|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 29, 2022 10:41:14 GMT -6
And I also get that some of you see the move by NY as a strategic mistake. Fair enough. I don’t think it is, but I can see your points. I saw it more akin to extortion and arrogance. If he had just announced he was removing his music due to Spotify’s support for JR, I would have had a lot more respect for it. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2022 10:57:12 GMT -6
If I thought Rogan was genuinely just trying to seek truth and foster honest conversation, I would be right there with you. And even though I don’t think that, I still think what you’re saying is reasonable. To me, Rogan suffers from this thing that a lot of dudes do (which jives with the fact that his audience is overwhelmingly male), which is that he loooves to talk and mix it up and get different takes on things… as long as they’re sexy and edgy takes. Truth seeking…as long as the truth is exciting and can be framed as something They Don’t Want You To Know. If 30,000 scientists have one take, which doesn’t excite him, but 1 has an edgy take that fits with the narrative framing of his media product, he’s all frothed up for that 1 edgy take. Which is obviously very good for business, but it isn’t actually seeking the ‘truth’ of the matter. It’s seeking a set of feelings that come with this alluring idea that you’re getting some Special Knowledge that The Media (putting aside for the moment that products like the JRE and various high profile Facebook feeds are The Media now, like you said, things have changed, this is where the eyeballs are…) don’t want you to have. Again, I don’t think Joe Rogan is some sort of bad guy, I just think he’s a symptom of where we’re at, mentally, as a society. He’a gullible and influential, which is a bad combination in my view. But I recognize that many dudes don’t see him like that, and they believe he really is trying to foster genuine conversation. And I guess they would have to believe that the real truth of just about every matter does just happen to always be the edgy, sexy, contrarian story. I don’t think that’s true, but I certainly get the appeal. I think that’s a misinformed take on Joe Rogan. I understand what you’re saying. And yes, there’s definitely that subsection of bro-hood out there. But JR isn’t afraid to say he is wrong, and consistently corrects conspiracy theories when a guest might espouse something crazy. I think of him more along the line of The Amazing Randi than Alex Jones. Yeah, I mean we just see it differently 👍. I’ve listened to Joe Rogan and that’s (what I said above) how it strikes me. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 29, 2022 14:09:40 GMT -6
If I thought Rogan was genuinely just trying to seek truth and foster honest conversation, I would be right there with you. And even though I don’t think that, I still think what you’re saying is reasonable. To me, Rogan suffers from this thing that a lot of dudes do (which jives with the fact that his audience is overwhelmingly male), which is that he loooves to talk and mix it up and get different takes on things… as long as they’re sexy and edgy takes. Truth seeking…as long as the truth is exciting and can be framed as something They Don’t Want You To Know. If 30,000 scientists have one take, which doesn’t excite him, but 1 has an edgy take that fits with the narrative framing of his media product, he’s all frothed up for that 1 edgy take. Which is obviously very good for business, but it isn’t actually seeking the ‘truth’ of the matter. It’s seeking a set of feelings that come with this alluring idea that you’re getting some Special Knowledge that The Media (putting aside for the moment that products like the JRE and various high profile Facebook feeds are The Media now, like you said, things have changed) don’t want you to have. Again, I don’t think Joe Rogan is some sort of bad guy, I just think he’s a symptom of where we’re at as a society. He’a gullible and influential, which is a bad combination in my view. But I recognize that many dudes don’t see him like that, and they believe he really is trying to foster genuine conversation. And I guess, to believe that Rogan is acting in good faith, they would have to believe that the real truth of just about every matter does just happen to always be the edgy, sexy, contrarian story. I don’t think that’s true, but I certainly get the appeal. Rogan's guest are so eclectic I think you'd have to listen to at least 1 week worth of shows to really get an informed opinion about him. I've listened to his show on and off for years now. A few facts worth pointing out...He's an atheist, openly discusses the benefits of taking psychedelics like DMT, he supports a universal basic income, he's supported gay marriage as long as I can remember and his preferred choice for 2020 was Bernie Sanders(He's the only candidate he had as a guest on his show that I can remember). In other words...not alt right at all. I think some people are assuming because he is associated with the UFC that he's some sort of meat head but that's not true at all. My favorite thing about his interviewing style is that he doesn't get into a shouting match or set people up with gotcha questions. I only ever recall him getting into a heated exchange once and that was with Candace Owens. He asks his producer Jamie to look up info they are discussing in real time all throughout the show to try their best and get it right. When he doesn't, like I stated before, he issues a correction and apology. Don't get me wrong, his show isn't my favorite but I do enjoy a lot of episodes and I appreciate the fact that it is allowed to exist. I don't expect to make any new Rogan fans here but I did think it was worth pointing out some of his political leanings. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2022 14:30:29 GMT -6
If I thought Rogan was genuinely just trying to seek truth and foster honest conversation, I would be right there with you. And even though I don’t think that, I still think what you’re saying is reasonable. To me, Rogan suffers from this thing that a lot of dudes do (which jives with the fact that his audience is overwhelmingly male), which is that he loooves to talk and mix it up and get different takes on things… as long as they’re sexy and edgy takes. Truth seeking…as long as the truth is exciting and can be framed as something They Don’t Want You To Know. If 30,000 scientists have one take, which doesn’t excite him, but 1 has an edgy take that fits with the narrative framing of his media product, he’s all frothed up for that 1 edgy take. Which is obviously very good for business, but it isn’t actually seeking the ‘truth’ of the matter. It’s seeking a set of feelings that come with this alluring idea that you’re getting some Special Knowledge that The Media (putting aside for the moment that products like the JRE and various high profile Facebook feeds are The Media now, like you said, things have changed) don’t want you to have. Again, I don’t think Joe Rogan is some sort of bad guy, I just think he’s a symptom of where we’re at as a society. He’a gullible and influential, which is a bad combination in my view. But I recognize that many dudes don’t see him like that, and they believe he really is trying to foster genuine conversation. And I guess, to believe that Rogan is acting in good faith, they would have to believe that the real truth of just about every matter does just happen to always be the edgy, sexy, contrarian story. I don’t think that’s true, but I certainly get the appeal. Rogan's guest are so eclectic I think you'd have to listen to at least 1 week worth of shows to really get an informed opinion about him. I've listened to his show on and off for years now. A few facts worth pointing out...He's an atheist, openly discusses the benefits of taking psychedelics like DMT, he supports a universal basic income, he's supported gay marriage as long as I can remember and his preferred choice for 2020 was Bernie Sanders(He's the only candidate he had as a guest on his show that I can remember). In other words...not alt right at all. I think some people are assuming because he is associated with the UFC that he's some sort of meat head but that's not true at all. My favorite thing about his interviewing style is that he doesn't get into a shouting match or set people up with gotcha questions. I only ever recall him getting into a heated exchange once and that was with Candace Owens. He asks his producer Jamie to look up info they are discussing in real time all throughout the show to try their best and get it right. When he doesn't, like I stated before, he issues a correction and apology. Don't get me wrong, his show isn't my favorite but I do enjoy a lot of episodes and I appreciate the fact that it is allowed to exist. I don't expect to make any new Rogan fans here but I did think it was worth pointing out some of his political leanings. Yep, all relevant info for understanding Rogan. Note that I haven’t said anything about him being politically right wing. The stuff that I have claimed is a weakness of Rogan’s (and a big part of his appeal) is pretty apolitical. It’s attractive to dudes of all stripes. And I should say too that I’m not claiming the stuff I pointed out is the only part of Rogan’s appeal. It’s just the part that keeps me personally from seeing him as legitimate. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 29, 2022 14:39:52 GMT -6
Rogan's guest are so eclectic I think you'd have to listen to at least 1 week worth of shows to really get an informed opinion about him. I've listened to his show on and off for years now. A few facts worth pointing out...He's an atheist, openly discusses the benefits of taking psychedelics like DMT, he supports a universal basic income, he's supported gay marriage as long as I can remember and his preferred choice for 2020 was Bernie Sanders(He's the only candidate he had as a guest on his show that I can remember). In other words...not alt right at all. I think some people are assuming because he is associated with the UFC that he's some sort of meat head but that's not true at all. My favorite thing about his interviewing style is that he doesn't get into a shouting match or set people up with gotcha questions. I only ever recall him getting into a heated exchange once and that was with Candace Owens. He asks his producer Jamie to look up info they are discussing in real time all throughout the show to try their best and get it right. When he doesn't, like I stated before, he issues a correction and apology. Don't get me wrong, his show isn't my favorite but I do enjoy a lot of episodes and I appreciate the fact that it is allowed to exist. I don't expect to make any new Rogan fans here but I did think it was worth pointing out some of his political leanings. Yep, all relevant info for understanding Rogan. Note that I haven’t said anything about him being politically right wing. The stuff that I have claimed is a weakness of Rogan’s (and a big part of his appeal) is pretty apolitical. It’s attractive to dudes of all stripes. And I should say too that I’m not claiming the stuff I pointed out is the only part of Rogan’s appeal. It’s just the part that keeps me personally from seeing him as legitimate. You're absolutely right, you never called him right wing. I didn't mean to infer that so my apologies! It was directed at the overall narrative about him in general. Of course, I'm also completely fine with us both taking a look at the same thing(Rogan's podcast in this case) and coming to two different conclusions. I always appreciate the thoughtful discussions with you ragan. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2022 14:59:25 GMT -6
Yep, all relevant info for understanding Rogan. Note that I haven’t said anything about him being politically right wing. The stuff that I have claimed is a weakness of Rogan’s (and a big part of his appeal) is pretty apolitical. It’s attractive to dudes of all stripes. And I should say too that I’m not claiming the stuff I pointed out is the only part of Rogan’s appeal. It’s just the part that keeps me personally from seeing him as legitimate. You're absolutely right, you never called him right wing. I didn't mean to infer that so my apologies! It was directed at the overall narrative about him in general. Of course, I'm also completely fine with us both taking a look at the same thing(Rogan's podcast in this case) and coming to two different conclusions. I always appreciate the thoughtful discussions with you ragan. Likewise dude! |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 29, 2022 15:33:03 GMT -6
I must admit that I'm a longtime Young fan.
But the irony is palpable here....
Year:
1989
Album:
Freedom
Song:
Rockin' The Free World
"There's a thousand points of light"?
Or maybe not. It seems for some there's only ONE point of light. No room for dissention (ironic given Neil's history), no room for discussion, no room for debate anymore. Just room for cancellation if you don't agree with popular narrative.
This whole mess saddens me.....
Oh well....Neil still showing up mid song with PearlJam
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2022 15:52:19 GMT -6
I must admit that I'm a longtime Young fan. But the irony is palpable here.... Year: 1989 Album: Freedom Song: Rockin' The Free World "There's a thousand points of light"? Or maybe not. It seems for some there's only ONE point of light. No room for dissention (ironic given Neil's history), no room for discussion, no room for debate anymore. Just room for cancellation if you don't agree with popular narrative. This whole mess saddens me..... NY doesn’t give a flying eff about what’s “popular”, we can say that with confidence. He could have made 10 more Harvest records and instead he made stuff like Zuma and Tonight’s the Night and Trans (much to his labels’ chagrin). So whatever criticisms we want to level at him for standing up for his values in this particular way, “because it’s popular” isn’t really one of them. And again, I don’t think we can understand his anger at a medical disinfo without putting it in the context of his personal life. His polio as a kid and his son’s severe disability are defining things for him. He and his fam have been intimately connected to docs and healthcare workers for a long, long time. You can certainly say he’s wrong to direct that fire at Rogan, but it is a fact that there’s a thriving industry of medical disinfo being put forth by bad actors. We can all argue about which agents fit under that umbrella till the cows come home, but it’s very much a thing. And correctly or incorrectly, if NY thought he was helping prop that stuff up, you can see why it would be a personal thing for him to take a stand about it. |
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 29, 2022 16:24:45 GMT -6
I've never liked Rogan. I'm a fan of Neil (and HUGE fan of Joni who has joined in on this) but... I find the whole statement to be hypocritic. This idea that the public is so ignorant and unable to consume various types of information that we must censor views we don't agree with is just disturbing. The scope of that thinking has spooky implications. I wonder how a younger Neil would have felt about someone telling people to speak one view or lose their job. I don't agree with the views that Joe and some others are allowing on their shows, but I STRONGLY support their right to do it. Giving the public various perspectives encourages critical thinking and research, censorship breeds ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 29, 2022 16:27:58 GMT -6
I greatly sympathize with anyone that has been though medical hardship. I find it interesting that our experiences sent NY and myself in completely different directions. I'm very sorry to hear what he and his family have been through, it can certainly shape your view and even blind you at times(I've had to be careful of that myself). My heart goes out to him.
Having said that, If there has been so much disinformation that has been distributed on the Joe Rogan Podcast, wouldn't it be easier and more effective to just do a press release with bullet points of the most egregious errors? Then call on Joe and his guests to publicly correct them. Just my 2 cents but that would have highlighted the conversation and could have even presented a case where Neil would go on his show.
On the other hand, if people just keep hearing "disinformation" it goes the way of conspiracy theorist, racist, etc... After you've cried wolf so many times without offering up actual proof or the correct information, it gets tuned out. I mean Joe had Sanja Gupta on his show, it's not like he isn't open to conversations with people that fully support the mainstream covid narrative. The problem is, when he had Dr. Gupta on, Gupta had no real answer for why CNN kept calling ivermectin "horse dewormer." Joe presented him with an actual example of medical disinformation they had continually spread and they had no explanation as to why. So, if Joe or one of his guest have done the same, then Neil Young or whoever is bothered by that should offer up specific examples and let's have this conversation play out in good faith with open dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 29, 2022 16:30:38 GMT -6
I've never liked Rogan. I'm a fan of Neil (and HUGE fan of Joni who has joined in on this) but... I find the whole statement to be hypocritic. This idea that the public is so ignorant and unable to consume various types of information that we must censor views we don't agree with is just disturbing. The scope of that thinking has spooky implications. I wonder how a younger Neil would have felt about someone telling people to speak one view or lose their job. I don't agree with the views that Joe and some others are allowing on their shows, but I STRONGLY support their right to do it. Giving the public various perspectives encourages critical thinking and research, censorship breeds ignorance. I think Ragan artfully laid out what is the reality of the situation here: Neil Young is taking a stand against a platform with whom he disagrees. A frankly predatory platform that profits from his work. That's a lot different from the accusations of 'censorship' being leveled at him. The ultimatum bit was a misstep, I will agree with others on that, but to chalk this up to some effort to 'censor' Joe Rogan is to take a very narrow and misguided view of the situation, of the first amendment, and of the definition of 'censorship', IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 29, 2022 16:40:18 GMT -6
I've never liked Rogan. I'm a fan of Neil (and HUGE fan of Joni who has joined in on this) but... I find the whole statement to be hypocritic. This idea that the public is so ignorant and unable to consume various types of information that we must censor views we don't agree with is just disturbing. The scope of that thinking has spooky implications. I wonder how a younger Neil would have felt about someone telling people to speak one view or lose their job. I don't agree with the views that Joe and some others are allowing on their shows, but I STRONGLY support their right to do it. Giving the public various perspectives encourages critical thinking and research, censorship breeds ignorance. I think Ragan artfully laid out what is the reality of the situation here: Neil Young is taking a stand against a platform with whom he disagrees. A frankly predatory platform that profits from his work. That's a lot different from the accusations of 'censorship' being leveled at him. The ultimatum bit was a misstep, I will agree with others on that, but to chalk this up to some effort to 'censor' Joe Rogan is to take a very narrow and misguided view of the situation, of the first amendment, and of the definition of 'censorship', IMO. But when he said “They can have Neil Young or Rogan. Not Both,” he is specifically asking Spotify(who has an exclusive deal with Joe) to remove him from their platform. What would be the appropriate term for such a demand if not censorship? I’m sincerely asking because that doesn’t make sense to me at all. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 29, 2022 16:58:13 GMT -6
I think Ragan artfully laid out what is the reality of the situation here: Neil Young is taking a stand against a platform with whom he disagrees. A frankly predatory platform that profits from his work. That's a lot different from the accusations of 'censorship' being leveled at him. The ultimatum bit was a misstep, I will agree with others on that, but to chalk this up to some effort to 'censor' Joe Rogan is to take a very narrow and misguided view of the situation, of the first amendment, and of the definition of 'censorship', IMO. But when he said “They can have Neil Young or Rogan. Not Both,” he is specifically asking Spotify(who has an exclusive deal with Joe) to remove him from their platform. What would be the appropriate term for such a demand if not censorship? I’m sincerely asking because that doesn’t make sense to me at all. Therein lies the misstep. It was unsavvy insofar as it can be read as you (and others) are reading it. On the other hand, I read that more as a declaration of values: "My music and the podcast of Joe Rogan cannot coexist on the same platform". Neil is refusing to be a party to Spotify's role in amplifying Rogan's messages; I don't think for a second the he was under any illusions about which side Spotify would choose. Anywho, a clearer message in this respect would have been much, much better. As it stands, he's simply giving fuel to detractors, which isn't particularly helpful to what I believe is actually a just and fair cause he's taking up. But I don't expect Neil Young of all people to be particularly savvy when it comes to messaging...his whole Pono thing was such a clusterfuck of messaging blunders and he just couldn't get out of his own way. |
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 29, 2022 17:31:09 GMT -6
I've never liked Rogan. I'm a fan of Neil (and HUGE fan of Joni who has joined in on this) but... I find the whole statement to be hypocritic. This idea that the public is so ignorant and unable to consume various types of information that we must censor views we don't agree with is just disturbing. The scope of that thinking has spooky implications. I wonder how a younger Neil would have felt about someone telling people to speak one view or lose their job. I don't agree with the views that Joe and some others are allowing on their shows, but I STRONGLY support their right to do it. Giving the public various perspectives encourages critical thinking and research, censorship breeds ignorance. I think Ragan artfully laid out what is the reality of the situation here: Neil Young is taking a stand against a platform with whom he disagrees. A frankly predatory platform that profits from his work. That's a lot different from the accusations of 'censorship' being leveled at him. The ultimatum bit was a misstep, I will agree with others on that, but to chalk this up to some effort to 'censor' Joe Rogan is to take a very narrow and misguided view of the situation, of the first amendment, and of the definition of 'censorship', IMO. Respectfully disagree. Censor; suppress or delete anything considered objectionableIf someone were to argue that the censorship is justifiable given the nature of the subject and the consequences, I can understand that. But I can't agree that it's not censoring as it's censoring by definition. Had he simply asked to be removed, that is something else. But, he used the old "it's me or him" and is making a campaign to remove the voice he disagrees with. Suppression. That type of thing has always bothered me. I believe in sharing what we believe are truths, not suppressing the voices we disagree with. I would love it if people stopped listening to Rogan. But, I will not support efforts to remove him, which is what Neil's campaign is about; "Most of the listeners hearing the unfactual, misleading and false COVID information on SPOTIFY are 24 years old, impressionable and easy to swing to the wrong side of the truth." He wants people to hear what he feels is the truth, which is great, but not hear other people's truths... That sits so wrong in my gut. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 29, 2022 19:47:40 GMT -6
I must admit that I'm a longtime Young fan. But the irony is palpable here.... Year: 1989 Album: Freedom Song: Rockin' The Free World "There's a thousand points of light"? Or maybe not. It seems for some there's only ONE point of light. No room for dissention (ironic given Neil's history), no room for discussion, no room for debate anymore. Just room for cancellation if you don't agree with popular narrative. This whole mess saddens me..... NY doesn’t give a flying eff about what’s “popular”, we can say that with confidence. He could have made 10 more Harvest records and instead he made stuff like Zuma and Tonight’s the Night and Trans (much to his labels’ chagrin). So whatever criticisms we want to level at him for standing up for his values in this particular way, “because it’s popular” isn’t really one of them. And again, I don’t think we can understand his anger at a medical disinfo without putting it in the context of his personal life. His polio as a kid and his son’s severe disability are defining things for him. He and his fam have been intimately connected to docs and healthcare workers for a long, long time. You can certainly say he’s wrong to direct that fire at Rogan, but it is a fact that there’s a thriving industry of medical disinfo being put forth by bad actors. We can all argue about which agents fit under that umbrella till the cows come home, but it’s very much a thing. And correctly or incorrectly, if NY thought he was helping prop that stuff up, you can see why it would be a personal thing for him to take a stand about it. But IS it disinformation? How does anyone know without airing both sides together in critical debate / analysis? Malone and McCollough and Abramson were extremely effective communicators with Rogan and they laid out their perspective and INVITED anyone from the CDC, FDA, Gov, etc. to come to the table in good faith and debate the merits of both sides. (At least McCollough and Malone did) 20 years ago, that style debate would have been standard fare. This happened regularly and the truth shook itself out without interference or heavy handed censorship. The media tended to report news instead of op-ed pieces. To the best of my knowledge - no one has stepped up - even with one $2m offer to debate VAERS. These Doctors are passionate, and are ready to make their perspective heard - but the opposition is trying as hard as possible to ghost or cancel them. Why? Seriously...why? Is critical thinking so dangerous? Can a human not weigh two differing opinions and make up their own mind? Are you saying that adults in 2022 have incredibly lower IQ's than they did in 1980 or 2020? So I believe that's why Rogan stepped in - to make sure the opposing side got heard. And got heard it did. Big time. I'm not a Rogan watcher / listener, and even I knew about it and listened. For Young to try and nuke them on Spotify is wrong. For him to "take a stand" is admirable and what I'd expect out of him. But $#@! the cancel culture and "fact checkers" who have been proven in large part to be "opinion checkers". Air both sides equally and let the public see which side (or both) stinks. Instead, in 2022, we cancel (or try to cancel) the dissenting opinion by smear tactics in the guise of making sure that no one gets "hurt". That's BS, and it's blatantly obvious BS at this point. The time for that is over. A large part of the general public is waking up to the heavy handed tactics by all involved. To slip any further into this "one official side only" narrative is getting dangerously close to historical precedents that none of us want to go towards. There has to be a way for all opinions to be aired so that EVERYone can listen, analyze and make up their own minds. We are not all 3 year old children who must be protected in the image of their parents. I love Young and have zero issues with him taking a stand. I just believe it was in poor judgement and poor taste to do it as he did. I care nothing for Rogan other than I appreciate his efforts to air an opinion that is otherwise cancelled, or pushed down. Somebody had to do it. Other than that, I'm not a fan or a regular listener. The bottom line is that SPOTIFY followed the money. Neil may have won his personal battle, but he lost the battle with Spotify and the "dis-informationalists". Spotify will keep earning, and the "disinformation" will continue to swell. [side note] : getting a serious case of Delta not only opened my eyes to the medical realities, but made me realize how divisive this issue has become. Patients fighting doctors, hospitals not giving requested treatment, mass fear, people freaked that their grandparents are dying -when they only have a cold and not Omi, so many businesses going belly up, no recording sessions or concerts, selective passport issues, etc......its just stupid. Divisive and stupid. OK...  . Rant over now. LOL. Going to listen to the young man singing "Old Man". We can do better. We MUST do better. Or suffer the future.... |
|
|
|
Post by LazyOldSun on Jan 29, 2022 20:32:31 GMT -6
A bit of semantics but Neil did not demand that Spotify remove Rogan or say it's me or him. He asked to be removed from Spotify and concluded with "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." I see a difference in those statements, though some may not. Most people didn't see his original message since it was pulled down and got social media version.  |
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Jan 29, 2022 20:50:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 29, 2022 21:02:00 GMT -6
A bit of semantics but Neil did not demand that Spotify remove Rogan or say it's me or him. He asked to be removed from Spotify and concluded with "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." I see a difference in those statements, though some may not. Most people didn't see his original message since it was pulled down and got social media version. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Ah, well scratch what I said about a “misstep” and I guess also my understanding of folks’ reading it as censorship. I hadn’t seen that original text and that is looking pretty cut n dry to me. Neil did it right, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2022 23:23:21 GMT -6
NY doesn’t give a flying eff about what’s “popular”, we can say that with confidence. He could have made 10 more Harvest records and instead he made stuff like Zuma and Tonight’s the Night and Trans (much to his labels’ chagrin). So whatever criticisms we want to level at him for standing up for his values in this particular way, “because it’s popular” isn’t really one of them. And again, I don’t think we can understand his anger at a medical disinfo without putting it in the context of his personal life. His polio as a kid and his son’s severe disability are defining things for him. He and his fam have been intimately connected to docs and healthcare workers for a long, long time. You can certainly say he’s wrong to direct that fire at Rogan, but it is a fact that there’s a thriving industry of medical disinfo being put forth by bad actors. We can all argue about which agents fit under that umbrella till the cows come home, but it’s very much a thing. And correctly or incorrectly, if NY thought he was helping prop that stuff up, you can see why it would be a personal thing for him to take a stand about it. But IS it disinformation? How does anyone know without airing both sides together in critical debate / analysis? Malone and McCollough and Abramson were extremely effective communicators with Rogan and they laid out their perspective and INVITED anyone from the CDC, FDA, Gov, etc. to come to the table in good faith and debate the merits of both sides. (At least McCollough and Malone did) 20 years ago, that style debate would have been standard fare. This happened regularly and the truth shook itself out without interference or heavy handed censorship. The media tended to report news instead of op-ed pieces. To the best of my knowledge - no one has stepped up - even with one $2m offer to debate VAERS. These Doctors are passionate, and are ready to make their perspective heard - but the opposition is trying as hard as possible to ghost or cancel them. Why? Seriously...why? Is critical thinking so dangerous? Can a human not weigh two differing opinions and make up their own mind? Are you saying that adults in 2022 have incredibly lower IQ's than they did in 1980 or 2020? So I believe that's why Rogan stepped in - to make sure the opposing side got heard. And got heard it did. Big time. I'm not a Rogan watcher / listener, and even I knew about it and listened. For Young to try and nuke them on Spotify is wrong. For him to "take a stand" is admirable and what I'd expect out of him. But $#@! the cancel culture and "fact checkers" who have been proven in large part to be "opinion checkers". Air both sides equally and let the public see which side (or both) stinks. Instead, in 2022, we cancel (or try to cancel) the dissenting opinion by smear tactics in the guise of making sure that no one gets "hurt". That's BS, and it's blatantly obvious BS at this point. The time for that is over. A large part of the general public is waking up to the heavy handed tactics by all involved. To slip any further into this "one official side only" narrative is getting dangerously close to historical precedents that none of us want to go towards. There has to be a way for all opinions to be aired so that EVERYone can listen, analyze and make up their own minds. We are not all 3 year old children who must be protected in the image of their parents. I love Young and have zero issues with him taking a stand. I just believe it was in poor judgement and poor taste to do it as he did. I care nothing for Rogan other than I appreciate his efforts to air an opinion that is otherwise cancelled, or pushed down. Somebody had to do it. Other than that, I'm not a fan or a regular listener. The bottom line is that SPOTIFY followed the money. Neil may have won his personal battle, but he lost the battle with Spotify and the "dis-informationalists". Spotify will keep earning, and the "disinformation" will continue to swell. [side note] : getting a serious case of Delta not only opened my eyes to the medical realities, but made me realize how divisive this issue has become. Patients fighting doctors, hospitals not giving requested treatment, mass fear, people freaked that their grandparents are dying -when they only have a cold and not Omi, so many businesses going belly up, no recording sessions or concerts, selective passport issues, etc......its just stupid. Divisive and stupid. OK... . Rant over now. LOL. Going to listen to the young man singing "Old Man". We can do better. We MUST do better. Or suffer the future.... Lot of ideas in there, Bill. I think I can agree with much of the spirit of what you're saying. I don't think the answer to fraudulent stuff is to try and silence it. One, it's not right. Two, it doesn't work. But that's not what Young is doing here. If you'll read what he actually said (posted above), he's doing exactly what many here have said they wished he'd done. He's pulling his own work from the platform because he has a moral objection to what they're profiting from. As for Rogan's guests and their big claims...we already have a huge messy thread full of all that stuff. And I personally don't care about big claims. Valid, clinical research speaks for itself, no PR stunt challenges needed. It's boring, and slow, and doesn't lend itself to Hot Internet Takes, but it tends to arrive at conclusions that are more sound than the various hot takes du jour, in my view. There are always exceptions. I wish I believed as bowie does, that this giant mess of identity politics leads to 'critical thinking' and 'research', but that has not been my experience. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and he's right. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 30, 2022 0:24:33 GMT -6
Has Neil stated exactly what false information was spread about vaccines? I mean just making a blanket statement like that doesn’t carry much weight at this point Again, if there was disinformation, counter it with the correct information. If not, then how is anyone supposed to understand the message you’re trying to spread?
|
|
|
|
Post by LazyOldSun on Jan 30, 2022 1:03:44 GMT -6
It's all in the open letter to Spotify signed by 270 doctors and health professionals sent earlier this month. Neil felt strongly enough to stand up with them to get the message across to Spotify. The letter does not ask spotify to remove Rogan or the podcast in question. They are asking Spotify to come up with a policy to "mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform". spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-letter-to-spotify/ |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 30, 2022 1:48:34 GMT -6
It's all in the open letter to Spotify signed by 270 doctors and health professionals sent earlier this month. Neil felt strongly enough to stand up with them to get the message across to Spotify. The letter does not ask spotify to remove Rogan or the podcast in question. They are asking Spotify to come up with a policy to "mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform". spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-letter-to-spotify/Thanks for posting the letter. Sorry to say though, if "He has discouraged vaccination in young people and children, incorrectly claimed that mRNA vaccines are “gene therapy,” promoted off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 (contrary to FDA warnings)," is the best they can come up with then good luck with this uphill battle!" That's pretty weak. The rest of it is made up of the usual "repeatedly spread misleading and false claims," "spread a number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories." Not to mention I can't find a single person that signed that list that is as credentialed as Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough or Dr. Kory(all guest on JRE). I think they are mistaking dissenting opinion from fellow medical professionals for "disinformation." Speaking of disinformation when that list of 270 was first put out it was widely reported as 270 "doctors." It was quickly pointed out by the good folks on the internet that many were nurse practitioners, vets...even podcast hosts. In other words reporting it as 270 doctors was b.s. and the folks reporting it that way knew damn well what they were doing. Yet, just like every other time they lie, they just carry on like nothing ever happened. Every time the Supreme Court makes a major ruling, the justices that voted against it will put out a formal dissenting opinion. It's not labeled as disinformation. It's just a different point of view or perspective. That's supposedly our best and brightest looking at the same situation and coming to different conclusions. This is healthy and normal. Even if we don't like it, we need it! I'm sorry but the people that drafted this letter acting like the 24 year olds that make up the majority of Joe's listening audience are some helpless morons that need protecting is condescending. People aren't buying it anymore and if the Neil Young's and Joni Mitchell's of the world want to actually do something, they are going to have to come up with more substantive arguments. The current approach just feels like old people yelling at the sky. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 30, 2022 2:02:36 GMT -6
It's all in the open letter to Spotify signed by 270 doctors and health professionals sent earlier this month. Neil felt strongly enough to stand up with them to get the message across to Spotify. The letter does not ask spotify to remove Rogan or the podcast in question. They are asking Spotify to come up with a policy to "mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform". spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-letter-to-spotify/Thanks for posting the letter. Sorry to say though, if "He has discouraged vaccination in young people and children, incorrectly claimed that mRNA vaccines are “gene therapy,” promoted off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 (contrary to FDA warnings)," is the best they can come up with then good luck with this uphill battle!" That's pretty weak. The rest of it is made up of the usual "repeatedly spread misleading and false claims," "spread a number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories." Not to mention I can't find a single person that signed that list that is as credentialed as Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough or Dr. Kory(all guest on JRE). I think they are mistaking dissenting opinion from fellow medical professionals for "disinformation." Speaking of disinformation when that list of 270 was first put out it was widely reported as 270 "doctors." It was quickly pointed out by the good folks on the internet that many were nurse practitioners, vets...even podcast hosts. In other words reporting it as 270 doctors was b.s. and the folks reporting it that way knew damn well what they were doing. Yet, just like every other time they lie, they just carry on like nothing ever happened. Every time the Supreme Court makes a major ruling, the justices that voted against it will put out a formal dissenting opinion. It's not labeled as disinformation. It's just a different point of view or perspective. That's supposedly our best and brightest looking at the same situation and coming to different conclusions. This is healthy and normal. Even if we don't like it, we need it! I'm sorry but the people that drafted this letter acting like the 24 year olds that make up the majority of Joe's listening audience are some helpless morons that need protecting is condescending. People aren't buying it anymore and if the Neil Young's and Joni Mitchell's of the world want to actually do something, they are going to have to come up with more substantive arguments. The current approach just feels like old people yelling at the sky. The doc has links in it, FWIW, some of which go into some detail about Malone’s claims. I’m not trying to vouch for them, cause I haven’t looked into them very extensively, though I have read a good bit about Malone and his claims, just pointing out that there are more specifics there than just the body of the letter. As for “widely reported”, I dunno, I guess that’s on whatever news outlets you’re talking about. The letter itself is pretty clear. “We are a coalition of scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators spanning a wide range of fields…” Also, the list of signatories is right there at the bottom, no need to go secondhand on characterizations. It’s a lot of PhDs and MDs and various other medical and research credentials. Whether that means anything to a given person is a subjective thing. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 30, 2022 2:35:01 GMT -6
Thanks for posting the letter. Sorry to say though, if "He has discouraged vaccination in young people and children, incorrectly claimed that mRNA vaccines are “gene therapy,” promoted off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 (contrary to FDA warnings)," is the best they can come up with then good luck with this uphill battle!" That's pretty weak. The rest of it is made up of the usual "repeatedly spread misleading and false claims," "spread a number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories." Not to mention I can't find a single person that signed that list that is as credentialed as Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough or Dr. Kory(all guest on JRE). I think they are mistaking dissenting opinion from fellow medical professionals for "disinformation." Speaking of disinformation when that list of 270 was first put out it was widely reported as 270 "doctors." It was quickly pointed out by the good folks on the internet that many were nurse practitioners, vets...even podcast hosts. In other words reporting it as 270 doctors was b.s. and the folks reporting it that way knew damn well what they were doing. Yet, just like every other time they lie, they just carry on like nothing ever happened. Every time the Supreme Court makes a major ruling, the justices that voted against it will put out a formal dissenting opinion. It's not labeled as disinformation. It's just a different point of view or perspective. That's supposedly our best and brightest looking at the same situation and coming to different conclusions. This is healthy and normal. Even if we don't like it, we need it! I'm sorry but the people that drafted this letter acting like the 24 year olds that make up the majority of Joe's listening audience are some helpless morons that need protecting is condescending. People aren't buying it anymore and if the Neil Young's and Joni Mitchell's of the world want to actually do something, they are going to have to come up with more substantive arguments. The current approach just feels like old people yelling at the sky. The doc has links in it, FWIW, some of which go into some detail about Malone’s claims. I’m not trying to vouch for them, cause I haven’t looked into them very extensively, though I have read a good bit about Malone and his claims, just pointing out that there are more specifics there than just the body of the letter. As for “widely reported”, I dunno, I guess that’s on whatever news outlets you’re talking about. The letter itself is pretty clear. “We are a coalition of scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators spanning a wide range of fields…” Thanks! I'm aware and have checked them out. They are full of things like this: "and lied that getting the coronavirus vaccine is not effective in preventing the disease...." umm...that one didn't age too well. Also..."falsely asserted that children do not need to get a COVID-19 vaccine." It's completely reasonable to argue that most children may not and maybe even should not get vaccinated. A lot of it reads like an overzealous hall monitor report to the point where it is hard to take very seriously. Anyway, my main point is that covid is very much an ongoing discussion and a lot of people want to hear multiple sides of this. Not because we're just waking up everyday with some weird appetite for conspiracy theories or dissenting opinions. I would imagine a lot of people have arrived at this place like I did, because of the botched job(aka noble lies) that Fauci, Walensky, 45 and 46 etc.. have done over the past 2 years. The writers of that letter pointed out the 11 million average listeners to JRE but the episodes with Dr. Malone and Dr. McCullough were more in the 30-50 million range. For anyone that's still all in on the mainstream covid narrative then I actually admire you in a strange way. I think it takes a level of faith and trust that I don't have. It's not my intention to try and minimize the people that signed that letter, I respect them for standing for what they believe is right. My point is that it was reported to be 270 doctors and it wasn't, that's all. I mean a "science communicator" is about the most jazzed up way of saying "podcaster" that I've ever seen haha. Also, why should I value anyone on this list over the doctors Rogan has had on as guests? How many of them have treated covid patients? Do they have a 94% rate of keeping hospitalized covid patients alive like Dr. Kory and his collegues at the FLCCC have? If they do, I'd love to hear about it. If they disagree with the use of ivermectin, etc.. that Kory uses, what do they use instead? In other words don't insult us by calling something horse dewormer if you have nothing else to offer in it's place. To make a long story short, I'm of the opinion that as soon as it was apparent that vaccines don't stop transmission then all the mandates should have been over. Think about it, when you go to a concert, restaurant, job, etc... where it's either vaccine card or a negative test, then the only people there that can have covid and spread it are vaccinated people. It makes no sense to carry on this way. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 30, 2022 9:52:58 GMT -6
Lot of ideas in there, Bill. I think I can agree with much of the spirit of what you're saying. I don't think the answer to fraudulent stuff is to try and silence it. One, it's not right. Two, it doesn't work. But that's not what Young is doing here. If you'll read what he actually said (posted above), he's doing exactly what many here have said they wished he'd done. He's pulling his own work from the platform because he has a moral objection to what they're profiting from. As for Rogan's guests and their big claims...we already have a huge messy thread full of all that stuff. And I personally don't care about big claims. Valid, clinical research speaks for itself, no PR stunt challenges needed. It's boring, and slow, and doesn't lend itself to Hot Internet Takes, but it tends to arrive at conclusions that are more sound than the various hot takes du jour, in my view. There are always exceptions. I wish I believed as bowie does, that this giant mess of identity politics leads to 'critical thinking' and 'research', but that has not been my experience. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and he's right. You might want to check the Rogan podcast with John Abramson. I think that's how to spell his name. Pretty fascinating. He's a doctor, but doesn't treat. Fully vaccinated. And has been an expert witness on the biggest medical trials of our time. He has a very detailed and factual (unless you think he's a liar) and disturbing view on "Valid clinical research". Certainly worth watching to see if you agree or not. Lot of stuff I'd never heard before. Not really "Covid" focused, but more big Pharma focused, and certainly in play currently. |
|
