If the cops drive past a mugging, observe, and then drive on past allowing the law to go unenforced, are they not just as corrupt as the robbers?

So far the closest thing I found was when Huey Lewis did a radio show on Apple Music. You couldn't call in and there were no contests, but it's a bit of talking from someone likable, separated by a couple of songs they introduce which you also like. That's basically the format of radio, in its most basic form.

I've searched a bit for that type of format on streaming. Sure there's always TuneIn or MyTuner apps which are interesting but those shows are always tailored to a specific faraway city that you don't know much about, or they're in a different language, or they're sports talk related which I'm not interested in.

I'm specifically looking for music I like and a likeable person talking and introducing songs, just like the clips you have on your web site. I just don't understand how that can be so expensive that big tech companies with deep pockets like Apple Music don't want to produce it. What's up with that?

Here's where it went off the rails. Once you've abandoned the idea of democracy and peaceful self-governance, you're just another technofascist. You are Palantir, just in an earlier stage.

But I also got the feeling when reading this article that this guy loves motte-and-bailey. People don't intentionally set out to do motte-and-bailey arguments, but they often do it by accident. When people realize that they're arguing the losing side but can't admit it, they subtly shift their argument, and shift, and shift again until they're out of the bailey and inside the unassailable motte. Now they're the "winner" of the argument and can maintain their 100% argument success rate. Nice, and since nobody's recording the conversation, nobody can prove that they changed their argument in order to get on the winning side.

Motte-and-bailey is a common strategy for people who think they've won every argument they've ever been in. Nobody is so logically perfect that they actually win every argument without resorting to some kind of fallacy. I can't prove it. I just speak from experience. When I first learned about motte-and-bailey, I realized I had used it myself without realizing it. It's a natural tendency because it's so easy to do without really thinking.

Once we've learned all the fallacies and recognize them in ourselves, we finally realize that arguing is stupid and stop doing it so much. :)

The process of creating things is completely within your control but the process of becoming known for a thing is completely beyond your control.