less than 10 minutes in he makes an uncited, on-its-face absurd claim that "public opinion changes on its own" with the implication that campaigns don't matter. A claim disproven utterly by Trump 1's "build the wall," among other things.
14 minutes in an off-hand rejection of free busses as absurd, again uncited or argued. The large majority of data available shows free busses work! This is a data analyst? https://massbudget.org/2025/01/13/fare-free-srta/
25:00 he mischaracterizes Mamdani's 'no new hires for NYPD, cut overtime, switch to social workers' position as 'fund the police.' No correction from ett.
Concluding with this point: it is obviously true that moving right on some issues to emphasize popular positions and de-emphasize unpopular ones is a good strategy. The problem is people like Lakshya are apparently incapable of soberly analyzing what positions are actually popular or unpopular, and in place of that analysis, simply say the things they believe in are also coincidentally the most popular positions.
The difference between "it's good to have respectful disagreements with your friends" and "you should broadcast your friend's bad takes on your podcast" is a chasm.
I think it was already clear though that they had disagreements and the purpose of the talk wasn't about resolving those points but of conveying them.
I agree with you in all of the substantive points that you posted throughout the comments in terms of busing, public opinion, crime, and so on. I do however disagree in that having this meeting is not productive towards ettingermentum's work. At minimum, it is a showcase of what, I believe, you would characterize as deficiencies between reality and ideology. Though, as Ettingermentum presents himself in opposition and why it should only highlight those things more clearly and as you have done in the chat.
I think relative to an alternative pod where Ett just goes through his points without Lakshya, this was bad. Whatever value we get from seeing the 'alternative point of view' is erased by that point of view going largely unchallenged despite many factual errors.
I was pretty disappointed in this conversation. The guest seems insanely negatively polarized against leftists he imagines online and there is no effort to separate his own normative centrist ideological positions from a more technical or evidence-based analysis of the candidate and campaign.
How am I supposed to voice over this
Lakshya is craven politically and has recently become a very poor analyst (pundit brain); your work gains nothing from collaborating with him.
less than 10 minutes in he makes an uncited, on-its-face absurd claim that "public opinion changes on its own" with the implication that campaigns don't matter. A claim disproven utterly by Trump 1's "build the wall," among other things.
14 minutes in an off-hand rejection of free busses as absurd, again uncited or argued. The large majority of data available shows free busses work! This is a data analyst? https://massbudget.org/2025/01/13/fare-free-srta/
"24:30 if the left runs on crime they'd get destroyed because they always do."
1. what is your sample size? would that sample size be excepted in any real science? This is a data scientist?
2. reform DAs win! All the time! They have won this cycle!
Again uncited, unchallenged by Josh, left to hang as "common sense."
25:00 he mischaracterizes Mamdani's 'no new hires for NYPD, cut overtime, switch to social workers' position as 'fund the police.' No correction from ett.
26:00 now we're just doing apologia for Lakshya getting on a stage with Matt Yglesias? come on man.
Concluding with this point: it is obviously true that moving right on some issues to emphasize popular positions and de-emphasize unpopular ones is a good strategy. The problem is people like Lakshya are apparently incapable of soberly analyzing what positions are actually popular or unpopular, and in place of that analysis, simply say the things they believe in are also coincidentally the most popular positions.
I would direct your attention to the part where Ett mentions that Lakshya is his friend
I think having respectful disagreements among your friends is good actually
The difference between "it's good to have respectful disagreements with your friends" and "you should broadcast your friend's bad takes on your podcast" is a chasm.
I think it was already clear though that they had disagreements and the purpose of the talk wasn't about resolving those points but of conveying them.
I agree with you in all of the substantive points that you posted throughout the comments in terms of busing, public opinion, crime, and so on. I do however disagree in that having this meeting is not productive towards ettingermentum's work. At minimum, it is a showcase of what, I believe, you would characterize as deficiencies between reality and ideology. Though, as Ettingermentum presents himself in opposition and why it should only highlight those things more clearly and as you have done in the chat.
I think relative to an alternative pod where Ett just goes through his points without Lakshya, this was bad. Whatever value we get from seeing the 'alternative point of view' is erased by that point of view going largely unchallenged despite many factual errors.
I appreciate both of you guys' takes so I'm intrigued to hear this.
Recording the entire thing with a beeping smoke detector is dastardly
I went around my whole house checking my detectors while listening to this holding my phone in my hand wondering where it was coming from
Josh please change the battery in your smoke detector
I was pretty disappointed in this conversation. The guest seems insanely negatively polarized against leftists he imagines online and there is no effort to separate his own normative centrist ideological positions from a more technical or evidence-based analysis of the candidate and campaign.
it’s ZOH-ron not ZOR-hon lol