He went full alt right. This is likely owing to the deletion of podcasts with hate speech. Just FYI.
Knowing yourself is the first step. Thanks for the heads up.
Not very familiar with the guy but have heard him on other podcasts before, and did not expect there to be such widespread distaste for him here. Can you help sort me & others out?
They didn't seem to care that much about right-wing media doing exactly the same during all of Obama's presidency. In fact, they regularly would regurgitate their talking points and promoted ridiculous conspiracy theories, including Birtherism.
> They don't do this because they like or want to defend Trump, they do it because they want to point out the dishonesty in a lot of what passes for journalism these days.
Then you would expect them to cover such dishonest media outlets as OANN, Fox News, The Blaze and Breitbart, right? And yet they've probably spent more time covering a single show (The View) than they have spent covering the full programming of all those outlets.
They can claim they deconstruct media all they want, but they can't claim they have 'no agenda'.
They defend Trump at every turn and only hold his feet to the fire for things like “Tweeting too much.” You need only look to the subreddit for the show to see those that fell off over the years owing to their alt right turn. Let’s not pretend this is some accusation you’ve never heard before.
As the other replier said, they constantly and consistently repeated the Obama birtherism nonsense. Now they defend Trump. There is a throughline there, you just don’t want to see it.
Free speech won't and doesn't survive contact with the human race without an effective defence, and history shows merely counting on people to use more free speech leaves free speech and democracy open to coordinated brute force attacks.
So is the great firewall of China.
Russia chills speech with assassinations.
Nearly all your examples are proving the opposite of your point.
The point is that merely thinking saying free speech should be free is not enough. As you well illustrate, the debate on what exactly free speech is means we need to define what falls outside of it very clearly.
This is ahistorical. The only "censorship," they faced before they were granted power were in response to an attempted coup. They were radicalized prior to any censorship.
There's just something that doesn't sit right with me about indicating that censorship lead to a radicalization of Nazis. Violent anti-Semitism has eternally been a problem in Europe and both Austrian and German nationalist parties were entrenched in such conspiracy. It was always a violent movement.
It’s been shown that fake information travels farther and faster than accurate information.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/false-news-travels-6-ti...
My grandfather used to tell me stories about his time speechifying the Nazis in Europe. Thank goodness Hitler was receptive to logical, well-sourced arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I totally against allowing hate speech to be tolerated for this matter. Hitler was able to grow his power (and promoted hatred) while speech was still free. Once he had enough power, he reduced the freedom of speech. This is a counter example of how the paradox is real and hate is not necessarily overcome with more freedom.
Alt right is a term coined by Richard Spencer, who advocates for a white ethno state. Can you please post a link of Adam Curry advocating for this or holding similar positions?
EDIT: I am aware HN etiquette is not to complain about downvotes, but it does seem very old that asking for evidence of a very serious accusation is downvoted. For those unfamiliar with the term - Wikipedia (which is generally considered left wing) states:
> Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white nationalism, white supremacism, white separatism, right-wing populism, tight immigration restrictions, racism, anti-communism, anti-Zionism, holocaust denial, xenophobia, antisemitism, antifeminism, homophobia, and islamophobia.
If you have evidence of Curry holding the more extreme positions in that list (ie, excluding anti communism etc) that would be relevant too.
Or, are you under the impression that the media is truly independent and always tells the full truth in an unbiased manner, that no alternative media organization has ever legitimately exposed even a single mainstream narrative that was less than truthful?
How you can determine what I am or am not conflating based on my statement about a single media property and the guy behind it is beyond me.
We get it. You’re a fan. You don’t want to be a fan of an alt right guy. That’s your conundrum to work out, not mine.
I was just asking, as there are people that truly seem to believe the "mainstream" media is indeed truthful. Some of my relatives, for example.
Some people think that this means they're "alt right", but all that means is that they don't know what "alt right" actually is at all. Both Curry and Dvorak are very classically liberal people, American individualists or perhaps libertarians, which is a totally different political theory than fascism. Of course, most people have no idea what "fascism" is, which is why they feel comfortable calling Totalitarian Liberalism fascism as though there were no differences.
Beyond that, and returning to the actual subject at hand, there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show. Perhaps in the early days. It has long since devolved in to a Trump apologist show, regurgitating Fox News and Breitbart talking points. You need only look to see where else Curry has appeared.
The alt-right is basically fascism, no? I don't mean in the normal online accusatory fashion, I mean in the "literally fans of Mussolini" fashion.
Or maybe we mean two different groups of people? I'm thinking of the folks involved with Charlottesville, etc. as opposed to the "alt lite" which is Ben Shapiro / Sargon / Cernovich and their ilk, who are distinct in the sense that they ostensibly disavow racism etc. and are more classical liberalists.
> , there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show
That's a matter of opinion, I guess? I agree it has devolved since 2016, but there's still the occasional gem in there.
No Agenda does encourage you to think about the news in a more nuanced way. But it deliberately supresses nuance in how it discusses the people in the news. Most of the people they discuss are not given any benefit of the doubt ever. That is not enlightening at all.
Ultimately I think there style has far more to do with feeding the community and generating donations than anything political.
The 'purely media deconstruction' script was adopted when a Republican they liked became president. Suddenly the show became exclusively about criticizing the media's coverage of the Trump administration and all criticism of government was dropped or became about 'optics'.
Someone with a cynical streak would conclude that they always had an agenda.
Fighting Apples dominance in podcasting control has to be sympathetic to marxists like you?