Joe Rogan

Wibble said:
If Rogan or anyone on his show said it was dark at night I'd have a look out of the curtains and ask for a second opinion. The quality of a source matters and so much nonsense, often dangerous nonsense, comes from that turd of a podcast that you would be mad listening to it, much less believe a single word you hear if you are foolish enough to do so. There are thousands of better, more reliable sources of information.

And thinking that ignoring the Cutter incident is advocating for disasters with modern vaccine production is the same as worrying that modern air transport isn't safe because of the Hindenburg disaster.
Click to expand...
I don’t really follow your point?
You seem to now dismiss literally everything on the podcasts? He’s had a lot of people on with a lot of different opinions, seems extremely narrow minded.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I don’t really follow your point?
You seem to now dismiss literally everything on the podcasts? He’s had a lot of people on with a lot of different opinions, seems extremely narrow minded.
Click to expand...
I thought that my point was rather obvious. If a journal is 80 or 90% nonsense you would never use it as a source, and use more reliable and informed sources instead - actually once it dips much below 100% correct (as per the current evidence) you would go elsewhere. It is basic academic integrity 101.

Rogan embraces utter nonsense and I wouldn't ever listen to his show, as there are easier ways to lose IQ. A stopped watch is incidentally right twice a day but I wouldn't use it to tell time.

My other point was the Cutter incident in 1955 is totally and utterly irrelevant and its use to try to validate anti-vax nonsense is as disingenuous as it is evil. Such nonsense has consequences and those consequences can be fatal.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I don’t really follow your point?
You seem to now dismiss literally everything on the podcasts? He’s had a lot of people on with a lot of different opinions, seems extremely narrow minded.
Click to expand...

Diverse opinions are fine when it comes to what was the best movie this year or whether Taylor Swift’s music is shit or not. They’re irrelevant when it comes to interpreting science though. And platforming outspoken scientists with fringe opinions is dangerous. Especially when you’re letting them speak directly to the sort of ill informed audience who listen to Joe Rogan.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I broadly agree but then what would you have him do? Even if he put a disclaimer, for example, on every episode it wouldn’t change things because I think people are already on one side or the other. The reality of what his show is, is about as good as it gets in terms of accessibility (his guest list is genuinely remarkable) so I completely understand his massive popularity but maybe the best format for scientific or controversial episodes would be to do the pods in pairs where he has one pro then one con filmed directly after one another. Even then I feel like as adults we should know to just not accept stuff, but that at least would give two view points and people an ability to then hear both sides I guess.
Click to expand...
What would I have him do? Essentially I would have him grow up and take some responsibility for the content he produces. So if he wants to have a controversial figure on, he is ready to push back on whatever lies they may tell by being properly prepared. And if something slips through the cracks, which of course can happen, he could issue corrections or clarifications. Instead he usually just sits there, mouth agape, lending legitimacy to everything from vaccine skepticism to Nazi apologia.

Some people will say he has the right to free speech, the listeners can make their own judgements, he is just providing a platform, yada, yada, yada. To me that's super naive. Rogan essentially makes editorial choices by virtue of the guests he has on and the topics they discuss. He has to own that and the impact it has.
 
Wibble said:
I thought that my point was rather obvious. If a journal is 80 or 90% nonsense you would never use it as a source, and use more reliable and informed sources instead - actually once it dips much below 100% correct (as per the current evidence) you would go elsewhere. It is basic academic integrity 101.

Rogan embraces utter nonsense and I wouldn't ever listen to his show, as there are easier ways to lose IQ. A stopped watch is incidentally right twice a day but I wouldn't use it to tell time.

My other point was the Cutter incident in 1955 is totally and utterly irrelevant and its use to try to validate anti-vax nonsense is as disingenuous as it is evil. Such nonsense has consequences and those consequences can be fatal.
Click to expand...
How are you judging that though? No offence but you’re somewhat proving the point of dismissing everything because it comes from a certain source.

Forget this woman and just look at something less contentious, like the mushroom guy who regularly goes on. How are you judging the credibility without watching the episodes?
 
Mike Smalling said:
What would I have him do? Essentially I would have him grow up and take some responsibility for the content he produces. So if he wants to have a controversial figure on, he is ready to push back on whatever lies they may tell by being properly prepared. And if something slips through the cracks, which of course can happen, he could issue corrections or clarifications. Instead he usually just sits there, mouth agape, lending legitimacy to everything from vaccine skepticism to Nazi apologia.

Some people will say he has the right to free speech, the listeners can make their own judgements, he is just providing a platform, yada, yada, yada. To me that's super naive. Rogan essentially makes editorial choices by virtue of the guests he has on and the topics they discuss. He has to own that and the impact it has.
Click to expand...
You have to believe in free speech though, surely? I would also say go through his guests, how many are in this group that are ‘controversial’?

He gets people on who people are interested in and will get views. I’m not a fan of his political views but I don’t immediately jump to wanting to somehow censor him.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Diverse opinions are fine when it comes to what was the best movie this year or whether Taylor Swift’s music is shit or not. They’re irrelevant when it comes to interpreting science though. And platforming outspoken scientists with fringe opinions is dangerous. Especially when you’re letting them speak directly to the sort of ill informed audience who listen to Joe Rogan.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think he could have anyone on and they could say anything. I get the idea of pushback, but that’s not how he’s ever really marketed himself or what the pod is about. The idea is simply here’s someone you most likely have not heard talk in this setting and let’s find out what they’re into. Now it’s a bit more political sure, but I skip loads of episodes purely on who the person is/the subject. If there is a demand for something, the question is why is there a demand and why do people want to believe it?

You can’t go around deciding who is reputable enough to be heard, you have to educate people to the level required that these kind of people don’t have enough enough of a presence/following to make it into mainstream media.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
You can’t go around deciding who is reputable enough to be heard, you have to educate people to the level required that these kind of people don’t have enough enough of a presence/following to make it into mainstream media.
Click to expand...
Yes you can decide who is reputable enough. That's literally what reputation means.

Education to the point where nobody can be duped by grifters on any subject is not possible.

You're basically arguing against the scientific method, legitimising any twat saying whatever nonsense suits them.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
You have to believe in free speech though, surely? I would also say go through his guests, how many are in this group that are ‘controversial’?

He gets people on who people are interested in and will get views. I’m not a fan of his political views but I don’t immediately jump to wanting to somehow censor him.
Click to expand...
Of course, he can do whatever he wants. I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm simply saying that I personally think some responsibility comes along with getting millions of listeners. It's only about a month ago he had a literal Nazi apologist on the show. A guy who has been condemned by Yad Vashem, the ADL, and Jewish U.S. lawmakers alike. Now why do you think this happens?
 
moses said:
Yes you can decide who is reputable enough. That's literally what reputation means.

Education to the point where nobody can be duped by grifters on any subject is not possible.

You're basically arguing against the scientific method, legitimising any twat saying whatever nonsense suits them.
Click to expand...
no need to swear, I wouldn’t say everyone on Rogan has been a twat. Magnus Carlson was on the other day, what’s he done to annoy you?

I disagree though, as soon as you begin to pick and choose you start to censor in some form. Either you believe in free speech and just accept there will always be morons on the world or you don’t believe it in.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Of course, he can do whatever he wants. I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm simply saying that I personally think some responsibility comes along with getting millions of listeners. It's only about a month ago he had a literal Nazi apologist on the show. A guy who has been condemned by Yad Vashem, the ADL, and Jewish U.S. lawmakers alike. Now why do you think this happens?
Click to expand...
Ok in that case that’s fine. I think it happens because there’s an issue, maybe more in the US than here, of that ideology appealing to people. Stopping that is more important.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
no need to swear, I wouldn’t say everyone on Rogan has been a twat. Magnus Carlson was on the other day, what’s he done to annoy you?

I disagree though, as soon as you begin to pick and choose you start to censor in some form. Either you believe in free speech and just accept there will always be morons on the world or you don’t believe it in.
Click to expand...
Nonody is saying everyone on Rogan is the issue. That's a ridiculous argument. It's specific guests on specific topics that skew the narrative dangerously.

Pointing out people are not experts is not censorship.

And some of them are indeed twats
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Ok in that case that’s fine. I think it happens because there’s an issue, maybe more in the US than here, of that ideology appealing to people. Stopping that is more important.
Click to expand...
Then I would say that media has a lot of sway in terms of what ideologies is appealing to people. In the most extreme case, don't you think Fox News has a lot to answer for in terms of poisoning the minds of Americans over the last 30-40 years? Or do you think it's simply a case of telling them what they already wanted to hear? I'm definitely on the former. Influential media, including Joe Rogan, has a role in shaping public opinion. He should be aware of that.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Then I would say that media has a lot of sway in terms of what ideologies is appealing to people. In the most extreme case, don't you think Fox News has a lot to answer for in terms of poisoning the minds of Americans over the last 30-40 years? Or do you think it's simply a case of telling them what they already wanted to hear? I'm definitely on the former. Influential media, including Joe Rogan, has a role in shaping public opinion. He should be aware of that.
Click to expand...
That I agree with but how are you stopping it? In my mind either you do something trivial (like some of the suggestions I made before) or you censor in some way.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
That I agree with but how are you stopping it? In my mind either you do something trivial (like some of the suggestions I made before) or you censor in some way.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure government has a role in stopping it, unless it gets to an extreme point. Holocaust denial is illegal is many countries, for instance. But for now, I just think he deserves all the criticism he gets, and I would never listen to his podcasts. That's it.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Give a realistic solution?
Click to expand...
The solution is personally to not listen to a show with no balance in the selection of guests or accountability for what they say and beyond that, pointing out that a show with no balance in the selection of guests or accountability for what they say is a dangerous cesspit in terms of the 'information' it shares.

And then you tell me I'm pro censorship and against free speech? You are ok with the shit spouted oh Joe Rogan but you draw the line at me saying it's an appalling platform? Hmm.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I'm not sure government has a role in stopping it, unless it gets to an extreme point. Holocaust denial is illegal is many countries, for instance. But for now, I just think he deserves all the criticism he gets, and I would never listen to his podcasts. That's it.
Click to expand...
That’s a reasonable take. Ill personally keep watching guests I think are interesting but again I don’t think the issue is him, its the reason some of the more controversial guests get airtime at all.
 
moses said:
The solution is personally to not listen to a show with no balance in the selection of guests or accountability for what they say and beyond that, pointing out that a show with no balance in the selection of guests or accountability for what they say is a dangerous cesspit in terms of the 'information' it shares.

And then you tell me I'm pro censorship and against free speech? You are ok with the shit spouted oh Joe Rogan but you draw the line at me saying it's an appalling platform? Hmm.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. If your choice was to not listen, why would I say that?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
That makes no sense. If your choice was to not listen, why would I say that?
Click to expand...
You brought up censorship and free speech when I criticised the content. You brought up that not all his guests were guilty of misinformation when nobody said they were.

You asked me what my solution was. I explained that I chose not to listen and point out the issues with the show. Simple.

It would be easier to understand if you didn't tie the conversation in knots trying to defend Joe Rogan.
 
moses said:
You brought up censorship and free speech when I criticised the content. You brought up that not all his guests were guilty of misinformation when nobody said they were.

You asked me what my solution was. I explained that I chose not to listen and point out the issues with the show. Simple.

It would be easier to understand if you didn't tie the conversation in knots trying to defend Joe Rogan.
Click to expand...
You’re so keen to try and get a ‘win’ you’ve made yourself look a bit silly. Please go chronologically through your posts and mine and explain your post above?

Where has my reply not been in context of what you have written? Where has my reply
tied the conversation in knots?
 
moses said:
He was making a point (not very well I might add) about idiots of a particular bent being given an unchallenged platform and altering the narrative with no real pushback, which has real world consequences, because in Rogan's case the guests don't cover the spectrum in any equal way. And they counter any external pushback with "it's only a chat, I never claimed to be an expert".

When a show with such a massive reach keeps giving uncritical space to a certain type of guest, often espousing masculinist, supposedly anti-establishment, and quite chauvinistic views, it starts to feel intentional. The whole “I’m just a guy asking questions” to a "non expert interested party" thing can be a shield that avoids accountability, especially when those questions only ever go in one direction. And certain perspectives just never get airtime at all, and that tells a story in itself.

Because the vibe of the show is so casual and matey it flies under the radar of overt propaganda, but still shapes a lot of people's worldviews through repetition and familiarity. A kind of soft influence that’s very real.

It's like a club for wealthy white dudes with members that just sit on each others podcasts backing each other up.
Click to expand...
Ditto
 
tomaldinho1 said:
You’re so keen to try and get a ‘win’ you’ve made yourself look a bit silly. Please go chronologically through your posts and mine and explain your post above?

Where has my reply not been in context of what you have written? Where has my reply
tied the conversation in knots?
Click to expand...

I've been posting the same thing for two days. Apropos of nothing you have brought up nonsense like free speech, censorship and Magnus Carlson to try and derail the conversation. You also clearly don't know what the word reputation means and when it was pointed out to you, you just changed tack. Good luck.
 
moses said:
I've been posting the same thing for two days. Apropos of nothing you have brought up nonsense like free speech, censorship and Magnus Carlson to try and derail the conversation. You also clearly don't know what the word reputation means and when it was pointed out to you, you just changed tack. Good luck.
Click to expand...
So you don’t want to do as asked and provide some proof from my posts (literally about 2-3 posts all above here in easy reach) of how I did what you said? Got it, tells me everything I need to know.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
So you don’t want to do as asked and provide some proof from my posts (literally about 2-3 posts all above here in easy reach) of how I did what you said? Got it, tells me everything I need to know.
Click to expand...
I just did. You brought in several straw men, I pointed it out twice.

Are you ok?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I disagree. I think he could have anyone on and they could say anything. I get the idea of pushback, but that’s not how he’s ever really marketed himself or what the pod is about. The idea is simply here’s someone you most likely have not heard talk in this setting and let’s find out what they’re into. Now it’s a bit more political sure, but I skip loads of episodes purely on who the person is/the subject. If there is a demand for something, the question is why is there a demand and why do people want to believe it?

You can’t go around deciding who is reputable enough to be heard, you have to educate people to the level required that these kind of people don’t have enough enough of a presence/following to make it into mainstream media.
Click to expand...

That is literally the responsibility of anyone who chooses to work in media. If you give someone a platform then the consequences are on you if that person is sharing misinformation. I don’t know how anyone who spends time on redcafe would have an issue with this? Look at the way we police all the transfer rumour stuff. Sources matter. You can’t just say everyone deserves to be heard because freedom of speech.
 
When and why did he turn from a dumb yet curious ex fighter with half interesting guests to an old grumpy and ignorant right wing idiot? Or did he just hide that side until he got famous enough to not give a feck anymore?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That is literally the responsibility of anyone who chooses to work in media. If you give someone a platform then the consequences are on you if that person is sharing misinformation. I don’t know how anyone who spends time on redcafe would have an issue with this? Look at the way we police all the transfer rumour stuff. Sources matter. You can’t just say everyone deserves to be heard because freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Surely this example would support my view? Because many lower tier/untrustworthy journos get traction despite the best efforts of mods. Redcaf does not really stop some clickbait headline taking off, the people on here (myself included) try and point out if the source is shit but it generates discussion and often is referenced time and again. Should mods put a quality control tag on every post that references a lower tier join to for example?
 
Godfather said:
When and why did he turn from a dumb yet curious ex fighter with half interesting guests to an old grumpy and ignorant right wing idiot? Or did he just hide that side until he got famous enough to not give a feck anymore?
Click to expand...
There’s money to be made in shilling for the right
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Define?
Click to expand...
Because your are defending a right wing grifter, who makes his money by letting other grifters use the platform he provides. Which happens for the purpose of distributing propaganda and disinformation. And while you are doing that, you are failing to see that you are incapable of actually forming any coherent and reasonable argument in support of your incredibly naive and unfounded views. The way you are discussing this, is unworthy of the severity of the topic, you are obviously arguing in bad faith, you are steadily alleging that others are guilty of things you do yourself and you fail to accept even the most logical and rational arguments brought forward.
You do so, all while steadily shifting the goalposts to suit your agenda.
But the worst part is that you have clearly demonstrated that you don’t understand how science or research actually work, all while pointing to research you are unwilling or incapable of linking.
You are quite clearly a hardcore fan who struggles with criticism towards your hero, thus you’re having this embarrassing discussion, most likely leading to your reputation on this page being damaged for as long as your account exists.
Or, as I would call it, you’re having a meltdown.
 
Godfather said:
When and why did he turn from a dumb yet curious ex fighter with half interesting guests to an old grumpy and ignorant right wing idiot? Or did he just hide that side until he got famous enough to not give a feck anymore?
Click to expand...
He realised that right wingers are very dumb people who are easily exploited for monetary gain. And as he perfected his technique of making dumb dudes feel like they are smart critical thinkers, he’s getting richer and richer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.