8 ms·

Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!" conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending th

Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!" conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending the "progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley". It's just common decency. ... Can we at least set the bar at that level -- that we _don't_ harass the parents of murdered children for clicks?

ErikVandeWater 5y ago
Interviewing influential figures is important.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Interviewing libelous crackpots gives them influence. Without interviews, they're seldom influential.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure Alex Jones has a big platform for himself.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    This is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Because there’s so little cross pollination today everyone lives in a bubble. If your Facebook is full of right-wing stuff, you only watch Fox News and only listen to Larry Elder, you’ve got an echo chamber, breeding ground for radicalization. Having a wide variety of guests actually fights that. You listen to Bernie Sanders, then Alex Jones, then Ben Shapiro, then Edward Snowden. Rogan breaks the echo chamber. People who might only listen to Alex Jones have a chance at listening to Bernie.
- snet0 5y ago
  Why? Why do I suddenly need to know everyone's take about everything? Why is it important that we know what our favourite actor thinks about Trump? Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its driving people towards new products. Interviewing Alex Jones isn't doing anything except making more people know what an Alex Jones is.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    So they have a chance to explain their actions to see what influenced them and if they are justified.
    - hobs 5y ago
      Seemingly chance after chance after chance. Is that why the kardashians are so famous, because their continued media presence is our opportunity to see if they make sense? No, they are just crap and giving them more sunlight just gives them more undue fame, money, and power.
      - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
        Do you think the kind of interview Rogan does is similar to the typical interview the Kardashians appear in?
secondcoming 5y ago
Rogan called Jones out on that in one episode.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ineptech 5y ago
"We must remove that stuff because those ideas are dangerous/offensive, and if you disagree with removing it then you must agree with that filth!" is extremely helpful to the sorts of people who do edgy stuff to attract attention and then try to memoryhole it once they get a big audience. I think the truth is the opposite: there are no dangerous ideas. "Sandy Hook was fake!" is stupid and wrong, but the way to defeat it is exposure, not erasure. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
- snet0 5y ago
  I think this is naïve. Taking Sandy Hook as the example, do you think Alex Jones' discussion on Rogan increased or decreased its spread? It's very easy to pick up new conspiracies for a conspiracy-minded person. It's very hard to drop them.
  - Dove 5y ago
    Looking at things through a consequentialist soda straw like that is a terrible way to make decisions -- it is like trying to decide if I will drive or walk solely based on the number of birds I might kill. Decisions are much larger than this single aspect. Some people hearing a crazy idea might adopt it. Some might criticize it. Some might learn how crazy ideas work. Some might adopt it for a little while, then reject it, and be wiser through the experience. Someone who goes on a crusade to fix this one falsehood might be exposed to it. You cannot know what all effects the sum of a discussion has. But I can certainly tell you this: censorship doesn't work. It didn't work in ancient Rome. It didn't work in the Holy Roman Empire. It didn't work in Soviet Russia. It doesn't work in Communist China. It's not working right now for vaccine disinformation. Driving crazy ideas underground does not make them disappear, and it does not make them unpopular -- it makes them spread without criticism. And in fact, telling people they can't do something generally makes them want to do it. It appears to work for a little while, but I cannot think of a single historical case in which this actually worked out. Somehow the banned ideas always seem to survive beyond the death of the regime that banned them. We will always have crazy ideas. We will always have crazy people that buy them. Depriving them of respectability is perhaps a little helpful, but opens up a different danger: just who gets to decide what and who is crazy? I didn't vote for you, and I didn't vote for Spotify either.
Dove 5y ago
People are not morally monolithic -- having been awful in one moment doesn't mean they can't be helpful or insightful in the next. I wouldn't listen in to someone harassing grieving parents, but I might listen to someone who had done that, if they were talking about something else. This sort of hyperventilating moralistic fear of certain people makes me laugh, in its similarity to Victorian or conservative Christian communities. You cannot possibly want anything to do with that vagabond! I don't know, he has some vices, but he also has some perspective I am enriched by hearing. You don't have to fear sinners. Don't imitate them, but your life will be richer if you're less of a prude. Milo is a gadfly. He offends me sometimes, too. And sometimes he has stinging observations I don't hear anywhere else. I don't want to listen to him every day, but I would be poorer for having never made the acquaintance. Alex Jones is energetic and occasionally unhinged, and when he says something completely insane that also happens to be true, I find it a comedy experience like no other. But he can also be a wakeup call to some of the naive views I hold. I don't want to listen to him every day, either, but I would again be poorer if I never had. But at the end of the day, I really resent gatekeepers who want to make these sorts of decisions for me. I read history -- which means I read lots of things lots of very evil people have written. I would actually rather have the opportunity to read and study Hitler's words than have them banned on the assumption that they are too dangerous for me. I would like to think I am wise enough to judge evil for what it is, and I would like to be able to prove that to myself against real villians of history. The versions I was given in elementary school hardly illustrate the dangers. Goodness knows I can't avoid encountering dangerous ideas in the real world anyway, so what is the point of trying to protect me? I would rather be strong than safe. People are not children. They can handle reading history's dangerous ideas, and they can handle hearing society's dangerous ideas. It is better to encounter those ideas on Joe Rogan with thoughtful and open questioning and discussion, than to encounter them quiet and unopposed in private. Strong people are better than safe ones. Victorian moralizing and shunning didn't really work out for them either.
RobRivera 5y ago
who are 'we' to be the gatekeepers?
thehappypm 5y ago
I, for one, prefer free speech to deplatforming. Who gets to say what’s right or wrong — you?
- p_j_w 5y ago
  Surely a company choosing not to publish certain material falls under the umbrella of their free speech rights? Or are we all for compelled speech now? If someone has a podcast that Spotify carries and then say they think the Holocaust was a good thing, is Spotify committing a sin by removing that episode or kicking that person off their platform?
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Pro tip: needing to make up a scenario of Nazis usually means you're creating a straw man. Spotify is well within their rights to pick and choose who to platform. I, personally, think de-platforming is counterproductive. Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones may be trash human beings, but I don't think Spotify having Rogan's interview with him -- which by the way is a lot of Jones looking insane, and Joe challenging him every step of the way -- is in any way equivalent to "Spotify supports Alex Jones." Censoring people just pushes them to echo chambers.

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

Interviewing influential figures is important.

pjc50 5y ago
Interviewing libelous crackpots gives them influence. Without interviews, they're seldom influential.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure Alex Jones has a big platform for himself.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  This is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Because there’s so little cross pollination today everyone lives in a bubble. If your Facebook is full of right-wing stuff, you only watch Fox News and only listen to Larry Elder, you’ve got an echo chamber, breeding ground for radicalization. Having a wide variety of guests actually fights that. You listen to Bernie Sanders, then Alex Jones, then Ben Shapiro, then Edward Snowden. Rogan breaks the echo chamber. People who might only listen to Alex Jones have a chance at listening to Bernie.
snet0 5y ago
Why? Why do I suddenly need to know everyone's take about everything? Why is it important that we know what our favourite actor thinks about Trump? Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its driving people towards new products. Interviewing Alex Jones isn't doing anything except making more people know what an Alex Jones is.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  So they have a chance to explain their actions to see what influenced them and if they are justified.
  - hobs 5y ago
    Seemingly chance after chance after chance. Is that why the kardashians are so famous, because their continued media presence is our opportunity to see if they make sense? No, they are just crap and giving them more sunlight just gives them more undue fame, money, and power.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      Do you think the kind of interview Rogan does is similar to the typical interview the Kardashians appear in?

secondcoming 5y ago

Rogan called Jones out on that in one episode.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ineptech 5y ago

"We must remove that stuff because those ideas are dangerous/offensive, and if you disagree with removing it then you must agree with that filth!" is extremely helpful to the sorts of people who do edgy stuff to attract attention and then try to memoryhole it once they get a big audience. I think the truth is the opposite: there are no dangerous ideas. "Sandy Hook was fake!" is stupid and wrong, but the way to defeat it is exposure, not erasure. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

snet0 5y ago
I think this is naïve. Taking Sandy Hook as the example, do you think Alex Jones' discussion on Rogan increased or decreased its spread? It's very easy to pick up new conspiracies for a conspiracy-minded person. It's very hard to drop them.
- Dove 5y ago
  Looking at things through a consequentialist soda straw like that is a terrible way to make decisions -- it is like trying to decide if I will drive or walk solely based on the number of birds I might kill. Decisions are much larger than this single aspect. Some people hearing a crazy idea might adopt it. Some might criticize it. Some might learn how crazy ideas work. Some might adopt it for a little while, then reject it, and be wiser through the experience. Someone who goes on a crusade to fix this one falsehood might be exposed to it. You cannot know what all effects the sum of a discussion has. But I can certainly tell you this: censorship doesn't work. It didn't work in ancient Rome. It didn't work in the Holy Roman Empire. It didn't work in Soviet Russia. It doesn't work in Communist China. It's not working right now for vaccine disinformation. Driving crazy ideas underground does not make them disappear, and it does not make them unpopular -- it makes them spread without criticism. And in fact, telling people they can't do something generally makes them want to do it. It appears to work for a little while, but I cannot think of a single historical case in which this actually worked out. Somehow the banned ideas always seem to survive beyond the death of the regime that banned them. We will always have crazy ideas. We will always have crazy people that buy them. Depriving them of respectability is perhaps a little helpful, but opens up a different danger: just who gets to decide what and who is crazy? I didn't vote for you, and I didn't vote for Spotify either.

Dove 5y ago

People are not morally monolithic -- having been awful in one moment doesn't mean they can't be helpful or insightful in the next. I wouldn't listen in to someone harassing grieving parents, but I might listen to someone who had done that, if they were talking about something else. This sort of hyperventilating moralistic fear of certain people makes me laugh, in its similarity to Victorian or conservative Christian communities. You cannot possibly want anything to do with that vagabond! I don't know, he has some vices, but he also has some perspective I am enriched by hearing. You don't have to fear sinners. Don't imitate them, but your life will be richer if you're less of a prude. Milo is a gadfly. He offends me sometimes, too. And sometimes he has stinging observations I don't hear anywhere else. I don't want to listen to him every day, but I would be poorer for having never made the acquaintance. Alex Jones is energetic and occasionally unhinged, and when he says something completely insane that also happens to be true, I find it a comedy experience like no other. But he can also be a wakeup call to some of the naive views I hold. I don't want to listen to him every day, either, but I would again be poorer if I never had. But at the end of the day, I really resent gatekeepers who want to make these sorts of decisions for me. I read history -- which means I read lots of things lots of very evil people have written. I would actually rather have the opportunity to read and study Hitler's words than have them banned on the assumption that they are too dangerous for me. I would like to think I am wise enough to judge evil for what it is, and I would like to be able to prove that to myself against real villians of history. The versions I was given in elementary school hardly illustrate the dangers. Goodness knows I can't avoid encountering dangerous ideas in the real world anyway, so what is the point of trying to protect me? I would rather be strong than safe. People are not children. They can handle reading history's dangerous ideas, and they can handle hearing society's dangerous ideas. It is better to encounter those ideas on Joe Rogan with thoughtful and open questioning and discussion, than to encounter them quiet and unopposed in private. Strong people are better than safe ones. Victorian moralizing and shunning didn't really work out for them either.

RobRivera 5y ago

who are 'we' to be the gatekeepers?

thehappypm 5y ago

I, for one, prefer free speech to deplatforming. Who gets to say what’s right or wrong — you?

p_j_w 5y ago
Surely a company choosing not to publish certain material falls under the umbrella of their free speech rights? Or are we all for compelled speech now? If someone has a podcast that Spotify carries and then say they think the Holocaust was a good thing, is Spotify committing a sin by removing that episode or kicking that person off their platform?
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Pro tip: needing to make up a scenario of Nazis usually means you're creating a straw man. Spotify is well within their rights to pick and choose who to platform. I, personally, think de-platforming is counterproductive. Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones may be trash human beings, but I don't think Spotify having Rogan's interview with him -- which by the way is a lot of Jones looking insane, and Joe challenging him every step of the way -- is in any way equivalent to "Spotify supports Alex Jones." Censoring people just pushes them to echo chambers.