5 ms·
To be totally clear, being interviewed by someone implies absolutely nothing about agreement. For example, here's Noam Chomsky being interviewed by Molyneux: h
by giantDinosaur 6y ago
To be totally clear, being interviewed by someone implies absolutely nothing about agreement. For example, here's Noam Chomsky being interviewed by Molyneux:
https://youtu.be/MautscPF5wE https://youtu.be/MautscPF5wE
Even more shockingly, you can interview with someone because they actually share some interest in what you research or do, and still not be in agreement with the interviewer's platform, as is the case in the linked interview.
Edit: removed section on 'misleading narratives' as, truthfully, I don't know enough about this specific case to comment much on it other than it has the hallmarks of a political hit job.
- ylem 6y agoI agree with you on being interviewed. Bringing someone onto your podcast is more of an implicit endorsement unless you actively push back on their other views. If you don't know about those views, you should have done your research. But, if that was the case, he could have stated it. Imagine that he invited on a vocal flat earther, but discussed gardening with him. In his position, it raises doubts about judgement. If he says, "I didn't realize he was a flat earther--the earth is not flat", he probably keeps his job. But if he threatens to sue people who talk about his appearance on the show, it's a different story.
- giantDinosaur 6y agoWhat concerns me primarily is the guilt by association. You also will see criticism about 'normalising' deviant perspectives merely with the act of engaging in debate (which has some merit, but is applied too generally), which would likely condemn many more. There's no way that can end without people with legitimate points being terrified of speaking.