The Rogan/Rufo episode is worse than you think

Two-and-a-half hours of rambling ideologues

Anti-trans/anti-DEI/anti-CRT activist Chris Rufo appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience this week. We’ll be covering this episode in more depth on Conspirituality, yet even an hour won’t allow us to cover all of the misinformation, bigotry, and lack of propaganda spread during this two-and-a-half hour episode.

After posting a clip on Threads, I received an expected amount of pushback regarding the show’s “balance.” My summation stands, however.

First, a few thoughts about just some of the topics covered in this stream-of-consciousness free-for-all. 

• They both claim that the “state apparatus” is waging a war to keep Donald Trump out of office. No criticism of why the former president is in court. Nothing about sexual abuse allegations, abuses of power, fraud, or inciting an insurrection. He’s only presented as a victim of the Democratic “bureaucracy.”

  • This is pure right-wing propaganda. A critical analysis of Trump’s many court appearances would require considering each charge on its own grounds. These men aren’t interested in that, nor are their audiences. So Deep State Conspiracy™ it is.

• They conflate drug addiction policy with permissive parenting. They also don’t bother to disguise a hatred for unhoused people. In fact, Rogan hates the term “unhoused,” because “we already have a word for it.”

  • Debating addiction policies, housing services, or parenting styles are all fine. That’s not what this is, either. Rogan’s inability to update his language is indicative of an inability to understand the reasons why language needs to evolve, which fits into the larger themes of this discussion.

• Rogan asks why liberals don’t bother to look into root causes of drug addiction and houselessness, apparently unaware of the many activist movements trying to do just that.

  • Rogan often has his assistant, Jamie, pull up articles in real time, which he then reads on the show. This is a decontextualization of information. Presenting snippets of reporting or opinion as fact without ingesting all of the information, and weighing that against other reporters or outlets, is in large part how misinformation spreads. This instance signals how little Rogan cares about engaging with progressive activist work. It’s much easier to say it’s not happening than to engage with the challenges of grassroots activism.

• Rogan wonders where the political allegiance of post-menopausal, childless women lies after criticizing Whoopi Goldberg and asking aloud if she has children. (Yes, a rather successful one.) He then talks up the crop of “hot, young female conservatives” making waves.

  • Again, indicative of his inability to actually “do research” while pontificating in real time. Citing hot women doing whatever is a personal choice, and Rogan fans can make of that what they may, but following up speculative criticism of an older, Black woman with commentary on the younger, more attractive women aligning with his political values offers insight into how he assesses information.

While these (and many more) points were all invoked, the driving force of this conversation was anti-trans rhetoric. Rogan occasionally offers caveats about not hating all transgender people while Rufo thinks underground drag shows in the Castro are “fine” if that’s “your thing,” but the lion’s share of carbon dioxide wasted is spent belittling them.

I’ve written extensively about transgender hatred in previous months. In truth, it’s not an issue I ever thought I’d be animated by. I don’t have any close transgender people in my life. Living in Portland, I regularly encounter them because, thankfully, this is a progressive, open-minded city that’s relatively safe for transgender people. But I don’t have a personal stake in this issue.

What I do have is the ability (and desire) to understand historical patterns. A lot of trans hatred comes from an anti-vax, medical freedom crowd that screams “bodily autonomy” when it comes to their rights, yet they’re unwilling to extend that desire to others. People who shout loudly about first amendment rights while wishing to limit the speech of others—in this case, schools teaching gender theory and businesses embracing diversity of thought—is a hypocrisy they won’t own, or don’t care enough about to admit.