I frequently get annoyed at Joe and as an interviewer I think he got worse over time (perhaps ego). But I respect immensely that
- He stands for free speech and freedom of the arts. And has always done so consistently.
- He still comes out often to admit he is wrong or just an idiot on some topic.
- He has never called for the censorship of anyone else, in stark contrast to figures like Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow.
- Finally, he has on a variety of guests, his interview with Bernie Sanders was great, and the first time I understood more nuanced ideas of his politics.
I read that differently: it’s not raw intelligence but the self-image of being an intellectual without actually doing the homework — like the people who have various hot takes based on some post they read who then start doing the “mainstream science is wrong about …” dance with the voice of authority but no actual understanding of the field. We’ve seen that a lot during the pandemic with various claims about things like HCQ, Ivermectin, vitamin D, etc. where people would a strong position that something worked but really had no expertise in the field to assess those claims.
Rogan is dangerous because he’s an entertainer who needs controversy to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in viewership but a lot of his audience think he’s giving them something more than that.
By that logic, Neil Young is also dangerous. Technically they're both as dangerous as any other media personality or entertainer with a mic (or platform) and an opinion. You shouldn't be listening to Rogan without questioning, nor should you listen to MSM without questioning. Treating what they say as something that needs to be curtailed is at best patronizing to the millions of people that are in the audience, and autocratic/authoritarian at worst.
Saying that he's specifically dangerous (without highlighting that it's the same for others in MSM) is in fact dangerous because it's cherry picking what fits your biased narrative.
When you try to dismiss that as a “biased narrative” or “authoritarian” it demonstrates the danger of this intellectual sloppiness: you’re conflating two positions as equally worthy of attention without acknowledging that one of them has near-unanimous consensus among experts and has been extensively validated. Trying to “both sides this without accounting for that weight is making you less informed, not more.
How is Neil Young adding any value to the world by this action? Do you really see Joe as a threat to something? What is it?
It's especially interesting to see you attack the scientific consensus as a “biased narrative” because that's what you are actually trying to promote. The scientific process isn't perfect but it includes a lot of effort to avoid bias, starting with how things like experiments are designed and conducted. Claiming that someone else's politically-motivated position deserves equal weight is revealing that the problem here isn't bias but rather that it's not biased in the direction you would like.
What makes you think he does that? And if so, isn't this exactly the same thing that MSM does?
Then again if you read my comment carefully, you can see that I'm not "dismissing" what Neil himself is saying/doing, but what the comment I'm replying to did, which is labeling one thing as dangerous and the other as not. Which IMO is dangerous for the opinion holder themselves because it eradicates any chance of self-inspection.
I'd really like you to specify as clearly and concisely as possibly why you think the two positions are not equally worthy of my attention:
- A) the experts that are pro something
- B) the experts that are against something
Is it just the "near-unanimous consensus" as you put it? How is it near-unanimous? and who's consensus is it? And does consensus make things unquestionable? Not exactly clear on what you're trying to say.
Or are you saying that the people Rogan brings on are not experts? Or were experts and not anymore? If so, please provide some examples.
Now, that might be a sad, slightly comical end to a career if it was something harmless — similar to how, say, the creationists would latch onto one guy with a Ph.D in something science-related to say there was a controversy — but it’s medical malpractice at a time when thousands of people are dying daily and vaccination lowers that number by at least an order of magnitude.
Malone is the discoverer of in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection [1] and architect of mRNA vaccine platform (check the 9 patents he holds) [2].
Please don't take what I'm saying here as an attack on you personally, but what makes you capable of saying that he's not an expert on "what other people subsequently did over the next 3 decades". And what sort of credentials you personally have to say that whatever medication he's endorsing "don’t work", or that "he’s no longer willing to meet the standards of being a scientist". What are those standards? Is it that he's not part of the consensus you're speaking of?
With that being said, I'm absolutely NOT saying that he is right and the others are wrong either. But to pretend that he's dangerous and others are not just because he doesn't bias in the direction you like is not a good reason really to dismiss it, or to want to brand whatever show he gets hosted on as "dangerous" for doing so. He has as much right to say his mind as others. He's no more dangerous than Anthony Fauci or any other expert involved.
1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC297778/pdf/pnas...
That’s what matters when discussing his expertise on the subject of the COVID vaccine. It doesn’t matter how great he might have been at one of the many parts of the scientific process which got us here, what matters is the topic we’re actually discussing. Scientists are not like you see in the movies: nobody is an expert at everything and they’re not perfect, either — that’s why the process is built around adversarial review since everyone makes mistakes. Linus Pauling was a Nobel laureate and by all accounts a brilliant researcher but that didn’t mean he was right about vitamin megadoses.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/23/dc-anti-v...
Like what? From your Atlantic piece this seems to be the closest to a false claim and its pretty underwhelming. These pieces read more like I should be upset because he appears is in the same sentence as Steve Bannon or the Proud Boys than the actual content of what he has said.
"Malone may keep company with vaccine skeptics, but he insists he is not one himself. His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions. Speaking as a doctor, he would probably recommend their use only for those at highest risk from COVID-19. Everyone else should be wary" [1]
> and speaking at antivax events.
The one linked in your second article is an Anti-Vaccine Mandate event, which is not the same thing as being anti vaccine. It's possible to appreciate the benefits of vaccines and simultaneous think the government shouldn't force everyone to take one.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...
In other words you are so concerned about the credibility of one person, but you don’t seem to care that the entire field has compromised its own credibility by the behavior of its leading figures and key institutions.
Consensus among experts hasn't meant anything more than protection of the ruling class. See Wright brothers and even vaccination for other examples.
The story of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family definitely exposes issues with the FDA, but I'm not sure it's a good example of expert consensus getting it wrong. (Not to say that expert consensus is always right.)
While Joe Rogan frequently calls himself an idiot (meaning it in the sense that we are all idiots about certain topics, but especially him since he often covers topics that are new to him) while bringing in smart people with opposing views and learning from them.
One of these people is representing himself more honestly than the other, and it’s not who you think.
And there is and should be no rule that all discussions of important topics need to be academically rigorous as defined by you.
I'm sympathetic to Neil on this one but he's just signalling to his tribe and won't have an impact on anybody else.
Also, this usage of the word danger puts a bad taste in my mouth. I really struggle to agree that a podcaster is dangerous, even to the public good, just by his exercise of free speech.
I've talked with a lot of people who enjoy JRE and other skeptical podcasts, not one of them thinks of themselves as more-intellectual or superior to others who don't.
>Young sings, "I want a cup of coffee but I don't want a GMO" https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/arockstarbucksacof...
1. Yes, I’m aware of the value of GMOs for improving crop yield. That’s important, likely necessary to mitigate the impact of climate change, but it’s not a direct cause of death like a virus and most of the food insecurity in the world traces back to politics rather than an absolute shortage.
refusing to vaccinate or wear masks, means that if you get sick, you will make others sick
In contrast, the link between GMOs and food insecurity is nowhere near that simple. If you are starving because you are a member of an ethnic group which is not in power, GMOs won't do a thing. If you are starving because you don't own your farmland and the owner charges too much in rent, GMOs won't change that dynamic. If you are starving because you lack adequate water or have contaminated farmland, GMOs may or may not help enough to make a difference. If you are starving because insects or fungus destroy your crops, GMOs might help if you can afford the seeds but not if, say, they help by letting the crops survive if you spread pesticides which you can't afford. If you are starving because your lack of access to birth control means that you (as was common throughout human history) have more children than your farmland can feed, GMOs probably won't help enough to change your life. If you are starving because other economic conditions force you to sell too much of your crop to pay for other things like shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. GMOs won't really help, either. If you have any of these problems and the company which made the GMOs won't sell you seeds at an affordable price, well, guess what?
That's not saying that GMOs don't have a useful place — as you might note, I described them as necessary for the impacts of climate change on agriculture — but unlike COVID there isn't a single problem and it's not something which can be fixed with a cheap, infrequent action. The problems GMOs help with are only part of a complex set of overlapping problems and they don't solve anything as much as they help manage it — American farmers jumped on Roundup-resistant crops for obvious reasons but it wasn't a game changer for them because the benefits are partially canceled by the ongoing cost of buying seed and pesticides.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Yearly deaths due to hunger : 9 million
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty...
More people may die from hunger than Covid :https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaynaharris/2020/07/09/more-pe...
Yearly hunger deaths are nearly double Covid deaths.
One of the major issues with hunger is that you can not just ship food from a place that has it to a place that doesn't, that ends up wiping out local farmers and creating more food instability.
GMO are the best way to create crops that are drought and insect resistant. This is huge in bot resisting the effects of global warming and also reducing the amount of pesticides we use.
The idea that we can have food that is better for us and the environment and yet there are people that do their best to prevent it's use is insane.
And your final line about him being dangerous because he inspires people to have opinions about things they are not qualified to assess... Utter garbage. First of all, you don't know anything about his audience, their qualifications and their opinions and conclusions. Second, this line of thinking would extend to all media. Here, let me give you a contemporary example:
- Masks aren't necessary, just wash your hands
- Wear masks
- Closing schools is good
- Closing schools is bad
- The vaccine stops the spread - Don't need masks if you're vaxxed
- The vaccine was never meant to stop the spread, sorry you interpreted it that way - Fauci's own words (how many people died because we were told that the vaxxed don't have to worry about infecting anyone any more?)
- Wear masks even though you're vaxxed
- Get the Vax to save others even though it doesn't stop the spread
The mainstream media has been a pile of hot garbage and endless contradictions during the pandemic. You're expected to just take everything they say at face value and "trust the science". That right there is what's truly dangerous.
The media and government should be honest and explain that "the science" is far from conclusive, rapidly evolving, and that there are many unknowns. Instead, they of course assume that everyone is a moron and must be told what to do.
The idea that Rogan is dangerous because some morons may do whatever a guest tells them to do is full of hypocrisy. That, and neither Rogan nor his guests actually tell anyone what to do. But they may inspire people to ask questions and dig deeper. And the fact that this is so frowned upon in this day in age, is the tragedy of our time.
Masks aren't effective You wont need more than 2 vaccinations There are 0 side effects You cannot get covid if you are vaccinated You cannot get hospitalized from covid if you are vaccinated You cannot die from covid if you are vaccinated There will never be vaccine mandate Covid natural immunity is worse than the vaccine
All these things were false when they said them and are still false today. Furthermore at the time they were said the actual data said the opposite.
Seems to me they way more dangerous than Rogan as they are supposed to be sources of trust to the American people but instead are just making up stuff to fit their political narrative. IMO if these so called sources of trust didn't straight up lie to the public for 2 years, Rogan would not be able to sway so many people.
Refusing to have Jordan Peterson, a psychologist, on your show to say pseudo-intellectual nonsense like "climate doesn't exist" is not censorship, it's just basic editorial sense. Rogan somehow fools people into thinking this lack of sense is a virtue.
That's the point. He's not a rando anymore but he absolutely was (at least as a talkshow host). Joe was indeed "some guy with a mic and a laptop recording the show" as you describe (here, check the first episode https://www.facebook.com/JoeRoganClips/videos/the-very-first..., sorry for FB link, but I can't find it anywhere anymore).
> he’s getting paid millions of dollars by a corporation to speak exclusively on their platform
He may be getting paid a lot for his show by Spotify, but he's no corporate media. From what I see he's still as genuine as he was before the exclusive deal. Joe has a family and he made it big, which pissed off the "we tell the population what to believe" crowd.
> He’s horoscopes and crystals for people who think they’re intellectuals.
What this tells me is that you haven't listened to that show at all. You couldn't be more wrong on this, it's pretty much as far away from that type of BS as it can get. Mainstream media is at this point the horoscope/crystal people.
That makes him a rando for the majority of people just like me, those who are not interested in or follow MMA.
The point I was making is not whether he’s really a rando or not, TV journalists sure think he is, because according to them he shouldn’t get a seat on the table.
I'd probably agree with that, depending on the reason for gathering around the table.
If the topic is professional fighting or podcasting, he belongs there. If the topic is immigration policy or foreign affairs, he probably shouldn't be invited.
Is there anybody who deserves a seat at every table or, conversely, at no tables?
"TV journalists" criticize him for spreading misinformation.
It is really very hard to think of a more exact description of "corporate media" than a media that gets funded by the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars by a corporation for the rights.
He is literally corporate media.
I quite disagree. But say thats true, so what? Whether he's some rando or not, we should be able to choose who we want to listen to. Shout out to the "muh private company" peeps. I know you're out there
>He’s horoscopes and crystals for people who think they’re intellectuals.
In all honesty, I think you're proving the point that online hatred needs to be curbed before it becomes overwhelmingly destructive to society. Who are these people who so obviously wrongly think of themselves as intellectuals, in your mind, when they really are nothing of the sort? ALL of Joe Rogans listeners, or just the ones opposed to government-enforced medical procedures?
> The true con in all of this is ..
.. is that its possible to espouse hatred (calling Joe Rogan a con, people 'think they are intellectuals', etc.) for an out-group and not be called to task over the reasoning behind that hatred.
Do you hate Joe Rogan because he's mainstream, or because he espouses a view that is not mainstream while appearing to be a mainstream media personality? How is it possible to hold both positions?
Personally, I am not pro-Joe Rogan, I enjoy his podcasts but don't agree with his personality and find his views on some things utterly intolerable, but I am anti-hate speech, which we have seen has allowed the commitment and further justification of so many actual crimes in Americas' socio-political environment recently. Surely there comes a time in every American's mind where they need to balance the strength of their states freedom-granting instruments (the Bill of Rights) with their desire to tone-police the cultures they don't like into oblivion... isn't this how the Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria/Yemen mess got started in the first place - Americans deciding they don't like the voices of some out-group?
It's that he is mainstream and provably wrong most of the times he opens his mouth, and barely any opposition is ever allowed onto the podcast. It is an actual example of an "ideological echo chamber", unlike most of the times a conservative proclaims it.
Essentially, you are saying you despise Joe Rogan because he's mainstream, pretending not to be, and mis-informing, while also pretending not to .. so does this begin a new era in the American socio-political landscape where news is no longer going to be used to propagandize an entire country, and 'mainstream media' is going to be held to much, much higher levels of truthful standards than ever before?
Because its going to be great to see the disinformation inherent in the modern American media landscape be replaced with actual truth-telling. Like, a lot of us who don't live in that bubble are going to be very relieved to see the truth being told, for a change, about such things as Ukraine, Yemen, and so on ..
Or do we only care about Joe Rogan because he impacts the lives of fellow American citizens?
>he is mainstream and provably wrong most of the times he opens his mouth
I mean, this is your stated opinion.
But he's not mainstream or we'd be seeing his show on the televisions in the airport - instead he's only available on special platforms that have to be sought out .. and your opinion that he is wrong most of the time is also specious.
But lets assume that both of these points of view are 'true': now that it is okay to start cancelling 'mainstream shows' because of the disinformation they spread, do you support the winding down of CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times - who have each been found guilty of spreading disinformation multiple times in their history?
The issue is, at what point is 'your side' more informative than 'the other side'? When it becomes mainstream? When it has the approval of known, entrenched establishment entities who stand to profit a great deal from their disinformation campaigns (as is the case with CNN/MSNBC/etc.)?
Mostly, I just want to understand why cancelling mainstream shows should stop at Joe Rogan, in your mind.
I'd LOVE to see CNN and Rachel Maddow - and Tucker Carlson, too - get cancelled in my lifetime over their quite clearly profit-motivated propaganda activities .. so if that is the inevitable end result of the "Cancel Joe Rogan Movement", then - sorry Joe - I'm in.
Because your definition of mainstream is incredibly narrow. In the age of the Internet, mostly boomers and some gen X are watching TV. I don’t watch what’s on any tv anywhere. I haven’t used TV in the traditional sense in over a decade and that’s very common in my demographic. To me - those “news” networks spread as much disinformation as Joe Rogan does. (Which is to say - a lot and practically all the time)
Rogan isn’t that mainstream but he’s influential enough that you can tell what he’s covered recently by all of the people talking about it. Whatever he used to be, he’s mainstream now.
Not at first he didn't.