People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24 screaming cycle?
> This kind of whining is what drives his audience to him.
Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid.
Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.)
> Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy.
Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil.
> Hyde Park in the UK
Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea.
Except, well, look how great the UK is doing.
> When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very, right.
Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen.
Which is okay, sure, why not. It's just doesn't make the JRE "great". It makes it bad in the big picture, because it again provides an outlet for those people that are at risk of getting hooked into something extreme.
> People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24 screaming cycle?
Not you, apparently
> Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid.
Not necessarily, but it's completely self-defeating.
> Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.)
No, it's not. Uncritically discussing ideas in front of an engaged audience is literally the core of democracy. The Roman "Forum" was literally this.
> Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil.
Depends on who you ask. The current president has gotten record numbers of people active and engaged in political discourse and policy. People are interested in what our country is doing. All other things being equal, isn't that a net positive for democracy?
> Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea.
> Except, well, look how great the UK is doing.
You mean after essentially removing free speech? Yes, look how well they're doing now. Wow, great example.
> Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen.
JRE adds value by providing an honest environment. You don't get that in the news anymore, as you admitted.
I think Trump got a lethargic population engaged in politics the same way a fire gets me engaged in fire drills - holy shit, we need to pay attention because someone set the house on fire.
And you're supporting the Forum, talking about how "letting anyone talk is good" - but you missed the caveat: Not all talk or opinion is equal. Terrible opinions and thoughts must always be challenged in public. That is the critique of Rogan. No one is saying that Alex Jones literally should not be allowed to speak, but that letting him speak to your curated audience of millions, without challenging their horseshit, makes you an enabler to those bad ideas.
Bad ideas as judged by me. And most people. Stop with this moral relativism line about how everything is equal. It isn't.
> No one is saying that Alex Jones literally should not be allowed to speak, but that letting him speak to your curated audience of millions, without challenging their horseshit, makes you an enabler to those bad ideas.
Actually lots of people are saying that. He was deplatformed from youtube, facebook, and twitter which is exactly why Rogan had him on the show. He is a personal friend and explains that many times. Having Alex Jones on his show is not some dumb idea enabling bullshit, all of his ideas are not completely wrong.
Let people come to their own conclusions. Why do you think people listening to him will not see for themselves? If they can't listen to a rational discussion and make an informed decision there isn't much credit to ones opinion anyway. Just banning him from media is a childish perspective in my opinion.
And what if the bad ideas suddenly aren't judged by you and "most people"?
Of course, challenge the terrible ideas. But challenge them in public, don't hush them in secret. If you can't win in front of a crowd, you've already lost.
Here's a little thought experiment for you. My great-grandparents were killed by communism. I think liberal economic policies lead towards communism, even though universal healthcare could save lives. According to you, if you and your invisible cohort don't like that idea, you should just shut me up, instead of debating me on the pros and cons.
You're in a bubble, where you're simply right, and obviously any sane person would agree with you.
That's not how it works. We can look at the same facts and derive different, valid, and sane positions.
> Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem.
No it's not. Any kind of discussion can be valuable it doesn't need to conform to your one way of having a talk. Yes there are echo chambers all over the internet. This is not at all convincing that we need to ALWAYS have ALL critical discussions/arguments. You sound like you are either butthurt or taking it wayyy to seriously
>> Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy.
>Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil.
Considering that Trump got elected in a time where actively shaming his viewpoints was the dominant approach in the mainstream media, it seems like your suggested approach is ineffective.
There are Trumpian viewpoints, and there are Trumpian-adjacent viewpoints that are more centrist and more extreme. The mainstream media lately is whipped into such a frenzy lately that it can't tell the difference. I listened to an NPR correspondent, a supposedly minimally biased source, call Trump a white supremicist two days ago. When the norm is so obviously skewed, right-leaning folks don't have the opportunity to hear meaningful critical discussion of their own wing- and when this is true, more extreme candidates have the opportunity to win.
People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24 screaming cycle?
> This kind of whining is what drives his audience to him.
Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid.
Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem. (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.)
> Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy.
Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil.
> Hyde Park in the UK
Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea.
Except, well, look how great the UK is doing.
> When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very, right.
Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen.
Which is okay, sure, why not. It's just doesn't make the JRE "great". It makes it bad in the big picture, because it again provides an outlet for those people that are at risk of getting hooked into something extreme.