969
Types of Podcasts, a guide
(thelemmy.club)
Source: Tommy Siegel
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
969 points (97.8% liked)
Comic Strips
22924 readers
3660 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So, scientists and skeptics on a talk show debunking fundamentalists and reactionaries on guest calls count as "low-iq comedians having a playful banter"?
Not directly but I will call it an homage to it. Cause they are still platforming the extremists.
Its why no one thought Bill Nye's debates with creationists were a good idea.
I think that description fits dipshits like Tucker Carlson much better though.
And I don't like formal debates either as no debate I've ever watched to this day has had a moderator who would be willing to keep the debaters on topic and force concessions when they try to evade, move goal posts etc. I prefer live, online discussions much more.
And platforming morons is only bad when one can't debunk them, or when one is too kind and meek to actually properly push back. This is why I like Professor Dave and a lot of the people hosting The Line. They do not argue in that docile way typical of leftist commentators. They call their opponents out for lying, force concessions, and do not act kindly to them (unless they're literally just misguided).
Both sides are getting their clippable audio snippets and dragging around audiences to feel like they are fighting with them.
I truly don't agree that platforming extremists to argue against them for publicity and money is ever worth it. The sides lean against each other to grow larger and these are people who it is in their financial interests to not change their opinion. And religion debates are not productive, those are personal and faith based. Can't argue someone rationally out of something that wasnt rationally entered.
You asked about qnaline, not Tucker.
I was talking about the "playful banter with the most evil people in the world" text when I gave the Tucker Carlson example.
Their religion debates are mostly against evangelicals and biblical literalists, who generally do think that their beliefs are rational, so an in-depth deconstruction is really beneficial, a lot of the time not to the caller but to the impartial layperson viewer.
I understand your criticism here, but also one can't make do without the opposition making some content like this, especially when this sphere is dominated by uneducated right-wingers like Joe Rogan.
I understand fighting fire with fire, but dont mind me while I dont praise the arsonists.