Jump to content

Thing$ $till not going well for Joe Rogan, I $ee.

Parliament

By Parliament
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

52-80

52-80 19066

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, YChang said:

I mean isn't being critiqued/called out by other parts of society basically the minimal consequences of his actions? Not trying to bait you or be an ass but I'm a bit confused... are you saying if there's not a state sanctioned or some sort of punitive punishment, then it means he hasn't done anything wrong?

People are calling for more.  Being critiqued is fine.  The spice of life is everybody liking and disliking what they choose.

What I dislike is outlandish and histrionic claims, and if people assert such things like JR is responsible for thousands of deaths, I might just challenge them on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hpslugga
hpslugga
956 Worldwide
956 Worldwide

Just to clarify what pieces of shit Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., and Elon Musk are. The doctor in the clip above has dedicated his life to developing vaccines and treatment for poor people suffering from tropi

Beau Vine
Beau Vine

The only time I've ever listened to him was basically under duress.  I had an old friend and his lunatic wife who were basically begging me to watch the youtube clip of his podcast with Brett Weinstei

Posted Images

YChang

YChang 3430

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

People are calling for more.  Being critiqued is fine.  The spice of life is everybody liking and disliking what they choose.

What I dislike is outlandish and histrionic claims, and if people assert such things like JR is responsible for thousands of deaths, I might just challenge them on it.

Gotcha, thanks. I totally understand especially on your first point.

Regarding responsibility... to me it can be true that he has some responsibility in the recalcitrant behaviors or attitudes of his listeners to not get vaccinated. And he's NOT the main or only factor for this.  

Kinda like tobacco companies advertising how cool smoking was back in the olden days. Was it a 1:1 link to making someone buy and smoke a cig, develop a habit and get cancer? Nope. But it had an impact, especially over time when it went unchecked. Just my 2 cents! 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25865

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'm all for open conversation.  I'm not for somebody providing a platform for flat out lies/propaganda (or that are themselves propagating such lies) that affects a lot of people in a negative way (both directly/indirectly).  What do I mean about directly/indirectly, and is there a line?  Let's look at our own homegrown Alex Jones.

Alex Jones, when he ranted about Republicans doing gay stuff at Bohemian Grove (NTTIAWWT) back in the 90s - didn't care, didn't harm anybody (nobody believed it), made the rest of us chuckle and make it a point to catch his show on Austin Public Access.

Alex Jones ranting about water turning frogs gay.  Didn't actually affect anybody, was good for a chuckle.

Alex Jones claiming that a bunch of dead kids aren't dead and/or didn't exist and claiming the parents were lying.  Let's tap the brakes a bit, because he was directly causing harm (anguish) to a lot of people, his followers began directly harassing the parents of said dead kids, and he crossed over into defamation territory.  It may have only affected a few hundred people directly - the family and friends of those who were killed at Sandy Hook, but a line got crossed.  He caused harm and defamation.

Now let's flip over to Alex Jones's good buddy, Joe Rogan.  He's got a lot more followers than Alex Jones and a bigger platform.  When his platform is used by him or others in such a way that causes those followers to engage in dumbass behavior, it starts to affect the rest of us.

If you are saying "well AHB, you are free to take the vaccine, mask up, etc. how does this affect you directly?" sure, I got the vaccine, I'm mostly careful about who I associate with, etc., so no, Joe Rogan's fuckery isn't directly impacting me.

But if millions of his dumbass followers ignore all the science, ignore the vaccine opportunities, etc., and some start ending up in hospitals because their fucking horse paste didn't cure what ailed them, it's sucking up hospital capacity here and there that shouldn't have been spent on people who should have been vaccinated.  You can argue that it's an indirect problem for most of us, particularly those of us who don't need the hospital, but we can argue that it affects things like ER staffing, etc.

But it's also a direct problem, because taxpayers and those of us paying into various healthcare systems/providers are having to foot the bill for these fuckups.

So that's a problem for the rest of us, that Joe Rogan is causing, even if it's just by the guests he has on his show.  If his followers fuck around and find out, Joe Rogan doesn't foot the bill, the rest of us do.

Basically this:

 

Nixon called Bohemian Grove "the faggiest goddamn thing you could ever imagine".

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29187

Posted
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, YChang said:

Gotcha, thanks. I totally understand especially on your first point.

Regarding responsibility... to me it can be true that he has some responsibility in the recalcitrant behaviors or attitudes of his listeners to not get vaccinated. And he's NOT the main or only factor for this.  

Kinda like tobacco companies advertising how cool smoking was back in the olden days. Was it a 1:1 link to making someone buy and smoke a cig, develop a habit and get cancer? Nope. But it had an impact, especially over time when it went unchecked. Just my 2 cents! 

This is actually a good comparison. Tobacco companies knew how dangerous their products were, but spent decades funding fake science to confuse people, make many think cigarettes weren't harmful, or at least that secondhand smoke wasn't harmful, in order to forestall burdensome regulations that would diminish their business. Eventually, nearly every state sued the major tobacco companies, resulting in a settlement in which the tobacco companies agreed to curtail their marketing, pay the states some money to cover the costs of caring for people with smoking-related health problems, and dissolve their fake science "institutions." Because their lies did serious harm to a ton of people. 

The oil companies all did similar shit with climate change science too. Basically every oil company back in the 1950s had its own geologists warning them, and they spent decades funding bullshit pseudoscience to cover it up. We haven't seen the full cost of that, but it will certainly be unimaginable human suffering. And maybe they'll eventually enter into similar settlement agreements with governments. But the people in the tobacco companies who actually made the conscious decisions to push bullshit fake science to help boost or maintain their profits never faced any punishment. In fact, they were richly rewarded. They made a ton of money and were celebrated as brilliant businesspeople. Same thing for the oil company execs.

We can't "prove" that these people killed someone as easily as we can prove that someone who aimed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger killed their victim, but we know the effects of their decisions. We know they made those decisions consciously. They knew they were prioritizing short term profits over long term harms. They may not have fully grasped just how substantial the long term harms they were profiting from would be, but that's not exculpatory.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chooky

Chooky 13292

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

"... but it's what happens when you stumble in a long form podcast when you didn't know a subject was going to come up ... "

A subject that he can't go twenty minutes without jabbering about whether he has a doctor on or Jim Gaffigan or Wiz Kalifa.  "How did I know this topic that I can't resist initiating would be initiated?"  He's unaware that he's the establishment now and has adopted the same reprehensible traits as mainstream broadcasters when challenged. 

Broseph douche.  The guy smokes pot for the first time in his thirties and then it becomes his entire identity.  "I'm weed guy now."  Yeah?  Great.  Congratulations on your latest identity.  You stink.  Shut the fuck up and air hump the stool.  Boo!

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Post Oak

Post Oak 20182

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

This is anecdotal, sure, but there's definitely a different tenor when encountering an avid Rogan listener these days. A few years ago, when someone told you that they listen to Rogan religiously, your immediate thoughts were "Ok cool, you like to get high and ramble about everything and nothing. Who was on last week?" Now, when someone asks if you caught the latest episode, you reflexively start bracing for the crypto or "how mRNA 'vaccines' aren't technically vaccines" diatribes that they've got locked and loaded.

That's how I feel whenever I see someone with an American flag on their vehicle or shirt.  

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

you fucking snowflake conservatives. Consequences from a private company for your shitty speech isn't censorship. Censorship is the state taking punitive action against you for your speech.

Censorship might be the wrong word if you are only allowing it to be used in a technical definition of the state. Though someone smarter than both you and I said this about it:

Quote

While there is a debate to be had about whether Facebook or YouTube should put their thumbs on the scale in terms of what information or misinformation their algorithm promotes, demanding the removal of a podcast, which takes deliberate effort and time to listen to, is a demand for censorship. Leave aside the content of the podcast in question, and let’s just all agree to be very clear about what this is (we will leave the debate about the accuracy and consistency of officially sanctioned COVID information for another day).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19066

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, YChang said:

Regarding responsibility... to me it can be true that he has some responsibility in the recalcitrant behaviors or attitudes of his listeners to not get vaccinated. And he's NOT the main or only factor for this.  

Kinda like tobacco companies advertising how cool smoking was back in the olden days. Was it a 1:1 link to making someone buy and smoke a cig, develop a habit and get cancer? Nope. But it had an impact, especially over time when it went unchecked. Just my 2 cents! 

Even more core to me is the idea that each person bears the highest responsibility to their themselves.  JR isn't their doctor.  JR isn't responsible for their health, they are.  The claim that JR's belief kills people implies that he strongly dictates their health. 

There is a very non-trivial distinction between JR saying "i caught the virus and my doctor gave me these" vs repeating "listen to me, skip the vaccine, all you need is ivermectin".  Not once has anybody proven the latter.

Marlboro advertising "our cigarettes has a mellow flavor" and appearing on the wing of a racing Honda is okay in my book.  Marlboro explicitly printing "smoking is not linked to lung cancer" is deceitful.  Ultimately your behavior is up to you, not to facebook, not to video games, not to rap music, and certainly not to a podcaster.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Censorship might be the wrong word if you are only allowing it to be used in a technical definition of the state. Though someone smarter than both you and I said this about it:

 

DonkeyCigars and an unsourced, unattributed, and uncited quote. Name a more iconic duo.

 

If you don't like the platform rules of facebook or twitter, go build your own board. That's literally the origin story of this very message board. Stop being such a fucking victim.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104462

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Chooky said:

His rightness authority got dinged up and he wants everyone to know that he's still kinda right even while being wrong.  It's hilarious that his ego is so intertwined with this nonsense.  Fragile little short dude.  

d7wkzfuuzmb81.jpg

Umm, correction.  If anyone is going to make Joe Rogan look dumb on his podcast......it's almost always going to be Joe Rogan himself.  Pantsing himself is kinda his thing.

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If you don't like the platform rules of facebook or twitter, go build your own board. That's literally the origin story of this very message board. Stop being such a fucking victim.

I mean.....it's actually fucking funny.  Different forums govern themselves in different ways.  Facebook doesn't let you spam everyone's page with pics of anal sex.  That's not a "freedom of speech" issue.  It IS, technically, "censorship," using the broad definition of the term.  Most every internet venue that isn't 4Chan practices some form of "censorship," when you view it that way.

Fuck, I exercise it in my own home.  If you're sitting around having drinks with us, and you insist on using the N-word repeatedly in my home, I will ask you to leave.

If Joe Rogan, or anyone else, is pushing a course of action that presents a real danger to human health ("hey everyone, I've figured out the cure to headaches!  Drink a gallon of diesel fuel!"), then concerned human beings, probably medical professionals, are right to call him out and say "what he is suggesting is going to get people killed."  Particularly when we literally already have a pattern of people dying because they are choosing to go with "if I get sick, I'll take ivermectin, but I won't ever get a vaccine," so the danger of the course of action isn't even hypothetical.

Yeah, I think I'd call for any site to not broadcast advice to drink diesel fuel to cure headaches, because there are surely some folks out there who will fall for it and die.  That's not being a censorship nazi.  It's a basic norm of human behavior.  You are doing something that is causing others to be harmed/harm themselves.  You should stop, and the people sponsoring your actions should stop sponsoring them.

Some of you fuckers mistake the fact that to the extent there is a "right to be an asshole," there is no corresponding "and the rest of us are OBLIGATED to let you continue to be an asshole."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27374

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, hpslugga said:

“That’s not what I’ve read.”

When you deal almost exclusively in circular argumentation with the explicit intent to route back to an assumed conclusion, that tends to happen.

I Like the part where he says I was talking about in children and the guy says oh for children Covid is eight times more likely than the vaccine to give them myocarditis

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34167

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

This is actually a good comparison. Tobacco companies knew how dangerous their products were, but spent decades funding fake science to confuse people, make many think cigarettes weren't harmful, or at least that secondhand smoke wasn't harmful, in order to forestall burdensome regulations that would diminish their business. Eventually, nearly every state sued the major tobacco companies, resulting in a settlement in which the tobacco companies agreed to curtail their marketing, pay the states some money to cover the costs of caring for people with smoking-related health problems, and dissolve their fake science "institutions." Because their lies did serious harm to a ton of people. 

The oil companies all did similar shit with climate change science too. Basically every oil company back in the 1950s had its own geologists warning them, and they spent decades funding bullshit pseudoscience to cover it up. We haven't seen the full cost of that, but it will certainly be unimaginable human suffering. And maybe they'll eventually enter into similar settlement agreements with governments. But the people in the tobacco companies who actually made the conscious decisions to push bullshit fake science to help boost or maintain their profits never faced any punishment. In fact, they were richly rewarded. They made a ton of money and were celebrated as brilliant businesspeople. Same thing for the oil company execs.

We can't "prove" that these people killed someone as easily as we can prove that someone who aimed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger killed their victim, but we know the effects of their decisions. We know they made those decisions consciously. They knew they were prioritizing short term profits over long term harms. They may not have fully grasped just how substantial the long term harms they were profiting from would be, but that's not exculpatory.

incurring vast society-wide costs in order to make a private profit is the american way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

DonkeyCigars and an unsourced, unattributed, and uncited quote. Name a more iconic duo.

 

If you don't like the platform rules of facebook or twitter, go build your own board. That's literally the origin story of this very message board. Stop being such a fucking victim.

Here is the link: https://stratechery.com/2022/where-are-hit-podcasts-spotify-and-podcast-aggregation-protesting-rogan/ 

Sorry that you so upset by the claim that Rogan is divisive and a microcosm of the real world in that a lot of people like him and a lot of people want to censor him have a private company instill platform rules that disqualify his participation because they don't like him or agree with him.

It's actually an anti-monopoly story that Rogan isn't deplatformed and the same thought leader I quoted above makes the point by saying:

Quote

Spotify has so far stood behind Rogan, who has publicly praised Spotify for just that. What is worth noting is that because Spotify is still fighting to be — but is not yet — the dominant player in the space it is heavily incentivized to be seen as publisher friendly. If Spotify were such a dominant Aggregator that it were the only place to find podcast listeners — like YouTube is the only place for video, for example — it might have a different approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27309

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Here is the link: https://stratechery.com/2022/where-are-hit-podcasts-spotify-and-podcast-aggregation-protesting-rogan/ 

Sorry that you so upset by the claim that Rogan is divisive and a microcosm of the real world in that a lot of people like him and a lot of people want to censor him have a private company instill platform rules that disqualify his participation because they don't like him or agree with him.

It's actually an anti-monopoly story that Rogan isn't deplatformed and the same thought leader I quoted above makes the point by saying:

 

I'm not seeing any names or text that you're quoting on that webpage. Are you just pulling shit out of your ass and calling it thought leadership?

Fucks sake, I give you shit for not sourcing your quotes because failure to do so is a strong sign of arguing in bad faith. It's nothing more than trumpy "people are saying" bullshit from a poster who's been crowdsourced multiple times for bad faith trolling and spreading disinformation. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104462

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Sorry that you so upset by the claim that Rogan is divisive and a microcosm of the real world in that a lot of people like him and a lot of people want to censor him have a private company instill platform rules that disqualify his participation because they don't like him or agree with him.

False.

Maybe I like to post pictures of anal sex.  But that foible of mine still doesn't "disqualify me" from posting on FB.  All the FB rules do is....prohibit me from posting pics of anal sex.  I can still fully participate on that site, I just can't do that particular thing.

Do I think that people like Joe Rogan should be "disqualified from participating" on a site because they have sponsored the idea that "drinking diesel fuel cures headaches?"  No.  Do I think that those sites should not allow him to broadcast that PARTICULAR harmful message?  Yeah, I think that's the human and responsible thing to do.

The fact that we argue that it is super-sacred and important to require private sites to allow you to say or do ANYTHING on their sites, with no restriction whatsoever, is fucking insane.  And inhuman.  Humans have, and should have, some value judgements.  There are some things that FB, Surly, etc., do NOT want to be promulgated or disseminated on their site.  From the more innocuous (I use it to promote a scam that rips off old people) to the outright deadly ("go guzzle diesel right now!").  We can and should have SOME standards.  That doesn't mean you are "disqualified from posting" on Surly.  It just means that you can't do those particular things.  That's not a "necessary evil;" it's actually a function of humans being GOOD, and exercising some boundaries on acceptable behavior.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm not seeing any names or text that you're quoting on that webpage. Are you just pulling shit out of your ass and calling it thought leadership?

Fucks sake, I give you shit for not sourcing your quotes because failure to do so is a strong sign of arguing in bad faith. It's nothing more than trumpy "people are saying" bullshit from a poster who's been crowdsourced multiple times for bad faith trolling and spreading disinformation. 

Ummm. Okay. lol

On the right hand side of websites there are "About" Sections you can view: https://stratechery.com/about/

Also here is the guys Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Thompson_(writer)

Edited by TurkeyChew
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YChang

YChang 3430

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Even more core to me is the idea that each person bears the highest responsibility to their themselves.  JR isn't their doctor.  JR isn't responsible for their health, they are.  The claim that JR's belief kills people implies that he strongly dictates their health. 

There is a very non-trivial distinction between JR saying "i caught the virus and my doctor gave me these" vs repeating "listen to me, skip the vaccine, all you need is ivermectin".  Not once has anybody proven the latter.

Marlboro advertising "our cigarettes has a mellow flavor" and appearing on the wing of a racing Honda is okay in my book.  Marlboro explicitly printing "smoking is not linked to lung cancer" is deceitful.  Ultimately your behavior is up to you, not to facebook, not to video games, not to rap music, and certainly not to a podcaster.

Ah... that's a worthy philosophy on how to live your life and clearly something you place value in. 

I think in the end, where our opinions differ though and respectfully, I think you grossly underestimate/discount how much as human beings we''re influenced by others. Even if that's the credo you consciously try to live by. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

False.

Maybe I like to post pictures of anal sex.  But that foible of mine still doesn't "disqualify me" from posting on FB.  All the FB rules do is....prohibit me from posting pics of anal sex.  I can still fully participate on that site, I just can't do that particular thing.

Do I think that people like Joe Rogan should be "disqualified from participating" on a site because they have sponsored the idea that "drinking diesel fuel cures headaches?"  No.  Do I think that those sites should not allow him to broadcast that PARTICULAR harmful message?  Yeah, I think that's the human and responsible thing to do.

The fact that we argue that it is super-sacred and important to require private sites to allow you to say or do ANYTHING on their sites, with no restriction whatsoever, is fucking insane.  And inhuman.  Humans have, and should have, some value judgements.  There are some things that FB, Surly, etc., do NOT want to be promulgated or disseminated on their site.  From the more innocuous (I use it to promote a scam that rips off old people) to the outright deadly ("go guzzle diesel right now!").  We can and should have SOME standards.  That doesn't mean you are "disqualified from posting" on Surly.  It just means that you can't do those particular things.  That's not a "necessary evil;" it's actually a function of humans being GOOD, and exercising some boundaries on acceptable behavior.

I don't think anyone is saying that, especially as it pertains to the more outlandish and absurd hypotheticals.

I did find this to be interesting because it seems to be aligned with your suggestion which is "You can't do X if you want to be here, but you can do YZ and be okay". There isn't any detail to what a "misinformation policy" would look like or be:

Quote

260+ doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals have signed an open letter to Spotify to “implement a misinformation policy” after an episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast promoted an anti-vaccine rally.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104462

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I don't think anyone is saying that, especially as it pertains to the more outlandish and absurd hypotheticals.

I did find this to be interesting because it seems to be aligned with your suggestion which is "You can't do X if you want to be here, but you can do YZ and be okay". There isn't any detail to what a "misinformation policy" would look like or be:

 

Sure.  The question should be examined on its individual facts and merits.

Might a lot of physicians bristle at Joe Rogan saying "look, I have had some bad experiences with doctors, and I don't trust them, and you shouldn't either?"  Probably.  But that's difficult to characterize as misinformation, or a direct call to directly harmful action.

But if Rogan says "don't get any vaccines because they are a secret plan by the illuminati to control your mind and make you murder puppies, drink bleach instead!", that's a more direct call to action, and includes a statement of fact that is absolute bullshit.  It is misinformation, it is a call to action, and it is a call that would be directly harmful.

That's why almost any "content policy" that any site has isn't a hard-and-fast empirical  test.  It's a standard of behavior.  Show us a misinformation policy.  Then, show us an example of something that may be information, and then that can be discussed.  Of course, the site owner is always going to be the final arbiter of what actually violates or doesn't violate the policy -- just like Surly works.  You don't have a right to appeal on a technicality.  If Immamac decides you are trolling, you're taking a vacation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29187

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Even more core to me is the idea that each person bears the highest responsibility to their themselves.  JR isn't their doctor.  JR isn't responsible for their health, they are.  The claim that JR's belief kills people implies that he strongly dictates their health. 

There is a very non-trivial distinction between JR saying "i caught the virus and my doctor gave me these" vs repeating "listen to me, skip the vaccine, all you need is ivermectin".  Not once has anybody proven the latter.

Marlboro advertising "our cigarettes has a mellow flavor" and appearing on the wing of a racing Honda is okay in my book.  Marlboro explicitly printing "smoking is not linked to lung cancer" is deceitful.  Ultimately your behavior is up to you, not to facebook, not to video games, not to rap music, and certainly not to a podcaster.

Why do you think my anger was on behalf of the people his dumbass listeners gave covid to rather than on behalf of his dumbass listeners?

Your "core" idea is a silly understanding of how people work and downright fucking stupid when discussing a pandemic. Yes, people have personal responsibility. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But nobody is an expert on everything. It's not actually on us to "do our own research" about every single fucking thing. Nobody is even capable of that. People's beliefs are influenced by people they trust. That's not in itself stupidity or irresponsibility, that's just part of the human condition.

Joe has a huge audience and he knows they trust him. He talks about why people trust him (and guys like Jimmy Dore, a known fucking liar) and not more mainstream news sources, because he claims to have the facts. He frequently says he's done his homework on this stuff and he frequently implies and often expressly accuses people with whom he disagrees of lying with absolutely no basis. He invites credentialed guests on to spread lies and conspiracy theories under a patina of expertise. They lie about the danger of vaccines and the efficacy of alternative treatments. He and his guests frequently imply and sometimes outright say that those who disagree with them are authoritarians who are killing people for profit as part of a secret scheme to implement a social credit system. This stuff isn't random; he believes it and he puts a lot of fucking work into convincing his audience.  

Should his listeners be more discerning? Absolutely. But he's got around 10 million listeners each episode; these covid episodes frequently have even more. Even if his audience wasn't full of maladjusted young men of mediocre intellect, some percentage of his audience is going to believe him because he's a good salesman and he's selling this shit. And we're not talking about stupid weightlifting or supplement advice. We're talking about something that inevitably endangers anyone else his listeners come in close proximity with. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that some number of his listeners have been convinced by his antivax bullshit and needlessly gotten themselves sick and then infected others. Given the number of listeners we're talking about, how long it's been happening, and the total number of covid deaths in that time, it's almost certainly killed thousands of people. Given the age of his listener base, it's probably the case that a disproportionate number of those deaths aren't even them but people they came in contact with. A parent, a grandparent, a teacher, an older cashier at the grocery store, etc. 

You might want to say that those people were already leaning toward believing that shit, with or without Joe. And if you want to talk about Joe's culpability as to the harm they did to themselves, that's a fair thing to discuss. But given the huge size of his audience and the fact that we're not talking about shitty supplement advice but dangerous antivax bullshit in the middle of a pandemic that's killed over 6 million people around the world, it's not remotely fucking exculpatory. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5610

Posted
Posted
AFAIK he never endorsed or promoted ivermectin.  His position is there should be more public emphasis on maintaining overall fitness vs full shutdown, and he shared a cocktail of what he was taking - one of was ivermectin - and taking umbrage of the fact that that was singled out and typecast pejoratively as 'horse dewormer'.  He broadcasts that every guest to his studio has to be tested before they enter.
So yeah, anybody who listens to that and is stupid enough to be swayed to take and exclusively take Ivermectin, that's on them, that's not on the podcast.

He may be the single biggest influencer behind ivermectin out there, given that his style is not definitive but “asking questions.” He also said he used the product.

He sows doubt with his style which is rapidfire and loud and overwhelms the softspoken. He has experts on, but he debates various points with them and does not ask questions to gain insights.

Have neighbors who use ivermectin and gave their kids ivermectin because of his influence. Its nuts.

Regarding his opinion that the general pop should eat better and get in shape, the only way that will make a difference is through massive changes in public policy and laws to prohibit food, beverage, pharm, video game, you name it, from exercising free speech by employing systemic campaigns to influence lifestyles and keep the US fat, drunk, and stupid.

So that wont work, but vaccinations have worked in the past and are working now. They’re easy, safe, and effective now. Influencers who muddy the waters on effective public health strategies should be forced to work the COVID ward changing bed pans and wiping down bed sores.

And if he’s part of a payola scheme to move ivermectin, then lock him up. See how conspiracy theories work?
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure.  The question should be examined on its individual facts and merits.

Might a lot of physicians bristle at Joe Rogan saying "look, I have had some bad experiences with doctors, and I don't trust them, and you shouldn't either?"  Probably.  But that's difficult to characterize as misinformation, or a direct call to directly harmful action.

But if Rogan says "don't get any vaccines because they are a secret plan by the illuminati to control your mind and make you murder puppies, drink bleach instead!", that's a more direct call to action, and includes a statement of fact that is absolute bullshit.  It is misinformation, it is a call to action, and it is a call that would be directly harmful.

That's why almost any "content policy" that any site has isn't a hard-and-fast empirical  test.  It's a standard of behavior.  Show us a misinformation policy.  Then, show us an example of something that may be information, and then that can be discussed.  Of course, the site owner is always going to be the final arbiter of what actually violates or doesn't violate the policy -- just like Surly works.  You don't have a right to appeal on a technicality.  If Immamac decides you are trolling, you're taking a vacation.

We are in such agreement right now that I don't know what to say! Have a great weekend, BT.

Edited by TurkeyChew
Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19066

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Why do you think my anger was on behalf of the people his dumbass listeners gave covid to rather than on behalf of his dumbass listeners?

Your "core" idea is a silly understanding of how people work and downright fucking stupid when discussing a pandemic. Yes, people have personal responsibility. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But nobody is an expert on everything. It's not actually on us to "do our own research" about every single fucking thing. Nobody is even capable of that. People's beliefs are influenced by people they trust. That's not in itself stupidity or irresponsibility, that's just part of the human condition.

Joe has a huge audience and he knows they trust him. He talks about why people trust him (and guys like Jimmy Dore, a known fucking liar) and not more mainstream news sources, because he claims to have the facts. He frequently says he's done his homework on this stuff and he frequently implies and often expressly accuses people with whom he disagrees of lying with absolutely no basis. He invites credentialed guests on to spread lies and conspiracy theories under a patina of expertise. They lie about the danger of vaccines and the efficacy of alternative treatments. He and his guests frequently imply and sometimes outright say that those who disagree with them are authoritarians who are killing people for profit as part of a secret scheme to implement a social credit system.

Well your anger level is so high and persistent it seems fruitless to lasso it over a singular cause. 
I’ve heard him say things that span dumb, to witty, to embarassing, to entertaining, to confounding. i.e. no different to most people on Earth. 
I get that across that spectrum, something there is bound to tickle people the wrong way. But it seems like they want to pull one that one thread hoping to find more - where there is none. 
Where and how has he, once again, actively encouraged people to take Ivermectin? Or where and when exactly is this suggestion that authoritarians are killing people to surreptitiously institute a social credit system?  Is it something Jimmy Dore said? (Maybe it was-I dont know who the fuck that is). With roughly 5,000hrs of recorded material on youtube and spotify any of you can squelch my post with 1.single.link. 
Yall repelled by the bro vibe are maybe projecting to have a pinata to beat up on. And if so, carry on. Like you say: thats the “human condition”. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9713

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Where and how has he, once again, actively encouraged people to take Ivermectin?

these are fairly strong endorsements.

 

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CTSsA8wAR2-/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=2deff47f-06b8-4627-8e3b-717da113c041

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/joe-rogan-covid19-misinformation-ivermectin-spotify-podcast-1219976/

Quote

Arguably and no one has been more successful at promoting ivermectin than Rogan himself. In an April 23rd episode of his podcast, the earliest example that could be found by Rolling Stone, he accused Twitter of preventing him from sending a private direct message containing a link to a video about the drug, echoing a common narrative on the right that the media is censoring discussion of any vaccine alternatives. “This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective in treating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,” he says on his podcast. “I don’t know if this guy is right or wrong. I’m just asking questions.” When asked about these comments, Angelo Carusone, the head of media watchdog group Media Matters, saw it as another example of his seeding distrust in the vaccine. “It’s sort of an offhanded way of hitting the vaccines and the broader narrative about vaccines,” he says. 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/8174711/joe-rogan-ivermectin-covid-19-vaccines/

Quote

Rogan said his doctor prescribed him ivermectin, and that he got the human-safe version of it from Dr. Pierre Kory, who has pushed the drug on The Joe Rogan Experience in the past. Kory is the co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, a group that is aggressively pushing ivermectin online.

Kory has claimed that he is being “censored” after a journal rejected his paper about ivermectin due to several unsupported claims. “In our view, this paper does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution,” the journal said in March.

Rogan also falsely claimed on his show that Japan had approved ivermectin for treating COVID-19. He appeared to be referring to comments made by Haruo Ozaki, chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, which has no say in the decisions of the Japanese government.

Ozaki has said there is not enough evidence to prove that ivermectin does or does not work, but he’s cautiously suggested it’s worth trying due to the COVID-19 “crisis,” the AFP reports.

Rogan also suggested that pharmaceutical companies were trying to suppress ivermectin in order to make more money, without providing evidence. “This is the grand conspiracy,” he said.

 

I am not sure how one could possibly see rogan as someone not endorsing and promoting ivermectin as a covid cure - nor can i see how someone could possibly believe he isn't efforting to undermine the public perception of the mainline vaccines.

also, i can't believe i just posted on a thread about joe fucking rogan.

Edited by sidis
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbeasy

Dbeasy 14953

Posted
Posted
On 1/13/2022 at 12:40 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

I've listened to (at least) several hundred episodes of Rogan's podcast.  I started listening regularly in 2015, probably up until the middle of 2020.  I'm not some peanut gallery hater, but a long time fan that finally couldn't take it anymore.

It definitely started as an organic thing - just a comedian and his buddies getting high and bullshitting on mics.  But it's definitely morphed over the years.  For a period of time, I really enjoyed it because the format was him bringing in some (usually) interesting person from all sorts of avenues of life and letting them talk without much interruption.  It turned me on to a lot of awesome stuff.

In the back half of Trump's first presidency, something really started to change.  The frequency of political guests increased, and while he was still bringing in people from both sides of the aisle, when it was a left wing guest the conversation was mostly left wingers criticizing left wing bullshit.  When he had right wing guests on, there was no critique of right wing bullshit - they just bagged on the left.  He kept making nominal appeals to the idea that he's "basically a liberal", but kept repeating right wing talking points.  He also started interjecting political bullshit into apolitical conversations.  Some guest would crack a joke and and he'd go on a tangent about how "you can't say that you know?  The left is trying to destroy you."  It started to seem to me that he'd straight up taken a turn into being a full fledged right winger and was no longer providing an objective space to hear out both ends of an argument, but constructing an echo chamber.

The move to Spotify, and him leaving California has pushed it completely into that corner.  Once he started on his bullshit about the COVID vaccine, I punched out altogether.  At this stage, he's basically Rush Limbaugh.  Not that he's on that extreme, but he's just right wing talk radio that tells that crowd what they want to hear.  It's a grift.  It's not what he set out to do, but it's absolutely where he's at today, and he's printing fat stacks so I doubt it changes.

He makes some good points (I mean, being healthier is a great fucking idea and we should place a higher emphasis on it) but he shreds his credibility hammering the vaccine while he takes fucking ivermectin.  At this point, he just strikes me as a psuedo-intellectual clown.  Back in the day, he rarely injected his opinion and when he did, made it clear he didn't know shit and was willing to consider alternative perspectives.  Now he thinks he knows something.  No dude, you are the dummy you always claimed to be.

And in America those people make hundreds of millions of dollars. Kim Kardashian, Joe Roger, Alex Jones, Dr Oz. The list of multi-millionaire morons in America is quite impressive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104462

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Joe Rogan Admits Josh Szeps Made Him 'Look Dumb' in Podcast Vaccine Debate
 

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-admits-josh-szeps-made-him-look-dumb-podcast-vaccine-debate-1669399

No.  He didn't "look"dumb.  He WAS dumb.  It's not a fucking game, it's not owning the libs and shit.  On that particular point, Rogan was a dumbass.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...