enough rope
When I was in college, I was on a weekly radio show-turned podcast. The format of the show involved me and my co-host discussing the news of the week which eventually turned into heated debates over those issues1. This was early-2017, the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election.
Hosting a weekly show provided a ton of benefits. First, it eliminated any debate from my house (my co-host was also one of my four roommates), and everyone was appreciative of that. It was as an escape hatch for any drunk argument, someone could just go “save it for the podcast” and we’d immediately stop. It was good. Additionally, it helped with my general presentation and speaking skills. Having to hold a conversation for a full hour and speak clearly on a wide range of topics was a better education in communication than any class I took. Baptism by fire.
And yet, I don’t think it was an effective arena for debate. My strategy was to out-research my opponent (yes, I know that’s not the most constructive framing, but trying to be honest here). I’d read a bunch of articles, try to fully understand the issue at hand, flesh out timetable, and communicate the facts of the case. I thought if I could concretely present the beats of the controversy, the take-away would be obvious and listeners would understand and agree with my worldview.
But sometimes my co-host would disagree about a point, ranging from the material to the incidental and we would get sidetracked by the slightest disagreement, failing to focus on the issue at hand, and more importantly, avoid taking a stance.
Taking a stance and letting the other person do the same, this is where I fell short back in 2017 and 2018.
One of my favorite podcasts over the past 5ish years has been Open To Debate (formally known as Intelligence Squared U.S.) where the host, John Donovan, serves as a moderator in an Oxford-Style debate. This creates an environment which encourages people to make compelling arguments rather than zingers and lots of interruptions. For example, a recent debate asked the question: “Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap?” and there was a vibrant back-and-forth. Below are the opening arguments.
This example, as well as numerous debates that I’ve consumed over the years, have made me realize how valuable it is to really hear the opinion of someone else instead of getting bogged down on the mechanics of the debate. For more on this, see post titled Barguments #4. It’s much more interesting to actually understand where someone comes from, and in the style of the Supreme Court, ask them questions to identify how far those beliefs extend. I could easily see someone (e.g. me in 2017) interrupting when the “84 cents” was cited and derail the argument over a minor point and completely miss the meat of the disagreement.
Another podcast which has impacted my views, both back in 2017 and now, is the KCRW classic Left, Right, and Center. On that show three hosts represent the titular positions with the Center acting as host, asking questions and ensuring that decorum is maintained. I often find myself yelling at the podcast pleading with the host to correct or push-back on a Left or Right view, but he doesn’t. He just lets the take present itself in full.
For example, in this clip Sarah Isgur (Right) buries in the middle of this opening that Trump has no position on abortion, and that the position he’s taking (leaving the rights up to the states) is actually pro-choice. These had me begging David Greene (Center/Host) to step in and clarify. If he had cut her off maybe she would have moderated and been more careful with her words; but instead, we got the unadulterated opinion.
I bring up this evolution because it now allows me to appreciate the ever-increasing amount of content where people spew absolute garbage, like Tucker Carlson:
Now would it have been better for Joe Rogan to interrupt and debate Tucker on the merits of evolution, or just let him sound like a fool. Asking “in what sense” requires Tucker to build on his view, but Joe comes across as genuinely engaging. There are so many individual points that could have derailed the conversation, but instead we get to hear the ramblings of a shock jock who has now lost credibility with his sympathetic interviewer. There is value to giving people enough room to sound stupid.
Let’s look at another example. A lot of digital ink has been spilled over the Israel/Palestine conflict and somehow even more has been entered into the record over these campus protests. Some campus leaders believe they should silence speech of these protesters, but I disagree. Let the views be heard and call people after you’ve let them speak, once you fully understand what they believe.
I’ll try and keep this relatively targeted since the list of campus protests grows by the day, I’ll look at a proposal from Colombia. In the official ask requesting divestment they begin their request with the following claim: “For over 75 years, with no recourse or redress…”
It is my understanding that the reference to “75 years” has a pretty universal meaning. It refers to the creation of Israel in 1948, and the suggestion that this conflict has been that long implies that Israel should not exist. Period. This seems akin to the “from the river to the sea” chant we saw so much of in October and November last year. On the surface something relatively mundane. Clearly a reference to one of the many conflicts, but at its core a rallying call for elimination of the State of Israel. It’s my view that this “75 years” claim is similar in that a relatively innocent number masks a deeper and more radical take. Again, let the people talk and they will tell you what they think.
Now this may come as a surprise, but I like to talk, and that sometimes results in my dominating of conversations. In addition to being rude, it also prevents people from sharing their hotter takes, which I now appreciate more. Some fun examples I’ve heard recently:
We should have age limits for politicians — whereby no other elements are considered, so all 60-year-olds are treated equally
A proclaimed environmentalist claimed, in earnest, they want to kidnap the CEO of Boeing and kill him
Showing up late to a party with a start time identified is rude (even if it might be considered fashionably late)
Empty buildings are preferable to vape stores
Builders taking tax credits when building housing near public transit is bad
So let people speak, hear them out, and remember to give people just enough rope, to hang themselves.
No, you cannot still listen to episodes, they have been purged from the internet.