[flagged]
My PhD work was on Signal. I work in security. I literally just wanted to talk about Signal, man. It was actually pretty disappointing to me people talked about how problematic Joe Rogan is instead.
> you should reflect upon your reaction if a podcast from a thinker you despised was posted.
I just said I have a gazillion stories about how it’s better to keep silent in San Francisco than voice your opinion. Trust me, I wouldn’t react the same way.
I definitely don’t want to #csncel e.g. John Oliver just because he said some shit I disagreed with once. I hate that culture. In fact, I’d probably share him if he happened to be saying something I thought was interesting at the time. I think I have before when he was talking about Apple privacy or blockchains actually. So no, I wouldn’t react the same way.
This is an extreme shifting of the overton window and cult behavior that excommunicates liberals from the left. Joe Rogan himself is on the left, he has mostly liberal views, he wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders. But because he's heterodox and talks to the "other", he's a sinner who must be cast out.
And yes, there's people outside of the democratic political spectrum both on the right and the left side. In Germany they currently march together ("Querdenker").
However, at least according to the FBI, the right-wing extremists are the larger problem right now.
> But because he(...) talks to the "other", he's a sinner who must be cast out.
Giving Alex Jones a platform is ... well, its understandable if people give you a hard time for doing that.
I also totally agree that the best way to combat so-called bad ideas is to talk about them and debate them, not deplatform, as if you're so smart to know what's good or bad for people, and the people themselves are too stupid and will be easily manipulated and believe a bad idea.
Anyways, that's neither here or there when I'm literally sharing a podcast about Signal which has nothing to do with one guest he's had on way in the past. I think a lot of the comments i got were just poor control of emotions and some virtue signalling.
I would like it to be that way. However, I've seen over the last 10 years (at least in Germany) that it just does not seem to work. Deplatforming at least limits the ability of extremists to reach more people, even though it seems to make the people already in that corner to become even more radical.
> as if you're so smart to know what's good or bad for people, and the people themselves are too stupid and will be easily manipulated and believe a bad idea.
Well we are stupid and we are easily manipulated, unfortunately. And that's why as a society could (and imo should) decide that we won't expose ourselves to certain kinds of propaganda. This is not a random process of censoring people we don't like - this has to do with legislation and courts enforcing those laws.
He’s also had Colion Noir (a black, ex-lawyer, gun rights supporter) on his show a few times, and seemingly supports gun rights. He’s also a gun owner. He’s got quite an interesting and divisive way with both sides.
Note that I do not talk about "the government" doing this. I am just talking about some people choosing not to give other people a platform.
A far better approach is to draw a hard red line and not allow anyone to cross it - e.g. if you're advocating for ending democracy or free speech - no democracy or free speech for you. Otherwise, you gotta find a way to defeat bad ideas without trying to shut them out. If you attempt to censor (use whatever euphemisms you prefer, but that's all it is), you'll fail, and do irreparable damage to your own arguments in the process.
Again, I am not talking about censorship by the government. I am talking about some people deciding its not worth to listen to some other people, and therefore not giving them a platform? Isn't that my free choice - you can talk freely, but I can just not listen to you?
Isn't what you propose - taking away the right to free speech - far worse than censorship? Would you jail people if they still speak freely after they crossed that red line?
I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here. We have red lines in conversations already. E.g. advocating violence against another group of people is a red line for a lot of people. E.g. Advocating the superiority of one particular race is usually a red line for people.
Sure, you can do that. For me, it would probably depend on who did the "censoring" (see below).
> I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here.
Wait, who's the devil here? Seriously, I have no idea what you mean.
Again: it am not talking about censorship by the government, I am simply talking about not listening to certain people. For me, in Germany, I would for example categorically refuse to listen to and engage in discussions with voters of the "AfD" party (right-wing party, with one leader that you can officially call a fascist based on a court decision) or the so called "Querdenker" people.
I'm sure you will reply that the type of speech you want to censor is actually bad but who decides that? You?
Freedom of speech without significant negative consequences is one of the main principles of a democratic society. As long as the speech in question is not promoting violence it should be allowed.
The fact that so many liberals now think that it's desirable to have consequences for expressing a wrong opinion is mind boggling and scary. That is a completely illiberal stance. It's also stupid because it somehow misses the point of freedom of speech being a principle. What if these woke people faced significant negative consequences for expressing THEIR opinions?
This is interesting to me, because I found out about Joe Rogan from some liberal friends that were recommending him. Doesn’t Joe label himself as. liberal? Why does the left hate Joe?
Do they? All I see are a small vocal minority hellbent on tearing the fabric of society apart, amplified by the media who make money from pitting us against each other.