Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

antigonejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#51

Post by kipchak »

arrosenberg wrote: post #49
steelstraw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.

The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.

Is the contract viewership based? I thought it was just a straight 100M.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#52

Post by [deleted] »

Kranar wrote: post #36
steelstraw wrote: post #18

Joe Rogan actually just made that basic point in his response regarding the Spotify controversy. He thanked even his haters and addressed the concerns. Some changes have already been made. He was very gracious to Neil Young to boot. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/ If more people had that kind of response and mindset, maybe we could get back to solving problems instead of the constant tit for tat tribalism t…

He's been saying that for years though, from the time he perpetuated 9/11 being an inside job, to arguing that the moon landing was a hoax, to his current position on COVID. What exact mindset inspired by Joe Rogan would you advocate for people? To believe in and promote fringe opinions for the sake of being contrarian, and then after some degree of damage has been done you go ahead apologize for it, say you're going…

[deleted]

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#53

Post by steelstraw »

arrosenberg wrote: post #49
steelstraw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.

The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.

I'm not sure that changes his payday at all and don't see that kind of change on his side. He had many controversial guests like Alex Jones prior to Spotify. He's been doing this since 2009 and has over 1,700 episodes.

The controversy is from the corporate media and other gatekeepers now attacking him. He's the tip of the spear that is threatening their business model and control over the narrative. It's not so much about Joe as it's about elite gatekeepers vs independent media. The same fight is being waged against Substack. They just lack this kind of central figure to point at and demonize.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#54

Post by jazzyjackson »

arrosenberg wrote: post #49
steelstraw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.

The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.

People had plenty of problems with Joe's guests before the Spotify contract - the blowback was immediate and Spotify removed dozens of episodes from his back-catalog:

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-spotif...

I think its more controversial now only because people have leverage over Spotify - when he self hosted his show there really wasn't a way to protest. You could boycott the advertisers I guess but I don't think MeUndies and Butcher Box would have cared.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#55

Post by goodpoint »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #16
goodpoint wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot have a honest conversation (AKA being open to change your mind) while engaging in a morally unacceptable debate. Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.

Hmm, what is a morally unacceptable debate? How is it defined and who agrees to the definition? I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite. (on the other h…

> what is a morally unacceptable debate?

I'm surprised that people here do not understand this point. Here some by-the-book examples that are used in ethics 101:

"what is the best way to kill grandma?" "what is a reasonable price to buy a slave?"

If you find murder or slavery immoral you are simply unable to debate on this questions because they imply acceptance of the premise.

You can, of course, express your disagreement on the whole debate.

> I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo

This has nothing to do with a taboo. It's a completely different thing.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#56

Post by goodpoint »

vraks wrote: post #34
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proposed definition of "immoral debates": An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where: 1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies 2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking 3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or…

So basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and p…

No, that's a dishonest debate and it's a different thing.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#57

Post by goodpoint »

friedman23 wrote: post #17
goodpoint wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot have a honest conversation (AKA being open to change your mind) while engaging in a morally unacceptable debate. Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.

It sounds like you hold a lot of questionable moral beliefs that you refuse to take a hard look at.

It sounds like you are projecting.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#58

Post by motohagiography »

The anti-pattern version of this reminds me of a phrase I can't seem to source, which is, "to question by assertion," which means making assertions with the intent that the listener respond by refuting them. It's a really fast technique to get information (I think I learned it from reporters, prosecutors, or perhaps just my mother), where you assert the contrapositive or a begged question about the thing you want to know, and use the churning brain of the listener parsing it through to yield their view. It's supremely irritating and emotionally abusive to anyone who trusts you, and viewed this way I can see how Socrates got himself whacked, but I'd wonder if this tactic has a name in another discipline. The only effective defense is to blow off the question, set a firm personal boundary where you don't feel obligated to answer any questions at all because they aren't sincere inquiries, and dismiss them as traps.

If only Socrates were alive to have someone "well, actually..." him on the internet.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#59

Post by pasabagi »

beebmam wrote: post #47
dfxm12 wrote: post #35

I think the article is operating under the false assumption that most political discourse is meant to be a Socratic conversation. It's really not. Look at a political debate, or a talking heads show on cable news. There is no truth that is sought out, no hypotheses to accept, no exploration of if a conclusion follows the premises logically. All there is, is persuasive sound bytes, with no deference paid to the truth…

Public debate is performance for the audiences. Private debate can absolutely be like Socratic dialogue

I don't know what Socratic dialogues you've been reading, but if somebody started speaking like they were out of one near me, I'd probably report them for being a replicant.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#60

Post by aeternum »

teachrdan wrote: post #32
aeternum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself w…

> Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true. Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fra…

Personally, I lost a lot of respect for Peterson over that quote/interview. Clearly all models are simplifications, that's the entire point. We can't simulate reality with full fidelity, anything more than a hydrogen atom requires a simplification.

Hearing Peterson directly say something non-sensical like that is an incredibly effective way to convince reasonable people that he is wrong. Much more effective than any attempt to cancel or silence him.

Post reply on HN