Current Events > Why is giving someone a platform such a bad thing?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dr.Phil had a lady that sells water that can regrow your arm on his show. She ended up looking like the idiot she is.

But he gave her a platform.

People use this against Joe Rogan.
Are you afraid that maybe they don't look so stupid and have actually compelling cases?

What is the issue?
---

pettiness and sjwism
---

Singling out idiots is one thing. Giving a platform without fact checking is another. And giving equal air time in a debate between a falsehood with reality is yet another thing, too.
---

What position does Rogan have that people hate?
---

For every one person who sees a fraud there are countless others who see a miracle
---

josifrees posted...

For every one person who sees a fraud there are countless others who see a miracle

The balance isn't that bad. You just sound jaded by society.
---

Squall28 posted...

What position does Rogan have that people hate?

They don't like that he let's right wingers and other not-left-wing figures on his show.
---

Squall28 posted...

What position does Rogan have that people hate?

He gives Ben Shapiro a platform.
---

josifrees posted...

For every one person who sees a fraud there are countless others who see a miracle

Do you think Dr.Phil is guilty of pushing her snake oil then?
---

i dont get the rogan hate tbh. i am not really big on him but think the hate he gets is silly
---

the problem is that ppl are often very influenced by emotion and appeals to their senses, rather than well-researched info & facts.

so if you have a good public speaker up there he can easily connect with listeners and push a dangerous viewpoint along
---

Romulox28 posted...

the problem is that ppl are often very influenced by emotion and appeals to their senses, rather than well-researched info & facts.

so if you have a good public speaker up there he can easily connect with listeners and push a dangerous viewpoint along

Then why do people hate Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson so much?

They are quite the polar opposite of the people who protest against them which usually just scream that they are sexist, racist and privileged... all emotional appeals.
---

I just had a thought.
When parents tell kids they can't watch something because it would be a bad influence on them, they tend to want to watch and like it more.
Isn't that pretty much what trying to remove all platforms of a person like Ben Shaprio does?
---

iWillBeHOTHkage posted...

pettiness and sjwism

K181 posted...

Singling out idiots is one thing. Giving a platform without fact checking is another. And giving equal air time in a debate between a falsehood with reality is yet another thing, too.

^^
---

It's not a bad thing. No one should be silenced and it's important to know the other side's views no matter how extreme. Extreme views are usually the easiest to argue anyways.
---

There was just that faith healer who appeared on Oprah and is now being accused of sexual assault by over 300 women.

Where do we draw the line with letting exposable people have a voice? And how influential should their allowed platforms be?
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

It's not a bad thing. No one should be silenced and it's important to know the other side's views no matter how extreme. Extreme views are usually the easiest to argue anyways.

? Pretty hard to argue the earth is flat
---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

There was just that faith healer who appeared on Oprah and is now being accused of sexual assault by over 300 women.

Where do we draw the line with letting exposable people have a voice? And how influential should their allowed platforms be?

Its very possible that person wouldn't have been exposed if they didn't have a platform.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

It's not a bad thing. No one should be silenced and it's important to know the other side's views no matter how extreme. Extreme views are usually the easiest to argue anyways.

? Pretty hard to argue the earth is flat

I meant form an argument against. Like it's easy to disprove that the earth is flat.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

There was just that faith healer who appeared on Oprah and is now being accused of sexual assault by over 300 women.

Where do we draw the line with letting exposable people have a voice? And how influential should their allowed platforms be?

Its very possible that person wouldn't have been exposed if they didn't have a platform.

Good point.

Funnily enough, what killed Milo's career was he was given a platform where felt ok expressing his views and ended up talking about underage sex.
---

You know, the Nazis deplatformed people. They also had pieces of flair.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

There was just that faith healer who appeared on Oprah and is now being accused of sexual assault by over 300 women.

Where do we draw the line with letting exposable people have a voice? And how influential should their allowed platforms be?

Its very possible that person wouldn't have been exposed if they didn't have a platform.

Good point.

Funnily enough, what killed Milo's career was he was given a platform where felt ok expressing his views and ended up talking about underage sex.

Sometimes too much exposure gives people the feeling of invulnerability to consequences. Which is fucking stupid because from the outside looking in, those are the people who should be more cautious of what they say.
---

oh i don't know. maybe it's because the families of the victims of school shootings are given death threats and harassment and in some cases have to move and hide because of conspiracy theorists maybe?
---

catboy0_0 posted...

oh i don't know. maybe it's because the victims of school shootings are given death threats and harassment and in some cases have to move and hide because of conspiracy theorists maybe?

If they received death threats, thats a criminal matter. Not a platform matter.

OprahJimfrey posted...

catboy0_0 posted...

oh i don't know. maybe it's because the victims of school shootings are given death threats and harassment and in some cases have to move and hide because of conspiracy theorists maybe?

If they received death threats, thats a criminal matter. Not a platform matter.

I'm not gonna get into an argument over this. I've said my peace.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

There was just that faith healer who appeared on Oprah and is now being accused of sexual assault by over 300 women.

Where do we draw the line with letting exposable people have a voice? And how influential should their allowed platforms be?

Its very possible that person wouldn't have been exposed if they didn't have a platform.

So he had to become world renowned before he could be brought down? I'm not sure that's true. It took a lot of people looking the other way before one of the many accusations against him over the years finally led somewhere.
---

OprahJimfrey posted...

You know, the Nazis deplatformed people. They also had pieces of flair.

The irony of that is that many political organizations attempted to deplatform them before they could find their way into the good graces of the people. Clearly, they failed, in part because the Nazi political strategists began appealing to the idea of free speech in 20th century liberal society, and much of the population sympathized with that argument on its face, not realizing they were being played.

Flash forward a handful of years, and we can see just how disingenuous the "free speech advocates" of post-WWI really were.

BTW I think we're confusing deplatforming with censorship. No one is preventing objectionable people from saying objectionable things, were just deciding that if they want an audience they can go out and build it without the help of people who already have massive viewership numbers.
---