100% censorship free. Can't wait for the woke mob to start REEEEEE'ing over this one. LOL!
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/rumble-ceo-offers-joe-rogan-100-million-make-world-better-place
Rogan can't just break the contract. He should not have apologized. Provoke them, staring with a Trump interview.
shareExcellent! Great way to clean up Spotify.
shareAgreed. No reason to have his awesome content on a platform that caves and doesn't honor free speech. If he joins Rumble, it'll start competing with and eventually overtake Youtube and stay 100% uncensored. That way everyone can view Rogan's podcasts censorship free! Fuck yeah dude glad we agree!
share
I think Rogan is a jerk who spreads misinformation about Covid, but I am 100% behind his right to say what the heck he wants and where he wants to say it.
The odds of him being wrong are about 99.999 percent. But what about that 0.001 percent chance he's right? He's a talking head, not a news caster. Anyone who chooses to believe him do so as their choice.
We've all seen the media cancellation of people and posts that later turned out to be right. The right to free speech is one of the fundamental principles that America was founded on. The Brownshirts that want to cancel him are disgusting.
I thought he was pretty reasonable and humble in the way he handled his apology. He didn’t jump right to an inflexible position on free speech and he could have. He was willing to meet Spotify and the critics halfway in the impossible work of trying to make everyone happy. That does not seem to be the posture of Neil Young and the other artists who continue to turn the screws.
shareLol you're a sheep. What misinformation has he spread about COVID?
share"Awesome content" = 4chan rejects.
share????? He's by far the largest podcast in the world because of his content you moron. You don't get two different 100 million dollar deals/offers back to back for having shit content.
shareAs always, $$$$ = Quality, right? Yeah, just like the endless superhero movies.
shareHis immense and ever expanding audience, from both sides of the aisle, that continues to grow and swallow the ratings of various MSM segments, and in some cases ENTIRE MSM catalogues, is what determines quality. You don't get to the levels Rogan has without great content. The money he's making is only a side effect of that content.
sharePeople will pay for and listen to white noise. Pretty much the same thing.
share4chan rejected Cornell West, Sir Roger Penrose, and Chuck Palanhuik? Yeah, I figured 4chan didn't have good taste.
share4chan would be perfect for Rogan, Giuliani and all of the other rejects of the world.
shareRogan has on a variety of guests. If you don't like his show, that's fine. I think you're being overly simplistic and dismissive.
For my part, I think Rogan's views on the COVID vaccine are misguided and I think he'd be better served by also discussing it with people in the know who disagree with him and can set the record straight.
I also think that he has on mostly amazing guests, and while I'm not listening to the ones with MMA fighters (doesn't interest me) I think it's great that there's a place where I can hear people like Sir Roger Penrose talk for an hour and a half about black holes and consciousness.
He's not misguided at all about the experimental jab. It doesn't work, period.
shareEvidence and numbers suggest otherwise. There are a lot of data to crunch, but I'll summarize what I've seen: most sources with open reporting and scientifically-acquired data suggest that the vaccines are effective, although not silver bullets by any stretch of the imagination, nor are they as effective as certain news media outlets seem to portray.
shareEffective at what? Certainly not reducing transmission, which is what the EUA was granted for. That has to be down to nearly 0% at this point. Here's a great twitter thread showing (sourced) data from the UK showing infections are actually much higher in the boosted.
https://twitter.com/tlowdon/status/1491817717476708353
So, first of all, all those numbers are dropping fast, which could just as easily suggest that the vaccine is working at keeping the general population not-infected.
This report says that immunization is working:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm
Probability is also a factor. The UK (where that twitter feed chart came from) has a vacc rate of around 72%, I believe, which means that there are greater numbers who can potentially get the vaccine.
Furthermore, vaccinated people experience lower rates of mortality, and less severe symptoms and lasting effects:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w
Furthermore, vaccinated people experience lower rates of mortality, and less severe symptoms and lasting effects:
And this is what I'm talking about.
When you give me data, I say, "Those numbers could mean X or Y," but I don't ignore your data.
When I give you data, you say, "It's an assumption or the placebo effect."
That's conspiracy theorist thinking. Anything that proves your point must be valid. Anything that proves mine must be bunk.
We've hit an impasse.
How do you prove a jab made your symptoms less severe for a virus with an above 99% survival rate during the entirety of the "pandemic"? It's impossible. Throughout human history, viruses that mutate become more transmissive, which is indicated by the complete failure of the jabs to stop transmission, and less virulent, which is indicated by severe cases drastically dropping. It's the natural progression of the virus.
It has nothing to do with the jabs, and everything to do with the history of viruses and how they work and progress. The data I'm giving to you at least proves my point...yours however does not.