This podcast seems to work best when there’s a lot of back-and-forth between the speakers, and in this episode, with all the long stretches of time where the guest was speaking, I ended up feeling like I was getting a lecture. I get that he’s a college professor so he’s used to doing that, but it doesn’t work for me when I think about the way Jesse and Katie usually interact.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I noticed a couple comments on the ep with Katie and Hadley Freeman saying they enjoyed the eps with Katie and guest more than Jesse and guest. I think it's that Katie tends to have guest hosts that she has a rapport with so there's more banter, whereas Jesse invites people he finds interesting and gives them space to make their pitch. Tl;dr - Jesse please just invite Helen Lewis next time Katie is away.
For what it's worth, this was a better episode than that one. At least in this case the factual inaccuracies were mostly in the underlying work and not the podcast itself!
>He lost me by trying to argue that millionaires and billionaires (who have more money than they need) shouldn't be blamed for their objectionable decisions, because the people who carry out the decisions (who do need money to live) are somehow more culpable, or something?
I don't think that is what he is saying at all. He is saying that the Columbia educated HR manager for Pepsi who is all about "# resistance" and "ACAB", and "intersectionalpalooza", has some real actual culpability for the systems they claim to so hate.
It isn't JUST the fault of the millionaires and billionaires. Which is right.
"He lost me by trying to argue that millionaires and billionaires (who have more money than they need) shouldn't be blamed for their objectionable decisions"
He just didn't say that? He did say that sub-millionaires deserved blame. But blame isn't zero-sum. If you pay me to murder someone, my culpability doesn't somehow make you less blameworthy. (I'm speaking morally, not legally.)
This podcast seems to work best when there’s a lot of back-and-forth between the speakers, and in this episode, with all the long stretches of time where the guest was speaking, I ended up feeling like I was getting a lecture. I get that he’s a college professor so he’s used to doing that, but it doesn’t work for me when I think about the way Jesse and Katie usually interact.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I noticed a couple comments on the ep with Katie and Hadley Freeman saying they enjoyed the eps with Katie and guest more than Jesse and guest. I think it's that Katie tends to have guest hosts that she has a rapport with so there's more banter, whereas Jesse invites people he finds interesting and gives them space to make their pitch. Tl;dr - Jesse please just invite Helen Lewis next time Katie is away.
For what it's worth, this was a better episode than that one. At least in this case the factual inaccuracies were mostly in the underlying work and not the podcast itself!
Yeah, this format doesn’t really allow for much humor, and BaRpod without the humor just doesn’t fly.
>He lost me by trying to argue that millionaires and billionaires (who have more money than they need) shouldn't be blamed for their objectionable decisions, because the people who carry out the decisions (who do need money to live) are somehow more culpable, or something?
I don't think that is what he is saying at all. He is saying that the Columbia educated HR manager for Pepsi who is all about "# resistance" and "ACAB", and "intersectionalpalooza", has some real actual culpability for the systems they claim to so hate.
It isn't JUST the fault of the millionaires and billionaires. Which is right.
"He lost me by trying to argue that millionaires and billionaires (who have more money than they need) shouldn't be blamed for their objectionable decisions"
He just didn't say that? He did say that sub-millionaires deserved blame. But blame isn't zero-sum. If you pay me to murder someone, my culpability doesn't somehow make you less blameworthy. (I'm speaking morally, not legally.)