Spotify - an online music service

[magnkarl]

24 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

I just prefer long form conversations to sound bites, Joe Rogan does that. A lot of other people enjoy it. 

I guess that's why there seems to be a massive push to get him censored, which appears to be mainly directed from the MSM, who just so happen to be losing massively to his podcast in terms of viewership. Funny that. 

I'll continue to remain on the side of the people not banning books, or banning people from speaking, as that generally is the right side of history.

 

 

When people write 'MSM' 'Libtard' 'The left', 'Sheeple' or any related wording their argument falls to the ground for me, sorry.

[Mister_a]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

When people write 'MSM' 'Libtard' 'The left', 'Sheeple' or any related wording their argument falls to the ground for me, sorry.

It's up to you to remain closed minded to arguments, that's your choice. Not a great look mind.

How else am i to describe the viewership graph above without using the catch all term MSM? (Tucker Carlson, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC?).

Edited February 1, 2022 by Mister_a

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

When people write 'MSM' 'Libtard' 'The left', 'Sheeple' or any related wording their argument falls to the ground for me, sorry.

I know - it's like when some people call Rogan fascist or say he takes horse medicine. 

Most people are somewhere in between - they say bullshit to both, 'sheeple' and 'fascist rogan'. 

I think it's important to find balance between the two. 

[magnkarl]

12 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

I'd still rather have these people making public statements of crazy (Alex Jones) than being driven underground where you have no idea what they are saying.

Freedom of speech has to apply to the people you disagree with, otherwise it's just another echo chamber, something JR's detractors continually accuse him of. (Obvious caveat for comments that incite violence etc)

 

 

 

And NY has all the right in the world to mean what he means about JR. JR needs to seriously up his source game if he's to not face this again, bigger audience, more responsibility.

I love how the typical JR listener shouts freedom of speech as soon as he gets criticised, but don't realise that the people who criticise him have just as much of a right to free speech, where their music is published etc. to what JR does.

I for one think JR and spotify has 'evaded' the covid rules of the rest of the big internet corps (disclaimers, fact checks, scrutiny). In that way he's given people who preach absolute BS a big, big platform. This is something he should handle better.

Anyone still in doubt?

False claims by JR about vaccines and covid

Quote

Mr Rogan said: "This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy." 

Mr Rogan said: "I don't think it's true there's an increased risk of myocarditis from people catching Covid-19 that are young, versus the risk from the vaccine."

Claim: If you get vaccinated after having had Covid, you're at greater risk of harmful side effects

Claim: Ivermectin can cure Covid

The above statements and things said on his show have been disproven so many times that it's not even worth talking about.

Edited February 1, 2022 by magnkarl

[Mister_a]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

And NY has all the right in the world to mean what he means about JR. JR needs to seriously up his source game if he's to not face this again, bigger audience, more responsibility.

I love how the typical JR listener shouts freedom of speech as soon as he gets criticised, but don't realise that the people who criticise him have just as much of a right to free speech, where their music is published etc. to what JR does.

I for one think JR and spotify has 'evaded' the covid rules of the rest of the big internet corps (disclaimers, fact checks, scrutiny). In that way he's given people who preach absolute BS a big, big platform. This is something he should handle better.

I'm not sure where you are going with NY and Freedom of Speech, of course he has the right to do/say whatever he wants. Conversely, NY doesn't have the right to demand who people can and can't listen to?!

I just don't understand why people are so scared of conversations. You don't have to listen.

[Mister_a]

15 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Anyone still in doubt?

False claims by JR about vaccines and covid

The above statements and things said on his show have been disproven so many times that it's not even worth talking about.

Here's a clue. 

I don't believe everything I hear on his podcast. 

See, that wasn't too hard was it.

I still enjoy long form conversations with his varied guests, and i enjoy hearing what banned people have to say, precisely because they have been banned from twitter youtube etc.

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

Here's a clue. 

I don't believe everything I hear on his podcast. 

See, that wasn't too hard was it.

I still enjoy long form conversations with his varied guests, and i enjoy hearing what banned people have to say, precisely because they have been banned from twitter youtube etc.

Another clue - if BBC or any other major media tells me to not do something, I'm likely to find out what it is before making a decision. 

[Mister_a]

We need conversations to understand ideas, to debate pro's and con's.

Conversations about controversial ideas will always have mistakes in them. So instead of banning the ones with incorrect / misleading information in them, we should have more conversations about these topics with every expert who will talk about it,  not less ffs.

Be very careful who you delegate the responsibility of who decides which ideas are allowed and which ones aren't, because if that person isn't you, they do not have your best interests at heart.

Are we that dumb as a species that we can't understand the process for new ideas evolving involves making mistakes in conversations about the current ideas, in order to get new ideas out there?

 

[StefanAVFC]

The issue with providing a platform for 'both sides' is that we aren't taught critical thinking anymore in schools. In fact, in America, the tactic has been to dumb down the population. In a utopian society, Rogan would host someone saying the sky is green, let them say what they want and the listeners would rightfully dismiss them as a nutter. But this doesn't happen. Now we have a situation where large groups within society think that the sky is green, then they hear someone with the platform that Joe Rogan has bringing on somebody who also says the sky is green and it just roots them further in with their warped world view.

Of course, this isn't Rogan's fault but with the current demographic, there has to be some responsibility taken by those with platforms to ensure that 'the sky is green' people aren't being given free reign to present their ideas to a stupid population.

[Mister_a]

8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The issue with providing a platform for 'both sides' is that we aren't taught critical thinking anymore in schools. In fact, in America, the tactic has been to dumb down the population. In a utopian society, Rogan would host someone saying the sky is green, let them say what they want and the listeners would rightfully dismiss them as a nutter. But this doesn't happen. Now we have a situation where large groups within society think that the sky is green, then they hear someone with the platform that Joe Rogan has bringing on somebody who also says the sky is green and it just roots them further in with their warped world view.

Of course, this isn't Rogan's fault but with the current demographic, there has to be some responsibility taken by those with platforms to ensure that 'the sky is green' people aren't being given free reign to present their ideas to a stupid population.

Do you think that less conversation is the answer to solve this particular problem?

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Mister_a said:

Do you think that less conversation is the answer to solve this particular problem?

Where's the line in your view? What topics and views should be 'enough'?

For me, it's anything proven to be incorrect, or without basis in evidence or proof.

[Mic09]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The issue with providing a platform for 'both sides' is that we aren't taught critical thinking anymore in schools. In fact, in America, the tactic has been to dumb down the population. In a utopian society, Rogan would host someone saying the sky is green, let them say what they want and the listeners would rightfully dismiss them as a nutter. But this doesn't happen. Now we have a situation where large groups within society think that the sky is green, then they hear someone with the platform that Joe Rogan has bringing on somebody who also says the sky is green and it just roots them further in with their warped world view.

Of course, this isn't Rogan's fault but with the current demographic, there has to be some responsibility taken by those with platforms to ensure that 'the sky is green' people aren't being given free reign to present their ideas to a stupid population.

I get that and agree that responsibility should fall somewhere.

But, a reasonably smart high school student should be able to call BS on half of the things they find on BBC, Fox news, CNN. Heck, just over a year ago Boris told us to not go outside other than once a day. That's misinformation in its purest form based on no science or common sense whatsoever.

There is a lot of BS coming from everywhere.

So education, not de-platforming should be key. 

Let's make people think for themselves a bit more. 

 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

So education, not de-platforming should be key. 

Let's make people think for themselves a bit more. 

But it isn't happening; in fact, the opposite is happening as a political tactic. (in the US specifically)

What then?

[Mister_a]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Where's the line in your view? What topics and views should be 'enough'?

For me, it's anything proven to be incorrect, or without basis in evidence or proof.

That would stop podcasts about UFO's, and i can't have that lol...

The line for me is pretty clear, say whatever you like, expect to deal with the consequences of it. Except for inciting violence (physical violence, not bad words).

 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Mister_a said:

 

The line for me is pretty clear, say whatever you like, expect to deal with the consequences of it. 

 

What about those pushing vaccine misinformation on mainstream channels, leading to unvaccinated people dying of Covid?

Do either Rogan or his guests deal with any consequences of that?

[Mic09]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

But it isn't happening; in fact, the opposite is happening as a political tactic. (in the US specifically)

What then?

100% it's used as a political tactic.

So if it is, why should we allow the very same people to "fact check" and "de-platform"? I think it's dangerous for CNN or BBC or Twitter Or Boris or Trump or Biden to tell us what's true or not.

Let's open up the narrative to a wide spectrum of views, and defeat the shitty ones in open debate. 

I would happily argue anyone who thinks vaccines are pointless. But I will also defend their right to say they are pointless, regardless of how much I disagree.

[Mister_a]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

What about those pushing vaccine misinformation on mainstream channels, leading to unvaccinated people dying of Covid?

Do either Rogan or his guests deal with any consequences of that?

Obviously yes, with this shit storm. 

All it highlights for me is the current complete lack of long-form debate on any subject, and everything being pushed into simple soundbites is more harmful to us in the long term on every subject.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

So if it is, why should we allow the very same people to "fact check" and "de-platform"? I think it's dangerous for CNN or BBC or Twitter Or Boris or Trump or Biden to tell us what's true or not.

It isn't CNN, Twitter or the BBC choosing to lower education standards to benefit themselves politically.

I'm not talking about political entities 'no platforming' people. I'm talking only about the media.

[Mister_a]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

It isn't CNN, Twitter or the BBC choosing to lower education standards to benefit themselves politically.

I'm not talking about political entities 'no platforming' people. I'm talking only about the media.

Well if you look at the graph above, a lot of people have decided that they would rather hear long form conversations with experts of all varieties than the medias soundbites, so it ultimately seems like a losing tactic for them in the long run. Especially when all it does is cause people to find out why people have been de-platformed.

[magnkarl]

35 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

We need conversations to understand ideas, to debate pro's and con's.

Conversations about controversial ideas will always have mistakes in them. So instead of banning the ones with incorrect / misleading information in them, we should have more conversations about these topics with every expert who will talk about it,  not less ffs.

Be very careful who you delegate the responsibility of who decides which ideas are allowed and which ones aren't, because if that person isn't you, they do not have your best interests at heart.

Are we that dumb as a species that we can't understand the process for new ideas evolving involves making mistakes in conversations about the current ideas, in order to get new ideas out there?

 

To think that you call what Joe Rogan replies to a nutter as a conversation, is beyond me. Joe Rogan invites people who have his slanted views on vaccines, covid etc and then parrots and agrees with them. There's no 'conversation'. A conversation would be "So "Dr" Malone, you claim to have invented the MRNA vaccines, I see here that you haven't - care to comment?". Instead we get this "weeee, I got someone on who speaks critically about something I agree with, so I just sit here and lap it up and excuse myself with being stupid!".

What you think is a conversation is a 1 hour echo chamber session with a nutjob who endangers people's lives.