<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Glen can say "I told you so, why don't you listen more
carefully?" now. <br>
</p>
<p>I have *mostly* referenced Fridman here in terms of
podcast/interviews I have watched and offer as a positive
experience. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_J._Robinson"
title="Nathan J. Robinson" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Nathan J. Robinson</a><span> </span>of<span> </span><i><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Affairs_(magazine)"
title="Current Affairs (magazine)" style="text-decoration:
none; color: var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none;
border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Current
Affairs</a></i><span> </span>wrote, "Fridman is not an<span> </span><a
href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idealogue" class="extiw"
title="wikt:idealogue" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">idealogue</a><span> </span>and
seems genuine in his desire to empathetically understand leftists
(he has also interviewed<span> </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff"
title="Richard D. Wolff" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Richard Wolff</a>,<span> </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen" title="Steve
Keen" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Steve Keen</a>, and<span> </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky" title="Noam
Chomsky" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Noam Chomsky</a>) and to be
fair to all sides, he has hosted a debate between 'skeptical
environmentalist'<span> </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg"
title="Bjørn Lomborg" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Bjorn Lomborg</a><span> </span>and
climate journalist<span> </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Revkin" title="Andrew
Revkin" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Andrew Revkin</a>. 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."<sup id="cite_ref-Robinson_17-0" class="reference"
style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space:
nowrap; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-size:
12.8px;"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-Robinson-17"
style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none;
border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[17]</a></sup><br>
A 2023 article by Elizabeth Lopatto in<span> </span><i><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Verge" title="The
Verge" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none;
border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">The Verge</a></i><span> </span>stated
that Fridman's podcast "has a following among the tech elite" and
said that Fridman "is a softball interviewer".<sup
id="cite_ref-:4_4-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1;
unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal; font-size: 12.8px;"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-:4-4"
style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none;
border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[4]</a></sup><span> </span>Ben
Samuel argued in another 2023 article in<span> </span><i><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz" title="Haaretz"
style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none;
border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Haaretz</a></i><span> </span>that
Fridman failed to challenge claims made on his podcast by Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.<sup id="cite_ref-18"
class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate;
white-space: nowrap; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal;
font-size: 12.8px;"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-18"
style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none;
border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[18]</a></sup><span> </span>A
2024 article in<span> </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_News"
title="Bloomberg News" style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius:
2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Bloomberg</a>, by Ellen Huet,
commented that Fridman's podcast is seen by tech CEOs as a
friendlier alternative to more adversarial interviews with
traditional journalists.<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference"
style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space:
nowrap; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-size:
12.8px;"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#cite_note-19"
style="text-decoration: none; color:
var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none;
border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[19]</a><br>
<br>
</sup></blockquote>
<p><sup>Anyway. On to the Ivanka interview:</sup></p>
<p><sup>I have been skipping through... most of the subjects. Total
of maybe 30 minutes of rolling video, similar amount to compose
this (estimate)...<br>
</sup></p>
<p><sup>Pro:</sup></p>
<ul>
<li><sup>First time I heard her speak at a (near) full volume
rather than her signature "breathy whisper".</sup></li>
<li><sup>She was as articulate (see Con's below) as I would expect
of a college-educated scion of a (faux?) wealthy family</sup></li>
<li><sup>She described something about busting out of a bubble in
2016 (but missed that she fell into another bubble?)</sup></li>
<li><sup>She told positive (albeit superficial and clueless)
stories about "working class families" and "single mothers".<br>
</sup></li>
<li><sup>She told some stories about (her?) work in the WH on sex
trafficking/exploitation, child exploitation... (see below)<br>
</sup></li>
<li><sup>??</sup></li>
</ul>
<p><sup>Con:</sup></p>
<ul>
<li><sup>Articulate airhead</sup></li>
<li><sup>articulate Airhead</sup></li>
<li><sup>ignored or avoided (with Lex's Softball help) anything
like an honest critical/self-critical thought</sup></li>
<li><sup>No acknowledgement/awareness of the horror-show that is
his father, siblings, husband, ???</sup></li>
<li><sup>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.</sup></li>
<li><sup>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)?</sup></li>
<li><sup>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?</sup></li>
<li><sup>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 <i>Trump
Tower Olympus Mons</i>.</sup></li>
<li><sup>??<br>
</sup></li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><sup>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.</sup><br>
</p>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>