Out of curiosity, how would you handle it? Somebody wants to go on the show and say for example - vaccinating children is dangerous, or something that blatantly goes against all current advice.
What would your solution be?
Joe Rogan and Spotify
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Out of curiosity, how would you handle it? Somebody wants to go on the show and say for example - vaccinating children is dangerous, or something that blatantly goes against all current advice.
What would your solution be?
It's not an interview
Hear him out and have a conversation. I would want to hear his reasons for what he thinks. Why would I care if an expert said something that went against current mainstream advice? We all know that current advice isn't always right. We've seen that and many have given examples in this thread.
I don't think it needs a "solution", you ask them questions etc.. and hear the specific claims/reasons for them.
Then you get some other people on the show in another episode and you ask them about their views, what are they claiming and why etc.. and so on.
Rogan isn't in a position to start debating these people* and that isn't what his show is about, he seems to ask on a variety of people and lets them speak but he can certainly challenge them to back up their claims or he can refer to arguments made by others if something sounds off etc..
*this guy is a cardiologist and if he's going to get into worries about say heart inflammation etc.. then that's then fully within his domain, Rogan can be skeptical, ask questions, challenge him on stuff but could be rapidly out of his depth if he was to try and turn it into a debate.
Last edited:
"Peer-reviewed" is not imune to bias and agendas either:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
"their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
"their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention."
There isn't always "one truth" and hearing people exploring ideas through conversation can sometimes be frustrating if it clashes with your views, or those of people you trust more. It would be boring as hell if everyone shared some universal viewpoint on everything.
Piling on people that don't share your views can come across as a having a bit of a righteousness complex about their ideas. They can't be that great if you get upset about alternatives being merely discussed.
Piling on people that don't share your views can come across as a having a bit of a righteousness complex about their ideas. They can't be that great if you get upset about alternatives being merely discussed.
How many have you listened to in full? He has a high quality of guests on there.
Which brings me to,
This is an important point. Perr reviewed doesn't mean it's correct.
Screeeech seems to believe that we know who can be trusted, and people. Who's right and who is wrong. What's fact and what's misinformation. The world isn't that simple. We often don't know who is full of **** and who is credible before hearing from them. This is why we need to debate and ideas be challenged. This includes the mainstream which has proven to not be reliable.
He wants an independent expert but how do we determine who that would be? Why would that person have power over another expert and be able to shut him up?
People often have political or financial motives. How do you determine who can be trusted before hearing from them?
It's very dangerous to try and control what information we can hear.
From memory, in the past Joe has had a person come on because they have disagreed with a previous guest and I think there was even a third episode with both guests on simultaneously.
Apparently there is a huge swaft of experts who think that what those two people said is wrong, these experts should get on the joe rogan podcast and set the record straight rather than signing some pointless letter to spotify. As far as I know Joe won't block them from coming on.
In the context of a global pandemic that's killing millions of people, I think it's more dangerous to allow false claims go unchecked such as the things said by Peter McCullough; "The pandemic was planned, the experimental vaccines have killed thousands of people" and other very dubious claims which have quickly and easily been proven to be false.
If you allow things like that to go out unchecked, it undermines the efforts of everybody else who's working tirelessly to try and restore things back to normal.
I don't think it's good enough, this idea that we can "undo" the damage we caused this week, in next week's episode by getting somebody else to dismantle whatever nonsense was said, doesn't seem like a very sensible idea within the context of a pandemic.
In other words - you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Last edited:
Dragging experts down to the level of the moron on the platform definitely isn't the answer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
You only have to see how the public react when medical advice changes as further data is collected. A month ago you told us that, now you're telling us this, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Even though that is how science works.
Having a guest on one week saying things that are questionable at best on covid and a month later another guest refuting those claims might help for rational listeners, if they even hear the second interview but many aren't rational and they've had their views reinforced by the first interview and then take it to social media groups that are echo chambers where its all further reinforced. The guest a month later isn't going to make any inroads to those people, the damage is done. The anti vax movement before covid was a fringe movement, a growing fringe movement but its exploded and gone mainstream during covid. That will trickle down through other vaccines as people who were maybe just covid vaccine wary will get sucked into the full anti vaccine movement , MMR in under 5s is down in the UK. Pretty much all childhood vaccines are down and worryingly were dropping before covid. Lets see what 2022 brings but if the drop continues children will suffer.
How do you decide what are false claims? We've already shown how things that were considered to be false claims turned out to be true.
How do you decide what expert is correct? If experts disagree, which happens all the time, how do you decide who the expert is right?
How do you decide who should be allowed to talk?
How do you decide what are facts?
What gives you the right to decide what information and opinions others can hear?
What if the mainstream opinion is based on false claims and misinformation? This has happened in the past two years. If you had your way we wouldn't ever find out the truth.
You're not answering these questions.
I don't think you have thought this through. It seems you believe we automatically know the truth so should shut down other opinions as they're wrong. We don't know everything.
If the world was how you want it there would be misinformation everywhere, but no one would know because everyone who didn't agree with the mainstream would be silenced. You are downplaying how dangerous this is!
It's scary just how much trust people are prepared to put in people of power and don't want to challenge anything.
I wonder what his reaction would be if it was a Trump themed mask?
He probably already has the bedding set
Establishing trust by would be a start.
For example, many of the hardcore anti-vax "experts" (including Peter McCullough) have conflict of interests, those sorts of things should be disclosed and they generally are in debates or publications where things are taken seriously. It's foundational as to the trustworthiness of the individual, to ensure they're not just saying whatever suits them to make a quick buck, at the expense of everybody else.
Why am I going to waste my life, checking out every single cockamamie theory going about on Youtube, when I can just do what the NHS and my GP say I should do?
Do I need to go around checking out every single "5G is bad" "expert" youtube video, before I can make an informed decision about whether or not I get a 5G phone?
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 756
- Location
- UK
Joe Rogan knows what he's doing. Gaining global views and airtime. We should at least call him out when non-scientific claims are made, but closing his show down might not be the way to go as that's the slippery slope to an echo chamber, where only hear things you want to hear. The world is filled with people that will hear his words and accept them as fact, we should put a warning/reminder that there is no scientific merit to what he says. Then when those people die from poor health advise from a famous podcaster we can say we tried. Like in Don't Look Up. 
The irony here is that reflexively calling for differing views to be silenced is a common response from those with a weak or dishonest position.
It weighs against the trustworthiness of those who push it.
Its called scientific consensus. You only trust people willing to put their views out in writing. You add trust points if the platform itself is trusted and has a history for publishing high quality, peer-reviewed materials, corroborated by other experts. Experts can and do disagree, but that disagreement should also be published and open for peer review and debate.
Your strawman arguments that deeply misinformed individuals sharing their stream of conscious (the Michael Scott quote from the US Office: "Sometimes I start talking and don't even know where it is going") are as credible as experts, because you can't get your ahead around the word experts, is pretty weak tbh.
These differing views are as silly as the sky is a planet though. It just makes no sense other than someone making stuff up and then hopefully 1 in 10 stick.
Y'all are deeply infected with the "differing views" and "stick it to the man" culture that is in vogue at the minute. You were all probably in the "fake news" and calling people white snow prior to that. And prior to that in the pro-Brexit camp.
If at least 2 of my 3 comments above are true, trust me, its you not me
