“In the Aquarius episode, Chris and co-hosts had a refreshingly frank discussion on the complexity of polyamory. It was thus surprising Chris later assured his audience he wasn’t “criticizing” the practice [of polyamory]. I’m sure it’s a well-intentioned gesture, but speaking critically on a complicated topic is not the same as bashing it—a fact I’m sure Chris understands given he speaks frequently about politically fraught topics (e.g. free vs. hate speech, gendered vs. neutral language) without engaging in a similar kind of “I’m not criticizing” throat clearing. This is not a knock on Chris’s political views—he’s entitled to them via the beauty of our First Amendment (as we all are). But if Chris is more concerned about pacifying the progressive sect of his audience—rather than speaking honestly about a complex topic—doesn’t this suggest his astrological interpretations are clouded by politics and therefore not well-informed? Viewing life thru a politically polarized lens will rot the integrity of his vast scholarly contribution to the field. And that would be a real shame.
Chris—from one data-driven Aquarian to another—you should look into academic studies on political perception gaps and hidden tribes. You’ll likely feel much less anxious after doing so. ✌️”
sjadl77 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
02/16/23