What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?
-
Spend 90 minutes with American geopolitical operative, and Trump's close friend, Steve Witkoff. Witness the rabid lunatic fringe that is Trump's inner circle, forging the history we are all living through.
Link to video -
Spend 90 minutes with American geopolitical operative, and Trump's close friend, Steve Witkoff. Witness the rabid lunatic fringe that is Trump's inner circle, forging the history we are all living through.
Link to videoSpend 90 minutes with American geopolitical operative, and Trump's close friend, Steve Witkoff. Witness the rabid lunatic fringe that is Trump's inner circle, forging the history we are all living through.
That FuCa Witkoff link should be in Jon’s National Humiliation thread. Pass the barf bag.
A brief summary of the
interviewdisplay: -
Good conversation on Bari Weiss's Honestly today, with Jay Bhattacharya, new head of the NIH. The previous one, under Biden, called him fringe and dangerous, but it's difficult to believe that to be the actual case. He just disagreed with the mainstream at the peak of the panicked reaction to COVID, and paid the reputational price. He seems like the best-case scenario for a scientist you'd hope would be part of RFK Jr's administration.
-
There are independent thinkers, and there are contrarians. The latter consider themselves the former but it’s really just another style of groupthink.
@jon-nyc said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
There are independent thinkers, and there are contrarians. The latter consider themselves the former but it’s really just another style of groupthink.
I'm sure you'd allow that Bari is in the former camp, and I'm sure you won't listen to this interview to hear how strongly she disagrees with your characterization of Jay. And I'm sure you don't actually know anything about Jay, including that the former NIH head who called him fringe and dangerous, eventually apologized.
-
The Niall Ferguson interview was good.
Rogan had on Douglas Murray and a guy named Dave Smith, a popular libertarian podcaster in the rogan-sphere, who takes the other side of lots of issues Murray is passionate about. Murray's intent coming on the podcast was to stick up for the more mainstream positions that he thinks are underrepresented on Rogan.
-
Here's a novelty. Tim Tebow talks to Jordan Peterson.
Link to video -
T taiwan_girl referenced this topic on
-
Tucker and Glenn Loury. Loury was "fired" by the Manhattan Institute recently, over his sympathy for the Palestinian perspective.
I don't listen to Loury much anymore and no longer subscribe, but I'll try to make my way through this. I failed the challenge of his book, to accept his brutal honesty and transparency and not lose respect for him. So much of it was so gross. But, he's still an interesting and honest thinker.
Link to video -
Just listened to Tyler Cowen interview Jack Clark, cofounder of Anthropic.
Very interesting and wide ranging discussion on AI and its effect on the economy, government, education. Not heavy futuristic stuff for the most part, but things we’ll see in the next 5+ years.
Highly recommended.
-
Me too,
honestly, as regards Weiss. I think things changed a bit when her funders took a very public pro-Trump stance.But I hold out hope she might be turning it around. She was criticized by people such as Claire Lehman and Andrew Sullivan, whom she surely imagines as part of her 'tribe'. Also the tariff stuff is probably not so popular in her circles.
We'll see.
-
I unsubscribed from Sam Harris, after he once again raised his prices, while removing his "free subscription for those who can't afford it, and ask nicely" option. I had always been paying full freight, but his podcast has been becoming less and less interesting to me. I had been skipping most episodes. I was curious about his episode with Douglas Murray, after Murray's embarrassing showing on Rogan's show with the libertarian guy who wasn't all-in for Israel. To not be able to admit that Murray's arguments from authority were weak to the point of cringe, sealed the deal for me. I'm impressed by Sam's personal loyalties, but I prefer to listen to someone capable of honesty even in the face of that.
-
I never saw the Rogan episode. But I did hear Murray say that the ‘have you ever been there’ remark was a very specific response to a comment the other guy made about what Gaza was like before the war, and not a more generalized argument from authority. Is that not an accurate representation in your view? Again I never saw it.
-
I never saw the Rogan episode. But I did hear Murray say that the ‘have you ever been there’ remark was a very specific response to a comment the other guy made about what Gaza was like before the war, and not a more generalized argument from authority. Is that not an accurate representation in your view? Again I never saw it.
@jon-nyc said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
I never saw the Rogan episode. But I did hear Murray say that the ‘have you ever been there’ remark was a very specific response to a comment the other guy made about what Gaza was like before the war, and not a more generalized argument from authority. Is that not an accurate representation in your view? Again I never saw it.
First, that was not the only manner in which Murray argued from authority, while desperately wriggling around pretending that he wasn't arguing from authority. But for him to frame it like Dave Smith (the libertarian) said something which required that he had been there, only to be exposed as never having been there, is not accurate.
The whole premise that experts need to tell everybody else what to think about Israel / Palestine is garbage on its face, laughable actually. Who's the expert, and by what measure? is there a test one can take for knowledge of the excruciating details of the conflict, and whomever scores highest on that test, gets to tell everybody else the exact moral valence of the actions taken by both sides? It's just a ridiculous premise. Like it's impossible to find someone who meets some arbitrary threshold of knowledge about some arbitrarily detailed information about the conflict, but who takes any given side in the moral argument.
The most ridiculous aspect of Murray's attitude was to smarm all over the discussion about how certain people really shouldn't be expressing opinions, then face-planting when those exact people sitting right next to him ask him to explain why their specific opinions are so obviously wrong. Murray rarely had a satisfying answer. If one's expertise and experience and first hand knowledge can't be brought to bear with words in a discussion, then the claim of expertise and experience and first hand knowledge, is embarrassing garbage. And that was Murray in that debate.
