I didn’t say it had to do with exposure to ideas. I said it had to do with exposure to people, which is what the question was about.
Ok...but if exposure to people is the issue, then there's no reason to imagine why more educated democrats would have a worse understanding of Republicans.
It's not that their understanding hasn't improved and it's as good as it was after high school. It's worse.
I never said it was exciting. I like nerdy history and wonky policy shows.
Well maybe you should give Chapo a try. Not their reviews of political books, but some of their historical stuff...I remember a description of the Taiping Rebellion that was pretty good. Of course, they're all a bunch of commies so there's that.
I honestly don’t remember. It’s been probably a year since I listened to it. I seem to recall nobody being converted (which wasn’t their goal anyways).
Well I don't expect anyone to be "converted" by a short convo. If so, they clearly weren't discussing something that they thought much about to begin with.
French only recently went to the NYT. Prior to that, he wrote mainly for conservative outlets, but otherwise that’s fair.
I know people of people who watch Fox News for example, and understand...they're one sided, and frequently full of dookie. It's not a matter of them not understanding that their news source is compromised. I think that most of them are fully aware of that. Then again, these are all college graduates and I'm certain there's a significant portion of the population that isn't aware and fully believes whatever Fox tells them.
What one of the things that bothers me most is the fact that sources like WaPo or NYT seem to be fully trusted by so much of the left....despite how badly they've gotten stories wrong. NYT spent years covering the Trump/Russia investigation....clearly with a bias towards Trump's guilt....and even got journalism awards for this coverage....yet the majority of it was frankly, hokum. For years I remember their audience thinking "any day now" the evidence was going to be found....and we know from the Durham report it wasn't just a matter of not having the evidence. It was a matter of FBI agents trying to find enough evidence to even justify the investigation they had been doing. An Australian diplomat that the FBI had no info on sends a tip their way. That's all they had before diving into a full investigation into a presidential candidate. To keep it going, the relied upon bogus intel the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for...that they knew was bogus...to justify warrants that are so intrusive you basically aren't supposed to know about them as a member of the public.
Back in the day...a FISA warrant basically meant that the FBI could tap your phones. Nowadays, with how interconnected everything is....they can turn on the microphone in your cell and listen to your conversations. They can track the GPS on your car and know where you're going. The convictions they had involved people mostly not cooperating with the bogus investigation and sharing some polling data. The idea that Trump and the gang somehow "slipped through the cracks" or managed to hide his guilt is absurd. That's what a lot of people think though...they don't realize just how bad their news has gotten. NYT didn't come out after the Mueller report and say "hey it turns out....we were wrong the whole time."
I honestly don’t know what to make of current right wing political thought or who’s shaping it - when I look at the people making waves at the top of the movement (not necessarily the thinkers), I see a lot of trolls, grifters, and unabashed hatemongers,
Give me an example of a hatemonger. Because ironically, this is basically how the right sees the left. You got your trolls like Colin Kaepernik, Dylan Mulvaney, Lizzo...all millionaires and multi millionaires complaining about how our society oppresses them. Grifters....from the leaders of BLM, to Robin DiAngelo, to Kendi, to WPATH, and Fauci....people getting rich off spreading lies, convincing people of problems that they didn't even know existed (often because they don't)...and sometimes, solutions to these problems that they don't actually have.
Hatemongers though...I don't know if I'd call too many of them hatemongers. There's definitely a lot of racists and bigots...but they have always been there, they just don't typically get their voices elevated by the left.
so I question how much “thought” is behind it. But OTOH I know there are still people shaping, say, long term legal strategies to push things through SCOTUS, so somebody is obviously still doing that work.
Well the abortion ruling was, imo, a reaction to the democrats turning their backs on the justice system during the 2020 riots. I genuinely believe that Kavanaugh was honest when he said he had no intention of undoing Roe. However, his confirmation was a mockery of justice. The FBI had just been pushed by Dems into a bogus investigation, they weren't up to doing another one on nothing. After 2020 though, when you had judges and DAs with protesters outside their houses and police departments being burned down....they decided to throw out Roe. I personally had never looked into the case...I didn't realize how flimsy a ruling it was. Democrats had overplayed their hand. Affirmative Action always had an expiration date. I don't think anyone should have been surprised by that one. The last time the subject was visited it was upheld....with the decision (if I remember correctly) stating that by 2020 or 2016 or some date we had already passed, it wouldn't be needed anymore....
It always had an expiration date. Equality under the law....the right to not be discriminated against for your race....were principles set into our constitution by amendment. It's not an easy thing to do...and even harder to undo.
I’m familiar with a couple names like Sohrab Ahmari and Patrick Deneen, but haven’t read any of their stuff. Do you have any suggestions?
I would suggest that no one is actually leading the direction of the right...or the left. Remember, most of the new left's ideas are fundamental rejections of the old left. The old left was against broad generalizations about groups of people based on shallow, superficial characteristics. The new left is for broad generalizations about groups of people based on superficial characteristics....so much so, that they consider it insulting if you don't assume things about people based on race or sex or whatever.
You'd think that big of a shift in political views would take longer than 5-10 years but it didn't....because no one has any idea what they actually stand for on the left or why. The same goes for the right.
I like EK quite a bit and I think his approach towards people with whom he disagrees is exactly what you said you hadn’t seen. He’s definitely among the top hosts I’ve ever heard (not that that list is huge).
Well give a good example of what you think his best "debate" or interview or whatever he does is...I'll take a look.
Relative to KYE, I think his show is more listenable and has a broader appeal. However, it’s gotten less interesting for me personally since he moved to NYT, because the focus has shifted somewhat from the wonky policy subjects I prefer.
I can't pay much attention to podcasts that aren't comedy. There's a very generic feel to them.
The example I gave was not of people eating their own. It was of people policing problems in their own ranks - in that case, of big city NIMBYs enacting housing and zoning policies that undermine some of the progressive values (re: workers and the poor) they claim to espouse.
I'm not sure what "policing problems in their own ranks" means in a way that's different from what I said.
The great thing about the left used to be that it was a big tent of a wide variety of ideas. That's what made it so good at debates. Now it's about conformity to an ideology without any values.
At least in the media I consume, that sort of engagement is commonplace.
I know. It's scary to watch.
