Rogan fiercely criticizes NYT article that labels Constitution a 'dangerous' threat: 'What the f--- are you talking about?'

The New York Times faced criticism from podcaster Joe Rogan after one of its writers published an article questioning whether the United States Constitution poses a threat to democracy.

On Sunday, The Times' book critic Jennifer Szalai wrote an article titled "The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?" which suggested that one of the greatest risks to American politics could be the country's founding document.

Szalai proposed that the Constitution's ability to prevent "authoritarianism" is being increasingly questioned, as seen in the 2016 election where Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.

Szalai wrote that Trump's political rise can be attributed to the Constitution, which is essentially antidemocratic and increasingly dysfunctional.

In the Wednesday episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan discussed the article with author Bret Weinstein, who had posted about it on Instagram and commented, "What a fascinating time to be alive."

"Rogan stated that the article he was referring to was not from the Babylon Bee, but was an actual New York Times article. He found it hard to believe that someone would print such content and that the New York Times would approve of it."

Rogan was astonished by the article's headline and introduction and posed the question, "What the hell are you talking about? One of the greatest documents ever created could be a threat to America's politics? That's a threat to America's politics? What politics are we discussing? How could you possibly manipulate me into believing this?"

Weinstein replied by suggesting that it was predictable because there was an authoritarian force that opposed the Constitution and its restrictions on what it wanted to do last week. He added that if you were a normal, thinking person, this was complete insanity, but if you were a New York Times reader, it fit with their ethos.

Rogan stated that Trump is crucial to the left because without an imminent threat in three months, it is challenging to justify all the "s---." He argued that Trump serves as a bogeyman, allowing the left to make their arguments, while it would be more difficult to do so with previous Republican nominees.

"The First Amendment is preventing us from having a First Amendment because it is allowing people to spread false information, including "misinformation" and "disinformation.""

Weinstein contended that similar hyperbolic arguments have been made against previous Republican presidential candidates, such as Mitt Romney and George W. Bush, and the rhetoric was still characterized as an "existential threat."