pull down to refresh

Why Joe Rogan Avoids Bitcoin Discussions

4101 sats \ 46 comments \ @jimmysong 9 Aug 2023 bitcoin

Joe Rogan has sidestepped Bitcoin discussions for the past seven years, despite previously hosting Andreas Antonopoulous multiple times. What's stopping him from inviting more Bitcoin enthusiasts?

At the heart of it, Rogan simply may not be interested. Delving into Bitcoin discussions means wading into the relentless debates between Bitcoin and altcoin supporters. Every podcaster who touches on Bitcoin faces the pressure of giving equal time to altcoin enthusiasts. This tug-of-war is daunting, and Rogan likely prefers to sidestep it. Consider the case of Lex Friedman, who has faced criticism from both sides for trying to strike a balance. It's why Rogan doesn't have anyone on to discuss abortion, for example. It's a controversial topic and anyone you have on will destroy your standing with the segment that disagrees with you.

Yet Rogan is an outspoken critic of fiat money, frequently discussing its flaws and potential for corruption. He acknowledges the problems with central bank digital currencies and even mentions Bitcoin in these contexts. His audience likely wants him to have guests on about this topic, and this is why he had Antonopoulous on before 2017. But the Bitcoin narrative became more complex around 2017 with the rise of venture capitalists and altcoin advocacy, the so-called scambrian explosion. Rogan's ignoring of Bitcoin is the result of this shift. He has a knack for sensing underlying issues, which has undoubtedly contributed to his podcasting success.

Yet, Rogan's understanding of Bitcoin remains superficial. Until he fully grasps how it fixes the problems he sees, it's unlikely he'll feature a dedicated Bitcoin guest. While figures like Jack Dorsey and Adam Curry have tried to steer the conversation towards Bitcoin, Rogan refused to take the bait. It'll take a larger level of inflation or economic destruction for him to delve into this topic.

The controversy will remain on Bitcoin versus altcoins and that's not something he'll be able to avoid. He needs more conviction before he'll talk about it on his show and that's not something he has yet.

So instead of trying to bully him into having a guest on, just point out the obvious. Fiat money is the cause of a lot of the societal degeneration. Whether he gets it sooner or later will be up to him.

view all related items

40 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 9 Aug 2023

"Yet, Rogan's understanding of Bitcoin remains superficial." -What makes you so sure?

Perhaps the general public is not ready... Is lightning ready to offer 100% uptime payments for every shop and transaction in the world? Do we have the best most easily understood process for taking self custody? How about UX for fedimints or opening/closing lightning channels for complete newbs?

Perhaps we aren't ready yet either.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zodthebarbarian 10 Aug 2023

deleted by author

101 sats \ 1 reply \ @jtwoodhouse 10 Aug 2023

Celebrity endorsements are usually lagging indicators.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @newnym 11 Aug 2023

THIS

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @muteness11 10 Aug 2023

He doesnt ... he had Andreas A. several times and he keeps mentioning it over and over

His world doesnt revolve around Bitcoin like you guys ... :)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nemo 11 Aug 2023

deleted by author

1737 sats \ 0 replies \ @eggos 11 Aug 2023

JIMMY IS BUTTHURT HE DIDN'T GET ON JRE

1307 sats \ 1 reply \ @eggos 10 Aug 2023

NEWS FLASH: Most people don't give a shit about Bitcoin

https://imgprxy.stacker.news/9m6Wo0MPSphoumthzfYVIS8hHiFXydPRrYxy-ceeEZw/rs:fit:600:500:0/g:no/aHR0cHM6Ly9naWZkYi5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2hpZ2gvY2hyaXMtcHJhdHQtamF3LWRyb3BwaW5nLXdvdy04bnNvemNzanppZ3V4b2E1LmdpZg

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @muteness11 10 Aug 2023

Exactly ....

Some people even told me one a 1:1 interactions

Just because someone is a Bitcoiner it doesnt mean the somebody's world should revolve around Bitcoin :)

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @llamabyte 10 Aug 2023

I want to get on JRE but he keeps ghosting my DM's on insta.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @ssaurel 10 Aug 2023

I'm not an avid fan of Joe Rogan's podcast. However, I can see that he is very popular.

So why should I be offended that he doesn't talk more about Bitcoin, or refuses to delve into the subject more seriously when he has guests with whom he could (should) talk about it?

Bitcoin doesn't need Joe Rogan's spotlight. Bitcoin will continue its revolution with or without Joe Rogan or who knows who else.

It's precisely Bitcoin's strength that it doesn't need clear-cut leaders to continue its unique monetary revolution.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @southside263 23 Sep 2023

Joe Rogan had @aantonop on 3 times.
his good friend @kennyflorian is an OG bitcoiner.

So Joe is stacking or doesn’t care.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Apr

https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/a-perspective-on-abortion-from-today/4553/4

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @newnym 11 Aug 2023

The last time he interviewed maajid nawaz they talked about CBDCs and how bitcoin is a way to avoid them. Frankly I think this is a better approach. Don't talk about bitcoin, instead talk about fiat problems, and in the end close with the "bitcoin fixes this" approach.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead 10 Aug 2023

His interests are MMA, comedy, aliens, and elk, respectively. The rich and wealthy will understand bitcoin when CBDC's deprecate offshore tax structure, and unmanageable sovereign debt loads become a burden laid at their feet. I'd expect visas and passports to be used like ransomware by governments. Then expect reciprocity in these systems abroad amongst the like-minded, just like an unpaid speeding ticked in Tennessee can affect your DL renewal in California. It won't be greed that sends the well-to-do rushing for fiat exits, but fear. Bringing it back to Rogan, he feels none, not yet.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @hydroflask 10 Aug 2023

Joe Rogan is lowkey a pseud. I dont thinkt hink he gets it.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nemo 10 Aug 2023

deleted by author

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @eggos 10 Aug 2023 freebie

It's super easy to assume everyone knows the shit you know. It's actually a lot more difficult to realize that most people don't give a shit about all the stuff you're an expert about. Maybe some patience might help you realize he's a busy guy and might not give enough of a shit about Bitcoin to really learn about it...?

102 sats \ 26 replies \ @nemo 9 Aug 2023

deleted by author

186 sats \ 25 replies \ @PlebeiusG 10 Aug 2023

Do you think Jimmy asked him and got an answer?

I’d bet 10,000 sats he didn’t. Jimmy is also highly religious yet criticizes others for illogical thinking.

10 sats \ 23 replies \ @SpaceHodler 10 Aug 2023

There is nothing illogical about being religious.

342 sats \ 21 replies \ @PlebeiusG 10 Aug 2023

perhaps not in every manifestation, but faith is illogical.

69 sats \ 12 replies \ @SpaceHodler 10 Aug 2023

But isn't that like saying books are illogical, just because some of them are?

I guess there are many ways to interpret it, language doesn't convey certain things well. We may be talking about different concepts but using the same words.

32 sats \ 11 replies \ @PlebeiusG 10 Aug 2023

If you know something is true, why would you say you have faith in it?

Faith is when you don’t know, yet still believe. It’s often seen as a virtue and it’s not a reliable way to come to the truth. Why have faith? I’d rather know for certain, or withhold my judgement.

Faith is used as an epistemology in religion, and it’s unreliable.

Peter wrote a book on this topic. In the bitcoin community where “verify, don’t trust” is a virtue, faith is the literal antithesis of that phrase.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 20 Mar

Faith is inevitable. 'The problem of induction' or, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that rules of gravity will hold. It is a good kind of faith that works better than not having it at all. 'Agrippan Trilemma' or, most belief systems ultimately rest on faith in the reliability of some authority's experiment or claim. 'The Cartesian Problem' or, 'I think, therefore I am' as the only certain foundation for a proof of knowledge. Note: 'I think therefore I am' itself is a faith based claim, which is sort of the point. Ultimately one cannot proceed through the world on rationality alone. It is necessary to move forward on faith (that my leg will continue working throughout this stride, etc).

7 sats \ 8 replies \ @PlebeiusG 20 Mar

I disagree. I think reading Peter Boghossian's book "A Manual for Creating Atheists" is the best way to fully grasp how the religious use faith as an epistemology and also contrasts it with our every day understanding of world dynamics based on direct experience. First, they are not the same.

Second, when a religious person says they have faith, it's essentially them saying "I have no way to know, but I am choosing to believe it's true as if I had evidence."

If you had evidence you wouldn't need faith. That's why faith is a mind virus and a completely unreliable way to come to understand the world. Comparing it to phrases like the sun rising and "I think therefore I am" is a confusion of the conversation.

view replies

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @nemo 10 Aug 2023

deleted by author

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @nemo 10 Aug 2023

deleted by author

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @SpaceHodler 11 Aug 2023

Here is how I see it... There are things science can know, and things it can't; the beyond.

If science can't know something, you have the freedom to choose what you want to believe, and if you don't want to be accused of being illogical, the only requirement is that your belief be consistent within itself. By assumption, it can't be inconsistent with physics. If it were, it would be false, which would put it in the realm of science and not the beyond.

A self-consistent belief that can't be proven or disproven can't break anything. For example, you can choose whether to believe our Universe and the evolution of life on Earth was a pure coincidence, or there was some higher intelligence outside of this realm behind it; neither belief contradicts physics. So it doesn't even make sense to say it's objectively true or false; in a way it's subjective and whichever you believe becomes true within the unique frame of reference that is your consciousness. I've thought about it in the context of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the way I see it, it still holds true. The naysayers say the fact you can't prove it makes it illogical. I offer that the fact you can't disprove it makes it logical.

At the end of the day, people choose to believe what makes them happier, gives their life more meaning, hope, purpose etc. There is nothing wrong with looking after one's own mental well-being and finding one's place in all that is. You're also free to believe we should strictly follow Occam's razor and in particular, that the pursuit of happiness is redundant, because it doesn't serve logic. But whatever we believe, I think respect for other people's cosmovisions makes for a more frictionless life.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 24 Aug

To believe things that cannot be proven is by definition, illogical.

Religion is a faith based scam...more dangerous than most shitcoins.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 25 Aug

Logic is only a construct and it has its limitations, some of which have been formally proven by Gödel.

To believe things that cannot be proven is by definition, illogical.

In that case ZFC, the most common foundation of mathematics, is illogical, because the axiom of choice can't be proven or disproven from the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

In the same way that mathematicians include AC in ZF, the existence of God can be proven trivially by axiomatizing it.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 25 Aug

If you get terminal cancer one day, and I hope you don't, you may find the god of [whatever you view as] logic you're worshipping doesn't serve your happiness anymore and change your stance.