Glen can say "I told you so, why don't you listen more carefully?" now.
I have *mostly* referenced Fridman here in terms of podcast/interviews I
have watched and offer as a positive experience.
I am skipping my way through his (today's?) interview with Ivanka T-K
and find it informative but not particularly in a good way. He
definitely is hand-carrying softballs for her to hit out of his
hand... I have agreed and accepted that Lex's style *feels* softball
in some sense, but usually to good effect, giving the interviewees
enough rope to show us who they are (even through the lens of projecting
who they want us to see them as). Even, maybe especially his interview
with Jared K (and a few other similar types), where it disarms them into
saying things out loud that you previously had to assume they were
thinking but not saying.
Before I reflect directly on the softball faux-game they played for the
typical 3+ hours, here is what the criticism section on Wikipedia had to
offer (which I skimmed or missed when I first asked for opinions of Lex
and his work). I take it on face value that (what I think Glen implied
by "consider who he interviews" or "the company he keeps"?) his
editorial/curatorial bias might well be somehow Right or Authoritarian
leaning? I also took to ?heart? (paradoxically) Glen's jab at him for
referencing "Love" so much.
Nathan J. Robinson
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_J._Robinson>of/Current Affairs
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Affairs_(magazine)>/wrote,
"Fridman is not anidealogue
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idealogue>and seems genuine in his
desire to empathetically understand leftists (he has also
interviewedRichard Wolff
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff>,Steve Keen
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen>, andNoam Chomsky
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky>) and to be fair to all
sides, he has hosted a debate between 'skeptical
environmentalist'Bjorn Lomborg
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg>and climate
journalistAndrew Revkin
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Revkin>. But as with [Joe]
Rogan, it is hard to avoid noticing a certain lack of balance. There
are far more right-leaning 'intellectual dark web' types than
leftists [...]." Robinson added that "the Fridman podcast is an
excellent way to see how the posture of neutrality actually fails to
adequately challenge falsehoods and toxic beliefs."^[17]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-Robinson-17>
A 2023 article by Elizabeth Lopatto in/The Verge
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Verge>/stated that Fridman's
podcast "has a following among the tech elite" and said that Fridman
"is a softball interviewer".^[4]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-:4-4> Ben
Samuel argued in another 2023 article in/Haaretz
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz>/that Fridman failed to
challenge claims made on his podcast by Israeli prime minister
Benjamin Netanyahu.^[18]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-18> A 2024
article inBloomberg <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_News>,
by Ellen Huet, commented that Fridman's podcast is seen by tech CEOs
as a friendlier alternative to more adversarial interviews with
traditional journalists.^[19]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-19>
^Anyway. On to the Ivanka interview:
^I have been skipping through... most of the subjects. Total of maybe
30 minutes of rolling video, similar amount to compose this (estimate)...
^Pro:
* ^First time I heard her speak at a (near) full volume rather than
her signature "breathy whisper".
* ^She was as articulate (see Con's below) as I would expect of a
college-educated scion of a (faux?) wealthy family
* ^She described something about busting out of a bubble in 2016 (but
missed that she fell into another bubble?)
* ^She told positive (albeit superficial and clueless) stories about
"working class families" and "single mothers".
* ^She told some stories about (her?) work in the WH on sex
trafficking/exploitation, child exploitation... (see below)
* ^??
^Con:
* ^Articulate airhead
* ^articulate Airhead
* ^ignored or avoided (with Lex's Softball help) anything like an
honest critical/self-critical thought
* ^No acknowledgement/awareness of the horror-show that is his father,
siblings, husband, ???
* ^She pretended to have helped do some good things for "working
American Families" but didn't seem to understand what that means
really... oh well.
* ^She spoke eloquently about sex-traffic and children as victims but
couldn't be bothered to think about her Daddy's coziness with the
likes of Epstein and ownership of Miss Universe, USA and Teen
Pageants (including his self-proclaimed perks in the dressing rooms)?
* ^She mostly cried "poor" around her decision to distance herself
from DJT 2024 for the campaign. Failed to acknowledge that 45 was
a horrific shit show and 47 would be worse in most if not all ways?
* ^She (and Lex) definitely want a ride on a SpaceX orbital tourist
flight and then maybe live forever so they can have a view of the
Mars landscape from the top floor of /Trump Tower Olympus Mons/.
* ^??
^My most cynical image was that she would love to be the designer of the
Gaza Skyline when hubby succeeds at helping his buddy Benjy "relocate"
all the Palestinians in Gaza to some desert tent camp and JK gets to use
Saudi (and probably US right wing real-estate investment/development)
cash to build out a few hundred Trump Tower facades along the Luxury
Seafront they imagine for it.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
