The best rebuttal to the idea of 'deplatforming' is from John Stuart Mills, in On Liberty:
> “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
It's increasingly clear that I have less in common with many on Hacker News when these types of responses are considered valuable.
> sounds like you dont know who gavin is then
This is directly from Wikipedia.
> McInnes was a leading figure in the hipster subculture while at Vice, being labelled as the "godfather" of hipsterdom. After leaving the company in 2008, he became increasingly known for his far-right political views. He is the founder of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist men's group classified as a "general hate" organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
I called him a neo-fascist, I'd love to know what makes you conclude I don't know who he is.
> why dont you watch the episode with him and learn for yourself
That's not learning for myself, learning for myself is consulting various sources and investigating things he said and actions he's done. Not hearing a milquetoast description of his views from the man himself that aren't being challenged.
> thats why its not good to deplatform people you dont like because other people told you not to like them
Why would you jump to this? What in my response told you that someone else told me not to like him? McInnes screaming the n word the way he has in the past among many of his other actions makes me not like him.
Edit: I'm also clueless as to how my response was directly to the main thread as there was a deeper thread I was trying to respond to originally. Not sure what went on there.
wikipedia is edited by people who have biases too its not a perfect truth. the southern poverty law center says everyone they dont like is hate speech even people like daryl davis and sam harris. splc is a joke.
if you watch his actions youd see the same thing instead but youre not doing that either
Giving Alex Jones a platform is one thing but a bigger problem is people that believe the nonsense he speaks. When did society become the collective brain for everyone? It’s on the individual to figure stuff out for him or herself.
Joe is a heavily left leaning (socially) capitalist, he seems to me to be very libertarian. I bet there’s a number of Silicon Valley engineers who lean the same way except maybe for his stance on guns.
He has everyone on his show. “Crazy” people to the mainstream. And in any case it’s his show you’re free to not give it patronage.
In fairness though, a lot of Alex Jones's detractors probably have never _actually_ watched him though, aside from selected clips from their media outlet of choice (likely bashing him); so I think having him on something somewhat mainstream like Joe Rogan's podcast gives the average person a chance to listen to him and decide for themselves that he's batshit crazy without having it spoonfed to them by another source.
Do people not realise how dangerous a viewpoint this is, to stop people you don't agree with talking / deplatforming.
How do the left not realise how authoritiarian they actually are in this regard?
And making someone out to be a right wing nazi because of who they spoke to on their show is madness.
I'm not even sure it's honest on the part of these people, I think they know Joe Rogan isnt some right wing nazi but they say it just to fit in with their "group".
I don't know about his recent activity, but he does have a history of pushing conspiracy theories. Most notably he claimed the moon landing was a hoax.
That alone has put me off watching his show (as much as I enjoy hearing Carmack speak).
That was about a decade ago and he's changed his stance since after talking to people like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Joe Rogan represents, quite literally, the average Joe going through life and learning as he goes. If we shun people for ever possibly considering something different then we'll never get to actually connect and change their minds. People are lot more open and resilient than you may consider.
When he was presented with information to the contrary, instead of digging in, he considered the evidence and changed his view. Most people have things they don't get right the first time. Growth happens when one recognizes such errors, admits to them, and change.
> I don't know about his recent activity, but he does has a history of pushing conspiracy theories. Most notably he claimed the moon landing was a hoax.
I subscribe to JRE and this watch it regularly. Rogan has not recently pushed the moon landing was a hoax. I'm not sure where you got that information.
Rogan has discussed how he used to think the moon landing was a hoax many years ago and now thinks the moon landing happened. Rogan also talks about how most conspiracy theorists are sad, lonely people.
Your comment "Most notably he claimed the moon landing was a hoax." is vague about whether Rogan recently has stated the moon landing is a hoax. I've added your full quote in my reply to let people judge for themselves.
Further:
> pushed the moon landing was a hoax.
is not the same as:
> It's also not hard to find evidence of that... he claims NASA's footage was faked
He does believe some of the footage was faked - there are indeed inconsistencies there that aren't very well explained. That's not the same thing as believing the moon landing didn't occur, which was Joe back in Fear Factor / NewsRadio era. He's 52 now.
