37 ms·

I think this hits at the heart of the issue though - you don't get to, as a public figure, decide whether or not you are "the voice of a movement". In mass medi

I think this hits at the heart of the issue though - you don't get to, as a public figure, decide whether or not you are "the voice of a movement". In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers. Joe Rogan doesn't need to do these things if he's just "hanging out with his buddies smoke'n" but he also doesn't have an obligation to have provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show. He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family - and THAT is where the danger comes in. Furthermore, he also knows that parts of his fanbase will go wild to see their fringe views espoused by a guest on their favorite podcast, without Joe challenging them to back their claims up with facts. I'm sure he also knows that his listeners skew young and male, and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet. Having the same views on his podcast as conspiracy theory sites, for example, will undoubtedly make it easier for the bad actors running these sites to radicalize JRE listeners (who will then, of course, become a part of the fanbase that loves when their theories are given time on his show in some perverse feedback loop). He has also inked a deal with the largest music streaming service in the world for more money than any of us will see in our entire lives - at that point I don't think you can even say he's just "hanging out" any more. It's facetious at best, and wilfully negligent at worst, to assume that no one thinks of him as an authority figure, because even if he's playing the everyman character his guests profess to be authority figures in their fields. If he doesn't seriously challenge their false claims or ask for evidence from credible sources, he's doing his listeners a disservice.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
I don't trust Joe Rogan any more than I do any news media about the pandemic. The media has made countless mistakes, he's made his own mistakes, but at least Joe Rogan is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has. For that reason, I don't care. Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone: "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.
- gorgonzolachz 5y ago
  You don't need to trust him, but I think you're making a false equivalency there. The reason Joe Rogan apologizes, is that some of his takes are WILD. The whole thing about the wildfires last year being set by left-wing activists was a truly insane statement, and I have no idea where he found that information or what possessed him to say it on his show. On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes. Every once in a while they get it wrong (sometimes dangerously so) but not with anything near the same magnitude or frequency that a comparatively uneducated influencer does. And they do apologize, for small inaccuracies with an editor's note at the bottom and for large inaccuracies with a retraction published in the next edition of the paper. Newspapers HATE printing retractions, and they try very hard never to say something that would require it. Joe rogan has no such compunctions - in fact, he's on the same playbook as so many influencers and provocateurs before him. If you say enough crazy stuff, and only apologize for the worst of it, people are eventually going to give up trying to get you to denounce any statements you've made which are only mildly crazy. Here's a great example [0] - Joe apparently said you shouldn't worry about taking the vaccine if you're young and healthy, and when he apologized he called himself a moron and said he was talking about OTHER people. That's insane: getting vaccinated regardless of age means a brush with covid is less severe, thus saving you a trip to the hospital - and a hospital bed is saved for someone who actually needs it (covid-related or not). I empathize with your apathy, but I would strongly urge you to think about the difference between a news corporation that hires professional fact-checkers to confirm their articles and has a two-source policy on news, and a guy who wilfully admits he's a moron before continuing to spout potentially harmful views against vaccinating yourself during a pandemic. [0]https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-coronavirus-vaccine-comments https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-cor... Edit: whoops, you edited your comment after I started to reply to you. I'll make this brief: Robert Malone may have invented mRNA vaccines, but he's still anti-vax and believes the vaccines made from his technology (or some derivative thereof) make covid worse. On his episode of JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie. You can be an excellent scientist on the frontier of medical research and still be an idiot who has no business spreading your personal views. If Joe had fact-checked him, his opinions would have folded, but he didn't.
newsclues 5y ago
I like to listen to people and make up my mind on my own. Why should you or anyone else decide who should not have a voice for me to listen to? Do I get to tell you who is to provocative to listen to?
- ostenning 5y ago
  If you disagree with someone, you need to get into the arena with them and criticise what they say and debunk it. If someone doesn't agree with Rogan or his guests and believe they are spouting scientific nonsense, then it needs to be challenged, not suppressed. But because our media is so entrenched the only challenge Rogan gets from conventional media are typical smeer campaigns that look disingenuous and erode trust even further. Vaccine hesitant people are never really addressed adequately by government or by conventional media. Distrust is at an all time high and the power structures of the world have never been so apparent to the every day man. The solution to all of this is transparency, discussion and health policy that targets the problems rather than blanket policy that ostracises and discriminates. Suppression will only make the situation worse because all of a sudden we on a slippery slope to totalitarianism where (automated) fact checkers are the primordial source of truth and authority. Ostracising will only make the situation worse because all of a sudden we have very large portions of the community (upward of 25% in countries like Germany) now feel discriminated against, people cannot get on planes and travel to see loved ones, they cant go the cinema, they cant do basically anything, all because they object to handling of health policy. Further more politicians like Macron are stoking divisions even further and marginalizing these people by proclaiming they are non-citizens. Shit, I cant really imagine a better way to fracture western society. In my mind the virus really did win.
  - sometimeshuman 5y ago
    "If you disagree with someone, you need to get into the arena with them and criticise what they say and debunk it." This is the challenge Dennis Prager often offers to young college students in his audience. It is comically grotesque to see a senior professional debater and speaker take joy when he shuts down a young nervous challenger. Sure, you and I can think of quick responses, in the same way when we watch a boxing match and can see where the challenger made a mistake. But in a real life arena most of us would probably take a beating when matched against a pro. A sincere debate can be had when one is willing to steel-man the other's argument but that's not an option when being right and winning is your opponent's brand.
bko 5y ago
> provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show... and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet Ah yes, Ben Shapiro will radicalize young men to... get married and start a family? I really don't understand the harm from the examples you mentioned. He offers alternative voices that don't get much attention by CNN or NYT. Literally every other media outlet will have the same 5 or 10 same talking heads and officials telling you the science du jour.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Ben Shapiro is, even though I disagree with him on many things, certainly not alt-right. He is very pro-vaccination and condemned January 6th as an ugly day in American history. His advice to people basically is work hard, get married, have a family, and don't be a criminal.
  - PickledHotdog 5y ago
    While actively denying it's much easier to avoid being a convicted criminal if you're white or rich or both
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      He has stated that black incarceration rate is higher and does not deny it. He does not address too much why the rate is higher (he suspects it is related to the same reasons why the marriage is much lower among black people), but he does not actively deny it in any way.
    - dfadsadsf 5y ago
      At least in US the best way to avoid being incarcerated is being Asian. Does Ben deny it?
  - p1necone 5y ago
    Maybe he didn't quite follow the same trajectory of radicalization/insanity as the rest of the alt-right, but he was definitely a poster child of the movement at some point. Him claiming to not be doesn't really change anything.
dshpala 5y ago
I'm getting strange COVID-speak vibes from your comment. All that "you don't get to decide", "and that's where danger comes in". I think the reasoning in your head is actually backwards, and you think that because JRE got Spotify contract he now has to "be doing their research" in fear of losing it. It's all about money, eh?
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Seriously asking: what is COVID-speak?
  - zo1 5y ago
    Not OP. I thought it was really disturbing the first time I heard someone say they got "the jab" or "double jabbed".
    - zarzavat 5y ago
      Why would that be disturbing?
    - _Wintermute 5y ago
      That's just how vaccines are commonly referred to in the UK, long before covid.
      - pandaman 5y ago
        That's not how vaccines had been referred in the US before 2021.
    - fknorangesite 5y ago
      Is that because you were previously unaware of an extremely common idiom?
      - MockObject 5y ago
        It was not a regular term in US before Covid, and always sounded strange when British media used it.
015a 5y ago
Then if not Joe, who would his audience listen to? Shapiro? The next guy? You cannot, and shouldn't, sculpt a model of society where anyone who speaks out loud needs to speak with journalistic and scientific integrity. It cannot work; it never has, and it never will. Regimes which try to limit free speech fail, unfailingly. You should push for more critical listening. The most surefire way to underdevelop your ability for critical thought and listening is to bubble the content you consume to only professional sources, mainstream news, and government spokespeople. So, don't listen to Rogan, or anyone else you disagree with; you're dumber for it. Not because everything he says is right; but because you'll slowly lose the skill of not just taking everything at face value, but thinking critically about why he's wrong, integrating the things said on his show with your own experiences, other media you've consumed, what scientists say, what politicians say, what random hackernews commentors say, and forming a holistic opinion about the world. Not everyone has that skill; either by choice, accident, or otherwise. And that's the second skill you need to develop: being ok that some people will believe the wrong thing. They'll spread it. People will die; that's what people do. Think on how spectacular our world is; most of it exists in the only time in human history where freedom of speech is so protected; and some choose to desire to throw that precious right away to... save lives? Our collective freedom and values are far, far more important than life; I hope, beyond hope, that they'll outlive me. Religion has done this world a lot of bad. In fact, many would be surprised with how recently the Vatican's crackdown on freedom of speech led to many scientists being unable to discover the nature of reality; that's what happens when we don't cherish freedom of speech. But, one thing it did do right, and with it one thing many have lost in our society: the collective recognition that there are goals for our species greater than life itself. When someone says something wrong, or something I disagree with: I cherish your right to say it, here, in this forum. You shouldn't be labeled as disinformation; nor censored with a downvote. We should have a discussion.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  How about instead of “we must allow complete free speech, anything else is bad” we go for “sometimes it’s practical to censor”. The world isn’t so black and white.
  - 5y ago
edmcnulty101 5y ago
"fringe views" I dont think he's had a single guest on with fringe views. At least 30 to 40% of America is unvaccinated. Hardly fringe. Also, fringe does not equate with being wrong. The view that marijuana should be legal was once a "fringe" view.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  It was a "fringe view" in early 2020 when those of us wore masks despite Fauci and the rest of the pointy heads in DC saying that masks weren't needed, and were possibly harmful. It was a "fringe view" when those of us said we shouldn't invade Iraq, because their was no credible evidence of WMD. It was a "fringe view" (and still is, unfortunately among many) when some of us said that there was no credible evidence of a "Russian attack" on our election in 2016. It was a "fringe view" when some of us insisted that the government was illegally spying on us before Snowden's revelations. According to modern standards of social media censorship, all of these "fringe views" would very likely lead to getting banned and/or silenced for "misinformation". The fact is that the accuracy of a belief has absolutely no relationship to how widespread that belief is. This is especially true when the government, big tech and their legacy media outlets work together to engineer a consensus view (or the appearance of a consensus view) that hews to their preferred narrative rather than reality.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    Glad you recognize this. Gay marriage was also considered a fringe view at some point. Fringe views need a platform because they're right ALOT.
- nmz 5y ago
  Alex Jones
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    I don't know enough about Alex Jones to say one or the other. He's got millions of listeners. I'm sure he may have some fringe views but so does Neil Degrassi Tyson and everyone else. Define fringe views.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nathanaldensr 5y ago
So Joe Rogan should be silenced because some people might take things the wrong way according to you. Got it.
- bonestamp2 5y ago
  I don't see where you got that from. He suggests that Joe does more research, not be silenced.
logicchains 5y ago
>and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show It's not just Malone; over 17k doctors and scientists have signed the Rome Declaration in support of his message: https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/ https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Point 3 is just "Don't correct us when we do stupid things."
  - logicchains 5y ago
    - scotty79 5y ago
      Stop citing ivmeta. They refuse to include results of Together trial which conclusively disproven any hopes of ivermectin efficacy. It's basically cherry picking of small and crappy trials that have results misleading into thinking ivermectin does anything for covid.
      - fer 5y ago
        Actually I'd go further and stop citing these XXXmeta.org websites that pop like mushrooms after the rain. It's probably the result of a Python script that pops graphs and tables according to a csv with data from the studies selected. They do very crude, naive, ad-hoc and cherry picked study selection, and metastudies is one of the most complex and difficult areas to do research on. On the topic of ivermectin, it certainly displays positive outcomes... in countries with high helminth prevalence. So yeah, treating co-morbidities is certainly better than not treating them, not exactly shocking.
- ahoka 5y ago
  That's less than 0.2% of the doctors. Not really impressive.
nervlord 5y ago
Bancakes 5y ago
twox2 5y ago
> He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family It's very hard to take this seriously, because there's no evidence of it. The guy is an entertainer that built a platform that lets him talk to whoever he wants. There's no narrative being pushed.
eric_cc 5y ago
So what you're really saying is: > Joe Rogan [has PEOPLE I DISAGREE WITH] on his show.. THAT is where the danger comes in.
ComradePhil 5y ago
>In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers. Meh! I would rather listen to people's original perspectives despite of potential inaccuracies, instead of lies fabricated by corporations via highly paid "experts".

gjsman-1000 5y ago

I don't trust Joe Rogan any more than I do any news media about the pandemic. The media has made countless mistakes, he's made his own mistakes, but at least Joe Rogan is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has. For that reason, I don't care. Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone: "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.

gorgonzolachz 5y ago
You don't need to trust him, but I think you're making a false equivalency there. The reason Joe Rogan apologizes, is that some of his takes are WILD. The whole thing about the wildfires last year being set by left-wing activists was a truly insane statement, and I have no idea where he found that information or what possessed him to say it on his show. On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes. Every once in a while they get it wrong (sometimes dangerously so) but not with anything near the same magnitude or frequency that a comparatively uneducated influencer does. And they do apologize, for small inaccuracies with an editor's note at the bottom and for large inaccuracies with a retraction published in the next edition of the paper. Newspapers HATE printing retractions, and they try very hard never to say something that would require it. Joe rogan has no such compunctions - in fact, he's on the same playbook as so many influencers and provocateurs before him. If you say enough crazy stuff, and only apologize for the worst of it, people are eventually going to give up trying to get you to denounce any statements you've made which are only mildly crazy. Here's a great example [0] - Joe apparently said you shouldn't worry about taking the vaccine if you're young and healthy, and when he apologized he called himself a moron and said he was talking about OTHER people. That's insane: getting vaccinated regardless of age means a brush with covid is less severe, thus saving you a trip to the hospital - and a hospital bed is saved for someone who actually needs it (covid-related or not). I empathize with your apathy, but I would strongly urge you to think about the difference between a news corporation that hires professional fact-checkers to confirm their articles and has a two-source policy on news, and a guy who wilfully admits he's a moron before continuing to spout potentially harmful views against vaccinating yourself during a pandemic. [0]https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-coronavirus-vaccine-comments https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-cor... Edit: whoops, you edited your comment after I started to reply to you. I'll make this brief: Robert Malone may have invented mRNA vaccines, but he's still anti-vax and believes the vaccines made from his technology (or some derivative thereof) make covid worse. On his episode of JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie. You can be an excellent scientist on the frontier of medical research and still be an idiot who has no business spreading your personal views. If Joe had fact-checked him, his opinions would have folded, but he didn't.

newsclues 5y ago

I like to listen to people and make up my mind on my own. Why should you or anyone else decide who should not have a voice for me to listen to? Do I get to tell you who is to provocative to listen to?

ostenning 5y ago
If you disagree with someone, you need to get into the arena with them and criticise what they say and debunk it. If someone doesn't agree with Rogan or his guests and believe they are spouting scientific nonsense, then it needs to be challenged, not suppressed. But because our media is so entrenched the only challenge Rogan gets from conventional media are typical smeer campaigns that look disingenuous and erode trust even further. Vaccine hesitant people are never really addressed adequately by government or by conventional media. Distrust is at an all time high and the power structures of the world have never been so apparent to the every day man. The solution to all of this is transparency, discussion and health policy that targets the problems rather than blanket policy that ostracises and discriminates. Suppression will only make the situation worse because all of a sudden we on a slippery slope to totalitarianism where (automated) fact checkers are the primordial source of truth and authority. Ostracising will only make the situation worse because all of a sudden we have very large portions of the community (upward of 25% in countries like Germany) now feel discriminated against, people cannot get on planes and travel to see loved ones, they cant go the cinema, they cant do basically anything, all because they object to handling of health policy. Further more politicians like Macron are stoking divisions even further and marginalizing these people by proclaiming they are non-citizens. Shit, I cant really imagine a better way to fracture western society. In my mind the virus really did win.
- sometimeshuman 5y ago
  "If you disagree with someone, you need to get into the arena with them and criticise what they say and debunk it." This is the challenge Dennis Prager often offers to young college students in his audience. It is comically grotesque to see a senior professional debater and speaker take joy when he shuts down a young nervous challenger. Sure, you and I can think of quick responses, in the same way when we watch a boxing match and can see where the challenger made a mistake. But in a real life arena most of us would probably take a beating when matched against a pro. A sincere debate can be had when one is willing to steel-man the other's argument but that's not an option when being right and winning is your opponent's brand.

bko 5y ago

> provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show... and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet Ah yes, Ben Shapiro will radicalize young men to... get married and start a family? I really don't understand the harm from the examples you mentioned. He offers alternative voices that don't get much attention by CNN or NYT. Literally every other media outlet will have the same 5 or 10 same talking heads and officials telling you the science du jour.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Ben Shapiro is, even though I disagree with him on many things, certainly not alt-right. He is very pro-vaccination and condemned January 6th as an ugly day in American history. His advice to people basically is work hard, get married, have a family, and don't be a criminal.
- PickledHotdog 5y ago
  While actively denying it's much easier to avoid being a convicted criminal if you're white or rich or both
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    He has stated that black incarceration rate is higher and does not deny it. He does not address too much why the rate is higher (he suspects it is related to the same reasons why the marriage is much lower among black people), but he does not actively deny it in any way.
  - dfadsadsf 5y ago
    At least in US the best way to avoid being incarcerated is being Asian. Does Ben deny it?
- p1necone 5y ago
  Maybe he didn't quite follow the same trajectory of radicalization/insanity as the rest of the alt-right, but he was definitely a poster child of the movement at some point. Him claiming to not be doesn't really change anything.

dshpala 5y ago

I'm getting strange COVID-speak vibes from your comment. All that "you don't get to decide", "and that's where danger comes in". I think the reasoning in your head is actually backwards, and you think that because JRE got Spotify contract he now has to "be doing their research" in fear of losing it. It's all about money, eh?

KittenInABox 5y ago
Seriously asking: what is COVID-speak?
- zo1 5y ago
  Not OP. I thought it was really disturbing the first time I heard someone say they got "the jab" or "double jabbed".
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    Why would that be disturbing?
  - _Wintermute 5y ago
    That's just how vaccines are commonly referred to in the UK, long before covid.
    - pandaman 5y ago
      That's not how vaccines had been referred in the US before 2021.
  - fknorangesite 5y ago
    Is that because you were previously unaware of an extremely common idiom?
    - MockObject 5y ago
      It was not a regular term in US before Covid, and always sounded strange when British media used it.

015a 5y ago

Then if not Joe, who would his audience listen to? Shapiro? The next guy? You cannot, and shouldn't, sculpt a model of society where anyone who speaks out loud needs to speak with journalistic and scientific integrity. It cannot work; it never has, and it never will. Regimes which try to limit free speech fail, unfailingly. You should push for more critical listening. The most surefire way to underdevelop your ability for critical thought and listening is to bubble the content you consume to only professional sources, mainstream news, and government spokespeople. So, don't listen to Rogan, or anyone else you disagree with; you're dumber for it. Not because everything he says is right; but because you'll slowly lose the skill of not just taking everything at face value, but thinking critically about why he's wrong, integrating the things said on his show with your own experiences, other media you've consumed, what scientists say, what politicians say, what random hackernews commentors say, and forming a holistic opinion about the world. Not everyone has that skill; either by choice, accident, or otherwise. And that's the second skill you need to develop: being ok that some people will believe the wrong thing. They'll spread it. People will die; that's what people do. Think on how spectacular our world is; most of it exists in the only time in human history where freedom of speech is so protected; and some choose to desire to throw that precious right away to... save lives? Our collective freedom and values are far, far more important than life; I hope, beyond hope, that they'll outlive me. Religion has done this world a lot of bad. In fact, many would be surprised with how recently the Vatican's crackdown on freedom of speech led to many scientists being unable to discover the nature of reality; that's what happens when we don't cherish freedom of speech. But, one thing it did do right, and with it one thing many have lost in our society: the collective recognition that there are goals for our species greater than life itself. When someone says something wrong, or something I disagree with: I cherish your right to say it, here, in this forum. You shouldn't be labeled as disinformation; nor censored with a downvote. We should have a discussion.

philosopher1234 5y ago
How about instead of “we must allow complete free speech, anything else is bad” we go for “sometimes it’s practical to censor”. The world isn’t so black and white.
- 5y ago

edmcnulty101 5y ago

"fringe views" I dont think he's had a single guest on with fringe views. At least 30 to 40% of America is unvaccinated. Hardly fringe. Also, fringe does not equate with being wrong. The view that marijuana should be legal was once a "fringe" view.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago
It was a "fringe view" in early 2020 when those of us wore masks despite Fauci and the rest of the pointy heads in DC saying that masks weren't needed, and were possibly harmful. It was a "fringe view" when those of us said we shouldn't invade Iraq, because their was no credible evidence of WMD. It was a "fringe view" (and still is, unfortunately among many) when some of us said that there was no credible evidence of a "Russian attack" on our election in 2016. It was a "fringe view" when some of us insisted that the government was illegally spying on us before Snowden's revelations. According to modern standards of social media censorship, all of these "fringe views" would very likely lead to getting banned and/or silenced for "misinformation". The fact is that the accuracy of a belief has absolutely no relationship to how widespread that belief is. This is especially true when the government, big tech and their legacy media outlets work together to engineer a consensus view (or the appearance of a consensus view) that hews to their preferred narrative rather than reality.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Glad you recognize this. Gay marriage was also considered a fringe view at some point. Fringe views need a platform because they're right ALOT.
nmz 5y ago
Alex Jones
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  I don't know enough about Alex Jones to say one or the other. He's got millions of listeners. I'm sure he may have some fringe views but so does Neil Degrassi Tyson and everyone else. Define fringe views.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nathanaldensr 5y ago

So Joe Rogan should be silenced because some people might take things the wrong way according to you. Got it.

bonestamp2 5y ago
I don't see where you got that from. He suggests that Joe does more research, not be silenced.

logicchains 5y ago

>and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show It's not just Malone; over 17k doctors and scientists have signed the Rome Declaration in support of his message: https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/ https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/.

scotty79 5y ago
Point 3 is just "Don't correct us when we do stupid things."
- logicchains 5y ago
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Stop citing ivmeta. They refuse to include results of Together trial which conclusively disproven any hopes of ivermectin efficacy. It's basically cherry picking of small and crappy trials that have results misleading into thinking ivermectin does anything for covid.
    - fer 5y ago
      Actually I'd go further and stop citing these XXXmeta.org websites that pop like mushrooms after the rain. It's probably the result of a Python script that pops graphs and tables according to a csv with data from the studies selected. They do very crude, naive, ad-hoc and cherry picked study selection, and metastudies is one of the most complex and difficult areas to do research on. On the topic of ivermectin, it certainly displays positive outcomes... in countries with high helminth prevalence. So yeah, treating co-morbidities is certainly better than not treating them, not exactly shocking.
ahoka 5y ago
That's less than 0.2% of the doctors. Not really impressive.

nervlord 5y ago

Bancakes 5y ago

twox2 5y ago

> He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family It's very hard to take this seriously, because there's no evidence of it. The guy is an entertainer that built a platform that lets him talk to whoever he wants. There's no narrative being pushed.

eric_cc 5y ago

So what you're really saying is: > Joe Rogan [has PEOPLE I DISAGREE WITH] on his show.. THAT is where the danger comes in.

ComradePhil 5y ago

>In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers. Meh! I would rather listen to people's original perspectives despite of potential inaccuracies, instead of lies fabricated by corporations via highly paid "experts".