7 ms·
>Apparently he wanted to have guests who would provide alternative public health narratives and was told that this was a no-go on YouTube. As it should be. >H
by koiz 6y ago
>Apparently he wanted to have guests who would provide alternative public health narratives and was told that this was a no-go on YouTube.
As it should be.
>He is hoping that Spotify will give him more creative freedom
Spreading pseudoscience isn't creative, its destructive.
- warranty 6y agoYou don’t get to decide that, Timmy.
- bmarquez 6y ago> with respect to contrarian coverage of the pandemic How is contrarian coverage "pseudoscience"? An example of contrarian coverage is the suicide rate rising due to the Bay Area stay-at-home order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269396
- deadbunny 6y agoHow is a report from medical professionals on an abc affiliate contrarian?
- umanwizard 6y agoBecause by far the dominant narrative among urban, educated people is that continuing lockdowns are worth it because they prevent death from COVID-19. Arguments that the lockdowns are doing more harm than good are (wrongly, IMHO) associated with political conservatism, rejection of science, and so on. Thus, evidence of the harm of lockdowns can be considered contrarian, regardless of whether it comes from medical professionals.
- rz2k 6y agoI have never been in an accident where I was helped by wearing a seatbelt, and preparations for Y2K cost many times more than any of the harm that was caused by Y2K bugs. Considering that I've never experienced malnutrition, I seem to waste a lot of time money and effort on nutrition, too. Ignoring mental health consequences of difficult times is foolish, but this sounds much more like it was a "well, actually" sort of conversation meant to stroke people's egos.
- rthomas6 6y agoThe argument isn't that that point of view is correct. The argument is that it should be allowed to be presented.
- rumanator 6y agoDo they want to present it or to misrepresent it?
- threatofrain 6y agoThe problem is that Google is exposed to political, financial, and legislative risks from all sides -- or else Google would host all content, including pirated movies, and they'd pass off all liability to the primary offender. Then they'd collect advertising revenue based on all the eyeballs they can get.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cc81 6y agoTo be honest this is a novel disease that is affecting the world a lot right now and we simply don't know the best way forward. This is not the flu, it is much worse, but we are generally not enforcing "seat belts" to protect the vulnerable even close to as much.
- revnode 6y agoIt's contrarian if it cuts against the majority opinion, not if it comes from some obscure source from a lunatic. There are many legitimate contrarian opinions, many of which later become the mainstream opinion.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoThat is a perfect example of pseudoscience, the article linked is anecdotal interview with two people working in one hospital. It never mentions anything about the rate.
- aeternum 6y agoFrom the article: "We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIn one hospital. That alone makes it pseudoscience. A years worth of suicides is likely between 10-40 suicides, which is tragi but doesn't show that the quarentine is causing the problems it says. For example, the rise could be due to medical workers being overtaxed due to the pandemic, or some change in which hospital is receiving patients like this.
- manigandham 6y agoThat's not how science works. Please stop calling it pseudoscience just because you don't agree with the findings.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoWhat two people say they experienced is not science. Even calling is pseudoscience is generous, it's an anecdote.
- manigandham 6y agoScience is based on observations. And I hope you realize the pseudoscience is far worse than anecdote (which is a personal observation). Furthermore, economic depressions lead to suffering and death. This is a fact that's widely known and studied. Ignoring all the coming secondary effects to focus on only acute deaths from a single cause is clearly not scientific either.
- gotoeleven 6y agoSomeone who simply reads CDC recommendations with a 3 week lag would probably violate these policies.
- jayd16 6y agoDevils advocate here but If you extrapolate this argument to 1600s medical advice then surely you'd be correct and I think for good reason. I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting (if anything).
- mc32 6y agoIt just means that in a span of a few weeks the evidence itself (what we know and how we understand it) can contradict itself. So basically if you say that’s okay, it’s the authoritative source, that’s fine, but it means other people might not be authoritative but may be right. So the question isn’t so much why give one preeminence based on past performance but rather why censor others who might have a case to be made?
- BubRoss 6y agoJoe Rogan typically makes a point to say what he doesn't know and tries to get interesting experts in his show. Have you watched much of his show?
- MisterBastahrd 6y agoHe typically has no idea what they're talking about and thus lobs softball after softball at them, even when he pretends to disagree for devil's advocate sake. Most of his bigger named guests have carved out echo chambers for themselves, and Rogan lends them credibility.
- BubRoss 6y agoYou realize he doesn't have people on to grill them right? He has done well over a thousand shows with hundreds of different people. When you say 'most of his guests' are you talking about John Carmack, Tony Hawk and Rhonda Patrick or are you talking about the one time he had the guy who started the 'proud boys' on? I think a lot of people take this all or nothing stance on one bad guest out of recreational outrage without actually watching him.
- MisterBastahrd 6y agoImagine believing that McInnes is the only low grade idiot to appear on that show.
- BubRoss 6y agoYou didn't confront what I said in any way.
- MisterBastahrd 6y agoI can't help it that you tried to build a strawman to avoid what I said.
- umanwizard 6y agoCan you point to any concrete example of Joe Rogan spreading pseudoscience?
- rthomas6 6y agoI mean, I can when the subject is drugs...
- shoulderfake 6y agoLike what ? when subject is drugs tell me
- rthomas6 6y agoHow weed is harmless and has no risks, and is actually helpful and could cure all sorts of ailments in people. Or how taking psychedelic drugs and using sensory deprivation tanks is great and you should totally try it out, no risks there.
- moltar 6y agoI don’t think JR had ever claimed anything as absolutely harmless. But he did compare harm rates, for example of alcohol, which is perfectly legal and is sold in abundance EVEN during this health crisis and weed.
- rewoi 6y agoSometimes it is good to have some balance from official sources. WHO: * Masks do not work on corona virus * Taiwan is a Chinese province, not an independent country * Corona virus does not transmit between people.
- jlmorton 6y agoThe WHO certainly never claimed that SARS-CoV-2 does not spread between people. They said human-to-human transmission had not been confirmed. The very first signs of human-to-human transmission in the epidemic were on Jan 14th, as some family members of the initially-identified cluster began to fall ill. At this time, there were about ~50 identified cases, and zero deaths. On January 20th, one single incubation period later, as healthcare workers began falling ill, both China and the WHO confirmed human-to-human transmission. There are large numbers of examples of respiratory illnesses that do not easily transmit between humans. Most commonly, there are frequently outbreaks of H1N1 influenza from farms, with animals as the primary vector. Among coronaviruses, MERS transmits very poorly between people. Would you have preferred the WHO loudly proclaim the virus easily transmits between people when there was no evidence that it did? That would be absurd. Please stop spreading this misinformation.
- Will_Do 6y agoWhat a strange comment. Taiwan informed the WHO in December that person to person transmission was likely taking place[0]. The only sense in which it hadn’t been confirmed is in a tautological sense the WHO hadn’t confirmed it. Doctors in Wuhan were getting infected and Taiwan had proof of that. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644a-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644...
- cc81 6y agoTaiwan did not mention in their email that person to person transmission was taking place. They said that WHO should do their own investigation. Taiwan had no proof, they just did not trust China.
- javert 6y agoLet people decide for themselves what media to believe and what media to disbelieve. It's the only way to have a free society. It may not work if too many people are too stupid. But it may work if enough people are smart enough. And it's the only way to have a free society.
- shoulderfake 6y agotime to take your pills Skippy...
- manigandham 6y agoNothing is as destructive as someone deciding what everyone else gets to see and hear.