Slate Debates

Waow ! This was an outstanding exchange. Not sure it is about agreeing or disagreeing but embracing the fact that the human mind is unique and that we are creatures of nuance and contradictions that need to be handled so that we can move forward. In the US, we like black & white solutions and placing people and their issues into boxes. It comes as reassuring but real life and real people - whether psychotic or not - are always evolving shades of grey.

I don’t care one ounce about ‘Slate Debates’ or whatever else slate retitles this feed. I originally followed it as the podcast ‘Lexicon Vally’ and even though that podcast jumped ship from slates dying platform, they still have the classic episodes in this feed. Slate has has continued to put subpar content on this feed. One fails podcast after the next, but as long as I can still listen to old episodes of lexicon valley I’ll continue to subscribe.

This show frustrates me because the premise - let’s bring on folks we disagree with and hear them out and have a reasonable debate - should make for a great podcast. But in practice, they simply do not bring on people they disagree with. Instead, they bring on people who they do agree with about 99% of the issue with the remaining point of contention almost always being, “I think we should listen to the other side and try to understand them”… A proposal that any reasonable person could get behind, but which the host presents as wildly radical. This latest episode is the perfect example of the pattern. To discuss the tradwife movement, would it not be the obvious move for a show supposedly about being open minded (the host ends the show reminding us to be open minded) to bring in the most articulate defender of that movement they could find? Instead, we bring in a fellow critic of the movement whose supposedly radical premise is, “Maybe these wrong headed women have a point or two.” These are intra ideological quibbles, not any serious attempt to bridge meaningful disagreements… And the fact that the host of a show supposedly about encouraging healthy debate almost always argues against taking the other side seriously is just… I mean, could anything be more ironic?

Impossible to take McWorter seriously after he said he couldn’t teach “4:33” because it was too noisy outside, exposing himself as both an intellectual charlatan and an advocate for the repression of free speech in one fell swoop. What an embarrassing moment for both Columbia and the New York Times, as they both choose to err on the side of genocide rather than live up to their own ideals.