[flagged]
As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting where the conversation goes far beyond sound bites and delves deep into the explanations for why the interviewees believe what they believe (and what their sources for believing that are) could legitimately be the near-future of media. Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions... in short, an exchange of ideas in a public forum.
She called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' with monstrous ideas. The funny part was them looking up the definition of toady (Joe wasn't aware of the meaning of the word), but the more damning part was Bari's defense of that characterization (from memory: she didn't remember any details, but was sure she read it somewhere).
That was almost but not quite as bad as Dave Rubin's appearance, where he explained how building codes are unnecessary as contractors have a vested interest to do a good job due to Yelp reviews...
Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions...
While I personally find the podcasts oftentimes entertaining, there's generally a lot of fluff and rarely any hard-hitting debate.
Sure, there are such episodes; I can think of another one off-hand, and if I took time, probably a couple more. But remember, the JRE podcast is currently at episode 1506, and most of them aren't like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpurFfcSNfU
She called Tulsi Gabbard, an active Army National Guard major, an "Assad toadie" then had difficulty recalling what exactly a "toadie" is.
Lex Fridman, Brian Cox, and Sean Carroll had--in my opinion--super interesting and engaging episodes.
That being said, there are currently over 1500 episodes, so there are definitely a good number of fluff episodes in the mix as well.
Edit: Just thought of a couple more who I found quite interesting. Paul Stamets and Michael Pollen both discussed in their respective episodes research they both participated in, which made them continuous episodes with a fascinating topic.
I disagree and believe some of his interviews with Sean Carroll would've been much improved if he had stopped Carroll every time Carroll had gone on for 4 minutes without saying a single thing he understood and asked Carroll to simplify.
If you're going to make the case that her stated complaints are made in bad faith, you need to bring some evidence to bear, or you're just indulging in ad hominem name-calling.
We should simply allow political stances that have real harm to simply run amok with "debate"? That got us 140,000 dead.
Yeah, I'm kinda done with the "debate" idea. It's time to bring "consequence" to people's political stances.
The only reason people are bitching about "cancel culture" is that they finally have to face some consequence for their political stances.
The problem I have with "cancel culture" is that it feels like "animal rights" activists that throw paint on old ladies but leave Hell's Angels alone. "Cancel culture" only seems to attack people who won't do real damage if they fight back--somehow I don't see Trump, McConnell, etc. suffering very much.
At least you're open about your opposition to free speech. That's something I guess... In your mind, are your political cohorts always going to wield the power to cancel or can you imagine a world in which the far right wing holds that power and persecutes you and yours for your views based on the same arguments you make above? In the latter case, do you think you would hold to your views on free speech? Why or why not?
"Free speech" is about the government suppressing your speech. If private individuals find your speech odious, they are perfectly within their rights to shun and ignore you.
> In your mind, are your political cohorts always going to wield the power to cancel or can you imagine a world in which the far right wing holds that power and persecutes you and yours for your views based on the same arguments you make above?
I'm already standing in a culture that "cancels" me.
For example, a bunch of people hooked up to a well-funded political propaganda apparatus believe that a global pandemic is "a liberal hoax" against the backdrop of 140,000 dead and a global economy in shambles.
A pandemic isn't up for debate--it's a fact.
So, these people get exactly what they want at my expense and I'm just supposed to take it in the name of "free speech"?
What is MY recourse? Where is MY justice?
Yeah, I'm not happy about "cancel culture", but right now it's the only damn thing sticking up for me that is actually effective.
Feel free to suggest what I should be doing instead.
No it's not.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -- United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
It's fine to take issue with her convictions directly, but spinning the narrative with respect to her leaving her post at all seems disingenuous and ad hominem IMO.