> imagine someone posted a podcast of an ideologue, in a place where you feel safe expressing your opinion, as the detractors of your Joe Rogan piece felt safe where you posted him.
Are you trying to get me to say my reaction would be the same? It just wouldn’t be. I would at least listen to the episode before just commenting. Also where exactly is this place? My small group of friends? My partner? Anonymously online? That’s basically it. Because it’s definitely not work or social media.
> Certainly with a PhD you can't actually have been surprised by the reaction to your post. What's the point of your performative surprise?
Someone asked me for some weird stories from San Francisco, so I shared some.
> Is it that you don't feel safe expressing your opinion in certain places
Yeah that’s pretty much the point of my stories and the topic of this HN thread.
> You can't change the world for the better by trolling.
Yea this conversation is over then. If you think I’m just trying to troll people there’s really no point for me to talk to you.
The guy you're replying to appears to be a perfect example of a woke idiot. The whole idea that Joe Rogan is extremely controversial is incredibly stupid. The guy has an interesting, super popular podcast where he talks to super interesting people in a very chill, entertaining way. How terrible. This idea that you have to ban anyone that ever said anything you disagreed with is extremely illiberal and sounds like something from a totalitarian society.
I had a guy at work once who told me that he was a fan of HBO's Silicone Valley until he heard of that email one of its writers sent. After that he stopped watching the show. I asked him if he does constant research to find out if a person who produces any entertainment he likes said or did something bad in his personal life & then stops watching or listening any of the content they had something to do with. He said yes.
There are enough stories criticizing "the tolerant left" to support the notion that had Moodles been in the opposite end of this situation, he likely would not have reacted in the same extreme way. There is a culture with an express goal of fostering intolerance of average people, and San Francisco hosts a concentration of it.
Perhaps OP assumed the coworkers were able to think critically and not engage in basic ad hominems?
In my work environment I expect my coworkers to be able to engage with substance and would be very disappointed if they refused to look at something because it came from someone “problematic”.
I very much appreciate that this whole thread is suffused with the assumption that interlocutors are making their arguments from stupidity or illiteracy.
