[FRIAM] Lex hand-carries softballs to Ivanka to hit from his hand...

[steve smith]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240703/45de2143/attachment.html>