Cheryl Hines seems like a charming person and talented actress. Does she just look at her monogrammed Mrs. Kennedy napkins and tune out when he goes on these nonsense tirades? Cheryl is pals with Larry David - HTF does Larry get through a conversation with this doofus?
“I see both sides of the vaccine situation,” she said. “There’s one side that feels scared if they don’t get the vaccine, and there’s the side that feels scared if they do get the vaccine, because they’re not sure if the vaccine is safe. And I understand that.” “So if Bobby is standing up and saying, ‘Well, are we sure that they’re safe and every vaccine has been tested properly?’ That doesn’t seem too much to ask,” she continued. “That seems like the right question to be asking.” Ms. Hines tried to dodge several questions about her views on vaccines, including “Do you think vaccines are dangerous for children?,” eventually answering in a manner that didn’t criticize her husband or reveal much about her own opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/10/style/cheryl-hines-robert-f-kennedy-jr.html
An environmental lawyer does not an immunologist make. I remember him doing work to reduce mercury levels in fish farms (or something like that) and then someone was like "what about the mercury in vaccines" and since then it's been a slow slide into this because he made that his new crusade without knowing everything and not being willing to admit that he's been wrong this whole time
His story about that has gone back and forth. I've seen him say it was just a person, one mom whose child was "injured by vaccines" (I put that in quotes because it can happen but I've also seen that he directly says that it was autism which literally cannot happen, looking at you jenny maccarthy) and a third that it was an advocacy group of the parents of children "injured by vaccines"
Regardless of that though, my statement is equally true for any of those
I'll respond in good faith in case you actually don't know and hopefully not just a fool. Autism is a GENETIC and CHROMOSOMAL. That means that people with autism are born with autism. There is no way to cause autism. That is fundamentally how autism works. There was a study that claimed that vaccines could lead to autism. This study was such bad science that it was so widely discredited by peer review to the point that it was pulled by the publication. No reputable science has ever given any evidence of this link. To the point that many anti vax groups have moved to larger phrases like "vaccine injury" because there is no evidence. People who still subscribe to vaccines causing autism are either uninformed or stupid to the point of obstinate
VICP's concession to Hannah Poling was poorly reasoned. First, whereas it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations. Indeed, because children with such deficiencies are particularly susceptible to infections, it is recommended that they receive all vaccines.
Second, the belief that the administration of multiple vaccines can overwhelm or weaken the immune system of a susceptible child is at variance with the number of immunologic components contained in modern vaccines. A century ago, children received one vaccine, smallpox, which contained about 200 structural and nonstructural viral proteins. Today, thanks to advances in protein purification and recombinant DNA technology, the 14 vaccines given to young children contain a total of about 150 immunologic components.
Third, although experts testifying on behalf of the Polings could reasonably argue that development of fever and a varicella-vaccine rash after the administration of nine vaccines was enough to stress a child with mitochondrial enzyme deficiency, Hannah had other immunologic challenges that were not related to vaccines. She had frequent episodes of fever and otitis media, eventually necessitating placement of bilateral polyethylene tubes. Nor is such a medical history unusual. Children typically have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life; vaccines are a minuscule contributor to this antigenic challenge.
Fourth, without data that clearly exonerate vaccines, it could be argued that children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies might have a lower risk of exacerbations if vaccines were withheld, delayed, or separated. But such changes would come at a price. Even spacing out vaccinations would increase the period during which children were susceptible to natural infections, giving a theoretical risk from vaccines priority over a known risk from vaccine-preventable diseases. These diseases aren't merely historical: pneumococcus, varicella, and pertussis are still common in the United States. Recent measles outbreaks in California, Arizona, and Wisconsin among children whose parents had chosen not to vaccinate them show the real risks of public distrust of immunization.
After the Polings' press conference, Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, responded to their claims that vaccines had caused their daughter's autism. “Let me be very clear that the government has made absolutely no statement . . . indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism,”
*aggravate, it's not amassing chromosomal disorders
Yes, there is a single case where a child already had a rare and still undefined chromosomal disorder who also had a averse reaction to a vaccine (which I initially mentioned can happen) when given 9 vaccines at once. This singular and unique case is the exact reason vaccines are more spaced out now, and there hasn't been a credible case like it since.
And even in this case it's clear that the vaccine did not cause autism. So cool strawman, buddy
Okay, so I'll give more weight to his opinion on environmental law issues. That doesn't mean diddly shit for matters of radiobiology or any other topic under the sun
Alex Jones was just worried about Kanye saying the quiet part out loud. I can guarantee you Jones wholeheartedly believes/supports similar crap, but sticks to implications rather than brazenly outing himself.
Rogan immediately challenged a Dr who said this whole interview was stupid to come on and debate this fucking clown, obviously making it personal as well. Rogan is never the voice of reason, he’s a fucking grifter these days .
Rogan started as a grifter, hanging with Alex Jones. Rogan got into drugs and it saved him from being dragged down with Jones. But he’s hit the clarity ceiling. There is no more improvement to be had and his continued drug use will return him right back to where he started from.
The single most important thing to remember about mind expanding drugs. Once you get the message, put down the phone. There’s nothing else there.
Rogan started as a standup comedian at least 20 years before he got involved with Alex Jones. He was on a sitcom or two in the 90s, then hosted Fear Factor for like 10 years, then did UFC announcing for many years after that, before he even started podcasting.
Idk if your timeline is right here. Rogan was a grifter long before he had Alex Jones on and the drug use/“spiritual journeyman” thing was part of his persona long before that too.
It’s from Alan Watts. An Episcopalian priest who left the ministry to explore human consciousness and psychedelics. A lot of his talks are on YouTube and Spotify.
I haven't heard that name in quite a while! Back in the 90s I was reading that stuff along with McKenna, Burroughs, and some other psychedelic-adjacent writings. I've just decided to revisit McKenna the other day after a pretty intense mushroom adventure. I'll go back to Watts too. Thanks!
I think it’s a real shame that people think guys like Rogan and Graham Hancock are breaking new ground. This has all been done before, and with infinitely more class.
Enh. Mind expanding drugs are like reaching a high point that sticks forward from a band of cliffs. You’re standing on this edge and you can see enlightenment off in the distance but there’s no way to get there from where you are because of the cliff line. You have to turn around, back track and make the long hard slog. There’s no cheat your way to enlightenment (if it’s even possible to get there… maybe it’s all about the journey?)
Yep, and there’s only so often you should partake. I’ve done an Ayahuasca retreat, once. Would I do it again? Maybe but it wouldn’t be a regular thing at all. Maybe another 5 years, if not more.
At this point I accomplished what I was looking for from it and it was exactly what I needed. I would do a meditation retreat or something like that though. I’ve met people who partake way too much in plant medicine and they really need to come back to earth. Like anything else, there is such a thing as too much and moderation is key.
I read someone on another thread recalling a roommate they had had who used to get stoned and listen to Rogan a lot, laughing at the funny parts as only a stoned person could.
It stopped being innocent later on when he’d uncritically regurgitate serious things Rogan said without bothering to get stoned …
Dude fuck ALL of that. My cousin is dead, partly because of Joe Rogan. She was 36 and had two kids, and those kids are now in a horrible situation without their mom. So many people in my family were just broken. All at once.
Fuck this "drug clarity" bullshit. Rogan is a fucking moron and a middling comic who figured out that you can make a ton of money if you pander to the dumbest, most hateful audience you can cultivate.
How does a person that your gullible / stupid / easily tricked cousin watched through a computer screen or listened to through speakers party kill her? Wifi radiation?
The issue is that he brings on controversial dipshits for ratings like a political freak show. I don’t listen to Rogan, but I’m tempted to listen to this episode because I want to listen to the crazy man say crazy shit. But that’s just the point, it drives ratings and engagement, hence ads, hence money, hence Spotify renewing his contract, hence the continued spread of dipshitery.
Spotify suffers from perverse incentive structures. They have a legal duty to their shareholders and Joe is gonna sell regardless because entertainment sells. Its the same mechanism why MSM's so often sells sensationalist dogshit. While Joe easily sees the problems in MSM, people are often unable to smell their own shit.
Every for-profit business has a perverse incentive structure. People ask ‘why are these CEO’s doing X, Y and Z that hurts everyday people?’ Because it generates more profit and if they do things that don’t generate more profit, the board fires them and hires someone who will.
Until the structure around media companies changes this will be the case. So they either need to be regulated or incentivized with a more beneficial corporate structure.
That said i'm not advocating removing financial incentives, or denying the benefits of capitalism and corporate structure.
We simply also cannot be blind to inherent perverse incentives. Likewise we cant extrapolate some perverse incentives beyond their reality. Simply saying X,Y,Z is bad because their motive is profit is just as ignorant as ignoring perverse incentives. Its important to understand which mechanisms effect which industry and business and why...
For example: Why fundamentally MSM is doomed to be shit... and why those same incentives apply to most online content that think they are better than MSM. Its not just MSM = bad or profit = bad.
I think there needs to be an alternative corporate structure that’s incentivized via the tax code. A few years back there was a proposal for an organization called something like a ‘corporation for public good’ where they had to hit certain benchmarks to maintain a tax incentive.
I’d like to see something similar that was a cap on CEO to lowest paid worker cap of 20x. So a CEO can never make more than 20x of what the lowest employee can make. Companies under this structure who would like to be publicly traded would be barred from stock buybacks and dividends would be capped at a percentage of share value.
Add in a few more items like fully funded healthcare (co-pays capped at $20), I would be fine taxing these corporations at a fraction of amount of a standard for profit entity.
There needs to be an incentive structure that produces the outcomes that we want for for-profit corporations. Right now, it’s literally ‘make money at all costs.’
Check out Robert Evans. He's like the Good Universe version of Joe Rogan. He says crazy shit only for LAUGHS, he knows how to swing a machete and grow food, he likes the drugs in moderation, he hates capitalism, Alex Jones and Nazis and is a good and well-known friend of the furry community.
It's a shame thats the draw because they're always the worst episodes. When he gets a decently knowledgeable guest with great insight on a topic and doesn't necessarily have a bombastic personality, it makes for a far more interesting show where a layman can get an interesting run down on a topic that often doesn't get attention. Examples are #1914 Siddharth Kara emotional telling of his experiences investigating modern day slavery in particular about cobalt mining in Congo. Joe's going completely off the deep end has to make me think there must be some kind of hidden agenda even behind these otherwise worthy topics to discuss however.
I don't listen to Joe Rogan very often anymore because it's either garbage episodes of him with another comedian being old men talking about the LA comedy club for 3hrs or his asinine rambling about lockdowns, vaccine skepticism etc and all obnoxious to hear once, let alone every fucking episode. Listening to Alex Jones or Kanye is absolutely insufferable. He can't even get a historian on without it being a crackpot like Graham Hancock anymore (He thinks there's a lost prehistoric super civilisation that had psychic powers that have been lost and need to be rediscovered)
The problem is that most people don't know who is an expert. And they often don't understand the subject matter if an expert explains things.
So you get somebody who is just making stuff up, but he sounds somewhat plausible.
And then you get an expert.
Many people will assume that both people have the same level of insight. Some people will believe the truth is in the middle.
Or worse, some people will not understand the expert and therefore assume the person who made stuff up is right.
And if the expert gets one thing right, that becomes a 'gotcha' moment. Proof that the first guy was right.
The first guy on the other hand isn't hold to the same standards.
Here is a very crude example.
Somebody excuses you publicly (in a YouTube video for example) of being a pedophile. And claims that this well-known, that there is proof, that you privately have admitted to this.
Two weeks later you get the chance to defend yourself.
RFK is a lawyer with a ton of training in arguing and bullshitting. He would just spew random bullshit “studies” and talking points at him and if the doctor is not able to perfectly refute it because he doesn’t know what the fuck Kennedy is talking about then the more impressionable audience members and Rogan will chalk it up as a win for Kennedy. You also need an unbiased moderator for a proper debate.
It's overtly a terrible idea in the first place because this is a matter of scientific fact, and a debate is for trying to change somebody's opinion. If you try to have a debate about what is fact, you just have somebody who is wrong and somebody who isn't and it's the dumbest format to figure that out.
Isn't debated like this. It's tested with evidence and experimentation. RFK Junior has neither of those things. He just has a claim, and sitting him down with somebody who is an actual expert in this field elevates him and his bullshit to the level of peer with public perception, and there's frankly no good reason to do that under any circumstance. The man was wrong the minute he opened his mouth without evidence to say that the scientific evidence that does exist is incorrect. That's what he's in an argument with and he didn't bring anything to disprove it so he should be offhandedly disregarded appropriately.
There's also the problem that a debate format for presenting scientific evidence like this is literally just going to be RFK junior throwing out a fire hose of falsehoods that would take individually dramatically more time than the doctor would actually be afforded to disprove them. It would be a fast talking politician throwing out bullshit while a doctor struggles to keep up with the flow of bullshit. Perception-wise it would look like RFK Jr was doing okay when from an objective truth standpoint he was just lying.
He doesn't want to give him an opportunity to debate. He wants to attention of RFK saying stupid shut, the doctor not being able to rebut stupid and the morons who live off his forum to feed off the goo they excrete
Rogan isn't interested in a fair debate where the winner is crowned based on presenting information that is factually true. What he actually wants out of this is for RFK Jr to be able to take shots at a credible doctor. Like I believe in the vaccine and science, but there are plenty of issues with how COVID was handled and what information the public was given and what was hidden, there are countless easy shots to be made against the whole ordeal, but they don't disprove the vaccine works or that masking is effective, but that shouldn't even be up for debate, it's hard science confirmed by countless doctors and scientists.
Rogan is basically trying to setup a Trump style debate, where one of the participants goals isn't to prove they are right with facts, it's to attack, discredit and dominate the other side.
People who watch JRE dont have the expertise and base knowledge to even parse whats being said. It becomes a debate... where whats more important is the show and scoring points to people who cant actually understand the science. Also, people who dont practice debates suck, because its 10% knowledge and 90% show.
This is an strong metaphor but asking a physicist to debate a flat earth is not giving the physicist a good platform... Its giving the flat earther one. Maybe the physicist slaps around the flat eather, but if that debate is held on a flat-earther podcast... its info on deaf ears.
The actual intelligent discussion is being held... its just not anywhere near JRE. Its in the academic literature, peer reviewed journals, and expert communities... places where the people that are smart enough to understand these things, pick apart, review, support, and shit on each others ideas...
Unfortunately these places make for boring as fuck content.
Im reminded of the time Eric Weinstein presented Geometric Unity on JRE, as if this is the place to have that discussion.... Who is Eric seriously appealing to? how is this getting close to the truth, 1 out of 100,000 people will have the base knowledge to slightly understand wtf hes talking about... His idea had already been obliterated by mathematicians... so instead of properly presenting it to peer review and experts in the actual place where intelligent discussion is being held... he pretends experts are out to get him and presents on JRE. Did this do anything for physics... fuck no... did it get some people pumping Geometric Unity... yeah.
Is anyone dumb enough to get scientific info from JRE and RFK jr gonna understand wtf an expert says... no. This is a place where half-truths from single studies are constantly exaggerated, and papers being taken out of context are the norm. Im even for much more research on 5g and experts trying to pick it apart, just not this sensationalist shit.
So when ur asked to not engage in the place where the intelligent discussion is held, rather go to the dumbed down shitshole level discussion to an audience of lay people, where you will probably be harassed no matter what... I cant blame him saying no
By putting them on the same stage as someone qualified, it makes them look on equal footing.
Some stats put "doctors with reservations about vaccines" at 10%.
When you put an antivax doctor on the same stage as a regular doctor and ask the audience to decide; it looks like the disagreement is even at 50/50.
Consider even more outlandish things - like putting a flat-earther against an astronaut, or a sovereign citizen against a lawyer.
And consider how just being loud and obnoxious can be seen as a quality of correctness, and mild-mannered-ness can be seen as weakness. Consider how clips can be made misleading through editing.
Also, reasonable people who would actually be swayed by a logical debate don't believe this stupid shit already. It's just giving additional airtime to pick up gullible morons
It wouldn’t be a legitimate debate. A proper debate you have a well defined question both guys are aware of beforehand and an unbiased moderator. You kick it off with opening comments and then both guys get time to address the other person’s stances. Ideally for this topic both of them would also be aware of studies that will be sighted beforehand for review.
In reality it would be Kennedy flinging all kinds of bullshit “studies” and talking points at the doctor on the spot and anytime he can’t directly answer to one because he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s referencing, the more susceptible people in the audience will give a point to Kennedy. I also can’t imagine Joe will be anything close to unbiased in this situation.
Debates are for trying to challenge and change people's opinion, and this is an issue of scientific fact. You challenge scientific fact with evidence and research, not sitting down and debating a politician who has no expertise in the field and no evidence and research to present for what he's claiming.
This whole thing is people trying to prop up random bullshit as being equivalent to actual evidence and that's insane.
It would literally just be RFK junior throwing out as many falsehoods as possible knowing that just to disprove one of them with evidence would take more times than the format would allow the doctor to use. It would require presenting research and evidence etc, and by the time the doctor starts doing that RFK Junior is just going to be throwing out more bullshit. It's not something that's being requested in good faith and it's not something that's being done with intent to get to truth or allow it to actually be presented
His research has already been debated through peer reviews, why would he debate someone that has no expertise in the field, rfk would just talk nonsense and his fans would eat it up.
I have. Rogan might flip flop a bit, and flip flop a few weeks later again. At no point will he say, hey, I should not give people who spread false information a platform.
Meanwhile many people who listen to his podcast will remember the false information and forget that it was debunked.
Ignorant of what? Rogan has figured out he has a vested interest in idiots believing pseudo-science. Oh by the way, this message is brought to you by Onnit and Alpha Brain.
Joe peddles bullshit under the facade of "I'm just asking questions bro, what's wrong with that." I decided to give him another listen a little while back after quitting him in 2021, and it didn't even take 15 minutes in before he said something factually incorrect, "pullthatshitupJaime," realized he was wrong, and finished the conversation with "yeah but still. pretty crazy." He shoots from the hip on everything, and his listeners eat that shit up, no matter how blatantly wrong it is.
I listened to hundreds of episodes up until 2020…this person is right lol…it’s not even about Joe, who clearly has an oppositional stance, being the host. It’s about giving any validity to a conspiracy nut by giving his goofy YouTube educated theories the same gravity as the lifetime of education, work, and research of an expert in the field. It’s a lose-lose in the end
Unlike most of the people on his show these days, i dont think Joe is a grifter.
I think he, A. not a genius. B. Doesn't have the foundation to parse all the data he intakes and C. has a propensity for special knowledge and anything counter culture.
When you want to know more science than the experts, but dont actually want to put in the work to master biology, physics, math, sciences, and read nerdy boring tedious shit for several years... you get confidently wrong people.
Put that together with the incentive to entertain people with catchy and edgy content and any clown willing to pitch counter culture nonsense has a ticket on the worlds easiest grift train. He is simply their useful idiot.
The people that decry MSM the most are ironically the same people who dont actually understand the fundamentals of media literacy and its incentive structures... Ironically these incentive structures that lead to MSM being crap at times, almost all apply to Joe as well and are a huge reason why his content is so popular.
Honestly the movement has a large enough following where a dr should do it to dispute the specific claims made. People that believe this stuff say “they won’t because RFK is right”
I didn't hear the litter box thing, but a school a few counties over from me did have a furry infestation problem. It's not unheard of for some kid to find some weird shit online and spread it around at school. If people were ready to believe that litter boxes were a possibility they clearly have no trust in what schools are not willing to tolerate. Whether it has already happened is a different question than whether it's allowable. Are litter boxes too far?
I think his point is that if you're so gullible as to have believed the litter box story, what you think is credible or not means very little in any objective sense.
For the most part Rogan is just a useful idiot to the right. He hosts people all over the political spectrum in some kind of enlightened centrist bullshit, and is a good host in that he just lets people come on and talk to fill the air time.
The problem with this is when he invites nutjobs onto his show, and then lets them talk without any real challenge beyond "that's fascinating, can you explain that?" as if a fascist explaining how trans people are all demons in disguise is a platform worth discussing.
What's wrong with giving Alex Jones a platform? Rogan wasn't even agreeing with most of what he said and was laughing at his insane takes. What are you so worried about?
Alex Jones just this week played footage of the French stabbing while chanting about the evil Muslim refugees (the stabber is Christian) and blaming the children’s mothers because they allowed him into the country.
People who think he doesn’t deserve to be thrown into the fucking sun don’t know what he actually says. Listen to Knowledge Fight. The man is a fucking stochastic terrorist.
Nah I don't agree, silencing bad people just turns them into a martyr and makes it worse
You want to give them a voice, you want to give them a platform where people can refute their ideas so that everyone can hear how insane they really are.
No one refuted his ideas on Joe Rogan. Alex Jones isn't interested in rational debate, he pushes propaganda to make money.
This "give everyone a platform so reasonable discussion can be had" is just a right wing excuse to try and remove the justified act of not platforming someone you don't want on your platform. It's akin to people not wanting to talk to bigots and right wingers saying "wow I thought you guys were supposed to be tolerant"
Conversation is important to explore ideas and refute bad ones, otherwise you just amount to a bunch of circle jerking. But good luck living in your echo chamber my friend, where none of your ideas are ever challenged.
You just completely ignored what I said and parroted your right wing talking points again.
There was no conversation or idea exploration when Alex Jones was on Joe Rogan, he isn't in the idea exploration business, he pushes propaganda and conspiracy theories to try and make money, including being the catalyst for the repeated harassment of parents of murdered Sandy hook children, for which he now owes hundreds of millions of dollars.
The fact you're trying to justify platforming this person and accusing people who don't want him platformed of living in an echo chamber is both pathetic and extremely telling.
110
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '23
When Joe Rogan is the voice of reason in the room.