Joe Rogan apologizes over Spotify podcast controversy

[Teletubby 150,095]

Joe Rogan addressed the controversy surrounding his podcast on Spotify, acknowledging that his show has grown into an “out-of-control juggernaut” and promised to offer more balanced perspectives in the future.

• In a video posted on Instagram, Rogan said, “If I pissed you off, I’m sorry,” and added that it was a “strange responsibility” to have so many viewers and listeners.

• He said he agrees with Spotify’s decision to add a Covid-19 content warning to his show.

•  He will do his best to “balance things out” going forward. “I will do my best to try to balance out these more controversial viewpoints with other people’s perspectives so we can maybe find a better point of view”.

• Attributing the current controversy to his episodes featuring vaccine skeptics Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough, Rogan noted that he wanted to talk to them as they had opinions that “differ from the mainstream narrative.”

• He claimed his intent was not be “controversial” or have his show only feature opinions that are just contrary to the popular narrative and said he was open to having “more experts with differing opinions right after I have the controversial ones.”

• Joe added that he is a huge fan of Neil Young, who along with Joni Mitchell.

source

[alsemanche 93,926]

Great now take down the episode(s) or it's all just empty talk

7 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

“If I pissed you off, I’m sorry,”

and that's such a stupid apology 

[Chic 20,830]

1 minute ago, alsemanche said:

Great now take down the episode or it's all just empty talk

and that's such a stupid apology 

Was there a particular episode that started all this? I didn’t know that

[alsemanche 93,926]

2 minutes ago, Chic said:

Was there a particular episode that started all this? I didn’t know that

i edited cause im not sure how many episodes have those comments tbh, and the article says episodes so it's gotta be more than one

[hELXIG 43,092]

He's just afraid his platform will be taken away   scared little mole

[Teletubby 150,095]

6 minutes ago, alsemanche said:

i edited cause im not sure how many episodes have those comments tbh, and the article says episodes so it's gotta be more than one

Spotify removed 42 episodes of Joe Rogan last year. No one cared about what Joe Rogan is talking about in his podcast before and no one care now. You want them to remove episodes but you really don't even know what you want them to remove.

[alsemanche 93,926]

14 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

Spotify removed 42 episodes of Joe Rogan last year. No one cared about what Joe Rogan is talking about in his podcast before and no one care now. You want them to remove episodes but you really don't even know what you want them to remove.

And you're pissed because? He's spreading dangerous misinformation like the idiot he is, and Spotify is supporting it. I don't know which episodes need to be removed because I don't listen to his stupid podcast and won't listen now and give him more plays. Not sure what you're trying to say here cause you're making 0 sense lmao

[Guest]

I think it's good to bring different opinions on the table

[Roseblud Kisses 685]

Now apologize for being born, powerful dad 

[Teletubby 150,095]

51 minutes ago, alsemanche said:

And you're pissed because? He's spreading dangerous misinformation like the idiot he is, and Spotify is supporting it. I don't know which episodes need to be removed because I don't listen to his stupid podcast and won't listen now and give him more plays. Not sure what you're trying to say here cause you're making 0 sense lmao

I'm not pissed. I don't listen to him so I don't know what he is talking about in his podcast. I said that they removed his episodes in past so they will do it again if these episodes are against guidelines. Also his podcasts are on YouTube too.

[Dojo 19,365]

2 hours ago, AnnaNicoleSmith said:

I think it's good to bring different opinions on the table

yes, this! for what i read he invited the scientist who actually made (or invent i think) the mRna vaccine in the 80s or 90s, so at least it was not just a random pseudo health guru.

There's no such thing as universal truth and information will change. I learned so much about viruses in the past two years and we will keep getting challenged with new insights, some of them will be false, or inaccurate, and that's where our common sense and intelligence comes in handy. In the end all this information for better or worst leads to us becoming more educated. So it is good to bring different opinions in the table. 

Edit. For the record, i am 100% pro vax, i had my two shots and i will get my boosters, i'm still waiting for my first one but it's not available for my age group just yet 

[Chromatislaps 34,851]

12 hours ago, AnnaNicoleSmith said:

I think it's good to bring different opinions on the table

Same, I agree we shouldn't perse silence people who have different opinions, especially scientists who come with valid arguments and evidence to counter the "majority" opinion. If we can't have that, we can't have proper science. Science is build by proving/disproving certain assumptions with evidence.

I've noticed the mainstream media isn't very dependable, the news is often incomplete information, or it contradicts previous statements or truth-drips information. What I'm missing in the news, is nuance, fairness and good journalism. The headlines these days make it so you will have snapshot opinions on matters we don't know the details of. 

A good example is how the media and health organization constantly back and forth on "facts". While I know the information regarding covid was still being gathered, to claim that some people in the science community didn't have facts, whilst wrong information was released to the public was a pretty dangerous precedent.

At the start of the pandemic the media claimed: The WHO and CDC advised to not wear facemasks, because the Chinese authorities say covid is not transmissible through aerosols and boy were they wrong on that one. 

Then the media and health organizations claimed that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine wouldn't work, which is not entirely correct either: in certain clinical settings doctors and nurses administered it on people who had symptoms that weren't yet severe but started to develop to become severe (to be exact, the medicine had to be administered before the 5th day of contracting the virus): it prevented the worst symptoms, it didn't however cure people on the ICU. Also the hospitals in countries that couldn't get their hands on remdesivir (the medicine they specifically used to treat covid on ICU's), would use ivermectin, hydroxychloroquin because they had no other options. It's still not advisable to get either medication yourself because one is a malaria medicine used for over 50 years (hydroxchloroquine) and the other is a medicine also used on horses. This topic requires so much more nuance

Then the theory that the virus came from a spill-over event, was fiercely defended in the media and by health organizations like the WHO and people who opposed it were silenced and accused of being racist. Last year people at the WHO admitted in an DW interview that claiming it was a lab leak was a sensitive topic, and the matter definitely put some geopolitical pressure on China. 

Over time the theory of a lab made virus and lab leak became more likely, since the almost perfect mutations in the virus made it unlikely to originate from a wild virus, since no other virus has such a perfect way to infiltrate the human body through multiple cell receptors. Only somewhere last year there was a WHO team sent out to China, who only got to see some very specific places in Wuhan, that were obviously cleaned and set up for the virologists that were invited to not draw conclusions. (their tour was very similar to the tours they organize in North Korea for tourists, there is a playbook for all the activities and things you need to see everything outside of that is prohibited).

Also a few months ago if you stated that you could still spread covid after being vaccinated, people would get deplatformed and banned. Now, it's accepted as fact and people don't get banned.  

I do think the censoring of people online is pretty alarming, and the crazy thing is big tech has the full right to decide who should or should not make use of their social "tools". The concern that free speech can incite more deaths, because of dangerous information is very legit but to censor people can also be very dangerous to certain rights we take for granted. Yes it may seem like a cliche to some....its just something we need to think about...critically.

 

Lol, now to to come back to the topic at hand: What I noticed is that Joe has had some credible people, as well as people that are on the fringe when it comes to their knowledge/ expertise, and outlandish characters.

Joe is not someone I'd consider on the side that has credible views at times. However that variety of people he talks to and debates with is interesting and that shouldn't be censored. Their discussions should include some fact checking, since its a large platform with a lot of followers.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Chromatislaps said:

Same, I agree we shouldn't perse silence people who have different opinions, especially scientists who come with valid arguments and evidence to counter the "majority" opinion. If we can't have that, we can't have proper science. Science is build on weighing off certain theories with evidence.

 I've noticed the mainstream media isn't very dependable or only truth-drips information.

At the start of the pandemic they said: WHO and CDC advises no facemasks needed, cause China says its not transmissible through aerosols, boy they were wrong, then they started to btch about that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine wouldn't work, which is wrong in certain clinical settings they used it on people who had symptoms that weren't yet severe but started to develop to become severe: it prevented the worst symptoms, it didn't however cure people on the ICU. It's still not advisable to get either medication yourself because one is a malaria medicine used for over 50 years (hydroxchloroquine) and the other is a medicine also used on horses.

Then the theory of whether the virus came from a lab or from a spill-over event, it was fiercely defended that it was a spillover, because people didn't want to wake the CCP dragon to say they are racists. WHO fiercely defended this as well. But over them the theory of a lab made virus and lab leak became more likely.

What I'm missing in the news, is NUANCE and good journalism. But no the headline make it so you have snapshot opinions on matters we don't know the details of. 

What I noticed is that Joe invites credible people as wel as people that are on the fringe when it comes to their knowledge and expertise, and that variety is interesting and that shouldn't be censored.

The concern that free speech can incite more deaths, because of dangerous information can be dangerous. But on the other hand do we want Big Tech and authorities monitor everything we say and do?

Everything you said >>>>>>>

It is very very important

[Morphine Prince 106,210]

Different opinions are important but the issue is when you keep giving a platform to dangerous misinformation it’s gone beyond that. You must recognize that. 

Bill Maher is an example of someone who has given a platform to “different opinions” - but he challenges them and notes when something is clearly ridiculous. 

Joe Rogan has agreed and made insane remarks in the past. He is not better than some of the people he brings on. 

Having a balanced discussion isn’t about having someone speak facts and reason and the other speaking misinformation and lies. That’s insanity.

People these days seem to think giving a platform to lies is being “fair.” These people wouldn’t be given the time of day in the past. Unfortunately the Internet can give a voice to anyone.

 

[TheFame Monster 8,949]

2 hours ago, AnnaNicoleSmith said:

I think it's good to bring different opinions on the table

The problem is that the he and the people he brings on have opinions about whether facts are true or not. They are facts because they are true lol. And they spew conspiracies as facts when they are conspiracies because there isn’t evidence for them to be factual.