Turner may be handsome, he may be funny, he may be too polite to collect on the $20 I owe him for that mix up with the valet, but a debater he is not!
I was disappointed that he seemed unwilling to grapple with any of Heaton's points -- even going so far as to turn it into a joke/dodge, "I live in the real world!" -- and only wanted to deliver his POV rather than explore the issue, explore other POVs, or challenge Heaton directly. He made it clear that his principled stance was his own, which is fine, but then was clearly unhappy with the comedians that made their own choices (without knowing their reasoning directly). He seemed to want to debate Bill Burr, et al, instead of Heaton.
Kaplan, however, was an even worse moderator! I've listened to IQ2US, and I know how this is supposed to work! The job of a moderator is to pick one side and then railroad the other debater with neutral-sounding interruptions, begging the question, and subtle indications to the audience that his/her position is radical.
But Jones-Rooy was even worse than that! She's usually smart, thoughtful, and well-spoken but I don't think she said more than two words this whole episode!!
Despite those letdowns, the World's Smartest Podcast Network continues to deliver thoughtful content on a tier above other podcasts.
Turner several times mentioned something to the effect of, 'I wouldn't want to be paid by the Saudi Prince to perform for his friends', emphasis on being paid by the Prince. What happens to the debate, both sides, if we changed the emphasis?
1) Paid by the Prince, for the Prince's inner circle?
2) Paid by the Prince, for a Saudi audience that paid to be there voluntarily?
3) Paid by the Prince, broadcast to all Saudi Arabia?
4) Paid by the Prince, available to anybody with Internet access around the world who wanted to watch the show?
I suspect neither Heaton nor Turner would change their stance, but I suspect some of these iterations may give both pause. What say you?
Heaton, thank you so much for this very timely and sensitive topic - I got so much out of this.
In my eyes Turner nearly made the opposing side's point re how our society tends to give comedians too much credit when it comes to political activism, that they are generally interested in practicing their craft of making people laugh (if I heard his point correctly). So many folks seem to be attributing our comics' decisions to attend the Saudi event as some kind of soapbox-y endorsement of Saudi culture and politics. Could this instead be treated as an (increasingly scarce) opportunity to practice and encourage diplomacy across two very different world cultures?
I say this with some ignorance to the motivation for the Saudi gov't to bring this show their country. If a stipulation of the contract were that the comics must then publicly endorse the Saudis and everything they stand for, then yep, I'm with Turner. However that's not the information I'm hearing.
I don’t consider it any less ethical than taking money from the government in question for anything else. To whit, if it’s unethical to take a paycheck from the government of Saudi Arabia to perform comedy it’s just as unethical to take money from that same government to treat the sick and injured poor in that country if you are a doctor.
I also think we all sell out our ethics whenever it’s convenient. I give all taxes anywhere for any purpose as the example of that.
I’m putting it in the I probably wouldn’t do it but I ain’t mad at people that do if for no other reason than doing so would mean getting mad to a lesser level at a significant portion of the population who’ve done business with lesser evils. Life is to short for all that.
Also re the comedy bit: if I get a place with a little acreage as a resident of one of the states where one can have a pet kangaroo with no permit, I’m semi serious about setting up an acre or so with stuff they can eat a couple. Might or might not train them to box with intruders.
Turner may be handsome, he may be funny, he may be too polite to collect on the $20 I owe him for that mix up with the valet, but a debater he is not!
I was disappointed that he seemed unwilling to grapple with any of Heaton's points -- even going so far as to turn it into a joke/dodge, "I live in the real world!" -- and only wanted to deliver his POV rather than explore the issue, explore other POVs, or challenge Heaton directly. He made it clear that his principled stance was his own, which is fine, but then was clearly unhappy with the comedians that made their own choices (without knowing their reasoning directly). He seemed to want to debate Bill Burr, et al, instead of Heaton.
Kaplan, however, was an even worse moderator! I've listened to IQ2US, and I know how this is supposed to work! The job of a moderator is to pick one side and then railroad the other debater with neutral-sounding interruptions, begging the question, and subtle indications to the audience that his/her position is radical.
But Jones-Rooy was even worse than that! She's usually smart, thoughtful, and well-spoken but I don't think she said more than two words this whole episode!!
Despite those letdowns, the World's Smartest Podcast Network continues to deliver thoughtful content on a tier above other podcasts.
RIGHT?! I mean, cmon Andrea! You’re just sitting there! Speak up, Fucksake!
Turner several times mentioned something to the effect of, 'I wouldn't want to be paid by the Saudi Prince to perform for his friends', emphasis on being paid by the Prince. What happens to the debate, both sides, if we changed the emphasis?
1) Paid by the Prince, for the Prince's inner circle?
2) Paid by the Prince, for a Saudi audience that paid to be there voluntarily?
3) Paid by the Prince, broadcast to all Saudi Arabia?
4) Paid by the Prince, available to anybody with Internet access around the world who wanted to watch the show?
I suspect neither Heaton nor Turner would change their stance, but I suspect some of these iterations may give both pause. What say you?
Heaton, thank you so much for this very timely and sensitive topic - I got so much out of this.
In my eyes Turner nearly made the opposing side's point re how our society tends to give comedians too much credit when it comes to political activism, that they are generally interested in practicing their craft of making people laugh (if I heard his point correctly). So many folks seem to be attributing our comics' decisions to attend the Saudi event as some kind of soapbox-y endorsement of Saudi culture and politics. Could this instead be treated as an (increasingly scarce) opportunity to practice and encourage diplomacy across two very different world cultures?
I say this with some ignorance to the motivation for the Saudi gov't to bring this show their country. If a stipulation of the contract were that the comics must then publicly endorse the Saudis and everything they stand for, then yep, I'm with Turner. However that's not the information I'm hearing.
I don’t consider it any less ethical than taking money from the government in question for anything else. To whit, if it’s unethical to take a paycheck from the government of Saudi Arabia to perform comedy it’s just as unethical to take money from that same government to treat the sick and injured poor in that country if you are a doctor.
I also think we all sell out our ethics whenever it’s convenient. I give all taxes anywhere for any purpose as the example of that.
I’m putting it in the I probably wouldn’t do it but I ain’t mad at people that do if for no other reason than doing so would mean getting mad to a lesser level at a significant portion of the population who’ve done business with lesser evils. Life is to short for all that.
Also re the comedy bit: if I get a place with a little acreage as a resident of one of the states where one can have a pet kangaroo with no permit, I’m semi serious about setting up an acre or so with stuff they can eat a couple. Might or might not train them to box with intruders.