Today Joe Rogan shared ten minutes of his take on current matters.
What Joe said passes through our personal filters to be interpreted by each of us.
My interpretation is that he is a guy streaming long form conversations where he is frequently not a subject matter expert but a foil. Ignorance on a particular topic is not a crime. Nor are using various techniques like simply asking questions, offering up one's current POV (even if that's shown to come up short somehow at the time), or being curious enough to explore topics candidly and brave enough to share that entire process in unedited long form, at the risk of possible “controversy” etc. Having a conversation with someone else about stuff is part of the human process of learning.
In my opinion, he is a good foil who still manages to maintain something of an everyman persona and his own personality and values, as far as it's possible to tell through a screen. My measure of this is largely in what he's prepared to say and ask and of whom. If that gets disrupted, interfered with, curtailed or shut down, there are bigger problems. There already are bigger problems in the field of digital communications. Just listen to him talk to Harris and Schmachtenberger. If you're not on their tech line of thought then you should get on it now.
Why is the messenger starting to take incoming fire? That's a fundamental question here. Joe Rogan did not tell you what to do to fix or survive Covid. He told you what he did when he got it. I recall also that he expressed his opinion on whether kids should take a Covid-19 gene therapy. His opinion then actually tied broadly in with Scandinavian nations’ health authorities and global data on the zero bound IFR of Covid in kids, so why is he a “purveyor of misinformation”?
Did you take personal medical advice off comedian, TV presenter and podcast host, Joe Rogan, even though he wasn't giving advice to you? If so, what's your degree of responsibility here in all this?
McCullough and Malone did both lay out many aspects of their informed medical and scientific opinions, as they stood at the time Rogan asked them. McCullough never stopped citing published research. If either are good at medicine and/or science, their opinions are likely to evolve over time and keep doing so, as they should. If one backtests those opinions, they look like they are valid. So why exclude them from any conversations?
Now, what exactly did Rogan, McCullough or Malone say that was misinformation and why? At the moment, “misinformation” is simply a word that has been turned into an undefined label to perform the same smothering function as “conspiracy theory” used to do, before actual conspiracies became so many, egregious and provable. Why are System actors applying this label to Rogan without specifying exactly what he or his guests said that was wrong or amiss? Why has no one from the pro-narrative side been willing to go head-to-head with the non-narrative “misinformation” experts like Malone and McCullough or anyone who turned up to speak at Ron Johnson's Second Opinion roundtable event or the January 23rd Defeat the Mandates DC event in Washington?
No one from the FDA has even had the guts to just turn up to a meeting with Steve Kirsch for up to $2m. They turn up for Big Pharma meetings all the time for way less per minute or hour and actually have to speak. But they won't turn up, stay silent then leave after a few minutes for big money from Steve.
Take a look at just two contrasting reports of Rogan's 10m Instagram video statement and compare them with other reports. How does a headline set tone and tempo? How does selective quoting affect your perception before you go to the source or read other reports? How do those reports in totality affect you and how do they compare to the source material?
Why can't anyone living under the First Amendment have a long form conversation with someone else, then choose to share it? Even if you don't like what they are saying, is that enough to have them censored, cancelled, deplatformed or worse? I don't think so. I'd rather hear free speech than Newspeak, which is already on broadcast tap with endless Doublethink.
To Joe Rogan:
Remember that when you are taking flak, it means that you are over the target.
“Open the bomb bay doors.”.
PS Why didn't The Guardian link to Rogan's complete Instagram video?
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle also hit out at the company, saying they had spoken to bosses about their concerns.
So what? Why are either of these people relevant? Why aren't their specific concerns detailed? What if their concerns are utterly misplaced, ill informed or are themselves “misinformation”? They could have been expressing concerns about the time it took to finally remove Neil Young's back catalogue from Spotify.