4 ms·

Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience decide for themselves what is BS and what is not? Whose job is it to police thought crim

Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience decide for themselves what is BS and what is not? Whose job is it to police thought crimes? If you want the mainstream viewpoint on whatever someone is talking about, go read or watch the mainstream, there's no shortage of people telling you what is acceptable already.

dagw 7y ago
Whom are you arguing against? Where did I say anything about policing "thought crimes" or wanting mainstream viewpoints?
- linuxftw 7y ago
  You said the following: > Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want Who is Rogan to question or push back? And, if he were to do so, on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? Could you provide an example of something you expected him to 'push back' against, and why you think he should have pushed back? > wanting mainstream viewpoints Clearly, it's implied that if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. That most likely is some mainstream viewpoint of which you might find objectionable to unfiltered discussion. Allowing objectionable discussion to take place is surely a thought crime that needs policing, in many people's view point. You might not agree with the wording or implied context, but not everything is about what you think, and I would characterize that as policing 'thought crime'.
  - dagw 7y ago
    on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? On the basis that that is the interviewers role. Have you watched skilled interviewers? An interviewer pushing back against a statement is not a signal that he disagrees with the statement or believes there to be anything wrong with it. A skilled interviewer will often challenge statements they 100% agree with and believe to be true as a tool to strengthen and clarify the point. if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. You're putting the cart before the horse. The interviewer shouldn't be pushing back because they a priori believe a statement to be BS, but to test if the statement is BS. Questioning someone and giving them the opportunity to defend and clarify their viewpoint is surely the opposite of policing and filtering it.
eesmith 7y ago
Because there is no such thing as impartially presenting a guest's ideas? Because figuring out what is BS can be hard? (Look at all the people who believe in the BS that is Young Earth Creationism.) Because it's not a thought-crime to decide to not cover certain topics? Consider a discussion about the need for forced participation in human experimentation, like deliberately freezing unwilling prisoners in experiments with the goal of discovering new means to prevent and treat hypothermia. If someone wants to present that, and is denied, is that denial an enforcement of thought-crime? Is it possible to present that impartially, and what would that look like? Is it meaningful to present those ideas without also bringing up the history of unethical human experimentation, and the reasons for deciding what is ethical? Can it not be that the 'mainstream viewpoint' is actually the ethical one, and strongly opposed ones deeply unethical?
ceejayoz 7y ago
> Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience decide for themselves what is BS and what is not? Because at that point it's just an infomercial.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  I'm not sure his guests are paying to be on the program, I don't think I've seen too many shilling for some product on his show. But, even if you consider it an infomercial, I don't see what the problem is. Don't like what they have to say? Don't watch. Not sure you can trust his guests? Don't watch.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    You don't have to have a product to be shilling something, and it doesn't have to be a paid infomercial to be an infomercial. I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs are more valuable to their listeners, and will preferentially watch/listen them instead as a result. You're welcome to disagree if you like. The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan is a good example of someone who won't let a guest dodge a tough issue - his interview of Erik Prince is a must-see for the benefits of a more confrontational approach, IMO. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-caught-erik-prince-lie-190315125456331.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-caught...
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      So, I said 'what's wrong with how he does what he does', you say 'because it's an infomercial', I dispute and then raise 'what difference does that make' and your answer is 'I don't like infomercials'. So, because you don't like infomercials, Joe Rogan shouldn't do them? > I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs I feel I'm smart enough to figure out for myself if someone's claims or beliefs have rougher edges and ramifications. I don't need someone to ask these questions, if they go unaddressed, I make a determination as to why. For instance "Drink this koolaide and you'll go to heaven." I don't need someone to question that, I'll be sure to question it on my own. Did the person espousing such a belief do enough to substantiate their opinion during the interview or not?

dagw 7y ago

Whom are you arguing against? Where did I say anything about policing "thought crimes" or wanting mainstream viewpoints?

linuxftw 7y ago
You said the following: > Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want Who is Rogan to question or push back? And, if he were to do so, on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? Could you provide an example of something you expected him to 'push back' against, and why you think he should have pushed back? > wanting mainstream viewpoints Clearly, it's implied that if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. That most likely is some mainstream viewpoint of which you might find objectionable to unfiltered discussion. Allowing objectionable discussion to take place is surely a thought crime that needs policing, in many people's view point. You might not agree with the wording or implied context, but not everything is about what you think, and I would characterize that as policing 'thought crime'.
- dagw 7y ago
  on what basis would you find the push back acceptable? On the basis that that is the interviewers role. Have you watched skilled interviewers? An interviewer pushing back against a statement is not a signal that he disagrees with the statement or believes there to be anything wrong with it. A skilled interviewer will often challenge statements they 100% agree with and believe to be true as a tool to strengthen and clarify the point. if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. You're putting the cart before the horse. The interviewer shouldn't be pushing back because they a priori believe a statement to be BS, but to test if the statement is BS. Questioning someone and giving them the opportunity to defend and clarify their viewpoint is surely the opposite of policing and filtering it.

eesmith 7y ago

Because there is no such thing as impartially presenting a guest's ideas? Because figuring out what is BS can be hard? (Look at all the people who believe in the BS that is Young Earth Creationism.) Because it's not a thought-crime to decide to not cover certain topics? Consider a discussion about the need for forced participation in human experimentation, like deliberately freezing unwilling prisoners in experiments with the goal of discovering new means to prevent and treat hypothermia. If someone wants to present that, and is denied, is that denial an enforcement of thought-crime? Is it possible to present that impartially, and what would that look like? Is it meaningful to present those ideas without also bringing up the history of unethical human experimentation, and the reasons for deciding what is ethical? Can it not be that the 'mainstream viewpoint' is actually the ethical one, and strongly opposed ones deeply unethical?

ceejayoz 7y ago

> Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience decide for themselves what is BS and what is not? Because at that point it's just an infomercial.

linuxftw 7y ago
I'm not sure his guests are paying to be on the program, I don't think I've seen too many shilling for some product on his show. But, even if you consider it an infomercial, I don't see what the problem is. Don't like what they have to say? Don't watch. Not sure you can trust his guests? Don't watch.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  You don't have to have a product to be shilling something, and it doesn't have to be a paid infomercial to be an infomercial. I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs are more valuable to their listeners, and will preferentially watch/listen them instead as a result. You're welcome to disagree if you like. The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan is a good example of someone who won't let a guest dodge a tough issue - his interview of Erik Prince is a must-see for the benefits of a more confrontational approach, IMO. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-caught-erik-prince-lie-190315125456331.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-caught...
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    So, I said 'what's wrong with how he does what he does', you say 'because it's an infomercial', I dispute and then raise 'what difference does that make' and your answer is 'I don't like infomercials'. So, because you don't like infomercials, Joe Rogan shouldn't do them? > I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs I feel I'm smart enough to figure out for myself if someone's claims or beliefs have rougher edges and ramifications. I don't need someone to ask these questions, if they go unaddressed, I make a determination as to why. For instance "Drink this koolaide and you'll go to heaven." I don't need someone to question that, I'll be sure to question it on my own. Did the person espousing such a belief do enough to substantiate their opinion during the interview or not?