Asklemmy

43723 readers

1612 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Joe Rogan - suggestions to switch my sibling to better media (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

My 27 yr old sibling is a hard core follower of Joe Rogan 💩

What are some progressive channels/people/content that I could have my sibling start watching instead?

Preferably something that has a similar flavor - example: male host, muscular, easy to digest. I think that will make the transition easier.

My personal preferences are Seth Meyers and John Oliver, but Last Week Tonight (John Oliver) is even a heavy watch for me sometimes!

[No Andrew Hubbard. He’s another fake.]

Thank you!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The article is based on interviews and quotes from people who actually know him. Journalism is based on interviewing sources and reporting what they said. I don't know why you think it's equivalent to a Reddit comment but I suspect it's because you're blinded by your admiration for this man.

You linked to a review paper of existing research in the area and its conclusion is: we don't know enough to speak authoritatively about this, more research is needed. From the paper:

Although most studies reviewed in this paper reported adverse neurotoxic effects of UV filters at concentrations substantially higher that those observed in environment and human tissues, these studies should not be disregarded, as they afford potential pathomechanisms which might occur in other conditions or sensitive populations.

Aka, these studies only found that it's toxic in doses no human would use as sunscreen.

Unfortunately, the effects of repeated, long-term and low-dose exposures to single compounds and mixtures of various UV filters is also poorly studied.

Aka we don't actually know what the effects are for regular use.

But we do know that skin cancer is a real concern for people, and sunscreen has been proven to help. Until there is actual research showing sunscreen is toxic at normal usage volumes, it's deeply irresponsible of Huberman to advocate against it. Or make claims that haven't been proven in the literature.

His personal life is relevant because it proves he's a pathological liar. He's also lying on podcast appearances when he talks about his upbringing. If you want to take life advice from a proven and prolific fabricator that's your prerogative, but he is not someone that should be promoted in a public forum like this

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Good journalism would be an article going through all the papers from the Huberman podcasts and his analysis of them (which he always cites if it's been peer-reviewed, etc) and debunking all the misinformation. But nope. It's all about talking to enough people hoping they say some crap about the personal life about a private person, cherry picking information and building up a story from that.

The sunscreen thing, I just passed the first link that came to me, showing that in fact there is proof of bad agents in sunscreen.

If you go check the video of Huberman and sunscreen, very easy to find, you'll see how he literally says that sunscreen is important because you don't want to get cancer, it's just that SOME SUNSCREEN has been found to have toxic components that may cross the blood-brain barrier, and he simply advices to BUY A GOOD SUNSCREEN.

See how this "journalism" works? They pick those little things and extrapolate into madness instead of doing actual work. Because why would you do the actual journalism if there is an easier way to get clicks?

And I am sure one could find some contradicting science to Huberman's podcasts and I would LOVE to see that. In fact, I think Huberman would love that too. That's science!!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Science is not about "finding contradicting science." It's not about spouting off on subjects that are not within your research expertise and waiting to be proven wrong. It's not a 'debate me bro' your facts vs mine endeavour.

The worst thing this guy has done is convince a bunch of people, primarily young men, that they too can spout off about scientific matters they barely understand. See also: Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and all the other PhD-turned-grifter figures

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

First of all: yes, science is about constantly trying to disprove hypotheses. That is what the guys at CERN are doing, that is what people at Stanford are doing. What else could it be?

If you think Huberman is giving these people a right to spout off scientific matters and that's horrible, then we should cancel Veritasium, we should cancel Sabine Hossenfelder, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, MinutePhysics, VSauce, all TED speeches, damn, BURN every science book and magazine, cause it is making people have opinions about these evil things!!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The people who are disproving the hypotheses are doing so through peer-reviewed studies in a research setting. They are not doing it on podcasts.

No, I mostly just think it's horrible in Huberman's case. Most of the people you listed aren't prolific liars who prey on young men to sell a no-fap, buy-my-supplements lifestyle to. I've literally never seen a Brian Cox fan expend as much energy in defence of the man as you Huberman listeners. He's more akin to grifters like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson who trade on their PhD credentials to make claims that go behind their area of expertise and talk almost exclusively to lost and lonely young men who are looking for guidance.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

I am not defending the man. I am just trying to get to the meat of why there is so much hate on him.

All that young men, nofap, supplement-seller thing is NOWHERE in his podcast. It just shows that people are just reading clickbait article titles. Please watch one of his episodes about sleep, or alcohol, or whatever. I've explained it in many comments already. This dude is REALLY careful about what he puts in his podcasts, and it shows.

BTW, none of his advice has ever said anything losely related to Peterson's rethoric of male superiority thingie, and I don't even know who that Sam Harris is.

I can tell you something tho. So far in all discussions, NO ONE has brought up what I believe is Huberman's biggest mistake: bringing Zuckerberg in. That was a very bad episode, but everyone (I even remember Veritasium f*cking it up hard once) deserves to make mistakes sometimes (particularly if no illegal action was taken). I think (hope) he learned his lesson because every comment was clear. No highlight videos were made out of that episode which clearly shows they probably realised the mistake.