Going after the listeners' intelligence is petty and arrogant.
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.
> Going after the listeners' intelligence is petty and arrogant.
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.
> 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.
There’s a key difference: Neil Young isn’t dangerous because he’s not portraying himself as someone he’s not. He’s not presenting contrarian hot takes but simply saying that the experts are right on this and we should listen to them.
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.
Interesting point of view. So why are you labeling what the experts that Rogan brings on as "presenting contrarian hot takes"? Is it just because they're different from what another group of experts are saying? What gives one expert-group the right to say something more than what some other experts-group?
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.
It’s that they’re not experts at all. For example, Malone was involved in the earliest days of mRNA research in the 1980s. He’s not an expert on what other people subsequently did over the next 3 decades and his endorsement of medications which don’t work and the antivax movement shows that he’s no longer willing to meet the standards of being a scientist.
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.
To say that "Malone was involved in the earliest days of mRNA research in the 1980s" is an understatement to say the least really.
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.
Where was his involvement in the development or testing of the vaccines we’re actually using? The extensive safety and efficacy reviews which were conducted in multiple countries prior to authorization? The ongoing review since then?
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.
> Where was Fauci during the development of the vaccine?
This is such a weird question because the answer is obvious, he was working in a leading role as the head of a government agency who has to be involved with/aware of what is going on with the vaccine.
Fauci is not claiming that his views are based on being an inventor of the technology. He’s saying that he’s read the papers by the many scientists involved and is basing his advice on that heavily-reviewed work. Malone could submit his claims to the same process but he knows that they’d never hold up to examination.
It’s fine to criticize that, but you should be even handed and also acknowledge that establishment experts and captured mainstream institutions have tried very hard with deceptive tactics to hide any possibility (I said possibility… I didn’t say fact) that the people dying daily you are concerned about are dying from a virus released by a lab leak in a system managed by what would seem to be your preferred experts. The possibility is there and it should not be deflected from with deception and talking points.
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.
What is "antivax"? He was vaccinated against covid! And afaik doesn't question vaccination in general, he just has raised concerns about the MRNA Covid vaccines because of the Spike Protein. His concerns may be disproportionate and not necessarily what I'd prioritize during a global pandemic but saying he has blood on his hands and calling for censorship seems outrageous...
He’s making false claims about the vaccines’ safety and speaking at antivax events. He doesn’t need to believe what he’s saying - plenty of people find it profitable not to - but that’s irrelevant because his public statements have the same impact whether or not he believes them.
> He’s making false claims about the vaccines’ safety
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.
Curious about your thoughts regarding misinformation like, "only 1% of patients get addicted". In a single year that line killed more people under thirty than under thirty unvaccinated to covid will ever die. And it was propagated by expert consensus.
Consensus among experts hasn't meant anything more than protection of the ruling class. See Wright brothers and even vaccination for other examples.
Assuming you are talking about Oxycontin, the problem there was that there was no expert consensus - in fact there was no information at all on addictiveness - but the FDA still allowed that language to be used in the promotional literature. The guy who approved it ended up working for Purdue a few months after leaving the FDA.
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.)
Doctors were parroting the line and prescribing the drug anyway. Despite their perception as experts apparently a lot of them never bothered to cross check the alleged study with their common sense and previous training.
He’s literally virtue signaling trying to cancel another entertainers contract. It’s very authoritarian and bent towards a biased narrative. Maybe that’s not the words I would have used myself but I completely catch the meaning.
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 not “virtue signaling” to say that someone should not use their platform to foment deadly misinformation. Rogan isn't talking about sports, or debating whether someone's music is better than another artist's, he's giving weight to people who are pedaling advice which will reliably harm people.
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.
I think the point of the 1st amendment is that to distinguish speech is to apply bias - good or bad… the outcome of such action is selecting winners and losers and a path to oppression.
This is a very inaccurate understanding of the first amendment and freedom of speech in general. The first amendment prevents the government from restricting speech – King George cannot have cops quiet you in the town square — but it doesn't say anything about someone having the right to an audience or that anyone has an obligation to promote everyone else's speech — and, of course, if it did, Rogan certainly wouldn't meet that standard since he selects his guests based on what he thinks the audience will like rather than some attempt to present a full spectrum of opinions.
No, the difference is opposite from what you say: Neil Young is the one portraying himself as something he is not: a person who supports freedom.
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.
The best way to beat Neil Young is to be more popular than him. He's failed at this before. He wrote a song called Southern Man which got some airplay, but Lyrnyrd Skynyrd wrote a response that ended up being far, far more popular ("southern man don't need him anyhow") and ultimately Neil Young ended up regretting his original song because he realized it was condescending.
https://www.countryliving.com/life/entertainment/a43715/swee...
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.
How is he more dangerous than corporate media interests?
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.
Exactly, it's this sort of fear-mongering that is exactly dangerous.
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.
I disagree with blanket opposition to GMOs — there is legitimate concern about adequate regulation — but the stakes are far lower: thousands of people are dying every day from COVID-19 and vaccination lowers that rate by at least an order of magnitude, while nobody will die because they choose not to eat GMO[1]. I think there’s a really big distinction between having an opinion on a topic which does not have a simple consensus and offering comprehensively-disproven medical advice at a time when the daily death toll is measured in thousands and illness is causing widespread economic disruption.
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.
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.
Again, I don’t oppose GMOs (as you might note from the examples in my comment) but it’s the height of sophistry to claim that they’d solve this problem as effectively as vaccines reduce the risks from the virus actively circulating now. The latter is a direct causal relationship, the former is one factor affecting one of multiple overlapping problems.
You're comparing two different types of situation: the first is a direct casual relationship: if you get infected with the COVID-19 virus, you are less likely to infect others and are an order of magnitude less likely to die from it if you've been vaccinated — and that's a non-hypothetical situation with how widespread it is and the strain this has placed on the healthcare system, impacting patients with completely unrelated needs.
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.
Young has been foolish and reactionary in his songs plenty of times. "Let's impeach the president" is not exactly lyrical nuance. That doesn't make Rogan better. He also doesn't have an army of fans who insist up and down that he is actually a proponent of reasoned analysis and listening to expertise.
I’m not saying that Young has all of the answers, only that in this case it’s good advice to go with the medical consensus when there’s an easy way to prevent thousands of deaths daily.
> This is why "masks don't work" was truth from Fauci but wrong with Rand Paul said so about cloth masks.
This only works because you’re misrepresenting the claims: we always knew that masks worked but it was initially unclear how effective they were and widespread shortages lead to reasonable questions about reserving them for the highest risk jobs, not to mention avoiding people unnecessarily exposing themselves because they thought wearing a mask was safe. Remember, it still wasn’t clear exactly how COVID spread and it was quite plausible that someone might have, say, worn a mask but gotten infected by a droplet on their skin. There was also, as you might recall, considerable political pressure from the White House muddying the waters, too.
What’s tellingly different is what happened as the data became clear and the supply situation improved: Fauci wasn’t afraid to update what he said based on the evidence but the right-wingers you’re relying on repeatedly switched from one wrong thing to another because their goal was being politically correct rather than actually correct.
I’ve seen people on the left furious at Fauci for his errors. I’ve seen people on the left flabbergasted that the lab leak theory was initially dismissed and we all went along with it.
What is happening is that you have one side who expects to get it wrong sometimes: the left. And then you have the right, where getting it wrong is not allowed.
Don't you find it ironic that you are posting a comment about how people were flabbergasted that the lab leak theory was dismissed and banned from discussion, on a thread about someone being dismissed, and calls for his ban from discussion are coming from those same people who banned lab leak discussion?
So by your logic every media member, fauci, and even the president is dangerous. They made a lot of serious claims that the data showed were completely false. Here are just a couple.
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.
Yeah, the problem is not intelligence, but the fact that he simply is uneducated, and does not have the skills of critical thinking, deduction and scientific method. Yet he poses as one, gets involved in debates and makes claims of which he is just not qualified at all. He is dangerous because he inspires people to have strong opinions and reach conclusions about things they are not qualified to assess.
Assuming you're talking about Rogan here, and not one of his guests. He doesn't pose as anything, certainly not as an expert on topics that he's not. So everything besides MMA. Seems to me that you've never listened to his show. He never debates scientists or academics on their areas of expertise. He asks questions.
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.
That’s much weaker than your original claim that it was mandatory for the entire country, and that story about requesting approval is a year old. If you read the recent information I gave you, note that this approval has not happened.
No, it showed that one guy a year ago said it could be considered. His peers did not agree and year later it's still not approved because the evidence simply doesn't show it having any effect outside of a few flawed studies which have not held up to examination.
You didn’t debunk the 200 members of congress using ivermectin, you didn’t debunk the history of ivermectins use for coronaviruses and you describe chair of Tokyo Medical Association as “some dude”. You didn’t debunk the other poster mentioning New Jersey’s use of ivermectin either.
Haruo Ozaki, chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, proposed emergency use of drugs mainly to prevent the severity of home caregivers in order to respond to the spread of the new coronavirus. He emphasized that antiparasitic drug "Ivermectin" should be administered to people infected with coronavirus because it has shown the effect of preventing severity overseas.
In addition to Ivermectin, the country called for approval for the use of the steroid-based anti-inflammatory drug "dexamethathone". The Ozaki clan said, "(both) there are few side effects. I want the country to consider treatment at the level of the family doctor."
Ivermectin and dexamethasone are prescribed in Japan. However, it has not been approved as a treatment for corona. As of the 8th, there are about 1,600 home recuperators in Tokyo, and about 1,600 people are "adjusted" without deciding where to be hospitalized. It is also a challenge to respond to sudden changes in the condition of home caregivers with mild and asymptomatic patients.
Mr. Ozaki emphasized the number of new cases per day in Tokyo that "removing it to about 100 people is the way to improve the situation from April to June". On the 9th, 412 new cases were confirmed in Tokyo.
No it's not. Joe Rogan's content is objectively stupid. He somehow manages to amass an audience while entertaining some of the dumbest thoughts I've ever heard. He gives experts and charlatans the same platform, and treats them as though they're equally experienced or qualified.
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.
Noting that someone is using a rhetorical tactic vs engaging with the argument shows me nothing other than that you will not or cannot engage with the argument. Try again.
I don't need to discredit anyone, he said it himself.
Personally I think Joe Rogan can be very entertaining, but he needs to stop spouting conspiratorial nonsense like it's equally valid information.
And if you want to claim logical fallacies, Rogan is constantly committing them himself! Post hoc ergo propter hoc, hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, circular arguments, appeals to false authority... his show is a complete circus of fallacies.
Now who's pulling out a strawman? I didn't say Peterson shouldn't be able to speak, I said Joe Rogan is a moron for giving him a platform to do so.
Maybe I can't put together an argument, but what the hell are you out here doing? Defending the valor of a self-proclaimed idiot and the guy that thinks "there's no such thing as climate."
>Defending the valor of a self-proclaimed idiot and the guy that thinks "there's no such thing as climate."
Nope, this is your problem and most likely the reason you're having a hard time grasping the issue at hand.
I'm defending the right to speak without the fascist woke mob trying to silence it. I suggest you do some critical thinking and figure out why this is such an important thing in western society. This right applies to ALL or it applies to no one.
I don't watch John Oliver's show, but I don't need to... I can pretty confidently say things like:
* John Oliver hasn't told anyone that ivermectin is 99% effective but big pharma doesn't want you to know about it.
* John Oliver hasn't told young people that "I wouldn't get vaccinated"
* John Oliver hasn't blamed a white nationalist rally on the "feds"
* John Oliver didn't have a psychologist on his show to talk about how "there's no such thing as climate"
It has a lot to do with your comment... it's not an appeal to authority when the guy himself says he's a moron and no one should follow his advice. When he says something like that it leaves no choice but to listen to authority because he's clearly stated that he is not authoritative.
We're not talking a single authority here either... hundreds of doctors, including epidemiologists, have complained about Rogan's covid rhetoric... a subject he quite literally has no knowledge about.
You can't waive away all authority as a logical fallacy, often it refers to a false authority or a lack or corroboration. This isn't one of those subjects.
I didn't say anything about his "right," I said if Rogan had any sense Jordan Peterson wouldn't be coming around to tell a few million people that "there's no such thing as climate."
It's not a subjective dislike of anyone. Peterson said "there's no such thing as climate." I'm not even aware of a context that exists where that wouldn't be a stupid thing to say...
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Joe is first and foremost an entertainer, just like Neil Young. People should be able to make up their own minds about what they listen to. Joe Rogan has said controversial things that aren't true, but so has Neil Young. Neither side should be trying to force the other to not be heard. That's how we end up in an echo chamber. Allowing both sides to speak gives people the option to form opinions on their own, and hopefully that pushes them to investigate the actual truth (let's not pretend that either Joe or Neil are scientists and take their word at face value).
What is it that he has to make up for? His guests cover a pretty broad spectrum. This is a genuine question because I haven't actually heard him push anti-vaccine sentiments, unless expressing an opinion is what you define as pushing. Or maybe he's gone beyond expressing opinions and is now seen as some kind of authority on the subject?
That really has more to do with a vocal minority that worship Joe Rogan, than what Joe himself has pushed. Any celebrity is going to have a group that takes what they've heard and blows it out of proportion.
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.