aurum

Leo made a good point about non-confrontational interviewing being a valid style. A guy like Larry King is not an investigative journalist. He’s not there to evaluate the accuracy of all his guest’s claims and challenge them. His guests bring a narrative and a perspective, and his skillset is getting people to open up about what that is and showing it to the audience as it is. He’s not even really qualified to do anything else. Of course there are also downsides to this approach. In this case with Lex, I don’t like it because I already know what Trump is about and I know the BS he will push. But that is my political bias, my pre-existing knowledge bias, my bias for sense-making and even my bias for communication style, which tends to lean a bit more confrontational. And I want to be mindful of that. You could argue social media needs stricter moderation guidelines if a U.S presidential candidate is going to be interviewed on their platform. Maybe a compromise would be that independent fact-checking would be done and provided for the viewers.

If Lex wants to be Larry King, fine. I suppose that’s just not how I interpreted the goal of his podcast.

Lex is an interesting guy. I don't think it's as simple as him being a sellout. Like Kyle said in the video I linked, Lex does care about having good faith conversations. Which we do generally need. But in this case, I think his open-mindedness is being somewhat exploited. As well, the benefit of interviewing Trump for his show / status probably made him not think too hard about the downsides. I made a thread while ago about political messaging where we got into good faith / bad political dialogues: What Lex is doing here is NOT what I was supporting in that thread. Letting Trump spew his BS to millions of people is NOT anything close to good sense-making or respecting the epistemic commons. It fact, it's the opposite.

So then how do you propose that privilege should be discussed so that it wouldn’t backfire? “Backfiring” to some degree is inevitable when there’s a huge cultural conversation. But the conversation still needs to be had.

As predicted, Trump does his BS and Lex lets him get away with it.

If the hosts were deliberately misgendering Laura as a way to attack her, then I think legal action is probably appropriate. It would be similar to a defamation lawsuit. You can’t just say whatever you want about people publicly, especially if it’s clear cut legally inaccurate. Gender is a legal reality and she legally changed hers, along with hormone therapy and surgery. That said, I can also see the bind the gym owner was likely in. It sounds like she was getting numerous complaints and felt like she had to do something. Gyms will need to work out new guidelines for these kind of situations.

Self-Love is a meta perspective. People who love themselves would generally honor their romantic needs in relationships.

I haven’t watched it but I’m going to assume it’s a bad idea. Lex is way too charitable. Trump will run the table with him.

Being a politician is a people’s game. Coming up with actual solutions and policies is mostly for people behind the scenes.

I’ve never seen that before. Embarrassing.

Nice explanation.

That is the argument in favor of censorship. If people were not corrupt and morally bankrupt, we could have more free speech.

Yes. Exchange is the basis of all of society.

No not anything. You can squeeze them within reason.

Sure, but that's not really the issue though. People are not asking to be seen as the perfect glory of God. They just don't want to be taken advantage of.

@Keryo Koffa you are chaotic

That’s a good analogy.

Well, she probably did feel that way to some degree. It wasn’t like we formed a deep emotional bond. But also, the incident I mentioned was already about 15-30mins after I first approached her. We had spent some time chatting where I wasn’t being too pushy or aggressive. I think she saw that I was at least willing to get to know her.

That’s usually helpful, yes. But then of course she’ll probably also have higher expectations for that relationship if you do that. I had a ONS once where the woman deliberately stopped me from getting to know her more. She knew there was no hope of something in the future between us and didn’t want to get attached.

Depends. Could be that she’s just in the mood and not looking for something serious. Could be that even though it’s casual, you built enough of a connection that she at least doesn’t feel like she’s just being used. Could also be that she is hoping it will turn into something more serious in the future.

Usually when it's devoid of making a deeper connection beyond just sex. Casual sex is inherently somewhat objectifying. You're not really connecting with the person, that's why it's called 'casual'.

Not generated? Are you or are you not God?

She's so full of it. Whatever concerns you have over elite corruption will only get worse with a Trump administration.

Please seek professional help if you can. People here are not equipped to help you handle these kind of problems.

All that talk and they both are still endorsing Trump, who will continue to sell out the environment for economic reasons.