Spotify deal with Joe Rogan actually worth more than $200 million, report claims

terzaerian

Posts: 1,262   +1,753
Right, you imply that I have some sort of legal responsibility for Star Citizen? Or that somehow, what I, specifially said, lead this person to invest their entire life savings into SC? And if you have read my SC posts, you will find that I express skepticism about SC, or have you just decided my SC posts are TLDR? 🤣

I think you would be on shaky ground here to establish some sort of true legal ground as to my culpability on this. In fact, I have repeatedly posted to @blackdreamhunk to file a court case about the $7K that @blackdreamhunk "invested" in the game. At least I am capable of seeing something that might be questionable, and I don't blindly go around telling others to buy into it.

But we should all trust Joe Rogan, right? He is perfect and should be given free-reign without any oversight whatsoever? I don't think so.

I think your comparison is ultimately specious at the least.

But have at it, report me and my posts. I don't give a flying F if I am banned from here or not. Believe it or not, Techspot is not the center point of my life.
That's not my goal. My goal is for you to understand that this point of view, that dangerous opinions need to be quashed for the greater good, ultimately and invariably leads to self-destruction, the only variable is when.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
That's not my goal. My goal is for you to understand that this point of view, that dangerous opinions need to be quashed for the greater good, ultimately and invariably leads to self-destruction, the only variable is when.
And how is that actually true? I am sure that if look to history, that there are instances where dangerous opinions were not quashed and equally lead to self-destruction. Take WWII for example.

Name one historical instance where what you think happened actually has happened. Take, for instance, what is happening in Ottawa as a result of the protests. A city should be shut down, factories should not get the goods needed to continue business and, as a result, the people who work at those factories should be denied their means of support because the opinions of a few truckers outweigh the opinions of the uncounted masses?

EDIT: I understand your point of view, but that does not mean that I agree with it.
 
Last edited:

terzaerian

Posts: 1,262   +1,753
And how is that actually true? I am sure that if look to history, that there are instances where dangerous opinions were not quashed and equally lead to self-destruction. Take WWII for example.

Name one historical instance where what you think happened actually has happened. Take, for instance, what is happening in Ottawa as a result of the protests. A city should be shut down, factories should not get the goods needed to continue business and, as a result, the people who work at those factories should be denied their means of support because the opinions of a few truckers outweigh the opinions of the uncounted masses?

EDIT: I understand your point of view, but that does not mean that I agree with it.
WWII is a great example just not for the reasons you think. The 30s, like today, were an era where people believed that the notions of personal liberty and rights like free expression and privacy were passe and that the future belonged to strong countries with strong leaders that fought for the greater good and crushed bad actors underfoot without mercy, because the world was in the throes of the Depression and recovering was all that mattered. Millions of those people ended up in mass graves on both sides of the war before the ultimate consequences of their contempt for liberty became manifest.

Liberty is the greater good, period. Substituting anything else is the preamble for destruction.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
Liberty is the greater good, period. Substituting anything else is the preamble for destruction.
Are you advocating that in the name of personal liberty, anyone should be able to say anything in any context regardless of whether or not it is true, because you see personal liberty as the greater good and is the only thing that matters?
 

Scott Barnes

Posts: 22   +22
I'll begin by saying I have never listened to Rogan and I highly doubt I ever will.

So Rogan thinks that because he got better after taking Ivermectin, it was the Ivermectin that made him better?? 🤣 IMO, the reality is there is absolutely no science behind that, and because there might be a correlation there in no way means that if there is a correlation there, that the correlation equals causation.

Interestingly, I recently read a scientific study that says that 35% of the population have natural immunity to COVID https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2598-9.pdf Given this, IMO, it is far more likely that ivermectin had absolutely nothing to do with Rogan's recovery. With at least one study that suggested ivermectin is/was effective as a covid treatment withdrawn https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns I think it far more likely that ivermectin was not the reason that Rogan recovered from covid. Much more likely is that Rogan's own immune system is the reason that he recovered from COVID. But people believe Rogan and his crap. Rogan might just as well, IMO, have said "I took a :poop: and I recovered from Covid." There's about as much weight in that statement as is in him saying "I took ivermectin and recovered from covid."



Absolutely. I agree. Rogan is a *****. I don't care who he has on his show. If I want to hear an interview with Neil Degrasse-Tyson, I will find one on You Tube that is not conducted by Joe Rogan

So where does it stop? It, obviously, does not stop at political affiliation or philosophy. Both sides of the aisle have their cancel hot buttons and are avidly using them.

But lets take this a bit further: Do we now allow "snake-oil" sales people to sell snake-oil again as a treatment for _put_your_malady_ here_? Do we allow people to promote ponzi schemes? Or how about throwing out all the decisions of SCOTUS that place limits on "Free speech"?

Unfortunately, humanity is still far from a place where everyone acts with the best interest of others in mind. In fact, it certainly seems quite the opposite in that there are many people who will only act in their own interests. As well unfortunate, there are many people out there who cannot discern truth and are willing to believe anything told to them as in their best interests and will act on such information even if it were plainly harmful to someone of better mind. Take those who acted on Trump's suggestion to inject bleach for instance https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53755067 https://www.thenewcivilrightsmoveme...-actually-caused-people-to-poison-themselves/ So, we should allow that? I think not.

IMO, Spotify is in shaky territory for having placed so many eggs in their "Joe Rogan" basket. Rogan will fade away in time - until then, Spotify is only interested in how much advertising revenue Rogan is bringing in - IMO.

So I'll address these in a linear fashion from the top;

Stating up front that you have no knowledge of a topic and following it up with a definitive regarding your intent to obtain future knowledge of a topic is the point where your comment should be disregarded. It beggars belief that you would continue to type after that opening statement but this may enable a teachable moment regarding the effective collection of sources.

Ivermectin was never the sole factor that Rogen has said lead to his recovery, he has suggested regularly that he strongly believes that it sped up his recovery though he usually attenuates that by mentioning that he's just a meat head and shouldn't be cited for medical advice. He quite frequently has cited the importance of a healthy lifestyle and a well balanced diet and supplementation as also having sped his recovery. As obesity and diabetes are the two strongest linked co-morbidities for Covid his suggestions are general good advice for anyone though as he says are not medical advice.

The study you cited in your first link is certainly from a solid source having been published in Nature, in fact I have the print version of it in that weeks issue of Nature here in my home. The issue I take with your cited reference is that no where in that study does it suggest that "35% of people are naturally immune to Covid". In fact when that study was fronted in April of 2020 there is no statistical way that there would have been enough exposure of the general population to even demonstrate a representation that high in the population. The study was based upon preliminary findings suggesting the possible reaction of an unexposed immune system to Sars Cov 2. I highly doubt you actually read the paper and simply went hunting for some quick ammo you felt backed your argument without doing the requisite reading, or bothering to check the date it was fronted and then published to even establish basic reasonability of its use in making your point.

To the second article you cited, let us just say that the Guardian is not now nor has it ever been an authoritative source. If you were to have actually gone to the source of the study that the Guardian mistakenly reported on (which was from Oxford University UK) then you would have learned that not only is the study ongoing but the value of Ivermectin as a prophylactic has been fairly well established within the literature at this point and along with other drugs it is being examined for uses as a therapeutic treatment though as of yet its value in that capacity has not been resolved. Dr. John Campbell who has a sizeable Youtube presence addressed this specific misreporting by the Guardian several weeks ago and spoke with his colleague working within the study at to confirm that Ivermectin is still very much part of the ongoing research conversation.

Rogens podcast certainly can be enlightening as western society has moved ever further into a near religious structure with regard to the discussion of topics of science as it is increasingly the case that there is an ever shrinking walled garden of scientific topics that are acceptable to discuss on traditional media platforms. Fully 1/3rd of the guests Rogen has on are researchers such as Avi Loeb or Shanna Swan who are at the bleeding tip of the spear in their chosen disciplines yet they simply can't get a shred of bandwidth from legacy platforms. Possibly more important still are the highly credentialed journalists such as Glen Greenwald or Josh Rogin who face similar friction.

The inevitable end result of a civil society is personal responsibility, which in turn means everyone is required to make their own decisions about what to believe based upon an examination of the available evidence. Government cannot and should not regulate discourse between citizens at any time or for any reason with the exception of direct calls for violence which is already regulated by law in all western democracies (as a Canadian I'm unclear on the technicalities of the US standard regarding the legislation though I'm fairly certain it is largely similar between most western countries).

The BBC piece you cited doesn't mention Trump or bleach anywhere in its body, though I'll presume that you are inadvertently referencing the disinformation (yes disinformation as it was motivated by profit and wasn't a simple mistake) propagated by CNN as well as other US networks in the wake of a press conference given by then president Donald Trump regarding treatments that were being considered as prototype or "in testing" options for the most critically ill Covid patients. During that news conference Trump asked Dr. Birx (who was off to his right and off microphone) for clarification regarding cleansing agent treatments that were under consideration for inhalation to act directly on the secondary bacterial pneumonia that was proving fatal for many critically ill patients on ventilators. The disinformation posited regarding this was that Trump has suggested that people drink bleach, you should still be able to find the exact clip from CNN where they intentionally disingenuously stated this. Another part of this same press conference that caused issues was the suspension from Facebook and Twitter of a medical research company that was working on a laparoscopic UV light treatment for the same bacteria mentioned previously. The simple mention of this company and there exceedingly impressive tech was enough to get them unjustly deplatformed. The company in question was Aytubioscience.

I would also point out that the references used by the BBC consists firstly of a "Youguv" poll which has no scientific or research value to speak of as the entire purpose of it is simply to gauge the general opinion of the British public at large (academics have been attempting to dispense with Youguv in the UK for years as it is regularly misleading and misused by media to substantiate poorly researched articles). The second reference is a decent looking small study quantifying the type of misinformation that you would find around your average comment section online. I somewhat doubt you read further that the title of this study either as amusingly its first reference to the former US president cites a rumor from Iran related to how Covid was an attack by the US on an Iranian city. The take away being that the study cites misinformation against Trump not by him which runs counter to the framing you inferred in your cited references.

The moral of the story here is that you should never be afraid of having more information from which to make a decision, admitting up front that you're closed minded is a very poor tack to take. My educational background includes Cellular biology and several years of lab instruction at the medical school of the university where I earned that certificate. I have been directing friends and family to certain JRE episodes for the last couple of years as he has the top researchers in varying medical fields on and just lets them say their piece for 3ish hours where he only stops them to ask questions that he sees as relevant the the average laymen. Personally I'd much rather hear a top researcher talk through their work in a calm lecture like atmosphere than have to read a very long very dry study.

Rogen has no problem admitting when he's wrong! That is an extremely rare quality in this day and age where even peer reviewed journals like Nature and the Lancet have been seen to attempt the occasional stealth edit or delete. That is why my spouse and I still get print and paper journals, rather difficult to change the content of a print and paper article if it becomes politically inconvenient.
 
Last edited:

NightAntilli

Posts: 900   +1,176
I understand people listen to this *****...I just don't know why?
If you actually bothered to watch or listen to a single episode, maybe you would understand why.

I'll begin by saying I have never listened to Rogan and I highly doubt I ever will.
Then why say anything at all? That would be like giving an opinion regarding what chocolate tastes like without ever having tried chocolate.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
So I'll address these in a linear fashion from the top;

Stating up front that you have no knowledge of a topic and following it up with a definitive regarding your intent to obtain future knowledge of a topic is the point where your comment should be disregarded. It beggars belief that you would continue to type after that opening statement but this may enable a teachable moment regarding the effective collection of sources.

Ivermectin was never the sole factor that Rogen has said lead to his recovery, he has suggested regularly that he strongly believes that it sped up his recovery though he usually attenuates that by mentioning that he's just a meat head and shouldn't be cited for medical advice. He quite frequently has cited the importance of a healthy lifestyle and a well balanced diet and supplementation as also having sped his recovery. As obesity and diabetes are the two strongest linked co-morbidities for Covid his suggestions are general good advice for anyone though as he says are not medical advice.

The study you cited in your first link is certainly from a solid source having been published in Nature, in fact I have the print version of it in that weeks issue of Nature here in my home. The issue I take with your cited reference is that no where in that study does it suggest that "35% of people are naturally immune to Covid". In fact when that study was fronted in April of 2020 there is no statistical way that there would have been enough exposure of the general population to even demonstrate a representation that high in the population. The study was based upon preliminary findings suggesting the possible reaction of an unexposed immune system to Sars Cov 2. I highly doubt you actually read the paper and simply went hunting for some quick ammo you felt backed your argument without doing the requisite reading, or bothering to check the date it was fronted and then published to even establish basic reasonability of its use in making your point.

To the second article you cited, let us just say that the Guardian is not now nor has it ever been an authoritative source. If you were to have actually gone to the source of the study that the Guardian mistakenly reported on (which was from Oxford University UK) then you would have learned that not only is the study ongoing but the value of Ivermectin as a prophylactic has been fairly well established within the literature at this point and along with other drugs it is being examined for uses as a therapeutic treatment though as of yet its value in that capacity has not been resolved. Dr. John Campbell who has a sizeable Youtube presence addressed this specific misreporting by the Guardian several weeks ago and spoke with his colleague working within the study at to confirm that Ivermectin is still very much part of the ongoing research conversation.

Rogens podcast certainly can be enlightening as western society has moved ever further into a near religious structure with regard to the discussion of topics of science as it is increasingly the case that there is an ever shrinking walled garden of scientific topics that are acceptable to discuss on traditional media platforms. Fully 1/3rd of the guests Rogen has on are researchers such as Avi Loeb or Shanna Swan who are at the bleeding tip of the spear in their chosen disciplines yet they simply can't get a shred of bandwidth from legacy platforms. Possibly more important still are the highly credentialed journalists such as Glen Greenwald or Josh Rogin who face similar friction.

The inevitable end result of a civil society is personal responsibility, which in turn means everyone is required to make their own decisions about what to believe based upon an examination of the available evidence. Government cannot and should not regulate discourse between citizens at any time or for any reason with the exception of direct calls for violence which is already regulated by law in all western democracies (as a Canadian I'm unclear on the technicalities of the US standard regarding the legislation though I'm fairly certain it is largely similar between most western countries).

The BBC piece you cited doesn't mention Trump or bleach anywhere in its body, though I'll presume that you are inadvertently referencing the disinformation (yes disinformation as it was motivated by profit and wasn't a simple mistake) propagated by CNN as well as other US networks in the wake of a press conference given by then president Donald Trump regarding treatments that were being considered as prototype or "in testing" options for the most critically ill Covid patients. During that news conference Trump asked Dr. Birx (who was off to his right and off microphone) for clarification regarding cleansing agent treatments that were under consideration for inhalation to act directly on the secondary bacterial pneumonia that was proving fatal for many critically ill patients on ventilators. The disinformation posited regarding this was that Trump has suggested that people drink bleach, you should still be able to find the exact clip from CNN where they intentionally disingenuously stated this. Another part of this same press conference that caused issues was the suspension from Facebook and Twitter of a medical research company that was working on a laparoscopic UV light treatment for the same bacteria mentioned previously. The simple mention of this company and there exceedingly impressive tech was enough to get them unjustly deplatformed. The company in question was Aytubioscience.

I would also point out that the references used by the BBC consists firstly of a "Youguv" poll which has no scientific or research value to speak of as the entire purpose of it is simply to gauge the general opinion of the British public at large (academics have been attempting to dispense with Youguv in the UK for years as it is regularly misleading and misused by media to substantiate poorly researched articles). The second reference is a decent looking small study quantifying the type of misinformation that you would find around your average comment section online. I somewhat doubt you read further that the title of this study either as amusingly its first reference to the former US president cites a rumor from Iran related to how Covid was an attack by the US on an Iranian city. The take away being that the study cites misinformation against Trump not by him which runs counter to the framing you inferred in your cited references.

The moral of the story here is that you should never be afraid of having more information from which to make a decision, admitting up front that you're closed minded is a very poor tack to take. My educational background includes Cellular biology and several years of lab instruction at the medical school of the university where I earned that certificate. I have been directing friends and family to certain JRE episodes for the last couple of years as he has the top researchers in varying medical fields on and just lets them say their piece for 3ish hours where he only stops them to ask questions that he sees as relevant the the average laymen. Personally I'd much rather hear a top researcher talk through their work in a calm lecture like atmosphere than have to read a very long very dry study.

Rogen has no problem admitting when he's wrong! That is an extremely rare quality in this day and age where even peer reviewed journals like Nature and the Lancet have been seen to attempt the occasional stealth edit or delete. That is why my spouse and I still get print and paper journals, rather difficult to change the content of a print and paper article if it becomes politically inconvenient.
Yet another clown. TLDR. If you do a bit of research, you would understand that coronavirus is associated with...wait for it... the common cold. http://virus.stanford.edu/corona/colds.html I think the odds for exposure is more than you understand.
 

Scott Barnes

Posts: 22   +22
Yet another clown. TLDR. If you do a bit of research, you would understand that coronavirus is associated with...wait for it... the common cold. http://virus.stanford.edu/corona/colds.html I think the odds for exposure is more than you understand.
Just for the record, while that link says "Stanford" in its body it is not in any way associated with the well reputed US university of that name. Again you seem to not have bothered to read the "paper" you've attempted to use in your argument. Anything officially published by Stanford would be under the address www.Stanford.edu/etc... for example; https://www.stanford.edu/research/

Again amusingly several entries down in that "paper" you referenced under "How can I prevent it" at #6 is a suggestion to use either garlic nose drops or to crush fresh garlic as a treatment. This is particularly amusing as use of garlic to treat corona viruses was one of the pieces of misinformation cited by one of the other studies you apparently failed to read further up in this thread.

You really need to stop trying to take short cuts, the general standard for research is 5 sources (that you've actually read). Stop trying to see how many nonsense statements you can clutter the internet with and take the time to do the reading. Your attempted points and statements are all over the place across half the articles on Techspot.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
Just for the record, while that link says "Stanford" in its body it is not in any way associated with the well reputed US university of that name. Again you seem to not have bothered to read the "paper" you've attempted to use in your argument. Anything officially published by Stanford would be under the address www.Stanford.edu/etc... for example; https://www.stanford.edu/research/

Again amusingly several entries down in that "paper" you referenced under "How can I prevent it" at #6 is a suggestion to use either garlic nose drops or to crush fresh garlic as a treatment. This is particularly amusing as use of garlic to treat corona viruses was one of the pieces of misinformation cited by one of the other studies you apparently failed to read further up in this thread.

You really need to stop trying to take short cuts, the general standard for research is 5 sources (that you've actually read). Stop trying to see how many nonsense statements you can clutter the internet with and take the time to do the reading. Your attempted points and statements are all over the place across half the articles on Techspot.
On one end of your posts, you are attempting to laud people like Rogan for giving a voice to those who have no other source, and on the other end, your insistence on "respectable sources" reeks of the same "no other source" or "cancel culture" crap that you are attempting to laud Rogan for dissuading. Seems to me that you hold two diametrically opposed points of view. So which is it?

And this BS that you are spouting, here, I am willing to bet that Rogan has never had five respectable sources.

And, to the point in your other post - We do not live in an ideal society. If you look further than your own nose, I am sure that you will find people that, for many things, cannot make their own decisions because they do not possess the mental faculties to make those decisions. Therefore, whether you like it or not, someone, traditionally that has been the role of government, has to step in and limit what the clowns say who would take advantage of those that do not possess the mental faculties to make such decisions. So come back and let us know when society meets your ideal criteria .

And to that point, what about the liberties of the people who died or were otherwise seriously injured when they "accidentally" injected themselves with bleach due to the fact that they heard the "stable genius" say that bleach was a possible treatment for COVID? Oh, yeah, that's right - those that are dead no longer have liberties. Silly me!

BTW - protection of liberties must extend even to the lowliest of humanity or it is meaningless drivel akin to the "master race" drivel, IMO, that fueled WWII.

Honestly, I don't give a crap what you think of me and my posts. If you don't like them, report them.
 

Scott Barnes

Posts: 22   +22
On one end of your posts, you are attempting to laud people like Rogan for giving a voice to those who have no other source, and on the other end, your insistence on "respectable sources" reeks of the same "no other source" or "cancel culture" crap that you are attempting to laud Rogan for dissuading. Seems to me that you hold two diametrically opposed points of view. So which is it?

And this BS that you are spouting, here, I am willing to bet that Rogan has never had five respectable sources.

And, to the point in your other post - We do not live in an ideal society. If you look further than your own nose, I am sure that you will find people that, for many things, cannot make their own decisions because they do not possess the mental faculties to make those decisions. Therefore, whether you like it or not, someone, traditionally that has been the role of government, has to step in and limit what the clowns say who would take advantage of those that do not possess the mental faculties to make such decisions. So come back and let us know when society meets your ideal criteria .

And to that point, what about the liberties of the people who died or were otherwise seriously injured when they "accidentally" injected themselves with bleach due to the fact that they heard the "stable genius" say that bleach was a possible treatment for COVID? Oh, yeah, that's right - those that are dead no longer have liberties. Silly me!

BTW - protection of liberties must extend even to the lowliest of humanity or it is meaningless drivel akin to the "master race" drivel, IMO, that fueled WWII.

Honestly, I don't give a crap what you think of me and my posts. If you don't like them, report them.
Generally speaking the researchers that Rogen has on are highly respected within their fields, what that means specifically is that their work has garnered citations. When a paper is published in a journal such as nature it contains references to dozens if not hundreds of previous works within the general scientific body of their field. Another way to determine a researchers prowess is to look at their body of published work where a decent volume of publication usually means a solid aptitude and standing within the field though too much emphasis can be put on volume of publication as it doesn't necessarily directly correlate with a researchers prowess in the field. I didn't say "respectable sources" I said "authoritative source" with regard to how The Guardian in the UK isn't one, they are little more than an influence chasing rag posting click bait for add revenue. They weren't always this way but like so many legacy media outlets that are withered husks of their former selves they have spent their brand cache on nonsense to claw in as many eyes as possible. The Rogen equivalent would be him having Alex Jones on the JRE, the difference is Rogen schedules his episodes such that he'll have a **** posting clown like Jones on one day and the next episode he'll have Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glen Greenwald on. I get that fact that many folks want to see Jones banished and rightfully so but it is much more effective for Rogen to have him on and dispel his nonsense in real time which with any luck will convert the legions of Jones followers away from his nonsense. You fix bad speech with better speech, nonsense and delusion only grow in the darkness of censorship.

This is relevant to your statement as any researcher appearing on the JRE these days is a senior research lead or chair of a department at a major university and has earned that position through having built a solid portfolio of published work and citation by their peers. Avi Loeb for example is one of the most respected Physicists on the planet, hell his CV would take a dozen pages to type out. If Rogen was the charlatan you believe him to be why would any world leading researcher risk their credibility by appearing on his podcast?

In response to your third paragraph regarding an ideal society I agree whole heartedly, after my time in Academia which I walked away from in 2013 I built a small business in short haul pharmaceutical transport in rural Atlantic Canada. While I delivered medication to folks from all different walks of life from the wealthiest to the poorest it was most commonly to folks on fixed social services incomes or older folks on old age pension. This is relevant because of your statement regarding members of the public lacking the mental faculties to make effective decisions for themselves. This has always been the case, so much so that the US military did studies on average IQ throughout the 60s and 70s, they determined that roughly 1/3 of all adults were below the threshold to make effective choices for themselves. This begs the question, as modern democratic government in only several centuries old (excluding the Isle of Mann) how is it that this hasn't gone catastrophically in the past? Well the answer is that government hasn't had anything to do with looking out for the less capable in society, traditionally that has fallen to the individuals family, the community around them and historically to the church in the form of shelters, communes and Christian brotherhoods (being from Newfoundland I take great exception to the Christian Brotherhood). The concept of government as mother or caretaker is an extremely new concept that has only been around for a few decades and has its roots in the state operated sanitoriums from the 19th and 20th century. As most western countries are now comfortably into a "post scarcity" phase of society with a lot of us able to work from home it is high time that we all get on toward treating each other with a degree of decency and looking to see how we can help in our own communities, this gets back to my statement regarding personal responsibility. The more I have my situation squared away the more others around me I can lend a hand to help, this ties in with "free speech" in that any speech that is free should for the benefit of society also be responsible and well thought through.

You're 4rth paragraph makes absolutely no sense as you are using quotations of things that were at no time part of my response to you, at no point did I type "stable genius" or "accidentally". I did point out that there was a large amount of provably true disinformation targeted at information provided by the former US president (there is near endless misinformation that was posited by the former US president himself which is why it was so odd that media felt the need to make anything up, all they needed to do was make a solid case regarding his nonsense), I also cited the specific biotech company that was deplatformed because of it. If the former US president were to have read out the law of conservation of energy which is the foundation of modern physics it doesn't invalidate that law. It just means that he was citing it from an expert who was there for the purpose of informing him on it to speak about it the US public. Much the same as Dr. Birx of the CDC was there to inform Trump on the standing of prototype treatment options when he discussed them. The fact that media then intentionally misrepresented what was said and private citizens made poor choices is an actual example of correlation not inferring causation.

I honestly have no idea where you've attempted to go with your statements in the 5th paragraph, liberties are protected (in theory) under law in all western democracies. In the US that has technically been since Jim crow in the 60's though as the last few years have made clear there are several generations of work still to be done before the promise of the US constitution is effectively fulfilled to all US citizens. In Canada while we never had the same type of race segregation we have always had a truly unacceptable arrangement with regard to our first nations residents that is finally starting to see some movement toward resolution with national steps being taken to reconcile the countries dark history regarding residential schools for first nations children as well as slowly working toward the abolishment of the "Indian Act" which precludes first nations individuals from owning the property they have ancestrally lived on. All communities in exclusion of race have around 1/3 of their residents that will require both liberty and assistance from the community due to neurological limitations, as with all things this should be handled at the lowest level of government possible whether that be municipal, county, or provincial. Historically speaking attempting to put those types of care in the hands of Federal government has gone horrendously as government at that level is much too far removed from the day to day reality of the affected individuals lives to provide anything resembling a nuanced solution. Further more it simply adds to bureaucratic overhead in an already bloated system while providing a perfect environment for fraud or misuse of funds.

It isn't a matter of liking of disliking, it is a matter of simply attempting to dispel inaccuracy where I can. Where and when I make inaccurate statement I hope my peers point it as there is no benefit to basing further thought upon incorrect information. If I'm going to talk about responsible speech I have to try and represent it. I tend to use comment sections infrequently as over the last decade I've simply been too busy with several small businesses. I've basically come back to a digital world that scarcely resembles the one I left in the early 2010's. At no point have I been belligerent toward you and I've attempted to engage with your statements in a genuine manner. The responses I've given are worded almost exactly how I would have phrased them when grading a students paper while I was a lab instructor during my time in Academia, it is very mild constructive criticism.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,732   +7,671
Yet another clown. TLDR. If you do a bit of research, you would understand that coronavirus is associated with...wait for it... the common cold. http://virus.stanford.edu/corona/colds.html I think the odds for exposure is more than you understand.
According to Wikipedia, "the common cold", is attributable to over 200 different viruses, all introducing the same symptoms. The most common of these are rhinoviruses. But yes, corona viruses are also in the toxic mess.

This should amply serve to demonstrate why we haven't found a single vaccine that will prevent or mitigate it.

I wouldn't be willing to cite my source on this, (it was Wiki, but I forget where exactly), But, vital mutation has a sort of "intelligence" abot it. In that the easier the transmission becomes, the less lethal it becomes as well. The plethora of viruses that cause the common cold, reinforces this theory. After all, how many people die of a cold?

The Omicron variant of SARS-2 seems to begin to bear this out. After all, it's been billed as the most transmissible, but least deadly strain pervasive thus far.

Which is not to say we shouldn't be vaccinated against it, merely that in another few hundred years, SARS-2, through many sequences of mutation, may join the "common cold" spectrum of viral diseases.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,732   +7,671
That's not my goal. My goal is for you to understand that this point of view, that dangerous opinions need to be quashed for the greater good, ultimately and invariably leads to self-destruction, the only variable is when.
Duh, wull, who's to say yours isn't the dangerous opinion? Furthermore, why should the rest of us take your word for it? Because, "you said so:? Good luck with that, ay.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
Generally speaking the researchers that Rogen has on are highly respected within their fields, what that means specifically is that their work has garnered citations. When a paper is published in a journal such as nature it contains references to dozens if not hundreds of previous works within the general scientific body of their field. Another way to determine a researchers prowess is to look at their body of published work where a decent volume of publication usually means a solid aptitude and standing within the field though too much emphasis can be put on volume of publication as it doesn't necessarily directly correlate with a researchers prowess in the field. I didn't say "respectable sources" I said "authoritative source" with regard to how The Guardian in the UK isn't one, they are little more than an influence chasing rag posting click bait for add revenue. They weren't always this way but like so many legacy media outlets that are withered husks of their former selves they have spent their brand cache on nonsense to claw in as many eyes as possible. The Rogen equivalent would be him having Alex Jones on the JRE, the difference is Rogen schedules his episodes such that he'll have a **** posting clown like Jones on one day and the next episode he'll have Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glen Greenwald on. I get that fact that many folks want to see Jones banished and rightfully so but it is much more effective for Rogen to have him on and dispel his nonsense in real time which with any luck will convert the legions of Jones followers away from his nonsense. You fix bad speech with better speech, nonsense and delusion only grow in the darkness of censorship.

This is relevant to your statement as any researcher appearing on the JRE these days is a senior research lead or chair of a department at a major university and has earned that position through having built a solid portfolio of published work and citation by their peers. Avi Loeb for example is one of the most respected Physicists on the planet, hell his CV would take a dozen pages to type out. If Rogen was the charlatan you believe him to be why would any world leading researcher risk their credibility by appearing on his podcast?

In response to your third paragraph regarding an ideal society I agree whole heartedly, after my time in Academia which I walked away from in 2013 I built a small business in short haul pharmaceutical transport in rural Atlantic Canada. While I delivered medication to folks from all different walks of life from the wealthiest to the poorest it was most commonly to folks on fixed social services incomes or older folks on old age pension. This is relevant because of your statement regarding members of the public lacking the mental faculties to make effective decisions for themselves. This has always been the case, so much so that the US military did studies on average IQ throughout the 60s and 70s, they determined that roughly 1/3 of all adults were below the threshold to make effective choices for themselves. This begs the question, as modern democratic government in only several centuries old (excluding the Isle of Mann) how is it that this hasn't gone catastrophically in the past? Well the answer is that government hasn't had anything to do with looking out for the less capable in society, traditionally that has fallen to the individuals family, the community around them and historically to the church in the form of shelters, communes and Christian brotherhoods (being from Newfoundland I take great exception to the Christian Brotherhood). The concept of government as mother or caretaker is an extremely new concept that has only been around for a few decades and has its roots in the state operated sanitoriums from the 19th and 20th century. As most western countries are now comfortably into a "post scarcity" phase of society with a lot of us able to work from home it is high time that we all get on toward treating each other with a degree of decency and looking to see how we can help in our own communities, this gets back to my statement regarding personal responsibility. The more I have my situation squared away the more others around me I can lend a hand to help, this ties in with "free speech" in that any speech that is free should for the benefit of society also be responsible and well thought through.

You're 4rth paragraph makes absolutely no sense as you are using quotations of things that were at no time part of my response to you, at no point did I type "stable genius" or "accidentally". I did point out that there was a large amount of provably true disinformation targeted at information provided by the former US president (there is near endless misinformation that was posited by the former US president himself which is why it was so odd that media felt the need to make anything up, all they needed to do was make a solid case regarding his nonsense), I also cited the specific biotech company that was deplatformed because of it. If the former US president were to have read out the law of conservation of energy which is the foundation of modern physics it doesn't invalidate that law. It just means that he was citing it from an expert who was there for the purpose of informing him on it to speak about it the US public. Much the same as Dr. Birx of the CDC was there to inform Trump on the standing of prototype treatment options when he discussed them. The fact that media then intentionally misrepresented what was said and private citizens made poor choices is an actual example of correlation not inferring causation.

I honestly have no idea where you've attempted to go with your statements in the 5th paragraph, liberties are protected (in theory) under law in all western democracies. In the US that has technically been since Jim crow in the 60's though as the last few years have made clear there are several generations of work still to be done before the promise of the US constitution is effectively fulfilled to all US citizens. In Canada while we never had the same type of race segregation we have always had a truly unacceptable arrangement with regard to our first nations residents that is finally starting to see some movement toward resolution with national steps being taken to reconcile the countries dark history regarding residential schools for first nations children as well as slowly working toward the abolishment of the "Indian Act" which precludes first nations individuals from owning the property they have ancestrally lived on. All communities in exclusion of race have around 1/3 of their residents that will require both liberty and assistance from the community due to neurological limitations, as with all things this should be handled at the lowest level of government possible whether that be municipal, county, or provincial. Historically speaking attempting to put those types of care in the hands of Federal government has gone horrendously as government at that level is much too far removed from the day to day reality of the affected individuals lives to provide anything resembling a nuanced solution. Further more it simply adds to bureaucratic overhead in an already bloated system while providing a perfect environment for fraud or misuse of funds.

It isn't a matter of liking of disliking, it is a matter of simply attempting to dispel inaccuracy where I can. Where and when I make inaccurate statement I hope my peers point it as there is no benefit to basing further thought upon incorrect information. If I'm going to talk about responsible speech I have to try and represent it. I tend to use comment sections infrequently as over the last decade I've simply been too busy with several small businesses. I've basically come back to a digital world that scarcely resembles the one I left in the early 2010's. At no point have I been belligerent toward you and I've attempted to engage with your statements in a genuine manner. The responses I've given are worded almost exactly how I would have phrased them when grading a students paper while I was a lab instructor during my time in Academia, it is very mild constructive criticism.
My apologies. In this thread, I've been really annoyed at those who just do not get that responsible leaders, IMO, have an obligation to expound information that is not founded on shaky ground. I did point out that I have never listened to Joe Rogan, so it's my mistake in relying on information posted by others - some of which, to me, indicate that perhaps the people he interviewed were, themselves, on ground that was not the recommended approach. Perhaps that information was repeated inaccurately, or the crucial details got lost in the relay effort. Like you, I live a busy life, (side-note I spend what seems like a large amount of time taking care of myself as I have IDDM) and my passion sometimes gets the best of me in that I do not always do my due diligence to the depth that might be required to truly educate those who read this forum and are, perhaps, less capable than I.

It does seem like we are of a similar mindset. And not that it is relevant, I spent a week in Burnside NL in the early 2000's attempting to participate in a version of traditional ritual where I spent 4-days on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean on rocks, in a tent where the rain-fly literally filled up with mosquitoes every evening, fasting, praying, and such. Did I, as a non-native, coopt indigenous ceremony in a disrespectful manner? I don't know. For me, I made my best attempt at doing the highly individual ceremony respectfully and used it to look as deeply as possible into myself in an effort at self-improvement; that was what I was there for.

For me, it was an amazing 3-week journey as I drove from NY State to Burnside, and back. Interestingly enough, and I tend to go off on what many people may call "woo-woo" issues, there is another user on TS that is from NL.

But, that's beside the point.

Yes, I do post references that I sometimes do not read fully, and that's on me.

So from the Nature journal article I referenced
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the rapidly unfolding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic1,2. Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 vary, ranging from asymptomatic infection to respiratory failure. The mechanisms that determine such variable outcomes remain unresolved. Here we investigated CD4+ T cells that are reactive against the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 in the peripheral blood of patients with COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2-unexposed healthy donors. We detected spike-reactive CD4+ T cells not only in 83% of patients with COVID-19 but also in 35% of healthy donors. Spike-reactive CD4+ T cells in healthy donors were primarily active against C-terminal epitopes in the spike protein, which show a higher homology to spike glycoproteins of human endemic coronaviruses, compared with N-terminal epitopes. Spike-protein-reactive T cell lines generated from SARS-CoV-2-naive healthy donors responded similarly to the C-terminal region of the spike proteins of the human endemic coronaviruses 229E and OC43, as well as that of SARS-CoV-2. This results indicate that spike-protein cross-reactive T cells are present, which were probably generated during previous encounters with endemic coronaviruses. The effect of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive T cells on clinical outcomes remains to be determined in larger cohorts. However, the presence of spike-protein cross-reactive T cells in a considerable fraction of the general population may affect the dynamics of the current pandemic, and has important implications for the design and analysis of upcoming trials investigating COVID-19 vaccines.

While you are correct in that it does not specifically state that 35 percent of the population may have natural immunity, it does indicate that some, no-trivial, IMO, percentage of the population may have some sort of natural immunity through exposure to endemic coronaviruses.

It is speculation on my part, however, it is not unknown from reputable sources (instead of posting the link to any particular source, I'll post a search link) https://www.bing.com/search?q=coron...s=n&sk=&cvid=D729C54282274C97BDFFA865AF548BFB (yeah, I know, I am not doing my work to prove anything - I do figure that if anyone is interested, they will do the research themselves and come to their own conclusions - even if that conclusion does not agree with mine) that coronaviruses are at least partly responsible for the common cold. So my speculation, which I draw from the paragraph I cited, is that exposure to coronaviruses is more wide-spread than people realize and this exposure is what has resulted in the appearance of natural immunity to the coronavirus in some individuals. Basically, the Nature paper says this - unless I am misinterpreting it.

I agree that family and others have had to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. As I see it, that is becoming increasingly difficult in modern society. You may have read some of my posts where I liken modern capitalism to oppression - yet we have nothing better and all have to deal with it.

I do note your observation that modern democracy has only been around for a relatively short time period. Right now, it seems to me it is being pushed by various elements to grow at a pace that is perhaps too fast for it to adapt in a healthy manner.

I know many US citizens do not think that the events of January 6, 2021 were any serious threat to democracy in the US, but I do, and I don't think that those same people who discount the threat really understand just how serious of a threat it was.

And I also agree with what you said about the former US president. If he were reading the law of conservation of energy, to me, that would be a different story because he then would have been reading accepted science without altering it. But going off on some wildly unscientific tangent on how injecting bleach might be a cure for the coronavirus is simply unacceptable, IMO, and subsequent events, also IMO, proved the unacceptability of the statement. He was one such person that had a responsibility to the US, if not the world, to expound only that which is/was known to be the truth, or at least, valid science.

I also think that his presidency was very unfortunate because it seems to have emboldened or reawakened a darker faction of US citizens, and perhaps some international citizens, that seem only to care for themselves. For me, I think humanity would accomplish so much more because of our differences, and that if an enlightened human looks deeper into themself, they would find that they are not so much different from those that they consider themselves radically different from.

I don't necessarily think Rogan should be silenced. At least he supports eating healthy (not that that is necessarily easy to do as eating healthy may differ individually - speaking from personal experience) Honestly, I do not know what would be an equitable manner in which to deal with inaccuracies in material presented to the general populace. To me, it seems that there are some out there that do not necessarily understand what is presented, and I think that is unfortunate. I do think, however, that it will work itself out somehow. In the meantime, though, I can imagine that people who do not necessarily understand how to interpret some information will end up harming themselves or others.

Perhaps I can sum it up with a simple statement: Liberty is not only a privilege, but also a responsibility.

Anyway, yes, I was terse with you, and I apologize.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
You're 4rth paragraph makes absolutely no sense as you are using quotations of things that were at no time part of my response to you, at no point did I type "stable genius" or "accidentally". I did point out that there was a large amount of provably true disinformation targeted at information provided by the former US president (there is near endless misinformation that was posited by the former US president himself which is why it was so odd that media felt the need to make anything up, all they needed to do was make a solid case regarding his nonsense), I also cited the specific biotech company that was deplatformed because of it. If the former US president were to have read out the law of conservation of energy which is the foundation of modern physics it doesn't invalidate that law. It just means that he was citing it from an expert who was there for the purpose of informing him on it to speak about it the US public. Much the same as Dr. Birx of the CDC was there to inform Trump on the standing of prototype treatment options when he discussed them. The fact that media then intentionally misrepresented what was said and private citizens made poor choices is an actual example of correlation not inferring causation.
As I see it, some part of the US population somehow identifies with Trump and the media knows that. Media these days seems to be all about an effort to get clicks and view.

I have recently searched for a study that I posted to TS some time ago, but I have not been able to easily find it. It was about the 2016 election and the coverage of it by the media. I am sure that those on the right will not want to hear this, but the study basically said that right-leaning media tended to embellish stories that made Trump look better as well as embellishing stories that made Clinton look worse. The study also said that the more liberal media outlets did the least embellishing.

I don't know what's behind it. I have heard that it might be related to those on the right tending to come from areas where they have not been exposed to as large of a diversity of people as people who live in cities.

So does unfamiliarity breed fear? Perhaps. And it seems to me that much of what the right-leaning tend to expound seems to be based in fear IMO. However, that fear is something that I see as there is really no way to teach someone how not to be afraid of "someone not like me." People need to find that themselves.
 
Last edited:

Scott Barnes

Posts: 22   +22
As I see it, some part of the US population somehow identifies with Trump and the media knows that. Media these days seems to be all about an effort to get clicks and view.

I have recently searched for a study that I posted to TS some time ago, but I have not been able to easily find it. It was about the 2016 election and the coverage of it by the media. I am sure that those on the right will not want to hear this, but the study basically said that right-leaning media tended to embellish stories that made Trump look better as well as embellishing stories that made Clinton look worse. The study also said that the more liberal media outlets did the least embellishing.

I don't know what's behind it. I have heard that it might be related to those on the right tending to come from areas where they have not been exposed to as large of a diversity of people as people who live in cities.

So does unfamiliarity breed fear? Perhaps. And it seems to me that much of what the right-leaning tend to expound seems to be based in fear IMO. However, that fear is something that I see as there is really no way to teach someone how not to be afraid of "someone not like me." People need to find that themselves.
Apologies accepted and appreciated but unnecessary, the temperature in the theatre of dialogue the last few years has led us all to be more curt both online and in person than we would all usually have been. The number of times I've said or typed something and then thought "wait noooo, come back!" is higher than I'd like to admit. I had the option to move away from the very fast paced transport business I mentioned in July of 2020 and it was very much a situation of not realizing just how fatigued I was and how much it was affecting my interactions. After nearly 2 years of semi retirement and just living I have the time and mellow to try and apply myself to helping bring the temperature down where I can (doesn't always work and there have definitely been occasions where I've made a hash of it).

I hail from Conception bay South on the Avalon peninsula though I grew up on the West coast of NL in Stephenville which was a massive US air force/ Naval base during the cold war. Burnside is pretty out of the way even by NL standards, the whole central section of the province around Terra Nova national park is basically a giant nature preserve so it's quite beautiful there. I was raised atheist as my father is an electrical engineer from an atheist family though my mothers side is Irish catholic but they have all effectively walked away from religion over the last several decades as there have been endless scandals here in the province related to the church (kinda the same everywhere from what I can gather?). Growing up on the west coast a lot of my class mates and one of my life long friends were from the Mi'kmaq first nations group, in my experience the first nations folks I've known were quite welcoming to outsiders taking a genuine interest in their customs and way of life. My friend is a software engineer and unless you knew otherwise you'd presume he is just your average tech focused Caucasian guy, his Father was life long Canadian military as were most of his uncles before retirement. Other than preferring a compound bow for hunting as opposed to a high caliber rifle they were more integrated into Western European traditions than a first nations way of life.

Regarding he Nature article I completely agree that there is definitely a non anecdotal correlation there that more than justifies looking in the direction of cross immunity from other Corona viruses. Cpt. Cranky linked a bunch of referential pieces related to the continuing fleshing out of the research in that direction. Basically it's looking like we all got quite lucky in that regard and certainly it seems that way for folks in developing parts of central and south Africa where Doctors really needed the break that has been provided by Omicrons second variant effectively being no more lethal than the average bad cold when represented across the population at large while leaving behind a seemingly quite solid immunity imprint for future or recurring infection. This was an example of where I should have been less curt, one of the reasons I moved from a path in academia was the fact that it just seemed as though every other week even well established researchers were jumping the gun on publishing findings that were promising certainly but maybe not quite finished baking yet. Each time someone does that in the research community it tends to come back and bite everybody so I've been conditioned to be really conservative on that kind of thing (that's a personal problem I'm left to work on internally). The counter point to that is "nothing ventured nothing gained" and sometimes risks and leaps in reasoning really do need to be taken to get anywhere in a half bloody sensible measure of time.

I've got a cousin who I grew up with who is very similar to me in many ways and views though on others we debate tirelessly, her background is Political Science up to the Ph. D level and then she went to law school at the university of Ottawa before going to work on policy within the Canadian government. When I moved to entrepreneurship and built a business I learned a hell of a lot about how our government works/doesn't in Canada that I never would have considered other wise. These days I'm more capitalist than I've probably ever been before and she is somewhere down the middle , one of the few things we both agree upon completely is that most western countries have been shifting more and more power and responsibility further up that chain toward the executive branch for years. Almost without exception this has made reasonable nuanced response to issues nearly impossible because of the financial drag associated with all the bureaucracy that gets in the way. The answer to this hasn't really changed all that much in decades, eventually we are going to have to see government stop pushing huge sums of money into industry to sort out private companies mess. I'm a life long car guy and I have a particular affinity for the Chevrolet Corvette but after the mess that GM's management and the UAW had made of that company they should have gone bankrupt as a required balance point of a failure to manage their company (GM might be the only example of a massive company getting a bailout and then sorting itself out, I still don't think they should have been bailed out but at least it wasn't a waste of tax payer dollars). To stop the constant flow of tax payer dollars to who knows what entity we're going to require a system where the finances and holdings of anyone in public office be completely transparent to the general public in real time. Basically it's like urinalysis in sports competition, there is going to have to be some type of required transparency to stop the game from being rigged and to be able to account for every single last dollar of tax payer money that is given to the government. A complete and total representation of taxation if you will. The beginnings of this are starting to be seen with calls to either not allow politicians to own or invest in stock, if handled correctly this can fill the double roles of unrigging the system and also heading off the need for endless regulation of industries where the regulations only hamper the companies that don't have an in with some power broker in Washington, Ottawa etc... The end result of this is that overall taxes come down as we get to watch needless bureaucratic structures in government wither, while at the same time we get a much faster turn around on government funded projects. We will still need regulators such as the FDA and CSA but they already exist, do pretty good work for their budget and make an actual difference to the general public, we really do need to get the dark money the hell out of government though. All of these steps to streamline and balance the system would bring costs to companies down while allowing them to be profitable, the next step would be passing those wages onto the employees which is quite complex (all of this is ridiculously complex but now we're down to the individual and at that point you're literally herding cats!). Some form of hybrid union/workers coop is basically going to be the future of staffing, it was supposed to be the revolution of labor in the 20th century but that got derailed by overly greedy union structures swimming in that same non transparent dark money as government. Hell a properly mature union or guild structure like a tradesmen's guild or brotherhood like the International brotherhood of carpenters and joiners could provide a meaningful and satisfying job in the form of basic laborers and helpers for at least a portion of the population that isn't going to be capable of building their own enterprise from scratch (My uncle is a retired Master Carpenter and taught fine carpentry for years, there are plenty of exceedingly sharp and savvy carpenters but within that trade and many others there is space for folks that need assistance and oversight as well). This is a topic like race relations that we've got generations of work yet to do on, but it does look like it's going the right direction, though I think we need to seriously look at not allowing companies to automate everything as I don't feel we have anything like a developed enough system to handle the loss of employment and upward concentration of wealth that will generate.

Trump broke the US system in such a fundamental ways that it'll be generations before it all gets sorted out again. What has been learned by both parties (hopefully) is that they need to make some type of minimum effort to do their jobs and provide presidential options that are at least minimally acceptable. If for no other reason than to avoid millions of angry, disenfranchised US citizens from deciding F-it I'll just vote for the guy who will make the most mess to teach both parties just how enraged they are. This is true of all G level countries as well, it may have started in the US but just look north of the border right now (my spouse spent 8 hrs. trying to get across Ottawa yesterday to fly home from skiing in Quebec). When you get irresponsible politicians at the top of any major country it leads to a lot of really angry folks that push further away from the crowd. A lot of Canadians couldn't understand why any citizen would vote for the strongly right wing PPC party in our last federal election (by US standards they're moderately right at best but oddly they're very behind first nation rights and have several first nations MP candidates so they're a bit of an oddity). The answer is that we have had 6 years of Trudeau (who I voted for in 2015) making ever more sloppy and lazy choices while getting embroiled in one scandal after another and shirking his responsibilities. Politicians the world over need to get the hell off social media (should realistically be legislated actually) and do the job they were elected to do, public office needs to be a responsibility and a duty first and never used for red carpet nonsense.

Rogen and his podcast have really evolved over the years and there is a noticeable difference between now and even 3 years ago, he does try to take a second and give little disclaimers that they're joking about stuff and to make it clear what is sarcasm and such (these are regularly the parts that are taken out of context and used as ammo against him with the disclaimer missing). We literally live in a world where kids (and adults!) were recording themselves eating tide pods a couple of years ago to get likes on the internet, I don't know if there is anyway to protect folks in a society where that is a thing? For that last couple of years I've been telling friends and family that realistically we're at the intersection of Autism and Litigation in society, where there is ever greater attempts to round off sharp corners with ever more egregious unintended secondary effects from predatory attorneys. It really does have to come down to personal responsibility on the part of everyone whether that be all of us really trying to be as nuanced as we can and knowing when to step away from things when we're emotionally compromised (I think we've all said or done something that we looked back on later hung our heads in shame). My father has always said you can't fix stupid so don't try, but he is almost 70 recoils at the very concept of political correctness and has been an engineer since 1972 soooo somewhat lacking in nuance. My spouse would say you can sedate stupid (behavioral neuroscientist humor), I think we're getting to a point where we have to try to assist the 3rd of the population that are going to need the help even if it is bloody infuriating on occasion.

My old man went to college back in the late 60's with fellas from all over the planet as Canada had a program to help international students get into tech schools here at a reasonable cost which helped the students and bolstered enrollment at the schools. This led to my father getting to know and become friends with two brothers from Africa (Zaire I think?) and a young guy from Singapore. This was a very enriching experience for our whole family as most folks in NL would only have ever interacted with other folks from a nearly identical background as in the 70's NL was about as far out in the middle of nowhere as you could get and still be in North America. I started going to school with a couple of East Indian boys in grade 4 and as a result of my fathers experience I was one of only a handful of kids in our rather remote town who just gravitated toward them. Years later during university a talk with a young engineering exchange student led me to think back on elementary school and my very small town at the time. I think a lot of what gets perceived as racism or cultural intolerance these days is more likely shyness or anxiety, what I mean by that is personally I'm a pretty disgustingly positive and charismatic person (as a child I was very different) and as such I have no problem just rolling into conversation with someone from a different ethnicity from myself. I think we've so built up the fear of racism that a lot of folks who aren't so naturally talkative or outgoing are just scared of saying or doing the wrong thing and inadvertently causing offense. The exchange student I knew in university was from the UAE and he was a super nice guy, he asked me one day why it seemed like everyone was super nice to him in general but it seemed like folks didn't want to converse with him. Having a father who was an engineer I translated it to a dialect he'd understand, I told him that as time of conversation increased possibility for offense by someone talking to him increased linearly as well (at least from their perspective). I told him to just start engaging the conversations himself and make it clear with some humor that he had a pretty thick skin. Last I heard he was engaged to a German bio chemist.

Small town mentality is definitely a thing, hell I've been to 4 continents and it still takes me awhile to get comfortable around other cultures after I've been back home in NL for a few years. This usually gets sorted out pretty quickly once someone starts speaking to my Fiancee in a language besides English or French, she studied Russian in highschool and has decent proficiency except for the fact that she's wired such that if input is other than response equals Russian. The look on folks faces when they speak their native tongue to her and she responds reflexively in fluent Russian is hilarious, compounded by the fact that her background is in the neuroscientific field. This also used to happen with French till she got half proficient with her own version of Frenglaise, that seemed to override the Russian pre set.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
I have to say that I am enjoying the interaction between us is refreshing. There have been new TS users in the past who possess in-depth knowledge of certain subjects, but to me, their postings dripped with condescension and arrogance. I see you take responsibility for your actions, and, to me, that is indeed refreshing. Like you, I also try to dispel the falsehoods, and make efforts to post items that are referentially sound, although, I don't always achieve that goal.

So, maybe its a bit late, but I'll say "Welcome to Tech Spot". May your journeys here be enlightening.
Apologies accepted and appreciated but unnecessary, the temperature in the theatre of dialogue the last few years has led us all to be more curt both online and in person than we would all usually have been. The number of times I've said or typed something and then thought "wait noooo, come back!" is higher than I'd like to admit. I had the option to move away from the very fast paced transport business I mentioned in July of 2020 and it was very much a situation of not realizing just how fatigued I was and how much it was affecting my interactions. After nearly 2 years of semi retirement and just living I have the time and mellow to try and apply myself to helping bring the temperature down where I can (doesn't always work and there have definitely been occasions where I've made a hash of it).
Its, unfortunately, a sign of the times. For me, I will have to make an effort to be more mindful in my postings.
I hail from Conception bay South on the Avalon peninsula though I grew up on the West coast of NL in Stephenville which was a massive US air force/ Naval base during the cold war. Burnside is pretty out of the way even by NL standards, the whole central section of the province around Terra Nova national park is basically a giant nature preserve so it's quite beautiful there.
I came to NL through Channel-Port aux Basques having opted to take the shorter ferry route even though the drive was longer. I then passed by Stephenville on the way to Corner Brook, stayed the night at the Glynmill Inn, and the next day drove along highway 1 to the north and eventually to Burnside. Of the biggest things that stood out to me were the Birch forests along the route. At my home latitude, we don't have such large stands of Birch trees; we do have Birch trees, but they tend to be much fewer in number than pines or other, deciduous species. Another thing that struck me was that, in general, the people were very friendly. And indeed, the landscape and geography of the region is, perhaps, among the most beautiful I have experienced among my limited journeys. I tell myself that someday, I'll travel to NL again, and maybe this time, my wife will get to go along with me.

One other thing I will never forget is that I crossed the border from Houlton, ME. I stopped for a break there, and found a rest stop that was part of a scale model of the solar system. Pluto was there. ;) When I got out of my car, the silence was deafening. Where I live, there is always a drone from the city. There - nothing, no sound to speak of. It makes me wonder what it used to be like back when there was not so many developed areas. I long for that kind of silence in my life.
I was raised atheist as my father is an electrical engineer from an atheist family though my mothers side is Irish catholic but they have all effectively walked away from religion over the last several decades as there have been endless scandals here in the province related to the church (kinda the same everywhere from what I can gather?). Growing up on the west coast a lot of my class mates and one of my life long friends were from the Mi'kmaq first nations group, in my experience the first nations folks I've known were quite welcoming to outsiders taking a genuine interest in their customs and way of life. My friend is a software engineer and unless you knew otherwise you'd presume he is just your average tech focused Caucasian guy, his Father was life long Canadian military as were most of his uncles before retirement. Other than preferring a compound bow for hunting as opposed to a high caliber rifle they were more integrated into Western European traditions than a first nations way of life.
Interesting. My last study in the BS degree that I completed about two years ago was "Native American Myths and Legends". As part of the course, I read https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1571313567/ which was written by a Citizen of the Potawatomi Nation. An interesting thing about the book was what she said about their language. Their words for something, take, for example, the word "Tree," in their language literally means "to be a tree" rather than a word meaning an object that is a tree. To me, there's a profound connection that native cultures have with the earth, and they understand things that should be obvious such as that one cannot take all the fish from a lake as there will be no fish left to find the next time one goes fishing.

The long story short about me is that I was raised Roman Catholic, but I never related well to the teachings. My parents forced me to go to church, and I used to imagine I was elsewhere while I was there. I have managed to find a path that is much more esoteric and arcane.

Where school is concerned, things were always mostly beyond easy for me especially if I was interested - mainly mathematics and science stuff. I'm not so well-versed in history or social sciences. I remember I was goofing off in a math class in jr. High School one day, and the teacher gave me extra homework as a punishment. She said, "this ought to take you about an hour to do" and I was literally through with it in 5-minutes.

In my younger years, I never found anything in school that really challenged me. That, along with an intimate relationship in high school, for which I was not ready, where she ended it because her mother wanted her to do so, lead to me losing my way, and not making it at a US top-20 university in my home city. Eventually, I found a non-traditional university in NY State - Empire State College, where I got to design my own degree program, and completed almost entirely through independent study. I pushed the limits, and, unfortunately, one of the subjects that interested me most was Clifford's Geometric Algebra the link, if you are interested, only touches on its potential. It has things like "real" imaginary numbers in its "wedge product" that leads to simplification in various areas of science and mathematics. There was no one at the school that was versed in it, however, my primary advisor let me find my own way. I wished that there had been someone who was well-versed in it, as it is, IMO, truly an amazing version of mathematics that, again, IMO, should be what is taught mainstream in University. I tell myself that maybe when I retire, I will get accepted into a "paid" PhD program where can explore its application to physics, chemistry, astrophysics or something similar.
Regarding he Nature article I completely agree that there is definitely a non anecdotal correlation there that more than justifies looking in the direction of cross immunity from other Corona viruses. Cpt. Cranky linked a bunch of referential pieces related to the continuing fleshing out of the research in that direction. Basically it's looking like we all got quite lucky in that regard and certainly it seems that way for folks in developing parts of central and south Africa where Doctors really needed the break that has been provided by Omicrons second variant effectively being no more lethal than the average bad cold when represented across the population at large while leaving behind a seemingly quite solid immunity imprint for future or recurring infection.
I thought the mechanism of immunity was rather interesting in that those found to have some immunity, the immunity was expressed in portions of the spike protein - which, to the best of my understanding, is a characteristic of all coronaviruses. I also thought it interesting that through attacking only part of the spike protein, it sounds like coronaviruses are very susceptible to attack through that avenue.

@captaincranky and I have had our share of disagreements, however, once I came to see more of him through his posts and interactions with him, I have come to consider him a friend who has knowledge, wisdom, and understanding well beyond most. BTW - Captain, the advisor for my myths and legends course said that while referencing wikipedia was not acceptable for an academic paper, referencing what wikipedia references was. ;)
I've got a cousin who I grew up with who is very similar to me in many ways and views though on others we debate tirelessly, her background is Political Science up to the Ph. D level and then she went to law school at the university of Ottawa before going to work on policy within the Canadian government. When I moved to entrepreneurship and built a business I learned a hell of a lot about how our government works/doesn't in Canada that I never would have considered other wise. These days I'm more capitalist than I've probably ever been before and she is somewhere down the middle , one of the few things we both agree upon completely is that most western countries have been shifting more and more power and responsibility further up that chain toward the executive branch for years. Almost without exception this has made reasonable nuanced response to issues nearly impossible because of the financial drag associated with all the bureaucracy that gets in the way. The answer to this hasn't really changed all that much in decades, eventually we are going to have to see government stop pushing huge sums of money into industry to sort out private companies mess. I'm a life long car guy and I have a particular affinity for the Chevrolet Corvette but after the mess that GM's management and the UAW had made of that company they should have gone bankrupt as a required balance point of a failure to manage their company (GM might be the only example of a massive company getting a bailout and then sorting itself out, I still don't think they should have been bailed out but at least it wasn't a waste of tax payer dollars).
I have to say that I was also not in favor of the US Auto bailout - though my reasons were more along the lines of the US auto industry's "tic" of not being able to produce quality vehicles.
To stop the constant flow of tax payer dollars to who knows what entity we're going to require a system where the finances and holdings of anyone in public office be completely transparent to the general public in real time. Basically it's like urinalysis in sports competition, there is going to have to be some type of required transparency to stop the game from being rigged and to be able to account for every single last dollar of tax payer money that is given to the government. A complete and total representation of taxation if you will. The beginnings of this are starting to be seen with calls to either not allow politicians to own or invest in stock, if handled correctly this can fill the double roles of unrigging the system and also heading off the need for endless regulation of industries where the regulations only hamper the companies that don't have an in with some power broker in Washington, Ottawa etc... The end result of this is that overall taxes come down as we get to watch needless bureaucratic structures in government wither, while at the same time we get a much faster turn around on government funded projects. We will still need regulators such as the FDA and CSA but they already exist, do pretty good work for their budget and make an actual difference to the general public, we really do need to get the dark money the hell out of government though.
Agreed about the FDA and CSA and about dark money - the US, IMO, decisions like Citizen's United are not inspiring that things are moving in the best direction.

I have not read the entire text, but it is available for free here - https://sacred-economics.com/ What I have read, it sounds like a good idea. I'm no economics expert, for sure.
Trump broke the US system in such a fundamental ways that it'll be generations before it all gets sorted out again.
Yes, I agree.
What has been learned by both parties (hopefully) is that they need to make some type of minimum effort to do their jobs and provide presidential options that are at least minimally acceptable. If for no other reason than to avoid millions of angry, disenfranchised US citizens from deciding F-it I'll just vote for the guy who will make the most mess to teach both parties just how enraged they are.
I am not sure his party has learned anything from it. But, maybe it will take people voting against them - assuming it happens - for them to find a way to reinvent themselves into something that truly cares about the things they do helping their constituents instead of helping them maintain power.
This is true of all G level countries as well, it may have started in the US but just look north of the border right now (my spouse spent 8 hrs. trying to get across Ottawa yesterday to fly home from skiing in Quebec).
Of course, I heard about the protests, and I cannot say that I supported them. 200 people, I understand, were arrested. I don't know whether it was strictly those 200 people who were responsible, but if it was, that 200-people can basically disrupt the lives of so many more is not something in which I take comfort.
When you get irresponsible politicians at the top of any major country it leads to a lot of really angry folks that push further away from the crowd. A lot of Canadians couldn't understand why any citizen would vote for the strongly right wing PPC party in our last federal election (by US standards they're moderately right at best but oddly they're very behind first nation rights and have several first nations MP candidates so they're a bit of an oddity).
My take would be that first nations tend to want to conserve natural resources - though that seems contrary to what conservatives in the US want - conservation of natural resources, to me, is very conservative in nature, IMO, and looking at it from that aspect, there seems to be a certain logic in it.
The answer is that we have had 6 years of Trudeau (who I voted for in 2015) making ever more sloppy and lazy choices while getting embroiled in one scandal after another and shirking his responsibilities. Politicians the world over need to get the hell off social media (should realistically be legislated actually) and do the job they were elected to do, public office needs to be a responsibility and a duty first and never used for red carpet nonsense.
Agreed, and I think it may be one of the best things to happen to social media is Trump being banned from it.
Rogen and his podcast have really evolved over the years and there is a noticeable difference between now and even 3 years ago, he does try to take a second and give little disclaimers that they're joking about stuff and to make it clear what is sarcasm and such (these are regularly the parts that are taken out of context and used as ammo against him with the disclaimer missing). We literally live in a world where kids (and adults!) were recording themselves eating tide pods a couple of years ago to get likes on the internet,
Yes, the tide pod thing. I just don't get what drives people to go to such lengths to get attention. In a vague sort of way, it reminds me of the issues discussed in the Netflix series "Mindhunter".

I am glad that Rogan does include disclaimers. I wonder if it is just from a legal aspect, though. Disclaimers are a legal necessity in this day and age.

Anyway, I though your post had a great deal of thoughtful content. It was a pleasure reading it.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,732   +7,671
and I have had our share of disagreements, however, once I came to see more of him through his posts and interactions with him, I have come to consider him a friend who has knowledge, wisdom, and understanding well beyond most. BTW - Captain, the advisor for my myths and legends course said that while referencing wikipedia was not acceptable for an academic paper, referencing what wikipedia references was. ;)
I hope you're not insisting that I "do the two step", anytime I reference a topic from Wiki here.at this hell hole.

FWIW, I'm more likely to accept Wiki verbatim about non controversial topics than on contemporary "hot button" issues.

For example if Wiki says the western lowland gorilla is the genus species type, and its tri-nomial designation is Gorilla gorilla gorilla, I somehow don't feel the need to do further research.

OTOH, since were into myths and legends territory, All the lyrics and variations thereof to this Child's ballad, (39A) might require a deeper dive:


BTW, you seem to have met your match both in typing speed and verbosity :p🤣
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,732   +7,671
Jokes aside, be careful when you think you are superior to others. That is a very dangerous road to walk.
Oh well, as long as you're around, he'll "Never Walk Alone".
Sorry, that was low hanging fruit, way too good to pass up. Here's the soundtrack:
Given the choice between that version and either Andrea Bocelli or Josh Grobin's to inflict on you, I picked that one, since it's the shortest and least pretentious.The difference between ripping a band aid off all at once, or a little at a time.😍.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 350   +272
Enlightening podcasts? LOL! That's hilarious. No one has all the answers? Yeah, that's true. You know what else is true? SOME people have SOME of the answers, and Joe Rogan is NOT one of those people. Joe Rogan is a popular ***** for the exact same reason Donald Trump was a popular *****: morons seek out other morons. Reminds me of this great saying, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Obviously you've never listened to Rogan and it shows. Joe has never claimed to have the answers, in fact he constantly ask questions while allowing his guest to speak long and freely. You must have had him mistaken for The View.