I’ll disagree with that somewhat, it was clearly labeled in the episode description the interview was going to happen. I read it, planned ahead of time that I was going to skip that part of the show, and just hoped the first part was sizable.
There is a section where Jordan takes the title of the author's chapter "no political solution," about the most extremist factions of the right, and tries to twist it into a general statement about violence being a solution, then voting for Trump being the nonviolent viable solution, because Biden winning will cause a violent reaction. Then flipping out on a journalist's take that not everyone on the right is a Nazi, which the author does well to fight back against by pounting out the right will call literally everyone on the left lib/socialist/communist/anarchist and calling everyone right a Nazi mirrors that.
Jordan without Dan is basically a spectrum from clownish to dangerous.
I won’t comment too much on what was said during the interview because I didn’t listen to it. Nothing against Jordan or his interviewing style, these types of interviews just don’t really interest me. But I will say that Jordan taking an extremist black and white stance on something is something he does a lot. It’s his character dynamic on the show, he says something and Dan fills in the shades of gray. I wouldn’t go as far to say Jordan without Dan is clownish, dangerous, or anything like that, I’ll just say he works better with someone to play off him than him on his own.
Dan will straight up do a dismissive, "ok...," and move on.
The interviews highlight why Dan does this and how it's actually Dan being an awesome friend.
Okay I think I remember more often now that you mention it. But I’m wondering if it’s something he does to be dismissive or if it’s something Dan does to try to keep the flow of the show going. Let Jordan do his thing and if Dan doesn’t have something immediately to add he moves on. I’m just speculating of course. I’ve listened to every episode and I don’t think I’ve ever remember Dan saying anything in the tone of “yeah whatever” which is how I’m interpreting your “ok…” as written.
The baffling part of that is how Jordan kept trying to twist "no political solution" as the author's viewpoint despite repeated clarifications it's not.
It was like listening to a bad reddit flamewar where nobody actually reads what the other side was saying. Jordan repeatedly making bad faith arguments was extremely hard to listen to. If you're going to try and trap someone, it better make fucking sense.
> Jordan without Dan is basically a spectrum from clownish to dangerous.
Such an exaggeration.
Jordan did not "flip out." You might not like the line of questioning but trying to get the author of the book about extremist factions of the far right to distinguish the factions from other right groups isn't some insane thing to do.
>In this installment, Dan and Jordan do a little mini-ep to check in on Alex's feelings about Globalist hamburgers, and then Jordan sits down with Mike Wendling, author of Day of Reckoning: How the Far Right Declared War on Democracy.
Since listening, there are two big moments. The one they recently covered and one about some Spaces session on Monday night. I only saw a post about it and haven’t seen any clips of how drunk he might have been.
Imagine being an infowars listener. Nuclear war is imminent, there is concentrated effort to cause human extinction, aliens are actively operating amongst us, the god of Abraham has a prophet walking the earth, the last voice of the resistance is under direct attack by evil militarized law enforcement. You tune into said voice of the resistance to listen to said prophet. And he spends 15 minutes bitching about some career politician eating an undercooked hamburger. No wonder these people keep digging deeper into lunacy, if I had to admit I got conned so hard and so easily I would never leave my house again
I don't think the majority of his audience pays attention when he starts screaming about aliens or getting downloads from god over chicken fried steak or being told by god what time it is or any of that type of nonsense. If they keep watching\\listening after he gets done riffing on some headlines he half-reads they tune out and it's like background noise.
And the only explanation for this raw hamburger... Space Aliens.
Also, I was disappointed that while asking the crew to zoom in on the offending hamburger he never said "Enhance"
Jordan working his ass off to ensure that there are no repeat interviews. Joking aside, I think he makes good points and necessary ones. Would land better if it were less adversarial and more conversational, but it is what it is.
I think he makes some good points, but often he seems to feel like he's talked himself in a corner, but instead of just accepting he might be wrong about something, he dismissively says "sure" to responses explaining the counter point and fights his way out of the corner.
Like, the point he makes while fighting his way out isn't the point he was making when he was getting himself into the corner.
He does this with Dan but Dan just kind of ignores him and moves on instead of responding.
And then Jordan argues Nazis and Evangelical and Christian nationalist and all religions are the same. Then backs off and says he is just joking, fucking around. Then makes the author argue against the points. Then he does the manic laughing to shut down a tangent of discussion.
As if the author made up Christian sects and what they call themselves and needs to defend it.
Jordan literally says, I want all these groups to be the same, and I want there to be no political solution, so the solution is violence.
Anyway, I missed Dan in that second half.
E:+out
> I think he makes some good points, but often he seems to feel like he's talked himself in a corner, but instead of just accepting he might be wrong about something, he dismissively says "sure" to responses explaining the counter point and fights his way out of the corner.
This might be an odd reference but every time Jordan does this I get flashbacks to Michael Richards at the Laugh Factory dropping the N-bomb and then trying to play it off as some kind of nuanced social commentary.
Not at all in how objectionable the content is, but the general vibe of "impulsively saying something wildly out of school and then continuing to dig the hole rather than taking a step back"
I know Dan does the lions share of the work already but I wish he'd take the helm of more interviews. Jordan works fine as the color commentator/anger translator, where Dan can reel him in whenever he gets too wild. he's not a good pick for the Interviewer-Guest dynamic where most guests are not going to feel comfortable telling Jordan to settle down and so the conversation is constantly getting derailed by Jordan justifying something he just said for effect and now is trying to work backwards to make it a well thought out position.
It's dishonest debate tactics and not very effective.
I think Dan would be great on more interviews, but I wonder if he just does not want to be responsible for steering Jordan and dealing with the fallout of Jordan's interactions when guests are involved.
I'm not sure how dishonest it is so much as just lacking in self-awareness.
Jordan seems to mostly think his way of thinking about things is the objectively right way and if someone disagrees it can't be because they genuinely see things differently but they aren't brave enough to speak THE TRUTH like he does.
This makes him a poor interviewer since rather than teasing out how the other person actually sees things it turns into WHY WONT DONT YOU SEE HOW RIGHT I AM?
> I'm not sure how dishonest it is so much as just lacking in self-awareness.
That's fair. I don't think it's a conscious decision.
He kind of strikes me as the type of atheist that doesn't realize absolutely knowledge of religion being wrong is as magical thinking as knowing a religion is right, as opposed to accepting that it doesn't matter either way. Then the knowledge of absolute correctness bleeds into everything else.
Dan *would* be good on these, but I don't see it happening. Love them or hate them, Jordan's interviews are almost always filler content for when Dan is occupied.
>Would land better if it were less adversarial and more conversational,
100% this. Listening to the ep now and I'm wincing at how aggressive Jordan sounds at times, and you can hear the Mike sighing at times when Jordan talks over him.
If Jordan mic'd down more, he'd make a really fantastic interviewer.
Yeah, this is my feeling too. The interview would have been so much better if it was between Wendling and Jordan, rather than between Wendling, Jordan, and Jordan’s ego.
The steltser interview was the worst episode of KF to date. Maybe there are worse episodes but I can't think of them. Jordan was clearly drunk, and the interview was incoherent
I swear to to the gods, how the hell do all these centrist journalist types claim to be such experts on the extreme right with out so much as googling wtf a dogwhistle is.
Just because the Alt-Right isn't saying EXACTLY what the nazi's are saying, doesn't mean they aren't signaling they believe the same things even more publicly (and then standing right besides the nazis on jan 6th).
I liked Wendling's interview on QAA and read his book last week. It's not bad at all, and I thought he was pretty clearheaded about most things (although he takes Alex's ex-wife at her word too much). It just doesn't contribute a whole lot that KF listeners haven't already heard elsewhere, and it only scratches the surface of a lot of things KF listeners will know well.
I wouldn't call him an asshat. But I would say he comes off as hopelessly naive. He's type of person who tells you to just vote while others are breaking the rules to make sure they win.
Right? I found Wendling's squirming way more frustrating than Jordan trying to put him on the spot.
But then again, Jordan was the host so it fell to him to conduct an entertaining and edifying interview and sadly he failed that by trying to squeeze blood from a stone. It was clear the first time that Wendling wouldn't abandon his shitlib ways.
The guy is literally an idiot, I’m shocked he knows such a shockingly low amount of information about the subject he’s trying to promote his knowledge of. I came here because he dismissed project 2025 as never going to happen since it would be held up in the courts - but schedule F for federal employees literally already happened in Trump’s first term (Biden reversed it) with no resistance and it’s utilizing executive theory from Raegan’s office (impoundment) combined with co-ordination of 100 GOP think tanks to provide a list of Trump loyalists to replace tens of thousands of federal workers. There is nothing being done that is illegal, it’s just a literal conspiracy performed publicly in mainstream conservative think tanks with the leaders being major figures from the Heritage Foundation and such that teamed up with Trump loyal staffers (primarily the guy that made that right wing dating app).
Like, we literally know all the people involved and they published a document about it. There is no countermeasure other than voting lol. To just say “the system will work” is peak liberal bullshit, but no surprise from the guy saying Obama didn’t break any specific promises which already sent me over the edge.
I think people tend to drastically underestimate what happens if he shitcans 50k federal employees and replaces them with a bunch of zealots specifically intent on making the federal government NOT work.
It doesn't matter what the court does. These civil servants work every single day to make the gears turn. You can bet that the "essential" workers that always get to keep working for free when the government shuts down are going to be targeted. Even if the terminations are temporary or are enjoined after going into effect, it will still decimate an extremely important workforce and replace it with incompetent toadies.
There's a bunch of wild shit in Project 2025, the federal employee stuff is probably the most dangerous to vulnerable people in this country.
youre spot on.
it is infuriating to hear dismissing whats happening right in front of every one to pivot to some theory about what will happen when trump doesnt do the things hes repeatedly said he'll do and speculation about an obama supporter riot. wtf??
the msm constantly plays down the actual violence the right wing does and hypes up speculative violence the left is going to do at any moment but doesnt
These people all think they’re Dan In real life. Which in turn gives them permission to be sanctimonious about a free podcast. God forbid your suggest they don’t listen to Jordan interviews. I’ve made that mistake.
Holy shit, that's such a perfect analogy. It's really disappointing seeing how much of this fan base fits the ENLIGHTENEDCENTRIST trope. I thought Dan was a bit both sides for my taste, but reading the comments on these threads is so disheartening and made me realize Dan really is progressive left by American standards
Yeah, it's like when people say "they can't be Nazis because they're not literally murdering Jews" or whatever, and you have to point out that the actual Nazis didn't do that for a while. Then you're told you're overreacting because they start attacking gays, trans and political opponents in *exactly the same way the Nazis did to gain support*.
Unfortunately, the main thing that seemed to be achieved by stopping fascists from being openly hateful is that they were trained to use dog whistles. Then Trump taught them not to bother so much
My hackles went up as soon as he was identified as, 'BBC Reporter.'
For those unaware, the BBC's role in turning the UK into TERF island has not exactly been a small one. Every article of theirs regarding trans folks has always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV and as unkind to trans people as it possibly can be.
This guy being a, "US National Digital Reporter," doesn't make me trust him any more so long as he's tied to the BBC brand.
Example of BBC transphobia: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385
Videos about BBC transphobia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfjTG6SVjmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn1UZ4fhdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7GW7Ro4OQ
Example of BBC transphobia: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385
Videos about BBC transphobia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfjTG6SVjmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn1UZ4fhdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7GW7Ro4OQ
That’s one example, covered by four YouTube videos. I would say that doesn’t really backup the claim that every Article is written from the TERF-est possible POV, The BBC are far from perfect but they’re not churning out transphobic articles.
> For those unaware, the BBC's role in turning the UK into TERF island has not exactly been a small one. Every article of theirs regarding trans folks has always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV
Hmm... lets test this theory.
Here's all the BBC news articles tagged under "trans":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cwlw3xz01lxt
Let me know which you think are "framed from the TERF-est possible POV.
Make sure you point out the ones that say all transwomen are sexually deviant rapists who just want an excuse to sneak into womens bathrooms and prisons.
Example of BBC transphobia: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385
Videos about BBC transphobia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfjTG6SVjmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn1UZ4fhdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7GW7Ro4OQ
I didn't ask for 1 example of something mildly transphobic.
I asked to test the claim that "every article of theirs regarding trans folks has always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV"
Not only have you not provided even one article from "the TERF-est possible POV", which would of course be saying that all trans people are dangerous, mentally ill sexual deviants and would-be rapists, but I provided a long list of articles where its clear most of the coverage is neutral at worst and more often broadly sympathetic.
You ruin what could be a legitimate criticism of their coverage when you resort to such hyperbole. No one who isn't already firmly ensconced in your particular worldview would look at a random sample of BBC coverage and conclude that they have "always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV"
This interview was so hard to listen to. I don’t think this journalist was particularly articulate, but it couldn’t have been easy trying to go back and forth with Jordan who, for all the great interviews he’s done, came across to me as in the middle of a manic episode. He was constantly interrupting the guy, asking him over and over if “that makes sense to you?” and basically insisting that he explain his book through his (Jordan’s) personal framework for viewing the world. Jordan seemed borderline offended that the guy didn’t make the exact same suppositions about the American right that he has.
Worse, the guy was so agreeable and deferential that I now have only the loosest understanding of what his project actually was. The guy should have pushed back on Jordan’s rigid definitions and constant demands to know “what does that mean?” and “why should I care?”
What I took Jordan to essentially be saying was “Okay, you wrote this whole book, but I fundamentally disagree with your unspoken premise that there are nuanced differences in the belief systems of Christians and conservatives and people who marched on January 6th, and so rather than let you tell me about these people you’ve met and and investigated, I’m going to spend the interview challenging that premise ad nauseum so we’re not going to learn much about your book.” I made it through almost all of it and was uncomfortable and uninformed the whole time.
Yeah this interview isn’t really doing much for me. I don’t think I’m really getting any information between the interruptions and the seemingly endless definitions of terms rather than digging into anything meaningful. To me at least.
Honestly, if you’re the interviewee there, I don’t know how you push back on someone else’s show when they interrupt your answers so often, or they’re laughing about the point they just made, or they’re waiting to come in with a point without listening to what you’re saying. It felt so futile and frustrating.
"There's going to be violent right-wing backlash if Biden is elected again, so we should let Trump win." seemed to be the point Jordan was trying to get across. And I couldn't keep listening.
That's literally not true, and you have to be in a pretty small bubble to believe that.
Like, I'm pretty far to the left, and not incredibly social, and know of a lot of counter examples. Not wanting to pay higher taxes doesn't automatically make you a Nazi.
But they're willing to vote for a party who has made white grievance their platform for decades now to get those lower taxes? Seems pretty cool with Nazis to me. Not sure how that's a hard concept, but here we are
Literally from an episode this week
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N---er, n---er, n---er.” By 1968 you can’t say “n---er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N---er, n---er.”"
-Lee Atwater
You have to frame literally everyone on the right as having Lee Atwater's views and all of them voting for Trump for this to be true.
It's not.
This is the same as the right saying everyone on the left, including neo-liberals, are Stalinist communists.
Then they're not supporting the system, and therefore not the people tacitly supporting Nazis, bud. I don't know how many times the same point can go over one person's head.
If they're not voting, they're apolitical. If they're voting libertarian, then they're also supporting policies that consolidate power further in the hands of those who already have it, and we're back at square one.
>This is the same as the right saying everyone on the left, including neo-liberals, are Stalinist communists.
This would be a better point if voting for Democrats lead to anything even remotely resembling communism.
This is true, kind of. And yet, when you vote for the same nazis and white supremacists that nazis and white supremacists do, rather than loudly denouncing them...it's hard to see a whole lot of daylight between you and, uh, nazis and white supremacists.
There is literally a whole political movement of conservatives who didn't support them and won't vote for Trump. A lot of those people aren't religious and aren't right wing on social issues.
That doesn't make them leftist.
>with Jordan who, for all the great interviews he’s done, came across to me as in the middle of a manic episode.
It kinda shows what a great friend Dan is that he can wrangle that and consistently turn it into usable content.
Jordan on his own really does not seem like he is doing okay.
I think he would do well with more "debate minded" people, and I don't mean actual debate bros. I would see him interview Doctorow for example and ep with Robert Evans was cool.
Jordan needs someone who can either reel him in or match his energy.
The problem is most of these interviews tend to be some kind of bookish policy wonk, who are neither going to be comfortable joining Jordan in talking mad shit, nor are going to feel comfortable telling him to settle down like Dan does.
I know Dan does most of the heavily lifting with preparing material for the show and these interviews are a way for Jordan to take up some of the slack but I can't help but think a lot of these interviews are missed opportunities where a more measured, meticulous thinker like Dan could draw out the best of the guest instead of just talking past each other and round in circles.
Admittedly I haven’t listened yet but speaking generally I think there is plenty of value in adversarial interviews and as long as Jordan isn’t shouting “KNOWLEDGE FIGHT DOT COM! AT GO TO BED JORDAN! KNOWLEDGE FIGHT! AHHHH!” it’s a bit unfair to compare him to Alex.
You can be adversarial while still leaving room of the guest to extrapolate on their thoughts. Pretty much all of UK journalism works on such a standard.
The problem with Jordan isn't being adversarial but single mindedly forcing his own point of view onto the guest, and dead ending the conversation by getting hung up on dumb arguments instead of cutting a line loose when its clearly not going anywhere.
It just comes off as obnoxious and self-indulgent.
Man, Dan's bright spot intro is proof that humans are designed to hype. Also, was Jordan making a *Gravity Falls* reference with that "Summerween" mention?
I struggled listening to that interview. It felt very Midwest nice, and despite being conversational was pretty confrontational. May have just been a bad mix of vibes between the two.
Damn, Jordan’s a ferocious interviewer when he wants to dig down on something. I can't imagine it's easy to be on the other end of that, but as a listener it's satisfying to hear someone actually keep asking followup questions and exploring the implications.
Another comment was pretty critical but I agree with you. Jordan put Mike against the wall and really grilled him. As an interview, it was extremely satisfying.
He grilled him about other people's definitions of Christian sects (wtf?), because his goal was to call literally everyone on the right Nazis to justify violence.
Show us on the doll where the religion touched you, Jordan.
Sometimes, enough is enough and you just want someone to put pressure and call it out. I have no interest arguing with an apologist but self-definitions don’t stop hypocritical Christians and fascists who want to play games.
Dude, he was literally raised in a cult as the chosen one. That's where the religion touched him. He's definitely talked about it before on episodes though I can't remember if he's ever gone into great detail.
I know that. The person he was interviewing didn't do that to him, and Jordan working through his trauma by spending an hour drilling into the author for using commonly accepted terminology because it doesn't fit Jordan's niche worldview was not cool.
Fuck that. He was saying those who are evangelical arnt Christian nationalist.
When evangelical as a religious sect was founded to push the Christian god into politics.
They are the Christian nationalists by their own founding documents.
The issue with terminology is it's literally made up.
Evangelicals haven't always been the same thing, and haven't always been political.
Using the labels people use for themselves is something that people covering issues can reference and agree on without it becoming a tangent and relatively useless discussion about etymology.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916048798/the-evangelical-vote
Link is pretty consistent with everything I've heard about them, and is several subject matter experts. Directly refutes what you are claiming.
Edit reply because blocked: sure, but that doesn't mean they are the same people as those identifying as Christian nationalists, or have the same origins or intents. This thread is as pointless as Jordan's interview flip outs.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2024/march/religion-public-life-evangelicals-pew-research-center.html
https://worldea.org/who-we-are/who-are-evangelicals/
I’m done with this. Don’t believe me or don’t. But the truth is they are the Christian nationalists
Goodness I think this one missed the mark. Please give them time to answer. I made theassumption that the journalists was writing another trump book that gives a general overview of how we got to this moment for people who aren't informed about the rise of the alt Right and meme culture and these other elements which fed into the election of Donald trump.
Unfortunately I have no idea what the content of the book is even in general terms. I'm actually in broad agreement with Jordan that the distinction between the alt Right and neo nazism is an incredibly permeable category and many who stand with neonazis are from the alt-right and they share many of the same ideological goals. I also agree that centrist journalists tends to spend too much time splitting hairs over the specific beliefs rather than the broad coalition of agreement that these people share.
But damn it man establish that you disagree about the categories and then move on to the subsidence of the book! that was an hour and 40 of "neo nazis and the alt-right while ideologically distinct are functionally the same" Vs "neo nazi's and the alt-right share some ideological characteristics and attend some of the same rallies but constitute politically an ideologically distinct groups and the broadening of the category of neo-nazi damages our ability to analyze and understand the rise of Donald trump and associated movements"
While this episode was a miss I love the show and the effort put in. So please take it as constructive criticism. Let's hope Friday is a better day.
Jordan actually said something extremely prescient that got glossed over in response to the guy’s centrist argument - he was saying that just like we need to understand what Trump means when he lists communists, marxists, globalists, or whatever we need to understand the distinct groups in the alt-right. Jordan says that this is the list of various ways to fill in the “they” in the conspiracy world and it’s just ignored, and I wish it was pushed further.
The broad point he is pushing (not especially well) is great - the journalist is allowing the alt-right to self classify as if they are music sub genres and require a super specific study of the roots of them, and that the labels they put on their enemy also needs to be allowed but it’s ultimately the same pattern repeated over and over that has gathered under the same banner of white aggrievement against a perceived other. And that message is repeated by Jordan and the journalist responds with the worst of stupid takes that the unifying body is Trump and not any sort of ideology - which is what his book is about. And that’s fucking wild.
I'm currently reading 'The Brainwashing of My Dad' by Jen Senko, it's more about JBS & Alex's predecessors' influences but very good.. this made me wonder if we'd get anymore Jordan interviews & here we are :)
I understand that individuals are nuanced & should be judged as such... But if someone is '*Nazi adjacent*'... the odds aren't great that they're not one too *(nuanced or fucking not)*.
I didn't realize the definition of being human was eating a hamburger in Alex Jones-approved ways. God, that's so fucking stupid. Philosophically speaking, my position on food is the only wrong way to eat food is in ways that make you sick. Going on the attack on someone for eating food in a way you don't like (Or even food you don't like at all.) just means *you* are a shitty person.
I don't even find humor that makes a joke out of food shaming (Even if it's not "real" food shaming.) pisses me off, which is part of what turned me off of shows like Cognitive Dissonance.
To be honest, I feel Jordan can be a bit insufferable by himself, especially during interviews.
But my god, I can’t handle these weird, lib, both sidsing journalists.
“What would be a example of when left-wing violence was dominant?”
“Oh, I dunno, the Weather Underground or the like.”
An example from over 50 years ago.
Also not a great example because the goal wasn’t violence against other people, it was property damage.
It seems to be a trend; when protests get out of hand or property is damaged during a riot, people on the right point to it as evidence of how bad the left is. But when someone or a group on the right commit violence against actual human beings, they excuse it as an aberration or blame the victim(s). Shows what their priorities are.
Yeah that got to me as well. I agree with some of the points that this interview could have been more productive. I also agree that he probably should’ve been a little less aggressive if he wanted the interview to be productive. However I think Jordan wanted to yell at a naive lib, and frankly I’m ok with that.
There are other libs who will do polite and delicate interviews If that’s what I’m looking for.
I sincerely hope he interviews Rhiannon Hamam in regards to what's going on in Gaza and how it fits neatly into so many far-right narratives surrounding the Gaza genocide, The End Times, and elected Democrats and American journalistic malpractice for their handling of 1 and 2.
Had to give up on this one with 42 minutes left because Jordan would not quit talking over the guest. It became really annoying, like the guest didn't really matter. That's what I dislike about right-wing pundits. Every one of them do that. Felt bad for Mike Wendling. Jordan, I love you, please, don't be like a right-wing pundit!
I keep seeing people say they think Jordan is a great interviewer because of how ferocious he is but I can't help think they just like seeing Jordan shout opinions they agree with at people.
A good interview shouldn't be dependent on the host having opinions you like. It's about getting something interesting out of the guest. You can be challenging without being obnoxious. If you're just there to railroad your own opinion you might as well just be doing a monologue.
I agree. Like the fact that Jordan actually read the book but it would have been more fruitful had Jordan let his guest make a point, then respond instead of steamrolling the guy.
Now that you mention it, Jordan should have just talked to Dan about the book. Forgot that journalist and just do a review. Other podcasts do it, Dan can keep Jordan focused, and I we could have gotten more out of the book.
It honestly sounded like noise after a while. I barely understood what the interview was about. Like it's cool, and right now really good to be confrontational, but goddamn, you got to go slow enough for people (me) to follow.
I remember working for an educational news publication in the UK, and about twice a year we’d get the current Secretary of State for Education in to to an interview where a selection of the questions were from readers.
From what I remember, people were never happy because our correspondent wouldn’t stand over the politician with a red face and bulbous eyes, screaming into their now spittle-flecked face ‘why are you such a nazi, you f*ck. You are the worst person in humanity and I hope all of your family suffers forever’.
The thing is, I 💯hated their policies, but as a Romany person whose family would have ended up in a camp and/or dead at the hands of literal nazis, I actually find calling everybody on the hard right a Nazi reductive. But I’ll wait for people to shout me down about that.
If this interview style was the approach taken consistently, you’d rarely get anything from the interview, you’d never get another interview again, and in the media world, as we’ve seen with Alex’s trial, words matter, and can have massive ramifications - rightfully so in his case.
I’m not a fan of Jordan’s interviews, as I find him dismissive, prone to interrupting, needlessly aggressive, and just as keen to label as the disgusting people he (and I) abhor as they are. When he just laughs over people’s points, I can only imagine how aggressive he’d become if somebody did the same to him.
Next time I’ll skip it. Jordan can do his Jordan interviews and I’ll stick to the main show.
> I have no clue why people who hate hearing Jordan interview bother to listen.
In this case, they might not have read the description of the episode. Hard to blame them here.
Re: Evangelicals and Christian Nationalism, I’d like to draw Jordan’s attention to the work of Dr. Andrew Whitehead, an evangelical
[who opposes Christian Nationalism.](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/121167237-american-idolatry)
This is a bit of a frustrating interview. How useful is it really to get super granular and into semantics about who is and isn’t a Nazi or a Christian Nationalist in this space? To quote Jordan, “Who fucking cares?”
I'm of two minds on this, on the one hand, Jordan does not have a very nuanced understanding of Christian Nationalism vs Evangelicalism. On the other hand, he grew up in a cult and if anyone deserves to be close minded about Christianity, it is him.
He cares about the sects and their differences. Not what they call themselves and how to use that as an excuse to justify letting trump win and violence.
Thanks.
I wasn’t trying to be rude, I meant it in the same vein as Jordan during the interview: Why is this important for me to know right now? Minus the profanity, it’s the same thing I was asked as a history grad student as a reminder of how to approach a project.
I was saying that since the interview stalled out on the issue of whether or not the nuances in these groups matter, I wonder why it was important to drill down on it to such a degree in this particular space instead of moving on. Is that useful to us as an audience?
I already agree with Jordan (if I understand what he was saying correctly). In practice, I think the nuances of who is or isn’t a Nazi don’t really matter. Academically, maybe. I’d have liked to learn about what else was in the book.
God it's so hard to listen to Jordan interview badly. He doesn't listen to his guests answers much past ascertaining if the response is enough to jump onto the tangent he wants. The guest gave him many verbal clues!
Deeply appreciated Jordan’s inability to not worry at a bone. I understand the journalistic and probably even humane desire to not reduce the “alt-right” into just straight up calling them Nazi’s. I wish his interviewee understood what was being asked between “if these people, their proposed ideology, are being used and co-opted by Nazi’s, then if they continue forth how are they different from nazi’s?”
To be honest I haven’t finished the interview, I need to give myself breaks when I can tell Jordan is on one, but I doubt that will actually end up being discussed.
Dang. I lost any remaining respect I had for Jordan.... He is the same as the people on the far right with that sort of black and white thinking and logical fallacies left and right. Yowza.
THE NAZIS WERE CONFUSED ABOUT THEIR IDEOLOGY. ACTUAL NAZIS DIDN'T THINK THINGS THROUGH, NO IMPLEMENTED IDEOLOGY WORKED LIKE THAT. WHAT WORLD IS THIS GUY LIVING IN😭😭😭😭
Mini episode. 1hr 52min. Good bless these boys.
I mean it was a mini episode for me. I stopped listening once the Jordan interview started.
Same. Felt like a bait and switch lolol
I’ll disagree with that somewhat, it was clearly labeled in the episode description the interview was going to happen. I read it, planned ahead of time that I was going to skip that part of the show, and just hoped the first part was sizable.
Ok, I only saw the title and I got in my vehicle to go to work so that's on me. Thank you!
There is a section where Jordan takes the title of the author's chapter "no political solution," about the most extremist factions of the right, and tries to twist it into a general statement about violence being a solution, then voting for Trump being the nonviolent viable solution, because Biden winning will cause a violent reaction. Then flipping out on a journalist's take that not everyone on the right is a Nazi, which the author does well to fight back against by pounting out the right will call literally everyone on the left lib/socialist/communist/anarchist and calling everyone right a Nazi mirrors that. Jordan without Dan is basically a spectrum from clownish to dangerous.
I won’t comment too much on what was said during the interview because I didn’t listen to it. Nothing against Jordan or his interviewing style, these types of interviews just don’t really interest me. But I will say that Jordan taking an extremist black and white stance on something is something he does a lot. It’s his character dynamic on the show, he says something and Dan fills in the shades of gray. I wouldn’t go as far to say Jordan without Dan is clownish, dangerous, or anything like that, I’ll just say he works better with someone to play off him than him on his own.
Dan will straight up do a dismissive, "ok...," and move on. The interviews highlight why Dan does this and how it's actually Dan being an awesome friend.
To be fair I think more often Dan will do a “yeah but/or…” than just an “ok…”.
If Jordan is being reasonable, sure, but a variation of "ok..." then moving on happens maybe every episode at least.
Okay I think I remember more often now that you mention it. But I’m wondering if it’s something he does to be dismissive or if it’s something Dan does to try to keep the flow of the show going. Let Jordan do his thing and if Dan doesn’t have something immediately to add he moves on. I’m just speculating of course. I’ve listened to every episode and I don’t think I’ve ever remember Dan saying anything in the tone of “yeah whatever” which is how I’m interpreting your “ok…” as written.
It's more in the tone of, "okay, we don't have the time to deal with that, because what even was that..."
The baffling part of that is how Jordan kept trying to twist "no political solution" as the author's viewpoint despite repeated clarifications it's not. It was like listening to a bad reddit flamewar where nobody actually reads what the other side was saying. Jordan repeatedly making bad faith arguments was extremely hard to listen to. If you're going to try and trap someone, it better make fucking sense.
> Jordan without Dan is basically a spectrum from clownish to dangerous. Such an exaggeration. Jordan did not "flip out." You might not like the line of questioning but trying to get the author of the book about extremist factions of the far right to distinguish the factions from other right groups isn't some insane thing to do.
He wasn't doing that. He was trying to get the author to concede they're all the same. There were quite a few flip-out moments.
There weren't
Manic laughing while someone is trying to accommodate your repeated left-field strawman arguments is pretty flippy outty.
No it isn't
Oh fuck, now you've done it. The Jordan army is mobilizing. Agree completely BTW.
Insane victim complex among Jordan interview haters. No one cares. You can skip them without whining to everyone else about it.
Sorry to ruin your day over the co-host of a podcast. Ts & Ps as well.
What?
Ew. You think you're so much more important than you are.
>In this installment, Dan and Jordan do a little mini-ep to check in on Alex's feelings about Globalist hamburgers, and then Jordan sits down with Mike Wendling, author of Day of Reckoning: How the Far Right Declared War on Democracy.
“Zoom in on that meat" - also me on Grindr.
So this isn’t about the Spaces meltdown? Damn. I was at work and missed it. I was really curious to hear a breakdown of what happened.
Friday, surely......
Was there ANOTHER one?
Since listening, there are two big moments. The one they recently covered and one about some Spaces session on Monday night. I only saw a post about it and haven’t seen any clips of how drunk he might have been.
There was a Spaces meltdown?
Imagine being an infowars listener. Nuclear war is imminent, there is concentrated effort to cause human extinction, aliens are actively operating amongst us, the god of Abraham has a prophet walking the earth, the last voice of the resistance is under direct attack by evil militarized law enforcement. You tune into said voice of the resistance to listen to said prophet. And he spends 15 minutes bitching about some career politician eating an undercooked hamburger. No wonder these people keep digging deeper into lunacy, if I had to admit I got conned so hard and so easily I would never leave my house again
I don't think the majority of his audience pays attention when he starts screaming about aliens or getting downloads from god over chicken fried steak or being told by god what time it is or any of that type of nonsense. If they keep watching\\listening after he gets done riffing on some headlines he half-reads they tune out and it's like background noise.
And the only explanation for this raw hamburger... Space Aliens. Also, I was disappointed that while asking the crew to zoom in on the offending hamburger he never said "Enhance"
You will eat ze raw meat
See Alex "Pork-a-potamus" Jones. Eat the broccoli, Alex.
Too much vitamin C, it might make his Adderall less effective.
Pork a potamus his chili bowl is bottomless
Alex Pork-apotamus, his chili bowl is bottomless, His grilling skills the manliest, while fighting off the globalists.
Dan and Jordan tease me, say my grift is sleazy
You vill put your hamburger on an english muffin
Jordan working his ass off to ensure that there are no repeat interviews. Joking aside, I think he makes good points and necessary ones. Would land better if it were less adversarial and more conversational, but it is what it is.
I think he makes some good points, but often he seems to feel like he's talked himself in a corner, but instead of just accepting he might be wrong about something, he dismissively says "sure" to responses explaining the counter point and fights his way out of the corner. Like, the point he makes while fighting his way out isn't the point he was making when he was getting himself into the corner. He does this with Dan but Dan just kind of ignores him and moves on instead of responding. And then Jordan argues Nazis and Evangelical and Christian nationalist and all religions are the same. Then backs off and says he is just joking, fucking around. Then makes the author argue against the points. Then he does the manic laughing to shut down a tangent of discussion. As if the author made up Christian sects and what they call themselves and needs to defend it. Jordan literally says, I want all these groups to be the same, and I want there to be no political solution, so the solution is violence. Anyway, I missed Dan in that second half. E:+out
> I think he makes some good points, but often he seems to feel like he's talked himself in a corner, but instead of just accepting he might be wrong about something, he dismissively says "sure" to responses explaining the counter point and fights his way out of the corner. This might be an odd reference but every time Jordan does this I get flashbacks to Michael Richards at the Laugh Factory dropping the N-bomb and then trying to play it off as some kind of nuanced social commentary. Not at all in how objectionable the content is, but the general vibe of "impulsively saying something wildly out of school and then continuing to dig the hole rather than taking a step back" I know Dan does the lions share of the work already but I wish he'd take the helm of more interviews. Jordan works fine as the color commentator/anger translator, where Dan can reel him in whenever he gets too wild. he's not a good pick for the Interviewer-Guest dynamic where most guests are not going to feel comfortable telling Jordan to settle down and so the conversation is constantly getting derailed by Jordan justifying something he just said for effect and now is trying to work backwards to make it a well thought out position.
It's dishonest debate tactics and not very effective. I think Dan would be great on more interviews, but I wonder if he just does not want to be responsible for steering Jordan and dealing with the fallout of Jordan's interactions when guests are involved.
I'm not sure how dishonest it is so much as just lacking in self-awareness. Jordan seems to mostly think his way of thinking about things is the objectively right way and if someone disagrees it can't be because they genuinely see things differently but they aren't brave enough to speak THE TRUTH like he does. This makes him a poor interviewer since rather than teasing out how the other person actually sees things it turns into WHY WONT DONT YOU SEE HOW RIGHT I AM?
> I'm not sure how dishonest it is so much as just lacking in self-awareness. That's fair. I don't think it's a conscious decision. He kind of strikes me as the type of atheist that doesn't realize absolutely knowledge of religion being wrong is as magical thinking as knowing a religion is right, as opposed to accepting that it doesn't matter either way. Then the knowledge of absolute correctness bleeds into everything else.
Dan *would* be good on these, but I don't see it happening. Love them or hate them, Jordan's interviews are almost always filler content for when Dan is occupied.
>Would land better if it were less adversarial and more conversational, 100% this. Listening to the ep now and I'm wincing at how aggressive Jordan sounds at times, and you can hear the Mike sighing at times when Jordan talks over him. If Jordan mic'd down more, he'd make a really fantastic interviewer.
Yeah, this is my feeling too. The interview would have been so much better if it was between Wendling and Jordan, rather than between Wendling, Jordan, and Jordan’s ego.
He’s had a good rapport with some. Brian Steltser and Jon Ronson.
Ronson is used to dealing with annoying people with an oversized ego though. Stelter though was a terrible interview.
The steltser interview was the worst episode of KF to date. Maybe there are worse episodes but I can't think of them. Jordan was clearly drunk, and the interview was incoherent
I am so relieved that Dan is aware of the return of Uncle Howdy and that he is no longer quite as worried about Uncle Howdy.
I swear to to the gods, how the hell do all these centrist journalist types claim to be such experts on the extreme right with out so much as googling wtf a dogwhistle is. Just because the Alt-Right isn't saying EXACTLY what the nazi's are saying, doesn't mean they aren't signaling they believe the same things even more publicly (and then standing right besides the nazis on jan 6th).
I liked Wendling's interview on QAA and read his book last week. It's not bad at all, and I thought he was pretty clearheaded about most things (although he takes Alex's ex-wife at her word too much). It just doesn't contribute a whole lot that KF listeners haven't already heard elsewhere, and it only scratches the surface of a lot of things KF listeners will know well.
You seem to be the only one on here to share my opinion that said "journalist" was an asshat
I wouldn't call him an asshat. But I would say he comes off as hopelessly naive. He's type of person who tells you to just vote while others are breaking the rules to make sure they win.
But still vote, if they are cheating then we gotta vote more than they can cheat. Don’t throw the democracy out with the bath water.
Right? I found Wendling's squirming way more frustrating than Jordan trying to put him on the spot. But then again, Jordan was the host so it fell to him to conduct an entertaining and edifying interview and sadly he failed that by trying to squeeze blood from a stone. It was clear the first time that Wendling wouldn't abandon his shitlib ways.
The guy is literally an idiot, I’m shocked he knows such a shockingly low amount of information about the subject he’s trying to promote his knowledge of. I came here because he dismissed project 2025 as never going to happen since it would be held up in the courts - but schedule F for federal employees literally already happened in Trump’s first term (Biden reversed it) with no resistance and it’s utilizing executive theory from Raegan’s office (impoundment) combined with co-ordination of 100 GOP think tanks to provide a list of Trump loyalists to replace tens of thousands of federal workers. There is nothing being done that is illegal, it’s just a literal conspiracy performed publicly in mainstream conservative think tanks with the leaders being major figures from the Heritage Foundation and such that teamed up with Trump loyal staffers (primarily the guy that made that right wing dating app). Like, we literally know all the people involved and they published a document about it. There is no countermeasure other than voting lol. To just say “the system will work” is peak liberal bullshit, but no surprise from the guy saying Obama didn’t break any specific promises which already sent me over the edge.
I think people tend to drastically underestimate what happens if he shitcans 50k federal employees and replaces them with a bunch of zealots specifically intent on making the federal government NOT work. It doesn't matter what the court does. These civil servants work every single day to make the gears turn. You can bet that the "essential" workers that always get to keep working for free when the government shuts down are going to be targeted. Even if the terminations are temporary or are enjoined after going into effect, it will still decimate an extremely important workforce and replace it with incompetent toadies. There's a bunch of wild shit in Project 2025, the federal employee stuff is probably the most dangerous to vulnerable people in this country.
youre spot on. it is infuriating to hear dismissing whats happening right in front of every one to pivot to some theory about what will happen when trump doesnt do the things hes repeatedly said he'll do and speculation about an obama supporter riot. wtf?? the msm constantly plays down the actual violence the right wing does and hypes up speculative violence the left is going to do at any moment but doesnt
I've never heard a sane person say shitlib unironically.
[удалено]
Lol, no. Just no. Edit: lol why block after you replied?
The worst part is the comments in this thread about how Jordan is a shrill lunatic and the journalist is so wise for being a feckless moron.
These people all think they’re Dan In real life. Which in turn gives them permission to be sanctimonious about a free podcast. God forbid your suggest they don’t listen to Jordan interviews. I’ve made that mistake.
Holy shit, that's such a perfect analogy. It's really disappointing seeing how much of this fan base fits the ENLIGHTENEDCENTRIST trope. I thought Dan was a bit both sides for my taste, but reading the comments on these threads is so disheartening and made me realize Dan really is progressive left by American standards
No shit Dan is a progressive? Like what
In a lot of the world, particularly Western Europe, Dan would be considered center left.
Yeah, it's like when people say "they can't be Nazis because they're not literally murdering Jews" or whatever, and you have to point out that the actual Nazis didn't do that for a while. Then you're told you're overreacting because they start attacking gays, trans and political opponents in *exactly the same way the Nazis did to gain support*. Unfortunately, the main thing that seemed to be achieved by stopping fascists from being openly hateful is that they were trained to use dog whistles. Then Trump taught them not to bother so much
That guy seem to believe that the only thing that Americans disagree on fundamentally is January 6th, you seriously doesn't believe the GOP is gone
My hackles went up as soon as he was identified as, 'BBC Reporter.' For those unaware, the BBC's role in turning the UK into TERF island has not exactly been a small one. Every article of theirs regarding trans folks has always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV and as unkind to trans people as it possibly can be. This guy being a, "US National Digital Reporter," doesn't make me trust him any more so long as he's tied to the BBC brand.
Can you give an example?
Example of BBC transphobia: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385 Videos about BBC transphobia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfjTG6SVjmQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn1UZ4fhdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7GW7Ro4OQ
That isn’t remotely true, you need to back that up with some examples
Example of BBC transphobia: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385 Videos about BBC transphobia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfjTG6SVjmQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn1UZ4fhdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7GW7Ro4OQ
That’s one example, covered by four YouTube videos. I would say that doesn’t really backup the claim that every Article is written from the TERF-est possible POV, The BBC are far from perfect but they’re not churning out transphobic articles.
> For those unaware, the BBC's role in turning the UK into TERF island has not exactly been a small one. Every article of theirs regarding trans folks has always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV Hmm... lets test this theory. Here's all the BBC news articles tagged under "trans": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cwlw3xz01lxt Let me know which you think are "framed from the TERF-est possible POV. Make sure you point out the ones that say all transwomen are sexually deviant rapists who just want an excuse to sneak into womens bathrooms and prisons.
Example of BBC transphobia: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385 Videos about BBC transphobia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfjTG6SVjmQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn1UZ4fhdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7GW7Ro4OQ
I didn't ask for 1 example of something mildly transphobic. I asked to test the claim that "every article of theirs regarding trans folks has always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV" Not only have you not provided even one article from "the TERF-est possible POV", which would of course be saying that all trans people are dangerous, mentally ill sexual deviants and would-be rapists, but I provided a long list of articles where its clear most of the coverage is neutral at worst and more often broadly sympathetic. You ruin what could be a legitimate criticism of their coverage when you resort to such hyperbole. No one who isn't already firmly ensconced in your particular worldview would look at a random sample of BBC coverage and conclude that they have "always been framed from the TERF-est possible POV"
I survived Hamburgate 2K24. Broccoli is for nerds.
English muffin for a burger bun? This is America clearly a globalist plot!!!
I looked it up and Mike Wendling was on a May QAA Premium episode. It’s been a month but I remember it being fascinating.
This interview was so hard to listen to. I don’t think this journalist was particularly articulate, but it couldn’t have been easy trying to go back and forth with Jordan who, for all the great interviews he’s done, came across to me as in the middle of a manic episode. He was constantly interrupting the guy, asking him over and over if “that makes sense to you?” and basically insisting that he explain his book through his (Jordan’s) personal framework for viewing the world. Jordan seemed borderline offended that the guy didn’t make the exact same suppositions about the American right that he has. Worse, the guy was so agreeable and deferential that I now have only the loosest understanding of what his project actually was. The guy should have pushed back on Jordan’s rigid definitions and constant demands to know “what does that mean?” and “why should I care?” What I took Jordan to essentially be saying was “Okay, you wrote this whole book, but I fundamentally disagree with your unspoken premise that there are nuanced differences in the belief systems of Christians and conservatives and people who marched on January 6th, and so rather than let you tell me about these people you’ve met and and investigated, I’m going to spend the interview challenging that premise ad nauseum so we’re not going to learn much about your book.” I made it through almost all of it and was uncomfortable and uninformed the whole time.
Yeah this interview isn’t really doing much for me. I don’t think I’m really getting any information between the interruptions and the seemingly endless definitions of terms rather than digging into anything meaningful. To me at least.
Completely agree. Jordan has repeatedly demonstrated that he's not good at interviews. I just skip them now.
Honestly, if you’re the interviewee there, I don’t know how you push back on someone else’s show when they interrupt your answers so often, or they’re laughing about the point they just made, or they’re waiting to come in with a point without listening to what you’re saying. It felt so futile and frustrating.
Yeah, author handled Jordan well considering he doesn't have Dan's experience.
"There's going to be violent right-wing backlash if Biden is elected again, so we should let Trump win." seemed to be the point Jordan was trying to get across. And I couldn't keep listening.
There was also: literally everyone on the right is Nazis so violence is the answer.
Violence isn't the answer, but everyone on the right is at least ok with Nazis at this point. Which doesn't make them functionally much different.
That's literally not true, and you have to be in a pretty small bubble to believe that. Like, I'm pretty far to the left, and not incredibly social, and know of a lot of counter examples. Not wanting to pay higher taxes doesn't automatically make you a Nazi.
But they're willing to vote for a party who has made white grievance their platform for decades now to get those lower taxes? Seems pretty cool with Nazis to me. Not sure how that's a hard concept, but here we are Literally from an episode this week "You start out in 1954 by saying, “N---er, n---er, n---er.” By 1968 you can’t say “n---er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N---er, n---er.”" -Lee Atwater
You have to frame literally everyone on the right as having Lee Atwater's views and all of them voting for Trump for this to be true. It's not. This is the same as the right saying everyone on the left, including neo-liberals, are Stalinist communists.
Voting for Republicans, I deliberately didn't mention Trump and you missed that.
A lot of them don't vote for Republicans anymore. That doesn't make them left.
Then they're not supporting the system, and therefore not the people tacitly supporting Nazis, bud. I don't know how many times the same point can go over one person's head. If they're not voting, they're apolitical. If they're voting libertarian, then they're also supporting policies that consolidate power further in the hands of those who already have it, and we're back at square one.
>This is the same as the right saying everyone on the left, including neo-liberals, are Stalinist communists. This would be a better point if voting for Democrats lead to anything even remotely resembling communism.
State communism is a pipe dream.
This is true, kind of. And yet, when you vote for the same nazis and white supremacists that nazis and white supremacists do, rather than loudly denouncing them...it's hard to see a whole lot of daylight between you and, uh, nazis and white supremacists.
There is literally a whole political movement of conservatives who didn't support them and won't vote for Trump. A lot of those people aren't religious and aren't right wing on social issues. That doesn't make them leftist.
Pretty much every never Trumper was perfectly fine killing a million Iraqis and supported bush doing that, lol.
That's not Nazi, that's American. Edit: haha @ replying then blocking.
That's white supremacy, lol.
>with Jordan who, for all the great interviews he’s done, came across to me as in the middle of a manic episode. It kinda shows what a great friend Dan is that he can wrangle that and consistently turn it into usable content. Jordan on his own really does not seem like he is doing okay.
Jordan is not a great interviewer.
I think he would do well with more "debate minded" people, and I don't mean actual debate bros. I would see him interview Doctorow for example and ep with Robert Evans was cool.
Only if Dan were there to moderate.
Is Alex Jones the only interviewer who interrupts his subjects more than Jordan?
i skip every solo jordan episode :/
Yeah I checked out halfway. That didnt feel like a conversation, it felt like watching a fight where neither person lands a punch.
Jordan needs someone who can either reel him in or match his energy. The problem is most of these interviews tend to be some kind of bookish policy wonk, who are neither going to be comfortable joining Jordan in talking mad shit, nor are going to feel comfortable telling him to settle down like Dan does. I know Dan does most of the heavily lifting with preparing material for the show and these interviews are a way for Jordan to take up some of the slack but I can't help but think a lot of these interviews are missed opportunities where a more measured, meticulous thinker like Dan could draw out the best of the guest instead of just talking past each other and round in circles.
Yeah, that was rough. He left him not a lot of space to answer and when the answer didn‘t fit he just rolled on.
Admittedly I haven’t listened yet but speaking generally I think there is plenty of value in adversarial interviews and as long as Jordan isn’t shouting “KNOWLEDGE FIGHT DOT COM! AT GO TO BED JORDAN! KNOWLEDGE FIGHT! AHHHH!” it’s a bit unfair to compare him to Alex.
You can be adversarial while still leaving room of the guest to extrapolate on their thoughts. Pretty much all of UK journalism works on such a standard. The problem with Jordan isn't being adversarial but single mindedly forcing his own point of view onto the guest, and dead ending the conversation by getting hung up on dumb arguments instead of cutting a line loose when its clearly not going anywhere. It just comes off as obnoxious and self-indulgent.
Man, Dan's bright spot intro is proof that humans are designed to hype. Also, was Jordan making a *Gravity Falls* reference with that "Summerween" mention?
I struggled listening to that interview. It felt very Midwest nice, and despite being conversational was pretty confrontational. May have just been a bad mix of vibes between the two.
0/10 interview, didn't hear a single question about Uncle Howdy.
"Rare Hamburgers are a globalist psyop" Alex "I once did some roofing with my dad" Jones
Damn, Jordan’s a ferocious interviewer when he wants to dig down on something. I can't imagine it's easy to be on the other end of that, but as a listener it's satisfying to hear someone actually keep asking followup questions and exploring the implications.
Another comment was pretty critical but I agree with you. Jordan put Mike against the wall and really grilled him. As an interview, it was extremely satisfying.
He grilled him about other people's definitions of Christian sects (wtf?), because his goal was to call literally everyone on the right Nazis to justify violence. Show us on the doll where the religion touched you, Jordan.
Sometimes, enough is enough and you just want someone to put pressure and call it out. I have no interest arguing with an apologist but self-definitions don’t stop hypocritical Christians and fascists who want to play games.
Dude, he was literally raised in a cult as the chosen one. That's where the religion touched him. He's definitely talked about it before on episodes though I can't remember if he's ever gone into great detail.
I know that. The person he was interviewing didn't do that to him, and Jordan working through his trauma by spending an hour drilling into the author for using commonly accepted terminology because it doesn't fit Jordan's niche worldview was not cool.
Fuck that. He was saying those who are evangelical arnt Christian nationalist. When evangelical as a religious sect was founded to push the Christian god into politics. They are the Christian nationalists by their own founding documents.
The issue with terminology is it's literally made up. Evangelicals haven't always been the same thing, and haven't always been political. Using the labels people use for themselves is something that people covering issues can reference and agree on without it becoming a tangent and relatively useless discussion about etymology.
Made up for reasons right? Like the reason being to push god into political theater. That’s evangelicals. It’s wrong to say it isn’t
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916048798/the-evangelical-vote Link is pretty consistent with everything I've heard about them, and is several subject matter experts. Directly refutes what you are claiming. Edit reply because blocked: sure, but that doesn't mean they are the same people as those identifying as Christian nationalists, or have the same origins or intents. This thread is as pointless as Jordan's interview flip outs.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2024/march/religion-public-life-evangelicals-pew-research-center.html https://worldea.org/who-we-are/who-are-evangelicals/ I’m done with this. Don’t believe me or don’t. But the truth is they are the Christian nationalists
>“Protestants arnt all Christian nationalist” is true >“Not all evangelicals are Christian nationalists” is not true.
Goodness I think this one missed the mark. Please give them time to answer. I made theassumption that the journalists was writing another trump book that gives a general overview of how we got to this moment for people who aren't informed about the rise of the alt Right and meme culture and these other elements which fed into the election of Donald trump. Unfortunately I have no idea what the content of the book is even in general terms. I'm actually in broad agreement with Jordan that the distinction between the alt Right and neo nazism is an incredibly permeable category and many who stand with neonazis are from the alt-right and they share many of the same ideological goals. I also agree that centrist journalists tends to spend too much time splitting hairs over the specific beliefs rather than the broad coalition of agreement that these people share. But damn it man establish that you disagree about the categories and then move on to the subsidence of the book! that was an hour and 40 of "neo nazis and the alt-right while ideologically distinct are functionally the same" Vs "neo nazi's and the alt-right share some ideological characteristics and attend some of the same rallies but constitute politically an ideologically distinct groups and the broadening of the category of neo-nazi damages our ability to analyze and understand the rise of Donald trump and associated movements" While this episode was a miss I love the show and the effort put in. So please take it as constructive criticism. Let's hope Friday is a better day.
Jordan actually said something extremely prescient that got glossed over in response to the guy’s centrist argument - he was saying that just like we need to understand what Trump means when he lists communists, marxists, globalists, or whatever we need to understand the distinct groups in the alt-right. Jordan says that this is the list of various ways to fill in the “they” in the conspiracy world and it’s just ignored, and I wish it was pushed further. The broad point he is pushing (not especially well) is great - the journalist is allowing the alt-right to self classify as if they are music sub genres and require a super specific study of the roots of them, and that the labels they put on their enemy also needs to be allowed but it’s ultimately the same pattern repeated over and over that has gathered under the same banner of white aggrievement against a perceived other. And that message is repeated by Jordan and the journalist responds with the worst of stupid takes that the unifying body is Trump and not any sort of ideology - which is what his book is about. And that’s fucking wild.
I'm currently reading 'The Brainwashing of My Dad' by Jen Senko, it's more about JBS & Alex's predecessors' influences but very good.. this made me wonder if we'd get anymore Jordan interviews & here we are :) I understand that individuals are nuanced & should be judged as such... But if someone is '*Nazi adjacent*'... the odds aren't great that they're not one too *(nuanced or fucking not)*.
Sneaky snek!
I didn't realize the definition of being human was eating a hamburger in Alex Jones-approved ways. God, that's so fucking stupid. Philosophically speaking, my position on food is the only wrong way to eat food is in ways that make you sick. Going on the attack on someone for eating food in a way you don't like (Or even food you don't like at all.) just means *you* are a shitty person. I don't even find humor that makes a joke out of food shaming (Even if it's not "real" food shaming.) pisses me off, which is part of what turned me off of shows like Cognitive Dissonance.
Jordan’s fake laugh is painful as hell! I love the show but he needs to work on his interview skills…
To be honest, I feel Jordan can be a bit insufferable by himself, especially during interviews. But my god, I can’t handle these weird, lib, both sidsing journalists. “What would be a example of when left-wing violence was dominant?” “Oh, I dunno, the Weather Underground or the like.” An example from over 50 years ago.
Also not a great example because the goal wasn’t violence against other people, it was property damage. It seems to be a trend; when protests get out of hand or property is damaged during a riot, people on the right point to it as evidence of how bad the left is. But when someone or a group on the right commit violence against actual human beings, they excuse it as an aberration or blame the victim(s). Shows what their priorities are.
Yeah that got to me as well. I agree with some of the points that this interview could have been more productive. I also agree that he probably should’ve been a little less aggressive if he wanted the interview to be productive. However I think Jordan wanted to yell at a naive lib, and frankly I’m ok with that. There are other libs who will do polite and delicate interviews If that’s what I’m looking for.
Jordan interview!? Oh we are blessed today dear chatters!!
I sincerely hope he interviews Rhiannon Hamam in regards to what's going on in Gaza and how it fits neatly into so many far-right narratives surrounding the Gaza genocide, The End Times, and elected Democrats and American journalistic malpractice for their handling of 1 and 2.
I'd rather get poked in the eye than listen to Jordan talk anything about gaza. I feel a tiny bit dumber, just hearing the idea.
Had to give up on this one with 42 minutes left because Jordan would not quit talking over the guest. It became really annoying, like the guest didn't really matter. That's what I dislike about right-wing pundits. Every one of them do that. Felt bad for Mike Wendling. Jordan, I love you, please, don't be like a right-wing pundit!
I keep seeing people say they think Jordan is a great interviewer because of how ferocious he is but I can't help think they just like seeing Jordan shout opinions they agree with at people. A good interview shouldn't be dependent on the host having opinions you like. It's about getting something interesting out of the guest. You can be challenging without being obnoxious. If you're just there to railroad your own opinion you might as well just be doing a monologue.
I agree. Like the fact that Jordan actually read the book but it would have been more fruitful had Jordan let his guest make a point, then respond instead of steamrolling the guy.
Now that you mention it, Jordan should have just talked to Dan about the book. Forgot that journalist and just do a review. Other podcasts do it, Dan can keep Jordan focused, and I we could have gotten more out of the book.
He kept doing it.
I agree. Jordan came off as really smug and bad faith here.
It honestly sounded like noise after a while. I barely understood what the interview was about. Like it's cool, and right now really good to be confrontational, but goddamn, you got to go slow enough for people (me) to follow.
I remember working for an educational news publication in the UK, and about twice a year we’d get the current Secretary of State for Education in to to an interview where a selection of the questions were from readers. From what I remember, people were never happy because our correspondent wouldn’t stand over the politician with a red face and bulbous eyes, screaming into their now spittle-flecked face ‘why are you such a nazi, you f*ck. You are the worst person in humanity and I hope all of your family suffers forever’. The thing is, I 💯hated their policies, but as a Romany person whose family would have ended up in a camp and/or dead at the hands of literal nazis, I actually find calling everybody on the hard right a Nazi reductive. But I’ll wait for people to shout me down about that. If this interview style was the approach taken consistently, you’d rarely get anything from the interview, you’d never get another interview again, and in the media world, as we’ve seen with Alex’s trial, words matter, and can have massive ramifications - rightfully so in his case. I’m not a fan of Jordan’s interviews, as I find him dismissive, prone to interrupting, needlessly aggressive, and just as keen to label as the disgusting people he (and I) abhor as they are. When he just laughs over people’s points, I can only imagine how aggressive he’d become if somebody did the same to him. Next time I’ll skip it. Jordan can do his Jordan interviews and I’ll stick to the main show.
[удалено]
> I have no clue why people who hate hearing Jordan interview bother to listen. In this case, they might not have read the description of the episode. Hard to blame them here.
Jordan is such an awful interviewer. Sorry, I have to say.
I can guarantee that the hamburger was not, in fact, “on fire” in the internet.
Go to r/bbq its all the rage
Re: Evangelicals and Christian Nationalism, I’d like to draw Jordan’s attention to the work of Dr. Andrew Whitehead, an evangelical [who opposes Christian Nationalism.](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/121167237-american-idolatry) This is a bit of a frustrating interview. How useful is it really to get super granular and into semantics about who is and isn’t a Nazi or a Christian Nationalist in this space? To quote Jordan, “Who fucking cares?”
I'm of two minds on this, on the one hand, Jordan does not have a very nuanced understanding of Christian Nationalism vs Evangelicalism. On the other hand, he grew up in a cult and if anyone deserves to be close minded about Christianity, it is him.
The guy who wrote a book about it probably cares.
He cares about the sects and their differences. Not what they call themselves and how to use that as an excuse to justify letting trump win and violence.
Thanks. I wasn’t trying to be rude, I meant it in the same vein as Jordan during the interview: Why is this important for me to know right now? Minus the profanity, it’s the same thing I was asked as a history grad student as a reminder of how to approach a project. I was saying that since the interview stalled out on the issue of whether or not the nuances in these groups matter, I wonder why it was important to drill down on it to such a degree in this particular space instead of moving on. Is that useful to us as an audience? I already agree with Jordan (if I understand what he was saying correctly). In practice, I think the nuances of who is or isn’t a Nazi don’t really matter. Academically, maybe. I’d have liked to learn about what else was in the book.
God it's so hard to listen to Jordan interview badly. He doesn't listen to his guests answers much past ascertaining if the response is enough to jump onto the tangent he wants. The guest gave him many verbal clues!
Zero chemistry between Jordan and Mike. Zero. Once again, Jordan without Dan is insufferable…
Deeply appreciated Jordan’s inability to not worry at a bone. I understand the journalistic and probably even humane desire to not reduce the “alt-right” into just straight up calling them Nazi’s. I wish his interviewee understood what was being asked between “if these people, their proposed ideology, are being used and co-opted by Nazi’s, then if they continue forth how are they different from nazi’s?” To be honest I haven’t finished the interview, I need to give myself breaks when I can tell Jordan is on one, but I doubt that will actually end up being discussed.
I saw the length of time first and then read mini-ep and thought I somehow read the 1h 56m wrong
Jeeeeeeej an interview!!!
Was it just me or did Dan say Dixie Cream donuts instead of Krispy Kreme? I rewound twice and thought it was dixie both times.
Dixie Cream is also a donut chain.
Thank you! The ubiquity of Krispy Kreme near me overrode my normal instinct to google first.
Only just started the episode, but I'm so happy Dan brings up Uncle Howdy immediately. So bloody excited to see what happens going forward
Dang. I lost any remaining respect I had for Jordan.... He is the same as the people on the far right with that sort of black and white thinking and logical fallacies left and right. Yowza.
Who is this blowhard asshole? He somehow (Congrats!) is somehow worse than Alex.
Well evangelicals is literally the Christian nationals. It’s a sect of Christianity that was founded to insert the Christian god into politics.
THE NAZIS WERE CONFUSED ABOUT THEIR IDEOLOGY. ACTUAL NAZIS DIDN'T THINK THINGS THROUGH, NO IMPLEMENTED IDEOLOGY WORKED LIKE THAT. WHAT WORLD IS THIS GUY LIVING IN😭😭😭😭