By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Joe Rogan announced he will not be commentating at UFC 315 in Montreal, citing a preference for Russia over Canada. This follows his absence from UFC 297 in Toronto and a general avoidance of international UFC events due to travel. Speculation links Rogan’s decision to his support of Donald Trump, whose trade policies have strained US-Canada relations. Rogan discussed Trump’s joking suggestion of annexing Canada, further fueling this interpretation.
Read the original article here
Joe Rogan’s purported preference for Russia over working a UFC event in Canada has sparked a considerable online reaction, ranging from enthusiastic agreement to outright disdain. The sentiment shared across many comments centers around the idea that his absence from a Canadian UFC event would be a positive outcome.
The suggestion of Rogan choosing Russia stems from a perceived alignment with anti-Canada sentiment. Many commenters see this as ironic, given his previous statements suggesting that he found the anti-Canada rhetoric to be unfounded. The shift is attributed, by some, to influence from right-wing media and a perceived blind following of certain political figures. This points to a broader discussion about the influence of political polarization and the erosion of cross-border relationships.
A significant portion of the online conversation expresses relief at the prospect of Rogan’s absence. The comments portray Canada as a friendly neighbour unjustly maligned, and Rogan’s potential absence is seen as a consequence of this undeserved negativity. There’s a palpable sense of indifference, if not outright joy, at the notion of him leaving for Russia.
The recurring theme is the rejection of Rogan’s perceived political leanings and their impact on his public image. The strong negative reactions suggest that his views have alienated a significant portion of his audience. The comments often equate his stance with blind adherence to divisive political narratives.
The idea of Rogan working in Russia is not necessarily viewed as a purely positive outcome, however. Some suggest that he might face challenges entering and remaining in the country, hinting at the potential for legal or political ramifications. Others express amusement at the thought of his vulnerability within a Russian context, emphasizing potential complications stemming from his past controversies and potential issues with law enforcement.
The overall sentiment suggests that Rogan’s public persona has become increasingly controversial and divisive. The comments reveal a deep-seated disapproval of his political viewpoints and their perceived contribution to the spread of misinformation. The reactions highlight a growing weariness towards individuals seen as perpetuating political division and hostility.
There’s a significant undercurrent of frustration with Rogan’s influence and the perceived lack of critical thinking among his supporters. His public statements are viewed with skepticism and derision, his actions seen as a reflection of questionable judgment and alignment with potentially harmful political ideologies.
Interestingly, the overwhelming desire for Rogan to leave Canada for Russia is not entirely based on dislike of him personally, but rather a collective disapproval of his perceived role in exacerbating political divisions. The comments highlight a desire for a more civil public discourse and a rejection of those seen as contributing to the spread of negativity and misinformation.
The entire discussion serves as a case study in the complexities of celebrity image, the impact of political polarization, and the power of online opinions in shaping public perception. While some may find the tone of the comments harsh or even aggressive, they reflect a genuine frustration with the perceived damage caused by divisive political rhetoric.
The desire to see Rogan move to Russia, rather than work in Canada, is less about a personal vendetta and more a symbolic rejection of his perceived contribution to a toxic political climate. This suggests a deeper yearning for a return to more constructive and amicable cross-border relations and a more thoughtful, less polarized public discourse.