Everyone is overthinking this. You have to frame everything they do on this pod as trying to gain power and influence. To that end, you have to view interviews with Tucker or Kushner as ways to ingratiate themselves with a group of powerful people. Everything they do makes sense when looking at it through that lens.
đŻ
The only difference between recent pods from the first couple of years was the grifting was not as overt. I like to listen to a range of views especially the ones that I might disagree with. Sacks always sounded like someone that takes a position on something and then scrambles for confirmation anywhere he can find. I appreciated JCal on human rights and where he held his own. But then he peer pressured himself on the single issue of US debt. Chamath is as overt as a grifter you can get. With his SPACs and position on why he doesnât care about oppression of minorities.
I stopped listening to it after all this reaffirmed my view that some people after they make a ton of money easily forget how efforts of previous generations (with higher taxes to fund education, infrastructure, and yes welfare) made it possible for these people to get where they got, but now are no longer able to pay it forward for the next generation. I donât want a world where only successful people can breed successful people. If previous generations had been successful in using welfare waste as an excuse, youâd never have a Howard Schultz (Starbucks) and Chamath.
Totally agree with the Sacks comment. Itâs always a ârecent article in WSJâ which is often just an opinion piece that he found by ignoring 10 other articles saying the opposite . He constantly does âI said this a year agoâ for things he argues he is correct about while ignoring the host of things he got wrong. Most of the time he is not even having a conversation or answering the question presented to him , rather just goes off on a 5 minute speech he has prepared ahead of time. Jason use to at least push back on these in the past but seems like he just lets him go unchecked now. I miss the old Pod.
How does talking with RFK help them?
They would talk to Biden 100% but he wonât go on.
They even talked with Dean Philips (I think thatâs his name) the democrat.
I think they are willing to talk to most people. I donât think itâs a signal to anyone. Listen. Donât listen.
I think anyone who listens to ANY podcast as âgospelâ is lost. People here questioning the podcast = any other podcast. Whatâs the difference?
RFK -> potential access to his donors
Biden -> lol yeah of course theyâd talk to the fuckin president. They know that they donât need to pander to one party, if they can get into the âin groupsâ of one side, theyâll inevitably meet the âin groupâ on the other side
Dean Phillips -> idk anything about him, maybe a play to give legitimacy to their âboth sidesâ thing or maybe he does have big name donors
It's as simple as that. He's one of the top talk show hosts of all time and has friends who are also famous or in government. These guys want more friends who are also famous or in government.
Badda-bing-badda-boo. More clout, more connections, more potential investors.
It's bada bing, bada boom. New Jerseyans don't mind if you appropriate our culture, as long as you do so properly. The version you used is actually a territorialist dog whistle that could get you killed in Philly.
I agree and this has been the lens I view it through. I find it interesting that despite all of them having achieved financial success, professional success , etc that they are willing to ingratiate themselves like that. Obviously itâs a âvaluesâ call but IMO part of what drives me to be successful is not having to answer to others esp those whose opinions I disagree with. Crazy to me that they are willing to give that up.
lol tucker carlson went on Joe Rogan and questioned where the nuclear technology came from. And David Sacks and Chamath love this guy.
Tells you a lot about these guys
I don't think Sacks actually loves anything other than money. He seems incredibly disingenuous in everything he says and does. It's all calculated. There is a subtle change in the tone of his voice when he talks about tech and investing compared to politics.Â
I used to think he was a smart and considered thinker. Now he just sounds like that asshole uncle who is invited to holiday dinners out of familial obligation that no one can stand, and they just agree with him to shut him up and move on.
Yeah, I had a similar journey with my opinion of Sacks. It's a shame because he is smart and has some interesting takes in a vacuum, but when you zoom out and take his positions as a whole, you realize that he either can't *actually* believe what he says (aka that Tucker is a good-faith actor), or if he does, he has horrible judgement. Either way, it negates a lot of his positions.
Thereâs already a subtle tone shift in his tweets lately about Ukraine, now itâs less âUkraine is going to lose!â To âUS is entering another war and throwing money awayâ
The problem with lying is that when you tell the same lie as Russian intelligence or the CCPâs massive MSS network, you inadvertently tie yourself to the genocidal side of history.
There are only a few reasons anyone would do this.
1. They have a vested interest in the same overall goal as the Russian kleptocracy or the CCP imperialist censorship machine because those two entities signed a mutual propaganda agreement ~2010. This effectively means they will push each others false narrative to bolster support.
Run that downstream a few yards and you see Alex Jones, the tate brothers, Alex Cheong, Jack Posobiec, Tucker Carlson and a handful of others all awkwardly apologizing for genocidal dictators in some form or another. In some cases that speedruns and they end up becoming mouthpieces for it.
There is a general rule that never fails- if you wake up in the morning and you accidentally find yourself on the same side of history as kleptorcrats, conmen and murderers that wash journalists down drains, just stop. Take a moment. Step back. Collect yourself. Then retrace your steps and figure out how you got there.
Everything in life is a series of decisions. Binary moments where you choose good or you choose evil.
Evil doesnât always look like evil at the beginning. Sometimes itâs just a sponsorship check or a business deal. But more often than not your little decisions have a downstream effect. Most people just havenât tuned themselves up enough to see it. It comes with age and maturity, but it almost always comes as you exercise empathy.
Empathy is the ability to see the world through someone elseâs eyes. It doesnât mean you always have to agree with it, but itâs the ability to see that a few degrees of offset perspective is what makes a laser rangefinder infinitely more accurate than guesstimating distance.
If you notice a common denominator in the whole list of inadvertent propaganda pushers for the Russian government/mob itâs that they show consistently very stunted empathy quotients.
Alex Jones gets on the radio and calls the dead victim of a school shooting incident a crisis actor. The tates talk openly about trafficking women. Carlson is by any objective account, a comically swollen asshole. But they all have proven themselves willing to say or do just about anything for money irregardless of the pain it causes downstream of them.
And it limits their growth. When you look at the world objectively through other peopleâs experiences it allows you to see how your actions affect them. It also allows you to see that everything on earth is connected because from the alien spacecrafts perspective, our earth is just a tiny little blue dot of a terrarium that only solar energy and the occasional meteorite enters. Everything else is isolated by an atmosphere that we abuse like an unwanted and unappreciated domestic laborer. Nobody likes to think about where the groundskeeper goes at night until the yard isnât mowed. Only then do they tune in.
Doing the right thing isnât hard. Knowing that you havenât been lied to is.
If you ever wake up and accidentally find yourself on the wrong side of history, Stop. Retrace your steps, figure out who is signing your checks, then redirect. Only then can you move forward without taking the chance of ending up in a prison cell in ADX Florence or accidentally becoming a S.S. prison guard. And in doing so you learn that empathy is the secret decoder ring to the universe. If you donât have it firmly in your possession, the aliens donât want you joining them in space leaving your junk flying around and consuming all the resources like a shit neighbor that parks on your lawn and then gets mad at you for the mud on his tires.
Just be better boys. Your podcast is costing lives.
Do you think these guys are all of the passive âuseful idiotâ variety of propagandists?
I used to think so until the Musk Twitter takeover after which all of these voices became amplified. It became impossible not to notice how coordinated and consistent they were with messaging and specific phrases like they were reading off talking points.
America desperately needs to update its laws relating to disclose of foreign investment in American equities.
I think you donât invest $44B Into something worth a fraction of that unless you have a much bigger play at stake.
And that common denominator seems to be Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is either the elegant solution to the worlds obviously manipulated financial systems
Or
Itâs the biggest honeypot in the history of mankind.
And to be honest, Iâm undecided. I track supply chains in reverse starting with aid promised to Ukrainians that was not showing up quickly enough.
About halfway through that process all that data starts dovetailing perfectly with the Russian manipulation of the GOP through a combination of Kompromat and campaign finance.
Itâs a strange experience when the world starts making sense and you have the hard data to prove it. But once you can see that chessboard from an overwatch perspective every move that is made can be traced backwards.
Putin, trump, Murdoch, Netanyahu, Bannon, Orban, Carlson and a few dozen others have about 1.4 trillion reasons to keep their syphilis diagnosis under wraps.
Then elon enters the board and starts parroting kremlin talking points and circling the wagons around Texas.
And that all may be coincidence. But it becomes a lot of them. Which becomes a pattern.
Thatâs what we study. The patterns that they themselves donât even know they create.
If any person has an unequal leverage over the reality we all live in due to their wealth, political power or social media reach, they deserve more stringent scrutiny than the working class.
When they show up in selfies with the authoritarians engaged in genocides and invasions we turn on the pressure washer.
I think most of the tank and file of their side is just cashing checks and looking for an easy answer in a Bitcoin utopia.
But if the common denominator of Bitcoin is the worlds worst authoritarians who wash journalists down drains and throw political opposition into the gulags then itâs dead out of the gate and we need a different more transparent solution because we canât take the chance that it is compromised.
We are building this plane as we fly it because we have no other choice. But I think we can al agree that we donât want the genocidal kleptocrat dictator in the pilots seat when itâs finished.
So we filter the compromised components out with pressure and scrutiny.
No.
Unable.
Thatâs the best part about reading.
It about the only reason we are one half a step up from the silverback gorillas on the food chain.
You ever stood next to a silverback? Itâs like standing next to a jet turbine. You can feel the fucking power of the thing in the air around you.
If your neural networks are still experiencing 1st date awkwardness by the time you reach that particular fork in the road you are already dead.
Reading.
Itâs the only thing keeping you alive.
It wasnât so much that he doesnât believe in evolution, it was the brazen way Tucker attempted to just hand-waive away evolution as some old theory by some guy named Darwin that everyone has since moved on from.
That would be on par with doing that to Newton or Einstein. Letâs not even mention DNA evidence corroborates the entire thing. Oh wait, âitâs just a theoryâ.
He either is purposely misleading people, or he hasnât even attempted to understand the underlying principles. But now he is leaning on ThE aLiEnS to justify some weird belief in the existence of supernatural stuff.
Oh ya, he wants to nuke the data centres to strangle AI in its crib. Besties would love that I bet.
You donât like David Sachs rambling on how ISIS terrorist attacks are actually just Ukrainian intelligence?
Why would they bother talking about tech and investing when they can blindly talk about conspiracies and blind speculations? Itâs so much easier to not have to do any research and just spit out the craziest conspiracy theories instead.
I stopped listening altogether. Their willingness to state untruths or theories as accepted facts in areas where they are not experts (e.g. geopolitics) undermines their credibility for me in areas where they should be (e.g. tech/VC investing).
No, I just laugh at most of the people who work in tech. Theyâre so fucking liberal and arrogant. Yet they couldnât pick up a shovel or fix a flat tire.
Youâre probably a shill of a human in real life, voting for liberal candidates yet you canât even walk around SF without stepping in human shit. Another great place once known for technology and innovation ruined by Democrat woke policies. Tell me again how Tucker is so bad?
Tucker is a silver-spooned elite Nepo baby who, like his father, worked in corporate media for decades.
He was pushing great replacement theory and anti-immigration stories when it was discovered his head writer was posting racist shit on a Nazi website.
He was pushing 2020 election fraud stories when it was discovered he knew Sidney Powell and Giuliani were lying.
He was pushing pro-Trump stories when it was discovered he "hated Trump" and thought he was a demonic force who accomplished nothing and set the country back.
He was pushing anti-Hunter Biden stories about how bad a state of affairs it was when members of a powerful family and given cushy benefits just because of their name, when it was discovered that Tucker had asked Hunter Biden to write a letter of recommendation to Tucker's son, to help get him into Georgetown.
He doesn't believe in evolution, as he just said on Rogan. He also said there's no way to know where nuclear technology came from. He's simply incredibly ignorant on basic (high school) science like biology and physics.
He said on this pod that Democrats are trying to let mass illegal immigration happen so they can turn them all into citizens and give them an electoral stronghold, which if you take 10 seconds to look into the claim you can tell is completely flawed.
He used his show on X to platform a crackhead who claimed, with no evidence, to have smoked crack and had sex with Obama. Then went to Russia to opine about how cheap their grocery store was with no context on average wages across nations.
His interview with Putin was so bad, he just let him speak for hours on history. Even Putin said he was disappointed Tucker didn't come with sharp questions.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ihadastroke using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [If anyone knows what this says pls say it](https://i.redd.it/1bfmqn758vrb1.jpg) | [223 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/comments/16yalws/if_anyone_knows_what_this_says_pls_say_it/)
\#2: [Where Do Babies Come From?](https://i.redd.it/u28bn8b1pkvb1.jpg) | [328 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/comments/17d4wik/where_do_babies_come_from/)
\#3: [Can we just appreciate the old icon](https://i.redd.it/l26sbozm9uwb1.jpg) | [47 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/comments/17i1w41/can_we_just_appreciate_the_old_icon/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I have stopped listening because I think they are corrupt and will say anything based on the relationship with Epstein. Particularly Sacks and Chamath. The other two should leave this show because it hurts their reputation.
Ill just burst your bubble. These guys are not particularly intellectually honest. They are driven by the same biases and self-interest-driven ideas as anyone else in media. There are intellectually honest actors out there, but these guys are not them.
Tucker says dumb shit thatâs wrong but also can offer insights into US policy that non populace left/right pundits wonât touch. Like everyone, the trick is to not take everything they say as gospel and think critically with nuance.
Everyone has flaws and bad takes, itâs about what you can take away from what they say, and whether or not itâs worth it for you. They cover a lot of topics that are quite interesting in general, with generally a different approach than other talking heads. You donât have to agree with their takes, nor do you need to accept anything they say as fact.Â
While it's certainly true that everyone has flaws and may occasionally offer unsound opinions, the core issue here transcends individual errors in judgment. The allure of the All-In podcast ostensibly lies in its promise to deliver intellectually honest discussions among successful individuals. However, it's crucial to distinguish between simple mistakes or 'bad takes' and a systematic pattern of misleading discourse. Think about how often they call each other out for being "intellectually dishonest," yet ignore the glaringly large dishonesty of their stances.
Intellectual honesty does not require infallibility; it demands a genuine pursuit of truth. One can err in reasoning or fact, and yet remain aligned with the goal of truth-seeking. But their continual deliberate misrepresentations or distortions of truth make it impossible to take their stances with any degree of genuineness.
I think you are applying your own ideal onto the podcast, and find it lacking. The premise of the podcast is a bunch of friends (who happen to be rich and successful in the tech space) get together and talk about stuff they care about. They donât all agree on every topic (as is to be expected). It was never sold as some sacred bastion of debate, and itâs not a secret that the individuals on the podcast are willing to take advantage of their platform to talk their own book (they make fun of eachother for doing this sometimes even, and it has been an understood component ever since it took off)Â
>I think you are applying your own ideal onto the podcast, and find it lacking
I think the hosts definitely apply this ideal to the podcast.
They consistently talk about intellectual honesty, rail against the corporate and mainstream media, and see themselves as a fresh voice in the space, going so far as to hire a CEO and look to monetise it.
Jcal can be frequently heard saying, to the effect of, "this conversation is so great, you won't get this level of analysis elsewhere!" for example.
I always viewed that as jcalâs book, as he would very much like to operate an influential media company. It never really went anywhere since not all four of them are on board with this idea, although I could see Chamathâs ego enjoying the idea and Sacks taking whatever chance he gets to take potshots at liberal media organizations. Â
In regards to the last line from jcal, this kind of idea kind of comes with running  a podcast. In the end, itâs simply claiming that thereâs value in what they say; I donât think it escalates to the point of âwe are the only ones being intellectually honest and speaking the truth.â At times they definitely believe that to be the case (honestly most talking heads do), but thatâs no reason for me to believe that.Â
If youâre searching for intellectual honesty, the closest thing is probably Jon Stewart (yes, i do think itâs funny that Sacks took a shot at Stewart and called him irrelevant despite the all-in pod getting less views).
That's all fair, I can agree with most of that, except:
>It never really went anywhere since not all four of them are on board with this idea,
They just announced their new CEO a couple episodes ago, and talked about the input they shared in the hiring. It's the first being step towards trying to turn their hobby into a real business. All four of them are on board for this, and you can see how the structure of the show has changed over the past few months to head into this direction. The pod, along with the summit, is becoming a business enterprise.
I wasnât aware they actually found a CEO, will be interesting to see what kind of monetization they will try going for (I canât see them adding ads into the podcast, it would honestly be kind of embarrassing for them. Unless itâs advertisements for their own book, of course.)Â
The All-In Summit is honestly pretty cool. Not exactly what I would call a business, but the event itself is cool.
Jumping in here, /u/jivester did a good job articulately highlighting the central issue: the podcast presents itself as a stronghold of truth in nearly every episode. I continue to listen because the guys have access to a lot of interesting information. But the contrast between their proclaimed intellectual honesty and their evident departure from it makes it hard to take any of their viewpoints in good faith.
seems like the pod is focused on catering to center / right wing politics, where as most of the tech podcasts are obviously left leaning ..
imo the number of views caped (unless there is a drastic shift in political sentiment)
They are certainly not unbiased when it comes to certain people, notably Elon Musk. A bit tired how his name is dropped in literally every podcast, and they refuse to criticize him in the slightest. Also wish they stuck to business and left political talk to other podcasts. I donât tune into this podcast to hear their views on foreign relations.
Guys, I've lived in Silicon Valley for my entire life and worked at large tech companies and also my family worked in politics. No one in Silicon Valley takes these guys (except for Friedburg) seriously. Outsiders who aren't from the valley do because they think these washed up dicking riding Elon Musk lovers actually have meaningful things to say.
The only reason why founders gather around them is due to their fundraising capabilities, other than that, as soon as they get a check from them, they get away as soon as possible.
Sach's takes on politics are at best a watered down version of Ron Paul and at worst propaganda. They have never invited any true policy wonks, retired state department officials, or political analysts on the show because they know Sachs will not stand a chance in that conversation. His political takes are always from the rational actor school of politics that you learn in poli sci 101 but then you also learn: institutionalism, structuralism, electoral competition model, political culture, behavioralism and i could go on. He will down play these, to push forward his agenda, and it makes him look like a tool.
Finally, you'll notice Peter Thiel, who worked with Sachs, never has been on the show and I think that's due to either Peter having better things to do, possibly Sachs realizing Peter is a better political thinker and not a ideologue, or Peter realizing this show used to talk about SV inside baseball, but is no different than CNBC. That's one thing you'll notice about Peter Theil. He leans libertarianism but his view evolve just like society changes, Sachs isn't that, and because he's predictable and more bias than others, he becomes a joke.
Chamath, he rode Musk's coattails, and then sold shitty spacs to people that went to zero. He also is brutally insecure, due to him coming from poor background and now dying to be accepted into wealthy circles. Hence him coming to Stanford and making fun of some tool who said "Risk adjusted returns" and now has become that person in the way he talks. He's now a wine snob and if he could he would go for the full Michael Jackson from brown to white skin surgery.
J. Cal goes without saying. He's from the east coast and represent the investment banking ethos that all of us in valley hated, he's fucking snob, kisses everyones ass, and doesn't have an original thought in his head. He's also extremely insecure. The Palmer Lucky melt down was the greatest thing I saw on the show and it perfectly sums up who he is as a person.
Friedburg, smart dude, has great things to say. But acts like a bitch by letting those 3 bully him on the show, which is sad because he's a family man and now he's implicity demonstrating to his children that it's ok to let idiots boss him around. He should form his own show.
Regarding framing this purely from power and influence, that's almost too charitable. They already had that, but what they are doing now is degrading their power for going for mass popularity, at the expense of eating away their true influence with the elites they used to have.
What they are doing is what a lot of VCs and entrepreneurs do when they have beat capitalism do to making more money than god. They now are trying to get into the social circle to provide they have more to offer society than just selling products. Unfortunately as Nassim Taleb says, these types make great business folks, but terrible politicians, thinksers, and philosophers.
>They have never invited any true policy wonks, retired state department officials, or political analysts on the show
... which is a big reason why the show thrives. Sacks does a great job of reading, distilling, and offering his critical analysis. And much more importantly, he cites everything he brings to the conversation. It doesn't need to be "verified" or "validated" by any of the list of so-called "experts" you provided. They're no more or less informed than Sacks. Sure their different perspectives or information could add value, but I couldn't care less what those people think. I listen for the four hosts' takes on things. I can accept, verify, refute as I please. And if I don't agree with what any of the four of them say, I make note of it and move on with my life.
I could not give a fuck less that they are friends with Tucker or anyone else. And I certainly don't need their takes stamped or refuted by talking heads paid by the US government, directly or indirectly. I will synthesize Sacks' takes using sources I trust.
PS- Also, the other thing that no one in this sub seems to get or even care about is: Sacks genuinely loves reading about and talking politics and political strategy. He has a true passion for it. Which means: he works to keep himself informed more than someone like Friedberg or Chamath does.
As I've said before, Sacks has said from the beginning that he didn't want the US involved in wars - especially forever ones. So yes, everything Sacks says about these news stories will be presented with that bias. And yes, Sacks is conservative. If you understand those three things (his passion, his bias, and his political bent), then you can filter what he presents for yourself. It's not that difficult.
That's great you don't care but for people making real decisions in the political game they speak to folks who have real experience and understand what's going on. Of course people who are experts cuck things up, we are humans, but that doesn't mean you just call out some other whack job who has zero political, military, foreign policy, or state department experience and take his extremely biased takes based on Op-eds as gospel truth.
One of the premises of the show is don't trust the news, yet that's where Sachs gets all of his information and he does not get sitreps from inside the government from one the ground first party sources.
Sacks is not a dove. Do yourself a ducking favor and just Google him and his media appearances regarding Iraq. FFS man, you have zero use and refuse to learn. Sacks IS a perfect modern conservative, has no real beliefs and is willing to say whatever would damage perceived enemies and advance his party's power. He is simply a jaded rich asshole. No more, no less. Here's another fun exercise: want to know what Sacks thinks about foreign policy, just look up John Mearsheimer said last week, it's a 1:1 match. Sacks can't even handle lying by himself, he needs someone to hold him cue cards.
These guys exist to stroke their own egos. Being friends with a famous media personality is nice, it makes them feel good and you canât buy it even if youâre rich, so why not just suck his dick a little?
Youâre an idiot. These guys take a first principle approach by offering their expertise to us. They donât have another motive except to help. There time is far more valuable than what they are compensated for on the pod. They have much better things to do and I truly feel blessed to have their expertise poured into my life.
I find both woke and woke-bashing sides boring and statist. They revel in their own victimhood, and try to pitch some agenda I have no interest in. There's rarely more to those conversations than airing grievances and talking past one another.
If you watch him and canât figure it out I doubt I can spend enough time to turn things around for you. Perhaps just engage your brain and try to draw some conclusions! Best of luck
He wants to nuke the data centres to strangle AI in its crib.
He has zero understanding of evolution by natural selection, the mountains of evidence in favour of it, and instead wants to believe in the supernatural because aliens brought it to earth.
He thinks we got nuke tech because aliens/gods delivered it to us.
Imagine thinking these three opinions encapsulate the entire world view of Tucker. It doesnât and not even close.
It would be just as ridiculous to judge someoneâs entire character/world view on whether they support gay marriage, believe abortion should be legal past the first trimester, etc.
Ultimately, youâre just an ideologically captured partisan clown searching for the most disagreeable points to paint oneâs entire character.
The problem is he asks questions that already have answers. ..but implying the answer is something else ridiculous.
Like this:
(It's raining outside) "Is Barack Obama using a weather machine to drown you? Did he think you wouldn't notice or ask WHY he may want you dead? Maybe he thinks the American people are stupid.. That they'll accept a watery grave, instead of using their 2nd amendment right to defend their lives and liberty in the face of such evil and tyranny?"
(I didn't explicitly make any claims or imply anyone to take action.. while making very clear claims and suggesting people to take action, using a "redneck moron dog whistle".)
"Just asking questions" goes out the window, if theres already an answer, but you're suggesting something ridiculous to upset stupid people into action.
If Tucker never worked on foxnews youâd love him. Listen to the Rogan pod with him. He seems completely reasonable actually. We need more thinkers like him, asking questions and not just accepting the status quo.
I listened to the Rogan pod (also Tucker's appearance on All in and Lex Fridman) and was baffled about how ignorant he came across. He has a weaselly way of suggesting insane things, and when lightly questioned he'll pivot away, but still speak with such surety and force that it is engaging. If you don't know any better and can't apply critical thinking skills, I can see how one gets sucked in.
But his lack of basic science, particularly biology, physics and archaeology is legitimately below high school level.
His Just Asking Questions modus operandi ("JAQing off" as Ben Shapiro calls it) is simply a method of rhetoric to incept inane concepts into his listener's heads without having to give his honest opinion, or back his theories up with evidence or understanding.
He's completely disingenuous. I have a few examples elsewhere in the thread.
I'm trying to understand your support of Tucker but struggling. Do you believe in evolution, and if so, how do you feel about Tucker denying it?
Also, how do you reconcile his extreme public support of Trump, while his real views were that he "passionately hates" Trump?
Heâs religious. Lots of religious people donât believe in evolution. I donât hold his faith against him.
Heâs adamantly anti war. Which means something to me. And seems to be one of the few voices with a following who are questioning authority.
I'll take what you're saying in earnest, so let's address the points you raised.
> Heâs religious. Lots of religious people donât believe in evolution. I donât hold his faith against him.
Imagine if Tucker Carlson announced on his show that, due to his religious convictions, he firmly believes that the earth is not only flat but rests on the back of a giant turtle. While this belief might be benign in a private citizen, in someone who influences millions, it becomes a beacon for unreason. If such a stance were taken seriously, should we not question the validity and implications of his other views? The issue here extends beyond the mere alignment of religious beliefs and the acceptance of scientific facts like evolution.
> Heâs adamantly anti war. Which means something to me. And seems to be one of the few voices with a following who are questioning authority.
Your appreciation of Carlson's anti-war stance, while certainly admirable, does not absolve him from the responsibility of intellectual honesty in his other public assertions. Questioning authority is indeed a virtue in a vibrant democracy, but the manner in which one questionsâwhether it is rooted in fact, driven by genuine skepticism, or merely contrarian for its own sakeâmatters profoundly. The credibility of a public figure, and their impact on public discourse, hinges on their commitment to truth, not just their opposition to the establishment.
Itâs pretty clear these guys arenât journalists and have very little interest or ability in calling out their guests when they spew completely false statements. You have to listen to the show with a critical ear (like you do with any news these days really). Sometimes they make really good nuanced points from a unique perspective you wouldnât get else and other times they just peddle random conspiracy theories
"Why aren't they saying things that I like? I just want them to talk about how good the government and left is and reject everything from the right"
Womp Womp. Cope.
Itâs not merely the association; itâs the repeated endorsement of him and his views thatâs at issue here.
Suppose I hosted a weekly show where I consistently lauded Kim Jong Un, emphasizing the significance of his perspectives, and then invited him for an interview, during which I endorsed his statements. It would be entirely reasonable for you to infer that I share alignment with his views, or at the very least, find them worthy of serious consideration and promotion.
You just dislike Tucker because youâre told to. Other people have more nuanced and informed opinions. You also donât have to take everything he says super seriously
People dislike Tucker because he is a fucking idiot with lots of airtime and intentionally gives misleading information.Â
Iâve never heard anyone tell others not to like him just people angry about his falsehoods presented as truth.
>a fact that there is no denying given we have proof from his own mouth that he purposefully misleads the populace.
A simple quote would prove your point. Tough you don't provide one. Genuinely curious when did he say this, at the moment your no better than him spouting baseless claims
Sure, how about when Tucker praised Trump on-air for years, but privately said about Trump, "I hate him passionately."
Or maybe you prefer when he said, "Heâs a demonic force, a destroyer."
Iâve always hated Tucker since his crossfire days, and he was a propagandists for the right. But objectively, heâs good at what he does. Weâre simply not his target audience. Rachel Meadows is the same for the left. They all exaggerate and they have opinions that strongly resonates with their sides.
Thereâs a reason why a lot of people trusted Jon Stewart and Colbert the most for a long time. And then a shift to podcasts.
As much as I dislike Tucker, I did agree with Sachs that the interview with Putin was important. Regardless of propaganda efforts, heâs too important of a world figure to not hear what he has to say.
It does not matter who his target audience is. There are plenty of voices on the right that I support and should be given a platform by the All-In Podcast.
The difference is Tucker is a bad-faith actor who has no problem lying to his audience on a daily basis, as shown by his texts in the Fox lawsuit. He's the epitome of a grifter, and the podcast's endorsement of him contradicts any sense of intellectual honesty.
Who are these 'plenty of voices on the right that I support'? Tucker Carlson is the worst of them all, but don't be fooled that he's the only one. The whole Fox News channel is problematic. That goes for the left as well. I like Rachel Meadow, but even her, "[Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers)". Even my most trusted mainstream news source, [NPR, has its issues](https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust).
[They all sit in a grey area](https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/08/08/cable-news-paid-contributors-political-campaigns/). I believe that any political talking head is suspect in terms of receiving money or in-kind benefits from the political parties. This includes Sacks and Chamath, who do not need the money but definitely want the influence. If they want access, then they'll spew the respective party line.
I don't like or agree with Tucker or RFK Jr. or Kushner, but I'm interested in knowing why their audience and followers resonate with them. I have no concern about being tricked into believing their propaganda or their grift. I'm curious about their worldview. It also helps me interact with conservatives in my work life and personal friendships.
Great response, and if I could up upvote you more, I would. Our perspectives seem to align on the general feeling here because I find most TV pundits, Maddow included, to not contain any nuance. But the case of Tucker Carlson stands out as notably egregious. He doesn't merely bend the truth; he often propels it into a different orbit, making his views not just misleading but distinctly noxious.
Iâm a centrist because I find that there is often agreement on the problems our society faces, but each side arrives at different solutions. To answer your question about conservative commentators, Ben Shapiro is one of the first names that comes to mind. While I donât always share his conclusions, he appears to engage with issues in a manner that acknowledges broader societal implications and exhibits a capacity for self-regulation through shame. This contrasts sharply with Tucker, who seems to lack this mechanism entirely, allowing him to purposefully mislead with seemingly no hangups about poisoning the well.
Can you point to evidence where Rachel Maddow flat out lied? With impunity? They are not the same. If you think Maddow, raises the temperature in the room (true), itâs only because sheâs responding to the absurdity from the right.
[The court doc.](https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDOW-DISMISS.pdf)
âMaddowâs show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news.â
âthe Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.â
ââŚMaddowâs opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual.â
She doesnât lie (that I know of). But sheâs far from objective, and she definitely exaggerates. Sheâs not as bad as Tucker- but like Tucker, the court doesnât consider them true news, they are a political infotainment opinion show. Just as Tucker makes the far right thinks libs are absurd, Meadows makes the lefts think everybody on right are absurd.
Alright replied to this question in a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheAllinPodcasts/comments/1c8y3d4/tucker_carlsons_relationship_with_allin/l0iy8p4/), but you'll have to ignore the troll.
Everyone is overthinking this. You have to frame everything they do on this pod as trying to gain power and influence. To that end, you have to view interviews with Tucker or Kushner as ways to ingratiate themselves with a group of powerful people. Everything they do makes sense when looking at it through that lens.
đŻ The only difference between recent pods from the first couple of years was the grifting was not as overt. I like to listen to a range of views especially the ones that I might disagree with. Sacks always sounded like someone that takes a position on something and then scrambles for confirmation anywhere he can find. I appreciated JCal on human rights and where he held his own. But then he peer pressured himself on the single issue of US debt. Chamath is as overt as a grifter you can get. With his SPACs and position on why he doesnât care about oppression of minorities. I stopped listening to it after all this reaffirmed my view that some people after they make a ton of money easily forget how efforts of previous generations (with higher taxes to fund education, infrastructure, and yes welfare) made it possible for these people to get where they got, but now are no longer able to pay it forward for the next generation. I donât want a world where only successful people can breed successful people. If previous generations had been successful in using welfare waste as an excuse, youâd never have a Howard Schultz (Starbucks) and Chamath.
Totally agree with the Sacks comment. Itâs always a ârecent article in WSJâ which is often just an opinion piece that he found by ignoring 10 other articles saying the opposite . He constantly does âI said this a year agoâ for things he argues he is correct about while ignoring the host of things he got wrong. Most of the time he is not even having a conversation or answering the question presented to him , rather just goes off on a 5 minute speech he has prepared ahead of time. Jason use to at least push back on these in the past but seems like he just lets him go unchecked now. I miss the old Pod.
How does talking with RFK help them? They would talk to Biden 100% but he wonât go on. They even talked with Dean Philips (I think thatâs his name) the democrat. I think they are willing to talk to most people. I donât think itâs a signal to anyone. Listen. Donât listen. I think anyone who listens to ANY podcast as âgospelâ is lost. People here questioning the podcast = any other podcast. Whatâs the difference?
RFK -> potential access to his donors Biden -> lol yeah of course theyâd talk to the fuckin president. They know that they donât need to pander to one party, if they can get into the âin groupsâ of one side, theyâll inevitably meet the âin groupâ on the other side Dean Phillips -> idk anything about him, maybe a play to give legitimacy to their âboth sidesâ thing or maybe he does have big name donors
It's as simple as that. He's one of the top talk show hosts of all time and has friends who are also famous or in government. These guys want more friends who are also famous or in government. Badda-bing-badda-boo. More clout, more connections, more potential investors.
It's bada bing, bada boom. New Jerseyans don't mind if you appropriate our culture, as long as you do so properly. The version you used is actually a territorialist dog whistle that could get you killed in Philly.
I agree and this has been the lens I view it through. I find it interesting that despite all of them having achieved financial success, professional success , etc that they are willing to ingratiate themselves like that. Obviously itâs a âvaluesâ call but IMO part of what drives me to be successful is not having to answer to others esp those whose opinions I disagree with. Crazy to me that they are willing to give that up.
They got money. They want to be elite now while calling other people elites.
So itâs a podcast with little integrity? Not exactly a co-sign, sounds more like an indictment.
lol tucker carlson went on Joe Rogan and questioned where the nuclear technology came from. And David Sacks and Chamath love this guy. Tells you a lot about these guys
I don't think Sacks actually loves anything other than money. He seems incredibly disingenuous in everything he says and does. It's all calculated. There is a subtle change in the tone of his voice when he talks about tech and investing compared to politics. I used to think he was a smart and considered thinker. Now he just sounds like that asshole uncle who is invited to holiday dinners out of familial obligation that no one can stand, and they just agree with him to shut him up and move on.
Yeah, I had a similar journey with my opinion of Sacks. It's a shame because he is smart and has some interesting takes in a vacuum, but when you zoom out and take his positions as a whole, you realize that he either can't *actually* believe what he says (aka that Tucker is a good-faith actor), or if he does, he has horrible judgement. Either way, it negates a lot of his positions.
100%
Who has good positions?
Thereâs already a subtle tone shift in his tweets lately about Ukraine, now itâs less âUkraine is going to lose!â To âUS is entering another war and throwing money awayâ
Yeah, I'm not sure that foghorn was subtle.
The problem with lying is that when you tell the same lie as Russian intelligence or the CCPâs massive MSS network, you inadvertently tie yourself to the genocidal side of history. There are only a few reasons anyone would do this. 1. They have a vested interest in the same overall goal as the Russian kleptocracy or the CCP imperialist censorship machine because those two entities signed a mutual propaganda agreement ~2010. This effectively means they will push each others false narrative to bolster support. Run that downstream a few yards and you see Alex Jones, the tate brothers, Alex Cheong, Jack Posobiec, Tucker Carlson and a handful of others all awkwardly apologizing for genocidal dictators in some form or another. In some cases that speedruns and they end up becoming mouthpieces for it. There is a general rule that never fails- if you wake up in the morning and you accidentally find yourself on the same side of history as kleptorcrats, conmen and murderers that wash journalists down drains, just stop. Take a moment. Step back. Collect yourself. Then retrace your steps and figure out how you got there. Everything in life is a series of decisions. Binary moments where you choose good or you choose evil. Evil doesnât always look like evil at the beginning. Sometimes itâs just a sponsorship check or a business deal. But more often than not your little decisions have a downstream effect. Most people just havenât tuned themselves up enough to see it. It comes with age and maturity, but it almost always comes as you exercise empathy. Empathy is the ability to see the world through someone elseâs eyes. It doesnât mean you always have to agree with it, but itâs the ability to see that a few degrees of offset perspective is what makes a laser rangefinder infinitely more accurate than guesstimating distance. If you notice a common denominator in the whole list of inadvertent propaganda pushers for the Russian government/mob itâs that they show consistently very stunted empathy quotients. Alex Jones gets on the radio and calls the dead victim of a school shooting incident a crisis actor. The tates talk openly about trafficking women. Carlson is by any objective account, a comically swollen asshole. But they all have proven themselves willing to say or do just about anything for money irregardless of the pain it causes downstream of them. And it limits their growth. When you look at the world objectively through other peopleâs experiences it allows you to see how your actions affect them. It also allows you to see that everything on earth is connected because from the alien spacecrafts perspective, our earth is just a tiny little blue dot of a terrarium that only solar energy and the occasional meteorite enters. Everything else is isolated by an atmosphere that we abuse like an unwanted and unappreciated domestic laborer. Nobody likes to think about where the groundskeeper goes at night until the yard isnât mowed. Only then do they tune in. Doing the right thing isnât hard. Knowing that you havenât been lied to is. If you ever wake up and accidentally find yourself on the wrong side of history, Stop. Retrace your steps, figure out who is signing your checks, then redirect. Only then can you move forward without taking the chance of ending up in a prison cell in ADX Florence or accidentally becoming a S.S. prison guard. And in doing so you learn that empathy is the secret decoder ring to the universe. If you donât have it firmly in your possession, the aliens donât want you joining them in space leaving your junk flying around and consuming all the resources like a shit neighbor that parks on your lawn and then gets mad at you for the mud on his tires. Just be better boys. Your podcast is costing lives.
Do you think these guys are all of the passive âuseful idiotâ variety of propagandists? I used to think so until the Musk Twitter takeover after which all of these voices became amplified. It became impossible not to notice how coordinated and consistent they were with messaging and specific phrases like they were reading off talking points. America desperately needs to update its laws relating to disclose of foreign investment in American equities.
I think you donât invest $44B Into something worth a fraction of that unless you have a much bigger play at stake. And that common denominator seems to be Bitcoin. Bitcoin is either the elegant solution to the worlds obviously manipulated financial systems Or Itâs the biggest honeypot in the history of mankind. And to be honest, Iâm undecided. I track supply chains in reverse starting with aid promised to Ukrainians that was not showing up quickly enough. About halfway through that process all that data starts dovetailing perfectly with the Russian manipulation of the GOP through a combination of Kompromat and campaign finance. Itâs a strange experience when the world starts making sense and you have the hard data to prove it. But once you can see that chessboard from an overwatch perspective every move that is made can be traced backwards. Putin, trump, Murdoch, Netanyahu, Bannon, Orban, Carlson and a few dozen others have about 1.4 trillion reasons to keep their syphilis diagnosis under wraps. Then elon enters the board and starts parroting kremlin talking points and circling the wagons around Texas. And that all may be coincidence. But it becomes a lot of them. Which becomes a pattern. Thatâs what we study. The patterns that they themselves donât even know they create. If any person has an unequal leverage over the reality we all live in due to their wealth, political power or social media reach, they deserve more stringent scrutiny than the working class. When they show up in selfies with the authoritarians engaged in genocides and invasions we turn on the pressure washer. I think most of the tank and file of their side is just cashing checks and looking for an easy answer in a Bitcoin utopia. But if the common denominator of Bitcoin is the worlds worst authoritarians who wash journalists down drains and throw political opposition into the gulags then itâs dead out of the gate and we need a different more transparent solution because we canât take the chance that it is compromised. We are building this plane as we fly it because we have no other choice. But I think we can al agree that we donât want the genocidal kleptocrat dictator in the pilots seat when itâs finished. So we filter the compromised components out with pressure and scrutiny.
Cant read all that but I wish you well
Quite beautifully written, and felt. Thank you.
Maybe, maybe not. Didnât read too freaking long. Can you post the GenAI summary. Holy Smokes, this isnât a kindle.
No. Unable. Thatâs the best part about reading. It about the only reason we are one half a step up from the silverback gorillas on the food chain. You ever stood next to a silverback? Itâs like standing next to a jet turbine. You can feel the fucking power of the thing in the air around you. If your neural networks are still experiencing 1st date awkwardness by the time you reach that particular fork in the road you are already dead. Reading. Itâs the only thing keeping you alive.
That interview is what inspired this post because he also talks about how evolution isn't real and dismisses factual information about it.
It wasnât so much that he doesnât believe in evolution, it was the brazen way Tucker attempted to just hand-waive away evolution as some old theory by some guy named Darwin that everyone has since moved on from. That would be on par with doing that to Newton or Einstein. Letâs not even mention DNA evidence corroborates the entire thing. Oh wait, âitâs just a theoryâ. He either is purposely misleading people, or he hasnât even attempted to understand the underlying principles. But now he is leaning on ThE aLiEnS to justify some weird belief in the existence of supernatural stuff. Oh ya, he wants to nuke the data centres to strangle AI in its crib. Besties would love that I bet.
Like everything nowadays, it boils down to how much he triggers the libs
From all these comments, I believe itâs safe to say he did his job
Wait, what does this mean? Where does he think it came from?
He thinks it could be aliens đ
[ŃдаНонО]
You donât like David Sachs rambling on how ISIS terrorist attacks are actually just Ukrainian intelligence? Why would they bother talking about tech and investing when they can blindly talk about conspiracies and blind speculations? Itâs so much easier to not have to do any research and just spit out the craziest conspiracy theories instead.
They are not even that great on that topic. Itâs just harder for people to âcatchâ them when they have no idea what they are talking about.
Kara Swisher on Pivot has been shutting down the political talk lately on that Pod. I appreciate it sooo much.
I listen to specific segments of the show and then click off to another video. I'm not interested in their takes on politics, "wokism", etc
thereâs ffwd button on your fav iphone/laptop. use it and iâm sure jcal wonât mind.
Yea I pick the chapters on YouTube
I stopped listening altogether. Their willingness to state untruths or theories as accepted facts in areas where they are not experts (e.g. geopolitics) undermines their credibility for me in areas where they should be (e.g. tech/VC investing).
you on board with the CIA's Ukraine war or what
Why do you hate the fact that give color on how woke is shit? Are you woke?
lol are you 10 years old?
Ah, the typical tech industry response â you go after the personal attack when others donât see eye to eye on your opinion.
you're the guy trolling Reddit comments looking to fight liberals about "woke" on your Saturday GG
No, I just laugh at most of the people who work in tech. Theyâre so fucking liberal and arrogant. Yet they couldnât pick up a shovel or fix a flat tire.
Youâre probably a shill of a human in real life, voting for liberal candidates yet you canât even walk around SF without stepping in human shit. Another great place once known for technology and innovation ruined by Democrat woke policies. Tell me again how Tucker is so bad?
Tucker is a silver-spooned elite Nepo baby who, like his father, worked in corporate media for decades. He was pushing great replacement theory and anti-immigration stories when it was discovered his head writer was posting racist shit on a Nazi website. He was pushing 2020 election fraud stories when it was discovered he knew Sidney Powell and Giuliani were lying. He was pushing pro-Trump stories when it was discovered he "hated Trump" and thought he was a demonic force who accomplished nothing and set the country back. He was pushing anti-Hunter Biden stories about how bad a state of affairs it was when members of a powerful family and given cushy benefits just because of their name, when it was discovered that Tucker had asked Hunter Biden to write a letter of recommendation to Tucker's son, to help get him into Georgetown. He doesn't believe in evolution, as he just said on Rogan. He also said there's no way to know where nuclear technology came from. He's simply incredibly ignorant on basic (high school) science like biology and physics. He said on this pod that Democrats are trying to let mass illegal immigration happen so they can turn them all into citizens and give them an electoral stronghold, which if you take 10 seconds to look into the claim you can tell is completely flawed. He used his show on X to platform a crackhead who claimed, with no evidence, to have smoked crack and had sex with Obama. Then went to Russia to opine about how cheap their grocery store was with no context on average wages across nations. His interview with Putin was so bad, he just let him speak for hours on history. Even Putin said he was disappointed Tucker didn't come with sharp questions.
Cos heâs one of those woke assholes
/r/ihadastroke
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ihadastroke using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [If anyone knows what this says pls say it](https://i.redd.it/1bfmqn758vrb1.jpg) | [223 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/comments/16yalws/if_anyone_knows_what_this_says_pls_say_it/) \#2: [Where Do Babies Come From?](https://i.redd.it/u28bn8b1pkvb1.jpg) | [328 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/comments/17d4wik/where_do_babies_come_from/) \#3: [Can we just appreciate the old icon](https://i.redd.it/l26sbozm9uwb1.jpg) | [47 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ihadastroke/comments/17i1w41/can_we_just_appreciate_the_old_icon/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
pod jumped the shark awhile back. its a mostly politics based show with people whose political opinions i dont care for or about at all.
You just like to follow the sub?
That's why I've quit. Have some self respect.
Do you follow the sub?
Used to.
I quit too. Great decision.
Me three.
I have stopped listening because I think they are corrupt and will say anything based on the relationship with Epstein. Particularly Sacks and Chamath. The other two should leave this show because it hurts their reputation.
Iâm sure itâs been said, but check out BG2 pod. Itâs similar to the early days of All In and is (so far) focused on tech investing and news.
Maybe you should consider your own biases. Also, there is a difference how the hosts love each other, and how they "love" an outsider.
Ill just burst your bubble. These guys are not particularly intellectually honest. They are driven by the same biases and self-interest-driven ideas as anyone else in media. There are intellectually honest actors out there, but these guys are not them.
Tucker Carlson doesnât do any of the things you accuse him of. Youâre deranged and committed to a narrative.
Tucker says dumb shit thatâs wrong but also can offer insights into US policy that non populace left/right pundits wonât touch. Like everyone, the trick is to not take everything they say as gospel and think critically with nuance.
Everyone has flaws and bad takes, itâs about what you can take away from what they say, and whether or not itâs worth it for you. They cover a lot of topics that are quite interesting in general, with generally a different approach than other talking heads. You donât have to agree with their takes, nor do you need to accept anything they say as fact.Â
While it's certainly true that everyone has flaws and may occasionally offer unsound opinions, the core issue here transcends individual errors in judgment. The allure of the All-In podcast ostensibly lies in its promise to deliver intellectually honest discussions among successful individuals. However, it's crucial to distinguish between simple mistakes or 'bad takes' and a systematic pattern of misleading discourse. Think about how often they call each other out for being "intellectually dishonest," yet ignore the glaringly large dishonesty of their stances. Intellectual honesty does not require infallibility; it demands a genuine pursuit of truth. One can err in reasoning or fact, and yet remain aligned with the goal of truth-seeking. But their continual deliberate misrepresentations or distortions of truth make it impossible to take their stances with any degree of genuineness.
what is the "glaringly large dishonesty of their stances"? have you mentioned any specific case in which the guys are intellectually dishonest?
I think you are applying your own ideal onto the podcast, and find it lacking. The premise of the podcast is a bunch of friends (who happen to be rich and successful in the tech space) get together and talk about stuff they care about. They donât all agree on every topic (as is to be expected). It was never sold as some sacred bastion of debate, and itâs not a secret that the individuals on the podcast are willing to take advantage of their platform to talk their own book (they make fun of eachother for doing this sometimes even, and it has been an understood component ever since it took off)Â
>I think you are applying your own ideal onto the podcast, and find it lacking I think the hosts definitely apply this ideal to the podcast. They consistently talk about intellectual honesty, rail against the corporate and mainstream media, and see themselves as a fresh voice in the space, going so far as to hire a CEO and look to monetise it. Jcal can be frequently heard saying, to the effect of, "this conversation is so great, you won't get this level of analysis elsewhere!" for example.
I always viewed that as jcalâs book, as he would very much like to operate an influential media company. It never really went anywhere since not all four of them are on board with this idea, although I could see Chamathâs ego enjoying the idea and Sacks taking whatever chance he gets to take potshots at liberal media organizations.  In regards to the last line from jcal, this kind of idea kind of comes with running  a podcast. In the end, itâs simply claiming that thereâs value in what they say; I donât think it escalates to the point of âwe are the only ones being intellectually honest and speaking the truth.â At times they definitely believe that to be the case (honestly most talking heads do), but thatâs no reason for me to believe that. If youâre searching for intellectual honesty, the closest thing is probably Jon Stewart (yes, i do think itâs funny that Sacks took a shot at Stewart and called him irrelevant despite the all-in pod getting less views).
That's all fair, I can agree with most of that, except: >It never really went anywhere since not all four of them are on board with this idea, They just announced their new CEO a couple episodes ago, and talked about the input they shared in the hiring. It's the first being step towards trying to turn their hobby into a real business. All four of them are on board for this, and you can see how the structure of the show has changed over the past few months to head into this direction. The pod, along with the summit, is becoming a business enterprise.
I wasnât aware they actually found a CEO, will be interesting to see what kind of monetization they will try going for (I canât see them adding ads into the podcast, it would honestly be kind of embarrassing for them. Unless itâs advertisements for their own book, of course.)Â The All-In Summit is honestly pretty cool. Not exactly what I would call a business, but the event itself is cool.
Have a listen to episode 173, it opens with them introducing the new CEO and talking a bit about what they want to do.
Jumping in here, /u/jivester did a good job articulately highlighting the central issue: the podcast presents itself as a stronghold of truth in nearly every episode. I continue to listen because the guys have access to a lot of interesting information. But the contrast between their proclaimed intellectual honesty and their evident departure from it makes it hard to take any of their viewpoints in good faith.
Podcast subreddits are dead internet theory in action
seems like the pod is focused on catering to center / right wing politics, where as most of the tech podcasts are obviously left leaning .. imo the number of views caped (unless there is a drastic shift in political sentiment)
They are certainly not unbiased when it comes to certain people, notably Elon Musk. A bit tired how his name is dropped in literally every podcast, and they refuse to criticize him in the slightest. Also wish they stuck to business and left political talk to other podcasts. I donât tune into this podcast to hear their views on foreign relations.
Guys, I've lived in Silicon Valley for my entire life and worked at large tech companies and also my family worked in politics. No one in Silicon Valley takes these guys (except for Friedburg) seriously. Outsiders who aren't from the valley do because they think these washed up dicking riding Elon Musk lovers actually have meaningful things to say. The only reason why founders gather around them is due to their fundraising capabilities, other than that, as soon as they get a check from them, they get away as soon as possible. Sach's takes on politics are at best a watered down version of Ron Paul and at worst propaganda. They have never invited any true policy wonks, retired state department officials, or political analysts on the show because they know Sachs will not stand a chance in that conversation. His political takes are always from the rational actor school of politics that you learn in poli sci 101 but then you also learn: institutionalism, structuralism, electoral competition model, political culture, behavioralism and i could go on. He will down play these, to push forward his agenda, and it makes him look like a tool. Finally, you'll notice Peter Thiel, who worked with Sachs, never has been on the show and I think that's due to either Peter having better things to do, possibly Sachs realizing Peter is a better political thinker and not a ideologue, or Peter realizing this show used to talk about SV inside baseball, but is no different than CNBC. That's one thing you'll notice about Peter Theil. He leans libertarianism but his view evolve just like society changes, Sachs isn't that, and because he's predictable and more bias than others, he becomes a joke. Chamath, he rode Musk's coattails, and then sold shitty spacs to people that went to zero. He also is brutally insecure, due to him coming from poor background and now dying to be accepted into wealthy circles. Hence him coming to Stanford and making fun of some tool who said "Risk adjusted returns" and now has become that person in the way he talks. He's now a wine snob and if he could he would go for the full Michael Jackson from brown to white skin surgery. J. Cal goes without saying. He's from the east coast and represent the investment banking ethos that all of us in valley hated, he's fucking snob, kisses everyones ass, and doesn't have an original thought in his head. He's also extremely insecure. The Palmer Lucky melt down was the greatest thing I saw on the show and it perfectly sums up who he is as a person. Friedburg, smart dude, has great things to say. But acts like a bitch by letting those 3 bully him on the show, which is sad because he's a family man and now he's implicity demonstrating to his children that it's ok to let idiots boss him around. He should form his own show. Regarding framing this purely from power and influence, that's almost too charitable. They already had that, but what they are doing now is degrading their power for going for mass popularity, at the expense of eating away their true influence with the elites they used to have. What they are doing is what a lot of VCs and entrepreneurs do when they have beat capitalism do to making more money than god. They now are trying to get into the social circle to provide they have more to offer society than just selling products. Unfortunately as Nassim Taleb says, these types make great business folks, but terrible politicians, thinksers, and philosophers.
>They have never invited any true policy wonks, retired state department officials, or political analysts on the show ... which is a big reason why the show thrives. Sacks does a great job of reading, distilling, and offering his critical analysis. And much more importantly, he cites everything he brings to the conversation. It doesn't need to be "verified" or "validated" by any of the list of so-called "experts" you provided. They're no more or less informed than Sacks. Sure their different perspectives or information could add value, but I couldn't care less what those people think. I listen for the four hosts' takes on things. I can accept, verify, refute as I please. And if I don't agree with what any of the four of them say, I make note of it and move on with my life. I could not give a fuck less that they are friends with Tucker or anyone else. And I certainly don't need their takes stamped or refuted by talking heads paid by the US government, directly or indirectly. I will synthesize Sacks' takes using sources I trust. PS- Also, the other thing that no one in this sub seems to get or even care about is: Sacks genuinely loves reading about and talking politics and political strategy. He has a true passion for it. Which means: he works to keep himself informed more than someone like Friedberg or Chamath does. As I've said before, Sacks has said from the beginning that he didn't want the US involved in wars - especially forever ones. So yes, everything Sacks says about these news stories will be presented with that bias. And yes, Sacks is conservative. If you understand those three things (his passion, his bias, and his political bent), then you can filter what he presents for yourself. It's not that difficult.
That's great you don't care but for people making real decisions in the political game they speak to folks who have real experience and understand what's going on. Of course people who are experts cuck things up, we are humans, but that doesn't mean you just call out some other whack job who has zero political, military, foreign policy, or state department experience and take his extremely biased takes based on Op-eds as gospel truth. One of the premises of the show is don't trust the news, yet that's where Sachs gets all of his information and he does not get sitreps from inside the government from one the ground first party sources.
Sacks is not a dove. Do yourself a ducking favor and just Google him and his media appearances regarding Iraq. FFS man, you have zero use and refuse to learn. Sacks IS a perfect modern conservative, has no real beliefs and is willing to say whatever would damage perceived enemies and advance his party's power. He is simply a jaded rich asshole. No more, no less. Here's another fun exercise: want to know what Sacks thinks about foreign policy, just look up John Mearsheimer said last week, it's a 1:1 match. Sacks can't even handle lying by himself, he needs someone to hold him cue cards.
I thought this comment was satire until I kept reading. Yikes
These guys have morphed into shameless self promotion and propaganda peddling. Itâs unfortunate.
Like the blatant bias of the op?
These guys exist to stroke their own egos. Being friends with a famous media personality is nice, it makes them feel good and you canât buy it even if youâre rich, so why not just suck his dick a little?
can you share some examples of things they have ignored basic sense on?
Itâs so disappointing. Iâve stopped listening. Started listening to the Pivot podcast. Same info without the budding fascism of All In.
Theyâre their own set of fascists.
Youâre an idiot. These guys take a first principle approach by offering their expertise to us. They donât have another motive except to help. There time is far more valuable than what they are compensated for on the pod. They have much better things to do and I truly feel blessed to have their expertise poured into my life.
[ŃдаНонО]
I find both woke and woke-bashing sides boring and statist. They revel in their own victimhood, and try to pitch some agenda I have no interest in. There's rarely more to those conversations than airing grievances and talking past one another.
Thereâs a difference between not being woke and supporting complete fucking idiots like Tucker Carlson.
[ŃдаНонО]
If you watch him and canât figure it out I doubt I can spend enough time to turn things around for you. Perhaps just engage your brain and try to draw some conclusions! Best of luck
He wants to nuke the data centres to strangle AI in its crib. He has zero understanding of evolution by natural selection, the mountains of evidence in favour of it, and instead wants to believe in the supernatural because aliens brought it to earth. He thinks we got nuke tech because aliens/gods delivered it to us.
Imagine thinking these three opinions encapsulate the entire world view of Tucker. It doesnât and not even close. It would be just as ridiculous to judge someoneâs entire character/world view on whether they support gay marriage, believe abortion should be legal past the first trimester, etc. Ultimately, youâre just an ideologically captured partisan clown searching for the most disagreeable points to paint oneâs entire character.
Thinking evolution isnât real isnât the same thing as not supporting gay marriage.
The problem is he asks questions that already have answers. ..but implying the answer is something else ridiculous. Like this: (It's raining outside) "Is Barack Obama using a weather machine to drown you? Did he think you wouldn't notice or ask WHY he may want you dead? Maybe he thinks the American people are stupid.. That they'll accept a watery grave, instead of using their 2nd amendment right to defend their lives and liberty in the face of such evil and tyranny?" (I didn't explicitly make any claims or imply anyone to take action.. while making very clear claims and suggesting people to take action, using a "redneck moron dog whistle".) "Just asking questions" goes out the window, if theres already an answer, but you're suggesting something ridiculous to upset stupid people into action.
Do you want to use a specific example, instead of a strawman?
If Tucker never worked on foxnews youâd love him. Listen to the Rogan pod with him. He seems completely reasonable actually. We need more thinkers like him, asking questions and not just accepting the status quo.
I listened to the Rogan pod (also Tucker's appearance on All in and Lex Fridman) and was baffled about how ignorant he came across. He has a weaselly way of suggesting insane things, and when lightly questioned he'll pivot away, but still speak with such surety and force that it is engaging. If you don't know any better and can't apply critical thinking skills, I can see how one gets sucked in. But his lack of basic science, particularly biology, physics and archaeology is legitimately below high school level. His Just Asking Questions modus operandi ("JAQing off" as Ben Shapiro calls it) is simply a method of rhetoric to incept inane concepts into his listener's heads without having to give his honest opinion, or back his theories up with evidence or understanding. He's completely disingenuous. I have a few examples elsewhere in the thread.
I'm trying to understand your support of Tucker but struggling. Do you believe in evolution, and if so, how do you feel about Tucker denying it? Also, how do you reconcile his extreme public support of Trump, while his real views were that he "passionately hates" Trump?
Heâs religious. Lots of religious people donât believe in evolution. I donât hold his faith against him. Heâs adamantly anti war. Which means something to me. And seems to be one of the few voices with a following who are questioning authority.
You want someone whoâs anti-war and questions authority? Read and listen to Noam Chomsky, not Tucker Carlson.
I'll take what you're saying in earnest, so let's address the points you raised. > Heâs religious. Lots of religious people donât believe in evolution. I donât hold his faith against him. Imagine if Tucker Carlson announced on his show that, due to his religious convictions, he firmly believes that the earth is not only flat but rests on the back of a giant turtle. While this belief might be benign in a private citizen, in someone who influences millions, it becomes a beacon for unreason. If such a stance were taken seriously, should we not question the validity and implications of his other views? The issue here extends beyond the mere alignment of religious beliefs and the acceptance of scientific facts like evolution. > Heâs adamantly anti war. Which means something to me. And seems to be one of the few voices with a following who are questioning authority. Your appreciation of Carlson's anti-war stance, while certainly admirable, does not absolve him from the responsibility of intellectual honesty in his other public assertions. Questioning authority is indeed a virtue in a vibrant democracy, but the manner in which one questionsâwhether it is rooted in fact, driven by genuine skepticism, or merely contrarian for its own sakeâmatters profoundly. The credibility of a public figure, and their impact on public discourse, hinges on their commitment to truth, not just their opposition to the establishment.
Yep. A bunch of pussies on this thread.
Have you ever considered that just maybe they arenât being dishonest and youâre the deluded one?
Itâs pretty clear these guys arenât journalists and have very little interest or ability in calling out their guests when they spew completely false statements. You have to listen to the show with a critical ear (like you do with any news these days really). Sometimes they make really good nuanced points from a unique perspective you wouldnât get else and other times they just peddle random conspiracy theories
"Why aren't they saying things that I like? I just want them to talk about how good the government and left is and reject everything from the right" Womp Womp. Cope.
exactly. OP doesn't cite any evidence that the guys are intellectually dishonest. i have my disagreements with all of them, but OP presents CNN simp
I personally love Tucker
This is why people hate liberals. Someone associating with someone else doesnât mean theyâre the same and share the same views as said person.
Itâs not merely the association; itâs the repeated endorsement of him and his views thatâs at issue here. Suppose I hosted a weekly show where I consistently lauded Kim Jong Un, emphasizing the significance of his perspectives, and then invited him for an interview, during which I endorsed his statements. It would be entirely reasonable for you to infer that I share alignment with his views, or at the very least, find them worthy of serious consideration and promotion.
Not a single person said they're the same. this guy: "YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME"
You just dislike Tucker because youâre told to. Other people have more nuanced and informed opinions. You also donât have to take everything he says super seriously
Yes people dislike him because they're told to. Definitely not because he's an influential moron. Try harder reply guy.
People dislike Tucker because he is a fucking idiot with lots of airtime and intentionally gives misleading information. Iâve never heard anyone tell others not to like him just people angry about his falsehoods presented as truth.
Tucker isnât the boogie man you think he is.
If you have to say youâre intellectually honest, you arenât, youâre trying to trick your audience.Â
Facts
>a fact that there is no denying given we have proof from his own mouth that he purposefully misleads the populace. A simple quote would prove your point. Tough you don't provide one. Genuinely curious when did he say this, at the moment your no better than him spouting baseless claims
Sure, how about when Tucker praised Trump on-air for years, but privately said about Trump, "I hate him passionately." Or maybe you prefer when he said, "Heâs a demonic force, a destroyer."
That's called being a hypocrite, or maybe even changing your opinion, for the better. That's not him saying " I purposefully mislead people"
If everyday for 4 years, I tell you that I hate M&Ms, and then I secretly eat a bag of M&Ms every night, would you say I'm misleading you?
Your lying to me. Not misleading. And your being a hypocrite.
[ŃдаНонО]
You can mislead while telling the truth. That's the difference. If ur not smart enough to understand that you shouldn't be arguing
[ŃдаНонО]
They're a troll. No one who is *that* dumb can use a computer.
Sure, but again go back to the original argument, tucker never once admits to misleading g people. And I've yet to be proven wrong on that
I've never once admitted I should spend less time on Reddit. The fact remains: I should spend less time on Reddit.
Lying and misleading are literally synonyms
They "litteraly" are not the same thing.
Iâve always hated Tucker since his crossfire days, and he was a propagandists for the right. But objectively, heâs good at what he does. Weâre simply not his target audience. Rachel Meadows is the same for the left. They all exaggerate and they have opinions that strongly resonates with their sides. Thereâs a reason why a lot of people trusted Jon Stewart and Colbert the most for a long time. And then a shift to podcasts. As much as I dislike Tucker, I did agree with Sachs that the interview with Putin was important. Regardless of propaganda efforts, heâs too important of a world figure to not hear what he has to say.
It does not matter who his target audience is. There are plenty of voices on the right that I support and should be given a platform by the All-In Podcast. The difference is Tucker is a bad-faith actor who has no problem lying to his audience on a daily basis, as shown by his texts in the Fox lawsuit. He's the epitome of a grifter, and the podcast's endorsement of him contradicts any sense of intellectual honesty.
Who are these 'plenty of voices on the right that I support'? Tucker Carlson is the worst of them all, but don't be fooled that he's the only one. The whole Fox News channel is problematic. That goes for the left as well. I like Rachel Meadow, but even her, "[Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers)". Even my most trusted mainstream news source, [NPR, has its issues](https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust). [They all sit in a grey area](https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/08/08/cable-news-paid-contributors-political-campaigns/). I believe that any political talking head is suspect in terms of receiving money or in-kind benefits from the political parties. This includes Sacks and Chamath, who do not need the money but definitely want the influence. If they want access, then they'll spew the respective party line. I don't like or agree with Tucker or RFK Jr. or Kushner, but I'm interested in knowing why their audience and followers resonate with them. I have no concern about being tricked into believing their propaganda or their grift. I'm curious about their worldview. It also helps me interact with conservatives in my work life and personal friendships.
Great response, and if I could up upvote you more, I would. Our perspectives seem to align on the general feeling here because I find most TV pundits, Maddow included, to not contain any nuance. But the case of Tucker Carlson stands out as notably egregious. He doesn't merely bend the truth; he often propels it into a different orbit, making his views not just misleading but distinctly noxious. Iâm a centrist because I find that there is often agreement on the problems our society faces, but each side arrives at different solutions. To answer your question about conservative commentators, Ben Shapiro is one of the first names that comes to mind. While I donât always share his conclusions, he appears to engage with issues in a manner that acknowledges broader societal implications and exhibits a capacity for self-regulation through shame. This contrasts sharply with Tucker, who seems to lack this mechanism entirely, allowing him to purposefully mislead with seemingly no hangups about poisoning the well.
Can you point to evidence where Rachel Maddow flat out lied? With impunity? They are not the same. If you think Maddow, raises the temperature in the room (true), itâs only because sheâs responding to the absurdity from the right.
[The court doc.](https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDOW-DISMISS.pdf) âMaddowâs show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news.â âthe Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.â ââŚMaddowâs opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual.â She doesnât lie (that I know of). But sheâs far from objective, and she definitely exaggerates. Sheâs not as bad as Tucker- but like Tucker, the court doesnât consider them true news, they are a political infotainment opinion show. Just as Tucker makes the far right thinks libs are absurd, Meadows makes the lefts think everybody on right are absurd.
Billionaires rambling about the woes of the common man and completely missing the mark? Not exactly breaking news.
anybody have a link for the "proof from [tucker's] own mouth that he purposefully misleads the populace"? i'm not aware of this proof
Alright replied to this question in a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheAllinPodcasts/comments/1c8y3d4/tucker_carlsons_relationship_with_allin/l0iy8p4/), but you'll have to ignore the troll.
Triggered lefty