I agree with this assessment. My complaint concerns his guest selection. Sometimes he gives a platform to bad actors like Alex Joneshttps://twitter.com/conor64/status/1109212589634908160 …
Isn't the easiest way to debunk a 'bad actor' to give them massive public exposure in a long-form interview where viewers can make up their own minds about his/her qualities?
-
-
Often yes: bad speech should be met with more speech. But there’s more at stake on a huge platform like Rogan’s & I’m just not sure the likes of Alex Jones should be legitimized in this way.
-
TBH I don't think that appearing on any one individual's podcast, however many viewers/listeners, 'legitimizes' them. Not like if were invited to give a plenary at a scientific society, an interview on a major news network, or to give testimony before a Congressional hearing.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Absolutely! This is a blessing of Freedom of Speech. The opportunity to identify “bad actors”.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This seems true. Didn’t know much about Alex Jones, listened to 30 min of interview. Seemed too certain of crazy conspiracies. Gave the rest of interview a pass
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You expect an academic sociologist to support the marketplace of ideas? Optimism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agree, but viewers aren't deciding on the truth. They're deciding on political mascots for their side in the culture wars. What Jones represents is a middle finger to sterile liberal establishment types. "Belief" in alien chemtrail smokescreens is very credible signaling.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.