> You're gonna have to back those bold claims up, otherwise what's stopping us from claiming that you are the culprit and should be gulag'd?

There are six in here: https://www.insider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-episodes-that-spre...

Further support of the first in that list: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rogan-dont-need-to-worry-v...

Further support of the fifth: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/31/joe-rogan/...

A separate 7th item: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/26/joe-rogan/...

On a quick glance at the 1st one: Joe says "healthy young people" don't need the vaccine, but the claim debunked is "young people" don't need the vaccine. Why can't they address what he actually said?

They can't address what he actually said for the same reason anyone likes to refute a strawman argument instead of addressing the real argument.

I think the officials are so afraid that any discussion of nuance [1] would frighten people away from the vaccines that they simply avoid talking about it entirely, and sometimes call to outright suppress any such discussions as "misinformation" and label these people as "anti-vaxx".

[1] https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...

His claim is still wrong. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/im-a-healthy-young-person-...

I said to explain how this is misinformation and dangerous, not show me episodes you don't like.

> I said to explain how this is misinformation and dangerous, not show me episodes you don't like.

prohobo, you may wish to read the links for concrete answers to your request. The how is answered very directly, especially considering the bottom three links are all fact-checking sites that explain the how and the why.

But if you don't care to, we can move on.

I've read the articles: none of them explain how this is dangerous, and none of them have a compelling case that Joe Rogan or his guests intentionally lie to their audience.

What they do is make arguments against their points, many of which aren't verifiable or are just opinions.

I'm all for removing things that are empirically and logically "dangerous misinformation", but we have to actually prove it empirically and logically first. Can you do that?

Rogan doesn't have to be intentionally lying to his audience for it to be dangerous misinformation

There is no evidence that Rogan's opinions are either dangerous, or considered "information" by most people. Beware overusing this term or it will lose all meaning.

Intentionality is required for something to be misinformation.

misinformation: incorrect or misleading information

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation

If you want proof let’s set some parameters on what you would consider sufficient for that proof.

1) Prove it's misleading or incorrect information. Getting a fact wrong in a longform discussion doesn't count, it needs to be intentional.

2) Prove it's dangerous: either for individuals or communities.

So here’s where we have a problem…

Proving something incorrect is proving proving the negative. That’s not how people engage in good faith argumentation.

I’ll add, a traditional definition of “incorrect information” would primarily focus on factual accuracy over motivation.

Why is it necessary to prove intentionality to prove incorrectness?

All of this is before we acknowledge that you will never accept something as proven false, as proven intentional, or as proven harmful.

Your standard is meaningless because it’s both incoherent and unmeetable.

It’s also characteristic of arguments like this and why the ‘bullshit asymmetry’ concept exists. Trying to meet it is a distraction that simply serves to give your argument credibility because people engage with it in trying (hopelessly) to meet your asymmetric epistemically standards.

What are you talking about? If you claim something is dangerous and want it removed, you better have god damn compelling evidence of the "danger".

Explain what the danger is, and how it is manifesting.

And intentionality is absolutely relevant to this, considering we are essentially judging a conversation between two people. Does the same conversation in a bar constitute misinformation? When does it go from conversation to declaration? When does opinion become misinformation?

I'm not currently interested in whether what they're saying is true or not, I'm interested in whether it can be considered misinformation in spirit of the meaning of the word. If their intention is to discuss something sincerely, then it's not misinformation - it's opinion.

> Found the JRE fan

What is this, reddit?

That's not proof of shit, many more doctors support questioning the Covid interventions. See: https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/

What you are proving is that there's a discussion to be had that you want to stop, because what? You're scared?

No where in the declaration do I see the term "hospital capacity".

One criticism, amongst many:

> David Naylor, co-chair of the Government of Canada's COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, told the National Post: "Obviously, the Great Barrington fix will excite the minimizers who pretend COVID-19 is not much worse than the flu and enliven the libertarians who object to public health measures on principle … So be it: they've been offside all along."[5] Naylor also pointed out that a study published in August in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine examined Sweden's "no-lockdown" policy's effect on herd immunity among the Swedish population, finding it did not improve herd immunity despite higher rates of hospitalization and death than in neighbouring countries.[5][56] According to Naylor, the policy advocated by signatories of the declaration would never be the "controlled demographic burn that some zealots imagine", and because of exponential growth of infections would lead to a situation where "with masses of people sick in their 40s and 50s; hospitals will be over-run and deaths will skyrocket as they did in Italy and New York".[5] With the prospect of a vaccine available within months [of the October 2020 statement], Naylor questioned the logic of the Great Barrington strategy, asking: "Why on earth should we rush to embrace a reckless prescription for a demographically-selective national 'chickenpox party' involving a dangerous pathogen?"[5]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#C...

It is questionable (to use a charitable term) whether "more" doctors doubt or support the interventions.

That might be an argument you'd like to take to a proper debate. What we're arguing about is whether having such a debate constitutes "dangerous misinformation".

The debate has been had. Rogan has been told countless times why he's wrong. He continues spewing dangerous misinformation regardless

What are you opinions on free speech and how should they relate to public broadcasting?

I'm struggling to see the relevance of that question

Well your struggle to connect them is evidence of my point.

Ok, so let’s say Rogan is sharing dangerous misinformation: what do you think should be done about it?

I'm not sure what should be done about it, but again don't see the relevance of that question. Your argument was that there's value to be had out of such a debate, which there isn't. And that a debate cannot be misinformation, which is again clearly false. Packaging misinformation up as a debate doesn't stop it being misinformation.

While you’re telling the truth, calling someone who is defensive about a tribal identity to which they subscribe that they and their cohorts are all wrong is about as effective as telling an Insane Clown Posse fan that they are listening to bad music. It just gives them an enemy and makes them cling harder.

I have never listen to a episode of JRE, but your link does not list a quote where he spreads misinformation himself. (unless you count a opinion “If you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, 'Should I get vaccinated?' I'll go, 'No.'”)

I suppose the issue is with some of his guests - but I think it is very legit for a podcast to have controversial guests in a free world.