Danny Roddy Possibly Censored RP On The Authoritarian Interview ?

[jaguar43]

Regarding the interview on authoritarianism, Ray Peat mentions the philosopher Hegel at 18:34 minutes. I was surprise to hear his name because he was never mentioned in the interview. I was even more surprise that he categorized Hegel along with Plato and Parmenides. Since he spoke unfavorably of the latter I was shock that he named Hegel without talking about his position or philosophy. At first I thought that it might have been a fluke or something. But after listening to the interview again, something felt off about the whole situation. The length of the interview seem short in relation with the other interviews. Topics seem scattered and not fluid compared to the Herb doctors. So I emailed Ray Peat on the subject. I will post the email exchange below.

Q: In an interview on authoritarianism, you seem to categorize Hegel along with Plato and Parmenides.You explained the philosophical positions of Plato and Parmenides but you didn't go into depth of Hegel's positions on philosophy. At a certain point of the interview you reference Hegel in a way that seemed like you already talked about his philosophical position. Did you discuss Hegel in the interview by chance ? Or was it something you thought on the spot. Was there more to the interview that was possibly left out by the interviewer ?

A: I think he does edit the interviews; I’ve mentioned Hegel in some of the things that Danny has read.

Q: Do you remember roughly how long the interview went ?

A: No

Ray Peat thinks that since Danny has read his stuff on Hegel, then it wasn't necessary to leave that part in the interview. It doesn't make sense to remove segments from it though.

Because we don't know for sure that some parts were removed, then it's shouldn't be speculated. However, if it was the case, then I would be disappointed. I can't speak for everyone, but I think that stuff is interesting and that it should be left intact for the integrity of the interview.

What do you guys think ? Is it possible that the interview was censored ? Should the situation be dealt with further ?

 

[Pointless]

I doubt that Danny censors the interviews in order to distort Ray's political or philosophical views. How would he stand to gain from that? Ray doesn't seem concerned. If it bugs you, why not send Danny an email and ask him about editing his interviews? Be straightforward but polite. Your email to Ray beats around bush.

 

[jaguar43]

I doubt that Danny censors the interviews in order to distort Ray's political or philosophical views. How would he stand to gain from that? Ray doesn't seem concerned. If it bugs you, why not send Danny an email and ask him about editing his interviews? Be straightforward but polite. Your email to Ray beats around bush.

How does it beat around the bush ? Are you referring to the way I wrote the email ? Or that I email Ray Peat in the first place instead of Roddy ?

I asked here because I would like to get the members opinion and provide the facts as I know them. I want to see what the members think of the situation. To be honest, I don't if I will ask Danny Roddy. I want to see what people think.

Sure, for Ray Peat it might not seem concerning. But for us who follow him, it's interesting and important.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I don't know if DR edits out certain things that Peat has said in his interviews but I know that I've been censored here and other places online where there is a Peat discussion where I actually quoted RP himself yet I was still censored because the people didn't like those specific RP quotes because it goes against what they believe about a certain food. It's so weird. Even if there are contradicting quotes about certain foods going both ways, they still don't want to see the ones that contradict the ones they like.

 

[milk_lover]

oh here we go again lool. I have seen all this drama on another thread already. What's your lamb with Danny? You don't like that he charges people on RP's ideas? I think he offers a book for free and has many informative youtube videos for free. He helps spread the work of RP to the general public. I don't see any harm in that. He seems chill and nice.

 

[jaguar43]

oh here we go again lool. I have seen all this drama on another thread already. What's your lamb with Danny? You don't like that he charges people on RP's ideas? I think he offers a book for free and has many informative youtube videos for free. He helps spread the work of RP to the general public. I don't see any harm in that. He seems chill and nice.

Well, even though I disagree with some of the things he does. It's only my critique and thats pretty much it. I think this is a different type of animal though. Censorship shouldn't be tolerated in any fashion. Especially in regards to interviews or information that Ray Peat is a participatory .Imagine if someone got a hold of his articles and removed segments from them for whatever reason. I see this a possibility.

 

[milk_lover]

Well, even though I disagree with some of things he does. It's only my critique and that pretty much it. I think this is a different type of animal though. Censorship shouldn't be tolerated in any fashion. Especially in regards to interviews or information that Ray Peat is a participatory .Imagine if someone got a hold of his articles and took out somethings for whatever reason. I see this a possibility.

Ok I agree censorship is not great in general but do you think he did that intentionally and deliberately? I wish Danny could respond here on the forum on this matter. I believe he has an account here.

 

[jaguar43]

I don't know if DR edits out certain things that Peat has said in his interviews but I know that I've been censored here and other places online where there is a Peat discussion where I actually quoted RP himself yet I was still censored because the people didn't like those specific RP quotes because it goes against what they believe about a certain food. It's so weird. Even if there are contradicting quotes about certain foods going both ways, they still don't want to see the ones that contradict the ones they like.

Thats interesting. I can definitely see censorship as a problem. Ray Peat talks about scientific censorship in the U.S to the point of describing it as the most scientific censored country in the world. I think it's going to be important to keep an eye on Ray Peat's work so it stays unabridged.

 

[jaguar43]

Ok I agree censorship is not great in general but do you think he did that intentionally and deliberately? I wish Danny could respond here on the forum on this matter. I believe he has an account here.

Well, like I said in the OP there isn't much evidence on the matter so it shouldn't be speculated. But When he mentioned Hegel along with the others I found it strange because it assumes that he already talked about it in the interview; because he group Hegel with Plato and Parmenides ( which he did go into depth) Along with the interview being so short compared to the others. Why would Roddy set up an interview on the subject of Authoritarianism knowing that it's going to be interesting; and only have it last about thirty minutes ?I think it's suspicious.

I am pretty sure Ray Peat got the message. He would have told me if it was just a fluke. I think he assumes since Danny read his stuff on Hegel then he just decided not to include it in the interview. Again, I wouldn't know why he just wouldn't include the whole interview if it was the case.

 

[cantstoppeating]

Why haven't you emailed Danny and asked him?

Instead you first start a thread saying Danny possibly censored RP, then you email RP. Clearly, you have something against Danny.

 

[David PS]

For me, "possibly censored" is a loaded phrase. After all, everything is possible. I would prefer the term "intentionally censored?". And that question may be best answered by listening to the unedited version of the interview and then comparing the two versions.

Coincidentally, Dr. Mercola often posts 2 versions of the same interview on YouTube. Typically, there is short version about 30 minutes in length and then a longer unedited version (1.5 hours). The short version is often more than enough for me to understand the gist of the interview. I seldom watch the longer version. However, I like having the option to watch the longer version. I find simply having access to the longer version to be very empowering .

You (all) might consider posting a YouTube comment which requests that Danny also post an unedited version. I like to think that Danny will understand your desire to hear everything that Ray has said in an interview.

 

[schultz]

It seems like he just edits out long pauses and stuff like that. Ray tends to pause a lot in his speech and I think these are taken out to make the speech more fluid. I doubt he edits out actual material.

 

[jaguar43]

Why haven't you emailed Danny and asked him?

Instead you first start a thread saying Danny possibly censored RP, then you email RP. Clearly, you have something against Danny.

Because I am not associated with him. I don't know if he will even response to my email.

I think it was important to post the information on this forum. Let the members know the situation.

 

[jaguar43]

For me, "possibly censored" is a loaded phrase. After all, everything is possible. I would prefer the term "intentionally censored?". And that question may be best answered by listening to the unedited version of the interview and then comparing the two versions.

Coincidentally, Dr. Mercola often posts 2 versions of the same interview on YouTube. Typically, there is short version about 30 minutes in length and then a longer unedited version (1.5 hours). The short version is often more than enough for me to understand the gist of the interview. I seldom watch the longer version. However, I like having the option to watch the longer version. I find simply having access to the longer version to be very empowering .

You (all) might consider posting a YouTube comment which requests that Danny also post an unedited version. I like to think that Danny will understand your desire to hear everything that Ray has said in an interview.

The other two interviews Danny did were an hour long. Which seems reasonable, while this interview was around thirty minutes. But I think your right, if someone edited's an interview then it's important to post the longer one as well.

 

[Mufasa]

Uhmm... doesnt thing like these happen all the time? Editing so the youtube video is more fluent and interesting? What is the problem with that? I would be suprised if most of the interviews Danny does are completely unedited

 

[cantstoppeating]

Because I am not associated with him. I don't know if he will even response to my email.

I think it was important to post the information on this forum. Let the members know the situation.

You're not associated with Peat either, so why email him and not Danny?

There is no situation. There is only you thinking something and creating a big deal out of nothing.

You should have first emailed Danny to ask if he censored/edited the interview, then asked Peat, then posted something here.

You're trying to discredit Danny by not only insinuating something to Peat but then creating a highly charged thread on this forum about it. Anywhere else this is called slander, but it's the internet, so we call it trolling.

If you want the facts, like you say you do, email Danny and ask him directly.

 

[jaguar43]

You're not associated with Peat either, so why email him and not Danny?

There is no situation. There is only you thinking something and creating a big deal out of nothing.

You should have first emailed Danny to ask if he censored/edited the interview, then asked Peat, then posted something here.

You're trying to discredit Danny by not only insinuating something to Peat but then creating a highly charged thread on this forum about it. Anywhere else this is called slander, but it's the internet, so we call it trolling.

If you want the facts, like you say you do, email Danny and ask him directly.

I actually ask Danny a question a few years ago with no reply. Ray Peat replies to your questions. Usually people don't answer your emails if they don't know you. Is that so extraordinary ?

I think you are creating a false equivalence. In the email I sent to Ray I was clear about the whole situation. I didn't email him to discredit Danny, I wanted to know if what he said about Hegel was something he thought on the spot or actually something mentioned in the interview.Why would it be such a bad idea to ask Ray Peat first ? He was interviewed in it wasn't he ?

You may think that I trying to "insinuate" something here on this forum but I will tell you it isn't true. I guess people who are critical or ask questions are all trying to "insinuate" a situation. I don't think thats a good argument for not bringing this up on the forum.

Regardless if I am right or wrong ( I never said that he definitely censored Ray, but it's possible) regarding this topic. It's important that we try to keep Ray Peat's work as complete as possible. There is always the possibility of someone getting his work, and start "deleting" paragraphs or sounds bits for his own reasons. We should, at least, be aware of the implications.

 

[Tarmander]

Thank you for bringing this up, as I did not know that Danny was editing his videos. With that said, I have supported Danny for awhile, and I trust that he was editing for listening pleasure, not to censor one of Peat's ideas. I mean Peat is so far out there from the perspective of the establishment, what could he really say that Danny would go "oh man that hits close to the bone, gotta edit that out!" That is my thinking on it, but I am open to new information.

A mistake people often make on forums and with other people's content is that they think they have the same rights they have when they are on a park bench in central park.

Danny makes his content, and can really do whatever he likes to it. While it would be disingenuous, and lose a lot of his followers...he could say "I interviewed Peat and it was awesome, I am going to make a product from his recommendations and so I will not be releasing the interview." That would be suicide around these Peat parts, but he could do it if he wanted to.

Same with these forums. The name may say "Ray Peat," in the title, but they are privately owned. This is not your house, you are a guest. When you are a guest, you hold hands when the host says grace, even if you are an atheist. If the host says, "we do not talk about these things in my house," then you don't talk about those things. Or you leave, and get your own house where you make the rules. This is a little off topic, but it ties into sentiments this thread brings up, like somehow you have a right to people being honest and up front with you. With that said, you should definitely seek those people out, and give them your support. Thank you for bringing this up, it was good information. I am not so sure about the censorship claim, but could be wrong.

 

[jitsmonkey]

I can only think of 1,149,487 other more important things to be concerned with

 

[jaguar43]

Thank you for bringing this up, as I did not know that Danny was editing his videos. With that said, I have supported Danny for awhile, and I trust that he was editing for listening pleasure, not to censor one of Peat's ideas. I mean Peat is so far out there from the perspective of the establishment, what could he really say that Danny would go "oh man that hits close to the bone, gotta edit that out!" That is my thinking on it, but I am open to new information.

A mistake people often make on forums and with other people's content is that they think they have the same rights they have when they are on a park bench in central park.

Danny makes his content, and can really do whatever he likes to it. While it would be disingenuous, and lose a lot of his followers...he could say "I interviewed Peat and it was awesome, I am going to make a product from his recommendations and so I will not be releasing the interview." That would be suicide around these Peat parts, but he could do it if he wanted to.

Same with these forums. The name may say "Ray Peat," in the title, but they are privately owned. This is not your house, you are a guest. When you are a guest, you hold hands when the host says grace, even if you are an atheist. If the host says, "we do not talk about these things in my house," then you don't talk about those things. Or you leave, and get your own house where you make the rules. This is a little off topic, but it ties into sentiments this thread brings up, like somehow you have a right to people being honest and up front with you. With that said, you should definitely seek those people out, and give them your support. Thank you for bringing this up, it was good information. I am not so sure about the censorship claim, but could be wrong.

That is one of the reasons why I never ask Danny Roddy in the first place. Who am I to be asking him whether he left something out in the interview ? The whole direction Danny Roddy is going seems different than those who interviewed Ray Peat in the past. I have ask the guy from politics and science questions on certain interviews. I get a different vibe from others in my opinion.

It's true that Danny Roddy "owns" the content of the interview. But I think it's more complicated. If Ray Peat did the interview for free, then why would Danny be editing out footage since it doesn't cost anything to begin with ? I could perceive it differently if Ray Peat was paid and he took a more infomercial approach. But he provides a lot of his work for free and inexpensively.

If there was something that Danny believe was too "inappropriate" or politically incorrect as my right-wing friends would say, I still don't think that would be a valid reason. It's funny, in the interview with Brad and Jeremy, he literally ask them how do they criticize society without being political.