4 ms·

Because there's no substance to these "challenges". It's just about pushing buttons and creating the appearance of controversy - nothing more. It seems like o

by vanusa 5y ago

Because there's no substance to these "challenges". It's just about pushing buttons and creating the appearance of controversy - nothing more. It seems like only people who correctly challenge it get respected. It's not about that. There's "wrong", and "not even wrong". Rogan's pronouncements fall squarely in the latter category. In addition to inducing people to harm themselves and others.

4oo4 5y ago
So anything challenging orthodoxy needs to be substantive to be tolerated as free speech? Who decides what is substantive? Even shit clickbait-y speech deserves tolerance just like "substantive" speech, whatever that means. I really don't like Joe Rogan and his brand of wishy-washy pseudointellectualism, but based on the sheer variety of people he's had on over the years, dismissing all of his content as clickbait and contrarian for controversy's sake is a mischaracterization. Who else has interviewed both Bernie Sanders and Alex Jones? Even if you don't like him I think he at the very least deserves respect for having such a wide range of guest on his show, and it's disingenuous to dismiss him entirely as unsubstantive. "In addition to inducing people to harm themselves and others". Again, who decides what is harmful?
- vanusa 5y ago
  Again, who decides what is harmful? Anyone with a 9th grade education or so. Which is sufficient to discern that his advice to 21-year olds as to whether they should get vaccinated is patently unsubstantiated -- and likely to cause harm.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Great, I have a 9th grade education and decide it's not harmful.
megaman821 5y ago
If a comedian/UFC commentator is communicating more effectively than the CDC, my first thought isn't cancel the comedian. What is the end-game here? There is amount of "canceling" that suddenly leads people to be more rational and critically thinking.
ALittleLight 5y ago
First, you seem to be shifting the goalposts a bit. We've gone from "Rogan isn't challenging orthodoxy" to "Rogan's challenges to orthodoxy aren't substantive in my view". Second, perhaps I'm just not understanding you, but your comment doesn't read to me as coming from someone who has listened to Rogan's podcast. Rogan doesn't monologue about his views on the vaccine. He has on domain experts with controversial opinions and has a conversation with them.
- vanusa 5y ago
  I certainly don't listen his program on a regular basis. But it's ironic that you're calling me out as unsourced; because the most important instance of a harmful anti-vax stance on his program comes not from his "domain experts" but from Rogan himself (as I verified before diving into this thread). BTW, I just need to repeat that most curious phrase you used that phrase, presumably in reference to Rogan's guests: "domain experts". And just let it... sit there.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    The recent vaccine-focused episodes, to my knowledge, feature the guests Robert Malone and Pierre Kory. Both are medical doctors with a history of academic papers on vaccines and critical care. Malone has also been involved in vaccine safety trials and with pioneering research in mRNA vaccines. I think you need to do a bit more than let the phrase "Domain experts" "sit there" if you hope to be persuasive.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      Both are certifiable cranks. No matter what they published in the past.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        It seems an awful lot like you're just declaring, without evidence, people who disagree with you as cranks. You think your view should be obvious, but you also aren't able to articulate it very well, or at all - beyond asserting your point and that those who disagree with you are non-substantive cranks.

by vanusa 5y ago

4oo4 5y ago

So anything challenging orthodoxy needs to be substantive to be tolerated as free speech? Who decides what is substantive? Even shit clickbait-y speech deserves tolerance just like "substantive" speech, whatever that means. I really don't like Joe Rogan and his brand of wishy-washy pseudointellectualism, but based on the sheer variety of people he's had on over the years, dismissing all of his content as clickbait and contrarian for controversy's sake is a mischaracterization. Who else has interviewed both Bernie Sanders and Alex Jones? Even if you don't like him I think he at the very least deserves respect for having such a wide range of guest on his show, and it's disingenuous to dismiss him entirely as unsubstantive. "In addition to inducing people to harm themselves and others". Again, who decides what is harmful?

vanusa 5y ago
Again, who decides what is harmful? Anyone with a 9th grade education or so. Which is sufficient to discern that his advice to 21-year olds as to whether they should get vaccinated is patently unsubstantiated -- and likely to cause harm.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Great, I have a 9th grade education and decide it's not harmful.

megaman821 5y ago

If a comedian/UFC commentator is communicating more effectively than the CDC, my first thought isn't cancel the comedian. What is the end-game here? There is amount of "canceling" that suddenly leads people to be more rational and critically thinking.

ALittleLight 5y ago

First, you seem to be shifting the goalposts a bit. We've gone from "Rogan isn't challenging orthodoxy" to "Rogan's challenges to orthodoxy aren't substantive in my view". Second, perhaps I'm just not understanding you, but your comment doesn't read to me as coming from someone who has listened to Rogan's podcast. Rogan doesn't monologue about his views on the vaccine. He has on domain experts with controversial opinions and has a conversation with them.

vanusa 5y ago
I certainly don't listen his program on a regular basis. But it's ironic that you're calling me out as unsourced; because the most important instance of a harmful anti-vax stance on his program comes not from his "domain experts" but from Rogan himself (as I verified before diving into this thread). BTW, I just need to repeat that most curious phrase you used that phrase, presumably in reference to Rogan's guests: "domain experts". And just let it... sit there.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  The recent vaccine-focused episodes, to my knowledge, feature the guests Robert Malone and Pierre Kory. Both are medical doctors with a history of academic papers on vaccines and critical care. Malone has also been involved in vaccine safety trials and with pioneering research in mRNA vaccines. I think you need to do a bit more than let the phrase "Domain experts" "sit there" if you hope to be persuasive.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Both are certifiable cranks. No matter what they published in the past.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      It seems an awful lot like you're just declaring, without evidence, people who disagree with you as cranks. You think your view should be obvious, but you also aren't able to articulate it very well, or at all - beyond asserting your point and that those who disagree with you are non-substantive cranks.