It’s exhausting really. Trying to navigate the narratives out there, trying to find what is true, trying to make decisions based on merit.
I worked on my doctorate in rhetoric, the study of persuasion. We studied Aristotle and the greats of speaking, logic, and argument. I went on to teach logic to 8th graders. Clearly, the subject matter was scalable to minds that did not even have a high school understanding of reasoning. These kids were pretty good at it.
So I get easily frustrated by the lack of reason in the “discussion” of today’s issues. The “discussion” mostly involves finding quotes, memes, or TikToc videos which support the way we already see things. And to prove we’re on the right side of the moral argument, we post them as stand alone definitive proof.
Maybe because of my background, I am always curious about what both sides are saying. And that curiosity runs into walls at every turn, mostly because there is little outlet for true discussion.
I like podcasts because they can offer that format, and I listen to a wide range of them. The other day I listened to Joe Rogan’s interview with Robert Kennedy Jr. I have been curious about him because I am neither a Trump or Biden fan, and I would like to hear what other candidates are saying.
I didn’t know much about Kennedy going in. I discovered he has a lot to say about environmental issues, government oversight, and the vaccine industry. To be clear, I am not an anti-vaxxer. I have all the vaccines, including the boosters. But I listened with curiosity as he talked about the problems with vaccines, drug companies, and government regulation.
He listed study after study backing his claims. I am responsible to follow up on these claims and determine whether the conclusions were sound or not. I am responsible to see if there is any merit to the conclusions he is drawing. It is stupid to argue someone’s conclusions. Those are statements drawn from premises, which need to be laid out and supported. We argue the premises.
I learned that another podcaster also had an interview with him on YouTube, and they took the interview down based on “misinformation.” They did not list the misinformation, they did not provide support for their the censorship. They just decided that people could not be trusted with an actual argument. That kinda made me mad.
The only way to defeat a bad argument is to provide a better argument. Censorship is not a better argument. We can stamp our feet about book censorship, which we should. Censorship is a terrible idea. But it doesn’t stop with books.
I am happy that Spotify gave me the chance to consider all that was said. Essentially they are trusting people to make their own decisions, draw their own conclusions. As it should be.
Censorship is an attempt to control people in the worst possible way. It presents as altruistic. “We are protecting people.” It reeks of power, control, and authoritarianism.
If an 8th grader is smart enough to critically examine forms of argument, I believe we can all do that. Let’s not accept censorship as a valid form of argument. In any arena.
Wide Angle Lens 