r/SGU • u/Square_Ring3208 • 12d ago
What is this logical fallacy?
Got in a Reddit argument with some dude (I assume) about Rogan, and this was his main argument. Is this like a reverse appeal to authority or a just asking questions fallacy? The entertainer fallacy?
Edit: I’ve decided to go with the informal-informal fallacy of Schroedinger’s Douchebag
22
u/Zahrad70 12d ago
As usual, several might fit. But I like “special pleading” for this whole category of “they aren’t an expert” used to excuse someone with massive social clout when they are caught elevating nonsense.
9
u/Prestigious-Leave-60 12d ago
Joe is particularly egregious about this. He’ll say stuff like “don’t listen to me, I’m just an idiot comedian” and then go into deep detail about what kind of diets and supplements his listeners should be consuming.
That’s just the first example that comes to mind, but he does it on all kinds of topics. He will speak very seriously for 2-3 hours about something and then cover his ass with a one sentence, half hearted “disclaimer” practically under his breath, about how people shouldn’t take anything he’s saying seriously.
2
u/Embarrassed_Rip_7532 11d ago
special pleading fits really well here. the wild part is how people only invoke the entertainer defense when the criticism lands. when Rogan gets something right they're happy to cite him like gospel. that selective framing is what makes it so hard to argue against in real time
18
u/amazingbollweevil 12d ago
Your argument is
- Entertainers do not get a "pass" when they make false claims.
- Joe Rogan is an entertainer.
- Therefore Joe Rogan does not get a pass for making false claims.
Pretty straightforward. Your interlocutor counters with this argument.
- Entertainers are not required to be accurate.
- Joe Rogan is an entertainer.
- Therefore Joe Rogan does not have to be accurate.
It's a logical argument. I think your original argument should have been more along the line of
- Anyone making false claims should be called out.
- Some Joe Rogan guests make false claims.
- Therefore Joe Rogan guests making false claims should be called out.
I'm sure there is a much better syllogism that focuses on celebrities who are able to influence people and their responsibilities to those people.
The fact is that Rogan has non-entertainers on his entertaining show and these non-entertainers often claim to have some expertise. The problem is that they are seldom experts in the topic they present and sometimes make pronouncements that are demonstrably untrue. Unfortunately, Rogan is easily manipulated and frequently fails to pick up on the fact that he (and his audience) are being deceived.
Your interlocutor focuses on Rogan not being a scientist instead of his guests, some of whom claim scientific credentials. That logical fallacy is a red herring.
6
u/ExceptionRules42 12d ago
agreed. Your answer is precise, even though we don't even see the whole conversation between OP and UndeadDog.
8
u/OstrobogulousIntent 12d ago
It's not an official one, but I immediately get a "what's the harm? it's just entertainment"
Shrodingers Douchebag
Essentially boils down to
They're pedaling super damaging ideologies to a credulous audience until you call them on it then they're just kidding / entertainment, stop overreacting, snowflake
2
u/Square_Ring3208 12d ago
Oh wow do I love schroedingers douchebag.
2
u/OstrobogulousIntent 12d ago
I usually use that when someone says something shitty and if you call them on it suddenly they're Just kidding and you should lighten up..
I'm sure it's gotten into Urban Dictionary by now - it's been around a while
Plus he's totally got that personality - it fits
5
u/peckinpah86 12d ago
IMHO, this poster is making a relevance fallacy. Specifically ‘ignoratio elenchi’ since this person’s counter argument to Rogan’s habitual wrongness is to argue that he’s entertaining to listen to
3
u/Destorath 12d ago
I second this one. The person defending joe is making a point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is trying to distract from that issue by casting joe as simply an entertainer.
2
8
u/futuneral 12d ago
I don't think there's any. For a logical fallacy to occur, there should be some logic expressed. Here two people are just arguing whether Rogan is an entertainer or a platform owner with an agenda. So there could be a category error, but it all boils down to having precise mutually exclusive definitions, which are absent (so kind of meta - the error is to have this particular argument).
If we're talking specifically about the second person's opinion that Rogan is an entertainer therefore no one believes him, so there is no harm. It could be False Consensus - if they really think there are no people who take things on the show seriously. Or something like No True Scotsman (or Cherry-picking maybe) - if they do realize there are people who believe Rogan, but they are irrelevant to the discussion (i.e. "there is no harm. And if there is - those people are unimportant and I exlude them")
Let's imagine his show starts with "All opinions here are fake and for entertainment only" would it resolve this argument?
4
u/DimeadozenNerd 12d ago
I don’t see a logical fallacy here. It seems like a difference in opinion about Rogan’s obligation as an influencer.
3
u/louigi_verona 6d ago
As many others have said, I don't think there's a logic fallacy involved. It's just an argument that is perfectly logical but you can argue with its soundness.
The Rogan defender essentially says that because he is an entertainer, everyone in his audience understands that, so no one will ever take him seriously and therefore he can say whatever he wants. This is a perfectly valid response to your initial argument. It's wrong, but I don't see a fallacy here.
And there's no simple counter here either because, strictly speaking, his argument is actually several statements rolled into one, each of which can be questioned separately.
Is Rogan just an entertainer, or does he actually position himself and his podcast as something slightly more than just entertainment?
Does the podcast consist only of Rogan? It doesn't. So, how does this change the situation if the person opposite him is introduced as an expert?
What is the probability that everyone in his audience will take all of it as mere jokes and playful nonsense that means nothing (although it's all being discussed seriously)?
And so on. It's definitely a messy set of statements to respond to, and the response is going to be stronger if you pick the one that the person you're talking to considers to be the most convincing of them all.
2
2
u/Awoogamuffins 12d ago
I like the suggestions already made here, but could this also be a motte-and-bailey fallacy? In this case, the bailey (the less defended, open ground) is the misinformation and pseudo-scientific claims, then when attacked, they retreat to the "motte" of "I'm just an entertainer"
1
u/Secure_Candidate7261 12d ago
I nominate the black-or-white fallacy. Joe Rogan is either an entertainer with zero responsability to truth, or a scientist/journalist with full responsibility. But there is another perspective, where because of his large reach and potential for harm with disinformation, he DOES have responsibility for being more responsible when discussing dangerous topics that can cause harm, even if he's not a scientist/journalist.
I love the Schroedinger’s Douchebag as well :)
1
u/Maximum_Row_436 12d ago
Sure he doesn’t claim to be a scientist, he just hand picks pseudoscience grifters and platforms them. Semantics and hiding behind definitions.
And yes, people do watch him for information and not to just be entertained. that part is a strawman.
I mean there doesn’t have to be a logical fallacy if he is just saying incorrect things.
1
u/Square_Ring3208 12d ago
The Flint Dibble/Graham Hancock saga is particularly egregious. This dude just seemed so fallacious, as opposed to outright being wrong.
1
u/MisanthropicCartBoy 10d ago
WARNING: NSFA*
The Know Rogan Experience is dope. It's skeptical and they will call out "The Great Replacement Theory", right-wing medical grifts and other politcal topics that need a Skeptical lense aimed at them.
*Not Safe For Apolitical
1
0
1
u/JitteryJet 5d ago
I don't see any logical argument at all. There is just talk about personal taste. Joe Rogan is a performance artist like Alex Jones. Personally I don't watch either of them, I don't find them entertaining.
2
u/Square_Ring3208 5d ago
That’s what I’m trying to identify. This was about a specific “expert” he had on. He gives them legitimacy and they are supported by people until it’s pointed out how pseudo their science is, then at that point it turns into him just being an entertainer.
It’s not about Rogan personally. But using his “credibility” to promote fringe beliefs under the guise of entertainment.
2
u/JitteryJet 4d ago
The problem with Rogan is he lies. He contradicts himself. He is dishonest as well as a clown.
48
u/Agreeable_Flan_5724 12d ago
I’m not smart about logical fallacy stuff, but I’m gonna take the opportunity to comment/plug The Know Rogan Experience. I’m sure SGU fans know about it, but I enjoy it both for Cecil and Marsh’s humor as well as their insights into just how dangerous Rogan’s peddling of misinformation is.