Anyone else just think the world is fu**ing nuts. I think old school tribalism would be laughing at us right now like....oh you have all that technology but no one is actually happy.
Joe Rogans Spotify apology
- Thread starter slant
- Start date
It's like the more access to info we have and the more opportunities to broadly discuss that information the dumber civilization gets. How is this possible!?! lolol
Do you make sense? Yes.
Does that approach make sense? Within the context of the military-industrial complex, yes, it does...because what is reported is subject to revision, and because there is the aim to report that which can survive peer review, with open sources.
Science isn’t a body of knowledge, but a thinking process and approach. What is the “other side” of that? Mysticism? Tribal propaganda? Conspiracy theory? Full fiction? Magical thinking? Cognitive fallacy? Dissonance?
I don’t want to hear any of that.
Is it valid that someone would hold those opinions? Sure, yes.
Are the opinions based on those other sides valid? Fuck no!
I mean, if someone also values engaging in irrational belief, then sure, go to town. Deny reality, and live in a land of make-believe.
“Both sides” is seriously overrated when the driver is “my uninformed opinion is equal to your knowledge.”
If Joe Rogan started talking about the right of children to enter into casual sexual relationships with adults, would you seek to insure that there was equal time for each opinion? Is there any topic that goes too far? If so, what?
As a government, no, I would not censor and block him.
As a private company, I would go bankrupt because I wouldn’t always chase the dollar, but while I was solvent, I wouldn’t do business with people like him.
If the “sides” in discussion of the forthcoming 2026 pandemic are virologists, genomic sequencers, doctors, immunologists, infectious disease specialists, biomanufacturing engineers...then bring it on.
But it won’t be like that, because people with uninformed opinions will consider their opinions to be equally valid, and demand “their side” be granted equal time.
And if you say okay, show me your sources and thought processes, you get nothing, or lies, or attacked.
I can’t control any of it, but it sure is negative entertainment, so let me get my popcorn.
I don’t consider the use of rhetoric and sophistry to give ignorance a showroom polish a worthwhile standpoint or approach.
Imagine if there was social media and entertaining charlatans with reach back in the time of polio. The “other side” would lionize the patriotism of those in an iron lung, and celebrate the sacrifice they made in the name of freedom, while the infidels got vaccinated and went on with their lives.
Ugh,
Ian
It’s just that the internet and COVID has totally exposed the truth of half the population having a double-digit IQ. Those people didn’t have a voice before. And no one used to be able to say things anonymously.
You’re simply witnessing the truth that was there all along.
Cheers,
Ian
The writing is on the wall for all to see that this civilization is not only in decline but will collapse with in our life times along with significant population losses which is sad that perhaps it could have lasted longer but hopefully what ever replaces it several hundred years from now is not only decent but actually good. My guess that at a bare minimum it would take anywhere from 50 to 200 years or so for everything post collapse to stabilize then another few hundred more there to be a meaningful recovery and the population as well the biosphere to rebound but by the end of the millennium things should be pretty much ok though doubtful the population will be more than a billion or so. At worst the planet dead rocks like Mars or Venus but that is a story for a different time. As for how the next few years plays out is really in the hands of the elites and their management politicians ect for which most of us are along for a white knuckle ride that may end with the world being a very different place or our eventual extinction. By the way if the US fails and is invaded years from now pretty sure the likes of Russia and China will be happy to find that there is over 20,000 intact nuke bomb cores for all those crazy people in their militaries to play with but at least the stock piles of VX should have been incinerated years ago hopefully.
Pin
"Magnificent Bastard" / Ren's Counterpart
- Jun 26, 2017
- 12,749
- 50,519
- 3,276
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 3w4, 3-8-7
Joe Rogan's an entertainer but I wouldn't go to him for quality information. Many Americans are not very educated and they'll listen to the most convincing charlatan or huckster to confirm their biases.
To clarify, that quote I wasn't saying both sides of any political issue is right. I meant that, it seems at the core of it, on this particular issue, ironically both sides are being motivated by wanting "both sides" of an issue to be equally talked about. You just have a political split and one side has more power and is dominating the narrative.
I will say, I think bringing up the possibly of Joe Rogan bringing on a pedophile and promoting it is a bit of a low blow and extreme idea. Rogan has actually multiple times discussed the troublesome idea of normalizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation:
(At this point I'm no longer addressing you aeon I'm about to go on a rant lol just so you don't get confused by the switch)
What's infuriating to me personally is that Joe Rogan is misrepresented by people who never even watched him. I get it. I don't watch Rachel Maddow (but I used to, I have actually watched her show), and I can say I don't like her and she biased but people who agree with her will argue the opposite. And I'm not saying Joe Rogan doesn't have political biases- he does. And it definitely motivates who he brings on the show because Joe Rogan is a curious person who wants to explore new ideas and also point out flaws in them. His show is not an education show-- it is a conversation show. He brings lots of people on and talks about their careers or area of study.
I personally don't like cancel culture. I don't think we should shut down opinions we don't agree with or think are wrong- just speak up against it. Culture is changing, though. That's not the way most people feel. And I don't think in the digital age there is much you can do to protect discussion when the majority would rather you only talk about what they agree with. As annoyed as I am with the mainstream media's deliberate misrepresentation of various topics, I don't think we should shut down CNN or MSNBC or Fox or make them show both sides. I just don't watch that shit. I don't understand the urge to control-- I don't think we are really protecting anybody.
But again. I know this is one side. I'm not saying other opinions are wrong, I just have difficulty understanding that mindset.
Sometimes I think, this is the way the world is meant to be designed- you have to have opposing forces, different ideals pushing and pulling at each other to ever really make progress.
If people like me only existed we would go way to far and maybe not have the benefit of the other side questioning us and improving processes. So in the end, even though it's frustrating/worrisome to me that this is happening, there has to be some benefit of the opposite opinion. There is no utopian society to begin with. If most people like this, then maybe that's what is best for society and my mindset will die off with the times in favor of evolving ideology.
I guess you can say JRE is an entertainment show. But given what I understand, he has people who regard themselves as experts on the show speaking about topics that are in the public's interest.... Like covid.... And then the cardiologist he had on who opposes the COVID vaccines. Not really entertainment at that point. Because it's a topic of public interest.
Last edited:
Pin
"Magnificent Bastard" / Ren's Counterpart
- Jun 26, 2017
- 12,749
- 50,519
- 3,276
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 3w4, 3-8-7
I've often wondered that myself.
It's always bothered me as to why the fish are happy to swim and birds are happy to fly, yet humans who are built to walk either like sitting on the sofa or going really fast in machines. We subject ourselves to things that seemingly go against ourselves. Planes, cars, crap diets and more information than we know what to do with.
I believe, ( with zero research ) that your average human just isn't built to handle large amounts of information. Most of us seem to be happy with what lies just beyond our noses but then we go ahead and start discussing multiverses and all therein. Most of us seem to be able to keep a garden tidy and keep on top of our own hygiene but when stuff starts getting a bit out there we fall apart and rely heavily on machines.
Sometimes I look at nature and see evolution for want of a better expression and think i have a decent grasp on how it works. Then there's Homo-sapiens. Who act like Frankenstein's monster who woke half way through creation then shit the bed and proceeded to run around the earth like the mad king George, because it doesn't know if it should wipe its ass or cry for help.
The crazier life gets the more Plato's Cave takes on a whole new narrative for me.
Anyways, back to Joe ( Orangutans spear fish now ) Rogan. I've never been convinced by the guy. His whole gimmick is that of an 80's high-school drop out. I don't believe he's done anything wrong as such, he's just finding out the hard way that the stoner gimmick doesn't really work when you have big moneymen and sponsorship to keep happy. There's only so long you can sit and pretend you haven't noticed your house is on fire. I don't believe He's anywhere near as ignorant as he portrays. Although at the end of the day he's just another middle aged bald guy who hasn't a clue whats going on. He's hardly unique.
I understand this perspective and want to say that perhaps disclaimers would be helpful with this.
I will say though, some controversial topics are only controversial because they don't have enough research into them. A good example is vitamin c for cancer treatment. This has not been supported by mainstream medicine and there has been little funding into researching it's effectiveness. In recent years, more research has been released showing positive results when in the past it was considered dangerous and not something to be done. We aren't always right about what we think we know, and a lot of what is "right" is dictated by what research is funded and what isn't. Profit motive can at times prevent research from being funded, because if one thing already works, why explore other options?
That's what I am curious about. Why can't we have other options, ok vaccines are great and work, why can't we explore other avenues too? Why are vaccines the only possible solution? I feel like I'm missing something again. And I'm NOT saying vaccines are bad! I'm saying- what's wrong with having more options?
I get that, and I'm inclined to agree, but here is what doesn't make sense:
There is a large percentage of the population who agree with and feel that voices like Joe Rogan have no basis, provide misinformation, and should not exist. Lots of people agree that the mainstream news is more accurate and that this perspective that you're talking about is overblown.
So there must be something I'm missing in this argument.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,346
- 246,981
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Because when you have a world population where half has an IQ less than 100, have governments and corporations that have engaged in misinformation and propaganda for decades, and you have a public health emergency where tens of thousands of people are dying every day, exploring other avenues leads to confusion, compliance fatigue, a permanent pandemic situation, disruption of markets, and incredible stress on the economy.
Should we discuss other avenues? Absolutely yes!
But not now! People are dying, thousands every day. Go with the peer-reviewed clinical data first, be consistent with that, and when you have reasonable control of the situation, e.g., getting COVID mortality to match that of influenza, only then look at other options in preparation for the next variant, and the next epidemic/pandemic.
As it stands, COVID will be with us forever, because so many have been misled by exploring other avenues that currently have no evidentiary basis of efficacy, even after multiple studies.
It becomes a huge waste of human time, resources, and life, and that doesn’t have to happen.
If you think tens of thousands of people dying every day is a worthwhile cost, along with the hundreds of thousands of COVID orphans, and suchlike, then my argument is without basis and may be dismissed.
My sense is when one is in a burning building, the focus needs to be on getting out, not on whether the sprinkler system should have been upgraded.
Cheers,
Ian
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,346
- 246,981
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Life is about fixing the sprinklers while the place is on fire. It would be nice to leave but there's nowhere to go.
Thank you. This makes a lot of sense. So the idea is that people can't be trusted so we have to make decisions for them? Would that be a fair simplification? I'm not being condescending I understand the reasons why you're saying most people can't be trusted from this standpoint, I'm trying to see this from the other side, translate what the difference of values is here
So essentially this is a social contract issue.
In order to maintain a society, we surrender certain rights, and when controversial information that may or may not be true is widely distributed and confuses people who don't know how to tell the difference between good information and bad information, it becomes a issue of public affairs and has to be controlled.
Especially in this case, it's not the information existing itself, but the popularity/accessibility of the information because it will reach people incapable of smelling bullshit and therefore influence public opinion in a negative way/cause bad decisions of the mass.
That's not really Joe Rogans fault itself but the cost of being "big" and "influential" is that you can sway public opinion and because Joe Rogan is presenting info without fact checking it, the burden is on him because dumb people won't look into it themselves. They trust everything that is told to them is true.
In order to maintain a society, we surrender certain rights, and when controversial information that may or may not be true is widely distributed and confuses people who don't know how to tell the difference between good information and bad information, it becomes a issue of public affairs and has to be controlled.
Especially in this case, it's not the information existing itself, but the popularity/accessibility of the information because it will reach people incapable of smelling bullshit and therefore influence public opinion in a negative way/cause bad decisions of the mass.
That's not really Joe Rogans fault itself but the cost of being "big" and "influential" is that you can sway public opinion and because Joe Rogan is presenting info without fact checking it, the burden is on him because dumb people won't look into it themselves. They trust everything that is told to them is true.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,346
- 246,981
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
And it's not even exclusively a "dumb people" problem. "Smart people" don't have time to sort through everything.
We all depend on figureheads to create beneficial flow channels of information. Accountability is in the toilet right now.
Yeaaaah but still I think that's kinda bull. Even when I was looking into the whole hydrogen peroxide bit I didn't just DO it. I looked into it. Really, if you just do something based on being told in casual conversation or through a podcast with no further research or opinions, that's kind of on you. If you don't have time to research whether something is a good idea or not, then you definitely shouldn't try it.
People are getting confused because "a Dr on the podcast said this so obviously it's true". That's just 12 year old thinking lol
Sorry but this is a cop out