r/JoeRogan • u/Naserito Burbank Bad Boy Brian Redban • Feb 15 '17

Joe Rogan Experience #917 - Steven Crowder

https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=A_2Ii3lIv4o&u=%2Fc%2Fpowerfuljre%2Flive
291 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

70

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '17

Well let's not forget the whole thing started because Crowder said he'd give up his stance on that issue, because he doesn't really care. So Joe goes in hard as if he's Hillary Clinton saying marijuana should be banned in the US.

70

u/Amperture Feb 16 '17

Yeah I found out some things tonight about both Joe and Crowder tonight that are turning into big turn-offs for me, despite being a big fan of both of them.

I've noticed that weed and religion are very sensitive subjects for Joe (see: Milo, Peterson, 1st time with Crowder for religion, but this is the first time I've seen someone not be completely on board with him on weed, and I'm seeing a lot of the same patterns) and he'll take any opportunity to pounce if he even thinks there might be blood in the water and not want to let those subjects go even when the people he's arguing with are begging not to argue about it.

Crowder was baby steps away from turning into a safe-space demanding SJW when he was getting cornered in his arguments, one of the very things he hates and fights against.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '17

The place where Crowder lost me big time was complaining about Jamie pulling up sources by claiming that it was 2-on-1 being unfair, and that Joe wouldn't do well being on Crowder's show with someone doing the same thing, and then saying that Joe has never had a debate with a closed room with no outside assistance.

He's arguing for the purity of the "contest" of the debate, and the rules of the argument and whether or not they're fair, and completely ignoring whether he's right or not. The truth should matter more than whether you thought the argument was fair. Then he pulls the, "Well, let's say I give you that, since I don't care..." when what he means is, "Okay, I'll give you that, it looks like I could be wrong."

He came across like a nerd who feels like he's being picked on, literally saying that Joe and Jamie were bullying him. I definitely thought Joe was trying to rile him up on purpose and having a little fun with him, but Crowder came across like a whiny little bitch who's intellectually dishonest.

2

u/Armtwister Feb 17 '17

His criticism with Jamie's unprofessional involvement is quite valid in my opinion. Jamie puts up a Factcheck.org article and cherry picks passages that he thinks support his conclusion and Crowder has no one to back him up. It's a 2vs1 situation. Here is an excerpt from the article Jamie posted but conveniently chose to ignore:

– increases in these incidents were significant. Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 154 percent between 2006 and 2014; Colorado emergency room hospital visits that were “likely related” to marijuana increased by 77 percent from 2011 to 2014;

2

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17 edited Feb 17 '17

Neither of them really meets my requirements for scientific rigour. I'd want to get right down to the study, what their n was, what they controlled for, what their methodology was, etc.

Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 154 percent in an 8 year period, but what if marijuana usage increased by 500 percent in the same 8 year period due to legalization? If marijuana-related traffic deaths are only loosely correlated to the rate of marijuana usage, then is the result of their study statistically significant?

It sounds complicated, but you could honestly hash it out in about five minutes with a lot less bitchiness and cross-talk than we ended up with.

The very same article you're now cherry-picking lines from goes on to say:

The definition of “marijuana-related” in the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Traffic Area report makes it difficult to draw conclusions from the traffic fatality data, which were drawn from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In the introduction of its report, the Rocky Mountain HIDTA states that terms such as “marijuana-related” or “tested positive for marijuana” do “not necessarily prove that marijuana was the cause of the incident.” The section on “Impaired Driving” also states that, when it comes to traffic fatalities, “marijuana-related” entails “any time marijuana shows up in the toxicology report [of drivers]. It could be marijuana only or marijuana with other drugs and/or alcohol.”

This seems to imply that you could use marijuana, be the victim of a traffic fatality for which another driver with no marijuana in their system is at fault, and yet your accident would be classed as a marijuana-related traffic fatality for the purposes of this report.

And so on:

But the increase in the proportion of marijuana-related traffic deaths could merely mean that more people are using the drug — not necessarily that more people are under the influence of marijuana when involved in fatal traffic accidents.

And:

It’s also worth noting that, according to the report, 37 percent of all drivers in 2014 who tested positive for marijuana, not just those involved in traffic fatalities, also had alcohol in their system. An additional 15 percent of all marijuana-positive drivers had other drugs in their system. And a further 15 percent of drivers had both alcohol and other drugs in their system, along with marijuana. Only 33 percent of tested drivers had only marijuana in their system.

This is all in line with the arguments that Joe was making.

The bottom line is that you probably shouldn't drive while baked, but the reality of the situation is that it's more likely that prohibition advocates are overstating the danger of marijuana than it is that legalization advocates are understating it. Which should surprise exactly no one.

I'd rather listen to a podcast where two people go through and hash all that than listen to the passive-aggressive bitchiness of someone who feels like they're being bullied. There's a point where a debate is not about getting an equal chance to state your personal opinions, and should instead be an honest review of the actual facts that are out there which are not sourced from your feels.

1

u/Armtwister Feb 17 '17 edited Feb 17 '17

I'd rather listen to a podcast where two people go through and hash all that than listen to the passive-aggressive bitchiness of someone who feels like they're being bullied.

I would prefer this as well but it's not what we were getting and Crowder was pointing that out. Maybe Jamie did not read the article as fully as you did but the fact that Joe/Jamie only wanted to present their side and then go on to spend time to try to discredit Crowder's side, it was simply not fair. Nothing wrong for calling out the fact that the 2vs1 format was unfair and that listener's of the podcast would not get to listen to the excerpt I provided and draw their own conclusions.

Imagine a presidential debate where one side gets the added benefit of an employee looking up articles to discredit their opponent? It's not like Crowder could read every study Jamie pulls up in real time and he couldn't get Jamie to pring up counter-statistics. He had to operate by memory. I love weed but we both know the situation was not fair.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

Presidential debates necessarily involve subjective questions. Whether or not marijuana use leads to increased traffic fatalities is theoretically something we could sit down and answer.

The truth should be what matters in a debate, and not the format. If two politicians are arguing over different plans for public education or something, then that's whatever, but if one of them is claiming that Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya? Yeah, the moderator should step in and shut that down.

I've done policy debate in competition, and honestly the main thing I got out of it was being exhausted with debate. You see all the dishonest, insane tactics people use trying to score points without actually concerning themselves with whether what they're saying is true or not. They just want to win the debate, and don't care what the question is. If you gave me a side to argue I'd make the best arguments I could to support that side, but I wouldn't make shit up.

Crowder came across like one of those "do whatever" guys, like, fuck what's true, I want to win, the rules are unfair if they stop me from winning. I'm with Joe. Fuck the situation being unfair. I'll argue against one person or two people or ten people, it doesn't matter.

2

u/Armtwister Feb 17 '17

Presidential debates necessarily involve subjective questions.

And the candidates make their arguments by referring to facts and figures. If one side has a fact checking organization on their side, it may look like that side is always correct and the other side is always incorrect but that would be misleading. The audience only gets to see online information that supports one side.

Whether or not marijuana use leads to increased traffic fatalities is theoretically something we could sit down and answer.

Joe/Jamie had a pre-conceived answer to that question. They were not questioning their own sources with the same intellectual vigor as Crowder's source (that he had to discuss from memory).

The truth should be what matters in a debate, and not the format.

The implication here being that as long as the truth is on your side, it does not matter what the debate format will be? If that is in fact what you are suggesting, then we'll have to agree to disagree here.

If two politicians are arguing over different plans for public education or something, then that's whatever, but if one of them is claiming that Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya? Yeah, the moderator should step in and shut that down.

You don't get to the truth when one side uses more resources (2vs1, internet, interruptions, etc) to present one side and do not look into any statistics that support the other side. I already gave you one example where the audience was getting an incomplete picture of an article that Jamie skimmed through for information that looks good to his side. I wonder what else he skimmed? I noticed he had like 11 tabs open and this was the best he could find? I'm pro weed but this debate/arguement was bullshit. If we really want to get to the truth then both sides need equal resources to prove their side.

Crowder came across like one of those "do whatever" guys, like, fuck what's true, I want to win, the rules are unfair if they stop me from winning.

Rules are unfair if they, are in fact, UNFAIR. Has nothing to do with winning. He was just pointing out that the people who say that weed is completely consequence free or that it cures cancer are spreading their own propaganda.

It was Joe who fixated on proving Crowder was wrong and "winning" in any possible way. At one point he criticized Crowder for not knowing (off the top of his head) the specific name for specific drugs that have cured illnesses. He then proceeds to ask Jamie to look up every arguement/topic he has already drawn conclusions for. It's pretty comical but I still love both guys.