Interesting that you changed your statement about the podcasts dialogue from "wonderful" to "meaningful". Are those terms interchangeable for you when considering any particular dialogue?
That dimension is what I would call delusion. "Wonderful" and "meaningful" are two very different terms (if you care to look them up in any dictionary). In fact, they could be considered diametrically opposed.
For the record, I believe this blog interview went nowhere in terms of political discussion. It's, basically, two folks that formerly made a lucrative living participating within main stream media commiserating over the fact that they both have been largely ostracized by that sector. Besides commiserating with each other, they banter over which comedians have been more radical than others (as if they have to be in order to be a comedian or to serve a political purpose). While I sympathize with their position of being unfairly canceled, I feel it would have been "meaningful" had they had a discussion that investigated (and possibly broadened) practical avenues for working around that condition. Finally, IMO there was absolutely nothing that would justify applying the term "wonderful" as applied to their discussion.
What do you feel was so wonderful about the dialogue?
I would have to say the spirit of friendship is what makes their dialogue so meaningful to me.
Interesting that you changed your statement about the podcasts dialogue from "wonderful" to "meaningful". Are those terms interchangeable for you when considering any particular dialogue?
For sure. It's an entire dimension without which political discussions often degenerate into cringeful walking on eggshell talk.
That dimension is what I would call delusion. "Wonderful" and "meaningful" are two very different terms (if you care to look them up in any dictionary). In fact, they could be considered diametrically opposed.
For the record, I believe this blog interview went nowhere in terms of political discussion. It's, basically, two folks that formerly made a lucrative living participating within main stream media commiserating over the fact that they both have been largely ostracized by that sector. Besides commiserating with each other, they banter over which comedians have been more radical than others (as if they have to be in order to be a comedian or to serve a political purpose). While I sympathize with their position of being unfairly canceled, I feel it would have been "meaningful" had they had a discussion that investigated (and possibly broadened) practical avenues for working around that condition. Finally, IMO there was absolutely nothing that would justify applying the term "wonderful" as applied to their discussion.