@Sheril

I can’t say I *enjoyed* the first season, but it has some depth and explores some serious issues, as you say. I appreciate it. The execution is excellent and the writing sharp, I just find the main characters so unlikable and the events stressful.

@RadicalAnthro

There is no dichotomy. Chomsky’s work, whether linguistic or political, has always been the ephemeral fluff of a blowhard. Proclamations without worry about evidence constructed to “feel” right. I recall watching à talk by him about an Israeli atrocity that included a number he pulled out of his ass. He said - you can look it up- and the website included a citation to facilitate that. The citation cited a different source, which looped back to Chomsky making the same claim in an earlier talk. It was true, Chomsky believed, because HE said it was true. To challenge his claim was unthinkable to him. His scientific work, better couched as theoretical speculation, worked the same way. He ignored Epstein’s crimes because Epstein flattered him. It’s that simple. Imho.

@skinnylatte

Yeah. I remember a Korean place that included “traditional” as the highest heat level and would not give me, white boy, traditional hot on my first visit. I needed to pass the “hot” test first. I’m sure that asking in Korean would have saved me that extra step to the good stuff. It sucks being monolingual sometimes (a lot of the time).

@inthehands

Yes. And political journalism is far too often conducted through the methods/lens of sports journalism - focused on strategies, points, wins, losses, and opponents. Political journalism's primary role, in my view, should be on governance: actions taken, policies proposed and their implications for future actions, costs of proposals or actions, etc. Who fucking cares why they do what they do...it is what they do that matters.

@CathyBikesBook

Some I don’t see mentioned yet

@shotgunseamstress
@KimCrayton1
@raventhesciencemaven
@ZekuZelalem
@popcornreel
@eosfpodcast
@KFuentesGeorge
@DeliaChristina
@airadam