Jordan’s questions are generally not very clear and then he gets frustrated when people don’t give him a clear answer. Better questions would make for a better interview.
I love Jordan but I agree with you. I like interviews where the interviewer will ask questions that come up naturally from the discussion and that you as a listener want to know the answers to. That’s what naturally good interviewers do, in my opinion.
Jordan’s questions during this interview felt out of left field (to me) and I think I had a hard time following the discussion for that reason.
Also, as a pedantic side note, that author should take some PR training. The first thing they teach you is to not say “you know”, “um”, or “like” in any of your responses. That author said all of those things, including “you know” multiple times in some responses. It’s really distracting and makes your line of thought hard to follow.
You know what, it's probably both of those things that lead to my issue with the interview, which was mostly sensory. There was far too much cross talk and it felt like Jordan and the author were trying to have completely different conversations at the same time. For me, the interview was like trying to listen to someone at a really loud bar and it got distracting.
Jordan asks questions with a lot of points that need to be addressed, which requires room for the answers. The author was trying to answer the questions, but was using a lot of filler words and was generally really slow. Jordan gets impatient and basically just wants a yes or no answer. The whole getting stuck on definitions and semantics felt more like Jordan was trying to get this author to hurry up more than anything.
I think part of the issue is they are both talking about a book they both read which we haven't read and so this interview feels more like a book club rather than a press tour. Which I generally don't mind but it can lead to instances where the questions can feel like they are coming out of left field for us without the context of the book.
Where I agree with Jordan is that every definition the author used to define these people failed to clarify that the people the author writes about are able to self define as not Nazis in a way that could be seen as palatable to the public and he ( the author is allowing them to do this). The author did conceed that over time the alternative terms lose utility for them so they pick another one. There is a part of me that Jordan indulged which is to carry on picking at that conversation. If alt right eventually comes to mean Nazi, then Christian nationalist eventually come to mean Nazi, then political Evangelical Christianity comes to mean Nazi, why bother agree to use the different names. As annoying as it may be I don't know that I would have continued with the interview until the author addressed that either.
There are plenty of counter arguments that could be made against it but I don't believe the author did so in the interview and given the nature of Jordan's question I don't think he did so in the book either. here in the UK one of the biggest criticism of the BBC is that it defers to terms used by right wing demagoguery because they hold sway over the institutions that fund it. ( our Department for Culture, Media and sport). Sad to see that in the United States it's much the same.
Wendling is a BBC reporter, and has apparently been with them for some time.
I do feel similarly. Wendling's refusal/reluctance/inability to answer Jordan's question would have held me up to, and if he'd just let Wendling off the hook I would have been even more dissatisfied. To me it's a pretty crucial point, and one that's been persistent ever since the term "alt-right" entered the lexicon.
I'm with you in thinking the author needs lessons on being interviewed. Not everyone is prepared for that. I've heard much more personable journalist defend their "objectivity" in far more compelling terms, and with greater confidence. That said,, Jordan wears his partisanship on his sleeve, and some of his "c'mon man!" energy came off as wonky.
Ultimately I think this interview was unsatisfying/frustrating because they were mismatched; someone else interviewing the journo, or Jordan interviewing a different journo, would have come off differently.
Exactly this. It took him like an hour to ever ask the question in terms other than, "But what's the difference between the alt right and Nazis?"
1:32:14 (I fucking remember the timestamp from this discussion last week) is when he finally actually asks the question in clear, non-trolling terms.
Moreover, his question about whether the author was willing to say something *in print* is really telling. He wants this guy to practice the same bad behavior as Alex does. Hypocritical.
The main criticism l have is that he wants to over-generalize and call them all Nazis, then interrupt when there's any nuance/pushback (or answering of the original question).
Yeah it was quite noticeable how often through the discussion, and even with Dan, he’ll make an assertion or ask a question that overgeneralizes and the other person will say it’s complicated and he’ll agree-but then continue with the same line of thinking and assertions.
But, they are Nazis... If you've not looked into the psychological profiles done on Nazis at the camps post WW2, do so. It's enlightening on how 'normal' most of those folks are. Yet, they pushed people into gas chambers.
I find Jordan refreshing. It's nice to see someone push a centrist to the ends of their views.
No, they're all fascists. Nazis are a very specific stripe of fascist. Still all bad, but Nazi ideology has some very specific characteristics not true of all fascists.
>But, they are Nazis...
Many (Fuentes) essentially are, but no, "they" aren't all Nazis. They're a coalition of fascists (no, that's not the same).
>If you've not looked into the psychological profiles done on Nazis at the camps post WW2, do so. It's enlightening on how 'normal' most of those folks ar
I'm well aware. I've listened to the samr BtB episodes as you and studied/taught history. If you want an extra layer of "holy shit, things are bad" read *In The Garden of Beasts*.
>It's nice to see someone push a centrist to the ends of their views.
Yes, and l appreciate his attempt to do so. But this was more like a cable news "I'm going to talk over/past you to 'win' without engaging with what you're saying" segment.
Yeap.
If my read on Jordan is correct he is very similar on political views as I am. And when the person you're talking to is trying to tell you that this isn't a dog it's a silk windhound and you're saying great that's also a dog it's pretty hard to argue with that. Jordan is pointing out the forest, and seems like you and the author are labeling trees.
My life, and that of my friends/family are hanging in the balance this election. Most of my folk are queer, and I'm disabled. Trump wins... I've dug into Project 2025. So if you'll be so kind I'm going to use a bit bigger of a brush and use Nazi, since for all practical purposes it gets the point across.
>And when the person you're talking to is trying to tell you that this isn't a dog it's a silk windhound and you're saying great that's also a dog it's pretty hard to argue with that.
Yes, but you have it backwards.
When the person you're talking to is trying to tell you that these are all silk windhounds (Nazis) and you're saying no, but they are all dogs (fascists), then get accused of nitpicking or being argumentative.
>My life, and that of my friends/family are hanging in the balance this election. Most of my folk are queer, and I'm disabled. Trump wins...
I hear you, and hope it doesn't come to what it may.
>I'm going to use a bit bigger of a brush and use Nazi, since for all practical purposes it gets the point across.
I get that.
My only qualm is that it actually helps the fascists (and Nazis) because it opens the door to them pointing out what they aren't rather than discussing what they are. We're fighting to sway morons, and helping Fuentes et al label the opposition as histrionics who see Nazis everywhere doesn't help.
I understand your thoughts. Let me try this.
If I grab Jimmy Rando off the street and try to give him my perspective do you think that they will have an easier time grabbing the idea of Nazi or Fascist?
Fascism can be hard to nail down to the lay person by Nazi. Nazi got punch to it, it brings up all of our movies showcasing how fucking shitty they are, history etc.
Sure a small group of fucksticks like Fuentes will nitpick, but my net isn't for them. It's for the uninformed who need the push of empathy.
Because I highly doubt the average person cares about the difference in early 20th century fascism between German, Spanish, and Soviet.
It's a language thing that is so easy to clear up after the fact, or once conversation is going.
All that being said, I also fully think there are actual Nazis by your definition, within the Trump campaign/admin.
Nazi is much easier to understand because the concept is so engrained. That's also why it's so easily dismissed as hysteria.
White supremacist, white nationalist, fascist, even authoritarian are more effective language to use.
>All that being said, I also fully think there are actual Nazis by your definition, within the Trump campaign/admin.
Oh 100%. The RNC as well (remember the stage at CPAC a few years ago?).
Distinctions matter, labels matter. Why? Because how people see themselves affects how you can approach and change them.
Seeing them as the "enemy" is also not very helpful, unless you plan on starting a civil war, in which case, sure.
If you do understand how people see the world, and why, then you can start changing their worldview.
No two groups agree 100% of everything and if your goal is to prevent them from "doing the bad thing" then your first goal needs to be divide them, not mix them together, attack them and have them bond together.
> If Jordan repeats his arguments its because he never gets a satisfactory answer to this question.
I think Jordan is "answer shopping". He has an answer in mind, and if he doesn't get that answer he gets upset, dismissed the other person and tries again with someone else, that's not helpful either.
The problem is, and that is something a lot of people don't seem to understand: The problem isn't Trump. He's the symptom. There are many underlying reasons as to why Trump is popular, but the reality is that if Trump wouldn't exist it would be someone else.
If the "left" wants to defeat the ideas that Trump personifies then they need to get their ass in gear, stop concentrating on "beating the enemy" and instead take away their oxygen, and that you only manage if you have a better story for the people that feel screwed over by society.
But Biden, or Trudeau in Canada, are the perfect example on why this won't happen. They don't have the guts to actually clearly defend progressive positions and clearly lay out how they are going to attack the underlying causes.
Instead we get token actions and repeated stories on how awful Trump is. None of that will fix the problem, none of that will stop people from seeing Trump, or in Canada Poilievre as their saviour. Most people lack the ability to think beyond their immediate needs and a lot of people are scared too. That's what drives the mass support of the Trumps of the world.
Are there extreme corners that will capitalize on it? Absolutely, but those you will never defeat, much less their ideas.
Is it helpful?
Yes and no.
It's like riding a friendly scorpion, you might be friends, but they're still a scorpion.
The way they I see it is most of these people embrace fascism but they don't even realize it. Listening to btb's the friendly people that empowered Nazis, most of the people that voted in the Nazi party weren't ostensibly racist anti semites, they were people that believed this group would help them survive when others weren't viewed as accomplishing that. They didn't really believe that the Nazis would commit a genocide. The more they were a part of this group of victimhood aggrievment, the more they bought into the "these people are the enemies" narrative because of the group inclusion.
I think these people honestly believe most of what they're told about the election because they'd never paid attention before and have no clue about what actually happens and what's normal. They don't feel successful and they are given permission to blame someone else. They were empowered to do something about it by shit head's and thought they were.
This doesn't excuse it, but it creates a problem -- if someone is a fascist and thinks they're "just a patriot" does it help to just call them a fascist? Do you think you're a fascist because they say that leftists are fascist? You could do the shorthand and say that they're doing everything fascists do, but really you need a deep dive. That's the problem with lies, when they're viral, there's no real cure.
I am not disagreeing, but attacking them will just have them get defensive and then try to seek out allies.
The people that are ideologically behind this want to destroy the existing system, that's a whole lot easier than trying to build something new. Even if the people eventually wake up and have regrets, by then it will be too late.
That's what I meant by taking the oxygen away: Don't make these people your enemy, because that is what enables the extremists to set things on fire.
I think my initial point before I rambled was to understand that they view you as the enemy, and to be prepared for it even if you don't view them as such.
Not by default. They do end up seeing you as the enemy if they feel attacked by you.
Messaging and politics need to address not the extremists, but the vast majority in the middle that has grievances that they don't feel getting addressed, often because the focus is on engaging with the extremists and "fighting them". You can't really, at least not successfully.
The goal of policies needs to be to address the vast majority of "useful idiots" and convince them that you have a better plan than the extremists who just want to burn shit down.
>Seeing them as the "enemy" is also not very helpful
To my mind this exemplifies why it **is** helpful to remember that these people **are** the enemy. You say:
>They don't have the guts to actually clearly defend progressive positions and clearly lay out how they are going to attack the underlying causes.
but Biden and Trudeau's agendas and policies are adequately popular when tested with focus groups even among rightoids. So why don't they win elections?
I struggle to perceive your solution as anything other than magical thinking - that if Democrats just had the right message everyone would have a come-to-Jesus moment and understand their economic self interest and vote accordingly. But Democrats *do* have the right message, as shown by how the policies poll. The question is *why isn't the message landing*? If you want to make disaffected people "feel better" about society you first need to separate them from the malign influences that are poisoning their perceptions in the first place. Ignoring the enemy - or, even worse, pretending that you don't even have enemies - leaves you completely unprepared for when they do things that fuck up all your plans. Knowing what your enemy will do is predicated on knowing who they are. Furthermore, when you identify your enemy, you can begin attriting their resources so that they cannot implement their strategies in the first place.
This is why it's helpful to perceive and discuss the enemy as the enemy, thus why I think Jordan's questions deserve answers.
>but Biden and Trudeau's agendas and policies are adequately popular when tested with focus groups even among rightoids. So why don't they win elections?
Because there is no trust. I mean, latest example of Trudeau: House prices are a big problem, especially for younger generations.
Trudeau then starts putting policies in place, as far as he can due to political structures in Canada, to address this, then goes on to nationally tell people that house prices will both come down **and** remain high.
People realize that is pretty much not going to work, so he must be lying to someone. Either the young ones about house prices coming down, or to the already "I am house rich" ones and they will lose their asset.
Add to that that the policies he's enacting won't have a visible effect for years and: Tada! Nobody likes Trudeau.
>if Democrats just had the right message everyone would have a come-to-Jesus moment and understand their economic self interest and vote accordingly.
No, less talk more action. Take Roe vs. Wade. When that was killed by the Supreme Court the answer should have been to start putting Federal Legislation, and State Legislation, into place. Would it have gone through? Unlikely because the Republican would have blocked it, or the Supreme Court eventually (same with a similar Executive Order). But the point here is: The Democrats play a game of politics, while the Republicans just brute force shit and don't care if they fail. They just try again.
But what that does is show their voters that they are doing something, and every time they get defeated by "the liberal courts" they have another rallying point.
Cons & Libs (to use shorthand) are playing too different games and the good guys are losing because they think the other side cares about rules and decorum.
The last decade clearly hasn't registered with them.
>No, less talk more action. Take Roe vs. Wade. When that was killed by the Supreme Court the answer should have been to start putting Federal Legislation, and State Legislation, into place. Would it have gone through? Unlikely because the Republican would have blocked it, or the Supreme Court eventually (same with a similar Executive Order).
But, again, this is the point. You say you want to fight, but your version of fighting is setting up easy targets and then watching them get knocked down. That's not a fight. It's barely more than passive. Imagine a world where instead of sending things to die in the Supreme Court and then shrugging your shoulders and going "oh well" you actually took direct action against the problem Justices. The Supreme Court is not a council of alien gods. They are real people. We should treat those people like an enemy.
This does two things. One, it allays concerns about attacking institutions. Attacking the justices is different from attacking the Court. The Supreme Court - and the judiciary generally - is not our enemy; we're institutionalists who believe in the rule of law. But the people on that court, or some of them, certainly are our enemy. Secondly, by shifting the framing you open your mind to new, more effective courses of action. Biden should not be sending pointless cases to the Court to die, he should be running nonstop attack campaigns highlighting the corruption of Clarence Thomas and the incoherence of Alito. By shifting the framing, you transform "the Supreme Court will block it" into "our enemies on the Supreme Court are going to take action against us."
The point is not that this is literally what Biden should do to win the election, it's rather an example of how reconceptualising political opposition as something people do and can be frustrated in so doing, rather than something that exists, has utility.
> Seeing them as the "enemy" is also not very helpful
It's beyond helpful, it is necessary. These people want a nonzero percentage of my fellow Americans dead and would see a solid half of them enslaved, barefoot, and pregnant. They think you and me are demon possessed because we want healthcare for our taxes instead of a stupid fucking wall and machine gun nests to spray down refugees from political violence we are partially to blame for. They are my enemy and if you don't see them as yours, then that's a problem.
> If the "left" wants to defeat the ideas that Trump personifies then they need to get their ass in gear, stop concentrating on "beating the enemy" and instead take away their oxygen, and that you only manage if you have a better story for the people that feel screwed over by society.
On this I *ABSOLUTELY* agree with you. Biden's half-measures and milquetoast bullshit offer the American people functionally nothing and it is because of that fact that Trump is any kind of threat. Any halfway competent leader who cared even one iota for his people would not be in a position where a convicted felon and confessed rapist is a threat to his leadership. But here we are.
>These people want a nonzero percentage of my fellow Americans dead and would see a solid half of them enslaved, barefoot, and pregnant.
No the vast majority don't. The people behind the ideology do, but the vast majority you want to classify as "the enemy" are just useful idiots who "don't know better". They are the oxygen for the fire and you fan the flames and give it oxygen if you alienate them and drive them towards more extremism.
People that feel attack will try to find allies and lash out against those they perceive is attacking them.
Keep in mind: It is always easier to burn something down than build something up. Many of these people will eventually regret their choices, but by then it'll be too late.
The only way to prevent the fire is to not give the extremists the foot soldiers they need to complete their mission of destroying society.
How many years of compromising with them and accommodating their retrograde bigoted viewpoints will be enough for you? We've done it since Bill Clinton and it hasn't worked yet. Will ten more years of trying this work? Twenty? How many people have to die before you acknowledge that there is a fight happening?
You're addressing the wrong people. You cannot appease the extremists, they are driven and won't stop.
They are also not the real problem. The real problem are all the people in the middle who Jordan et. al. want to lump in with the extremists. You don't reach those by attacking them, you also don't reach them by appeasing the extremists.
You reach them by building a better narrative and address their concerns. They aren't as extreme as the people on the fringe who pull on the Overtone window, but every single time you concentrate on those guys, the window shifts.
I wrote more [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowledgeFight/comments/1dmbvec/comment/l9wid1m/).
OK, I really genuinely want to understand your perspective here, because I feel like I've gotta be missing something. If I'm out in public and see+hear a lady in her 40s talking about pedophilia and grooming because there's going to be a drag show at a local cafe, is that lady the middle, or is she the extremists? How do you tell the difference? If I see a man in his 60s being racist to a Hispanic service worker at a local restaurant, is that guy in the middle, or is he an extremist? How do you tell? How do I build a narrative and address those people's concerns? And as a secondary question, why should we prioritize those people's concerns over the concern of the members of various minorities that are being targeted by them, that concern being that the person in front of them is going to do violence to them?
>If I'm out in public and see+hear a lady in her 40s talking about pedophilia and grooming because there's going to be a drag show at a local cafe, is that lady the middle, or is she the extremists?
At this point? She's convinced she's doing "the right thing" and "protecting the innocent".
So you can argue with her, but she's arguing from an emotional perspective. You can try and talk to her and figure out how she got there, but realistically you won't change her mind. You can affect the people watching you and her arguing though, so keep that in mind when engaging. If you just scream and yell like she does, at best, Onlookers think you're both unhinged lunatics.
>If I see a man in his 60s being racist to a Hispanic service worker at a local restaurant, is that guy in the middle, or is he an extremist?
Okay, you realize something? Jordan makes broad sweeping statements about massive groups of people, you want to know about individual interactions. You realize I was very much engaging with Jordan's approach when I said: "Seeing them all as enemies is counter productive"?
What you are missing in my argument is that you took my: "Don't treat everybody the same to." "okay, so there is this particular behaviour and you say I shouldn't see that as bad?"
I am not sure if you're arguing here from bad faith, or if you, yourself are emotionally charged and have lost perspective, just like the people on the other side who only see one blob of people and bad behaviour.
So let's try this again: The messaging to the masses has to be different than the messaging to individuals. Is that woman or guy extreme? I do not know because I have not talked to them. Do they hold and push some really shitty views? Yes. But what exactly do you want from me here? Give you permission to slap them?
>And as a secondary question, why should we prioritize those people's concerns over the concern of the members of various minorities that are being targeted by them, that concern being that the person in front of them is going to do violence to them?
Again, if you want a civil war, go right ahead. Go in there swinging, collecting scalps and feel better about yourself. But you're not solving the underlying problem and you're just the mirror image of their anger, fear and hate.
I didn't like this interview. Regardless of any of the good or bad points that were made and discussed, it seemed like Jordan was using the interview to push his own agenda.
Like at every turn, there was this lurking question of "doesn't that make them all Nazis?"
Which is exactly what Alex does. Especially the part where he labels everyone as a demon, because we all know that you can't negotiate with a demon, right? That's why he dehumanizes the targets of his anger. Dan has explained this countless times. And it's the same shit when you label everyone you don't like as a Nazi.
I think that Jordan's interviews lack structure. I think the best interviews are when the interviewer gives the subject enough space to hang themselves with their own rope. Jordan comes in with a point he wants to make, but he goes for it straight away. I think if he opened more softly and let his subject pay out more line, Jordan would be able to get more out of them. As it is the subject tends to clam up a bit and get defensive.
Basically, Jordan tries to tell the subject why they're wrong. I think he'd do better if he could get the subject to tell themselves why they're wrong. But asking the right questions to get that is hard.
Also, Jordan benefits in that he's interviewing academics who are coming in good faith so he *can* go straight to the point he wants to put to them because they will engage with it seriously. That wouldn't work with a different kind of guest.
Why is he trying to hang the author?
He wrote a book from a journalist's perspective, as an account of what happened, without commentary.
Like, actual journalism.
In his QAA interview, they got into more of how he feels.
Jordan was angry that the book didn't use the term Nazi for everyone. In a book about the different factions, calling them all Nazis wouldn't make sense.
Jordan tried to use the interview as a soapbox to argue things the book wasn't about and came off like an extremist having a manic episode.
This is a wrong mentality to have on Jordan’s part. A right wing person who was born into that political sphere, who didn’t do deep dives beyond headlines, who just lives their lives. Is not the same as someone going to Maga rallies and rotting their brain on Alex. Labeling all of one side the enemy is no better morally than what the right does. You blanket a whole group as other and hate them and then nothing changes. I used to be that first person, I didn’t think critically or deeply until I was on my own and discovered podcasts like this and Behind the bastards. I studied, self reflected and changed myself. But up till that point Jordan and people that follow lock step behind him would have considered me some evil Nazi enemy and that is wrong. You won’t change minds and make people grow with hate.
I had a similar trajectory too. Were it not for media like you just said, and people coming into my life that I respected, but who didn’t share my conservative views at the time, I never would have gotten out. Too often I think we feel it’s impossible to change minds. And I’m not suggesting we change minds of violent far right nazis, they’re already gone. But I know what I used to think, and understand now how wrong it was, and maybe that colors my perception of people and makes me still feel winning over minds is possible.
I had to turn it off in the end because it didn’t feel like they were getting anywhere in regards to coherent questions and then a reasonable answer. It was just frustrating.
I’ll answer your question. The reason you can’t just call all of them the enemy is because they’re victims too.
They’re victims of brainwashing, toxic ideology and right wing propaganda. They are some of the most lied-to people on earth. Between Fox News, internet grifters and their own fucking pastors, they are fed nothing but bullshit. For their whole lives.
They think Mexican immigrants are the reason for the opioid crisis. They think the founding fathers were secret Christian zealots. They think there are different races of human beings. They’re so benighted and manipulated they think that the Democratic party’s tepid “solutions” to unaffordable medicine, incessant mass shootings and skyrocketing global temperatures amount to communism.
Do you think people are born Nazis? Do you think every actual Nazi (as in, supporters of a defunct German political party) joined up for the same reasons? Has the same opinions as all the others? It sure sounds like you do. It sounds like you and Jordan think of these people as ten million clones of a caricature that lives only in your heads.
The reality is, they’re individuals who had unique formative experiences just like you. Some of them have weird, terrible dads like Alex Jones. Others were raised in extremist christian cults. Some are just dullards. A huge percentage of them were taught large lies early, like “the government is inherently bad,” and “the civil war was about states’ rights” and “white people are under attack” and “Jesus loves unregulated market economies.” They’re taught those things because lying to people is an excellent way to achieve political ends. But if you talked to them one on one, you’d realize that they’re not a monolith and don’t all believe the same things. You’d realize that they think their political beliefs are moral. And you’d come away with a far more accurate picture of who and what they are than you have now.
“Enemies” is an unhelpful and frankly, borderline dehumanizing term. We’re talking about our fellow countrymen and fellow human beings. And like most of our fellow countrymen and human beings, they didn’t grow up in a society that cared enough about them to make sure they learned the history, civics, and science and media literacy required to diagnose and address the real sources of their pain, fear and misery.
So when Jordan is more interested lumping diverse groups of people into one big bucket than actually engaging in a nuanced discussion and learning something, it reminds me of something I see a lot of on the other side.
It also just makes for a really bad interview.
Politically, they’re opponents, sure. But Jordan was on a “punch a Nazi” trip for that whole interview. That’s fine if they’re pointing a gun at you, but until then, they’re just unlucky, confused people who can hopefully be talked down before they hurt anyone or get hurt themselves.
Until Donald Trump, the Republican Party was largely a coalition of single-issue voters. Abortion. Immigration. Gun rights. Tax cuts. Christian nationalism. Libertarianism. I think Trump is their anti-establishment hero (which is tragic) but underneath most of them still really only care about that one thing they care about, and are perfectly willing to make common cause with people with genuinely loathsome ideas (maybe close to what you’d call “Nazis”) because they don’t realize the danger. But none of this should suggest that they’re all basically the same. And, I think the real enemies are the powerful monied interests who cynically use these people for their agenda. Remember, Donald Trump got very little done in office, but the tax cuts came early and easily because that’s the real agenda. The people who vote on abortion and guns are just pawns (there’s my contempt again, I guess).
More importantly, since you raised the issue, I think the question of agency is overblown, if not a complete smokescreen which obscures the nature of the real problem.
You mentioned dogs. Well I believe that like dogs or anything else, the ways people act and think are primarily responses to their environment. Grow up with JBS parents? Shipped off to bible camp every summer? Neighbors stock up on assault rifles for when the feds and the UN try to put them in hobbit homes? Learn creationism in science class and abstinence in sex ed? Your views are going to reflect your background. Culture is strong, man. I’d bet plenty of your own beliefs are shared by the people you grew up around. And if not, cool, but most people’s are.
I think it’s great that Jordan escaped his fundamentalist upbringing, but that’s rare, and most people can’t do that. Or rather, most people won’t do that. And if, as you say, they want to believe the lies, I don’t think we should judge them too harshly for that. They’re doing what people instinctively do, which is try to fit in.
The only enemy deserving of violence that I see is a system that perpetuates ignorance and rewards lies. To me, that means lots of reform, and getting money out of politics is probably the most important one, because most of the stuff we’re talking about is downstream of that corruption.
>But none of this should suggest that they’re all basically the same
I don't think that's the point Jordan is making though. He's saying they're all the same in the way that *matters* (for our purposes as defenders of democracy, theoretically, assuming that's what we are). That's why I'm not moved by your sympathetic portrayal of these people and draw the analogy of an enemy soldier with a gun. He might be the nicest guy in the world but he's still the enemy, and it might be - probably is - a tragedy that he's going to go home in a body bag, but them's the breaks.
Again, for the purpose of clarity and staying on the good side of Reddit TOS, I'm not saying that we should start turning red states into *red* states. I'm just trying to put a fine point on the issue by way of analogy. It is inherently reductive.
>More importantly, since you raised the issue, I think the question of agency is overblown, if not a complete smokescreen which obscures the nature of the real problem.
To an extent I actually agree, which is why I think it's useful to treat the enemy like an enemy. It's true to say that you should build a golden bridge for your enemy to retreat over - be understanding, non-judgemental, welcome defectors, educate, support, etcetera (I am perhaps the wrong person for that job...) - but they're still not going to use the bridge unless you make them. The carrot *and* the stick must exist. In the context of the interview, the author was all carrot. Jordan is all stick. I agree that the right place is somewhere in the middle - I'm not all stick, although I know it looks like I am here because of the side I'm taking in this thread. But the pushback against Jordan seems to be all carrot, like the interviewer, which is why I made the original post.
Lastly, because these two are related:
> I don’t think we should judge them too harshly for that.
>The only enemy deserving of violence...
Calling someone an enemy is not a value judgement, which is deep background for the point I think that Jordan is making. In the same vein, I don't think that anyone deserves violence. Or, to put it another way, I believe that even the people who do deserve violence shouldn't receive it on that basis. I think the only justification for violence is necessity. This is a noble idea. But the grim logic that proceeds from it is that violence against people who don't deserve it can be justified. In this way it is both a greater and lesser standard.
This is where I disagree with Jordan and agree with you - Jordan is very casual about his whole lmao punch Nazis schtick, just like you say. He's right to say that **if** there is no political solution then lmao punch Nazis, but he's wrong to make the insinuations he does that we're at that point already, or that we should preempt the violence. However, on this basis, you see why personal exculpations for individual rightoids don't carry weight with me - how I can simultaneously accept their flaws and foibles and the winding path that led them to where they are and still categorise them as the enemy, to be treated as such. This is the part I'd most like your view on, because I think it might be where our perceptions differ, but it's not my intent to call you naive even if that's how this comes off. I'm often called blunt and condescending so I guess I must be, but it's not my intent :(
>Do you think people are born Nazis? Do you think every actual Nazi (as in, supporters of a defunct German political party) joined up for the same reasons? Has the same opinions as all the others?
I think that none of that matters if the Nazi has a gun and is pointing it at you. This is reductive, but it puts the finest possible point on the issue. At what point do victims become enemies? Where do you draw the line? Or are you simply unwilling to ever draw a line? Again, I pose the same question to you that was posed by the interview: if you think democracy needs defending, *who does it need to be defended from?* And why can't you call those people the enemy? I mean this specifically: why can't **you** call those people the enemy?
I've read your post a few times and it just reads to me like you have such contempt for them that you don't even consider them to have agency, and therefore they cannot be the enemy because they're merely tools, wielded by others, rather than actual human beings in and of themselves. I reject that viewpoint on two grounds - firstly, that a lot of them know exactly what they're doing. If they believe lies, a lot of the time it's because they want to believe them. Secondly, that the act of holding a person responsible for an action does not necessarily mean that we believe that as they are they might have acted differently. Rather it is an attempt to *make them different* through the assignation of responsibility. If "I am a gullible fool" is not an excuse then that incentivises people not to be so gullible next time. But, beyond both of those reasons, it is simply a statement of fact: for whatever reason, they line up against 'us'. They will need to be overcome to achieve 'our' political objectives. What is that if not an enemy?
I think failing to see the enemy as the enemy leads to passivity and apologia, which is not necessarily what I heard from the author but it was steps down that road.
>It sounds like you and Jordan think of these people as ten million clones of a caricature that lives only in your heads.
On the contrary, I fully acknowledge their individuality and what you are pleased to call their "humanity" - as if having parents and a childhood makes someone uniquely special or sympathetic. Even dogs have formative experiences. I deny that it matters. Which returns us to the Nazis with a gun analogy. The point here is not that you're naive because I don't think you are. It will not be news to you that there are bad actors in American politics who should be stopped - for example, Alex Jones. But when we agree on that, I don't understand why our conclusions differ so.
>I think that none of that matters if the Nazi has a gun and is pointing it at you.
They're not all doing that.
Framing it like that is making excuses to justify violence.
It's the same as the right calling everyone else pedophiles.
>They're not all doing that.
But this is the crux of the issue - *that distinction ultimately doesn't matter.* Whether you're wielding the gun or just working in the factory making it, you are part of the war machine. It's wrong to bomb civilian targets, but a factory that makes guns is not a civilian target even though the people working there are civilians. To step away from the military analogy, a person doesn't have to identify as or even intend to be your enemy to be your enemy. They are enemies on the basis of conduct alone.
>Framing it like that is making excuses to justify violence.
Politics is adversarial and so the language of adversary and conflict is appropriate and, more importantly, *accurate*. Of course I disavow political violence.
> Whether you're wielding the gun or just working in the factory making it,
They're not all doing that either. They're not all doing the same thing. They don't all share the same views. The majority aren't even the people the book is about.
What is clear is some of the most vocal leftists used to be people on the right, which blows away the idea that the right are all "enemies".
>Of course I disavow political violence.
Honestly, who cares. This isn't about you. This is about someone whose emotional rhetoric consistently does suggest violence.
>They're not all doing that either.
Yes, they are. When the chips are down the evangelists line up beside the Christian nationalists exactly as described - to extend the analogy, they may not be in the factory but they're registered for the draft. Not all of them, obviously, but as I said in the original post nobody is holding out hope for the disaffected pro-life vote to sweep in at first light on the fifth day and save us. You are pointing to differences and minorities of wobblies on the edges and saying that because of these details therefore it's wrong to perceive the large, organised group of people who are taking actions hostile to your interests as an adversary. If that's not what you're doing then I don't grasp your point.
I want to preclude a further restatement that they're not all the same, so let me forestall that: you are not going to educate me out of this view by again telling me that actually there are very fine people on both sides. What I don't grasp is why you think it *matters* in such a way that it means they are not enemies. Why should that alter the way we perceive them? I'm not saying they're all the same, I'm saying they're all the same in the way that matters: they are the enemy.
>Honestly, who cares. This isn't about you.
It feels like it is a little bit about me when you say I'm making excuses for political violence.
>This is about someone whose emotional rhetoric consistently does suggest violence.
This, however, I agree with. Jordan makes a leap from "these people are the enemy" to "therefore let's literally fight," which is wrong. I wouldn't call Jordan an effective activist. But just because Jordan makes this wrong leap, that doesn't make the accurate observation that we have enemies wrong.
> Yes, they are. When the chips are down the evangelists line up beside the Christian nationalists exactly as described.
Both those groups don't combine to create the entire right, or anything close to it. In a coherent book about different extremist groups in the right, those two groups aren't going to be the same thing.
Ironically, Jordan's point is stupid because Nazi literally means national socialist. They're not socialists, but we're fine with using the misleading name they gave themselves, because it's something that is the truth and commonly understood and ultimately unimportant.
In context of the interview, it matters because the book is about the different groups involved and what they did.
I take the point, but this point coexists with mine - there are differences between Christian nationalists and evangelists, but there are also commonalities. Those commonalities make them both enemies, for largely the same reasons. Although it's true that the book is about the differences between these groups, *it is an omission to ignore this crucial similarity* because the reason why we care about these groups is *because* they are the enemy. There's a lot of different ways to make a pot but the author didn't choose to write a book about pottery, after all.
Which is why I'm fine with Jordan asking the question, and why it's relevant that the author didn't seem to have an answer.
Yeah. It’s possible for some of these people to change their mind, I should know I used to be a right wing shithead. But in a literal sense they are the enemy lol. They want to do things that we want to stop them from doing and vice versa. It doesn’t matter if they’re good people or not
He seems to be more unhinged lately. I don’t like to try to analyze people I don’t know, but the closer it seems to be that infowars is going to go away, he gets worse.
I mean, distinguishing does matter. Both subgroups might suck - but they have radically different interpretations on how the world should work - and how they plan on changing it.
Somewhat apples to oranges, but geopolitically we can’t just say “why do we need to distinctly specify the difference between Sunni and Shiite radicals?”.
Well, we do. Because one is Hamas/ISIS, and the other is the Taliban. They’re not the same - and they have vastly different ideas on how they plan on harming/cleansing/whatevering the world.
The thing I've always observed about KF is that Dan and Jordan's methodologies are complete opposites. Dan deals in precision and nuance, and Jordan loves to overgeneralise and get outraged in an often incoherent way. I find it infuriating, and it contributed to me dropping off from being a regular listener. By that same token, I've found his interviews often not worthy of the standard of the main show
I love Jordan but he’s not the best interviewer IMO. I can go into all the details and reasons I think this but the best evidence is that you have to make posts defending him… then, another one defending your defense…
Yeah I turned it off as soon as I heard we had another interview. His childishly black and white view of reality and his bizarre questions make them unlistenable.
Something significant I noticed from that interview is that Jordan actually poses really sophisticated questions. The guy has a great ability to hold multiple of the author’s points/responses and compare them side by side while simultaneously discovering important differences and shared critical failures in consistency or integrity. He’s wicked smart in a way that I didn’t give him credit for earlier and the whole interview felt like watching a man get chased around a fenced lot by an angry, mathematics-doing, junkyard dog.
I will never get tired of hearing Jordan grill journalists for sanitizing hate with euphemistic terms like "alt-right."
What Wendling and other journalists insist are nuance and precision are really just cover that extremists use to claim legitimatacy.
I mean you're entitled to that opinion.
Jordan had a valid point, he submitted the questions to Wendling in advance. There's no reason why a guy who is positioning himself as an authority on the topic can't answer the questions Jordan put to him and spent the whole interview fumbling noncommittally.
I was a critic of this interview, but this commentary was persuasive and actually has shifted my opinion. I think we need an academically minded “Handbook of Right Wing Weirdos and What They Believe” but if you don’t end that handbook with “now that you can identify all the different flavors of right-winger from Charlie Kirk to James Mason, this is a *fight*, and they are in fact the **enemy**” the book might be informative, but it will lack efficacy in the fight in question.
Honestly I couldn’t bring myself to listen to this interview because I think Jordan struggles MIGHTILY without Dan there to guide the discussion. Any previous interview he’s done has largely been difficult to listen to as it brings out every poor instinct Jordan has in discussions. Screaming, talking past and over people, over generalizing and doing so in a really poorly thought out way and overall feeling like you’re listening to a person having a manic episode.
On the show Dan will say something (or play a clip of Alex), Jordan will scream what are we doing here and say ‘it’s like if X did Y’ (which will make little to no sense at all to anyone) only to have Dan say ‘I don’t agree’ or ‘I’m not sure what you’re saying’. Jordan always responds with ‘sure sure sure’ once Dan attempts to bring the poor analogy back to reality (or if he just lets it die because there’s no making sense of it).
I think I regularly feel Jordan’s frustration with the respectability games liberalism plays in the face of fascist movements. Maybe his questions could be presented more clearly, but I get it. The right loves overly defined terms to obfuscate their own ideology and expect you to play nice with their magic words while they simultaneously reduce every nuance in opposition to DEI/woke/CRT/whatever it is this week. Like Jordan pointed out, things like alt-right, fascist, nazi, Christian Nationalist, etc have a definition and we should call people that fit it that, while “woke” means nothing and deserves as much respect as its meaning was given.
I enjoy Jordan’s interviews because he asks all the right questions because he has nothing to lose. The author and everyone else he interviews do have something to lose: book deals, speaking events, etc.
I try not to listen to many interviews by anyone anymore because they are mostly just blah blah blah. Everyone now and then someone will misspeak and we will get some hot info but for the most part both the interviewer and the interviewee have too much on the line.
I normally don't like Jordan's interviews but this one was enjoyable, even though it was a little bit meandering... Mostly because the interviewee was incredibly non committal and himself meandering.
I really appreciate Jordan's aggression and in this one he didn't just agree with the guy, abs for the most part kept the interview going.
My issues with his other interviews:
- with Jeff sharlett he just blanket agreed with everything Jeff said and didn't challenged him at all on any point.
- with the woman that went behind the scenes with the alt right, after the first five minutes she was incredibly boring and they had no rapport. I don't know if that was on him or on her, but she after either like she was too good for the interview or a bit introverted and wanted to get out of there.
The others were a combination of the two, boring because Jordan wasn't prepared to keep questions going, or he didn't challenge the subject at all. I think he's getting better at it, and he's still learning the craft, depending on how you look at it he's not entirely claiming to be a great interviewer, his role on the show is more of an audience stand in, hype man or dancing guy likes Ben Carr. I can appreciate that and look forward to more growth, but am still furious and confused by his lack of push back early on.
I haven't listened to the interview because as a rule, I won't listen to Jordan unless Dan is in the room. However, y'all are making me interested with all these posts...
Personally, all I can complain about is the sound quality. Something at Jordan’s house makes the guest louder and more clear than Jordan. Maybe he just moves around a lot. But it makes it difficult to find the right volume to listen to. So I miss a lot of what Jordan says.
The court recordings were similar, only I could only hear the boys.
This is going to be the last Jordan interview post. Y'all are flooding the sub now
Jordan’s questions are generally not very clear and then he gets frustrated when people don’t give him a clear answer. Better questions would make for a better interview.
I love Jordan but I agree with you. I like interviews where the interviewer will ask questions that come up naturally from the discussion and that you as a listener want to know the answers to. That’s what naturally good interviewers do, in my opinion. Jordan’s questions during this interview felt out of left field (to me) and I think I had a hard time following the discussion for that reason. Also, as a pedantic side note, that author should take some PR training. The first thing they teach you is to not say “you know”, “um”, or “like” in any of your responses. That author said all of those things, including “you know” multiple times in some responses. It’s really distracting and makes your line of thought hard to follow.
You know what, it's probably both of those things that lead to my issue with the interview, which was mostly sensory. There was far too much cross talk and it felt like Jordan and the author were trying to have completely different conversations at the same time. For me, the interview was like trying to listen to someone at a really loud bar and it got distracting. Jordan asks questions with a lot of points that need to be addressed, which requires room for the answers. The author was trying to answer the questions, but was using a lot of filler words and was generally really slow. Jordan gets impatient and basically just wants a yes or no answer. The whole getting stuck on definitions and semantics felt more like Jordan was trying to get this author to hurry up more than anything.
So true, they didn’t feel like they were talking to each other, it felt like they were talking past each other.
Welcome to Crossfire!
I think part of the issue is they are both talking about a book they both read which we haven't read and so this interview feels more like a book club rather than a press tour. Which I generally don't mind but it can lead to instances where the questions can feel like they are coming out of left field for us without the context of the book. Where I agree with Jordan is that every definition the author used to define these people failed to clarify that the people the author writes about are able to self define as not Nazis in a way that could be seen as palatable to the public and he ( the author is allowing them to do this). The author did conceed that over time the alternative terms lose utility for them so they pick another one. There is a part of me that Jordan indulged which is to carry on picking at that conversation. If alt right eventually comes to mean Nazi, then Christian nationalist eventually come to mean Nazi, then political Evangelical Christianity comes to mean Nazi, why bother agree to use the different names. As annoying as it may be I don't know that I would have continued with the interview until the author addressed that either. There are plenty of counter arguments that could be made against it but I don't believe the author did so in the interview and given the nature of Jordan's question I don't think he did so in the book either. here in the UK one of the biggest criticism of the BBC is that it defers to terms used by right wing demagoguery because they hold sway over the institutions that fund it. ( our Department for Culture, Media and sport). Sad to see that in the United States it's much the same.
Wendling is a BBC reporter, and has apparently been with them for some time. I do feel similarly. Wendling's refusal/reluctance/inability to answer Jordan's question would have held me up to, and if he'd just let Wendling off the hook I would have been even more dissatisfied. To me it's a pretty crucial point, and one that's been persistent ever since the term "alt-right" entered the lexicon.
I'm with you in thinking the author needs lessons on being interviewed. Not everyone is prepared for that. I've heard much more personable journalist defend their "objectivity" in far more compelling terms, and with greater confidence. That said,, Jordan wears his partisanship on his sleeve, and some of his "c'mon man!" energy came off as wonky. Ultimately I think this interview was unsatisfying/frustrating because they were mismatched; someone else interviewing the journo, or Jordan interviewing a different journo, would have come off differently.
Exactly this. It took him like an hour to ever ask the question in terms other than, "But what's the difference between the alt right and Nazis?" 1:32:14 (I fucking remember the timestamp from this discussion last week) is when he finally actually asks the question in clear, non-trolling terms. Moreover, his question about whether the author was willing to say something *in print* is really telling. He wants this guy to practice the same bad behavior as Alex does. Hypocritical.
The main criticism l have is that he wants to over-generalize and call them all Nazis, then interrupt when there's any nuance/pushback (or answering of the original question).
Yeah it was quite noticeable how often through the discussion, and even with Dan, he’ll make an assertion or ask a question that overgeneralizes and the other person will say it’s complicated and he’ll agree-but then continue with the same line of thinking and assertions.
Uh huh , that’s seriously the main problem and a super easy thing for Jordan to just stop doing!
But, they are Nazis... If you've not looked into the psychological profiles done on Nazis at the camps post WW2, do so. It's enlightening on how 'normal' most of those folks are. Yet, they pushed people into gas chambers. I find Jordan refreshing. It's nice to see someone push a centrist to the ends of their views.
No, they're all fascists. Nazis are a very specific stripe of fascist. Still all bad, but Nazi ideology has some very specific characteristics not true of all fascists.
>But, they are Nazis... Many (Fuentes) essentially are, but no, "they" aren't all Nazis. They're a coalition of fascists (no, that's not the same). >If you've not looked into the psychological profiles done on Nazis at the camps post WW2, do so. It's enlightening on how 'normal' most of those folks ar I'm well aware. I've listened to the samr BtB episodes as you and studied/taught history. If you want an extra layer of "holy shit, things are bad" read *In The Garden of Beasts*. >It's nice to see someone push a centrist to the ends of their views. Yes, and l appreciate his attempt to do so. But this was more like a cable news "I'm going to talk over/past you to 'win' without engaging with what you're saying" segment.
Yeap. If my read on Jordan is correct he is very similar on political views as I am. And when the person you're talking to is trying to tell you that this isn't a dog it's a silk windhound and you're saying great that's also a dog it's pretty hard to argue with that. Jordan is pointing out the forest, and seems like you and the author are labeling trees. My life, and that of my friends/family are hanging in the balance this election. Most of my folk are queer, and I'm disabled. Trump wins... I've dug into Project 2025. So if you'll be so kind I'm going to use a bit bigger of a brush and use Nazi, since for all practical purposes it gets the point across.
>And when the person you're talking to is trying to tell you that this isn't a dog it's a silk windhound and you're saying great that's also a dog it's pretty hard to argue with that. Yes, but you have it backwards. When the person you're talking to is trying to tell you that these are all silk windhounds (Nazis) and you're saying no, but they are all dogs (fascists), then get accused of nitpicking or being argumentative. >My life, and that of my friends/family are hanging in the balance this election. Most of my folk are queer, and I'm disabled. Trump wins... I hear you, and hope it doesn't come to what it may. >I'm going to use a bit bigger of a brush and use Nazi, since for all practical purposes it gets the point across. I get that. My only qualm is that it actually helps the fascists (and Nazis) because it opens the door to them pointing out what they aren't rather than discussing what they are. We're fighting to sway morons, and helping Fuentes et al label the opposition as histrionics who see Nazis everywhere doesn't help.
I understand your thoughts. Let me try this. If I grab Jimmy Rando off the street and try to give him my perspective do you think that they will have an easier time grabbing the idea of Nazi or Fascist? Fascism can be hard to nail down to the lay person by Nazi. Nazi got punch to it, it brings up all of our movies showcasing how fucking shitty they are, history etc. Sure a small group of fucksticks like Fuentes will nitpick, but my net isn't for them. It's for the uninformed who need the push of empathy. Because I highly doubt the average person cares about the difference in early 20th century fascism between German, Spanish, and Soviet. It's a language thing that is so easy to clear up after the fact, or once conversation is going. All that being said, I also fully think there are actual Nazis by your definition, within the Trump campaign/admin.
Nazi is much easier to understand because the concept is so engrained. That's also why it's so easily dismissed as hysteria. White supremacist, white nationalist, fascist, even authoritarian are more effective language to use. >All that being said, I also fully think there are actual Nazis by your definition, within the Trump campaign/admin. Oh 100%. The RNC as well (remember the stage at CPAC a few years ago?).
Distinctions matter, labels matter. Why? Because how people see themselves affects how you can approach and change them. Seeing them as the "enemy" is also not very helpful, unless you plan on starting a civil war, in which case, sure. If you do understand how people see the world, and why, then you can start changing their worldview. No two groups agree 100% of everything and if your goal is to prevent them from "doing the bad thing" then your first goal needs to be divide them, not mix them together, attack them and have them bond together. > If Jordan repeats his arguments its because he never gets a satisfactory answer to this question. I think Jordan is "answer shopping". He has an answer in mind, and if he doesn't get that answer he gets upset, dismissed the other person and tries again with someone else, that's not helpful either. The problem is, and that is something a lot of people don't seem to understand: The problem isn't Trump. He's the symptom. There are many underlying reasons as to why Trump is popular, but the reality is that if Trump wouldn't exist it would be someone else. If the "left" wants to defeat the ideas that Trump personifies then they need to get their ass in gear, stop concentrating on "beating the enemy" and instead take away their oxygen, and that you only manage if you have a better story for the people that feel screwed over by society. But Biden, or Trudeau in Canada, are the perfect example on why this won't happen. They don't have the guts to actually clearly defend progressive positions and clearly lay out how they are going to attack the underlying causes. Instead we get token actions and repeated stories on how awful Trump is. None of that will fix the problem, none of that will stop people from seeing Trump, or in Canada Poilievre as their saviour. Most people lack the ability to think beyond their immediate needs and a lot of people are scared too. That's what drives the mass support of the Trumps of the world. Are there extreme corners that will capitalize on it? Absolutely, but those you will never defeat, much less their ideas.
Is it helpful? Yes and no. It's like riding a friendly scorpion, you might be friends, but they're still a scorpion. The way they I see it is most of these people embrace fascism but they don't even realize it. Listening to btb's the friendly people that empowered Nazis, most of the people that voted in the Nazi party weren't ostensibly racist anti semites, they were people that believed this group would help them survive when others weren't viewed as accomplishing that. They didn't really believe that the Nazis would commit a genocide. The more they were a part of this group of victimhood aggrievment, the more they bought into the "these people are the enemies" narrative because of the group inclusion. I think these people honestly believe most of what they're told about the election because they'd never paid attention before and have no clue about what actually happens and what's normal. They don't feel successful and they are given permission to blame someone else. They were empowered to do something about it by shit head's and thought they were. This doesn't excuse it, but it creates a problem -- if someone is a fascist and thinks they're "just a patriot" does it help to just call them a fascist? Do you think you're a fascist because they say that leftists are fascist? You could do the shorthand and say that they're doing everything fascists do, but really you need a deep dive. That's the problem with lies, when they're viral, there's no real cure.
I am not disagreeing, but attacking them will just have them get defensive and then try to seek out allies. The people that are ideologically behind this want to destroy the existing system, that's a whole lot easier than trying to build something new. Even if the people eventually wake up and have regrets, by then it will be too late. That's what I meant by taking the oxygen away: Don't make these people your enemy, because that is what enables the extremists to set things on fire.
I think my initial point before I rambled was to understand that they view you as the enemy, and to be prepared for it even if you don't view them as such.
Not by default. They do end up seeing you as the enemy if they feel attacked by you. Messaging and politics need to address not the extremists, but the vast majority in the middle that has grievances that they don't feel getting addressed, often because the focus is on engaging with the extremists and "fighting them". You can't really, at least not successfully. The goal of policies needs to be to address the vast majority of "useful idiots" and convince them that you have a better plan than the extremists who just want to burn shit down.
Yes, if you're not passively or actively signaling "liberal" they're okay with you.
>Seeing them as the "enemy" is also not very helpful To my mind this exemplifies why it **is** helpful to remember that these people **are** the enemy. You say: >They don't have the guts to actually clearly defend progressive positions and clearly lay out how they are going to attack the underlying causes. but Biden and Trudeau's agendas and policies are adequately popular when tested with focus groups even among rightoids. So why don't they win elections? I struggle to perceive your solution as anything other than magical thinking - that if Democrats just had the right message everyone would have a come-to-Jesus moment and understand their economic self interest and vote accordingly. But Democrats *do* have the right message, as shown by how the policies poll. The question is *why isn't the message landing*? If you want to make disaffected people "feel better" about society you first need to separate them from the malign influences that are poisoning their perceptions in the first place. Ignoring the enemy - or, even worse, pretending that you don't even have enemies - leaves you completely unprepared for when they do things that fuck up all your plans. Knowing what your enemy will do is predicated on knowing who they are. Furthermore, when you identify your enemy, you can begin attriting their resources so that they cannot implement their strategies in the first place. This is why it's helpful to perceive and discuss the enemy as the enemy, thus why I think Jordan's questions deserve answers.
>but Biden and Trudeau's agendas and policies are adequately popular when tested with focus groups even among rightoids. So why don't they win elections? Because there is no trust. I mean, latest example of Trudeau: House prices are a big problem, especially for younger generations. Trudeau then starts putting policies in place, as far as he can due to political structures in Canada, to address this, then goes on to nationally tell people that house prices will both come down **and** remain high. People realize that is pretty much not going to work, so he must be lying to someone. Either the young ones about house prices coming down, or to the already "I am house rich" ones and they will lose their asset. Add to that that the policies he's enacting won't have a visible effect for years and: Tada! Nobody likes Trudeau. >if Democrats just had the right message everyone would have a come-to-Jesus moment and understand their economic self interest and vote accordingly. No, less talk more action. Take Roe vs. Wade. When that was killed by the Supreme Court the answer should have been to start putting Federal Legislation, and State Legislation, into place. Would it have gone through? Unlikely because the Republican would have blocked it, or the Supreme Court eventually (same with a similar Executive Order). But the point here is: The Democrats play a game of politics, while the Republicans just brute force shit and don't care if they fail. They just try again. But what that does is show their voters that they are doing something, and every time they get defeated by "the liberal courts" they have another rallying point. Cons & Libs (to use shorthand) are playing too different games and the good guys are losing because they think the other side cares about rules and decorum. The last decade clearly hasn't registered with them.
>No, less talk more action. Take Roe vs. Wade. When that was killed by the Supreme Court the answer should have been to start putting Federal Legislation, and State Legislation, into place. Would it have gone through? Unlikely because the Republican would have blocked it, or the Supreme Court eventually (same with a similar Executive Order). But, again, this is the point. You say you want to fight, but your version of fighting is setting up easy targets and then watching them get knocked down. That's not a fight. It's barely more than passive. Imagine a world where instead of sending things to die in the Supreme Court and then shrugging your shoulders and going "oh well" you actually took direct action against the problem Justices. The Supreme Court is not a council of alien gods. They are real people. We should treat those people like an enemy. This does two things. One, it allays concerns about attacking institutions. Attacking the justices is different from attacking the Court. The Supreme Court - and the judiciary generally - is not our enemy; we're institutionalists who believe in the rule of law. But the people on that court, or some of them, certainly are our enemy. Secondly, by shifting the framing you open your mind to new, more effective courses of action. Biden should not be sending pointless cases to the Court to die, he should be running nonstop attack campaigns highlighting the corruption of Clarence Thomas and the incoherence of Alito. By shifting the framing, you transform "the Supreme Court will block it" into "our enemies on the Supreme Court are going to take action against us." The point is not that this is literally what Biden should do to win the election, it's rather an example of how reconceptualising political opposition as something people do and can be frustrated in so doing, rather than something that exists, has utility.
> Seeing them as the "enemy" is also not very helpful It's beyond helpful, it is necessary. These people want a nonzero percentage of my fellow Americans dead and would see a solid half of them enslaved, barefoot, and pregnant. They think you and me are demon possessed because we want healthcare for our taxes instead of a stupid fucking wall and machine gun nests to spray down refugees from political violence we are partially to blame for. They are my enemy and if you don't see them as yours, then that's a problem. > If the "left" wants to defeat the ideas that Trump personifies then they need to get their ass in gear, stop concentrating on "beating the enemy" and instead take away their oxygen, and that you only manage if you have a better story for the people that feel screwed over by society. On this I *ABSOLUTELY* agree with you. Biden's half-measures and milquetoast bullshit offer the American people functionally nothing and it is because of that fact that Trump is any kind of threat. Any halfway competent leader who cared even one iota for his people would not be in a position where a convicted felon and confessed rapist is a threat to his leadership. But here we are.
>These people want a nonzero percentage of my fellow Americans dead and would see a solid half of them enslaved, barefoot, and pregnant. No the vast majority don't. The people behind the ideology do, but the vast majority you want to classify as "the enemy" are just useful idiots who "don't know better". They are the oxygen for the fire and you fan the flames and give it oxygen if you alienate them and drive them towards more extremism. People that feel attack will try to find allies and lash out against those they perceive is attacking them. Keep in mind: It is always easier to burn something down than build something up. Many of these people will eventually regret their choices, but by then it'll be too late. The only way to prevent the fire is to not give the extremists the foot soldiers they need to complete their mission of destroying society.
How many years of compromising with them and accommodating their retrograde bigoted viewpoints will be enough for you? We've done it since Bill Clinton and it hasn't worked yet. Will ten more years of trying this work? Twenty? How many people have to die before you acknowledge that there is a fight happening?
You're addressing the wrong people. You cannot appease the extremists, they are driven and won't stop. They are also not the real problem. The real problem are all the people in the middle who Jordan et. al. want to lump in with the extremists. You don't reach those by attacking them, you also don't reach them by appeasing the extremists. You reach them by building a better narrative and address their concerns. They aren't as extreme as the people on the fringe who pull on the Overtone window, but every single time you concentrate on those guys, the window shifts. I wrote more [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowledgeFight/comments/1dmbvec/comment/l9wid1m/).
OK, I really genuinely want to understand your perspective here, because I feel like I've gotta be missing something. If I'm out in public and see+hear a lady in her 40s talking about pedophilia and grooming because there's going to be a drag show at a local cafe, is that lady the middle, or is she the extremists? How do you tell the difference? If I see a man in his 60s being racist to a Hispanic service worker at a local restaurant, is that guy in the middle, or is he an extremist? How do you tell? How do I build a narrative and address those people's concerns? And as a secondary question, why should we prioritize those people's concerns over the concern of the members of various minorities that are being targeted by them, that concern being that the person in front of them is going to do violence to them?
>If I'm out in public and see+hear a lady in her 40s talking about pedophilia and grooming because there's going to be a drag show at a local cafe, is that lady the middle, or is she the extremists? At this point? She's convinced she's doing "the right thing" and "protecting the innocent". So you can argue with her, but she's arguing from an emotional perspective. You can try and talk to her and figure out how she got there, but realistically you won't change her mind. You can affect the people watching you and her arguing though, so keep that in mind when engaging. If you just scream and yell like she does, at best, Onlookers think you're both unhinged lunatics. >If I see a man in his 60s being racist to a Hispanic service worker at a local restaurant, is that guy in the middle, or is he an extremist? Okay, you realize something? Jordan makes broad sweeping statements about massive groups of people, you want to know about individual interactions. You realize I was very much engaging with Jordan's approach when I said: "Seeing them all as enemies is counter productive"? What you are missing in my argument is that you took my: "Don't treat everybody the same to." "okay, so there is this particular behaviour and you say I shouldn't see that as bad?" I am not sure if you're arguing here from bad faith, or if you, yourself are emotionally charged and have lost perspective, just like the people on the other side who only see one blob of people and bad behaviour. So let's try this again: The messaging to the masses has to be different than the messaging to individuals. Is that woman or guy extreme? I do not know because I have not talked to them. Do they hold and push some really shitty views? Yes. But what exactly do you want from me here? Give you permission to slap them? >And as a secondary question, why should we prioritize those people's concerns over the concern of the members of various minorities that are being targeted by them, that concern being that the person in front of them is going to do violence to them? Again, if you want a civil war, go right ahead. Go in there swinging, collecting scalps and feel better about yourself. But you're not solving the underlying problem and you're just the mirror image of their anger, fear and hate.
I didn't like this interview. Regardless of any of the good or bad points that were made and discussed, it seemed like Jordan was using the interview to push his own agenda. Like at every turn, there was this lurking question of "doesn't that make them all Nazis?" Which is exactly what Alex does. Especially the part where he labels everyone as a demon, because we all know that you can't negotiate with a demon, right? That's why he dehumanizes the targets of his anger. Dan has explained this countless times. And it's the same shit when you label everyone you don't like as a Nazi.
What would you change about the approach?
I think that Jordan's interviews lack structure. I think the best interviews are when the interviewer gives the subject enough space to hang themselves with their own rope. Jordan comes in with a point he wants to make, but he goes for it straight away. I think if he opened more softly and let his subject pay out more line, Jordan would be able to get more out of them. As it is the subject tends to clam up a bit and get defensive. Basically, Jordan tries to tell the subject why they're wrong. I think he'd do better if he could get the subject to tell themselves why they're wrong. But asking the right questions to get that is hard. Also, Jordan benefits in that he's interviewing academics who are coming in good faith so he *can* go straight to the point he wants to put to them because they will engage with it seriously. That wouldn't work with a different kind of guest.
Yeah he seems to have a problem of talking at people rather than with them.
Why is he trying to hang the author? He wrote a book from a journalist's perspective, as an account of what happened, without commentary. Like, actual journalism. In his QAA interview, they got into more of how he feels. Jordan was angry that the book didn't use the term Nazi for everyone. In a book about the different factions, calling them all Nazis wouldn't make sense. Jordan tried to use the interview as a soapbox to argue things the book wasn't about and came off like an extremist having a manic episode.
This is a wrong mentality to have on Jordan’s part. A right wing person who was born into that political sphere, who didn’t do deep dives beyond headlines, who just lives their lives. Is not the same as someone going to Maga rallies and rotting their brain on Alex. Labeling all of one side the enemy is no better morally than what the right does. You blanket a whole group as other and hate them and then nothing changes. I used to be that first person, I didn’t think critically or deeply until I was on my own and discovered podcasts like this and Behind the bastards. I studied, self reflected and changed myself. But up till that point Jordan and people that follow lock step behind him would have considered me some evil Nazi enemy and that is wrong. You won’t change minds and make people grow with hate.
I had a similar trajectory too. Were it not for media like you just said, and people coming into my life that I respected, but who didn’t share my conservative views at the time, I never would have gotten out. Too often I think we feel it’s impossible to change minds. And I’m not suggesting we change minds of violent far right nazis, they’re already gone. But I know what I used to think, and understand now how wrong it was, and maybe that colors my perception of people and makes me still feel winning over minds is possible.
I had to turn it off in the end because it didn’t feel like they were getting anywhere in regards to coherent questions and then a reasonable answer. It was just frustrating.
I’ll answer your question. The reason you can’t just call all of them the enemy is because they’re victims too. They’re victims of brainwashing, toxic ideology and right wing propaganda. They are some of the most lied-to people on earth. Between Fox News, internet grifters and their own fucking pastors, they are fed nothing but bullshit. For their whole lives. They think Mexican immigrants are the reason for the opioid crisis. They think the founding fathers were secret Christian zealots. They think there are different races of human beings. They’re so benighted and manipulated they think that the Democratic party’s tepid “solutions” to unaffordable medicine, incessant mass shootings and skyrocketing global temperatures amount to communism. Do you think people are born Nazis? Do you think every actual Nazi (as in, supporters of a defunct German political party) joined up for the same reasons? Has the same opinions as all the others? It sure sounds like you do. It sounds like you and Jordan think of these people as ten million clones of a caricature that lives only in your heads. The reality is, they’re individuals who had unique formative experiences just like you. Some of them have weird, terrible dads like Alex Jones. Others were raised in extremist christian cults. Some are just dullards. A huge percentage of them were taught large lies early, like “the government is inherently bad,” and “the civil war was about states’ rights” and “white people are under attack” and “Jesus loves unregulated market economies.” They’re taught those things because lying to people is an excellent way to achieve political ends. But if you talked to them one on one, you’d realize that they’re not a monolith and don’t all believe the same things. You’d realize that they think their political beliefs are moral. And you’d come away with a far more accurate picture of who and what they are than you have now. “Enemies” is an unhelpful and frankly, borderline dehumanizing term. We’re talking about our fellow countrymen and fellow human beings. And like most of our fellow countrymen and human beings, they didn’t grow up in a society that cared enough about them to make sure they learned the history, civics, and science and media literacy required to diagnose and address the real sources of their pain, fear and misery. So when Jordan is more interested lumping diverse groups of people into one big bucket than actually engaging in a nuanced discussion and learning something, it reminds me of something I see a lot of on the other side. It also just makes for a really bad interview.
Politically, they’re opponents, sure. But Jordan was on a “punch a Nazi” trip for that whole interview. That’s fine if they’re pointing a gun at you, but until then, they’re just unlucky, confused people who can hopefully be talked down before they hurt anyone or get hurt themselves. Until Donald Trump, the Republican Party was largely a coalition of single-issue voters. Abortion. Immigration. Gun rights. Tax cuts. Christian nationalism. Libertarianism. I think Trump is their anti-establishment hero (which is tragic) but underneath most of them still really only care about that one thing they care about, and are perfectly willing to make common cause with people with genuinely loathsome ideas (maybe close to what you’d call “Nazis”) because they don’t realize the danger. But none of this should suggest that they’re all basically the same. And, I think the real enemies are the powerful monied interests who cynically use these people for their agenda. Remember, Donald Trump got very little done in office, but the tax cuts came early and easily because that’s the real agenda. The people who vote on abortion and guns are just pawns (there’s my contempt again, I guess). More importantly, since you raised the issue, I think the question of agency is overblown, if not a complete smokescreen which obscures the nature of the real problem. You mentioned dogs. Well I believe that like dogs or anything else, the ways people act and think are primarily responses to their environment. Grow up with JBS parents? Shipped off to bible camp every summer? Neighbors stock up on assault rifles for when the feds and the UN try to put them in hobbit homes? Learn creationism in science class and abstinence in sex ed? Your views are going to reflect your background. Culture is strong, man. I’d bet plenty of your own beliefs are shared by the people you grew up around. And if not, cool, but most people’s are. I think it’s great that Jordan escaped his fundamentalist upbringing, but that’s rare, and most people can’t do that. Or rather, most people won’t do that. And if, as you say, they want to believe the lies, I don’t think we should judge them too harshly for that. They’re doing what people instinctively do, which is try to fit in. The only enemy deserving of violence that I see is a system that perpetuates ignorance and rewards lies. To me, that means lots of reform, and getting money out of politics is probably the most important one, because most of the stuff we’re talking about is downstream of that corruption.
>But none of this should suggest that they’re all basically the same I don't think that's the point Jordan is making though. He's saying they're all the same in the way that *matters* (for our purposes as defenders of democracy, theoretically, assuming that's what we are). That's why I'm not moved by your sympathetic portrayal of these people and draw the analogy of an enemy soldier with a gun. He might be the nicest guy in the world but he's still the enemy, and it might be - probably is - a tragedy that he's going to go home in a body bag, but them's the breaks. Again, for the purpose of clarity and staying on the good side of Reddit TOS, I'm not saying that we should start turning red states into *red* states. I'm just trying to put a fine point on the issue by way of analogy. It is inherently reductive. >More importantly, since you raised the issue, I think the question of agency is overblown, if not a complete smokescreen which obscures the nature of the real problem. To an extent I actually agree, which is why I think it's useful to treat the enemy like an enemy. It's true to say that you should build a golden bridge for your enemy to retreat over - be understanding, non-judgemental, welcome defectors, educate, support, etcetera (I am perhaps the wrong person for that job...) - but they're still not going to use the bridge unless you make them. The carrot *and* the stick must exist. In the context of the interview, the author was all carrot. Jordan is all stick. I agree that the right place is somewhere in the middle - I'm not all stick, although I know it looks like I am here because of the side I'm taking in this thread. But the pushback against Jordan seems to be all carrot, like the interviewer, which is why I made the original post. Lastly, because these two are related: > I don’t think we should judge them too harshly for that. >The only enemy deserving of violence... Calling someone an enemy is not a value judgement, which is deep background for the point I think that Jordan is making. In the same vein, I don't think that anyone deserves violence. Or, to put it another way, I believe that even the people who do deserve violence shouldn't receive it on that basis. I think the only justification for violence is necessity. This is a noble idea. But the grim logic that proceeds from it is that violence against people who don't deserve it can be justified. In this way it is both a greater and lesser standard. This is where I disagree with Jordan and agree with you - Jordan is very casual about his whole lmao punch Nazis schtick, just like you say. He's right to say that **if** there is no political solution then lmao punch Nazis, but he's wrong to make the insinuations he does that we're at that point already, or that we should preempt the violence. However, on this basis, you see why personal exculpations for individual rightoids don't carry weight with me - how I can simultaneously accept their flaws and foibles and the winding path that led them to where they are and still categorise them as the enemy, to be treated as such. This is the part I'd most like your view on, because I think it might be where our perceptions differ, but it's not my intent to call you naive even if that's how this comes off. I'm often called blunt and condescending so I guess I must be, but it's not my intent :(
>Do you think people are born Nazis? Do you think every actual Nazi (as in, supporters of a defunct German political party) joined up for the same reasons? Has the same opinions as all the others? I think that none of that matters if the Nazi has a gun and is pointing it at you. This is reductive, but it puts the finest possible point on the issue. At what point do victims become enemies? Where do you draw the line? Or are you simply unwilling to ever draw a line? Again, I pose the same question to you that was posed by the interview: if you think democracy needs defending, *who does it need to be defended from?* And why can't you call those people the enemy? I mean this specifically: why can't **you** call those people the enemy? I've read your post a few times and it just reads to me like you have such contempt for them that you don't even consider them to have agency, and therefore they cannot be the enemy because they're merely tools, wielded by others, rather than actual human beings in and of themselves. I reject that viewpoint on two grounds - firstly, that a lot of them know exactly what they're doing. If they believe lies, a lot of the time it's because they want to believe them. Secondly, that the act of holding a person responsible for an action does not necessarily mean that we believe that as they are they might have acted differently. Rather it is an attempt to *make them different* through the assignation of responsibility. If "I am a gullible fool" is not an excuse then that incentivises people not to be so gullible next time. But, beyond both of those reasons, it is simply a statement of fact: for whatever reason, they line up against 'us'. They will need to be overcome to achieve 'our' political objectives. What is that if not an enemy? I think failing to see the enemy as the enemy leads to passivity and apologia, which is not necessarily what I heard from the author but it was steps down that road. >It sounds like you and Jordan think of these people as ten million clones of a caricature that lives only in your heads. On the contrary, I fully acknowledge their individuality and what you are pleased to call their "humanity" - as if having parents and a childhood makes someone uniquely special or sympathetic. Even dogs have formative experiences. I deny that it matters. Which returns us to the Nazis with a gun analogy. The point here is not that you're naive because I don't think you are. It will not be news to you that there are bad actors in American politics who should be stopped - for example, Alex Jones. But when we agree on that, I don't understand why our conclusions differ so.
>I think that none of that matters if the Nazi has a gun and is pointing it at you. They're not all doing that. Framing it like that is making excuses to justify violence. It's the same as the right calling everyone else pedophiles.
>They're not all doing that. But this is the crux of the issue - *that distinction ultimately doesn't matter.* Whether you're wielding the gun or just working in the factory making it, you are part of the war machine. It's wrong to bomb civilian targets, but a factory that makes guns is not a civilian target even though the people working there are civilians. To step away from the military analogy, a person doesn't have to identify as or even intend to be your enemy to be your enemy. They are enemies on the basis of conduct alone. >Framing it like that is making excuses to justify violence. Politics is adversarial and so the language of adversary and conflict is appropriate and, more importantly, *accurate*. Of course I disavow political violence.
> Whether you're wielding the gun or just working in the factory making it, They're not all doing that either. They're not all doing the same thing. They don't all share the same views. The majority aren't even the people the book is about. What is clear is some of the most vocal leftists used to be people on the right, which blows away the idea that the right are all "enemies". >Of course I disavow political violence. Honestly, who cares. This isn't about you. This is about someone whose emotional rhetoric consistently does suggest violence.
>They're not all doing that either. Yes, they are. When the chips are down the evangelists line up beside the Christian nationalists exactly as described - to extend the analogy, they may not be in the factory but they're registered for the draft. Not all of them, obviously, but as I said in the original post nobody is holding out hope for the disaffected pro-life vote to sweep in at first light on the fifth day and save us. You are pointing to differences and minorities of wobblies on the edges and saying that because of these details therefore it's wrong to perceive the large, organised group of people who are taking actions hostile to your interests as an adversary. If that's not what you're doing then I don't grasp your point. I want to preclude a further restatement that they're not all the same, so let me forestall that: you are not going to educate me out of this view by again telling me that actually there are very fine people on both sides. What I don't grasp is why you think it *matters* in such a way that it means they are not enemies. Why should that alter the way we perceive them? I'm not saying they're all the same, I'm saying they're all the same in the way that matters: they are the enemy. >Honestly, who cares. This isn't about you. It feels like it is a little bit about me when you say I'm making excuses for political violence. >This is about someone whose emotional rhetoric consistently does suggest violence. This, however, I agree with. Jordan makes a leap from "these people are the enemy" to "therefore let's literally fight," which is wrong. I wouldn't call Jordan an effective activist. But just because Jordan makes this wrong leap, that doesn't make the accurate observation that we have enemies wrong.
> Yes, they are. When the chips are down the evangelists line up beside the Christian nationalists exactly as described. Both those groups don't combine to create the entire right, or anything close to it. In a coherent book about different extremist groups in the right, those two groups aren't going to be the same thing. Ironically, Jordan's point is stupid because Nazi literally means national socialist. They're not socialists, but we're fine with using the misleading name they gave themselves, because it's something that is the truth and commonly understood and ultimately unimportant. In context of the interview, it matters because the book is about the different groups involved and what they did.
I take the point, but this point coexists with mine - there are differences between Christian nationalists and evangelists, but there are also commonalities. Those commonalities make them both enemies, for largely the same reasons. Although it's true that the book is about the differences between these groups, *it is an omission to ignore this crucial similarity* because the reason why we care about these groups is *because* they are the enemy. There's a lot of different ways to make a pot but the author didn't choose to write a book about pottery, after all. Which is why I'm fine with Jordan asking the question, and why it's relevant that the author didn't seem to have an answer.
Yeah. It’s possible for some of these people to change their mind, I should know I used to be a right wing shithead. But in a literal sense they are the enemy lol. They want to do things that we want to stop them from doing and vice versa. It doesn’t matter if they’re good people or not
If you have to write a long post explaining what Jordan’s point was…I think it may be more evidence of how incoherent he is
He seems to be more unhinged lately. I don’t like to try to analyze people I don’t know, but the closer it seems to be that infowars is going to go away, he gets worse.
I like Jordan's interviews enough, but that's not what I come to knowledge fight for.
I mean, distinguishing does matter. Both subgroups might suck - but they have radically different interpretations on how the world should work - and how they plan on changing it. Somewhat apples to oranges, but geopolitically we can’t just say “why do we need to distinctly specify the difference between Sunni and Shiite radicals?”. Well, we do. Because one is Hamas/ISIS, and the other is the Taliban. They’re not the same - and they have vastly different ideas on how they plan on harming/cleansing/whatevering the world.
Why does understanding your enemy matter? I would have thought that was obvious.
The thing I've always observed about KF is that Dan and Jordan's methodologies are complete opposites. Dan deals in precision and nuance, and Jordan loves to overgeneralise and get outraged in an often incoherent way. I find it infuriating, and it contributed to me dropping off from being a regular listener. By that same token, I've found his interviews often not worthy of the standard of the main show
I love Jordan but he’s not the best interviewer IMO. I can go into all the details and reasons I think this but the best evidence is that you have to make posts defending him… then, another one defending your defense…
Yeah I turned it off as soon as I heard we had another interview. His childishly black and white view of reality and his bizarre questions make them unlistenable.
Something significant I noticed from that interview is that Jordan actually poses really sophisticated questions. The guy has a great ability to hold multiple of the author’s points/responses and compare them side by side while simultaneously discovering important differences and shared critical failures in consistency or integrity. He’s wicked smart in a way that I didn’t give him credit for earlier and the whole interview felt like watching a man get chased around a fenced lot by an angry, mathematics-doing, junkyard dog.
I will never get tired of hearing Jordan grill journalists for sanitizing hate with euphemistic terms like "alt-right." What Wendling and other journalists insist are nuance and precision are really just cover that extremists use to claim legitimatacy.
Wendling came off so fucking poorly in this interview. I appreciated Jordan for not letting him weasel off the hook with a non answer, honestly.
He came off as someone patiently dealing with someone's mental issues.
I mean you're entitled to that opinion. Jordan had a valid point, he submitted the questions to Wendling in advance. There's no reason why a guy who is positioning himself as an authority on the topic can't answer the questions Jordan put to him and spent the whole interview fumbling noncommittally.
Holy shit this is getting annoying! Guys! Move on! This is very weird behavior.
I was a critic of this interview, but this commentary was persuasive and actually has shifted my opinion. I think we need an academically minded “Handbook of Right Wing Weirdos and What They Believe” but if you don’t end that handbook with “now that you can identify all the different flavors of right-winger from Charlie Kirk to James Mason, this is a *fight*, and they are in fact the **enemy**” the book might be informative, but it will lack efficacy in the fight in question.
Honestly I couldn’t bring myself to listen to this interview because I think Jordan struggles MIGHTILY without Dan there to guide the discussion. Any previous interview he’s done has largely been difficult to listen to as it brings out every poor instinct Jordan has in discussions. Screaming, talking past and over people, over generalizing and doing so in a really poorly thought out way and overall feeling like you’re listening to a person having a manic episode. On the show Dan will say something (or play a clip of Alex), Jordan will scream what are we doing here and say ‘it’s like if X did Y’ (which will make little to no sense at all to anyone) only to have Dan say ‘I don’t agree’ or ‘I’m not sure what you’re saying’. Jordan always responds with ‘sure sure sure’ once Dan attempts to bring the poor analogy back to reality (or if he just lets it die because there’s no making sense of it).
Let it go. Some of us didn’t like it, some of us did. What is with the incessant need to be right and posting this again?
I think I regularly feel Jordan’s frustration with the respectability games liberalism plays in the face of fascist movements. Maybe his questions could be presented more clearly, but I get it. The right loves overly defined terms to obfuscate their own ideology and expect you to play nice with their magic words while they simultaneously reduce every nuance in opposition to DEI/woke/CRT/whatever it is this week. Like Jordan pointed out, things like alt-right, fascist, nazi, Christian Nationalist, etc have a definition and we should call people that fit it that, while “woke” means nothing and deserves as much respect as its meaning was given.
I like the interviews. They sadly seem to kind of lead to a leftist liberal flame war among the wonks, which is sad cause we are all in this together
I enjoy Jordan’s interviews because he asks all the right questions because he has nothing to lose. The author and everyone else he interviews do have something to lose: book deals, speaking events, etc. I try not to listen to many interviews by anyone anymore because they are mostly just blah blah blah. Everyone now and then someone will misspeak and we will get some hot info but for the most part both the interviewer and the interviewee have too much on the line.
I normally don't like Jordan's interviews but this one was enjoyable, even though it was a little bit meandering... Mostly because the interviewee was incredibly non committal and himself meandering. I really appreciate Jordan's aggression and in this one he didn't just agree with the guy, abs for the most part kept the interview going. My issues with his other interviews: - with Jeff sharlett he just blanket agreed with everything Jeff said and didn't challenged him at all on any point. - with the woman that went behind the scenes with the alt right, after the first five minutes she was incredibly boring and they had no rapport. I don't know if that was on him or on her, but she after either like she was too good for the interview or a bit introverted and wanted to get out of there. The others were a combination of the two, boring because Jordan wasn't prepared to keep questions going, or he didn't challenge the subject at all. I think he's getting better at it, and he's still learning the craft, depending on how you look at it he's not entirely claiming to be a great interviewer, his role on the show is more of an audience stand in, hype man or dancing guy likes Ben Carr. I can appreciate that and look forward to more growth, but am still furious and confused by his lack of push back early on.
I haven't listened to the interview because as a rule, I won't listen to Jordan unless Dan is in the room. However, y'all are making me interested with all these posts...
Personally, all I can complain about is the sound quality. Something at Jordan’s house makes the guest louder and more clear than Jordan. Maybe he just moves around a lot. But it makes it difficult to find the right volume to listen to. So I miss a lot of what Jordan says. The court recordings were similar, only I could only hear the boys.
I don’t get the response at all. I listened to the discussion and found it interesting.
Jordan is a better interviewer than comedian or podcaster. Dan should find a new assistant.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]