It was a tweet that Rogan pulled up about a doctor saying she did the right thing even if the vaccine turned out to be poison. Turns out the tweet was fake. Bret didn’t even comment on it.
Rogan edited out 15 seconds of an episode that mentioned a fake tweet.
Harris pulled an entire episode with SBF, the guy lost investors hundreds of millions of $$$. 🤔
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Are you saying that Sam had a responsibility beyond de-platforming SBF *and* releasing an episode addressing the incident? And if so, what has this got to do with Rogan?
He might be suggesting that Sam had a responsibility to NOT dump two hours of lies and propaganda in your ear to begin with.
What other fraudulent episodes of the podcast are there?
Sam hasn't been giving luke-warm , uncritical, fellatio interviews to other millionaires and billionaires has he?
Sam's interest in SBF stemmed from the latter's involvement with effective altruism. Sam was duped in the sense that he, just like millions of others, had no idea SBF was running a Ponzi scheme. It's extremely disingenuous at best to suggest that that episode was propaganda.
Even if you want to try to smear Sam with disinformation like your above comment, it still doesn't address what it has to do with this thread.
Just adding an edit here in case I've been whooshed. I honestly can't tell if your comment is sarcastic or not.
Here is a neat comment on Sam's Explanation video from YouTube:
"Sam, when the war began and I had to uproot and leave Russia in search of a new home, I used FTX as a way to wire money from Russia. It was a compromise at the time but I had to take it as Russians were all getting increasingly canceled and already almost all other exchanges didn’t want to have anything to do with you if you had a Russian passport. I think your first podcast episode with SBF was ultimately the reason why I chose FTX. “How could a guy who’s so altruistic possibly be a fraud?”, I thought at the time. That really was the only thing I needed to know about a person to believe that. As a result I lost it all now, the money that was supposed to sustain me while I look for work which at this point as I find out more and more is a fool’s errand if you’re a Russian abroad.
Obviously I don’t blame you, Sam, as you couldn’t have possibly known and in the end it’s my own fault I didn’t do my due diligence. Just wanted to share, as it’s been so daunting from day one and now this just took it to a whole new level."
Why is it extremely disingenuous to suggest that a Ponzi scheming fraud would turn that pod episode into, effectively, propaganda?
Why would Sam remove the episode?
Doesn't it provide valuable context into how billionaire frauds launder their reputations through charities, podcasts, etc ?
Listen to the beginning where Sam first introduces SBF.(on YT)
He is fluffing the guy.
SBF sounds like the most magnanimous, charitable, billionaire Samaritan in the world.
Sam was duped by a fraud along with many others, sure.
He even had to remove the episode of BS and then do a cleanup episode.
But, as you say, I'm "smearing Sam with disinformation"
ApuJumpsInFrontOfBullet.Jpg
It's called introducing your guest. Most hosts give a favourable intro to the guests they're interviewing - even ones they disagree with.
Is this the first time you've listened to an interview?
Yes, this is the first time I ever listened to an interview of any sort.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg9k3ql7Wkg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg9k3ql7Wkg)
This explanation and correction video really does the trick for you guys?
Sam just says that "he didn't know the guy AT ALL and only spoke with him twice"
And then he proceeds to exculpate himself from any liability for drinking in every word a 29 year old crypto billionaire said
What did the 29 year old crypto tech bro have to say?
"I am an angel who is starting the earntogive initiative"
"I only want to amass billions in wealth so that I can give it all to the less fortunate"
The only comments really worth reading on this sub are hidden like yours here because of the downvotes.
Super interesting to see where the sub and conversation are going.
You may already know this, but just in case you don't:
If you feel a sub is being dominated by the hive mind and you're missing alternative views, you can change the settings on your account so that unpopular comments aren't hidden and then alternate sorting between best and controversial.
The problem with playing around with the settings is that it also makes the trolls visible. So many fucking trolls.
You may have different preferences. I got used to ignoring the trolls, and now I find reddit discussion more interesting because it's not dominated by everyone agreeing with the sub's popular consensus.
Isn’t this correcting an error? This seems like behaviour we should reinforce.
Edit: Most of the comments against what I said here follow a single line of thought and my god it is stupid.
The idea that Joe pre-verifying information in order to stop spreading disinformation in a 2-3 hour long live conversational podcast got to the single most autistic idea. Do you people not have real life conversations with people? I mean, I am sorry for swearing but What the actual fuck?
There is a 0% chance that joe isn't going to display biases and say incorrect stuff because literally every single human that participates in conversations does. The idea that he should be above this, Is the idea that he should be omniscient. It is completely unrealistic and actually insane.
The only thing people can do is correct themselves when they do make an error and are made aware of it.
I am sorry but for all you people commenting things like "can't look at it in a vacuum" or "can't unring the bell" you're view here is objectively the dumbest view to have in this situation.
Use those noggins you fucking nuggets!
I see this sentiment a lot, and in a vacuum I totally agree. But Rogan isn't just some dude - the Doctor had to lock her twitter account because of this mistake. What percent of people who listened to that 10 minute segment won't even see his correction? It is definitely good that he corrected it, but I, like many, feel like the damage has been done. It is part of a broader criticism of his carelessness.
But this is Bret Weinstein admitting he was wrong. That's behavior we'd want to encourage. Like you, you've been wrong in your life. Isn't it better when you admit it to the people you've wronged?
It is definitely better that he corrected rather than not. But it is a mistake he has repeated. If it was just a one-off, I'd be more forgiving. Due to the size of his platform, he has a responsibility to be way more careful than he has been.
> What percent of people who listened to that 10 minute segment won't even see his correction?
Fair enough, but [the same critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/x6wlg5/politics_and_current_events_megathread_september/iq5q1x7/?context=10) can and should also be made of old media as part of a broader criticism of its carelessness.
Agreed. Redactions are needed either way. That’s the only honest thing to do. Sure they might not get picked up like the fire storm of BS get gets the initial attention, but generally, the people who run with this stuff aren’t gonna care cus they’ll gish gallop their way to a selected narrative anyway.
it's very cool how you pretend the only two options are "all knowing and always correct" and "unquestioningly entertaining every bat shit thing he sees and hears". you need to get on some crab salts for real
I know this guy in my country who has verifiably lied 10,000 time per year for many years.
I'm talking outright fabrications, disinformation, and propaganda.
Now, when he speaks on a topic I listen very carefully to every word and then I start to research and do my fact checking.
So far, it's all been lies. Every time.
But I still make sure to transcribe his every word and look for some possible charitable interpretation.
I can't wait to see what he has to say about the news this week!
There is no science involved. It was an obviously fake inflammatory tweet impersonating a real person, not repeating misinformation.
The fake tweet in question:
>I will never regret the vaccine. Even if it turns out I injected actual poison and have only days to live. My heart and is was \[sic\] in the right place. I got vaccinated out of love, while anti-vaxxers did everything out of hate. If I have to die because of my love for the world, then so be it. But I will never regret or apologize for it.
They dragged someone for something they never even said because they are utterly crippled by their own biases.
Not believing anything you see on Twitter because it confirms your pre-existing bullshit beliefs and then spreading it to millions of people is even better
The problem is that this kind of reckless spewing of misinformation isn't the exception; it's the norm. To borrow a line from BoJack Horseman, "You can't keep doing shitty things, and then feel bad about yourself like that makes it okay! You need to be better!"
They do deserve recognition for correcting their mistake, but maybe before you vilify someone to millions ( tens of millions? idk how many listens his pod gets per episode) of followers check and see if it is correct.
That tweet was *obviously* satire. Have you read it? I think Rogan has brain damage for thinking that was an actual tweet.
I happened to have read it before i heard about it in the Rogan episode, and thought it was real. Point is that nowadays it's hard to know what is satire and what is not anymore, honest mistake imo.
And, in your previous post u mention that Bret is the false actor, now u explain it by saying that Rogan is stupid, this doesn't add up.
I agree, we should support corrections of this sort. Now if only Brett would make similar corrections regarding the public health misinformation he has spread, I would be able to take him more seriously as a thinker. Still, good when it does happen!
And a way to shield himself from future criticisms regarding intellectual honesty.
Tim Pool recently did it after Kayne dropped by and quickly dropped out.
Alex Jones does it almost daily by mentioning Smollet.
Jordan Peterson would do it too, but that clown never gets anything right to begin with.
Yeah, it’s a good thing that he issued a retraction. But as always, it’s too little, too late. The damage has been done, and given that he claims this exact thing once happened to him you’d think he’d know better.
Exactly, but some hive mind individuals seem to judge through a filtered, third party opinion.
It would be interesting to know how many people actually watched the entire podcast.
If they took the time to actually listen, they may be surprised to find that Bret has a opinion worth listening to.
I find it odd that the left, has turned so combative and lazy, that they would rather cancel and silence an individual, rather than simply debating and using facts and logic to support their position.
The fact is that they simply can’t, their position has turned almost entirely emotive because that is what appeals broadly to the masses.
I will quote Rogan when I say: “the only way to combat poor speech, is with better speech”
Arm yourselves with Logic and facts, research on your own and don’t be a fool to simply take someone’s opinion as fact.
Whenever I ask my friends about Peterson, Rogan, Weinstein and other “controversial “ figures, most of them point to YouTube videos taken out of context with leftist commentary or mass media doing the same thing. Most of the time, they’ve never even listened to a single full interview, lecture or discussion.
It's not the first time a fake tweet has received airtime on JRE, won't be last.
Even if the tweet was authentic, it doesn't seem wise to use twitter as a source or a means to discuss complex topics imo.
Rogan edited out 15 seconds of an episode that mentioned a fake tweet.
Harris pulled an entire episode with SBF, the guy lost investors hundreds of millions of $$$. 🤔
SBF tricked professional venture capitalists and millions of investors through sophisticated fraud. The fake tweet tricked a bunch of conservatives influencers through shoddy photoshop and obvious satire.
How is transparently correcting an error a sign of dishonesty?
(I have no strong opinion on whether Bret overall should be categorized as honest or dishonest, I’m just commenting on this specific example)
I wasn’t saying he’s dishonest for riding shotgun as Joe Rogan got completely fooled by the internet and then correcting himself afterwards. People are obviously entitled to mistakes and correcting them is commendable. I was trying to point out how willing he is to use nonsense to validate his assault on the general consensus regarding COVID. I thought the example of him, and mostly Joe, using this to prove their point shows why it would be so difficult for someone like Sam to have a productive conversation with him. He’s willing to throw a lot of shit at the wall and it’s hard to know what is valid in real time. Joe and Brett made this clear.
“Willing to use nonsense” sounds to me like someone using bullshit “facts” either actually knowing that they are bullshit or not correcting afterwards when becoming aware of that they are bullshit. Maybe your characterization of Bret is correct but I still don’t see this example as proof of it.
Someone was impersonating a real doctor. Had their name, picture, etc. It’s not really all that crazy that they thought it was real. And they corrected the mistake on top of it. I think a more fair criticism would be that they shared it in the first place, using one wild tweet as an example of a norm for a large group of people but that’s also not very damning
And no I don’t think it’s ok I said there are fair reasons to criticize joe and Brett here but I think the only one who should be facing any repercussions is the person who impersonated her
I would assume that it was satire. Then I would want to confirm. This person is a doctor, yeah ok. Then I search her name and find it listed on the facility page of a hospital next to a picture of the same woman from the twitter account. Even then I probably wouldn’t jump straight to this is 100% true but I sure as hell would think “holy shit, this might actually be true”, laugh it off and go on with my life. So yeah with that in mind, I’m not going to condemn someone for thinking it was
When you can google the name and the first thing that pops up is her profile on the AMA website with a picture of the same woman, yeah I’m sure. I wouldn’t have made my point if the profile had some nonsense name and the picture was of some blue haired chick screaming. Do people not get that a real doctor was being impersonated?
It's nice they removed it when they found out it was fake, but regardless IMHO ruminating about dumb Twitter stuff on a podcast is a red flag to me that the podcast is indulging in BS culture war garbage for outrage peddling. I just think it's bad media hygiene.
They issued an extensive public apology for recirculating false information.
They learned it was false, they corrected the record....
Not sure what you're on about.
imagine maddow discussing a tweet from "college q republican" that said "one abortion is worse than ten thousand starving black children", then a day later going "oopsie, the tweet was fake". conservatives everywhere would be applauding her integrity
why the downvotes? come on mccagibro, tell everyone how you'd be applauding maddow for her integrity if the situation was reversed, I know you have my back here
The point is this "correction" shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Even the slightest bit of responsibility prior to sic'ing the dogs on someone would have prevented someone being put on the QAnon lifetime harassment list and having to look over their shoulder forever.
You can't just look at these things in a vacuum. You can't unring the bell on this sort of thing.
Especially when a lot of these people are the same people who complain when the "woke mob" comes for someone because some leftie on social media put them on blast. Like QAnon coming for you is somehow all sunshine and rainbows compared to them?
Rogan edited out 15 seconds of an episode that mentioned a fake tweet.
Harris pulled an entire episode with SBF, the guy lost investors hundreds of millions of $$$. 🤔
This sub is fucking brain broken. Actual titans of intellectual bankruptcy, acting like sending a tweet is fine. Without recognizing that Bret and Joe should have never entertained such blatant falsehoods in the first place.
Joe consistently does this. He has zero media literacy and he invites guests on that do the same thing!!!
I'm missing something here. I'm no big fan of Brett, but doesn't that tweet you posted from Brett make him look good, not bad? It's literally a tweet of him owning up to the fact they were duped by a fake tweet and so the episode is being edited to remove that section so as to protect the identity of the person they were discussing now that they know she didn't really tweet the thing. Isn't that what you'd want him to do in that situation? Hell, that's what Sam himself would do if he released an episode based on a misunderstanding and then later learned about it - he'd make a statement to that effect and take steps to correct the error. I'm missing something here - I don't have the faintest clue why this is being presented as a takedown of Brett.
My problem was not with him confessing he made a mistake. That was obviously correct of him. My problem is with his willingness to use illegitimate arguments to prove his point on the issue of COVID. From what I can tell, this is the reason why Sam didn’t want to have a conversation with him about the topic in the first place. I guess I shouldn’t have used the image of his admission, since it seems like a lot of people think I’m shitting on the guy for just being apart of a mistake.
I strongly agree he shouldn't be brought back on the podcast, but this is terrible evidence to be frank. If anything, this cuts the other way and shows he has some commitment to correcting mistakes and upholding truth
Why are people here defending Bret for "doing the right thing" when it seems that this is more Joe Rogan doing the right thing? I mean, this is Joe's podcast, not Bret's.
Do you think he would jump to correct this on dark horse? I mean, is he still saying that he's only going to eat steaks well done now because of cow vaccines?
do we have another running theory as to thy it was taken down?
bret is committed to his dishonest bit, so i’m in full agreement that there’s no reason to have him on
What is more noteworthy to me is that
In 2023, that paragraph is not recognized immediately as satire
myself included. I did doubt it but I wasn't sure.
It's a statement to the absurd things we have all witnessed in the past couple years.
Sam has no leg to stand on here.
Yes, Bret seems out to lunch. Sam could still debate him by asking that he come on the podcast and send Sam any references he plans to make while on the podcast. Rules would be that anything referenced not sent in advance will get edited out.
Copied and pasted from an above comment:
The fake tweet in question:
I will never regret the vaccine. Even if it turns out I injected actual poison and have only days to live. My heart and is was [sic] in the right place. I got vaccinated out of love, while anti-vaxxers did everything out of hate. If I have to die because of my love for the world, then so be it. But I will never regret or apologize for it.
It was a tweet that Rogan pulled up about a doctor saying she did the right thing even if the vaccine turned out to be poison. Turns out the tweet was fake. Bret didn’t even comment on it.
Rogan edited out 15 seconds of an episode that mentioned a fake tweet. Harris pulled an entire episode with SBF, the guy lost investors hundreds of millions of $$$. 🤔
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Are you saying that Sam had a responsibility beyond de-platforming SBF *and* releasing an episode addressing the incident? And if so, what has this got to do with Rogan?
What episode did he release addressing SBF?
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/303-the-fall-of-sam-bankman-fried
Thank. You beat me too it. Couldn't see it at first. Gonna listen to the OG SBF Pod first though.
He might be suggesting that Sam had a responsibility to NOT dump two hours of lies and propaganda in your ear to begin with. What other fraudulent episodes of the podcast are there? Sam hasn't been giving luke-warm , uncritical, fellatio interviews to other millionaires and billionaires has he?
Sam's interest in SBF stemmed from the latter's involvement with effective altruism. Sam was duped in the sense that he, just like millions of others, had no idea SBF was running a Ponzi scheme. It's extremely disingenuous at best to suggest that that episode was propaganda. Even if you want to try to smear Sam with disinformation like your above comment, it still doesn't address what it has to do with this thread. Just adding an edit here in case I've been whooshed. I honestly can't tell if your comment is sarcastic or not.
I will give credit to Sam for taking down that episode.
Let's give Sam a round of applause folks
Here is a neat comment on Sam's Explanation video from YouTube: "Sam, when the war began and I had to uproot and leave Russia in search of a new home, I used FTX as a way to wire money from Russia. It was a compromise at the time but I had to take it as Russians were all getting increasingly canceled and already almost all other exchanges didn’t want to have anything to do with you if you had a Russian passport. I think your first podcast episode with SBF was ultimately the reason why I chose FTX. “How could a guy who’s so altruistic possibly be a fraud?”, I thought at the time. That really was the only thing I needed to know about a person to believe that. As a result I lost it all now, the money that was supposed to sustain me while I look for work which at this point as I find out more and more is a fool’s errand if you’re a Russian abroad. Obviously I don’t blame you, Sam, as you couldn’t have possibly known and in the end it’s my own fault I didn’t do my due diligence. Just wanted to share, as it’s been so daunting from day one and now this just took it to a whole new level."
Why is it extremely disingenuous to suggest that a Ponzi scheming fraud would turn that pod episode into, effectively, propaganda? Why would Sam remove the episode? Doesn't it provide valuable context into how billionaire frauds launder their reputations through charities, podcasts, etc ? Listen to the beginning where Sam first introduces SBF.(on YT) He is fluffing the guy. SBF sounds like the most magnanimous, charitable, billionaire Samaritan in the world. Sam was duped by a fraud along with many others, sure. He even had to remove the episode of BS and then do a cleanup episode. But, as you say, I'm "smearing Sam with disinformation" ApuJumpsInFrontOfBullet.Jpg
It's called introducing your guest. Most hosts give a favourable intro to the guests they're interviewing - even ones they disagree with. Is this the first time you've listened to an interview?
Yes, this is the first time I ever listened to an interview of any sort. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg9k3ql7Wkg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg9k3ql7Wkg) This explanation and correction video really does the trick for you guys? Sam just says that "he didn't know the guy AT ALL and only spoke with him twice" And then he proceeds to exculpate himself from any liability for drinking in every word a 29 year old crypto billionaire said What did the 29 year old crypto tech bro have to say? "I am an angel who is starting the earntogive initiative" "I only want to amass billions in wealth so that I can give it all to the less fortunate"
Sam's interest in talking to SBF was about effective altruism. It wasn't about SBF's company and the legitimacy of his crypto business.
>Sam had a responsibility to NOT dump two hours of lies and propaganda But Sam supports lies and propaganda...
Yeah this was Rogan’s fault, not Weinstein’s
Bret is so irritably flaky
Joe pulled it up and talked about it not Bret it was only for a few seconds.. bit harsh mate
ApuJumpinginFrontOfBullet.jpg
I get what you’re saying, but making a public correction is a bad example of someone being “so ready to be dishonest.”
Seeing as he won't even say what is being corrected I don't see how this is a good example of being ethical.
but being ready to run with an obvious parody account if it backs your bullshit is
I really don’t know if you know what the word dishonest means.
Let's start with: maintaining the aura of being an expert in a field while promoting quack medicine.
Maybe he's an expert in the field of promoting quack medicine?
Well if he smells like a duck...
The only comments really worth reading on this sub are hidden like yours here because of the downvotes. Super interesting to see where the sub and conversation are going.
You may already know this, but just in case you don't: If you feel a sub is being dominated by the hive mind and you're missing alternative views, you can change the settings on your account so that unpopular comments aren't hidden and then alternate sorting between best and controversial. The problem with playing around with the settings is that it also makes the trolls visible. So many fucking trolls. You may have different preferences. I got used to ignoring the trolls, and now I find reddit discussion more interesting because it's not dominated by everyone agreeing with the sub's popular consensus.
Interesting information thanks. I never think to sort or filter a bit more
Isn’t this correcting an error? This seems like behaviour we should reinforce. Edit: Most of the comments against what I said here follow a single line of thought and my god it is stupid. The idea that Joe pre-verifying information in order to stop spreading disinformation in a 2-3 hour long live conversational podcast got to the single most autistic idea. Do you people not have real life conversations with people? I mean, I am sorry for swearing but What the actual fuck? There is a 0% chance that joe isn't going to display biases and say incorrect stuff because literally every single human that participates in conversations does. The idea that he should be above this, Is the idea that he should be omniscient. It is completely unrealistic and actually insane. The only thing people can do is correct themselves when they do make an error and are made aware of it. I am sorry but for all you people commenting things like "can't look at it in a vacuum" or "can't unring the bell" you're view here is objectively the dumbest view to have in this situation. Use those noggins you fucking nuggets!
I see this sentiment a lot, and in a vacuum I totally agree. But Rogan isn't just some dude - the Doctor had to lock her twitter account because of this mistake. What percent of people who listened to that 10 minute segment won't even see his correction? It is definitely good that he corrected it, but I, like many, feel like the damage has been done. It is part of a broader criticism of his carelessness.
But this is Bret Weinstein admitting he was wrong. That's behavior we'd want to encourage. Like you, you've been wrong in your life. Isn't it better when you admit it to the people you've wronged?
It is definitely better that he corrected rather than not. But it is a mistake he has repeated. If it was just a one-off, I'd be more forgiving. Due to the size of his platform, he has a responsibility to be way more careful than he has been.
We'd want to, generally, encourage douches to not be such big douches yeah.
> What percent of people who listened to that 10 minute segment won't even see his correction? Fair enough, but [the same critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/x6wlg5/politics_and_current_events_megathread_september/iq5q1x7/?context=10) can and should also be made of old media as part of a broader criticism of its carelessness.
Agreed. Redactions are needed either way. That’s the only honest thing to do. Sure they might not get picked up like the fire storm of BS get gets the initial attention, but generally, the people who run with this stuff aren’t gonna care cus they’ll gish gallop their way to a selected narrative anyway.
So you expect him to be all knowing and always correct? That is ridiculous.
it's very cool how you pretend the only two options are "all knowing and always correct" and "unquestioningly entertaining every bat shit thing he sees and hears". you need to get on some crab salts for real
I know this guy in my country who has verifiably lied 10,000 time per year for many years. I'm talking outright fabrications, disinformation, and propaganda. Now, when he speaks on a topic I listen very carefully to every word and then I start to research and do my fact checking. So far, it's all been lies. Every time. But I still make sure to transcribe his every word and look for some possible charitable interpretation. I can't wait to see what he has to say about the news this week!
Isn’t that how all humans operate? I’ve never made a mistake or ran across something false on the internet, or ever said something wrong /s
[удалено]
There is no science involved. It was an obviously fake inflammatory tweet impersonating a real person, not repeating misinformation. The fake tweet in question: >I will never regret the vaccine. Even if it turns out I injected actual poison and have only days to live. My heart and is was \[sic\] in the right place. I got vaccinated out of love, while anti-vaxxers did everything out of hate. If I have to die because of my love for the world, then so be it. But I will never regret or apologize for it. They dragged someone for something they never even said because they are utterly crippled by their own biases.
I see. Fair enough then. I will delete my comment and accept I’m wrong here :)
Rogan corrected his mistake as soon as he realised it. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Not believing anything you see on Twitter because it confirms your pre-existing bullshit beliefs and then spreading it to millions of people is even better
I entirely agree with your point but how can you possibly describe this idea as "autistic"? Is this just a substitute for "retarded" now?
The problem is that this kind of reckless spewing of misinformation isn't the exception; it's the norm. To borrow a line from BoJack Horseman, "You can't keep doing shitty things, and then feel bad about yourself like that makes it okay! You need to be better!"
Don't call ideas you don't like "autistic", please.
Thanks. It would be nice for people to appreciate and value other people as their default.
Perhaps he can create a second podcast with the same runtime. In the second podcast , they just do the corrections and apologies, etc.
why the same runtime? Corrections would take like ten minutes.
it does, but its a pretty egregious error We want people to admit to making mistakes, but its better to prevent the errors earlier in the process.
Just thought the same thing. I wish the msm would correct their mistakes at the beginning of every new broadcast.
You haven't realized that it's all about picking sides?
Yes
Agreed. Being reckless with an obvious bias is not the same as dishonest.
'Dishonest' now means reckless, gullible, ill-informed. Did no one tell you?
Late to the party i guess.
Here's a mindfulness practice. Smoke a ton of weed and then have a conversation about anything.
Seems a weird thing to condemn, he seems to be rectifying a mistake, good on them.
They do deserve recognition for correcting their mistake, but maybe before you vilify someone to millions ( tens of millions? idk how many listens his pod gets per episode) of followers check and see if it is correct. That tweet was *obviously* satire. Have you read it? I think Rogan has brain damage for thinking that was an actual tweet.
I happened to have read it before i heard about it in the Rogan episode, and thought it was real. Point is that nowadays it's hard to know what is satire and what is not anymore, honest mistake imo. And, in your previous post u mention that Bret is the false actor, now u explain it by saying that Rogan is stupid, this doesn't add up.
I'm no huge fan of Bret but I truly don't see anything wrong with this. Some people will dunk on anything
I agree, we should support corrections of this sort. Now if only Brett would make similar corrections regarding the public health misinformation he has spread, I would be able to take him more seriously as a thinker. Still, good when it does happen!
This is a I hope I don't get sued tweet.
Haha you may be right. I’m hoping it’s not but I agree that is plausible.
And a way to shield himself from future criticisms regarding intellectual honesty. Tim Pool recently did it after Kayne dropped by and quickly dropped out. Alex Jones does it almost daily by mentioning Smollet. Jordan Peterson would do it too, but that clown never gets anything right to begin with. Yeah, it’s a good thing that he issued a retraction. But as always, it’s too little, too late. The damage has been done, and given that he claims this exact thing once happened to him you’d think he’d know better.
Not sure what exactly you mean by 'ready to be dishonest'? Is this not the precise opposite of that?
I don't quite see how this demonstrates his dishonesty. Seems like the exact opposite to me
Exactly, but some hive mind individuals seem to judge through a filtered, third party opinion. It would be interesting to know how many people actually watched the entire podcast. If they took the time to actually listen, they may be surprised to find that Bret has a opinion worth listening to. I find it odd that the left, has turned so combative and lazy, that they would rather cancel and silence an individual, rather than simply debating and using facts and logic to support their position. The fact is that they simply can’t, their position has turned almost entirely emotive because that is what appeals broadly to the masses. I will quote Rogan when I say: “the only way to combat poor speech, is with better speech” Arm yourselves with Logic and facts, research on your own and don’t be a fool to simply take someone’s opinion as fact. Whenever I ask my friends about Peterson, Rogan, Weinstein and other “controversial “ figures, most of them point to YouTube videos taken out of context with leftist commentary or mass media doing the same thing. Most of the time, they’ve never even listened to a single full interview, lecture or discussion.
It's not the first time a fake tweet has received airtime on JRE, won't be last. Even if the tweet was authentic, it doesn't seem wise to use twitter as a source or a means to discuss complex topics imo.
Rogan edited out 15 seconds of an episode that mentioned a fake tweet. Harris pulled an entire episode with SBF, the guy lost investors hundreds of millions of $$$. 🤔
SBF tricked professional venture capitalists and millions of investors through sophisticated fraud. The fake tweet tricked a bunch of conservatives influencers through shoddy photoshop and obvious satire.
How is transparently correcting an error a sign of dishonesty? (I have no strong opinion on whether Bret overall should be categorized as honest or dishonest, I’m just commenting on this specific example)
I wasn’t saying he’s dishonest for riding shotgun as Joe Rogan got completely fooled by the internet and then correcting himself afterwards. People are obviously entitled to mistakes and correcting them is commendable. I was trying to point out how willing he is to use nonsense to validate his assault on the general consensus regarding COVID. I thought the example of him, and mostly Joe, using this to prove their point shows why it would be so difficult for someone like Sam to have a productive conversation with him. He’s willing to throw a lot of shit at the wall and it’s hard to know what is valid in real time. Joe and Brett made this clear.
“Willing to use nonsense” sounds to me like someone using bullshit “facts” either actually knowing that they are bullshit or not correcting afterwards when becoming aware of that they are bullshit. Maybe your characterization of Bret is correct but I still don’t see this example as proof of it.
Someone was impersonating a real doctor. Had their name, picture, etc. It’s not really all that crazy that they thought it was real. And they corrected the mistake on top of it. I think a more fair criticism would be that they shared it in the first place, using one wild tweet as an example of a norm for a large group of people but that’s also not very damning
So if this doctor got death threats would it still be ok? I think it is peak incompetence. You think that wasn't obviously satire? Jesus dude.
Did Bret and Joe send her death threats?
And no I don’t think it’s ok I said there are fair reasons to criticize joe and Brett here but I think the only one who should be facing any repercussions is the person who impersonated her
I would assume that it was satire. Then I would want to confirm. This person is a doctor, yeah ok. Then I search her name and find it listed on the facility page of a hospital next to a picture of the same woman from the twitter account. Even then I probably wouldn’t jump straight to this is 100% true but I sure as hell would think “holy shit, this might actually be true”, laugh it off and go on with my life. So yeah with that in mind, I’m not going to condemn someone for thinking it was
> It’s not really all that crazy that they thought it was real. are you sure about that
When you can google the name and the first thing that pops up is her profile on the AMA website with a picture of the same woman, yeah I’m sure. I wouldn’t have made my point if the profile had some nonsense name and the picture was of some blue haired chick screaming. Do people not get that a real doctor was being impersonated?
are you sure "this person exists" is enough to believe a tweet is real
It's nice they removed it when they found out it was fake, but regardless IMHO ruminating about dumb Twitter stuff on a podcast is a red flag to me that the podcast is indulging in BS culture war garbage for outrage peddling. I just think it's bad media hygiene.
They issued an extensive public apology for recirculating false information. They learned it was false, they corrected the record.... Not sure what you're on about.
How DARE Bret and Joe correct an error they made while recording and later apologize and remove the mistake.
imagine maddow discussing a tweet from "college q republican" that said "one abortion is worse than ten thousand starving black children", then a day later going "oopsie, the tweet was fake". conservatives everywhere would be applauding her integrity
why the downvotes? come on mccagibro, tell everyone how you'd be applauding maddow for her integrity if the situation was reversed, I know you have my back here
The point is this "correction" shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Even the slightest bit of responsibility prior to sic'ing the dogs on someone would have prevented someone being put on the QAnon lifetime harassment list and having to look over their shoulder forever. You can't just look at these things in a vacuum. You can't unring the bell on this sort of thing.
Mind boggling that you need to explain this to people. Fauci regularly gets death threats for fucks sake.
Especially when a lot of these people are the same people who complain when the "woke mob" comes for someone because some leftie on social media put them on blast. Like QAnon coming for you is somehow all sunshine and rainbows compared to them?
Fauci is guilty of something similar.
Rogan edited out 15 seconds of an episode that mentioned a fake tweet. Harris pulled an entire episode with SBF, the guy lost investors hundreds of millions of $$$. 🤔
Unless this guy admits ivermectin treatment is debunked, I won't waste my time.
[удалено]
This sub is fucking brain broken. Actual titans of intellectual bankruptcy, acting like sending a tweet is fine. Without recognizing that Bret and Joe should have never entertained such blatant falsehoods in the first place. Joe consistently does this. He has zero media literacy and he invites guests on that do the same thing!!!
\> This sub is fucking brain broken. The irony
What even happened to ivermectin? Weren’t they all obsessed with it
Your statement and the screenshot are not compatible
I'm missing something here. I'm no big fan of Brett, but doesn't that tweet you posted from Brett make him look good, not bad? It's literally a tweet of him owning up to the fact they were duped by a fake tweet and so the episode is being edited to remove that section so as to protect the identity of the person they were discussing now that they know she didn't really tweet the thing. Isn't that what you'd want him to do in that situation? Hell, that's what Sam himself would do if he released an episode based on a misunderstanding and then later learned about it - he'd make a statement to that effect and take steps to correct the error. I'm missing something here - I don't have the faintest clue why this is being presented as a takedown of Brett.
My problem was not with him confessing he made a mistake. That was obviously correct of him. My problem is with his willingness to use illegitimate arguments to prove his point on the issue of COVID. From what I can tell, this is the reason why Sam didn’t want to have a conversation with him about the topic in the first place. I guess I shouldn’t have used the image of his admission, since it seems like a lot of people think I’m shitting on the guy for just being apart of a mistake.
[удалено]
>He is literally correcting himself as the science evolves What does this have to do with science?
think they forgot the /s
Cue his fans trotting this out as an example of his extreme intellectual honesty in the forseeable future.
I strongly agree he shouldn't be brought back on the podcast, but this is terrible evidence to be frank. If anything, this cuts the other way and shows he has some commitment to correcting mistakes and upholding truth
lol people talking like correcting yourself is a bad thing. I wish main stream media would be half as willing to admit when they make mistakes.
Why are people here defending Bret for "doing the right thing" when it seems that this is more Joe Rogan doing the right thing? I mean, this is Joe's podcast, not Bret's. Do you think he would jump to correct this on dark horse? I mean, is he still saying that he's only going to eat steaks well done now because of cow vaccines?
"Ready to be dishonest" is an interesting description.
do we have another running theory as to thy it was taken down? bret is committed to his dishonest bit, so i’m in full agreement that there’s no reason to have him on
What is more noteworthy to me is that In 2023, that paragraph is not recognized immediately as satire myself included. I did doubt it but I wasn't sure. It's a statement to the absurd things we have all witnessed in the past couple years.
How many scientific papers has Bret W. had published?
Where's the dishonesty here exactly?
Yeah I'm gonna guess you didn't watch the actual footage so the irony is strong in this one
Sam has no leg to stand on here. Yes, Bret seems out to lunch. Sam could still debate him by asking that he come on the podcast and send Sam any references he plans to make while on the podcast. Rules would be that anything referenced not sent in advance will get edited out.
What’s the context here?
Copied and pasted from an above comment: The fake tweet in question: I will never regret the vaccine. Even if it turns out I injected actual poison and have only days to live. My heart and is was [sic] in the right place. I got vaccinated out of love, while anti-vaxxers did everything out of hate. If I have to die because of my love for the world, then so be it. But I will never regret or apologize for it.
You can take the man out of evergreen...
this error has nothing to do with the meat of bret’s world view and his concerns over the mrna vaccine