“I came to listen to their show with Matt Rinella and it was painful to listen to. The hosts tend to ramble which is probably why their shows are so long. The Matt Rinella episode was even worse because three of them have nearly the same opinions on the main subjects so they spent 3 hours just talking in circles and agreeing with each other. There was little to no consideration for the other points of view which is frustrating when their opinions are far from mainstream. I think this conversation would have been more interesting, more productive, and easier to listen to if they had brought on another guest with a different opinion so it could sound like a real discussion rather than the literal manifestation of an echo chamber.
At one point one of the hosts says something to the effect that losing hunters won’t lead to losing hunting rights and no one pushes back on that argument. He justifies his opinion by saying “what? Are they going to tell me I can’t hunt on my own property?” YES, THEY WILL! This is a moronic argument for 2 reasons. 1. Some states are already closing down certain seasons (like bear and lion) on public and private lands. 2. They spent the whole lead up to this point by complaining about people buying up land to hunt on, and yet he is implying here that he has his own private land to hunt on if states limit hunting on public land. Matt argues that the cause of the lost hunting seasons is because of hunting media and hunting social media and the hosts agree and then they move on. No push back, no alternatives offered, just “i agree” and move to the next point, and all of this while they are ON A HUNTING PODCAST.”
Jake_Swiss via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
08/23/23