3 ms·
Modernity is marked by the requirement to choose a worldview as technology increases our interactions with others who's alternative perspectives of reality chal
by jlos 5y ago
Modernity is marked by the requirement to choose a worldview as technology increases our interactions with others who's alternative perspectives of reality challenge and conflict with our own. This is the basic conclusion Sociologists of religion came to in the 90's when they saw the rest of the world wasn't modernizing like Europe did by secularizing.
The challenge of competing worldviews is really one of the central sociological challenges today. The natural tendency seems to be to try to push the contaminating thoughts to the margins of society - and all groups (left, right, religious, secular, etc) engage in this basic tendency. Its disturbing to live with people who's basic view of reality challenges your own.
The NYT represents mainstream left's attempt maintain worldview solidarity (and again, each group engages in this activity) so it seems natural they take issue with Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice in responding to the smorgasbord of modernity: engage with all the alternatives openly. Rogan states several times the format of his podcast is designed for this - 4 hour conversations. Not scripted, not planned, just conversation. Such conversations are apparently deeply interesting to people who'd rather not spend their time in parochial attempts to shore up their own worldview across society.
I do find it hard to tell (sometimes) whether Rogan's guests are on the level, but maybe that reflects the inherent ambiguity of life. I mean relativity in epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics has been mainstream for decades, if not generations. I expect the attempt to turn back the clock on modernity from conservative religious groups, but its always seems strangely inconsistent when coming from the NYT.
- frozenport 5y ago`Joe Rogan as he represents the other choice` but in reality this a marketing gimmick. As the article argues, his view is actually mainstream and popular and leads to commercial success.
- jlos 5y agoI didn't mean to imply Rogan is some underdog, but that Rogan and the NYT represent different approaches to the ambiguity of modernity. The NYT aims for worldview solidarity while Rogan accepts and embraces the ambiguity. I also suspect his topics just appeal to young men (fitness, comedians, Elon Musk) and that accounts for a portion of his base.
- Niksko 5y agoThis feels like the same argument as giving airtime to climate change conspiracy theorists. "We have to give both sides equal airtime". Embracing ambiguity is fine when there is genuine ambiguity. Portraying minority or fringe ideas as 'ambiguity' is dangerous.
- dgellow 5y agoThen don't listen to it if you think it's dangerous. But don't try to control what others are doing. I'm perfectly fine listening to people saying stupid things about climate change or other topics. That should be the case for virtually any adults.
- robbedpeter 5y agoThe lab leak hypothesis was seen as fringe just 4 months ago. The problem with what you're saying is that you're setting yourself up as an arbiter of reason, or sanity, or safety in the realm of ideas. This is a fine aspiration, but you can clearly see that not all, or even many, will accept your analysis. So you go into problem solving mode - and end up with government, or trust and safety boards, or religion, or any of the myriad of communities humans develop to corral the marketplace of ideas. All of those systems suffer from humanity's profound fallibility and until that stops being the case, actually talking out all issues will be the only reasonable method of handling freedom of speech. Some limits are obvious, but because human fallibility is so profound, we should be equally as profound in allowing ambiguous ideas the space to be understood and charity in interpretation. To do otherwise is embracing ignorance and folly.
- textgel 5y agoThis feels like a demand for 1930s and 40s style book burning of 'dangerous' ideas.
- brodouevencode 5y agoI understand and agree with your point, but I do not agree that the NYT represents the mainstream left anymore. The 1619 project is one of the most polarizing and radical points of view (not to mention being fundamentally wrong on many pretenses) in the west today. They’ve been sliding further and further to the radical side of the progressive left for years all for the clicks. They got rid of Bari Weiss for crying out loud. This piece is weird in that it’s treating someone with whom they fundamentally disagree with kid gloves.
- lasagnaphil 5y agoI don’t know that you could really call the 1619 project leftist/progressive though. A good portion of the criticism came from Marxists, such as the series of articles and books that came from the World Socialist Web Site. https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619 https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/04/intr-d04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/04/intr-d04.html
- textgel 5y agoIt's a perfect representation of progressivism. It's a complete fabrication used to forward malicious progressive agendas that received enthusiastic support when first seen and is only now being distanced because it's position is untenable. It's practically cookie cutter.
- textgel 5y agoThe radical progressive left is effectively the mainstream these days; the NYT is one of many high profile representatives of its beliefs.