The Campaign To Force Joe Rogan Off Spotify Is Already Backfiring

You're talking about him, aren't you?


Democratic politicians, the mainstream media, and progressive members of the Hollywood elite—in short, Team Blue—have designated Joe Rogan as public enemy number one.

Rogan is the reigning king of podcasting: Episodes of his show, which typically last for three hours, are downloaded millions of times. His audience dwarfs everybody else in the commentary business, right, center, or left.

And they hate him for it—in part because they don't understand him. He doesn't hew closely to a specific political tradition or interest group. He's a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), but also he thinks the left has gone crazy on transgender issues. He called former President Donald Trump dangerous and many of the former president's supporters "f-ing stupid," but he has also repeatedly challenged the Democratic Party's approach to COVID-19.

This, more than anything else, has made him a target of Team Blue: He is skeptical of covid mandates and has featured guests on his show—Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Alex Berenson, and others—who have questioned the efficacy of the vaccines. I don't agree with what many of these guests have had had to say, but Rogan evidently believes his audience can benefit from hearing different, clashing points of view. Listeners have the agency to accept or reject what they hear.

Team Blue apparently can't stand this. But they have little power over Rogan. They can't get him thrown off TV or ejected from Facebook, or Twitter, or YouTube. Rogan has a deal with Spotify, and so far Spotify has stood by Rogan—even as liberal music artists have started withdrawing from the platform in protest. Neil Young kicked this off last week, telling Spotify that he would not share the platform with someone who spouted medical misinformation.

There's an irony here, in that Neil Young has a history of spreading bad scientific information. In 2015, he released an entire album, The Monsanto Years, spreading unfounded theories about GMOs.

People should feel free to enjoy Young's music without co-signing every statement he's ever made. Separating the art and artist is a wonderful thing. Except in cases of overwhelming and obvious moral depravity, we can and should generally accept that all people are flawed: We have good qualities and bad qualities, and we can appreciate the good while rejecting the bad.

Various parts of Team Blue, though, are trying to pressure Spotify to rid itself of Rogan. Singer Joni Mitchell announced she is leaving the platform as well. (A rumor that Barry Manilow was quitting Spotify over Rogan is apparently untrue. Manilow said it was false and he has no idea why anyone got that impression.)

The question is whether this will matter to Spotify. On Sunday, the company finally responded to all the anti-Rogan chatter.

"You've had a lot of questions over the last few days about our platform policies and the lines we have drawn between what is acceptable and what is not," wrote the company's leadership. "We have had rules in place for many years but admittedly, we haven't been transparent around the policies that guide our content more broadly. This, in turn, led to questions around their application to serious issues including COVID-19."

Spotify plans to begin adding "content advisory" notes to podcast episodes that are about COVID-19, and it will also make clearer that it prohibits "content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health."

That doesn't seem to go as far as the policies of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms, which have tried to label allegedly false covid information as "misinformation," with dubious results. Plenty of perfectly accurate or debatable information has wrongly been smeared as false under these policies, including articles that I have written.

I hope Spotify leaves Rogan alone, because it's the right thing to do. But I also have to wonder how much it would even help the cause of vaccination to remove Rogan from the platform. Censoring him could give him an even larger audience, and more appeal. Vigorously trying—and often failing—to suppress an idea can backfire, making the idea seem exciting, intoxicating, seductive. Rogan would clearly have a gigantic audience, whether with Spotify or on his own. What does it accomplish, exactly, to drive him elsewhere?

Take last week's controversy over the graphic novel Maus, which was removed from a Tennessee school district's curriculum. The immediate effect? A massive spike in online sales.

This is the Streisand effect in action: Try to tell people they shouldn't read, discuss, or absorb a book, song, or other piece of content, and you draw people's attention to it. I suspect that's what would happen with Rogan if he exited Spotify; in fact, it's happening right now.

Besides, Rogan's show could be viewed as an opportunity for pro-vaccine advocates. He is obviously willing to have pro-vaccine people on to talk about the issue—Dr. Sanjay Gupta appeared on an episode—and unlike some hosts, he's not likely to do that just to turn them into targets. He's the perfect conduit for reaching a vaccine-skeptical audience. Banishing him eliminates a huge opportunity.

Listen to Rogan's response to the controversy below:

NEXT: Lawsuit: Crackdown on Church Soup Kitchens Violates the First Amendment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "misinformation" has joined "diversity" as simply a flag that there is propaganda following. It is an easy way to know you should stop reading/listening, and do something else.

    1. Where "misinformation" = talking to independent experts who don't buy the established narrative 100%.

      1. "Rogan evidently believes his audience can benefit from hearing different, clashing points of view. Listeners have the agency to accept or reject what they hear."

        Anathema, just pure anathema.

        1. Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savvy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… TYu It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
          Visit following page for more information… http://moneystar33.blogspot.com

          1. Fucking nailed it bot. Great timeing

      2. Yeah, independent experts like Malone, who once falsely shared to his millions of followers that a 17 year old boy had a heart attack from the vaccine, when in fact the boy died in 2013. Just an example of the type of "interest in truth" that guy exhibits. Speaking of lazy journalism, where the 11 million views for Rogan comes from. Does anyone even fact check things anymore, or just post shit from Twitter assuming it is true?

        1. You haven't been around in a while. Were you ever going to explain how marxism is close to libertarianism? Need the quote?

          It is weird how you attack Dr. Malone but ignore all of the lies coming from Fauci and the government. Why? Does one wrong statement dismiss his 30 years of medical backgrounds on all topics, or just one?

        2. Malone helped develop the technology that led to mRNA vaccines. But he was a grad student at the time.

          So he's just pissed he got no recognition and no money and so he's pissed with a chip on his shoulder. And all the anti-vaxxers are giving him the attention he never got elsewhere.

          1. "Malone helped develop the technology that led to mRNA vaccines. But he was a grad student at the time."


            "So he's just pissed he got no recognition and no money and so he's pissed with a chip on his shoulder"

            This is shit you just made up in your head. You are always so confident in your declarations, but why should we believe you?Just a few weeks ago, you were still insisting that vaccination prevents the spread of the virus and protects your loved ones from getting it. Why should we believe anything you say?

            "And all the anti-vaxxers are giving him the attention he never got elsewhere."

            As opposed to the Vaccine Enthusiasts like yourself who will never cop to being wrong, but will continue to act like condescending asses.

            1. It is odd how they also completely ignore Dr. McCullough in these attacks.

              The latch on to one thing wrong, and then try to discredit everything they've said. Meanwhile in CDC and The Science land, they have gotten most everything wrong, but that is just science evolving.

          2. Yeah he probably doesn't see it that way. His view is more along the lines of "I was part of that, and that's not at all what was going on"

          3. Do your assumptions, even if true, change the validity of information?

            How about all the other scientists and doctors? What was the Barrington Declaration? Why women's health protests? Why does men's myocarditis chance multiply 100-fold post jab?

          4. Sir Bedevere: "And therefore, because he has resentment, he weighs as much as duck, and so he's a witch and we should burn him?"

            That's you, Brandybuck, trying to sound all smart by making shit up.

    2. Yes it is yet another word rendered meaningless.

      1. Not meaningless, but hollow. As in a hollow pasta shell waiting to be stuffed with equity-promoting meaning by Qualified Experts. (“Qualified “ also awaits its equity stuffing)

    3. It’s an indication that we should get rid of the democrats.

    4. I have no idea who this Miss Information is, but the more hysterically she gets denounced the more she seems like a fun date!

      1. Ew, Psaki is pgross.

    5. I never listened to him.
      Now that they are trying to cancel Joe Rogan, I now have Spotify and I listen to him.

      I have to say he is kind of leftist.

      But I am doing my bit for free speech.

    6. Yeah? You gonna let other people decide for you what information you should spend your time on?

      You can do that if you choose. Just like you can vote straight party ticket if you choose. By doing so you abdicate your responsibility as a free-thinking adult and a responsible citizen of our republic.

      But you do you boo.

      I’m going to think for myself, explore all the available information and synthesize my own opinions. I’m not into being spoon fed my thoughts and opinions by people less ethical, less objective and dumber than I am.

      Keep in mind many things we now think are likely true were once labeled misinformation. And many thing ms asserted as fact are now known to be false.

  2. Spotify plans to begin adding "content advisory" notes to podcast episodes that are about COVID-19, and it will also make clearer that it prohibits "content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health."

    The fuck does any of that mean?

    1. Can they cite anything to back up their claims of "deceptive medical info"? I mean, Rogan is having doctors make the claims. Leftists still assume the narrative from 6 months ago still holds true (yet it did not hold true even 6 months ago).

      I can handle being poorly informed. The ARROGANCE of the poorly informed is beyond tiresome.

      1. Not just doctors, but the lead inventor of the technology, Dr Robert Malone. Maybe he is wrong, but he throws in more details to support his theories than the top 10 proponents of the vaccines do in arguing for them. 90% of his claims go unrefuted. Surely, if he is that wrong, someone would credibly attack his theories and mechanisms - except that he probably knows them far better than they do.

        1. It's a stupid distraction that we are even talking about whether he is wrong. Even if he is wrong, that doesn't mean he should be silenced. This notion that certain views need to be silenced is absolutely reprehensible and needs to be resisted without conceding to any of its arguments.

      2. If it doesn’t come from Fauci, it isn’t science. We know that because Fauci told us so. “I am the science!” He proclaimed, just like Stallone in ‘Judge Dredd’.

    2. They may not take down anything existing, but they reserve the right to block future episodes from airing based on whatever the regnant groupthink in place at the time.

    3. The fuck does any of that mean?

      I take the "medical information that may cause offline harm" to say "We don't believe in Section 230 either."

  3. I'd be behind the campaign if the science supported it.

    1. Nice one, but I see your loophole 🙂

      The science process never supports censorship.

    2. Who knows what science is anymore? Seems like there are experts and studies that back up whatever anyone wants to believe.

      1. As always, in science observation and data trump expert opinion.

        1. Wrong. The politics of the expert trumps observation and data.

          1. The Party of Science seems to believe that science works by democracy, or worse, consensus.

            As Einstein pointed out when asked if he was concerned that 100 German physicists had published a book debunking his theories on relativity: "If they could prove I was wrong they would only need one physicist."

            1. This is how religions begin.

              In 500 years, ”saints” will have worn worn lab coats when they lived, with tales of persecution via those who refused to believe (Fauci and the like), or they’ll be crackpot activists who, through massive propaganda programs pushed crackpot theories (Greta and the like).

              The language will be different, but they will have the equivalent of patron saints. The Saint of the Ecosystem. The Saint of the Oceans.

          2. Only in the stupid little world you inhabit.

          3. And this is why you remain a totalitarian progshit.

      2. And that's science in early stages of investigating a particular thing. When something is still being studied and figured out, experts should disagree. The problem is when some people decide that we already have the answers and only need to listen to the experts who support those answers. The science is not settled on anything covid related.

        1. The problem is that politicians create policy based upon "science," so they seek out whatever supports their agenda while ignoring or discrediting what doesn't. As a result nobody knows what the actual science is.

            1. Science is not facts, science is a process.

              1. A process that must be protected from opposing opinions.

          1. Yes. That is the problem. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say that nobody knows what the actual state of science is.
            There is also a huge problem with claiming that policy is supported by science. Almost nothing in the sphere of public policy can be decided only based on science. Science, in general, can't answer political questions because political questions have to do with people and their preferences and tolerance for risk, etc.

            1. Except that science has become a secular religion (along with worship of the state) so personal preferences and such don't matter. Why not? Because science!

              1. Tell us again about Masks while you're discussing this. You have given yourself to this religion on more than one occasion merely for the fact a conservative stated derision against the state's narrative.

              2. I think you are talking about "The Science". I'm talking about science.

            2. DING DING DING!


              From the very beginning of the pandemic, the central planners and ‘experts’ have created a multitude of restrictions based on The Science, declaring that X risk demands people do Y. But this assumption is flawed from the beginning. Scientists and politicians should inform free people about existing risks, and even ways to mitigate those risks. What they should NEVER do is override your personal preferences with their own. Once they do, you lose all bodily autonomy. You’re completely at the mercy of the ‘experts’, who just happen to be incestuously connected to the very people getting ridiculously rich off the edicts handed down by said ‘experts’.

              1. That writer is great. A few comments
                1. We know it's you
                2. We know you read our comments
                3. We know you incorporate our comments
                4. We know you filter the gibberash
                5. Keep it up

              2. "What they should NEVER do is override your personal preferences with their own."

                Don't all laws (potentially) override personal preferences?

          2. "As a result nobody knows what the actual science is."

            This is why it is so important to live life with science-based decisions rendered to the individual as much as possible and moral-based decisions guiding decisions at the macro-level.

            Even if it were a scientific fact that doing X would benefit 80% of people, doesn't make it moral to do. That is especially true when 20% of people get no benefit or may even be harmed.

            This is exactly why the CDC and its lackeys have tended to downplay the fact that COVID disproportionately impacted folks with pre-existing conditions. When you can convince people that there is a universal effect, rather than case by case, they support universal laws instead of case by case decisions.

      3. Who knows what science is anymore?

        Somebody blinded you with science.

        1. Weird, Science…

      4. If you can independently repeatable experiment, with testable data, It’s science, if you’re talking about self biasing modeling, pure Untested theory or narrative magical thinking, it’s opinion.

      5. No, there are politically-motivated bad faith actors willing to slant, cherry-pick and misinterpret scientific data. This HIDES the effectiveness of the scientific method, but it's under there, somewhere.

  4. "...even as liberal music artists have started withdrawing from the platform in protest."

    When will you stop referring to leftists as "liberal?" They are clearly anything but. That particular moniker hasn't been apt for several decades.

    1. When will you stop referring to leftists as "liberal?"

      Especially when they're explicitly trying to silence someone not even for having heterodox views but for simply allowing heterodox ideas to be heard.

      Also, I'm not sure I would leap to characterize Neil Young making some idiotic activist gesture and Joni Mitchell following suit as definitely the beginning of some kind of wave.

      1. My big takeaway from this whole affair is that Joni Mitchell is still alive.

        1. I suspect that's a big part of what both of them are trying to communicate.

          1. No word yet from Eddie Vedder

            1. He said something, but it was as unintelligible and anything else he ever said.

              1. Well I sure am glad to see that Manilow is going anywhere; that would just be a final straw and Joe would have to go.

              2. it was as unintelligible and anything else he ever said

                Yet, sincere.

                1. I'm pretty sure he was a winner in the early youtube meme of Misheard Lyrics.

                  wait, here's one: https://youtu.be/ePjESN9pRdg

        2. That surprised me too. Neil Young? Never did like his screechy voice, even if his songs were interesting and otherwise-listenable.

          1. even if his songs were interesting and otherwise-listenable

            When he's being introspective. "Heart of Gold," "Old Man," "Helpless," these are great songs. His political songs are mostly just embarrassing.

            1. I'd say that's the case for most explicitly political art.

              1. Agreed.

            2. And never forget the courageous one-note guitar solo in "Cinnamon Girl".

          2. He likes the Needle and doesn't care if there's Damage Done.

          3. Agreed. Put's my nerves on edge just listening to him trying to sing. Sounds out of tune and off key. Maybe could use Autotune. Besides he's a lousy guitar player. Couldn't carry Jeff Beck's guitar.

        3. Her reception at the Kennedy Center Honors in December should have clued you in. Of the massive press that surrounded the 50th anniversary of "Blue." Or the MusicCares event which will honor her as person of the year this April. Anyone with a passing interest in the music business is well aware that Mitchell is alive.

          1. I guess I need to pay more attention to these industry events where washed-up musicians fellate each other.

          2. What a weird defense of Joni Mitchell.

            1. It’s the result of a Google search for evidence of her continued relevance. Came up kind of short.

            2. Joni Mitchell requires no "defense," nor did I offer one. She's a towering artistic genius. I just enumerated some of the reasons that one might know she's alive.

          3. Huh. Never knew about these either.

          4. Anyone with a passing interest in the music business is well aware that Mitchell is alive.

            You realize you conflated 'music' and 'music business' out-of-hand, right?

            1. I didn't conflate "music" with "music business." A person might well know much about music without knowing whether or not Mitchell is alive. But as I said, anyone with an interest in the business would be aware of her recent honors and press.

              1. That's celebrity-related "news", not music news. I don't give a fuck about their lives, the smugtastic award events they put on, or really anything about them outside their music.

                And I haven't even felt real sadness at a musician's passing since Mark Sandman died. (I mean, Leonard Cohen was 103 when he passed, you gotta just accept that sort of thing.)

      2. Neil Young already went to war against GMOs, and proved he's as scientifically well-informed as any...60s rock star.

    2. the correct term for their movement is "stalinists"

    3. When will you stop referring to leftists as "liberal?"

      They're not even really leftist anymore. Aristocrats, Parvenus and Arrivistes seems the most accurate description.

      1. Nice. I might have gone with poltroons, miscreants and quislings.

        Unless we're going for straight up invective, in which case, it's Elizabethan all the way. Because they really are lard-bloated clotpoles. At least, the women.

    4. 1000x THIS! ^ Testifying from Shiticon, California I can testify: I knew left-liberals growing up. I found much asinine about them, but there were enough common points that I as a libertarian could share the term “liberal” with them. There is NOTHING liberal about our current left wing fascist one party ruling class.

  5. Oh, more paranoid blatherings from... Sean Carlson... or Tucker Hannity or whomever spreads the crazy theories.

    As police were abandoning East Precinct, Seattle officials drafted plan to give station to a Black Lives Matter group

    At the height of Seattle’s racial justice protests in 2020, then-Mayor Jenny Durkan’s administration drafted legislation to transfer the Police Department’s East Precinct building to a Black Lives Matter activist organization and researched relocating the station’s operations, newly released documents show.

    That June, as cops lobbed tear gas from behind barricades, and protesters on the streets surrounding the precinct called for the Police Department to be defunded, Durkan’s office behind the scenes briefly contemplated handing over the multimillion dollar property that had become the focus of the demonstrations.

    1. It's not insurrection if the authorities are cooperating.

      1. Except for that pesky Constitution:

        Article IV
        Section 4

        The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

        1. Which was the domestic violence side? The killers or the ones being killed?

          1. Which was the domestic violence side? The killers or the ones being killed?

            That depends. Did they ever figure out which BLM "protesters" murdered multiple other BLM "protesters" in the CHOP? Or who it was that shot a cop in the head? Or...

            1. BLM is certainly successful:
              Chicago stats to date:
              Shot and killed: 45
              Shot and wounded: 179
              Total shot:224
              Total Homicides: 49

              1. BLM is certainly successful:
                Dollars collected: Over $100 million.
                Dollar given to donation bundling orgs affiliated with the DNC: 40-50 million.
                Dollars distributed to the families of the various "Say her name!" victims: 0
                Dollars paid for use of images in fundrasing: 0
                2020-21 Black people killed by other black people, whose lives don't seem to matter to BLM: Well over 15,000
                Mansion/homes/estates purchased by Patrice Cullors and people connected to her, from the BLM hierarchy: 6 at last count. The mansion in Canada they got by transferring $6 million to the "non-profit" run by Cullors "partner" is especially nice. It was only $4 mill, though. I suppose it would be foolish to ask where dat $2 mill went, right?

                Yeah, BLM has accomplished SOMEBODY'S goals, that's for sure.

    2. That shouldn't bother anyone. I mean, BLM would've sold it back for a few mill anyway.

  6. At 1:39 in the response video:

    Eight months ago if you said, "If you get vaccinated you can still catch CoViD and you can still spread CoViD, you'd be removed from social media."

    Really? Was there enough "social force" to the mistake that mid-90s percent effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines was the same as 100%?

    1. Edit by reply - move the closing quote mark to after the second "CoViD".

    2. Yes. There was.

      1. Oddly enough, it's the anti-vaxx right that is now pointing to the less-than 100% efficacy as pruuf that the vaccine does not work.

        The anti-science runs deep in both tribes. As always, it's about the narrative, and if they can shiboleth science they will.

          1. Look at Brandybuck pretend 66% failure is practically 100% efficacy because "science".

            One side is actually examining the science and the other side has killed, gutted and is wearing science as a skin-suit while spouting bullshit, demanding its respect, and censoring all who disagree.

            But for Brandybuck it's same-same.

            1. Awesome "Mother's Lament" - ROFLMAO - "..wearing.. skin-suit..demanding its respect"

        1. That may be part of the proof, but the fact that they have not accomplished what was initially claimed, or come remotely close, is the main reason people think they don't work very well.
          It's great that they reduce death and hospitalizations. But we were told that the vaccines meant getting back to normal and putting this all behind us. And in that sense they clearly do not work.

          1. it is claimed that they greatly reduce death and hospitalizations.

            what would those stats be if they allowed treatments other than 'get the jab'?
            Plus... died with... weeded out of those stats? prob not.

            1. it is claimed that they greatly reduce death and hospitalizations.

              It is also claimed that this is a "pandemic of the unvaccinated", meaning that the spread of the virus is due to those who are not fully vaccinated...when in fact it appears to be spread by the fully vaccinated at about the same rate as by the unvaccinated.


            2. The Scottish data from their national health care system did exactly that for millions of citizens. They found that once the vaccine wanes after 4 months, the initial vaccines are just as prone to both hospitalization and death.

              Only continued boosters grants the protection. And they did no long term studies on the effect of multiple shots after 2, they just started giving them.

              1. Let's not confuse the question "Were the vaccines effective?" with "Did the vaccines achieve their goal?"

                In a case of Mass Gell-Mann Amnesia, we are suddenly told to be grateful to Big Pharma, which not long ago was routinely excoriated due to PROVEN acts of avariciousness, amoral pricing policies and open politician purchasing. But because they are now noble and selfless, we are supposed to ignore the billions and billions and billions they have raked in, much of it the result of government policy.

                So, to one of those questions, the answer is "Yes".

            3. Look at sweeden. Everyone there is dead

              1. Dammit. And I've been training to be an "oiler" for the Swedish Women's Olympic Tanning Team.

              2. Exactly. Sweden has a 75% full vaccination rate, and they are all dead (well, close - almost 16,000 people). The USA has a much-better rate, 65%, and only 800,000 dead. Dumb Swedes.

          2. The ratio of unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated people who have died of COVID-19 is, wait for it... wait... 97 to 1!!!

            But the source is the CDC so you will of course discount it.


            1. Yeah all you have to do massage the data with 'age adjustments' and restrict the timeframe to two months.......

              1. It's not messaging, it's scientific narrative recalibration. It's a super science part of scientisming... science!

                1. For me, THE SCIENCE! For thee, THE SILENCE!
                  (PS I’m telling!)

            2. The ratio of those horribly selfish unvaccinated people versus those good, caring, morally-superior fully vaccinated people who transmit the virus to others is...wait....about 1 to 1!!!


            3. I do not understand why the same people lambasting the unvaccinated for not getting the jab are ALSO feigning sorrow at the death of these same "horrible" folks.

            4. Now go look at the data from the captive Scottish system. For 1 or 2 shots the ratio is not differentiable.

            5. I explicitly said that it reduces death and hospitalization, so I don't know what you are trying to say.
              That doesn't mean it works in the way it was originally claimed to work. Which was my claim.
              I'd also add that the fact that they don't prevent infection or transmission means that they are likely (as we have seen) to promote the emergence of resistant variants. These vaccines aren't going to end covid. The only way out (unless someone comes up with a vaccine that does work) is for people to stop worrying about it so much.

            6. CDC also says 94.5% died WITH, not OF Covid.

              Revise your numbers.

              1. I thought I heard a CDC expert admit to 75% of Covid deaths had multiple co-morbidities. I am assuming that includes the ones like gunshot wounds and automobile accident trauma.

                Thus, early on, I invoked my Rule that whoever is massaging the data, cherry picking facts and slanting accounts with weighted vocabulary, are the people to strongly doubt. This has been a very, very useful Rule, over time, and it works here.

        2. the vaccines dont work even the CEOs of the companies are saying it out loud now.

          1. But look at all the vaccinated people who aren't dead!! See how that works? And the vaccinated people who caught it anyway? Well, they would have DIED! Add them to the list of lives saved and Big Pharma's billions are a bargain price.

            No wonder they want to keep pounding the vax narrative until the last Covid is dead. OR the last dollar wrung out, but since we can now print unlimited free money (apparently) that won't happen.*

            *-note to self: I ever in charge of a national economy, refrain from emulating Zimbabwe.

        3. "Oddly enough, it's the anti-vaxx right that is now pointing to the less-than 100% efficacy as pruuf that the vaccine does not work."

          You'll look for anything to distract from how wrong you were, won't you?

        4. Reduces symptomsssssss.

          Does not and has not prevent infection or transmission, you daft fuckwit.

    3. The underlying assumptions behind vaccine mandates is that they prevent transmission of COVID, Questioning whether the vaccines "work" has been considered misinformation, and whether they "worked" in that sense was part of that. At least until it became undeniable that they did jot.

      1. Except that once we knew that there were a lot of Breakthrough Cases, the justification for vaccines evaporated. It’s not to protect the kids and young adults, because they are more likely to die from a lot of other things - possibly including the vaccines themselves. Yes. The vaccines are killing people, and it seems the better shape you are in, the more likely you are to face serious side effects from the vaccines - exactly opposite of the virus. Indeed, the military, that has lost fewer service members to COVID-19 than to some trading accidents, has had a massive increase in the last year of complications from vaccines, ranging from infertility, miscarriages, through myocarditis. Indeed, it appears that the F35 lost off the carrier was probably due to a vaccine side effect.

        So, if the vaccines are not protecting kids and young adults, because they aren’t dying from it, absent significant known comorbidities, then why force them to be vaccinated? In a perfect world, we weren’t going to get to herd immunity through vaccinations, after Delta pushed out the other variants in July. The herd immunity threshold (HIT) jumped from about 60% to about 80% due to its higher infectivity (R0). It jumped again over December with Omicron to maybe 90% vaccination rate with its increased infectivity. That assumes a sterilizing vaccine, which these are far from (someone quoted maybe 33% above). And, of course, respiratory viruses mutate too quickly for herd immunity to work with any way. Doesn’t work with the common cold or flu, and it doesn’t work any better with COVID-19. Indeed, Dr Malone suggests that these non sterling vaccines may be forcing the virus to mutate around the vaccines, which is why non sterling vaccines are so questionable.

        So, why again are the vaccines being mandated? What public health issue are they reasonably supposed to overcome?

        1. They say it's to save hospitals, but (surprise) places without the vax pass in IL peaked THE SAME DAY as Chicago, which has a vax pass.


        2. If they admit the government turned life upside down to peddle misinformation and turn a buck, how do you think it will go down?

          They're stuck.

  7. Robby, why are you comparing the Rogan thing with the Maus thing?

    Neil Young et al want Rogan BANNED. Period. No listening at all if they had their way.

    With Maus, the district said it is not REQUIRED for Holocaust education...but never removed it from the school libraries.

    1. And we're ignoring the whole To Kill a Mockingbird which was the EXACT same thing, but from the left... because we're all friends here.

      1. And, again, "Sure, dozens if not hundreds of school districts effectively banned all the books in their libraries from their students for 6-24 mos. (and running). And, sure, we have evidence that the broad policy decisions did and do harm children and their education, and has terrible implications for a well-informed populace going forward. And you'd think an ethical journalist would see that as an open challenge to do their own job better and with more integrity. But, you know, integrity is hard and sometimes you have to burn a few children's libraries to prevent a pandemic that doesn't generally affect kids."

    2. Yeah, that was a little strained to try and get the required "both sides" caveat in there.

    3. Having read Maus, and finding it extremely valuable, I paid close attention to this story. There was so much narrative spouting that completely missed or mistated the facts it was crazy.

      It's not really a kids book. Not at all. Because there's explicit nudity and violence and language. So some parent is going to eventually shit their pants over it being in the curriculum. But the book was NOT banned.

    4. Just to highlight the Streisand effect...that banning something or limiting it or trying to limit is makes people want to see it, thus creating a larger audience than there would have been if they'd just left it alone. Don't think there was any real comparison otherwise between Maus and Rogan.

      1. Not really Streisand effect though. Unless the upsurge was specifically in under 9th grade kids from that school. My understanding of the whole kerfuffle was that the school board thought it wasn't age appropriate, not that the book was not an appropriate as a learning tool period or shouldn't be available to the wider public.

      2. The Maus thing doesn't really fit that criteria, though. A very local story about a school board deciding to use a different text got blown up to national proportions because people said the book was banned. It's not that there's some campaign to hide this book, it's that there's a misinformation campaign about what actually happened that spurred interest in a book that I'd never heard about.

        That's not how I understand the Streisand Effect.

    5. This is the Streisand effect in action: Try to tell people they shouldn't read, discuss, or absorb a book, song, or other piece of content, and you draw people's attention to it. I suspect that's what would happen with Rogan if he exited Spotify; in fact, it's happening right now.

      Nobody said the kids couldn't read Maus. They opted to use a different text to teach about the Holocaust from the state list. Surprisingly, there's actually a ton of books that cover that topic.

      Now, maybe the school board was overreacting in moral panic to the fact that the book has some naughty words in it. I don't really care if they were right or wrong; it's not even close to a moral equivalence to people saying Joe Rogan must be silence.

    6. That's also a couple hundred kids. Not quite the same as censoring Rogan.

      Now a more important question. Why does Robby look like a guy who's already stoned and drunk rushing onto a hit of E?
      Inquiring minds want to know.

  8. Doesn't Science only advance because some people are skeptical or questioning???

    1. Science is supposed to question everything. If they decide everything is "settled", then the actual usefulness of science seems non-existent.

      1. If it's science, it's not settled.
        If it's settled, it's not science.

      2. or as someone once said, the difference between religion and science is that one take Authority as the Truth, while the other takes the Truth as Authority.

    2. Doesn't Science only advance because some people are skeptical or questioning???

      Yes. And for this reason authorities have always disliked it while simultaneously trying to co-opt it.

      1. More like trying to co-opt its results.

        1. Or more specifically, its authority.

    3. That’s dangerous misinformation. Science™️ is only known through the pronouncements of Science Jesus.

    4. That's such a quaint notion.

      No, science is decided by politics. If the science fits a political agenda then it's settled and not to be questioned. Otherwise attack the scientists personally to discredit their work (and the political agenda it is being used to justify).

      1. And this is why Dems need to go away forever.

    5. And testing Empirical data. People keep measuring, re-testing, Re-examining Then trying a different context and paradigm and doing it all over again, repeat forever. That science.

    6. The history of science is rife with advances made against the locked-in consensus, sometimes just for professional pride, often for careerist/funding motivations, sometimes just for fucking bullheaded stubbornness.

      Look at the 60 year battle geologist J. Harlan Bretz had to wage to prove his theory about catastrophic flooding of the Channeled Scablands in NW North America. His theory finally prevailed, but at a ceremony awarding him some honor, he was asked if it gave him satisfaction to be proven right and he commented "Yes, but all my enemies are dead." And they WERE enemies, hounding him, deriding him, ruining his career, etc.

      Someday, hopefully before people like Fauci are dead, we'll have a reckoning, and an adjustment of our understanding of treating viruses. Though I'd settle for a more widespread understanding that the more politics are injected into science, the worse the science.

  9. https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/censors-gonna-censor

    Joe Biden's Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, during an interview with MSNBC, suggested that censoring Joe Rogan would help curb the flow of misinformation surrounding covid. This is akin to the mob stopping by your Italian restaurant to admire the décor, then proclaiming it would be a shame if something happened to it.

    When corporations take their direction from government, there’s a word for that. It’s fascism. Not fake “Oh no Trump is a dictator” fascism, but honest-to-goodness fascism that says if you don’t hand over a wad of cash, something just might happen to your lovely little restaurant.

    Remember that over the past few years, Democrats have been threatening all sorts of actions against Facebook and other social media companies. Set against this backdrop, the threat is clear: You do what we want or we destroy you.

    1. Thank you for the reminder of what fascism truly is. And how and by whom it is being practiced. All the while lobbing the incendiary term at anyone who doesn't go along.

      1. It's sort of how they were calling everybody racist 10 years ago and (SURPRISE) they were the real racists all along.

    2. Joe Biden's Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, during an interview with MSNBC, suggested that censoring Joe Rogan would help curb the flow of misinformation surrounding covid.

      Censoring Joe Biden would do even more to curb the flow of such misinformation.

      Joe Biden: "This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated."

      Science: "Bullshit, Joe."


  10. He looks like Carmen Argenziano in this pic <3

  11. Joe Rogan: He doesn't fit the mold. So what? Eventually it will be the right that will turn on him because he doesn't fit the mold. Right now it's the left. So what? He's not my cup of tea, and I don't have the patience to sit through a three hour podcast. But I have listened to a couple because he had guests on I was interested in. But he's a podcaster, he's there to interview, not be the final arbiter of truth. Maybe he should be asking deeper questions, but it's his show and not mine.

    Neil Young: As a Facebook friend posted, "Get back to me when Neil Young retracts his history of anti-science". The dude always was a tool. I've nothing against folk protest genre, but he never did seem able to keep things in perspective.

    Folk musicians in general: Who would have thought in the 1960s that all these long hairs would be demanding that music stores censor their content? I'm starting to finally understand why kids these days are saying "okay boomer".

    1. The dude is an avowed Bernie supporter who hated Donald Trump and no one on the right came for him. As such, I'm not sure where you are coming up with the idea that the right will turn on him like the left is doing?

      Again, your need to play this hyper-centrist has you leveling very shaky speculations.

      1. He also called Biden demented; turns out is was a good call, and the Democrats hated him for it.

    2. I think there is a lot of the right that genuinely cares about free expression. And sadly less and less of the left seems to these days.
      There will probably be some right-wingers who want to bash on Rogan at some point. But I don't think it will be what you seem to think. Right wingers who pay attention know Rogan isn't one of them and doesn't fit their mold. But they seem to respect him because he listens and allows people to say what they have to say. I think that is genuine.
      It still seems a little weird to me, but it really is only the right that cares about free speech in any meaningful way at this point as far as I can see. At least as far as mainstream politics goes.

    3. I have a friend on "the right" who's an opinion leader to a small circle and who has already turned against Joe Rogan because he's said things critical of Trump.

      1. No doubt that happens, but how representative is your curious "friend.?" Not sure I would overly generalize from such a limited sample.

      2. opinion leader to trumpies? didn't know they had those.

      3. Now if you can find some mainstream "opinion leaders" calling for Rogan to be censored you'd maybe have something believable for your need to have both sides.

    4. Eventually it will be the right that will turn on him because he doesn't fit the mold.

      Claiming that someone will "eventually" do something even though they've had ample opportunity to do so for years, but have not done so, just because another group is actually doing that thing is just about the most braindead form of whataboutism there is.

    5. I’ve been saying OK Boomer, since the 80s.

      1. "I’ve been saying OK Boomer, since the 80s."

        Thats OK, Peter. We all talk to ourselves sometimes.

        1. Damnit! After all these years, I still knee-jerk reach for a "+1" or "thumbs up" button to click!

    6. Not sure I agree with your conclusions vis a vis the right. One of Tucker Carlson's frequent guests is Greenwald, a card carrying socialist. His substance is full of conservatives, who appreciate his honesty.

  12. I don't agree with what many of these guests have had had to say

    That is because you are a pussy who could not endure the outrage mob Rogan has had to suffer. The fact you feel compeled to point this out is you just to trying to placate to the mob.

    1. This is always the problem with Robby. He can't just state his principles and rely on his principles to be sound, he has to distance himself from the thing he's defending. It's tiresome.

      Nobody should care about YOUR opinion on Joe Rogan, Robby. It's irrelevant to the discussion and the principles. You're aware that it's irrelevant and yet you still feel the need to interject it.

      1. Cocktail Party lives matter!!

    2. Your comment seems to be nothing more than virtue signaling. Why are you so triggered over someone saying how he feels about some of Rogan's guests?

      1. Because Robby has been a useful idiot for years and deserves to have his nose consistently rubbed in it.

  13. The media campaign against Joe Rogan has been remarkably successful. CNN and MSNBC continuously spout the falsehood that he distributes Covid misinformation. They suppress any details about what he actually says.

    In the meantime, CNN and MSNBC continuously spout the "March to War" theme about the US and Russia over Ukraine. They suppress any details about what is really happening here.

    I'm so looking forward to CNN's new owners exiling all their staff to a new for-pay streaming channel. Its failure will permit CNN to close it down and fire all the clowns who turned their channel into political prostitution in rapacious search of headlines.

    1. That will only happen with big pharma stops buying add space from them. Meanwhile the geriatric crowd are about the only ones watching their daily drivel, so I expect it to stick around just a bit longer.

      1. This is a kind of tragic consequence of the growth of social media.
        I know a lot of oldies who are insanely misinformed about almost every political issue, and it took me a while to figure it out.
        It's because they maintain a lifelong habit of watching "the Network news", and believing the NYT to be "the paper of record" with WaPo gamely competing.

        And they don't see/can't believe the degree to which those sources have become...well, "unreliable' is a kindly euphemism. Slanted bullshit is more accurate. It's like boiling a frog., they always knew there was a little East Coast liberal bias. But as it became stronger, and then rabid and then rationalized into dogma, they really didn't notice.

        Some of these folks were pretty well-educated, and definitely not stupid, but they lacked the skepticism, cynicism, or the analytical approach to see it happening. Really sad.

  14. Neil Young is changing lyrics. “Keep on rocking in the free world” is now “Keep your mouth shut in the Xi world”.

    Counter culture is now Shut up and obey. Ok Boomers

    1. “Keep on rocking in the free world” is now “Keep your mouth shut in the Xi world”.

      Keep in mind that that song is already a lamentation that government isn't doing enough for/to people.

      "Free world," in that song, is meant sarcastically, because to Neil a world where the government isn't supporting the homeless is not a free world.

      IOW, has Neil Young ever shown the slightest inclination toward libertarianism? I'm not sure he has.

    2. A number of musicians get a lot a their payola from Chinese markets. As when Kenny G had the temerity to pose with some Chinese dissidents, and was immediately threatened with being shut down in his biggest market and thus took it down so fast you could smell the ink burning.

      These clowns love to signal their virtue as long as it doesn't cost too much. Or as in the case of Young and Mitchell, no longer matters [the 70s were a long time ago].

      1. Or as in the case of Young and Mitchell, no longer matters

        This is the real thing, I think. I haven't looked into it, but I strongly doubt either one of them has much of a Chinese audience.

        It seems pretty clear you've got a couple of aging activists with mental problems (Mitchell, especially) who want a last taste of "standing up for something" but who've been living in bubbles of wealth and fame for half a century so that they so have no idea what "standing up to The Man" would even look like anymore that "standing up for The Man" feels just the same.

      2. Kenneth Goldsmith? That Kenny G?

        1. See, relevance. Only the Chinese like to listen to "Going Home" as they ride their bullet trains around 5PM, China Standard Time.

      3. 60s, man, 60s!!

        70s. tchyuh! Noob likes the new stuff.,

  15. something something worship the golden calf

  16. Neil Young is Canadian. Fuck him.

    1. can't we just fuck him because he is a blowhard? a guitar player giving medical advice...you can't go wrong with that!

    2. Neil Young is a citizen of the USA.

      1. Once an eh-hole, always an eh-hole.

    3. Why isn't he up there supporting the fucking truckers? If he's a real rebel. Or is the power of Trudeau's hair so great Neil worships him?

      Weird, for a guy (Young) who seemingly stole Mugatu's entire Derelicte Collection and has worn nothing else ever since.

  17. Why is separating the art and the artist good "except in cases of overwhelming and obvious moral depravity"? Why the exception? Is a song bad because the writer is morally depraved? If Manson painted the Mona Lisa would we ban it?

    1. Or, dare I say it, it's up to the individual consumer. Perhaps some people just decide that they don't like the shitty things an artist says and decide to stop buying their products, while everyone else can continue supporting them as much as they want.

      1. That sounds about right. There are some artists who are so good, so creative, I have to accept their warped or mistaken political delusions.
        OTOH, most artists (thinking music here) are pretty interchangeable, and easy to ignore if they're political assholes. Sorry Neil. Northern Man don't need you around anyhow, either.

    2. It's a good thing Hitler was an uninspired painter, or we'd have to argue about that.

      1. To be clear about your reference, the guy in the video says "of course" no one should praise Hitler's paintings, apparently irrespective of its quality. That was jarring.

        What, then, of Carravaggio?

    3. All of Bill Cosby's work has been basically banned. As if the messages in his shows no longer matter because he was a creep.

      1. I don't remember having ever laughed so hard I peed myself, but if I ever did, it would have been listening to To Russell, My Brother, Whom I Slept With. I listened to the album scores of times as a kid. It was, and still is, one of the funniest comedy routines ever.

        1. Cosby was great. And is a voice our culture could really use right now, I think. So fucking weird and such a shame that he was apparently a creep.

  18. >>I don't agree with what many of these guests have had had to say

    That's because the Koch brothers are paying your salary

  19. Vigorously trying—and often failing—to suppress an idea can backfire, making the idea seem exciting, intoxicating, seductive.

    Uh, also, taking the very action your opponent expects you to make because of the principles they've laid out that would cause you to make that decision also totally validates much most of the underlying assertions they've made about your principles, whether it's exciting and seductive or horrifyingly boring.

    1. And when Rogan's guests say something questionable (or wrong), Rogan's critics act as if Rogan said it himself. He's open to hosting people with varying viewpoints. His critics are not.

    2. "..exciting, intoxicating, seductive."
      It can make the ideas seem..."right" is the word you're looking for. It's an intellectual process, not a fucking perfume commercial, Robby.

  20. This whole little incident really illustrates how completely fucked and illiberal much of the left is today. They are fully committed to absolutely censorship of anything contradicting their preferred narratives. This should be way more of a shocking observation than it seems to be for most people. How completely fucked up and insane is it that Neil Young will not even tolerate sharing a distribution network with someone who simply allows people with views that differ from the mainstream to speak? That's all Rogan does. He doesn't push his own views, he doesn't tell his audience what they should think and he has guests with varying views on all sorts of things on the show.
    The fact that much of the left sees this as something that must be stopped and censored should put to be any notions that there is anything liberal about the contemporary left or that they have any respect for free and open discourse and scientific inquiry.

    1. I think it's about intentions. The people on the left who advocate for censorship believe that anyone who disagrees with them is a malicious person who knows the truth. However with evil intentions they maliciously spread lies because they want people to die. Just like if you don't support government healthcare it's because you have bad intentions and want people to die. If you don't support government robbing the rich and redistributing wealth it's because you have bad intentions and want people to die.

      The only possible explanation for disagreeing with the left is that you have bad intentions and want people to die.

      So in their minds they're operating with good intentions in an information war against people who have bad intentions.

      1. You're hitting on the exact problem. The concept that if we disagree, it means that you're evil and I'm righteous. And it's amazing the things people can justify doing when they feel they are righteously fighting evil.

      2. What gets me is the arbitrariness of how they chose sides in this. If Trump had been re-elected, they'd probably still be against those vaccines perceived as American products. You'd have the same argument, just that the sides would be reversed. Except they'd still be against ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because Trump brought those up too. But there'd be some other treatment championed by the "left". And they'd be just as sure of their own righteousness and the other side's ill will.

      3. I think you are largely right about that. Many people seem to just assume that the only way anyone could disagree with them or their favored experts is because they are stupid or dishonest.

      4. The only possible explanation for disagreeing with the left is that you have bad intentions and want people to die.

        Is it any wonder that they freak out when people object to the requirement of books like Maus in an 8th grade reading curriculum? Anne Frank couldn't write about what happened after she was captured so kids reading her diary can really only imagine the worst thing they have ever experienced. That is not good enough. When the left imply someone is a Nazi, they want the listener to have a graphic image of a dead mother's naked body to call to mind.

        A typical regression: 5) conflate anti-mandate and vaccine safety with Anti-vax 4) conflate anti-vax with Trump supporter (full year of groundwork) 3) conflate Trump supporter with Nationalism (5 years groundwork) 2) conflate Nationalism with Fascism (55 years groundwork) 1) conflate fascist Nazis with motherfucking killers (groundwork laid in 8th grade).

        Propaganda is that much more effective when the recipients have been primed in their youth to react.

        1. Fascinating. What image do people on the right wish to conjure when they imply that someone is a Nazi?

          1. Good question.
            Hmmm...stylish uniforms?

  21. How are the employees of Spotify supposed to determine what constitutes misinformation?

    1. The same way everyone else does. If it goes against the left wing political narrative, it's misinformation.

    2. Same way the employees of Twitter and Facebook and Youtube do it.

      1. The White House tells them?

    3. How? Daily directives from the Politburo

      1. POLITBURO!!!!!!!!!!

  22. I strongly suspect that many if not most of the anti-vaxxers listening to Rogan were anti-vaxxers before they listened to Rogan and they're just seeking confirmation of their views.

    I doubt that there are all that many people who were planning to get the jab but then changed their minds because of something Rogan said.

    1. No, but he's gotten big and diminishes their control of the narrative.

    2. It really should say something that so many people go to Joe Rogan for information. It's almost like our mainstream media has completely failed at their actual job because they had political objectives to accomplish. "I get my COVID advice from Joe Rogan" SHOULD be a ridiculous statement, but it's honestly no more ridiculous than saying you get it from CNN.

      That's the actual root cause of the problem; the politicization of news. But no one can admit that was a bad idea, so instead we should try to fire Joe Rogan into the sun.

      1. The Fourth estate has increasingly become aligned with a political narrative, which they tout as various things including humanism, science, and relative morality. That makes them propaganda.

      2. It says something about the quality of information provided from the media. It also shows how badly the media has done in giving people what they are interested in. Turns out people can pay attention to things for more than 5 minutes and want to hear extensive conversations with interesting people, not be spoon fed the appropriate factoids and views.

    3. Oh yeah??? Feast your eyes on Prosecution Exhibit 2-C

  23. All I know is, I used to watch Fred Roggin most weekends on TV (Roggin's Heroes), so this confuses the hell out of me.

    1. What are you ingesting today?

      1. Mushrooms. In an omelet.

        Later, spare ribs.

    2. Ken Shultz sees NOTHING!! NOTHING!!!! (Still, Rohan better watch it or he might end up in the Klink!

  24. heard ol' neil put him down
    hope neil young can remember
    joe rogan don't need him around anyhow.

    i LOVE neil but he hasn't put out a decent album since what...1992?

    neil and joni and the other musicians can spare me their blather...i'll take advice from malone and other WIDELY lauded medical pros ANYDAY. just as we don't care what kim kardashian or lebron james has to say neil should shut up and play his guitar

    1. They paved paradise and put DMV in its spot.

  25. I'll trust Joe Rogan's opinion over the government any day. He doesn't have an agenda....or an election to win. The more they keep trying to force this crap down my throat through censorship and blocking "misinformation", the more I will resist.

  26. It's odd to me that the result of Young's (and Mitchell's) actions is seen as backfiring. Spotify has been forced to examine their responsibility as a major platform for public discourse. Rogan is chastened and is actually taking the time to reexamine the way that he disseminates information. Neil Young and Joni Mitchell (particularly Mitchell, a towering musical genius whose work is held in ever-higher esteem as each year passes), who have a relatively muted voice in today's discourse, have managed to effect all this merely by removing their music from a single platform. It's remarkable, really.

    As for the Streisand effect, it seems to me to have clearly redounded in favor of Mitchell and Young (whose new album is now being heavily promoted by Apple Music and Sirius).

    1. Wow, They have an album out. Joy, another rehash from the “stairway to freebird” era. Meh.

      1. Sorry for my lack of clarity. It's Neil Young who has the new album out, not Mitchell. I haven't heard it yet. Apparently you haven't either, so I'm not sure why you're bothering to comment.

        1. Sounds like you both have equally valid and knowledgeable perspectives on the album, no?

          1. Indeed, which is why I did not make any assessment of the artistic virtues of the album or lack thereof. I merely stated that it had been released.

    2. Heavily promoted, so we can assume this was a publicity stunt by Young. Skynard had it right about Neil Young back in the 1970s.

    3. Also, Rogan hasn't been taken down, Spotify did do some minor adjustments to please the outrage mob, but Rogan also received a hell of a lot more followers as a result. Yes, Streisand effect. If they wanted him removed, it didn't happen, he got more followers.

      1. I finally signed up to Spotify so I could cancel if they shit on Rogan (whom I had previously listened to on YouTube).

        It's pretty good for podcasts, really, though I am reminded how much shit music there is out there, which is something I'd kind of forgotten after using "search" and the occasional genius recommendation from the YT algorithm for so long.

    4. 'Rogan is chastened and is actually taking the time to reexamine the way that he disseminates information"
      Nothing in his video says he is chastened in fact he said he is going to continue to have controversial guests on. And the only thing he said that even comes close to changing the way he disseminates information is that he may change how he schedules different experts, so that both points of views are closer together in time.
      What I take away from this is that you support the outrage mob trying to censor anything they don't disagree with and are grasping at straws now to justify it as a win for your side.

      1. As a result of all this, Rogan has speculated as to how he could do better, and has pledged to do so. In that sense, he was chastened That's all I meant by it, as I believe I made clear. I'm just stating facts. There is no need for you to make assumptions about what "mob" you think I support so that you can feel better about the "side" that you are on.

        1. 'Acknowledgement' or "recognition' would have been better words than 'assumption.'

          We'd assume you're a Karen from just one post, but after a pattern of hypochondiac hyperventilations, things are a bit better established.

    5. You are deranged. It's backfired on Young and Mitchell b/c they have been newly exposed as obsolete brain-dead morons and Rogan has gotten good pub which translates into more listeners, making Spotify more money.

    6. Robby, is that you?

      And having something promoted is not the same as having it purchased. This is an absolutely false comparison.

      In one, a product in disfavor with the authorities finds growth in an appreciative public.
      In the other, a product favoring the authorities is promoted by the authorities to the public.

      Useful idiots, eh?

    7. Huh, so the corporate entities in the media approve of their action?
      That doesn't suggest anything to a naif like you, does it?

  27. Rogan's Alt.Covid fiasco has been eclipsed by Jordan Peterson's swing from climate denial to outright climate nihilism.

    His opening statement speaks for itself:

    "There is no such thing as climate."

    Rogan's lineup of Alt.Covid gonzos pales in comparison to his embrace of Jordan Peterson as his climate science advisor. Forget climate denial- Peterson struck a blow for outright nihilism with an opening statement bad enough to make Naomi Klein and Leonardo Di Caprio look good.:

    "There is no such thing as climate"

    That was last Monday, and so far not a peep out of Bailey


    1. You don't have to agree with Peterson. Without listening to what he is talking about, I don't agree with him. But I would listen, to see what he is trying to say.

      I am not so tiny and stupid as to be threatened by people who say things that (1) make absolutely no fucking sense; (2) maybe make sense but I have no idea what the fuck they are talking about; or (3) make sense but go against the prevailing narrative.

      You can be any of those and I would be glad for you to be on national TV. Say what you want to say.

    2. Proving, once again, that climate advocacy is pure, unadulterated religious zealotry.

      Peterson goes on to explain how the term 'climate change' means 'everything' despite the fact that the precepts don't take 'everything' into account. You're very much just another Muslim or Christian extremist insisting that every human that doesn't agree with you that your God lives in all things and guides, or should, all actions is a nihilist.

      A very good reason why Bailey hasn't posted is, for all of his idiocy, he hasn't fallen for the "The End Is Nigh!" bullshit. Even zealous Christians and moderate Muslims dumped that nutbaggery decades, if not eons, ago.

    3. You're a gaslighting piece of shit.

      I hope Reason takes me on as their "commenter advisor" from this.

  28. I wonder how long Melissa Chen has left on Twitter?

  29. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thought it necessary to jump into this fray.

    1. Still seeking relevance.

  30. Anyone think it was a coincidence that for the 2 weeks leading up to this chemjeff, larson, tony were on here daily shitting on "Dr Joe Rogan" and trying to discredit him even when he wasnt part of the conversation at all?

    Looks like they got their talking points right on schedule

    1. SPB gets the talking points first from his NAMBLA meetings.

  31. George Orwell, whether out of contemplation for what the future might bring or out of some psychic awareness, predicted how the world could be turned upside down by a small group of people. We now live in a world where 2+2 = 5, where truth are lies, where freedom is slavery and where anyone who dares question the accepted narrative is viciously attacked and censored. Where people are routinely sent into social isolation for daring to utter anything but the latest acceptable narrative.
    Censorship is alive and well in the "free world". Free that is if you go along with the narrative. If you don't, expect the Very worst.
    There is no respect for the Bill of Rights anymore, especially the First and Second Amendments. After all, they are in the way of totalitarian ideas that certain people, even in America are attempting to implement.
    All in the name of woke.

  32. Joe Rogan and Tom Cruise are filming a scene together. Which one will need to be standing on the apple box?

    Rogan is crushing all the corporate media outlets combined. Amazing stuff.

  33. "Rogan evidently believes his audience can benefit from hearing different, clashing points of view. Listeners have the agency to accept or reject what they hear."

    Is that what happens though? His show isn't about clashing points of view, at least not during the episode. It's about presenting counter narratives rather than balancing two or more perspectives and leaving it to the listener to decide which is true. That would be more like journalism.

    I think the push to get him off spotify is silly and this article touches on some of the hypocrisy around all the noise while failing to accurately reflect what Rogan's show is actually doing. I don't think that helps as it just feeds the trolls.

    1. Is that what happens though? His show isn't about clashing points of view, at least not during the episode. It's about presenting counter narratives rather than balancing two or more perspectives and leaving it to the listener to decide which is true. That would be more like journalism.

      Because CNN, the NYT, or NPR is notorious for presenting all sides and offering a balanced perspective? Exactly how many perspectives have to be offered for someone's reporting of facts to be considered journalism? I don't think you know what journalism is.

  34. Off Topic. Whoopie Goldberg is a fucking jew-hating racist piece of shit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.