thats not a polite way to talk about someone at all, like wtf? i'm a sensitive guy tho idk. not really a good way to provide constructive criticism that u actually want to be taken and not seen as a passing insult, but i'll take it for what it is and say ok.
A big problem that I see with debates these days is that we have an overwhelming number of people who have built their identity around their specific stance in the debate. As such, every debate becomes personal instead of topical. Add that to our online and media culture developing a freezing fear of ever being wrong and it doesn’t provide a very fertile ground for cultivating a healthy debate landscape. I, personally, believe debates should be welcomed and seen as necessary, regardless of the debaters influence or perceived “platforming”. We need more moments in society where intellect is stretched and allowed to grow.
That's certainly one of the problems. Especially, if it becomes your daily job. When you start making a living through sharing your views - whether it's commentary or debates - you're kind of supposed to be "right". And you simply cannot afford to be seen "losing" - especially, as a recurring motive :). Like in that infamous Peter Joseph / Stefan Molyneux debate where the latter, who isn't exactly mentally challenged, stooped to all sorts of intellectual lows and sophistry in the absence of real arguments to create the illusion of a "win" for the sake of his business of 'selling philosophies'. Interestingly, it kind of almost worked - initially, so many people, who changed their mind later, were under the impression that he prevailed. I think I only saw two debates where there were some moments of truth: Žižek vs Peterson (mostly thanks to Žižek) and Peterson vs Harris (mostly thanks to Harris) (but since JP appears in both, I guess, he'd be given some credit too :) The problem is, it's not just about debaters who are normally after pushing their agenda and don't care about anything else. With rare exceptions, the platforms have their agenda too. As well as the audience... So, while you're perfectly right in theory, there seems to be very little demand for a "healthy debate landscape" with genuine attempts to find the truth...
Hotez is a corporate shill and a smart coward who knows COVID vaccines can't be defended in a debate, especially after what we were sold by government and people like himself.
"to tackle the question of when political debate is worthwhile — and when going toe-to-toe with bad-faith actors is a waste of time and energy" "But when our interlocutors respond dishonestly or unproductively, when is it time to disengage" "We saw this play out in a recent online altercation between vaccine scientist Peter Hotez and podcaster Joe Rogan"
So, who is the bad faith actor? Who responded dishonestly?
"Rogan seized on Hotez’s retweet of a piece taking issue with vaccine misinformation on Rogan’s podcast, challenging Hotez to appear on the show and debate anti-vaccine presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Hotez’s refusal to take Rogan up on the offer has led to online attacks from right-wingers (including Elon Musk himself)."
Based on the opening paragraph, I read this to imply Rogan and RFK Jr to be the "bad faith actors"...
Furthermore, you group them in as "right-wingers". Rogan, Elon and RFK Jr are "right wing"?
Yes, I understand you do not come out and say that directly. I read it as a subtle statement.
I think the topic has merit, but it appears you are also checking other boxes on an agenda.
duh theyre right wing, wtf? elon musk? FAR right wing tf r u saying. joe rogan? yeah, definitely, tho he likes to come across as an opinionless centrist, yeah fs.
I like the political commentary which is their core competency and I pay them monthly for that service. However, they are scientifically illiterate yet have supreme confidence in their blind opinions, that is very much worthy of criticism.
I really hope this isn’t some article defending Hotez and running interference for big pharma. I don’t believe everything RFK says but I also don’t believe everything hotez says either which is why you would have a debate and allow ppl to make the best choice for themselves based on either argument. If you accuse someone of spreading misinformation then when called out you run and hide it makes you look like the fool.
Awful take. If you can’t defend your ideas, especially if you claim the other person is ridiculous or unhinged, then nobody should ever take your advice
Everything he features or speaks about these days is disingenuous and obviously partisan in favour of Marianne Williamson. Even if he’s not speaking about her, let’s face it, dismal campaign he’s having a dig at her opponents. He’s done some pure “hacky” vids lately which are outright dishonest bordering on lies. He’s misleading his viewers and subs, and they deserve better because they’re paying for original, unbiased content.
Well, Kyle repeatedly admitted that he never was "unbiased" :)
On a serious note, it's indeed a dubious spectacle. First Kyle goes semi-tabloid to get his 1M subs. And I'm not even sure what he thinks he is doing now, but he does seem to be drifting into the realm of downright hackery... The above sleight of word is virtually the same as the establishment's shills labeling anything they don't want to - or aren't able to for that matter - engage with substantively a conspiracy theory. By the way, since I barely watch ST anymore, would you specify the videos/topics where our distinguished host crossed a line?
i do like your take, & i cant fully disagree. though i will say that just because the style and focus/topics of his videos has changed, he still makes great points and analyses often. to say that he's a hack because he agrees with a certain political ideology and expresses it, i dont think thats fair at all
"Hackery is advocacy of a position when motivated by political allegiance, public relations interests, or for other reasons considered crass compared to personal conviction."
I think it's a good definition. In my view, what Kyle did in that Politico segment totally qualifies. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's completely turned into a patent hack. However, it's a slippery slope. Kyle can make a case that all his words and actions are genuine, coming from a good place and meant to benefit the country. But so did Madeleine Albright. Anyways, let's see what he does next...
You also seem to suggest that Kyle legitimately contributes to the conversation. Well..."yeah...not really" :) Basically, all his extremely repetitive points can be divided into two categories: "water is wet" and irresponsibly oversimplified presentations of complex problems that critically distort their nature. Even if the latter is not done deliberately to appeal to the target audience but derives from genuine ignorance, it would be kinda beside the point. Because the outcomes will be the same. And finally, I don't see much of that conversation. You have a hollow echo chamber on YT and this dead calm here. Did the host(s) do anything to get it going? If they did I missed that. But you have "shameless plugs" on a regular basis, several times a day. I don't see anything wrong about Kyle simply running it as a successful alternative media enterprise. And I'm sure he's sincere when he says that he'd be totally OK with society going all the Kingdom of Sweden on his ass in terms of taxes, so that he could help others in that way. But you asked your question from the perspective of an audience, didn't you? From that perspective, it would be great to distinguish between a rebel seeking a peaceful revolution/a selfless educator and a media whizz-kid...
That said, it's not inconceivable that there're people who can actually take something useful from Kyle's bloviations :)
& well, i will say, for someone who doesnt seem to like/agree this guy almost at all, you seem to have a very detailed interpretation & understanding of what you claim to be his commentary style. yeah, the point of deduction is that you break down arguments/ideas into simpler ones. & that being said, his analyses arent simple at all. he just sticks to pretty principled understandings of certain ideas.
on the politico video, idk, i havent seen it, but i agree it does sound bad. i also dont like that he makes his videos clickbaitish now. & is mostly into mainstream politics. ugh. either than that tho, he still has great takes, all the time, that cut into the greater scope of the social fabric of our country/world.. its just a very slippery slope truly, to sit in that area of being a little showy on the surface to get people the goods... but i still like him, tho i dont watch him too much either these days, lately.
tho tbh... just bcuz he didnt specify that that lady was "difficult" to work with, i dont think makes him a fkn hack lol.
Yeah man, it was the video in which he is reacting to a Magazine article which wasn’t very flattering (to say the least lol) about Marianne. It said she was “difficult” to work for and she has a temper yada yada yada, quoting ex-employees of hers. He grossly misrepresented what the article actually said and in some cases outright lied to his audience about it. i can’t recall which magazine i’ll have to go check.
Thanks, mate. I think the stuff in question is the Politico article and Kyle's "take" on it on KK&F (not ST as I thought). So, two things... It looks like the Politico story checks out. And Kyle was indeed deliberately distorting it on the show and trying to sell his skewed presentation as fact. His own declaration, "Give the facts first, then offer your take". Here, he was making the desiison for his audience. It's not cool. The second one, so much for a mindful and spiritually advanced being that is all about love and forgiveness. The high tensions of the cutthroat world of politics as a path into the transcendental. An interesting approach. Well, as they say...before enlightenment: chop staffers, carry NDAs; after enlightenment: chop staffers, carry NDAs...or something.
name one of the hacky vids for me? i do agree his style has changed, to be more sensational at the least, but i do think he has a great deal of critical expertise in which he weighs/posits his arguments. to say everything he says is disingenuous, i dont know how u can even say that, like wtf? can u give me an example honestly?
Hotel gets paid tons of money to go on MSNBC and CN N and push a certain worldview on vaccines. He is a science communicator. Now, I am a scientist, but I didn't work directly on vaccines and have no specialization on the subject. But I do know that at least 10% of what RFK Jr said was correct. And I also know at least 10% was factually wrong (from research I did on my own time not related to my chemistry work). But it would take me MONTHS to go through all the vaccine studies to figure out where the other 80% of what he stated stands. But it should take Hotez no time at all, in fact he should have tweeted those studies already. Dr. Paul Offit was also called out by name in the JRE episode, with RFK Jr claiming he never sent him a certain study. Why is he radio silent? Why aren't they posting study after study disproving RFK Jr since all the attention is on them right now? I have only just begun researching thimerosal and I am flabbergasted this was EVER allowed in human vaccines. At first I laughed at RFK Jr smuggly, because he called Thimerosal a "preservative". Having worked in a lab creating antibodies from animals, I knew for a fact Thimerosal is an ADJUVANT, NOT a preservative. Well, wasn't I left feeling stupid and shocked when I read that the FDA forces vaccine manufacturers to declare it as a preservative (that is not its primary role at all, although I don't argue it could also serve as a prservative) but they do this because Thimerosal is so toxic it can not be listed as a medicinal ingredient. HOW WAS THIS INJECTED INTO MIILLIONS OF BABIES FOR DECADES?? they didnt even know it went to the brain. An absolute scandal.
I’ve been a lefty my whole life. Union steward. Devoted to Bernie. But 😆Apparently I am now right wing according to this weird narrative. 💔 this isn’t good.
Big problem with Krystal not able to listen and reflect during her negatively controlled interview with RFK and vaccine topic.
He came back on breaking points and said he enjoyed the first one
hey man... chill the fuck out!!!! wtf!?!
Why are you so sensitive to criticism?
thats not a polite way to talk about someone at all, like wtf? i'm a sensitive guy tho idk. not really a good way to provide constructive criticism that u actually want to be taken and not seen as a passing insult, but i'll take it for what it is and say ok.
A big problem that I see with debates these days is that we have an overwhelming number of people who have built their identity around their specific stance in the debate. As such, every debate becomes personal instead of topical. Add that to our online and media culture developing a freezing fear of ever being wrong and it doesn’t provide a very fertile ground for cultivating a healthy debate landscape. I, personally, believe debates should be welcomed and seen as necessary, regardless of the debaters influence or perceived “platforming”. We need more moments in society where intellect is stretched and allowed to grow.
That's certainly one of the problems. Especially, if it becomes your daily job. When you start making a living through sharing your views - whether it's commentary or debates - you're kind of supposed to be "right". And you simply cannot afford to be seen "losing" - especially, as a recurring motive :). Like in that infamous Peter Joseph / Stefan Molyneux debate where the latter, who isn't exactly mentally challenged, stooped to all sorts of intellectual lows and sophistry in the absence of real arguments to create the illusion of a "win" for the sake of his business of 'selling philosophies'. Interestingly, it kind of almost worked - initially, so many people, who changed their mind later, were under the impression that he prevailed. I think I only saw two debates where there were some moments of truth: Žižek vs Peterson (mostly thanks to Žižek) and Peterson vs Harris (mostly thanks to Harris) (but since JP appears in both, I guess, he'd be given some credit too :) The problem is, it's not just about debaters who are normally after pushing their agenda and don't care about anything else. With rare exceptions, the platforms have their agenda too. As well as the audience... So, while you're perfectly right in theory, there seems to be very little demand for a "healthy debate landscape" with genuine attempts to find the truth...
good ass comment. yes!!!
Hotez is a corporate shill and a smart coward who knows COVID vaccines can't be defended in a debate, especially after what we were sold by government and people like himself.
Anyone else feel the underlying slant of this?
"to tackle the question of when political debate is worthwhile — and when going toe-to-toe with bad-faith actors is a waste of time and energy" "But when our interlocutors respond dishonestly or unproductively, when is it time to disengage" "We saw this play out in a recent online altercation between vaccine scientist Peter Hotez and podcaster Joe Rogan"
So, who is the bad faith actor? Who responded dishonestly?
"Rogan seized on Hotez’s retweet of a piece taking issue with vaccine misinformation on Rogan’s podcast, challenging Hotez to appear on the show and debate anti-vaccine presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Hotez’s refusal to take Rogan up on the offer has led to online attacks from right-wingers (including Elon Musk himself)."
Based on the opening paragraph, I read this to imply Rogan and RFK Jr to be the "bad faith actors"...
Furthermore, you group them in as "right-wingers". Rogan, Elon and RFK Jr are "right wing"?
Yes, I understand you do not come out and say that directly. I read it as a subtle statement.
I think the topic has merit, but it appears you are also checking other boxes on an agenda.
duh theyre right wing, wtf? elon musk? FAR right wing tf r u saying. joe rogan? yeah, definitely, tho he likes to come across as an opinionless centrist, yeah fs.
Well said, it is kind of perplexing tbh
I’ve been a lefty my whole life. Union steward. Devoted to Bernie. Apparently I am now right wing according to this weird narrative. 😆Dood?
stop copying & pasting your fucking comment kim
👍🏼 I’ll get right on that
What annoys me the most is when political analysts argue what the science says when none of you are qualified to do so.
r u mfs even fans of the show? wtf?!?
I like the political commentary which is their core competency and I pay them monthly for that service. However, they are scientifically illiterate yet have supreme confidence in their blind opinions, that is very much worthy of criticism.
r u saying you believe vaccines are satanist or cause some terminal illness or something?
Yes. Yes, that's clearly what he said. Just read it again to confirm your righteousness.
I hope that was sarcasm lol
what else could they be talking about lol
Yes
I really hope this isn’t some article defending Hotez and running interference for big pharma. I don’t believe everything RFK says but I also don’t believe everything hotez says either which is why you would have a debate and allow ppl to make the best choice for themselves based on either argument. If you accuse someone of spreading misinformation then when called out you run and hide it makes you look like the fool.
Or worse...a tool
Or worse a ghoul!
In which case, let's hope he restricts himself to stealing coins...
lol
Awful take. If you can’t defend your ideas, especially if you claim the other person is ridiculous or unhinged, then nobody should ever take your advice
It’s depressing how far you’ve fallen, Kyle. Smh
what do u mean?
Everything he features or speaks about these days is disingenuous and obviously partisan in favour of Marianne Williamson. Even if he’s not speaking about her, let’s face it, dismal campaign he’s having a dig at her opponents. He’s done some pure “hacky” vids lately which are outright dishonest bordering on lies. He’s misleading his viewers and subs, and they deserve better because they’re paying for original, unbiased content.
Well, Kyle repeatedly admitted that he never was "unbiased" :)
On a serious note, it's indeed a dubious spectacle. First Kyle goes semi-tabloid to get his 1M subs. And I'm not even sure what he thinks he is doing now, but he does seem to be drifting into the realm of downright hackery... The above sleight of word is virtually the same as the establishment's shills labeling anything they don't want to - or aren't able to for that matter - engage with substantively a conspiracy theory. By the way, since I barely watch ST anymore, would you specify the videos/topics where our distinguished host crossed a line?
i do like your take, & i cant fully disagree. though i will say that just because the style and focus/topics of his videos has changed, he still makes great points and analyses often. to say that he's a hack because he agrees with a certain political ideology and expresses it, i dont think thats fair at all
"Hackery is advocacy of a position when motivated by political allegiance, public relations interests, or for other reasons considered crass compared to personal conviction."
I think it's a good definition. In my view, what Kyle did in that Politico segment totally qualifies. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's completely turned into a patent hack. However, it's a slippery slope. Kyle can make a case that all his words and actions are genuine, coming from a good place and meant to benefit the country. But so did Madeleine Albright. Anyways, let's see what he does next...
You also seem to suggest that Kyle legitimately contributes to the conversation. Well..."yeah...not really" :) Basically, all his extremely repetitive points can be divided into two categories: "water is wet" and irresponsibly oversimplified presentations of complex problems that critically distort their nature. Even if the latter is not done deliberately to appeal to the target audience but derives from genuine ignorance, it would be kinda beside the point. Because the outcomes will be the same. And finally, I don't see much of that conversation. You have a hollow echo chamber on YT and this dead calm here. Did the host(s) do anything to get it going? If they did I missed that. But you have "shameless plugs" on a regular basis, several times a day. I don't see anything wrong about Kyle simply running it as a successful alternative media enterprise. And I'm sure he's sincere when he says that he'd be totally OK with society going all the Kingdom of Sweden on his ass in terms of taxes, so that he could help others in that way. But you asked your question from the perspective of an audience, didn't you? From that perspective, it would be great to distinguish between a rebel seeking a peaceful revolution/a selfless educator and a media whizz-kid...
That said, it's not inconceivable that there're people who can actually take something useful from Kyle's bloviations :)
bloviations.... nice dude,, not ironic at all...
& well, i will say, for someone who doesnt seem to like/agree this guy almost at all, you seem to have a very detailed interpretation & understanding of what you claim to be his commentary style. yeah, the point of deduction is that you break down arguments/ideas into simpler ones. & that being said, his analyses arent simple at all. he just sticks to pretty principled understandings of certain ideas.
on the politico video, idk, i havent seen it, but i agree it does sound bad. i also dont like that he makes his videos clickbaitish now. & is mostly into mainstream politics. ugh. either than that tho, he still has great takes, all the time, that cut into the greater scope of the social fabric of our country/world.. its just a very slippery slope truly, to sit in that area of being a little showy on the surface to get people the goods... but i still like him, tho i dont watch him too much either these days, lately.
tho tbh... just bcuz he didnt specify that that lady was "difficult" to work with, i dont think makes him a fkn hack lol.
The point is he's a genuine out of the closet shitlib... but then, you might have already known that.
nice analysis genius
Yeah man, it was the video in which he is reacting to a Magazine article which wasn’t very flattering (to say the least lol) about Marianne. It said she was “difficult” to work for and she has a temper yada yada yada, quoting ex-employees of hers. He grossly misrepresented what the article actually said and in some cases outright lied to his audience about it. i can’t recall which magazine i’ll have to go check.
(i agree with your comments)
Thanks, mate. I think the stuff in question is the Politico article and Kyle's "take" on it on KK&F (not ST as I thought). So, two things... It looks like the Politico story checks out. And Kyle was indeed deliberately distorting it on the show and trying to sell his skewed presentation as fact. His own declaration, "Give the facts first, then offer your take". Here, he was making the desiison for his audience. It's not cool. The second one, so much for a mindful and spiritually advanced being that is all about love and forgiveness. The high tensions of the cutthroat world of politics as a path into the transcendental. An interesting approach. Well, as they say...before enlightenment: chop staffers, carry NDAs; after enlightenment: chop staffers, carry NDAs...or something.
As for the rest...it's kinda complicated :)
ok i see your comment here tho, i'll have to check it out.
name one of the hacky vids for me? i do agree his style has changed, to be more sensational at the least, but i do think he has a great deal of critical expertise in which he weighs/posits his arguments. to say everything he says is disingenuous, i dont know how u can even say that, like wtf? can u give me an example honestly?
Wow... This is really dissapointing..
how so
I went to Spotify. I don't see the "Debate me, bro!" episode.
Is the "bro" there as a dig on Rogan?
I've heard from the Internet that smart people don't say "bro".
Hotel gets paid tons of money to go on MSNBC and CN N and push a certain worldview on vaccines. He is a science communicator. Now, I am a scientist, but I didn't work directly on vaccines and have no specialization on the subject. But I do know that at least 10% of what RFK Jr said was correct. And I also know at least 10% was factually wrong (from research I did on my own time not related to my chemistry work). But it would take me MONTHS to go through all the vaccine studies to figure out where the other 80% of what he stated stands. But it should take Hotez no time at all, in fact he should have tweeted those studies already. Dr. Paul Offit was also called out by name in the JRE episode, with RFK Jr claiming he never sent him a certain study. Why is he radio silent? Why aren't they posting study after study disproving RFK Jr since all the attention is on them right now? I have only just begun researching thimerosal and I am flabbergasted this was EVER allowed in human vaccines. At first I laughed at RFK Jr smuggly, because he called Thimerosal a "preservative". Having worked in a lab creating antibodies from animals, I knew for a fact Thimerosal is an ADJUVANT, NOT a preservative. Well, wasn't I left feeling stupid and shocked when I read that the FDA forces vaccine manufacturers to declare it as a preservative (that is not its primary role at all, although I don't argue it could also serve as a prservative) but they do this because Thimerosal is so toxic it can not be listed as a medicinal ingredient. HOW WAS THIS INJECTED INTO MIILLIONS OF BABIES FOR DECADES?? they didnt even know it went to the brain. An absolute scandal.
Ohh boy the RFK JR freaks have infested this comment section.
Kim Laurie
just now
I’ve been a lefty my whole life. Union steward. Devoted to Bernie. But 😆Apparently I am now right wing according to this weird narrative. 💔 this isn’t good.
This whole episode would have seemed like an insane take 20 years ago.
So no guest?
calm down tony