Majority of ‘270 doctors’ who signed letter to Spotify take action against Rogan not medical doctors

[cow451]

When you don't ban evil leaders of this world like dictators and violent despots, and are more worried about the Rogan's of this world instead?

Well, they did ban one I know of.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

IMO it comes from insecurity. From my experience, If one is secure that one's views are well thought out and backed by factual evidence one does not fear to have an opposing view heard by anyone wishing to hear it. As a matter of fact, a secure person wants to hear the opposing views and have those views heard in order to either reinforce one's previous held belief, correct a previous misconception or be better preprepared to properly argue against what the opposition is saying rather than ignorantly arguing against some strawman one fashioned for the purpose of easily destroying. Additionally, insecure people cannot abide being seen by others as ever having been wrong. Having any view available that does not conform to their own view is threatening to their sense of self-worth. An insecure person will not be able to examine their own beliefs for fear that they might be mistaken in even some small way. That being the case, it is anathema for such a person to even be exposed to anything that might challenge their dearly held beliefs. Add on to this the need of the insecure person to feel accepted by the larger group and the loyalty to that group that it engenders makes the existence of any opposition view to that of the group seem like an attack upon one's very identity.

I truly do not understand the fear and hostility toward disparate views. People can believe what they want. People can listen to various sides of any issue.

The segment that feels compelled to silence and punish and deplatform other views is really concerning.

 

[Sketcher]

You have cheesesteak Drs over there? Suddenly I understand what all the fuss about the US of A is about.

Actually, it's a quote from a TV show. But the rest of the context would mean I can't post the clip here.

 

[Bradskii]

That's true, the two concepts shouldn't be conflated.

But, that said, if you look at the ratios of guests he's had one, what would you estimate the ratio of "wackos":"credible" has been?

He's had a few of the former on there obviously, but he's also had nearly a thousand guests. The overwhelming majority have been credible with regards to the subject matter they happened to be covering when I scan through his guest list.


Joe Rogan Podcast Guests - JRE Podcast

...and it's highly doubtful that his show ever would've become as popular as it did if he didn't at least know how to conduct a halfway decent interview with people.

Without reading through his guest list, I'd guess (and I may be wrong) that Faucci was on representing one set of claims and Malone and McCullough were on representing a different set of claims. So...a balanced view was given?

No. Because Faucci represents the vast majority of medical experts and Malone represents a tiny fraction. To get a balanced view you'd need 9 experts who would back up Faucci and one who supported Malone. If they're both on for an equal amount of time then there's a tendency to grant each an equal amount of credibility.

It's like having a panel discussion talking about the new Webb telescope and having half the guests as astronomers and the other half YECs.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Without reading through his guest list, I'd guess (and I may be wrong) that Faucci was on representing one set of claims and Malone and McCullough were on representing a different set of claims. So...a balanced view was given?

No. Because Faucci represents the vast majority of medical experts and Malone represents a tiny fraction. To get a balanced view you'd need 9 experts who would back up Faucci and one who supported Malone. If they're both on for an equal amount of time then there's a tendency to grant each an equal amount of credibility.

It's like having a panel discussion talking about the new Webb telescope and having half the guests as astronomers and the other half YECs.

That's not how presenting opposing viewpoints works though.

Unless you're just looking for excessive repetition?

There's "Side A" with their set of talking points
And "Side B" with their set of talking points

Having a few people on from each side is sufficient. That's why when you see most panel debates, there's 2 or 3 people from each side representing their respective positions, and it's not done based on proportions.

It'd be like if there were a "Corvettes are Better than Mustangs" club...there's only so many people from that club you could have on before you'd just start hearing the same talking points about horsepower and handling that you've already heard 3 times.

Plus, if you start saturating one viewpoint over another, you lose all chances of being considered a "balanced interviewer", and it gets to the point where people from one side or the other wouldn't even want to go on your show anymore.

 

[Bradskii]

That's not how presenting opposing viewpoints works though.

Unless you're just looking for excessive repetition?

There's "Side A" with their set of talking points
And "Side B" with their set of talking points

Having a few people on from each side is sufficient. That's why when you see most panel debates, there's 2 or 3 people from each side representing their respective positions, and it's not done based on proportions.

It'd be like if there were a "Corvettes are Better than Mustangs" club...there's only so many people from that club you could have on before you'd just start hearing the same talking points about horsepower and handling that you've already heard 3 times.

That wouldn't be a problem in discussing opinions. But if you were inviting a couple of people to a school to discuss satelite technology, do you have to also have a couple of flat earthers to give their opinion on the matter?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That wouldn't be a problem in discussing opinions. But if you were inviting a couple of people to a school to discuss satelite technology, do you have to also have a couple of flat earthers to give their opinion on the matter?

Depends on the forum...if it's specifically discussing the technical specifics of the technology...no.

If the point of the forum was to be a "flat vs. round" debate, then yes, 2 members of each.

 

[Bradskii]

Depends on the forum...if it's specifically discussing the technical specifics of the technology...no.

If the point of the forum was to be a "flat vs. round" debate, then yes, 2 members of each.

You think that flat earthers should be given equal time to astronomers to put their views forward? Yikes...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You think that flat earthers should be given equal time to astronomers to put their views forward? Yikes...

If the whole point of the forum/panel/exchange is a debate between the two on that particular topic...then sure. Otherwise, why even host the debate?

There's already a public forum for 1,000,000 normal sane people to gang up on a single silly flat earther, it's called "the internet"

But it should be noted, that clearly people are more afraid of Malone seeming credible than flat-earthers, thus the reason he's been deplatformed.

The flat-earthers still have their twitter account.
https://twitter.com/flatearthorg?lang=en

So clearly, the "getting banned for misinformation" territory exists somewhere between "so silly everyone laughs at it" and "credible"

I'm not suggesting Malone is right here (just to clarify)...if I'd thought that, I wouldn't have had 3 doses of Pfizer...I'm just saying that if the only environment in which people are "allowed" to hear him is in a 99-vs-1 debate, I think the consensus position is making themselves look artificially weak.

 

[HannahT]

Well, they did ban one I know of.

Wow. One dictator was banned (snickers)... They must be proud.

Come on now Cow. lol!

 

[FireDragon76]

Long overdue... Rogan peddles in "Bro Science", and needs to be called out. He's entitled to have a talk show, but he needs to exercise more social responsibility.

 

[cow451]

Wow. One dictator was banned (snickers)... They must be proud.

Come on now Cow. lol!

Better one than none, right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Long overdue... Rogan peddles in "Bro Science", and needs to be called out. He's entitled to have a talk show, but he needs to exercise more social responsibility.

It depends on the show...there's some bro-science on their with regards to "gains brah" and weird diet fads, but that's not unique from any other social media fitness personality. The internet is full of those and people generally leave them alone.

He's also had one several credible scientists to talk about the issue (and refute some of his misconceptions)

Just to name a few...

Michael Osterholm

Dr. Rhonda Patrick Just Set Joe Rogan Straight on Vaccine Myths

I would argue that based on his guest list, he's had on more credible people than non-credible. (at least within the scientific realm)
Scientists - Guest Categories - JRE Library

 

[HannahT]

Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, agrees to remove Neil Young's music from service