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!

  • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de
    12·
    6 months ago

    You cannot take an article and say it’s true and therefore “Andrew bad”. It doesn’t work like that. I’ve seen that article a million times already. It presents no proof, it’s just a reddit comment as an article for clicks.

    The sunscreen thing, here’s the first link that comes up when you search online:

    Taken together, this review advocates revisiting the current safety and regulation of specific sunscreens and investing in alternative UV protection technologies.

    In any case I am sure he wasn’t saying ALL SUNSCREEN IS BAD but you know, people are going to build up their stories.

    No, his personal life isn’t relevant if all he does in his podcast is condense evidence about a subject, with all relevant sources right there.

    • moon@lemmy.ml
      3·
      6 months ago

      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

      • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de
        12·
        6 months ago

        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!!

        • moon@lemmy.ml
          3·
          6 months ago

          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

          • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de
            12·
            6 months ago

            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!!

            • moon@lemmy.ml
              3·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de
                12·
                6 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.