A 4-hour debate?
-
It could be entertaining if it were a simple debate with the podcasters and NO fed questions. But 4 hours? I don't know if I could stay with it that long.
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 19:53 last edited by@Friday said in A 4-hour debate?:
It could be entertaining if it were a simple debate with the podcasters and NO fed questions.
That was sort of the point. Nothing there other than live cameras, and three people in the room: Rogan, Teh Donald and Teh Joe.
It would be a hoot.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 20:07 last edited by
Biden won't do it, but if it became beneficial to posture like he could, but just doesn't want to, his team would deploy the Rogan-as-Alt-Right excuse.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 20:12 last edited by
Rogan? The guy who supported Bernie comes of as the "alt-right" excuse? That's a bit of a stretch, no?
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 20:33 last edited by
What's not a bit of a stretch when it comes to politically useful narratives? Rogan-as-Alt-Right is not unheard of as a thing left leaning tribalists nod to.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 20:44 last edited by
If I had to listen to Trump telling us how awesome he was for 4 hours, I'd open at least one vein, quite likely a few. They might not all belong to me.
-
If I had to listen to Trump telling us how awesome he was for 4 hours, I'd open at least one vein, quite likely a few. They might not all belong to me.
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 20:53 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in A 4-hour debate?:
If I had to listen to Trump telling us how awesome he was for 4
hoursyears, I'd open at least one vein, quite likely a few. They might not all belong to me.Fixed.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 21:02 last edited by
Thankfully, all my electrical devices have 'off buttons'. I'm a little surprised more people don't use them - they're freaking magical.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 21:22 last edited by
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 21:33 last edited by
I think about 10 minutes would be right
More than that wouldn't change anything
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 21:59 last edited by Klaus
I would watch that. The multiple hour stuff would be essential.
Rogan is pretty good at going deep, beyond the phrases and the bs.
-
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 22:09 last edited by@Axtremus said in A 4-hour debate?:
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
Why did you get taken in by whomever told you that Rogan is a "shock jock"? That's as divorced from reality as calling him alt-right is.
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
Rogan has 'moderated' long form debates before. Maybe even for debates you might respect, such as Jack Dorsey vs Tim Poole. He does fine.
-
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 22:27 last edited by@Axtremus said in A 4-hour debate?:
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
Ever listen to Joe?
He could do it.
Trump could do it.
Biden couldn't find the building without help.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 22:30 last edited by George K
I would listen to a "debate" moderated by
Sarah Palin's amateur gynecologistSullivan. The others?Nah.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 23:06 last edited by Mik
A debate of that length and format might well get into their real thinking, past the soundbites. When you get Trump taking about a lot of subjects in depth you find out that he knows quite a bit.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:21 last edited by
It is interesting that the "original" debates, such as between President Lincoln and Senator Douglas, the first person would speak for 1 hour, the second person would reply for 1.5 hours, and then the 1st person would re-reply for 0.5 hours.
Total was 3 hours.
I think that something like that would not work in todays world. Most people have the small attention span. LOL
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:22 last edited by
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:29 last edited by
Personal communication was much more important then. Hell, if you look at the letters they wrote, thye were long winded too.
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:31 last edited by@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
I remember hearing that. At the time of the speech from Lincoln, and just afterwards, he was almost forgotten. Such a short speech, the people there had no idea it would become one of the most famous speeches ever.
A couple of years ago, a historian found the only known picture of President Lincoln at Gettysburg. I thought it was an interesting story.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:32 last edited by
They had no idea how many students would have to memorize it.
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:46 last edited by@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
