So, you're comparing his endangering public health by discouraging vaccinations to me being mean to you on the internet? Are you able to understand how insanely ridiculous that is, or that I never actually made any comments whatsoever about you personally?

I'm sorry that you have so intensely personalized my comments about Joe Rogan and anti-vaxxers in general, but I just don't have the emotional bandwith to deal with your reactions, I'm sorry. Honestly though, you should be aware that the 40% of adults in this country who have been vaccinated a) see it as both a necessity and responsibility to collectively beat down this pandemic which has claimed 3.2 million lives to date globally and will otherwise just keep on raging, and b) consider those who refuse to do so to be self-centered death cult lemmings.

https://wiki.dmt-nexus.me/Attitude_Page

Scroll to the bottom of the page

Hmmm, who died and make Bill Cipher the Grand Poobah of the Nexus?


https://wiki.dmt-nexus.me/Attitude_Page

Scroll to the bottom of the page

I'm curious about what racist, transphobe and islamophobe comments he made exactly.

I kind of enjoy a heated chat, it's fun. We are all grownups here, mostly

Whats life without some fire 😁

here are at least 3 different things being argued in this thread.. Joe Rogan's impact on people, vaccines, and Bill Cipher's style of communication.

1-
Joe Rogan is an entertainer, a comedian, an mma color commentator.. He is not a health expert by any means. He self-deprecatingly calls himself a moron many times and often says people shouldn't listen to him, including in the vaccine issue.

I certainly wouldn't go to him for advise on matters not pertaining to his expertise, just like with many other people and other subjects. Michio Kaku is wrong about psychedelics, Bill Gates is wrong about bitcoin, etc. At the same time, Joe Rogan has been right about many things, for example has led a lot of people to start exercising, doing jiu jitsu, which can absolutely be a positive transformation in one's life. So how do we measure the good vs the bad?

Is it the responsibility of people talking if they defend positions that are wrong, or responsibility of the listeners to discern, as grown adults, what is right or wrong?

As Bill Cipher asked, what is the limit though? If he started denying the holocaust, or defending dictatorship or whatever, is it the same?

In my personal opinion, and anyone should feel free to disagree, it would be the same, in the sense that it should be the responsibility of the individual listener to discern. There is plenty of wrong information in the world, and we can't shelter people from it. If I think about my child, for example, who is too young to understand Rogan, but say he was a teenager... I'd rather trust that I do a good job teaching him to discern so that even if he listened to Rogan he'd not be influenced negatively by being misinformed, but that he'd be positively influenced by the good aspects and thing he can genuinely learn. I'd much rather that, than to "cancel" Rogan because he is wrong about some things.


2- Vaccines are an incredible invention that has saved countless lives since their invention. Look up smallpox for example. We are currently living a pandemic that has also taken many lives, way more than the flu, and vaccines can definitely help save many lives now too.

Most of the fears people have regarding vaccines are misunderstandings or wrong.This is a great wikipedia entry that goes in depth about many of those fears.

That being said, it is also true that pharmaceutical companies have often done bad things and that there have been fake vaccination schemes (as described in that article when they tried to find Bin Laden), or vaccines that caused problems. In the case of vaccines I think those are minor cases compared to the benefits though.

Also this particular research and production of covid vaccines has been done at a record pace, and sometimes it may take a longer time frame to realize what are the side effects or other problems. There were some issues being found along the way (mostly with AstraZeneca's and J&J's thrombosis cases or Sputnik's tainted batches sent to Brazil), and I don't find it surprising that some people are more wary and would like to take more time to decide if they take it or not.

Say for example, they found that vaccines based on adenovirus do cause thrombosis specially in young women, or its only if they are taking birth control pills.. Well, a young woman would not be unreasonable to have waited a bit before taking those vaccines because she now has learned she has much lower risk of issues if taking the pfizer vaccine instead. It's complex though because if most young woman would not take vaccines for example, this could mean more infections, and more deadly mutations. We may be trading someone's life for someone else's life with these decisions, and to value a life over another is very complex ethically.

That being said, I still personally think most people can and should take the vaccines available to them. I'm waiting for my turn. I just think that it's



3-

Bill Cipher was chosen as the sole person to not be restrained by the attitude rules. Even Trav, the admin, or other mods like me, we still have to abide by the attitude page.

This was done because we think the forum should definitely be a peaceful place with good attitude. At the same time, long ago we decided felt that to deal with certain trolls and people with bad attitude coming to the forum, they needed a verbal "slap in the face", someone that ruthlessly tells the truth.

This decision was specifically regarding trolls and people with bad attitude. Bill Cipher has lately, though, been (understandably imo) been very concerned with political issues, and this is what brings him to post in the way he does. I don't agree with him in some things, but I still think it's good to have a watch dog in the forum that makes no concessions.

I understand some people are not happy with it, but I also think we need to consider that it's a forum with thousands of people and posts that do follow the attitude, this is a great respectful place, and you can always ignore a single poster if you don't like him. If it was multiple people, it would be harder to ignore, but if you don't like his posts, just don't read, and understand.

I agree, but the difference being is that you are a person that is quite high on the critical thinking spectrum and can educate yourself and your child accordingly. Statistically at least a half of Joe's listeners may not be up to this. He has a lot of influence and therefore needs to take responsibility in relation to certain subjects. As far as i can see he said "i don't think there is anything wrong with the vaccine but if you are a healthy 21 year old then you don't need to take it". If there is nothing wrong with the vaccine, then take the bloody thing !!!
He has backtracked by calling himself a moron. Why doesn't he properly back track and just admit that he was wrong?

Joke.....How do you get Conspiracy theorist to take a vaccine???


tell him he can't have one.

But then what are you proposing? Cancelling Joe Rogan?

We can't babysit grown adults, it's a slippery slope.. Are we gonna control every independent podcast, stop to discuss every mistaken idea a celebrity has? I mean, by all means point out the inconsistencies in his arguments if you want, but when he himself says people shouldnt listen to him, that he is a moron, that he is high or drunk most of the time, I think those are enough disclaimers...

I get that endless, but the person best suited for that position should (imo) not come off as jumpy and agressive, to the degree where it is hard to discern if the person is worth investing in any sort of conversation with. Over and over in threads I have seen the discussion turn to utter garbage once diverted by bill cipher in a manner which is agressive. Even in this very thread people afraid of vaccines are compare to dogs cowering from vaccumes. It is sad that this is how the discourse must go. It feels fairly toxic to me, when I have treated others I dont like or agree with in this way. I do not think it is healthy. The person policing in this way should not enjoy it. You are a far more level headed unpolarizing moderator, and I doubt you would like this type of discourse. It is too quick to simply cast others into a derogatory context.

No. Not cancelling. As you say ,critique him and point out the flawed logic in his argument. But saying that people shouldn't listen to you while at the same time hosting a very popular podcast seems a bit disingenuous to my mind. Not really a valid disclaimer.

In the case of covid vaccines and possible deaths due to the spread from people that have decided not to get vaccinated then, yes, we do need to babysit...

I believe that the net result of an open discussion about vaccines, that also includes the fears and criticism that people may have towards vaccination, will be that in the end, more people will take the vaccine.

Many of these fears are irrational, but you can only convince people that their fears are irrational, if you are willing to listen to them first.

What i like about joe rogan, is that he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to be convinced by good arguments, that he's wrong about something.

Those are two completely different things. One is to "listen" in the sense of, following what one says, heed the advice, etc. The other is to be a listener of a conversation, of a podcast, where they talk about a trillion different subject for hours. He is saying people shouldn't do the first, he is not talking about whether he should have people tuning in to his podcast.

Any long form conversation that lasts hours between two human beings is bound to have some information that is wrong, that is misguided, that you may not agree with, etc etc.. It is up to the listener imo to be able to differentiate what is useful and what is not, or to tune out if he doesn't agree with. There are MANY podcasts out there to choose from.




Very dangerous slippery slope. Are we going to prevent people from taking drugs because some die when misused? Are we going to control what people eat because their bad habits lead to health issues, which also "hoards" medical attention meaning maybe someone else dies due to lack of doctors ? Are we going to prevent people from using cars because there are some accidents that involve others? Who gets to decide all those things?

IMO we have to invest in education, NOT control.

And I completely understand that. But when one is clearly not a troll, and does their best to contribute in a healthy and respectable manner, should they be spoken down to or ridiculed? It seems to me to be less the behavior of a "watch dog", and more along the lines of elitism and dismissive bullying. But that is fine, I will just not engage it. But just because you are the bouncer at the bar doesn't mean you get to throw punches at patrons every time they say they don't like their mixed drink. The bouncer serves a purpose, and is there for the aggressive jerks, under aged kids, and predators. They are there for everyone's safety, not to flex their agenda or importance. It just makes it very difficult to have a constructive conversation or debate when these types of things are going on...

I understand the point you guys make.

As mentioned, personally I think he fulfills an important role and I want him here even when I dont agree with him. When I read any post where Bill Cipher is being excessive and is not simply responding to a Troll, I try to mediate as im doing here. But I by no means decide anything, The Traveler is ultimately the person that makes the choice, so anybody can voice to Trav if they don't agree with how something is done here.

My suggestion is, apart from talking to trav if you so desire, is to simply ignore Bill's posts if they bother you. You can always keep the discussion going in a productive way with others if you feel you can.

Good point. And i agree very much about education. The difference being that ICU and recovery units are not being filled beyond capacity with drug users and people with bad diets. This is an extreme situation where time is not a luxury. How bad does a pandemic have to be before people stop worrying about losing their civil liberties from being told to use a "harmless" vaccine?

From a Vox article I just pulled up with a two second Google search of "Joe Rogan racist comments":

But Rogan’s popularity is owed in part for his vocal rejection of “political correctness,” which can take the form of transphobia (he once called trans woman mixed martial artist Fallon Fox “a fucking man”), Islamophobia (hosting guests like the far-right Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, who used his appearance to argue that Muslims are too inbred for the US to accept as immigrants), and racism (he once compared a black neighborhood to Planet of the Apes).

I don't really get the cancel culture references here. He has 10 million podcast subscribers. That requires more personal responsibility in my opinion than saying "I'm a moron, don't listen to me" in response to blowback from making dangerous and irresponsible recommendations to an audience who IS going to listen to him regardless.

There are laws preventing someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. This is not protected as free speech in this country, and I fail to see how using a platform with as much reach as his to discourage people from being vaccinated in the midst of the biggest global pandemic in 100 years is anything other than yelling fire in a theatre of 10 million. It's going to result in people dying, and if you want to look at holding him accountable for his words and actions as cancel culture, then yes, I'm all for it. The FCC can levy fines. He can be de-platformed. I'd love to see either or both.

Regarding my thoughts about anti-vaxxers, that's where I'm at and I'm going to express them. I think they're pariahs, plain and simple; selfish, self-centered, deluded death cultists. I would like to see vaccination as mandatory for employment, air travel, school enrollment, government assistance, etc., and anyone who's cashed a stimulus check within the past year and refuses to get the shot, I would like to see them made to repay it with interest and face warrants if they fail to do so.



Apparently, apocalyptically bad. But context is important, and keep in mind that these are all the same people who have been railing about being asked to wear masks for the past year. These people are led by propagandistic forces they neither recognize or understand (and that certainly includes Joe Rogan). They're useful idiots, being manipulated by shadow actors into participating in culture wars for the sake of the advancement of populist agendas. They're dopes, rubes, terrifyingly confident in their utter ignorance and baseless points of view.

As to the rest, I'll sit out your debate.

Problem is that a repressive attitude will make people like alex jones say:"see, we're being silenced, they've got something to hide". And that will seem like a credible argument to many people who already have their doubts.

Many fears just happen to be irrational.

Telling people to shut up is not going to make these fears go away, it is only going to make it worse. Lend these fears and the people stirring them up, an aura of credibility they don't deserve.

People can be convinced. Not all of them. But at least you'll convince more people by having a discussion about it and allowing them to express their concerns, than by simply calling them all kinds of ugly things.

I wasn't aware of the fact he made these comments. I agree they are quite unpleasant.

I'm not taking sides, but have a few observations.

First, the only people I have noticed Bill attack in this thread has been Joe, antivaxxers, and some guests on Joe's podcast. So the only way someone was really attacked in this thread is if they are an antivaxxer. He's been sardonic and sarcastic many times, but it seems to be a method for getting his point across. He's cussed, but has permission. I saw anger, passion, and resolve.

Second, this is an online forum. You're not obligated to acknowledge anything from anyone else here. If you feel someone is aggressive then ignore them.

Third, the title of this is "Joe Rogan good or bad?" and Bill added his two cents which is definitely his prerogative. It's a post whose implicit nature is to cast opinions in an attempt to manifest a dialogue. That doesn't mean that every post need be acknowledged.

Fourth, in defending a position, if to have a productive discourse, one should be ready to acknowledge bias on their own part. Example: I am biased against Joe. For me, despite his caveats, people still hang on his word, neglect to do their own research, take his thoughts, opinions, and interpretations at face value and seriously, and adopt his behavior and thinking. That's what happens with celebrities. While under the law they have a right to express themselves, at the level of influence the reside in they have a further moral imperative to filter themselves and sacrifice some of their freedom of speech in a effort to mitigate harm on multiple levels. I think telling people not to get vaccinated is ignorant, naive, and reckless. He's not a medical professional, and by his own admission, not very well informed. So, someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, encouraging something that they are unaware of is irresponsible and shows he talks too much.

Here's the rub, that bit above is MY SUBJECTIVE view. I could be wrong. I could be neglecting considerations that also impact the issue. I have biases; I am for vaccines, I think people are sheep generally, I think celebrities have too much pull and power, etc. All things that color my thinking on the topic. Acknowledging this allows me to interact with others productively as well as augment my thinking when necessary. It allows me to not get so emotionally invested and upset. So try to check biases in order to really understand someone else's side, even if it's in conflict with your own view. Check what things you may have shrugged off that Joe said. Check what things he's said that you've clung onto, whether positive or negative.

We are a community and in some ways like family. No one agrees with anyone about everything. Something to get used to. Show love, show understanding, and let's all grow.

One love