10 thoughts on “Yesterday’s “Real Time”

  1. Some great stuff in that show – thanks! The monologue at the end applies as much to the UK as to the US, sadly.

    Andrew Wang’s analysis of a third party and referencing the situation here was somewhat wide of the mark given our “first past the post” system and the advantage it gives to our very predominantly two party system (the 2010-15 coalition was a rare aberration). And five parties? We have rather more! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom

    1. Andrew addresses the very obvious “first past the post” problem by advocating for ranked choice voting, which would make breaking away from the stranglehold of a two party system much more feasible.

    1. I thought so too, and believe that I carefully checked the spelling in our host’s post before commenting at #1 above – my apologies if the mistake was mine.

  2. You can listen to the entire show of Real Time via their official podcast. They don’t even put any ads in.


    It also has a nearly full archive available to listen to, They are only missing about 30 shows.

    I most often listen to the show rather than watch it, since they started restricting the number of clips they put on Youtube to 3 per show.

    1. I said the same thing steve, These shows exist in perpetuity, they have been weirdly restrictive on the youtube clips, but the whole show is available.

  3. The general direction of what the panel says on the Chappelle eclat is correct, but I disagree with Maher @37mins that trans rights are a matter of time or acclimatisation. He says that people needed time to come around. But that’s wrong, and exactly the same tune he accuses vocal “social justice” so-called activists of having (who see themselves on the “right side of history”). I mean a special type who have been identified by various names in the past.

    Problem number one, to begin with, there is not one orthodoxy you could possibly subscribe to and everyone is happy. The big — the massive — takeaway is that you are always problematic, no matter how much you try. You are born a sinner, you must repent, and you can never get this right. There is no way, ever, to make this particular crowd happy, unless you submit becoming a retweet drone, an otherwise silent claqueur. They are, through-and-through, abusive powertrippers, with a emotional-cognitive makeup best described by the DSM.

    I am not writing this out of a hunch, but because I’ve seen it time and again for nearly a decade. Even when “intersectionality” was obscurest jargon, with barely any documentation online (especially none outside its original legal context), these people were extremely hostile and even towards people who tried in earnest to decipher what they are saying. That’s one of the root causes, the powderkeg that created this New Culture War in the first place.

    I approve of employees walking out, or organising protests and such things. Free speech and all. Good on them. It’s interesting that Americans can do this over a comedian they dissaprove of, but not when it comes to perverse social inequalities, or the ravaging of the planet where the US is the single biggest source, and simultaneously the biggest drag on improvements worldwide. I recall how Dawkins was scorned for half a decade because he was making that “not-as-bad-as” argument. I think we now have a clearer picture on such matters: the “activists” are really and solely concerned with matters of identity and representation at best, or virtue signalling narcissists at worst.

Leave a Reply