Spotify - an online music service

[Mister_a]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

As far as I'm aware, no one here called Rogan a Fascist, I (and possibly others) said he entertains and give Fascists a platform, that is entirely different

As for him taking horse medicine, that is from the horses mouth, he himself said he took Invermectim when he had COVID, so I don't see how that's even an issue for anyone

It depends who gets to do the labelling, seeing as the meaning of words are becoming more and more diluted as time goes by.

I'd rather listen to their ideas, then say 'yep, wrong 'un' then file them under that, but that's up to me to decide.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

He also invited a number of very much pro vaccine and 'mainstream' doctors to discuss the pandemic. Of course, that seems to be forgotten.

This notion of "balance" is fair enough for areas of unknown science, or where information is missing or lacking. But it's hugely harmful where for the sake of this so called "balance" people are brought in to spread untruths, misinformation, alternative facts, lies, and wild conspiracy theories and are given equal weighting to people giving actual factual information.

It's harmful whether it's left wing, right wing, libertarian or from any other part of the spectrum. It's not a political thing, it's the de-education of parts of the population about what is actually true.

On the issue of the vaccine for Covid, which has saved millions of lives across the world, it's dangerous to the point of costing people their health or their life. It's not "questioning the MSM narrative" - it's denying scientific fact and replacing it with bogus nonsense.

[DCJonah]

1 hour 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)

 

 

 

There has to be some restriction though. Alex Jones is saying that children shot in the sandy Hook massacre didn't really exist. He's caused endless pain and suffering for the parents of those children. 

Justifying that by saying we need to give the otherside chance to speak is way off in my opinion. People like him shouldn't be given a large platform to spout made up, conspiracy theories. Ignoring pure lies, isn't creating an echo chamber. I'm not suggesting ignoring other opinions on particular subjects, but out right dangerous lies should not be given a voice.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

It depends who gets to do the labelling, seeing as the meaning of words are becoming more and more diluted as time goes by.

I'd rather listen to their ideas, then say 'yep, wrong 'un' then file them under that, but that's up to me to decide.

I'd rather not give literal fascists a platform, I have and will continue to attempt to prevent that in person or by whatever means I can (Inside the law)

And as I've stated previously, The Proud Boys are literal fascists in my opinion and yes Rogan gives them a platform

[Mister_a]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

There has to be some restriction though. Alex Jones is saying that children shot in the sandy Hook massacre didn't really exist. He's caused endless pain and suffering for the parents of those children. 

Justifying that by saying we need to give the otherside chance to speak is way off in my opinion. People like him shouldn't be given a large platform to spout made up, conspiracy theories. Ignoring pure lies, isn't creating an echo chamber. I'm not suggesting ignoring other opinions on particular subjects, but out right dangerous lies should not be given a voice.

I agree with you. I just disagree that driving these kinds of people underground would be a good thing.

[Mic09]

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

As for him taking horse medicine, that is from the horses mouth, he himself said he took Invermectim when he had COVID, so I don't see how that's even an issue for anyone

He didn't go to Pets at Home, a qualified doctor prescribed it to him. It's an antiviral drug. 

Hundreds of millions of other people have also been prescribed that same drug. 

[DCJonah]

4 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

I agree with you. I just disagree that driving these kinds of people underground would be a good thing.

Why? You think letting them spread their lies to 200 million people is better? 

That's incredibly dangerous IMO. You only have to look at January 6th in America or the idiots who keep storming vaccination units, to see how dangerous it becomes when people have easy access to spread their lies. 

Do you think these people should be allowed time on BBC or Sky News to voice their side? 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by DCJonah

[Mister_a]

6 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Why? You think letting them spread their lies to 200 million people is better? 

That's incredibly dangerous IMO. You only have to look at January 6th in America or the idiots who keep storming vaccination units, to see how dangerous it becomes when people have easy access to spread their lies. 

 

I think that all ideas should be on the table, and the bad ones discounted after discussion about the relative merit to society / humanity / etc. 

That's how we developed language, how we talk and how we form ideas.

It's obviously a very handy way of doing things, otherwise it wouldn't have worked for the past 20 thousand years or so (insert correct number as appropriate!).

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Mister_a

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

He didn't go to Pets at Home, a qualified doctor prescribed it to him. It's an antiviral drug

There's no easy way to say this. It isn't. It's an antiparasitic drug. It has never been classed as an antiviral drug. It is not used to treat viruses in animals or humans

This is what happens when you listen to podcasts, you get misinformed

[Mister_a]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

There's no easy way to say this. It isn't. It's an antiparasitic drug. It has never been classed as an antiviral drug. It is not used to treat viruses in animals or humans

This is what happens when you listen to podcasts, you get misinformed

And when you read CNN, you call it a horse de-wormer instead of an anti-parasitic. It works both ways. (Not that I'm saying you only watch CNN obvs.).

[Mic09]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

There's no easy way to say this. It isn't. It's an antiparasitic drug. It has never been classed as an antiviral drug. It is not used to treat viruses in animals or humans

This is what happens when you listen to podcasts, you get misinformed

Quote

Abstract

Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite this promise, the antiviral activity of ivermectin has not been consistently proven in vivo. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

I found a million of these studies btw, all suggesting antiviral qualities of Ivermectin.

That's what happens when you listen to BBC, you get misinformed. It's worth looking stuff up.

Edit* I should say, and should say from the start, I don't know if Ivermectin works, my treatment would be directed by a doctor and not googling stuff. But the drug is used worldwide for its antiviral properties, although many disagree with its use. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Mic09

[Seat68]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

I found a million of these studies btw, all suggesting antiviral qualities of Ivermectin.

That's what happens when you listen to BBC, you get misinformed. It's worth looking stuff up.

 

Not consistently proven in vivo is the fairly important part of that. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Seat68

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Not consistently proven in vivo is the fairly important part of that. 

I know, hence my edit above. 

[Mister_a]

14 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Do you think these people should be allowed time on BBC or Sky News to voice their side? 

I think their side should be aired,, but BBC or Sky is a terrible place to be doing it. Mainly because interviews are too short and it's all dumbed down massively.

Give them enough rope to hang themselves, not a piece of BBC string, as it were.

[magnkarl]

14 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

I think that all ideas should be on the table, and the bad ones discounted after discussion about the relative merit to society / humanity / etc. 

That's how we developed language, how we talk and how we form ideas.

It's obviously a very handy way of doing things, otherwise it wouldn't have worked for the past 20 thousand years or so (insert correct number as appropriate!).

 

Which is fair enough when these lies are challenged, not lapped up and agreed with like this topic on Joe Rogan's show.

His track record on this is horrendous.

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

I think that all ideas should be on the table, and the bad ones discounted after discussion about the relative merit to society / humanity / etc. 

Ideas that are already discounted though?

I mean JRE podcast claimed that folk are being hypnotised into being vaccinated and in to wearing masks and that it's mass psychosis. The podcast also aired completely false claims that hospitals are basically paid to wrongly diagnose Covid fatalities. That's just utter "fake news" bollex.

And the Ivermectin drug thing. It's for horses with worms (or something along those lines*) not for covid protection/cure and there's little or no evidence to support it having any effect on Covid, never mind nigh on 100% effective as he claimed - certainly far, far less evidence than the huge wealth of data and analysis around the actual vaccines that actually do work. Claiming that Ivermectin is somehow kept out of the market by vaccine manufacturers because it would ruin their profits...

Stuff like that shouldn't (IMO) be presented to people in circumstances where it could actually lead to them dying or becoming ill, because they believe the lies. It should be as a minimum caveated as unverified claims, or some such, not presented unchallenged or given equal weighting to actual facts. 

 

 

*Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.

[Mister_a]

Just now, magnkarl said:

Which is fair enough when these lies are challenged, not lapped up and agreed with like this topic on Joe Rogan's show.

His track record on this is horrendous.

He's not a journalist. He has Jamie on his shows to look things up real time when anything is questioned.

You can't have a 3 hour conversation stopping every 2 minutes for fact checking, well you could, but it would go out of business pretty quickly.

[Chindie]

Ivermectin is a useful drug for human use. It also is used as an anti-parasitic medication in farm animals. It is a fallacy to just label it as horse dewormer and dismiss it - though it's also true that people were using vetinary supplies of the stuff to 'treat' Covid, and that has lead to an enormous uptick in people overdosing on it.

There's no good evidence it does anything for Covid, and the fact it's become some talking point and a conspiracy touchstone for a number of questionable figures is damning.

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Which is fair enough when these lies are challenged, not lapped up and agreed with like this topic on Joe Rogan's show.

His track record on this is horrendous.

I will finish this discussion on here, if you want drop me a message to further discuss. 

But I think you should be careful who you want to take down, because it's entirely possible one day someone will want to de-platform you, or people that you believe. 

Also, I take you don't listen to his podcasts. He takes in a lot of shit, but also disagrees with much his "controversial" guests are saying. For example, one said that you can't catch covid twice. That was a few weeks ago. Since then, Rogan has clarified this (and many other non truths) a number of times.

He is just a pot head comedian. If you don't like him, don't listen.

If you listen, don't take it as truth. It isn't. 

[blandy]

Just now, Mister_a said:

Discounted by whom?

The FDA, for a start.

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 | FDA

Quote

the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock.

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay. 

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death. 

But, work is ongoing

FDA Letter to Stakeholders: Do Not Use Ivermectin Intended for Animals as Treatment for COVID-19 in Humans | FDA

Quote

The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine has recently become aware of increased public visibility of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin after the announcement of a research article that described the effect of ivermectin on SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting. The Antiviral Research pre-publication paper, “The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitroExternal Link Disclaimer,”  documents how SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) responded to ivermectin when exposed in a petri dish. This type of study is commonly used in the early stages of drug development. Ivermectin was not given to people or animals in this study. Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe or effective to prevent or treat coronavirus or COVID-19.

But this is not really about Spotify, so what I'll re-emphasise is that Spotify and Rogan have both accepted, now that they need to do better with this kind of stuff. The spread of dangerous misinformation that could cause deaths or ill health in the name of entertainment or subscriptions is lamentable.