To be fair... his move to Spotify coincided with him spewing more and more anti-vax and anti-mask drivel that I don't have any interest in listening to.
Also, there seems to be a lot of judgement of the kind of person Joe Rogan is (conspiracy, etc) in the comments. I have never once listened to Joe Rogan to listen to Joe Rogan. The fact of the matter is he gets fantastic guests doing long form conversations. I only ever showed up for the guests. Generally also the case for many other podcasts, Lex Friedman, Tim Ferris, etc.... the value they bring is more the guests they attract and the space they create for the guest.
I guess it would be interesting to deep fake the voice of the host and see how many people actually cared about the host.
The Life Scientific
Ted Interview
How I Built This
TWIML
This Week in Virology
Freakonomics
The Changelog
And Lex Fridman and Tim Ferris have their own shows
Coincidentally, around the same time he went to Spotify, I started getting really annoyed at his butting in and his opinions on matters that his guests know a lot more about. I've caught a clip or two on YT in recent months and I skip over any parts where the camera is on Joe, so I can just hear the guest.
I wonder how good GPT would be at generating questions to a guest based on their work and interests. Having a GPT driven interviewer could be quite interesting as a gimmick.
I listen to his show sometimes, and while I've heard him have guests on from all sides of these issues, at no point have I heard him be anything less than a thoughtful, critical interviewer.
If that's "drivel", we need more drivel. I'll certainly take it over everything I see on cable news, which is laser-focused on advancing a particular narrative, and demonizing anything and anyone who might deviate from that narrative.
1. I interview a handful of people who have differing opinions on what it takes to lead a SaaS startup who have all had successful exist, but have differing opinions on key issues. Maybe throw in a few people who have experience working in that type of environment, but maybe not leading, if you want a little more variety.
2. I interview someone who has led a successful exit like in (1), but I also interview a full time commission visual artist who has never worked at a SaaS startup. I give both their ideas on how to run a SaaS startup equal weight, even when the visual artist isn't making any sense in the context of the conversation or is spewing nonsense in the context of the conversation.
Joe does (2). They are both "free speech", but only one is actually useful.
Lol.
Having some people not appear on a given podcast is not a "free speech" issue. Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.
Conflating criticism with calls for government censorship is a dishonest rhetorical tactic.
I'm not confused.
> Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.
When someone decides for me that "dangerous idiots" should not have a voice -- for whatever justification -- I'm against them having the ability to act on that impulse. The wonderful thing about free speech is that if you don't like it, you're free not to listen to it.
Every censor has started from the premise that they're doing good. I don't agree with your opinions, and I'm not so feeble-minded as to be unable to decide for myself what I see.
Let me just reiterate this, on the one-in-a-million chance that you actually don't get it: Joe Rogan can restrict the speech of whomever he fucking wants, for ANY reason, and that does NOT constitute any actual restraint on anyone's "free speech" rights.
Ha ha.
Notably, free speech absolutism is impossible to refute if everyone is arguing in good faith. Since quite a few influential political actors are demonstrably not, and are following well-defined tactics dating back to various fascist regimes such as those who produced WWII, it is insane to pretend everyone is arguing in good faith.
And it is both instructive and dismaying to see that the people most obviously arguing in bad faith have a tendency to insist, and get others to insist, that free speech must be absolute and that everyone must be taken with the assumption that they're arguing in good faith.
Tactically, it makes perfect sense, but it's a hell of an exploit.
There is no workable censorship regime that does not devolve into ideological warfare.
Also the absolutist position ignores the limited capacity both in raw time and cognitively to take in information and that pushing people to do better about not spewing out or supporting bullshit is also free speech..
The whole "both sides" thing is the _worst_ of cable news and why I signed off years ago. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? Let's get a crazy person on and see. It's okay because we'll give an expert a few minutes too.
OP doesn’t claim Rogan should be de-platofrmed. Just that pushing batshit theories is an explanation for his declining influence. I enjoy watching flat earthers from time to time. But I’m not going to make it a part of my information diet.
Some Polio vaccines were contaminated with SV40 for years, and it does, in fact, alter human DNA.
For COVID-19, there have been at least 2 major cases of live virus vaccine contamination and recall. In the case of the Sputnik vaccine in Brazil and South Africa, there are claims that at least some made it into patients.
And then the "Baltimore Factory" testimony before Congress included company executives admitting to making ~100 million contaminated doses, more than the number of safe doses they had produced.
So this "don't mind him, he does conspiracies" attitude isn't doing anything except getting nods from those that don't need convincing, and proving to skeptics that you have a knowledge gap, whether it's ultimately relevant or true (or not).
I don't think it's currently happening happening here (at a minimum, adenovirus doesn't alter your DNA), but I also think it's just as reckless to imply that any concerns aren't legitimate or that it's impossible.
>>polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. There have been many questions as to the effects on people who received the contaminated vaccine. SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, but researchers have not conclusively established whether or not it could cause cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk.
>>However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221112/
That sounds like a load of nonsense?
>sciencebasedmedicine dot org
>> This one popped up at that online repository of all things quackery, NaturalNews.com
lol, pot, meet kettle.
Why can't you trust the science?
Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in human brain and bone tumours
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9776221/
Sequence analyses of human tumor-associated SV40 DNAs and SV40 viral isolates from monkeys and humans
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9584955/
Human cytomegalovirus major immediate early gene product can induce SV40 DNA replication in human embryonic lung cells
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2173262/
Phylogenetic analysis of polyomavirus simian virus 40 from monkeys and humans reveals genetic variation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15308725/
SV40 DNA in human osteosarcomas shows sequence variation among T-antigen genes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9311596/
Natural simian virus 40 strains are present in human choroid plexus and ependymoma tumors
> That sounds like a load of nonsense?
"Based on these limitations, the committee concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer."
There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines. First, this was a contamination issue with polio vaccines between 1955 and 1961, long since fixed (and unlikely to happen again, as it is now much easier to detect this kind of contamination). Second, there has never been any good evidence that the 'contaminated' vaccines ever did anyone any harm.
>In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.
>long since fixed (and unlikely to happen again, as it is now much easier to detect this kind of contamination)
Multiple vaccines have already been recalled due to contamination, after they passed initial qaqc.
How does that make it unlikely that contaminated products don't go undetected?
My point isn't that vaccine's shouldn't be taken.
It's that the same people that constantly complain about pharmaceutical companies taking shortcuts and behaving unethically, suddenly decide the same companies are infallible when it comes to a rushed development of a product, from which they are fully shielded from liability.
>There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines
When someone suggests a concern is scifi conspiracy theory nonsense, and that concern has actually historically happened, then it's absolutely relevant.
The scare tactics are bad enough, but don't try to trick people with lies and outright manipulation, and there won't be anything to call out.
Come on – this is just the standard ass-covering language in a scientific paper. "Further research is needed." By the nature of the case it's very hard to conclusively show that no-one has ever had a cancer caused by a 1960s Polio vaccine. But at present there is no good evidence that this has happened, as the paper that you linked to states very clearly.
Any medication can contain contaminants. I do not understand why you think that the mere abstract possibility that any given vaccine might contain contaminants is relevant to COVID vaccination efforts. This is like cautioning against people taking Aspirin because any given Aspirin pill might contain contaminants.
That's not a standard "further research needed" statement.
>the mere abstract possibility that any given vaccine might contain contaminants
Because other medicine isn't mandated, isn't developed in under a year, and isn't given statutory waivers of liability.
My point isn't "don't get vaccinated",
but that claiming "a vaccine altering human DNA is conspiracy theory nonsense" is a bad take, because it's factually wrong and has actually happened.
Right, and the Harvard Mark II had a moth that caused it to malfunction, therefore we can't trust the Apple M1.
This is the level of reasoning that anti-vaxers have sunk to. It's deliberate ignorance and sophistry.
Anti-vaxers aren't "asking questions". They aren't curious about actual reality. They are very confused people who want to maintain a simplistic (maybe naturalistic, who knows?) worldview and are increasingly twisted in knots and therefore filled with cognitive dissonance.
I personally don't like hunting down morons, but when they step on stage and refuse to yield, the should absolutely be mocked, shamed, and embarrassed, maybe even more so that they risk the health and safety of others with their idiocy. They didn't reason themselves into their positions, so I see no reason why we should try to reason them out.
Done.
Just like the chair you're sitting in is stationary according to your frame of reference, while from another it is hurtling through space.
There's no such thing as a "normal" frame of reference.
> the geocentricists tried to build mechanical models but the increasing number of epicycles was a big clue that the system was in fact heliocentric.
Not exactly, it was a big clue that the planets did not move in perfect circles. The mechanical models did not provide any evidence of heliocentrism. It was Galileo's observations of Venus that torpedoed the geocentric theory.
The Sun has a certain mass, the Earth has a certain mass, the center of the point of orbit of both (barycenter? That seems to be the right term) is inside of the Sun no matter what frame you hang out in. What am I missing?
Such as the word "sunrise" is very geocentric. We don't even have a word for the heliocentric term for the same thing. We also use geocentric phrases like "jets chasing the Sun" and "sundials track the movement of the Sun", etc.
Yes. It's what I've been talking about in this thread. You could always, of course, demand that the local TV station change the word "sunrise" to "when the Earth rotates until the Sun shines on the TV station", but I suspect that won't be successful.
A rotating reference frame is different. A local experiment can tell you whether you're rotating and how fast you're rotating.
[1] http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...
I bet you have. From your frame of reference, the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I also bet if I asked you "which direction should be a rocket be launched into earth orbit to minimize fuel consumption" you'll have to stop and think about it.
Props to Bernie for taking the battle to the middle ground though and not preaching only to the choir. He kind of got shit on for that as well.
Whether you like him or not, or agree with his views, is entirely subjective. But it's interesting to see how much control people want over others by the topics and conversation they want to prevent and suppress, and those actions speak far louder than words.
> When you have extremists on and don't challenge what they're saying, that _is_ pushing a narrative.
This is in spite of his politics.
There are plenty of people who are exposed to (far)left perspectives from his show - do you take issue with that?
You are evidently very unwilling to accept the claim, so I don't think anything said here will convince you otherwise, but perhaps it is meaningful that so many people are convinced of it.
Very few people have such trouble with his massive variety of guests, topics and politics; otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular podcast in the world.
An obvious example of this in action, is Jordan Peterson, who the left almost universally detests. He's neither alt-right nor far-right, and yet the left tries to slander and control him with that label constantly (bury him under fake labels). If you're not in total agreement with them, you're the enemy; that's widely the ethos of the intolerant left today. Rogan has given people like Peterson a large platform to speak through. That's the sort of thing the left hates Rogan for.
The biggest social media site is Facebook. Facebook is very right leaning.
The biggest cable news/punditry channel is Fox. Fox is _very_ right leaning.
The rest of cable news is mostly centrist, certainly not left. MSNBC is vaguely left, that's about it.
Radio is dominated by right-wing blowhards.
Where is my 95% exactly?
> They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.
would you consider biden left?
By US standards, he's a moderate. So no, still not left. And that's why he got elected.
It used to be the best when there was regulation that made sure equal amounts of attention were devoted to both sides of an issue with proper research.
What we have today are ideological echo chambers with some caricature of an opposing side, not actual debate.
I used to listen when there were an interesting guest just to hear them talk at length about their profession/passions, but it's no longer worth it if the cost is giving rogan a podium for his self-proclaimed-moron-disclaimed pot-stirring efforts.
He is the least critical interviewer you can imagine. Being uncritical and hyped up is his trademark. He is Mr. Softball to the extent he is made of fun for it.
He is not thoughtful. He has talent of speaking endlessly and keeping it going endlessly.
This is the same way John Stewart and Stephen Colbert hid behind, "I'm just a comedian." It's a great strategy if you can pull it off.
What's scarier are the persons who for the law are considered entertainment, but conduct themselves on Fox as if they're real journalists, and lie and deceive with impunity. If Joe Rogan could disrupt the right media with that, the same way John and maybe Stephen did on the left side, the world would be a better place for sure.
I’d say a special mention in the first amendment is notable.
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privil...
Rogan feels like he wants it both ways. He wants to pick the people for his show and get credit when he picks well, but if people dislike one of his picks he would suddenly like to be seen as 'mixing it up' or a "cage fight commentator." He won't really own a view (or the idea of wanting to expose people to particular thinkers), but he would rather bring people on in a way where he's seen as minimally responsible for the uncomfortable content he produces.
I lean more towards he’s looking for affirmation to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.
If he was looking for the best ideas, he would of had a completely different set of guests.
Then how can you honestly believe he's just looking for the best ideas?
If he was just some random dude none of this would matter. But with 11 million followers, sometimes this "my youtube research is just as valid as your scientific research" attitude can do real harm, as it did with vaccines.
The more you claim to be the one to take seriously, the less serious anyone will want to take you. Especially if you do it in a negative fashion blocking others rather than putting out your own message. There's far more to influence, trust, and authenticity than claiming you're right or deducing everything to some rational puzzle, and perhaps that's the biggest lesson of all.
I lost interest too.
That being said, I've lost interested mostly because his guests have been less interesting (lately, mostly his comedian/fighter friends).
BTW, anyone has good podcasts in the same vein to recommend?
"People say, do you think it's safe to get vaccinated? I've said, yeah, I think for the most part it's safe to get vaccinated. I do. I do," Rogan said on the podcast. "But if you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I'll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy person?"
"If you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you're eating well," Rogan continued, "like, I don't think you need to worry about this."
If this is what you are referring to, is that really anti-vax?
Yes that's anti-vax. We get vaccinated not just to protect ourselves from death, but also to protect those around us by reducing the transmission of disease.
> Vaccination only protects you
False. Vaccinated people can still get sick, and vaccination reduces the spread of disease, protecting people that aren't you.
Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.
Based on evidence from clinical trials, in people aged 18 years and older, the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.
The J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine was 66.3% effective in clinical trials (efficacy) at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received the vaccine and had no evidence of being previously infected. People had the most protection 2 weeks after getting vaccinated.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
The calculus with delta is different, as it does seem that vaccinated people can spread delta. But the severity of that spread, as well as the amount of time a vaccinated person can spread it, is certainly lower than that of an unvaccinated person.
The main purpose of getting the vaccine isn't just to protect yourself -- it's to reduce the chances of you transmitting it to others. It's about herd immunity, not personal immunity. Whether you're young and healthy is irrelevant.
You can make the argument that getting vaccinated reduces the risk of you being hospitalized, which keeps a bed and a nurse available for someone else. Thats a much more valid argument to make.
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2
Edit: for those downvoting me, I’ve added a reference for more information
This is my understanding as well, which was why I decided to get vaccinated. If avoiding infection is impossible in the long run, I should help my immune system prepare for it.
I wonder how differently things would be going if the campaign was "Covid is here to stay. You will get it. Get vaccinated."
Maybe it would help, maybe not.
I actually heard someone say that today, but I don't remember where. Maybe Breaking Points, but not sure.
I was certainly rattled when I saw amateur video of hospital workers stacking bodies in a freezer truck in NYC. They should do more like that. As morbid as it is, it gets the point across.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/disturbing-footage-shows-dead-...
This wasn't the one I saw but you get the idea.
Not about personal immunity? Why did we roll it out by age group then?
It wasn't about saving the most lives per se. It was about reducing the load on the medical system. I suspect those outcomes are strongly correlated.
How can you think it was about anything but saving lives? The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics in this thread is incredible. The vaccine offers personal immunity thats why we gave it to the most at risk groups first.
Rogan is against wearing masks but demands all of his guests to be tested for COVID-19 before going on his show which is kind of contradictory.
He's also spoken about the whole point of him having FU money is that he is able to say whatever he wants and not care about the blowback.
I'm not anti-vax, but ultimately, my body, my choice. People who are risk averse are free to self-quarantine for any duration they please. Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live freely and face any associated risks - just like people who decide to ride motorcycles, play combat sports, or eat homegrown food.
And do not be silly: healthy food is way more expensive per calory.
The VE is reduced with delta, but its still nonzero (most of the studies of what it really is are still incredibly poor though, but nothing has show it to be below 50% VE against infection).
The initial comparable viral load studies are also all bad. All they did was compare Ct of RNA loads. We now know that there is less infectious virus in vaccinated individuals, and that Ct values themselves decline faster, which indicates they're producing more viral debris -- we expect studies of transmission to show that they transmit less. Older studies from earlier this year against Alpha found that 80% of vaccinated breakthrough infections produced zero transmitted secondary infections with the other 20% only infecting 1-3 other people.
That is sufficient enough impact on infection and transmission to end the pandemic if everyone was vaccinated.
Unfortunately, everyone, including many scientists are panicking in the face of uncertainty over the delta variant and assuming the absolute worst and spreading worst-case messages which are portraying vaccines as not being worthwhile, when they're still effective enough.
It is scary what some societies throughout history have defined as "perfectly reasonable".
I think you've got the wrong analogies going there. You, the unvaccinated, are principally putting yourselves at risk but you are also, and more importantly, putting others at increased risk of transmission from yourself.
Adjusting your content for accuracy: you, the unvaccinated, are not allowed by society to do anything you want. Just like you cannot drive drunk, shoot firearms inside city limits, urinate on the street, sell poop sandwiches as a food product, etc.
I know. We, the vaccinated, are also not free to do whatever we want. If the chance of transmission between vaccinated & unvaccinated ever equalizes, there would obviously be no reason for different treatment. But just because vaccinated people can transmit doesn't mean they are as likely to.
What an interesting choice of examples.... Can't help but thinking one of these things is not like the others.
So, no -- I do not have to accept the hypothetical, strawman consequences that you fantasize about.
So I assume you agree to not come running to the hospital when you get infected, taking away beds for other patients who shouldn't have to suffer because of your ignorance?
Oh, and getting COVID and needing hospitalization absolutely does not mean that I will be taking away a bed from someone who needs it. You're so desperate to spew your hate that you actually made that strawman assumption; that's laughable. If you were actually honest, you would know that after the shortage of beds and ventilators, hospitals are now much, much better prepared to handle spikes in hospitalizations.
It appears the only ignorance here is yours, buddy.
Agree?
EDIT: Downvoted for pointing out smearing/bullying and dropping factual information. @dang - is this what HN is about? This has got to change.