Mister_a

Yeah, I agree, but it's difficult to define the line between 'controversial ideas' and 'clear nonsense' sometimes. Which is why i referred to Galileo earlier, and the lab leak hypothesis.

Social Media certainly doesn't help at all, and where that fits into the free speech debate is quite a challenge right now. Tough one to fix, but it's definitely not fixed by pushing controversial ideas away.

Gave you a like then read the last bit so had to remove it haha. Evil is a really strong word to be using here. Stalin was evil, Hitler was evil, Joe Rogen is a stoner who talks to people.

I'm not ignoring them, Social Media is a real problem right now.

I'm not talking specifically about Ivermectin, i don't know enough about it. (Honestly not a cop out lol). I'm talking generally about being aware who is doing the labelling of people as dangerous, Fascist, Nazi, White Supremacist etc etc, because they are very handy labels to throw at people who you disagree with in order to silence debate. Using those labels against people constantly also has the unintended consequence of devaluing those terms so they become meaningless in a world where those labels are definitely worth taking notice of. I'm for debating ideas and against banning books and censorship. That's all really.

He's not a journalist. He has Jamie on his shows to look things up real time when anything is questioned. You can't have a 3 hour conversation stopping every 2 minutes for fact checking, well you could, but it would go out of business pretty quickly.

I think their side should be aired,, but BBC or Sky is a terrible place to be doing it. Mainly because interviews are too short and it's all dumbed down massively. Give them enough rope to hang themselves, not a piece of BBC string, as it were.

And when you read CNN, you call it a horse de-wormer instead of an anti-parasitic. It works both ways. (Not that I'm saying you only watch CNN obvs.).

I think that all ideas should be on the table, and the bad ones discounted after discussion about the relative merit to society / humanity / etc. That's how we developed language, how we talk and how we form ideas. It's obviously a very handy way of doing things, otherwise it wouldn't have worked for the past 20 thousand years or so (insert correct number as appropriate!).

I agree with you. I just disagree that driving these kinds of people underground would be a good thing.

It depends who gets to do the labelling, seeing as the meaning of words are becoming more and more diluted as time goes by. I'd rather listen to their ideas, then say 'yep, wrong 'un' then file them under that, but that's up to me to decide.

Here be dragons!

Edited, not a nice comment on reflection. Soz.

I'm waiting for you to prove that he never challenged Malone before this becomes an argument worth looking at.

I'm sorry, i don't have time to do your homework for you. Why don't you try instead,.

Yep, I listen to those too.

I'd try to unpick this mess but, all it says to me is that you haven't listened to one of his podcasts.

Well if you look at the graph above, a lot of people have decided that they would rather hear long form conversations with experts of all varieties than the medias soundbites, so it ultimately seems like a losing tactic for them in the long run. Especially when all it does is cause people to find out why people have been de-platformed.

Obviously yes, with this shit storm. All it highlights for me is the current complete lack of long-form debate on any subject, and everything being pushed into simple soundbites is more harmful to us in the long term on every subject.

That would stop podcasts about UFO's, and i can't have that lol... The line for me is pretty clear, say whatever you like, expect to deal with the consequences of it. Except for inciting violence (physical violence, not bad words).

Do you think that less conversation is the answer to solve this particular problem?

We need conversations to understand ideas, to debate pro's and con's. Conversations about controversial ideas will always have mistakes in them. So instead of banning the ones with incorrect / misleading information in them, we should have more conversations about these topics with every expert who will talk about it, not less ffs. Be very careful who you delegate the responsibility of who decides which ideas are allowed and which ones aren't, because if that person isn't you, they do not have your best interests at heart. Are we that dumb as a species that we can't understand the process for new ideas evolving involves making mistakes in conversations about the current ideas, in order to get new ideas out there?

Here's a clue. I don't believe everything I hear on his podcast. See, that wasn't too hard was it. I still enjoy long form conversations with his varied guests, and i enjoy hearing what banned people have to say, precisely because they have been banned from twitter youtube etc.

I'm not sure where you are going with NY and Freedom of Speech, of course he has the right to do/say whatever he wants. Conversely, NY doesn't have the right to demand who people can and can't listen to?! I just don't understand why people are so scared of conversations. You don't have to listen.

It's up to you to remain closed minded to arguments, that's your choice. Not a great look mind. How else am i to describe the viewership graph above without using the catch all term MSM? (Tucker Carlson, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC?).