“But I am increasingly unhappy with the show’s tendency to condemn serious viewpoints without discussion. I have been stimulated by a panel that purports to represent “both sides” while rightly marginalizing the Trump insanity. This week reached a low, however, in Linda Chavez denigrating trans women as “biological males” and another panelist dismissing a “woke” classicist without addressing any recognition that these are in the former case *human beings* and in the latter case, a serious point of view from a serious scholar. Does the panel dismiss views outside their “centrist” orientation when they are extremist and unserious, or merely because they are not “centrist?” The trans discussion has me particularly disturbed. I already felt Linda Chavez was the weakest on the regular panel, but going forward it will be difficult to listen to her.
One week, one episode,later. After last week’s tut-tutting about a Black scholar, this week it’s a discussion based on unconfirmed speculation about a NY Times HR decision and broad condemnations of “woke types” who think a stand-in for a slur is “prissy.” How about inviting a person who can shed light on others perspectives? At this point it’s mostly white folks begging to differ on persons and ideas that have been set up as empty foils. This episode is as disturbing as the previous one. Three strikes and I’m over and out.”
JGLevi via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
02/12/21