|
|
|
|
|
|
by aeternum
2099 days ago
|
|
|
I personally do not consider all 'sides' of an issue to be equal, and am capable of considering an argument without normalizing it. I believe we are already inundated with media sources that amplify a single worldview and that is extremely harmful. Somehow considering or even listening to a different idea has become viewed as weakness and something to be avoided. Rogan is one of the few that has an audience of people with widely varying preferences. He also does not give every fringe/extreme idea or person equal time. Instead he has guests on that are already noteworthy and have an audience. I find some of those episodes the most interesting as clearly those guests are saying something that resonates with an audience. I think it is critically important to understand why some 'antisocial' idea is resonating, especially if it is harmful. Rogan is also great at hearing out a guest, finding common ground, and then discussing differences. Something I try to continually improve upon myself. I'm in no way advocating some kind of 'equal time' type argument for all sides of an issue, but I think it is important that we address ideas that have a significant number of proponents rather than ignore them. Remember that both the women's rights and civil right's movements were initially considered antisocial and selfish. |
|
|
Important distinction: This is not about weakness and avoiding harm to the self. It's about caring for and preventing harm to the society we live in.
Relevantly, framing things with a language of personal weakness (both "this thing I want you to stop doing is weakness" and also "this thing I want you to start doing is not weakness") is a common indoctrination tactic for manipulating people. IMO, you should worry about its relation to how you said what you just said and where the idea came from.
When those "different ideas" are flat out lies, malice, greed, and anti-science peddling, then it is something to be _prevented_ not avoided. Because we've learned from centuries of directly observing how regular people respond to them even when those people are strong and capable. Ignoring everything we know from historians about human behavior causes real problems over and over again, so it's probably best not to.
> I personally do not consider all 'sides' of an issue to be equal, and am capable of considering an argument without normalizing it.
Even if this is true, history has shown repeatedly that it's not a sound model for preserving civic wellness.
> I think it is critically important to understand why some 'antisocial' idea is resonating, especially if it is harmful.
We already understand why. Indoctrination works. That case was solved a very very long time ago and there is literally no mystery left. Giving malicious indoctrinators a credible and far reaching platform where the respected host jovially nods along always proves to further their agenda no matter how much we wish it weren't the case. On the other side, we have evidence and research on deplatforming now, and we see that it works.
> Remember that both the women's rights and civil right's movements were initially considered antisocial and selfish.
You should be aware that this subtly invokes any number of informal fallacies: equivocation, relativist fallacy, false equivalence, questionable cause, texas sharpshooter, probably others (that is the problem with the informal ones).
A person who says that women and black people should not have equal rights is the opposite of a pro-social narrator. Trying to represent it as otherwise is bad news.