Jake

Idle Weekend November 20, 2016: Electing Better

Recommended Posts

Idle Weekend November 21, 2016:

1025__header.jpg

Electing Better
Hey listeners! This was the first Idle Weekend episode we recorded after the 2016 presidential election, and we talk about politics, a lot. But, instead of cutting bits and pieces, we elected (ha!) to keep it all in, to give you an open, honest conversation between friends. Also, we played some games and watched some movies and TV!

So join us, friends. We promise to always try to give you thoughtful, honest, from-the-heart conversation, no matter what happens to the world around us.

Discussed: 2016 election, Dishonored 2, Even the Ocean, A Force More Powerful, Life is Strange (w/spoilers!), Dr. Strange, Pitch


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very amusing episode this week. I have to admit to feeling a small sense of shadenfreude when listening to two teeth-gnashing, palm-wringing, regressive social justice warriors lamenting the "end of the world"; confused, deluded, blissfully unaware that they and their ilk are the creators and biggest enablers of Trump. 

 

So so so sad that Hillary wasn't elected. The only woman who has ever been the subject of a criminal investigation whilst First Lady, someone who has funnlled $2bn dollars through her foundation. This is a woman whose biggest financial backers are banks, arms dealers and the most despicable regimes on the planet. But she's great though isn't she? When her husband (you know, the one who is a serial adulterer, launched cruise missiles against a hospital in Sudan to shift the spotlight off an affair, lied to the American people, takes $500m payments for speeches at charity events, etc) was accused by a succession of women of having raped them, Hillary wasn't concerned and didn't divorce him, instead she simply hired investigators to smear the women concerned. As Danielle says, she's a real "feminist"! Just one example of the lazy thinking on offer this week. 

 

Over the past 16 years, America's standing in the world has diminished significantly due to your last two choices as President with one being a retard who goes to war with countries because God tells him to and because another country attacked the US, and the other being a man who apparently stands for nothing and will bow and scrape to the leaders of countries who perpetrate attacks against the American public but who will also kill hundreds of innocents each year through a huge increase in drone strikes on foreign soil. 

 

Danielle, who I have to say seems a woman for whom no fact is too important to ignore or be ignorant of, actually thinks that Trump could drop a nuke on Syria. If you had any rudimentary knowledge, you would realise that the world is far more likely to be a safer place with Trump as your President than Clinton. Hillary (the civil rights activist who campaigned against gay marriage) has always been very hawkish when it comes to war. Trump on the other hand is quite isolationist, he has already begun making overtures to Putin. Obviously, you guys don't approve of this because Putin is not a big fan of gays but a less myopic commentator may come to the conclusion that a thawing of relations between the two greatest military powerhouses on the planet is actually quite a good thing in terms of survival of the planet. 

 

I don't mean to trigger either of you into running to a "safe space" or anything and I regard Trump as a buffoon but really you need to be aware of how this has happened. When you place so much emphasis on the rights of people who would deny you your own rights if they could, non-liberals will recognise this as the self-serving virtue signalling that it is, rather than any genuine desire to tackle and remedy a difficult issue - If in doubt, just mock the straight, white guy. It requires no courage or employment of facts and hey, I'll feel so much more smug about myself. Meanwhile do not ever criticise insidious, divisive and evil entities such as Islamic extremism or Black lives matter. No, we must support them in their right to damage our culture and society! The outlook of the regressive is a perverse masochism which, if left unchecked, will really result in the destruction of the rights and freedoms that were so hard won over centuries of struggle. That can't be allowed to happen and this was a catalyst for Trump. He will probably be a disaster, will certainly be a change (remember how Obama promised change - lol), but the one good thing you can say about his Presidency already is that it will operate as a check against the warped mindset that was on display during this podcast. 

 

No offense intended and I do not speak as a right-winger. However, I really hope you both make an effort in the future to gain a more well-rounded and less bigoted view of the world. I think you'd benefit from it. 

 

Mod note: you can stop reporting this, he's already banned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly at a loss for words after reading... that. But I think this about sums up what I think.

 

:wtf:

 

EDIT: No wait did you just fucking compare the BLM movement to terrorism? I bet I can guess what your threshold for "terrorism" is, too. Well I can't speak for anyone else, but, to be frank: what the fuck?

 

I've seen you post some seriously rank junk before, but it's usually about dumb video games, and everyone got they own dumb hangups about video games. But this is far outside the scope of what's acceptable. You've grossed me out on this chilly Monday morning. Eugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Turrican said:

  I really hope you make an effort in the future to gain a more well-rounded and less bigoted view of the world. I think you'd benefit from it. 

 

min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Twig said:

I'm honestly at a loss for words after reading... that. But I think this about sums up what I think.

 

:wtf:

 

EDIT: No wait did you just fucking compare the BLM movement to terrorism? I bet I can guess what your threshold for "terrorism" is, too. Well I can't speak for anyone else, but, to be frank: what the fuck?

 

I've seen you post some seriously rank junk before, but it's usually about dumb video games, and everyone got they own dumb hangups about video games. But this is far outside the scope of what's acceptable. You've grossed me out on this chilly Monday morning. Eugh.

 

That's fine. Other opinions are available of course. Although I notice that your post is free of anything that could be described as an argument or a fact. 

 

To answer your question though, no, I didn't compare BLM with terrorism.  However, it is a divisive and political movement founded on a fallacy masquerading as a civil rights group. I would've thought anyone could see that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea you can just slide this post in here looking polite but throwing out "I don't want to trigger you into running a safe space" and "virtue signalling" like no one's going to notice is foolhardy at best. Maybe this isn't the forum for you, even if you've been here a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Apple Cider said:

The idea you can just slide this post in here looking polite but throwing out "I don't want to trigger you into running a safe space" and "virtue signalling" like no one's going to notice is foolhardy at best. Maybe this isn't the forum for you, even if you've been here a long time. 

 

It's odd that you think I believe no-one is going to notice what I've written. I wouldn't have written it otherwise. There is a difference between attacking a person and attacking the ideas they hold and espouse. I think Rob and Danielle are good and nice people - just terribly misguided. 

 

You're kind of proving my point anyway. The standard position of regressive liberals is a steadfast unwillingness to engage with debate or facts. As I say, I'm not right wing myself but I will consider all sides and take a view - rather than say "you have a different view to me so go away!" Which is the definition of bigotry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very familiar with the style of writing at play here. This is what I used to do on like a daily basis when I was younger. Maybe not under the flag of "won't admit it's right-wing", but certainly just as toxic in many contexts. This isn't a person interested in discussing and learning, only spreading chaos. Act polite while saying heinous shit so you have fuel when people react unkindly. God, it's like looking in a ten year old mirror.

 

I hope you grow past this eventually, Turrican. It's hard to have hope these days, but hey I gotta or I can't go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Twig said:

I'm very familiar with the style of writing at play here. This is what I used to do on like a daily basis when I was younger. Maybe not under the flag of "won't admit it's right-wing", but certainly just as toxic in many contexts. This isn't a person interested in discussing and learning, only sewing chaos. Act polite while saying heinous shit so you have fuel when people react unkindly. God, it's like looking in a ten year old mirror.

 

I hope you grow past this eventually, Turrican. It's hard to have hope these days, but hey I gotta or I can't go on.

 

That was a pretty damning incitement as to your own character but thanks for your nonsense and for proving my point about unwillingness to engage. I understand, it's easier.  Also, "sowing". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Turrican said:

Danielle, who I have to say seems a woman for whom no fact is too important to ignore or be ignorant of, actually thinks that Trump could drop a nuke on Syria. If you had any rudimentary knowledge, you would realise that the world is far more likely to be a safer place with Trump as your President than Clinton. Hillary (the civil rights activist who campaigned against gay marriage) has always been very hawkish when it comes to war. Trump on the other hand is quite isolationist, he has already begun making overtures to Putin. Obviously, you guys don't approve of this because Putin is not a big fan of gays but a less myopic commentator may come to the conclusion that a thawing of relations between the two greatest military powerhouses on the planet is actually quite a good thing in terms of survival of the planet. 

 

 

We don't yet have a Nuclear Posture Review from the coming administration, so claiming to know that Trump won't drop a nuke anywhere and everywhere is a little presumptuous, especially considering his previous comments about proliferation in SEA, the importance of being unpredictable in nuclear warfare (which led to discussion among experts of the feasibility of expanding the nuclear triad), and his constant minimization of the effects of nuclear weapons and warfare on the world. His comments about keeping the option to nuke people open is in keeping with longstanding US policy to retain the threat of first strike capabilities so alone they wouldn't be too worrying, but taken in tandem with his other comments about nuclear strike capabilities, people are right to be worried. There's a reason that any major natsec community that you look at right now is having discussions about the ethics of serving under Trump and whether it's defensible to serve in his administration.

 

And my problems with Putin go beyond that he's "not a big fan of the gays" -- which is a really florid way of saying that he's criminalized my body and core aspects of who I am, by the way. Not standing up to Putin opens up huge questions about the future of east Europe, South Asia, and the Middle East, especially with ongoing crises in Crimea and Syria. Thawing relations between Russia and America has some fringe benefits, but Russia is a legitimately dangerous global entity and America is one of the few superpowers with the historical context and power to stand up to them. With that threat potentially neutralized, Russia's role in the world can only expand and make the world more dangerous in the long run, especially for LGBT people who live in Russia's sphere of influence.

 

Also, please do not use the word retard as a pejorative. That's pretty basic decorum.

 

Anyway, this is just my attempt to engage the little fact and substance in your weird bit of word salad, so enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turrican said:

Very amusing episode this week. I have to admit to feeling a small sense of shadenfreude when listening to two teeth-gnashing, palm-wringing, regressive social justice warriors lamenting the "end of the world";...

 

I don't mean to trigger either of you into running to a "safe space" or anything...

 No you can get right on out of here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ratamero said:

Still waiting for Turrican: Origins.

 

 

I was really intrigued by the Being Mad Online mechanic that they showcased for that, even if it was a little weird for a mechanic to be sponsored by Mountain Dew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Turrican said:

I don't mean to trigger either of you into running to a "safe space" or anything and I regard Trump as a buffoon but really you need to be aware of how this has happened. When you place so much emphasis on the rights of people who would deny you your own rights if they could, non-liberals will recognise this as the self-serving virtue signalling that it is, rather than any genuine desire to tackle and remedy a difficult issue - If in doubt, just mock the straight, white guy. It requires no courage or employment of facts and hey, I'll feel so much more smug about myself. Meanwhile do not ever criticise insidious, divisive and evil entities such as Islamic extremism or Black lives matter. No, we must support them in their right to damage our culture and society! The outlook of the regressive is a perverse masochism which, if left unchecked, will really result in the destruction of the rights and freedoms that were so hard won over centuries of struggle.

 

Excuse me while I marinate in the rich irony of condemning Black Lives Matter as "divisive" and "evil" while writing an entire post about how Trump should get a chance because, even though he's a buffoon, he's still a better candidate than Crooked Hilary. How many people have suffered BLM-related hate crimes, again? Surely it has to be more than the hundreds of hate crimes with ties to Trump before and after his election. How many groups have been slandered and insulted by BLM, beyond the implicit "insult" that prompted #AllLivesMatter? Surely it has to be more than Trump's systematic insult of every non-white, non-male demographic (and even some that are largely white and male, like veterans). I don't know about you, but I've spent the last year and a half giving Trump a chance, and he remains the one I view as an "insidious, divisive, and evil entity" who will "damage our culture and society." BLM just wants cops to stop shooting unarmed black kids for no reason (and also, for some of its members, reparations, which is worth discussing). I don't see how they pose a comparable danger to Trump, and your weirdly hostile and unfocused post doesn't exactly change my mind.

 

Also, what exactly does a damaged culture look like? I mean, I have examples from all the anti-women protesters in the 1910s who insisted that giving women the vote would damage our culture, and from all the anti-black protesters in the 1960s who insisted that integrating society would damage our culture, but they were wrong, so I've got nothing, really. Unless you can provide actual examples of damaged cultures and societies, I'm going to have to assume that it's a dogwhistle for "a hip-hop musical starring black people is dominating Broadway" and "sometimes I can hear the Islamic call to prayer from my house."

 

7 hours ago, Turrican 2 said:

Mangela, I just wanted to say thanks for the cogent response. I agreed with much of it and did reply but it was lost as (rather predictably) I was banned. Oh well, discussion over, debate shut down, point proved.

 

I can only hope you know, in your heart of hearts, that you weren't banned for having a different political opinion, but for opening that political opinion with this fucking sentence, insulting the hosts of the show on their own goddamn forum: "I have to admit to feeling a small sense of shadenfreude [sic] when listening to two teeth-gnashing, palm-wringing, regressive social justice warriors lamenting the "end of the world"; confused, deluded, blissfully unaware that they and their ilk are the creators and biggest enablers of Trump." You said "no offense" at the end but we all know which of the two statements you really meant.

 

Like... a little bit of self-awareness, please? Some people here don't know the internet troll playbook: that you post a long but only semi-coherent rant that has some valid points hidden among the many dogwhistles and outright insults; you complain that people aren't engaging with the meat of your rant when they react to the insults and the overall antipathy instead, like non-trolls often do; you get banned from the podcast's forum for saying disparaging things about the podcast, its hosts, and its fans; and then you come back with another account, hurt (wounded, even) that no one wants to have a conversation as you now try to use the ban to prove that people who disagree with you just can't handle your opinions (rather than, as a more mature and generous person might conclude, that you insulted a bunch of people and no one wants to talk to you after that). Sorry, better luck next time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Turrican 2 said:

Mangela, I just wanted to say thanks for the cogent response. I agreed with much of it and did reply but it was lost as (rather predictably) I was banned. Oh well, discussion over, debate shut down, point proved.

 

Have fun.

 

 

 

If you truly wanted discussion, surely you could have chosen a less aggressive approach. Based on your post I do assume you are intentionally trolling. At the very least, given your tone, you wanted a fight.

 

If this was not your intent, please take a moment to consider what you actually wanted to communicate, and the result of your post. If all you wanted was an affirmation of your belief that the forum wouldn't engage you with you if write a post like that, then you weren't really looking for engagement. If you were, you should understand that you went about it at a fairly counterproductive way.

 

I admit, I'm writing this as a serious form of procrastination. I have some work I still need to do today and I really don't want to. Also, if this ends up as patronizing and arrogant, I am sorry. The tone of your language does tug at my own desire to feel superior.

 

2 hours ago, Turrican said:

Various stuff about Hillary...

Hillary wasn't concerned and didn't divorce him, instead she simply hired investigators to smear the women concerned. As Danielle says, she's a real "feminist"! Just one example of the lazy thinking on offer this week.

 

I haven't familiarized myself Clinton to any great detail. I do not doubt that she's a political animal. However, most of the things you cite seem to be speculation, innuendo or downright not so. There may be merit, but claims of that nature should be substantiated rigorously, not thrown in an off-handed way as 'everybody knows' facts. Of the other stuff besides Benghazi I don't know much. And if you're curious, I came to the conclusion that wrt to Benghazi there was nothing there.

 

What is the evidence that she did this smearing of Bill's accusers? Brief wikipedia run does not seem to support your claim. Certainly even speculation does affect the perception one can have of a person. Yet, with regards to her being a real feminist, she has championed women's rights globally. We of course can't know if it's sincere or not. Still, role models matter, and I think she's has globally been a visible, powerful, positive woman. She's certainly been more visible at supporting women's rights than say Angela Merkel. Who is an admirable statesman, but you can't really call her a feminist. Why is viewing Clinton as a feminist lazy thinking?

 

2 hours ago, Turrican said:

Over the past 16 years, America's standing in the world has diminished significantly due to your last two choices as President with one being a retard who goes to war with countries because God tells him to and because another country attacked the US, and the other being a man who apparently stands for nothing and will bow and scrape to the leaders of countries who perpetrate attacks against the American public but who will also kill hundreds of innocents each year through a huge increase in drone strikes on foreign soil

 

I would challenge both aspects of your statement. The standing of US hasn't moved significantly, globally, and that Obama has been seen as a man who stands for nothing.

 

In general, in the western world, trust in the western democracy has suffered a serious blow. Bush Jr. was indeed seen as a bit of a simple fellow. The wars in the Middle East have been divisive, but globally speaking I don't think they've hurt the standing of US that much. Obama on the other hand has been met with almost universal approval in Europe. With regards to political standing, potential loss of Philippines is an on-going development that has more to do with internal politics than anything the US has done. Relationship with Russia has indeed soured, but that has, as I understand it, more to do with either what Putin had to do after the economic challenges posed by the crash in oil price after 2008, or simply just the man finally succumbing to the allure of the trap that is power. China has become more influential, economically and politically, especially in Africa, but that doesn't seem to have had much to do with the US as such. And as sad set of realpolitik as it is, the wars in the Middle East probably have helped US there. But this is already some pretty wild speculation on my part, as we can't know what the alternatives could have been.

 

 

3 hours ago, Turrican said:

Danielle, who I have to say seems a woman for whom no fact is too important to ignore or be ignorant of,

 

This is a bit of a detour, and perhaps a bit uncalled for on my part. But if you're honest about engaging and communicating, please try the following. Substitute Danielle with your name and woman with whatever you gender, and read that. That's a pretty darn aggressive a thing to say. Insulting too, as you're attributing circumstances (ignorance) to be an intrinsic part of the persons character.

 

We all are easily selective of our facts. We cherry-pick, and I fail at this as well. And I'm certainly the hosts do too. Yet if you wanted to challenge Danielle to challenge her own assumptions, you're not doing a great job at it. It reads as if you want to go for passive aggressive sense of superiority here. Never say never, but never use language like this.

 

3 hours ago, Turrican said:

actually thinks that Trump could drop a nuke on Syria. If you had any rudimentary knowledge, you would realise that the world is far more likely to be a safer place with Trump as your President than Clinton. Hillary (the civil rights activist who campaigned against gay marriage) has always been very hawkish when it comes to war. Trump on the other hand is quite isolationist, he has already begun making overtures to Putin. Obviously, you guys don't approve of this because Putin is not a big fan of gays but a less myopic commentator may come to the conclusion that a thawing of relations between the two greatest military powerhouses on the planet is actually quite a good thing in terms of survival of the planet.

 

The unpredictability of Trump feels like a far greater risk to me than anything Clinton has done. I'm not quite sure what are the things that make Clinton seem so hawkish to Americans. To me, as a European, it hasn't manifested. Well, she might be, I don't know.

 

I do agree with you that better relationship between US and Russia is a good thing. However, as a European I am kind of concerned about Russia's foreign policy. Would Trump not have condemned and sanctioned Russia after they violated Ukraine by occupying Crimea and supporting the east-Ukrainian separatist? Admittedly I'm selfish here, but I honestly fear what Putin would have done if the opposition hadn't manifested itself. The whole thing was scary, and quite too close for my comfort. If Russia and US become pals regardless of Russia's policies, well, that sounds rather bad to me. The civil rights are also an aspect of this. My impression is that Russia does not have a very functional democracy. Opposition, press and even basic rights are threatened. But Russia is a separate and a complicated matter. All I'm saying is basically what Mangela was saying: good relations with Russia at any cost is not a very appealing thing.

 

3 hours ago, Turrican said:

When you place so much emphasis on the rights of people who would deny you your own rights if they could, non-liberals will recognise this as the self-serving virtue signalling that it is, rather than any genuine desire to tackle and remedy a difficult issue - If in doubt, just mock the straight, white guy. It requires no courage or employment of facts and hey, I'll feel so much more smug about myself. Meanwhile do not ever criticise insidious, divisive and evil entities such as Islamic extremism or Black lives matter. No, we must support them in their right to damage our culture and society! The outlook of the regressive is a perverse masochism which, if left unchecked, will really result in the destruction of the rights and freedoms that were so hard won over centuries of struggle. That can't be allowed to happen and this was a catalyst for Trump.

 

How should the issue of liberation from legal, social, or political restrictions be handled? If the way liberals are doing it currently is wrong.

 

I'm not being facetious here, but I don't quite understand what you're saying. I think you're saying that the prevailing liberal outlook protects entities that shouldn't be protected, because they are threat. Yet the same people mock and belittle straight white guys. So Trump is a natural answer to all that.

 

This is a narrative that I've also encountered. I suppose I understand the feeling that the barbarians are at the gates and this will be the end of our way of life. The Vandals will sack Rome. But I just don't see it. All societies change all the time. Ours is an era of unbelievably rapid change. But I just don't understand what is this threat that will destroy the rights and freedoms? That Islam will take over the US? The Black Lives will dominate other wavelengths of the spectrum? How? I honestly do not see these fears as realistic.

 

Admittedly I got a bit carried away to hyperbole -land here myself. Is the fear is that liberal policies will mean that we will have a major terrorist attack every few years? These kinds of things are difficult to discuss, because they are value questions. Political discourse often pretends to be about facts when it is fundamentally about values. Death penalty doesn't prevent crime, but even if it did, I would still oppose it because my value judgement is that lives have inherent value, and especially the cost of even a single innocent person getting executed is too high.

 

My value is that to a degree yes, we need to support other peoples right to "damage our culture and society". That's what freedom of speech really means. That's also what the infamous second amendment means. They are an expression of the idea that restricting all possible harm can be far more harmful than the actual harm. But the most important part of it is that there should be room for reasoned discourse in any society. And the source or the contents of that discourse should not be restricted.

 

Naturally, we do restrict the contents of that discourse. A society can for example say that slavery is not up for debate. We just don't do that. Things a society discusses do not fall in a linear scale from bad things to good things. There's a great deal of variety there. But the UN Declaration of Human Rights is an admirable document which could be considered as a kind of a baseline for things we don't really need to discuss about. The fact that in this US presidential election we had to discuss some of those things is a bit horrifying. But I'm digressing again.

 

4 hours ago, Turrican said:

He will probably be a disaster, will certainly be a change (remember how Obama promised change - lol), but the one good thing you can say about his Presidency already is that it will operate as a check against the warped mindset that was on display during this podcast.

 

I would say Affordable Care Act is a significant change. Admittedly some might say it's a significant change in the balance sheet. Guantanamo? Well, my understanding is that it isn't for the lack of Obama trying. Is Obama perfect? Certainly not, but I think it's kind of uncharitable to react with laughter to Obama's work.

 

I however am not convinced that Trump is change in any real way. What we've heard of his cabinet choices thus far, the swamp looks to be very much there. His economic program looks a bit questionable, but who knows. Even US economy is very much dependent on global economy by this point. His stance on environment seems truly scary. I suppose that's change. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear he's surrounding himself with absolutely the wrong guys.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I had misgivings about the conversation we had at the start of this episode. Not that we shouldn't have had it, or that I regretted what we said, but just that I know some people are probably burned-out on hearing about this right now and I like Idle Weekend to be kind of a cool, cheerful place to hear lively discussion. Danielle and I often joke about how we have the most Extremely Real conversations just before we hit record, and then our tone completely shifts. It's one reason I love doing this show: Danielle and our audience help bring me out of whatever funk I might be in, and bring me back to focusing on the stuff I love.

 

This week our pre-show chat didn't happen. So we tackled what was on our minds, and I knew that some people wouldn't enjoy that chat, either because they weren't in the mood or because they disliked our views. So far, I have to say I'm pretty glad that the feedback we're getting back is mostly very positive. I think every week of Idle Weekend is like a public trust-fall with this community, and you guys catch us every time.

 

I was hoping the admin reports I was getting this admin would be about some random lurker, but I can't say I'm surprised to see it was Turrican. Disappointed, but not surprised. It's always a bummer to see someone who has been a community member for a while, even one that has crossed lines repeatedly, finally burn his last bridges. But when someone repeatedly demonstrates he can't separate disagreement from personal hostility to a community that has tried to welcome him, it's time to call it a day. Thanks for being on top of this, readers (and Doug).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Everything that Rob just said. Twice.

 

Also: we do this because we love it, and we enjoy talking to each other and having this dynamic (at least I do!). When I was editing, I thought seriously about cutting way down on the politics talk at the top, but I decided to leave it in, because, well, I thought it was ok to have an episode like this. I don't think we're going to be the idle politics podcast or anything, and I certainly don't want to be. But it felt like an honest chat about where we were, and I stand by that. 

 

As always, thank you, sincerely, for being such a rad community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rob Zacny said:

You know, I had misgivings about the conversation we had at the start of this episode. Not that we shouldn't have had it, or that I regretted what we said, but just that I know some people are probably burned-out on hearing about this right now and I like Idle Weekend to be kind of a cool, cheerful place to hear lively discussion.

 

 

1 hour ago, Danielle said:

 When I was editing, I thought seriously about cutting way down on the politics talk at the top, but I decided to leave it in, because, well, I thought it was ok to have an episode like this. I don't think we're going to be the idle politics podcast or anything, and I certainly don't want to be. But it felt like an honest chat about where we were, and I stand by that. 

 

As always, thank you, sincerely, for being such a rad community.

 

Actually, I was counting on you two to do this conversation.  It was welcome and needed.  You did not disappoint.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now