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.