6 ms·

Its not rude to stand up against a creator spewing blatant and dangerous mis-information. It would have been one thing if Roe Rogan was just a regular podcast a

Its not rude to stand up against a creator spewing blatant and dangerous mis-information. It would have been one thing if Roe Rogan was just a regular podcast availiable on Spotify and other places, but its a Spotify exclusive with Spotify promoting him as one of their headliners and paying him millions of dollars. Good on Young for drawing a line in the sand and choose where his music is availiable.

prohobo 5y ago
Blatant and dangerous misinformation? You're gonna have to back those bold claims up, otherwise what's stopping us from claiming that you are the culprit and should be gulag'd? You have no idea what you're talking about, which is what's so fucked up about this whole situation. This is all a dystopian cliche. Opinions are not misinformation, and looking at opposing evidence and arguments is not misinformation. It never was, and never will be. The only people who ever claimed such things are historically disgraced totalitarians. Misinformation comes from states and organizations with ulterior motives who twist and hide the truth for their own gain. It's about power. Crying out about how "dangerous" it is to have a real discussion that you don't like is ridiculously absurd. Are you saying adults are too stupid to think for themselves, or should not be allowed to take calculated risks? Do you have some kind of proof that having discussions is bad for individuals and/or communities in some way?
- givinguflac 5y ago
  - prohobo 5y ago
    > Found the JRE fan What is this, reddit? That's not proof of shit, many more doctors support questioning the Covid interventions. See: https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ What you are proving is that there's a discussion to be had that you want to stop, because what? You're scared?
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      No where in the declaration do I see the term "hospital capacity". One criticism, amongst many: > David Naylor, co-chair of the Government of Canada's COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, told the National Post: "Obviously, the Great Barrington fix will excite the minimizers who pretend COVID-19 is not much worse than the flu and enliven the libertarians who object to public health measures on principle … So be it: they've been offside all along."[5] Naylor also pointed out that a study published in August in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine examined Sweden's "no-lockdown" policy's effect on herd immunity among the Swedish population, finding it did not improve herd immunity despite higher rates of hospitalization and death than in neighbouring countries.[5][56] According to Naylor, the policy advocated by signatories of the declaration would never be the "controlled demographic burn that some zealots imagine", and because of exponential growth of infections would lead to a situation where "with masses of people sick in their 40s and 50s; hospitals will be over-run and deaths will skyrocket as they did in Italy and New York".[5] With the prospect of a vaccine available within months [of the October 2020 statement], Naylor questioned the logic of the Great Barrington strategy, asking: "Why on earth should we rush to embrace a reckless prescription for a demographically-selective national 'chickenpox party' involving a dangerous pathogen?"[5] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Critical_commentaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#C... It is questionable (to use a charitable term) whether "more" doctors doubt or support the interventions.
      - prohobo 5y ago
        That might be an argument you'd like to take to a proper debate. What we're arguing about is whether having such a debate constitutes "dangerous misinformation".
        jamienicol 5y ago
        The debate has been had. Rogan has been told countless times why he's wrong. He continues spewing dangerous misinformation regardless
        5y ago
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    I have never listen to a episode of JRE, but your link does not list a quote where he spreads misinformation himself. (unless you count a opinion “If you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, 'Should I get vaccinated?' I'll go, 'No.'”) I suppose the issue is with some of his guests - but I think it is very legit for a podcast to have controversial guests in a free world.
  - subpixel 5y ago
    While you’re telling the truth, calling someone who is defensive about a tribal identity to which they subscribe that they and their cohorts are all wrong is about as effective as telling an Insane Clown Posse fan that they are listening to bad music. It just gives them an enemy and makes them cling harder.
- eganist 5y ago
  > You're gonna have to back those bold claims up, otherwise what's stopping us from claiming that you are the culprit and should be gulag'd? There are six in here: https://www.insider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-episodes-that-spread-covid-misinformation-2022-1 https://www.insider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-episodes-that-spre... Further support of the first in that list: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rogan-dont-need-to-worry-vaccine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rogan-dont-need-to-worry-v... Further support of the fifth: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/31/joe-rogan/joe-rogan-falsely-says-mrna-vaccines-are-gene-ther/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/31/joe-rogan/... A separate 7th item: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/26/joe-rogan/spotifys-joe-rogan-repeats-inaccurate-claim-they-a/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/26/joe-rogan/...
  - prohobo 5y ago
    I said to explain how this is misinformation and dangerous, not show me episodes you don't like.
    - eganist 5y ago
      > I said to explain how this is misinformation and dangerous, not show me episodes you don't like. prohobo, you may wish to read the links for concrete answers to your request. The how is answered very directly, especially considering the bottom three links are all fact-checking sites that explain the how and the why. But if you don't care to, we can move on.
      - prohobo 5y ago
        I've read the articles: none of them explain how this is dangerous, and none of them have a compelling case that Joe Rogan or his guests intentionally lie to their audience. What they do is make arguments against their points, many of which aren't verifiable or are just opinions. I'm all for removing things that are empirically and logically "dangerous misinformation", but we have to actually prove it empirically and logically first. Can you do that?
- avs733 5y ago
  If you want proof let’s set some parameters on what you would consider sufficient for that proof.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    1) Prove it's misleading or incorrect information. Getting a fact wrong in a longform discussion doesn't count, it needs to be intentional. 2) Prove it's dangerous: either for individuals or communities.
    - avs733 5y ago
      So here’s where we have a problem… Proving something incorrect is proving proving the negative. That’s not how people engage in good faith argumentation. I’ll add, a traditional definition of “incorrect information” would primarily focus on factual accuracy over motivation. Why is it necessary to prove intentionality to prove incorrectness? All of this is before we acknowledge that you will never accept something as proven false, as proven intentional, or as proven harmful. Your standard is meaningless because it’s both incoherent and unmeetable. It’s also characteristic of arguments like this and why the ‘bullshit asymmetry’ concept exists. Trying to meet it is a distraction that simply serves to give your argument credibility because people engage with it in trying (hopelessly) to meet your asymmetric epistemically standards.
      - prohobo 5y ago
        What are you talking about? If you claim something is dangerous and want it removed, you better have god damn compelling evidence of the "danger". Explain what the danger is, and how it is manifesting. And intentionality is absolutely relevant to this, considering we are essentially judging a conversation between two people. Does the same conversation in a bar constitute misinformation? When does it go from conversation to declaration? When does opinion become misinformation? I'm not currently interested in whether what they're saying is true or not, I'm interested in whether it can be considered misinformation in spirit of the meaning of the word. If their intention is to discuss something sincerely, then it's not misinformation - it's opinion.
holbrad 5y ago
lowkey 5y ago
For the record, never once in history have the ones who banned the books and censored the people, been the good guys. Not once.
- johnmorrison 5y ago
  100% right. Good ideas do not require the censorship of bad ideas.
  - yokoprime 5y ago
    Good you guys are agreeing. I'm not sure what banning books has to do with anything. Nobody is "banning" Joe Rogan, he can make all the podcasts he wants. My issue with Spotify and Rogan is that my premium membership is directly funding him. If this was just another ad-supported podcast, available on Spotify, Apple podcasts etc - no problem, but it isn't. This is the core of the matter, not banning him.
    - johnmorrison 5y ago
      I pay for a full family premium plan, and I am very confident that the majority of premium Spotify customers either support Rogan or are indifferent in this issue. You decide whether you want to continue paying your premium plan. Spotify will acquire the content it believes is best for all users. You do not control their decisions just because you pay the subscription.

prohobo 5y ago

Blatant and dangerous misinformation? You're gonna have to back those bold claims up, otherwise what's stopping us from claiming that you are the culprit and should be gulag'd? You have no idea what you're talking about, which is what's so fucked up about this whole situation. This is all a dystopian cliche. Opinions are not misinformation, and looking at opposing evidence and arguments is not misinformation. It never was, and never will be. The only people who ever claimed such things are historically disgraced totalitarians. Misinformation comes from states and organizations with ulterior motives who twist and hide the truth for their own gain. It's about power. Crying out about how "dangerous" it is to have a real discussion that you don't like is ridiculously absurd. Are you saying adults are too stupid to think for themselves, or should not be allowed to take calculated risks? Do you have some kind of proof that having discussions is bad for individuals and/or communities in some way?

givinguflac 5y ago
- prohobo 5y ago
  > Found the JRE fan What is this, reddit? That's not proof of shit, many more doctors support questioning the Covid interventions. See: https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ What you are proving is that there's a discussion to be had that you want to stop, because what? You're scared?
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    No where in the declaration do I see the term "hospital capacity". One criticism, amongst many: > David Naylor, co-chair of the Government of Canada's COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, told the National Post: "Obviously, the Great Barrington fix will excite the minimizers who pretend COVID-19 is not much worse than the flu and enliven the libertarians who object to public health measures on principle … So be it: they've been offside all along."[5] Naylor also pointed out that a study published in August in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine examined Sweden's "no-lockdown" policy's effect on herd immunity among the Swedish population, finding it did not improve herd immunity despite higher rates of hospitalization and death than in neighbouring countries.[5][56] According to Naylor, the policy advocated by signatories of the declaration would never be the "controlled demographic burn that some zealots imagine", and because of exponential growth of infections would lead to a situation where "with masses of people sick in their 40s and 50s; hospitals will be over-run and deaths will skyrocket as they did in Italy and New York".[5] With the prospect of a vaccine available within months [of the October 2020 statement], Naylor questioned the logic of the Great Barrington strategy, asking: "Why on earth should we rush to embrace a reckless prescription for a demographically-selective national 'chickenpox party' involving a dangerous pathogen?"[5] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Critical_commentaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#C... It is questionable (to use a charitable term) whether "more" doctors doubt or support the interventions.
    - prohobo 5y ago
      That might be an argument you'd like to take to a proper debate. What we're arguing about is whether having such a debate constitutes "dangerous misinformation".
      - jamienicol 5y ago
        The debate has been had. Rogan has been told countless times why he's wrong. He continues spewing dangerous misinformation regardless
        5y ago
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  I have never listen to a episode of JRE, but your link does not list a quote where he spreads misinformation himself. (unless you count a opinion “If you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, 'Should I get vaccinated?' I'll go, 'No.'”) I suppose the issue is with some of his guests - but I think it is very legit for a podcast to have controversial guests in a free world.
- subpixel 5y ago
  While you’re telling the truth, calling someone who is defensive about a tribal identity to which they subscribe that they and their cohorts are all wrong is about as effective as telling an Insane Clown Posse fan that they are listening to bad music. It just gives them an enemy and makes them cling harder.
eganist 5y ago
> You're gonna have to back those bold claims up, otherwise what's stopping us from claiming that you are the culprit and should be gulag'd? There are six in here: https://www.insider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-episodes-that-spread-covid-misinformation-2022-1 https://www.insider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-episodes-that-spre... Further support of the first in that list: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rogan-dont-need-to-worry-vaccine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rogan-dont-need-to-worry-v... Further support of the fifth: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/31/joe-rogan/joe-rogan-falsely-says-mrna-vaccines-are-gene-ther/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/31/joe-rogan/... A separate 7th item: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/26/joe-rogan/spotifys-joe-rogan-repeats-inaccurate-claim-they-a/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/26/joe-rogan/...
- prohobo 5y ago
  I said to explain how this is misinformation and dangerous, not show me episodes you don't like.
  - eganist 5y ago
    > I said to explain how this is misinformation and dangerous, not show me episodes you don't like. prohobo, you may wish to read the links for concrete answers to your request. The how is answered very directly, especially considering the bottom three links are all fact-checking sites that explain the how and the why. But if you don't care to, we can move on.
    - prohobo 5y ago
      I've read the articles: none of them explain how this is dangerous, and none of them have a compelling case that Joe Rogan or his guests intentionally lie to their audience. What they do is make arguments against their points, many of which aren't verifiable or are just opinions. I'm all for removing things that are empirically and logically "dangerous misinformation", but we have to actually prove it empirically and logically first. Can you do that?
avs733 5y ago
If you want proof let’s set some parameters on what you would consider sufficient for that proof.
- prohobo 5y ago
  1) Prove it's misleading or incorrect information. Getting a fact wrong in a longform discussion doesn't count, it needs to be intentional. 2) Prove it's dangerous: either for individuals or communities.
  - avs733 5y ago
    So here’s where we have a problem… Proving something incorrect is proving proving the negative. That’s not how people engage in good faith argumentation. I’ll add, a traditional definition of “incorrect information” would primarily focus on factual accuracy over motivation. Why is it necessary to prove intentionality to prove incorrectness? All of this is before we acknowledge that you will never accept something as proven false, as proven intentional, or as proven harmful. Your standard is meaningless because it’s both incoherent and unmeetable. It’s also characteristic of arguments like this and why the ‘bullshit asymmetry’ concept exists. Trying to meet it is a distraction that simply serves to give your argument credibility because people engage with it in trying (hopelessly) to meet your asymmetric epistemically standards.
    - prohobo 5y ago
      What are you talking about? If you claim something is dangerous and want it removed, you better have god damn compelling evidence of the "danger". Explain what the danger is, and how it is manifesting. And intentionality is absolutely relevant to this, considering we are essentially judging a conversation between two people. Does the same conversation in a bar constitute misinformation? When does it go from conversation to declaration? When does opinion become misinformation? I'm not currently interested in whether what they're saying is true or not, I'm interested in whether it can be considered misinformation in spirit of the meaning of the word. If their intention is to discuss something sincerely, then it's not misinformation - it's opinion.

holbrad 5y ago

lowkey 5y ago

For the record, never once in history have the ones who banned the books and censored the people, been the good guys. Not once.

johnmorrison 5y ago
100% right. Good ideas do not require the censorship of bad ideas.
- yokoprime 5y ago
  Good you guys are agreeing. I'm not sure what banning books has to do with anything. Nobody is "banning" Joe Rogan, he can make all the podcasts he wants. My issue with Spotify and Rogan is that my premium membership is directly funding him. If this was just another ad-supported podcast, available on Spotify, Apple podcasts etc - no problem, but it isn't. This is the core of the matter, not banning him.
  - johnmorrison 5y ago
    I pay for a full family premium plan, and I am very confident that the majority of premium Spotify customers either support Rogan or are indifferent in this issue. You decide whether you want to continue paying your premium plan. Spotify will acquire the content it believes is best for all users. You do not control their decisions just because you pay the subscription.