Your critique of my position as elitist misses the mark and oversimplifies the argument I’ve made. Let me clarify: the problem I outlined is not about withholding "objective truth" from the public or assuming the "masses" are incapable of discernment. It’s about recognizing the real dangers of disinformation and the responsibilities that come with the power to curate influential platforms like Joe Rogan's. I want that discernment to rise to the level where every non-violent person would have access to building any technology/weapon they wish; but would see in historical context how odious and self-defeating raising arms against people is. We've done so millions of times because we lack arguments; and it has never brought the lasting peace it was supposed to.
Use of gun against fellow people = lack of ability to argue. And seeing how amenable and vulnerable everybody is to left vs. right tribalisms makes comprehensive transparency and free access to all information irresponsible. If you disagree and find this elitist, then equip everybody with the most powerful weapons known to man. Including the neighbor of yours dislikes you. Total transparency and freedom is both utopian and naive in this historical context, as we can see from the frequent mass shootings and assassinations (and their attempts) in USA and from weapons history in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that my concerns stem from a belief that the public is "too stupid." Rather, the issue lies with the simplistic framing and curation of Rogan’s platform and the online world more broadly, which gives disproportionate weight to certain narratives while obscuring or oversimplifying others. This isn't about protecting the public from themselves but about holding accountable those who wield influence over public discourse. For instance, by amplifying certain voices—be they pseudoscientific, conspiratorial, or aligned with particular ideological interests, right or left—Rogan shapes narratives in ways that are neither neutral nor without consequence. Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit some university course online or in person. *Elevating Rogan and popular figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to oppose.* Your assumption about my arguments reflecting progressive or liberal elitism is misplaced. My positions are more nuanced and cannot be neatly categorized into such labels. For example, I support a fiscal union in Europe—a stance that angers my conservative/nationalist friends—because I believe it is essential for remaining globally competitive. At the same time, I advocate for substantial investment in renewables, not through traditional state-led models but through state-of-the-art private-sector-driven financial engineering, incentivized by performance measures controlled by taxpayers and paid for by ECB or EIB. I see nobody proposing this, as everybody is too busy defending their biases. This is an original argument that illustrates what we could do, if we let go of "right vs left" pointlessness. This often puts me at odds with progressives because they don't trust bankers and hedge funds; I don't trust them either, but I know of the efficacy/sophistication of their risk management tools regarding investments. Furthermore, I criticize the EU's opaque and disingenuous technocracy, advocating for reforms that prioritize efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and democracy while strengthening Europe’s geopolitical and economic position. EU governance should be comprised of more figures representative of diverse demographics that include farmers in Italy, workers in failing industries of the north, artists in Paris etc. instead of technocrats. Being pro-reform EU is not about symbolic gestures or abstract ideals like diversity, equity, and inclusion for its own sake, but about pragmatic geopolitics and economics: a reformed, unified Europe is better positioned to address global volatility and risks. In an increasingly multipolar world dominated by major powers like the U.S., China, and a resurgent Russia, Europe has the potential to act cohesively to protect its economic interests, secure energy independence, and enhance its defense capabilities. I also disagree with my progressive friends here. Without reform, inefficiencies and disunity weaken its ability to navigate global challenges, leaving it vulnerable to external pressures and internal instability. My positions challenge both sides because I reject simplistic, tribal solutions. I’m not defending liberal platitudes or promoting conservative/nationalist nostalgia and utopias of the past; I’m calling for a more sophisticated approach to tackling complex challenges. By reducing my critique to this elitist stereotype, you sidestep the substance of my argument. It’s not elitist to demand accountability and thoughtful curation from those shaping public discourse—it’s responsible. Finally, it’s worth emphasizing that curatorial responsibility is not about silencing dissent or policing thought; it’s about providing the framing and context necessary for critical evaluation. If we’re serious about fostering a more informed public discourse, we cannot overlook the biases, reductionism, and opportunistic oversimplification that dominate platforms like Rogan’s. The alternative isn’t “no Rogan,” but rather a Rogan—or any other influential platform—held accountable to the standards of the public discourse they claim to facilitate. My argument is about elevating, not diminishing, the quality of the conversation for everyone, regardless of political leaning or intellectual background. And of course we can agree to disagree. On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 6:22:37 AM UTC+1 Giulio Prisco wrote: > Thank you PCG for engaging with this post and taking the time to reply > with thoughtful arguments. But I disagree (and very strongly so) with > what seems to be one of your premises: that the public (aka the little > people or the unwashed masses) is too stupid and must be protected by > some elites that know better. I very much disagree. > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 3:31 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Giulio's argument highlights the tension between the trade-off of noise > for signal in public platforms like Joe Rogan's podcast, which undeniably > wields significant reach and influence. While I agree that public access to > figures like Roger Penrose and other scientists with unconventional but > valuable ideas is crucial, I think the broader implications of the > platform’s framing, curation, and biases need to be examined critically. > > > > Joe Rogan's platform frequently reinforces reductionist and popular > trends, where complex issues are stripped of context and presented as > binary conflicts. This reductionism risks doing more harm than good, > particularly when it allows misinformation or opportunistic ideologies to > dominate public attention. The presence of noise might be an acceptable > price for signal if the audience were uniformly equipped to discern the > difference. However, such platforms often exploit cognitive biases—like > confirmation bias and emotional appeal—leading to a conflation of the noise > with the signal. When voices espousing bad faith arguments are amplified > (without sufficient critique or framing) the consequences can skew public > discourse toward division and obfuscation, as has been the case. > > > > Your defense of Rogan as a counterbalance to "thought policing" and > "cancel culture" raises valid concerns about freedom of expression. > However, equating critique of harmful ideas with suppression is a dangerous > oversimplification. Platforms like Rogan's must recognize their curatorial > responsibility: the act of amplifying voices and framing their ideas is not > neutral. Without providing the tools for audiences to evaluate content > critically, the "noise" becomes more than a harmless cost; it becomes a > mechanism for reinforcing pseudoscience, disinformation, and divisive > ideologies. > > > > Take Penrose as an example. His notable contributions to physics, for > which he earned a Nobel Prize, do not make his ideas on Gödel’s theorem and > Mechanism infallible. His Gödelian critique against computationalism > misinterprets Gödel’s theorem, which highlights epistemic limits for > possible machines and humans alike, rather than proving humans transcend > mechanistic processes. While there’s some indication Penrose has > reconsidered the validity of this argument, assuming correctness on the > basis of accolades is unscientific. Science demands critical engagement > with arguments, not deference to authority or committee decisions. > > > > This brings us to the broader problem: the value of figures like Penrose > and Goertzel is undermined when presented without proper framing. Public > discourse shaped by popular platforms needs rigor and context to avoid > reducing valuable ideas to fodder for opportunistic or ideologically > motivated narratives. While I understand the appeal of exposure through a > platform like Rogan’s, the ethical weight of curation cannot be ignored. > Popularity does not equate to merit, nor does it justify giving any voice a > platform without scrutiny. > > > > While I appreciate the importance of platforms for diverse voices, the > balance between noise and signal must be more carefully managed than Joe > sitting there and asking his minion for context by googling some issue, > reading the first responses, going on reddit/twitter and proclaiming > "true/false". Rogan conflates online opinion snapshots on context > eliminating platforms with truth, as evidenced by his recent statements > regarding the X community vetting ideas with the help of a couple of > specialists posting "the truth, so everybody knows, which is why X is so > great". How scientific is that? Platforms like Rogan’s could serve as > powerful venues for public education and discourse, but only if they accept > their responsibility to uphold intellectual rigor and ethical framing. > Without this, the signal risks being drowned out by the very noise it > claims to correct. Instead of amplifying popular reductionisms, public > platforms must prioritize fostering informed, critical engagement, > elevating not just voices, but the discourse itself. > > > > Popular internet is a context free zone, almost by discursive necessity: > how else would "copium" taste so good to so many? > > > > > > On Thursday, December 5, 2024 at 2:34:43 PM UTC+1 John Clark wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 12:25 AM Giulio Prisco <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > So in Joe Rogan's show (like everywhere) there's some noise besides > the signal. Terrence Howard is noise. > >> > >> > >> But Terrence Howard is VERY predictable noise, but Rogan invited him on > his show anyway. It's one thing to have opinions about things that are on > the very frontier of knowledge that only a minority of scientists in the > physics community have, such as Roger Penrose, and somebody insisting that > 1×1 = 2 and believing that the square root of 2 is nonsense. But at least > Howard's idiocies will not kill anybody, but the anti-vaccine lunatics that > Rogan invited on his program, when 4000 Americans were dying of COVID in a > single day (911 only killed 2977) was irresponsible because that DID kill > people. Rogan says he wants "a debate on vaccine science" but science had > that debate 200 years ago and as far as science is concerned the > controversy is over, vaccines work, and during the last 200 years vaccines > have saved hundreds of millions if not billions of lives. > >> > >> And the fact that Joe Rogan believes that the perfect man to be > president is a convicted felon and traitor who instigated a coup d'état in > an attempt to become dictator, is a data point refuting the proposition > that Mr. Rogan is a font of wisdom. However there is reason to believe that > Mr. Rogan did well at his former job, giving color commentary during > televised wrestling matches. > >> > >> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > >> twm > >>> > >>> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed92fa9f-abf8-46e3-a85d-778679d36eb2n%40googlegroups.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ec02afc-3321-4e33-b3c3-6f7cc508a9f3n%40googlegroups.com.
