On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 3:27:00 PM UTC+1 PGC wrote:
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'll critique my own point regarding the potential to read this as "green ideology": Investing in renewables through effective private-sector financial engineering and risk management, controlled by taxpayers and supported by institutions like the EIB or ECB, is not "green ideology" but a pragmatic solution to Europe’s unique economic challenges. Unlike resource-rich regions, Europe must innovate to ensure long-term competitiveness. A successful transition to renewables would dismantle entrenched energy monopolies, with the aim of effectively reducing costs for both businesses and citizens substantially. Cheaper energy would fuel consumption, drive economic growth, and deliver direct benefits to households by lowering utility bills. More purchasing power directly for every citizen. This approach, successfully implemented, would also make Europe a magnet for investment, with its high salaries offset by globally competitive energy prices. It’s an argument rooted in empowering citizens and businesses alike, though it challenges my conservative friends who resist breaking the grip of monopolies and my progressive friends for employing sophisticated risk management tools from the financial sector. -- 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/6ed1212c-4e45-4e6e-9982-5bc1ea949cccn%40googlegroups.com.
