Memo to Helen: the Covid fear pushers were wrong about most everything. HCQ + Zinc (Reisch - Yale). The mortality rate >1% (Ionidis Stanford.) The Jab (John’s Hopkins reduction in immunity.) Masking (Cochrane study). Natural Immunity (The Greeks). Lockdowns = massive depression & suicides, etc. So YEAH. I’d like a big fat apology for all the totalitarian idiocy.
Bari, I am an early reader and cheerleader for you and as a single woman breaking barriers on Wall St-- your stepping away from NYT to substack and now Free Press was inspiring for me. Now, I have to question what I see is a disturbing trend in your content. This podcast hit it for me---- It was full of the author's bias and you, as an interviewer, didn't ring in. When the author discredits scientists like Weinstein and says the vaccine is "safe", that is when the interviewer needs to push back, offer the facts and realities, separate out the biases for the audience. You did none of that. Given the wave of focus and attacks on podcasts and their misinformation, perhaps your strategy is now going the commercial route. Please follow your own guidance on Courage. We need you to have courage now more than ever. Its been the very reason I am a paid subscriber. Without your courage, your content is another commercial.
I was definitely disappointed with the entire discussion about the IDW. What a lazy caricature of Bret Weinstein and his carefully reasoned COVID conclusions. He and Heather have been right again and again, and they deserve better from the FP. I would encourage everyone to listen to his response toward the end of the most recent Dark Horse podcast. I can’t help but wonder if something personal is behind it all, with Heather resigning from the University of Austin board and all. Anyway, I’ve been with the FP since the beginning, and I have come to expect better.
One of the few (if any) lazy & inaccurate pieces produced by Bari that I’ve heard. The guest demonstrated a lack of critical analysis skills or an ideologically driven agenda- likely both.
The mischaracterization of the Covid response and those that opposed the Covid vaccine mismanagement was probably the most despicable and lazy portion- although the Kendi adulation was also difficult to listen to.
I am so disappointed by this podcast and its opinions. The fact Bari would even entertain Helen Lewis and her non-supported opinions of some super smart scientists and very successful authors and podcasters, tells me Bari is losing her way and headed back to mainstream media. Things are so much more comfortable and easy back in the middle ground. Bari they threw you out like a piece of trash, don’t forget that. Helen Lewis was 6 years old when Dr. Fauci was manhandling the Aids crisis to the benefit of the drug companies… Really Bari?
Wow, this was truly awful. And I say this as (normally) a big fan of Bari and The Free Press. Did Bari just gulp down a whole bottle of blue pills? The guest - and Bari! - just dimiss ANY opinions counter to the standard narrative as a bunch of crackpots. She gives health authorities an "A-" for their covid response. And Bari just happily goes along with the whole thing?!
I listened until she called Lex Fridman a guru......if you've ever listened to his podcasts it's obvious he does not have any of her 'guru traits'. Having a successful pod and having a large audience doesn't mean you're a guru - it means a ton of people see value in it.
I realized in that moment - she was dedicated to her narrative only.
Must be hard for Helen to be one of the journo herd that didn't take the big risk and go out on their on and create successful podcasts or substacks. Fortune favors the bold. But some of the herd always will resent that the bold have done better than them and resort to becoming critics to make themselves feel superior to the bold.
This was difficult to listen to for many reasons, but, again, the left always shows their bias. I would love for Bari to have a discussion with someone like Ben Sharpero, or my favorate, Andrew Klavan.
I listened to the entire podcast and while I respect Helen Lewis, I think she offers a narrative here that is disappointing and tainted by her own confirmation bias. Lewis posits this newly coined definition of "Guru" which appears to be another example of the pseudo intellectual theories that are rampant in our society today. Theories that are interesting and make sense at first glance, but have no foundation.
To begin with, her use of the term Guru, (a term intended for an individual who sincerely shares spiritual wisdom), is defined in her narrative in ways that clearly describe something closer to occult leader and con-artist. Not to say there is no history of disingenuous people posing as gurus, however, that fact does not change the intended meaning of the word, (this is perhaps a reflection of her view of spiritual teachers through an atheist lens).
Further, her application of this theory is wrought with bias. Lewis states that the core traits of the "guru" is galaxy brain, grievance mongering, overt vulnerability, anti-establishment and the mantra "never criticize me". The interesting thing to me is that Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are the primary focus of this discussion of gurus, but I've never heard any of them take a "never question me approach", they passionately defend their perspectives in thoughtful ways but on multiple occasions I've heard them change their mind or soften their perspective when faced with a factual counter-point. I personally respect their approach to intellectual exploration even when I don't agree with their view.
The discussion also ignores that the "outsider/vulnerability' piece in each of these cases were not self-ascribed as a part of an act, but were based on legitimate injustices that were inflicted on their careers. Injustices that run counter to basic principles of academia and free speech. Meanwhile, the only person mentioned in this interview who has repeatedly expressed a "never criticize me" edict, gets a grade of A- for his handling of the pandemic.
I think Lewis is an intelligent individual and there is much that she writes that I agree with and many points in this interview that I think she gets right. However, I was disappointed in Bari's wholesale acceptance of Lewis' new definition of guru, and particularly the unnuanced dissection of Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein.
It's interesting to me that I subscribe to The Free Press, have gifted a subscription as well and shared numerous Honestly interviews with friends, family and co-workers all while praising Bari Weiss, yet the way I found out about her is by hearing her praised by the three people above she has indicted as "gurus" in this interview.
What if the phenomenon here that is worth our examination as a society is not this ill-constructed theory of the modern "guru". What if the more important exploration is asking why David Fuller and millions of other educated, and good hearted people need to worship people who are genuinely exploring and sharing ideas as part of their own imperfect journey.
Without much effort, I can review past work of Helen Lewis and Bari Weiss, and use this silly construct to make an argument that they are themselves the modern gurus they hunt. But I don't want that, because I value and respect Lewis and Weiss and their contribution to our society. I also value Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein, not because they always get it right, but because they kept the dialogue open during a period when it really looked like it was going to be extinguished, and by the way, the success of the Free Press and the very recent re-balancing of the Atlantic Monthly is built on the personal risk that these imperfect individuals and others took when it was a lot harder to decent than it is today.
I love Bari Weiss, and the Free Press, but I don't know Bari Weiss and I have developed no para-social relationship with her in my mind. Does that mean she is not a guru? Does the fact that their is almost undoubtedly people out their who have created a para-social relationship with her in their minds make her a guru. The construct is faulty, like so much in our society today that focuses, and lays blame on the "Activating Event" and ignores the "Beliefs and Consequences" that are forged within the mind of the beholder. Albert Ellis got a lot of this right forty years ago, yet we have doubled down on the dysfunctional side of the equation today. Creating endless lists of "triggers", "offenses" and "demons", while ignoring the need to self-regulate and coexist.
In my opinion, using the definition of guru offered by Lewis, is just another way to identify the "other", the "demon" and unfortunately, that jeopardizes the greater societal dialogue. If you disagree with someone, say why and support your why with facts, but call them by their name while you're doing it, don't allow yourself to dehumanize them in your mind by calling them "guru" or some other childish other-term.
Friends at Free Press and Honestly, thank you for all you do. Thank you for keeping the dialogue alive. In the shifting sands of intellectual discourse, it is easy to worry that you're losing perspective, especially when some suggest that their are no facts and everything is a construct. My humble recommendation is to schedule an interview with Dr. Karen Reivich of U-Penn's Positive Psychology Center. Her resiliency program work is tremendously important and extremely grounding.
Memo to Helen: the Covid fear pushers were wrong about most everything. HCQ + Zinc (Reisch - Yale). The mortality rate >1% (Ionidis Stanford.) The Jab (John’s Hopkins reduction in immunity.) Masking (Cochrane study). Natural Immunity (The Greeks). Lockdowns = massive depression & suicides, etc. So YEAH. I’d like a big fat apology for all the totalitarian idiocy.
Bari, I am an early reader and cheerleader for you and as a single woman breaking barriers on Wall St-- your stepping away from NYT to substack and now Free Press was inspiring for me. Now, I have to question what I see is a disturbing trend in your content. This podcast hit it for me---- It was full of the author's bias and you, as an interviewer, didn't ring in. When the author discredits scientists like Weinstein and says the vaccine is "safe", that is when the interviewer needs to push back, offer the facts and realities, separate out the biases for the audience. You did none of that. Given the wave of focus and attacks on podcasts and their misinformation, perhaps your strategy is now going the commercial route. Please follow your own guidance on Courage. We need you to have courage now more than ever. Its been the very reason I am a paid subscriber. Without your courage, your content is another commercial.
I was definitely disappointed with the entire discussion about the IDW. What a lazy caricature of Bret Weinstein and his carefully reasoned COVID conclusions. He and Heather have been right again and again, and they deserve better from the FP. I would encourage everyone to listen to his response toward the end of the most recent Dark Horse podcast. I can’t help but wonder if something personal is behind it all, with Heather resigning from the University of Austin board and all. Anyway, I’ve been with the FP since the beginning, and I have come to expect better.
One of the few (if any) lazy & inaccurate pieces produced by Bari that I’ve heard. The guest demonstrated a lack of critical analysis skills or an ideologically driven agenda- likely both.
The mischaracterization of the Covid response and those that opposed the Covid vaccine mismanagement was probably the most despicable and lazy portion- although the Kendi adulation was also difficult to listen to.
I could not agree more.
I am so disappointed by this podcast and its opinions. The fact Bari would even entertain Helen Lewis and her non-supported opinions of some super smart scientists and very successful authors and podcasters, tells me Bari is losing her way and headed back to mainstream media. Things are so much more comfortable and easy back in the middle ground. Bari they threw you out like a piece of trash, don’t forget that. Helen Lewis was 6 years old when Dr. Fauci was manhandling the Aids crisis to the benefit of the drug companies… Really Bari?
Wow, this was truly awful. And I say this as (normally) a big fan of Bari and The Free Press. Did Bari just gulp down a whole bottle of blue pills? The guest - and Bari! - just dimiss ANY opinions counter to the standard narrative as a bunch of crackpots. She gives health authorities an "A-" for their covid response. And Bari just happily goes along with the whole thing?!
Interesting how she's positioned herself as the guru on gurus......
I listened until she called Lex Fridman a guru......if you've ever listened to his podcasts it's obvious he does not have any of her 'guru traits'. Having a successful pod and having a large audience doesn't mean you're a guru - it means a ton of people see value in it.
I realized in that moment - she was dedicated to her narrative only.
Must be hard for Helen to be one of the journo herd that didn't take the big risk and go out on their on and create successful podcasts or substacks. Fortune favors the bold. But some of the herd always will resent that the bold have done better than them and resort to becoming critics to make themselves feel superior to the bold.
The name "Donald Trump" is missing here.
This was, by FAR, the most boring and uninteresting post on this site! I couldn't even finish it because it had no relevance to my life.
This was difficult to listen to for many reasons, but, again, the left always shows their bias. I would love for Bari to have a discussion with someone like Ben Sharpero, or my favorate, Andrew Klavan.
I listened to the entire podcast and while I respect Helen Lewis, I think she offers a narrative here that is disappointing and tainted by her own confirmation bias. Lewis posits this newly coined definition of "Guru" which appears to be another example of the pseudo intellectual theories that are rampant in our society today. Theories that are interesting and make sense at first glance, but have no foundation.
To begin with, her use of the term Guru, (a term intended for an individual who sincerely shares spiritual wisdom), is defined in her narrative in ways that clearly describe something closer to occult leader and con-artist. Not to say there is no history of disingenuous people posing as gurus, however, that fact does not change the intended meaning of the word, (this is perhaps a reflection of her view of spiritual teachers through an atheist lens).
Further, her application of this theory is wrought with bias. Lewis states that the core traits of the "guru" is galaxy brain, grievance mongering, overt vulnerability, anti-establishment and the mantra "never criticize me". The interesting thing to me is that Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are the primary focus of this discussion of gurus, but I've never heard any of them take a "never question me approach", they passionately defend their perspectives in thoughtful ways but on multiple occasions I've heard them change their mind or soften their perspective when faced with a factual counter-point. I personally respect their approach to intellectual exploration even when I don't agree with their view.
The discussion also ignores that the "outsider/vulnerability' piece in each of these cases were not self-ascribed as a part of an act, but were based on legitimate injustices that were inflicted on their careers. Injustices that run counter to basic principles of academia and free speech. Meanwhile, the only person mentioned in this interview who has repeatedly expressed a "never criticize me" edict, gets a grade of A- for his handling of the pandemic.
I think Lewis is an intelligent individual and there is much that she writes that I agree with and many points in this interview that I think she gets right. However, I was disappointed in Bari's wholesale acceptance of Lewis' new definition of guru, and particularly the unnuanced dissection of Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein.
It's interesting to me that I subscribe to The Free Press, have gifted a subscription as well and shared numerous Honestly interviews with friends, family and co-workers all while praising Bari Weiss, yet the way I found out about her is by hearing her praised by the three people above she has indicted as "gurus" in this interview.
What if the phenomenon here that is worth our examination as a society is not this ill-constructed theory of the modern "guru". What if the more important exploration is asking why David Fuller and millions of other educated, and good hearted people need to worship people who are genuinely exploring and sharing ideas as part of their own imperfect journey.
Without much effort, I can review past work of Helen Lewis and Bari Weiss, and use this silly construct to make an argument that they are themselves the modern gurus they hunt. But I don't want that, because I value and respect Lewis and Weiss and their contribution to our society. I also value Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein, not because they always get it right, but because they kept the dialogue open during a period when it really looked like it was going to be extinguished, and by the way, the success of the Free Press and the very recent re-balancing of the Atlantic Monthly is built on the personal risk that these imperfect individuals and others took when it was a lot harder to decent than it is today.
I love Bari Weiss, and the Free Press, but I don't know Bari Weiss and I have developed no para-social relationship with her in my mind. Does that mean she is not a guru? Does the fact that their is almost undoubtedly people out their who have created a para-social relationship with her in their minds make her a guru. The construct is faulty, like so much in our society today that focuses, and lays blame on the "Activating Event" and ignores the "Beliefs and Consequences" that are forged within the mind of the beholder. Albert Ellis got a lot of this right forty years ago, yet we have doubled down on the dysfunctional side of the equation today. Creating endless lists of "triggers", "offenses" and "demons", while ignoring the need to self-regulate and coexist.
In my opinion, using the definition of guru offered by Lewis, is just another way to identify the "other", the "demon" and unfortunately, that jeopardizes the greater societal dialogue. If you disagree with someone, say why and support your why with facts, but call them by their name while you're doing it, don't allow yourself to dehumanize them in your mind by calling them "guru" or some other childish other-term.
Friends at Free Press and Honestly, thank you for all you do. Thank you for keeping the dialogue alive. In the shifting sands of intellectual discourse, it is easy to worry that you're losing perspective, especially when some suggest that their are no facts and everything is a construct. My humble recommendation is to schedule an interview with Dr. Karen Reivich of U-Penn's Positive Psychology Center. Her resiliency program work is tremendously important and extremely grounding.
"Thought Leader" is after all one of the signature phrases of the 21st century, here in the United States of America.
why are 95% of commenters from the right (or anti-left) when the podcasts are pretty centrist?
I always have trouble spelling "sycophant", but this article is the long-form definition