4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSo 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 agoOh 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 agoSo 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. ;-)
- raxxorrax 6y agoHow about you just skip those episodes? I cannot understand your form of reasoning at all. You are morally reprehensible if you think your standards of acceptance should be used as a template.