Very good interview Chris. This is exactly the kind of examination and critique of social rationality that I hope CFI continues to bring to a dialogue.
As I said, I hear very little of Beck and I haven’t been able to hear Limbaugh in years. But conservatives are people like William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, George Will, and many others of that sort. Liberals, of course, pick less classy, less intellectual, and more entertainment and popular culture-youth oriented examples and make them a straw man. Myself, when I think of the liberal attitude toward truth, I think of Bill Clinton, not to mention the thugs I knew in the New Left movement in the late 60’s, the same types that entirely populate the current administration.
Frankly I don’t see why politics shouldn’t be covered on PoI. What Glenn Beck does is what PoI talks about, because he’s an icon of irrationality, just like Ken Ham or Sylvia Browne or Andrew Wakefield or Deepak Chopra.
And Mooney’s question wasn’t “Why isn’t irrational leftist talk radio as big as irrational conservative talk radio?” but “Why isn’t liberal talk radio as big as conservative talk radio?” No modifiers. Looking at our current level of political discourse, I think a disinterested observor would have to conclude that conservatives are responsible for the lion’s share of irrational thinking, or at least are much more visible.
According to my dad, who listens to a lot of talk radio, they have tried launching left wing talk radio shows, but they never take hold. The audience is just too intrinsically conservative.
I really liked the Deborah Blum Poisoner’s Handbook interview and I bought the book—am reading it now. Would very much like more interviews like that one.
This topic on the other hand dragged for me. I had no interest in Glenn Beck and have never watched or listened to his show.
It seemed at points that rather than disputing facts, Zaitchik was too often digging up personal stuff like Beck calling someone up and saying over-the-top inconsiderate things, or pointing out that over the years people who get to know him think he’s a jerk.
I really liked the Deborah Blum Poisoner’s Handbook interview and I bought the book—am reading it now. Would very much like more interviews like that one.
I read the book after listening to the interview. I was a great, though provoking book.
This topic on the other hand dragged for me. I had no interest in Glenn Beck and have never watched or listened to his show.
It seemed at points that rather than disputing facts, Zaitchik was too often digging up personal stuff like Beck calling someone up and saying over-the-top inconsiderate things, or pointing out that over the years people who get to know him think he’s a jerk.
Unfortunately, that jerk is out in the real world, affecting our country and lives. I’m not sure what we can do to counter him, I hope The Peter Principle comes into play soon in the same way it worked to topple McCarthy.
Being new here and not knowing what to expect, I find exactly what I predicted-politics is not easily argued without someone calling another poster “stupid” and one side and the other declaring their “truths” superior to their oppositions “truths”. All I have read reminds me of a religious argument. Are both sides willing to admit that their judgement is just as clouded as their oppositions? I counted about 10 logical fallacies in the first page alone. Logical fallacies used to accuse others of logical fallacies. Nice work folks. Guess I should have lurked for a few more weeks until this garbage fell off the forum.
I count myself a Bob Price/Brian Dunning style conservative. I listen to Beck every morning on my way to work. Is he right? No. His “retcon” of the USA’s founding fathers religious beliefs makes me sick to my stomach. I get the same feeling when I watch Oberlund or Maddow spout their garbage about social justice. I watch them every night thanks to my liberal chemistry teacher wife.
Now, my most earnest wish is that skepticism stays as apolitical as possible. I have voted libertarian for 24 years. I am as political as anyone. Can we please point our refined intellects at the degradation of science education or the advance of the “new” ID movement and other topics? Politics and intellect really don’t mix well. Thank you for reading this.
Being new here and not knowing what to expect, I find exactly what I predicted-politics is not easily argued without someone calling another poster “stupid” and one side and the other declaring their “truths” superior to their oppositions “truths”. All I have read reminds me of a religious argument. Are both sides willing to admit that their judgement is just as clouded as their oppositions? I counted about 10 logical fallacies in the first page alone. Logical fallacies used to accuse others of logical fallacies. Nice work folks. Guess I should have lurked for a few more weeks until this garbage fell off the forum.
I’m glad you could look at a small sampling of the forum and extrapolate to the entire forum. We certainly wouldn’t want to keep someone here who didn’t feel they belonged. I’m sure the rest of the forum will be just as uninteresting and full of logical fallacies. It couldn’t possibly be a case of anomalous bickering among members (half of them new). Of course as the only libertarian here…(not)
BTW, I listen to Brian Dunning’s podcast too, libertarians aren’t his only fans.
Thanks for reading!
We certainly wouldn’t want to keep someone here who didn’t feel they belonged. I’m sure the rest of the forum will be just as uninteresting and full of logical fallacies. It couldn’t possibly be a case of anomalous bickering among members (half of them new). Of course as the only libertarian here…(not)
