Neil Young demands Spotify remove his music.

I can't say I've heard much from Joe Rogan, after seeing a couple of his podcasts and quickly realising what absolute garbage it was. In one, he proudly declared that the idea that the settlers killed the native americans with small pox blankets was a myth and couldn't be true, because people back then didn't know about germs. His guest, an alleged expert (who seemed more like a random white supremacist with a fetish for the wild west), agreed with him and they just moved on with this "fact" now established. I presume using the same logic, cavemen didn't bash each others skulls in with rocks, as they didn't understand the anatomy of the brain well enough to understand why this would work. IT's not as if people have been using biological warfare since the medieval ages or anything.

That seemed to be how the show worked. Get an "expert", have them say something is a fact, Rogan responds "waaaaaoow, that's so interesting", then make no attempt to verify what's been said, then move on to theories based on these facts. Sometimes the guest seems to be an actual expert, sometimes a crank. All this does is add credibility to the crank because they are in the same position as the actual expert was.

From what I gather, he's gone full crank, as many of these right wing americans have lately, as there is good money in doing so. But anyone who genuinely believes in international conspiracies involving every country and every doctor in the world being in on it, is an idiot. Sadly, there is a lot of idiots.
 
. . . And who, based on his comments, 270 doctors signed a letter in response to, asking Spotify to put a misinformation policy in place.

Now because you’re very balanced and fair, please vet the credentials of each and every one of the 270. Thanks.

 
I already said -- vet them ALL, just as we've done with the doc on Rogan (which didn't go too well). And then tell me the ratio. If it's more than 1-1, you lose. Maths.

And the topic at hand is a person perfectly willing to listen to both sides, but trying to figure out what the logical, mathematical reason is why someone would choose to believe one person over 270. Or 269, Or 268. Or 200. Or 150. Or . . . you get it.
 
I can't say I've heard much from Joe Rogan, after seeing a couple of his podcasts and quickly realising what absolute garbage it was. In one, he proudly declared that the idea that the settlers killed the native americans with small pox blankets was a myth and couldn't be true, because people back then didn't know about germs. His guest, an alleged expert (who seemed more like a random white supremacist with a fetish for the wild west), agreed with him and they just moved on with this "fact" now established. I presume using the same logic, cavemen didn't bash each others skulls in with rocks, as they didn't understand the anatomy of the brain well enough to understand why this would work. IT's not as if people have been using biological warfare since the medieval ages or anything.

That seemed to be how the show worked. Get an "expert", have them say something is a fact, Rogan responds "waaaaaoow, that's so interesting", then make no attempt to verify what's been said, then move on to theories based on these facts. Sometimes the guest seems to be an actual expert, sometimes a crank. All this does is add credibility to the crank because they are in the same position as the actual expert was.

From what I gather, he's gone full crank, as many of these right wing americans have lately, as there is good money in doing so. But anyone who genuinely believes in international conspiracies involving every country and every doctor in the world being in on it, is an idiot. Sadly, there is a lot of idiots.

An interesting thought I had yesterday was whether anyone had ever stormed off of his show. A little bit of digging would suggest very few guests if any have stormed off during recording.

Joe Rogan's challenges to any (wild) claims by his guests are very softball. If he took a more adversarial line of questioning many of his guests would get irate and either walk off or talk less openly.

Rogan and the rest of the producers would have to scratch-around for replacements or make shorter shows and It would catch less attention via hashtags and viral clips. And potential guests might be more reluctant to come on the show.

The whole format is locked-in to Joe Rogan playing a folksy open-eared bartender, willing to listen, entertain and even mirror the views of whichever crank, bigot or ideologue he happens to have sitting opposite him.
 
I already said -- vet them ALL, just as we've done with the doc on Rogan (which didn't go too well). And then tell me the ratio. If it's more than 1-1, you lose. Maths.

And the topic at hand is a person perfectly willing to listen to both sides, but trying to figure out what the logical, mathematical reason is why someone would choose to believe one person over 270. Or 269, Or 268. Or 200. Or 150. Or . . . you get it.

Id get it if it was so simple as numbers, but should we not also take into account if the doctor or scientist has anything to gain financially by pushing a certain view ?
 
Where is the outrage about the misinformation from MSM about this 270 doctors lie ?
 
An interesting thought I had yesterday was whether anyone had ever stormed off of his show. A little bit of digging would suggest very few guests if any have stormed off during recording.

Joe Rogan's challenges to any (wild) claims by his guests are very softball. If he took a more adversarial line of questioning many of his guests would get irate and either walk off or talk less openly.

Rogan and the rest of the producers would have to scratch-around for replacements or make shorter shows and It would catch less attention via hashtags and viral clips. And potential guests might be more reluctant to come on the show.

The whole format is locked-in to Joe Rogan playing a folksy open-eared bartender, willing to listen, entertain and even mirror the views of whichever crank, bigot or ideologue he happens to have sitting opposite him.
It’s a brilliant format. It’s a quid pro quo at a new level as most interview formats are. It’s also not original, and Howard Stern was a better interviewer IMO.

I do wonder how City fans would feel if he had Delaney or Harris on and let them go off for four hours unchallenged.
 
Id get it if it was so simple as numbers, but should we not also take into account if the doctor or scientist has anything to gain financially by pushing a certain view ?
Everyone who appears on a talk show has something to gain, often if not most always financial. That’s why they’re, you know, on the talk show — they want a free, broad, wide platform for what they’re selling, whether product, idea or service. If you don’t already know that, I’m not sure how to help you.

It’s as simple as numbers because you have to explain why logically I’d believe one expert over hundreds, or dozens, or a dozen, or five others who agree on a topic about which I’m not an expert. It’s always possible that one is right and the others are wrong. But why would one play those odds?

So far you’ve asked a lot of questions but made little progress on your homework. Get crackin’. I haven’t got all day and this seems easy for you.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.