Finding Common Battle Grounds

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, all three of us wrestle with how to discuss race and racism. We agree that discussions about race are fraught because people equate accusations of racism with evaluations of the morality and self-worth of the individual, particularly if someone is called a racist rather than calling their idea, statement, or perspective racist. To that end, we agreed that discussions about race and racism have to focus on ideas and perspectives rather than on whether an individual is a racist. We also discuss the idea that calling an idea or perspective racist doesn't mean that perspective is at the extreme end of racism, leading to the notion that racist ideas fall along a continuum, from not at all racist to extremely racist. Ideas need to be evaluated on such a scale (e.g., a 10-point scale) in order for us to have reasonable conversations about race and racism. We also discuss the idea that claims of racism tend to elevate someone to a moral high ground, which is problematic in a lot of ways. We think we made headway on this issue and can move forward with discussions about race and racism, but we'll see whether that is the case.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss the claims that Amazon's new series, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, is too woke. We return to our traditional format this time and each poses the other three questions, trying to find common ground. We agree from the outset that the "wokeness" claims center on gender (powerful female leads) and race (a racially diverse cast). We don't agree on Josh's question that "woke scolds" ruin everything. We also agree that Tolkien wrote race into his universe and that, as a product of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the racial hierarchy in his universe is a reflection of the time in which he lived. Josh then argues that the racially diverse cast raised issues of continuity for him with the Peter Jackson movies, though he frames the question as, "Is it ever okay to kill all the people who have a common skin color?" to be a bit more provocative (just a bit!). We don't find agreement on this point as Ryan argues that, once Amazon bought the rights to this, they did not have to stay true to Peter Jackson's vision. (We do all agree that the meme is funny.) We all agree that the producers and directors behind The Rings of Power intentionally cast people who are racially diverse for the show - though, of course, we don't know their actual intentions, but it seems pretty obvious. We then get bogged down into a discussion of whether there are Tolkien fans who like the show. Finally, Josh argues that the producers of The Rings of Power pushed so hard to be "woke" (i.e., to have empowered women and a racially diverse cast) that the rest of the story suffered. We don't agree on this point. Tom provides a summary statement that we do agree on: Amazon is conducting a test to see whether a racially diverse cast and strong female leads will be attractive enough to people that it will make them money. We'll get to see whether the experiment works based on how well The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power does. BONUS: After we wrap up the main content, we then get into a very long discussion about racism. Ryan argues that this episode is a great illustration of how he cannot challenge racial perspectives: He cannot call something Josh says "racist" as that is the equivalent of calling him a member of the KKK, but he also cannot imply (even if he isn't implying it) that something Josh says is racist as that also results in Josh inferring that Ryan thinks he's a racist. It's a lose-lose proposition for Ryan because any challenges to Josh's arguments are immediately interpreted by Josh as though he is a racist, and we all agree that "racist" is the 2020's equivalent of calling someone a Nazi or communist or pedophile. We don't resolve this issue and instead request insights from our listeners.

In S02E17 of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we tackle three questions. First up, we discuss whether Biden's plan to forgive $10k in student loan debt ($20k for Pell Grant recipients) makes sense. We agree that it doesn't solve the problem and is a political move to gain favor with specific voters. We then discuss the recent incident of racist behavior toward a black Duke volleyball player at BYU. There is a lot of disagreement here, including over whether it even happened. Finally, we discuss recent polling data suggesting close to 80% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. We agree that this is mostly tied to inflation and the cost of gas/energy.

In Episode 16 of Season 2, we once again employed our grab bag approach as moderator Tom came prepared with four questions (and a bonus question at the end). The first question we discussed was whether the LDS Church should require all clergy to be mandatory reporters when it comes to sex abuse, meaning they would have to report people who confess to abusing others to the police. We agree on that one. We then discussed what it means that Liz Cheney lost her primary race in Wyoming, with varied thoughts on what this says about the Republican Party in the US. The next question was about Zoe Kravitz's recent attempt to claw back her statements about Will Smith's Oscars slap and the challenging climate that exists when it comes to cancel culture and censorship. Josh initially insists that it is primarily the left that is canceling people while Ryan provides demonstrable evidence that the right is currently censoring people where they have power. We ultimately agree that both sides are currently trying to silence their opposition, which is evidence of a scary time when freedom of speech is being threatened. We end the podcast with a discussion of fertility and whether people in the US should be having more children, recognizing that the argument that kids are good for the economy is terrible. Stay tuned for the bonus content, which Josh is convinced most people will find more interesting than the rest of the podcast.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we went with a grab bag approach where the moderator, Tom, posed a number of questions and Josh and Ryan addressed them in turn. First up was whether facial recognition software that is being used by some corporations to track shoplifters is okay. We all agree that is a bit complicated, but probably okay for private corporations, less so for governments. We then discussed Dutch farmers and their protests against the changes that their government is forcing on them to address climate change. We agree that the intent of the politicians is good but that the politicians have not thought this through well enough. In a tangent, Ryan calls Josh out for labeling everyone he dislikes an elitist and asks Josh to finally define that term. It takes until the end of the episode before Josh admits that he really just means politicians (i.e., people who think they know what is best for everyone else and try to get power to make them do that). Ergo, Ryan, with his PhD and Tesla, is not an elitist. Tom then asks us whether Putin is a mad genius who planned a long-term, protracted war in Ukraine all along. We generally agree that was not his plan, but Putin does appear to be changing tactics now. Finally, we discuss the difficulties facing San Francisco, Seattle, and some other cities that have seen increases in crime rates. We don't entirely agree on this point, with Josh suggesting that these cities will eventually turn into hell-holes like "Escape from New York" or "Mad Max" (okay; that's a bit of an exaggeration) while Ryan points out that they are already trying to address the problems. And - BONUS content!

We went with a rapid-fire, multi-topic approach this week. We started with whether people should still be wearing masks. We agreed that people should wear masks if they are sick, but wearing masks to avoid getting sick, unless done properly, isn't really effective. We then turned to a discussion of Ron DeSantis and whether he would win the Republican primary and the general election. Ryan doesn't think Trump will run; Josh isn't sure. If Trump runs, it will be competitive and we were mixed on who would win. If it is DeSantis versus Biden, we agreed DeSantis would probably win. But it depends on who the Democratic candidate is whether DeSantis will win or not. Tom then asked us if we thought China was going to surpass the US economically. Both Josh and Ryan agreed that is possible and probable, but were less concerned with whether that would be a major problem for the US. Finally, we discussed whether working from home was going to continue after the pandemic. Both Josh and Ryan agreed that there will be more people working from home and that the pandemic helped transition some people to working from home permanently.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss whether the US government should urge corporations to drill for more oil in light of currently very high gas prices. Josh and Ryan agree that pollution is bad! (That was a really tough point of agreement!) They also agreed that drilling for oil is not going to solve the immediate problem since developing oil fields and drilling platforms can take years or decades. They agree that, while green energy can still have some harmful environmental impacts, it is "greener" than fossil fuels and that the ultimate goal of any administration and all of humanity should be to move toward greener energy solutions. We also agree that oil companies are going to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders and that is unlikely to be voluntarily reducing oil prices or drilling for more oil. Finally, we agree that a lot of the agitation for immediately drilling for more oil is political as it is hurting politicians' (mostly Democrats) polling numbers.

In light of the recent decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade (and Casey), we discuss the Dobbs decision and whether this indicates that the Supreme Court is made up of activist judges. Josh and Ryan agree that the Dobbs decision undid prior legal precedent legalizing abortion and that the Dobbs decision does not comment on whether abortion should be legal at the federal level but rather moves the legality of abortion to the states. Josh and Ryan also agreed that the legal justification for Roe was not particularly strong (arguing for abortion on privacy grounds). Josh argued that the Dobbs decision was less activist than Roe or Casey as it didn't stipulate how the law should be interpreted but instead punted the decision to state legislatures. Ryan didn't agree on that point. Begrudgingly, Josh had to agree that the Dobbs decision stipulated that there is no federal right to life for women once they become pregnant, but he thought that point was overly technical and would not be the effect of the decision because states would write legislation that protected women. Ultimately, we all agree that the Supreme Court is now a political body made up of activists.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss the great replacement conspiracy theory that was influential in a recent race-based mass shooting in Buffalo, New York. We agree that the racial and ethnic makeup of the US is changing and we agree that the changes that are happening are due to fundamental demographic forces - births, deaths, and migrations. We also agree that there is no secret cabal behind these changes, though Josh (and Tom) suggest that progressives may be more open to migration than are conservatives because migrants are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. We also agree that the great replacement conspiracy theory is blatantly and unapologetically racist. We end up agreeing on most everything in this episode. At the end, we have a lengthy discussion about whether migration warrants concern and why. Plus, there is some bonus content!

In this short episode, we discuss whether Donald Trump will be elected to the presidency again in 2024. All agree that Trump now has a stranglehold on the Republican Party and that he is still very relevant to politics in the US. Ryan pushes Josh and Tom to examine whether Trump will win the Republican primary, assuming he runs. The other front-runner, Ron DeSantis, seems like the only possible candidate who has a chance against Trump at the present. None of us feel certain that Trump would beat DeSantis, but it is definitely possible given how sycophantic Trump's followers are. As far as Democratic opponents, we all agree that Biden should not run again, but we could not think of who a viable Democratic candidate would be. The obvious choice, Kamala Harris, does not seem to be all that popular at the moment. Unless the Democratic Party can find a charismatic candidate and economic indicators trend upward, we generally agreed that it seems as though the Republican candidate is likely to win in 2024.