Joe Rogan Reacts to Net Neutrality Repeal, Slams Mainstream Media

What? Sis, you fool. We're live on the day of net neutrality. Ahhhhh. We might not be broadcasting anymore. Mmm. Might be over. I don't know how that works. When does it kick in? Right away. I don't know. I have no idea. That's a good thing about it. By the way, has there ever been a harder time to be a citizen? Meaning like it's just, I never had to pay this much attention. I know, right? Like come on. It's like fucking, we have to babysit. It's like they're children that we have to like, wait, what are they doing? No, no, no, no, no, no. Like where they used to kind of be able to take care of themselves? Yeah. Or seemingly could? There's not one place where you can go, where you can get one. Are you shaking that before you open it? Yeah, should I not shake it? You're a fucking maniac. Bro, I don't give a fuck. It's just going to explode all over the place. All right, then I'll give it a rest. Yeah, you got to let that fucker rest. The worst ones are those little small ones that I have, those cayenne cleanses. You shake those bitches, they just fucking shoot up to the ceiling. Is that true? Yeah, it's all fermented. It's all carbonated, you know? Yeah. But there's no one source where you can absolutely get 100% unbiased factual information as the news. Everything is leaning one way or leaning another way. And even CNN, which I used to trust all the time. They fuck up all the time. They're always having to print retractions. There was something that was going around today. There's not one news source where I can say, please just give me the unbiased information with no left or right lean. Can I get that? Which we talked about beforehand. Even the idea of the New York Times, what people don't understand is, people don't understand journalism a lot of the time. Literally, when people go, it's fake news, it's like, you know you can't print fake news because you ever have anything in The New Yorker? You ever be quoted in a New Yorker article? No. They literally, you talk to the journalist, then two different fact checkers call you to confirm what you said. And like, is this true? Right. And literally, this is in an article about someone else that I gave a quote for. And like, did you say that? And you can confirm that? And they do that at every major journalistic outfit. They do the New York Times, Washington Post, like name the big ones. They're not as stringent as the New Yorker because the New Yorker only comes out once a week. But they all have fact checkers. And the thing is, these institutions can get sued. Right. This is not a good example, but it's an example. The Conor McGregor fight, New York Times wrote an article about the Conor McGregor fight. And one of the things they said that he was covered in blood and rescued by the referee before he fell through the ropes, I contacted them on Twitter and I said, in this day and age, you can't say things that everyone knows are false. Like millions of people watched that fight. There was no blood. He was not falling through the ropes of the referee rescue. He made that up. He was outclassed and battered by a far superior boxer, which is what most boxing people expected. That's the real story. But you guys added a bunch of shit to it. So they would have shaded it. That's for sure. But it's not just shading. It's a straight lie. I know it's not because it's not really. It doesn't. There's no losing. It's inconsequential. It's not a really significant moment. It's not like a big moment in time and the result is the same. But their description of the result makes you wonder how much other things do you do this to? How many other subjects do you flavor in this weird way? What was their attraction? Because I remember I remember seeing you write that. I was like, oh, that's cool. And they they change it. But they still use hyperbole even in their retraction. They said his face was completely swollen. It wasn't. It wasn't a quadrant of his face. A tiny amount, a little bit of swelling from a boxing match. Not like not some crazy like fucking Hasim rockman shit. Remember that one? Like it had an iron on his head. Literally the fun like maybe the craziest thing I've ever seen in a fight. It was disgusting. This huge hematoma growing out of his forehead. See if you could find that. Hasim rockman. Yeah. Lennox Lewis, right? Was it the Lennox Lewis fight? I don't remember. But yeah, it was like he literally had to go to Dr. Pimplepauper. Yeah, look at that. Oh my God. Dr. Pimplepauper. That's hilarious. Like that. That was grotesque. That was a wild. That was an enormous swelling in his head. He looks like a war criminal and an alien. Which is hard to do. Yeah. So if that, I mean, that's his face is completely swollen. I don't disagree that they do shade invariably. But you shouldn't. You shouldn't. You should tell the exact story. The exact story was really clear for everybody that watched, the two million people plus that watched it on pay-per-view or more. It wasn't something that you can get away with bullshitting about. Okay, but do you, this wasn't a problem five years ago. Do you know what I mean? Like it wasn't a problem. It wasn't a problem day to day. And that's the thing that I was yelling at somebody yesterday of like the once people, once Fox News created this thing of, of, of like, uh, extremely shaded shit and people saw that there's a market for it. They're like, all right, we'll do that. Like we'll all do that now. Yeah. And then everyone's, everyone's reacting, but they don't think they're reacting. But now the New York Times is trying to go the other way where they're, they hired this guy, Brett Stevens to write op-ed pieces and every week there's a new like, what did you just say? Like, you know, yeah. Cause they're trying to be like, they're trying to be, uh, kind of moderate or see both sides. And a lot of people on the left are going like, but that's, how are you seeing both sides to like slavery or how are you using like, what the fuck are you talking about? Like what's both sides of climate change? Like it's all, they're scientists and not scientists. That's like those, the side. So why are you, this is basically appeasement. I guess as a, as a, uh, you know, consumer of this stuff, it's, it's, when I was to get into this conversation, I wasn't even talking about journalism. I was talking about government. I was talking about the amount of fucking work it takes just to be like, to like, I got to worry about statutes and fucking the FCC and fucking executive orders. And just like, I never had to do all this. Like why is this so much, I don't know if it's, I mean, they would say like, you know, to be an act of democracy, it's only as good as citizens and all that shit, but, but it seems like we're all more involved and it's worse. You know what I mean? Like, it's like, it's way more upsetting. It's constant upset. Like it feels like havoc every single day.