Me 5 min after an upright Chat - ua-cam.com/users/shorts6vDRjxecjfQ Vlad's main channel ua-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos Support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
vlad , i really thank you very much for your work that gives one a different perspective in things.. but dont you think that its simply not to ignore anymore that these people are a blatant mafia society, and that we cant talk about all these fascist maniacs and their social enablers anymore in an isolated manner but no other way than their connected effirts to attack ALL of us democratic and pluralistic people? greets from 🇩🇪
Do non-evil create a 100% fake russia hoax against a candidate and continue using it to remove a president? Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Do non-evil people use a fake russia hoax to steal an election and remove a president? Do non-evil people run over a 23yo (leaving her paralyzed) and drive away? Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Do non-evil people use a fake russia hoax to steal an election and remove a president? Do non-evil people run over a 13yo (leaving her paralyzed) and drive away? Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Do non-evil people use a fake russia hoax to steal an election and remove a president? Do non-evil people run over a 13yo (leaving her paralyzed) and drive away? Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Lex Fridman was on Joe Rogan's podcast a month ago and Joe advised him not to interview Donald Trump. Joe also said he wouldn't ever have Trump on because he feels like Trump himself would never be present he was only be in performance mode. Lex decided to ignore his friends advice and now it looks like Rogan was spot on.
Weird, Lex is just better looking, slicker Joe Rogan - same "let me have whoever on and barely push back BS - but of course, with an overall averaged right-wing slant" So it's actually baffling that Joe would not put Trump on but Lex would - but Lex is also, as it turns out, not as smart as Joe, even though this slickness made it seem so in the past. So, here we are.
Rogan probably contributed more to the profound confusion of western middle class, 25-45 yo males than any other person. Certainly not somebody who is acting in good faith
It baffles me that some people consider Lex Friedman as being a public intellectual. To me he always comes across as a credulous and easily manipulated empty vessel.
It is very common for people on the left who don't understand someone's success who they see themselves as smarter than would hold a view like this. It's like an elitist being mad that someone not as elite as them was let into the club without their consent, except it's not elitism or jealousy per se, perhaps more of a resentment that there are faster routes to success than deciding to be an academic.
everything about him is fake. The main reason he got famous was because he lied about Tesla autonomous vehicles back in 2018. Soon after, Musk called him and gave him an interview.
At what point is Lex partially responsible for giving a platform to chronic liars without the necessary alterations to his format? And i dont know the answer. Maybe never. Maybe its on us as a society or people.
@@2639theboss It's a good question. I've heard John Oliver, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert all express the view that they're "just doing comedy" and people shouldn't rely on them for journalistic standards of truth seeking. You could make the same argument that Lex/Rogan are "just doing podcasts" and people shouldn't take them seriously. Personally I think that's a total cop out. People _do_ get their news from these platforms now, because they're so much less exhausting to consume than actual journalism. Millions of people (often inappropriately) treat podcasts and entertainment channels as somewhat reliable sources of truth. Lex's channel has far more of an air of intellectual investigation than most podcasts, and seems to actively encourage treating it as a source of information rather than just entertaining conversations. I don't think people _should_ treat podcasts like Lex's as anything other than entertainment, and on a deontological view perhaps Lex is off the hook. But given the scale of the consequences, I think taking a teleological view is appropriate. Millions of people will have their opinions changed by the (mostly) unchallenged propaganda of bad actors. We can blame the audience, but this is such an inevitable fact about how propaganda works, and audiences cannot be expected to be experts in media literacy. On the other hand it seems reasonable to expect broadcasters to be somewhat expert in journalism, because that is de facto their job (whether they think of themselves as journalists or not). In a hypothetical world where people treated podcasts as entertainment rather than sources of truth, I don't think Lex has any responsibility. But that's not how things are in the real world. I think Lex should either tighten up the format or stop wearing a suit and add theme music, a sound board and cabaret.
And it's our constitutions that create aristocracies where you are able to vote for some of.the aristocrats rarely that are being selected by aristocrats.
I think a problem is also immigration because with economy not doing so people will get mad and say, why are we helping other people other than our own people? Like it or not this is becoming more more popular around the world.
Watching the interview excerpts, I couldn't help but constantly think, "Why is he even bothering with this when Trump is just spitting back the usual nonsense?" It was like watching a fine food critic pull up to the drive through window of a Burger King and expecting to get an intellectually-rewarding review of the menu.
He was unfit then as well. His performance proved that, and his unwillingness to move on after being rebuffed by the electorate proves the point. Anyway, being unfit for a job doesn’t mean you won’t get it. Have you never heard of a bad hire?
@@pietbiertappertje4529 Unfit in what way? Did the economy fall apart? Did ww3 start (or any wars)? Energy crisis? Immigration crisis? Did he arrest political opponents? Cancel everyone's private insurance? Or are you brainwashed into a hyper political state with uncontrollable urges to hate him for no rational reason? Don't make me show you that mirror again...
I'm always glad to listen to your calmly articulated "mean" thoughts rather than be forced to watch clips from an interview that would make me angry to listen to.
I'm so disappointed on Lex Friedman, early episodes of his podcast have very good conversations with people in the academic fields of artificial intelligence and computer science, but for a while now he gives a platform to all kinds of BS, Trump is just the latest one.
Yep, he has been corrupted by fame and fortune. Or his true grifter nature has been exposed. Shame. But life is to short to list to Lex and Rogan et al.
I always thought he just used his voice to sound interesting but I can't stand the way he talks. I found a few guests interesting but most can be listened to elsewhere as well.
I am not buying Vlad's assumption of Lex's ineptitude, rather that this being ineptitude covering malice. "Assuming good intentions" here is a trap, I am afraid.
Agreed. Lex Fridman is what I would describe as an intellectual-flavored empty vessel whose only real goal is furthering the popularity of his program.
I don’t think that Lex is an empty vessel or only cares about getting his next guest. I think Lex knows what he is doing, and he is advancing a particular agenda and a particular worldview, and particular outcomes.
@@MarkMarkSomehow I get the impression that appealing to a certain part of the population by pushing this worldview just makes more money. There are others, some of which I enjoyed a lot, who went that way after their channel became a business.
That was one of the calmest, most intellectually nourishing, surgical displays of reasoning Ive ever experienced. granted I'm not an intellectual, nor well educated. i don't spend enough time listening to public intellectuals, but I clearly should. Vlad speaks with clarity and power and in a way I can understand. I feel like he pinpointed exactly what I am doing wrong in personally trivializing and underestimating Trump, without inadvertently giving Trump any free and unearned credibility. thank you
His appeal is that he's not seeking your approval, and neither are most people. They're wanting to hear influential people answer questions, and not have all the answers be pushed back on just because they challenge leftist dogma.
His appeal is the quality of his guests and the long form format. Hes able to get such high profile guests to talk to him for 2 hours because he's such a lightweight. Who wants to be grilled by a journalist for 2 hours?
I saw the thumbnail yesterday in my UA-cam feed and I decided to NOT click on that video. I wonder if he interviews Kamala Harris next, to balance it out. Thank you for YOUR video 😉
@@byrnemeister2008 Well, Lex was planning to interview Putin, he was talking about it with some determination at one point. I don't think he'd get anywhere near him... maybe Putin's double 😅
This is no live podcast, this is a joke. Heavily edited complementary interview with carefully chosen questions and script. Proof: In the window behind Lex you can see how evening comes after daylight in a matter of 30 min of the interview playback. This was recorded for the whole day and clipped to select best parts and takes.
I didn’t and probably won’t watch this particular interview but I appreciate the way you spell out so many important principles that apply to the whole political situation right now and how we need to think if we’re to understand what’s going on.
During the Fridman interview Trump actually said " we had million more votes (than 2016) but we lost by a whisker".... It was the single public admission of loss in 2020 .... The Stephen Colbert show also isolated this.... So Fridman's interview wasn't a loss of time
Donald Trump literally bragged about "playing the game" to win the Electoral College. While losing the popular vote. It was then Trump who claimed the election was rigged due to the voting machines and mail-in vote fraud. While sending his army to overturn the electoral college vote count... Then claiming he was the victim.
It was a fairly lazy interview in the sense that he didnt really follow up when Trump was sliding away from the topic. Trump also managed to voice all of his talking points without being challenged too much. Lex also didnt fact check on any of the contentious statements.
Not every podcast is predicated on interviewing people but defending leftist dogma from any attacks that may go on in the process. Some are predicated on asking people certain questions and then letting them speak.
@@axelfiraxa If he were a thinktank, that would be true, but he's a podcast. He's interested in extracting answers to his questions, knowing that his audience will probably be interested in those answers.
I was listening to his podcast for a long time when it was mainly computer science. I don't think he's a bad actor (or he's exceptionally good actor). But it feels like he's now just playing himself how he was years ago, but now he's (also) interviewing people who (as Vlad points) like the format where they can stroke their ego. I had to stop listening when Ukraine war started. His Russian identity is simply stronger than commitment to the Western civilization and the clash within him was quite apparent. So to your point - he's a useful idiot, like so many intelligent people on the conservative side of the spectrum. Lex is definitely not the one I mourn the most. It's very sad.
Working through the double negative, I think you're saying that you do believe Lex is a bad actor? Either way I find him very misguided, but I suspect he comes from a very privileged background.
There are many reasons. We see the Democrats as profoundly corrupted, we despise the insane woke ideology, we are tired of overtaxation, we want to stop dangerous illegal south american gangs from flooding our country, we despise the nature of our relationship with the EU, we want freedom of speech, we want ideology out of our schools now! The list is far longer.
@@MilNORtop10 many reasons. We want freedom of speech, we want to care about our country first, we don’t want ideology in our schools. We don’t like woke ideology, we want least war, we want less taxation etc the list is long
@@johnboie4964 So doing an interview is enough for you to vote for him? That’s it? It’s his answers that I wasn’t impressed by. He is so full of himself, and he is not particularly intelligent.. doesn’t have the qualities to be a good president.
@@QuintaJoryal I’m not very happy about Kamala, and the democrats in general, but I just don’t see the appeal in Trumo. He is not fit to be president. He is dividing the country and is quite dangerous actually.
I missed your thoughts. I was worried about your health. You look better, and I hope you feel better❤❤❤. Take you time, we are Here. How philosophy spreed now. Love you, and your philosophical stance. I wish you health, we need you
Vlad, I regretably have trouble with discussions about Trump that allow for empathy or scientific explanations for his behavior. Those analyses are the proper way to look at characters like his, but living under his reign is a real, daily terror. Just knowing that it will be many times worse if there is a second time gives me cold sweats. I don't know how much more of his brand of "intelligence" this nation can take - much less my personal equilibrium. My fear for us all is much stronger than my desire to delve more deeply into the minds of Trump and his followers. I'm 77, and there is no more space in my brain for crap.🇺🇸
How should I respond when I'm sitting at the table and one dinner partner prefers red wine, the other prefers white wine, and the two of them decide to flip the table and walk out of the restaurant rather than try to come to a compromise? I'm seeing this more and more and I don't know what to do
Trump watched American Psycho and said to himself, I like him. Probably thought to himself that it was a very good thing that Patrick Bateman idolised Trump.
At least Vlad's claim about Trump is factually correct, rather than the usual projection and regurgitating whichever media slanders that evoked the strongest gut reactions in the person doing the regurgitating. To see what I mean, scroll these comments and look at all the insults being hurled at Fridman and Trump and notice how there are common themes but they don't always line up - it's pretty much just whatever that particular person "feels" to be true.
@@theredscourge so many words to say absolutely nothing. Vlad is right off course, Donald is very ..."neurodiverse" and it is getting worse with his neurodiverse aging brain. He actually admitted for the first time he lost the 2020 election. Some days ago he admitted he interfered with the election process. His neurodiverse brain probably makes him think he had the right to force Pence to accept the slates of fake electors that he had prepared in about 7 States.
Yeah, i like Lex, but 5 mins into that interview i noticed a lack of something pushy in the interview style ( and Trump is so dull, when not pushed onto the defensive ) its important to have these interviews, but it reminds me of Zizek vs Peterson one, ha ha ( both operators have too much skin in keeping the game not too confrontational ) when it could have been a better match, ha ha just thought of this for a battle of strange proportions a Zizek vs Trump ( Zizek would be doing all his twitching and Trump would be squirming under the hard quesions Zizek's sharp brain would be firing off )
My best upright time so far - but still mostly dark room crashing before and after! Recorded the ME channel chat, but ran out of energy to post. Tomorrow!
When Trmp answered Lex "You always got to challenge things", It would've been a great opportunity for Lex to ask: "So, If you win should election results also be challenged?"
Used to respect Lex up until 3 years ago when he started hanging with Joe Rogan. Dunno if they influenced each other but the Lex i used to watch 3 years ago wasn't so naive. Open minded but not naive.
lex is corrupted already, helping this global fascist mafia society maniacs to further their anti-democratic agenda against our all freedoms, hes literally a soft-washer for these monsters already... i lost my respect long time ago for this tool...
"We have got to start with the actual feelings voters have. We can't start with feelings we would like them to have which they don't have. And, the feeling that a voter has can’t be simply be wrong. They can’t be simply an intellectual error." (True for every person, not just for voters). It inspired me. This is my lesson of today, and a very important one. Thank you so much. All the best to you.
I understand the point about making assumptions about the intelligence of those people who have an understandable lack of trust in our institutions. But how come I and many others are able to maintain a healthy skepticism of institutions and the media, while those that lack trust in institutions, trust the alternative media, billionaires, social media and other influencers, while I hold those people / media to the same standards? I don't want to feel special for doing this. I want to understand why its on us to make a special effort to understand the illogical, while we are the enemy to many of those people.
I dislike Lex by association (half the time I hear him he talks with people who I consider bad faith actors). I could understand 1 or 2, but he does this constantly, to the point I can't think of it as an accident.
@@theredscourge you care enough to respond :) As for "influential therefore assholes" hypothesis - out of all the presidents to interview he chose the worst. I rest my case.
You are perhaps suffering from attribution error. You assume the least generous explanation of his choice of a narrow segment of guests and haven’t listened to him enough to identify his worldview that explains why he has conversations with people you don’t like and in fact he also doesn’t agree with on important issues. As some have said, in the absence of conversation and grappling with disagreement,the alternative is violence .
@@itsallminor6133 I'm going to tell you to Google it not as a cop out, but because I'm not sure we can actually post links here. Just use the keywords "lex fridman ivanka jared thanksgiving" and you'll quickly see. Also, both Ivanka and Jared have been guests on his show before. He seems very cozy with that whole family.
Lex Fridman is as intelligent as a libertarian can be, and has the intelligence profile of a narrow-minded engineer. The fact he believes himself to be unbiased, "rational" and "objective" in his interviews and ideological choices tell us everything we need to know. Sad character who will predictably take the Elon road
Yes, constructive discussion always implies good faith from all sides. Sadly, I see too often the mere opinion declaration exchange instead, without any evaluation or attempt to understand. On top of that, some try to explain peer's statements worst way possible to confirm their 'enemy' status. Which takes them to the safe harbor of their own convenient truth of black/white, us/them perception.
What I confirmed in the interview was he doesn’t want to lock anything down. He wants to turn the tables at anytime without penalty. A signed law or treaty constraints him. The problem is government has a lag. Sign in a law and it takes two years to be felt. Bouncing around might be good for confusion, but the system can’t keep up without a solid pathway.
If Trump is asked challenging questions, as Harris was in her ABC interview, he would walk out. Lex knows this, and purposely softballs most of the questions while trying to get in a few minimally invasive questions. Trump easily swats these aside using deception, deflection and re-direction. He answered nothing, the interview was pointless.
Are you fucking out of your mind? :D Trump did NUMEROUS interviews at town halls and events where he was not welcomed and was asked hard questions and accused of being racist and whatnot. He came, he answered, he explained his positions and he fought back. Kamala hasn't done a single interview in 40 days lol and then she comes up with a pre-recorded interview that was edited down to 18 minutes on a friendly network with a friendly interviewer that even helped her with some of the answers such as question about fracking and the border. Trump agreed to three debates on three networks and she refused the one on Fox news and the one that was supposed to happen yesterday and she only agreed to do ONE on ABC which is probably the most leftist network out of big four. I wonder why she refused to do other ones. I wonder why she refuses to talk to media and can only do rallies with teleprompters. You make fun of Trump for going of topic when speaking but won't make fun of Kamala for being unable to talk without a teleprompter. What a hypocrisy. Biden is senile, in his prime he was a great politician. Harris is just plain stupid. I doubt her IQ is higher than 90.
Trump is asked combative and bad faith questions all the time, and he absolutely relishes it. I think his weakness in his recent podcast circuit is that none of them are hostile in the way the media is, and it's taking him a bit to get used to it. The ABC Harris interview was a farce. The questions were prescreened and still she did a pretty mediocre job, even when Dana Bash attempted to feed her an answer several times and she still missed.
Netanyahu looked more sinister though when contrasted against lex who is a pretty nice but simple guy in many respets. I think that interview worked well. Net thought he was coming across as smart and winning, but he just looked rather nasty .
@@jonathanbowen3640 Netanyahu simply pushed his agenda into the 'conversation' as if it was a local press event. I learned nothing new from anything he said. Much like this 'interview'.
The wiki page paints lex as a cleaver guy with a very questionable past of publishing papers before any peer review. He's good at looking good but anything off script he fails, like the trump interview.
Lex Fridman and Joe Rogan both use the same 'interview' technique. It was pioneered by Art Bell of late night trucker's call in talk radio "Coast to Coast AM" in the 70's. This show was a seminal influence in launching and popularizing uncountable conspiracy theories and associated personalities.His was the voice that launched a thousand ships of fools whose 'intellectual' offspring haunt us to this day.
Telling people you are smarter than them does little other than raise barriers between you. They are more likely than not to be offended and think you’re an asshole, to be unable to assess your claim, and to actively mistrust you. There is deep rooted mistrust in things people do not understand whether due to lack of information or distorted understanding. An open hand and willingness to engage calmly and respectfully with people will get you much farther than looking down on them.
If I may offer a pinch of criticism...I am afraid that by analyzing Trump's ridiculous statements in a serious (or "gentle") manner, Vlad lends undeserving credibility and seriousness to Trump. *Btw I absolutely love Vlad's analysis and eloquence 😊
The Emperor's New Clothes is a fairy tale, and if you understand it's import, you'll realise that pointing out the obvious is sometimes necessary as reality is a collaborative project. This is the work Vlad is engaged in. He has to tease out the subtleties so we can recognise correctly what's going on, as well as devise appropriate strategies to use that information. In that work he's not just collaborating with us. He's collaborating with anyone who might come across his work. Just to ignore Trump is not an effective strategy in any context, because most people are ineffective in both recognising his importance and well as his strength and weaknesses. If they weren't, he would have never have become POTUS in the first place. By underestimating him, they also underestimate the erosion of trust in the electorate, and the danger he represents to American democracy. He may be an opportunistic narcissist, but he's proof positive that Nature abhors a vacuum, and will provide something to both call attention to it and fill it for good or ill. Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidency and her political career was ended by making that mistake. We should not feel entitled to make the same error. We need to learn from figures like Trump, because they are human too. They are us, with only very slight differences. And those drawn to people like Trump are us too. We are all vulnerable to temptation given the right circumstances, and his base are so angry, resentful, and mistrustful of the political class, because they feel victimised by them. And to a significant degree they may have reasonable grounds to feel that way. Ignoring their lived experience got us into this mess in the first place. When those political and economic elites dreamed up neoliberalism it was a self-serving ideology that gave them the excuse to do what they wanted. But they were deceiving themsekves. Such a approach can never be consequence free, and Trumis an important consequence of such thinking. So study him, because when he's gone, there are still other queuing up to take his place, who are younger, fitter, and just as ruthless.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx There's two contradictions inherent here though. First "Meet people as if their feelings are right", in a post-truth era is never actually guaranteed to find an emotional grounding with a depoliticised cohort, let alone a discursive grounding. Secondly, 'bad faith actors', as you describe, prey on this engagement with emotional entrapment or psychological abuse, as a stand in for negotiation - eroding the possibility of the latter. The perfect example is Alex Jones, but there are many representations. What happens if you chase his emotional ground? There is none, it is a descent into madness. What happens if you treat him as good faith? You get misinformed and scammed for supplements. What happens when you use the power of institutions to challenge him? He goes into bankruptcy. If someone is mask off about not even believing in the idea of negotiation, let alone democratic ideals, there is a level of cognitive dissonance that needs to be broken. You can still rely on fourth estate and other institutional routes of critical thinking/information rather than resort to paternalistic pandering. Is the idea really to treat adults like potentially underdeveloped children or pets, yet to grow up and in need of love or discipline? (that is not the traditional equality of political dispute resolution, is it?). Since we're only talking in vague analogies anyway...You can watch the dog chase its tail and praise the endless tenacity for goals, or maybe, you can be the car it catches by stopping the game and providing a cold hard reality. As Vlad did in the first minute with Lex - saying this doesn't work, it's counterproductive. Implications are many from a simple "truth" - which is essentially a comment on trump's capability to dish gallop misinformation and grievance spectacle. A deeper truth is that lex is a grifter with vlad's aesthetic - intellectual, so vlad simply thinks he's naieve, not malicious. I'm open to either. Isn't that the political high ground by vlad's definition?
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Watch channel 5 and tell me searching for a deeper truth than 'bad faith' in the presented emotions of maga will lead anywhere but a descent to madness.
Just because the left would rather ignore Trump by calling him "not serious" and hope that he would go away, does not mean that there's any wisdom in that. The left alternates between dismissing him and calling him H*tler. Well, make up your minds!
I feel Lex Friedman has made "oopsies" too many times to view him as merely naive. He might act in error unintentionally, but I do think he is being manipulative.
It's not an oopsie, his show is about interviewing influential people. The left may regard it as a mistake to interview certain people that they don't want interviewed, but the other half of the world doesn't give a damn about what the left thinks or wants.
@@trouaconti7812 For the same reason that Hitler was once placed on the cover of Time Magazine - not because they personally liked the man, but because he was very influential in the year in which they put him on the cover. The same thing is going on here.
I'm a Trump supporter, but your claim seems false to me based on my limited observation of Biden over the past four years or so. Why do you think Biden was replaced?
@@quintrankid8045 Biden deteriorated a lot over the last four years and I think we have been seeing some deterioration in Trump as well. He has been slurring a lot more. Not all the time but even what he is saying doesn't always make as much sense as he used to. He wanders. Mostly off but sometimes really really brilliant politically. That could go well if he is president again or not. I think the risk with him is relatively high and I don't think he will be running the country: the last persuasive person in his ear will be running the country...
Re 9:37 Thanks for touching on this point again. You made a community post to a similar effect on your main channel 8 days ago, to which my takeaway was "politics is not a debate, it is a negotiation." That post was so important to me because it made me realize after reading it that this distinction is so essential, but my own thinking has been lacking in clarity and consciousness about that distinction. This idea has really changed my thinking on political content online. My rough theory on how to be more effective at negotiations is to 1. gain understanding of the counter-party's worldview and concerns 2. build rapport and gain mutual respect with the counter-party through dialog about those concerns 3. show integrity and gain influence with the counter-party through compromise. The very troubling thing is that most political content I come across is encouraging or pushing the audience to do the *opposite* of each of these 3 goals, often shamelessly and explicitly. If politics is a negotiation, then content that turns you into a worse negotiator is deeply deeply depoliticizing, regardless of the subject matter or information content. I believe one of the consequences of this is that most of us who engage with politics on the internet are just as depoliticized, or even more so, than those who choose to ignore the political sphere entirely.
I think they do the exact opposite because each side want to turn their supporters into blind followers that can't really switch side, also it's more "interesting" to speak about something and get an audience - or voters - if the stakes seem to be critically high, rather than "well we will talk it through, no worries". I think the problem we are facing is systemic in the sens that many aspects of democracy politics incentivize that kind of approach rather than the comprehensive negotiation way. That's why I believe the next evolution in how humans govern themselves should probably distance itself from the individuals running the show, and get centered around policies exclusively. I think we spend an awful lot of time talking about some individuals rather than actual politics. Imagine if we could instead vote for each area in politics differently, one vote for what to do about immigration in a broad sense, one vote for public debt, one vote for taxes, one vote for research, one vote for social policies, etc. maybe what I'm saying cannot work, but at least we would be talking about politics a lot more than right now.
I'm not sure if I'd call a sociopath who is rumored to have an adderal habit "neurodivergent", although stimulant intoxication can mimic a number of endogenous illnesses, including psychosis. I think maybe we should stop giving ultra ruthless people who also don't possess a conscience a pass on their own bullshit.
Yes, we all need more censorship and less access to the thoughts of political candidates. To 'literally save democracy'. Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
@@johnboie4964 it's not "censorship" to choose to not upload a video that undermines the supposed integrity of your program and makes you look like a fool in the process
@@johnboie4964 it would not be censorship for lex to decide not to air an episode with an interviewee that didn't engage with the spirit of the program for the same reason that it wouldn't be censorship for south park to decide not to air an episode with a guest that didn't end up funny or satirical. The content expressed by the guest isn't what's considered objectionable or something that needs to be hidden from the audience on its own merits. this video even makes that same point about lex's podcast and the people he has on that are purposefully insincere
I didn't watch Lex's interview for two reasons: one, he played softball with Elon, and two, i don't expect anyone to get a straight answer out of Trump. I'm tired of hearing the same inane, repetitive lies that we've all heard for the last decade. And yours is the only analysis that i've chosen to watch for two reasons: one, i knew you wouldn't have any clips of Trump speaking, and two, I knew you would articulate a deeper more interesting analysis than just concentrating on how utterly incompetent Trump is. Thank you.
I haven't seen a single interviewer actually call Trump out on his lies. He gets a free pass every time. The only process close to calling him out are the various clips of his cognitive collapse on platforms like youtube. But are manipulative processes a good way to call out someone?
How do you respond vlad to people who dismiss this sense of disenfranchisement among Trump voters by saying that this is a priviledged group, and that to priviledged people equality feels like opression/being ignored?
I'm sure a lot of people are going to interpret that as him saying that he thinks Trump's IQ is 73, when in reality he was saying that believing such a thing would be naive.
I quite enjoy watching your tangential thinking in real time. Every thought between your ears gets a good interrogatory poking and prodding. Your reasoning is soothing in a crazy world, thanks.
Thanks Vlad. Bit of a tangent, but I got something else from this advice too -- in personal relationships too, and at work, we need to start from what people are actually feeling. It's no good to start by telling them they're wrong, etc. Doesn't work, and doesn't get to the real issue, anyway.
I find Lex F very boring and very lacking in depth, to me he seems to pull the trick of talking slowly and quietly and letting his audience interpret that as intelectual. I have dutifully watched several of his interviews and cant say I came away having learned anything I didn't already know before the interview.
99% chance that Trump is smarter than you -- I don't think so Vlad. He's a born rich ambitious bigot with charisma. He could be an actor in Holly Wood. He does have that talent. He has the ability to rally people. As far as knowing anything, I find him to be extremely ignorant on any topic under the sun except how to be Donald Trump. He hires people to make his productions look competent. I don't know, is he smarter than Yanukovych?
He has a great deal of animal cunning. As Mary Trump has said, he knows how to read a room. He has cheated and lied all his life and knows how to get away with it. However, he is spectacularly ignorant.
To my understanding, he has zero "academic" intelligence. However, his ability to sense the feelings of the crowd and exploit them is one-in-a-century. I regard him as the best conman in the history.
Me 5 min after an upright Chat - ua-cam.com/users/shorts6vDRjxecjfQ
Vlad's main channel
ua-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
vlad , i really thank you very much for your work that gives one a different perspective in things.. but dont you think that its simply not to ignore anymore that these people are a blatant mafia society, and that we cant talk about all these fascist maniacs and their social enablers anymore in an isolated manner but no other way than their connected effirts to attack ALL of us democratic and pluralistic people? greets from 🇩🇪
Do non-evil create a 100% fake russia hoax against a candidate and continue using it to remove a president?
Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Do non-evil people use a fake russia hoax to steal an election and remove a president?
Do non-evil people run over a 23yo (leaving her paralyzed) and drive away?
Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Do non-evil people use a fake russia hoax to steal an election and remove a president?
Do non-evil people run over a 13yo (leaving her paralyzed) and drive away?
Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Do non-evil people use a fake russia hoax to steal an election and remove a president?
Do non-evil people run over a 13yo (leaving her paralyzed) and drive away?
Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
Lex Fridman was on Joe Rogan's podcast a month ago and Joe advised him not to interview Donald Trump. Joe also said he wouldn't ever have Trump on because he feels like Trump himself would never be present he was only be in performance mode. Lex decided to ignore his friends advice and now it looks like Rogan was spot on.
When Joe Rogan is your voice of reason when it comes to journalistic practices, you should recognize how far out of your depth you are.
Weird, Lex is just better looking, slicker Joe Rogan - same "let me have whoever on and barely push back BS - but of course, with an overall averaged right-wing slant" So it's actually baffling that Joe would not put Trump on but Lex would - but Lex is also, as it turns out, not as smart as Joe, even though this slickness made it seem so in the past. So, here we are.
@@JohnInfante83 Oh wow. You really intellectually outpaced him there.
Frankly, Rogan would do way better job in interviewing Trump than Mr Friedman.
Rogan probably contributed more to the profound confusion of western middle class, 25-45 yo males than any other person. Certainly not somebody who is acting in good faith
It baffles me that some people consider Lex Friedman as being a public intellectual. To me he always comes across as a credulous and easily manipulated empty vessel.
Exactly my impression of Lex.
Joe rogan is also considered an intelectual, believe it or not. So, no suprise there with Lex.
Me too!
says a guy who would vote for Kamala Harris :D
It is very common for people on the left who don't understand someone's success who they see themselves as smarter than would hold a view like this. It's like an elitist being mad that someone not as elite as them was let into the club without their consent, except it's not elitism or jealousy per se, perhaps more of a resentment that there are faster routes to success than deciding to be an academic.
Nailed it in the first minute. Lex keeps doing this. The format doesn’t work with bad faith interviewees.
everything about him is fake. The main reason he got famous was because he lied about Tesla autonomous vehicles back in 2018. Soon after, Musk called him and gave him an interview.
Lex has all the props for an interview, but he has recorded conversations, he doesn’t conduct interviews
No professional podcaster would turn down an interview with either of the candidates.
At what point is Lex partially responsible for giving a platform to chronic liars without the necessary alterations to his format?
And i dont know the answer. Maybe never. Maybe its on us as a society or people.
@@2639theboss It's a good question.
I've heard John Oliver, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert all express the view that they're "just doing comedy" and people shouldn't rely on them for journalistic standards of truth seeking. You could make the same argument that Lex/Rogan are "just doing podcasts" and people shouldn't take them seriously.
Personally I think that's a total cop out. People _do_ get their news from these platforms now, because they're so much less exhausting to consume than actual journalism.
Millions of people (often inappropriately) treat podcasts and entertainment channels as somewhat reliable sources of truth. Lex's channel has far more of an air of intellectual investigation than most podcasts, and seems to actively encourage treating it as a source of information rather than just entertaining conversations.
I don't think people _should_ treat podcasts like Lex's as anything other than entertainment, and on a deontological view perhaps Lex is off the hook. But given the scale of the consequences, I think taking a teleological view is appropriate. Millions of people will have their opinions changed by the (mostly) unchallenged propaganda of bad actors. We can blame the audience, but this is such an inevitable fact about how propaganda works, and audiences cannot be expected to be experts in media literacy. On the other hand it seems reasonable to expect broadcasters to be somewhat expert in journalism, because that is de facto their job (whether they think of themselves as journalists or not).
In a hypothetical world where people treated podcasts as entertainment rather than sources of truth, I don't think Lex has any responsibility. But that's not how things are in the real world.
I think Lex should either tighten up the format or stop wearing a suit and add theme music, a sound board and cabaret.
The issue isn’t the intelligence of our so-called leaders, it’s our collective intelligence in choosing them.
Indeed. Blame society.
And it's our constitutions that create aristocracies where you are able to vote for some of.the aristocrats rarely that are being selected by aristocrats.
@@RTC1655 we get the leaders we deserve.
People believe these leaders because they’re using immigration and culture wars as of gain power, which is what Putin kind of wants
I think a problem is also immigration because with economy not doing so people will get mad and say, why are we helping other people other than our own people? Like it or not this is becoming more more popular around the world.
Thank you so much, I couldn't bear to watch it. I'm poised and grateful (and will now listen to your thoughts).
So pleased to see you up and looking better today Vlad ❤
The first sentence summarises it so perfectly. Vlad I love the way you are able to articulate. Thank you so much!
Thank you back!
100% agree
Exactly
Confirmed
100% wrong
You are looking much better Vlad! Hope your recovery is as successful as it looks :)
I wish it were!!! But I am don’t my best. This still an exceptional snapshot.
Watching the interview excerpts, I couldn't help but constantly think, "Why is he even bothering with this when Trump is just spitting back the usual nonsense?" It was like watching a fine food critic pull up to the drive through window of a Burger King and expecting to get an intellectually-rewarding review of the menu.
That's a good analogy. A fine food critic reviewing a gas-station meal with an open mind can interesting, but in this context it's worrying
@@martinborgen Lex Fridman is a Yelp reviewer... Let's not overstate his quality here.
Well said! I will listen to that "interview" again whenever I will feel like there is not enough comedy :D
@@martinborgenHey, leave Reviewbrah out of this.
Nailed it.
Describing Trump as neurodiversive has a politeness to it, but is so gentle as to be counterproductive. He is spectacularly unfit to be president.
You do know he's actually been president before, right?
@@johnboie4964 I do, and he was spectacularly unfit to be the president 😅
He was unfit then as well. His performance proved that, and his unwillingness to move on after being rebuffed by the electorate proves the point. Anyway, being unfit for a job doesn’t mean you won’t get it. Have you never heard of a bad hire?
@@pietbiertappertje4529 Unfit in what way?
Did the economy fall apart?
Did ww3 start (or any wars)?
Energy crisis?
Immigration crisis?
Did he arrest political opponents?
Cancel everyone's private insurance?
Or are you brainwashed into a hyper political state with uncontrollable urges to hate him for no rational reason?
Don't make me show you that mirror again...
@@lewbarrett Unfit in what way?
I'm always glad to listen to your calmly articulated "mean" thoughts rather than be forced to watch clips from an interview that would make me angry to listen to.
Hello Beautiful Vlad
Hello Keith!
I'm so disappointed on Lex Friedman, early episodes of his podcast have very good conversations with people in the academic fields of artificial intelligence and computer science, but for a while now he gives a platform to all kinds of BS, Trump is just the latest one.
Yep, he has been corrupted by fame and fortune. Or his true grifter nature has been exposed. Shame. But life is to short to list to Lex and Rogan et al.
Yeah, his podcast really made me fall in love with science again, and then it made me fall out of love with him
I stopped watching him 3 years ago cuz he started to change. I was so disappointed cuz his podcasts were so interesting
I always thought he just used his voice to sound interesting but I can't stand the way he talks. I found a few guests interesting but most can be listened to elsewhere as well.
He needs to get back to his roots. But that would mean a much smaller audience.
I am not buying Vlad's assumption of Lex's ineptitude, rather that this being ineptitude covering malice.
"Assuming good intentions" here is a trap, I am afraid.
Yeah it's long been clear that Lex is about nothing more than getting the next guest.
Agreed. Lex Fridman is what I would describe as an intellectual-flavored empty vessel whose only real goal is furthering the popularity of his program.
I don’t think that Lex is an empty vessel or only cares about getting his next guest. I think Lex knows what he is doing, and he is advancing a particular agenda and a particular worldview, and particular outcomes.
@@MarkMarkBINGO!!😊
@@MarkMarkSomehow I get the impression that appealing to a certain part of the population by pushing this worldview just makes more money. There are others, some of which I enjoyed a lot, who went that way after their channel became a business.
Thank you for your reaction, Vlad.
That was one of the calmest, most intellectually nourishing, surgical displays of reasoning Ive ever experienced. granted I'm not an intellectual, nor well educated. i don't spend enough time listening to public intellectuals, but I clearly should. Vlad speaks with clarity and power and in a way I can understand.
I feel like he pinpointed exactly what I am doing wrong in personally trivializing and underestimating Trump, without inadvertently giving Trump any free and unearned credibility.
thank you
All enemies have virtues - very wise, Vlad
Lex is such a vapid lightweight. I don't understand his appeal at all.
His appeal is that he's not seeking your approval, and neither are most people. They're wanting to hear influential people answer questions, and not have all the answers be pushed back on just because they challenge leftist dogma.
I agree
He appeals to those who are not fully invested in leftist dogma.
@@theredscourge That doesn't change the fact that he is a vapid lightweight.
His appeal is the quality of his guests and the long form format. Hes able to get such high profile guests to talk to him for 2 hours because he's such a lightweight. Who wants to be grilled by a journalist for 2 hours?
Thanks Vlad for covering the interview, so we didn't have to watch it
Its very easy when you don't have to think for yourself.
I saw the thumbnail yesterday in my UA-cam feed and I decided to NOT click on that video.
I wonder if he interviews Kamala Harris next, to balance it out.
Thank you for YOUR video 😉
Maybe Putin….
@@byrnemeister2008 Well, Lex was planning to interview Putin, he was talking about it with some determination at one point. I don't think he'd get anywhere near him... maybe Putin's double 😅
Lex has put out the invitation to Kamala. We’ll see if she accepts.
This is no live podcast, this is a joke. Heavily edited complementary interview with carefully chosen questions and script.
Proof: In the window behind Lex you can see how evening comes after daylight in a matter of 30 min of the interview playback. This was recorded for the whole day and clipped to select best parts and takes.
I didn’t and probably won’t watch this particular interview but I appreciate the way you spell out so many important principles that apply to the whole political situation right now and how we need to think if we’re to understand what’s going on.
i like Lex, I've learned much from his guests...... but this was brutal, you are bang on.
During the Fridman interview Trump actually said " we had million more votes (than 2016) but we lost by a whisker".... It was the single public admission of loss in 2020 .... The Stephen Colbert show also isolated this.... So Fridman's interview wasn't a loss of time
Have you seen Nick Fuentes' response to the "whisker" comment?
@@nancyflorida9863 I just went to Kyle Kulinski site and watched it!! thx!! Hilarious.... hahahahahah
Good point.
Donald Trump literally bragged about "playing the game" to win the Electoral College.
While losing the popular vote.
It was then Trump who claimed the election was rigged due to the voting machines and mail-in vote fraud.
While sending his army to overturn the electoral college vote count...
Then claiming he was the victim.
Good to see you looking a lot better, Vlad! 👍
Thank you so much I was happy to be able to sit up for a while - and look really well! Although not representative of 95% of the day!
It was a fairly lazy interview in the sense that he didnt really follow up when Trump was sliding away from the topic.
Trump also managed to voice all of his talking points without being challenged too much.
Lex also didnt fact check on any of the contentious statements.
Not every podcast is predicated on interviewing people but defending leftist dogma from any attacks that may go on in the process. Some are predicated on asking people certain questions and then letting them speak.
@@theredscourge when you have someone with such knowledge as a former president it is a waste to allow superficial answers
@@axelfiraxa If he were a thinktank, that would be true, but he's a podcast. He's interested in extracting answers to his questions, knowing that his audience will probably be interested in those answers.
Did you watch the one and only interview kandidate kamala has done?
I don't believe Friedman not to be a bad actor.
Yeah. The degree of naivety required to do what he does in good faith seems unlikely, given that he’s also intelligent.
I was listening to his podcast for a long time when it was mainly computer science. I don't think he's a bad actor (or he's exceptionally good actor). But it feels like he's now just playing himself how he was years ago, but now he's (also) interviewing people who (as Vlad points) like the format where they can stroke their ego.
I had to stop listening when Ukraine war started. His Russian identity is simply stronger than commitment to the Western civilization and the clash within him was quite apparent.
So to your point - he's a useful idiot, like so many intelligent people on the conservative side of the spectrum. Lex is definitely not the one I mourn the most. It's very sad.
@@lkyuvsaduseful idiot is most charitable description for Lex.
Working through the double negative, I think you're saying that you do believe Lex is a bad actor? Either way I find him very misguided, but I suspect he comes from a very privileged background.
@@bdn1337 Could you elaborate a bit on that, especially on his Russian identity?
I wasn't impressed by Trump in that interview, I don't understand how people want to vote for him..
There are many reasons. We see the Democrats as profoundly corrupted, we despise the insane woke ideology, we are tired of overtaxation, we want to stop dangerous illegal south american gangs from flooding our country, we despise the nature of our relationship with the EU, we want freedom of speech, we want ideology out of our schools now! The list is far longer.
Perhaps because he wasn't afraid to do the interview?
@@MilNORtop10 many reasons. We want freedom of speech, we want to care about our country first, we don’t want ideology in our schools. We don’t like woke ideology, we want least war, we want less taxation etc the list is long
@@johnboie4964 So doing an interview is enough for you to vote for him? That’s it? It’s his answers that I wasn’t impressed by. He is so full of himself, and he is not particularly intelligent.. doesn’t have the qualities to be a good president.
@@QuintaJoryal I’m not very happy about Kamala, and the democrats in general, but I just don’t see the appeal in Trumo. He is not fit to be president. He is dividing the country and is quite dangerous actually.
Glad to see you are doing better.
It seems to me that much of politics is engaging with very emotional people who have convinced themselves that their emotions are purely logical
I missed your thoughts. I was worried about your health. You look better, and I hope you feel better❤❤❤. Take you time, we are Here. How philosophy spreed now. Love you, and your philosophical stance. I wish you health, we need you
Lovely to see you have managed to get out of bed far even a little time. I hope it wasn't too tiring. I also hope you are improving a little.
Vlad, I regretably have trouble with discussions about Trump that allow for empathy or scientific explanations for his behavior. Those analyses are the proper way to look at characters like his, but living under his reign is a real, daily terror. Just knowing that it will be many times worse if there is a second time gives me cold sweats. I don't know how much more of his brand of "intelligence" this nation can take - much less my personal equilibrium. My fear for us all is much stronger than my desire to delve more deeply into the minds of Trump and his followers. I'm 77, and there is no more space in my brain for crap.🇺🇸
Another good ☕🍪in Vlad's coffee shop 😃
Am I neurodiverse if I can't read a 900 page document?
How should I respond when I'm sitting at the table and one dinner partner prefers red wine, the other prefers white wine, and the two of them decide to flip the table and walk out of the restaurant rather than try to come to a compromise? I'm seeing this more and more and I don't know what to do
Ask for bourbon on the way in and sit back with a sly grin for the democracy saving table flipping.
Putin just said he prefers Kamala...with a smirk on his face 🤣🤣🤣 I think he's being sarcastic and just trying to mess with us. 😆😆😆
...Trump is neurodiverse...
😂 you are a lot more charitable than I am. I have other words for it.
Trump watched American Psycho and said to himself, I like him. Probably thought to himself that it was a very good thing that Patrick Bateman idolised Trump.
Neurodiverse ... 😂
As a neurodiverse person, I feel offended!
At least Vlad's claim about Trump is factually correct, rather than the usual projection and regurgitating whichever media slanders that evoked the strongest gut reactions in the person doing the regurgitating. To see what I mean, scroll these comments and look at all the insults being hurled at Fridman and Trump and notice how there are common themes but they don't always line up - it's pretty much just whatever that particular person "feels" to be true.
@@theredscourge so many words to say absolutely nothing.
Vlad is right off course, Donald is very ..."neurodiverse" and it is getting worse with his neurodiverse aging brain. He actually admitted for the first time he lost the 2020 election. Some days ago he admitted he interfered with the election process. His neurodiverse brain probably makes him think he had the right to force Pence to accept the slates of fake electors that he had prepared in about 7 States.
Yeah, i like Lex, but 5 mins into that interview i noticed a lack of something pushy in the interview style ( and Trump is so dull, when not pushed onto the defensive ) its important to have these interviews, but it reminds me of Zizek vs Peterson one, ha ha ( both operators have too much skin in keeping the game not too confrontational ) when it could have been a better match, ha ha just thought of this for a battle of strange proportions a Zizek vs Trump ( Zizek would be doing all his twitching and Trump would be squirming under the hard quesions Zizek's sharp brain would be firing off )
Elephant Graveyard has the best Lex Friedman interview.
Upright!
My best upright time so far - but still mostly dark room crashing before and after! Recorded the ME channel chat, but ran out of energy to post. Tomorrow!
When Trmp answered Lex "You always got to challenge things", It would've been a great opportunity for Lex to ask: "So, If you win should election results also be challenged?"
I was shocked by how naive Lex was. Just before an election.
Is it naive or is it just a cynical ploy to increase his audience?
Do you really think he was just being naive?
He wears rose colored glasses about the motives of others.
@@jenniferstone2975No, he only does that with anti Western types.
Used to respect Lex up until 3 years ago when he started hanging with Joe Rogan. Dunno if they influenced each other but the Lex i used to watch 3 years ago wasn't so naive. Open minded but not naive.
Sounds like a you problem.
@@theredscourge That's original. 😂 I wonder why my comment bothered you so much.
Thank you Vlad. Much love to you💙💙
I like Lex, but he softballs his questions, hence so many tech Bros go on the show
lex is corrupted already, helping this global fascist mafia society maniacs to further their anti-democratic agenda against our all freedoms, hes literally a soft-washer for these monsters already... i lost my respect long time ago for this tool...
Don't care. Still voting Trump 2024.
@@eternalbattle1438 not suggesting not to
Theo Von stays my favorite interview
@@eternalbattle1438 so you will vote for a convicted felon. OK.
"We have got to start with the actual feelings voters have. We can't start with feelings we would like them to have which they don't have.
And, the feeling that a voter has can’t be simply be wrong. They can’t be simply an intellectual error."
(True for every person, not just for voters). It inspired me.
This is my lesson of today, and a very important one. Thank you so much.
All the best to you.
Thanks Vlad! You're looking well today! Hope it's a good one.
Thank you! Looking so well in that Chat! The 95% is the rest of the day is very different, but so grateful to sit up for a while !
@@VladVexlerChat 🌻
A message that doesn't require a mirror.
Please don't insult neurodivergents...
I understand the point about making assumptions about the intelligence of those people who have an understandable lack of trust in our institutions.
But how come I and many others are able to maintain a healthy skepticism of institutions and the media, while those that lack trust in institutions, trust the alternative media, billionaires, social media and other influencers, while I hold those people / media to the same standards?
I don't want to feel special for doing this. I want to understand why its on us to make a special effort to understand the illogical, while we are the enemy to many of those people.
I dislike Lex by association (half the time I hear him he talks with people who I consider bad faith actors). I could understand 1 or 2, but he does this constantly, to the point I can't think of it as an accident.
It’s indeed not an accident
No one cares that you dislike many influential people, that's who he interviews.
@@theredscourge you care enough to respond :) As for "influential therefore assholes" hypothesis - out of all the presidents to interview he chose the worst. I rest my case.
@@ajuc005 *best
You are perhaps suffering from attribution error. You assume the least generous explanation of his choice of a narrow segment of guests and haven’t listened to him enough to identify his worldview that explains why he has conversations with people you don’t like and in fact he also doesn’t agree with on important issues. As some have said, in the absence of conversation and grappling with disagreement,the alternative is violence .
It was completely vacant. Lex might as well have been absent.
Because his absence of TDS allowed Trump to speak?
Kyle Kulinski conducted an autopsy on the interview and concluded that it was a feeble attempt by Fridman. I have to agree.
Lex is a fake humble guru who had Thanksgiving with Ivanka and Jared.
I find this hard to believe. Evidence(😂)
@@itsallminor6133 I just googled it. He has a post on Twitter. They watched Godfather.
@@itsallminor6133 I'm going to tell you to Google it not as a cop out, but because I'm not sure we can actually post links here. Just use the keywords "lex fridman ivanka jared thanksgiving" and you'll quickly see. Also, both Ivanka and Jared have been guests on his show before. He seems very cozy with that whole family.
@@itsallminor6133 Nearly everything democrats say about Trump is completely fabricated.
TDS is a helluva drug.
@@itsallminor6133 Why would you find it hard to believe?
He's "literally hitler" 🙄
Thanks Vlad 😊
Lex Fridman is as intelligent as a libertarian can be, and has the intelligence profile of a narrow-minded engineer. The fact he believes himself to be unbiased, "rational" and "objective" in his interviews and ideological choices tell us everything we need to know. Sad character who will predictably take the Elon road
@ackbooh9032 he doesn't believe anything, just cares about his show
@@ackbooh9032 Expecting institutions to take your position at all times... wasn't that on a recent list from Vlad?
"As intelligent as libertarian can be". Wow.
You have the opinion of a narrow-minded leftist. Discarded.
@@naverich4603 Does he do races too?
i like that you've gone from saying "Political philosoer" to "Vlad reacts". It shows you've cultivated a trustable community.
Yes, constructive discussion always implies good faith from all sides.
Sadly, I see too often the mere opinion declaration exchange instead, without any evaluation or attempt to understand. On top of that, some try to explain peer's statements worst way possible to confirm their 'enemy' status. Which takes them to the safe harbor of their own convenient truth of black/white, us/them perception.
Lex Fridman interviewing Trump was like watching Wesley Crusher chat up the Borg Queen.
A Skunk interviewing a Skunk, smells bad.
That's a lot of feels, but not a lot of substance. At least Vlad's claims have substance
What I confirmed in the interview was he doesn’t want to lock anything down. He wants to turn the tables at anytime without penalty. A signed law or treaty constraints him. The problem is government has a lag. Sign in a law and it takes two years to be felt. Bouncing around might be good for confusion, but the system can’t keep up without a solid pathway.
Lex Friedman is unlistenable.
Vlad, the ever-so gentle meanie!
If Trump is asked challenging questions, as Harris was in her ABC interview, he would walk out. Lex knows this, and purposely softballs most of the questions while trying to get in a few minimally invasive questions. Trump easily swats these aside using deception, deflection and re-direction. He answered nothing, the interview was pointless.
Are you fucking out of your mind? :D Trump did NUMEROUS interviews at town halls and events where he was not welcomed and was asked hard questions and accused of being racist and whatnot. He came, he answered, he explained his positions and he fought back. Kamala hasn't done a single interview in 40 days lol and then she comes up with a pre-recorded interview that was edited down to 18 minutes on a friendly network with a friendly interviewer that even helped her with some of the answers such as question about fracking and the border. Trump agreed to three debates on three networks and she refused the one on Fox news and the one that was supposed to happen yesterday and she only agreed to do ONE on ABC which is probably the most leftist network out of big four. I wonder why she refused to do other ones. I wonder why she refuses to talk to media and can only do rallies with teleprompters. You make fun of Trump for going of topic when speaking but won't make fun of Kamala for being unable to talk without a teleprompter. What a hypocrisy. Biden is senile, in his prime he was a great politician. Harris is just plain stupid. I doubt her IQ is higher than 90.
Nah actually Trump preforms best in a combative style. Lex let's the audience be the judge
Trump is asked combative and bad faith questions all the time, and he absolutely relishes it. I think his weakness in his recent podcast circuit is that none of them are hostile in the way the media is, and it's taking him a bit to get used to it.
The ABC Harris interview was a farce. The questions were prescreened and still she did a pretty mediocre job, even when Dana Bash attempted to feed her an answer several times and she still missed.
A voice of intelligence and reason, you make it possible to detach ones self from feelings and see things from a birds-eye view, thank you, Vlad!
I tried to watch a Friedman interview with Netanyahu. It was unbearably cringeworthy as well.
Netanyahu looked more sinister though when contrasted against lex who is a pretty nice but simple guy in many respets. I think that interview worked well. Net thought he was coming across as smart and winning, but he just looked rather nasty .
@@jonathanbowen3640 Netanyahu simply pushed his agenda into the 'conversation' as if it was a local press event. I learned nothing new from anything he said. Much like this 'interview'.
The wiki page paints lex as a cleaver guy with a very questionable past of publishing papers before any peer review. He's good at looking good but anything off script he fails, like the trump interview.
Lex Fridman and Joe Rogan both use the same 'interview' technique. It was pioneered by Art Bell of late night trucker's call in talk radio "Coast to Coast AM" in the 70's. This show was a seminal influence in launching and popularizing uncountable conspiracy theories and associated personalities.His was the voice that launched a thousand ships of fools whose 'intellectual' offspring haunt us to this day.
I trust Lex Fridman as much as I trust Carlson.. To minus infinity and beyond...
Urbino, Italy is a lovely place. Mentality is more crucial than ever.....
Telling people you are smarter than them does little other than raise barriers between you. They are more likely than not to be offended and think you’re an asshole, to be unable to assess your claim, and to actively mistrust you. There is deep rooted mistrust in things people do not understand whether due to lack of information or distorted understanding. An open hand and willingness to engage calmly and respectfully with people will get you much farther than looking down on them.
Only if people act in good faith, which is not the case of MAGA and right wingers in general
Since this is a Trump discussion I'll throw out an oblique reference and say Vlad is the "weaver" we need. English professors approve, I presume.
😂😂
So glad you did this review.All too often critique is viewed in a negative light.Ethos,Pathos Logos!
If I may offer a pinch of criticism...I am afraid that by analyzing Trump's ridiculous statements in a serious (or "gentle") manner, Vlad lends undeserving credibility and seriousness to Trump.
*Btw I absolutely love Vlad's analysis and eloquence 😊
The Emperor's New Clothes is a fairy tale, and if you understand it's import, you'll realise that pointing out the obvious is sometimes necessary as reality is a collaborative project. This is the work Vlad is engaged in. He has to tease out the subtleties so we can recognise correctly what's going on, as well as devise appropriate strategies to use that information. In that work he's not just collaborating with us. He's collaborating with anyone who might come across his work. Just to ignore Trump is not an effective strategy in any context, because most people are ineffective in both recognising his importance and well as his strength and weaknesses. If they weren't, he would have never have become POTUS in the first place. By underestimating him, they also underestimate the erosion of trust in the electorate, and the danger he represents to American democracy. He may be an opportunistic narcissist, but he's proof positive that Nature abhors a vacuum, and will provide something to both call attention to it and fill it for good or ill. Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidency and her political career was ended by making that mistake. We should not feel entitled to make the same error. We need to learn from figures like Trump, because they are human too. They are us, with only very slight differences. And those drawn to people like Trump are us too. We are all vulnerable to temptation given the right circumstances, and his base are so angry, resentful, and mistrustful of the political class, because they feel victimised by them. And to a significant degree they may have reasonable grounds to feel that way. Ignoring their lived experience got us into this mess in the first place. When those political and economic elites dreamed up neoliberalism it was a self-serving ideology that gave them the excuse to do what they wanted. But they were deceiving themsekves. Such a approach can never be consequence free, and Trumis an important consequence of such thinking. So study him, because when he's gone, there are still other queuing up to take his place, who are younger, fitter, and just as ruthless.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx There's two contradictions inherent here though. First "Meet people as if their feelings are right", in a post-truth era is never actually guaranteed to find an emotional grounding with a depoliticised cohort, let alone a discursive grounding. Secondly, 'bad faith actors', as you describe, prey on this engagement with emotional entrapment or psychological abuse, as a stand in for negotiation - eroding the possibility of the latter.
The perfect example is Alex Jones, but there are many representations. What happens if you chase his emotional ground? There is none, it is a descent into madness. What happens if you treat him as good faith? You get misinformed and scammed for supplements. What happens when you use the power of institutions to challenge him? He goes into bankruptcy.
If someone is mask off about not even believing in the idea of negotiation, let alone democratic ideals, there is a level of cognitive dissonance that needs to be broken. You can still rely on fourth estate and other institutional routes of critical thinking/information rather than resort to paternalistic pandering. Is the idea really to treat adults like potentially underdeveloped children or pets, yet to grow up and in need of love or discipline? (that is not the traditional equality of political dispute resolution, is it?).
Since we're only talking in vague analogies anyway...You can watch the dog chase its tail and praise the endless tenacity for goals, or maybe, you can be the car it catches by stopping the game and providing a cold hard reality. As Vlad did in the first minute with Lex - saying this doesn't work, it's counterproductive. Implications are many from a simple "truth" - which is essentially a comment on trump's capability to dish gallop misinformation and grievance spectacle. A deeper truth is that lex is a grifter with vlad's aesthetic - intellectual, so vlad simply thinks he's naieve, not malicious.
I'm open to either. Isn't that the political high ground by vlad's definition?
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Watch channel 5 and tell me searching for a deeper truth than 'bad faith' in the presented emotions of maga will lead anywhere but a descent to madness.
Just because the left would rather ignore Trump by calling him "not serious" and hope that he would go away, does not mean that there's any wisdom in that. The left alternates between dismissing him and calling him H*tler. Well, make up your minds!
😊. So very happy to see Vlad here today. 😊
I feel Lex Friedman has made "oopsies" too many times to view him as merely naive. He might act in error unintentionally, but I do think he is being manipulative.
It's not an oopsie, his show is about interviewing influential people. The left may regard it as a mistake to interview certain people that they don't want interviewed, but the other half of the world doesn't give a damn about what the left thinks or wants.
He is awe of Putin, he said it many times.
@@trouaconti7812 For the same reason that Hitler was once placed on the cover of Time Magazine - not because they personally liked the man, but because he was very influential in the year in which they put him on the cover. The same thing is going on here.
Thank you vlad ,hope you feel better ,
Listening to Trump... he is as old and confused as Biden but just more greedy for Power
I'm a Trump supporter, but your claim seems false to me based on my limited observation of Biden over the past four years or so. Why do you think Biden was replaced?
@@quintrankid8045 Biden deteriorated a lot over the last four years and I think we have been seeing some deterioration in Trump as well. He has been slurring a lot more. Not all the time but even what he is saying doesn't always make as much sense as he used to. He wanders. Mostly off but sometimes really really brilliant politically. That could go well if he is president again or not. I think the risk with him is relatively high and I don't think he will be running the country: the last persuasive person in his ear will be running the country...
@@quintrankid8045 Biden left. Do you think the Democratic party's candidacy should have been left vacant?
@@judyweeks1480 I don't see how that's relevant to the issue of why Biden left or was made to leave. Please explain how that is relevant. TIA.
@@judyweeks1480 Biden was made to leave lol. There was already a person prepared to replace him.
You are fantastic, enjoy every word of yours! Happy that you are better!!! Love, Julia
Lex, Rogan, Peterson, Shapiro- different shades of brown
Sounds kinda racist, but okay.
Re 9:37
Thanks for touching on this point again. You made a community post to a similar effect on your main channel 8 days ago, to which my takeaway was "politics is not a debate, it is a negotiation."
That post was so important to me because it made me realize after reading it that this distinction is so essential, but my own thinking has been lacking in clarity and consciousness about that distinction.
This idea has really changed my thinking on political content online. My rough theory on how to be more effective at negotiations is to 1. gain understanding of the counter-party's worldview and concerns 2. build rapport and gain mutual respect with the counter-party through dialog about those concerns 3. show integrity and gain influence with the counter-party through compromise.
The very troubling thing is that most political content I come across is encouraging or pushing the audience to do the *opposite* of each of these 3 goals, often shamelessly and explicitly.
If politics is a negotiation, then content that turns you into a worse negotiator is deeply deeply depoliticizing, regardless of the subject matter or information content. I believe one of the consequences of this is that most of us who engage with politics on the internet are just as depoliticized, or even more so, than those who choose to ignore the political sphere entirely.
I think they do the exact opposite because each side want to turn their supporters into blind followers that can't really switch side, also it's more "interesting" to speak about something and get an audience - or voters - if the stakes seem to be critically high, rather than "well we will talk it through, no worries". I think the problem we are facing is systemic in the sens that many aspects of democracy politics incentivize that kind of approach rather than the comprehensive negotiation way. That's why I believe the next evolution in how humans govern themselves should probably distance itself from the individuals running the show, and get centered around policies exclusively. I think we spend an awful lot of time talking about some individuals rather than actual politics. Imagine if we could instead vote for each area in politics differently, one vote for what to do about immigration in a broad sense, one vote for public debt, one vote for taxes, one vote for research, one vote for social policies, etc. maybe what I'm saying cannot work, but at least we would be talking about politics a lot more than right now.
Vlad, it would be great if you could play a little something on the piano. To break up the parasocial hyperreality of your head-on camera presence.
Listen to The Elephant Graveyard's Lex Friedman episode. Its perfect.
I'm not sure if I'd call a sociopath who is rumored to have an adderal habit "neurodivergent", although stimulant intoxication can mimic a number of endogenous illnesses, including psychosis. I think maybe we should stop giving ultra ruthless people who also don't possess a conscience a pass on their own bullshit.
By the way, Lex Fridman's real name is Alexei Fedotov, born in Russia.
And sucker for Putin. He’s in awe of Purin, said it many timea
I could not watch it. When I saw Trumps first answer I had to turn off.
Good thing you aren't a hyper political TDS victim! 🙄
I also only made it for one answer. Then I unsubscribed to Lex.
@@jh500us Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
@@jh500us me too
watching several interviews, unless interviewer is pressing hard or surprising with new questions, trump rambles on with nothingness.
“We can’t just tell the people we disagree with ‘you’re wrong’ … …so then I told the person who disagreed with me ‘you’re wrong’”
Lex Fridman should have never uploaded that interview. What a disgrace.
Yes, we all need more censorship and less access to the thoughts of political candidates.
To 'literally save democracy'.
Stare into the mirror until you understand: 🤡
His show isn't about pleasing you.
@@johnboie4964 it's not "censorship" to choose to not upload a video that undermines the supposed integrity of your program and makes you look like a fool in the process
@@enuary That's EXACTLY what censorship is.
Those that think they know better (you) deciding what people can't watch.
@@johnboie4964 it would not be censorship for lex to decide not to air an episode with an interviewee that didn't engage with the spirit of the program for the same reason that it wouldn't be censorship for south park to decide not to air an episode with a guest that didn't end up funny or satirical. The content expressed by the guest isn't what's considered objectionable or something that needs to be hidden from the audience on its own merits. this video even makes that same point about lex's podcast and the people he has on that are purposefully insincere
Donnie sounded like the tired old man in a nursing home recounting his glory days in the army.
I didn't watch Lex's interview for two reasons: one, he played softball with Elon, and two, i don't expect anyone to get a straight answer out of Trump. I'm tired of hearing the same inane, repetitive lies that we've all heard for the last decade. And yours is the only analysis that i've chosen to watch for two reasons: one, i knew you wouldn't have any clips of Trump speaking, and two, I knew you would articulate a deeper more interesting analysis than just concentrating on how utterly incompetent Trump is. Thank you.
I haven't seen a single interviewer actually call Trump out on his lies. He gets a free pass every time. The only process close to calling him out are the various clips of his cognitive collapse on platforms like youtube. But are manipulative processes a good way to call out someone?
Breaking Points just had Jeffery Sachs on - it's also a rough one to watch to the end. Always great to hear from Vlad in the midst of irksome content.
I might give that one a miss!
How do you respond vlad to people who dismiss this sense of disenfranchisement among Trump voters by saying that this is a priviledged group, and that to priviledged people equality feels like opression/being ignored?
Glad you're upright 🌄
I not only 'survived that' I enjoyed it immensely! (You had me at "...(trump) IQ of 73")
Be mean, more, please, with sugar on top.
I'm sure a lot of people are going to interpret that as him saying that he thinks Trump's IQ is 73, when in reality he was saying that believing such a thing would be naive.
I quite enjoy watching your tangential thinking in real time. Every thought between your ears gets a good interrogatory poking and prodding. Your reasoning is soothing in a crazy world, thanks.
Thanks Vlad. Bit of a tangent, but I got something else from this advice too -- in personal relationships too, and at work, we need to start from what people are actually feeling. It's no good to start by telling them they're wrong, etc. Doesn't work, and doesn't get to the real issue, anyway.
I find Lex F very boring and very lacking in depth, to me he seems to pull the trick of talking slowly and quietly and letting his audience interpret that as intelectual.
I have dutifully watched several of his interviews and cant say I came away having learned anything I didn't already know before the interview.
99% chance that Trump is smarter than you -- I don't think so Vlad. He's a born rich ambitious bigot with charisma. He could be an actor in Holly Wood. He does have that talent. He has the ability to rally people. As far as knowing anything, I find him to be extremely ignorant on any topic under the sun except how to be Donald Trump. He hires people to make his productions look competent. I don't know, is he smarter than Yanukovych?
Most definitely smarter that Yanukovych. Yanukovych was famous for being dump as a brick. It's a miracle that he managed to learn Ukrainian.
He has a great deal of animal cunning. As Mary Trump has said, he knows how to read a room. He has cheated and lied all his life and knows how to get away with it. However, he is spectacularly ignorant.
I would agree. I know a lot of smart people, and they don't go around saying "I'm very smart." In my experience, only stupid people do that.
To my understanding, he has zero "academic" intelligence. However, his ability to sense the feelings of the crowd and exploit them is one-in-a-century. I regard him as the best conman in the history.