Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 341

I didn't mean to accuse YOU of preferring twitter, I mean that guy went on twitter going "omg joe rogan put a holocaust denier on his show" and then deleted one of his own tweets and doesn't take the chance to utilize Joe's huge audience

when is the last time you actually watched an episode of joe rogan?

911 was the previous episode I watched in its entirety. I've watched segments every now and then. I don't think he is all bad or anything like that but I generally prefer reading over listening to people. It is however my impression that his style of journalism is more in the vein of 'okay, you speak now, and then please elaborate on this', which I think is fine and deserving of a place in the media landscape,but for this, I'd prefer a Jon Stewart I'm fkn prepared to nail you on evasions dodges and clear untruths type.

I don't think anti-vaxxers should be given pretty much any attention in the media. They already get far more attention than people who actually have important things to say. Whenever someone says "gotta give all sides of the spectrum"-there are no podcasts or youtubers, or journalists who do that. But content should be disproportionately weighted to things that are actually important. You don't want to elimate discussion entirely, that's how you get echo-chambers. But you have to make sacrifices given the infinite amount of things to talk about. Maybe we can listen to anti-vaxxers once every two years just to see if they are still morons.

On June 18 2023 13:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: 911 was the previous episode I watched in its entirety. I've watched segments every now and then. I don't think he is all bad or anything like that but I generally prefer reading over listening to people. It is however my impression that his style of journalism is more in the vein of 'okay, you speak now, and then please elaborate on this', which I think is fine and deserving of a place in the media landscape,but for this, I'd prefer a Jon Stewart I'm fkn prepared to nail you on evasions dodges and clear untruths type.

I think Rogan seems like a likeable guy. My issue with his podcast is he invites a disproportionate amount of grifters on. I often listen to the ones where he invites climate minimizer shills on. The last one there was this guy on Rogans team trying to call out Bjorn Lomborg the whole time, (rightly). Seems to me like the solution could have been just to ignore him and not invite people like Lomborg onto the show.

Journalists shouldn't be grilling people, instead hey should just do their research beforehand and then not invite them on if they are a liar. There's basically nothing of value in interviewing most politicians for example.

I sometimes listen to segments of his stuff when i go for walks but yeah don't think i listened to a whole episode..they are so long. Lex Fridman is another one that's like half grifters and half computer science or tech stuff.

I disagree with that, because people always find a place. We can't expect every media outlet to themselves draw the ideal conclusion regarding who to give space and who not to give space (not like there's any type of unanimous agreement here), and then I don't like the idea of any single actor being able to decide who gets silenced and who does not. I mean actual nazis don't get talking time in Norway but if a point of view is held by 10+% of the population or whatever then containing it won't work and if anything just gives credence to the 'they're trying to silence us' part of the statement (because in that case it's actually true), and granting people credibility in one area grants them credibility in other areas too.

Not gonna say that exposing people as liars means their credibility vanishes seeing how Trump is still a thing, and I can agree that part of why he won the presidency in the first place was that his circus act got far more attention than the rest of the republican field combined, but there's a pretty big space between 'don't put the world's spotlight on the world's biggest liar' and 'give the person no attention at all'. It's not like banning him from Twitter and giving him less attention in the rest of 'mainstream media' has killed his popularity either.

I think what we need is journalists who prepare and who allow liars to dig their own graves so the blatant lies can be exposed. BBC has had some good ones. Jon Stewart is great now that he seems done with comedy. There's a problem where people can generally dodge those journalists, I guess, but nothing is perfect?

Aside from those, my favorite journalists are the ones who ask the same question without rephrasing it 8 times in a row because a person dodges/refuses to answer/answers something else even though the person is the type of person (politician) who absolutely should have an answer to that question, and when they don't rephrase it, it becomes obvious that the person is dodging that precise question, whereas with the ones who go like 'I'll try to help you out and phrase it like this instead', the person ends up re-dodging a separate question instead.

On June 18 2023 20:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean actual nazis don't get talking time in Norway but if a point of view is held by 10+% of the population or whatever then containing it won't work and if anything just gives credence to the 'they're trying to silence us' part of the statement (because in that case it's actually true), and granting people credibility in one area grants them credibility in other areas too.

Not paying attention to people is not remotely the same as trying to silence someone. Look, this is how it usually works in the sciences. If someone is a climate denier with a phd in physics, they are ignored, because they are obviously wrong. If they get media attention, then the profession recognizes that this is a problem and they will start debunking the lies.

Not saying we should totally ignore people like Alex Jones. But it has to be proportional.

That's fair, but I think politics and science don't necessarily operate in the same way and even if one wishes they did then they just don't. My most specific disagreement was with the statement there's no value in interviewing politicians. Most countries are less polarized than the US and in multi party countries, a leading politician being exposed as a liar can totally sway votes.

I could totally buy that there's some parallel universe where some journalist asks Dubya some question that he buffoons up to such a degree that Gore gets another 600 votes in Florida and then maybe we're getting 'way more attention towards climate change' instead of 'invasion of Iraq' and honestly that seems like a pretty critical difference to me.

My views are all contingent on many unusual variables as you can probably guess.

Like, i've said before that I don't think politicians should be anything other than administrators who people barely know. I don't know the name of the vice-chancellor at my closest university, and I think that's just fine. They should just be people who work in admin and do boring admin work. Kinda like how bankers operated 50 years ago.

We don't currently have that system, but under the assumptions that we have our current system, it's only really possible to grill politicians over lies that don't affect our capitalist overlords. If you grill them over something that matters, it better be mild. If it isn't your not gona have a job as a journalist for very long. Maybe there's more freedom where you live, but in my country, it's pretty clear that if your going to grill a politician over something, it should be on teenagers thieving from stores, and not unimportant things like genocide or destroying the environment.

On June 18 2023 10:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I just don't have faith in an oral debate to actually clarify things in this regard, unless they do stuff like link reputable statistics on a big screen while it's happening. I'd love for Kennedy to debate some 'this guy represents the consensus of medical professional'-type of person in writing, where both parties argue elaborately for their point of view and back it up with sources. That, I think would actually be good - but I don't think people would tune in for it. But if it's two people debating, my experience is that the stronger debater ends up looking more convincing, not the person with the better argument. I'd expect a Kennedy vs medical professional debate to have one person claiming that one statistic is the right one and the other person claiming the other statistic is the right one, as the only possible way one can be opposed to the covid vaccine is through having been exposed to and accepting statistics that are not the official statistics. (People can be opposed to mandates or various degrees of forced vaccinations or vaccine passports etc for other reasons, but if it's a simple 'did people who took the covid vaccine get more sick/more dead than people who did not' then the official statistics are pretty clear.) People 1 speaking for two minutes and then the other person speaking for two minutes, which is like the height of public 'debate', is generally not very illuminating, especially not between people who inhabit different information universes. If both people accept the same data, sure, but they don't. I also don't think Rogan is really a great arbiter of the truth.

Yes the conditions are not ideal, i saw part of the Drs podcast and Joe was clearly hostile when talking about the doctor eating and excersizing habits, I mean, who cares he is not giving workout advice lol, he is a scientist.

The thing is you are not weighting in the cost of not debating, because now all the antivaxxers feel vindicated, way more than the bad outcome of a bad faith debate, plus he is an expert he should be able to crush him at least in the eyes of the ppl in the middle, he is never going to win the crazies over but debate does work I mean, how many times Dawkings trashed religious nuts, and sure he didnt't convert back any nun, but he won over a lot of ppl.

Also he can ask for consesions in the format, the charity purse is now sitting at 1.5million and the Dr. has been very weasely in his twitter response, he is fucking up bad imo.

On June 19 2023 05:54 Baalim wrote: You eat Shake Shack therefore your scientific research on vaccines is invalid Theres a large body of research on the benefits of vitamins and the supplements I sell cringe. This doctor is too agreeable to debate in these terms, he should choose a champion in this trial by combat

Shake Shack is pretty good.

On June 18 2023 13:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: 911 was the previous episode I watched in its entirety. I've watched segments every now and then. I don't think he is all bad or anything like that but I generally prefer reading over listening to people. It is however my impression that his style of journalism is more in the vein of 'okay, you speak now, and then please elaborate on this', which I think is fine and deserving of a place in the media landscape,but for this, I'd prefer a Jon Stewart I'm fkn prepared to nail you on evasions dodges and clear untruths type.

so you'd prefer an "arbiter of truth" you just don't think joe rogan is it

my understanding is if someone had all the answers the conversation wouldn't be necessary to begin with

On June 19 2023 14:59 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On June 18 2023 13:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: 911 was the previous episode I watched in its entirety. I've watched segments every now and then. I don't think he is all bad or anything like that but I generally prefer reading over listening to people. It is however my impression that his style of journalism is more in the vein of 'okay, you speak now, and then please elaborate on this', which I think is fine and deserving of a place in the media landscape,but for this, I'd prefer a Jon Stewart I'm fkn prepared to nail you on evasions dodges and clear untruths type. so you'd prefer an "arbiter of truth" you just don't think joe rogan is it my understanding is if someone had all the answers the conversation wouldn't be necessary to begin with

On certain questions, yes, like 'does the vaccine kill more people than it saves', then I want there to be some person who represents a body with authority to actually make such a statement with certainty, because I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion or preferred value system or whathaveyou. I don't want 'because the vaccine saves more people than it kills, every man has a duty to get it' to be stated by some 'arbiter of truth', but I want some commonality in terms of the basic facts that might then guide our actions.

You don't have to replace joe rogan, he makes a ton of $$$ so he could just hire a few people to do research on people's views, or reach out to the actual experts to get their opinions. That is a fairly standard approach that science educators take. I think in many ways you get a wider spectrum of opinion and thought on rogan type podcasts than the corporate media, which is a great thing, but it's cursed with grifters. If it wasn't so weighted towards grifter guests it would have a substantially positive influence on the world.

On June 19 2023 18:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On June 19 2023 14:59 Santafairy wrote:   On June 18 2023 13:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: 911 was the previous episode I watched in its entirety. I've watched segments every now and then. I don't think he is all bad or anything like that but I generally prefer reading over listening to people. It is however my impression that his style of journalism is more in the vein of 'okay, you speak now, and then please elaborate on this', which I think is fine and deserving of a place in the media landscape,but for this, I'd prefer a Jon Stewart I'm fkn prepared to nail you on evasions dodges and clear untruths type. so you'd prefer an "arbiter of truth" you just don't think joe rogan is it my understanding is if someone had all the answers the conversation wouldn't be necessary to begin with On certain questions, yes, like 'does the vaccine kill more people than it saves', then I want there to be some person who represents a body with authority to actually make such a statement with certainty, because I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion or preferred value system or whathaveyou. I don't want 'because the vaccine saves more people than it kills, every man has a duty to get it' to be stated by some 'arbiter of truth', but I want some commonality in terms of the basic facts that might then guide our actions.

You will never get that unless scientits agree to take these opportunities to dunk on antivaxxers, Dawking currrently refuses to debate creationist after many years of destroying them in debates because he wants to take the conversation further, that is what it needs to be done here.

They are dislodging the scientific consensus with the public one, this near sighted elitism is particularly pernicious regarding vaccines because its something you actually want the public to agree with the scientific community and if you refuse to debate the topic with the "stupid masses" then you are going to lose the trust of people, if you read these twitter threads you will see how the antivaxxers feel vindicated and their beliefs confirmed when this Dr refused to debate.

Bumped in this video.. god damn, Joe went full Bondo

On June 19 2023 23:19 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 19 2023 18:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On June 19 2023 14:59 Santafairy wrote:   On June 18 2023 13:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: 911 was the previous episode I watched in its entirety. I've watched segments every now and then. I don't think he is all bad or anything like that but I generally prefer reading over listening to people. It is however my impression that his style of journalism is more in the vein of 'okay, you speak now, and then please elaborate on this', which I think is fine and deserving of a place in the media landscape,but for this, I'd prefer a Jon Stewart I'm fkn prepared to nail you on evasions dodges and clear untruths type. so you'd prefer an "arbiter of truth" you just don't think joe rogan is it my understanding is if someone had all the answers the conversation wouldn't be necessary to begin with On certain questions, yes, like 'does the vaccine kill more people than it saves', then I want there to be some person who represents a body with authority to actually make such a statement with certainty, because I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion or preferred value system or whathaveyou. I don't want 'because the vaccine saves more people than it kills, every man has a duty to get it' to be stated by some 'arbiter of truth', but I want some commonality in terms of the basic facts that might then guide our actions. You will never get that unless scientits agree to take these opportunities to dunk on antivaxxers, Dawking currrently refuses to debate creationist after many years of destroying them in debates because he wants to take the conversation further, that is what it needs to be done here. They are dislodging the scientific consensus with the public one, this near sighted elitism is particularly pernicious regarding vaccines because its something you actually want the public to agree with the scientific community and if you refuse to debate the topic with the "stupid masses" then you are going to lose the trust of people, if you read these twitter threads you will see how the antivaxxers feel vindicated and their beliefs confirmed when this Dr refused to debate.

Yeah, debates are pretty much a pseudo-scientific medium of discussion if I can call them that. The goal like you say is to "destroy" people, not learn anything. They aren't something that scientists are used to because you don't really find a result by having an hour debate with 10 minutes of interludes on either side. It's honestly just better to avoid debates but make a video explaining why anti-vaxxers are wrong on everything, imo. But yeah, scientists do need to engage with the public more. There is a bit of elitism for sure, as you're sometimes considered not a scientist anymore if you spend all your time debating the public. There's also a lot of scientists turned public educators that have serious ego problems that have given this a bad rap. Mainly though, it's absurdly hard to work as a scientist and be an educator at the same time. Being a scientist is like 2 full-time jobs most of the time.

On June 18 2023 01:26 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 17 2023 19:59 CurbStomp2 wrote: #vatniksoup of that kennedy guy: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1658079214447337475.html lol funny that they add him believing his uncle was killed by the government as part of his history of conspiratory beliefs. Antivaxxer bad... his takes on Ukraine in that article seem better than the current narrative, Nato has been way more aggro with Russia than the other way around since the Cuban missle crisis americans play chicken with the Russians and as soon as they push back they cry about it, and obv it doesn't justify invading a sovereign nation but see interviews with american government officials about taking responsability on the aggresiveness of Nato towards the Russian border and they wont take any.

Lol. How is USA the agressor when Russia leaves these eastern bloc countries no other option than to join Nato? Hell, that's the only reason we joined. We had to. Ultimately it's Russia itself that brings Nato borders closer and then they cry about it.

On June 20 2023 04:02 Stroggoz wrote: Yeah, debates are pretty much a pseudo-scientific medium of discussion if I can call them that. The goal like you say is to "destroy" people, not learn anything. They aren't something that scientists are used to because you don't really find a result by having an hour debate with 10 minutes of interludes on either side. It's honestly just better to avoid debates but make a video explaining why anti-vaxxers are wrong on everything, imo. But yeah, scientists do need to engage with the public more. There is a bit of elitism for sure, as you're sometimes considered not a scientist anymore if you spend all your time debating the public. There's also a lot of scientists turned public educators that have serious ego problems that have given this a bad rap. Mainly though, it's absurdly hard to work as a scientist and be an educator at the same time. Being a scientist is like 2 full-time jobs most of the time.

Of course you learn, particularly the public, as I said the stubborn crazies won't, but I'd watch that debate and I'd probably learn a lot, its a good way for the genreal public to learn.

What just happened is a clear example of how avoiding these debates its clearly not a good thing, vaccination hesitancy worldwide is at historic peak levels, refusing to engage in the conversation just pushed many into the antivaxxer side, a video with no audience won't do shit.

On June 20 2023 06:28 CurbStomp2 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 18 2023 01:26 Baalim wrote:   On June 17 2023 19:59 CurbStomp2 wrote: #vatniksoup of that kennedy guy: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1658079214447337475.html lol funny that they add him believing his uncle was killed by the government as part of his history of conspiratory beliefs. Antivaxxer bad... his takes on Ukraine in that article seem better than the current narrative, Nato has been way more aggro with Russia than the other way around since the Cuban missle crisis americans play chicken with the Russians and as soon as they push back they cry about it, and obv it doesn't justify invading a sovereign nation but see interviews with american government officials about taking responsability on the aggresiveness of Nato towards the Russian border and they wont take any. Lol. How is USA the agressor when Russia leaves these eastern bloc countries no other option than to join Nato? Hell, that's the only reason we joined. We had to. Ultimately it's Russia itself that brings Nato borders closer and then they cry about it.

Perhaps instigator would be a better word instead of aggresssion, the US has been playing games for a long time as I mentioned the cuban missle crisis was caused by JFK putting missles in their doorstep and then trying to overthrow Castro and they continue to use this kind of tactics, the CIA is far more effective than the KGB and that gives Russia the excuse to go apeshit, obviously signing an agreement of nuclear disarmament with Ukraine to then invade it is far worse than anything the US has done, the eastern block countries are fucked not only because of Russia but because of the Russia-US geopolitical game.