Why are we allowing these people to interrupt discourse?
Recently, the Physics and Humanist societies at The University of Liverpool were honored when theoretical physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss agreed to take part in a Q&A event held in one of our larger and less littery lecture theaters. It was a fascinating discussion, full of interesting quotes and opinions from Lawrence.
The event was "moderated" by a student. He knew his role, and performed admirably. He introduced Lawrence Olivier and informed us when we were coming close to time. Then, when our time was up and Florent House decided he'd rather keep talking to us, our moderator took the situation in stride, and smoothed the entire process and extension over with a minimum of intrusion.
This was incredibly refreshing, as someone who is an avid consumer of debates, lectures, conversations and Q&A's, I'm sick to death of moderators. Let's get this straight, moderators of the world (who I know are reading this.):
No one. Not nobody, is there to see you. No one attending the event cares what you think. When people chuckle at your jokes, they're just being polite. Shut up. Some people have traveled hundreds of miles to see this conversation, and you are stealing time from these people. Even your mum, sitting at the back of the audience, is only there because you told her you'd be on camera and she doesn't want you to stammer like you did back in school.
There is a very interesting discussion between the esteemed (but strident) Sam Harris and the esteemed (but deluded in this case) Reza Aslan, where the moderator not only cuts them off mid-sentence repeatedly, but he then weighs in on the argument. Speaking boringly at length and wasting everyone's time, then later on, cutting the discussion short because there's not enough time. This behaviour is unacceptable. People only have between an hour and two hours to spend listening to these fascinating and interesting people. Who do you think you are, to take away ANY portion of that time for yourself?
There is a video of Lawrence and the Machine "debating" professional liar, charlatan and arsehole Mr. William Lane Craig, which has twenty one cocking minutes of introductory tedium from the moderator before the goddamned guests even get to speak!
Right.
The event was "moderated" by a student. He knew his role, and performed admirably. He introduced Lawrence Olivier and informed us when we were coming close to time. Then, when our time was up and Florent House decided he'd rather keep talking to us, our moderator took the situation in stride, and smoothed the entire process and extension over with a minimum of intrusion.
This was incredibly refreshing, as someone who is an avid consumer of debates, lectures, conversations and Q&A's, I'm sick to death of moderators. Let's get this straight, moderators of the world (who I know are reading this.):
No one. Not nobody, is there to see you. No one attending the event cares what you think. When people chuckle at your jokes, they're just being polite. Shut up. Some people have traveled hundreds of miles to see this conversation, and you are stealing time from these people. Even your mum, sitting at the back of the audience, is only there because you told her you'd be on camera and she doesn't want you to stammer like you did back in school.
There is a very interesting discussion between the esteemed (but strident) Sam Harris and the esteemed (but deluded in this case) Reza Aslan, where the moderator not only cuts them off mid-sentence repeatedly, but he then weighs in on the argument. Speaking boringly at length and wasting everyone's time, then later on, cutting the discussion short because there's not enough time. This behaviour is unacceptable. People only have between an hour and two hours to spend listening to these fascinating and interesting people. Who do you think you are, to take away ANY portion of that time for yourself?
There is a video of Lawrence and the Machine "debating" professional liar, charlatan and arsehole Mr. William Lane Craig, which has twenty one cocking minutes of introductory tedium from the moderator before the goddamned guests even get to speak!
Right.
That's them out of the way. But since you're still here, it's time to turn my sights on the audience. But only in a specific way.
It has been a very long time since I have watched past the point in a debate / conversation / lecture / panel where the floor is opened to audience questions. Not so much in Q&As, where the goal of the entire event is to interact with the speaker and learn their views on things, and everyone knows that, and that's what they're all there for.
But during the other types of events I mentioned, the audience questions, while occasionally intriguing, are mostly the same few ideas and easily answered attacks, brought by overly smug people who don't realise how simply their challenge can be answered.
It has been a very long time since I have watched past the point in a debate / conversation / lecture / panel where the floor is opened to audience questions. Not so much in Q&As, where the goal of the entire event is to interact with the speaker and learn their views on things, and everyone knows that, and that's what they're all there for.
But during the other types of events I mentioned, the audience questions, while occasionally intriguing, are mostly the same few ideas and easily answered attacks, brought by overly smug people who don't realise how simply their challenge can be answered.
But that would be fine. What is irritating, and again, a waste of time, is the goddamned preamble before each question. No one wants to listen to the moderator, but we, as the audience, actively hate your stupid stories, random questioner. I neither want, nor require a 2 minute speech to introduce your generic comment about how:
"I'm a smug agnostic prick and I don't think you can call yourself an athiest because you can't prove there's no God. You're just as bad as a theist!"
From people who don't understand the word "Atheist" or "Agnostic", and in fact who's only education in these areas is a few hours of listening to Matt Dillahunty giving excellent criticisms of the Bible and religion, then embarrassing himself with inaccurate musings on the skeptic movement.
"I'm a smug agnostic prick and I don't think you can call yourself an athiest because you can't prove there's no God. You're just as bad as a theist!"
From people who don't understand the word "Atheist" or "Agnostic", and in fact who's only education in these areas is a few hours of listening to Matt Dillahunty giving excellent criticisms of the Bible and religion, then embarrassing himself with inaccurate musings on the skeptic movement.
What these people forget is that their audience are actually customers. And wasting your customer's time is something only a broken roomba with rotten oranges instead of internal circuitry would ever think of as a good idea.
Don't do it.
This has been an Empirical Opinions journal, allow me to play you out:
Don't do it.
This has been an Empirical Opinions journal, allow me to play you out:
(Flabbergasted that this is the only video on youtube with the full version of the song.)
No comments:
Post a Comment