"It was an absolute pleasure"? Christ on a bike. Let's try and digest the fact you cretins are tossing the salad of a, let's face it, deeply unserious person DEFENDING someone that was proven to be paid by Putin (although I'm not condemning the Russia leader compared to the Trumps, Omabas and Bushs of this World).
Let's be real; I, who doesn't live in the US and isn't involved in US politics, would destroy you in a debate. Your whole Trump schtick is based on the fact you appeal to the most uneducated and ignorant segment of society - the very demographic, it should be said, your people have worked tirelessly to keep numb and dumb
I’m a first-time Trump voter, a former “too far left” person, and now an Independent. During that shift, I’ve listened to both you and MK—and I still do, especially on topics like the war and Israel.
One thing I’ve noticed, and that a friend of mine with similar politics also feels, is that in this conservative podcast space, there’s sometimes a focus on behind-the-scenes relationships or personal connections being aired out. I think a lot of us are a bit tired of that, and would really value more productive, good-faith conversations between people who are genuinely trying to understand each other.
You and MK both strike me as exactly that kind of person. Even when I disagree with her on certain things, I still value her perspective and can understand where she’s coming from and why she has her concerns. I actually sent her a similar note, so it felt right to share this with you as well.
I’d genuinely love to see you back on her podcast. It seems like there’s a real mutual respect there, and I think a thoughtful conversation between the two of you would offer a lot of value and perspective to listeners.
Wishing you well, and thank you so much for all that you do.
WHY THE MEDIA IS RUNNING COVER FOR THE TERRORISTS: so, why? Because they are plagued by Trump Derangement Syndrome; so, what is Trump Derangement Syndrome? It is Scapegoating, an irrational accusation of corrosive blame. It is a psychogenic epidemic stemming from what philosophy calls The Egocentric Predicament, and what psychology identifies as a Solipsistic Syndrome. In both of those empirical actuality is replaced by the world disappearing into mental constructs … as if reality becomes little men in their heads.
Your usage of "media"/"the media" annoys this reader/listener. It seems habitual and/or imitative and/or learned more than intentional. Your thinking (and expression thereby) may benefit/improve if your usage re "the media" becomes more deliberate.
What am I talking about? Your headline yesterday was "The Media Cast the Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as a Grief-Stricken Victim." Your headline today is "Dave Rubin on Why the Media Is Running Cover for Terrorists." "Media cast" treats "media" as plural, and "media is" treats "media" as singular. I am well aware that it's acceptable/standard/understandable English usage for "[the] media" (which these days is "the press" and much more, and including myriad "mediums") to be either a plural or singular noun. You could have instead (properly) written "the media casts" and "the media are." But I don't sense that you knowingly chose plural in the first instance and singular in the second – though perhaps you did intend the seeming inconsistency. Arguably, there is a difference in (sent and received) meaning (treated as plural or as singular), though it may be subtle.
(Incidentally, in the text of the "Grief-Stricken Victim" article, you write: "Which apparently makes him someone the American Left and the American liberal media feels the need to cover for and explain away." At a glance, it would seem you intended to treat "media" in this instance as singular – which would be fine except the subject of your verb "to feel" is compound/multiple (A and B), so the verb should have been plural regardless ["feel," not "feels"].)
Furthermore, that^ "is/are" problem (as I see it, it's a problem) is linked to another problem: the fashionable shorthand of "the media" – as if we all know what that means (especially those of us not of the Left or of the "herd"). Yet, there rarely is a "THE media." Sometimes the speaker/writer (including, demonstrably, you) intends "the liberal media" (I also have problems with this use of "liberal" – but I digress). Or she intends "the establishment media," "the legacy media," "the mainstream media," "the lamestream media," "the mass media," "the biased media," "the dominant-left-establishment media," "the left-of-center media," "the globalist media," and/or so forth. None of these economical terms/labels are perfect; I get that. And context matters; I get that too. And the way you use "the media" is extremely common as a stand-in for "the other media"/"the bad guys"/"not us" – though it bugs me more often than not because I find it silly and insular, and even discrediting; it can come across as (nutritionally-lacking) chum.
Watch what happens when the "the" is removed. Your new headlines would be: "Media Cast the Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as a Grief-Stricken Victim" AND "Dave Rubin on Why Media Is Running Cover for Terrorists." Do you see what I see? Among what's revealed is the temptation to put the word "some" as a qualifier in place of each former "the." "Some media" would certainly be more accurate, though it also sounds feeble. And it doesn't provide the understood coded connotation of "THE MEDIA." Is there a solution (better approach) to this "distorted clarity" (oxymoron of the day)? Another thing I notice is that without the "the" in headline #2, "media are" would sound better (in more ways than one) than "media is" ("Dave Rubin on Why Media Are Running Cover for Terrorists"). I actually think both headlines are better without the "the's" – which, btw, is more conforming to traditional journalism that does not prefer articles (the part of speech) in headlines (nor the "to be" verbs). We write "Man Killed By Stray Bullet" – not "A Man Is Killed By A Stray Bullet." (Sidenote: Your first headline/title would be stronger without all the articles: "Media Cast Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as Grief-Stricken Victim" – rather than "The Media Cast the Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as a Grief-Stricken Victim.")
As we can see (or at least as I can see), "the media" is a habit of usage (I grant the habit is almost universal on the non-Left). I find the very-common practice unfortunate and think it diminishes meaning/depth and persuasion on "our" side – though I also see how it has come to be convenient/handy (and valid) vernacular. And while I'm not saying usage of "the media" is always cheap and unsophisticated, it often is – and we can and should do better. A first step to witting usage (to thinking more thoroughly and opining more sophisticatedly) is to consciously decide whether you intend "[the] media" as plural or singular. That will force you to pause and consider (and refine). A next step is to think twice before invoking the "the" before "media" – which might assist you in taking your commentary to the next level. "The media" is a trope of the so-called Right (of which I happen to be a full-fledged member) that makes us feel good in the moment and even serves legitimate purpose, but also sometimes amounts to little more than drive-by sophistry (reducing "the media" environment to "Cowboys and Indians"). "You don't hate the [Leftist] media enough" is all-too true, yet it's also a dopamine-fueling, one-sided distortion. I don't have thee answer; I just know that civilization is not served when the best answer to the (despicable lockstep) Left is a dumbed-down Right (I can offer succinct examples of failures of Right and "independent" media, but this comment is long enough).
I apologize for my excessive comment. Yet I have a legitimate gripe, you (dear Batya) are one of the prime offenders, and it required me (too) many words to explain. Blessings ✡✝ To You And Yours!
this was fun!
Excellent back & forth
This was great, Batya. Thanks to you & Dave!
Great conversation you 2! Chag Sameach🍷😇🙏🏻🕊️🩵
Great interview thx too everyone for the questions!
"It was an absolute pleasure"? Christ on a bike. Let's try and digest the fact you cretins are tossing the salad of a, let's face it, deeply unserious person DEFENDING someone that was proven to be paid by Putin (although I'm not condemning the Russia leader compared to the Trumps, Omabas and Bushs of this World).
Let's be real; I, who doesn't live in the US and isn't involved in US politics, would destroy you in a debate. Your whole Trump schtick is based on the fact you appeal to the most uneducated and ignorant segment of society - the very demographic, it should be said, your people have worked tirelessly to keep numb and dumb
adorable interview! Liel Leibovitz gits down with: "The Myth of "Very Violent Settlers," explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCSk9f5JXsU
an' here (hiz foller-up)
https://x.com/liel/status/2036091766697243061?s=43
I’m not deranged because I can see how he babbles and steals and manipulates.
This was so informative
Hi Batya,
I’m a first-time Trump voter, a former “too far left” person, and now an Independent. During that shift, I’ve listened to both you and MK—and I still do, especially on topics like the war and Israel.
One thing I’ve noticed, and that a friend of mine with similar politics also feels, is that in this conservative podcast space, there’s sometimes a focus on behind-the-scenes relationships or personal connections being aired out. I think a lot of us are a bit tired of that, and would really value more productive, good-faith conversations between people who are genuinely trying to understand each other.
You and MK both strike me as exactly that kind of person. Even when I disagree with her on certain things, I still value her perspective and can understand where she’s coming from and why she has her concerns. I actually sent her a similar note, so it felt right to share this with you as well.
I’d genuinely love to see you back on her podcast. It seems like there’s a real mutual respect there, and I think a thoughtful conversation between the two of you would offer a lot of value and perspective to listeners.
Wishing you well, and thank you so much for all that you do.
Andrea
WHY THE MEDIA IS RUNNING COVER FOR THE TERRORISTS: so, why? Because they are plagued by Trump Derangement Syndrome; so, what is Trump Derangement Syndrome? It is Scapegoating, an irrational accusation of corrosive blame. It is a psychogenic epidemic stemming from what philosophy calls The Egocentric Predicament, and what psychology identifies as a Solipsistic Syndrome. In both of those empirical actuality is replaced by the world disappearing into mental constructs … as if reality becomes little men in their heads.
why should the people that have lived for thousands of years in an area move to Jordan or Egypt
This was fantastic!! So thoughtful and rational. Love you both!!!
Dear Ms. Batya,
Your usage of "media"/"the media" annoys this reader/listener. It seems habitual and/or imitative and/or learned more than intentional. Your thinking (and expression thereby) may benefit/improve if your usage re "the media" becomes more deliberate.
What am I talking about? Your headline yesterday was "The Media Cast the Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as a Grief-Stricken Victim." Your headline today is "Dave Rubin on Why the Media Is Running Cover for Terrorists." "Media cast" treats "media" as plural, and "media is" treats "media" as singular. I am well aware that it's acceptable/standard/understandable English usage for "[the] media" (which these days is "the press" and much more, and including myriad "mediums") to be either a plural or singular noun. You could have instead (properly) written "the media casts" and "the media are." But I don't sense that you knowingly chose plural in the first instance and singular in the second – though perhaps you did intend the seeming inconsistency. Arguably, there is a difference in (sent and received) meaning (treated as plural or as singular), though it may be subtle.
(Incidentally, in the text of the "Grief-Stricken Victim" article, you write: "Which apparently makes him someone the American Left and the American liberal media feels the need to cover for and explain away." At a glance, it would seem you intended to treat "media" in this instance as singular – which would be fine except the subject of your verb "to feel" is compound/multiple (A and B), so the verb should have been plural regardless ["feel," not "feels"].)
Furthermore, that^ "is/are" problem (as I see it, it's a problem) is linked to another problem: the fashionable shorthand of "the media" – as if we all know what that means (especially those of us not of the Left or of the "herd"). Yet, there rarely is a "THE media." Sometimes the speaker/writer (including, demonstrably, you) intends "the liberal media" (I also have problems with this use of "liberal" – but I digress). Or she intends "the establishment media," "the legacy media," "the mainstream media," "the lamestream media," "the mass media," "the biased media," "the dominant-left-establishment media," "the left-of-center media," "the globalist media," and/or so forth. None of these economical terms/labels are perfect; I get that. And context matters; I get that too. And the way you use "the media" is extremely common as a stand-in for "the other media"/"the bad guys"/"not us" – though it bugs me more often than not because I find it silly and insular, and even discrediting; it can come across as (nutritionally-lacking) chum.
Watch what happens when the "the" is removed. Your new headlines would be: "Media Cast the Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as a Grief-Stricken Victim" AND "Dave Rubin on Why Media Is Running Cover for Terrorists." Do you see what I see? Among what's revealed is the temptation to put the word "some" as a qualifier in place of each former "the." "Some media" would certainly be more accurate, though it also sounds feeble. And it doesn't provide the understood coded connotation of "THE MEDIA." Is there a solution (better approach) to this "distorted clarity" (oxymoron of the day)? Another thing I notice is that without the "the" in headline #2, "media are" would sound better (in more ways than one) than "media is" ("Dave Rubin on Why Media Are Running Cover for Terrorists"). I actually think both headlines are better without the "the's" – which, btw, is more conforming to traditional journalism that does not prefer articles (the part of speech) in headlines (nor the "to be" verbs). We write "Man Killed By Stray Bullet" – not "A Man Is Killed By A Stray Bullet." (Sidenote: Your first headline/title would be stronger without all the articles: "Media Cast Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as Grief-Stricken Victim" – rather than "The Media Cast the Michigan Synagogue Terrorist as a Grief-Stricken Victim.")
As we can see (or at least as I can see), "the media" is a habit of usage (I grant the habit is almost universal on the non-Left). I find the very-common practice unfortunate and think it diminishes meaning/depth and persuasion on "our" side – though I also see how it has come to be convenient/handy (and valid) vernacular. And while I'm not saying usage of "the media" is always cheap and unsophisticated, it often is – and we can and should do better. A first step to witting usage (to thinking more thoroughly and opining more sophisticatedly) is to consciously decide whether you intend "[the] media" as plural or singular. That will force you to pause and consider (and refine). A next step is to think twice before invoking the "the" before "media" – which might assist you in taking your commentary to the next level. "The media" is a trope of the so-called Right (of which I happen to be a full-fledged member) that makes us feel good in the moment and even serves legitimate purpose, but also sometimes amounts to little more than drive-by sophistry (reducing "the media" environment to "Cowboys and Indians"). "You don't hate the [Leftist] media enough" is all-too true, yet it's also a dopamine-fueling, one-sided distortion. I don't have thee answer; I just know that civilization is not served when the best answer to the (despicable lockstep) Left is a dumbed-down Right (I can offer succinct examples of failures of Right and "independent" media, but this comment is long enough).
I apologize for my excessive comment. Yet I have a legitimate gripe, you (dear Batya) are one of the prime offenders, and it required me (too) many words to explain. Blessings ✡✝ To You And Yours!