this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
663 points (89.8% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2770 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rogan promoted the conspiracy theory that Epps was an “agent provocateur” for the feds, a baseless claim that has led to a defamation suit against Fox News.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] billwashere 77 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I wonder sometimes if he is actually stupid and actually believes some of this stuff or if he just says outrageous shit to get people to listen to his show.

So he’s either a fucking moron or a fucking troll, neither of which I’d wanna listen to.

[–] FlyingSquid 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He's stupid. He used to think the Moon landing was faked.

[–] btaf45 5 points 1 year ago

It is a fact that Joe Rogan is a cringy moron.

[–] voidMainVoid 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid 2 points 1 year ago

I can't remember who finally convinced him (Neil DeGrasse Tyson maybe?) but yes.

[–] wwaxwork 13 points 1 year ago

He can be both.

[–] PunnyName 10 points 1 year ago

It's Schrodinger's Douchebag:

  1. say outrageous thing
  2. gauge reaction
    3a. if reaction is good for self - repeat outrageous thing
    3b. if reaction is not good for self - dismiss outrageous thing as "joke"
[–] themeatbridge 4 points 1 year ago

I would argue that someone who says outrageous lies to garner attention is actually stupid, regardless of whether he believes it or not.

I hope he gets sued into poverty, but I have no faith in our legal system.

[–] chuckleslord 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's been hit in the head a lot. Made a career out of being hit in the head.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I thought he made his career as an occasionally funny screaming stand up comic. And then as a mma commentator, then as a deplorable pod cast guy.

[–] chuckleslord 1 points 1 year ago

He started out as a Taekwondo fighter, then a kickboxer before he started commentary.

[–] Oderus 1 points 1 year ago

He also did Fear Factor, a decent show.

[–] ard 3 points 1 year ago

I've always believed they were serious about learning. I remember being frustrated that people are often abusive instead of explaining why dumb thoughts are dumb but after like 10 years of multi-hour interviews with smart people they don't seem to be making much progress. Maybe there is a constant inflow of new dumb listeners, and most last a few years and kind of graduate out of listening, but he has to stay the same for the whole thing to work.