Neil Young surprises me

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,028
10,623
136
This “presenting both sides” bullshit. Sometimes there are just not “both sides”

You don't have some lunatic on your show to present "the side" calling for all blue eyed blonde haired people to be murdered because this guest says they eat Christian babies for lunch, and THEN another person who says this is horrible, dangerous and entirely wrong…You don’t present “both sides” of this discussion if you yourself aren't a grifting loon thirsting for money. You don’t find a middle ground, where you only kill a few blue eyed, blonde haired people. Some people enjoy giving racists, the violent, the mentally ill, “equal time”. If 99% of the facts are on one side, 99% of the content should be there as well. That's "balanced". Some people in today's world invent controversy and conspiracy in the face of facts for fame and money, that's what people seem to assume should be done these days.

I guess there’s nothing wrong with having a guest who advises drinking your own urine to cure Covid-19, as long as you come back later to interview an expert infectious diseases doc who says not to. :rolleyes:Nothing meaningful comes from presenting "both sides" of these types of discussions. They are dangerous to groups of people who want to believe. There's a lot of quacks, grifters and plain nutjobs challenging scientists and public health experts to debates these days. If you’re a smooth-talking charlatan who’s talented at Gish galloping, you can “win”. Real scientists and doctors are doing real work and not clowning around on podcasts arguing with known grifters.

Yes, I know it’s all about the clicks, the entertainment, the eyeballs on screen… basically the money. I’m just so fucking tired of contrarian attention whores using the excuse of “presenting both sides” when what they really mean is “I like money”

Rogans only sorry because he's "pissed off". Not because he's spread dangerous and false medical information in a very delicate era of powerful internet grifters and politicians, when these kind of things can literally cause death. Public speech has public consequences.

Joe Rogan - : "8 months ago if you said you could still catch COVID after getting the vaccine, you would have been BANNED from social media" Where the hell does he come up with this shit?

Spotify paid Joe Rogan 100 million dollars. Spotify advertises that the only way to listen to Joe Rogan is with Spotify. But they also seem to want to be not responsible for anything he and his guests says, and any consequences after. Thats like me giving a 3 year old a loaded handgun in a crowded room and then saying I'm not responsible if anybody gets shot. But ..hey, at the end of the day.... If You think guy Rogan is awesome and do what he and his grifting guests suggests you should, and you end up dead or injured? Knock yourselves out. He's basically just a grifting shock jock that makes money by being controversial. He can't abandon that technique because it's what has made him successful. His apology and appeal to "differing viewpoints" is pure deflection from the core issue that he needs to be controversial in order stay popular with his audience.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,444
6,540
136
You really should stop bragging you know nothing about XXX musician. Your lack of knowledge/exposure is not a bragging point. India.Aire has put out roughly a dozen top quality and popular albums.
Didn't seem like a brag to me. I would have called it a statement of fact.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,444
6,540
136
This “presenting both sides” bullshit. Sometimes there are just not “both sides”

You don't have some lunatic on your show to present "the side" calling for all blue eyed blonde haired people to be murdered because this guest says they eat Christian babies for lunch, and THEN another person who says this is horrible, dangerous and entirely wrong…You don’t present “both sides” of this discussion if you yourself aren't a grifting loon thirsting for money. You don’t find a middle ground, where you only kill a few blue eyed, blonde haired people. Some people enjoy giving racists, the violent, the mentally ill, “equal time”. If 99% of the facts are on one side, 99% of the content should be there as well. That's "balanced". Some people in today's world invent controversy and conspiracy in the face of facts for fame and money, that's what people seem to assume should be done these days.

I guess there’s nothing wrong with having a guest who advises drinking your own urine to cure Covid-19, as long as you come back later to interview an expert infectious diseases doc who says not to. :rolleyes:Nothing meaningful comes from presenting "both sides" of these types of discussions. They are dangerous to groups of people who want to believe. There's a lot of quacks, grifters and plain nutjobs challenging scientists and public health experts to debates these days. If you’re a smooth-talking charlatan who’s talented at Gish galloping, you can “win”. Real scientists and doctors are doing real work and not clowning around on podcasts arguing with known grifters.

Yes, I know it’s all about the clicks, the entertainment, the eyeballs on screen… basically the money. I’m just so fucking tired of contrarian attention whores using the excuse of “presenting both sides” when what they really mean is “I like money”

Rogans only sorry because he's "pissed off". Not because he's spread dangerous and false medical information in a very delicate era of powerful internet grifters and politicians, when these kind of things can literally cause death. Public speech has public consequences.

Joe Rogan - : "8 months ago if you said you could still catch COVID after getting the vaccine, you would have been BANNED from social media" Where the hell does he come up with this shit?

Spotify paid Joe Rogan 100 million dollars. Spotify advertises that the only way to listen to Joe Rogan is with Spotify. But they also seem to want to be not responsible for anything he and his guests says, and any consequences after. Thats like me giving a 3 year old a loaded handgun in a crowded room and then saying I'm not responsible if anybody gets shot. But ..hey, at the end of the day.... If You think guy Rogan is awesome and do what he and his grifting guests suggests you should, and you end up dead or injured? Knock yourselves out. He's basically just a grifting shock jock that makes money by being controversial. He can't abandon that technique because it's what has made him successful. His apology and appeal to "differing viewpoints" is pure deflection from the core issue that he needs to be controversial in order stay popular with his audience.
What makes this hyperbole better than Joe Rogan's?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,225
55,768
136
What makes this hyperbole better than Joe Rogan's?
Well unlike a lot of the stuff on Rogan’s podcast it has the virtue of being true, haha.

Rogan is an interesting and charismatic guy who unfortunately is not very smart and does not particularly care about truth and accuracy. I’m sure this helps his podcast to be successful but it unfortunately also makes it a platform for a lot of lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,820
136
What makes this hyperbole better than Joe Rogan's?

How exactly is this hyperbolic? It's well-established that certain issues have a single objective truth, and that "both-sidesing" them is harmful by falsely suggesting that a conspiracy theory has as much merit as a verifiable scientific theory.

I'm reminded of an adage about journalism. If one person says it's sunny while another person says it's raining, it's not the journalist's job to give both views equal weight... their job is to look outside.

Rogan isn't a journalist, but it's still problematic that he both promotes bogus claims himself and presents others' bogus ideas with an uncritical eye. And I don't just mean COVID-19 misinformation; he has a long history of courting intellectual charlatans like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, who mask false claims with superficially intelligent-sounding language. If Rogan was genuinely interested in promoting intelligent discussions, he'd either call out his guests' falsehoods or (better yet) stick to guests with integrity.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,444
6,540
136
Well unlike a lot of the stuff on Rogan’s podcast it has the virtue of being true, haha.

Rogan is an interesting and charismatic guy who unfortunately is not very smart and does not particularly care about truth and accuracy. I’m sure this helps his podcast to be successful but it unfortunately also makes it a platform for a lot of lies.
Comparing Rogan's show to handing a child a firearm doesn't really fall into a true or false category.
I've never listened to his show, so I don't have any idea what it's all about. Clearly it's offended a few performers, I don't see that as a bad thing, and I absolutely support the right of those performers to choose how their material is distributed.
The simple reality is that Rogan has a very popular show that produces a great deal of revenue, spotify isn't going to walk away from that for a few hundred bucks generated from third or forth tier performers.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,444
6,540
136
How exactly is this hyperbolic? It's well-established that certain issues have a single objective truth, and that "both-sidesing" them is harmful by falsely suggesting that a conspiracy theory has as much merit as a verifiable scientific theory.

I'm reminded of an adage about journalism. If one person says it's sunny while another person says it's raining, it's not the journalist's job to give both views equal weight... their job is to look outside.

Rogan isn't a journalist, but it's still problematic that he both promotes bogus claims himself and presents others' bogus ideas with an uncritical eye. And I don't just mean COVID-19 misinformation; he has a long history of courting intellectual charlatans like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, who mask false claims with superficially intelligent-sounding language. If Rogan was genuinely interested in promoting intelligent discussions, he'd either call out his guests' falsehoods or (better yet) stick to guests with integrity.
"Thats like me giving a 3 year old a loaded handgun in a crowded room and then saying I'm not responsible"
That's hyperbole.
As far as I know, Rogan hasn't recommended giving firearms to children, or drinking bleach to cure the rona.
As I've said, I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm uncomfortable censoring opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlerious

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,225
55,768
136
Comparing Rogan's show to handing a child a firearm doesn't really fall into a true or false category.
I think a fair assessment would indicate that Rogan's irresponsibility probably got a significant number of people killed by encouraging them not to get vaccinated.

I've never listened to his show, so I don't have any idea what it's all about. Clearly it's offended a few performers, I don't see that as a bad thing, and I absolutely support the right of those performers to choose how their material is distributed.
The simple reality is that Rogan has a very popular show that produces a great deal of revenue, spotify isn't going to walk away from that for a few hundred bucks generated from third or forth tier performers.
I've never listened to his show either, and he can say whatever he wants. It's also kind of weird that people think Spotify kicking him off would help - it's a paid service, if anything he would probably get more listeners without people having to pay for it. I personally don't care what happens with his show, but I also support the free speech of people who don't want to be associated with it. People need to recognize what Neil Young did is freedom of speech and defend it just as much as Joe Rogan's speech.

Also Neil Young is not a third or fourth tier performer though, he's a rock legend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,820
136
"Thats like me giving a 3 year old a loaded handgun in a crowded room and then saying I'm not responsible"
That's hyperbole.
As far as I know, Rogan hasn't recommended giving firearms to children, or drinking bleach to cure the rona.
As I've said, I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm uncomfortable censoring opinions.

Among the false claims Rogan has made:

- Ivermectin cures COVID-19
- Vaccines are gene therapy
- People vaccinated after getting COVID are at risk of serious side effects
- The health risks from the vaccine are higher in young people than the disease

This also isn't including falsehoods from his guests, such as Malone's claim that there's a "mass psychosis" leading people to think vaccines are effective.

You see the problem? Rogan is saying things that can (and probably will) directly harm people by making them either skip vaccines or take something that at best does nothing, and at worst could hurt them. Don't let one hyperbolic claim rule out an argument that's otherwise very sound.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,444
6,540
136
Among the false claims Rogan has made:

- Ivermectin cures COVID-19
- Vaccines are gene therapy
- People vaccinated after getting COVID are at risk of serious side effects
- The health risks from the vaccine are higher in young people than the disease

This also isn't including falsehoods from his guests, such as Malone's claim that there's a "mass psychosis" leading people to think vaccines are effective.

You see the problem? Rogan is saying things that can (and probably will) directly harm people by making them either skip vaccines or take something that at best does nothing, and at worst could hurt them. Don't let one hyperbolic claim rule out an argument that's otherwise very sound.
The problem appears to be that people are getting medical advice from a talk show host. That's never seemed like a good idea to me.
I can't offer any comments on your other points because I've never listened to his show. At face value it appears that he's opening himself up to civil liability by offering medical advice on subjects that he knows nothing about.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,820
136
The problem appears to be that people are getting medical advice from a talk show host. That's never seemed like a good idea to me.
I can't offer any comments on your other points because I've never listened to his show. At face value it appears that he's opening himself up to civil liability by offering medical advice on subjects that he knows nothing about.

That's the thing. Unfortunately, many people these days will trust a podcast host (or politician, or...) explicitly, but won't bother to fact-check them — and will even be distrustful of the scientists with real evidence.

That's why Young, Mitchell and others are withdrawing from Spotify. It's tolerating and promoting false content that has very likely led to real harm. And its efforts so far (including promises of "labels" and a non-apology from Rogan) don't really solve the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,444
6,540
136
That's the thing. Unfortunately, many people these days will trust a podcast host (or politician, or...) explicitly, but won't bother to fact-check them — and will even be distrustful of the scientists with real evidence.

That's why Young, Mitchell and others are withdrawing from Spotify. It's tolerating and promoting false content that has very likely led to real harm. And its efforts so far (including promises of "labels" and a non-apology from Rogan) don't really solve the problem.
Proof is the main issue. Johns Hopkins just released a study that claims that masks and lockdowns have a near zero impact on the spread of covid, and may have done more harm than good. That's a pretty huge claim coming from a source that most people would consider main stream, and sure as hell more dependable than Joe Rogan.
The JH study will be decried as flawed, and proof of nothing. Which brings us to which proof is Joe six pack is supposed to believe? We've also very stupidly (and predictably) injected politics into the equation, that pretty much ends any civil discussion about the issue, and lands us exactly where we are today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlerious

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,225
55,768
136
Proof is the main issue. Johns Hopkins just released a study that claims that masks and lockdowns have a near zero impact on the spread of covid, and may have done more harm than good. That's a pretty huge claim coming from a source that most people would consider main stream, and sure as hell more dependable than Joe Rogan.
The JH study will be decried as flawed, and proof of nothing. Which brings us to which proof is Joe six pack is supposed to believe? We've also very stupidly (and predictably) injected politics into the equation, that pretty much ends any civil discussion about the issue, and lands us exactly where we are today.
Can you link to this study? Regardless, numerous large scale studies have shown large benefits from mask wearing so while a study that said they did nothing would be interesting, no reasonable person would take it instead of the large body of research that says the opposite. So Joe six pack should believe the preponderance of the evidence, which indicates that masks are effective and extremely low cost.

We should also remember that there has never been a single lockdown in the entirety of America at any point over the last two years. Not one. People like to claim that closing bars and restaurants was a 'lockdown' but I just laugh every time I hear that. Like, how stupid and entitled are we? That being said, I think closures of schools were always a bad idea and should never have been done.
 
Nov 17, 2019
13,430
7,904
136
Note my post above about his past acting life. Is he still acting, just playing the fool like he did before, raking in bux for it?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,504
20,110
146
"Thats like me giving a 3 year old a loaded handgun in a crowded room and then saying I'm not responsible"
That's hyperbole.
As far as I know, Rogan hasn't recommended giving firearms to children, or drinking bleach to cure the rona.
As I've said, I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm uncomfortable censoring opinions.

Have you ever watched the movie "Contagion"?

If so, what should happen to the Jude Law character?

It is one thing to refuse to believe objective fact. It another to profit off the dissemination of misinformation that can lead to the harm and or death of others.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
63,369
19,747
136
Can you link to this study? Regardless, numerous large scale studies have shown large benefits from mask wearing so while a study that said they did nothing would be interesting, no reasonable person would take it instead of the large body of research that says the opposite. So Joe six pack should believe the preponderance of the evidence, which indicates that masks are effective and extremely low cost.

We should also remember that there has never been a single lockdown in the entirety of America at any point over the last two years. Not one. People like to claim that closing bars and restaurants was a 'lockdown' but I just laugh every time I hear that. Like, how stupid and entitled are we? That being said, I think closures of schools were always a bad idea and should never have been done.
I'd also be curious to see the study.
I did find this:
Which explicitly states the reasoning for moving to N95/KN95:
Mask upgrades are largely driven by the extraordinary infectiousness of the omicron variant—it's at least twice as infectious as the delta variant, and delta was significantly more infectious than the earlier variants.
Being as it was published on 1/25, and they revised their mask policy on 1/15 to be more rigid, it would be interesting to see a study from them stating they do nothing/are worse than no mask/no lockdown.
I did find references to fallacious claims about a study "from Stanford" claiming this, that were circulating on social media.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,028
10,623
136
"Thats like me giving a 3 year old a loaded handgun in a crowded room and then saying I'm not responsible"
That's hyperbole.
As far as I know, Rogan hasn't recommended giving firearms to children, or drinking bleach to cure the rona.
As I've said, I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm uncomfortable censoring opinions.

No ... You don't understand what I wrote.

I wasn't accusing Rogan of "recommending" giving children firearms or censoring what he, and his guests can say. He can have as many charlatans and grifters on as he wants and they can say what they want.

BTW .... Boycotts are not censorship. It's the free market and free association in the real world. Companies that choose not to publish something because it involves a person who is spreading dangerous misinformation is not censorship. That is a rational decision on the company's part. There is no obligation to publish the neo nazi podcast, or to publish your book on why the earth is flat.

No one is saying these people can’t talk. The analogy had to do with Spotify taking accountability for the spread of misinformation. Companies who are paying for content should be responsible for the content they pay for. They are paying Rogan with subscriber's fees. You have the freedom to express whatever views you want, but if they're lethally misleading and stupidly false, other people also have the right to not do business with the platform that's enabling you to broadcast them. Spotify put themselves in the position of being the target of customer decisions on what they want to spend their money on.

Read what I wrote again:
"Spotify paid Joe Rogan 100 million dollars. Spotify advertises that the only way to listen to Joe Rogan is with Spotify. But they also seem to want to be not responsible for anything he and his guests says, and any consequences after. Thats like me giving a 3 year old a loaded handgun in a crowded room and then saying I'm not responsible if anybody gets shot"

Spotify seems to want the best of both worlds without the accountability. He has a huge megaphone paid for by Spotify. They want to freely host whatever without responsibility for the content and they want exclusive rights to the content without being accountable for said content. Once you hand out money to get content on your platform then you are telling the world you basically approve of that content. He's behind a paywall now, which will limit his access. Joe Rogan’s audience dropped after he became a Spotify exclusive. Other corporations can observe the negative financial effects of being an enabler of misinformation.

Rogan used to be ok way back when a few guests he'd host were somewhat interesting. However, his show got increasingly clowinish.He's become an anti-vaxx huckster who's been hosting an awful lot of bigots. He's become a contrarian who may or may not believe the bullshit he promotes, but he' should be morally responsible for what he gives a platform to. He rants on and on about mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and "cancel culture" nearly every episode. It's become an echo chamber. He now admits in his “apology” that his content is for pure entertainment. He seems to be priding himself now on being the Fox News of podcasts. He is attempting to sound like he is sincerely attempting to understand and bring in knowledgeable professionals with differing viewpoints on the subjects. However, in practice, he brings in guests that support his viewpoints, creating an echo chamber. Any guests with differing viewpoints are brought in so he can target aspects of the topic from his perspective and tear down the arguments against his beliefs. The effort is to support his ideology and convince his audience that his perspective is the only logical perspective to support. But he wants to spin it as a “sincere discussion.” His show is now boring eye roll material
 
Last edited:

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,444
6,540
136
Can you link to this study? Regardless, numerous large scale studies have shown large benefits from mask wearing so while a study that said they did nothing would be interesting, no reasonable person would take it instead of the large body of research that says the opposite. So Joe six pack should believe the preponderance of the evidence, which indicates that masks are effective and extremely low cost.

We should also remember that there has never been a single lockdown in the entirety of America at any point over the last two years. Not one. People like to claim that closing bars and restaurants was a 'lockdown' but I just laugh every time I hear that. Like, how stupid and entitled are we? That being said, I think closures of schools were always a bad idea and should never have been done.
Link to the study. It's long and boring. I don't know enough about the analyses method to have a valid opinion on how it was done.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
63,369
19,747
136
Link to the study. It's long and boring. I don't know enough about the analyses method to have a valid opinion on how it was done.
Conveniently enough, there's a thread on that exact subject now.
 
Nov 17, 2019
13,430
7,904
136
Related, or just coincidental economics?

Spotify Stock Falls Apart: When To Buy

www.thestreet.com.ico
TheStreet.com|1 hour ago
Spotify stock is sinking again. Rather than holding the stock and hoping for the best, investors can be more strategic in choosing when to buy SPOT — and when to stay away from it.


.
 

dlerious

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2004
2,208
986
136
BTW .... Boycotts are not censorship. It's the free market and free association in the real world. Companies that choose not to publish something because it involves a person who is spreading dangerous misinformation is not censorship. That is a rational decision on the company's part. There is no obligation to publish the neo nazi podcast, or to publish your book on why the earth is flat.

No one is saying these people can’t talk. The analogy had to do with Spotify taking accountability for the spread of misinformation. Companies who are paying for content should be responsible for the content they pay for. They are paying Rogan with subscriber's fees. You have the freedom to express whatever views you want, but if they're lethally misleading and stupidly false, other people also have the right to not do business with the platform that's enabling you to broadcast them. Spotify put themselves in the position of being the target of customer decisions on what they want to spend their money on.
Why aren't people doing these things to get one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation removed - i.e. Fox? I don't see people removing their content from Youtube over the presence of FOX for example.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
33,620
53,896
136
Why aren't people doing these things to get one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation removed - i.e. Fox? I don't see people removing their content from Youtube over the presence of FOX for example.


there's more than a few that have left and do not advertise on the 'opinion' shows but they still seem advertise on their 'news' programs

 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,453
12,581
136


there's more than a few that have left and do not advertise on the 'opinion' shows but they still seem advertise on their 'news' programs

Those frigging vitamins. Not on the list. For quite a while they seem to advertise exclusively on Fox. Now they are advertising everywhere. I had it on my never going to buy those list.
Insurance companies have got to be the biggest spenders on TV advertising, they buy time from EVERYBODY so I can't nail them on it.