231
I listened to 170 hours of Joe Rogan’s podcast. Trust me, he hasn’t turned against Trump
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
231 points (98.3% liked)
politics
28745 readers
2279 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Speaking of toxic masculinity, I remember Joe Rogan during Covid saying that he decided to stop masking and isolating because it made him "feel like a pussy" IIRC.
It's weird to me because in my view, a strong person doesn't care what other people think of them. Rogan's actions just seem extraordinarily cowardly and weak to me.
Like, he needed to eat elk meat to feel like a man? I understand we all have negative thoughts like that, but to be compelled to act out of your own fears doesn't strike me as masculine in the least.
Is that a part of toxic masculinity? That it's centered around fear of judgment and a low sense of self worth? That they feel a need to project an image that's exactly the opposite of how they really feel?
Because if so, then it seems like even the slightest bit of critical thinking ability would easily steer men clear of it.
One fairly reliable test to find out if a man (or woman) harbors some toxic masculinity - ask them about vegetarianism or veganism.
Few things will have a certain type spewing forth some of the most ridiculously asinine and sexist things like veg_n diets, LOL. Things like "soy boy" and silly discussions about how "men are inherently hunters" and lots of bro science about protein.
So yeah: if he leaned on the elk meat as something a real man needs to do....not surprising.
No there are valid reasons to disagree with vegans.
It literally isn't a sustainable diet without dozens of supplements. If you're vegan I really hope you're taking your B12.
I'm not vegan. It's absolutely a sustainable diet, however : I know several vegans that have been vegan for years; in some cases for decades. Personally, I've been mostly plant-based (100% vegetarian, but don't eat much dairy and eggs, while I don't take pains to avoid them, either) for over two decades.
In any case, I'm not sure why omnivores as I'm describing feel the need to disagree with vegans/vegetarians. The kind of thing I'm talking about is how their toxic masculinity is triggered - it seems to challenge the very core of their being to even know that vegan/vegetarians exist and without their permission, LOL. They seem especially triggered by men not eating meat.
I'll be honest, that's fair enough. It's not really any of my business if another person is vegan, as long as they're not trying to shame me into abandoning meat.
It is a little sus that they get mad at someone eating something that isn't a "beeg juicy steak", like they're Mr. Pottsdam or something.
^ Probably the right position in both directions. I don't really do any advocacy or even talk about it around omnivores as a general rule. About the most I've discussed it is online and only just to note my experiences. I don't think running around trying to proselytize and shame others over their chosen diet is all that useful. It's more annoying than it is effective. Some vegan/vegetarians, especially if they've just adopted the diet about five minutes ago, act like born-again xtians in many aspects and it is insufferable in my view. I've definitely had my run-ins with performative vegans or vegetarians and it's quite off-putting.
Someone I knew kind of casually from work-related things was a much older guy who had been a vegetarian since the 60s and I had observed him over many years (as an omnivore) just quietly not eating meat. He would answer questions when asked, but was not out to scold and lecture or even really talk about his diet at all otherwise. I think he set a great example.
Yeah, this. Most of the conversations that I have had are usually from omnivores with constant passive-aggressive remarks or unwanted dissertations and what-if scenarios. I find it rather baffling. Just the act of eating and not having meat on the plate really seems to provoke a certain kind of omnivore.
In general, if someone asks about it in good faith, I'll give what my experience was like and what our family tends to eat, etc. Beyond that, I'm not out there to be the vanguard of plant-based eating, LOL.
I find those people tend to be insufferable about anything, their identity isn't being vegan or crossfit or cycling or whatever, their identity is being an insufferable prick, and the cause-du-jour is simply their outlet.
Every element of the whole toxic masculinity influencer thing is just an expression of weakness and insecurity framed as "manliness".
It's all performative. Every ounce of it. Goth kids don't put as much effort into appearance. Their version of masculinity is being loud, obnoxious and putting themselves above others. It's a dentist on a $30,000 Harley going 15mph while making 160 decibels, wearing $200 T-shirts and $500 jeans to mimic the hard-earned look of a working man. It's weak, fearful men spouting off constantly about the second amendment and their right to defend their families but wouldn't touch a weapon if it didn't look tacticool enough. Esthetics over everything. They're not brave enough to be original in thinking or appearance. Not strong enough to be the rock of servitude that holds people together in hard times. The embodiment of paper tigers.
https://truthout.org/articles/texas-gop-declares-no-more-teaching-of-critical-thinking-skills-in-texas-public-schools/
Absolutely correct, in my view. "Fear of judgment and a low sense of self worth" is also spot on.
Rogan gave national voice to plenty of people who regularly used the term "snowflake" to describe what they saw as weak people who like to complain (I'm speaking from memory here and generalizing; Rogan probably has also used this term himself, but I'm not searching transcripts, so take all this with a grain of salt). By this logic, a "snowflake" is someone who is perceived as weak because they let so much affect them emotionally.
But these toxic men are "snowflakes" in every sense of the term. They go on Joe Rogan to complain about trans people, or gay rights, or "the war on Christmas", or the perceived persecution of "alpha males", or any number of other issues. Some guests are only famous because they complain about such things.
So what is the difference between a toxic "alpha male" on Joe Rogan and one of the "snowflakes" they like to complain about? Absolutely nothing, except that the toxic men believe that anger doesn't count as an emotion, so their insecurity allows them to show it regularly.
(And to be clear, there is nothing wrong with showing emotion or caring deeply about something -- that's not a point I'm trying to make)
For what it's worth, to your clarification at the end, after reading I in no way thought you were talking bad about showing emotions.