International Douglas Murray goes off on Joe Rogan and Dave Smith for platforming holocaust revisionists

[shunyata]

Compared to the average layman or someone like Dave Smith your average historian is going to be right 99/100.

If you're talking about significant medical decisions regarding your personal health then yeah take an active role in your own healthcare and seek 2nd opinions. On the question of whether or not the Holocaust happened you should probably just listen to the experts instead of Dave Smith or Darrell Cooper.

You don't even need to listen to experts on "whether or not the Holocaust happened".

You can ask anyone who got a B or better in middle school history or read one of the many verified survivor accounts like Night by Eli Wiesel.

Or anyone who grew up in Germany, Poland, or elsewhere in Europe.

Bunch of people who barely made it through grade school bitching about experts when they weren't able to pay attention to common core material.

 

[Hog-train]

My argument doesn't in any way depend upon what they said. It's not even about them. It's about Rogan and his ilk giving these people a platform. It's like you didn't even read my post, FFS.

Yea hard disagree. Who the fuck is the arbiter of what is "appropriate?"

Rogan chooses to have guests on and anyone is free to not watch as well as watch and criticize and dissect what the guests are saying.

Don't really think you should comment on the credibility of an individual guests if you didn't even bother to watch.

The ones who post their journalistic standards so people can hold them to account when they don't adhere to them. E.g. the CBC, Reuters,

Gimme a break - mainstream media has been caught lying countless times. When are they ever "held to account"?

They hardly ever lose defamation cases anymore even if they're lying. Fox News constantly lies and deceives. When are they ever held to account? Never happens.

Even high credibility publications like the NY Times makes up shit and fabricates.

You've just completely given up on a sincere discussion of this issue, haven't you? OK.

I note that TS has also noped out of the thread. Probably a good idea.

I'm answering you pretty straight forward. I just happen to completely disagree with you.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yea hard disagree. Who the fuck is the arbiter of what is "appropriate?"

Rogan chooses to have guests on and anyone is free to not watch as well as watch and criticize and dissect what the guests are saying.

Don't really think you should comment on the credibility of an individual guests if you didn't even bother to watch.



Gimme a break - mainstream media has been caught lying countless times. When are they ever "held to account"?

They hardly ever lose defamation cases anymore even if they're lying. Fox News constantly lies and deceives. When are they ever held to account? Never happens.

Even high credibility publications like the NY Times makes up shit and fabricates.



I'm answering you pretty straight forward. I just happen to completely disagree with you.

Sigh.

 

[RoastBeast]

than the next person who DOESN'T have a degree in the subject? yeah it absolutely does make that true.

Yeah, devoting yourself to a field and immersing yourself is hard. It's easier for you to brush that aside and call it DEI or whatever. We watch you and chuckle and spit on you.

This shows me that you guys have never worked with a bunch of people who all have degrees. You have people who are experts and people who are total dipshits. All with the same credentials. All have completely different levels of intelligence.

 

[The XL]

The concept of so called experts when it comes to both history and current events, information that can be easily attained and understood, is hysterical. Having a degree doesn't make you inherently an authority on anything, at least when it comes to things with such a low barrier for entry and for information that is easily attained

 

[Hog-train]

Sigh.

If you happen to agree with a speaker, then they're educated and appropriate. If you disagree with them, then they're just uneducated and unqualified quacks. That's just the way it works.

 

[Gotosleepho]

Look at the comments on the JRE episode. Overall Smith did a far better job with his argument than Murray, who is a paid Zionist shill.

 

[Andy Capp]

If you happen to agree with a speaker, then they're educated and appropriate. If you disagree with them, then they're just uneducated and unqualified quacks. That's just the way it works.

If you think that's what I was saying you didn't understand any of it and I'm not interested in the deliberately obtuse. So, either way, you can take this inanity elsewhere.

 

[Hog-train]

If you think that's what I was saying you didn't understand any of it and I'm not interested in the deliberately obtuse. So, either way, you can take this inanity elsewhere.

You seem to not understand sarcasm. The problem with trying to gatekeep people is this: who gets to decide who is credible and who is not. That's the problem - it's subjective.

 

[Renard]

If you happen to agree with a speaker, then they're educated and appropriate. If you disagree with them, then they're just uneducated and unqualified quacks. That's just the way it works.

If you really drill down into it, it's always about an appeal to authority with most people. It's not about expertise or knowledge (although they'll say it is) it's about the habit that was drilled into them as children of blindly obeying whoever is in a position of authority. So whatever government or large organizations say is true, is what's true for them, and any expert who disagrees with the "consensus" is a quack and a liar. They're always about the status of someone, never about the argument and they genuinely can't comprehend / don't want to comprehend that it's fallacious reasoning. Understanding an argument hurts their head, they hate thinking and they hate taking responsibility for something, standing behind perceived authority is just easier.

 

[Andy Capp]

If you really drill down into it, it's always about an appeal to authority with most people. It's not about expertise or knowledge (although they'll say it is) it's about the habit that was drilled into them as children of blindly obeying whoever is in a position of authority. So whatever government or large organizations say is true, is what's true for them, and any expert who disagrees with the "consensus" is a quack and a liar. They're always about the status of someone, never about the argument and they genuinely can't comprehend / don't want to comprehend that it's fallacious reasoning. Understanding an argument hurts their head, they hate thinking and they hate taking responsibility for something, standing behind perceived authority is just easier.

Who is they, precisely?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You seem to not understand sarcasm. The problem with trying to gatekeep people is this: who gets to decide who is credible and who is not. That's the problem - it's subjective.

For science, it's the ones that have actually advanced the field and produced tangible working examples like GPS, engines, structures, the internet, vaccines, smartphones, etc.

 

[nhbbear]

Desperate for attention?

You mean you and your butt buddies like @nhbbear who are literally unblocking me just to see what I have to say? Have you been drinking again? Do you understand how ass backwards you sound?

But you are totally desperate for attention. You’re the badly behaved child that acts out just to get attention.

 

[Andy Capp]

You seem to not understand sarcasm. The problem with trying to gatekeep people is this: who gets to decide who is credible and who is not. That's the problem - it's subjective.

You seem to not have understood what I said. Even the part where I said you can drop the subject with me because you don't appear to understand what I said. Or maybe you don't get the point because you don't want to; either way I'm done.

 

[Hog-train]

For science, it's the ones that have actually advanced the field and produced tangible working examples like GPS, engines, structures, the internet, vaccines, smartphones, etc.

The American scientific and medical organizations are (at the current time) all saying giving puberty blockers and gender transition drugs to little kids is ok and safe.

I think that's an obvious crock of shit and most of the major European countries organizations agree.

The decades old Scientific American magazine had an article where it claimed female athletes can be just as athletic as men, but it is social conditioning and our culture holding them back

So that tells me even scientific organizations can be hijacked by politics.

 

[Hog-train]

Only believe the MUAHH "EXPERTS!"

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

The American scientific and medical organizations are (at the current time) all saying giving puberty blockers and gender transition drugs to little kids is ok and safe.

I think that's an obvious crock of shit and most of the major European countries organizations agree.

The decades old Scientific American magazine had an article where it claimed female athletes can be just as athletic as men, but it is social conditioning and our culture holding them back

So that tells me even scientific organizations can be hijacked by politics.

If other major governing bodies across the world disagree then there is no global consensus on this topic and there is scientific and ethical disagreements between the governing bodies. Yes, scientists and governing bodies can be influenced by politics, especially when the data is still developing. Generally speaking though, an individual expert can also be biased, outdated, or just plain wrong. A group’s recommendations are more likely to have gone through more scrutiny than a single persons. And when that single person isn't even an expert in the field, well that tips the scales even more.

So the best way to evaluate a situation where there is dissent is to ask:

- Is there a true global expert consensus
- Is there cross disciplinary agreement and the consensus
- Are there multiple, independent expert voices questioning the consensus
- What kind of evidence is being used

Then you can evaluate on what models/theories/conclusions are more likely to be correct.

 

[J_C]

60 mil mofos b holocausted cause b racializing *****Z

 

[Mack Yancy]

But you are totally desperate for attention. You’re the badly behaved child that acts out just to get attention.

So why am I still unblocked? Why are you giving a badly behaved child attention? Why are you thinking about wether a badly behaved child will debate you or not long after finding out thats not the case? What the hell is your mental state, old man?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

That’s pretty much the entire premise of his argument. If you’re going to hold a “contrarian” position and speak from a position of (non)authority, you should evaluate the merit of the claims by consulting with actual experts.

Rogan has been a massive source of misinformation across multiple fields since Covid. He has done very significant damage particularly in the public health sphere around vaccine and science skepticism.

He was clearly frustrated by his interaction on the podcast and comes off as a prick, but his criticism here stands. RFK in his current government position is almost certainly a direct result of JRE platforming, which is a joke.

RFK is in his current role because he agreed to endorse Trump for a position in his administration.

Not sure how you lay that at the feet of Rogan.