You are literally defending a woman who equated referring to transgender individuals as the gender they live as with referring to someone impersonating a cop as “officer”.
But really, she just has legitimate concerns about teens being pressured into transitioning despite not really being trans…
I’m not defending her. I’m asking that her conversation with Rogan be accurately characterized. Which you did accurately characterize her position in the newsweek piece, and MMFA didn’t with Rogan’s podcast with her.
The point of the article is to document what Rogan and Shrier believe about trans people. There is a built-in assumption for a liberal website that the majority of medical professionals are correct when they support gender affirmative health care and no need to re-litigate trans rights. Is Media Matters being misleading in claiming that Rogan and Shrier oppose such health care?
The point is that similar viewpoints have been removed from YouTube as a violation of its hate speech policy and that Apple and Spotify have similar policies. The point is not to convince someone like you that it is hate speech.
What is inaccurate? Every claim seems backed by actual quotes.
Obviously the MMFA goal is to try to avoid actually engaging with Shrier and simply try to censor her viewpoint by begging tech oligarchs to ban her. So I guess we agree? Except on if she should be censored or not.
Whether they engage her arguments to your satisfaction is irrelevant to the question of whether they accurately represent her views, which is a purely descriptive task. You have done nothing to back up your claim that Rogan and Shrier were misrepresented.
People can watch the podcast and judge for themselves. As I said, each of those individual topics was mentioned. They’re presented in an extremely hostile and selective way that doesn’t accurately capture the conversation.
Keeeeeeeed I like you more than most here but if you think Rogan isn’t voting Trump you’re just gullible. How do people like you routinely get fooled by these people?
Also, “you need to listen to all 3 hours for context” is a fucking terrible defense.
If you’re “for” m4a/sympathetic towards immigrants and these subjects basically never get brought up on your gigantic platform when the Trump admin is in court to strike down the ACA and this administration would start a genocide if they could get away with it I dont want to hear that you support shit.
What is factually incorrect about that description?
I believe Rogan isn’t voting for Trump but I also don’t care if he is. It’s none of my business.
As far as Shrier’s conversation, her thesis was that in teenage girls cutting and anorexia are examples of social contagion phenomena, and that there were periods where populations had explosive growth of these phenomena where it goes from low prevalence to high prevalence. I don’t know if this is true or not. She says there is evidence that the increase in teen trans boys is another example of this. Again, I don’t know if any of this is true but exploring this sort of research isn’t transphobic in my opinion.
FYP
I can agree with “shouldn’t”, but he has a massive audience and is shaping the social and political views of a large cohort of men. The reality of Rogan’s influence needs to be dealt with.
Is there evidence of this? Sincerely asking.
The size of his audience is a fact. The rest of it is probably a mix of analysis and inference. I doubt there’s a scientific study tracking his audience’s views over time.
I watched the first 30 minutes of the the first alex jones interview and had to stop because it was unwatchable. Of course I’m in my mid 30’s.
I guess adults from the age of 18-25 are going to buy into things easier.
I just think we overstate how big of an impact Rogan has but I could be very wrong.
I turned it off right when Alex said that CO2 was 500 times higher ten million years ago. CO2 was 20% of the atmosphere, Alex? Seems dubious.
How?
Like pretty much every other influential force is dealt with - acknowledgement, analysis, competition.
I’ve watched like 5 episodes of Joe Rogan lifetime, always because he had a guest on I found interesting. Usually it happens because I type the persons name and podcast into youtube. Joe Rogan happens to be there and is a moderately interesting conversationalist. I suspect that there’s a lot of mirroring the other person going on with Joe.
Obviously anyone giving Alex Jones a platform in late October 2020 is a big problem. We should write a law that makes what that guy does criminal. It’s clearly a huge oversight lol.
Respect
(Not being snarky here. “Jon Steward (sic)” is a classic reference).