Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[tara]

I really think there was fowl play on the part of Danny Roddy removing parts of the interview.

Maybe Danny did edit, and he removed content he didn't think was so important for some reason - possibly well-intentioned, even if it did skew the story a bit, or possibly to deliberately remove viewpoints he didn't want to propagate. How about asking Danny himself if it was a longer interview, and what content was left out of the published version? If he openly acknowledges editing, he might well give an upfront answer?

 

[jaguar43]

Maybe Danny did edit, and he removed content he didn't think was so important for some reason - possibly well-intentioned, even if it did skew the story a bit, or possibly to deliberately remove viewpoints he didn't want to propagate. How about asking Danny himself if it was a longer interview, and what content was left out of the published version? If he openly acknowledges editing, he might well give an upfront answer?

Because I don't trust him. I see what he is doing with Ray Peat's work. He is making money off his ideas, which I think is criminal. While Ray Peat provides his information for almost free( except newsletter and books which are dirt cheap), he is charging people for "coaching". 100 dollars per month for an hour. One would think he would fix your air conditioning or plumbing along with the 'coaching". He charges 25 dollars per month for emails, while Ray Peat does it for free. Whats up with that.

Pledge to Creator

I think no one should remove content from an interview that Ray Peat does for FREE. If it's free then they should post the whole interview FREE of charge. Regardless, it's pure censorship when one chooses to remove parts of an interview for whatever reason. I not saying he did, but if he did then I would be upset.

 

[tara]

I think no one should remove content from an interview that Ray Peat does for FREE. If it's free then they should post the whole interview FREE of charge. Regardless, it's pure censorship when one chooses to remove parts of an interview for whatever reason. I not saying he did, but if he did then I would be upset.

I don't know him enough to have an opinion about trusting him in detail, though I'm sure he and I have some differences of opinion. I think there are worse ways to make a living, and that he has been helpful to some people, so I'm not particularly judging him for that. So we can disagree about that.
I'm inclined to agree with you that it would be good if Peat's interviews were left intact content-wise. I wonder if anyone has expressed that opinion directly to DR? I doubt that he would directly lie and claim that he has not removed content if he knows he has - knowing that he could get caught out on that.

 

[tara]

I'm inclined to agree with you that it would be good if Peat's interviews were left intact content-wise. I wonder if anyone has expressed that opinion directly to DR? I doubt that he would directly lie and claim that he has not removed content if he knows he has - knowing that he could get caught out on that.

If he thinks he is providing a valuable service by distilling the most valuable parts of an interview, maybe he could agree to make the full version available as well, to those who want the whole thing?

 

[Lightbringer]

I doubt that he would directly lie and claim that he has not removed content if he knows he has -

On his patreon page, he said in the comments that "...and the interview ended up being around 45 minutes total, which when edited, turned out to be the current 35-minute length." So you're right, there is no lying involved.

 

[jaguar43]

On his patreon page, he said in the comments that "...and the interview ended up being around 45 minutes total, which when edited, turned out to be the current 35-minute length." So you're right, there is no lying involved.

Where does he say this ? Do you have a source ? I cannot access the comments on the interview because I am not a patreon, nor do I wish to be. The fact that I have to donate money to see the comments is already questionable and disheartening.

But again, why would the interview only last 45 minutes ? While his other interviews with Ray Peat last an hour ? Editing the interview down 10 minutes seems like a lot of time for a 45 minute interview.

And it doesn't explain why Ray Peat ramdomly brought up Hegel. It is possible that it was a fluke or something he just though of. And I think he would would have to explain why he thinks Hegel belongs in the same category as Plato and Parmenides. But I don't think he would say it without explaining Hegel's position.

 

[poilochio]

hope he is more right winged.....makes me like him even more .

 

[Such_Saturation]

lol politics are so important to you

 

[tankasnowgod]

If I am allowed to change the topic for a second. I think Danny Roddy took out certain segments of the interview. Instead of the full hour like all the other interviews, it only lasted thirty minutes which seems sketchy. I really feel like we didn't get to hear the whole interview. Maybe I am being paranoid, but the way the interviewed went seems to me that parts were removed and it wasn't fluid like the interviews from herb doctors and politics and science ( even if the herb doctors interviews weren't that great, I appreciate they allowing callers and are in real time).

At 18:30 minutes, he brings up the philosopher Hegel. Which, I didn't hear him mention him during the interview. Usually, Ray Peat explains the theory of the scientist or philosopher before criticizing them. So it's interesting that he mentions hegel in a way that seems like he already talked about him. Unless he did mentioned him and I completely missed it (someone correct me on this if it's true).

I was think about emailing Ray Peat about this. What do you guys think ? Any thoughts on the subject or disagreements ?

Dude.... you ARE being paranoid.

The reason the Herb Doctors interview sounds more fluid and have the ability to take callers is that they are broadcasting from a public radio station, KMUD. The reason that their interviews are are about an hour long is, likely, that they have an hour of show to fill. That's how radio works (broken down into 30 minute or hour segments), and this is pretty standard across both public and commercial radio.

Danny Roddy, on the other hand, is doing it guerrilla podcast style. He can't take callers, as he isn't broadcasting to anyone live, and likely doesn't have the tech to take calls, even if he wants to. I've edited these sorts of interviews before (worked in radio and audio for about 15 years), and I can assure you that there is multitude of reasons that you might edit out ten minutes of audio in an interview such as this, that has nothing to do with content. Maybe one of them had to run to the bathroom. Or had someone come to their door. Or an ambulance roared by. Or, maybe they started discussing a personal situation that wasn't relevant to a public audience, or info was exchanged that was for personal use, not public (think phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, that sort of thing). When Danny does an interview, he doesn't have to "fill" a certain amount of time, so they can talk until they think the subject is covered, or until one of them has another commitment. That's a good reason why the length of Danny's interviews can vary a lot.

I personally think that Danny does great work that he offers free of charge, but if you don't like Danny, or his material, or the way he tries to make a living, or the way he edits interviews, or the fact that he doesn't have HVAC experience and therefore can't fix your air conditioner, then don't support him and don't listen. What else needs to be said?

 

[Kyle M]

Is there something wrong with that? I see Ray Peat as a child of his era, a cultural Marxist at the beginning, who correctly identified the most egregious problems of those times (war, the Cold War, the direction of biology). I think he is extremely open minded and, just like I did, is coming to the conclusion that it is government, not market forces, that was behind those problems and is behind the different, but similar, problems of our current times. Libertarianism is the ultimate anti-authoritarian philosophy, and the right/left paradigm is a bit of a thought control lexicon any way.

 

[Kyle M]

Well, but Kropotkin...
could anyone occupy a political position farther away from Trump's?

Yes, Murray Rothbard.

 

[Simonsays]

Libertarianism is the ultimate anti-authoritarian philosophy, and the right/left paradigm is a bit of a thought control lexicon any way.

No thats Anarchism. Libertarianism, is just pure capitalism without the state, no?

 

[damngoodcoffee]

hope he is more right winged.....makes me like him even more .

 

[Kyle M]

No thats Anarchism. Libertarianism, is just pure capitalism without the state, no?

Anarchism = libertarianism in its purest form. There are a lot of groups within libertarianism, but its core principle is the non-aggression principle (NAP) where it's morally wrong to initiate violence against a non-violent person. Some libertarians say you have to do that for some purposes like national defense, producing infrastructure and other common goods etc., but the purists reject anything that violates the NAP.

Anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms, since the state ownership (or cooperative or whatever) of the means of production or the product itself necessitates a state (obviously) or at the very least coercion (thus violating the NAP).

I guess you could call libertarianism capitalism without the state, but what's the point, no one is forced to be a capitalist, worker, consumer or whatever of anything they don't want to be. But if you want food, you have to either go out and get it or buy it from someone with something they are willing to trade for. Capitalism isn't a political system, it's a Marxist term and it best describes a kind of production where you build up capital to increase worker productivity, like using a shovel (capital equipment) to dig canals instead of your hands (pure labor force).

 

[Pointless]

Anarchism = libertarianism in its purest form. There are a lot of groups within libertarianism, but its core principle is the non-aggression principle (NAP) where it's morally wrong to initiate violence against a non-violent person. Some libertarians say you have to do that for some purposes like national defense, producing infrastructure and other common goods etc., but the purists reject anything that violates the NAP.

Anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms, since the state ownership (or cooperative or whatever) of the means of production or the product itself necessitates a state (obviously) or at the very least coercion (thus violating the NAP).

I guess you could call libertarianism capitalism without the state, but what's the point, no one is forced to be a capitalist, worker, consumer or whatever of anything they don't want to be. But if you want food, you have to either go out and get it or buy it from someone with something they are willing to trade for. Capitalism isn't a political system, it's a Marxist term and it best describes a kind of production where you build up capital to increase worker productivity, like using a shovel (capital equipment) to dig canals instead of your hands (pure labor force).

There is no "ownership" in pure anarchism. But otherwise I agree with everything you're saying.

 

[keith]

I'll bet he could play right wing for the Leafs. Oh wait, you arent't talking about hockey?

 

[Kyle M]

There is no "ownership" in pure anarchism. But otherwise I agree with everything you're saying.

How is ownership prevented? And what do you mean by ownership?

 

[jaguar43]

Dude.... you ARE being paranoid.

The reason the Herb Doctors interview sounds more fluid and have the ability to take callers is that they are broadcasting from a public radio station, KMUD. The reason that their interviews are are about an hour long is, likely, that they have an hour of show to fill. That's how radio works (broken down into 30 minute or hour segments), and this is pretty standard across both public and commercial radio.

Danny Roddy, on the other hand, is doing it guerrilla podcast style. He can't take callers, as he isn't broadcasting to anyone live, and likely doesn't have the tech to take calls, even if he wants to. I've edited these sorts of interviews before (worked in radio and audio for about 15 years), and I can assure you that there is multitude of reasons that you might edit out ten minutes of audio in an interview such as this, that has nothing to do with content. Maybe one of them had to run to the bathroom. Or had someone come to their door. Or an ambulance roared by. Or, maybe they started discussing a personal situation that wasn't relevant to a public audience, or info was exchanged that was for personal use, not public (think phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, that sort of thing). When Danny does an interview, he doesn't have to "fill" a certain amount of time, so they can talk until they think the subject is covered, or until one of them has another commitment. That's a good reason why the length of Danny's interviews can vary a lot.

I personally think that Danny does great work that he offers free of charge, but if you don't like Danny, or his material, or the way he tries to make a living, or the way he edits interviews, or the fact that he doesn't have HVAC experience and therefore can't fix your air conditioner, then don't support him and don't listen. What else needs to be said?

Wrong, he doesn't offer his work free of charge. He charges 100 dollars an hour per month for one on one "coaching". You also have to "donate" to see the rest of his patreon page. Why should he charge people for "coaching" when Ray Peat provides his information for free ? I don't understand this ?

Pledge to Creator

The only person who should try to make a living from Ray Peat's work is Ray Peat. There is no point in providing coaching when people can read the articles on his website or email him a few times or listen to interviews. It's a paradox, the whole purpose of Ray Peat's work is to be able to develop your own guidance system regarding health, not depend on others.

Like Ray Peat said knowledge isn't a commodity. It's part of the life process and it can't be capture in a profit making system or else it's trash. Now with the internet information is extremely accessible, and people have more room for development.

Here is a quote from Ray Peat that I believe sums up the question on finances while trying not to conform to societies ideas.

Sidis is probably the culture's favorite example of the child prodigy who burns out, but people (Robert Persig, Buckminster Fuller) who have read his books have said favorable things about them. The journalists' emphasis on the fact that Sidis never held a prestigious job nicely illustrates their cliché mentality: “If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?” But throughout history, intelligent nonconformists have supported themselves as craft-workers or technicians--Socrates as a stone mason, Spinoza as a lens grinder, Blake as an engraver, Einstein as a patent examiner, for example.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/intelligence.shtml

 

[Kyle M]

The only person who should try to make a living from Ray Peat's work is Ray Peat. There is no point in providing coaching when people can read the articles on his website or email him a few times or listen to interviews. It's a paradox, the whole purpose of Ray Peat's work is to be able to develop your own guidance system regarding health, not depend on others.

If there was no point to it then why are people paying for it?

 

[jaguar43]

If there was no point to it then why are people paying for it?

So your argument is that if people pay for something then it's legitimate ?