3 ms·
I don't understand the controversy. So Rogan had a kook or two on the air, kooks with credentials who promoted non-consensus opinions. Is that the problem? I me
by bagacrap 5y ago
I don't understand the controversy. So Rogan had a kook or two on the air, kooks with credentials who promoted non-consensus opinions. Is that the problem? I mean, listeners should be able to determine for themselves whether something is believable and/or interesting. I listen to Rogan often and he doesn't directly contradict his guests but you can tell when he's not buying what they're selling. You can also tell he's not the brightest crayon in the box, so you should take what you hear there (and literally everywhere else in the world) with a chunk of salt. It's ludicrous and insulting to say Spotify should be the one deciding what ideas people are allowed to hear as they go about their day and form opinions about the world around them.
- Ourgon 5y agoGuest, not "kook". Why use the term "kook" when all that happened - and hopefully will continue to happen - is that Rogan allowed criticism of the regime by credible sources to be aired. The sources are credible because they have built a reputation on their knowledge in their fields of expertise. As to whether their criticism of the regime is valid is up to the listener to decide, not up to the censor or any (ironically-named) "fact checker". It is certainly not up to media talking heads who just parrot whatever they get fed by the regime and would gladly tell you your country has always been at war with Eurasia.
- bagacrap 5y agoYes, it's up to the listener to judge whether the criticism is valid, and if it's wildly disconnected from my understanding of reality, I label the speaker a kook. I didn't mean to imply the kook label was objective.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]