4 ms·

This is a million times better than some attempt to talk over the top of the other person an a Joe Rogan podcast and pretending that something even vaguely rese

by mhoad 3y ago

This is a million times better than some attempt to talk over the top of the other person an a Joe Rogan podcast and pretending that something even vaguely resembling science or a debate has occurred.

HideousKojima 3y ago
And Rogan's style is better than not permitting dissenting opinions at all.
- wcerfgba 3y ago
  Except when he unquestioningly platforms conspiracy theorists, quacks, climate change deniers, transphobes, and eugenicists.
  - azangru 3y ago
    Questioningly. He asks his interviewees questions; they respond; as a result, we get a better opportunity to learn what and how they think.
brutusborn 3y ago
I’m skeptical that this is currently possible for the topic du jour (vaccines and pharmaceuticals) simply because the vast majority of funding is from private companies with no incentive to find problems with their products and with the ability to financially punish those who look for problems. If adversarial studies occurred it would make those debates a lot more valuable, since the discussion could be based on comparisons of the adversarial research rather than the current ‘pharma bad’ or ‘skeptics bad’ framing.
azangru 3y ago
> some attempt to talk over the top of the other person an a Joe Rogan podcast Do you have a particular example in mind when that happened? I am trying to remember any live debate on Rogan, and could only come up Tim Pool vs Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde; but I do not remember them talking over each other.