Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

Hmmm...more time wasting on Google required...

[blackchubby38]

Who is Joe Rogan, and am I missing something important?

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...misinformation

Joe Rogan is a stand-up comedian, former host of Fear Factor, UFC commentator, and hosts his own podcast. He is also someone that many on the left have been trying to cancel for the past few years. His biggest transgressions have been some of his views on trans rights, gender issues, and hosting a platform for personalities that some progressives disagree with and/or just don’t like. These include Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Tim Pool. Just to name a few. But his latest “crime” has been spreading misinformation when it comes to Covid.

I occasionally watch clips of his show on You Tube and I don't always agree with his views. But I’m glad that Spotify is not caving into pressure and sticking by him. If you look at their statement, they have done their due diligence when it comes to removing content that is guilty of spreading misinformation. Rogan is on the air 5 days week for about 4 hours a day and he is not spending all that time talking about Covid.

If people don’t want to listen to his show that’s their right. If they want to cancel their subscriptions to Spotify, that’s the power a consumer has. If Neil Young and Joni Mitchell want to remove their music from Spotify, more power to them.

But I have never been a fan of the angry mob forming on social media and going after someone because that person said something stupid. Especially when an argument be made that the main reason for people’s dislike of Joe Rogan is that he got the Spotify deal to begin with.

[Stavros]

Many thanks for this, Blackchubby. The background to my request is that I had heard of Spotify but didn't really know what it is until my Christmas-New Year vacation in Germany, where one of my hosts downloaded it onto my phone. At the time I assumed it was just pop music, so it was of no interest to me but I was told there is tons of classical music and I was surprised to find some obscure works that I searched for to see how comprehesive it is, and it is almost as good as YouTube, which I use most, though Spotify doesn't have the ads that make an intrusive nuisance in too many YT recordings.

I had no idea there was anything else, so I didn't quite understand this Joe Rogan situation, and he seems to be just another American idiot polluting the air-waves, of whom there are a plenitude, some of them on HA. I think the key response to your argument about censorship would be for me to agree, but with a reservation.

I can handle most of the drivel that Republicans and their fellow-travellers produce as arguments, we have a similar party of fools in the Conservatives here, and at other extremes, and I have complained in the threads in General Discussion that some of the trans activists in this country have taken their militant attitude into areas of personal abuse that undermines the cause, if the cause is to maintain, and extend to Trans people the rights that other citizens have. Cancel Culture, so called, is as common on the 'right' as well as the 'left', an obvious example being the use of 'Parental Choice' or 'Power' in schools in some US States to ban books -in one case, Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. One notes the same cohort of strident parents bleating about morals have no shame in allowing their children to read a book full of tales of jealousy, robbery, violence, rape, hatred, spite, and a worrying amount of sexual depravity known as incest, and I refer of course to the Holy Bible.

The question is posed by JS Mill's definition of Liberty as a condition in which the behaviour of the citizen ought not to be interfered with, unless it causes harm to others. I have quoted the famous passage below.

In Rogan's case, then, does his podcast cause harm to others, actually or potentially if on his advice, some citizens either do not get vaccinated against Covid- at risk to themselves and others-, or use some drug that is not designed to deal with it and may in fact cause harm; or anything else that he says. I think the issue thus must decide what is merely his opinion, and what may cause harm to others even if he does not intend that to happen. I believe Spotify have added warnings to his podcast that may give listeners the means to question Rogan's views, so to some extent the issue of harm may have been dealt with through this act of admin.

Whether or not such limits should be placed on, say Tucker Carlson and his outrageous broadcasts I am not sure, as the only purpose Carlson's broadcasts serve, is to attract paying customers who want to listen in agreement or be shocked by the deliberately offensive, and often anti-Semitic rubbish that spews out of his mouth. The irony, if there is any, is that the person most harmed by this campaign of ignorance and hate, is Tucker Carlson himself, having as a consequence, no credibility as a source of intelligent debate on US or any other politics (eg, his risible attempt to explain the conflct between Ukraine and Russia). A similar fate has been visited on Alex Jones, whose aggressive attacks on some people has caused harm for which he has been justfly convicted in a court of law. That may be the best way to go, expensive and time-consuming as it is. The First Amendment does not allow the absolute expression of freedom, and, as Mill's arguments suggests, it was never intended to, and should not.

This is a well-known passage from Mill's On Liberty.

"...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/m.../#LibPriCatApp

[broncofan]

My view is that people have to avoid providing incentives for people who say harmful, disgraceful things and even need to find legal ways to disincentivize it. Rogan's misinformation is not a crime, nor could it be, but it's probably more harmful than most crimes committed in this country and has also probably caused a lot of death. If artists want to leave potential royalties and earnings on the table to avoid assisting this guy or even to pressure spotify to stop broadcasting him, more power to them. Some have argued that people don't go to Rogan for medical information, but that's not true. If they listened to their doctors they'd get vaccinated and it is charlatans like Rogan and the people he has on his podcast who have convinced a lot of people not to get the vaccine.

We protect the expression of horseshit like Rogan's from prosecution by the first amendment. We protect those who denounce him and who pressure companies not to do business with repugnant people like him in the same way. People who are afraid of the "mob" always seem to express that fear as a slippery slope argument before any unreasonable cancelling has been done. If someone who is very rich and will never have to work again wants to tell people to take horse dewormer for a pandemic that's killed millions of people and not get vaccinated, I'm not sure what decent people can do except try to discourage that view. It leads directly to death. It leads directly to a prolongation of the suffering. Rogan doesn't have any sort of entitlement to a forum (other than a public sidewalk) to express his views.

[Nick Danger]

My view is that people have to avoid providing incentives for people who say harmful, disgraceful things and even need to find legal ways to disincentivize it. Rogan's misinformation is not a crime, nor could it be, but it's probably more harmful than most crimes committed in this country and has also probably caused a lot of death. If artists want to leave potential royalties and earnings on the table to avoid assisting this guy or even to pressure spotify to stop broadcasting him, more power to them. Some have argued that people don't go to Rogan for medical information, but that's not true. If they listened to their doctors they'd get vaccinated and it is charlatans like Rogan and the people he has on his podcast who have convinced a lot of people not to get the vaccine.

We protect the expression of horseshit like Rogan's from prosecution by the first amendment. We protect those who denounce him and who pressure companies not to do business with repugnant people like him in the same way. People who are afraid of the "mob" always seem to express that fear as a slippery slope argument before any unreasonable cancelling has been done. If someone who is very rich and will never have to work again wants to tell people to take horse dewormer for a pandemic that's killed millions of people and not get vaccinated, I'm not sure what decent people can do except try to discourage that view. It leads directly to death. It leads directly to a prolongation of the suffering. Rogan doesn't have any sort of entitlement to a forum (other than a public sidewalk) to express his views.

I doubt Joe Rogan cares if he did get pulled off Spotify, he's got several other platforms. Just another example of liberals going full Barney Fife and shooting themselves in the foot. Neil Young gets 10% of his income from Spotify. I doubt he'll miss it but the point is, Joe Rogan's not going to suffer at all out of this, Neil Young is. But then Neil's always been an asshole. He's also homophobic, not sure if you knew - “You go to a supermarket and you see a faggot behind the fuckin’ cash register, you don’t want him to handle your potatoes.” – Neil Young in Melody Maker, September 1985

And no, he never apologized or explained that comment.

[Stavros]

My view is that people have to avoid providing incentives for people who say harmful, disgraceful things and even need to find legal ways to disincentivize it. Rogan's misinformation is not a crime, nor could it be, but it's probably more harmful than most crimes committed in this country and has also probably caused a lot of death. If artists want to leave potential royalties and earnings on the table to avoid assisting this guy or even to pressure spotify to stop broadcasting him, more power to them. Some have argued that people don't go to Rogan for medical information, but that's not true. If they listened to their doctors they'd get vaccinated and it is charlatans like Rogan and the people he has on his podcast who have convinced a lot of people not to get the vaccine.

We protect the expression of horseshit like Rogan's from prosecution by the first amendment. We protect those who denounce him and who pressure companies not to do business with repugnant people like him in the same way. People who are afraid of the "mob" always seem to express that fear as a slippery slope argument before any unreasonable cancelling has been done. If someone who is very rich and will never have to work again wants to tell people to take horse dewormer for a pandemic that's killed millions of people and not get vaccinated, I'm not sure what decent people can do except try to discourage that view. It leads directly to death. It leads directly to a prolongation of the suffering. Rogan doesn't have any sort of entitlement to a forum (other than a public sidewalk) to express his views.

I agree with this, but would ask if, in US law, any action can be taken if harm is caused from public statements, be it harm of a temporary nature, or even death. I assume intent would have to proven, that the speech act which caused it might not itself be the causal factor if the person making it can plausibly claim they meant no harm. Given the ease of transmission of Covid in 2020 and 2021, it seems a flimsy argument when multiple 'gatherings' in the US and elsewhere resulted in infection at great emotional and financial cost to the victims. From Murdoch's point of view, all publicity is good publicity if it gets people clicking, and the more outrageous it is, so much the better. But doesn't that mean his culture of vugarity and lies is creating the permissive envronment in which potentially harmful speech can take place? The Germans, for example, have laws that prohibit speech acts and other public acts which defend or promote National Socialism, and for good reason.

I guess the law is the pivot, and that it is hard to prosecute -did Trump's speech on Jan 6th encourage citizens to attack and invade the Capitol building with the seditious intention of halting the certification of the election? The language is sufficiently vague to make prosecution hard, even though the intent to stop the work of Congress was established almost as soon as the results were first announced and rejected by Trump in November 2020. And his entire campaign against that election has caused harm, including death and suicide -and even if it can't be proven in Court, I think the court of public opinion, other than a minority of fanatics, holds Trump responsible.

[blackchubby38]

My view is that people have to avoid providing incentives for people who say harmful, disgraceful things and even need to find legal ways to disincentivize it. Rogan's misinformation is not a crime, nor could it be, but it's probably more harmful than most crimes committed in this country and has also probably caused a lot of death. If artists want to leave potential royalties and earnings on the table to avoid assisting this guy or even to pressure spotify to stop broadcasting him, more power to them. Some have argued that people don't go to Rogan for medical information, but that's not true. If they listened to their doctors they'd get vaccinated and it is charlatans like Rogan and the people he has on his podcast who have convinced a lot of people not to get the vaccine.

We protect the expression of horseshit like Rogan's from prosecution by the first amendment. We protect those who denounce him and who pressure companies not to do business with repugnant people like him in the same way. People who are afraid of the "mob" always seem to express that fear as a slippery slope argument before any unreasonable cancelling has been done. If someone who is very rich and will never have to work again wants to tell people to take horse dewormer for a pandemic that's killed millions of people and not get vaccinated, I'm not sure what decent people can do except try to discourage that view. It leads directly to death. It leads directly to a prolongation of the suffering. Rogan doesn't have any sort of entitlement to a forum (other than a public sidewalk) to express his views.

You do know the Ivermectin that Rogan was talking about wasn't the horse de-wormer, But the anti-parasite one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin

Ivermectin (/ˌaɪvərˈmɛktɪn/, EYE-vər-MEK-tin) is an antiparasitic drug.[6] After its discovery in 1975,[7] its first uses were in veterinary medicine to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis.[8] Approved for human use in 1987,[9] today it is used to treat infestations including head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.[10][11][8][12] It works through many mechanisms to kill the targeted parasites,[10] and can be taken orally, or applied to the skin for external infestations.[10][13] It belongs to the avermectin family of medications.[10]

William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications.[14] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines,[15] and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an antiparasitic agent.[16] In 2018, it was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 100,000 prescriptions.[17] It is available as a generic medicine.[18][19]

Then there is this:

https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...al-2022-01-31/

[broncofan]

I know what Ivermectin is as I posted about it when it first became a hot topic among cranks (it's a horse de-wormer and an anti-parasite-you do know worms are parasites?). In multiple human trials it has been shown to have no efficacy against Covid. Penicillin for instance saves millions of lives every year. If someone promoted it as a covid treatment they'd be a crank.

Why do you think posting that Ivermectin is an essential drug is at all relevant? It's not a treatment for covid. Hydroxychloroquine is effective against malaria and is also effective to treat autoimmune disorders. You know what else? It's not a treatment for covid. Scientists also thought it showed some in vitro antiviral capacity but it didn't show efficacy in phase III trials.

Here's a quote from your second article "The original Reuters story misstated that ivermectin was "effective" against Omicron in Phase III clinical trials, which are conducted in humans." There have been multiple trials testing ivermectin as a treatment for covid and in meta-analysis it hasn't been shown to be effective.

You know who thinks ivermectin isn't a treatment against Covid? The CDC, the FDA, the EMA, the WHO. But by all means take advice from Joe Rogan.

Edit: From your wiki article- During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[20][21] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.

There's also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...on-correction/

[blackchubby38]

I know what Ivermectin is as I posted about it when it first became a hot topic among cranks (it's a horse de-wormer and an anti-parasite-you do know worms are parasites?). In multiple human trials it has been shown to have no efficacy against Covid. Penicillin for instance saves millions of lives every year. If someone promoted it as a covid treatment they'd be a crank.

Why do you think posting that Ivermectin is an essential drug is at all relevant? It's not a treatment for covid. Hydroxychloroquine is effective against malaria and is also effective to treat autoimmune disorders. You know what else? It's not a treatment for covid. Scientists also thought it showed some in vitro antiviral capacity but it didn't show efficacy in phase III trials.

Here's a quote from your second article "The original Reuters story misstated that ivermectin was "effective" against Omicron in Phase III clinical trials, which are conducted in humans." There have been multiple trials testing ivermectin as a treatment for covid and in meta-analysis it hasn't been shown to be effective.

You know who thinks ivermectin isn't a treatment against Covid? The CDC, the FDA, the EMA, the WHO. But by all means take advice from Joe Rogan.

Edit: From your wiki article- During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[20][21] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.

There's also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...on-correction/

I stand corrected about the second article.

As for the first thing that I posted, yes I do know that worms are parasites. I was just pointing out that they guy wasn't actually telling people to take horse dewormer. I saw also the second part of the Wikipedia article about the claims about it being an effective treatment for Covid.

I also would never take medical advice from the guy either or any media personality for that matter. I'm already vaccinated and boosted. I'm just not going to lose my shit if the guy is talking about it on his show.

[broncofan]

Here's a quote from your second article "The original Reuters story misstated that ivermectin was "effective" against Omicron in Phase III clinical trials, which are conducted in humans." There have been multiple trials testing ivermectin as a treatment for covid and in meta-analysis it hasn't been shown to be effective.

You can see my comments from the first weeks of the pandemic. Chloroquine was also shown to be effective in test tubes but that does not mean it showed efficacy in placebo controlled trials. You know what has? Paxlovid. Joe Rogan has nothing to say about that though https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...tment-covid-19

If Ivermectin is effective then it should be demonstrated in a phase iii clinical trial.