What they could have done is not cancel the Keystone pipeline. Enact common sense energy policy instead of pushing all their chips into green technology, a key component of which is battery based and whose supply chain is heavily linked to Russia.
Isn't it more "common sense" to support green energy than to further invest in fossil fuels that we know will need to be phased out AND has price volatility that is currently causing major issues? Doubling down on fossil fuels right now seems like the exact opposite of "common sense", especially considering that investments now won't do anything to help in the short term.
The Keystone pipeline isn't the issue here. We still get that Canadian oil, it just comes by train instead of pipeline. As I understand it oil producers are currently sitting on oil leases that they could take advantage of to increase production, but they aren't because the investors think this oil bump is going to be too short-lived especially as we're transitioning more in the direction of EVs.
You realize that the original pipeline is still there? KXL was a shortcut that would save some money.
Also, the fuel processed from the pipeline is chiefly an export, so it wouldn't have affected prices in the USA.
Lastly, the XL pipeline was a huge risk to the American agriculture industry. There was opposition to it it on the right, particularly from ranchers in the region. Do you really think it's wise to put the beef and wheat industries in the north at risk just so refineries can sell oil overseas at a slightly lower cost?
Nickel isn't essential, or cobalt for that matter. It's used in high-end batteries, but LFP is good enough for use in EVs and using nickel-based batteries for grid storage is just plain wasteful.
I agree with you to a point, but it's not my experience that speakers gain credibility and respect by giving good advice / showing good judgement / making accurate predictions. This would be true in traditional discourse, but not online. Online it feels as if speakers gain an audience by demonstrating their world view as loudly and as viciously as possible. It's like a group of children where one has learned that the way to get attention is to scream louder and longer than the others. I also have this feeling that social media is ruled by those who are willing to spend their time and effort to elevate a particular point of view no matter how unpopular it is.
I know of many specific examples in my field where the most thoughtful people who operate the most frequently in good faith have nowhere near the following of bad faith loudmouths.
I assume it's entertainment. People enjoy watching drama. Social media is their drama hit, and genuine communicators are frankly more boring.
The dynamics you describe are real, especially on the big social-media utilities like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. "Boo outgroup" is the easiest thing to sell in the attention economy, the louder and more viciously, the better.
But "building an audience" is a different than building credibility, trust, and respect. If you just aim for the most eyeballs, you find yourself vulnerable to what some people call audience capture, where your audience controls you, rather than the other way around.
For example, Trump has a huge audience, but that didn't stop an audience from booing him when he recommended getting vaccinated. [0]
The best most of us can hope for, if we're careful, is influence on a small group of people.
That didn't work in Canada, a supposedly liberal democracy. Trudeau enacted emergency powers and seized peoples bank accounts, what do you imagine Putin would do?
These truckers just illegally parked for several weeks, made a bit of noise, and some of them accosted passers-by.
I watched some aftermath footage of the vacated streets of Ottawa, the day after they were cleared out. There was no sign of any damage. Not a broken window or anything. I didn't see garbage on the ground. The commentators of the news clips I watched, though decidedly biased against the protesters, didn't remark upon anything like that.
Note that while I oppose the seizing of people‘s bank accounts by Trudeau with every fibre of my body, this whataboutism is easily defused:
Using these kind of soft power moves (basically doing things in the non-meat space) is precisely why Canada is still a liberal democracy.
Even if you became the state‘s enemy #1, the worst that happens is… your bank account is temporarily disabled, overtly (not a clandestine operation, so you can challenge it legally, protest it, etc).
This is completely different from Russia, where you just… disappear (ie you get killed).
I have a hard time understanding why NATO keeps expanding despite the fact that the threat it was created to guard against collapsed 30+ years ago. I find the Russian demand that NATO not expand to Ukraine fairly reasonable given the history they have with NATO. I look at this as similar to the US declaration that missiles in Cuba were not acceptable back in the 1960's.
Because countries keep asking to be included in NATO. And why do they do that? Because they keep feeling threatened by Russia. And why do they feel threatened? Because Russia keeps doing things like invading Georgia and Ukraine. Countries flee to NATO for protection, if they can.
One quote from - I believe - Lawrow was how the US would react if Cuba or Venezuela were asking to be accepted into that anti-NATO Russia has apparently been building.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but I think it's a valid question to ask if the argument is purely about the freedom of countries to make their own decisions.
I don't subscribe to Spotify for Neil Young or Jodi Mitchell, but I do for Joe Rogan. If he pulls back we will have no voice bringing alternative views. I really hate the media landscape today with its monochrome set of carefully curated information which is incomplete.
> carefully curated information which is incomplete
Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information. Nonsense like Joe Rogan has no verification - instead it has him Googling the subject for a few hours while doing a lot of drugs. To wit, here is a call of his where he discusses the now-debunked bondo ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E. During the call, an expert phones in and he ridicules her without even listening to anything she has to say.
It's okay to interview "crackpots". There is this pervasive notion that merely letting such people voice their views to a wide audience is a moral hazard. That these people are so obviously wrong that they need to be silenced because the public at-large is so simpleminded they cannot reason for themselves and will ultimately believe whatever is presented to them.
I keep seeing the same general sentiment through these types of threads, something in the nature of "if the scientists are so sure they're right, they shouldn't be afraid of mis-information because only their data will stand up to scrutiny."
The fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2]
W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's intern, who is described as "anti-rape, bedwetting, and dreaming about their own mother naked," implying the journalist is of the opposite viewpoint. This is obviously farcical, but is meant to prompt the question: at what point does someone with a large viewer base have a responsibility to curate themselves and their guests?
Circling back, again, I don't think hosting people with fringe-views is an issue. I do believe a host has a responsibility to critique all viewpoints on their show, or to bring in someone who can do so if they are not able to. In my opinion, re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine[4] is a necessity and would satisfy both sides of the free-speech / censorship debate. Non-mainstream views would be able to be explored as long as there is an opposing viewpoint there to critique it at the source (as opposed to the "mis-information" warnings now that show up after the majority of exposure has already passed). I also believe that it should be expanded to apply to web-based media, though I don't have any good ideas on what exactly the criteria should be for it to apply (ie, a Youtuber with 100 subscribers probably shouldn't be, but Joe Rogan and other large podcasters probably should be). Advertising in large web services (ie, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc) should probably also be subjected to this rule.
---
[1]: From what I've heard from discussions of Rogan (I'm not a fan of podcasts in general), he tends to go even further by pushing back against science based interviewees while letting anti-science interviewees basically have an open platform. However, I'm trying to make this comment assuming I'm mis-informed about that and he simply lets all guests say their peace.
Did you actually watch the episodes in question? The big difference is that those Rogan has on actually have credentials to back up their claims, and they provide evidence in the form of studies, it is the opposite of what you've laid out here. On the other side the expert from CNN seemed extremely uninformed.
From what I can tell (I don't watch Rogan, so I get a lot of this indirectly through articles) at least some of the experts on the show make claims and then cite work that has been retracted, or is trivially verifiable as pseudoscience, or just not convincing/supporting. But it's presented uncritically as such and the viewers really have no way to make a reasoned decision one way or the other.
If you watch the episodes that are controversial the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada (I don't know them verbatim but this is what I remember - been a month or so). I would make the claim that if you actually watch these episodes the two guests sound very reasonable and have no citations that are "crackpot" in nature. Getting information indirectly is a big problem. He talks to people for three hours, how do you condense this to a five minute read? Before dismissing actually take a look. Watch the episode and see if anything they say sounds unreasonable.
"the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation.
Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.
Not a troll, appreciate you taking the time to respond. Believe the thread is too deep to respond directly to you. Another question if you have the time - what makes you trust one source over another? For instance when the WHO and CDC don't agree what makes you trust one source over the other?
I trust the NIH over the CDC over WHO, generally. But actually my trust model for science is very complex because I was trained as a scientist and know how to interpret what they say, including pseudoscientists and well-meaning but clueless doctors. I also keep a close eye on how mainstream changes over time by reading the blogs of various doctors and watching grand rounds. Most of these things wouldn't make sense to a typical Rogan viewer (and would be super-boring anyway) but they do sort of show how the process of beliefs change over time and how to work within the system to get people to agree with you.
You want me to... highlight the details from the fact-checking report?
OK. Here's the ones I ignore:
He misreprented himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He was involved, not "the inventor", but that's not important here.
False tweet to paper that was later retracted which made extremely big statement about vaccine-caused deaths: https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252...
I also won't count this against him because I didn't check if he later deleted the tweet and/or corrected it in a follow up tweet.
False claims about vaccine-induced viral enhancement, although that was based on rapidly moving science and I'm truly curious if anybody could ever prove that vaccinated people lead to more virulent strains, in a general sense) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-eff...
Here are the serious ones:
Claims vaccine causes fatal damage to children's organs:
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fai...
"A viral gene will be injected... This gene forces your child's body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children's critical organs," he said.
I think from just generally reading what he has to say, he's positioned himself as antiestablishment and is actually saying things that could induce people into making poor decisions about vaccines and treatments. He cherry-picks studies and misinterprets them.
If you're a troll, I just wasted my time above.
If you're not convinced by the BS above, it seems unlikely you will ever change your mind and again, my time was wasted.
If this contributed in any way to a greater undertanding of Malone and Rogan, then maybe my time wasn't completely wasted.
If you read this far and noticed that I explicitly disincluded several items fact checkers cite about him, because I think they're not relevant to him being wrong, or because the statements are Not Even Wrong, or that some of his statements may even be correct though they disagree with the scientific establishment, then congratulations! You were paying attention. Have a golden apple.
I think "ridicules" is a bit of an understatement. He continuously shouts her down, mocks, and insults her before cowardly hanging up on her. How people respect this guy, I don't understand.
Listening to that, I think it's fairly safe to assume that anyone who listens to him through choice should have their ability to reason for themselves questioned.
Sorry, I thought it would be self-evident for anyone who listened to the clip. The man shouts endless, provably false nonsense, and when an actual educated person calls in to try to tell him actual facts, he loses his shit, shouts at her and hangs up on her. If anyone is choosing to listen to that, they surely must share that rather loose relationship with reality.
Let’s provide some context, this was on Opie and Anthony years ago which was a pretty toxic show. Do you actually think current JRE episodes are like this?
Of course not. On other episodes of his show he tells us that the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job and repeats the long since disproved claims of disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield that vaccines cause autism.
Not claiming anything, just want to bring more context to the link you posted, since I'm seeing it's being shared all around, with no references what the video is.
The video/audio in question is from September 27, 2005, from the show called _Opie and Anthony_ [1]. The guest was Bill Burr. The full show is here [2], the segment starts at 2:00:17. Also, during that time, it seems that some "mystery apes" were a thing [3].
> Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information
Isn't the Tom Brady retirement news fiasco enough to convince you that most media does not confirm and verify information?
For those not familiar with this...
"NFL Twitter Revels in Tom Brady Retirement Fiasco: ‘Gisele Asked Tom to Take the Garbage Out Now That Hes Retired and Tom Had Second Thought’s Real Quick’"
"Tom Brady wraps up an unprecedented NFL career. His TB12sports Twitter account wrote: “7 Super Bowl Rings. 5 Super Bowl MVPs. 3 League MVP Awards. 22 Incredible Seasons." Still at the top of his game, he had cited a desire to spend more time with family."
"Despite reports that he is retiring, Brady has told the Tampa Bay Buccaneers he hasn’t made up his mind, two people familiar with the details told The Associated Press.
It’s unknown when he’ll make an announcement, leaving his team guessing and fans hoping for one more run that seems unlikely considering his age and family situation."
Right. So it looks like they found out they were wrong and then reported that. Joe Rogan, on the other hand, finds out that he's wrong and then screams and yells until he drowns out everyone else.
When you say crackpot you are referring to a highly published cardiologist and an epidemiologist whose work is used in the vaccine. In the world today actually being expert enough to work on teams that create a vaccine does not give you the status to hold a differing opinion without being labeled a "crackpot".
theres a difference in a difference in opinion and putting on the 3-5% of people that disagree and can't bring facts and evidence to the table constantly.
I challenge your assertion that between 3-5% of people disagree. Would you stake your life on that claim or is that simply more fake news you are spreading without verifiable sources?
As for Joe Rogan and his controversial guests, one was Dr. Peter McCullough, the most widely published cardiologist in the world. He brought many claims to the podcast - all included citations and verifiable sources - from his grand rounds slides.
Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.
> I challenge your assertion that between 3-5% of people disagree. Would you stake your life on that claim or is that simply more fake news you are spreading without verifiable sources?
I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on...
>Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.
I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.
Hey if I start spewing misinformation about my opponents while accusing them of not providing sources, all while failing to provide sources for my baseless claims like OP, then you can hold me to account. I never made such statements.
Perhaps you or OP would like to share details of the misinformation you claim was shared on Joe Rogan’s show? I watched both episodes and found lots of controversial claims - all backed by citations.
I would challenge that most of Joe Rogan’s critics have never watched the episodes in question. I wouldn’t be willing to stake my life on it however.
Instead of watching his episodes, I read descriptions of them on both the NY Times and Fox. By comparing how the two sites pull quotes and interpret them it's pretty clear what rogan does and says on his show. In fact I read a wide range of content. If I watched his show I imagine I'd last about 5 minutes before having to turn it off (I don't like the tone, the attitude, etc. What little I have seen seems to turn my brain off or into some sort of nonthinking being).
I think he once said his show is the intersection of meatheads and potheads, but I think it's really just WWE.
Instead of getting direct evidence from the source I got all my information from their opponents. I don't need to review the source material. Instead I trust the opponents of the original source material to tell me the truth. Tell me I'm naive without telling me.
It’s more about challenging hipocricy. The OP boldly claimed that Joe and his guests were spewing misinformation. OP provided no evidence for their claims, nor did they provide specific criticisms. Instead they spread FUD and misinformation of their own.
Really? exactly 3-5% disagree with the majority?
OP made bold and uncited claims amounting to disinformation and I called them out asking for them to back their claims or back down.
The idiom of ‘betting’ or ‘staking’ one’s life on a claim is common where I’m from. To clarify, my intent was to call into question a claim by OP and asking OP to back up their claim or stand down.
Are you ignoring the fact that Joe was well-known before Spotify picked him up as exclusive? It's not like he wasn't the biggest name in podcasting pre-Spotify.
What changes is him and Spotify making $$$, not whether his voice being heard or not.
What does this even address? Your original implication was that JRE is doing this for the bux, but my comment is saying he may well have done this deal to protect his platform. Now you say this? What exactly is your point?
We are in a pandemic, which is roughly akin to being in a crowded burning building. When authorities are directing you to an exit, this idiot Joe Rogan stands up and yells on his megaphone that there is an exit in the opposite direction. People are dying because of it. This is not a matter of free speech, or incomplete information, he is killing people. Public streaming services owe it to the public to not endanger them or kill them with misinformation. Rogan podcasts are pure garbage, interviewing fringe and long discredited crackpots in obviously weak attempts to offer ‘alternative’ views in a bid for more viewers. The general public is clearly not equipped to ascertain the difference, and as such he is clearly a danger to the public. It is erroneous to consider Rogan’s podcast as a ‘source’ of information, it’s an entertainment show that wants to believe it’s truthful. It’s not, and your reply proves he’s a danger to society in general. I stand with all artists that are doing what the government should have done months ago, cancel misinformation so we may exit this burning building safely.
So why not un-socialize the medical system. Charge a premium for unvaccinated individuals. If I follow this train correctly the process is to declare health a right and therefore something run by the government, and then to declare that because of that right your other rights can be taken away by the government.
You have to use something, SAT/ACT is at least something the individual can act on. A kid from any zip code can apply themselves and improve their chances. Using something like skin color or zip code is not something an individual can act on. It creates a perverse system of discrimination.
True, but I’d contend that a 1400 from a kid in a terrible school district shows way more potential than a 1400 from a kid at a prep school. How do you compare those objectively if the raw number doesn’t tell the whole story?
