We as posters have different goals than podcast hosts though. Our goal is to be confrontational because we don't care about media capital (because we don't use it to pay our bills). We can afford to be standoffish pricks who just berate people at the first opportunity. We like bullying libs. We think it's part of our duty as good leftists. But if you're a person who has conversations for a living, that won't get you far. You have to learn to put up with people you disagree with and to pick your battles. You have to sit through someone saying something bad or wrong so you can move onto something more productive. To be fair, this is a skill you need as an organizer too. If you go to someone's house for campaigning or any kind of outreach, you might have to listen to a chud or a lib say something you know is wrong. You don't pick an argument with them and then call them a doo doo shid head lib who should get the wall. You behave with tact.
Someone might ask how having conversations for a living on a podcast helps the left, and it doesn't really. It's just media. It's kind a good for information. It's mostly good for entertainment. It's not supposed to be the center of the movement. We actually don't want to live in a world where the center of the left is a podcast. That's cringe and can't actually change anything. So it's okay if podcasts hosts don't tattoo that Mao quote about disregarding civility. Just listen to it if you want, don't if you don't like it. Keep an appropriate sensibility about what media is and what it can do. Even if the Brie or Virgil thinks they're doing something productive, I don't think it matters.
I don't listen to BF but Virgil's interview on Chapo with Yang was delicate confrontation. He started off slow, worked inwards, and backed off if he felt Yang was getting frustrated or they were at dead end. It's a soft-soap at first but towards the end Virgil managed to get Yang to basically admit he had no idea how to do his "Everyone gets $1000" plan. That wouldn't have been possible if he called Yang a genocidal lib at the first point of disagreement.
Yes, as an entertainment product BF is enjoyable for a certain crowd. Good point about how one can't be a hardliner all the time when organizing, although I don't think there's much else of a comparison between podcasting and doing on-the-ground stuff.
But considering that Yang probably walked away completely unchanged from the interview and then went on to act like a dipshit in the NY mayor's race who would have actively hurt people if he won, I can't see it as much of an accomplishment that Virgil landed an extremely gentle dunk. It comes across like two people play-acting a drama where they're careful not to offend each other and I can't get down with that. But to your point, that just means I'm not the sort of liberal who enjoys that particular show.
Oh I'm sure he didn't change or learn anything. He's too well-off to do that. Everything he thinks has worked out well for him. The material connection between what his life is and what he thinks is too strong to be changed in an interview. I guess you could then ask why it matters to interview him at all and I don't think it does. I think some of this isn't so much a podcast platforming them, but them platforming the podcast. Someone like Marianne has way more followers and people who listen to her than the things she usually goes on. So you as a host have a chance to reach someone new, even if you can't change the guest's mind. But how much that actually moves a needle, I don't know. I don't think anyone was going to vote for Yang in the primaries who also was a regular Chapo listener so landing that dunk only reaffirmed our suspicions more than had an influence on the election. I don't think them being more aggressive would have hurt him in the primaries either. It's just a big luke warm nothing that we attach meaning to depending on what we believe about the nature of media and culture.
We as posters have different goals than podcast hosts though. Our goal is to be confrontational because we don't care about media capital (because we don't use it to pay our bills). We can afford to be standoffish pricks who just berate people at the first opportunity. We like bullying libs. We think it's part of our duty as good leftists. But if you're a person who has conversations for a living, that won't get you far. You have to learn to put up with people you disagree with and to pick your battles. You have to sit through someone saying something bad or wrong so you can move onto something more productive. To be fair, this is a skill you need as an organizer too. If you go to someone's house for campaigning or any kind of outreach, you might have to listen to a chud or a lib say something you know is wrong. You don't pick an argument with them and then call them a doo doo shid head lib who should get the wall. You behave with tact.
Someone might ask how having conversations for a living on a podcast helps the left, and it doesn't really. It's just media. It's kind a good for information. It's mostly good for entertainment. It's not supposed to be the center of the movement. We actually don't want to live in a world where the center of the left is a podcast. That's cringe and can't actually change anything. So it's okay if podcasts hosts don't tattoo that Mao quote about disregarding civility. Just listen to it if you want, don't if you don't like it. Keep an appropriate sensibility about what media is and what it can do. Even if the Brie or Virgil thinks they're doing something productive, I don't think it matters.
I don't listen to BF but Virgil's interview on Chapo with Yang was delicate confrontation. He started off slow, worked inwards, and backed off if he felt Yang was getting frustrated or they were at dead end. It's a soft-soap at first but towards the end Virgil managed to get Yang to basically admit he had no idea how to do his "Everyone gets $1000" plan. That wouldn't have been possible if he called Yang a genocidal lib at the first point of disagreement.
Yes, as an entertainment product BF is enjoyable for a certain crowd. Good point about how one can't be a hardliner all the time when organizing, although I don't think there's much else of a comparison between podcasting and doing on-the-ground stuff.
But considering that Yang probably walked away completely unchanged from the interview and then went on to act like a dipshit in the NY mayor's race who would have actively hurt people if he won, I can't see it as much of an accomplishment that Virgil landed an extremely gentle dunk. It comes across like two people play-acting a drama where they're careful not to offend each other and I can't get down with that. But to your point, that just means I'm not the sort of liberal who enjoys that particular show.
Oh I'm sure he didn't change or learn anything. He's too well-off to do that. Everything he thinks has worked out well for him. The material connection between what his life is and what he thinks is too strong to be changed in an interview. I guess you could then ask why it matters to interview him at all and I don't think it does. I think some of this isn't so much a podcast platforming them, but them platforming the podcast. Someone like Marianne has way more followers and people who listen to her than the things she usually goes on. So you as a host have a chance to reach someone new, even if you can't change the guest's mind. But how much that actually moves a needle, I don't know. I don't think anyone was going to vote for Yang in the primaries who also was a regular Chapo listener so landing that dunk only reaffirmed our suspicions more than had an influence on the election. I don't think them being more aggressive would have hurt him in the primaries either. It's just a big luke warm nothing that we attach meaning to depending on what we believe about the nature of media and culture.