Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqJoXaNFFjY Over 6.5hrs of podcast material here, so many thoughts and so hard to write a short response or paint an opinion with a wide stroke. Who has...
I just finished watching the first part. I also quite enjoyed the ideas that you have listed in bullets, and I generally like the approach the guest takes, when explaining what he’s trying to...
I just finished watching the first part. I also quite enjoyed the ideas that you have listed in bullets, and I generally like the approach the guest takes, when explaining what he’s trying to explain.
I would’ve appreciated it a little bit more if the two hosts interacted a little bit more - there were some interjections when the subject was focused on geopolitics that seemed like a sign of healthy conversation, but I feel like it went a little off the rails in the last third (of the first video of the two). Once the focus shifted to laying out this “plan” for San Francisco I started to lose the plot. I was hoping the speaker would elaborate on some bits like his opinion on homelessness and how he sees it as “an addict problem”, but each time the topic got steered in that direction, the topic of conversation changed abruptly with a joke, or he just did that thing where he talks faster and faster over the duration of the sentence until
he’s intentionally mumbling at the end. Atypical for this video because the whole thing is digression after digression (which is fine). Maybe I’m just not the intended audience.
I lean left, but do generally find merit in ideas that would generally be considered libertarian. The ideas laid out are not immediately repulsive or disagreeable but are so steeped in a weird technocratic mode of thinking, that I have a hard time subscribing to them. Treating the reformation of a city like the management of a startup tech company sounds… bizarre. I can sympathize with some of the anti-left rhetoric on the subject of misappropriation of public funds, empty promises, the housing crisis/lack of construction - but corporations exist to make money, and it seems like everyone on this podcast is well aware of that, but they don’t see it as part of the problem. This is coming from someone who almost certainly would labeled a “tech bro” by people who like to call people tech bros.
The beginning investigation into political division in the US as a “problem” (?) seems to sit in surprising contrast to some of the ideas proposed later that seem to suggest the goal of the grey tribe should be to leverage the division and to continue to drive political/cultural division, when it could mean personal gain for the in-group.
When the hosts agree with the guest’s opinion so much that they are laughing in response, it naturally becomes a little less informative and more performative. In the end I don’t have any prior exposure to this podcast, the people on it, or many of the people they refer to - but I did find the new perspectives mostly interesting and engaging, even if there are some large exceptions.
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqJoXaNFFjY
Over 6.5hrs of podcast material here, so many thoughts and so hard to write a short response or paint an opinion with a wide stroke.
Who has listened, has thoughts, and wants to discuss?
Some parts I've enjoyed:
I just finished watching the first part. I also quite enjoyed the ideas that you have listed in bullets, and I generally like the approach the guest takes, when explaining what he’s trying to explain.
I would’ve appreciated it a little bit more if the two hosts interacted a little bit more - there were some interjections when the subject was focused on geopolitics that seemed like a sign of healthy conversation, but I feel like it went a little off the rails in the last third (of the first video of the two). Once the focus shifted to laying out this “plan” for San Francisco I started to lose the plot. I was hoping the speaker would elaborate on some bits like his opinion on homelessness and how he sees it as “an addict problem”, but each time the topic got steered in that direction, the topic of conversation changed abruptly with a joke, or he just did that thing where he talks faster and faster over the duration of the sentence until
he’s intentionally mumbling at the end. Atypical for this video because the whole thing is digression after digression (which is fine). Maybe I’m just not the intended audience.
I lean left, but do generally find merit in ideas that would generally be considered libertarian. The ideas laid out are not immediately repulsive or disagreeable but are so steeped in a weird technocratic mode of thinking, that I have a hard time subscribing to them. Treating the reformation of a city like the management of a startup tech company sounds… bizarre. I can sympathize with some of the anti-left rhetoric on the subject of misappropriation of public funds, empty promises, the housing crisis/lack of construction - but corporations exist to make money, and it seems like everyone on this podcast is well aware of that, but they don’t see it as part of the problem. This is coming from someone who almost certainly would labeled a “tech bro” by people who like to call people tech bros.
The beginning investigation into political division in the US as a “problem” (?) seems to sit in surprising contrast to some of the ideas proposed later that seem to suggest the goal of the grey tribe should be to leverage the division and to continue to drive political/cultural division, when it could mean personal gain for the in-group.
When the hosts agree with the guest’s opinion so much that they are laughing in response, it naturally becomes a little less informative and more performative. In the end I don’t have any prior exposure to this podcast, the people on it, or many of the people they refer to - but I did find the new perspectives mostly interesting and engaging, even if there are some large exceptions.