Comics Creators

Diversity in Modern Society


Yeah, that’s where I heard about it. I’d marked it down as one to skip but am glad I listened to it.


Not even that, Antarctic Press was just going to help with distribution, Meyer had already crowdfunded the money he claimed he’d need to produce, print and ship the books himself, and then reached out to AP.


Heh, I’ve seen that Waid’s list with Vikram name on it. Among better known comic pros. Anyway, I don’t appreciate what Waid does (is he related to Mark Zaid? XD), but I don’t appreciate what EVS did for Meyer, either. It’s all unnecessary drama; and as Robert said - makes me don’t wanna read comics.

To be honest, we wouldn’t talk about Jawbreakers or this lawsuit if the guy behind it isn’t “that D&C guy”.


It’s interesting - I follow a colleague of Pluckrose’s on Twitter and catch bits and pieces of what they’re up to.

Of course these are such niche fields that it’s silly to compare the standards that apply to them with those that apply to “hard sciences” like climate science.

He’s mentioned here often, and a work colleague enjoys listening to his show - but there’s a case to be made that he’s a gateway to the alt-right, no?


How so? Rogan is pretty left-wing.


Joe Rogan is pretty left wing mostly when it comes to his own opinions. He can be a bit libertarian and distrust politicians in general though. He has had some very right wing people on though, and he likes to let them talk without challenging their views very much. He had Molyneux on for instance and Alex Jones.


He claims to be libertarian but also sees the need for government. He leans left on many social issues and says he is for universal basic income, although he also says he is somewhat fiscally conservative. I have always viewed him as extremely left-leaning. A lot his beliefs align with mine and I am super left-leaning. He has all sorts of people on his podcast, left and right but I’ve never known him to do anything but nurture discussion. He doesn’t make a point of “challenging” anyone. He just lets them say their shit, for the most part. Nothing wrong with listening to opposing points of view.


Rogan is an entertainer but the character he plays in his public persona is not really very introspective. He doesn’t see the flaws in his guest’s arguments until well after the shows are over. If you’re really listening to someone then you will question them to get more clarity.

Essentially though he has about the same level of comprehension as most of the internet audience for those shows.

At heart, we have a high level of information flowing through media with a low level of understanding.


Don’t get me wrong, I like Rogan a lot. I like that he has so many unconvential guests, people who fall outside the mainstream and have something interesting to say.

But if you give these people the opportunity to display their opinions for 3 hours to tens of millions of people, it is better to not just let them ramble on without questioning some of their more controversial views. Rogan himself isn’t right wing, but I understand why people would claim the show can be a gateway to the alt right for some. As a listener you have to have a skeptical attitude to what the people on the show are saying.


I get the feeling Rogan thinks he’s smarter than he is. That’s why he’s not having a challenging conversation with his guests, it’s more just a platform for all sorts of ideas. I think that helps him identify with his audience who want to hear different ideas but not be told what to think of them. He’s different from Colbert or Stewart in that regard who are clearly smarter than most of their guests but hammer in their viewpoints. Rogan knows enough to get interesting people on but not enough to joust with them.

Just letting someone talk and trusting individuals to draw their own conclusions is a pretty mature way to handle discussion these days. I can see why he’s so successful.


I’ve watched hundreds and hundreds of his podcasts and I don’t think they’ve really affected my political views much. I will always vote left. (In Canada we sort of have two left parties and one right.) I will always vote for the parties that help those in need, not the one that lines the pockets of the rich. I am all for strong social programs. Tax away. I also think that both the extreme left, and the extreme right, are ridiculous, annoying and dangerous. While I enjoy the opposing viewpoints on Rogan’s podcast, no matter how many of those opposing viewpoints I agree with, I will never vote conservative. I doubt they’re changing many minds. People in the alt-right were already assholes before all this started.


That’s a good point. I do think “deplatforming” is generally not a very good thing. It is better to be exposed to as wide an array of different opinions as possible. It gives a better impression of what is going on in society and it can create understanding between people who have disagreements, which could prevent conflict.


To a point - clearly if someone suggested giving a Nazi a 30 minute prime-time slot in the interests of “enough rope”, they should be shouted down.


Nazis don’t need 30 minutes, 3 minutes is enough for everyone to see how dumb they are.


And yet many don’t see that.

Nazi is a powerful word, that’s why the term ‘Alt Right’ has come along; to remove that label from people would’ve joined the actual Nazi party back in the 30’s.

Analysis is required. Challenging the ideas is required. Helping people remember the lessons of history is required. Reminding of the facts is required.

Sitting back and letting Nazis talk is lazy and dangerous.


Part of the problem, I think, is the pursuit of ‘balance’. Increasingly there’s a sense in journalism that if you’re presenting one point of view then you always have to balance it with an opposing point of view, and give the two equal weight.

Which, when the initial point of view is something fairly reasonable that most people would agree with, obviously risks legitimising an opposing extreme point of view by letting it stand on an equal footing.

At the same time, I agree that you want these extreme views to be aired so that people can see how self-evidently awful they are. But yes, they then need to be actively challenged rather than just left to stand, or again you risk legitimising them further.


It’s an interesting experiment, but I doubt it actually proves what they meant it to prove. Excerpts from their work show how easy it is to understand that it’s nonsense, so it’s not like it’s not discernable from other works in those fields, which seems to be the point that they’re aiming for. They also made up false research for their papers, so what we’re talking about is a deliberate intentional fake (able to pass a very superficial check in a way that pure nonsense wouldn’t), in contrast to just nonsensical work (which their point seems to be that all research in those areas is supposed to be?).

On the other hand, it’s definitely embarrassing how easily fooled those journals were, so it definitely does show a lack of rigor in examining papers that are sent in, so it mainly show gaps in the academic publishing process. Those are not a huge surprise though.

That the pressure to publish has led to problematic effects in all fields isn’t new; for a while, for example, there’s been the problem of “predatory publishers”, pseudo-magazines that will publish anything and try to make themselves as indistinguishable from serious publishers as possible, so that researchers get their stuff more easily published (for money).

This is a practice that has been established by now in all fields, it has to be said, and it’s become harder to distinguish between proper research and vanity research, not to mention lobbyism.

It’s a bit of a shame that the hoax was restricted to fields those guys have a personal problem with, really, because it would’ve been interesting to see how many hoax papers you would be able to get into journals in other fields.


For the West nazis are the big evil menace since it is the latest great societal danger we had to face. There was the cold war of course but that effected our lives less directly. In other countries I think the taboo of nazi symbolism and the obsession with the idea is less prominent. There was some publicity a while ago for all the nazi and Hitler imagery found in Thailand.

I think the kind of racist nationalism of nazi Germany is a thing of history in the West. They’re a lunatic fringe at best. Between Western Europe and the US, Canada and Australia I think the cultural and political differences are small, Trump notwithstanding, we seem to have embraced a kind of cultural liberalism with a mostly capitalist economy.

Nevertheless the authoritarian impulse is always something to keep on the lookout for.


I think that in public appearance, there is a difference between interviewing some on the street and talk show. When you are reporter, you don’t challenge someone’s views (even that may be a mass murderer), opposing to talk show where you really have to ask some questions.


He pushes back on things he disagrees with, he just doesn’t let the conversation devolve into a shit throwing contest like on cable news.