Whether or not you're "unfiltered" does not change the fact that the selection of topics and personnel is in their hands to shape society in the hateful way they want to shape. You'd have to be more strict and demand that they also air your viewpoints that don't fit their agenda, otherwise you're just being used for their own purposes.
Thanks for going on the show even though I know you have your disagreements. This is one of the most widely watched shows on TV. We need to engage with all sides of the political spectrum if we want to educate the masses!
If I was you, I'd be sure to bring the topic of signaling up more. Education is ultimately very useful, but education can come from anywhere. The degree system fails to acknowledge that, and ultimately diminishes every other form of education. What we need is a model that cares less about how you got your education. While that's not the only issue at play here, I think this one by itself would provide quite a lot of mileage in terms of solving some of the other problems.
For example, it would be less problematic to suggest that college wasn't for everyone, if that suggestion didn't carry with it the almost absolute suggestion that a significant number of jobs were also "not for everyone". But when this one specific choice is given so much nearly permanent weight to future choices, it's not all surprising that there's a lot of resistance toward it not being universal.
Carlson to some degree says things like this, but it's wrapped in an offensive form. In this case I use "offensive" to mean he's on the attack, that he's denigrating colleges and suggesting that everyone there is wasting their time, but you could probably also apply the brush of "offensive" in terms of just generally angering people too.
People who spend 4 years at a college are not wasting their time. College, does not make you dumber. But, it is possible there are many other paths which would have made you as smart or smarter. The degree system doesn't acknowledge that. In addition, there are other advantage to those other alternatives, like doing something productive during that time and not being dependent in a way that's only reasonable to ask for repayment of.
Carlson however likes to suggest liberal arts studies make you dumber, which takes a reasonable argument and extends it past reason to the point that it's now comical, offensive, and wrong.
If what we do as society is make it harder for people to get credentials, but at the same time, allow those with credentials to use them to exclude others.. that seems a bad choice to me. If on the other hand, we create a more inclusive and flexible system of recognizing skills, and deliberately support those that take alternative paths, then we can stop over-emphasizing that singular path.
Fans of Tucker Carlson (essentially, a sadistic comedian allowing viewers to live vicariously as a “punisher”) fancy that he’s working hard to “tell the truth” just like dillusioned fans of any wacky left-wing entertainer also works to “tell the truth” to their own legions of disciples. Tucker is not credible. Even Bryan Caplan knows this but he’s running an enterprising side business now, subsidized by his day job. Incentives matter most.
This is a major bummer -- to see that Bryan Caplan is not too busy to graciously kiss the ring of such a polarizing, anti-intellectual media grifter, particularly today just after he made his audacious (yet deflecting) argument against Richard Haninas recent post. I’m wondering when I’m supposed to start feeling bad for him. I like many of his ideas, but politics seems to have deranged him enough to to jump headlong into the fray. Good night.
So far you have confirmed my bias as the reasons for viewing Tuck as a <i> Network</i>-esque public self parody reflect as well on your apologetics on his behalf.
The possibility of a chance encounter with a professional wrestler turning out as a civil conversation about role playing in the performing arts somehow does not encourage me to nominate them to run for Governor or the National Council on the Humanities— What would the Romans who banned actors, whores, and gladiators from poling places make of him?
I wish Tucker had asked more probing questions about the reasons for the pay gap. To really dig into the gender differences on flexible work. But I'm thrilled to see you on this national stage.
I'm probably not going to sign up to watch the whole interview.
Was there any place where you guys disagreed or enlightened one another?
It would not surprise me if both of you are against academia and feminism. I don't watch TV news but from what I know of Tucker outside of immigration I'd imagine you guys line up for the most part.
Looking forward to seeing you again on Tucker. He's a good interviewer. I take heart listening to the "inteligencia" hate Tucker. It means he's getting to them with the truth in most cases.
> I know that many readers hold Tucker in low regard.
That's on overstatement. One of the most based and insightful humans alive.
>I know that many readers hold Tucker in low regard.
That's an understatement. One of the most loathsome and hateful humans alive.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/12/1098488908/has-tucker-carlson-created-the-most-racist-show-in-the-history-of-cable-news
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/28/tucker-carlson-fox-news-2022-russia-putin-testosterone
Whether or not you're "unfiltered" does not change the fact that the selection of topics and personnel is in their hands to shape society in the hateful way they want to shape. You'd have to be more strict and demand that they also air your viewpoints that don't fit their agenda, otherwise you're just being used for their own purposes.
You persuaded me to subscribe.
Watching it.
Loving it. You're both on your game.
Congrats Bryan!
I'm very happy to hear that you'll be on Tucker's show. This is definitely one way that the provocative title can pay off.
Thanks for going on the show even though I know you have your disagreements. This is one of the most widely watched shows on TV. We need to engage with all sides of the political spectrum if we want to educate the masses!
It's great that you get to share your message with such a large audience. I look forward to watching!
If I was you, I'd be sure to bring the topic of signaling up more. Education is ultimately very useful, but education can come from anywhere. The degree system fails to acknowledge that, and ultimately diminishes every other form of education. What we need is a model that cares less about how you got your education. While that's not the only issue at play here, I think this one by itself would provide quite a lot of mileage in terms of solving some of the other problems.
For example, it would be less problematic to suggest that college wasn't for everyone, if that suggestion didn't carry with it the almost absolute suggestion that a significant number of jobs were also "not for everyone". But when this one specific choice is given so much nearly permanent weight to future choices, it's not all surprising that there's a lot of resistance toward it not being universal.
Carlson to some degree says things like this, but it's wrapped in an offensive form. In this case I use "offensive" to mean he's on the attack, that he's denigrating colleges and suggesting that everyone there is wasting their time, but you could probably also apply the brush of "offensive" in terms of just generally angering people too.
People who spend 4 years at a college are not wasting their time. College, does not make you dumber. But, it is possible there are many other paths which would have made you as smart or smarter. The degree system doesn't acknowledge that. In addition, there are other advantage to those other alternatives, like doing something productive during that time and not being dependent in a way that's only reasonable to ask for repayment of.
Carlson however likes to suggest liberal arts studies make you dumber, which takes a reasonable argument and extends it past reason to the point that it's now comical, offensive, and wrong.
If what we do as society is make it harder for people to get credentials, but at the same time, allow those with credentials to use them to exclude others.. that seems a bad choice to me. If on the other hand, we create a more inclusive and flexible system of recognizing skills, and deliberately support those that take alternative paths, then we can stop over-emphasizing that singular path.
Fans of Tucker Carlson (essentially, a sadistic comedian allowing viewers to live vicariously as a “punisher”) fancy that he’s working hard to “tell the truth” just like dillusioned fans of any wacky left-wing entertainer also works to “tell the truth” to their own legions of disciples. Tucker is not credible. Even Bryan Caplan knows this but he’s running an enterprising side business now, subsidized by his day job. Incentives matter most.
This is a major bummer -- to see that Bryan Caplan is not too busy to graciously kiss the ring of such a polarizing, anti-intellectual media grifter, particularly today just after he made his audacious (yet deflecting) argument against Richard Haninas recent post. I’m wondering when I’m supposed to start feeling bad for him. I like many of his ideas, but politics seems to have deranged him enough to to jump headlong into the fray. Good night.
You'll definitely be preaching to the choir by talking to Tucker but I look forward to seeing the whole interview.
So far you have confirmed my bias as the reasons for viewing Tuck as a <i> Network</i>-esque public self parody reflect as well on your apologetics on his behalf.
The possibility of a chance encounter with a professional wrestler turning out as a civil conversation about role playing in the performing arts somehow does not encourage me to nominate them to run for Governor or the National Council on the Humanities— What would the Romans who banned actors, whores, and gladiators from poling places make of him?
I wish Tucker had asked more probing questions about the reasons for the pay gap. To really dig into the gender differences on flexible work. But I'm thrilled to see you on this national stage.
I'm probably not going to sign up to watch the whole interview.
Was there any place where you guys disagreed or enlightened one another?
It would not surprise me if both of you are against academia and feminism. I don't watch TV news but from what I know of Tucker outside of immigration I'd imagine you guys line up for the most part.
Looking forward to seeing you again on Tucker. He's a good interviewer. I take heart listening to the "inteligencia" hate Tucker. It means he's getting to them with the truth in most cases.