This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Fridman is one of the worst popular interviewers of all time. Even his interviews with highly interesting people are either very boring or much less interesting than hearing them talk on their own, which is terrible exactly because the purpose of a good interviewer is to get the person to say/admit something interesting.
It’s actually interesting that he challenges Zelensky a bit (I assume because he still feels some kind of kinship/sympathy for Russia) because he almost never does this on any other interview.
The real enigma is Fridman’s own popularity (which is the reason, along with him being a generous interviewer, why so many important people come on his show). Why do so many young men like him? Rogan has a whiff of charisma, interesting stories of his own, a charming everyman’s naïveté and an act that works well with a lot of interview subjects. Fridman sounds like someone who doesn’t care reading from a script, like a high school student forced to give a speech or chair a panel, which is insane for one of the world’s most prolific interviewers. He’s not masculine/dominant and “alpha”. He’s not cosmopolitan and well-read. He doesn’t have the smooth-talking flow of a seasoned hustle bro. He’s just nothing.
It continues to blow my mind that he manages to get interesting guests. He's infuriating to listen to and seems like a very slow thinker. His lack of verbal fluency despite being ashkenazim is the most convincing argument against HBD that I've ever seen. I also don't actually think anybody likes him particularly - his major strength is that he gets interesting guests and then shuts the fuck up, but I think if he just made an interview show where the guest got to talk and he was completely silent he'd actually be more popular.
More options
Context Copy link
I expect this view won’t be popular on here, but I think the fact that Fridman is a Jew helps a lot. Fellow Jews like Netanyahu and Zelenskyy feel more welcome on his podcast rather than going on Joe Rogan, for instance. “Fridman is one of us.” That gives Fridman entreé to a lot of interviews with powerful Jews that non-Jewish interviewers might not get. Hence why his podcast has accumulated so much popularity.
There are a lot of charismatic Jewish interviewers out there. Fridman’s Jewishness is probably largely incidental even if you believe claims about nepotism etc since he built his following pretty organically and clearly attracts guests because of it rather than because of his connections, the following came first (which is surprising), and many of his big guests that drove his following (Musk, Peterson) aren’t Jewish (some were of course, but I don’t know that they’re out of proportion with the percentage of important people who are Jewish).
You can’t make the case, for example, the way you could with, say, Seth Meyers or indeed with Zelensky himself, who were Jewish comedians hired by Jewish producers and eventually given big shows (whatever you think of their merits). I’m not saying either case was ethnic nepotism, but the allegation holds more than it does for Fridman, who largely built his following organically and on his own.
Genuine question, did he? Did he not get a huge Rogan boost?
Yeah, but that’s only non-organic if you’re implying Rogan invited him on for a non-usual reason, I would say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As far as I’m aware, Seth Meyers is only 1/8 Jewish (through his paternal grandfather) and I’m not sure that he was even raised with any connection to Jewish culture. He grew up in Michigan and then in New Hampshire. His wife is Jewish, and they’re raising their kids Jewish because of her, but as far as I’m aware everything he’s said about it is that he doesn’t think of himself as Jewish at all.
Fair enough, there actually aren’t a huge number of Jewish talkshow hosts, Maher and Stern and Jon Stewart are I guess.
Jimmy Kimmel would be the other obvious one. (EDIT: Actually, no! Another one like Meyers who just looks and acts Jewish. A crypto-gentile!) And then Larry King, Sally Jessy Raphael, and Ricki Lake before that. (Also Jerry Springer and Maury Povich, if you consider those talk shows.)
I am going to make myself sound about 30 years older than I am, but there were also David Susskind and Joe Franklin
More options
Context Copy link
Terry Gross from NPR's Fresh Air comes to mind as probably the best of the pure interviewers. It's a testament to her skill that most of the interviews of hers I've listened to aren't of people I'd normally seek out on my own but happened to come across when flipping through the dial. Larry King just wasn't any good. His philosophy was that he should be in the same position as the average audience member who didn't know particularly much about the subject and would go on a journey of discovery or whatever, but in reality it seemed like he used it to not only excuse his lack of preparation but to make it a point of personal pride.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fridman's job translating his guests is pretty good. Plausibly his behind the scenes management, making getting on his show a seamless experience and other such hidden work, is where he shines compared to other podcasters. But that's just speculation
More options
Context Copy link
That's what he's selling.
I don't know how he got the first few but a popular platform that'll let you go off for a few hours is probably quite attractive to guests. And then it's just a snowball.
Finkelstein, for example, almost certainly went on his show cause he'd finally be allowed to confront Benny Morris with minimal interference. And I listened cause I wanted to see it, and so on.
Oh I don’t think his popularity with his subjects is surprising, anyone with a huge audience who isn’t politically toxic (and Friedman isn’t, his own politics seem vaguely lib-right but he doesn’t push them) is going to have people who want to be heard. It’s his audience that’s interesting.
Sure, but isn't this just the Fallon thing but for YouTube?
Some people have audiences. Others have the audience of whoever they can get on that day, provided they're bland enough to not turn them off.
Fallon is in the bottom quintile of top interviewers but I’m sure in person he still comes across as awkwardly charming, he can make some median people laugh, he’s not even in the same league as Fridman.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's interesting (YMMV and obviously does, but I find him super engaging) and he tries to be open minded when he talks to people. I will never understand why people criticize him saying "oh he never pushes his guests". That's a feature, not a bug. I can't stand interviewers who just badger guests trying to get them to say/not say certain things. Lex has some questions to set up discussions, and then he just tries to listen to people and understand them. He does push back on occasion, but mostly he's trying to see things from his guest's point of view (even when you can tell he doesn't particularly agree with it). That is rare and enjoyable in this day and age.
I more or less agree, but it's one thing to not antagonize your guest, or try to catch them off-guard, and another to add basically nothing and just have them talk their book. I think a great point of comparison is his interview with The Zuck vs the one from Dwarkesh Patel. While they're a bit apart in time, so there were some developments between them, they're both generally very friendly, but Dwarkesh just gets so much more out of Zuck by actually engaging him on the subjects he's talking about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link