5 ms·

In my brief viewing he pretends to be unbiased. Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated cl

• lagadu 6y ago
  Everything is worthy of discussion and everyone's opinion is valuable no matter how much I may dislike them/disagree with them. I feel like this because the alternative is having a gatekeeper who tells everyone whose opinion is worth spreading and whose should be silenced and I prefer living in a non-totalitarian society. Unless I'm that gatekeeper of course: I'm down for subjugating society to my personal preference of what's right and wrong. edit: I may think that Alex Jones is an idiot but I still want him to be able to get as much exposure as someone I like.
  • tw04 6y ago
    Everyone's opinion is NOT valuable. That thinking is exactly why 5G towers are being burned down. The media - Joe Rogan included - has decided that your OPINIONS carry the same weight as scientific FACT and "let the listeners decide". That'll absolutely attract viewers from all walks of life - and it's a disservice to all of them.
    • lagadu 6y ago
      I get what you're saying but letting the people decide what policy to follow is what a democracy is all about: if enough idiots in a sovereign nation decide to go "fuck 5g" then that's exactly what that nation should do. Do I think it's stupid and wrong? Yes. Do I think they should be allowed to choose that? Yes.
      • tw04 6y ago
        So you're suggesting we let people be misinformed? Where do you draw the line? Do we let our teachers teach the earth is both flat and round and "let the students decide"? The earth is the center of the universe and just a part of the milky way? The holocaust happened and didn't happen? You can't possibly expect people to make rational decisions about science they don't understand. And letting people straight up LIE and expect the common man to spend hours researching a topic they probably don't even understand to figure out they're being lied to is RIDICULOUS. There's a reason why we have ethics in journalism...
        • whatthesmack 6y ago
          Who/what decides who is “misinformed”. Again, there needs to be a gatekeeper if you go that direction, and that direction leads to exactly what the mainstream media of today is.
          • tw04 6y ago
            The fact you’d advocate putting someone on tv to tell the world that 5g towers cause covid—19 and give them the same courtesy as a scientist explaining factual information about the world around us tells me you’re either delusional or upset that the media “gatekeeps” fascists and racists. Who decides what’s misinformed? Science, the same thing that allows you to post on HN.
  • rtp 6y ago
    Just because you think the state should allow any discussion and any opinion, doesn't mean you need to think its content is worthy or valuable. Do you think nazism should get as much exposure as something you like? Creationism? Flat-earthism? Any fringe idea with five believers?
    • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Creationism is not a fringe idea! I think that illustrates the major flaw of your mindset. If you screen off entire categories of ideas as not worth thinking about, you're going to get a systematically incorrect view of the world.
      • rtp 6y ago
        Why would screening off entire categories of ideas lead to a systematically incorrect view of the world? Or why would entertaining those ideas lead to a less incorrect view of the world?
        • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
          It stops you from noticing what other people believe and why, which stops you from understanding them even if you ultimately believe they're wrong.
          • tw04 6y ago
            Which pressures them into either keeping it to themselves or being pressured by society to change their beliefs. The “respect everyone’s opinion” is how we got Charlottesville. Tolerance can and should have limits.
      • myko 6y ago
        > Creationism is not a fringe idea! When people discuss creationism they're usually talking about Young Earth Creationism which is absolutely a fringe idea
• mistermann 6y ago
  > Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. I downvoted because of this comment: > Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic. By what process did you arrive at this conclusion (which I assume is a personal opinion, even though it is presented in the form of a fact)? In a system as complex as global human society, where we have almost no understanding (or even knowledge of the existence) of some of the most important sub-processes contained within, how do you believe that you have individually arrived at the objectively correct ("what I posted is accurate") assessment of what "is" "worthy of discussion"? > "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic. Do you actually think that Alex Jones' comprehensive worldview is fully understood, both by yourself and others? What data have you used to arrive at your conclusion? The the single "fact" that he "ran with" the Sandy Hook conspiracy and "was likely" a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide? Surely you wouldn't form a confident conclusion on an infinitely complex subject (the understanding of someone's comprehensive worldview) based on one individual data point, would you? I don't pose these questions in a rhetorical manner by the way - I would genuinely like to hear an "actual RESPONSE", if you are willing to provide one.
  • shaidi 6y ago
    How do I know an apple will fall to the floor when I drop it? Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion. That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made. Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts, but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does...
    • mistermann 6y ago
• mythrwy 6y ago
  He sometimes has "toxic" lefty guests also though. I don't see his showing being biased. If anything listening to Alex Jones for half an hour made me realize how nutty Jones is. Because I never would have searched out Jones on my own. Nor am I interested in what Vox has to say about Jones. It's a good thing to hear other points of view without frothing at the mouth and demanding they are shut up. It's also a good thing to separate the point of view from the person. Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. This point seems to be lost in much of modern discourse.
  • donarb 6y ago
    It took you a half hour to realize that Jones was nutty?
  • tw04 6y ago
    >Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. Because I disagree? Of course not, disagreement doesn't make someone evil. What makes him evil is running around claiming the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre were lying about their children dying as a conspiracy theory to take people's guns away. I can't think of a more spineless, thoughtless, ridiculous thing to do than attack people who just lost their children. He parroted that shit again and again for money. "Disagreement" has nothing to do with the stain on society that is Alex Jones being an evil person.