3 ms·

This is true of basically every public figure. I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling posi

This is true of basically every public figure. I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.

watwut 4y ago
They are not letting me speak. They are not letting average fraudster waiting for court day to speak. Given that, yes, they should be able to not let speak whoever. They are selecting very few people to speak and rejecting huge amounts of other people. But the other real thing is how you introduce the speaker. What do you say about the speaker in your materials, whether you promote him as trustworthy or not.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  > They are not letting me speak. Please don't take this personally, but I generally have no interest in watching random people speak. They know their audience. On the other hand, if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, I would watch. Interest does not mean endorsement.
  - watwut 4y ago
    > Interest does not mean endorsement. That does depend on how you introduce him and what questions you ask. It does matter on whether when he says lies about Jews for example in that interview, you let them stand unopposed. If you use positive or euphemisms ridden introduction, then you are endorsing actually. "The next speaker is smart awesome guy who has extensive experience in leading a crypto fund". > if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, His speeches are no secret. If you invite Hitler, introduce him nicely and he then go about Jewish danger, they you are in fact helping him promote genocide. And that guy would not go for interview where he be in any danger of not dominating tone (he was good at popular politics). But seriously, why is it that nazi speech is always the most important one? I dont see anyone going "interview with Usama Bin Ladin, lets have Pol Pot speaking, lets have Stalin speaking, we should add communists/anarchists/ISIS into the mix".
    - stickfigure 4y ago
      Since the event hasn't happened yet, you have no idea how they are going to treat SBF. And... I have watched a few of Hitler's speeches? And somehow I'm still not a Nazi. Nor have I, to my knowledge, promoted genocide. Give humans more credit. They're not stupid.
soheil 4y ago
They're not letting every other criminal speak, is that also a startling position?

This is true of basically every public figure. I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.

watwut 4y ago

They are not letting me speak. They are not letting average fraudster waiting for court day to speak. Given that, yes, they should be able to not let speak whoever. They are selecting very few people to speak and rejecting huge amounts of other people. But the other real thing is how you introduce the speaker. What do you say about the speaker in your materials, whether you promote him as trustworthy or not.

stickfigure 4y ago
> They are not letting me speak. Please don't take this personally, but I generally have no interest in watching random people speak. They know their audience. On the other hand, if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, I would watch. Interest does not mean endorsement.
- watwut 4y ago
  > Interest does not mean endorsement. That does depend on how you introduce him and what questions you ask. It does matter on whether when he says lies about Jews for example in that interview, you let them stand unopposed. If you use positive or euphemisms ridden introduction, then you are endorsing actually. "The next speaker is smart awesome guy who has extensive experience in leading a crypto fund". > if they could secure an interview with Adolf Hitler himself, His speeches are no secret. If you invite Hitler, introduce him nicely and he then go about Jewish danger, they you are in fact helping him promote genocide. And that guy would not go for interview where he be in any danger of not dominating tone (he was good at popular politics). But seriously, why is it that nazi speech is always the most important one? I dont see anyone going "interview with Usama Bin Ladin, lets have Pol Pot speaking, lets have Stalin speaking, we should add communists/anarchists/ISIS into the mix".
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    Since the event hasn't happened yet, you have no idea how they are going to treat SBF. And... I have watched a few of Hitler's speeches? And somehow I'm still not a Nazi. Nor have I, to my knowledge, promoted genocide. Give humans more credit. They're not stupid.

soheil 4y ago

They're not letting every other criminal speak, is that also a startling position?