Whenever I listen to you both talk about the covid-19 vaccine, I get a sense of 50/50 ( good/bad) discussion. At the end of the day, the covid-19 vaccine is a miracle+a lot of layered progress over decades and it saved millions of lives. When I listen to your discussions about the vaccine, its more about the shitty messengers or vaccine hesitation or the edge case side effects than about the miraculousness of the vaccine itself. Why is this? Why not have a discussion about why institutions have a low trust level despite delivering an amazing relative high trust product? Whether pfizer or moderna made tons of money or not, literally hundreds millions of peoples lives were saved. # Lives saved > all the other nonsense. do you agree or disagree?
Will you ever have anyone on representing Israel’s point of view? I know it’s very in fashion to bash the Israelis on the left right now, but I would have expected you guys to be a bit more balanced on this topic. Israel has presented peace deals to the Palestinians 4 times and they have been rejected basically because the deals would still allow Israel to exits as a Jewish country. Somehow these facts just don’t come up in your discussions so I would be interested to see if you would have someone on from the other side?
Krystal, in a segement with David Sirota many months ago, you conceded that Breaking Points needed to have more segments on the Climate Crisis. Does your audience really need a segment on Trump, Ukraine, and Fauci every week? Why are you ignoring the Climate Crisis especiallly given the recent UN report?
Today, Emily clutched her pearls at the idea that children might use a Language Model AI to read about how to hide alcohol on their breath from their parents, or how to get laid. Less than two years ago she wrote, "I happen to be a free-speech absolutist" in her article entitled "Conservatives Aren’t Cancel Culture Hypocrites, But The Left Is." In fact, one of her first big breaks in the industry was getting coverage about her opinions on college speech censorship. How can she be so upset that people might be able to easily find and read something on the internet? That is all these Language Models do. They scour public sources for data, and share it with you in a easy to read format. It might not be correct, but again, as a free speech absolutist, that includes reading incorrect things. In fact, her concerns seem not to be about incorrect information, but CORRECT information she thinks people should be firewalled from having. Where does Emily really draw the line then? Certainly doesn't sound like an absolutist to me. Sounds more like an information fascist, dictating what is safe knowledge and what is naughty knowledge.