Dogmatic... really? It's hard for me to think of a less dogmatic public figure. His views are all over the place, change frequently, and aren't at all consistent with each other. His critics (on both right and left) generally seem to want him to be more dogmatic, not less; they want him to be consistent with their own preferred dogma.
To me Joe comes across as someone who's figuring it out as they go and doesn't have a filter. I personally find this refreshing compared to zealots who are certain they have all the right answers on very nuanced and complex topics.
Edit: Ok downvoters, what is Joe Rogan's "dogma"? Honest question.
His views are only all over the place if you try to bucket him in the American "Democrat/Republican" binary bucket. If you listen to him for a long time he is surprisingly consistent a number of issues. For example, Joe is a huge supporter of public welfare. He grew up, temporarily, on food stamps and has always pushed back when even the most right of guests would call people on welfare lazy. Likewise I feel he has an incredibly poor track record on trans rights and can be very transphobic. That said, it's very difficult for people to communicate outside the "Democrat/Republican" playing field and people seem to love team sports more than discussion. Now that said, Joe is a human being and is welcome to his own beliefs, but whereas before I felt like Joe would have a mix of people on, his newer guests tend to be people who reaffirm his beliefs.
I don't see how any of that would make him dogmatic. Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question. His beliefs seem to be an idiosyncratic patchwork stitched together from personal experience and a diverse set of influences. And while he is attached to certain beliefs, as you say, he'll also change his mind easily in other areas. Whether or not you agree or disagree with his specific opinions, that's just about the polar opposite of dogma.
>Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question.
FWIW, Merriam Webster defines dogma as a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. That's the definition I was using, that I thought was more colloquial. Simply holding a strongly help opinion on shaky grounds is dogmatic. I don't believe that definition is at odds with what I'm describing.
Even if I cherry picked the one I thought was most clearest, none of them are even imply a shared set of principles that are followed without question, nor do any of the definitions under (1) contradict what I was saying.
>Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"?
If you literally watch JRE today he does with regards to keto.
He can speak with legitimate authority on diet, exercise, martial arts, and other similar topics. He knows more about those things than 99% of people. The point is he doesn't claim authority on topics related to politics and science where he's out of his depth, or at least does it a lot less often than typical partisan commentators.
You seem to be reading a different definition than I am, but ok /shrug.
To me Joe comes across as someone who's figuring it out as they go and doesn't have a filter. I personally find this refreshing compared to zealots who are certain they have all the right answers on very nuanced and complex topics.
Edit: Ok downvoters, what is Joe Rogan's "dogma"? Honest question.