Joe Rogan isn’t insightful to me, so I just don’t listen to his show

By David McElroy · February 13, 2022

I’ve always been baffled by Joe Rogan’s popularity.

His comedy isn’t funny to me. He often comes across like a thoughtless jerk who doesn’t care about others. He doesn’t seem insightful or interesting to me. He comes across as a blustering buffoon who hasn’t thought much about what he’s saying.

But it’s never crossed my mind that I should try to silence him. I simply don’t listen to him. I might tell others what I think about him. I might express surprise at his popularity. But I don’t want to muzzle him.

A lot of people want to silence Rogan right now.

Much of the mainstream news media and pretty much all of the political left is screaming to stop Rogan from distributing what they call “misinformation.” What they really mean by that is that Rogan has guests on his podcast who hold views which they disagree with. That’s the real issue.

Do you remember a time when the political left championed free speech? Do you remember when this was a core “liberal value” that was important to the left? The old counterculture leftist of the 1960s has taken over the culture — and he’s become the very thing he once knew was evil.

Modern progressives seem certain that their views have been endorsed by the Ministry of Official Truth. They also seem to believe it’s dangerous for other people to be allowed to disagree with them. But what upsets them most is words they disagree with.

Today’s left is full of hate for certain people and certain ideas, but they reserve their most powerful vitriol for those who dare to speak words which they have deemed forbidden.

To his credit, Rogan is willing to listen to a wide variety of people and take their ideas seriously. He’s always called himself a liberal, but he’s staunchly independent when it comes to partisan politics. His views don’t line up with those of any particular group today. He most closely resembles the political left from at least 30 or 40 years ago.

He’s a strong supporter of free speech and he’s also an advocate for universal basic income, both of which are traditional left-wing views. In general, he has to be considered generally leftist in his political orientation.

But Rogan is perfectly happy to talk with people who have ideas which aren’t approved by the Ministry of Official Truth. On his podcast, he has guests who offer ideas which sometimes differ from what governments and so-called experts have decreed to be final truth. The thing which has the left in an uproar lately is that he has had guests on his show who hold “wrong views” about the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rogan has interviewed people who argue that the vaccines against COVID-19 are dangerous. He’s talked with people who oppose all sorts of government-approved regulations and policies related to the pandemic. And allowing these people to be heard angers the people of the modern left.

I’ve told you before that I think it’s a rational choice to take the available vaccines against COVID-19, not because they’re perfect or that they offer complete protection, but that they’re a smart tradeoff. I understand the risks involved in using drugs which don’t have a long-term track record — and I think the tradeoff is clearly worth it. I think we would all be better off if everyone chose to take the vaccines.

But I don’t pretend that I have any right to silence those who disagree with me. I think I’m right about the vaccines. I believe that quite strongly. But even if I’m 100 percent correct in what I believe, other people have the right to argue for their viewpoints — and individuals have the right to make their own choices about whether to accept the vaccines.

One of the loudest voices lately for silencing Rogan has been rock artist Neil Young, who felt so strongly about Rogan being “anti-science” that he pulled his music from Spotify (because Rogan is hosted there). The bizarre thing about this particular charge is that Young released an entire album in 2015 which is far more “anti-science” than Rogan has ever been.

Young’s album called “The Monsanto Years” is all about opposing biotechnology in plants grown for food. The same genetic engineering which he preached against was used to create the vaccines which he now passionately defends.

Young is a hypocrite.

If Rogan is “anti-science” to discuss ideas opposed to vaccines, Young is far more anti-science than Rogan in that album. And if Rogan should be silenced, why shouldn’t Young be silenced as well?

The answer, of course, is the same from all of these sorts of people. “That’s different,” they say. What they mean is, “I’m right about everything, so my views should be forced on others, but nobody should infringe on me.”

Artists who remove their music from Spotify don’t affect me. I don’t use Spotify, but even if I did, I can’t remember the last time I went looking for one of Young’s songs.

My strongest memory of Neil Young is of his songs from 1972 that attacked Alabama and the South in general. As part of his civil rights activism, Young vilified southerners — southern white men, to be honest — as evil. Although I agreed with his sentiment about past evils of slavery and racist government laws which had hurt black people, I knew that he was painting with a broad brush. His stereotyping of people like me — most of which had nothing to do with what he complained about — was bigotry.

Even though the southern rockers who made up the group Lynyrd Skynyrd were from Florida, they recorded much of their early music in Muscle Shoals, Ala. In 1974, they released “Sweet Home Alabama,” which was a direct response to Young’s attacks on the South:

Well, I heard Mr. Young sing about her
Well, I heard ol’ Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don’t need him around, anyhow

Young deserves to be allowed to speak freely, whether he’s stereotyping southerners or preaching against GMOs. He’s free to write or sing whatever he wants. He’s even free to break his contract with Spotify and pull his music from that platform. What he says is his business. I can listen to him or I can ignore him.

The same is true of Joe Rogan. He’s free to say what he wants. He should be free to interview people who hold discredited views, if he wants. What he says and who he interviews are his business. I can listen to him or I can ignore him.

That’s the beauty of free speech. People can say unpopular things. “Established truth” can be challenged — and sometimes corrected. People can decide for themselves who to believe. That’s how freedom works.

And as for Neil Young, I can say that this particular southern man still doesn’t need him around, anyhow.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts