I listened to the most three most recent episodes and this review is based on what I heard. I was pushed this way by Cognitive Dissonance, who frequently guest on other podcasts to help the community. I think that's great, but I wonder if they bother listening to these shows or just check out the tag lines...
I say that because this guy is genuine in his sincerity but his reasoning is deeply flawed. Episode 55 featured a guest named Fede who is a YouTuber and an unapologetic misogynist. He may disagree with that label, but it's hard to deny. He and "Dragonbeard" started a reasonable discussion about feminism that devolved into banal tropes and generalizations. One example: Fede said the "...only reason people will vote for Hillary is because she's a woman." Ridiculous. Stupid. I don't get offended when the guys a CogDiss say offensive stuff, because the show is about laughing and they don't actually think that way! It's not serious, those guys don't pretend to know anything about anything.
This show is serious, and Db presents himself as a skeptic and that he knows what he's talking about. So that's why I was quite disappointed with Db, he jumped on the Fede-anti-female bandwagon, either too afraid to call out his guest or he actually agreed. It's hard to know Db's intentions as he went on a bizarre rant about the family court system and its slant towards mothers... then equal employment in Canada.
He calls himself a skeptic, but skeptics question everything. We recognize logical fallacies. We reject broad, unsubstantiated generalizations and anecdotal evidence. We listen. We don't hold on to our positions in the face of evidence; we can change our minds.
The fact is that Hillary has been in politics since the 1960s. That's 50 years. She wasn't just a piece on Bill's arm, she had influence in his policies and decisions. She's highly intelligent, a lawyer, she was a Senator and a Secretary of State. There is literally no one more qualified on either ticket. Now that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for her, because there are more issues than just one's qualifications. But none of those issues has anything to do with the private bits between her legs.
Dragonbeard: You seem like a nice guy who's probably going through some things. Is it possible that your views on women have something to do with your own experiences and not on reason-based evidence?
The truth about gender equality is stark. Despite equal rights for decades, women still aren't represented equally in many industries. There are factors at work which are difficult to regulate, basically coming down to the person doing the hiring. It's a cultural mindset that is virtually impossible to fix without laws. That's why your president is enforcing gender equality where he can. It's an experiment with good intentions. And where better than Canada? Small population, good economy. If it works, it's a model to the world; if it fails, at least you tried.
It's comparable to Affirmative Action in America. Yeah, it doesn't sound great in theory, but when you dig into it, it's the best of a bad situation. Kids from poor backgrounds were not being admitted to universities and colleges based on the whims of these institutions, cultural biases. There was nothing wrong with them rejecting the straight A's from a kid from a poor school system over a kid with B's from a rich school system. They could just question the quality of the education. Or they could lean on extracurriculars, which rich schools have in abundance, or on legacy recommendations. This had to be regulated because people were excluding minorities and the poor, likely without even realizing that's what they were doing.
How many employers have dismissed women or minorities as candidates for similar reasons? I'd wager that if it were possible to review every person not hired after an interview, there would be a justifiable reason for each one that had nothing to do with race, age, gender, weight, attractiveness, et cetera. But Db, here's where the science comes in, the data shows the pattern... It's undeniable to anyone who understands statistics. There is a correlation and non-regulation has done nothing to change this.
I think it's a noble thing to want to improve the world, but cultural biases are deeply rooted and tough to change (see Fede). This is exactly the kind of thing skeptics understand and confront on a daily basis.
I won't be listening to anymore episodes, and I do not recommend this podcast.
