Utopia Talk / Politics / Joe Rogan and vaccines

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 16 12:16:43 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpBM8jBlxmw You see what I mean habebe?
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 12:39:26 How long before Rogan gets cancelled?
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 12:46:00 But as much as people want to think Rogan just "has an open mind", it's been obvious to me for years that he comes into these shows with a pet theory and pussyfoots around it pretending to be neutral. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's his podcast. Just tired of him being propped up as the paragon of neutrality.
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 12:46:39 Plus I don't like the shape of his head.
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 12:48:14 However, I have no problem with him beyond that cowardly pussyfooting he does. His podcasts can be entertaining with the right guest, and, while he's no Eric Weinstein, he asks decent questions. It's like watching a dumb uncle try to figure shit out on the fly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 16 13:02:01 As always the fans are a bigger problem than the person they idolize. His greatest contribution was to prove that the long format interview could not only be successful, but massively successful. Not just shit talking with comedians and fighters, but someone like Eric Weinstein talking about gauge theory.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 16 13:06:19 nhill Member Sun Jan 16 12:39:26 "How long before Rogan gets cancelled?" It would surprise me if it happened this year. "A group of 270 scientists, professors, doctors and healthcare workers wrote an open letter to Spotify recently expressing concern about “false and societally harmful assertions” on its most popular program, The Joe Rogan Experience. The letter, which Rolling Stone first reported on, asks the music streamer to “establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform.” January 22, 2022" http://dea...octors-open-letter-1234909702/
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 16 13:06:27 *January 12, whoops
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 13:06:30 > As always the fans are a bigger problem than the person they idolize. True. > His greatest contribution was to prove that the long format interview could not only be successful, but massively successful. Steve Jobs is rolling in his grave, but yes. ;) > Not just shit talking with comedians and fighters, but someone like Eric Weinstein talking about gauge theory. And I would have been a lot more bored doing yard work, had it not been for him! :)
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 13:07:29 > It would surprise me if it happened this year. It would surprise me if it didn't happen this year. ;) I assume you meant that, also?
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 16 13:08:37 nhill "Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's his podcast. Just tired of him being propped up as the paragon of neutrality." I don't think anyone actually thinks he's a beacon of neutrality. People tune into him because he provides a rare and much-needed alternative POV that is almost completely absent in the feminized MSM.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 16 13:09:45 Bah, yeah, I meant it wouldn't surprise me if it happened this year. Clearly the tea I had this morning wasn't nearly enough caffeine.
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 13:10:39 > I don't think anyone actually thinks he's a beacon of neutrality. I see it all the time. Mayhap we peruse different echo chambers. ;) > People tune into him because he provides a rare and much-needed alternative POV that is almost completely absent in the feminized MSM. I do appreciate that aspect of him.
TheChildren Member	Sun Jan 16 13:20:25 all yankz think like rogan what the hell u even talkin bout. take WHO 4 example. they clearly cleared china but noppppppeeeeee not accordin 2 yankz coz if u have different opinionz than them then that just means WHO got BOUGHT by chayna and is corrupt and shitz. it couldnt be of course that yankz IQz r so low that they r simply WRONGGGGG. no ofc not. then da goalpost starts movin just like rogan. funny thing is it dunt even frikkin matter how and where it comes from. like last 2 years deltaz, omicrons, alphaz all come from da rest of da world coz yall fucked up with pandemic rulez and shitz.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 16 13:41:35 "And I would have been a lot more bored doing yard work, had it not been for him! :)" +1 Also shame on me for not mentioning the unapologetic masculine persona. A beacon of manhood in a sea of vaginas.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 16 13:47:44 This phenomena of comedians and their show becoming elevated above regular news media, we saw that with Jon Stewart as well. It says something about the state of society and media, not Joe Rogan's ability to do the job with the kind of quality society needs. It is the writing on the wall of our civilizations impending demise. Sounds like something both those guys may have said.
kargen Member	Sun Jan 16 14:13:24 Gutfeld likes to point out like Dave Chappelle Rogan has fuck you money. I'm guessing he stays as long as he wants and is generating profits.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 16 19:29:44 Nimatzo, I would like you to elaborate a bit if you would. Nhill, "Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's his podcast. Just tired of him being propped up as the paragon of neutrality." Everything is relative. Ive always been more a fan of the format myself. I find it does give better context to the 2 other viable options which are 3 minute interviews with repeated sound bytes or a meet the press style round table which is still mostly sound bytes. The format is more neutral as it allows full context. Rogan has also had gupta and that other guy who is now in Biden's cabinet for his medical expertise. Does he have a preference to be skeptical? Absolutely. Does he have a bias? Arguably. Pakman also has his biases and preferences and breaking down a 1:04 clip I would say is offering less context. Now Im not familiar with the episode myself so I wont argue whether its a fair argument or not.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 16 19:32:07 Rugian, "health care workers" even had to be added to pad that number out...lol.200? More nurses probably quit over vaccine mandates.
nhill Member	Sun Jan 16 19:46:51 I like the format, too, as it allows elaboration and deliberation on one's viewpoint. My only issue is him being presented as an unbiased source. There's nothing wrong with him having a bias, though. As Nim said, my problems aren't with him, they are with his fandom, which is quite large and vociferous in many online circles.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 16 20:34:14 I'll concede as he will probably he has his biases. His fandom as with any that large (220 million views a month) your going to have plenty of people who will choosing a side first and evidence 2nd. I still maintain he and his format is at worst is the lesser of two evils. Again Ive not watched the episode in its entirety. But as far as platforming long goes he has given both sides a chance to state their case. In questioning was he fair? I'll have to watch the episode(s) in question.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 16 20:35:53 And I plan to. ATM I'm watching Ghostbusters cartoons (1986) with my neice who is infatuated with with them, which I think is awesome.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 16 20:38:44 That said if there is bias, I think the answer is to have those who just signed a letter to spotify pick a leader or two to speak on their behalf and have him or her debate on the show. Joe is too big to cancel though IMHO.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jan 16 21:09:11 [habebe]: "Pakman also has his biases and preferences and breaking down a 1:04 clip I would say is offering less context." Yep. Pakman is an outright propagandist who has been outed for grifting on many occasions. His go-to is the old John Stewart propaganda technique of motte-and-bailey fallacy: "[Well, even if I'm wrong about my position, I'm just a comedian/entertainer! *You're* the one who's responsible for your words!]" You can also see Pakman repeating the same lines that he took from the other propagandists or their handlers: that Rogan "moved the goalposts". This line was a vocabulary/phrase almost *issued* to the propagandists/grifters (e.g., you can find the identical claim and arguments on many other grifter pages, such as "The Rational National", which YouTube similarly promoted to the front page on January 13th to control the narrative against Rogan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efC8q4pmd00 ). The Politburo made a concerted effort to get everyone making the same argument (boosting the signal) with one limited-context clip, since Rogan has now become an enemy who must be de-legitimized. Remember when the Stewart "Daily Show" would show dozens of local networks reading the exact same script? Do we really think that stopped? Besides that, "goalposts" is disingenuous, since we are right to question our sources. You shouldn't just Google, pick the first link, read information, and say, "[Yup, must be true]." Rogan recognized that they had just clicked the first link, so he was right to evaluate that link. Pakman also makes the non-scientist's error of saying, "It's a peer-reviewed study." People who have spent zero time actually reading studies (e.g., lazy people and laypersons who just read news coverage and reviews *about* those studies) think that "peer-reviewed" automatically means "absolutely correct," which is a wholly ignorant way to process academic papers. Even lazy scientists will at *least* check to see how many times the paper has been cited *and* tested by other academic papers; they won't simply say, "[Oh, wow, this looks like a scientific paper — too dense to read, must be legit.]" In a laboratory setting, if you launch your own paper based on claims that you didn't give statistical analysis (checking every single method and tracking the compounding error and/or relevance), you can very well waste *months* having taken a false conclusion as true. People who fall into these pitfalls due to their lack of training are more likely to look for the guidance of others to fill their ignorance. Pakman also commits the same propagandist's strategy as many others who have reviewed this clip: omitting any context beyond the clip, such as Rogan's public post-show research or the nuance of the actual issue (e.g., that percentage chance of myocarditis may *follow* COVID infection, whereas people already have a variable chance of getting COVID based on personal factors, reducing that percentage below that of the vaccine-induced myocarditis — i.e., if you don't get COVID and have low risk of getting COVID, your chance of myocarditis from COVID may be effectively 0%.). All these people had was about one minute to butcher. And how many will follow up? Few, if any. People like Pakman will address the one-minute clip, spread their bad hot-takes, then avoid the issue to memory-hole the developing nuances. That way, people will believe their take (the distrust of Rogan) and forget that the distrust was built upon faulty logic. .. [habebe]: "The format is more neutral as it allows full context." Exactly. The medium is the message. When it comes to Senate Committee hearings, the medium is a few minutes of allocated time per senator, so people are able to deflect or burn clock time. The recent DNC strategy has been the tool of saying, "Thank you for your question, senator," after every single question (burned time). Whereas, in a long-format like Rogan's, people cannot evade for too long. This is how Rogan was able to push Sanjay Gupta — in the longer format, Gupta couldn't just evade, though he certainly tried. A commercial break would have saved Gupta on CNN (CNN's medium also promoting sound-byte evasions). If Gupta makes an error, CNN can cut to commercial, get him back on script, and re-start. People cannot pull the same maneuver on Rogan — not even Rogan. Though Rogan has a crew and does research before the show so that he can steer the subject to his knowledge-set. (And before someone lazily uses ad hominem by accusing me of being a Rogan fan: I do not watch Rogan, though I did review the longer format here for context.)
habebe Member	Sun Jan 16 21:28:34 CC, I know who Pakman is, however I would rather debate the arguments than the messenger. Now that said going over the clip again I think pakman does a poor job. For starters, he claims goal post changing without establishing the initial point of Rogan. That said while Pakman answered that its a trustworthy study because it was peer reviewed, its a fair question to ask the validity of the study. Asked and answered. But with studies on both sides motive should be established. Phillip Morris could surely come up with studies that said cigarettes are not addictive, so while looking at that study it would be important to note if it was paid for by someone with a vested interest in a particular outcome.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 16 21:36:06 Unfortunately I think both seemed to not ask the right question. 60 and 400 some are pretty close in the scale of the study, right? Comparing vaxed VS I'll with covid is a false dichotomy. It assumes if you don't get the vaccine that you will* have covid
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 17 06:28:22 Habebe I am very pleased that you unlike others who spend a wall of text on nonsensically missing the point, realized Pakman was not the point. The clip was the best condensed version I could find that was not a complete hack job. It starts about 17 minutes into the podcast and then the conclusion with the link is much later, so this was the best version. Anyone who is not a fucking retard can go watch the show without Pakman's commentary. But the parts from the show speak for themselves and are not out of context. To be honest you already in the last thread acknowledged that Joe has his own bias, this was just very on point with the topic. Joe believes something about vaccines and adverse effects, Jamie, his own producer pulls this study up that is contrary to Joe's belief. His reaction is "can we trust this study" and then he goes on about his biologist friend, (whom he does not name, but it is Bret Weinstein the brother of Eric Weinstein) says something something. And anyone who is a listener of the show knows that this isn't the first time Joe does this, honestly it is a very common behavioral pattern in people all together. That we skeptically question the validity of the evidence if it runs contrary to our beliefs and are more lenient towards those that validate them. One of the reasons I like the show is that Rogan is open minded, very open minded, and he is attracted to fringe ideas, conspiracies and entertaining what may be possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYrAdwuxIxM The fringe is a very big part of his identity and bias, for better and worse.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 17 06:54:47 As much as I love the format, it has limitations. It is almost impossible to debunk and disprove things in real time. Your opponent can start dozens of fires and reference obscure facts and studies which you have not read, things that would take weeks to thoroughly go through and explain and dismiss. But on the show you have lost the debate the moment you can not on the spot explain and counter your opponents claims, which may be complete bullshit to begin with. There is an asymmetry here that does not favor truth seeking and illuminating facts, but throwing out enough hurdles so that your opponents trips or fumbles. The format is just as likely to turn into 30 second pwnage clips.
Forwyn Member	Mon Jan 17 08:38:19 I would question the intelligence of anyone who was still completely unbiased as we enter 2022, especially surrounding Covid policy and vaccines, who fields assorted minds from different disciplines to talk about these very issues.
Habebe Member	Mon Jan 17 18:53:04 Nimatzo, If this was a debate I was trying to "win" I would be more open to attacking the messenger. It's a common legal tactic. But the evidence he offers is publicly accessible , As for the peer reviewed study, I don't know it but I don't think your point needs me to. Im a fan of the format, its better than most. That said it still leaves something to be desired. Ive been thinking a lot about the evolution of the news and what I would desire. The best Ive come up with is to mix the round table format with Joe's format.And to have several rounds of it. Lets say the topic is on vaccinnes.Well mabey we could have a 3 hour round table with 4-6 people and to have each person supply their own fact checkers who can cite evidence and explain it. Now if we had 3 of these events a week apart it would give time in between to double check and add context. Something like That atleast, details are not worked out. The biggest problem I still see People's attention spans are short. However it would give real journalists something better to work with. But the gist would be mixing a tim Russert style roundtable with Joe's format that gives better chance to delve into the issues and give better context. I think it would be better for bills. It would be a perfect format for say the recent build back better plan for example.
Habebe Member	Mon Jan 17 20:22:49 The other problem with this joe rogan debate is the opposition. They frequently attack him/show with nonsense. CNN's Ivermectin scandal? This "270 doctors and scientists" then downplayed into adding nurses and college professors. Yes we could split hairs and say the professors were technically doctors but we all know it was implied that they were medical doctors. The more he is attacked unreasonably the greater fervor his supporters have. Thisnisnt unique to this, but they share in the blame they like to cast. While I dont think Pakman did a great job at arguing his points, he didn't argue nonsense.
murder Member	Tue Jan 18 09:44:20 "As much as I love the format, it has limitations." I just can't get into podcasts. It's like bad talk radio.
nhill Member	Tue Jan 18 10:19:49 I mean, a podcast is someone talking, yes. Whether or not you are "into" it depends on the person talking, lol.
nhill Member	Tue Jan 18 10:21:04 I'm not a huge fan of podcasts, but they help pass time during yard work. In general, I much prefer reading, though, and have to put the podcasts at 1.5-2x speed in order to stay stimulated. People talk too slow.
obaminated Member	Tue Jan 18 12:48:01 Forwyn is correct. At this point we all know where we stand. And it's interesting. Some people are vaccine or die, basically stating you don't deserve medical attention. The rest of us just don't see the urgency or the need to be so drastic. People die from the flu. This is the flu. I get tested weekly due to my work. I'm around people constantly. I have never tested positive. It isn't as bad as they say
murder Member	Tue Jan 18 14:16:47 870,000 dead It's just a flesh wound!
Forwyn Member	Tue Jan 18 20:04:57 870,000 dead and we're still largely "treating" patients the same as in March 2020 lol
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jan 19 04:24:20 [Forwyn]: "870,000 dead and we're still largely "treating" patients the same as in March 2020 lol" But we've gotta boost those numbers artificially with fudged cause-of-death while directing people to one central (and profitable!) solution: Pfizer and Moderna! Regulatory capture is a hell of a drug ;) .. [Habebe]: • "CC, I know who Pakman is, however I would rather debate the arguments than the messenger." • "If this was a debate I was trying to "win" I would be more open to attacking the messenger. It's a common legal tactic." Thanks, I agree, and that's why I also addressed Pakman's arguments after warning against his status. I've said as much before, but my preference is that if I attack someone's expertise or status, I will *still* address their arguments in the same exercise while providing evidence and reasoning. That's why I did not miss the point here: I illustrated that Pakman used several fallacies while attempting to counter Rogan's position. Pakman absolutely took this clip out of context, and people pretending otherwise are disingenuous and showing their gaps in understanding. Such people would be denying what I said: that Rogan addressed these issues beyond the scope of this minute-long clip. Rogan took to Twitter, he clarified in follow-on episodes, and he spoke to others on the subject. If people deny this wider context, they deny reality in favor of the easily digested edit. .. [Habebe]: • "Im a fan of the format, its better than most" • "People's attention spans are short. However it would give real journalists something better to work with." Agreed. This following error is the difference between propaganda clips and the full format: - propagandists such as Pakman *can* edit the clips to make Rogan look bad/worse, but - viewers of the entire format are aware of propaganda-edits by being aware of Rogan's actual methods and meanings. This is a common trope in long-format shows (i.e., the show itself versus the propaganda takes/edits afterwards). If you understand the full format, you can always tell who actually watched the entire episode and thus understands someone in good faith versus someone who watched the clip&commentary and believes there to be no need for context. A red flag of the propagandized is always the belief that no context is needed (e.g., meme-speech such as, "[What could context do to save *this*!?]"), which ignores that longer-format arguments and debates typically establish and qualify the terms of arguments (e.g., the agreed way that words will be used and defined during the debate). This sort of editing is part of why people have become so aware of the misinformation and character-assassination spreading around Rogan. Many of Rogan's viewers watch/listen-to the *entire* episode run-lengths, so when people attempt to spread misinformation about Rogan, Rogan viewers can easily see the lies and recognize the media manipulation. It's like the difference between someone who read an entire book versus someone who read a Wiki-synopsis — or people who read a "wall of text" versus people who constructed straw men from isolated sentences. This separates people of understanding from people of the memes; I think we should position ourselves to become people of understanding. And consider the *perceptual* differences between someone who read a novel from cover-to-cover versus someone who read portions of that novel broken into 240-character segments which each had the inane vitriol of a Twitter mob commenting beneath it. The former will likely understand the story better than the latter, and the latter may only have a furious righteousness driven by ignorance — denying the complexity of a whole account for the simplicity of thoughts granted by misleading brevity. Imagine knowing people that way — not as whole persons but as fragments of ridicule. Where the medium is the message, Twitter formats people's methods of thinking into the latter case (the belief in brevity as truth or virtue itself), and that makes its users easier to predict and control. If you can only think one move ahead (or 240 characters at a time), the person thinking two-moves ahead may become your ruler. And methods of brief discourse such as that actually make it *painful* for these sorts of people to read paragraphs again; they'll read one hundred pop-corn Tweets before opening one book. But at some point, a person has to choose for themselves to do the difficult work. In optimistic moments, I think I see that some people still crave that kind of stimulation. Too much chaos can be self-alienating. .. [Habebe]: "The best Ive come up with is to mix the round table format with Joe's format.And to have several rounds of it." Some shows have begun attempting this. I've seen podcasts where two people will be having a debate while several people bring up articles, counter-articles, and fact-checks in the background. So, - someone makes a claim, and - while the claim is being developed, other people fact-check. - The factual basis and sourcing may be debated. - If the basis is disputed, they either debate multiple meanings (e.g., asking "[What if the data is wrong? ... and if correct?]") or agree to do additional research off-air before addressing the subject again. Sadly, I have also seen shows like this removed. .. [Habebe]: "Now if we had 3 of these events a week apart it would give time in between to double check and add context." That's a good idea — almost like a presidential debate sequence. One of the issues with most media currently is that a story will be dropped once the sensational portions have been concluded. Some shows need to use a writer's room format where they track all of the "plot lines" (all of the real-life stories) and make sure to note whether or not a story reached a "closure" moment. Multiple visits over weeks would let them tie off those loose ends, which could prevent them from dropping an unfavorable story because it does not serve a bias any longer. There's also a tendency for podcast appearances to result in people going back to their own podcasts and media and having to clarify their own arguments, since the podcast format may have cut them short before they could develop a counter-argument. When there does not exist overlap between the two podcasts, this means that whole audiences will be left unaware of the conclusions. Scheduling could be an issue, but it would be nice to see controversial guests having to appear at least twice. .. But, before all that, I think a major problem that we've been seeing has been that many people do not want to appear on the shows/podcasts of the opposition. "Platforming" has itself become a political weapon of division; i.e., if hosts have an opposing argument on their show, people accuse the host of "platforming" that argument, and a person may not even want to be a guest on an opposing host's show because they feel like it legitimizes the opposition. In good faith discourse, this should not matter (the worth of the argument should determine platforms; platforms should not be culled outside of argument), but good faith discourse has been in short supply. In many cases, I think that getting guests with opposing viewpoints to meet each other may simply require financial protections and a favorable format. People do not want to be propagandized on the editing floor (it cuts into their audience which could sacrifice their livelihoods), but if they know that they don't have to worry about rent, it could be worth appearing. This is part of how Ben Shapiro got Ana Kasparian to appear in a debate: he paid her well and made sure that their format allowed them both to respond to questions rather than just yelling over each other for meme points. Very few memes came out of that debate specifically because of the format. In another case, Fauci and Walensky have largely avoided all opposing formats. Walensky has appeared three times on Fox News, specifically with Bret Baier, who has a Fox-bias but still allows people to speak their positions (i.e., a somewhat friendly format). Fauci has appeared only once on Fox and only with the DNC-friendly Chris Wallace. This is part of why figures such as Rand Paul have been enabled to make a show out of accosting Fauci at senate hearings: it's the only time and format that they can meet. Fauci avoids unfavorable formats. That might be the question to ask in designing a show: How would you get Fauci (or any hostile witness) to openly answer for public health policy? It's not going to be money, since he has plenty and cares more about his reputation. I think the trick might be the medical-conference format, but even that has pitfalls, like question-screening. .. [nhill]: "and have to put the podcasts at 1.5-2x speed in order to stay stimulated." Same. It's too painful to listen to a lot of these people at 1x speed.
murder Member	Wed Jan 19 05:13:36 "870,000 dead and we're still largely "treating" patients the same as in March 2020 lol" You're right. We should try something new. The unvaxxed should get treated with bleach and UV light.
murder Member	Wed Jan 19 05:16:48 "But we've gotta boost those numbers artificially with fudged cause-of-death ..." And no doubt a corresponding drop in other causes of death, right?
Pillz Member	Wed Jan 19 06:04:16 2 Years to put in place a frame work to house corona patients separately from the primary healthcare facilities. But murder is gonna cry the unvaxxed are killing everyone while doctors and nurses come to work positive. Murder should probably try a bleach enemia
Dukhat Member	Wed Jan 19 06:23:01 I just don't get how cuckservatives are so consistently stupid. Does waking up, going to your shitty job, and living your lonely lives no feel fucked up to you? Learn to have a conversation with a girl and you will realize how fucked up your thinking is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 19 06:32:25 >>Habebe Member Mon Jan 17 18:53:04 Nimatzo, If this was a debate I was trying to "win" I would be more open to attacking the messenger.<< Let me tell you something habebe, you are one of the few people here where I feel I am having a debate with. Most of our communication is ordinary good faith dialogue. My intention with this thread, was just as an example of what I was talking about in the other thread and elaborating on the limits of unedited "live" fact checking and debunking. JRE is an entertainment show first and foremost. "Im a fan of the format" Just to understand you better, what do you mean with "the format" specifically? "Well mabey we could have a 3 hour round table with 4-6 people and to have each person supply their own fact checkers who can cite evidence and explain it." I love debates and so I have watched and listened to a lot of them. They have limits and skew in favor of throwing out hurdles for the opposition. In so many words, I can start more fires in a debate that you can put out and walk away as the "winner" because you could not put all the fires out. To do that would require days if not weeks. There are people out there with (for any given topic) cursory domain specific knowledge but they leverage that on different platforms and in debates with a PhD in arson. That is my giant disclaimer next to any debate.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 19 06:32:49 you are one of the few people here where I feel I am *not* having a debate with.
murder Member	Wed Jan 19 07:24:30 "2 Years to put in place a frame work to house corona patients separately from the primary healthcare facilities." Nobody expected this to still be going around. Primarily because it wasn't anticipated that large portions of the population would be working to make sure that it was.
Habebe Member	Wed Jan 19 07:26:35 Cherubcow, "Thanks, I agree, and that's why I also addressed Pakman's arguments after warning against his status. " You did, we do agree.I'll probably go over this topic later in more detail. "Agreed. This following error is the difference between propaganda clips and the full format: - propagandists such as Pakman *can* edit the clips to make Rogan look bad/worse, but - viewers of the entire format are aware of propaganda-edits by being aware of Rogan's actual methods and meanings." Well to this point if you watch the actual clip in entirety Joe had specifically mentiones he was talking about young boys fromnthe get go, so when pakman claimed goal post moving he is blatantly bull shitting. Now, the guest Josh szeps, while talking to Rogan both spoke about young boys risk specifically, it wasn't the goal shifting pakman made up. Even the validity part he seemed to be questioning the reported figures VS under reported which we talk about under reported figures all the time, especially with medical discussions. That said, I think Szeps was correct, but that its the wrong question being asked. " Some shows have begun attempting this. I've seen podcasts where two people will be having a debate while several people bring up articles, counter-articles, and fact-checks in the background" Any recommendations? I have really been interested in the evolution of quality media. I think something like the format I spoke about earlier could work as a spin off of breaking points. But honestly what im looking for is the sort of thing PBS should be able to do, even if just online.But I have no faith in PBS to be neutral anymore. 25 years ago maybe.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jan 20 03:52:45 [Dukhat]: "Does waking up, going to your shitty job, and living your lonely lives no feel fucked up to you?" Yikes. Did Dukhat just admit to being unemployed and possibly living with someone else who is also unemployed? D: Or was the emphasis on "going", since he thinks it's superior to terminally work from home? His history kind of makes sense if he's one of those anti-capitalist people who wants everyone to stop working so that the authoritarians can sweep in and start making private businesses into federal property. I'm not sure that those useful people realize that they'd be breaking rocks into smaller rocks under their favored rulers. Authoritarian rulers sometimes like pretending that the non-working proles will be gratified by the ruler's new system, but that promise evaporates once the ruling class has solidified its powers and properties and now needs to establish a labor force to sustain those powers. The rulers will not demand at-home Zoom-conferences with the proles, but lots of infrastructure will certainly need to be built by newly-minted common laborers. .. [Habebe]: "Well to this point if you watch the actual clip in entirety Joe had specifically mentiones he was talking about young boys fromnthe get go, so when pakman claimed goal post moving he is blatantly bull shitting." Definitely. Pakman tried to assign goalpost-moving to the changing of the age, but Rogan was clearly trying to make sure that they were not comparing apples to oranges between multiple studies (i.e., it does not make sense to compare a study that focuses on persons up to the 30s to a study talking only of teens and children). And this is verifiable: Rogan's preexisting knowledge was leaning on a study cited by The Guardian, about which The Guardian stated, "Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period" ( http://www...fect-than-covid-suggests-study ). (For the record, I am not affirming the validity of that study, which is in fact disputed; I am simply pointing out Rogan's source and his imperative for making sure that an appropriate comparison was being made between the new article and his previous statements.) And Pakman also used "goalposts" for Pakman's belief that Rogan had moved the goalposts from "[young boys are more likely to get myocarditis from shots than from COVID]" to "[Can we trust this source?]". But, that's not moving the goal posts — that's verifying the credibility of a source before accepting it as true, which should always be done. You can even see Rogan correctly checking the sample size and looking for sampling biases (e.g., asking if the conclusions were an average of *all* age groups or if the conclusions had been broken down by age group). [Habebe]: "Even the validity part he seemed to be questioning the reported figures VS under reported which we talk about under reported figures all the time, especially with medical discussions." Exactly. Rogan brought up VAERS data as an example of them needing to evaluate their sources, the sampling size, and the robustness of interpretation that they can draw from those studies (under- and over-reporting hurt the robustness); but Pakman calls *that* goalpost-moving too, misrepresenting Rogan's meaning by saying that Rogan was citing as true the VAERS data. Pakman does not understand these distinctions, and he reveals this by talking about "*the* evidence"/"the study" (not "this" evidence or "this study"). He simply thinks that the NewScientist headline is "the evidence", which is lazy at best and malicious at worst. No person who deals with correct evidentiary evaluation would make that mistake. He mentions "numerous ... peer-reviewed studies", but he immediately undermines that by turning it into a fallacy of argumentum ad populum: "But can we really trust what we're reading? Well, actually we can." No thoughtful scientist would make that mistake. It's ironic to see someone like Pakman pretending to be for evidentiary chains while he reveals that his practices of evaluating evidence have faulty foundations. That's something that people who read these articles from the source (rather than from the Guardian or from a review article) have to learn quickly: you can read an incredible and substantive paper but *still* recognize that you should not trust its reasoning or conclusions at face value. A comical scenario that happens often in research labs is that one research group will publish a strong paper that gets published in Nature and which everyone thinks is the best thing ever. Hundreds of other labs believe it to be true, and they begin building papers on the back of that paper. The citation-list climbs, making that study appear to be robust (After all, why would this paper be cited so many times if it were flawed?).. Those down-stream publications may even have successful papers of their own, which makes people think that the peer-review process worked via replication of the original study.. but then.. someone actually reads a key detail of the original paper.. like a lot-number of mice that was contaminated or had experienced genetic drift, hurting its model organism status and undermining the entire study, since everyone else ordered the same mice. .. [Habebe]: "Any recommendations?" Sadly, I haven't seen anything that has maintained the format consistently. There was an episode of TimcastIRL where they brought Vaush and Charlie Kirk on. In their format, they had three people checking the claims made by Vaush and Kirk, and they were actively restricting Vaush and Kirk from changing topics via Gish Gallop (i.e., if someone tried to "start dozens of fires", they were stopped at the first fire, which had to be evaluated before the next subject was raised). It worked in a lot of ways because both Kirk and Vaush came out of it having had to defend actual positions and having had their biases checked by looking at their source arguments. But, it did not work when the on-the-spot checkers were unaware that a claim had no standing (they did not even *know* to check the claim). That itself revealed a failing of the TimcastIRL format: the hosts do not have substantial education (Tim Pool barely completed high school), so they do not know how to create a more robust system of examination. Also, they have not been able to repeat this format because they have had limited success bringing on guests with opposing viewpoints. There was also an episode of DarkHorse that tried to create a makeshift debate atmosphere — this being between Dr. Malone and Steve Kirsch with Bret Weinstein moderating — but Weinstein had clearly not considered how to manage the arguments beyond having a list of topics, so there was a lot of unproductive incivility. That incivility was particularly hilarious because they were talking over each other with the belief that they were disagreeing when they were actually making the same points. DarkHorse, likewise, has not attempted the format again, possibly because YouTube gave them a strike for that video and removed it. Bill Maher seems to be one of the last well-produced shows that consistently brings on people with varying viewpoints, but DNC media has started selectively boycotting it, even though Maher mostly agrees with them, which results in no one wanting to appear opposite someone from the right or the show just being another echo chamber that tries to feed its audience little bits of safe truths. ... People have made a meme of "do your own research", but with so few hosts-as-moderators to speak of (I've even heard of Rogan as the new Larry King, simply because so few people have attempted to fill King's role) and so few guests willing to appear on opposition programs (and so few willing to host the opposition), that's kind of where the situation has left people. Short of a new program yet to be seen, the full conversation may end up happening just by comparing one echo chamber to another. Sadly, it no longer works to compare Fox News to CNN since both may be selling narratives on behalf of corporate interests. But, to help, different organizations have started keeping track of the internal biases of political nodes, so people can at least use those tools to make sure they're getting more information. One is the AdFontesMedia bias chart (posted in UP previously): http://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ It shows the bias of an individual article or of entire networks in general. They have rotating teams of media-evaluators (always staffed by a right-wing person, a left-wing person, and a centrist) who debate the bias of an article, vote on the bias individually, and average their votes to determine the bias. The same article may be re-evaluated by a different team of three, which also re-balances the averages. If you read an article, you can check its position on the bias chart and see if it's propaganda, biased, or reliable. But, it's limited: it only rates corporate news and news that gets on its radar. It has blind spots. Many young people trust sites such as Reddit to expose them to news, and Reddit has not been academically evaluated to warn people of their echo chambers. Another is "The Blindspotter" by Ground News: http://ground.news/blindspotter/twitter They show you not just the headline but the bias leanings of the person reporting the headline, so you know if you're just getting an echo chamber narrative. If you repost news on your own Twitter, you can even check your own sampling bias. You can search for nearly any public figure and see their sampling bias, the catch being that they have to be a Twitter user, whereas many people have been banned from Twitter and/or will not appear. Another is NewsGuard, which will let you know (via a browser app) how journalist-pools have rated the reliability and bias of different articles: http://www.newsguardtech.com/ But it also has a catch: journalists tend to favor corporation-backed news (their employers), which means that you may actually be looking at corporate attempts to legitimize themselves. I also use a file structure to track the opinions that reach the main signal pathways. It includes names with political positions which let me track the narrative's source and how rhetoric changes or was boosted around the narrative. Lots of people simply read a headline without noticing the author, but I track the authors primarily so that I can notice reporting trends and cross reference them with political objectives. I do this even for YouTube comments, Redditors, and Imgurians. This is a good practice for noticing sock puppet nodes, agitators, and whose interests affected the narrative. I have been designing a site that will aggregate this information so that people don't have to put in this kind of effort, but there's a balance to be struck regarding people's willingness to read and having a simple graphical interface. In the absence of a good faith debate stage, I'm hoping to organize the echo chambers into a debate (showing the arguments and counter-arguments) so that people can see the full debate in one location. That is, even though the echo chambers do not directly interact, they can be put side-by-side so that people can understand the steel man arguments instead of fighting straw men in their echo chambers.
Daemon Member	Tue Jan 25 09:08:05 http://www...e-rogan-vaccine-misinformation Neil Young demands Spotify remove his music over Joe Rogan vaccine misinformation ‘They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,’ writes musician in an open letter to his management that has since been taken down from his website Neil Young has demanded that his music be removed from Spotify due to vaccine misinformation spread by podcaster Joe Rogan on the streaming service, saying: “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” In an open letter to his manager and record label that was posted to his website and later taken down, Young wrote: “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them. Please act on this immediately today and keep me informed of the time schedule.” Young specified that his decision was motivated by The Joe Rogan Experience, which is currently Spotify’s most popular podcast and one of the biggest in the world. Rogan signed a US$100m deal in 2020 giving Spotify exclusive rights to the show. “With an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, JRE, which is hosted exclusively on Spotify, is the world’s largest podcast and has tremendous influence. Spotify has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, though the company presently has no misinformation policy,” he wrote, adding: “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform … They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” The letter was addressed to his manager Frank Gironda and Tom Corson, the co-chairman and chief operating officer of Warner Records, which releases Young’s music through its Reprise Records imprint. Gironda confirmed the letter was authentic to The Daily Beast. “It’s something that’s really important to Neil. He’s very upset … we’re trying to figure this out right now.” Last month, 270 doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals signed an open letter requesting that Spotify implement a policy for dealing with misinformation because of Rogan’s “concerning history of broadcasting misinformation, particularly regarding the Covid-19 pandemic”. The letter cited an episode in which Rogan interviewed Robert Malone, a virologist who was involved in the mRNA vaccine technology that led to some of the leading Covid-19 vaccines but has since been criticised for spreading vaccine misinformation. Both men were criticised for promoting several baseless conspiracy theories, including the false claim that hospitals are financially incentivised to falsely diagnose deaths as having been caused by Covid-19, and Malone’s assertion that world leaders had hypnotised the public into supporting vaccines. The Guardian has approached Spotify for comment.
murder Member	Tue Jan 25 10:55:46 Apparently Neil Young has more money that he needs or has use for.
murder Member	Tue Jan 25 10:57:02 It's really not as tough a choice as Neil Young seems to think.
Rugian Member	Tue Jan 25 11:04:18 Damn. Neil Young made some great music in his day, but now he's apparently a cunt.
Habebe Member	Tue Jan 25 11:15:05 Canceling JR off spotify isn't bad for JR.It would be bad for spotify.
nhill Member	Tue Jan 25 11:18:52 That entirely depends on the stipulations of his contract.
nhill Member	Tue Jan 25 11:20:50 Looks like the JRE-Spotify deal was not disclosed, so we'll never know exactly, but it is based on the podcast's performance metrics and other factors. Almost certainly those 'other factors' include being removed from the platform.
murder Member	Tue Jan 25 11:28:05 "Canceling JR off spotify isn't bad for JR.It would be bad for spotify." They thought he was worth a ton of money. A hell of a lot than they could possibly be making off of Neil Young's music, so there not much point in speculating what would happen if they dumped Rogan. I doubt Drake and Taylor Swift could make it happen.
murder Member	Wed Jan 26 17:49:26 Neil Young wins! Spotify is taking down his music! Wait ... that sounds like a loss.
Habebe Member	Wed Jan 26 18:30:47 Nhill, Maybe, but likely not because Neil young asked them to do so.In his first month he accounted for 5% of all podcast listeners on spotify. Plus he could take JRE to almost any platform he wants.
nhill Member	Wed Jan 26 18:32:49 I didn't say it wouldn't be bad for Spotify. I said it would be bad for JR. :) It would probably be bad for both parties involved, so it's no surprise to me that the 1000 people left on this earth that care about Neil Young lost this battle.
Habebe Member	Wed Jan 26 18:35:24 I wonder if Neil actually thought he would win?
murder Member	Wed Jan 26 19:00:10 He doesn't care. A better question is how Hipganosis Songs Fund feels about this self own. "It was just over a year ago that Young sold 50 percent of his publishing rights to his entire song catalog to Hipganosis Songs Fund, a UK-based investment fund, in a deal worth a reported $150 million. It gave Hipganosis the rights to the worldwide copyright and income interests from the 1,180 songs composed by Young."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 27 04:48:16 According to reports he has whined about audio quality on streaming services and had his music removed in the past, just to quietly reinstate them. Sounds like a whinging old fart bag who does not realize that nobody cares about the whinging fartbag noises he makes.
murder Member	Thu Jan 27 07:20:28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service)
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 30 08:07:28 http://twi...?t=AiwUoZEh0s5iJgtOVKE6Yw&s=19 And here it is Compare that to say NPR who still stands by the made up story about gorsuch not wearing a mask being the reason Sotomayer wasn't attending hearings in person. AFTER both justices made joint statements denying it, hey doubled down. And that's a government funded entity!
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 30 08:16:15 Also... http://vin...ts-myocarditis-stratified?s=09 There are conflicting reports yet. But they conclude that either way the risk is very small either way.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 09:07:49 A Norwegian artist threatened to put more music on spotify unless the company tightened its antivax crackdown. He made a funny :D
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 30 09:26:12 Norweigan humor is rye to say the least. Funny connection with Neil young and vaccines though. "AMC CEO Aron suggested the GameStop connection in a conference call with investors that laid out a host of initiatives, including an exclusive agreement to show Warner Bros. films and plans to accept payment in bitcoin by the end of the year." ""Vaccination increasing is very important for AMC and for the movie theater industry generally," AMC CEO Adam Aron had said in a conference call, earlier in August, with analysts, according to a FactSet transcript." http://www...val-of-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine Warner brothers owns a controlling interest and signed off on pulling Neil's music. Nils Lofgren, also linked to warner Bros. David Crosby-linked to warner Bros. Kay Hanley of "letters to cleo"...also linked to warner Bros. Just a coincidence? Mabey, I thought at first it was but it is odd that warner Bros has at least partial ownership to all of these artists when warner stands to financially benefit from vaccines...mabey its just a tin hat conspiracy.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 09:38:27 "Artistic control" is prolly in Neil's contract. It is in everyone's interest that covid restrictions end. Vaccinations are the way to get there. Even though Omnicron is likely giving enough slack for Luddites the be carried on the backs of everyone else.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 30 10:02:36 "It is in everyone's interest that covid restrictions end. Vaccinations are the way to get there." Wrong. Ending Covid restrictions is how you end Covid restrictions.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 10:11:50 Ruggy Wow, you are in true captain obvious mode these days. The key metric is health care capacity. Covid restrictions are to keep that from getting overwhelmed. Useless slugs can freeload off people doing their civic duty, but if everyone had taken that course, then omnicron would have shut the nation down again.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 10:14:48 http://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend Its close enough as it is. Thank your vaccinated for keeping the country open.
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 30 10:19:02 It is weird though that it seems they are all warner Bros. Artists. But personally I think it has more to do with old hippies turning into the man and artists of a similar generation being of a similar mind and friendly.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 30 10:32:27 Jergul Health capacity is fine. If you really feel otherwise, your aging population was already overdue for a hospital capacity expansion, so go for that. The rest is just theater. Covid restrictions like masks and vaccine mandates do fuck all. Well, they do give commies like you go on power trips by forcing people to wear funny things in public and inject experimental drugs into their bodies, but otherwise, thinking that they will get us out of Covid is just asinine.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 30 10:33:10 *commies like you the opportunity to go on power...
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 10:51:27 Habebe Or contractional. Ruggy Hospital capacity is ok in the US because freeloading slugs could ride on the backs of people with a sense of civic duty. Eradication was abandoned in very early days. Since then, it has been all about keeping complications below hospital thresholds. Where vaccines play a critical role.
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 30 10:57:53 Jergul, Why do you hate black people?
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 11:10:35 Why on earth would you make this about race? "As of January 10, 2022, White people accounted for the largest share (65%) of people who are unvaccinated"
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 30 11:47:03 Wow! The majority race has the most unvaccinated! Guess what, they are also the most vaccinated group too.Mind blown...
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 30 11:47:21 Parsing jergulspeak: "You don't actually have a serious problem, but we still want to see continued restrictions and mandates anyway. Because we, as leftists, love power trips."
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 11:52:33 habebe So stop making it about race, moron. Ruggy Stop that. You suck at it. Current US restrictions seem about appropriate given that hospitalization still is increasing slowly. Want to help open up? Get vaccinated.
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 30 11:57:24 Do most Norweigans lack the ability to sense trolling?
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 30 12:00:00 We are open. Just not the shitty areas of the country. But the good one have been open for over a year, and its been fine. Must suck huh jergul, knowing that the common people don't need a bunch of central government apparatchiks to run their lives for them. That must severely fuck with your worldview.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 30 12:03:31 My condolenses on your father's passing. But be careful. In the words of wilde on orphanage. Losing one parent is misfortune. Losing both is carelessness.
Rugian Member	Tue Feb 01 16:44:07 My mother already got Covid. But thank you.
Rugian Member	Tue Feb 01 16:46:14 Well, this probably warrants its own thread, but the White House is now directly pressuring Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. Leftists have gone authoritarian. "White House press secretary Jen Psaki called on music and podcast streaming giant Spotify to do “more” in the fight against Covid-19 "misinformation" on Tuesday. At her daily press briefing, President Joe Biden’s top spokeswoman was asked about a decision by the company to add disclaimers linking to Covid-19 information hubs to any piece of content that includes discussion of the pandemic, vaccines, or Covid-19 itself. She responded that the change was a good step, but that the company could take steps (if it wanted) to actively prohibit content that contained "misinformation " http://www...ovid-white-house-b2005488.html
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 01 16:49:50 Ok grab your pitchforks, this time we are storming the white house. Just kidding FBI :D
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 01 16:51:33 Well that was quick. Got a call from the FBI. Apparently they did not appreciate my joke.
Rugian Member	Tue Feb 01 17:30:10 Careful nim. The FBI doesn't have direct jurisdiction over you, but as Olof Palme found out we have ways of dealing with you Swedish troublemakers!
kargen Member	Tue Feb 01 18:01:28 Well now I am devastated. India Arie has said she will take her songs off of Spotify. Oh what will I do how shall I survive?
Forwyn Member	Wed Feb 02 02:47:22 "Hospital capacity is ok in the US" Until the next flu outbreak. Bed capacity is expensive.
kargen Member	Wed Feb 02 03:02:54 http://jim...m_campaign=post&utm_medium=web I stumbled across this looking to see if Neil Young had an opinion back in the 80s. Stopped looking when I found this but still curious.
murder Member	Wed Feb 02 09:28:28 It's probably a good thing that you stopped when you found that.
kargen Member	Wed Feb 02 15:53:17 But I didn't stop. Curiosity got the better of me and I found this. "Neil Young will receive the Spirit of Liberty lifetime achievement award, while Trey Parker and Matt Stone (“South Park”) and directors Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”) and Kevin Smith (“Dogma”) will receive Defender of Democracy awards. California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will be presented with the Spirit of Liberty award. The event will be hosted by comedian Elayne Boosler. Actor Ben Affleck will be on hand to present. “These individuals … have taken public stands to support a free, open, and democratic society through their art and work, educating while entertaining, and courageously addressing today’s most fundamental social and political issues,” People for the American Way said in a statement." THe People for the American Way opposed the PMRC but are big advocates for restricting free speech for right wing voices. So I guess Neil Young has been against free speech for a few decades anyway.
Habebe Member	Fri Feb 04 12:40:46 Jergul, To some degree yes, people will take information and run with it using it in ways that could be harmful and contrary to the manner that they heard it. Look at vaccinnes, the push to vaccinate has caused unlicensed people to perform illegal vaccinations on children. But is that the fualt of the pro vaccine voices? I would think not.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 05 02:22:36 Any links to Fauci idly wondering if perhaps at home vaccinations of children might be a good idea?
jergul large member	Sat Feb 05 02:23:34 It would be entirely justified, because later on, science shows that it may not help, but at least it is not harmful to vaccinate children if done in a controlled and licensed way.
obaminated Member	Sat Feb 05 03:29:07 The left screamed at Spotify to cancel rogan and they lost. Spotify knows he is their golden goose.
obaminated Member	Sat Feb 05 03:34:07 And really the leftist media attacking rogan has a lot less to do with ideology and a lot more to do with him completely displacing them. CNN picked a fight with rogan and completely failed. New media, aka open forum podcasts that aren't 5 minute interviews are far more entertaining. Old money always hates change because it means they haven't adapted, so they'll die off. Oh well
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: