6 ms·

Ymmv but for myself I prefer not to have my hand held entire life and explained “the one true way” I’m supposed to think. There’s a ton of programming out there

Ymmv but for myself I prefer not to have my hand held entire life and explained “the one true way” I’m supposed to think. There’s a ton of programming out there that already does this (for your personal definition of “the one true way”)

vannevar 6y ago
This is a straw man argument. There's a big difference between simply vetting your guests to weed out quacks, and pushing some single-minded idea of orthodoxy.
- dilyevsky 6y ago
  No it isn’t. As I said if you want your microwaved lasagna go watch 60 minutes. I want to see Dorsey, Jones etc for the lunatics that they are and be thoroughly entertained by it
  - BTCOG 6y ago
    I really just want to say that your comments have been hopeful and refreshing. Thank you.
  - vannevar 6y ago
    So you'll trade the lasagna for a bag of Doritos and some Slim Jims? If you think there is something "authentic" about people like Alex Jones, you're delusional. They are media creations, just as surely as Dan Rather. Just less coherent.
    - dilyevsky 6y ago
      That’s actually one of the reasons I watched that episode - to see how much of it is an act and what drove him to these levels of insanity where it’s not. This is what good interview supposed to show imo and jre is certainly not best at this but better than most interviewers out there (at least american ones)
- Scalestein 6y ago
  Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from his appearance on the podcast. I think having guests from all over the political and 'quack' spectrum is a great example of sunlight being the best disinfectant. It is also a powerful bubble popping feature - very few media outlets entertain serious conversations with such a wide variety of guests.
  - vannevar 6y ago
    No doubt, you can draw the line at different points. And obviously, in terms of audience and profit, Joe has found a sweet spot, with enough crazy people to be interesting but not so crazy as to make it a nonstop freak show. My point was that there's a wide band there, and that simply excluding a guest whose beliefs are demonstrably incorrect or morally reprehensible is not the same as pushing a single orthodox belief. Hence my reference to the Straw Man Argument.
    - dilyevsky 6y ago
      So you’re praising him for keeping the balance but the show is somehow “problematic” as some folks like to say bc he invited that one crazy guest? Sounds like more of strawman to me. And yes jre style is very much softball questions I don’t think anyone really disputes that
    - Scalestein 6y ago
      Oh yes totally agree, certainly there are many guests who have been rejected from appearing on JRE and yet he is being touted as heterodox.
      - vannevar 6y ago
        So in your mind, the ideal show would be one where the guests are chosen at random? Otherwise, there is always the possibility that pernicious orthodoxy would play a role in setting the agenda. And of course it couldn't be on Spotify; the free version plays ads, which definitely push a consumerist orthodoxy. And it couldn't all be in a single language, because as we all know, each language embodies certain cultural orthodoxies. Quite the dilemma, putting together the show of your dreams. ;-)
happytoexplain 6y ago
I'm not sure declining to invite Alex Jones onto one's platform would qualify as forcing one's definition of "the one true way" on others. That's kind of an over-deep reading of that person's character.
- seibelj 6y ago
  I was interested in that episode. I thought Jones was batshit crazy before and still thought so after. It wasn’t hurting me to hear Jones speak.
- dilyevsky 6y ago
  I haven’t watched anything he did since the Waking Life time so it was interesting to see the downward trajectory there. I hate twitter and other “social” networks with a passion so jre and couple other independent voices are my only window into these sort of cultural phenomenons
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  But it also doesn't hurt to have him, you don't need to buy his man pills. To declare him dangerous is rather counter-productive. Especially since there are alternatives for that where you never need to see him. So what exactly is the problem?
- koolba 6y ago
  They've been friends for over 20 years. The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion. And love him or hate him, Alex Jones is one of the most interesting people on this planet. It'd be a disservice to his listeners to not invite him on the show.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion. Sure. And that doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Rogan's format freely mixes experts, non-experts, and faux-experts in ways that contribute to an overall undervaluing of expertise in our culture. That's worth criticism even if he is friends with a conspiracy nut and wants to shoot the shit.
freshhawk 6y ago
Me too, that's why when someone tries to feed me bullshit, like Joe Rogan has many times, I decide to ignore them, because they are untrustworthy and misinforming me. And I happily share that information with others, because that's the nice thing to do. That's what people who don't need their hand held do. And if you didn't write Joe Rogan off a long time ago then, I hate to tell you, you do still need some hand holding apparently.
- manigandham 6y ago
  People watch for the guests, not just Rogan. Your morally superior attitude of telling others what's correct is exactly what people dislike about other shows. People who "don't need their hand held" can separate the information from the host and think for themselves.
- dilyevsky 6y ago
  > because that's the nice thing to do. I can already tell from your comment what a nice wholesome person you are
- aeternum 6y ago
  I find that there is still something to learn from the guests that are batshit crazy. You learn what aspects of their message resonates with their audience, even if their reasoning is clearly flawed. Rogan is unique in that he frequently let's guests speak freely enough that they divulge the reasons they believe the things they do. And that insight can be incredibly enlightening. As Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
obscoth 6y ago
Of course, you prefer the “alternative” which tells you actually the truth is just the opposite of what “they want you to believe” and you figured it out because you’re so smart and not afraid to offend people and go against the grain.

vannevar 6y ago

This is a straw man argument. There's a big difference between simply vetting your guests to weed out quacks, and pushing some single-minded idea of orthodoxy.

dilyevsky 6y ago
No it isn’t. As I said if you want your microwaved lasagna go watch 60 minutes. I want to see Dorsey, Jones etc for the lunatics that they are and be thoroughly entertained by it
- BTCOG 6y ago
  I really just want to say that your comments have been hopeful and refreshing. Thank you.
- vannevar 6y ago
  So you'll trade the lasagna for a bag of Doritos and some Slim Jims? If you think there is something "authentic" about people like Alex Jones, you're delusional. They are media creations, just as surely as Dan Rather. Just less coherent.
  - dilyevsky 6y ago
    That’s actually one of the reasons I watched that episode - to see how much of it is an act and what drove him to these levels of insanity where it’s not. This is what good interview supposed to show imo and jre is certainly not best at this but better than most interviewers out there (at least american ones)
Scalestein 6y ago
Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from his appearance on the podcast. I think having guests from all over the political and 'quack' spectrum is a great example of sunlight being the best disinfectant. It is also a powerful bubble popping feature - very few media outlets entertain serious conversations with such a wide variety of guests.
- vannevar 6y ago
  No doubt, you can draw the line at different points. And obviously, in terms of audience and profit, Joe has found a sweet spot, with enough crazy people to be interesting but not so crazy as to make it a nonstop freak show. My point was that there's a wide band there, and that simply excluding a guest whose beliefs are demonstrably incorrect or morally reprehensible is not the same as pushing a single orthodox belief. Hence my reference to the Straw Man Argument.
  - dilyevsky 6y ago
    So you’re praising him for keeping the balance but the show is somehow “problematic” as some folks like to say bc he invited that one crazy guest? Sounds like more of strawman to me. And yes jre style is very much softball questions I don’t think anyone really disputes that
  - Scalestein 6y ago
    Oh yes totally agree, certainly there are many guests who have been rejected from appearing on JRE and yet he is being touted as heterodox.
    - vannevar 6y ago
      So in your mind, the ideal show would be one where the guests are chosen at random? Otherwise, there is always the possibility that pernicious orthodoxy would play a role in setting the agenda. And of course it couldn't be on Spotify; the free version plays ads, which definitely push a consumerist orthodoxy. And it couldn't all be in a single language, because as we all know, each language embodies certain cultural orthodoxies. Quite the dilemma, putting together the show of your dreams. ;-)

happytoexplain 6y ago

I'm not sure declining to invite Alex Jones onto one's platform would qualify as forcing one's definition of "the one true way" on others. That's kind of an over-deep reading of that person's character.

seibelj 6y ago
I was interested in that episode. I thought Jones was batshit crazy before and still thought so after. It wasn’t hurting me to hear Jones speak.
dilyevsky 6y ago
I haven’t watched anything he did since the Waking Life time so it was interesting to see the downward trajectory there. I hate twitter and other “social” networks with a passion so jre and couple other independent voices are my only window into these sort of cultural phenomenons
raxxorrax 6y ago
But it also doesn't hurt to have him, you don't need to buy his man pills. To declare him dangerous is rather counter-productive. Especially since there are alternatives for that where you never need to see him. So what exactly is the problem?
koolba 6y ago
They've been friends for over 20 years. The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion. And love him or hate him, Alex Jones is one of the most interesting people on this planet. It'd be a disservice to his listeners to not invite him on the show.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > The format of his show is a group of friends having an extended discussion. Sure. And that doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Rogan's format freely mixes experts, non-experts, and faux-experts in ways that contribute to an overall undervaluing of expertise in our culture. That's worth criticism even if he is friends with a conspiracy nut and wants to shoot the shit.

freshhawk 6y ago

Me too, that's why when someone tries to feed me bullshit, like Joe Rogan has many times, I decide to ignore them, because they are untrustworthy and misinforming me. And I happily share that information with others, because that's the nice thing to do. That's what people who don't need their hand held do. And if you didn't write Joe Rogan off a long time ago then, I hate to tell you, you do still need some hand holding apparently.

manigandham 6y ago
People watch for the guests, not just Rogan. Your morally superior attitude of telling others what's correct is exactly what people dislike about other shows. People who "don't need their hand held" can separate the information from the host and think for themselves.
dilyevsky 6y ago
> because that's the nice thing to do. I can already tell from your comment what a nice wholesome person you are
aeternum 6y ago
I find that there is still something to learn from the guests that are batshit crazy. You learn what aspects of their message resonates with their audience, even if their reasoning is clearly flawed. Rogan is unique in that he frequently let's guests speak freely enough that they divulge the reasons they believe the things they do. And that insight can be incredibly enlightening. As Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

obscoth 6y ago

Of course, you prefer the “alternative” which tells you actually the truth is just the opposite of what “they want you to believe” and you figured it out because you’re so smart and not afraid to offend people and go against the grain.