Likewise. It's hilarious to see the right use words like "woke, cancelled," and whatnot and use it wrong constantly. Not to mention, calling anything and everything they don't agree with "socialist" or "communist" when it's not even close to it. What's amusing though, is that the right will cry about the left calling people that they disagree with racist, even though it's usually true, but they're way worse, with how they will call anyone socialist or snowflake.
That's a self report on your behalf. If you've read articles that deny the existence of white supremacist organizations that commit hate crimes, then you're reading white supremacist propaganda.
Coming out in the 2nd sentence to blame -everything- on right wing conservatives, there isn't much there objective or unbiased.
Where does RollingStone, or Scott for that matter, blame "everything on right wing conservatives"? This is a piece on his time in the Joint Terrorism Taskforce, recounting his time fighting against domestic terrorism, specifically. And the most common form of domestic terrorism is white supremacist terrorism.
If I made a list of the top 10 ninja in Naruto over in the Naruto section of Mangahelpers, and you demanded I add Rekka Hanabishi from Flame of Rekka to the list, and screamed that the only reason we're not mentioning Rekka is because I'm biased in favor of Naruto's characters you'd be right... but it wouldn't matter because it's the Naruto section of the forum, where you discuss Naruto exclusively.
Scott was a specialist in infiltrating white supremacist organizations for the FBI because he fit the description. Tatted up biker. Big. Muscular. And above all else, WHITE. Did you expect him to infiltrate the Bloods or the Crips in Harlem? Did you expect him to pretend he was radicalized into joining one of the Islamic terrorist groups?
Real talk: why do you people value whataboutism so much?
It doesn't really have anything to do with what is reported though, does it? Your main point in all of this is that you don't like the writer's politics and that law enforcement attention span is truly zero sum and since there are "bigger" problems, there's no way any of it is legit.
Where in the second sentence is the writer blaming "everything" on right-wing conservatives. It was literally stated what plots this agent helped foil and that they were planned by far-right elements. What are you even talking about??
Imagine a judge in court whose reputation is based on lack of bias and impartiality blaming everything on a specific demographic of people. They would instantly lose their credibility. That is what people should expect to happen to CNN, rolling stone and others who cast their objectivity aside to roll in the mud of the shameless political blame game.
The normal process is to present facts. Until a narrative and story arises. The entire process of established norms is thrown out the window here.
There are a lot of people in the world who recognize and notice basic points like this.
A writer for Rolling Stone is not a judge in court. If you can't recognize the reality through even the most miniscule and benign amount of editorialization, that's a you problem. Not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- White terrorism is a drop in the bucket of overall violent crime
- It has hardly moved the needle of the murder rate over even the last decade, even though it is 'up' (marginally)
- Statistically, you have almost ZERO threat, as do I or anyone else, from white terrorism as it claims a whopping 15 lives a year on average
Because, once again, a) whataboutism isn't a bad thing per se if it used to point out a double-standard, and b) that double-standard is on display as you can only complain about whites/conservatives/republicans and NEVER even consider extremist elements (much less 'report' on them) in your own camp(s).
And I know you read my posts lol.
Real talk: do you REALLY want to discuss race and violence stats?
Likewise. It's hilarious to see the right use words like "woke, cancelled," and whatnot and use it wrong constantly. Not to mention, calling anything and everything they don't agree with "socialist" or "communist" when it's not even close to it. What's amusing though, is that the right will cry about the left calling people that they disagree with racist, even though it's usually true, but they're way worse, with how they will call anyone socialist or snowflake.
Only, I'm just quoting you and you're just grasping at straws from verbiage I haven't used. That's hardly the same as me getting a good chuckle out of the term du jour used to signal how much of an ally you are.
I'm 100% on board with using the actual terms where applicable though. Inventing trendy new verbiage and redefining traditional terms that have a clear meaning is a young (silly) man's game, not mine. edit - please excuse the usage of 'man' here; I understand that's gendered language and don't intend to offend. It is an assumption on my part. If wrong, please correct and I'll prostrate myself accordingly.
I'm sure you actually, in your heart of hearts, believe the ADL's shiny new definition of racism for instance.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
BTW, there are many, MANY self-ascribed socialists and socialist dogmas on the left. They also use terms like 'woke' and unironically call for more cancellations than I've seen by the right, at least in recent years.
So, I'm not sure your argument is what you think it is. Sometimes terms are simply used accurately.
Chris Hayes: For ratings, for fame, for cynical, monetary purposes, that network—overseen by CEO Suzanne Scott—has decided to fan the flames of vaccine
www.msnbc.com
Edit: Wasn't gonna link this at first. Was looking for the Trump voting machine stuff, but this is more topical.
I'm glad you're on record posting something that seems outrageous as immediate as the talking point media gets to you.
Almost certainly we'll find out there is more to this story way after the fact, as OFC nothing is said about his actual health, only that he HAD covid. Which statistically this time of year is almost certainly omicron. Which has a death rate in the small fractions of even delta. Which only accounted for a small fraction of deaths entirely due to C19 as opposed to people that were largely ailed already. Which has an average age of death HIGHER than the typical mortality rate age. Healthy people, particularly younger, aren't even at much of a risk of first-waves covid and simply aren't seeing a threat at all (with very few exceptions) from omicron. So there is an extremely-high likelihood that there was much more going on with this deceased's health that even your Promethean, god-given, sacred jab wouldn't have affected.
Which of course is the completely baseless claim in the very fucking title of your very mainstream article. Fucking face plam. They have absolutely zero basis to make that claim.
So, in short, a silly anecdote that means absolutely nothing. When in fact the vast, vast majority of those that have died on the younger end of the spectrum represent rarities (overall deaths vastly weighted to advanced-age seniors) and further yet have complicated, extensive medical conditions which would imply that this individual did as well.
I'll take your silly anecdote and raise you many similar counter-anecdotes, such as these events:
Your narrative is in shambles and your pundits (as well as anyone repeating their talking points) have been wrong on about every major point in regards to Covid. I'd gladly itemize all the things.
Almost certainly we'll find out there is more to this story way after the fact, as OFC nothing is said about his actual health, only that he HAD covid. Which statistically this time of year is almost certainly omicron.
Lamay was hospitalized 4 weeks before his death, so "almost certainly omicron" isn't really a foregone conclusion at all given when the variant started replacing Delta here in full force.
People shouldn't be acting like the shot is a panacea, but the point of the report is how conservative news outlets championed this guy and now they're acting like he never existed. And if he had vulnerabilities due to his health, refusing the vaccine is even more tragic.
Lamay was hospitalized 4 weeks before his death, so "almost certainly omicron" isn't really a foregone conclusion at all given when the variant started replacing Delta here in full force.
It's February. Do you have some data to suggest omicron wasn't the overwhelming variant a month ago here in the US? A quick google-fu shows 95+% displacement of delta in January (which coincides with the speed from initial cases to predominant strain timetable from S. Africa). Although I'll concede early January certainly isn't late January.
Going on degrees of likelihood, I'd bet the chances he had omicron are greater than not.
I bet you don't expect this from me either: the opposite argument that the shot is completely useless or overwhelmingly-dangerous shouldn't be used either.
Context matters - such as the individual's health, age, occupation, lifestyle, personal risk-tolerance, etc.
And this is of course on the personal level. I would imagine we don't find much agreement in the utility of inoculations on the individual level having the desired effect on the population at large, but that's another point of contention we can discuss.
I will admit that the optics are bad, laughably so even - on face value. But if you attempt to extrapolate this incident to anything meaningful for the masses, as the title and the little boy attempt at doing, then shame on you. Every article on this I've found has readily admitted they don't know his underlying health, which is beyond pertinent.
And I absolutely agree Fox picks and chooses what story to bring to light. WHATABOUTISM ALERT But, I don't see how this is a hot take to anyone really, nor any different for left-leaning programming on the other end of the spectrum /WHATABOUTISM ALERT OVER
I've long called them Faux News, and no, not because they aren't extremist enough.
a) actually agreed that health vulnerabilities might have put him in the cohort of actually seeing more benefit than potential harm from the vaccine - again, on a personal level. So that could have been a personal failure on his part. Nevertheless, it's impossible to say that a vaccine, so-called, could have had any preventable effect as the title and manboy suggest. I think things get murky as age increases and health decreases when it comes to risk-benefit. But, for those younger and in relative-good health, PARTICULARLY those that have already recovered (I am in both of those camps), the data is absolutely clearly not in the favor of mass inoculations, boosters, and lowering the age bar down into the pediatric range.
b) but is it actually a "tragedy" though? Or is that a soundbite to push a narrative? I'd rather the schadenfreude simply be on full-display. That is at least honest.
People shouldn't be acting like the shot is a panacea, but the point of the report is how conservative news outlets championed this guy and now they're acting like he never existed. And if he had vulnerabilities due to his health, refusing the vaccine is even more tragic.
The singer decided to leave the streaming service because it gives a platform to Joe Rogan, whom scientists have accused of promoting falsehoods about coronavirus vaccines.
It's February. Do you have some data to suggest omicron wasn't the overwhelming variant a month ago here in the US? A quick google-fu shows 95+% displacement of delta in January (which coincides with the speed from initial cases to predominant strain timetable from S. Africa). Although I'll concede early January certainly isn't late January.
Going on degrees of likelihood, I'd bet the chances he had omicron are greater than not.
He died on January 28th. If we go back 4 weeks that means he was infected in December. All of the data suggests Omicron became dominant in the US between Christmas and the New Year. So I would still take great exception with simply saying he more than likely had Omicron. While it's a possibility, it simply isn't backed up in any sort of definitive sense by raw data and I don't think points should be made using that.
I will admit that the optics are bad, laughably so even - on face value. But if you attempt to extrapolate this incident to anything meaningful for the masses, as the title and the little boy attempt at doing, then shame on you. Every article on this I've found has readily admitted they don't know his underlying health, which is beyond pertinent.
Yes it is pertinent, since if his health was compromised it's all the more reason that he should have been vaccinated. It's up to the viewer whether they think there's a lesson to be learned there or not.
b) but is it actually a "tragedy" though? Or is that a soundbite to push a narrative? I'd rather the schadenfreude simply be on full-display. That is at least honest.
The singer decided to leave the streaming service because it gives a platform to Joe Rogan, whom scientists have accused of promoting falsehoods about coronavirus vaccines.
Spotify doesn't pay artists shit compared to basically every other platform, so I think it's probably quite easy for musicians to part with that revenue. Still don't want to minimize that though, since it is taking a stand and ultimately costing them money.
As a listener, Rogan's handling of the entire topic is mind-numbing and his use of the "dumb comedian" excuse to shirk any sort of responsibility with his influence is also frustrating. He's clearly making Spotify a shitload of money, but I don't know why anyone is surprised. The CEO is a chud and has invested billions of dollars in the defense sector.
He died on January 28th. If we go back 4 weeks that means he was infected in December. All of the data suggests Omicron became dominant in the US between Christmas and the New Year. So I would still take great exception with simply saying he more than likely had Omicron. While it's a possibility, it simply isn't backed up in any sort of definitive sense by raw data and I don't think points should be made using that.
I'm no rocket surgeon, but I'll just take you at your own words here:
- he died Jan 28, per you
- he was infected 4 weeks prior, per you
[checks napkin math.... inputs data into wolframalpha.... yup, that's]
- i.e., he was infected right around Dec 31 to Jan 1, being conservative about this BARELY puts him into the last day of December, per you
- by your own admission Omicron became the dominant variant between Christmas and NY, per you
- this puts him right at the end of that range, further from Christmas and closer to NY thus more in the date of infection when Omicron was the dominant variant - again per your words
...
And yet you take "great exception" and merely say it is "a possibility"??
No. By your own admission here it is more than a mere possibility - it is on the higher end of probable. Which makes the case of him dying FROM covid rather than WITH covid even more questionable given how much less dangerous the CFR is for omicron versus previous C19 iterations.
EDITEDITEDIT - nevermind, hospitalized, not infected. *Still*, per the data MOST infections are linked to symptoms 1-3 days later, which still squarely puts him in the possible range of omicron dominance.
When chances are higher that he contracted the virus while being sociable during the holidays... when the omicron variant ruled nonetheless.
The flip side to this is he could have been admitted for chronic or even acute illness that wasn't covid-related, and a vaccine would have made no difference.
Right, but if forums like this one and others are any indication, lack of critical thought is the true pandemic and the headline and the carefully-chosen words were crafted to STEER the thought process one way - this isn't 'journalism' it is propaganda, and it's no wonder very few people on either aisle trust MSM much at all. Zero objectivity. What happened to just reporting facts without spin?
What responsibility should an entertainer have? The media clearly doesn't even act responsible as the fifth estate; how much less would a pot-smoking comedian that talks about DMT and aliens have?
How come no outrage for spotify - or any streaming service for that matter - hosting material that glorifies bad behavior - not limited to drug use, crime, murder, rape, promiscuity, consumerism, etc etc etc - all of which have influence on culture to a much greater extent and by extension have caused more damage?
At some point people just have to be adults, and be allowed to be adults.
I'm responding to you because someone else is acting like a petulant child, and yet responds to responses to me, just not me directly which is hilarious if not pathetic.
The flip side to this is he could have been admitted for chronic or even acute illness that wasn't covid-related, and a vaccine would have made no difference.
But we know covid infection can exacerbate conditions and is many times more lethal in those that have chronic illnesses. He was hospitalized with pneumonia...
Maybe, but I greatly objected to treating that this is a given. The timeline of infections is also different depending on the area of the country.
And even then, what does this even change about the point? If his health was indeed bad, how would having the vaccine not have helped him stay out of the hospital?
As a longtime listener, his purported "open-mindedness" doesn't extend universally. He is not the chameleon that most people think of him as when it comes to a handful of select topics, and the pandemic is just the latest one.
What responsibility should an entertainer have? The media clearly doesn't even act responsible as the fifth estate; how much less would a pot-smoking comedian that talks about DMT and aliens have?
I think that's a reductionist take. The reality is he's established himself as a figurehead of alternative media, so more care should be taken to not be guilty of the same things you're critiquing the mainstream of. Or at least, don't position your podcast as a place for fair and honest discussion. There's plenty of people he's had on his show that have tried to reach out to him regarding the topic and they've all been rebuffed.
I don't remember using concrete terms, but tried to speak in degrees of likelihood.
All things considered it STILL seems to be more probable than not it was omicron. Which would make his death an even greater outlier, and not indicative (even further) of the risk C19 poses to the population at large.
This is also true. Generally speaking is all I have to add to the conversation at this point. I'm also no actuary, but large data of numbers can tell a GENERAL story that is more likely true that not on the macro scale, but of course will not be applicable to selective cases.
And even then, what does this even change about the point? If his health was indeed bad, how would having the vaccine not have helped him stay out of the hospital?
At the time I made that point it was dependent on WHAT he was admitted for (this is prior to seeing it for pneumonia, which still doesn't even mean covid as a cause - believe it or not people were admitted to hospital for pneumonia with a common occurrence long before all this mess). If he had an aneurysm secondary to a lifetime of poor choices (other than recent vaccine hesitancy), it wouldn't have made a difference one way or another.
I'm sure you're familiar with the rather curious phenom of reporting of covid hospitalizations not being broken down into incidental cases ('with covid') and causal cases ('due to covid') - hardly the same groups. And this has retroactively applied to the death count (the delta in all-cause mortality pre and post covid is a better indicator by far) as 'with' versus 'by' hasn't been addressed. And this doesn't even begin to get into the poor application of PCR testing, lack of interest in autopsies, and so on.
Spotify doesn't pay artists shit compared to basically every other platform, so I think it's probably quite easy for musicians to part with that revenue. Still don't want to minimize that though, since it is taking a stand and ultimately costing them money.
Yeah, I don't think any big artists rely on Spotify. It's just that Spotify may or may not want the publicity that this gets them.
As a listener, Rogan's handling of the entire topic is mind-numbing and his use of the "dumb comedian" excuse to shirk any sort of responsibility with his influence is also frustrating. He's clearly making Spotify a shitload of money, but I don't know why anyone is surprised. The CEO is a chud and has invested billions of dollars in the defense sector.
I listened to Joe Rogan a while back, but stopped when his conversations seemed to be less about "talking to anyone about anything" and more about giving right-wing apologia a platform. It's his platform and he can have anyone on there he wants, but I don't have to listen.
his purported "open-mindedness" doesn't extend universally. He is not the chameleon that most people think of him as when it comes to a handful of select topics, and the pandemic is just the latest one.
I have to disagree here. For YEARS, one could look no further than the comments to see tons of listeners complaining that Joe's politics change with the guest he's hosting. I have to agree with that take really.
This is probably informed by his personal experience (the namesake of his podcast for crying out loud) with C19 and his subsequent treatment by the media. For instance, IVM is *not* only limited to being 'horse paste' and yet that's how the news of his treatment (doctor ordered and overseen btw) was portrayed. CNN literally grayed the color on his video to make him look more sickly.
And that's just Joe. He's also had on guests that would never have a platform on MSM shows, particularly in long-form discussions, even though their credentials are impeccable. Their opinion is just as valid, but not welcome as the 'official' narrative. Which is telling.
Also, Joe has had people of all takes on in regards to C19. I'm sure you have seen his response video. He itemizes just a few. But there are others, particularly entertainers that have disagreed with him not as professionals. But, yes, he's had provaxx professionals on all the same.
And Joe has been shown to roll with the punches so to speak. Recently, when he got pushback over myocarditis due to the vaccine, he exhibited the ability to concede and accept the data. This was immortalized in his social media. Only, it was reported by shitlib rags that he got 'owned' on his own show, and curiously this specific example is cited as the SOLE example of so-called misinformation he's said.
That said, I can point to other, data-backed studies that show that his guest was in fact wrong, and that Joe's initial reaction was correct. As studies are not monolithic, so there's that as well.
I think that's a reductionist take. The reality is he's established himself as a figurehead of alternative media, so more care should be taken to not be guilty of the same things you're critiquing the mainstream of.
At worst you're describing a hypocrite. That still doesn't fall under the purview of 'responsibility' So what? Joe's human. If you don't like it don't listen. If you do like it you aren't obligated to agreeing. And so on.
Or at least, don't position your podcast as a place for fair and honest discussion. There's plenty of people he's had on his show that have tried to reach out to him regarding the topic and they've all been rebuffed.
Joe's treatment has been a two-way street. As I mentioned he's platformed people of completely different ends of views on C19, and practically everything else.
Yeah, I don't think any big artists rely on Spotify. It's just that Spotify may or may not want the publicity that this gets them.
I listened to Joe Rogan a while back, but stopped when his conversations seemed to be less about "talking to anyone about anything" and more about giving right-wing apologia a platform. It's his platform and he can have anyone on there he wants, but I don't have to listen.
God forbid you hear what anyone has to say that doesn't have an opinion you share.
I guess interviews shouldn't be held with klansmen or serial killers (elsewhere, not by Rogan for clarification) or anyone else that's out there for that matter. Personally, it think it's a good chance to understand the mind of people - even those I don't agree with OMGOMGOMG
I could just as easily list left-leaning, progressive, LGBTQWHATEVER, minority, provaxx, etc guests he's also likewise interviewed, but deaf ears look good on you I suppose is where your mind is at.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Hai folx, I once watched a Vice docu-series episode on General Butt Naked. At the time it was fascinating and enjoyable as in watching a train wreck vicariously, and certainly not any behavior I'd ever sign off on (because I have to say that for some reason). But now, since I've had my personal awakening*, I've since decided I have to not listen to Vice anymore because they platformed a literal cannibal, and in retrospect I did not enjoy watching his mini-biography, so JK on enjoying myself lol! Just wanted everyone to know my virtuousness by extension of not consuming select content, but only safe and 'acceptable'* content instead. Everyone knows if you watch one episode of content you MUST watch all the other ones - even the ones with subject matter that polite society finds objectionable (and you're pressured to agree as well, gasp!). As such, going by the ancient, unshakable statutes that you absolutely can NOT - in any way - pick and chose episodes (guests) to listen to selectively, I'm sadly no longer listening to or watching Vice docs. Wah wah.
That's a self report on your behalf. If you've read articles that deny the existence of white supremacist organizations that commit hate crimes, then you're reading white supremacist propaganda.
Where does RollingStone, or Scott for that matter, blame "everything on right wing conservatives"? This is a piece on his time in the Joint Terrorism Taskforce, recounting his time fighting against domestic terrorism, specifically. And the most common form of domestic terrorism is white supremacist terrorism.
If I made a list of the top 10 ninja in Naruto over in the Naruto section of Mangahelpers, and you demanded I add Rekka Hanabishi from Flame of Rekka to the list, and screamed that the only reason we're not mentioning Rekka is because I'm biased in favor of Naruto's characters you'd be right... but it wouldn't matter because it's the Naruto section of the forum, where you discuss Naruto exclusively.
Scott was a specialist in infiltrating white supremacist organizations for the FBI because he fit the description. Tatted up biker. Big. Muscular. And above all else, WHITE. Did you expect him to infiltrate the Bloods or the Crips in Harlem? Did you expect him to pretend he was radicalized into joining one of the Islamic terrorist groups?
Real talk: why do you people value whataboutism so much?
It's actually quite amusing how white people/white supremacists will cry about how stats and data are important, but when it shows that the right commit the most acts of terrorism in the USA, they'll deny it or cry racism against white people or discrimination against the right.... I mean, most of the time when I watch the news of some tragedy happening, a white conservative or a right winger is behind it.
Whataboutism is a desperate resort when they have no argument, I guess. I've seen the right try "what about?!" to liberals and left despite them saying they'd hold that person accountable or whatever the subject of whataboutism was.
The singer decided to leave the streaming service because it gives a platform to Joe Rogan, whom scientists have accused of promoting falsehoods about coronavirus vaccines.
For the government trying to step in, more important stuff to focus on, like trying to wipe out student loans and helping impoverished people. Joe Rogan seems to be an idiot, but if Spotify's making money off him then they're not going to do anything. I do think majority of people should stop focusing on this, because Joe Rogan is just one of the many idiots who aren't pro-vax, not the only one or major one.
]Whataboutism is a desperate resort when they have no argument, I guess. I've seen the right try "what about?!" to liberals and left despite them saying they'd hold that person accountable or whatever the subject of whataboutism was.
Yeah. Not to go "debate bro" on people, but whataboutism is a logical fallacy in the vain of the tu quo que fallacy. And it's really just an attempt at kicking the can down the road to avoid addressing their interlocuter's initial point so it seems like they're not losing the debate because they're staying on the offense and not conceding honest points.
Example:
ninjabot: "I don't like Naruto. He was given Kurama, the strongest Bijuu mind you, at birth... so he's unnaturally strong by no effort of his own."
Somebody who's wrong: "Yeah? What about Sasuke? The only reason he's strong is because he was born into the Uchiha clan! He's NOTHING without the Sharingan!!"
ninjabot: "But... not every Uchiha can awaken the Sharingan... and it's not unlocked from birth.... and it typically comes from life changing distress... and it's also not the most powerful weapon on the planet. And let's not forget he's a prodigy even prior to gaining the Sharingan so we can't say it's his genetics alone that make him a strong combatant."
Somebody who's wrong: "It's literally the exact same thing, because both Sasuke and Naruto got their advantageous powers through birth! You can't rag on Naruto for not earning his powers when Sasuke didn't either!"
and I guess in the right's situation, they're trying to point out the hypocrisy. Even though it's weird to ask millenials "what about JFK?!" as if we were alive back then, or old enough to vote for Bill Clinton at the time (or even knew anything about his sexual escapades). Also deserves as a distraction, I guess.
Yes, saying "almost certainly" is a degree of likelihood. But it was rather unfounded in my eyes and you were still speaking on the situation using mostly assumptive reasoning without having most of the facts. But again, if you think his family member or sources close to them are lying about it then none of this really matters.
I have to disagree here. For YEARS, one could look no further than the comments to see tons of listeners complaining that Joe's politics change with the guest he's hosting. I have to agree with that take really.
You're not disagreeing with me here though.... I specifically said he's NOT a chameleon when it comes to a select few topics. He's way less open to discussion from the opposite viewpoints when it comes to those few things.
This is probably informed by his personal experience (the namesake of his podcast for crying out loud) with C19 and his subsequent treatment by the media. For instance, IVM is *not* only limited to being 'horse paste' and yet that's how the news of his treatment (doctor ordered and overseen btw) was portrayed. CNN literally grayed the color on his video to make him look more sickly.
His personal experience is that of a multi-millionaire entertainer who has access to whatever therapeutics he could possibly want with 1 phone call. It is very easy to take alternative treatments when you have a doctor on call. It's very easy to tell your audience that the vaccine isn't necessary and then just call yourself a dumb ape when there's any degree of scrutiny. It's also very easy to not embolden vaccine skepticism by cherry-picking data and entertaining his conspiracy brain by almost only talking to anti-vaxxers for the past year or so. He didn't always do that, he had people like Peter Hotez, Michael Osterholm, Rhonda Patrick, etc. He's indulged the anti-vaxx crowd and has done so offering no challenge to them at all, because his mind is already made up. Skepticism about the Moon Landing being faked can't be compared to what he's doing on his podcast in regards to this topic.
What CNN is or isn't doing doesn't matter to me, I'm a listener and I know what I hear.
I listened to Joe Rogan a while back, but stopped when his conversations seemed to be less about "talking to anyone about anything" and more about giving right-wing apologia a platform. It's his platform and he can have anyone on there he wants, but I don't have to listen.
