Joe Rogan and Spotify

Roar87 said:
Banning books containing nudity in a school would seem reasonable, especially if people are religious.
Click to expand...

Apparently 8th grade is 13-14 years old. They shouldn't be banning anything imo, but we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to those crazy religious nuts in the states.
 
Roar87 said:
Banning books containing nudity in a school would seem reasonable, especially if people are religious.
Click to expand...
The "nudity" is less explicit than you see in many old churches (and untold bits of Christian art), it's basically on a par with the fig leave, or cherubs, and apparently most people don't notice anything that could possibly be seen as rude (unless you consider something immoral about the way people dress to go swimming).

A lot of republican's in the Us are actively trying to ban anything that informs their children of history, they're passing laws that basically make it illegal (if taken as they're writing them) to teach about such minor things as the civil war, the reasons behind WW2, the civil rights movement etc.
The fun bit is that the same laws they're trying to pass would mean that the bible could be banned as it's far more explicit than many of the books they're aiming at as they're trying to make it so that pretty much anything other than hand holding is enough reason to be banned (and hand holding is enough if say it's two males, or two females doing it).

Claiming a book is "explicit" is a paper thin justification for banning a book that hits uncomfortably close to home in it's warnings.
 
i-bert said:
Come on they're burning books about witchcraft. How is this politically driven?

And the school board are claiming banning Maus is because of profanity and nudity.

Where is the politics? And WTF has it got to do with Trump?
Click to expand...

Witchcraft? Harry Potter and Twilight. Give me a break.

Nudity? A cartoon naked mouse. Profanity "god damn" these kids will hear far worse in the playground or anywhere else.

Of course its political. Christianity and evangelical Christianity is woven into politics more today than in a very long time. You pretty much can't get elected there if you say your an atheist.

The only reason this was bought up was because posters try to claim its the left banning, book burning and controlling what people can see and hear when that it total ********. Both sides have done it historically. Trying as they always do that its the evil left is responsible is lazy and inaccurate.

C Kent said:
To kill a mockingbird, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Of mice and men, amongst many many others.
Which 'side' banned those?
Click to expand...

Do you see me defending any side banning books? I'm not a fan of censorship full stop. In matters of public health I just want to see people act with some responsibility, at least use a disclaimer. This isn't about politics or it shouldn't be.
 
Werewolf said:
The "nudity" is less explicit than you see in many old churches (and untold bits of Christian art), it's basically on a par with the fig leave, or cherubs, and apparently most people don't notice anything that could possibly be seen as rude (unless you consider something immoral about the way people dress to go swimming).

A lot of republican's in the Us are actively trying to ban anything that informs their children of history, they're passing laws that basically make it illegal (if taken as they're writing them) to teach about such minor things as the civil war, the reasons behind WW2, the civil rights movement etc.
The fun bit is that the same laws they're trying to pass would mean that the bible could be banned as it's far more explicit than many of the books they're aiming at as they're trying to make it so that pretty much anything other than hand holding is enough reason to be banned (and hand holding is enough if say it's two males, or two females doing it).

Claiming a book is "explicit" is a paper thin justification for banning a book that hits uncomfortably close to home in it's warnings.
Click to expand...

This. How anyone can claim this isn't political is beyond me. This is all about politics, the fact US politics are that twisted at this point is irrelevant.
 
i-bert said:
So you quote me and then say "you all"

Yeah, god knows why I got involved. :rolleyes:

Surely you can see that Roar87 was meaning why religious people would be offended, and not him?
Click to expand...
So religious people need protecting and censorship is a good idea, got it.
 
This is quite interesting - Joe Rogan episode from March 2020, right at the start of the pandemic, his guest - epidemiologist/infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm*:

https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/sk8cnu/this_is_a_staggering_clip_to_watch_now_in_2022/
Michale: So that's what we need to do here, we need to have straight talk. Don't tell them it's low risk, that's like the hurricane... I would be really mad at you if I thought you were a hurricane forecaster and you knew this was coming but you kept telling me oh it's low risk don't worry about it.

Rogan: Right, yeah and once it hit..

Michael: So that's what we need to do today is just say this is going to be challenging and we're going to get through it, we're going to get through it

Rogan: I hope this wakes people up to the value of vaccines, dude there's so many wackos out there who think that vaccines are, you know, a scam or they're dangerous ... there's so many people out there that won't vaccinate their children

Michael: I know and one of your best shows was with Peter Hotez**, he's a dear friend of mine [...] and he's one of the champions out there on this very issue.
Click to expand...

Full episode of the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw

I think this is part of the earlier 2019 episode Michael mentions there featuring Peter Hotez, clip re: vaccines and autism here:


He also had him come back as a guest in April 2020, asked him about HCQ here:


The credentials of these two guests he's had on in 2020, and also earlier in 2019 too in the case of Peter too (Peter seems to have been on the show three times in total now and is a strong advocate of vaccines):
Michael Osterholm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Osterholm
Michael Thomas Osterholm (born March 10, 1953) is an American epidemiologist, Regents Professor, and Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.[2][3]

On November 9 he was named a member of President-elect Joe Biden's COVID-19 Advisory Board.
Click to expand...

Peter Hotez
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hotez
Peter Jay Hotez (born May 5, 1958) is an American scientist, pediatrician, and advocate in the fields of global health, vaccinology, and neglected tropical disease control. He serves as founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine, Professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, where he is also Director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development and Texas Children's Hospital Endowed Chair in Tropical Pediatrics, and University Professor of Biology at Baylor University
Click to expand...

I guess perhaps he should get Peter back on the show now after the fallout from the two oddball/crank types.
 
Tbh.. he does seem to have some interesting guests but I don't think I could sit through a whole episode, his questions would just get annoying after a while. Anyway, just throwing these into the thread too:

4fmBrxE.jpg


jjJSVrk.jpg
 
He’s released another video apologising for his use of the N word in podcasts and a dodgy joke he made when getting out of a taxi in Philadelphia.
 
bit late now -

Interesting that anti-vax rhetoric has not been put into the new internet harms bill (like porn, terrorism, suicide ) - spotify could have over 18 Rogan categorisation for starters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom