Rogan Speaks
-
-
CNN had been giggling on air at Joe Rogan for taking a "horse dewormer". It was their giggly punchline. Joe identified this as a lie and talked to Sanjay Gupta, CNN contributor, about it when Sanjay was on his show. Sanjay equivocated, but when back on CNN talking to Don Lemon, allowed Lemon to weasel. Rogan noted that he has 10x the audience CNN has, and so CNN should be careful who they mess with. Rogan's guest noted that calling CNN "mainstream media" is not accurate. They are "corporate media". Rogan is more "mainstream" than they are.
I think the guest was Michael Malice, the only other person I've heard draw the explicit connection between TDS, classism, and racism, so I figure he's probably a genius.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
-
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
Yes, I've listened to Bret's podcast with his wife. I'm not enthralled by their live reads of chapters of their book, or by their book. I got into it because I wanted to hear what Bret thought about Ivermectin. But last I checked, he'd stopped talking about that subject. He went from the notion that Ivermectin was a potential pandemic cure, to radio silence. But I haven't listened for a month or so.
As for writing them off as conspiracy theorizers, that concept is dead to me. People quick on the weaponized 'conspiracy theory' trigger can be trusted to be giggly tribalists, looking for an opportunity to dismiss people and ideas they are not comfortable with.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
Yes, I've listened to Bret's podcast with his wife. I'm not enthralled by their live reads of chapters of their book, or by their book. I got into it because I wanted to hear what Bret thought about Ivermectin. But last I checked, he'd stopped talking about that subject. He went from the notion that Ivermectin was a potential pandemic cure, to radio silence. But I haven't listened for a month or so.
As for writing them off as conspiracy theorizers, that concept is dead to me. People quick on the weaponized 'conspiracy theory' trigger can be trusted to be giggly tribalists, looking for an opportunity to dismiss people and ideas they are not comfortable with.
@horace said in Rogan Speaks:
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
Yes, I've listened to Bret's podcast with his wife. I'm not enthralled by their live reads of chapters of their book, or by their book. I got into it because I wanted to hear what Bret thought about Ivermectin. But last I checked, he'd stopped talking about that subject. He went from the notion that Ivermectin was a potential pandemic cure, to radio silence. But I haven't listened for a month or so.
As for writing them off as conspiracy theorizers, that concept is dead to me. People quick on the weaponized 'conspiracy theory' trigger can be trusted to be giggly tribalists, looking for an opportunity to dismiss people and ideas they are not comfortable with.
It's not either/or. You can claim "I'm just looking for the facts" all you want, but you reach a certain point after you are consistently and exclusively "asking questions" with the same positioning that you clearly have an agenda. That's not woke/giggle/etc. That's correctly labeling what someone is doing.
-
@horace said in Rogan Speaks:
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
Yes, I've listened to Bret's podcast with his wife. I'm not enthralled by their live reads of chapters of their book, or by their book. I got into it because I wanted to hear what Bret thought about Ivermectin. But last I checked, he'd stopped talking about that subject. He went from the notion that Ivermectin was a potential pandemic cure, to radio silence. But I haven't listened for a month or so.
As for writing them off as conspiracy theorizers, that concept is dead to me. People quick on the weaponized 'conspiracy theory' trigger can be trusted to be giggly tribalists, looking for an opportunity to dismiss people and ideas they are not comfortable with.
It's not either/or. You can claim "I'm just looking for the facts" all you want, but you reach a certain point after you are consistently and exclusively "asking questions" with the same positioning that you clearly have an agenda. That's not woke/giggle/etc. That's correctly labeling what someone is doing.
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@horace said in Rogan Speaks:
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
Yes, I've listened to Bret's podcast with his wife. I'm not enthralled by their live reads of chapters of their book, or by their book. I got into it because I wanted to hear what Bret thought about Ivermectin. But last I checked, he'd stopped talking about that subject. He went from the notion that Ivermectin was a potential pandemic cure, to radio silence. But I haven't listened for a month or so.
As for writing them off as conspiracy theorizers, that concept is dead to me. People quick on the weaponized 'conspiracy theory' trigger can be trusted to be giggly tribalists, looking for an opportunity to dismiss people and ideas they are not comfortable with.
It's not either/or. You can claim "I'm just looking for the facts" all you want, but you reach a certain point after you are consistently and exclusively "asking questions" with the same positioning that you clearly have an agenda. That's not woke/giggle/etc. That's correctly labeling what someone is doing.
I was disappointed in what I saw as a lack of transparency with Bret and his wife about what should be an evolving attitude towards all the current science about Ivermectin. I haven't listened in a while, so I'm not sure where they are with that, but they did a good job of ignoring new information while I was listening.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@horace said in Rogan Speaks:
@aqua-letifer said in Rogan Speaks:
@Horace Are you a Dark Horse listener? For awhile I was pretty much prepared to write the Weinsteins off as conspiracy dabblers, but stupidly, I didn't realize that their show covers a specific kind of subject matter and they're just being consistent with both coverage and skepticism. Which, fair enough.
Yes, I've listened to Bret's podcast with his wife. I'm not enthralled by their live reads of chapters of their book, or by their book. I got into it because I wanted to hear what Bret thought about Ivermectin. But last I checked, he'd stopped talking about that subject. He went from the notion that Ivermectin was a potential pandemic cure, to radio silence. But I haven't listened for a month or so.
As for writing them off as conspiracy theorizers, that concept is dead to me. People quick on the weaponized 'conspiracy theory' trigger can be trusted to be giggly tribalists, looking for an opportunity to dismiss people and ideas they are not comfortable with.
It's not either/or. You can claim "I'm just looking for the facts" all you want, but you reach a certain point after you are consistently and exclusively "asking questions" with the same positioning that you clearly have an agenda. That's not woke/giggle/etc. That's correctly labeling what someone is doing.
I was disappointed in what I saw as a lack of transparency with Bret and his wife about what should be an evolving attitude towards all the current science about Ivermectin. I haven't listened in a while, so I'm not sure where they are with that, but they did a good job of ignoring new information while I was listening.
@horace said in Rogan Speaks:
I haven't listened in a while, so I'm not sure where they are with that, but they did a good job of ignoring new information while I was listening.
They talk here and there about COVID updates, but haven't touched on Ivermectin lately.
-
CNN had been giggling on air at Joe Rogan for taking a "horse dewormer". It was their giggly punchline. Joe identified this as a lie and talked to Sanjay Gupta, CNN contributor, about it when Sanjay was on his show. Sanjay equivocated, but when back on CNN talking to Don Lemon, allowed Lemon to weasel. Rogan noted that he has 10x the audience CNN has, and so CNN should be careful who they mess with. Rogan's guest noted that calling CNN "mainstream media" is not accurate. They are "corporate media". Rogan is more "mainstream" than they are.
I think the guest was Michael Malice, the only other person I've heard draw the explicit connection between TDS, classism, and racism, so I figure he's probably a genius.
@horace said in Rogan Speaks:
Rogan's guest noted that calling CNN "mainstream media" is not accurate. They are "corporate media".
I like that, it's way more accurate to describe most "news" outlets as "corporate press". I think I'll start doing that.
