Speaker 2
I think, okay. Yeah, I think like, you know, I recently listened to your, your discussion on representation in this notion that if you're talking about a particular topic, that might, you know, involve someone that isn't, you know, that is a different identity than you or Mark or, or, you know, Seth, you know, for example, like on the abortion debate, you know, whether or not it's good to have, you should have a woman participating in it. I think the thing that was just interesting to hear about the conversation that's, I think, very unique is the way in which, you know, you all spend the first, you know, 10, 15 minutes and this is typical, I think of basically every conversation you have trying to give a variety of perspectives and giving, trying to give as strong a perspective as possible to, you know, people that might disagree with you. And I think that that sort of modeling was really interesting for me to hear, you know, especially when I, you know, just going back to imagining, you know, picturing myself as a high school student first discovering this. It was just not something that I was used to hearing. Because normally it's like people have a perspective, they share their perspective, they fight and they argue if they disagree, they disagree, and that's it versus like taking this concerted effort to like try and reconstruct, you know, someone's argument that you might disagree with.
Speaker 1
think it would be very helpful. This is the way I think rhetoric used to be taught in the ancient times they would make you
Speaker 1
opposition's point of view first, right? You were, you were, you were supposed to be able to argue both sides of the question, which is part of what led to accusations of, you know, sophistry and making the weaker argument seem the better and the better argument seem the weaker, those sorts of things that got Socrates himself in trouble.
Speaker 4
But, but yeah, I think with,
Speaker 1
with that particular episode, Mark and I strongly disagreed. He actually, we have a Slack channel where we communicate about, you know, logistics for the show. And he said it's absurd that Wes doesn't think we should have a woman on the show for the abortion episode. I got pissed off and then we decided to have this little
Speaker 4
debate. And, and I've
Speaker 1
been writing and thinking about it a lot, but yeah, part of what I do when I write about it is I,
Speaker 1
my gut instinct and the thinking I've done on it, you know, is I'm, I think there's a lot of flaws to the, what I think of as the representationalist point of view, but I can't, it, that starts out as a kind of a, you know, there's always more thought to be done about it. And I, so I always start out by trying to give the strongest possible version of the view that I think I oppose. And sometimes I come close to convincing myself. It's kind of disappointing. I'm like, oh, maybe I'm, maybe I didn't, maybe I'm wrong actually. But, and, you know, it always turns out there, one is wrong about certain aspects of the argument. So in that particular show, I
Speaker 1
think I started out by giving what I thought was a strong, you know, I started out by giving the opposing point of view.
Speaker 4
And then Mark tried
Speaker 1
to give my, my point of view. So, so that, and I think, yeah, if people, that would be a great concept for a show, actually, just that could be a whole show. Yeah, you take two people, show about politics, but have them argue the opposing point of view with each other.