UPDATE: Old friend Glenn Greenwald is going to be joining me for the first hour. Should be a great discussion. Come by at 3:00 PM EST.
After running a pair of items this week on the same theme — an interview with Paul Thacker, the British Medical Journal author whose article was deemed true but “missing context” by Facebook, and Matt Orfalea’s mashup of the “lab leak” conspiracy theory madness from our recent past — I thought today might be a good day for a Callin discussion on the ongoing efforts at narrative-policing in the media sphere. This goes on as the White House and the Surgeon General have begun pressuring Spotify to “do more” about misinformation (they seldom name the actual misinformation), and the campaign to clamp down on alternative media in general has grown more intense. I know I’ve hit this theme before, but today I want to dig into some of the background leading up to this moment.
If you can make it, click here to join in at 3:00 p.m. I’m going to add a standard apology about the Apple-only aspect of these discussions for as long as that continues to be true - I really am sorry about this.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, I have always been bothered by the vagueness of "COVID cases" in the news. Being a molecular biologists, I understand very well what PCR is good for. Is there even a study that investigated the ratio of PCR positive cases and actually sick people?
But the problem with PCR is that is indicates nothing about actual infectivity as it doesn't indicate infectious virions: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32475066/.
@csaba Kiss re: “ratio of +PCR test to sick people”—good question. Though, that is a metric that would be very unlikely to inform the existing, official narrative.
But, also, the smart set today won't use the PCR test at the end after getting COVID to "clear" themselves with a negative test, because PCR detects low level and even inactive remnant protein as you intimate. So that tells you something. People use the antigen test at that point as more representative of continued infection.
The real problem with any testing is that a person has been shedding prior to symptom onset. So, timing is pretty tricky and so I don't see any use for it but for the case in which the person has a baby or old person around them and they test every day.
Just to add to my above statement, the metric we should be looking at false positive for non infected and infected and false negatives for non infected and infected.
This is sometimes referred to as specificity and sensitivity. In medical testing there is a trade off between these two and there is a generally a preference to have a cheap/quick highly sensitive test (like to PCR with cycle counts >40) that produces a high proportion of false positives relative false negatives. (I.e. sensitivity) This level of sensitivity is usually followed up with a more expensive test, if you are positive, with higher specificity (I.e less false positives) However, they do not do this this follow up with the PCR. (I wonder why?:-) )
My understanding is that (according to Peter mcollough) there is a 90% false positive for PCR test for asymptotic (i.e. likely non infected.)
The question, why are these metrics on sensitivity and specificity not available?
But unfortunately it does inform the existing, official narrative, indicating that they don't have a clue about virology! They talk about testing without knowing what the PCR even tests for and what, if anything, it might even mean when correlated with sick people, which would be essentially nothing.
The real testing that is needed are assays that indicate that there are enough infectious virions as viral RNA or DNA, depending on the virus, mean little to nothing about infectivity as far as I can tell, and they do not do this.
Looks like it, but that idea never seemed to get off the ground, a cheap, less sensitive test that could have actually made a difference. I think that the current push for testing is ill informed and will actually do nothing. It makes sense if one is around very young children or old people, high risk groups, but the person would have to test constantly.
As that article notes, in "Infected ≠ Infectious", most people aren't a threat, studies indicate that superspreaders are the threat, 20% of the sick cause 80% of the infections, and so if one is vaccinated, then the risk of being a spreader is even lower.
Yeah but I wonder if she said that before she realized that vaccinated can still spread the virus. She wrote it in sept. 2020.... i agree about testing I think that’s what many people have been trying to say that aysmptomatic testing is ridiculous bc your not likely to spread it if you don’t have symptoms but also the way I understand PCR is that it can pick up other virus like flu so all the people who were infected twice- were they? For so long we were using higher cycle thresholds were they really infected twice or did they have flu or other virus. I dunno that’s speculation!?
Well, first, there was no expectation that the vaccinated couldn't infect others, with the exception of the immediate four to six months in which the vaccinated person and the Covid-19 patient effectively has neutralizing immunity due to the amount of antibodies produced. All but one vaccine, the HPV vaccine, only reduce the risk of severe illness and death. It's the very nature of vaccines, they are only as good as the actual disease in setting up the immune system.
I find that few people actually understand the most fundamental facts about vaccines, such as what I stated above. The one thing that studies of the vaccinated and of Covid-19 patients is that they shed a lot less infectious viruses, see:
Thank you for sharing this. What do you make of the data in the U.K. for example and elsewhere that shows higher infection rates in the vaccinated populations and or, it seems everytime we’ve stArted vaccinating cases start to skyrocket. Take Israel currently as an example. I also keep hearing about vaccine inequity in Africa but they seem relatively unphased and in fact South Africa is the 90% majority of their cases. Just curious. I’ve seen all these graphs where when boosters start it seems cases go up in almost every case??
You're welcome. There's a lot in that post! You'd have to post links to the information in question, such as a news article about it. I know of no such research that indicates that the vaccinated get infected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.
The fact is that after about six months, both the vaccinated and ex-Covid-19 patients effectively lose whatever neutralizing immunity that they had as their immune systems contract the antibodies. This is normal. Going forward, these people would have the same infection rate as unvaccinated people, not higher, as they are part of the same community as the unvaccinated people, so why would they have a higher rate?
The issue seems to be that most people do not understand what I posted immediately above and so falsely believe nonsense.
Given that in some places authorities are using a Ct as high as 40 as a cutoff (e.g. the Olympics), I don't think people are very concerned about false positives. I've seen (delta) Cts around 40 in PCR based gene expression arrays for genes that are basically not expressed.
"Who cares about false positives" is a recurring theme in this pandemic and is an outgrowth of the "better safe than sorry" mindset. I similarly don't understand how anyone can take numbers of COVID cases or deaths at face value in the US when there is a Medicare bounty for COVID patients.
"I don't think people are very concerned about false positives."
I agree. Most people are too ignorant to even question CT numbers and that ignorance leads them to demand ill-informed "better safe than sorry" policies that then feed the ignorant anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers backlashes. Too many people are either anti-intellectual or too lazy to educate themselves, IMO.
A question such as the one you have posited takes me back to the kinds of questions I would see on a freshman level test in statistics.
When discussing things Like PCR tests, what I see is that the information in regard to a single individual is not particularly useful.
PCR tests may have usefulness only in regard to a group of say 10,000 or 100,000 individuals. What is known is that there are consistently meaningful levels of false positives and false negatives.
Also, the exact meaningfulness of what biological information is derived has no meaning for a single individual. By itself, a single test of a single individual has no value. But, multiple tests of hundreds of thousands of individuals provide information that is obviously useful (at least in the opinions of some).
Thus, to posit a meaningful question - one must say something like... if PCR tests are given every week to a population of 100 thousand individuals and there are approximately 1,000 positive results per week that result from that process... what beneficial actions can be put in place based on that information... knowing that a meaningful proportion are false positive or false negative.
And of course, as you ask, what proportion "are actually sick".
And from data I have seen, "actually sick" is usually defined as those requiring hospitalization, those ending up in an ICU and those that end up dying.
A PCR test is useful if the question is whether an individual has a specific viral infection. IMO, these PCR tests don't provide much information because asymptomatic people would be shedding viral RNA or DNA as would symptomatic people. So, you might get an idea of how many people were infected at any given time, but the real issues are a) the number of infectious people and (b) the number of people who require hospitalization.
But you have to ask yourself, is the PCR information relevant? For example, we do not do this normally as far as I know. We don't sample wastewater or inside air for any viruses, so why continue testing for SARS-CoV-2 now that we have safe and effective vaccines and hospitals can handle the stupid anti-vaxxers who get "immunized" by getting sick? IMO, the PCR tests are a waste.
From now on, post your evidence with your comment. There are so many trolls here it's very difficult to determine if someone is genuine or just making shit up.
What they don't say is why they're hospitalized, for Covid-19 or something else in which they tested them for Covid-19 and found that they are shedding RNA. All studies show that the vaccinated and those that had Covid-19 and recovered are at risk for mild to no symptom Covid-19 and that a lot of people who go to the hospital for one thing are found to have had or have Covid-19 in that cohort. This article is a case in which the lack of information is a problem.
Just to be clear, wastewater is commonly analyzed for covid. New York City wastewater has been in the news quite a bit lately. Perhaps I misunderstand your point.
Air quality analysis is also under scientific investigation - but, again perhaps I am misunderstanding. This falls under scientific investigation and doesn't have actionable real-world benefit at this time... perhaps that is your point.
Regardless, you legitimately question the usefulness of PCR testing results. It is obviously not accurate enough to make specific treatment decisions, for example. Most medical treatment for covid is oriented to treating the symptoms for obvious reasons. But, again - to repeat myself - if you are making decisions where the population is 330,000,000 and you are realistically dealing with variances of +- 10% or even more - then, yes, you can say do this and approximately 30 million people will die - or alternatively, do this other thing and approximately 15 million people will die.
My argument is that we do not normally test for the existence of any number of viruses, such as polio, dengue, smallpox, flu, cold, but they do test for common pathogens, such as e-coli. Looking for the SARS-CoV-2 virus now wouldn't surprise me, it may provide a high level view of infection in the population, maybe.
I don't see much use in the current testing for Covid-19 though as one would need to detect that a person is shedding enough infectious virions to infect others, not just RNA, and do it every day as people start shedding before they show symptoms.
Yes, your assertion is correct. A covid test cannot tell you if a specific individual is infectious - and, I am reasonably certain no rebuttable scientist would disagree with you.
But, again... and I apologize for repeating the exact same point...
If you test 100,000,000 people for covid and 100,000 of them test positive... you can make decisions based on that information that would lead to fewer people dying from covid.
I understand your argument, but I just don't see it the same way. Currently, we do not test for flu, yet upwards of 50,000 people die of flu every year. So, why test for Covid-19? I think that hospitals and clinics will be a better source of such data, as they are now for flu. We just see this a bit differently, and that's fine.
Again, I am repeating myself... just to clarify...
In regard to PCR testing, it would be erroneous to suggest at the individual person level that any one decision is reasonable.
To more clearly understand the decision-making process... it is something more like if we put a policy in place for 50,0000,000 air passengers then we estimate at approximately +-15% that 5,0000 of individuals will die - or, alternatively we implement a different policy then the probability is that approximately 25,000 people will die.
I'd love to make it but in case I don't or can't get a comment in, I've had Neil Young's "Old Man" going through my head a lot these past few days. "Old man, take a look in my eyes, I'm a lot like you...I need Joe Rogan's podcast to see me through..."
Anyway, these old hippies (Joni Mitchell included) were so on top of demanding rights and bucking the system it's hard to believe the irony of becoming the voice of the government/MSM is lost on them. Personally, i'm frantically checking myself for any developing psychological fissure that might cause me to become as unmoored from primary principals as they seemingly have.
Are we all destined to become the enemy we fought? I suppose an argument could be made that they see the inverse situation and maybe that's where we need to begin? But the thing I don't get is how you can listen to 10 minutes of JR and not go, "Oh, yeah, he's fine. Maybe not a genius, but clearly a decent person trying to do right." The only arguments I ever hear that have any basis in reality are, "he has a responsibility to do X because of his platform," which is difficult to see as anything other than policing.
Last thing I'll say about Neil Young is that he's been shaming people into compliance since the beginning as demonstrated in the song, "Southern Man." It's easy to listen to that song in the context of the 1960's and see what's right about it ("Rednecks" by Randy Newman is another example), but in the modern context it looks like punching down. Music is interesting in this regard because it's always intended for a listener, but these things don't hold up well when the listener changes. Maybe scolding isn't the best way to make timeless art.
It's called selling out. Most of our "heroes" (well, I really mean who we're fans of) end up selling out and disappointing us. Kneel Young is dead to me. I can't listen to his music the same way anymore.
Agreed, but the question that interests me (and I hope everyone) is how can I prevent it from happening to me. I don't want to 'sell out' or lose my principles, but maybe the deeper question is how well-defined and true those principles are in the first place. An argument could be made that Neil Young's (vis a vis all the hippies) were never that deep. I don't want to end up like that.
How does Neil Young pulling his music have anything to do with government coercion - or the "MSM"? It was his free choice, which, I'm assuming is something we all believe in. No one even mentioned this distinction in the conversation. There's a difference between top down pressure from the Dems, and individuals expressing their liberty...
He doesn’t own his music you ignorant dumbkopf. He had no control. The pharmacy connected billionaire s and hedge funds are manipulating him like an ass puppet.
Namecalling is really unnecessary. I get this topic means a lot to you (big fan of Neil Young, I take it?). It really appears as though the other players in music are trying to sink Spotify and using bogus arguments about misinformation (Biden himself is a serial offender) to drive business away from Spotify. This should be obvious to anyone willing to look past the noise.
I was under the impression he didn't even own the music anymore. That this was more about money and less about his political decision. Still... he uses Rogan's platform and "misinformation" as his published reasoning. It aligns with the "top down pressure from the Dems"... how can you not see the connection?
Neil Young stated "you can't have Young and Rogan", so it was his decision. Just because his choice aligns with the mainstream liberal narrative, doesn't mean it's caused by it.
its funny how the same people who think that Rogan has no influence and is completely independent think that Neil is brainwashed and under corporate control, meanwhile Rogan has a 100 million dollar deal with a corporation, not to mention a snake oil supplement company
In the same vein as when Dennis Hopper started being a spokesperson for retirement fund Ameriprise. What's next for Neil Young, shaman for Depends (adult diapers)?
No they were infected by hedge funds and billionaires closely tied to Big Pharma who bought (stole) their music and which are manipulating them like ghostly dock puppets … there but not there.
The White House and all the various Govt health agency spokespeople only need to look in the mirror to see why their credibility continues to nosedive … they want Spotify to shutdown “misinformation “ while LA DA Garcetti says “he doesn’t breathe when he takes his mask off” for a photo…. Did Bill Clinton text him that explanation? Do “they” not understand that this daily assault on our intelligence and their rules “we” must adhere to but not them only reinforces our skepticism that it’s their information that is bogus.
Newsom also said he only took his mask off for his photo with Magic Johnson. BUT, there are numerous photographs of Newsom without his mask on while at SoFi Stadium, where due to the current mandates for outdoor events with over 5000 people, masks are suppose to be worn at all times.
"I’m going to add a standard apology about the Apple-only aspect of these discussions for as long as that continues to be true - I really am sorry about this. "
You could always threaten to remove your content from the platform until they stop playing the corporate favoritism game 😄
Hey I'm a frustrated Android user too, but I think Matt should continue to do these Callins. They seem like a great way to connect with the community, and I look forward to the day when I can join in too.
I Love how Ole' Zuck blames Tick Tock for the drop in daily users costing him billions in theoretical wealth. In a simple anecdotal story I call my own , one user stopped using FB (5 years ago) for the very reasons you listed in your message here. I think the information crackdown is reaching critical mass and people are voting with their thumbs and spending their attention elsewhere thus costing FB billions in magical value. Also the metaverse is the ultimate in cringe and I think scares the hell out of regular people.
Metaverse is totally interesting and not at all a new concept. Can be amazing, if not for the obvious corruption, manipulation, and mental slavery aspects.
Dr. Peter McCullough cited almost everything he said why does no one discuss that? Also, no one is talking about what’s happening in Israel! I’ve seen multiple news sources say this same thing! They have more cases in the month of January than in the entire year in 2021! https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674
Matt doesn't want to ipset his left-leaning constituency. Still, I support Matt since he's had balanced takes in the past and deserves support. Maybe he'll be less concerned about how he's perceived after the culture war has stabilized :)
What has happened to Matt? All the generalities about 'woke', 'press freedom,' etc. have lost all meaning in the artificial constructs he now references. I was such a fan when he was nailing the banks and other big corps. But, now, finding 'cracks' and 'inconsistencies' or whatever in the "mainstream LIBERAL narrative"? Please....Matt...the country is going into the shitter and you are doing this nonsense?
What do you think the odds are that Matt has been the same this whole time, but now you don’t agree with him and so your biases are coloring your perception differently? What if you are the one who is wrong now and Matt is still right? Or what if your view of the world is correct, but you were both wrong before?
That's a good point, of course. Do you not think it never occurred to me that I could be wrong?? I am paralyzed by that issue. Come on....please. My point is that Matt - my man - used to zero in on banks, income distribution, class stratification, media bias, i.e. issues of consequence. NOW, however, as with his pal, Jimmy Dore, he wants to go into relatively trivial (in my opinion) issues such as the Joe Rogen/Neil Young/anti-Fauci/ nonsense. Please, please, please. And while they are at slapping themselves so hard on the back about how insightful and unbiased they are to actually criticize the "liberal media" as if, see everyone?....I'm not woke too! The fact that the Taibbi is even taking on this pseudo 'woke' issue, which is a relatively benign one in the scheme of things, is not only boring my tits off, but depressing. Please, Matt, take a look at the war machine, income distribution, climate change....for fuck's sake. Who cares whether Joe Rogan is right, wrong, 'woke', 'unwoke,' whatever about vaccinations.
The suppression of Joe Rogan is possibly an interesting issue, not because of its practical or ideological content, but because it is evidence of a breakdown of the ability of the ruling class to protect and compel their narratives and propaganda. That is, what the people getting after Rogan are responding to, which must be their own weakness (or they would not be concerned). This might be a thread worth pursuing. It's like "follow the money" only in this case it's "follow the power."
YES, OF COURSE. But you are all missing the point. There is not a substantive issue about Joe Rogan. BOTH the "conservative" and "liberal" (if you prefer any of those classifications) are irrelevant. They are only semantics that serve....and here it comes....to stall and deflect while the real issues of social and societal changes can really and truly change. While all of you are dicking around about Neil, Joe, anti-vaxxers, Anthony Fauci, etc. etc. , the rich are getting richer and the fucking Republicans are screwing everyone. In short, the MSM and the Republicans are probably all laughing their way to the bank while Matt Taibbi and, apparently, all of you are fixated on "woke." Follow the money, folks. As big an asshole that Trump and his Republican whores are (and will always be), they are making hay (as they say in the Midwest) while we dumbass "liberals" are writing about 'woke." Believe me, to the eternal regrets of us and our children, we and Matt have been taken to the cleaners by the "conservatives" and the "Republicans" (the distinction being totally meaningless, by the way). In short, forget about Joe Rogan; he is an unsuspecting idiot being used by the ruling class for THEIR purposes. The content (if one can EVER subscribe "content" to Joe Rogan) is a side show.
Well, it's interesting. We have people who call themselves 'liberals' trying to gin up a war with Russia -- although I guess I have to concede that liberals have certainly supplied their share of warmongers in past epochs -- and professing affection for the secret police, and now here we have them trying to suppress speech on the grounds that it is contrary to authority. I think that's a significant evolution. I think it's worth discussing.
You're exactly right, in my view. This woke BS, and the culture war generally are explicitly a distraction to get the working class to fight with each other as opposed to realizing who the real enemy is.
Is there a chance you are underestimating the significance of a coordinated effort to control the narrative? How easy it is to dismiss people as “far right” conspiracy theorist? It’s like a magic spell, and it gets push so relentlessly and with such practice that it’s pretty terrifying. Look at how easy it is to get one guy to show up at some corner of a protest with a nazi flag and watch how every media story has the same narrative and the same single image.
Jesus.....of course I am not underestimating controlling the narrative. My single point has nothing to do with 'conspiracy' or 'far right' or whatever...or even 'far left.' So, yeah, a single asshole waving a flag on the corner can say pretty much anything....and get MEDIA attention. That has NOTHING to do with anything, however, other than how corrupt our own media has become to even allow you to say something so depressing. Forget all this, get the babies and young kids some good education and hope that our generation dies off as fast as possible before it is too late, which it probably already is. Why is everyone so fixated on Joe Rogan?....he is a nobody ALREADY and will be even less so as things descend into the shitter....precisely what the 'ruling class' wants. This is not that difficult, folks. Matt Taibbi was on this years ago...but now look what has happened. He has gone to the other side. Keep talking about "woke" and "Joe FUCKING Rogan".....that is what the ruling class hopes we do, anyway. Right?....Matt?
What percentage of the population do you believe thinks the main stream media is propaganda? Like if you were to graph it over time would it look exponential? The Joe Rogan stuff is a red pill experience mill. It exposes the media to the people who are not as far down the rabbit hole as you are. Also Joe Rogan gets clicks bro.😂
Did I use the word 'propaganda?' No. 'Propaganda' assumes the editors, writers, broadcasters, etc. etc. or whoever you define are some monolithic block. You also use words like 'rabbit hole', 'red pill', etc. as if everyone watches some dumbass trendy Hollywood 'movie' has coalesced around some "significant' meaning. Use words, not manufactured Hollywood-manufactured phrases, "bro." Yeah, Joe Rogan gets clicks...but so does everyone else in the universe with a computer. Whatever are you talking about???? And, I am reasonably sure I am not your 'bro.'
Precisely. It’s a long journey of false equivalencies from income inequality, Goldman Sachs, unfair outcomes for the impoverished to over-wokeness.
Matt is a great writer who can and does make all of his subjects worth discussing, but this constant takedown of the left for comparatively trivial baloney is disheartening. I occasionally enjoy Joe Rogan as a conversationalist but don’t take him seriously as an intellect, and I don’t care about any conversation he has whether it’s with reasonable, well informed people or nutbags. I don’t care if he AGREES with nutbags. He’s a voice on a podcast. I also don’t care if either Red or Blue want to take him down-at $100 million and 11 million listeners, he’s fair game.
I guess I jumped over several steps. I think what set me off may have been "constant takedown of the Left". Taibbi's recent targets have been liberals, progressives, Democrats, whom I don't regard as the Left, but some use that language. Liberals etc. are supposed to have _some_ leftish qualities, like believing in freedom of expression. If they have abandoned this position (which is what calling for Rogan to be deplatformed amounts to) it might be significant to those who have not abandoned it. Since a fairly fundamental principle of the current social order is in question, it seems might be in the bag along with income and wealth difference.
I am so happy I am not alone in feeling this way. I appreciate a "reporter" who is an equal opportunity critic, but lately many in the alt middle seem to be focusing soley on the liberal agenda as if that POV makes them honest or more relevant.
Taibbi is reporting on the most obvious idiocy happening in real time. You prefer he focuses on something like fracking right now while the country is turning into China by way of mass censorship?
Agreed, but in that case, only “Call” would get initial capped. “In” wouldn’t be initial capped, as it would follow the hyphen, and is a preposition, besides.
Matt, I just listened to your comments on the Callin about what is/isn't "misinformation" on Joe Rogan's show. Did you actually listen to the Robert Malone interview? If so, you might have heard him assert that the pandemic was literally pre-planned for profit and control. You might have also heard Joe rephrase that assertion as sort of a fake question, intended to amplify the statement, not to challenge it. This is Alex Jones territory and it crosses a line. I'm not calling for censorship, but come on, to ignore this (and it's by no means an isolated example) you're just avoiding a difficult issue.
For the record, it was McCullough not Malone who said to Rogan that the pandemic was pre-planned and coordinated. Those two interviews -- and throw in the Weinstein's for good measure -- are of a piece and run together in my head.
I really for the life of me don't understand why Rogan is the hill they want to die on for free speech, ignoring that the people that don't like him are also exercising the same free speech. None of this involves the government and therefore free speech doctrine doesn't even apply in the first place.
You make it sound as if Taibbi and Greenwald focus on Rogan to the exclusion of all other concerns around free speech issues. And if you were right that this "is the hill they want to die on" it would be perplexing. The current controversy around Rogan might not be so concerning if not understood from the broader context in which we are seeing a level of censoriousness that the Christian right of the 90's, "Satanic panic" etc pales in comparison to. The coordinated effort that resulted in the Parlor app being shutdown by Amazon, the branding of those who question the official narrative around Covid as "conspiracy theorists" and nutjobs, Democrats demanding more censorship from 'Big Tech' etc,. In my lifetime I have never witnessed such a concerted effort to silence opposing views. Considering everything above, and that none of it should be new to any reader of Greenwald and Taibbi, I can't help but suspect that the bafflement you and others are expressing is disingenuous. Or maybe "for the life of you" you are just too dense to comprehend what is plain for the rest to see.
its not a free speech issue, these are citizens that want to cancel Rogan, not the government. Their voice is as valid as anyone elses and spotify can do what they want. Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech.
The constitution is a legal doctrine, and doesn't protect you from vague calls by Jen Psaki for platforms to regulate their content. The constitution is only as good as the court and state that enforce it, you seem to have it confused with a sort of philosophical doctrine.
"Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech."
Being concerned about a censorious trend in the culture need not have anything to do with the First Amendment. Some of us are interested in living in a society where open and lively debate is encouraged because we understand that a functioning collective intelligence necessitates a free flow of ideas. I wonder are all of your values informed by the dictates of the state and what it does or doesn't allow? When you contemplate whether not to do something is this a simple matter of checking the law books?
That said there actually are potential civil liberties implications, considering that state officials Jen Psaki, and the Surgeon General have waded into all of this Rogan mania and have been calling on Spotify to take actions against misinformation etc,.
There was a precedent setting Supreme Court case in the 1960s regarding a bookstore in Rhode Island which ruled that informal notices produced by a state commission which warned that certain publications were in violation of obscenity laws amounted to CENSORSHIP. The commission did NOT forcibly remove products all they did was leave written notice from the commission and the court ruled that the state had violated the plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
The thing about "crossing the line" of acceptable dialogue about topics such as the origins of this virus is that the line is being drawn by what you think is or isn't feasible. We mostly don't know the answer to the question. Branding a claim as Alex Jones territory is the sort of ad-hominem typically used to distract from the issues being discussed.
I get the impression people forget that episodes of JRE are conversations and can't be equated with MSM products that are specifically designed to disseminate curated information. JRE episodes are nothing like what Alex Jones puts out because when Alex turns the camera on there is a script that has been put together to communicate a specific message. There is no script on JRE, Joe has no plan for how a show will go, and what ensues is very often dialectic.
"There are three great truths; your truth, my truth and the truth." - Proverb... The fact we're no longer free to discuss any version of it, means we'll end up an ill-informed populace, if we aren't already!?
Facts that seem to be missing from discussions by Matt, Rogan, etc:
1. Over 690,000 COVID-19 US hospitalizations could have been prevented by vaccination between June to November 2021 (84% of hospitalizations were unvaxxed)
2. The cost of this to US healthcare system: $38 Billion
3. Other costs: Exhausted doctors and nurses, fewer beds for people with other medical emergencies
So when Rogan pushes an anti-vax agenda with his 11 Million followers, and people don't get vaxxed as a result, there are actual, real costs to society. Who should be responsible for paying those costs? I'm not suggesting Rogan should pay everything, but he does have some responsibility, doesn't he? The same day he posted his video about Neil Young, he tweeted a bogus Ivermectin "study" and when people pointed it out, he deleted the tweet, but not before almost 100K followers liked it. Did Rogan issue a correction? -- I haven't seen it. Is this responsible use of his platform with 11M followers? Do no journalistic standards apply to him?
The "missing" facts to which you've referred are the mainstream consensus. That information is not only easily accessible but inescapable, unless you live in a cave. Has anyone shown any evidence that people are choosing to forego vaccination because of anything Joe Rogan says? Can you point specifically to what proves Rogan "pushes an anti-vax agenda"? Shall we make a comprehensive list of all the inconsistent claims (and admitted outright lies) made by MSM, CDC, WHO, NIH in the past 2 years? Can we estimate those costs? People flock to the likes of Rogan for good reason. They know they've been repeatedly deceived by their institutions for decades. People (11M of them at least) would rather listen to authentic conversations, however flawed, being conducted by those they deem to be of good faith than be intentionally manipulated and misinformed by cold-blooded robots whose agendas and allegiances are so obviously compromised.
Guess what you knee-jerkers, I don't want Rogan to be censored. Hey, just like Joe Rogan, I'm "just asking questions and trying to have a conversation." The difference is, I don't have 11M followers (though I know you guys love me). It doesn't matter what Rogan claims to be (comedian, bro, whatever), what matters is the message impact and real costs to society. Tucker (mainstream media) claims to be an "entertainer" -- do you think his program has no impact on peoples' decisions about vax and politics? -- and he only has 2M regular viewers. Isn't it reasonable to conclude Rogan's impact is greater? Yet he's not willing to admit his 11M follower platform has any such impact on creating doubt about vaccinations. The pushback on Rogan has gotten him to agree to: 1) agree to disclaimers on his covid related shows, 2) to have more balance of pro-vax guests, 3) to follow anti-vax guests more quickly with pro vax guests. So all this so-called "censorship" that you guys and Matt keep whining about actually isn't censorship, but rather feedback which has had a positive effect on Rogan's actions. But tell me again why this makes me an "authoritarian" compared to you.
If you want to make the argument above effectively I think you have to show that there are a significant number of people who would have gotten vaccinated but didn't because Rogan dissuaded them.
People are more nuanced than you give them credit for. The wife and Ii are fully vaxxed and happy about it but we listen to (and follow) Joe Rogan. I don't think he is anti-vaxx but even if he was, people cherry pick what they want listen to. Just because you like someone or something you don't have to accept it all, box and dice. There could be a hundred reasons for hitting that "like" button and, unless, you ask everyone why it means very little. We have to stop dropping people into ideological groups and assume that they are going to act one way here because they supported something else there. It's good for arguments on forums, but real life is a lot more complex and messy.
He doesn't "push" anything. He invites guests. Asks them questions. They respond. That's it. Show a clip where he tells the public to not get vaccinated? Oh right, you can't because he didn't.
Right, Joe Rogan doesn't have any opinions whatsoever -- not a single agenda. Come on, you know this isn't true. We all have agendas. You're pushing yours right now and I'm pushing mine. It's fine for you and me to be blind to our agendas because we don't have any following, but if we did, and people started making decisions based on what we presented, I suggest it would be important for us to become more aware of our agenda and how it might be having negative impacts. This is what is happening to Rogan. He's not getting censored, he's getting disagreement from some (more) equally powerful media figures (e.g., Neil Young) and this had given Rogan pause. To his credit, he's making changes. You see, I'm not being "devolved" -- I'm just encouraging a feedback system in media for people like Rogan.
Look, your point of view is fair. yes. but look around is the vaccine really doing that much to change things? Your still in a mask, still distancing, still working from home and it is exactly the same and makes little difference for people under 70 who aren't co-morbid. The infection fatality rate is is less than 1% and Israel has four shots and two boosters and had the most cases in January 2022 than ALL OF 2021. This fear around people making their own choices for themselves is getting ridiculous. We need to stop creating this polarizing language, everyone is different everyone's body is different and many people have already been infected and have immunity. Pharma has the most lobbying groups of anyone out there and look at how much they have gained? Where exactly do you think the term anti-vax came from and why are we using this to polarize people. By the way not attacking you just asking questions from another angle and my own opinion which I could be wrong about as well but this is how I see it.
The way you use the term agenda here would fail to capture the sort of intent seen when say CNN pursues one. When they push an agenda it is not quite like the "agenda" someone has in normal conversation. The Iraq war agenda for example was a concerted effort on the part of network news channels to manufacture the consent of a nation by any means necessary, which did not exclude outright deception. You can say that when Joe puffing a joint musing on a subject that he is opinionated about is "pushing an agenda", but anyone who listens to the show regularly knows that his attitude about his agenda is quite different than CNNs. It's clear to any regular listener what Dee means in the OP when saying "He doesn't 'push' anything", regardless of how deaf you seemingly feign to be.
Why do I have to do the work for you? Shows how little research you do. He's made several direct comments, including that you only need the vaccination if you are old or fat / "if you're young and healthy and eat well, you don't need it" he said, then when he got lots of pushback, he said, "I'm a moron. I don't know what I'm talking about." Yet he has Malone on and let's him say, "the COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and ineffective; “natural immunity is superior to the vaccine induced immunity”; vaccine-induced spike protein is dangerous, causes serious side effects; “Omicron is a mild variant. It is absolutely able to escape prior vaccination” and Rogan doesn't push back or correct these false and misleading statements. Further, just because someone doesn't continually say the words, "vaccination bad" doesn't mean they're not still creating that message. Tucker Carlson never says blatantly racist things, but the white supremacist love him because he dog whistles and implies things that they fully agree with. Come on, why do I have to explain this to you? Do some of your own homework.
You seem fearful that the less enlightened will not exercise your carefully discernment of ‘facts’ in this infotainment world. Please know, you cannot ‘save’ them nor can any other content arbiter - governments or media. Accepting this will bring you peace…
You've got it backward. You're expecting people to go on faith that what you say is true. I have no obligation to lookup the garbage you say is true. You haven't proven it, therefore, it's dubious. -- Seriously, a researcher, for example, or an economist, or even Fauci must show the data. You are not showing proof that a pink elephant exists, so no one is going to believe you. Show the pink elephant or GTFOOH.
"GTFOOH" Hahaha -- the "free speech lover" Dee finally reveals his/her (?) true colors (agenda): "Waah, you make me uncomfortable and you haven't met my standards of Truth, so get out of here!" Yeah, just what I thought: If you had the power, you'd cancel me. Look at your sweeping comments in this thread: "This society is full of idiots" "it has devolved", "the left is more dangerous than the right" etc, etc. I'm sure if you had the power, you'd be cancelling millions of people. Thank god you don't. I provided you with direct quotes from Joe and Malone (doing a quick search you could easily do you self, but can't be bothered), and you call it "garbage." Man, you are just raw projection -- everything you accuse other people of doing, you do in spades yourself. You meet the very definitions of troll and wanna-be authoritarian. But I ain't gonna tell you to stop your trolling ways because... I actually believe in free speech.
It seems clear he makes no claim of being a journalist. He's basically a guy who invites guests to speak on a wide variety of topics. It goes without saying that there are always scientific experts who raise objections to prevailing dogma. Sometimes they are utterly wrong as in Peter Duesberg. Other times they later collect a Nobel Prize, see Barbara McClintock.
IMHO, people who cant stand an "everyman" like Rogan having a $100M successful talk show are jealous. It's a goddamn talk show, just like The View where tons of idiotic shit is spewed each episode by entitled pan-ethnicity Karens. Attacks on Rogan are covert jealousy because he's ripped and rich and BB (and those like him) are not.
Ah, so now Dee can see inside my mind -- what a super power! Despite what all you haters here say about me, I actually like a lot of Rogan's shows and I have no jealousy of his success (I'm doing fine financially, thank you very much). I like that he had Bernie Sanders on and mentioned that he was probably going to vote for him. Cool! -- that's an agenda I can support. Pushing anti-vax stuff, not so much.
You are an entry level gaslighter. You're the hater. Trying to turn the tables, ineptly, is still gaslighting. 1) He has not told anyone not to get vaxxed, despite your claims he has; 2) You can't prove it; 3) You deflect like crazy because you can't.
Well said; right on. It doesn't get more depressing than where we are right now. To put it gracefully....who gives a fuck what a wrestling huckster says about....well....anything? Does $100 million mean he knows what he is talking about. Would someone please explain to me how a huckster like that who knows well, not much, can make that much money while hard-working teachers and professors and scientists make 50K or 70K or whatever. Until that obscenity can be accounted for - and rationalized - nothing else makes any sense....including this rag and the "former" Matt who has clearly gone to the other side.
We are a country full of idiots who can't ask themselves a simple question: why is he so popular? Media professionals study this kind of stuff. He spun straw into gold and if every Hollywood agent/producer could, they'd copy what he's doing to make their own $100M. The fact that Rogan is so appealing is what's bothering everyone, not what he's (not) saying (and his guests are).
If our government were smart, they'd figure out why he's so popular and then try to provide that very thing his listeners want. Rogan filled a huge void and people flock there. Because he did this in his own spare bedroom without a producer and without a stable of helpers or a media conglomerate behind him it's just killing people. If anyone "takes him down" there'll be another march on Washington and a massive $100M lawsuit for lost income.
Would Neil Young like to stop human gossiping? Would Joni Mitchell ban the telephone game? Both are sources of dangerous misinformation. Most human communication, by far, is imperfect. It includes bits of wrong information scattered amongst some bits of partially true information most of the time. The idea of censoring podcasts makes about as much sense as censoring lyrics.
I've been reading a lot about States having to call in the National Guard to help out at hospitals because they are seeing a huge spike in the "unvaccinated" becoming ill and they are short-staffed. What I would really like to hear is how many staff were fired at these hospitals because they refused the vaccine. And how many refused the vaccine because they already had natural immunity. The silence is deafening.
When Greenwald and Taibi say that they have become more pessimistic in the last 5 years is because they are looking at a few trees, with their own inherent bias, and not the whole forest. The fact that masses of people in the US rebelled against T-RUMP and his racism and bigotry, and went out to vote Don the CON out of office is a reason to be OPTIMISTIC! What this shows is their lack of sensitivity to the needs of millions of voters of color who see the danger of right-wing bigotry and neo-fascism to their interests.
Your comment is really humorous. It seems you're the one out of touch. The left has inexplicably become the party that's endangering our democracy, demanding payments for staying at home and doing nothing and for complete censorship of anyone who disagrees with them. Lifetime lefty here who has left their own party because of this. We must let the Nazis march in Skokie if we want to preserve our democracy. The geriatrics like Neil Young and Sharon Stone are so arch-conservative now it's laughable.
Sorry, you're repeating right wing talking points and contradicting yourself. The "Left" endangering our democracy? By fighting voter suppression? Complete censorship? Sorry! A private business can tell you that there are certain limits to speech in their institution or platform. No freedom or right is absolute! Your should have learned that in middle school Civics class. I guess I was expecting more of those who follow Taibi and Greenwald.
As per usual, in order to fully understand the past, whether it be the "pandemic" or any other pointvin human history, you need only do one thing; follow the money.
You might be confusing people distrusting the current Covid narrative and the resulting coercion through mandates as an industry. Maybe. Perhaps I am not so familiar with this industry as you are. Why are you so pro-vaxx and Covid/mRNA vaccines in particular?
Had to add that according to vaccination numbers, there are more vaxxed than not. If you are confident about the vaxx efficacy and your own health having been vaxxed, then why do you care about the holdouts? Why shame, ostracize, and cancel them? Who's the Nazi here?
It's true that I'm pro-vaxx -- I think the data support that position. But I'm against mandates; people can make up their own minds about whether or not to be vaccinated and shouldn't be restricted in work or travel if they choose not to be. I have a bigger problem with claims that the pandemic was a pre-planned conspiracy designed to get everyone vaccinated for profit and control. This is Malone's position -- somewhat subtly amplified by Rogan -- and in my opinion it strays into Alex Jones territory. I'm NOT calling for censorship. However, I'd like to see Rogan make good on his Insta-promise to follow those discussions with knowledgable guests who can counter those ideas.
I've heard Malone speak on many online platforms and have never heard him say that the pandemic was a pre-planned conspiracy. Would you mind providing a link?
Actually it was McCullough, not Malone (I just checked). To me Rogan’s McCullough and Malone interviews were of a piece, and the two run together in my head. If Malone is more authoritative to you than McCullough, sorry about that.
Oh, one thing I'll say about Alex Jones is that I am a fan. Not because I believe everything he says or am lockstep with his position. I'm a fan because he has the guts and energy to take these positions at all. I also find him quite humorous. He's the counterpoint to the authoritarian types on the left.
The left irritate me far more because they are pushing policies and positions that directly hurt society as a whole. The projection and hypocrisy sickens me. Lockdowns? The left wanted that. The Right did too, but the far right more than the moderates. The extremes are a real problem for the human race. I'm going to stay in the middle and try to help keep the balance.
Alex Jones is a con artist who uses conspiracy theories as his business model. Some of those theories are very harmful, Newtown being an obvious example. If you enjoy his humor, fine, but it has nothing to do with being in the middle or balance.
I suppose it can be harmful if you take it seriously. However, he's been proven more right than wrong over time. Human-animal chimeric research is real, for instance. Is it ethical? Don't bother asking the transhumanists that question. You be the judge. There are other examples, but I'm not going to bother mentioning them since you've clearly made up your mind about him.
Being in the middle also means not freaking out over everything you see and hear. It means being critical and not swallowing propaganda from the right and left. That's my idea of being in the middle anyway.
Could you elaborate on the huge "thousand-dollar-an-hour lawyers on speed dial" lawsuit risks Thacker faced as a congressional report writer?
Gosh, that would really shape your ability to "land these". The most notable such lawsuit against a committee staffer, glittering like the sword of Damocles over his head was...which case?
If you are referring to Lyndon Johnson, among others...agree....but that does not mean ALL liberals or even a small minority are "warmongers." As to expressing affection for the secret police, I have no idea whom or what you are talking about. And outside of this entire 'woke' bullshit (as in 'false' or meaningless narrative), liberals have never, had big numbers for suppressing free speech. You are throwing around a lot of clichés here. To repeat, these are minor issues so why is Taibbi screwing around with them at all as Wall Street marches us into fiefdoms and the entire Republican Party is marching us into fascism. 'Woke'? 'Non-Woke" Who cares?
WOW!! Until now I never realize how the conspiracist no-nothing bullshit has reached such heights of blubbery nonsense. 'Neo-liberalism,' 'Globalism', 'secret police', 'war mongering,' 'race-grifting', 'cultural marxists'!!!!, 'cancel culture,' 'domestic terrorists,' ETC. ETC. ETC. have no meaning whatsoever other than what other 'conspiracists' think they know what they are talking about.
In short, bub, shut down your Facebook bookmarks, Reddit streams, Fox, Republican National propaganda, Federalist Society, etc. and other streams of bull-SHEIT. Go to the library, pick up some history books and R-E-A-D. I hope you understand that all this bullshit about the 'National Security Apparatus' is a fiction posted by your wealthy corporatists of the right wing that exists ONLY to make themselves even richer on the ignorance of posts such as yours. As they say in Sweden, bub, the yoke is on YOU. Or, better yet, go to the brilliance of the Republican Party's Agenda from this year....oh, excuse me, there isn't any....they decided NOT to do one this year. Ha, ha, ha. Those vacuous asshole have NO proposals or thoughts about making things better for working people. All they want to do is make fun of 'Biden' - just like you have done - because they have NOTHING - as in ZERO. Bub, be careful....they are going to drag you down too.
As the know-nothing right wing ALWAYS does......throw out name of George Soros because they don't know what else to say. Its called 'mutual masturbation,' i.e. if you don't know anything just say 'George Soros' and then you are in the good graces of the right wing, regardless if there is any substance what is being said.
OMG....you are so wrapped up in your million dollar words, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Let's be very clear here: the word/phrase "illiberalism" upon which you seem to think there is some meaning has, well, NO meaning. It is a propagandist phrase used by the wealthy to keep us from asking questions. Do me a favor,...follow the money: have working peoples' lives improved before Biden, has phony stock market wealth declined by your heroes?, has the military-industrial machine stopped; has the Republican Party have ANY policy that in some ways benefit working people? Well?, Well? Well, uh... NO. Stop with your propaganda. Grow up.
I am done responding. I had no idea of the corruption and effectiveness of the right wing media. No wonder those asshole can do nothing but bitch about Biden and wait for the dumbest and most amoral person in the world - Donald Trump - to take over and lead us down the abyss. You have been suckered, fellow. Expand your reading lists and your consciousness before it is too late.
Matt - Do you know Matt Lee with the AP? This dude seems to be one of the only real journalists out there, and seems to have been doing a great job calling out the state department for years - including Jenn Psaki on her misinformation. You should talk to him.
Three Card Monte. In the 1870s and 1880s my greatgrandfather dealt tables at Kansas and Nebraska Railhead towns to releive the cowboys of their pay. He kept a journal. Great stories.
Fly Speck Billie, he got shot. Not that different than today. Same game.
Joe Rogan has 11M followers and he is a $100M paid employee of a $30B company. In short, he is a media super-power. And pretending otherwise, as Matt and Glenn and most of the folks on this thread do, is simply disingenuous. Does that mean he should be censored (assuming he could be -- if Spotify kicked him off, it would likely grow his following)? No. But stop pretending he's just a "comedy bro" having "agenda free" conversations with people. He has a powerful ability to shape narratives in this country with his selection of guests (his sole discretion) and what he does and does not challenge in his guests' comments (note the huge media bump guests get when they are allowed on the show). Am I saying that individuals have no choice in their decisions about getting vaxxed and are simply manipulated by Rogan? Of course not. But we humans make our meaning socially and dominant narratives have important influence. When millions of people choose not to get vaxxed and end up in the hospital (delta surge hospitalizations were 84% unvaxxed), billions of dollars in costs are incurred on society, and many people die. And so, sure, question CNN and MSNBC's roles in shaping covid narratives, but also question Joe Rogan's role and stop acting like he's some sort of underdog.
I love how Taibbi fans, who are supposed to be lovers of free speech and against cancel culture, seem so ready to cancel anyone who has a different opinion. I bet you'd cancel me if you could -- because you haven't engaged in any of my arguments. Instead, you've just called them "stupid" and me a "troll" -- sorry, "TROLL." If you search my other comments on this thread, you'll see that I'm a fan of Rogan -- and I'm even more so after his statements following Young's protest. Rogan didn't dismiss Young as a "TROLL" -- he said he was a fan and appreciated him. And Rogan has changed his behavior in response to Young's protest, which means it worked. Cool. You see, Rogan walks his talk when it comes to free speech, and being responsible for what you say. Maybe you should learn something from him. Now, if you care to engage in actual discussion, do you deny that Rogan is paid $100M by a $30B corporation? Do you deny he has 11M followers? How would you classify someone who has the most popular and influential podcast / youtube channel in the world? Whaddya got besides insults, you free-speech lover?
Jesus, man. Did you read what YOU just wrote. Joe Rogan is, well, Joe Rogan - a former TV host of a show of people eating insects and THEN a "professional wrestling announcer" who now has a podcast and makes $100 million a year???? I like Joe Rogan OK, but the point is that he is at best a modest person of marginal intellect who is WAAAAAY over-valued for his "opinions". And, to be clear, it is not that he is either "right" or "wrong", but that he is, basically (despite the obscene salary) a, shall-we-say modest intellect that is certainly no more insightful (and probably less) than any of us. If he were in a deli in New York or a filling station in Indianapolis, you wouldn't walk 10' to listen to what he is saying. You have taken the red pill, many. Disregard all this 1st Amendment, Spotify, Matt Taibbi bullshit. In the long terms it will be irrelevant. Period.
Here is Young's statement: “I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information.” Sure, I'd prefer that Young engage with Rogan, but Young has chosen a boycott -- i.e. withholding financial support from a company. Are you going to tell Young, a private citizen, and other people that they can't engage in boycotts? -- are you going to dictate how they protest? What's the result so far: Rogan is still platformed (Young is not) and in reaction to Young's protest, Rogan has agreed to be more responsible with his Covid content. It's almost like boycotts work. Now, if the gov moves to materially pressure Spotify to censor / deplatform Rogan, I'll agree that's wrong and I would bet we'd have a Supreme Court case in the making, which Rogan/Spotify would likely easily win.
N.Hill wrote long ago; thought is the master of all other forms of energy, because it is a form of energy which is mixed with intelligence. Thought holds the solution to every human problem. It is the master of poverty and misery and worry and fear. Anything which exists as FACT is capable of proof. State is a place. Protect your house and remember WWG1WGA.👍✌🇺🇸
No need to apologize for the platform problem. Sign of the times and goes without saying why reputable sources of info are forced to live on 'fringe' platforms.
Apps are hard. Can't develop for every platform at once. If business is good, they'll develop for others. For users, it's good to be multilingual. Those of us who don't speak Portuguese are fortunate Glenn is speaking English.
I'm hoping to call in today. Not sure this crowd (i.e. commenters on Matt's Substack) will appreciate this reference/link, but I've been getting a lot out the "Decoding the Gurus" podcast. Aside from the usual IDW suspects they cover, they've done very good episodes on Rogan (pre-Malone/McCullough) as well as the Malone/McCullough episodes specifically. They also just put out a short(er) one on Rogan's Insta "apology," but I believe it's only available for Patreon supporters. For my money, this pair of podcasters (Chris, an Irish anthropologist who lives in Japan and Matt, an Australian pysch professor) not only do a very good job "decoding" the rhetoric of their subjects, but Chris is pretty damn funny.
I clicked over to this outfit a few weeks ago and had zero interest in checking it out. IMHO, they are pretentious and unimportant academics trying to be relevant. I don't have 3 hours of my life to sit around listening to snarky, self-congratulating armchair pundits who think they're above-it-all. And pay for it? I'd rather subscribe to HBO where I'll be better entertained.
The fact that it takes them 3 hours to say something points toward their self-aggrandizing outlook. Expecting anyone to sit that long and listen to their self-congratulatory chatter shows how naive they are.
It's how one spends those 3 hours. Rogan is the opposite of these self-important clowns, that's the difference. They posture about how much better they are than others, while he does the exact opposite. He brings people on and lets them speak. There's such a massive difference in what they do it doesn't even dignify a comparison. The only thing there is in common is the length of the shows. Rogan makes good use of his time whereas I can't stomach the idea of spending even 2 minutes listening to these wanna be's who seem hell bent on "debunking" everyone they point their lens at.
You had to get personal. This is why I don’t do twitter and shouldn’t hang out here. If you don’t see everyone trying to expose the falseness of everyone else in podcasts, substacks, and comment sections, then lucky you.
Please elaborate on the injunction risk that caused BMJ to decide it did not need to contact or get comment from those it accused of mis-, mal- and non-feasance.
Recent injunctions in the UK have been filed to protect privacy and national security.
Does your narrative articulate a new threat of prior restraint?
Since the beginning of the pandemic, I have always been bothered by the vagueness of "COVID cases" in the news. Being a molecular biologists, I understand very well what PCR is good for. Is there even a study that investigated the ratio of PCR positive cases and actually sick people?
But the problem with PCR is that is indicates nothing about actual infectivity as it doesn't indicate infectious virions: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32475066/.
On a few episodes of This Week in Virology (at microbe.tv/twiv) they discussed what high CT values would indicate, such as with Michael Mina (https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-640/).
@csaba Kiss re: “ratio of +PCR test to sick people”—good question. Though, that is a metric that would be very unlikely to inform the existing, official narrative.
When over half of the COVID positives in the hospital are hospitalized WITH covid rather than FOR covid, the stronger point is that we shouldn't reflexively count a positive as a "covid case" in the first place. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/
But, also, the smart set today won't use the PCR test at the end after getting COVID to "clear" themselves with a negative test, because PCR detects low level and even inactive remnant protein as you intimate. So that tells you something. People use the antigen test at that point as more representative of continued infection.
The real problem with any testing is that a person has been shedding prior to symptom onset. So, timing is pretty tricky and so I don't see any use for it but for the case in which the person has a baby or old person around them and they test every day.
Just to add to my above statement, the metric we should be looking at false positive for non infected and infected and false negatives for non infected and infected.
This is sometimes referred to as specificity and sensitivity. In medical testing there is a trade off between these two and there is a generally a preference to have a cheap/quick highly sensitive test (like to PCR with cycle counts >40) that produces a high proportion of false positives relative false negatives. (I.e. sensitivity) This level of sensitivity is usually followed up with a more expensive test, if you are positive, with higher specificity (I.e less false positives) However, they do not do this this follow up with the PCR. (I wonder why?:-) )
My understanding is that (according to Peter mcollough) there is a 90% false positive for PCR test for asymptotic (i.e. likely non infected.)
The question, why are these metrics on sensitivity and specificity not available?
Sorry. My first sentence above should read :
...”false positive for non infected and false negative for infected”
But unfortunately it does inform the existing, official narrative, indicating that they don't have a clue about virology! They talk about testing without knowing what the PCR even tests for and what, if anything, it might even mean when correlated with sick people, which would be essentially nothing.
The reason that I say this is that symptoms begin after shedding starts to decline, for example as seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Summary-curves-of-viral-shedding-and-total-symptoms-scores-in-experimental-influenza_fig3_5620669. As symptoms peak after peak shedding, testing has less of a chance to prevent infections as the symptomatic person will be shedding more viral RNA than viable virions as time goes on, if they were shedding enough virions in the first place.
The real testing that is needed are assays that indicate that there are enough infectious virions as viral RNA or DNA, depending on the virus, mean little to nothing about infectivity as far as I can tell, and they do not do this.
No
Look at who the author is it looks like Walensky thought the same thing
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20200909.430047/full/?fbclid=IwAR2SluJmmqbTsooKNrcWZWgZOk2kk5RaSJP1QCcN-41I1OENqV1Sn--TefM
Looks like it, but that idea never seemed to get off the ground, a cheap, less sensitive test that could have actually made a difference. I think that the current push for testing is ill informed and will actually do nothing. It makes sense if one is around very young children or old people, high risk groups, but the person would have to test constantly.
As that article notes, in "Infected ≠ Infectious", most people aren't a threat, studies indicate that superspreaders are the threat, 20% of the sick cause 80% of the infections, and so if one is vaccinated, then the risk of being a spreader is even lower.
Yeah but I wonder if she said that before she realized that vaccinated can still spread the virus. She wrote it in sept. 2020.... i agree about testing I think that’s what many people have been trying to say that aysmptomatic testing is ridiculous bc your not likely to spread it if you don’t have symptoms but also the way I understand PCR is that it can pick up other virus like flu so all the people who were infected twice- were they? For so long we were using higher cycle thresholds were they really infected twice or did they have flu or other virus. I dunno that’s speculation!?
Well, first, there was no expectation that the vaccinated couldn't infect others, with the exception of the immediate four to six months in which the vaccinated person and the Covid-19 patient effectively has neutralizing immunity due to the amount of antibodies produced. All but one vaccine, the HPV vaccine, only reduce the risk of severe illness and death. It's the very nature of vaccines, they are only as good as the actual disease in setting up the immune system.
I find that few people actually understand the most fundamental facts about vaccines, such as what I stated above. The one thing that studies of the vaccinated and of Covid-19 patients is that they shed a lot less infectious viruses, see:
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-855/
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-854/
Thank you for sharing this. What do you make of the data in the U.K. for example and elsewhere that shows higher infection rates in the vaccinated populations and or, it seems everytime we’ve stArted vaccinating cases start to skyrocket. Take Israel currently as an example. I also keep hearing about vaccine inequity in Africa but they seem relatively unphased and in fact South Africa is the 90% majority of their cases. Just curious. I’ve seen all these graphs where when boosters start it seems cases go up in almost every case??
You're welcome. There's a lot in that post! You'd have to post links to the information in question, such as a news article about it. I know of no such research that indicates that the vaccinated get infected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.
The fact is that after about six months, both the vaccinated and ex-Covid-19 patients effectively lose whatever neutralizing immunity that they had as their immune systems contract the antibodies. This is normal. Going forward, these people would have the same infection rate as unvaccinated people, not higher, as they are part of the same community as the unvaccinated people, so why would they have a higher rate?
The issue seems to be that most people do not understand what I posted immediately above and so falsely believe nonsense.
Given that in some places authorities are using a Ct as high as 40 as a cutoff (e.g. the Olympics), I don't think people are very concerned about false positives. I've seen (delta) Cts around 40 in PCR based gene expression arrays for genes that are basically not expressed.
"Who cares about false positives" is a recurring theme in this pandemic and is an outgrowth of the "better safe than sorry" mindset. I similarly don't understand how anyone can take numbers of COVID cases or deaths at face value in the US when there is a Medicare bounty for COVID patients.
"I don't think people are very concerned about false positives."
I agree. Most people are too ignorant to even question CT numbers and that ignorance leads them to demand ill-informed "better safe than sorry" policies that then feed the ignorant anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers backlashes. Too many people are either anti-intellectual or too lazy to educate themselves, IMO.
A question such as the one you have posited takes me back to the kinds of questions I would see on a freshman level test in statistics.
When discussing things Like PCR tests, what I see is that the information in regard to a single individual is not particularly useful.
PCR tests may have usefulness only in regard to a group of say 10,000 or 100,000 individuals. What is known is that there are consistently meaningful levels of false positives and false negatives.
Also, the exact meaningfulness of what biological information is derived has no meaning for a single individual. By itself, a single test of a single individual has no value. But, multiple tests of hundreds of thousands of individuals provide information that is obviously useful (at least in the opinions of some).
Thus, to posit a meaningful question - one must say something like... if PCR tests are given every week to a population of 100 thousand individuals and there are approximately 1,000 positive results per week that result from that process... what beneficial actions can be put in place based on that information... knowing that a meaningful proportion are false positive or false negative.
And of course, as you ask, what proportion "are actually sick".
And from data I have seen, "actually sick" is usually defined as those requiring hospitalization, those ending up in an ICU and those that end up dying.
A PCR test is useful if the question is whether an individual has a specific viral infection. IMO, these PCR tests don't provide much information because asymptomatic people would be shedding viral RNA or DNA as would symptomatic people. So, you might get an idea of how many people were infected at any given time, but the real issues are a) the number of infectious people and (b) the number of people who require hospitalization.
But you have to ask yourself, is the PCR information relevant? For example, we do not do this normally as far as I know. We don't sample wastewater or inside air for any viruses, so why continue testing for SARS-CoV-2 now that we have safe and effective vaccines and hospitals can handle the stupid anti-vaxxers who get "immunized" by getting sick? IMO, the PCR tests are a waste.
Re the "Stupid anti'vaxxers", our small local hospital just reported 25 covid cases in the hospital, with 12 unvaccinated and 13 FULLY Vaccinated.
I say bullshit, you're lying: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220110/A-study-on-COVID-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-that-required-hospitalization.aspx
Post a link to prove your claim.
Normally I don't reply to ad hominum attacks, but here's the post. Check last paragraph. https://www.carolinacoastonline.com/news_times/article_18559bbe-8470-11ec-a5b2-177007b0e0a9.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-
From now on, post your evidence with your comment. There are so many trolls here it's very difficult to determine if someone is genuine or just making shit up.
What they don't say is why they're hospitalized, for Covid-19 or something else in which they tested them for Covid-19 and found that they are shedding RNA. All studies show that the vaccinated and those that had Covid-19 and recovered are at risk for mild to no symptom Covid-19 and that a lot of people who go to the hospital for one thing are found to have had or have Covid-19 in that cohort. This article is a case in which the lack of information is a problem.
Just to be clear, wastewater is commonly analyzed for covid. New York City wastewater has been in the news quite a bit lately. Perhaps I misunderstand your point.
Air quality analysis is also under scientific investigation - but, again perhaps I am misunderstanding. This falls under scientific investigation and doesn't have actionable real-world benefit at this time... perhaps that is your point.
Regardless, you legitimately question the usefulness of PCR testing results. It is obviously not accurate enough to make specific treatment decisions, for example. Most medical treatment for covid is oriented to treating the symptoms for obvious reasons. But, again - to repeat myself - if you are making decisions where the population is 330,000,000 and you are realistically dealing with variances of +- 10% or even more - then, yes, you can say do this and approximately 30 million people will die - or alternatively, do this other thing and approximately 15 million people will die.
My argument is that we do not normally test for the existence of any number of viruses, such as polio, dengue, smallpox, flu, cold, but they do test for common pathogens, such as e-coli. Looking for the SARS-CoV-2 virus now wouldn't surprise me, it may provide a high level view of infection in the population, maybe.
I don't see much use in the current testing for Covid-19 though as one would need to detect that a person is shedding enough infectious virions to infect others, not just RNA, and do it every day as people start shedding before they show symptoms.
Yes, your assertion is correct. A covid test cannot tell you if a specific individual is infectious - and, I am reasonably certain no rebuttable scientist would disagree with you.
But, again... and I apologize for repeating the exact same point...
If you test 100,000,000 people for covid and 100,000 of them test positive... you can make decisions based on that information that would lead to fewer people dying from covid.
I understand your argument, but I just don't see it the same way. Currently, we do not test for flu, yet upwards of 50,000 people die of flu every year. So, why test for Covid-19? I think that hospitals and clinics will be a better source of such data, as they are now for flu. We just see this a bit differently, and that's fine.
Again, I am repeating myself... just to clarify...
In regard to PCR testing, it would be erroneous to suggest at the individual person level that any one decision is reasonable.
To more clearly understand the decision-making process... it is something more like if we put a policy in place for 50,0000,000 air passengers then we estimate at approximately +-15% that 5,0000 of individuals will die - or, alternatively we implement a different policy then the probability is that approximately 25,000 people will die.
Hasn’t conflating positive PCR tests with cases generated fertile soil for a false narrative to flourish?
Agreed. Thanks for your input. I find it helpful.
I'd love to make it but in case I don't or can't get a comment in, I've had Neil Young's "Old Man" going through my head a lot these past few days. "Old man, take a look in my eyes, I'm a lot like you...I need Joe Rogan's podcast to see me through..."
Anyway, these old hippies (Joni Mitchell included) were so on top of demanding rights and bucking the system it's hard to believe the irony of becoming the voice of the government/MSM is lost on them. Personally, i'm frantically checking myself for any developing psychological fissure that might cause me to become as unmoored from primary principals as they seemingly have.
Are we all destined to become the enemy we fought? I suppose an argument could be made that they see the inverse situation and maybe that's where we need to begin? But the thing I don't get is how you can listen to 10 minutes of JR and not go, "Oh, yeah, he's fine. Maybe not a genius, but clearly a decent person trying to do right." The only arguments I ever hear that have any basis in reality are, "he has a responsibility to do X because of his platform," which is difficult to see as anything other than policing.
Last thing I'll say about Neil Young is that he's been shaming people into compliance since the beginning as demonstrated in the song, "Southern Man." It's easy to listen to that song in the context of the 1960's and see what's right about it ("Rednecks" by Randy Newman is another example), but in the modern context it looks like punching down. Music is interesting in this regard because it's always intended for a listener, but these things don't hold up well when the listener changes. Maybe scolding isn't the best way to make timeless art.
Safer Enjeti connects these singers to hedge funds that own their music and have interlocking ties w Big Pharma.
It's called selling out. Most of our "heroes" (well, I really mean who we're fans of) end up selling out and disappointing us. Kneel Young is dead to me. I can't listen to his music the same way anymore.
Agreed, but the question that interests me (and I hope everyone) is how can I prevent it from happening to me. I don't want to 'sell out' or lose my principles, but maybe the deeper question is how well-defined and true those principles are in the first place. An argument could be made that Neil Young's (vis a vis all the hippies) were never that deep. I don't want to end up like that.
Principles matter. Not to all of course. People who value intelligence over wisdom will always value material over principle.
Agreed.
How does Neil Young pulling his music have anything to do with government coercion - or the "MSM"? It was his free choice, which, I'm assuming is something we all believe in. No one even mentioned this distinction in the conversation. There's a difference between top down pressure from the Dems, and individuals expressing their liberty...
He doesn’t own his music you ignorant dumbkopf. He had no control. The pharmacy connected billionaire s and hedge funds are manipulating him like an ass puppet.
Namecalling is really unnecessary. I get this topic means a lot to you (big fan of Neil Young, I take it?). It really appears as though the other players in music are trying to sink Spotify and using bogus arguments about misinformation (Biden himself is a serial offender) to drive business away from Spotify. This should be obvious to anyone willing to look past the noise.
Cool story. I never said he owned his music. Also nice language - it makes you seem very intelligent.
I was under the impression he didn't even own the music anymore. That this was more about money and less about his political decision. Still... he uses Rogan's platform and "misinformation" as his published reasoning. It aligns with the "top down pressure from the Dems"... how can you not see the connection?
Neil Young stated "you can't have Young and Rogan", so it was his decision. Just because his choice aligns with the mainstream liberal narrative, doesn't mean it's caused by it.
its funny how the same people who think that Rogan has no influence and is completely independent think that Neil is brainwashed and under corporate control, meanwhile Rogan has a 100 million dollar deal with a corporation, not to mention a snake oil supplement company
Neil Young is a shaman.
In his dreams..
Neil Young is a shame, man :-D
In the same vein as when Dennis Hopper started being a spokesperson for retirement fund Ameriprise. What's next for Neil Young, shaman for Depends (adult diapers)?
see lyrics for Helpless
Source?
No they were infected by hedge funds and billionaires closely tied to Big Pharma who bought (stole) their music and which are manipulating them like ghostly dock puppets … there but not there.
Source?
Lol, I won't wait up...
The White House and all the various Govt health agency spokespeople only need to look in the mirror to see why their credibility continues to nosedive … they want Spotify to shutdown “misinformation “ while LA DA Garcetti says “he doesn’t breathe when he takes his mask off” for a photo…. Did Bill Clinton text him that explanation? Do “they” not understand that this daily assault on our intelligence and their rules “we” must adhere to but not them only reinforces our skepticism that it’s their information that is bogus.
Newsom also said he only took his mask off for his photo with Magic Johnson. BUT, there are numerous photographs of Newsom without his mask on while at SoFi Stadium, where due to the current mandates for outdoor events with over 5000 people, masks are suppose to be worn at all times.
"I’m going to add a standard apology about the Apple-only aspect of these discussions for as long as that continues to be true - I really am sorry about this. "
You could always threaten to remove your content from the platform until they stop playing the corporate favoritism game 😄
Hey I'm a frustrated Android user too, but I think Matt should continue to do these Callins. They seem like a great way to connect with the community, and I look forward to the day when I can join in too.
Yeah, another frustrated Android user here. ARGH.
OK, I haven't looked into it, but it could be an Apple-only protocol thing. He could look at other platforms, if that's the case.
Thanks Matt , Miss you on UI. Just not the same.
I Love how Ole' Zuck blames Tick Tock for the drop in daily users costing him billions in theoretical wealth. In a simple anecdotal story I call my own , one user stopped using FB (5 years ago) for the very reasons you listed in your message here. I think the information crackdown is reaching critical mass and people are voting with their thumbs and spending their attention elsewhere thus costing FB billions in magical value. Also the metaverse is the ultimate in cringe and I think scares the hell out of regular people.
I am trying to train myself that if a random post FROM A STRANGER in particular makes me emotional, to put down the keypad.
Metaverse is totally interesting and not at all a new concept. Can be amazing, if not for the obvious corruption, manipulation, and mental slavery aspects.
Dr. Peter McCullough cited almost everything he said why does no one discuss that? Also, no one is talking about what’s happening in Israel! I’ve seen multiple news sources say this same thing! They have more cases in the month of January than in the entire year in 2021! https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674
Man, Matt....we all pay you money to keep searching for the truth...stop being lazy and get to RUMBLE....the very people you warn us about is AAPL.
Put our/your money where your mouth is
Matt doesn't want to ipset his left-leaning constituency. Still, I support Matt since he's had balanced takes in the past and deserves support. Maybe he'll be less concerned about how he's perceived after the culture war has stabilized :)
What has happened to Matt? All the generalities about 'woke', 'press freedom,' etc. have lost all meaning in the artificial constructs he now references. I was such a fan when he was nailing the banks and other big corps. But, now, finding 'cracks' and 'inconsistencies' or whatever in the "mainstream LIBERAL narrative"? Please....Matt...the country is going into the shitter and you are doing this nonsense?
What do you think the odds are that Matt has been the same this whole time, but now you don’t agree with him and so your biases are coloring your perception differently? What if you are the one who is wrong now and Matt is still right? Or what if your view of the world is correct, but you were both wrong before?
That's a good point, of course. Do you not think it never occurred to me that I could be wrong?? I am paralyzed by that issue. Come on....please. My point is that Matt - my man - used to zero in on banks, income distribution, class stratification, media bias, i.e. issues of consequence. NOW, however, as with his pal, Jimmy Dore, he wants to go into relatively trivial (in my opinion) issues such as the Joe Rogen/Neil Young/anti-Fauci/ nonsense. Please, please, please. And while they are at slapping themselves so hard on the back about how insightful and unbiased they are to actually criticize the "liberal media" as if, see everyone?....I'm not woke too! The fact that the Taibbi is even taking on this pseudo 'woke' issue, which is a relatively benign one in the scheme of things, is not only boring my tits off, but depressing. Please, Matt, take a look at the war machine, income distribution, climate change....for fuck's sake. Who cares whether Joe Rogan is right, wrong, 'woke', 'unwoke,' whatever about vaccinations.
The suppression of Joe Rogan is possibly an interesting issue, not because of its practical or ideological content, but because it is evidence of a breakdown of the ability of the ruling class to protect and compel their narratives and propaganda. That is, what the people getting after Rogan are responding to, which must be their own weakness (or they would not be concerned). This might be a thread worth pursuing. It's like "follow the money" only in this case it's "follow the power."
YES, OF COURSE. But you are all missing the point. There is not a substantive issue about Joe Rogan. BOTH the "conservative" and "liberal" (if you prefer any of those classifications) are irrelevant. They are only semantics that serve....and here it comes....to stall and deflect while the real issues of social and societal changes can really and truly change. While all of you are dicking around about Neil, Joe, anti-vaxxers, Anthony Fauci, etc. etc. , the rich are getting richer and the fucking Republicans are screwing everyone. In short, the MSM and the Republicans are probably all laughing their way to the bank while Matt Taibbi and, apparently, all of you are fixated on "woke." Follow the money, folks. As big an asshole that Trump and his Republican whores are (and will always be), they are making hay (as they say in the Midwest) while we dumbass "liberals" are writing about 'woke." Believe me, to the eternal regrets of us and our children, we and Matt have been taken to the cleaners by the "conservatives" and the "Republicans" (the distinction being totally meaningless, by the way). In short, forget about Joe Rogan; he is an unsuspecting idiot being used by the ruling class for THEIR purposes. The content (if one can EVER subscribe "content" to Joe Rogan) is a side show.
Well, it's interesting. We have people who call themselves 'liberals' trying to gin up a war with Russia -- although I guess I have to concede that liberals have certainly supplied their share of warmongers in past epochs -- and professing affection for the secret police, and now here we have them trying to suppress speech on the grounds that it is contrary to authority. I think that's a significant evolution. I think it's worth discussing.
You're exactly right, in my view. This woke BS, and the culture war generally are explicitly a distraction to get the working class to fight with each other as opposed to realizing who the real enemy is.
Is there a chance you are underestimating the significance of a coordinated effort to control the narrative? How easy it is to dismiss people as “far right” conspiracy theorist? It’s like a magic spell, and it gets push so relentlessly and with such practice that it’s pretty terrifying. Look at how easy it is to get one guy to show up at some corner of a protest with a nazi flag and watch how every media story has the same narrative and the same single image.
Jesus.....of course I am not underestimating controlling the narrative. My single point has nothing to do with 'conspiracy' or 'far right' or whatever...or even 'far left.' So, yeah, a single asshole waving a flag on the corner can say pretty much anything....and get MEDIA attention. That has NOTHING to do with anything, however, other than how corrupt our own media has become to even allow you to say something so depressing. Forget all this, get the babies and young kids some good education and hope that our generation dies off as fast as possible before it is too late, which it probably already is. Why is everyone so fixated on Joe Rogan?....he is a nobody ALREADY and will be even less so as things descend into the shitter....precisely what the 'ruling class' wants. This is not that difficult, folks. Matt Taibbi was on this years ago...but now look what has happened. He has gone to the other side. Keep talking about "woke" and "Joe FUCKING Rogan".....that is what the ruling class hopes we do, anyway. Right?....Matt?
What percentage of the population do you believe thinks the main stream media is propaganda? Like if you were to graph it over time would it look exponential? The Joe Rogan stuff is a red pill experience mill. It exposes the media to the people who are not as far down the rabbit hole as you are. Also Joe Rogan gets clicks bro.😂
Did I use the word 'propaganda?' No. 'Propaganda' assumes the editors, writers, broadcasters, etc. etc. or whoever you define are some monolithic block. You also use words like 'rabbit hole', 'red pill', etc. as if everyone watches some dumbass trendy Hollywood 'movie' has coalesced around some "significant' meaning. Use words, not manufactured Hollywood-manufactured phrases, "bro." Yeah, Joe Rogan gets clicks...but so does everyone else in the universe with a computer. Whatever are you talking about???? And, I am reasonably sure I am not your 'bro.'
Precisely. It’s a long journey of false equivalencies from income inequality, Goldman Sachs, unfair outcomes for the impoverished to over-wokeness.
Matt is a great writer who can and does make all of his subjects worth discussing, but this constant takedown of the left for comparatively trivial baloney is disheartening. I occasionally enjoy Joe Rogan as a conversationalist but don’t take him seriously as an intellect, and I don’t care about any conversation he has whether it’s with reasonable, well informed people or nutbags. I don’t care if he AGREES with nutbags. He’s a voice on a podcast. I also don’t care if either Red or Blue want to take him down-at $100 million and 11 million listeners, he’s fair game.
Possibly liberals who have given up their professed affection for free expression aren't really liberals any more.
How is this responsive to my comment?
I guess I jumped over several steps. I think what set me off may have been "constant takedown of the Left". Taibbi's recent targets have been liberals, progressives, Democrats, whom I don't regard as the Left, but some use that language. Liberals etc. are supposed to have _some_ leftish qualities, like believing in freedom of expression. If they have abandoned this position (which is what calling for Rogan to be deplatformed amounts to) it might be significant to those who have not abandoned it. Since a fairly fundamental principle of the current social order is in question, it seems might be in the bag along with income and wealth difference.
I am so happy I am not alone in feeling this way. I appreciate a "reporter" who is an equal opportunity critic, but lately many in the alt middle seem to be focusing soley on the liberal agenda as if that POV makes them honest or more relevant.
Taibbi is reporting on the most obvious idiocy happening in real time. You prefer he focuses on something like fracking right now while the country is turning into China by way of mass censorship?
Controlling the narrative through any and all means necessary ....was always part of the plan as discussed during the coronavirus pandemic exercises held in October of 2019- https://beyondspin.wordpress.com/2022/01/27/pandemic-exercises/
Please make reference to a specific time zone when you announce an event or presentation. Not all of us live on the east coast!
Have you tried those darn world clock apps?
The problem is that it isn't clear that Matt means Eastern time. You have to have a starting point in order to back calculate your time...
Matt -- I love you as only an ex-newsman can, but for the love of Strunk & White could you please hyphenate Call-In? :+)
Agreed, but since it’s not a proper noun, no caps.
Agreed, but it was in a headline, with initial cap style.
Agreed, but in that case, only “Call” would get initial capped. “In” wouldn’t be initial capped, as it would follow the hyphen, and is a preposition, besides.
Ah, did not realize that. I guess that makes it a proper noun and I need to rescind my comment.
Matt, I just listened to your comments on the Callin about what is/isn't "misinformation" on Joe Rogan's show. Did you actually listen to the Robert Malone interview? If so, you might have heard him assert that the pandemic was literally pre-planned for profit and control. You might have also heard Joe rephrase that assertion as sort of a fake question, intended to amplify the statement, not to challenge it. This is Alex Jones territory and it crosses a line. I'm not calling for censorship, but come on, to ignore this (and it's by no means an isolated example) you're just avoiding a difficult issue.
For the record, it was McCullough not Malone who said to Rogan that the pandemic was pre-planned and coordinated. Those two interviews -- and throw in the Weinstein's for good measure -- are of a piece and run together in my head.
I really for the life of me don't understand why Rogan is the hill they want to die on for free speech, ignoring that the people that don't like him are also exercising the same free speech. None of this involves the government and therefore free speech doctrine doesn't even apply in the first place.
You make it sound as if Taibbi and Greenwald focus on Rogan to the exclusion of all other concerns around free speech issues. And if you were right that this "is the hill they want to die on" it would be perplexing. The current controversy around Rogan might not be so concerning if not understood from the broader context in which we are seeing a level of censoriousness that the Christian right of the 90's, "Satanic panic" etc pales in comparison to. The coordinated effort that resulted in the Parlor app being shutdown by Amazon, the branding of those who question the official narrative around Covid as "conspiracy theorists" and nutjobs, Democrats demanding more censorship from 'Big Tech' etc,. In my lifetime I have never witnessed such a concerted effort to silence opposing views. Considering everything above, and that none of it should be new to any reader of Greenwald and Taibbi, I can't help but suspect that the bafflement you and others are expressing is disingenuous. Or maybe "for the life of you" you are just too dense to comprehend what is plain for the rest to see.
its not a free speech issue, these are citizens that want to cancel Rogan, not the government. Their voice is as valid as anyone elses and spotify can do what they want. Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech.
Indeed.
The constitution is a legal doctrine, and doesn't protect you from vague calls by Jen Psaki for platforms to regulate their content. The constitution is only as good as the court and state that enforce it, you seem to have it confused with a sort of philosophical doctrine.
"Until they are sanctioned by the government without breaking the law this has zero to do with free speech."
Being concerned about a censorious trend in the culture need not have anything to do with the First Amendment. Some of us are interested in living in a society where open and lively debate is encouraged because we understand that a functioning collective intelligence necessitates a free flow of ideas. I wonder are all of your values informed by the dictates of the state and what it does or doesn't allow? When you contemplate whether not to do something is this a simple matter of checking the law books?
That said there actually are potential civil liberties implications, considering that state officials Jen Psaki, and the Surgeon General have waded into all of this Rogan mania and have been calling on Spotify to take actions against misinformation etc,.
There was a precedent setting Supreme Court case in the 1960s regarding a bookstore in Rhode Island which ruled that informal notices produced by a state commission which warned that certain publications were in violation of obscenity laws amounted to CENSORSHIP. The commission did NOT forcibly remove products all they did was leave written notice from the commission and the court ruled that the state had violated the plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
Thank you. Wondering if these are actually soft trolls.
The "What's the big deal? You're over reacting and I am the shining example of sober thinking" troll.
The thing about "crossing the line" of acceptable dialogue about topics such as the origins of this virus is that the line is being drawn by what you think is or isn't feasible. We mostly don't know the answer to the question. Branding a claim as Alex Jones territory is the sort of ad-hominem typically used to distract from the issues being discussed.
I get the impression people forget that episodes of JRE are conversations and can't be equated with MSM products that are specifically designed to disseminate curated information. JRE episodes are nothing like what Alex Jones puts out because when Alex turns the camera on there is a script that has been put together to communicate a specific message. There is no script on JRE, Joe has no plan for how a show will go, and what ensues is very often dialectic.
"There are three great truths; your truth, my truth and the truth." - Proverb... The fact we're no longer free to discuss any version of it, means we'll end up an ill-informed populace, if we aren't already!?
Facts that seem to be missing from discussions by Matt, Rogan, etc:
1. Over 690,000 COVID-19 US hospitalizations could have been prevented by vaccination between June to November 2021 (84% of hospitalizations were unvaxxed)
2. The cost of this to US healthcare system: $38 Billion
3. Other costs: Exhausted doctors and nurses, fewer beds for people with other medical emergencies
So when Rogan pushes an anti-vax agenda with his 11 Million followers, and people don't get vaxxed as a result, there are actual, real costs to society. Who should be responsible for paying those costs? I'm not suggesting Rogan should pay everything, but he does have some responsibility, doesn't he? The same day he posted his video about Neil Young, he tweeted a bogus Ivermectin "study" and when people pointed it out, he deleted the tweet, but not before almost 100K followers liked it. Did Rogan issue a correction? -- I haven't seen it. Is this responsible use of his platform with 11M followers? Do no journalistic standards apply to him?
The "missing" facts to which you've referred are the mainstream consensus. That information is not only easily accessible but inescapable, unless you live in a cave. Has anyone shown any evidence that people are choosing to forego vaccination because of anything Joe Rogan says? Can you point specifically to what proves Rogan "pushes an anti-vax agenda"? Shall we make a comprehensive list of all the inconsistent claims (and admitted outright lies) made by MSM, CDC, WHO, NIH in the past 2 years? Can we estimate those costs? People flock to the likes of Rogan for good reason. They know they've been repeatedly deceived by their institutions for decades. People (11M of them at least) would rather listen to authentic conversations, however flawed, being conducted by those they deem to be of good faith than be intentionally manipulated and misinformed by cold-blooded robots whose agendas and allegiances are so obviously compromised.
Guess what you knee-jerkers, I don't want Rogan to be censored. Hey, just like Joe Rogan, I'm "just asking questions and trying to have a conversation." The difference is, I don't have 11M followers (though I know you guys love me). It doesn't matter what Rogan claims to be (comedian, bro, whatever), what matters is the message impact and real costs to society. Tucker (mainstream media) claims to be an "entertainer" -- do you think his program has no impact on peoples' decisions about vax and politics? -- and he only has 2M regular viewers. Isn't it reasonable to conclude Rogan's impact is greater? Yet he's not willing to admit his 11M follower platform has any such impact on creating doubt about vaccinations. The pushback on Rogan has gotten him to agree to: 1) agree to disclaimers on his covid related shows, 2) to have more balance of pro-vax guests, 3) to follow anti-vax guests more quickly with pro vax guests. So all this so-called "censorship" that you guys and Matt keep whining about actually isn't censorship, but rather feedback which has had a positive effect on Rogan's actions. But tell me again why this makes me an "authoritarian" compared to you.
Not a knee jerker here,
Have heard the WH lately? Did you hear Jen Psaki's response to Spotify and JR? I found it chilling. We know where this goes.
If you want to make the argument above effectively I think you have to show that there are a significant number of people who would have gotten vaccinated but didn't because Rogan dissuaded them.
People are more nuanced than you give them credit for. The wife and Ii are fully vaxxed and happy about it but we listen to (and follow) Joe Rogan. I don't think he is anti-vaxx but even if he was, people cherry pick what they want listen to. Just because you like someone or something you don't have to accept it all, box and dice. There could be a hundred reasons for hitting that "like" button and, unless, you ask everyone why it means very little. We have to stop dropping people into ideological groups and assume that they are going to act one way here because they supported something else there. It's good for arguments on forums, but real life is a lot more complex and messy.
He doesn't "push" anything. He invites guests. Asks them questions. They respond. That's it. Show a clip where he tells the public to not get vaccinated? Oh right, you can't because he didn't.
Right, Joe Rogan doesn't have any opinions whatsoever -- not a single agenda. Come on, you know this isn't true. We all have agendas. You're pushing yours right now and I'm pushing mine. It's fine for you and me to be blind to our agendas because we don't have any following, but if we did, and people started making decisions based on what we presented, I suggest it would be important for us to become more aware of our agenda and how it might be having negative impacts. This is what is happening to Rogan. He's not getting censored, he's getting disagreement from some (more) equally powerful media figures (e.g., Neil Young) and this had given Rogan pause. To his credit, he's making changes. You see, I'm not being "devolved" -- I'm just encouraging a feedback system in media for people like Rogan.
Look, your point of view is fair. yes. but look around is the vaccine really doing that much to change things? Your still in a mask, still distancing, still working from home and it is exactly the same and makes little difference for people under 70 who aren't co-morbid. The infection fatality rate is is less than 1% and Israel has four shots and two boosters and had the most cases in January 2022 than ALL OF 2021. This fear around people making their own choices for themselves is getting ridiculous. We need to stop creating this polarizing language, everyone is different everyone's body is different and many people have already been infected and have immunity. Pharma has the most lobbying groups of anyone out there and look at how much they have gained? Where exactly do you think the term anti-vax came from and why are we using this to polarize people. By the way not attacking you just asking questions from another angle and my own opinion which I could be wrong about as well but this is how I see it.
The way you use the term agenda here would fail to capture the sort of intent seen when say CNN pursues one. When they push an agenda it is not quite like the "agenda" someone has in normal conversation. The Iraq war agenda for example was a concerted effort on the part of network news channels to manufacture the consent of a nation by any means necessary, which did not exclude outright deception. You can say that when Joe puffing a joint musing on a subject that he is opinionated about is "pushing an agenda", but anyone who listens to the show regularly knows that his attitude about his agenda is quite different than CNNs. It's clear to any regular listener what Dee means in the OP when saying "He doesn't 'push' anything", regardless of how deaf you seemingly feign to be.
You forgot to show that clip of Rogan telling people to not get vaccinated. Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away.
Why do I have to do the work for you? Shows how little research you do. He's made several direct comments, including that you only need the vaccination if you are old or fat / "if you're young and healthy and eat well, you don't need it" he said, then when he got lots of pushback, he said, "I'm a moron. I don't know what I'm talking about." Yet he has Malone on and let's him say, "the COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and ineffective; “natural immunity is superior to the vaccine induced immunity”; vaccine-induced spike protein is dangerous, causes serious side effects; “Omicron is a mild variant. It is absolutely able to escape prior vaccination” and Rogan doesn't push back or correct these false and misleading statements. Further, just because someone doesn't continually say the words, "vaccination bad" doesn't mean they're not still creating that message. Tucker Carlson never says blatantly racist things, but the white supremacist love him because he dog whistles and implies things that they fully agree with. Come on, why do I have to explain this to you? Do some of your own homework.
You seem fearful that the less enlightened will not exercise your carefully discernment of ‘facts’ in this infotainment world. Please know, you cannot ‘save’ them nor can any other content arbiter - governments or media. Accepting this will bring you peace…
You've got it backward. You're expecting people to go on faith that what you say is true. I have no obligation to lookup the garbage you say is true. You haven't proven it, therefore, it's dubious. -- Seriously, a researcher, for example, or an economist, or even Fauci must show the data. You are not showing proof that a pink elephant exists, so no one is going to believe you. Show the pink elephant or GTFOOH.
"GTFOOH" Hahaha -- the "free speech lover" Dee finally reveals his/her (?) true colors (agenda): "Waah, you make me uncomfortable and you haven't met my standards of Truth, so get out of here!" Yeah, just what I thought: If you had the power, you'd cancel me. Look at your sweeping comments in this thread: "This society is full of idiots" "it has devolved", "the left is more dangerous than the right" etc, etc. I'm sure if you had the power, you'd be cancelling millions of people. Thank god you don't. I provided you with direct quotes from Joe and Malone (doing a quick search you could easily do you self, but can't be bothered), and you call it "garbage." Man, you are just raw projection -- everything you accuse other people of doing, you do in spades yourself. You meet the very definitions of troll and wanna-be authoritarian. But I ain't gonna tell you to stop your trolling ways because... I actually believe in free speech.
Feedback system in media? It's called viewership. (That's how capitalist media works.) You're pushing censorship, plain and simple.
It seems clear he makes no claim of being a journalist. He's basically a guy who invites guests to speak on a wide variety of topics. It goes without saying that there are always scientific experts who raise objections to prevailing dogma. Sometimes they are utterly wrong as in Peter Duesberg. Other times they later collect a Nobel Prize, see Barbara McClintock.
Don't bother replying to obvious "head in sand" authoritarian sympathizers (or straight authoritarians). BB misses the point entirely.
IMHO, people who cant stand an "everyman" like Rogan having a $100M successful talk show are jealous. It's a goddamn talk show, just like The View where tons of idiotic shit is spewed each episode by entitled pan-ethnicity Karens. Attacks on Rogan are covert jealousy because he's ripped and rich and BB (and those like him) are not.
Ah, so now Dee can see inside my mind -- what a super power! Despite what all you haters here say about me, I actually like a lot of Rogan's shows and I have no jealousy of his success (I'm doing fine financially, thank you very much). I like that he had Bernie Sanders on and mentioned that he was probably going to vote for him. Cool! -- that's an agenda I can support. Pushing anti-vax stuff, not so much.
You are an entry level gaslighter. You're the hater. Trying to turn the tables, ineptly, is still gaslighting. 1) He has not told anyone not to get vaxxed, despite your claims he has; 2) You can't prove it; 3) You deflect like crazy because you can't.
Great counterpoint and timely. The View is showing people how silly they really are.
Thank you. Just sick of how our country has devolved.
Well said; right on. It doesn't get more depressing than where we are right now. To put it gracefully....who gives a fuck what a wrestling huckster says about....well....anything? Does $100 million mean he knows what he is talking about. Would someone please explain to me how a huckster like that who knows well, not much, can make that much money while hard-working teachers and professors and scientists make 50K or 70K or whatever. Until that obscenity can be accounted for - and rationalized - nothing else makes any sense....including this rag and the "former" Matt who has clearly gone to the other side.
We are a country full of idiots who can't ask themselves a simple question: why is he so popular? Media professionals study this kind of stuff. He spun straw into gold and if every Hollywood agent/producer could, they'd copy what he's doing to make their own $100M. The fact that Rogan is so appealing is what's bothering everyone, not what he's (not) saying (and his guests are).
If our government were smart, they'd figure out why he's so popular and then try to provide that very thing his listeners want. Rogan filled a huge void and people flock there. Because he did this in his own spare bedroom without a producer and without a stable of helpers or a media conglomerate behind him it's just killing people. If anyone "takes him down" there'll be another march on Washington and a massive $100M lawsuit for lost income.
Would Neil Young like to stop human gossiping? Would Joni Mitchell ban the telephone game? Both are sources of dangerous misinformation. Most human communication, by far, is imperfect. It includes bits of wrong information scattered amongst some bits of partially true information most of the time. The idea of censoring podcasts makes about as much sense as censoring lyrics.
The institutional and cultural forces that lead to the execution of Socrates for challenging their narratives and corrupting the youth remain in play.
There's better reasons for ditching FB, Spotify, and all the rest than just this stuff. This stuff is symptomatic; it's not the disease.
EST, CST, or PST?
EST
Folks it’s always the time zone of the person posting,texting etc. Come join the 2020’s.
and for those who do not know where the poster is based?
LMGTFY
I've been reading a lot about States having to call in the National Guard to help out at hospitals because they are seeing a huge spike in the "unvaccinated" becoming ill and they are short-staffed. What I would really like to hear is how many staff were fired at these hospitals because they refused the vaccine. And how many refused the vaccine because they already had natural immunity. The silence is deafening.
What silence? it's less than 1%
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/how-many-employees-have-hospitals-lost-to-vaccine-mandates-numbers-so-far
When Greenwald and Taibi say that they have become more pessimistic in the last 5 years is because they are looking at a few trees, with their own inherent bias, and not the whole forest. The fact that masses of people in the US rebelled against T-RUMP and his racism and bigotry, and went out to vote Don the CON out of office is a reason to be OPTIMISTIC! What this shows is their lack of sensitivity to the needs of millions of voters of color who see the danger of right-wing bigotry and neo-fascism to their interests.
Your comment is really humorous. It seems you're the one out of touch. The left has inexplicably become the party that's endangering our democracy, demanding payments for staying at home and doing nothing and for complete censorship of anyone who disagrees with them. Lifetime lefty here who has left their own party because of this. We must let the Nazis march in Skokie if we want to preserve our democracy. The geriatrics like Neil Young and Sharon Stone are so arch-conservative now it's laughable.
Sorry, you're repeating right wing talking points and contradicting yourself. The "Left" endangering our democracy? By fighting voter suppression? Complete censorship? Sorry! A private business can tell you that there are certain limits to speech in their institution or platform. No freedom or right is absolute! Your should have learned that in middle school Civics class. I guess I was expecting more of those who follow Taibi and Greenwald.
As per usual, in order to fully understand the past, whether it be the "pandemic" or any other pointvin human history, you need only do one thing; follow the money.
Including the billion dollar anti-vax industry.
You might be confusing people distrusting the current Covid narrative and the resulting coercion through mandates as an industry. Maybe. Perhaps I am not so familiar with this industry as you are. Why are you so pro-vaxx and Covid/mRNA vaccines in particular?
Had to add that according to vaccination numbers, there are more vaxxed than not. If you are confident about the vaxx efficacy and your own health having been vaxxed, then why do you care about the holdouts? Why shame, ostracize, and cancel them? Who's the Nazi here?
It's true that I'm pro-vaxx -- I think the data support that position. But I'm against mandates; people can make up their own minds about whether or not to be vaccinated and shouldn't be restricted in work or travel if they choose not to be. I have a bigger problem with claims that the pandemic was a pre-planned conspiracy designed to get everyone vaccinated for profit and control. This is Malone's position -- somewhat subtly amplified by Rogan -- and in my opinion it strays into Alex Jones territory. I'm NOT calling for censorship. However, I'd like to see Rogan make good on his Insta-promise to follow those discussions with knowledgable guests who can counter those ideas.
I appreciate the lack of animosity in your response.
I've heard Malone speak on many online platforms and have never heard him say that the pandemic was a pre-planned conspiracy. Would you mind providing a link?
Actually it was McCullough, not Malone (I just checked). To me Rogan’s McCullough and Malone interviews were of a piece, and the two run together in my head. If Malone is more authoritative to you than McCullough, sorry about that.
Oh, one thing I'll say about Alex Jones is that I am a fan. Not because I believe everything he says or am lockstep with his position. I'm a fan because he has the guts and energy to take these positions at all. I also find him quite humorous. He's the counterpoint to the authoritarian types on the left.
The left irritate me far more because they are pushing policies and positions that directly hurt society as a whole. The projection and hypocrisy sickens me. Lockdowns? The left wanted that. The Right did too, but the far right more than the moderates. The extremes are a real problem for the human race. I'm going to stay in the middle and try to help keep the balance.
Alex Jones is a con artist who uses conspiracy theories as his business model. Some of those theories are very harmful, Newtown being an obvious example. If you enjoy his humor, fine, but it has nothing to do with being in the middle or balance.
I suppose it can be harmful if you take it seriously. However, he's been proven more right than wrong over time. Human-animal chimeric research is real, for instance. Is it ethical? Don't bother asking the transhumanists that question. You be the judge. There are other examples, but I'm not going to bother mentioning them since you've clearly made up your mind about him.
Being in the middle also means not freaking out over everything you see and hear. It means being critical and not swallowing propaganda from the right and left. That's my idea of being in the middle anyway.
Could you elaborate on the huge "thousand-dollar-an-hour lawyers on speed dial" lawsuit risks Thacker faced as a congressional report writer?
Gosh, that would really shape your ability to "land these". The most notable such lawsuit against a committee staffer, glittering like the sword of Damocles over his head was...which case?
If you are referring to Lyndon Johnson, among others...agree....but that does not mean ALL liberals or even a small minority are "warmongers." As to expressing affection for the secret police, I have no idea whom or what you are talking about. And outside of this entire 'woke' bullshit (as in 'false' or meaningless narrative), liberals have never, had big numbers for suppressing free speech. You are throwing around a lot of clichés here. To repeat, these are minor issues so why is Taibbi screwing around with them at all as Wall Street marches us into fiefdoms and the entire Republican Party is marching us into fascism. 'Woke'? 'Non-Woke" Who cares?
WOW!! Until now I never realize how the conspiracist no-nothing bullshit has reached such heights of blubbery nonsense. 'Neo-liberalism,' 'Globalism', 'secret police', 'war mongering,' 'race-grifting', 'cultural marxists'!!!!, 'cancel culture,' 'domestic terrorists,' ETC. ETC. ETC. have no meaning whatsoever other than what other 'conspiracists' think they know what they are talking about.
In short, bub, shut down your Facebook bookmarks, Reddit streams, Fox, Republican National propaganda, Federalist Society, etc. and other streams of bull-SHEIT. Go to the library, pick up some history books and R-E-A-D. I hope you understand that all this bullshit about the 'National Security Apparatus' is a fiction posted by your wealthy corporatists of the right wing that exists ONLY to make themselves even richer on the ignorance of posts such as yours. As they say in Sweden, bub, the yoke is on YOU. Or, better yet, go to the brilliance of the Republican Party's Agenda from this year....oh, excuse me, there isn't any....they decided NOT to do one this year. Ha, ha, ha. Those vacuous asshole have NO proposals or thoughts about making things better for working people. All they want to do is make fun of 'Biden' - just like you have done - because they have NOTHING - as in ZERO. Bub, be careful....they are going to drag you down too.
As the know-nothing right wing ALWAYS does......throw out name of George Soros because they don't know what else to say. Its called 'mutual masturbation,' i.e. if you don't know anything just say 'George Soros' and then you are in the good graces of the right wing, regardless if there is any substance what is being said.
OMG....you are so wrapped up in your million dollar words, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Let's be very clear here: the word/phrase "illiberalism" upon which you seem to think there is some meaning has, well, NO meaning. It is a propagandist phrase used by the wealthy to keep us from asking questions. Do me a favor,...follow the money: have working peoples' lives improved before Biden, has phony stock market wealth declined by your heroes?, has the military-industrial machine stopped; has the Republican Party have ANY policy that in some ways benefit working people? Well?, Well? Well, uh... NO. Stop with your propaganda. Grow up.
I am done responding. I had no idea of the corruption and effectiveness of the right wing media. No wonder those asshole can do nothing but bitch about Biden and wait for the dumbest and most amoral person in the world - Donald Trump - to take over and lead us down the abyss. You have been suckered, fellow. Expand your reading lists and your consciousness before it is too late.
Matt - Do you know Matt Lee with the AP? This dude seems to be one of the only real journalists out there, and seems to have been doing a great job calling out the state department for years - including Jenn Psaki on her misinformation. You should talk to him.
Three Card Monte. In the 1870s and 1880s my greatgrandfather dealt tables at Kansas and Nebraska Railhead towns to releive the cowboys of their pay. He kept a journal. Great stories.
Fly Speck Billie, he got shot. Not that different than today. Same game.
Joe Rogan has 11M followers and he is a $100M paid employee of a $30B company. In short, he is a media super-power. And pretending otherwise, as Matt and Glenn and most of the folks on this thread do, is simply disingenuous. Does that mean he should be censored (assuming he could be -- if Spotify kicked him off, it would likely grow his following)? No. But stop pretending he's just a "comedy bro" having "agenda free" conversations with people. He has a powerful ability to shape narratives in this country with his selection of guests (his sole discretion) and what he does and does not challenge in his guests' comments (note the huge media bump guests get when they are allowed on the show). Am I saying that individuals have no choice in their decisions about getting vaxxed and are simply manipulated by Rogan? Of course not. But we humans make our meaning socially and dominant narratives have important influence. When millions of people choose not to get vaxxed and end up in the hospital (delta surge hospitalizations were 84% unvaxxed), billions of dollars in costs are incurred on society, and many people die. And so, sure, question CNN and MSNBC's roles in shaping covid narratives, but also question Joe Rogan's role and stop acting like he's some sort of underdog.
I love how Taibbi fans, who are supposed to be lovers of free speech and against cancel culture, seem so ready to cancel anyone who has a different opinion. I bet you'd cancel me if you could -- because you haven't engaged in any of my arguments. Instead, you've just called them "stupid" and me a "troll" -- sorry, "TROLL." If you search my other comments on this thread, you'll see that I'm a fan of Rogan -- and I'm even more so after his statements following Young's protest. Rogan didn't dismiss Young as a "TROLL" -- he said he was a fan and appreciated him. And Rogan has changed his behavior in response to Young's protest, which means it worked. Cool. You see, Rogan walks his talk when it comes to free speech, and being responsible for what you say. Maybe you should learn something from him. Now, if you care to engage in actual discussion, do you deny that Rogan is paid $100M by a $30B corporation? Do you deny he has 11M followers? How would you classify someone who has the most popular and influential podcast / youtube channel in the world? Whaddya got besides insults, you free-speech lover?
Jesus, man. Did you read what YOU just wrote. Joe Rogan is, well, Joe Rogan - a former TV host of a show of people eating insects and THEN a "professional wrestling announcer" who now has a podcast and makes $100 million a year???? I like Joe Rogan OK, but the point is that he is at best a modest person of marginal intellect who is WAAAAAY over-valued for his "opinions". And, to be clear, it is not that he is either "right" or "wrong", but that he is, basically (despite the obscene salary) a, shall-we-say modest intellect that is certainly no more insightful (and probably less) than any of us. If he were in a deli in New York or a filling station in Indianapolis, you wouldn't walk 10' to listen to what he is saying. You have taken the red pill, many. Disregard all this 1st Amendment, Spotify, Matt Taibbi bullshit. In the long terms it will be irrelevant. Period.
Hahaha, yup, you'd cancel me if you had the power. Thankfully you don't. Peace out free speech lover.
Here is Young's statement: “I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information.” Sure, I'd prefer that Young engage with Rogan, but Young has chosen a boycott -- i.e. withholding financial support from a company. Are you going to tell Young, a private citizen, and other people that they can't engage in boycotts? -- are you going to dictate how they protest? What's the result so far: Rogan is still platformed (Young is not) and in reaction to Young's protest, Rogan has agreed to be more responsible with his Covid content. It's almost like boycotts work. Now, if the gov moves to materially pressure Spotify to censor / deplatform Rogan, I'll agree that's wrong and I would bet we'd have a Supreme Court case in the making, which Rogan/Spotify would likely easily win.
Related to fact-checking and context: https://societylibrary.medium.com/improving-fact-checking-by-improving-context-checking-93af262baac1
Can't wait for this one!
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/
N.Hill wrote long ago; thought is the master of all other forms of energy, because it is a form of energy which is mixed with intelligence. Thought holds the solution to every human problem. It is the master of poverty and misery and worry and fear. Anything which exists as FACT is capable of proof. State is a place. Protect your house and remember WWG1WGA.👍✌🇺🇸
No need to apologize for the platform problem. Sign of the times and goes without saying why reputable sources of info are forced to live on 'fringe' platforms.
Apps are hard. Can't develop for every platform at once. If business is good, they'll develop for others. For users, it's good to be multilingual. Those of us who don't speak Portuguese are fortunate Glenn is speaking English.
Not that Apple is 'fringe,' but it is for call-ins.
The Rickjust now
I'm hoping to call in today. Not sure this crowd (i.e. commenters on Matt's Substack) will appreciate this reference/link, but I've been getting a lot out the "Decoding the Gurus" podcast. Aside from the usual IDW suspects they cover, they've done very good episodes on Rogan (pre-Malone/McCullough) as well as the Malone/McCullough episodes specifically. They also just put out a short(er) one on Rogan's Insta "apology," but I believe it's only available for Patreon supporters. For my money, this pair of podcasters (Chris, an Irish anthropologist who lives in Japan and Matt, an Australian pysch professor) not only do a very good job "decoding" the rhetoric of their subjects, but Chris is pretty damn funny.
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm
I clicked over to this outfit a few weeks ago and had zero interest in checking it out. IMHO, they are pretentious and unimportant academics trying to be relevant. I don't have 3 hours of my life to sit around listening to snarky, self-congratulating armchair pundits who think they're above-it-all. And pay for it? I'd rather subscribe to HBO where I'll be better entertained.
The fact that it takes them 3 hours to say something points toward their self-aggrandizing outlook. Expecting anyone to sit that long and listen to their self-congratulatory chatter shows how naive they are.
I get that. My suggestion was meant for those who have no issue listening to 3 hours of Rogan at a stretch. (As I have done on a number of occasions.)
It's how one spends those 3 hours. Rogan is the opposite of these self-important clowns, that's the difference. They posture about how much better they are than others, while he does the exact opposite. He brings people on and lets them speak. There's such a massive difference in what they do it doesn't even dignify a comparison. The only thing there is in common is the length of the shows. Rogan makes good use of his time whereas I can't stomach the idea of spending even 2 minutes listening to these wanna be's who seem hell bent on "debunking" everyone they point their lens at.
To each his own. I listen to both when I have the time. The Decoding guys are analytical and to me, generally on target, though they miss sometimes.
As for “debunking everyone,” isn’t that what pretty much all public commentary is now?
If your idea that "all public commentary" is that it's *all* focused on "debunking everyone," you do need some professional help.
You had to get personal. This is why I don’t do twitter and shouldn’t hang out here. If you don’t see everyone trying to expose the falseness of everyone else in podcasts, substacks, and comment sections, then lucky you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/more-covid-cases-confirmed-in-israel-in-january-than-all-of-2021-data-shows/amp/
Please elaborate on the injunction risk that caused BMJ to decide it did not need to contact or get comment from those it accused of mis-, mal- and non-feasance.
Recent injunctions in the UK have been filed to protect privacy and national security.
Does your narrative articulate a new threat of prior restraint?
Based on what case of prior restraint, exactly?