3 ms·

Is that a problem? Legitimately, we glorify traditional metrics of intelligence, but just because someone might not be able to ace an SAT test doesn't automatic

Is that a problem? Legitimately, we glorify traditional metrics of intelligence, but just because someone might not be able to ace an SAT test doesn't automatically make their perspective invalid or mean they can't be interesting and make art (I feel like Joe Rogan would probably be good on most intelligence metrics though, but in general)

threeseed 4y ago
> doesn't automatically make their perspective invalid It does when they start affecting people's lives in serious ways. For example him pushing ivermectin.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  It's still a valid perspective, just harmful. Having a large platform/following does not automatically make someone trustworthy. Low key, why do we live in a country where the opinion of an MMA judge/podcaster influences people so much, it's impossible to endlessly validate any claim. We may need to transition to a more authoritarian model of speech in which content produced by an individual should be truthful, or we just endlessly play wac-a-mole on the latest rando who gains a following
  - nradov 4y ago
    What a horrifying comment. You can't seriously believe that we should start censoring speech just because some random podcast guest might have stated some medical misinformation. Do you really want the government deciding whom is allowed to speak? Pretty soon they'll decide to censor someone you agree with, for your own good of course. Don't be naive.
    - kyleee 4y ago
      it goes to show just how upset it makes people that the JRE podcast exists and is successful. a peculiar insight into how controlling people are that they'd casually suggest we may need "a more authoritarian model of speech" just to combat a weird celebtrity talking to people for 2-3 hours
      - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
        My point was more complaining about Joe Rogan feels like it misses the forest for the trees. We have very liberal speech laws, and that means people can say stupid shit that some individuals may follow. Holding individuals to account for the consequences of their words is more authoritarian, I don't personally inject myself with horse dewormer so I don't really care
    - sn0w_crash 4y ago
      “Do you really want the government deciding whom is allowed to speak?” The answer to this question is yes.

threeseed 4y ago

> doesn't automatically make their perspective invalid It does when they start affecting people's lives in serious ways. For example him pushing ivermectin.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
It's still a valid perspective, just harmful. Having a large platform/following does not automatically make someone trustworthy. Low key, why do we live in a country where the opinion of an MMA judge/podcaster influences people so much, it's impossible to endlessly validate any claim. We may need to transition to a more authoritarian model of speech in which content produced by an individual should be truthful, or we just endlessly play wac-a-mole on the latest rando who gains a following
- nradov 4y ago
  What a horrifying comment. You can't seriously believe that we should start censoring speech just because some random podcast guest might have stated some medical misinformation. Do you really want the government deciding whom is allowed to speak? Pretty soon they'll decide to censor someone you agree with, for your own good of course. Don't be naive.
  - kyleee 4y ago
    it goes to show just how upset it makes people that the JRE podcast exists and is successful. a peculiar insight into how controlling people are that they'd casually suggest we may need "a more authoritarian model of speech" just to combat a weird celebtrity talking to people for 2-3 hours
    - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
      My point was more complaining about Joe Rogan feels like it misses the forest for the trees. We have very liberal speech laws, and that means people can say stupid shit that some individuals may follow. Holding individuals to account for the consequences of their words is more authoritarian, I don't personally inject myself with horse dewormer so I don't really care
  - sn0w_crash 4y ago
    “Do you really want the government deciding whom is allowed to speak?” The answer to this question is yes.