Spotify and other music streaming services

It’s not all about context, he has said things that are completely wrong. For example the clip I saw was him saying that the vaccine was more dangerous to children than the virus, that was factually incorrect, he was wrong, by a very large factor, he was corrected on it live and he flailed about like a fish out of it water.

The guy is mainly a platform for dumb fuck American types and he is one himself. Seriously, can you not immediately see through him? He is a big fat stupid fucker spouting bullshit, how can you be taken in by him?

4 Likes

Even in the Dr Peterson interview Rogan stops him and pulls up facts in real time and corrects him eg the stat on child deaths from wood particulates he corrects Dr Peterson who readily acknowledges his error

It’s hilarious that that lads who have never read a book or listened to an entire podcast have a strong view on them. They are the equivalent of people who’d write to complain about Spitting Image or Dermot Morgan offending them but having never actually watched the offending show.

Lads take their views from a Twitter post and use that to attack Rogan. Ultimately he’s just having a conversation with somebody and you can listen or not listen. I’d only listen to him if I was interested in the guest he had on. I’d be the same with most podcasts from Adam Buxton to Rob Brydon.

6 Likes

Yeah and he was corrected for the world to see. It was discussion andnhe was proving wrong. Is he spreading misinformation? What is misinformation? Information that is later proven wrong? You could argue that all the information giving on the vaccines 12 months ago was misinformation

1 Like

This site is a haven of sanity and intellect compared to broader society, you only have to spend 5 minutes on boards to conclude that. We may have disagreements but they are intelligent disagreements. At least 50% of the wider population are morons, I have to conclude you are one of them.

This site warned the western world in early January 2020 of an impending pandemic, and those doing the warning were accused of spreading conspiracy theories. You and your ilk were skiing in Italy in March, blissfully unaware of what was to unfold.

11 Likes

Its all about being seen to pile on, be on the right team and stop people asking questions on the narrative of what you believe you believe in. It’s nonsense these people won’t let their views be challenged in anyway to the point the have an opinion based on theor belief of what the context of a portion of media is, whether its a books, movie, podcast or popular figure without actually viewing the work

3 Likes

Unfortunately the algorithms feeding online content create a massive echo chamber.

In the old days you’d read a newspaper and read and be exposed to lots of different views and perspectives. You’d not agree with them all but you’d be conscious of an intellectually defensible counter point.

Now the more you are aligned to a view point the more you are only fed stories and articles that agree with it.

I think people underestimate the thread this polarising effect has on normal society and ultimately democracy.

People who scoffed at Trump and Brexit and the stupidity of people being led by a media with an agenda swallowed the one sided Covid narrative where only one perspective was ever tolerated in the media and questioning the extent of restrictions was taboo.

A healthy society should be able to tolerate and debate alternative positions. We’ve lost that due to social media and anybody who doesn’t see the dangers in that and the dangers in how social media can be used to manipulate and whip up frenzy and hysteria is too complacent about the open society and freedoms we currently enjoy.

4 Likes

And yet you seem genuinely blind to the fact you’re not allowing anyone to ask questions of Rogan (or Peterson). You are protesting loudly at any criticism of the viewpoint you don’t hold.

It’s kind of frightening how many people seem utterly beholden to this podcast, while seemingly believing that their minds are wide open.

4 Likes

Do you need to read mein kampf cover to cover before you can decide if it’s good or bad? That’s an extreme example. I don’t need to listen to a Rogan podcast to know he’s an arsehole and a stupid fat fucker. I could tell from a quick glance at the list of guests he decides to bring on what he’s pitching at. Similarly I don’t need to read Peterson to know he’s an angry little dweeb.

I don’t think that’s true. He was a pioneer of that long form interview and that’s how the success came. I’d only listen if the guest was of interest. He has lots of guests whose stories I’d find boring or not of enough interest to devote the time when another podcast might be more readily appealing.

It’s quite ironic how those who claim other people are falling for propaganda are themselves far more influenced by propaganda. Ivermectin is the best example. Since Ivermectin was proposed in mid 2020 as an antiviral against Covid, there has been an absolute onslaught of negative coverage in the media, with headlines about horse dewormer, it’s not an antiviral, those promoting it are grifters, etc.

But Ivermectin is an antiviral and neutralizes COV-2 in vitro. The doctor who promoted it’s use is one of the leading critical care doctors in the US and also promoted the use of steroids to treat Covid which is in widespread use since late 2020 and has saved thousands of lives. The questions on Ivermectin are how well the in vitro results translate to efficacy in vivo and what the recommended dosage is. These questions would be answered if a large scale clinical trial was done by either big Pharma (who fund 90% of all clinical trials) or one of the rich western governments. But not alone was there no interest in a clinical trial, all effort was put into discrediting the idea of using a known antiviral to treat Covid. While millions were dying.

On Ivermectin the only relevant question is why such vitroil? Why has this safe drug that has been used for decades and won it’s inventors a Nobel prize being under attack since early 2020 when there was no treatment that was known to work? Surely if it saved one life of the millions who died then it was worth it?

There is only one explanation that answers these questions, and it is not a conspiracy theory. It’s the same reason why vaccines have been largely distributed to rich countries, and why an antiviral that doesn’t work (the Merck product) has been widely promoted.

2 Likes

You’ve a lovely lefty way of lashing out and insulting people you don’t agree with. Like a child…

5 Likes

What a fantastically irrelevant post.

3 Likes

It’s highly relevant. I can only conclude you don’t understand it.

You don’t have to leap to Peterson’s defence every single time he’s mentioned you know.

Your completely allowed to criticise but what is your criticism and did you (and others) listen to the podcast? I don’t agree with peterson but I don’t see what was the problem. My issue is people who pile on and throw out misinformation or deplatform anyone because it’s the popular thing to say, without viewing the media themselves and making up their own ideas, using 1 minute clips etc.

If you had listened to it and had criticism that’s fine but a majority of the people on twitter of this view didn’t listen. Thankfully this isn’t twitter

You were attacking Joe there I think, but it’s hard to keep up with the slurs.

He has a closed mind, if it isn’t the accepted truth on boards it can’t be true.

Bit extreme but I think with that author his actions says enough but that’s a rare example but also no one can consume all content either. But what is absent in society today is people admitting they don’t know enough on a subject and no having a strong opinion on it

1 Like

In order to “prove” the point that people subscribe to a narrative and don’t ask questions of it, you’ve just regurgitated the same nonsense about Ivermectin that you’ve spouted on here before. Never mind the extraordinary logic defying leaps in your post, it’s the very echo chamber you’re complaining about. Just on the other side of the debate so you are comically blind to it.

So your conclusion is regrettably incorrect. I understand your post unfortunately. And I understand how it exhibits all the faults of closed mindedness that you seem so upset about.

And of course, it’s wildly off topic.

1 Like

Do you not see any themes emerging from Rogan and the type of things he says? Does it give you an idea of who he’s pitching to? Why is your first reaction to defend him?