Blog

It started, as these things often do these days, with a ping in Discord and a link. This time to the latest Joe Rogan Expereince episode:

“I encourage you to listen or watch the latest Joe Rogan. #2294 Suzanne Humphries.”

If you’ve ever received a message like that, you know the feeling. It isn’t just a media recommendation—it’s a directive, cloaked in casual language. There’s an unspoken contract: watch this 2.5-hour conversation, absorb what it says, and then let’s talk. But the terms are always lopsided. If you decline, you’re “uninformed.” If you disagree after watching, you didn’t watch it right. The discussion isn’t about exploration; it’s often about conversion.

This wasn’t my first encounter with this dynamic. Nor was it the first time the same podcast host had been offered up as a kind of surrogate authority figure—one who “just asks questions” but reliably arrives at the same partisan conclusions, like a detective who only ever finds one suspect. And the person sharing it? We go way back—over three decades of shared history, countless games, in-jokes, and a long-standing, unspoken agreement: we don’t do politics.

For 30 years, we’d avoided politics—until the links shifted from funny GIFs and gaming to ‘Do your own research’ manifestos. Suddenly, our unspoken rule felt less like peacekeeping and more like complicity.

Lately, the topics shifted—vaccine skepticism, institutional distrust, a veneer of ‘skepticism’ masking shallow rigor. Each time, I’d reply carefully, wary of burning bridges. This time, I paused.

Because the moment I saw that link, my first instinct was to dismiss it—to shortcut the labor of engagement with a detached, algorithmically generated rebuttal that waved it off as another Rogan guest doing Rogan things, and moved on. But then something hit me: if I want to speak honestly about trust, truth, and how we evaluate sources—I need to walk that walk myself.

That means watching. Carefully. All of it.

It means parsing the arguments, checking the citations (when there are any), and comparing what’s said against actual, established data. It means engaging not just to win a debate, but to maintain integrity—my own, not theirs. Over the next posts, I’ll dissect the claims in #2294—not just to rebut them, but to model how to interrogate sources, spot rhetorical sleights of hand, and weigh evidence when the stakes are personal.

So that’s what this series is about. It’s a breakdown of what was said in that episode, where the arguments fall short, and how we talk about trust in a time when traditional expertise is constantly under attack. But it’s also about friendship, time, and the invisible emotional tax of being the one who always has to “just watch this” and then feeling an obligation to respond in full.

It’s about what it costs to keep showing up with evidence in a space that increasingly rewards vibes over verification.

I’m not writing this to shame anyone. I’m writing it because I believe truth-seeking still matters—and that if I’m going to ask others to take it seriously, I have to do the same.

What happens when ‘doing your own research’ becomes a demand for surrender—and friendship hinges on whose truth you validate?