[save_ferris]

> Doesn't the popularity of his content suggest that Americans are very interested in higher level discourse, but have long been denied it?

This is probably true to degree, although Rogan specifically is a pretty polarizing example due to his proclivity for hosting guests that aren't always welcome elsewhere. It's hard to say how much of his popularity is due to his interview style versus his politics. I also expect that the demographic breakdown of podcast listeners aren't reflective of the country as a whole, it probably skews a bit younger.

Long-form interviews with political leaders aren't a new genre, I suspect they just don't get as much attention as the more soundbite-y forms of news, but I could be wrong.

[jessaustin]

Boring-ass long-form interviews with nonagenarians like Charlie Rose or the 60 Minutes gang don't get much attention because they are without substance. Rogan isn't necessarily trying to embarrass his guests, but neither is he desperate to support the status quo. So, occasionally, something true gets said. Like, once an hour. Still better than the nonagenarians.

[Chris2048]

> Rogan specifically is a pretty polarizing

I'd flip this; Rogan isn't polarizing, so much as a section of society is intolerant of "the marketplace of ideas".

It's not Rogan who has to change, it's his critics.

Put simply, they don't trust fellow Americans to form their own opinions, so feel entitled to control their influences.

Ok, there are also some guests that might make false claims, or misrepresentations. Exposure and open discussion is the prescribed cure for this too.

[lacker]

Rogan seems like one of the most un-polarizing forces in media right now. He can support Bernie Sanders, a left wing position, and oppose trans rights, a right wing position. Almost everyone else is more pushed into either the left or right pole.

[reillyse]

You've touched on a huge problem I see with the US political system. Everyone is bucketed into one of two buckets. Everyone in each bucket must have all of the beliefs of the other people in the bucket. If you are in one bucket, you support Trump, think border walls are a good thing, support blue lives matter are anti LGBT and are anti-abortion. If you are in the other bucket you take the opposite views on all of the those topics and more.

For me it shows that the tribalism has completely overtaken US politics. If everyone was making up their mind independently or even semi-independently the odds of everyone in the same bucket having the same beliefs would be close to 0.

[lacker]

Well yes, that's what "polarizing" means, that everything is pushed towards one of two groups, rather than being allowed to be anything in the middle. That's why it seems to me that Rogan is not polarizing, because his opinions don't strictly belong to one of the two groups.

[Ardon]

I see tribalism taking over as an inevitable consequence of the electoral college voting system, and I'm always startled when people tout vague calls for 'unity' as something worth doing, rather than implementing ranked-choice ballets or similar and just solving the problem.

I'm not accusing you of that, btw. Just saying it for me.

[Taikonerd]

One thing I really envy about parliamentary systems (like in Germany, the Netherlands, etc.) is having lots of parties, with all sorts of different takes on the issues. I do think Americans fall into the trap of thinking there are only 2 possible political philosophies, Liberal and Conservative.

[serial_dev]

I don't think it's fair to say that he opposes trans rights. I saw him talk about recently transitioned people in MMA. I'm not a big follower of his, but I think his views are more nuanced than a blanket "he opposes trans rights like right wing people".

[jessaustin]

I don't listen to him now that his RSS feed is defunct, but ISTR Rogan supported every right of trans people except the right of trans women to compete in women's athletics without informing competitors of their gender status. This came out after multiple women MMA fighters were hospitalized with life-threatening injuries.

This nuance is enough for certain trans activists to damn him completely, but that is hardly a universal judgment.

[BlueTemplar]

The problem is classifying "trans rights" as left wing, while those have (almost) nothing to do with the left/right spectrum.

Another example, on that spectrum this time : Trump's anti-immigration stance is a very typical leftist position. If this sounds preposterous, see this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_A...

[reillyse]

I fully agree with you and this just proves the point. If everyone was thinking for themselves from first principles or even just using their memories they'd remember which side of the immigration debate they are supposed to be on. You don't even need to go back that far, up until Trump the right wing were very pro immigration because their industries rely on a steady flow of cheap and under-paid and exploitable labor. Exactly the thing the left are traditionally against.

[disgruntledphd2]

Trump was a very odd presidential candidate. He basically was super-populist (fund Social Security/Medicare, get rid of immigration), and indeed seemed like he had no firm commitment to the Republican party. I actually hoped that he'd end up governing from the center (especially after the Dems took the house).

But then he got elected, and essentially governed as a standard trickle-down Republican, with a side order of conspiracy theories and showmanship.

Like, it's important to remember that Bernie Sanders was anti-immigration without stronger labour standards, and that many Trump/Sanders voters (in 2016) liked the other candidate more than those in their respective primaries.

The US just needs one set of people who'll actually do good things for the lower half of the populace, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.