JohnnyEnzyme

So… TTB? (typical tankie behavior)

And yeah, I know who they are. Nutomic actually helped with a Lemmy issue, once. FWIW.

Do you have a particular bone to pick with them, PJ? I mean other than their general poly-ticks?

(love your contributions, btw; thanks for all you do!)

And of course, most of the right-wing voters probably don’t know and/or care to understand that FOX was founded as a propaganda outlet in the first place.

Well, there’s a nice example of a brick wall. Alrighty, then.

My point is that context is everything. For example, if you already know that most of your audience is already highly skeptical of right-wing views and talking points, then: 1) it might just behoove the program to feature the more extremist interviewees, and 2) it might actually be a waste of time, energy and resources to rebut what the audience likely already considers obvious rubbish. That’s over-generalising of course, but still…

Also, NPR doesn’t necessarily represent the totality of pure, journalistic purpose, and they’re not there to live up to any specific outside standards. It’s fine for you to critique them, but to my mind, if they’re accomplishing their mission then that’s the most important thing.

Now the best you get after having a Republican spout off the benefits of killing the poor for 10 min straight is a mild tone of disagreement as they say “that’s all the time we have, thanks for joining us”.

Just a hypothesis, but considering NPR’s general audience, maybe they don’t necessarily need to offer much rebuttal. Maybe, via the interview Q’s, it’s more a case of attempting to give the right-wingers as much rope as they need to… you know?

(then again, I haven’t listened to NPR for ages; so shame on me)

From the couple of books by Jane Goodall I read, there absolutely was a ‘top dawg’ male in the Gombe chimp troop for as long as she was around to study it.

Sometimes it would be based on force of personality; sometimes on strength & size, sometimes on wiliness and psychological tricks, and another time due to two brothers teaming up together. Regardless, after the fall of one, another would inevitably take its place.

IIRC Sapolski also observed that most baboon troops indeed had a heirarchy, with the top dawg there typically taking out its frustrations on the next-ranking member down, and so forth down the line. That said, he also observed that when the most aggressive males sometimes died off due to disease / etc, the resultant troops could function remarkably differently, in which there was more of an egalitarian matriarchy.

@ooli3@sopuli.xyz

Hey-yo, just trying to see if I can link your other account, followed by hopefully replying to it from my new PieFed ID:

@Nacktmull@lemmy.world

https://lemmy.world/u/Nacktmull