So at this point we firmly established that Rogan hosting people on his platform is not the same as endorsing their views. We also agreed that Rogan audience are adults capable of independently making their opinions about people Rogan interviews. You did not disagree with me when I stated that the risks of indoctrination/radicalization as a consequence of seeing Rogan podcasts is negligible.
So far so good?
Next topic - you also asserted that Rogan independently promoting conspiracy theories. Do you have any evidence of that? I am asking this in good faith - I am not Rogan's follower and aside from recent Twitter CEO interviews and occasional summary clip I have not watched his podcasts. So it is quite possible I am not sufficiently familiar with him. However, I have not seen any evidence of Rogan promoting any conspiracy theories. If anything, my impression that he is too nice/too neutral.
I fail to see your logic or you keep contradicting yourself. Can you explain how "peddling basically the same crap" is different from "endorsing them"?
That is, you keep accusing Rogan of endorsing these views at the same time as stating "Giving someone a platform is not an endorsement".
Sigh. I just said that it wasn't endorsement, kind of the opposite in fact. Why do you just ignore what I'm telling you and carry on arguing with the imaginary SJW version?
No, he doesn't just give everyone a platform without favour. He gives a platform to people who spout the same kinds of conspiracy theory rubbish that he[Rogan] does.
You need to reconcile these statements before we can move forward with our discussion.
"Completely even-handed" is impossible standard, so it is pointless to even bring this up.
You are not just criticizing Rogan's choices of guest selection, you explicitly criticizing him and his audience for endorsing conspiracy theories. Your tenuous logic, that conflates interviewing with endorsing, is that because he had interviewed some conspiracy theorists he must also endorse their conspiratorial views.
I think "arguing using SJW logic" is a very reasonable model of your behavior when discussing social issues. However, I am open to having my mind changed as soon as you can find some example where you diverge from strictly adhering to SJW canon on pretty much any and all relevant topics.
What makes it difficult to have a discussion with me is that I don't automatically agree with your points. However, I do note and appreciate you trying (and in my view often failing to) listen and understand my arguments instead of just skipping into hysterically shouting RACIST! or similar.
With such definition "giving someone a platform" is 100% non-problematic in my view. Unless you think that treating adults like children is desirable and necessary and simply exposing someone to ideas is somehow harmful. Why have you decided that the likely outcome that Rogan's audience, who are largely are non-conformist and/or libertarians, overwhelmingly and disproportionately get brainwashed and misinformed?
One troubling aspect of SJW ideology is that it is assumed that adults are incapable of making up their own mind, and simple exposure to undesirable ideas would turn them toward radicalism. This is not a justified assumption and it also used to infantelize and rob of agency SJW adherents.
You are capable of making up your mind and deciding that some ideas are flawed. For example, if you came to a conclusion that Alex Jones is peddler of conspiracy theories and a kook why do you think other reasonable people would err? Why do you not extend the same to Rogan's audience and instead assume they all going to be wholesale brainwashed and it is all Rogan's fault for allowing this to happen?
It is only a matter of time until economy class gets always-on advertisements without ability to turn off, mute, or skip on infotainment.
When ticket price is the only metric and all feasible optimizations already achieved, airlines will turn into abuse and heinous behavior to further drive costs down.
I imagine Twitter as two infinite and hostile mobs facing each other and user stepping into the middle to shout something and occasionally get viciously attacked by the mob in response.
How can you have anything relevant when it is impossible to have a conversation? It follows that "relevant" in context of Twitter approximately means "Will elicit emotional response".
He isn't giving anyone a platform, he is interviewing them. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between interviewing and endorsing ideas?
I think your identierian inclinations warped your thinking to the point that you can no longer tell the difference between discussing ideas and endorsing ideas. This is troubling, as logical conclusion of such framework is that one should never discuss ideas that are disagreeable. Obviously, I disagree, as I strongly believe that the proper way to discredit ideas is to discuss them and rebut them, not to attempt to censor them. One approach leads to enforced heresy rules other leads to truth-seeking.
Rogan's ethics are only questionable from your tainted point of view - that is he steadfastly refuses to abide by identity politics or fall into line with deplatforming fatwahs. He talks on his show with people from all sides and hardly ever outright hostile to anyone.
I traveled to china and visited quite a few tech firms. I only ever seen people slack off at their desks. I kid you not, nobody does any work and doesn't even hide this. However, they are there early and leave late.
Imagine what investor-centric FB would look like. Maximum ads, maximum data selling, maximum profiling. As much as I dislike Zuck and everything he stands for, I think opening floodgates to predatory capitalism on this isn't going to improve things.
I always overspend on motherboards and power supplies - only the best parts from proven vendors. Consequently, my hardware outlives its useful life. However, last iteration really paid out. My media machine was built about 10 years ago. My current desktop more than 5 years ago. I really only upgrade video cards these days.
It could also help YouTube make up for previous failures in curbing the spread of toxic content.
Toxic content is newspeak for facts or opinions that we do not like.
It is much worse than that, toxic content are facts that a tiny fringe minority of activists would rather not discuss. It also any opinion or statement by people that are declared "the enemy" by these people.
I have decades-old AMD AM3 desktop with ancient Nvidia graphic card that works just fine. Why "buy" when you can use old hardware? If you sourced components well when you built it first, there is no reason why it won't work for decades.
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets said in a statement that oceanographers have submitted evidence "which seem to indicate that Ocean is wet." The regulator said it had been studying the issue for 10 months. It said the probe would initially focus on bottled water, but it also called on oceanographers to report any issues with wetness to the authorities.
So, I'll ask again, what is considered a "PC" these days?
A general computing device that you or your organization's sysadmin have full administrative access to the underlying operating system and firmware and that is capable integrating with a third-party hardware and peripheral devices via standard physical interfaces.
Someone more familiar with cryptography, could you please explain why WPA3 didn't use known-good key exchange methods implemented and tested in modern protocols and instead appears to chose its own method that was found to be vulnerable?
You forgot Flynn effect and gradual slide into Idiocracy. Perhaps if we can figure out how to genetically engineer or at least select for IQ using monkey we can address this problem.
That, and we vastly outnumber simians. It would take them hundreds of years to build up population where they could feasible threaten us.
Slashdot Mirror
So at this point we firmly established that Rogan hosting people on his platform is not the same as endorsing their views. We also agreed that Rogan audience are adults capable of independently making their opinions about people Rogan interviews. You did not disagree with me when I stated that the risks of indoctrination/radicalization as a consequence of seeing Rogan podcasts is negligible.
So far so good?
Next topic - you also asserted that Rogan independently promoting conspiracy theories. Do you have any evidence of that? I am asking this in good faith - I am not Rogan's follower and aside from recent Twitter CEO interviews and occasional summary clip I have not watched his podcasts. So it is quite possible I am not sufficiently familiar with him. However, I have not seen any evidence of Rogan promoting any conspiracy theories. If anything, my impression that he is too nice/too neutral.
I fail to see your logic or you keep contradicting yourself. Can you explain how "peddling basically the same crap" is different from "endorsing them"?
That is, you keep accusing Rogan of endorsing these views at the same time as stating "Giving someone a platform is not an endorsement".
I would like to apply for a wanker's license. I always aspired to become a professionally licensed wanker.
This way if there is ever an emergency, I can part the crowd and authoritatively state: "Step aside, I am a wanker. I can help".
I would like to apply for a wanker's license. I always aspired to become a professionally licensed wanker.
Sigh. I just said that it wasn't endorsement, kind of the opposite in fact. Why do you just ignore what I'm telling you and carry on arguing with the imaginary SJW version?
No, he doesn't just give everyone a platform without favour. He gives a platform to people who spout the same kinds of conspiracy theory rubbish that he[Rogan] does.
You need to reconcile these statements before we can move forward with our discussion.
"Completely even-handed" is impossible standard, so it is pointless to even bring this up.
You are not just criticizing Rogan's choices of guest selection, you explicitly criticizing him and his audience for endorsing conspiracy theories. Your tenuous logic, that conflates interviewing with endorsing, is that because he had interviewed some conspiracy theorists he must also endorse their conspiratorial views.
I think "arguing using SJW logic" is a very reasonable model of your behavior when discussing social issues. However, I am open to having my mind changed as soon as you can find some example where you diverge from strictly adhering to SJW canon on pretty much any and all relevant topics.
What makes it difficult to have a discussion with me is that I don't automatically agree with your points. However, I do note and appreciate you trying (and in my view often failing to) listen and understand my arguments instead of just skipping into hysterically shouting RACIST! or similar.
Clockwork Orange-like seat attachments for forced viewing are next.
With such definition "giving someone a platform" is 100% non-problematic in my view. Unless you think that treating adults like children is desirable and necessary and simply exposing someone to ideas is somehow harmful. Why have you decided that the likely outcome that Rogan's audience, who are largely are non-conformist and/or libertarians, overwhelmingly and disproportionately get brainwashed and misinformed?
One troubling aspect of SJW ideology is that it is assumed that adults are incapable of making up their own mind, and simple exposure to undesirable ideas would turn them toward radicalism. This is not a justified assumption and it also used to infantelize and rob of agency SJW adherents.
You are capable of making up your mind and deciding that some ideas are flawed. For example, if you came to a conclusion that Alex Jones is peddler of conspiracy theories and a kook why do you think other reasonable people would err? Why do you not extend the same to Rogan's audience and instead assume they all going to be wholesale brainwashed and it is all Rogan's fault for allowing this to happen?
It is only a matter of time until economy class gets always-on advertisements without ability to turn off, mute, or skip on infotainment.
When ticket price is the only metric and all feasible optimizations already achieved, airlines will turn into abuse and heinous behavior to further drive costs down.
I imagine Twitter as two infinite and hostile mobs facing each other and user stepping into the middle to shout something and occasionally get viciously attacked by the mob in response.
How can you have anything relevant when it is impossible to have a conversation? It follows that "relevant" in context of Twitter approximately means "Will elicit emotional response".
He isn't giving anyone a platform, he is interviewing them. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between interviewing and endorsing ideas?
I think your identierian inclinations warped your thinking to the point that you can no longer tell the difference between discussing ideas and endorsing ideas. This is troubling, as logical conclusion of such framework is that one should never discuss ideas that are disagreeable. Obviously, I disagree, as I strongly believe that the proper way to discredit ideas is to discuss them and rebut them, not to attempt to censor them. One approach leads to enforced heresy rules other leads to truth-seeking.
Rogan's ethics are only questionable from your tainted point of view - that is he steadfastly refuses to abide by identity politics or fall into line with deplatforming fatwahs. He talks on his show with people from all sides and hardly ever outright hostile to anyone.
Ferengi system, unlike what we have in US, is highly upwardly mobile.
I traveled to china and visited quite a few tech firms. I only ever seen people slack off at their desks. I kid you not, nobody does any work and doesn't even hide this. However, they are there early and leave late.
996 is absolutely something that came from Robber-barons era and it boggles my mind that anyone anywhere in 2019 would tolerate this.
Richard Liu is a profiteering low-life, and probably deserves negative social credit score for this.
Imagine what investor-centric FB would look like. Maximum ads, maximum data selling, maximum profiling. As much as I dislike Zuck and everything he stands for, I think opening floodgates to predatory capitalism on this isn't going to improve things.
"Big Brother is Watching"
Coming from FB, I think this is 100% accurate.
A car analogy: You are complaining that your ride-on lawn mower doesn't get great highway gas mileage.
I always overspend on motherboards and power supplies - only the best parts from proven vendors. Consequently, my hardware outlives its useful life. However, last iteration really paid out. My media machine was built about 10 years ago. My current desktop more than 5 years ago. I really only upgrade video cards these days.
It could also help YouTube make up for previous failures in curbing the spread of toxic content.
Toxic content is newspeak for facts or opinions that we do not like.
It is much worse than that, toxic content are facts that a tiny fringe minority of activists would rather not discuss. It also any opinion or statement by people that are declared "the enemy" by these people.
I have decades-old AMD AM3 desktop with ancient Nvidia graphic card that works just fine. Why "buy" when you can use old hardware? If you sourced components well when you built it first, there is no reason why it won't work for decades.
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets said in a statement that oceanographers have submitted evidence "which seem to indicate that Ocean is wet." The regulator said it had been studying the issue for 10 months. It said the probe would initially focus on bottled water, but it also called on oceanographers to report any issues with wetness to the authorities.
So, I'll ask again, what is considered a "PC" these days?
A general computing device that you or your organization's sysadmin have full administrative access to the underlying operating system and firmware and that is capable integrating with a third-party hardware and peripheral devices via standard physical interfaces.
Someone more familiar with cryptography, could you please explain why WPA3 didn't use known-good key exchange methods implemented and tested in modern protocols and instead appears to chose its own method that was found to be vulnerable?
You forgot Flynn effect and gradual slide into Idiocracy. Perhaps if we can figure out how to genetically engineer or at least select for IQ using monkey we can address this problem.
That, and we vastly outnumber simians. It would take them hundreds of years to build up population where they could feasible threaten us.