Joe Rogan and Spotify
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
more than that - people seem to turn off their brains on the internet - being taken into scams (job con/catfish) or influencers like Rogan - why ? (discuss)
despite all the claims for digital literacy in young adults, they appear to exhibit illiteracy, and unable to interpret cues, which in real life would say run a mile.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,438
lol love hearing people attack Joe over misinformation... he really doesn't give much of his own opinion just lets his guests say their piece, sometimes asking dumb questions and occasionally challenging them slightly on what they say
I agree. About half way through this one. I already know Maajid's back story after reading his autobiography, and listened to him for years on LBC (shame they binned him off, was one of the few remaining interesting presenters).
Even though I agree broadly with him, and understand and accept his conclusions, I still think it's dumb not to get vaccinated based purely on a "omg the government hates us all" tangent and can see there isn't much of gap to leap from his pov to full scale bat **** conspiracy that they are out to tag us all tracking or some equally crazy stuff. I think us in the UK have done a good enough job of keeping the pressure on the government and it looks to have paid off to a point.
Soldato
He gives a platform to misinformation though and then doesn’t challenge it. This is the issue, if you must use your global reach podcast to give a platform to the lunatic fringe then surely you are morally obligated to challenge the nonsense they spout?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,438
I don't think so? The vibe of the podcast is to have a guest on and listen to their point of view - I know it seems really alien in this world of shouting down and trying to cancel anything you don't agree with but I don't think he's looking to have it be particularly antagonistic... Nor is he really qualified or intelligent enough to properly debate with many of the guests if he wanted to go that route.
What he does do is allow pretty much anybody to come and talk and use the platform, so you get the other points of view from other episodes as well. He gets such a good variety of guests too because they know that they aren't walking into a viper pit where some sanctimonious host with an agenda is going to try and trap them or portray them a certain way.
What he does do is allow pretty much anybody to come and talk and use the platform, so you get the other points of view from other episodes as well. He gets such a good variety of guests too because they know that they aren't walking into a viper pit where some sanctimonious host with an agenda is going to try and trap them or portray them a certain way.
Again, who decides what is misinformation? Who decides what is nonsense? Who are you giving the power to?
Haven't people learned anything from the past two years? A lot of what was considered misinformation in the past is now considered the truth. This is why it's good to hear from different people and not let there just be one truth decided by the mainstream that we're forced to believe.
Agree with all this.
Caporegime
This is the big issue with freedom of speech these days though. When you have such a large audience you have a massive impact on a lot of peoples views so there is a responsibility to try and make sure you are not spreading misinformation or straight up lies. Plenty of the stuff his guests say are just lies. Not opinions. Lies.
I don't have a problem with Rogan, I like the fact he doesn't try to be something he isn't and that he is open minded but I don't know how you deal with an increasingly politicised population who put far too much of their personal identity into their political views and party. This sort of thing just feeds them.
he gets guests because they know they won't be challenged intellectually and can reach a similar audience who are also, mostly, not discerning, and can take the opinion as gospel - does the average listener to his 3 hour epics spend as long listening/researching other opinions.
government considering sanctioning RT for russian propaganda - I watch bit's of it knowing I will cross-check
The problem with this format is that it's open to abuse. When a "doctor" appears on Joe Rogan and says something that completely defies reality, like that the vaccine is bad and is killing thousands, there's no real bar or burden of proof that has to be passed before they're allowed on. We don't know who's paying these people, we don't know what ulterior motives they have, or who's business interest they're trying to advance in the background. With mainstream media - they generally do a lot of background research on things like this, so they don't get dragged over the coals afterwards.
For example with the Pentagon UFO episodes, it was just a massive vehicle being used to get people to invest in a sham company that wanted to make sci-fi TV shows and documentaries. (to the stars academy)
I don't want to see shows like Rogan get "cancelled" or whatever, I don't want to live in that world. But I also don't want to live in a world where we allow charlatans or disingenuous people to just say whatever they like, to make a quick buck, at the expense of everybody else, and there be no consequences, or ramifications.
Agreed,
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,438
I can see those points of view too. I guess it's easy as a (relatively) educated listener to take it for what it is but I can appreciate that not everybody will view it in that way and that it could be misleading for some. Although as several of you touched on; people getting their existing (possibly wrong) ideas reinforced by the podcast is quite different to the idea that it's changing the minds of anyone, no?
Did anybody see the pair of episodes where just after the documentary "The Gamechangers" which was about Vegan/Plant based diets came out and he had a Scientist on who was distinctly against that stuff and was thoroughly "debunking" the whole documentary. It sounded plausible enough to me but the creator of the documentary reached out to Joe and asked to come on and they brought the two of them back on together and let them have it out... and actually he destroyed most of the arguments from the original guy's critique. I think the first episode isn't available anymore because Rogan said he didn't want to leave it up knowing it was basically wrong
Did anybody see the pair of episodes where just after the documentary "The Gamechangers" which was about Vegan/Plant based diets came out and he had a Scientist on who was distinctly against that stuff and was thoroughly "debunking" the whole documentary. It sounded plausible enough to me but the creator of the documentary reached out to Joe and asked to come on and they brought the two of them back on together and let them have it out... and actually he destroyed most of the arguments from the original guy's critique. I think the first episode isn't available anymore because Rogan said he didn't want to leave it up knowing it was basically wrong
Soldato
and here in lies the problem he should know if it's wrong or not before it goes out, he has a moral responsibility to use his platform appropriately and he should be fact checking these people before the episodes go out not hoping his listeners do the job for him. The tokenism of taking down one episode because someone pointed out it was all lies is pathetic as well when he allows loads of episodes that are full of equal amounts of nonsense to stay up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,438
Hmm, I dunno... I guess speaking personally I don't want a show that is sanitised to that degree (but again, I'm happy that I won't simply accept everything presented as fact)... I'm sure there are plenty of other shows you can listen to that will only ever allow people to say things that are 100% unrefuted facts, but that don't have the same vibe nor the same variety of guests appearing...
Besides which - can we really conclude that Rogan's podcast is having an actual material affect on peoples thoughts and actions or not? Is everyone clamouring for him to be censored and to go to extreme lengths to fact check everything or refuse to have certain people on doing so because they care that much about the truth, or is it just that along with a mixture of facts that are right/wrong you also get the opinions of people that they don't like or agree with.
And the above was just one example that came to mind, I'm listening to the recent Jordan Peterson episode at the moment (yes yes, the double whammy of controversy, put down those torches) - and there have been several occasions where Joe has halted the discussion to fact check something (e.g. I think he was saying something about X million children die from air pollution related something or other, and Joe said "that doesn't seem right/possible, is that really true?" and had Jamie look it up and it turned out Peterson was attributing that stat to the wrong fact). Granted - he's not an expert enough on many topics to be able to question things all the time but I don't think he's totally blind to the idea that he shouldn't just be letting guests say anything as if it's fact.
Besides which - can we really conclude that Rogan's podcast is having an actual material affect on peoples thoughts and actions or not? Is everyone clamouring for him to be censored and to go to extreme lengths to fact check everything or refuse to have certain people on doing so because they care that much about the truth, or is it just that along with a mixture of facts that are right/wrong you also get the opinions of people that they don't like or agree with.
And the above was just one example that came to mind, I'm listening to the recent Jordan Peterson episode at the moment (yes yes, the double whammy of controversy, put down those torches) - and there have been several occasions where Joe has halted the discussion to fact check something (e.g. I think he was saying something about X million children die from air pollution related something or other, and Joe said "that doesn't seem right/possible, is that really true?" and had Jamie look it up and it turned out Peterson was attributing that stat to the wrong fact). Granted - he's not an expert enough on many topics to be able to question things all the time but I don't think he's totally blind to the idea that he shouldn't just be letting guests say anything as if it's fact.
You think podcasts need to be 100% factual, do you realise the literal hell you're trying to create with that level of censorship? You basically want to ban conversations about topics where people aren't fully versed experts being broadcast into the public domain? Again, who decides the truth, presumably a government body, or? Just stop with these stupid statements please, recognise people are allowed to speak freely, if you disagree with something someone says then address it accordingly, don't tell people they're morally wrong for talking on the internet.
Soldato
Where did I say they should be 100% factual or that the government should censor it, I said I believe that someone with the platform that Rogan has is morally obliged to do at least a cursory fact check on the things his guests say before he publishes them, I would mind so much if the things that get said were eve debatable but for someone with his wide reach to just broadcast utter nonsense as if it is fact is simply wrong. Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility and it is the responsibility element that Rogan needs to exercise.
Thanks for your wonderfully over the top extrapolation from what I said though.
PS I didn't say it was morally wrong to talk on the internet, you made that corker up
Soldato
He doesn't need to go to extreme lengths to fact check his guest a 10 second google would reveal half the fallacies that are spouted on his show, I am not advocating he is censored I am advocating that he take responsibility for the content he puts out, I have no problems with opinions and people are entitled to different ones but saying red is green is not an opinion it is nonsense a bit like saying vaccines are killing millions only one is slightly more harmful than the other....
Where did I say they should be 100% factual or that the government should censor it, I said I believe that someone with the platform that Rogan has is morally obliged to do at least a cursory fact check on the things his guests say before he publishes them, I would mind so much if the things that get said were eve debatable but for someone with his wide reach to just broadcast utter nonsense as if it is fact is simply wrong. Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility and it is the responsibility element that Rogan needs to exercise.
Thanks for your wonderfully over the top extrapolation from what I said though.
PS I didn't say it was morally wrong to talk on the internet, you made that corker up
So you want him to fact check from Google, why is Google right and the guy he's speaking to wrong? He isn't conducting an interview, he's letting people speak, you can infact check the facts yourself as the listener afterwards, just as you were able to find the JRE podcast you can find other podcasts that may put out different information, you can Google things yourself, Joe Rogan doesn't need to Google every counter argument to things his guests might say on his podcast the day before just incase some guy on Twitter who already doesn't like him pretends to be outraged
Soldato
Again you are making things up, all I have said is that someone with such a large platform is in my opinion morally obliged to do basic fact checking of his guests before he allows them the privilege of such a platform, multiple fact checking options are available but if you google your guest and the first page of results says they are an antivax nut job then you probably shouldn't be lending them your platform unless of course you a) agree with them b) don't care it is all about the money/fame or c) a combination of the previous two. Again I have never said he needs to fact check every word but as I said repeatedly I believe he has a moral responsibility to ensure he doesn't give his platform and any legitimacy that comes with it.
You disagree and think it is ok to disseminate garbage to the masses for profit, I get that I think you are wrong but thats your cross to die on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,438
How many of the JRE podcasts have you actually listened to @a1ex2001, truthfully? If you have any good direct examples of what you're talking about it would be good to hear them because although I haven't listened to every episode by a long way I believe I have listened to most of the "controversial" ones and I just don't see what you're describing. Joe often does seem to have done at least a little bit of background reading and he does often do some basic questioning of anything that sounds particularly outlandish. When did he say (or agree with) a statement saying the vaccines are killing millions for example?
Soldato
He gave his platform to known anti vaxer and spreader of terrible lies Dr Robert Malone did you miss that one?