downzy

Right, but in the sense that Trump was assisted by a foreign power. She never questioned vote tallies or suggested the election itself was rigged.

At what point in our discussion did I claim you are a fan of RFK Jr's? Don't accuse others of making stuff up if you're going to make stuff up about them. First, there's no evidence that Google's policies are predicated on what other companies do or do not do. You're simply making more nonsense up to defend a position that requires making stuff up. Second, even in the event that Google took its marching orders from Spotify, it's still not censorship. Alex Jones is banned only most social media platforms but still conducts his show on his own web page. Until such time that Rogan is completely banned from the internet, and that exile is supported and enforced by the government, you're not even close to censorship. Any one is free to stand on a street corner and shout whatever they want. No one is entitled to an audience... But it's not a public spanking with respect to Spotify. It's a private company. Spotify is free to do whatever it wants. You get the distinction, right?

This is my prediction for Tuesday. With the election so close I believe it could go either way. I do think Harris wins, but I wouldn't be shocked (though I will be disappointed) if Trump somehow pulls it off. I have Harris winning Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. I have Trump winning Arizona and Georgia. If there's a surprise state, it's Iowa, which, if you believe the Selzer poll, might go for Harris.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/listen-to-the-jeffrey-epstein-tapes-i-was-donald-trumps-closest-friend/ "Explosive tapes recorded by author Michael Wolff show Epstein claiming Trump liked to “f---” his friends’ wives and first slept with Melania on the Lolita Express." Yikes! The MAGA "where is the Epstein list?" crowd are in a tough spot. ---------------------------------------------- Also, in 2016 the first red flag that something was up for Clinton (and Trump) was the J. Ann Selzer poll. It showed Trump up in Iowa by over 7 points (he would win the state by over 9). Again in 2020, it showed Trump beating Biden in the state of Iowa by 7 points (Trump won by 8 points). Three months ago Trump led Biden by 18 points. Today, Selzer released her final poll for the Des Moines Register and it shows Harris up by 3 points over Trump: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/ I'm skeptical that Harris wins Iowa, but if Trump ends up winning Iowa by a point or two, he's in for a rough night.

I would have been fine with Rogan being fired by Spotify for his stance on vaccines or any other position. Because Spotify is a private company and it's free to decide who it wants to hire and employ. Where I would draw the line is with people calling for Rogan to lose his show or be prevented from speaking his opinion. That would not be fine. But not being employed by Spotify wouldn't have prevented him from doing his show. You claimed RFK Jr. has some good opinions and should be listened to. But you don't make clear what opinions are worth considering. His views on vaccines and overall health are horrendous and have been proven false time and time again. And yet Rogan continues to have him on. And sorry, but if he's openly soliciting and advising public officials over a policy that later proves deadly, he bears some responsibility. To put it all on parents is absurd.

"People like me..." Please point to anything I've said or written where I called for Rogan to be deplatformed. I'll wait. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/rfk-jr-says-trump-has-promised-him-control-of-public-health-agencies https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-vaccines-2ccde2df146f57b5e8c26e8494f0a16a

Like his views on vaccines that helped contribute to children dying? He's popular partly because he was platformed by Rogan. And popularity should be the basis of whether someone is a guest? Really? You understand the issue isn't whether these people "offend" or not, but whether they spew bullshit and promote dangerous ideas that lead to real world, life and death consequences, right? Again, you're not understanding the argument I'm making. At no point am I saying that Rogan and his guests shouldn't be free to do what they want, but they aren't free from being called out for it. I would never deny Rogan from hosting his show or having whoever he wants. But he's not free from criticism for his choices and how he operates his show. You don't need to be an expert to share your opinion. But since Rogan isn't an expert on anything outside of comedy and UFC, he's free to be criticized for giving voice to some of the most dangerous and idiotic people on the planet without showing the slightest concern for any consequences that may come from his program. He's a net negative making this world better, and the people who listen to him are not being "informed" but placated for the purposes of justifying his $250 million deal. It's a grift treated as a serious source of opinions when it's anything but.

Should speeding limits come down to personal choice? What about liability insurance? How about wearing seatbelts? This notion that personal choice and freedoms should always supersede collective outcomes is absurd. There are numerous limits on personal freedoms for the sake of others.

I would be less suspicious since Democrats don't have a record of producing highly flawed and capricious documents like Republicans do. I think he allows false information to be platformed on his show. From RFK Jr to Bret Weinstein to Alex Jones to Dr. Robert Malone to many others, Rogan has a lot of cranks on who rarely get fact checked nor does Rogan have guests on who can refute what the cranks say. And this is the problem. Is the show meant for entertainment or for education? Rogan blurs the line and blends the two where people take it seriously enough to believe most of it but not enough to actually spend time with what's actually said. This dynamic isn't limited to Rogan, but he is the worst offender (in my opinion) and should be held responsible for the consequences of who he chooses to platform (considering how huge his platform is).

I asked you what "conspiracy theory" promoted on Rogan (largely by Bret Weinstein) that later proved to be true. Your response is a theory that still has yet to be substantiated with definitive proof. That isn't an example of something being true. That's you "connecting the dots" on an issue where many others disagree and where there's a lack of supporting evidence to connect those dots. That doesn't mean the lab leak theory isn't true, but you're not in a strong position to use it as an example of a conspiracy theory being actually true. A theory around covid-19 that was at first rejected by world health organizations that was later proved to be true (and substantiated) was that Covid-19 was an airborne transmitted virus. But this was never viewed as a "conspiracy theory" because or adopted by Trump defenders because to argue that claim would necessitate the use of greater mask use. That's an example of a theory that was at first discarded but later proven true. The lab leak theory, for all intents and purposes, is still just a theory. But almost every other country did better than America. There were few, if any countries, that denied the scope of the problem like America did under Trump. Few other countries looked for "alternative" forms of medicine like America did with Hydroxychloroquine and invermectin. Few others disparaged the use of masks as a means to slow down transmission or deny the severity of the virus. No country was perfect, but to say that because other countries also did poorly is somehow to excuse the U.S. under Trump's leadership is absurd. Prior to covid-19 the U.S. was considered the most capable of managing an epidemic or pandemic due to its resources and medical expertise. And when all is said and done, the U.S. faced one of the worst infection and death rates than any other developed nation on the planet. Like? And does he still continue to book the same guests who spout nonsense? Sorry, just read the rest of your post. Look, ultimately we're swimming in a world of more misinformation than ever. There are few places where a lot of people get their news. People will claim that it's the responsibility of listeners to fact check what they're hearing over a three hour program. But that's not how that works (moreover, I have a hard time believing that anyone who has three hours to listen to Rogan's program has the time to do further investigation and research). I took and take the same issue with Jon Stewart when he claims he's just a comedian and his program shouldn't be held accountable for what he's saying. That's bullshit. If you know a vast portion of your audience relies on you for information, you owe it to them and to society at large to try your best to get it right. Rogan has made little to no effort on that front. Why challenge what his listeners want to hear when he knows they'll just go elsewhere? As I mentioned, this isn't the definitive view of the U.S. government. It's a summary report issued by the Republican-led house. We have no idea whether their summary is an accurate reflection of what the classified information says.

First off, I'm not American, and where I live there is no first amendment. Second, I have no issue with Rogan saying whatever he wants. Just as I have no issue with anyone saying what they want here (so long as they follow the rules). But I'm also free to criticize Rogan for failing his audience by allowing grifters and con-man on as means to boost his audience through engagement.

This is a Republican opinion based on classified information. Unless we can see the information in question, it's difficult to know whether the Republican-led house report is fair in its assessment.

You're missing a lot of context here. First, it was never conclusively proven one way or another covid-19 was the result of a lab leak. Second, it was not so much a conspiracy, but critics asked for proof that was more than just tangential or coincidental. Third, one of the big reasons why the lab leaker theory was promoted as much as it was in 2020 was as a means to excuse Trump's poor handling and downplaying of the pandemic. Trump supporters were quick to blame China as a means to distract discussions about how badly Trump had managed the crisis. People who were critical of the theory were simply asking for definitive proof (of which there still isn't any) while also countering the notion that the pandemic was all China's fault and that Trump beared little or no responsibility for downplaying the crisis (that led to deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands). This is why having a discussion with you is difficult. You have no idea what news I consume. You don't know that I read conservative columnists all the time, that I listen to any argument so long as it's well reasoned or made with sincerity. Instead you just assume something about me personally as a means to attack rather than address the point at hand. I have no issue with listening to those who I disagree with. Frankly, I find it boring to read only opinions that adhere to my own bias or views. The problem I have with Rogan isn't that he has "both sides" on, but he's ill equipped or insincere in his responsibilities as an interviewer. Having someone like Bret Weinstein or RFK Jr,. on to spout nonsense isn't about hearing "both sides," it's about generating engagement to justify that $250 million Spotify deal Rogan signed. Rogan is more about generating content for his audience that keeps them engaged. And conspiracy and absurd nonsense that validates the delusions of many is a great way to do that. Ah, the old "everything is biased so let's not shit on the worst offenders" argument. Look, I don't care about bias. What I care about is validity. Some truth is biased one way or another. It's not biased to say the world is warming up and that human beings are responsible for it. I will listen to almost anyone if their arguments are made in good faith. But so many of Rogan's guests aren't making good-faith arguments. They know it. He knows it. But they don't care because they both benefit financially from it. They're not actually interested in getting to the truth of the matter since few of them will ever admit they're wrong. They'll continue to push nonsense long after it's been debunked. Some of it is harmless, but often it is not. You can't say the about many of the reputable news outlets because they take their jobs extremely seriously. Getting it wrong isn't the litmus test. Admitting you're wrong and making changes is. And Rogan and many of guests never admit fault or change their opinions regardless of what facts say. There is no financial motive to do so for them. Right. And I don't have an issue with that. But others, including myself, are within our right to call him and his listeners out for propagating misinformation that has real world consequences. Rogan is free to do what he wants. And we're free to criticize him for it.

Fine, then have comedians and UFC fighters on. But if he's going to interview guests with deranged and dangerous opinions, he could do the very least and educate himself on the subject to push back on their insanity. The fact that he rarely does this and gives cart blanche for assholes and lunatics to speak to his massive audience is irresponsible. Like?