I've seen people praise him for changing his mind about the moon landing being a hoax, but the fact that he accepted that idea at all to me is just totally indefensible. I can't take anyone seriously that could even countenance that for a second.
What is it "totally indefensible"? Frankly, the virtue that someone can change their opinions when presented with further convincing evidence is far more a sign of maturity than one who rigidly accepts something based on authority.
To make my point clearer, the vast majority of people accept their understanding of the world around them based on what others have explained to them or what kinds of media they have consumed. If those sources are faulty, our understanding will be similarly faulty.
I cannot intuitively, by myself, derive that the Moon landings are real nor that they actually happened. The technology to fake the videos (amongst the clearest evidence) is and has been around for longer than the Apollo program. The good character of the astronauts that landed (thus, they are believeable) has been emulated by figures in movies and actors and even politicians until they fell from grace. Large-scale lies by governments and other powerful entities have long been propagated and continue to be so (hence why we're even having this discussion, so I guess this a bit self-referential) include the doubts about environmental or health impacts of large-scale industry and commercial consumption.
Societies have long accepted ideas that are later proven to be regressive, backwards, or just plain wrong. Slavery of blacks, ownership of women, geocentric universe, 6000 year old world. Moreover, these things come-and-go, and we'll find ourselves backtracking on some ideas that we think are good now once the consequences catch-up to us (plastic, lifestyle choices, and more).
The fact is, lots of people hold contradictory world/universe views, beliefs, and more. People will never all be unanimously agreed on something. In fact, it may be considered a hallmark of our nature. Therefore, the virtue is not in accepting one blessed set unconditionally. It lies in being able to adapt and grow closer to truth once a clear, convincing evidence has been presented.
He’s amused by ideas. I think that’s where it came from.
I’ve been listening to him for years now, most often on BART. I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, but what I have come to terms with is this: almost everyone I really know has some crazy or indefensible belief. For many it’s their family or partner relationship. Dig into that, and people are living lives premised on an externally unacceptable belief. Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow.
Joe puts his out there. He’s not embarrassed by himself. From there, he makes more sense.
That said, he has a platform. I think he’s a net positive.
>I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones,
>Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs are hard to swallow.
I don't really enjoy Joe Rogan due to the college dorm room style mentioned above, but I don't understand this sentiment against Joe for being too accepting. There are people who get very unhappy whenever they are reminded that their opinions are not universal, and even further beyond them is a position that in my opinion is pretty dangerous: people who dislike anyone that doesn't share their militancy. People who really hate Joe Rogan because he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's polarization problem.
I've only seen clips of "late stage" Alex Jones where he's very clearly gone off the deep end, but it's interesting that earlier Richard Linklater cast him in "Waking Life" (2001) and "A Scanner Darkly" (2006) as a ranting blowhard shouting into a bullhorn.
I get the sense that Linklater saw him as basically a harmless crank local to Austin. I don't really know much about the arc of Jones' career but it seems his rantings carried him off into a very dark place indeed and one I assume Linklater would totally disavow.
I've seen myself make mistakes that in retrospect should be have been "obvious", and if you've ever taking a test (a la education), you've obviously made mistakes others deem "obvious" as well. Humans are complex beings, and I don't deny people opportunities to improve -- or even blacklist them.
Which leads me to why one such as yourself would be so adamant in your position to not include that empathy -- its not like moon hoaxers killed and murdered your family in 1990... right? I suspect its more of a philosophy you have regarding treatment of people in the bunch "gullible, anti-science" crowd. Anti-vaxxers, horoscope readers, etc. If thats the case, well, I too enjoy punching down.
