• Krauerking@lemy.lolOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Both sides are getting their clippable audio snippets and dragging around audiences to feel like they are fighting with them.

    I truly don’t agree that platforming extremists to argue against them for publicity and money is ever worth it. The sides lean against each other to grow larger and these are people who it is in their financial interests to not change their opinion. And religion debates are not productive, those are personal and faith based. Can’t argue someone rationally out of something that wasnt rationally entered.

    You asked about qnaline, not Tucker.

    • bootleg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I was talking about the “playful banter with the most evil people in the world” text when I gave the Tucker Carlson example.

      Their religion debates are mostly against evangelicals and biblical literalists, who generally do think that their beliefs are rational, so an in-depth deconstruction is really beneficial, a lot of the time not to the caller but to the impartial layperson viewer.

      I understand your criticism here, but also one can’t make do without the opposition making some content like this, especially when this sphere is dominated by uneducated right-wingers like Joe Rogan.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lolOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I understand fighting fire with fire, but dont mind me while I dont praise the arsonists.