4 ms·

> I'm comfortable enough with my intellect that I can listen to these (or not) without having my brain turned to mush It's an interesting turn of phrase, becau

by btown 4y ago

> I'm comfortable enough with my intellect that I can listen to these (or not) without having my brain turned to mush It's an interesting turn of phrase, because there's a very real pipeline in which people with less-trained critical thinking skills listen to Rogan -> cannot distinguish openness from endorsement -> believe Rogan is endorsing anti-vaxx voices -> contribute to an aggregate increase in community transmissibility of communicable diseases with proven neurological impacts -> said diseases turn immunocompromised people's neurons to "mush" at an increased rate, through no fault or Rogan-listening of the victims' own. Rogan has consistently made a decision to prioritize the "vibe" of his podcast over pushing his interview subjects in a way that would make it clear that his provision of a platform is not endorsement. Sure, he challenges things as you have mentioned, but when he challenges anti-vaxx voices no more or no less than he would a guest who, say, had an opinion about hunting he didn't like, that creates a responsibility that I think does scale with audience size. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-c...

Domenic_S 4y ago
What you're talking about is nuance, and there's unfortunately little-to-no room for it in modern discourse largely because of opinions like yours which could be summed up as "if this person doesn't robotically toe the line, then the dumbs will believe things we don't want them believing." Strategic lying is employed for the "greater good" in the context of this way of thinking frequently, the most egregious example probably being Fauci telling the public not to wear masks because privately the government believed that there wouldn’t be enough protective equipment for health care workers -- they didn't want the dumbs to panic-buy and leave hospitals vulnerable. Not looking to get into a covid debate, just pointing out that even governments will lie to keep the dumbs from doing something they don't like, and I think that's bad.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  It’s basically like treating adults as if they are children. Something that all these public health “experts” did to people for 2.5 years. They talked down to people. Acted like they knew what was best for everybody (which they didn’t). You don’t get to treat adults like children. They are adults who might know something you don’t. It’s just toxic discourse.
  - matwood 4y ago
    Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. It's debatable if acting like children is the cause or the reason for treating them that way.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      > Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. True, but it could also be their priorities are somewhere other than yours. Which might be okay or might not depending on whatever. What these "experts" and politicians did though... treat people like dumb children... completely inexcusable.
      - futuretaint 4y ago
        If we were able to get to the source of the 'trust science' clique, I bet we would be amazed at how uninteresting it all is. grievances about hurt feelings, mental health issues and moral panic.
        spookthesunset 4y ago
        It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Actual science or data (or even actual disease mitigation) had almost nothing to do with the actions “the experts” took over the last 2.5 years.
_uqvx 4y ago
[flagged]
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I'm not confident that censorship is the right answer, but it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and unexpected ways and assume the best outcomes will occur naturally when powerful organizations and people promoting certain perspectives over others, without concern for veracity of those perspectives. There are people who travel the country after school shootings, comforting parents who lost children, and one of the first things they have to tell them is to brace themselves for all of the harassment and abuse they will receive from people who believe that all school shootings are false flag operations.
  - ryandv 4y ago
    > it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and unexpected ways Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? > veracity of those perspectives. What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined?
    - mikkergp 4y ago
      > Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? Could you go deeper into why you think political leaning would have anything to do with it? I wouldn't think so... > What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
      - ryandv 4y ago
        I don't think so either. However, I have seen the argument made many times that opinions originating from particular political ideologies should be suppressed (which is a solution I recognize you have stated some qualms with), because of "bad faith actors" spreading misinformation virally that is too labour-intensive to debunk. > Scientific method Undoubtedly: and such teaching suffices on a subject like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections. But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; [...] - On Liberty (1859)
dogleash 4y ago
> there's a very real pipeline in which people with less-trained critical thinking skills If this is your opinion, perhaps the problem is that society undervalues critical thinking skills. Not that an entertainer isn’t shilling in the correct directions.
- ryandv 4y ago
  If the intellect and judgment of mankind ought to be cultivated, a thing which Protestants at least do not deny, on what can these faculties be more appropriately exercised by any one, than on the things which concern him so much that it is considered necessary for him to hold opinions on them? - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) Perhaps the cause of this problem is refusing society the opportunity to exercise their critical thinking skills. No matter, we can just spoonfeed everyone the received and accepted wisdom. Then there will be no need for any faculties of discernment. The Catholic Church has its own way of dealing with this embarrassing problem. It makes a broad separation between those who can be permitted to receive its doctrines on conviction, and those who must accept them on trust.
towaway15463 4y ago
Unoriginal.

by btown 4y ago

Domenic_S 4y ago

What you're talking about is nuance, and there's unfortunately little-to-no room for it in modern discourse largely because of opinions like yours which could be summed up as "if this person doesn't robotically toe the line, then the dumbs will believe things we don't want them believing." Strategic lying is employed for the "greater good" in the context of this way of thinking frequently, the most egregious example probably being Fauci telling the public not to wear masks because privately the government believed that there wouldn’t be enough protective equipment for health care workers -- they didn't want the dumbs to panic-buy and leave hospitals vulnerable. Not looking to get into a covid debate, just pointing out that even governments will lie to keep the dumbs from doing something they don't like, and I think that's bad.

spookthesunset 4y ago
It’s basically like treating adults as if they are children. Something that all these public health “experts” did to people for 2.5 years. They talked down to people. Acted like they knew what was best for everybody (which they didn’t). You don’t get to treat adults like children. They are adults who might know something you don’t. It’s just toxic discourse.
- matwood 4y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. It's debatable if acting like children is the cause or the reason for treating them that way.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    > Unfortunately a lot of adults act like children. True, but it could also be their priorities are somewhere other than yours. Which might be okay or might not depending on whatever. What these "experts" and politicians did though... treat people like dumb children... completely inexcusable.
    - futuretaint 4y ago
      If we were able to get to the source of the 'trust science' clique, I bet we would be amazed at how uninteresting it all is. grievances about hurt feelings, mental health issues and moral panic.
      - spookthesunset 4y ago
        It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Actual science or data (or even actual disease mitigation) had almost nothing to do with the actions “the experts” took over the last 2.5 years.

_uqvx 4y ago

[flagged]

mikkergp 4y ago
I'm not confident that censorship is the right answer, but it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and unexpected ways and assume the best outcomes will occur naturally when powerful organizations and people promoting certain perspectives over others, without concern for veracity of those perspectives. There are people who travel the country after school shootings, comforting parents who lost children, and one of the first things they have to tell them is to brace themselves for all of the harassment and abuse they will receive from people who believe that all school shootings are false flag operations.
- ryandv 4y ago
  > it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and unexpected ways Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? > veracity of those perspectives. What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined?
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    > Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? Could you go deeper into why you think political leaning would have anything to do with it? I wouldn't think so... > What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    - ryandv 4y ago
      I don't think so either. However, I have seen the argument made many times that opinions originating from particular political ideologies should be suppressed (which is a solution I recognize you have stated some qualms with), because of "bad faith actors" spreading misinformation virally that is too labour-intensive to debunk. > Scientific method Undoubtedly: and such teaching suffices on a subject like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections. But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; [...] - On Liberty (1859)

dogleash 4y ago

> there's a very real pipeline in which people with less-trained critical thinking skills If this is your opinion, perhaps the problem is that society undervalues critical thinking skills. Not that an entertainer isn’t shilling in the correct directions.

ryandv 4y ago
If the intellect and judgment of mankind ought to be cultivated, a thing which Protestants at least do not deny, on what can these faculties be more appropriately exercised by any one, than on the things which concern him so much that it is considered necessary for him to hold opinions on them? - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) Perhaps the cause of this problem is refusing society the opportunity to exercise their critical thinking skills. No matter, we can just spoonfeed everyone the received and accepted wisdom. Then there will be no need for any faculties of discernment. The Catholic Church has its own way of dealing with this embarrassing problem. It makes a broad separation between those who can be permitted to receive its doctrines on conviction, and those who must accept them on trust.

towaway15463 4y ago

Unoriginal.