Danny Roddy Possibly Censored RP On The Authoritarian Interview ?

[jaa]

I can't be too paranoid, if Ray Peat thinks he edited the interview. Regardless, of the situation I never thought as Danny maliciously trying to hide something from us. Because I don't know for certain that he did or didn't. What I am worried about is the uncritical tone of the conversation towards the OP.

I think using the word censor rather than edit conveys a perceived malicious intent which seems laughably unlikely. Danny is promoting Ray Peat to censor him because why? I'm sure you can come up with some reasons, but they are greatly outnumbered in magnitude and likelihood to the reasons why he would want to edit his podcast for benign reasons. People are not being critical because a witch hunt is a waste of time.

 

[jaguar43]

I think using the word censor rather than edit conveys a perceived malicious intent which seems laughably unlikely. Danny is promoting Ray Peat to censor him because why? I'm sure you can come up with some reasons, but they are greatly outnumbered in magnitude and likelihood to the reasons why he would want to edit his podcast for benign reasons. People are not being critical because a witch hunt is a waste of time.

So let's get something straight. You think that Ray Peat's opinion on Hegel is benign ? Unimportant maybe ? Because if thats the case, then you should just say so.

I mean, I didn't post this because he edited things out like pauses, or interruptions. I post it because there is a possibility of deliberate removal of CONTENT.

Even Ray seems to imply that since Roddy read his stuff on Hegel. That it was a possibility of him leaving it out. I don't think thats a good enough reason. And I don't think I was misleading in the email sent to him.

 

[ravster02]

but what does ja rule think about all this?

 

[jaa]

So let's get something straight. You think that Ray Peat's opinion on Hegel is benign ? Unimportant maybe ? Because if thats the case, then you should just say so.

I mean, I didn't post this because he edited things out like pauses, or interruptions. I post it because there is a possibility of deliberate removal of CONTENT.

Even Ray seems to imply that since Roddy read his stuff on Hegel. That it was a possibility of him leaving it out. I don't think thats a good enough reason. And I don't think I was misleading in the email sent to him.

So you don't think Danny should be allowed to edit his own podcast? That's pretty uhhh I can't find the word it's on the tip of my tongue...

As long as Danny's not editing things to misrepresent Ray's views, I don't see the problem. You seem to be the only one who does. Maybe you can start an uncensored Ray Peat on Hegel podcast.

but what does ja rule think about all this?

At this point he may be the only person who can get through to jag

 

[jaguar43]

So you don't think Danny should be allowed to edit his own podcast? That's pretty uhhh I can't find the word it's on the tip of my tongue...

As long as Danny's not editing things to misrepresent Ray's views, I don't see the problem. You seem to be the only one who does. Maybe you can start an uncensored Ray Peat on Hegel podcast.





At this point he may be the only person who can get through to jag

Do you know Roddy personally? Are you guys friends or something ? The blind allegiance to him is kinda scary in my opinion. I guess when people "rock the boat" those who's perspectives are questioned will react defensively and rely on slander to support their argument.

So don't I think Danny should be able edit his own podcast ? Well first of all, my criticism isn't based on his entire podcast. But that specific interview. So here, you create the framework for the question that is already misleading my intentions. By making it seem like I am attacking his whole "work", I am the one who is perceived negatively.

So to answer the original question while keeping in mind what I wrote above, I think it's complicate. When someone does any interview, they should have a keen interest in keeping the interview as authentic as possible. I don't want to argue whether it's right or wrong, because that diverts the attention away from the original post. Which is, quiet frankly, another way to mislead.

When Ray Peat does an interview the interviewer should take it as a responsibility to be honest with the viewers. Even if he agrees or disagrees with what he says. Thats call integrity.

You say, well it's ok the remove parts of the interview as long Roddy doesn't misrepresent Ray Peat's ideas. What is the definition to misrepresent ? To mislead, or give a false account. When parts of an interview or article are remove, that is giving a false account. Because the whole is worth more than the sum of it's parts.

Like I said before, I may be wrong. But these things do happen and it might not be Roddy this time. But others in the future.

 

[jaa]

No. I do not know Roddy personally. I have no dog in this fight. I am simply stating what I think is reasonable. Going after one of the main driving forces of getting Peat's ideas out there with accusations of censorship seems very unreasonable. Editing a podcast to omit information if it's not consistent with the theme a producer wants is not always censorship. It seems highly unlikely that censorship is the case here. That does not mean it's 100% not the case here. Maybe Peat's philosophical musings are something Danny wanted his listeners not to hear for his own devious agenda. Keep chasing those strings to nowhere and wasting your time. I've wasted enough of mine.

 

[Mufasa]

really yes it is totally normal to cut parts of interviews... for whatever reason

but uhm, so this is all about you really want to know peats opinion about hagel, and Danny Roddy is giving you a hard time in this mission of yours?

nowhere else you can find peats opinion of hagel? have you thought about emailing ray peat?

Dear Raymond Peat,

I would really love to know your opinion about Hagel. Where can I read more about this?

 

[jaguar43]

really yes it is totally normal to cut parts of interviews... for whatever reason

but uhm, so this is all about you really want to know peats opinion about hagel, and Danny Roddy is giving you a hard time in this mission of yours?

nowhere else you can find peats opinion of hagel? have you thought about emailing ray peat?

Dear Raymond Peat,

I would really love to know your opinion about Hagel. Where can I read more about this?

Well, why does he have to cut out parts of the interview ? I think this is a better question. No one seems to imply, that if he cut out Ray Peat's ideas on Hegel, Then it's possible he cut more stuff within the interview.

According to Dan Wich, Roddy ran out of questions thats the reason why the interview was so short. But then why would he cut parts of the interview if time permits it ? Why would he make it even shorter by cutting out parts ?

I think a lot of things don't add up. Sure, it's normal to cut things from a interviews, But to cut footage of Ray Peat speaking is certainly suspicious. Did he think it wasn't interesting enough, And if so why didn't he cut the part of Parmenides or Plato instead ? A lot of unanswered questions.

 

[jaguar43]

No. I do not know Roddy personally. I have no dog in this fight. I am simply stating what I think is reasonable. Going after one of the main driving forces of getting Peat's ideas out there with accusations of censorship seems very unreasonable. Editing a podcast to omit information if it's not consistent with the theme a producer wants is not always censorship. It seems highly unlikely that censorship is the case here. That does not mean it's 100% not the case here. Maybe Peat's philosophical musings are something Danny wanted his listeners not to hear for his own devious agenda. Keep chasing those strings to nowhere and wasting your time. I've wasted enough of mine.

The argument that Danny Roddy wouldn't censor Ray Peat because he is trying promote his ideas isn't illogical. if the topic was on the thing that Danny Roddy is promoting from Ray Peat. But the interview wasn't on nutrition or health. But Authoritarianism, politics and social issues. Danny Roddy seems to imply that he is apolitical. To the point of asking Brad and Jermey how do they criticize society without being political. I think this is suspicious and a reason why he might of cut some things from the interview.

Danny Roddy is now selling his "services" by "coaching" people. Getting donations and fee's from his Patreon page. If he had an interview with the person who provides his whole theoretical understand of health and science, say things that are deemed by the public as blasphemy or "offensive". Then it could cut into his ability to fund his "research" as he calls it.

Since the interview was already political in nature, the things he cut out were probably exactly those things that are considered blasphemy in the U.S culture. Which would mean they would be the most interesting part of the interview.

 

[cantstoppeating]

...

Danny Roddy is now selling his "services" by "coaching" people. Getting donations and fee's from his Patreon page. If he had an interview with the person who provides his whole theoretical understand of health and science, say things that are deemed by the public as blasphemy or "offensive". Then it could cut into his ability to fund his "research" as he calls it.

...

So now we're getting somewhere. You don't like that Danny is getting paid for his efforts.

Are you jealous of Danny?

 

[jaguar43]

So now we're getting somewhere. You don't like that Danny is getting paid for his efforts.

Are you jealous of Danny?

Cherry picking post I see, I think it says more about the blind alliance to him than anything else. But I guess when people have their beliefs questioned, they rely on slander for arguments.

Why not try to response to my argument instead of picking out lines and taking them out of context.

 

[jaguar43]

It's funny, I some how, have turned into the bad person in all of this. Instead of the members on this thread questioning whether Danny Roddy actually censored parts of the interview. Their argument has taken a form of character assassination against me. And a totally disregard for Ray Peat's opinion on certain matters.

They say, "it doesn't matter if he removed parts of the interview; we don't care." "We only care when someone questions Danny Roddy." It's funny, they accuse me of having something against Roddy, But what do they have in favor of Roddy ? Why do they insist on changing the subject and questioning my intentions ? If it was never an issue, why post anything on the thread to begin with ?

 

[narouz]

It's funny, I some how, have turned into the bad person in all of this. Instead of the members on this thread questioning whether Danny Roddy actually censored parts of the interview. Their argument has taken a form of character assassination against me. And a totally disregard for Ray Peat's opinion on certain matters.

They say, "it doesn't matter if he removed parts of the interview; we don't care." "We only care when someone questions Danny Roddy." It's funny, they accuse me of having something against Roddy, But what do they have in favor of Roddy ? Why do they insist on changing the subject and questioning my intentions ? If it was never an issue, why post anything on the thread to begin with ?

I don't think you're a bad person for it, jag. :>)
If Roddy did cut out some parts, and those parts were about Hegel...
what are the shapes of the suspicions you might possibly have about that?

 

[milk_lover]

I don't think you're a bad person for it, jag. :>)
If Roddy did cut out some parts, and those parts were about Hegel...
what are the shapes of the suspicions you might possibly have about that?

Thanks narouz for asking this question. I think this will lead to somewhere at least.. narouz, although you are a Clinton lover, I still appreciate your contributions on those intricate subjects

 

[narouz]

Thanks narouz for asking this question. I think this will lead to somewhere at least.. narouz, although you are a Clinton lover, I still appreciate your contributions on those intricate subjects

Well thank you, milk.
Actually I'm not "a Clinton lover."
It just seems like that given how I feel about the only other real option.
Actually, going back to the first time she ran,
I felt so tired of the Clintons.
A lot of that exhaustion isn't even their fault.
There is just so much old stuff attached to them--Whitewater, Kenneth Starr, Vince Foster, blah blah blah.
Almost none of that stuff was true.
But still...I'm so tired of the polarization: Clintons vs. The Crazy Conspiracy Right.
Also though: it is true that Clinton is not very inspiring.
Certainly not fresh.
Surely not an Outsider.

However: she is smart and experienced and thoughtful and learned and careful and decent and steady.
(Well okay, not so careful with the emails, d'oh)
She is not Donald Trump.
Therefore she seems like an angel, at this point in history.

 

[jaguar43]

I don't think you're a bad person for it, jag. :>)
If Roddy did cut out some parts, and those parts were about Hegel...
what are the shapes of the suspicions you might possibly have about that?

Appreciate the kind words.

What do you mean by shapes ? Like the reasons why ? Or what things might be censored ?

 

[narouz]

I don't know much about Hegel.
So nothing obvious pops out at me--I mean in the context of The Last Herb Doctors Thing.

I mean, if Roddy did censor...
One way to wonder about it would be:
let's imagine Roddy is more of a lefty.
And let's imagine Peat started going down a road kinda like the road he seemed to be on
during that last Herb Doctors show.
Saying stuff that might make the spectre of Charlton Heston (or such like) flicker before Danny's eyes.
Something that might make a lefty flinch and think,
Geez! This isn't the kindly avuncular Peat I thought I knew!
Etc...
Something along those lines.

Where do you imagine Peat might've gone with Hegel
that would've made Danny poop his pants
and make cuts...?

 

[jaguar43]

I don't know much about Hegel.
So nothing obvious pops out at me--I mean in the context of The Last Herb Doctors Thing.

I mean, if Roddy did censor...
One way to wonder about it would be:
let's imagine Roddy is more of a lefty.
And let's imagine Peat started going down a road kinda like the road he seemed to be on
during that last Herb Doctors show.
Saying stuff that might make the spectre of Charlton Heston (or such like) flicker before Danny's eyes.
Something that might make a lefty flinch and think,
Geez! This isn't the kindly avuncular Peat I thought I knew!
Etc...
Something along those lines.

Where do you imagine Peat might've gone with Hegel
that would've made Danny poop his pants
and make cuts...?

I get what your saying now, thanks for clearing it up.

Well, to be frank I don't know. It's possible that when he talked about Hegel, he moved to another topic or philosopher which would have been hard to edited out without it sounding like it was edited. So he decided to take the part of Hegel as well.

To be honest he did a good job editing it. It almost got through.

It seems interesting to me that Ray Peat was willing to tell me that he thinks Roddy edited the video and him not remembering the length. Which could mean that it lasted around the same time as all the other interviews. The whole thing is a mystery.

 

[jaguar43]

Danny Roddy just posted a " link" on his patreon page today. Title reads "Ray Peat on his political influences". Coincidence ? Possible "counter post" to this thread in order keep his followers in line ? Anything is possible at this point.

 

[Mufasa]

Some stranger came up to me today and asked for my attention, with a very serious tone he said:
"Did you see that. There was a person there walking on the other end of the street."
Me: "Oh okay plenty of people walk their right."
Stranger: "He was walking there Im sure he was walking"
Me: "okay so... was he acting suspicious or something?"
Stranger: "No, I just dont know why he is walking there."
Me: "well okay, uhmmm good story bro"
Stranger: "No you dont understand. Whyyy is he walking here? Dont you see it, if he walks here today, that may imply, that he walks here tomorrow again!"
Me: "Yes, soo... Do you think he is a thief or something?"
Stranger: "Well to be frank, I dont know. Im not trying to blackmail him or something. I just wonder why. It could be that he is just working on the other end of the street."
Me: ".... uhhhhh I really dont understand what your point is or where this conversation is about ...."