As usual, and I am as guilty as anyone, things get slightly derailed in these discussions. Hence why I’m not here often.
The original post was not so much to get into these kinds of discussions, but rather to voice feedback to the show I heard.
I’ll repeat, what I heard was little about the book (other than a couple of examples of how Beck was an rear orifice back in the days), and lots about how the two speakers really did not like the man (duh!).
Unlike some other offerings, this podcast was a waste of my time, mostly because I learned absolutely nothing. I have a backlog of podcasts I could have chosen from, but I picked this specifically for the title, hoping to get ammunition for future discussions.
Yes, I could watch Beck, but I don’t have the time to do the kind of research needed to refute what he says. It’s one thing to point out logical fallacies, it’s another to then go on to prove whatever particular premise we are examining is completely lacking in merit. Many people inadvertently use arguments that are close to, if not outright logical fallacies in support of what may be a valid premise. True, Beck probably does it on purpose, but that still leaves the burden of disproving the premise.
Hence my interest in a potential book on the matter. The hope was for this show to be an intelligent, well reasoned podcast I could have others listen to, and be a point of discussion, maybe even leading to a book purchase and shared reading.
No such luck.
Now, I did make one mistake when I came here; I tried to explain why I found the show lacking. What I should have said was “It sucked!” or “DJ would have conducted a better interview, with less leading questions, and less personal opinions”. Then again, I don’t know that last part for a fact.
Anyway, thanks for the somewhat-trying-to-be-helpful feedback, but I was hoping to direct my comments more at the host and author . . . which I’m sure are not interested in hearing them.
p.s. @Gnostikosis - almost a good save there differentiating between intelligence and knowledge. I am not as pedantic as some when it comes to forum posts, so I look at what the tone and intent of the post might be, and yes, sometimes I misunderstand. In this case, my comment were directed at both you and the host and author, as they too implied a lack of fundamental reasoning skill in the part of Beck’s audience.
Assuming for a moment that you had in fact intended to differentiate intelligence from knowledge and reasoning skills, the fact remains should some of those poor people lacking knowledge and reasoning skills chance across the podcast and/or your post, I can almost guarantee they will miss the nuance, and just assume you guys are calling them stupid.
I don’t know you, but I imagine if such a comment was directed at you, you might not be inclined to parse the sentence, identify literal meanings, and arrive at what we now know is the correct meaning. You know, the meaning that says you are not stupid, you just lack knowledge and reasoning skills; a meaning I assume was not meant to be condemning, but rather to be taken as constructive criticism.
If indeed you would arrive at the correct conclusion, I bow and tip my hat to you . . . if I had a hat.