I think that description fits dipshits like Tucker Carlson much better though.
And I don’t like formal debates either as no debate I’ve ever watched to this day has had a moderator who would be willing to keep the debaters on topic and force concessions when they try to evade, move goal posts etc. I prefer live, online discussions much more.
And platforming morons is only bad when one can’t debunk them, or when one is too kind and meek to actually properly push back. This is why I like Professor Dave and a lot of the people hosting The Line. They do not argue in that docile way typical of leftist commentators. They call their opponents out for lying, force concessions, and do not act kindly to them (unless they’re literally just misguided).
Both sides are getting their clippable audio snippets and dragging around audiences to feel like they are fighting with them.
I truly don’t agree that platforming extremists to argue against them for publicity and money is ever worth it. The sides lean against each other to grow larger and these are people who it is in their financial interests to not change their opinion. And religion debates are not productive, those are personal and faith based. Can’t argue someone rationally out of something that wasnt rationally entered.
I was talking about the “playful banter with the most evil people in the world” text when I gave the Tucker Carlson example.
Their religion debates are mostly against evangelicals and biblical literalists, who generally do think that their beliefs are rational, so an in-depth deconstruction is really beneficial, a lot of the time not to the caller but to the impartial layperson viewer.
I understand your criticism here, but also one can’t make do without the opposition making some content like this, especially when this sphere is dominated by uneducated right-wingers like Joe Rogan.
Not directly but I will call it an homage to it. Cause they are still platforming the extremists.
Its why no one thought Bill Nye’s debates with creationists were a good idea.
I think that description fits dipshits like Tucker Carlson much better though.
And I don’t like formal debates either as no debate I’ve ever watched to this day has had a moderator who would be willing to keep the debaters on topic and force concessions when they try to evade, move goal posts etc. I prefer live, online discussions much more.
And platforming morons is only bad when one can’t debunk them, or when one is too kind and meek to actually properly push back. This is why I like Professor Dave and a lot of the people hosting The Line. They do not argue in that docile way typical of leftist commentators. They call their opponents out for lying, force concessions, and do not act kindly to them (unless they’re literally just misguided).
Both sides are getting their clippable audio snippets and dragging around audiences to feel like they are fighting with them.
I truly don’t agree that platforming extremists to argue against them for publicity and money is ever worth it. The sides lean against each other to grow larger and these are people who it is in their financial interests to not change their opinion. And religion debates are not productive, those are personal and faith based. Can’t argue someone rationally out of something that wasnt rationally entered.
You asked about qnaline, not Tucker.
I was talking about the “playful banter with the most evil people in the world” text when I gave the Tucker Carlson example.
Their religion debates are mostly against evangelicals and biblical literalists, who generally do think that their beliefs are rational, so an in-depth deconstruction is really beneficial, a lot of the time not to the caller but to the impartial layperson viewer.
I understand your criticism here, but also one can’t make do without the opposition making some content like this, especially when this sphere is dominated by uneducated right-wingers like Joe Rogan.
I understand fighting fire with fire, but dont mind me while I dont praise the arsonists.