6 ms·

Joe Rogan actually just made that basic point in his response regarding the Spotify controversy. He thanked even his haters and addressed the concerns. Some cha

Joe Rogan actually just made that basic point in his response regarding the Spotify controversy. He thanked even his haters and addressed the concerns. Some changes have already been made. He was very gracious to Neil Young to boot. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/ https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/ If more people had that kind of response and mindset, maybe we could get back to solving problems instead of the constant tit for tat tribalism that is in the process of destroying us.

teachrdan 5y ago
Honest question: If Joe Rogan continues to amplify the voices of conspiracists, and his listeners continue to heed them -- for example, by refusing to get vaccinated against Covid -- does his thanking his "haters" matter? Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny that Covid is a threat or that climate change is real? I don't mean to sound like a dick here. But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm.
- rsfayez 5y ago
  > "But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm." 1000000% agreed
- the-dude 5y ago
  Just for the record : I don't deny that COVID is a threat, and still I am not vaccinated and probably won't be. And it is not because I have complications, I just don't feel like it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- steelstraw 5y ago
  I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only thing that works over the course of time is fighting bad information with better information. Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work" and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned people for that and yet still think they should be the gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the heretics.
  - watwut 5y ago
    "Open dialog" and "intentionally lying or misleading for political purposes" are in direct opposition. The latter kills former. I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am saying we should stop pretending the discussion has anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to drive ratings.
    - steelstraw 5y ago
      You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.
      - 5y ago
- vngzs 5y ago
  While I agree that the content of one's apology is largely irrelevant here (actions speak louder than words), the video makes two substantive claims about changes when controversial opinions about about covid-19 are presented: 1. A disclaimer at the beginning of the video will instruct people to consult their physician and provide a warning that the views expressed are "against the current consensus of experts." 2. When a controversial expert is interviewed, the following videos will feature experts who hold the mainstream viewpoint, serving to counterbalance the claims of a small minority. Time will tell if this happens, but I find the above points far more meaningful than any apology.
- jorgesborges 5y ago
  I think when you call certain people conspiracists it’s unproductive. Who are you referring to? Sure Alex Jones is a nutty conspiracy theorist. But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? No, that’s unfair. Did you watch the posted ten minute video? Have you watched any of his podcasts in full? He explains why he has those guests on and concedes with some gratitude the idea that he ought to have more guests on that can communicate the opposing views, especially soon after a controversial guest. The alleged harm he’s perpetrating in having conversations is way less dangerous than a full-steam-ahead into uncritical, contrived, and corrupt thought control from established institutions and governments.
  - feoren 5y ago
    > But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one way is surely good in all ways. If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person, I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he has to say, but I would still immediately classify him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (one who espouses a nutty conspiracy theory). It wouldn't really diminish everything else he's done, and I would view it as an incredibly sad case of an otherwise amazing brain getting infected by a particularly virulent mind-virus. Say Joe Rogan split his segment into two halves, and the first half was devoted to someone arguing that the 14th century was invented by the Illuminati in order to hide the fact that Finland doesn't really exist and is just a cover to hide the fact that Russian fishermen discovered aliens there, who took their bodies and are now infiltrating society, etc. etc. The second half was devoted to an actual historian saying "um, no, that's really ridiculous for many reasons". Would you call that fair and balanced? Is that a good point-counterpoint? Hell no. It's the classic false equivalency, fake-centrist B.S. that is used so often to promote crazy and dangerous ideas.
    - jorgesborges 5y ago
      Are you saying that lizard theory is fairly analogous to physicians questioning the efficacy of health protocols during an unprecedented global pandemic?
- aeternum 5y ago
  > Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny <x> No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true.
  - chernevik 5y ago
    Good point. I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the conspiracy.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      Yes exactly, too late to edit but thanks for the clarification.
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    > Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true. Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fraud because: "Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables -- which are everything -- to that set. But how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything?"[1] > By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. It's not clear to me if you personally believe this statement or if it's a reference to irrational conspiratorial thinking. But we deny platforms all the time. You won't find Holocaust deniers getting equal time in a history textbook. You similarly won't find flat Earthers teaching geology at an accredited university. And when Joe Rogan got paid $100 million for having a popular podcast, he was incentivized to appeal to an increasingly irrational listener base, regardless of what the truth was. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/1... https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-science-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-...
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  The most harmful conspiracies have always been the ones invented and circulated by the government and the corporate media outlets clutching their pearls about, "misinformation". Bay of Tonkin, babies ripped out of incubators, WMD in Iraq, Saran gas attacks by Syria, the president is a Russian spy. I don't mean to sound like a dick here, but I think it's a big of a red herring to focus on the supposedly harmful conspiracies being peddled by independent voices when the loudest and most powerful voices constantly peddle far more harmful conspiracies.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Kranar 5y ago
He's been saying that for years though, from the time he perpetuated 9/11 being an inside job, to arguing that the moon landing was a hoax, to his current position on COVID. What exact mindset inspired by Joe Rogan would you advocate for people? To believe in and promote fringe opinions for the sake of being contrarian, and then after some degree of damage has been done you go ahead apologize for it, say you're going to work harder only until the next fringe idea comes along for you to capitalize off of? I don't agree that such a mindset would help accomplish much.
- steelstraw 5y ago
  It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the show given that Twitter-like characterization. At least watch that 10 minute video. The mindset in question is represented there.
  - CharlesW 5y ago
    The parent's response suggests that he's watched the show a lot, and probably more than you have. The Instagram video was vetted (and possibly written) by Spotify's legal team, and is not representative.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sol_invictus 5y ago
  The mindset you describe is a mindset of exploration, adventure and tinkering. Occasionally it ends in catastrophe, but historically has been the driver of some of the greatest inventions. But such is the nature of nature; gains generally don’t come free. Ergo, your obedient unquestioning good citizen mentality is far less progressive & beneficial than you think it is.

teachrdan 5y ago

Honest question: If Joe Rogan continues to amplify the voices of conspiracists, and his listeners continue to heed them -- for example, by refusing to get vaccinated against Covid -- does his thanking his "haters" matter? Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny that Covid is a threat or that climate change is real? I don't mean to sound like a dick here. But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm.

rsfayez 5y ago
> "But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm." 1000000% agreed
the-dude 5y ago
Just for the record : I don't deny that COVID is a threat, and still I am not vaccinated and probably won't be. And it is not because I have complications, I just don't feel like it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
steelstraw 5y ago
I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only thing that works over the course of time is fighting bad information with better information. Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work" and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned people for that and yet still think they should be the gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the heretics.
- watwut 5y ago
  "Open dialog" and "intentionally lying or misleading for political purposes" are in direct opposition. The latter kills former. I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am saying we should stop pretending the discussion has anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to drive ratings.
  - steelstraw 5y ago
    You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.
    - 5y ago
vngzs 5y ago
While I agree that the content of one's apology is largely irrelevant here (actions speak louder than words), the video makes two substantive claims about changes when controversial opinions about about covid-19 are presented: 1. A disclaimer at the beginning of the video will instruct people to consult their physician and provide a warning that the views expressed are "against the current consensus of experts." 2. When a controversial expert is interviewed, the following videos will feature experts who hold the mainstream viewpoint, serving to counterbalance the claims of a small minority. Time will tell if this happens, but I find the above points far more meaningful than any apology.
jorgesborges 5y ago
I think when you call certain people conspiracists it’s unproductive. Who are you referring to? Sure Alex Jones is a nutty conspiracy theorist. But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? No, that’s unfair. Did you watch the posted ten minute video? Have you watched any of his podcasts in full? He explains why he has those guests on and concedes with some gratitude the idea that he ought to have more guests on that can communicate the opposing views, especially soon after a controversial guest. The alleged harm he’s perpetrating in having conversations is way less dangerous than a full-steam-ahead into uncritical, contrived, and corrupt thought control from established institutions and governments.
- feoren 5y ago
  > But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one way is surely good in all ways. If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person, I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he has to say, but I would still immediately classify him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (one who espouses a nutty conspiracy theory). It wouldn't really diminish everything else he's done, and I would view it as an incredibly sad case of an otherwise amazing brain getting infected by a particularly virulent mind-virus. Say Joe Rogan split his segment into two halves, and the first half was devoted to someone arguing that the 14th century was invented by the Illuminati in order to hide the fact that Finland doesn't really exist and is just a cover to hide the fact that Russian fishermen discovered aliens there, who took their bodies and are now infiltrating society, etc. etc. The second half was devoted to an actual historian saying "um, no, that's really ridiculous for many reasons". Would you call that fair and balanced? Is that a good point-counterpoint? Hell no. It's the classic false equivalency, fake-centrist B.S. that is used so often to promote crazy and dangerous ideas.
  - jorgesborges 5y ago
    Are you saying that lizard theory is fairly analogous to physicians questioning the efficacy of health protocols during an unprecedented global pandemic?
aeternum 5y ago
> Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny <x> No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true.
- chernevik 5y ago
  Good point. I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the conspiracy.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Yes exactly, too late to edit but thanks for the clarification.
- teachrdan 5y ago
  > Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true. Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fraud because: "Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables -- which are everything -- to that set. But how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything?"[1] > By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. It's not clear to me if you personally believe this statement or if it's a reference to irrational conspiratorial thinking. But we deny platforms all the time. You won't find Holocaust deniers getting equal time in a history textbook. You similarly won't find flat Earthers teaching geology at an accredited university. And when Joe Rogan got paid $100 million for having a popular podcast, he was incentivized to appeal to an increasingly irrational listener base, regardless of what the truth was. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/1... https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-science-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-...
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
The most harmful conspiracies have always been the ones invented and circulated by the government and the corporate media outlets clutching their pearls about, "misinformation". Bay of Tonkin, babies ripped out of incubators, WMD in Iraq, Saran gas attacks by Syria, the president is a Russian spy. I don't mean to sound like a dick here, but I think it's a big of a red herring to focus on the supposedly harmful conspiracies being peddled by independent voices when the loudest and most powerful voices constantly peddle far more harmful conspiracies.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Kranar 5y ago

He's been saying that for years though, from the time he perpetuated 9/11 being an inside job, to arguing that the moon landing was a hoax, to his current position on COVID. What exact mindset inspired by Joe Rogan would you advocate for people? To believe in and promote fringe opinions for the sake of being contrarian, and then after some degree of damage has been done you go ahead apologize for it, say you're going to work harder only until the next fringe idea comes along for you to capitalize off of? I don't agree that such a mindset would help accomplish much.

steelstraw 5y ago
It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the show given that Twitter-like characterization. At least watch that 10 minute video. The mindset in question is represented there.
- CharlesW 5y ago
  The parent's response suggests that he's watched the show a lot, and probably more than you have. The Instagram video was vetted (and possibly written) by Spotify's legal team, and is not representative.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sol_invictus 5y ago
The mindset you describe is a mindset of exploration, adventure and tinkering. Occasionally it ends in catastrophe, but historically has been the driver of some of the greatest inventions. But such is the nature of nature; gains generally don’t come free. Ergo, your obedient unquestioning good citizen mentality is far less progressive & beneficial than you think it is.