10 ms·

Going after the listeners' intelligence is petty and arrogant. I frequently get annoyed at Joe and as an interviewer I think he got worse over time (perhaps eg

• acdha 5y ago
  > Going after the listeners' intelligence is petty and arrogant. I read that differently: it’s not raw intelligence but the self-image of being an intellectual without actually doing the homework — like the people who have various hot takes based on some post they read who then start doing the “mainstream science is wrong about …” dance with the voice of authority but no actual understanding of the field. We’ve seen that a lot during the pandemic with various claims about things like HCQ, Ivermectin, vitamin D, etc. where people would a strong position that something worked but really had no expertise in the field to assess those claims. Rogan is dangerous because he’s an entertainer who needs controversy to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in viewership but a lot of his audience think he’s giving them something more than that.
  • nailer 5y ago
    • acdha 5y ago
      It’s not mandatory in Japan. What’s working there is basic public health principles applied diligently and vaccination: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/scicheck-japan-continues-to-use-vaccines-not-ivermectin-to-fight-covid-19/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/scicheck-japan-continues-t...
      • nailer 5y ago
        • acdha 5y ago
          If you read it, you’d learn otherwise. Far from being required, it’s not even approved! Here’s another article highlighting that the Japanese government is concerned about people mail-ordering it because it’s unapproved: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/21/national/ivermectin-japan-covid19-little-evidence/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/21/national/iverme... So … care to provide a source for any of your claims? If it’s mandatory, I’m sure it would be easy to point to the official government protocols.
          • nailer 5y ago
            Looks like Ivermectin is recommended The Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association but not mandatory. Why did you not just search it? You could have found this out for yourself. https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOFB25AAL0V20C21A1000000/ https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOFB25AAL0V20C21A1000000/ Click translate.
            • acdha 5y ago
              That’s much weaker than your original claim that it was mandatory for the entire country, and that story about requesting approval is a year old. If you read the recent information I gave you, note that this approval has not happened.
              • nailer 5y ago
                But it still proved the point that Ivermectin is a commonly regarded treatment for covid.
                • acdha 5y ago
                  No, it showed that one guy a year ago said it could be considered. His peers did not agree and year later it's still not approved because the evidence simply doesn't show it having any effect outside of a few flawed studies which have not held up to examination.
    • newbamboo 5y ago
      I don’t know about Japan, but New Jersey. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G433fa01oMU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G433fa01oMU
    • nailer 5y ago
      Relying toplevel as this is being buried: https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOFB25AAL0V20C21A1000000/ https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOFB25AAL0V20C21A1000000/ Click translate. Haruo Ozaki, chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, proposed emergency use of drugs mainly to prevent the severity of home caregivers in order to respond to the spread of the new coronavirus. He emphasized that antiparasitic drug "Ivermectin" should be administered to people infected with coronavirus because it has shown the effect of preventing severity overseas. In addition to Ivermectin, the country called for approval for the use of the steroid-based anti-inflammatory drug "dexamethathone". The Ozaki clan said, "(both) there are few side effects. I want the country to consider treatment at the level of the family doctor." Ivermectin and dexamethasone are prescribed in Japan. However, it has not been approved as a treatment for corona. As of the 8th, there are about 1,600 home recuperators in Tokyo, and about 1,600 people are "adjusted" without deciding where to be hospitalized. It is also a challenge to respond to sudden changes in the condition of home caregivers with mild and asymptomatic patients. Mr. Ozaki emphasized the number of new cases per day in Tokyo that "removing it to about 100 people is the way to improve the situation from April to June". On the 9th, 412 new cases were confirmed in Tokyo.
  • yessirwhatever 5y ago
    > Rogan is dangerous because he’s an entertainer who needs controversy to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in viewership but a lot of his audience think he’s giving them something more than that. By that logic, Neil Young is also dangerous. Technically they're both as dangerous as any other media personality or entertainer with a mic (or platform) and an opinion. You shouldn't be listening to Rogan without questioning, nor should you listen to MSM without questioning. Treating what they say as something that needs to be curtailed is at best patronizing to the millions of people that are in the audience, and autocratic/authoritarian at worst. Saying that he's specifically dangerous (without highlighting that it's the same for others in MSM) is in fact dangerous because it's cherry picking what fits your biased narrative.
    • acdha 5y ago
      There’s a key difference: Neil Young isn’t dangerous because he’s not portraying himself as someone he’s not. He’s not presenting contrarian hot takes but simply saying that the experts are right on this and we should listen to them. When you try to dismiss that as a “biased narrative” or “authoritarian” it demonstrates the danger of this intellectual sloppiness: you’re conflating two positions as equally worthy of attention without acknowledging that one of them has near-unanimous consensus among experts and has been extensively validated. Trying to “both sides this without accounting for that weight is making you less informed, not more.
      • DiggyJohnson 5y ago
        He’s literally virtue signaling trying to cancel another entertainers contract. It’s very authoritarian and bent towards a biased narrative. Maybe that’s not the words I would have used myself but I completely catch the meaning. How is Neil Young adding any value to the world by this action? Do you really see Joe as a threat to something? What is it?
        • acdha 5y ago
          It's not “virtue signaling” to say that someone should not use their platform to foment deadly misinformation. Rogan isn't talking about sports, or debating whether someone's music is better than another artist's, he's giving weight to people who are pedaling advice which will reliably harm people. It's especially interesting to see you attack the scientific consensus as a “biased narrative” because that's what you are actually trying to promote. The scientific process isn't perfect but it includes a lot of effort to avoid bias, starting with how things like experiments are designed and conducted. Claiming that someone else's politically-motivated position deserves equal weight is revealing that the problem here isn't bias but rather that it's not biased in the direction you would like.
  • DiggyJohnson 5y ago
    How is he more dangerous than corporate media interests? Also, this usage of the word danger puts a bad taste in my mouth. I really struggle to agree that a podcaster is dangerous, even to the public good, just by his exercise of free speech.
    • yessirwhatever 5y ago
      Exactly, it's this sort of fear-mongering that is exactly dangerous. I've talked with a lot of people who enjoy JRE and other skeptical podcasts, not one of them thinks of themselves as more-intellectual or superior to others who don't.
  • themaninthedark 5y ago
    Interesting, what is your take on Neil Young with regards to GMO? >Young sings, "I want a cup of coffee but I don't want a GMO" https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/arockstarbucksacoffeeshop.html https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/arockstarbucksacof...
    • UncleMeat 5y ago
      Young has been foolish and reactionary in his songs plenty of times. "Let's impeach the president" is not exactly lyrical nuance. That doesn't make Rogan better. He also doesn't have an army of fans who insist up and down that he is actually a proponent of reasoned analysis and listening to expertise.
      • acdha 5y ago
        I’m not saying that Young has all of the answers, only that in this case it’s good advice to go with the medical consensus when there’s an easy way to prevent thousands of deaths daily.
        • UncleMeat 5y ago
          I do agree with you, and Rogan has platformed a lot of people who are famous for opposing the medical consensus.
    • acdha 5y ago
      I disagree with blanket opposition to GMOs — there is legitimate concern about adequate regulation — but the stakes are far lower: thousands of people are dying every day from COVID-19 and vaccination lowers that rate by at least an order of magnitude, while nobody will die because they choose not to eat GMO[1]. I think there’s a really big distinction between having an opinion on a topic which does not have a simple consensus and offering comprehensively-disproven medical advice at a time when the daily death toll is measured in thousands and illness is causing widespread economic disruption. 1. Yes, I’m aware of the value of GMOs for improving crop yield. That’s important, likely necessary to mitigate the impact of climate change, but it’s not a direct cause of death like a virus and most of the food insecurity in the world traces back to politics rather than an absolute shortage.
  • jseban 5y ago
    Yeah, the problem is not intelligence, but the fact that he simply is uneducated, and does not have the skills of critical thinking, deduction and scientific method. Yet he poses as one, gets involved in debates and makes claims of which he is just not qualified at all. He is dangerous because he inspires people to have strong opinions and reach conclusions about things they are not qualified to assess.
    • cik2e 5y ago
      Assuming you're talking about Rogan here, and not one of his guests. He doesn't pose as anything, certainly not as an expert on topics that he's not. So everything besides MMA. Seems to me that you've never listened to his show. He never debates scientists or academics on their areas of expertise. He asks questions. And your final line about him being dangerous because he inspires people to have opinions about things they are not qualified to assess... Utter garbage. First of all, you don't know anything about his audience, their qualifications and their opinions and conclusions. Second, this line of thinking would extend to all media. Here, let me give you a contemporary example: - Masks aren't necessary, just wash your hands - Wear masks - Closing schools is good - Closing schools is bad - The vaccine stops the spread - Don't need masks if you're vaxxed - The vaccine was never meant to stop the spread, sorry you interpreted it that way - Fauci's own words (how many people died because we were told that the vaxxed don't have to worry about infecting anyone any more?) - Wear masks even though you're vaxxed - Get the Vax to save others even though it doesn't stop the spread The mainstream media has been a pile of hot garbage and endless contradictions during the pandemic. You're expected to just take everything they say at face value and "trust the science". That right there is what's truly dangerous. The media and government should be honest and explain that "the science" is far from conclusive, rapidly evolving, and that there are many unknowns. Instead, they of course assume that everyone is a moron and must be told what to do. The idea that Rogan is dangerous because some morons may do whatever a guest tells them to do is full of hypocrisy. That, and neither Rogan nor his guests actually tell anyone what to do. But they may inspire people to ask questions and dig deeper. And the fact that this is so frowned upon in this day in age, is the tragedy of our time.
  • keneda7 5y ago
    So by your logic every media member, fauci, and even the president is dangerous. They made a lot of serious claims that the data showed were completely false. Here are just a couple. Masks aren't effective You wont need more than 2 vaccinations There are 0 side effects You cannot get covid if you are vaccinated You cannot get hospitalized from covid if you are vaccinated You cannot die from covid if you are vaccinated There will never be vaccine mandate Covid natural immunity is worse than the vaccine All these things were false when they said them and are still false today. Furthermore at the time they were said the actual data said the opposite. Seems to me they way more dangerous than Rogan as they are supposed to be sources of trust to the American people but instead are just making up stuff to fit their political narrative. IMO if these so called sources of trust didn't straight up lie to the public for 2 years, Rogan would not be able to sway so many people.
• ohgodplsno 5y ago
  • criddell 5y ago
    What is it that he has to make up for? His guests cover a pretty broad spectrum. This is a genuine question because I haven't actually heard him push anti-vaccine sentiments, unless expressing an opinion is what you define as pushing. Or maybe he's gone beyond expressing opinions and is now seen as some kind of authority on the subject?
    • DiggyJohnson 5y ago
      Unfortunately “expressing an opinion” == “pushing” in the minds of many people these days.
      • 8note 5y ago
        He's got an audience. Expressing something becomes pushing it when you're telling to a large audience that trusts you
        • DiggyJohnson 5y ago
          I disagree strongly. I believe in intellectual agency. Where should the line be drawn?
  • progmetaldev 5y ago
    That really has more to do with a vocal minority that worship Joe Rogan, than what Joe himself has pushed. Any celebrity is going to have a group that takes what they've heard and blows it out of proportion.
• throwawayin16 5y ago
  • loudtieblahblah 5y ago
    You're only really informed if you listen and watch what you listen to, right?
    • throwawayin16 5y ago
      • beecafe 5y ago
        Doing that is just listening to the priest in your head rather than the one in front of you.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • throwawayin16 5y ago
          I don't mind those sorts. They're a breath of fresh air and a fun time. Anything but boring.
  • ramblerman 5y ago
    No need to throw insults from behind a throwaway. Comparing Joe to a 24H news channel is apples and oranges. People don't listen to Joe to know what happened yesterday. They tune in to hear about MMA, Comedians shooting shit, or for the guest's opinions. Getting opinions straight from the source, be it an Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders, or even a Vaccine Skeptical doctor can be refreshing. And Joe with all his flaws allows these people more time to express themselves than your regular gotcha interviews.
  • progmetaldev 5y ago
    Joe is first and foremost an entertainer, just like Neil Young. People should be able to make up their own minds about what they listen to. Joe Rogan has said controversial things that aren't true, but so has Neil Young. Neither side should be trying to force the other to not be heard. That's how we end up in an echo chamber. Allowing both sides to speak gives people the option to form opinions on their own, and hopefully that pushes them to investigate the actual truth (let's not pretend that either Joe or Neil are scientists and take their word at face value).
• hestefisk 5y ago
  With great power comes great responsibility, though.
• micromacrofoot 5y ago
  No it's not. Joe Rogan's content is objectively stupid. He somehow manages to amass an audience while entertaining some of the dumbest thoughts I've ever heard. He gives experts and charlatans the same platform, and treats them as though they're equally experienced or qualified. Refusing to have Jordan Peterson, a psychologist, on your show to say pseudo-intellectual nonsense like "climate doesn't exist" is not censorship, it's just basic editorial sense. Rogan somehow fools people into thinking this lack of sense is a virtue.
  • CountDrewku 5y ago
    • xnyan 5y ago
      Noting that someone is using a rhetorical tactic vs engaging with the argument shows me nothing other than that you will not or cannot engage with the argument. Try again.
      • CountDrewku 5y ago
        • micromacrofoot 5y ago
          "I’m not a doctor, I’m a fucking moron" I don't need to discredit anyone, he said it himself. Personally I think Joe Rogan can be very entertaining, but he needs to stop spouting conspiratorial nonsense like it's equally valid information. And if you want to claim logical fallacies, Rogan is constantly committing them himself! Post hoc ergo propter hoc, hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, circular arguments, appeals to false authority... his show is a complete circus of fallacies.
          • CountDrewku 5y ago