Joe Rogan on James Charles and Cancel Culture

So I brought up that makeup boy and the makeup boy my daughter is in love with, she watches his makeup boy on YouTube and now he's been cancelled. I understand he lost 3 million and she was telling me to have an 11 year old sit down and tell you about a gay makeup artist and this is the funny part. She goes, well there was a couple things. Okay, so there was the thing with he has a friend who and he tells me this woman's name who got him into the business and then she asked him to promote her hair stuff but he said no and he went with another hair stuff so he totally, totally betrayed her. Alright, it's like my 11 year old is telling me this and then this was the best part. She goes, there was also some talk that he's gay and there was boys that were not gay and he tried to get them to be in a room with him. So like listening to an 11 year old tell me the shit. By the way that also could have been how, that's how, that's the tone of the internet anyway as an 11 year old girl. So you actually heard at least it came from an 11 year old girl instead of like so and so it's cancelled. You can read every, like yeah no you're a fucking 40 year old adult. Why are you talking like a little girl? You're on a, you're on BuzzFeed, you're on Fox. It's the point where the New York Times is going to be doing that. They're close to it now. I mean I think that. Alabama owns abortion people. What it is is the media right now, especially journalism, they're fucking starving for hits. It's so hard to make money. It's so hard and so they're drowning and so they're trying to grab whatever branches they can if they got to make a good story with a click baity title, fuck it. They'll have that deceptive title. Who gives a shit? We got a good story. The story's vetted. And even if it's not totally vetted, if it's a little slippery but you can make an amendment later, you know, I'm sorry we have a little bit of an apology. We have to make a retraction. Nobody reads those goddamn retractions. You should have to have a retract. If you fuck up so hardcore that you attribute a crime to someone or you do something like that, you have to make a retraction. It should be on the front page of your paper and nothing else for a month. That's it. This is your newspaper now. I'm sorry. We don't get to tell you the news anymore. Yeah, by the way. Because we fucked this up so hard that we printed out to millions of people. You don't get to just put in a little column in the corner. We'd like to apologize. We fucked up last month. Also 9-11 happened. Also play and turn into the World Trade Center. It's fucking too hard to be a journalist, man. Well that's what I, this is another thing I want to talk about, which is absolute meaning. If you believe, I still believe in institutional journalists. I believe in New York Times. New York Times. I believe in Washington Post. You used the fact that they wrote about a UFC fight. They just said he was bloody. No, no, no. The McGregor fight was bloody and he wasn't. Just a bad, very bad description. It was very inaccurate. I'm like, why would you do that? You guys are crazy that the New York Times is allowing this completely inaccurate description of something that millions of people saw. It's so silly and it makes everybody question everything else you say. You might think it's trivial because it's just a boxing match, but it's completely inaccurate and completely exaggerating what actually went down. Well if you've had articles written about you, they fuck up every one. Now having said that, we can't dismiss all the journalists. There needs to be an absolute, kind of an absolute truth and that's what I feel like is sort of melting in this era of anyone who goes, well they said this and that's not true, so everything else they say is fucking bullshit. Of course. Which I think Trump does a lot and I think people are all too happy to believe it because they resent institutions, they resent these smarty pants motherfuckers, which I also get. I get the impulse. Especially someone in New York Times, right? Yes. That's the smartiest, the old gray lady. And it just plays on every stereotype. Like there are so many stereotypes at work that can make you write it off. I think we're in a transitionary period. That's what I think. What do you think it gets replaced by though? That's the real problem. The real problem is they have all their pieces, all the best journalists, right? All the best people are all locked into two ancient systems. One ancient system is print medium, the other ancient system is broadcast medium. The broadcast medium, the ancient part of it is it has to go on at a certain time, Tuesdays at 8pm and then you have to sit there and wait for the commercials unless you DVR it. So that's inherently flawed. And then the print medium, well they figured out a way to get it on your laptop and your phone now. So okay, they've got a little bit of a workaround there but they have a really hard time getting people to sign up for digital subscriptions. The distribution's not nearly as good as it used to be. And it's hard. It's hard to get people to buy newspapers. But at least they've got their foot in the door with clickbaity titles. Like the Times and the Post are pretty successful online. They're actually doing much better because of President Trump. Because he talks so much shit about them that people like Slade said, I need to supply. The New York Times, what is it?