At the start of the big war Fridman went on podcasts as an expert on the conflict and all he did was re-translate russian talking points. He's way worse than hypocrite.
To be fair, he's not alone, a good half of IDW - group supposedly too intelligent and principled for mainstream media - turned out to be neither intelligent, nor principled, when those qualities got tested by real world events instead of social network drama.
Tbh, I never understood the whole hype about IDW. Sam Harris is the only one worth respecting there, whereas Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro are both absolutely disgusting.
I found most of them did have at least one interesting take or a perspective. Listening to people able to talk on serious topic for hours going deep into nuance was refreshing. And then there was Eric Weinstein, who could do that on seemingly endless array of topics and would casually drop gold after gold, before he got stuck on his DISC thing. But after "Ukraine is being brutalized. It is also corrupt." he is dead to me, of course.
But that's his persona. He never really goes full on, always tries to maintain neutrality. In his interview with that rapper who was saying vile things he just kept talking about love.
Exactly, and maintaining neutrality in the face of absolute evil is immoral. Such neutrality justifies an equivalence between the aggressor and the victim and provides the evil with an advantage, because, suddenly, instead of punishment it will have to be dealt with in a civilised manner.
I see your point, but I'm using the word loosely to refer to internet flamewars about nations. One could also mention the site guideline about ideological battle. Either way, this kind of flamewar comment isn't what we're looking for here, not least because it tends to evoke worse than others (although it didn't do so in this particular case).
