia news had its plans to blatantly skew information in favour of a political party last year?

                        Compare the way American mainstream media just lost a lot of public trust over the Mueller report not having the smoking gun they were promising,

                        Isn't it way, way too early to start making this claim? The dust hasn't even settled on that matter, and the report isn't even publicly released or verified by anyone.

                        2 votes
                        1. alyaza
                          Link Parent
                          if anything the opposite is already true: most people don't buy what barr put out there.

                          Isn't it way, way too early to start making this claim? The dust hasn't even settled on that matter, and the report isn't even publicly released or verified by anyone.

                          if anything the opposite is already true: most people don't buy what barr put out there.

                          2 votes
                        2. [7]
                          Comment deleted by author
                          Link Parent
                          1. [6]
                            TheJorro
                            Link Parent
                            Many of these outlets have been around before the full rise of social media, though. FOX News, especially. They've been known to be untruthful for close to two decades now. Can't lay it all at the...

                            Many of these outlets have been around before the full rise of social media, though. FOX News, especially. They've been known to be untruthful for close to two decades now. Can't lay it all at the feed of social media if the phenomenon of not losing trust in disingenuous news outlets has been happening before social media. The Postmedia thing wasn't even related to social media, that was straight up an inside memo that explicitly strategized about disingenuity.

                            I base my claim on the tact that AFAIK no new indictments have been made. If there were some smoking gun, I would have expected some sort of criminal proceeding to begin, or some kind of public recommendation to be made to Congress.

                            By whom? The people who would make those indictments are also the people who are holding the report back (including from Congress) and saying there's nothing in there, so...

                            1 vote
                            1. [6]
                              Comment deleted by author
                              Link Parent
                              1. [2]
                                alyaza
                                Link Parent
                                ...fucking what? if you think huffington post is "far left" your frame of reference is hopelessly to the right, because huffington post is basically a neoliberal, democratic establishment...

                                That said, it looks to me like you're suggesting, incorrectly, that these outlets have stayed the same through this duration. Huffington Post is far left now, but it used to be moderate left, and Arianna Huffington actually used to be a really conservative Republican.

                                ...fucking what? if you think huffington post is "far left" your frame of reference is hopelessly to the right, because huffington post is basically a neoliberal, democratic establishment publication at best. it's to the left of center, i guess, but it's sure as fuck not "far left". oh and, for the record, conservatives and liberals work together just fine all the time--they're far from radically different ideologies--so it's not exactly shocking that huffington and breitbart were able to work together.

                                2 votes
                                1. [2]
                                  Comment deleted by author
                                  Link Parent
                                  1. alyaza
                                    Link Parent
                                    uh, actual far left publications? socialist ones of any kind? anarchist ones? the "far left" is shit like the socialist worker or it's going down, not the god damn huffington post, lmao. even...

                                    uh, actual far left publications? socialist ones of any kind? anarchist ones? the "far left" is shit like the socialist worker or it's going down, not the god damn huffington post, lmao. even jacobin magazine, as much as leftists like to gripe about it often being democratic socialist at best, is a far better representation of the "far left" than literally any mainstream american news outlet.

                                    1 vote
                              2. [3]
                                TheJorro
                                Link Parent
                                I wasn't suggesting that any outlet has stayed static (if anything, I would have said that many have become more radical, as you have). I'm not sure what you're getting at with this detail about...

                                I wasn't suggesting that any outlet has stayed static (if anything, I would have said that many have become more radical, as you have).

                                I'm not sure what you're getting at with this detail about HuffPo but, if anything, it shows that radicalization has driven people apart and into their chambers. Don't forget that the third co-founder of HuffPo went on to make BuzzFeed, which is more of a millenial-serving outlet than explicitly slanted as left as HuffPo. Also, Breitpart pre- and post- Andrew Breitbart's death are very, very different outlets. I don't think anyone is making a whipping boy out of a dead man.

                                But, really, none of this is really reinforcing the idea that disingenuous news outlets are become less trusted. If anything, they're showing that they are fuelling blind trust the more radical they seem to become.

                                I'm not sure what you're getting at about the Mueller report, but let's go back to my original point: it's way to early to use that as an example of ruined faith in media.

                                1 vote
                                1. [3]
                                  Comment deleted by author
                                  Link Parent
                                  1. [2]
                                    TheJorro
                                    Link Parent
                                    You really have to stop quoting and responding to single lines, it's making you jump all over the place and overall weakens any point you're trying to make. Like, it doesn't matter what your...

                                    You really have to stop quoting and responding to single lines, it's making you jump all over the place and overall weakens any point you're trying to make. Like, it doesn't matter what your personal opinion is when you made a general value statement, and that bit about what Breitbart's reputation is isn't all-that important.

                                    However, this was just plain odd:

                                    Rachel Maddow's credibility has been destroyed by this. For example, there's a video on the topic from Jimmy Dorre (hardly alt-right) who compiled all the times she said "Russia" in a single episode of her show.

                                    ...What?

                                    I don't understand how, after all that railing about echo chambers, you use a YouTube channel that seems to be specifically all about reinforcing echo chamber rhetoric to make the claim that someone's credibility (again, by a channel that is filled with sensationalistic headlines!) is "destroyed". It's weird, it's like you're treating entry-level alt-right rhetoric as normal, happy truth and all other viewpoints as wrong or problematic without considering if you even have a proper baseline. This crazy lite-right YouTube channel full of senstationalist titles and clearly editorialized information can just say someone's credibility is destroyed and you're taking that as fact?

                                    It's like you've been going on and on about how sugar is evil, and then offered me a can of Coke.

                                    2 votes
                                    1. [2]
                                      Comment deleted by author
                                      Link Parent
                                      1. TheJorro
                                        Link Parent
                                        No, conversations happen in full format. And, honestly, I have no idea what he is, but if you're calling him "hardly alt-right", that means he is somewhat alt-right. I'm just going by your...

                                        No, conversations happen in full format.

                                        And, honestly, I have no idea what he is, but if you're calling him "hardly alt-right", that means he is somewhat alt-right. I'm just going by your description. A quick read through of the video titles certainly makes it clear that when he goes after the left, he goes after them with a lot more pointed language than the right. Also, I've heard people call Sargon of Akkad "left-wing" because he disagrees with some extremist right-wing views, so I really question the idea of labelling some people "left-wing" when they are also clearly attacking the left wing.

                                        This still doesn't address how you took an echo chamber YT account at face value after railing against echo chambers.

                                        2 votes
      2. [2]
        nsz
        Link Parent
        Jones's tactic is to mix in completely off the charts stuff with his actual views, then time is spent arguing/dismissing the crazy stuff, and suddenly the normal--or at least by comparison--views...

        Jones's tactic is to mix in completely off the charts stuff with his actual views, then time is spent arguing/dismissing the crazy stuff, and suddenly the normal--or at least by comparison--views are acceptable. It's just playing into his hands, and if Rogan is really not just providing a soapbox he should be aware of this and do something about it. The same goes for any other guest pedalling fringe ideas/theories.

        7 votes
  2. [4]
    cfabbro
    (edited )
    Link
    As much as I love Joe Rogan and the JRE (I watch almost every episode, even the MMA ones)... this article is still very necessary IMO. His views on censorship, support of free speech absolutism...

    As much as I love Joe Rogan and the JRE (I watch almost every episode, even the MMA ones)... this article is still very necessary IMO. His views on censorship, support of free speech absolutism and confusion on transgender and "SJW" issues, as well as him constantly providing a very prominent platform for complete nutjobs, conmen, alt-right "personalities" and "classical liberals" is troublesome, to say the least. Whether he realizes it or not, and despite the fact I honestly don't think he really agrees with them on much besides being a bit of a free speech absolutist, the alt-right and their ilk has latched onto him in recent years and are clearly making a concerted effort to convert him to their side and exploit his platform.

    I really hope he wises up, but if he is going to keep hosting right wing idiots on his show, I really think he needs to diversify his guest list and get some more intelligent, well-spoken leftist guests as well... which is often a criticism of free speech absolutists, as they tend to only ever talk to and defend the far right assholes out there. I even tried a number of years ago on reddit to ask Sarah McBride, a prominent (and brilliant) trans rights activist, to reach out to Joe and get on his podcast but she didn't respond. :( I have recently started trying to get the attention of Natalie from ContraPoints for the same reason. #MoreLeftistsOnJRE ;)

    16 votes
    1. nsz
      Link Parent
      I don't think he can do that. The article talks about twitter's CEO interview and the double standard his audience have towards his laid-back approach to conversations. It mentions how the first...

      I really hope he wises up, but if he is going to keep hosting right wing idiots on his show, I really think he needs to diversify his guest list and get some more intelligent, well-spoken leftist guests as well...

      I don't think he can do that. The article talks about twitter's CEO interview and the double standard his audience have towards his laid-back approach to conversations. It mentions how the first interview was massively disliked my his audience. Yet it follows the same style as his previous interviews but because it's someone this audience is hostile towards they were not satisfied. It's only the second interview with the ECO which took a different tone, centred around hard questions about the de-platforming.

      I doubt anyone outside the norm for Rogan's audience would want to come on, when the tone towards them would be so different, be it in the comments if it doesn't happen on air.

      5 votes
    2. [3]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [2]
        cfabbro
        Link Parent
        I very much doubt Peterson could handle her calling him daddy. ;) And frankly, I would rather he not be given any more time in the spotlight to spead his complete FUD and lies about Bill C-16.

        I very much doubt Peterson could handle her calling him daddy. ;) And frankly, I would rather he not be given any more time in the spotlight to spead his complete FUD and lies about Bill C-16.

        6 votes
        1. [2]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. cfabbro
            Link Parent
            I have to admit that it would be fun to see a debate between them... but as a Canadian, the sooner he fucks right off back to relative obscurity the better, as far as I'm concerned. His...

            I have to admit that it would be fun to see a debate between them... but as a Canadian, the sooner he fucks right off back to relative obscurity the better, as far as I'm concerned. His misrepresentation of Bill C-16 in particular is seriously shameful.

            p.s. Yeah sorry, bad habit of mine to edit shit as I go.

            2 votes
  3. [2]
    Devin
    Link
    Well thank Jojo I grew up with Joe Rogan just being a meat head on News Radio. Nothing he has done since has convinced me to take him seriously. How nuts are you to spend 10k a month on a tier 1...

    Well thank Jojo I grew up with Joe Rogan just being a meat head on News Radio. Nothing he has done since has convinced me to take him seriously. How nuts are you to spend 10k a month on a tier 1 line to play quake? This was the same era where Alex Jones was a liberal ranting against the right and appearing in movies like A Scanner Darkly ranting on a corner about the scary right wing media.

    3 votes
    1. [2]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. Devin
        Link Parent
        It was just another reason to believe he was the same maniac he portrayed on News Radio. Not a bad thing, but I mine as well take Andy Dick seriously.

        It was just another reason to believe he was the same maniac he portrayed on News Radio. Not a bad thing, but I mine as well take Andy Dick seriously.

  4. rickdg
    Link
    Cherrypicked to strawman Joe into the figure most people perceive him to be at first glance. If you want an actual in-depth view of the IDW memes as seen from the left, take a look at Contrapoints...

    Cherrypicked to strawman Joe into the figure most people perceive him to be at first glance. If you want an actual in-depth view of the IDW memes as seen from the left, take a look at Contrapoints or Zero Books. This is just an article written on top of how youtube strings random clips of content together.

    1 vote
  5. [27]
    Comment removed by site admin
    Link
    1. alyaza
      Link Parent
      incidentally, you might be interested in a video by emerican johnson of noncompete which came out a few days ago called The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence, which ties in with and...

      I put Joe Rogan on the same level as folks like PewDiePie, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson as the beginning of the alt-right YouTube pipeline.

      incidentally, you might be interested in a video by emerican johnson of noncompete which came out a few days ago called The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence, which ties in with and makes a few similar observations about pewdiepie as this article does with rogan.

      16 votes
    2. [25]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      Wait, PewDiePie? I thought he was just a lets-player.

      Wait, PewDiePie? I thought he was just a lets-player.

      3 votes
      1. knocklessmonster
        Link Parent
        He is just a let's player. Not a political commentator, or even an alt-right racist. The issue (check out @alayza's link to Non-Compete's video) is more an issue of culture. He is just joking, but...

        He is just a let's player. Not a political commentator, or even an alt-right racist.

        The issue (check out @alayza's link to Non-Compete's video) is more an issue of culture. He is just joking, but the issue with edgy humor is while he knows what he's doing, his viewers might not necessarily. They'll take the joke and run with it and keep making the joke, which could potentially normalize the attitude of the joke, and here begins the slippery slope to racism. With a subscriber base of 91m, and his most recent video getting one million views in five hours, it is guaranteed that some people are going to see his joke as something serious. It is a perfect storm of the internet meme and a very large amount of people who see his videos. He's not at fault for it, exactly, but he also, arguably, shouldn't be playing with this sort of humor with a platform as large as his.

        I'm not trying to defend his behavior, but as somebody who used to behave similarly, I simply thin he's immature, and keeps messing up as a result.

        4 votes
      2. [24]
        Comment removed by site admin
        Link Parent
        1. [15]
          ShrubOfRegret
          Link Parent
          I'm not going to argue that PewDiePie hasn't said distasteful things or gone too far. However, I think it's a mistake to use that as evidence of him being alt right. At most, to me, it makes him a...

          I'm not going to argue that PewDiePie hasn't said distasteful things or gone too far. However, I think it's a mistake to use that as evidence of him being alt right. At most, to me, it makes him a Logan Paul type with no social awareness and a want for attention.

          One of the main things for me is that sometimes a joke is a joke. Right at this very moment I'm running a game server where the message of the day is "Alex Jones did nothing wrong." Does me making that joke mean that in some way I secretly believe that? No. The joke itself is how wrong the statement is. The man is unhinged in more than one way, and has done awful things due to it.

          That's not to say that calling it a joke makes it one. There absolutely are those that hide behind it being a "joke" the second they meet any resistance to their hateful thoughts. That's why it's important to actually take the context into account. Intent matters. Sure, that's easier said than done, but in cases like these, to me, it looks like it's being completely ignored.

          With the first link you provide PewDiePie himself says that he didn't entirely expect them to actually do it. I know I wouldn't have done it; it's five dollars to say something horrible on video that'll be kept forever.

          For the second "Hitler did nothing wrong" is basically the edgy joke.

          For the third and fourth, I've seen E;R's videos, and in particular the ones PewDiePie referenced. E;R absolutely loves crossing the line with his jokes. But that's the thing. They remain jokes. It's not as if the aforementioned Hitler speech was played without context, without reason, and meant to be taken as it was.

          The fifth link is worse, but I can unfortunately sympathize with. When a significant portion of your humor is centered around stepping a bit over the line and deliberately being offensive, that can backfire. I've basically had the same moment. The same word has found its way into my vocabulary, and it absolutely bothers me that it's even a word some part of me suggests I use.

          As for the seventh link. You sharing that is what the shooter wanted. Their explicitly stated goal was to be as controversial, and to cause as much controversy, as possible. It's a continued theme of the alt right taking words and symbols from us. They do things like making a legitimate effort to have Pepe branded a hate symbol because they know it'll work. I see it as them stealing some measure of our ability to talk freely because we'll gladly give it to them if they just "taint" it. I see the "PewDiePie is alt right" narrative being a continuation of that.

          18 votes
          1. stephen
            Link Parent
            That's not really what's being argued by most the people I have seen talking about this as much as him being part of a pipeline. Sure, he is himself not an overt radical white supremacist and I...

            evidence of him being alt right

            That's not really what's being argued by most the people I have seen talking about this as much as him being part of a pipeline. Sure, he is himself not an overt radical white supremacist and I think most people who look at his body of work will say as much.

            However, the content he generates reinforce reactionary and problematic behaviors and tropes. Yeah it's just jokes (maybe) but even in jest and mostly regardless of context of words can normalize prejudicial and bigoted thinking. Even if 90% of viewers get that the Death to All Jews thing was meant as an edgy stunt, by just doing that in the first place Pewds offered that remainder the opportunity to draw a different conclusion - be it white supremacy or hyper-nihilistic hate-trolling.

            Biggest point here is that Pewds has a responsibility to hold content on his gigantic platform to high standard - mostly since he is effectively a children's entertainer in large part. That isn't to say he can't make edgy allusions to white nationalism or whatever the shitty fuck he wants to do. I like GG Allin so I'm about as fine with one thing as the next. But he needs to clear that very minimal bar of "explicitly not a white supremacist" if that's the domain he wants to deal with in his work. Otherwise he will remain an early stage enabler in the resurgence of white nationalist youth.

            19 votes
          2. NaraVara
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            No social awareness, amorality, and a compulsive need for adulation, and hypercompetitive drive for success (which is what YouTube selects for) is basically the psychographic profile of fascists....

            At most, to me, it makes him a Logan Paul type with no social awareness and a want for attention.

            No social awareness, amorality, and a compulsive need for adulation, and hypercompetitive drive for success (which is what YouTube selects for) is basically the psychographic profile of fascists.

            That whole Harpers article from 1941 is extremely insightful and worth reading, but here's the critical parts:

            Mr. B has risen beyond his real abilities by virtue of health, good looks, and being a good mixer. He married for money and he has done lots of other things for money. His code is not his own; it is that of his class—no worse, no better, He fits easily into whatever pattern is successful. That is his sole measure of value—success. Nazism as a minority movement would not attract him. As a movement likely to attain power, it would.

            This is most of your typical Republican media figures and mainstream politicians. Your Tucker Carlsons and Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells.

            Mr. C is a brilliant and embittered intellectual. He was a poor white-trash Southern boy, a scholarship student at two universities where he took all the scholastic honors but was never invited to join a fraternity. . . .
            He is a snob, loathing his own snobbery. He despises the men about him—he despises, for instance, Mr. B—because he knows that what he has had to achieve by relentless work men like B have won by knowing the right people. But his contempt is inextricably mingled with envy. Even more than he hates the class into which he has insecurely risen, does he hate the people from whom he came. He hates his mother and his father for being his parents. He loathes everything that reminds him of his origins and his humiliations. He is bitterly anti-Semitic because the social insecurity of the Jews reminds him of his own psychological insecurity. . .
            There he sits: he talks awkwardly rather than glibly; he is courteous. He commands a distant and cold respect. But he is a very dangerous man. Were he primitive and brutal he would be a criminal—a murderer. But he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism. He would laugh to see heads roll.

            This is the Trump inner circle. It's where you find the Steven Millers and the Steve Bannons and the like. (Although I think "embittered" is a more operative term here than "brilliant." I'd probably put "intellectual" in scare quotes but that's neither here nor there.)

            I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines. He has been ruthless toward two wives and his mother pays the alimony. His life is spent in sensation-seeking and theatricality. He is utterly inconsiderate of everybody. He is very good-looking, in a vacuous, cavalier way, and inordinately vain. He would certainly fancy himself in a uniform that gave him a chance to swagger and lord it over others.

            And here is where you've got your Logan Pauls and your Pewdiepies. They are all of a tribe.

            Mr. G is a very intellectual young man who was an infant prodigy. He has been concerned with general ideas since the age of ten and has one of those minds that can scintillatingly rationalize everything. I have known him for ten years and in that time have heard him enthusiastically explain Marx, social credit, technocracy, Keynesian economics, Chestertonian distributism, and everything else one can imagine. Mr. G will never be a Nazi, because he will never be anything. His brain operates quite apart from the rest of his apparatus. He will certainly be able, however, fully to explain and apologize for Nazism if it ever comes along. But Mr. G is always a “deviationist.” When he played with communism he was a Trotskyist; when he talked of Keynes it was to suggest improvement; Chesterton’s economic ideas were all right but he was too bound to Catholic philosophy. So we may be sure that Mr. G would be a Nazi with purse-lipped qualifications. He would certainly be purged.

            And this is what one ends up sounding like when they try to hair split away the noxious behaviors of fascist enablers and provacateurs.

            Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.
            Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t-whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi. It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to.

            15 votes
          3. [5]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [4]
              NaraVara
              Link Parent
              15-16 year olds are basically petit-sociopaths. It's fine to be 15-16 years old and that way because their brains are still developing and their capacity for empathy hasn't fully emerged yet. This...

              15-16 year olds are basically petit-sociopaths. It's fine to be 15-16 years old and that way because their brains are still developing and their capacity for empathy hasn't fully emerged yet. This is also why we don't let 15-16 year olds make crucial decisions about how the world should be run. Maybe it's time we not give the megaphone to grown adults with the mental and emotional maturity of 15 year olds as well.

              11 votes
              1. [3]
                iiv
                Link Parent
                But Pewdiepie's target audience is 15-16 year olds. He isn't making crucial decisions about how the world should be run.

                But Pewdiepie's target audience is 15-16 year olds. He isn't making crucial decisions about how the world should be run.

                1 vote
                1. NaraVara
                  Link Parent
                  He's plugging them into the Alt-Right recruitment pipeline. That's a decision he's involved in whether he wants to own up to it or not.

                  He's plugging them into the Alt-Right recruitment pipeline. That's a decision he's involved in whether he wants to own up to it or not.

                  9 votes
                2. [2]
                  Comment removed by site admin
                  Link Parent
                  1. iiv
                    Link Parent
                    Okay, but what do you think should be done about it? He has that huge audience because of his edgy/immature humour. The person I replied to said "Maybe it's time we not give the megaphone to grown...

                    Okay, but what do you think should be done about it? He has that huge audience because of his edgy/immature humour. The person I replied to said "Maybe it's time we not give the megaphone to grown adults with the mental and emotional maturity of 15 year olds". Okay, but it isn't fair to censor someone just because their humour is immature.

                    1 vote
          4. Autoxidation
            Link Parent
            What about the accounts he chose to follow on Twitter? He has now unfollowed all of those accounts in light of the recent NZ attack.

            However, I think it's a mistake to use that as evidence of him being alt right.

            What about the accounts he chose to follow on Twitter? He has now unfollowed all of those accounts in light of the recent NZ attack.

            2 votes
          5. babypuncher
            Link Parent
            For what possible reason would someone who isn't "alt right" follow a bunch of racist alt-right Twitter handles?

            For what possible reason would someone who isn't "alt right" follow a bunch of racist alt-right Twitter handles?

            1 vote
          6. [7]
            Comment removed by site admin
            Link Parent
            1. [4]
              45930
              Link Parent
              I agree with @Spel here. Pewdiepie has had all these moments, and I think that perfectly well warrants you to not be a fan of his. But him being having certain personal biases that he let's slip...

              I agree with @Spel here. Pewdiepie has had all these moments, and I think that perfectly well warrants you to not be a fan of his. But him being having certain personal biases that he let's slip from time to time and him being "knowingly courting the alt-right" are 2 different things. I think it's extremely dangerous to extrapolate "Joe Rogan and Pewdiepie are trying to convert people to the alt right" from "Many people in the alt-right like Joe Rogan and Pewdiepie". Reading through your comments in this thread, you've done a lot of associating and calling out, but you're not specifically addressing content in Joe Rogan's podcast or Pewdiepie's youtube show. Alex Jones is a given. But even Jordan Peterson isn't strictly an alt-right character. Joe Rogan and Pewdiepie are even more debatable. And that debate should be focused on their work, not on the kinds of people that consume their work.

              9 votes
              1. [4]
                Comment removed by site admin
                Link Parent
                1. [3]
                  45930
                  Link Parent
                  I agree with you that these people are sort of "gateway drugs" to alt-right, but what then? Just like the original "gateway drug", I don't think it's causal like you're implying. I think it's more...

                  I agree with you that these people are sort of "gateway drugs" to alt-right, but what then? Just like the original "gateway drug", I don't think it's causal like you're implying. I think it's more likely that alt-righters discover these people, and also discover Alex Jones than it is that they discover these people, which causes them to discover Alex Jones. I'm not aware of any legitimate academic research on this topic so it's not like I'm going to die on this hill. But consider this:

                  The article cites Andrew Yang's increased campaign donations as an anecdote about Joe Rogan having a positive impact on his guests. But isn't this sort of the exact thing this Slate article is attempting to do in reverse? To get all of it's readers to get negative on the Joe Rogan podcast and start the train of Joe Rogan as persona non grata, much like what's already happened to PDP and Jordan Peterson (rightly or wrongly)? So if we take a step back and approach the broader question, what do you think the answer should be? The broader question being:

                  If I create content with the intention of being interesting and worthwhile for my audience (something Joe Rogan and Slate probably both did), and I become successful enough that I am no longer simply a commentator, but I also impact the exact space that I am trying to commentate (something that applies to both), what responsibility do I now have?

                  I think it's pretty clear that a lot of "left" publications like Slate et al are pretty unapologetically left. It's not a secret. With the guys we're talking about now, they claim to not be alt-right but from time to time flirt with it, so maybe that's the line. They're not being straightforward about their intent. But what if they don't feel like they belong in any of the canon political groups? If they aren't explicitly alt-right, libertarian, progressive, neo-liberal, or anything else, then why would they host guests that are progressive and neolib, but pass on guests that are alt-right or libertarian?

                  Again, I think it's perfectly reasonable to not be a fan of these guys, but this article, and your comments in this thread are more of a takedown than anything else, and I'm not sure these guys deserve to be vilified the same way that Alex Jones was (inb4 that's not what you're saying). I am in the camp of treating Joe Rogan and Pewdiepie as individuals, even though they have high reach. I am not comfortable holding them accountable as I would a publication with an editor and a review process.

                  I'd be interested to see what you think of Russell Brand. He has a similar podcast and also hosts a wide range of characters. He doesn't have the same reach, and is more overtly left so he gets a pass. But if you compare the 2, what are your thoughts?

                  9 votes
                  1. [3]
                    Comment removed by site admin
                    Link Parent
                    1. alyaza
                      Link Parent
                      this is my experience also, both with the youtube right (and increasingly, with the youtube left). i haven't even really ever fully committed to looking into it myself, but i know for a fact many...

                      I think this chart in particular shows how you can start from say a "free thinker" like Joe Rogan, and get introduced to an "altlite" personality like Jordan Peterson, continue on that path to say Dave Rubin, and then its just a quick hop over to a full on white nationalist altrighter like Lauren Southern.
                      https://i.imgur.com/Te9RqDD.png

                      this is my experience also, both with the youtube right (and increasingly, with the youtube left). i haven't even really ever fully committed to looking into it myself, but i know for a fact many of the skeptic/rationalist/classical liberal/alt-right/white nationalist youtubers at the minimum are chummy and always have been because i sorta have data on it. take, for example, my brief efforts to connect just some of them to other people i followed/knew/watched in 2017 either in the two following each other, interacting with each other, collaborating, etc. and that web is obviously quite underdeveloped both for then and for now.

                      but this sort of overlap extends beyond just political communities themselves. i briefly looked into two three youtubers i follow who have basically no or literally no political content on their channels (ralphthemoviemaker, i hate everything, and your movie sucks) for example and who they happened to follow on twitter. this returned, of note...

                      @ralphsepe: follows: ArmouredSkeptic, sh0eonhead, IHE, YMS, Red Letter Media

                      @2gay2lift (YMS): follows Lindsay Ellis, Jeff Holiday, vampkandy, Sinatra, Styxhexenhammer666, Veeh, JFGariepy, Mouthy Buddha, Amazing Atheist, shaun&jen, Metokur, Count Dankula, Kraut and Tea, Contrapoints, Hbomberguy, buntyking, Failure, Joe Rogan, Laci Green, Chris Warski, IM Cheong, DrLayman, Andy Warski, Aydin Paladin, Jordan Peterson, Vernaculis, Sugartits, AlphaOmegaSin, MundaneMatt, Stephen Crowder, Ralph Sepe, Chris RayGun, CH Sommers, Red Letter Media, Shadman, Voat, Digibro, sh0eonhead, ArmouredSkeptic, Fredrick Brennan, 8chan, thunderf00t

                      @IHE_official: follows sh0eonhead, ArmouredSkeptic, Keemstar, Ralph Sepe, YMS, Jontron, Red Letter Media

                      one of the things that people seem to sorta miss is that many youtube content creator communities are very insular, and there are a lot of youtubers who personally know each other quite well because of that and often leads to overlap with the political side of youtube. lindsey ellis and sh0eonhead for example are best friends despite making content that is basically the opposite from one another and sharing largely divergent political views. if you really begin to look into it, i think you'll find that--more often than not--you're only one or two steps removed from... all of this, basically, if you're watching anybody who's particularly popular on the english speaking part of youtube.

                      6 votes
                    2. 45930
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      Wow great post. I don't have much to add to the conversation without doing some more reading first. There are just a couple things to keep you honest on. The first study doesn't really address my...

                      Wow great post. I don't have much to add to the conversation without doing some more reading first. There are just a couple things to keep you honest on.

                      There actually have been some studies on this.

                      The first study doesn't really address my original point. The second study isn't really a study, but a really good piece of investigative journalism. I really recommend anyone following along here to read that. The journalism piece does address the correlation vs causation question I posed, but not to a serious degree.

                      I think they are trying to bring to light the issue that he keeps providing a platform

                      The Slate piece is persuasive in nature. It's not fact based reporting with the intention of letting the reader decide what they think. It's an opinion piece with the intention of making the reader think that Joe Rogan needs to change the way he does his podcast. The implicit "or else" is people should stop listening and since it's 2019, make him the butt of the joke as our own little leftist dog whistle. Maybe I'm projecting. At least the first part of my statement is factual.

                      Russell Brand did a podcast episode with Jordan Peterson, which I've watched. He also did an episode with Candace Owens, which I haven't. I don't know who else. I enjoyed the episode, although I'm sure it "redpilled" some people that were only there for Russell Brand. Does that make it worthy of criticism? What if it "bluepilled" an equal or greater number of alt-right prospects?

                      Anyways, great stuff to think about. Thank you for sharing those links.

                      Edit: I realized I linked the second podcast episode with Peterson and Brand, and to Peterson's channel. I'll leave it as is, but I meant to link this one which is the first episode they did, the one I watched, and also on Brand's channel.

                      5 votes
            2. [2]
              ShrubOfRegret
              Link Parent
              I honestly haven't watched his content in years, but did watch him a decent bit before all the controversies popped up. Nothing about him ever said alt right to me, and a continuation of the same...

              I honestly haven't watched his content in years, but did watch him a decent bit before all the controversies popped up. Nothing about him ever said alt right to me, and a continuation of the same type of humor doesn't imply anything deeper to me. The commonly cited examples with both him and number of others have never impressed me; media likes taking these things out of context, and then no one bothers looking at where it came from.

              An argument can be made about the normalization of the topics being joked about, but I mostly see that as being too similar to arguments that video games cause violence.

              6 votes
              1. elcuello
                Link Parent
                Thank you for writing my exact experience with this.

                Thank you for writing my exact experience with this.

        2. [5]
          nothis
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Notch? That Boogie guy? JonTron? Is everyone in the gaming twitter sphere racist, now? I think it can be dangerous to brand PewDiePie as a genuine neo-nazi or racist. I think he wants to do some...

          Notch? That Boogie guy? JonTron? Is everyone in the gaming twitter sphere racist, now?

          I think it can be dangerous to brand PewDiePie as a genuine neo-nazi or racist. I think he wants to do some clumsy kind of Southpark taboo-comedy, only in the no-budget, low-talent, DIY youtube generation of media, so it comes off more clumsy. Now if you brand that as genuinely problematic, you're setting the bar so low, your criticism comes off as a bit of ridiculous. Which is basically the main tactic of the alt-right, and very successful at that: Provoke the left, point out the most ridiculous backlash and use that as "proof" that any criticism of their ideology is ridiculous as well.

          Like, pick your battles.

          EDIT: Sorry, I've edited the original comment while thinking I was doing a new reply, originally this was just about notch and such having joined the alt-right.

          5 votes
          1. [4]
            Deimos
            Link Parent
            I'm not sure if you're asking rhetorically, but Notch seems to be deep into all sorts of weird stuff, including recently tweeting about his belief in the ridiculous QAnon conspiracy theories. And...

            I'm not sure if you're asking rhetorically, but Notch seems to be deep into all sorts of weird stuff, including recently tweeting about his belief in the ridiculous QAnon conspiracy theories. And JonTron's racism was a whole big thing a couple of years ago.

            11 votes
            1. [3]
              nothis
              Link Parent
              Is that tweet of Notch for real? Isn't that just a clumsy attempt at sarcasm?

              Is that tweet of Notch for real? Isn't that just a clumsy attempt at sarcasm?

              1. [2]
                alyaza
                Link Parent
                it is very real, and notch is very much a conspiracy theorist (and most likely a white supremacist/fascist at this point--or, if that verbage is too strong for you, at the bare minimum also...

                it is very real, and notch is very much a conspiracy theorist (and most likely a white supremacist/fascist at this point--or, if that verbage is too strong for you, at the bare minimum also incredibly racist, lol).

                9 votes
        3. [2]
          NecrophiliaChocolate
          Link Parent
          I wonder how much you have looked into him. But a lot of these things were said in a joke manner, whether or not it is ok, thats up to you and subjective; however, it does not make him alt right....

          I wonder how much you have looked into him. But a lot of these things were said in a joke manner, whether or not it is ok, thats up to you and subjective; however, it does not make him alt right. Disney dropped him because of external pressure from news organizations for making such jokes. I personally, I think it is completely ok to make these kind of jokes. People should not be censored in that imo, obviously I am not saying that people have to enjoy it.

          Him saying the N-word I agree is pretty racist and he should not have said it and if you want to label him as a racist, sure, you can do that.

          There was a thing where he plugged some guy who had an Alt Right video. But the specific video he plugged had no alt right content. Pewdiepie himself said that he hasn't watched every video from the guy, but the ones he did watch, he enjoyed and had no alt right content.

          The New Zealand shooting one was literally the guy trying to get as much attention as possible. He was using that the fact that people will report on it more if he simply mentions the name Pewdiepie because of how much scrutiny Pewdiepie has gotten for making Alt Right jokes.

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            Comment removed by site admin
            Link Parent
            1. deciduous
              Link Parent
              The actual content of the video is even worse than that. It specifically advances the false clam that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack rather than because she was run over by a car.

              The actual content of the video is even worse than that. It specifically advances the false clam that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack rather than because she was run over by a car.

              4 votes
        4. unknown user
          Link Parent
          ...yeah, he sounds nice.

          ...yeah, he sounds nice.

          1 vote