>Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist

I think Milo is a scumbag, personally, but where did he self-proclaim that he's a white supremacist?

>Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist

No, he didn't. His lawyer attempted to argue that he was during a lawsuit, as a defense against full culpability for his actions. Lawyers (understandably) try to pull out everything they can to help their client. There's no evidence Jones himself has ever said this or thinks this.

Although most of his non-watchers seem to think he's just a con artist, after watching a cumulative dozens of hours of him on camera over the years, I'm convinced it's not an act and that he genuinely believes pretty much everything he's saying (except for cases where he's attempting to do a comedy bit). Unfortunately, a lot of people in the US believe all of the things he believes - and not necessarily because they're hearing it from him. They all drink from the same watering holes. In my opinion, this is why it's actually a lot more frightening than con artistry or performance art.

These people are too smart to literally say “yes I am [the bad thing]”, but Milo is not exactly subtle about where his sympathies lie: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-h...

On episode #1682 he talks about both figures. He was saying he does feel a responsibility to vet his guests so that he doesn’t just have crazies using his platform to spew vile, but ultimately that neither figure harms anyone just by being a guest on a podcast. He talked about how even if you hate Alex or Milo, you can still gain something from listening to them speak. Maybe you can figure out why you hate them, or maybe listening to them directly will make you understand them in a different light.

Maybe this is a 1990s George Carlin thing to say, but so what if Milo offends people? Should we only be allowed to hear things that don’t offend us?

> Should we only be allowed to hear things that don’t offend us?

Absolutely not! That said, I also believe in intolerance of intolerance but don't have any good answers on how that is best played out.

> I also believe in intolerance of intolerance

I also like being able to justify intolerance towards anyone I want by labeling them "intolerant". Same as only caring about those I want to care about and only supporting free speech that I agree with. Makes everything much easier.

It can often be challenging to determine intent in written form, and more so in a forum context, but that reads as incredibly passive aggressive.

I'd be happy to debate this further if you were willing to do so in good faith rather than intentionally twisting my words. Otherwise, you can label me as "anti-free speech" and call it a day having won the war for freedom on the internet.

It wasn't just those two people. https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ikf9at/full_list_...

Also how do you know that either of those people are what others have told you they are? If you're unable to listen to them because they've been depersoned everywhere, you have no way of knowing if they're truly as represented or have been character assassinated. I'm not trying to convince you that either of them aren't who you think they are (from what I've seen, you're not far off) but rather have you see that you could be wrong about them (or others in the future) if you are not allowed to hear them first hand and only get views of them filtered through others.

I would be thrilled if both of those people simply ceased to exist, but I think it's dishonest to delete and "forget" old episodes of a show because you later decide that the guests on those episodes were terrible people.

(I don't consider it material that presumably Spotify required deleting them as part of the deal. Rogan agreed to those terms, so clearly the money was more important to him.)

I’m hesitant to delete something from public consumption just because it’s offensive or not liked.

To be fair, Milo was pretty thought provoking.

>Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist

Pretty sure he said that while married to a black dude, so unless you can come up with something specific I think its comedy/trolling.

Right, so don't listen to those episodes. I, on the other hand, like hearing both sides so I can make an informed decision on why I disagree with whomever.

'So and so is bad, I heard it from X' has never been good for any human society.

Pretending the episodes don't exist is rewriting history.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

Personal point- if I saw Alex Jones personally I would not want to be him. He has, for his own enrichment, destroyed personal relationships, caused me endless arguments with friends/family and is a walking detrament to society. I hate with a passion the garbage he spews to sell some garbage fake pills. But I still believe he has a right to be heard.

We need to educate people not shelter them.

Nobody has a right to be heard. He has a right to speak. People like Rogan have a megaphone and are choosing who to give it to. Would you choose Alex Jones?

Sure, Alex Jones is a crackpot but why should you, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to prevent others from speaking to an audience that has decided to listen?

What do you expect to happen when the balance of power, majority opinion, etc inevitably shifts and we find ourselves on the other side?

I don't think we should choose who gets to speak. What happens when you end up on the wrong-thinking side?

If you want to play the pedant fine, he has a right to speak.

But if people like you would stop judging who gets to speak and where we wouldn't have to depend on Joe Rogan's megaphone, now would we?

What happened? Liberalism used to have a solid footing on the essentials of the constitution. If your enemies or people you don't like don't have rights, you don't either. The ACLU used to understand this probably better than most organizations and today, like much of CA and NY, they're lost.

> The ACLU used to understand this probably better than most organizations and today, like much of CA and NY, they're lost

This is a line I've read from texts dating back to at least 1973 by conservative authors, nearly verbatim.

I think cultural mores change and conservatives have a hard time adapting.

Alternatively, they've simply been dishonest with themselves since just after WWII -- start with the nonsense about FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to happen -- because they believe the ends justify the means.

He's not white supremacists. He openly says he prefers black men and has on several podcasts. He's just not a typical gay man so he gets villified.