3 ms·

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

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.

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.