This week on Blocked and Reported, Katie is joined by Ben Dreyfuss to discuss what it’s like to grow up poor. Plus, Mother Jones, #MeToo, and why he will not be inviting Madison Cawthorne to his orgy.
Just reached the part of the show where they are talking about Taylor Lorenz. I don't care for her, but I do respect Ben's loyalty. You never forget who stood by you when you were at bottom. I'm not going to abandon real friends who really helped me and my critters when I was 5150'd.
Yep, it speaks well of both of them, I think. Ben, too. Very gracious reply to Katie's question about whether Taylor would defend him. Ben may sound unhinged on Twitter, but he's a real class act.
While I absolutely cannot stand Taylor, I suspect that for her being an insufferable c*nt is more of an online or public persona than an actual personality. When Trace wrote about how being a furry sort of became his identity online, I immediately thought of Taylor Lorenz and how this might just be the same.
I think it would be understandable to maintain friendships/relationship with a regular Joe who has unhinged political/social views. Because they are usually just regurgitating talking points from whatever media they are consuming. But I think it is different when you are at that elite level of setting the agenda for the conversation for so many people.
I’m not quite sure how to make my point but I just get the sense that Katie was talking about how small, low level friendships and families are being broken up by polarization etc. But I just think that is a different thing than maintaining a supportive relationship with someone at an elite media institution who is influencing such a large audience. When you at the same time are trying to influence the same audience a different way. If behind closed doors you’re personal friends then it makes you appear to be a hypocrite to me.
I think you’re conceptualizing the work of both Dreyfus and Lorenz in ways they would not. They don’t see this as a competition or their audiences as the same. I don’t think there’s much overlap in the people reading either writer’s work.
Having had more time to think about it. I think my feeling is that it is cowardly to cite your personal friendship with someone as a reason to not be critical of their work.
You can’t call yourself a media critic and then say “well I won’t say anything about one of the worst offenders of the things I critique in others because we’re personally friends”.
Probably a good thing too. We tend to frame something a friend does, assuming they're still a friend, in the best light with the best motives.
So an attempt to critique would probably fall flat anyway. Recognizing that and just opting out up front is the most professional way to approach it.
Take the closest friends, spouses. The second spouses start publicly critiquing each other's views, you know the divorce lawyers are already on speed dial.
I would love an interview with Batya, (about her first book as it would fit with the theme of this show). I know she used to guest host rising some times so maybe she could fill in on Briana Joy Gray tea too.
Brianha Joy Gray’s saying “I hope someone drops a bomb on this entire building” after the debate makes me wonder what kind of crazy shit she has said to other employees of The Hill. Is it cancel culture to fire someone who is completely unprofessional?
I think that if we can’t differentiate cancel culture from employees being fired for being unprofessional at work, the term is meaningless. If the receptionist at an office is rude to clients, is it cancel culture to let that person go? If a delivery person is fired for missing deliveries, is that cancel culture? Would it be cancel culture to fire an office worker who sits around on their phone all day instead of doing their job, a salesperson who skips client meetings, or a manager who is disrespectful to their subordinates?
People in the real world can’t get away with a lot of the behavior that people in media can. If I went on LinkedIn and openly denounced my coworkers or bosses by name, I would be rightfully fired. Businesses, including media companies, have reputations to uphold and an obligation to bring in revenue. That means that at work, we have to represent the organization well and ensure that we are being courteous to colleagues and clients.
For me, one or more of the following has to be present for me to consider something a possible case of cancel culture: punishing people for things that take place outside of a professional context, smear campaigns, punishing someone because others in the organization are piling onto or ostracizing them, bringing social media into private professional disputes or disagreements, pressuring others to cut personal ties with someone, punishing people for their personal views as long as those views don’t interfere with their ability to properly perform their job.
Briahna Joy Grey is free to believe whatever she wants, but it’s unprofessional to roll your eyes at an interviewee. *Especially* the sibling of a hostage. If she cannot maintain her composure on air, that is a serious performance issue.
I always thought that a key part of cancel culture was caving to a mob either for something mundane or based on allegations that haven't been substantiated. Firing somebody because they're an insufferable moron is different to me.
> To repurpose an old joke: The difference between a radical anti-Zionist and a moderate anti-Zionist is that a radical anti-Zionist wants to kill you, and a moderate anti-Zionist wants a radical anti-Zionist to kill you.
It's cancel culture, but it's not cancel culture I care much about. I care more about it when it happens to people who are regular day to day people. As opposed to people who have a sizable platform, I care for it less, since it stands to reason they will have opportunities somewhere else.
Also, this is why the original hosts of "Rising," Krystal Ball and Saager, left and formed their own show. It's this very "the show is going to tell you what to say" that pushed them to strike out on their own. BJG will be fine.
I want more stories about Stranger employees hating Dan Savage. I remember a couple Savage Love responses that had some Twitter pile ons, but I hope it was something better.
He honestly sounds a little bit cowed here and afraid he was going to lose his LGBT+ audience. I'm not sure where he's at now - on one hand, in terms of general politics, I think there's been a shift back to the center, but in terms of the LGBT, that still runs very radical identitarian and Dan might have a hard time maintaining that audience. And being a general sex advice columnist in what's turning out to be an increasingly puritanical groomer-discourse age might be difficult too.
I say this as someone who likes Dan Savage, but I think like myself, he's a product of the more open norms of the GenX era, which may not play so well with the youngs. But on the other hand, just pandering to "the current thing" isn't a great look either.
I think to some extent, he ran his course. He really started out in the early 1990s, when gay marriage wasn't on the radar in any serious way and before don't ask, don't tell became the progressive stance. He got married, adopted a kid, and gave a lot of practical advice about how gay kids should deal with their parents in specific instances that was centered around people rather than ideology. He certainly moved things forward during the 90s and 00s but I think he's pretty much won. Not a complete victory of course, but 90% of it, which is about the best you could hope for. He started out being cutting edge but the edge has moved and left him more towards the center. This isn't where TheStranger or the louder activists want to be.
Totally agree. I think if he had a smaller audience he’d fall much closer to Andrew Sullivan’s cranky-gay-man opinions, but he’s way too mainstream for that. Sucks to be syndicated when the culture has shifted so far, I guess.
He’s strikes a good balance on LGBT issues imo. He still audibly rolls his eyes at neopronouns and is willing to mention some “they’s” biological sex when relevant.
He talks a lot about how he sees parallels in the rejection of certain trans kids stories from gay friends who were kicked out at age 15 when they came out. I think his heart is in the right place, and I have a sense that he gets that not all stories about “trans phobic parents” are like this. He advocates mostly trying to work through things with family (referring to his own experience with his mom) rather than just cutting all ties.
I’m sure a lot of baby lgbt tune him out (the type that are not even having sex so probably don’t need his advice lol), but most people are reasonable and understand the nuance. Also he has people like Kat Rosenfeld on his show.
Dan lost this straight-acting, straight-looking gay man many years ago when he went on a loud, pedantic tirade against against people who describe themselves that way.
Did people really not get that he was joking in order to point out the absurdity of the reasons being given to not allow gay marriage? How could they be so dense as to think he really hated fat people?
I agree with you, and I’m not trying to undermine your point in any way, but the answer is “the exact same way that ‘victims’ today misinterpret everything to serve their cause”.
Anyway, it all worked out, Lindy West got a book deal and a tv show out of the whole blow up.
I have the same unreasonable love. He’s like the rich Prince character in Fantasy novels who is still good deep down and he’s exactly the person I wish I was if I was Richard Dreyfuss’ son.
Maybe it’s The Autism(tm), but I don’t understand why people think it’s funny to pull a long con prank where the punch line is “haha, you believe what I’m telling you! You should have realized that I thinking lying is funny!” Like, ok? I guess I don’t trust you then. You just told me I should be skeptical of anything you say, so I will. Which meant I was doubtful of everything that Ben said went down at MJ. Maybe I shouldn’t have been, but once someone says they lie for the lulz, they’ve basically made sure I’m going need extra proof for me to believe them.
Not my favorite episode, but it seemed like Katie and Ben were having a good time.
I didn’t care for it either. He wasn’t a co-host so they didn’t present any original reporting, it wasn't a particularly interesting interview (what’s it like to grow up rich? really?), and so it was a series of softball questions to which all his answers were very witty - to him most of all.
I was totally confused when he was reading the thing about his fake wife and Katie was laughing. I still don’t get what the joke is and it seems that no one else did either.
Like, this dude keeps saying his jokes are only misunderstood because his dad is famous. But I didn’t even know he was Richard Dreyfus’s son when I first saw him on Twitter and I still miss the punchline. I think if your jokes are routinely getting misunderstood as much as this guy’s are there may be a problem with your delivery. I find it pretty lame when comedians blame their audience for not laughing.
I don’t think the punchline was haha I’m lying, it was more like how is everyone going to react if I say totally inappropriate things for this context. Which maybe you still don’t think is funny, but it’s not ha I lied.
"Allegations of racism are less powerful than allegations of antisemitism" girl what are you talking about? Seriously? I don't know anyone who can openly identify as zionist, do you? I know plenty of people who are totally comfortable publicly advocating for the violent destruction of the world's only Jewish state, who cry over hostages being rescued, who say 10/7 was either justified or didn't happen, and who freely regurgitate antisemitic conspiracy theories about how Jews are all secretly Russians who were complicit in the Shoah to get sympathy for Israel. But you think people are scared of accusations of antisemitism? If I even tried telling someone that saying "Jews are the real Nazis" was antisemitic they would laugh in my face and tell me Arabs are the real semites lmao. Not only is it completely acceptable to endorse antisemitism publicly, they don't even want us to have the language to describe racialized hatred against Jews- hence the intentional distortions and weaponization of the words we use to describe our history: antisemitism, Holocaust, Nazis, pogroms. During a time when so few people care at all about antisemitism (coincidentally also a time when antisemitic hate crimes have skyrocketed) I think this was a pretty lame take.
I'm gonna add that maybe your generation has mellowed out but I'm in gen z and we've only gotten more radical regarding specifically anti black racism (the only real kind, according to my classmates). To these people, saying you aren't racist is in of itself racist. In an environment in which you're racist for complimenting a black person's hair but can say things like "go back to Poland" to (ironically, often Mizrahi) Jews, you're telling me that people care about antisemitism? We're white colonizers. Literally anything we say is automatically dismissed. I was told by a former friend that she would be dismissing anything I say because "since you're Jewish, you've probably been propagandized by hasbara." I.e., because I'm Jewish I am less qualified to speak about Jewish history than a non-Jew. Try that with a black person.
Yeah. Because the whole thesis of antisemitism is that Jews are secretly controlling everything behind the scenes, any attempt to refute it gets you the same reaction you’ll get when attempting to refute other conspiracy theories. (Ironically it was Katie who had the best quote about this aspect of conspiracy theories—that they’re “self-sealing.”)
So if you’re Jewish and trying to refute these claims (whatever they happen to be), you’re just trying to fool the haplessly innocent rest of the world. If you’re not Jewish, you must be in our pay. Self-sealing. Thank god, I’ve started taking long daily walks in the woods.
Ahaha exactly! We see the rise in antisemitism but if we try to educate others about antisemitism or create the same DEI task forces (which, for the record, I don't think we should do) that other minority groups have, it's proof that we exercise disproportionate power in society. Which is why everyone's retreating back into the community. We won't beat the cabal allegations unfortunately but we'll always have the woods. Wishing a meaningful Shavuot to you if you're observing this year.
Thank you so much for the good wishes—my warm wishes to you too.
I haven’t been observant since my early 20s, but after 10/7, my husband and I started incorporating more of the rituals we like. Thus, today we baked a cheesecake for the first time ever.
Wishing you safety and sanity in an absolutely batshit world.
Hmmm.. I am a pretty normal-ish American person, and I’m not sure I can think of a single real place in my actual day to day life where I could voice openly antisemitic sentiments without experiencing bad consequences of at least the momentary social opprobrium sort. Possibly the only exception would be with a few long time conservative friends , but then they fervently support Israel in this war.
Sure, you can’t say Jews are the spawn of Satan without social consequences. But you can say that the Israel lobby controls everything that happens in America, and be just fine.
I agree. I just got around to listening to this episode and I’m glad I’m not alone. He seems extremely pompous, his voice is annoying, and listening to him crack himself up every 20 seconds or so — mostly over stuff that wasn’t funny — was making me want to throw my phone out the window.
It would be one thing if he had anything particularly interesting or insightful to say, but he really didn’t! I found this episode extremely boring. I genuinely can’t believe that this conversation lasted for over an hour.
Katie talks a good game about how the gatekeepers in the media should do more to give a platform to people from public schools, community colleges, and blue-collar backgrounds. Yet, as BARpod grows in power and influence, she chooses to host Ben Dreyfuss, possibly the worst offender in the media of someone whose accomplishments owe more to his connections than to merit.
A great podcast introduces interesting people with life histories that inspire. Are we commoners supposed to feel anything from the words of someone who has nothing meaningful to add to the world other than edgy snark they were able to spew to millions because of the doors that magically opened for them?
The article about nepotism last year that launched a movement highlighted how Dakota Johnson stood up to Ellen, a move that many others would have made if not for fear of retribution. She did it because she doesn’t understand that fear. This concept applies to Ben. While his sarcasm is creative, it is not unique. He is on par with what thousands of other people achieve at open mic poetry readings. But the confidence he derives from his last name allows him to push boundaries that those concerned with their reputations hesitate to cross.
If opportunities were truly equal, Richard’s son would struggle to find a role beyond moderating a Stranger Things subreddit. His presence on this podcast undermines its credibility and purpose.
Meh, the purpose of this podcast is to entertain me and I find Ben fun & entertaining. Moreover, he’s a walking nexus of Hollywood & news-media insider information. That, alongside his ability to tell a story, make him a great podcast guest and interview.
That he never knew my struggles as a poor and I’m kinda envious of him for that is the most boring thing about him.
I’m gonna push back a lot and suggest that the whole “Nepotism” hysteria is just gussied up resentment and grievance mongering with its own tinge of enlightened outrage. Why? A: No one, and I mean NO ONE gets very far on the basis of their last name only. (Is every one named “Kardashian” a “success”, because they have millions of IG followers? That’s not success outside of the shallowest of measure. Who cares who gets or claims that kind of success? If you give a shit about that, one way or the other, you, too, are shallow. Get a hobby.) B: Nepotism is actually fine and is how human culture has always worked, and worked pretty good. Your Dad was a blacksmith, so you get to be a blacksmith. Really not the problem.
A) They may not get there on name only but they get opportunities other people do not and that breeds understandable resentment because it isn't fair. Of course its just one of many things in life that isn't fair.
B) Nepotism is not good. If you are going to use blacksmiths as an example I'll counter with monarchy. Also there is quite a difference between learning a trade from being a child to having your mums name mean you can walk through doors more easily. The best you can say is nepotism is natural and not necessarily inherently bad, to say its good is ridiculous.
MY response was maybe a little over the top, but still, not wrong. Here's the thing: A: Yes, obvi celebrities' spawn get opportunities others don't. But, as you say, Life ain't fair. Big deal. I think we all come to recognize that early on and accept it. More to my point: "Nepotism" gets your foot in the door, but you don't get that second chance (or third chance) if you don't have real talent. (Examples too numerous to mention.) B: There's a huge difference between Economic "nepotism" and Creative nepotism: Economic nepotism IS bad, and serves to solidify class structure, to the ultimate detriment of society, and should be complained about, fought against, lessened, for the good of society. Creative nepotism, on the other hand, (i.e., celebrity kids getting movie roles, publishing deals, record contracts) really does sort itself out pretty quickly, and isn't worth complaining about. (I.e., if you can't act, sing, or write, you really don't become a success. Regardless of your bloodline.) My .02 cents.
Fair enough I agree. Also the creative industry is such a closed shop now its hard for me to get riled up about rich kid A missing an opportunity because rich kid B has a famous parent.
With creative nepotism, it’s very hard to parse out a nepo baby actor who is successful because of their name vs their inherent talent they got from ma or pa. Probably a little of both. Who cares?
Ben is a clear example supporting your point. This shit sorts itself out. He failed as an actor.
As for economic nepotism, those kids don’t need to do shit. They could do finger painting in Costa Rica, their parents’ trust fund will ensure their viability.
Which is exactly what everyone of us would do if we had the means no matter how useless our kids are.
This is a particularly disgusting, and atrocious opinion. The children of previously famous people should be delegated to lesser roles so that all opportunities are "truly" equal? And Ben Dreyfuss, son of washed up actor Richard Dreyfuss, is possibly the worst offender of nepotism in the media? The problem with nepotism and news media is the amount of politicians in it, not Hollywood actors sons. Hands down some of the worst offenses of nepotism in news media were the Cuomo's. Ben doesn't even make it on the radar as he's got an actual career of holding down news media positions by doing the work.
One of the overarching themes of the show is to stop with the hyperbole. It makes you look foolish to pretend that everything is the worst, ever. Another is to not just write people off because of some bias someone somewhere might have. They have open invitations to people to come talk about disagreements that have previously been aired on social media. But to invite Ben Dreyfuss undermines the credibility of the pod, and the purpose that you've assigned it?
I'm not really surprised, given who you are responding to. There have been episodes that I chose not to listen to all the way through because it was just not my thing. Big deal. Especially when you're not paying a dime to listen.
While I get your point, this has never been the format for B&R. I just think maybe you're looking for something that you will never find with B&R and there are many other podcasts that can provide this. Being able to laugh at clowns can decrease stress and is basically harmless. I'd never want things to change around here.
I agree, they should get Rob Yang on to talk. Megan Murphy managed to book him so I assume he’ll say yes to anything (no drag to Megan Murphy it’s just her YouTube videos get dismal views so I assume she’s not a heavy podcast hitter)
If Bri Bri is a victim of cancel culture for an ON AIR eye roll at a family member of a rape/terrorist kidnapping victim, then Ron Burgundy is a victim of cancel culture for telling San Diego to go fuck itself.
Yes. "Cancel culture" is when you are cancelled for expressing ideas/concepts. Not when you are a television host being clearly disrespectful to a guest on camera, regardless of political persuasion.
(I say this as someone whose crush on BriBri has caused me to overlook some moronic takes.)
I will take a film in a foreign language with subtitles over an English-language film with mumbly dialogue and/or poor sound mixing any day. As long as I’m actually able to know what they’re saying, I’m fine.
Funny thing is: before this episode, I didn’t know his family history. After I learned it, though, I couldn’t not picture his dad laughing every time Ben laughed. Soooooooo similar
yeah I kept thinking that there was going to be a point to the whole "pretending to be cheating on his wife thing" and there just wasn't. And then there was just no point to any of it :-/
I had never heard of him before and this didn't make me interested to learn more.
I used to practically mainline MSNBC. Every single night it was on. Then one day, I just shut if off. This was years before Trump came on the scene. To this day, I'm not exactly sure why. I was still way more liberal then than I am today. It became too formulaic, I guess. And too many damn talking heads. CNN was still what we libs called "Fox Lite" back at the time.
I live in a red state but was vehemently against the Iraq War and everywhere you went at that time (restaurants, doctor's/dentist's offices, etc) Fox News was on. I remember even getting on an elevator once with Fox News playing on a TV mounted in the upper corner. Hence, my initial enthusiasm for MSNBC programming. But one day it just disappeared and I never looked back.
Maddow when it finally dawned on me that no, Trump was not going to be exposed as a Russian asset. Then I just felt stupid, and was disgusted at all the mental energy I had devoted to this bullshit.
I used to listen to her on Air America back in the Pleistocene Era & I really liked her show a lot. I was very excited when she first started appearing on Dan Abrams' show (which was long before MSNBC got so liberal). I think they were trying to compete with CNN which was also much more centrist at the time. Was super excited when she got her own show. I was genuinely happy for her. Of course, the rest is history and now I have no interest in listening to her ever again. She had integrity back then but now she's like a sideshow barker.
Back in the Bush era, I loved it when my fellow lefties would shout and interrupt the other side so they can't complete their sentences. I don't know exactly when I changed my mind, but I now find it incredibly annoying. And if someone does that a lot, my response is to assume they're less likely to know what they're talking about. I don't think my basic political beliefs have changed all that much, it's more about how to express them.
I'm much happier leaving that shouty world behind.
We can all thank Ted Turner for starting 24/7 news. It's so ironic when you consider how much actual news could be covered in 24 hours, 7 days a week.
People might actually benefit by being better informed instead of having the same standardized crap repeated over and over for days on end by multiple people at one time!
But the general populace is more ignorant of world & national events than ever.
I generally dislike when people interrupt me and I afford the same courtesy to anyone I watch. So when I see someone like Joy Ann Reid interrupting a Byron Donalds and I am just like "let the man speak" but the youtube comments are all...REID DESTROYS UNCLE TOM!!!
Uhhh, BARPOD encroaching on Fifth Column territory - I love it!
Ben is like the Ernie Hudson of the Fifth Column, in regards to Ghostbusters.
Just reached the part of the show where they are talking about Taylor Lorenz. I don't care for her, but I do respect Ben's loyalty. You never forget who stood by you when you were at bottom. I'm not going to abandon real friends who really helped me and my critters when I was 5150'd.
It's always amazed me that she's been able to maintain a friendship with Jesse. Like her entire core audience is people who literally *hate* him.
Yep, it speaks well of both of them, I think. Ben, too. Very gracious reply to Katie's question about whether Taylor would defend him. Ben may sound unhinged on Twitter, but he's a real class act.
While I absolutely cannot stand Taylor, I suspect that for her being an insufferable c*nt is more of an online or public persona than an actual personality. When Trace wrote about how being a furry sort of became his identity online, I immediately thought of Taylor Lorenz and how this might just be the same.
I think it would be understandable to maintain friendships/relationship with a regular Joe who has unhinged political/social views. Because they are usually just regurgitating talking points from whatever media they are consuming. But I think it is different when you are at that elite level of setting the agenda for the conversation for so many people.
I’m not quite sure how to make my point but I just get the sense that Katie was talking about how small, low level friendships and families are being broken up by polarization etc. But I just think that is a different thing than maintaining a supportive relationship with someone at an elite media institution who is influencing such a large audience. When you at the same time are trying to influence the same audience a different way. If behind closed doors you’re personal friends then it makes you appear to be a hypocrite to me.
I think you’re conceptualizing the work of both Dreyfus and Lorenz in ways they would not. They don’t see this as a competition or their audiences as the same. I don’t think there’s much overlap in the people reading either writer’s work.
Having had more time to think about it. I think my feeling is that it is cowardly to cite your personal friendship with someone as a reason to not be critical of their work.
You can’t call yourself a media critic and then say “well I won’t say anything about one of the worst offenders of the things I critique in others because we’re personally friends”.
Eh, people recuse themselves professionally from matters they’re personally linked to all the time.
Probably a good thing too. We tend to frame something a friend does, assuming they're still a friend, in the best light with the best motives.
So an attempt to critique would probably fall flat anyway. Recognizing that and just opting out up front is the most professional way to approach it.
Take the closest friends, spouses. The second spouses start publicly critiquing each other's views, you know the divorce lawyers are already on speed dial.
Fair. I’m just being contrarian for the sake of it I think haha
I would love an interview with Batya, (about her first book as it would fit with the theme of this show). I know she used to guest host rising some times so maybe she could fill in on Briana Joy Gray tea too.
so refreshing to see rich kids take a stand together agisnt the street urchins
Yeah but her politics are farther left than some commenters here so that means she can’t possibly be a good friend, or whatever.
Brianha Joy Gray’s saying “I hope someone drops a bomb on this entire building” after the debate makes me wonder what kind of crazy shit she has said to other employees of The Hill. Is it cancel culture to fire someone who is completely unprofessional?
https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1797730484807709168
I think that if we can’t differentiate cancel culture from employees being fired for being unprofessional at work, the term is meaningless. If the receptionist at an office is rude to clients, is it cancel culture to let that person go? If a delivery person is fired for missing deliveries, is that cancel culture? Would it be cancel culture to fire an office worker who sits around on their phone all day instead of doing their job, a salesperson who skips client meetings, or a manager who is disrespectful to their subordinates?
People in the real world can’t get away with a lot of the behavior that people in media can. If I went on LinkedIn and openly denounced my coworkers or bosses by name, I would be rightfully fired. Businesses, including media companies, have reputations to uphold and an obligation to bring in revenue. That means that at work, we have to represent the organization well and ensure that we are being courteous to colleagues and clients.
For me, one or more of the following has to be present for me to consider something a possible case of cancel culture: punishing people for things that take place outside of a professional context, smear campaigns, punishing someone because others in the organization are piling onto or ostracizing them, bringing social media into private professional disputes or disagreements, pressuring others to cut personal ties with someone, punishing people for their personal views as long as those views don’t interfere with their ability to properly perform their job.
Briahna Joy Grey is free to believe whatever she wants, but it’s unprofessional to roll your eyes at an interviewee. *Especially* the sibling of a hostage. If she cannot maintain her composure on air, that is a serious performance issue.
I agree completely.
Well isn't she a complete horror? I imagine she is now watching the peak of her career rapidly fade away in her rear view mirror.
I always thought that a key part of cancel culture was caving to a mob either for something mundane or based on allegations that haven't been substantiated. Firing somebody because they're an insufferable moron is different to me.
Free the Blonde Zionist!
Ha! Noam Blum's comment:
> To repurpose an old joke: The difference between a radical anti-Zionist and a moderate anti-Zionist is that a radical anti-Zionist wants to kill you, and a moderate anti-Zionist wants a radical anti-Zionist to kill you.
If the firing would have happened in 2006 and nobody would have batted an eye, it's not cancel culture.
Given her behavior I thought Bri was significantly younger than me, but no, we'll both be 39 in August. She needs to grow the fuck up.
It's cancel culture, but it's not cancel culture I care much about. I care more about it when it happens to people who are regular day to day people. As opposed to people who have a sizable platform, I care for it less, since it stands to reason they will have opportunities somewhere else.
Also, this is why the original hosts of "Rising," Krystal Ball and Saager, left and formed their own show. It's this very "the show is going to tell you what to say" that pushed them to strike out on their own. BJG will be fine.
I want more stories about Stranger employees hating Dan Savage. I remember a couple Savage Love responses that had some Twitter pile ons, but I hope it was something better.
“Dan needs to turn over Savage Love and all related properties to a BIPOC Trans or non-binary person”
This was the start of it (at least publicly), as far as I remember: https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2011/02/11/6716603/hello-i-am-fat It was in response to this: https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2011/02/10/6700684/ban-fat-marriage
There was also this Slate interview from peak "great awokening" in 2021:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/09/dan-savage-advice-savage-love-criticism-interview.html
He honestly sounds a little bit cowed here and afraid he was going to lose his LGBT+ audience. I'm not sure where he's at now - on one hand, in terms of general politics, I think there's been a shift back to the center, but in terms of the LGBT, that still runs very radical identitarian and Dan might have a hard time maintaining that audience. And being a general sex advice columnist in what's turning out to be an increasingly puritanical groomer-discourse age might be difficult too.
I say this as someone who likes Dan Savage, but I think like myself, he's a product of the more open norms of the GenX era, which may not play so well with the youngs. But on the other hand, just pandering to "the current thing" isn't a great look either.
I think to some extent, he ran his course. He really started out in the early 1990s, when gay marriage wasn't on the radar in any serious way and before don't ask, don't tell became the progressive stance. He got married, adopted a kid, and gave a lot of practical advice about how gay kids should deal with their parents in specific instances that was centered around people rather than ideology. He certainly moved things forward during the 90s and 00s but I think he's pretty much won. Not a complete victory of course, but 90% of it, which is about the best you could hope for. He started out being cutting edge but the edge has moved and left him more towards the center. This isn't where TheStranger or the louder activists want to be.
Totally agree. I think if he had a smaller audience he’d fall much closer to Andrew Sullivan’s cranky-gay-man opinions, but he’s way too mainstream for that. Sucks to be syndicated when the culture has shifted so far, I guess.
He’s strikes a good balance on LGBT issues imo. He still audibly rolls his eyes at neopronouns and is willing to mention some “they’s” biological sex when relevant.
He talks a lot about how he sees parallels in the rejection of certain trans kids stories from gay friends who were kicked out at age 15 when they came out. I think his heart is in the right place, and I have a sense that he gets that not all stories about “trans phobic parents” are like this. He advocates mostly trying to work through things with family (referring to his own experience with his mom) rather than just cutting all ties.
I’m sure a lot of baby lgbt tune him out (the type that are not even having sex so probably don’t need his advice lol), but most people are reasonable and understand the nuance. Also he has people like Kat Rosenfeld on his show.
Dan lost this straight-acting, straight-looking gay man many years ago when he went on a loud, pedantic tirade against against people who describe themselves that way.
Did people really not get that he was joking in order to point out the absurdity of the reasons being given to not allow gay marriage? How could they be so dense as to think he really hated fat people?
I agree with you, and I’m not trying to undermine your point in any way, but the answer is “the exact same way that ‘victims’ today misinterpret everything to serve their cause”.
Anyway, it all worked out, Lindy West got a book deal and a tv show out of the whole blow up.
YESSSSSSS BEN DREYFUSSSSSS
I have the same unreasonable love. He’s like the rich Prince character in Fantasy novels who is still good deep down and he’s exactly the person I wish I was if I was Richard Dreyfuss’ son.
Hadrian dreyfuss
You finish book 3?
About half way
The arena?
Maybe it’s The Autism(tm), but I don’t understand why people think it’s funny to pull a long con prank where the punch line is “haha, you believe what I’m telling you! You should have realized that I thinking lying is funny!” Like, ok? I guess I don’t trust you then. You just told me I should be skeptical of anything you say, so I will. Which meant I was doubtful of everything that Ben said went down at MJ. Maybe I shouldn’t have been, but once someone says they lie for the lulz, they’ve basically made sure I’m going need extra proof for me to believe them.
Not my favorite episode, but it seemed like Katie and Ben were having a good time.
That anecdote gave me bad vibes. The amount of laughing at his own joke was off-putting as well.
I didn’t care for it either. He wasn’t a co-host so they didn’t present any original reporting, it wasn't a particularly interesting interview (what’s it like to grow up rich? really?), and so it was a series of softball questions to which all his answers were very witty - to him most of all.
Practical jokes are never funny- I don’t get it at all.
I was totally confused when he was reading the thing about his fake wife and Katie was laughing. I still don’t get what the joke is and it seems that no one else did either.
Like, this dude keeps saying his jokes are only misunderstood because his dad is famous. But I didn’t even know he was Richard Dreyfus’s son when I first saw him on Twitter and I still miss the punchline. I think if your jokes are routinely getting misunderstood as much as this guy’s are there may be a problem with your delivery. I find it pretty lame when comedians blame their audience for not laughing.
His audience laughs though? He was talking about what happens when one of his joke gets RT to people who don’t get it.
I don’t think the punchline was haha I’m lying, it was more like how is everyone going to react if I say totally inappropriate things for this context. Which maybe you still don’t think is funny, but it’s not ha I lied.
"Allegations of racism are less powerful than allegations of antisemitism" girl what are you talking about? Seriously? I don't know anyone who can openly identify as zionist, do you? I know plenty of people who are totally comfortable publicly advocating for the violent destruction of the world's only Jewish state, who cry over hostages being rescued, who say 10/7 was either justified or didn't happen, and who freely regurgitate antisemitic conspiracy theories about how Jews are all secretly Russians who were complicit in the Shoah to get sympathy for Israel. But you think people are scared of accusations of antisemitism? If I even tried telling someone that saying "Jews are the real Nazis" was antisemitic they would laugh in my face and tell me Arabs are the real semites lmao. Not only is it completely acceptable to endorse antisemitism publicly, they don't even want us to have the language to describe racialized hatred against Jews- hence the intentional distortions and weaponization of the words we use to describe our history: antisemitism, Holocaust, Nazis, pogroms. During a time when so few people care at all about antisemitism (coincidentally also a time when antisemitic hate crimes have skyrocketed) I think this was a pretty lame take.
I'm gonna add that maybe your generation has mellowed out but I'm in gen z and we've only gotten more radical regarding specifically anti black racism (the only real kind, according to my classmates). To these people, saying you aren't racist is in of itself racist. In an environment in which you're racist for complimenting a black person's hair but can say things like "go back to Poland" to (ironically, often Mizrahi) Jews, you're telling me that people care about antisemitism? We're white colonizers. Literally anything we say is automatically dismissed. I was told by a former friend that she would be dismissing anything I say because "since you're Jewish, you've probably been propagandized by hasbara." I.e., because I'm Jewish I am less qualified to speak about Jewish history than a non-Jew. Try that with a black person.
Yeah. Because the whole thesis of antisemitism is that Jews are secretly controlling everything behind the scenes, any attempt to refute it gets you the same reaction you’ll get when attempting to refute other conspiracy theories. (Ironically it was Katie who had the best quote about this aspect of conspiracy theories—that they’re “self-sealing.”)
So if you’re Jewish and trying to refute these claims (whatever they happen to be), you’re just trying to fool the haplessly innocent rest of the world. If you’re not Jewish, you must be in our pay. Self-sealing. Thank god, I’ve started taking long daily walks in the woods.
Ahaha exactly! We see the rise in antisemitism but if we try to educate others about antisemitism or create the same DEI task forces (which, for the record, I don't think we should do) that other minority groups have, it's proof that we exercise disproportionate power in society. Which is why everyone's retreating back into the community. We won't beat the cabal allegations unfortunately but we'll always have the woods. Wishing a meaningful Shavuot to you if you're observing this year.
Thank you so much for the good wishes—my warm wishes to you too.
I haven’t been observant since my early 20s, but after 10/7, my husband and I started incorporating more of the rituals we like. Thus, today we baked a cheesecake for the first time ever.
Wishing you safety and sanity in an absolutely batshit world.
Hmmm.. I am a pretty normal-ish American person, and I’m not sure I can think of a single real place in my actual day to day life where I could voice openly antisemitic sentiments without experiencing bad consequences of at least the momentary social opprobrium sort. Possibly the only exception would be with a few long time conservative friends , but then they fervently support Israel in this war.
Sure, you can’t say Jews are the spawn of Satan without social consequences. But you can say that the Israel lobby controls everything that happens in America, and be just fine.
No. In many contexts one cannot even admit that there is an Israel lobby at all (there is), much less that it has any control over anything (It does).
I'm impressed at how incredibly unlikeable this dude is.
what
he’s hilarious and adorable
I like Ben a lot. I never know what direction he is going to go in on Twitter. It's truly one of the more interesting follows and he stands out.
I agree. I just got around to listening to this episode and I’m glad I’m not alone. He seems extremely pompous, his voice is annoying, and listening to him crack himself up every 20 seconds or so — mostly over stuff that wasn’t funny — was making me want to throw my phone out the window.
It would be one thing if he had anything particularly interesting or insightful to say, but he really didn’t! I found this episode extremely boring. I genuinely can’t believe that this conversation lasted for over an hour.
I was too lazy to type it out, but I agree on all points!
Katie talks a good game about how the gatekeepers in the media should do more to give a platform to people from public schools, community colleges, and blue-collar backgrounds. Yet, as BARpod grows in power and influence, she chooses to host Ben Dreyfuss, possibly the worst offender in the media of someone whose accomplishments owe more to his connections than to merit.
A great podcast introduces interesting people with life histories that inspire. Are we commoners supposed to feel anything from the words of someone who has nothing meaningful to add to the world other than edgy snark they were able to spew to millions because of the doors that magically opened for them?
The article about nepotism last year that launched a movement highlighted how Dakota Johnson stood up to Ellen, a move that many others would have made if not for fear of retribution. She did it because she doesn’t understand that fear. This concept applies to Ben. While his sarcasm is creative, it is not unique. He is on par with what thousands of other people achieve at open mic poetry readings. But the confidence he derives from his last name allows him to push boundaries that those concerned with their reputations hesitate to cross.
If opportunities were truly equal, Richard’s son would struggle to find a role beyond moderating a Stranger Things subreddit. His presence on this podcast undermines its credibility and purpose.
Meh, the purpose of this podcast is to entertain me and I find Ben fun & entertaining. Moreover, he’s a walking nexus of Hollywood & news-media insider information. That, alongside his ability to tell a story, make him a great podcast guest and interview.
That he never knew my struggles as a poor and I’m kinda envious of him for that is the most boring thing about him.
(Which is to say not actually about him at all)
Can’t take anyone seriously who starts a sentence with “meh”
I’m gonna push back a lot and suggest that the whole “Nepotism” hysteria is just gussied up resentment and grievance mongering with its own tinge of enlightened outrage. Why? A: No one, and I mean NO ONE gets very far on the basis of their last name only. (Is every one named “Kardashian” a “success”, because they have millions of IG followers? That’s not success outside of the shallowest of measure. Who cares who gets or claims that kind of success? If you give a shit about that, one way or the other, you, too, are shallow. Get a hobby.) B: Nepotism is actually fine and is how human culture has always worked, and worked pretty good. Your Dad was a blacksmith, so you get to be a blacksmith. Really not the problem.
A) They may not get there on name only but they get opportunities other people do not and that breeds understandable resentment because it isn't fair. Of course its just one of many things in life that isn't fair.
B) Nepotism is not good. If you are going to use blacksmiths as an example I'll counter with monarchy. Also there is quite a difference between learning a trade from being a child to having your mums name mean you can walk through doors more easily. The best you can say is nepotism is natural and not necessarily inherently bad, to say its good is ridiculous.
MY response was maybe a little over the top, but still, not wrong. Here's the thing: A: Yes, obvi celebrities' spawn get opportunities others don't. But, as you say, Life ain't fair. Big deal. I think we all come to recognize that early on and accept it. More to my point: "Nepotism" gets your foot in the door, but you don't get that second chance (or third chance) if you don't have real talent. (Examples too numerous to mention.) B: There's a huge difference between Economic "nepotism" and Creative nepotism: Economic nepotism IS bad, and serves to solidify class structure, to the ultimate detriment of society, and should be complained about, fought against, lessened, for the good of society. Creative nepotism, on the other hand, (i.e., celebrity kids getting movie roles, publishing deals, record contracts) really does sort itself out pretty quickly, and isn't worth complaining about. (I.e., if you can't act, sing, or write, you really don't become a success. Regardless of your bloodline.) My .02 cents.
Fair enough I agree. Also the creative industry is such a closed shop now its hard for me to get riled up about rich kid A missing an opportunity because rich kid B has a famous parent.
Plus, being resentful accomplishes nothing but raising one's blood pressure. It's counterproductive.
With creative nepotism, it’s very hard to parse out a nepo baby actor who is successful because of their name vs their inherent talent they got from ma or pa. Probably a little of both. Who cares?
Ben is a clear example supporting your point. This shit sorts itself out. He failed as an actor.
As for economic nepotism, those kids don’t need to do shit. They could do finger painting in Costa Rica, their parents’ trust fund will ensure their viability.
Which is exactly what everyone of us would do if we had the means no matter how useless our kids are.
Advertisers see having tons of followers as success and they will pay well for it. It absolutely leads to financial security.
This is a particularly disgusting, and atrocious opinion. The children of previously famous people should be delegated to lesser roles so that all opportunities are "truly" equal? And Ben Dreyfuss, son of washed up actor Richard Dreyfuss, is possibly the worst offender of nepotism in the media? The problem with nepotism and news media is the amount of politicians in it, not Hollywood actors sons. Hands down some of the worst offenses of nepotism in news media were the Cuomo's. Ben doesn't even make it on the radar as he's got an actual career of holding down news media positions by doing the work.
One of the overarching themes of the show is to stop with the hyperbole. It makes you look foolish to pretend that everything is the worst, ever. Another is to not just write people off because of some bias someone somewhere might have. They have open invitations to people to come talk about disagreements that have previously been aired on social media. But to invite Ben Dreyfuss undermines the credibility of the pod, and the purpose that you've assigned it?
I didn’t know until about two weeks ago that he was a movie star’s son. I thought he was just some random media guy who was big on Twitter.
Same
I know fuck all about it him and I care less. It was a savvy move putting J and K behind a paywall. I wouldn't pay for this shit.
Don't let the door hit cha.
If you’re commenting here then you already have.
I haven't, this is the free content.
*rude, not abusive. Agree with your point, just frustrated by concept creep.
Is this sort of knitpicking usefull? You understood perfectly well what was being said.
This is the exact sort of thing that “woke” people do.
I'm not really surprised, given who you are responding to. There have been episodes that I chose not to listen to all the way through because it was just not my thing. Big deal. Especially when you're not paying a dime to listen.
>A great podcast introduces people with interesting life stories…
This show has had several segments about adults who wear diapers. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
While I get your point, this has never been the format for B&R. I just think maybe you're looking for something that you will never find with B&R and there are many other podcasts that can provide this. Being able to laugh at clowns can decrease stress and is basically harmless. I'd never want things to change around here.
I agree, they should get Rob Yang on to talk. Megan Murphy managed to book him so I assume he’ll say yes to anything (no drag to Megan Murphy it’s just her YouTube videos get dismal views so I assume she’s not a heavy podcast hitter)
If Bri Bri is a victim of cancel culture for an ON AIR eye roll at a family member of a rape/terrorist kidnapping victim, then Ron Burgundy is a victim of cancel culture for telling San Diego to go fuck itself.
Yes. "Cancel culture" is when you are cancelled for expressing ideas/concepts. Not when you are a television host being clearly disrespectful to a guest on camera, regardless of political persuasion.
(I say this as someone whose crush on BriBri has caused me to overlook some moronic takes.)
Exactly, if she eye rolled in a private conversation, that would be “cancel culture”. On air eye roll is beyond poor taste and unprofessional
“Cancel culture” is whatever the speaker wants it to be. Let’s stop pretending there’s a widely agreed upon definition.
... I like subtitles...
I will take a film in a foreign language with subtitles over an English-language film with mumbly dialogue and/or poor sound mixing any day. As long as I’m actually able to know what they’re saying, I’m fine.
As a longtime weeb they don't even phase me. My partner won't get into anything longer than a movie unless it's dubbed, though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’ve not even listened to this yet, but it’s already in my top 3 favourite episodes ever cos I absolutely fucking adore Ben.
Spoiler alert: I learned Ben Dreyfuss isn’t gay in this episode.
Funny thing is: before this episode, I didn’t know his family history. After I learned it, though, I couldn’t not picture his dad laughing every time Ben laughed. Soooooooo similar
Was going to say this, like the exact same laugh.
Gotta enjoy some failson content every now and then
I'm only 10min in and never heard of this guy before but wow is he annoying and unfunny. Amazing how easy life is when you have rich parents.
yeah I kept thinking that there was going to be a point to the whole "pretending to be cheating on his wife thing" and there just wasn't. And then there was just no point to any of it :-/
I had never heard of him before and this didn't make me interested to learn more.
You don’t like a joke that needs to be explained and a man who laughs at his own jokes?
He’s a really good writer- and very funny.
Privilege!!! /s
I hope Katie schools Ben about “trans” people at some point in this episode. That Twitter thread from him a few weeks ago was infuriating.
do you have a link?
So what happened to Ben's book about MSNBC turning people crazy? That sounded interesting.
I want to read that book!
And if he needs to interview more people who spend too much time watching MSNBC, I can introduce him to some of my family.
I used to practically mainline MSNBC. Every single night it was on. Then one day, I just shut if off. This was years before Trump came on the scene. To this day, I'm not exactly sure why. I was still way more liberal then than I am today. It became too formulaic, I guess. And too many damn talking heads. CNN was still what we libs called "Fox Lite" back at the time.
I live in a red state but was vehemently against the Iraq War and everywhere you went at that time (restaurants, doctor's/dentist's offices, etc) Fox News was on. I remember even getting on an elevator once with Fox News playing on a TV mounted in the upper corner. Hence, my initial enthusiasm for MSNBC programming. But one day it just disappeared and I never looked back.
I stopped listening to Rachel
Maddow when it finally dawned on me that no, Trump was not going to be exposed as a Russian asset. Then I just felt stupid, and was disgusted at all the mental energy I had devoted to this bullshit.
I used to listen to her on Air America back in the Pleistocene Era & I really liked her show a lot. I was very excited when she first started appearing on Dan Abrams' show (which was long before MSNBC got so liberal). I think they were trying to compete with CNN which was also much more centrist at the time. Was super excited when she got her own show. I was genuinely happy for her. Of course, the rest is history and now I have no interest in listening to her ever again. She had integrity back then but now she's like a sideshow barker.
Back in the Bush era, I loved it when my fellow lefties would shout and interrupt the other side so they can't complete their sentences. I don't know exactly when I changed my mind, but I now find it incredibly annoying. And if someone does that a lot, my response is to assume they're less likely to know what they're talking about. I don't think my basic political beliefs have changed all that much, it's more about how to express them.
I'm much happier leaving that shouty world behind.
100% I guess that was part of the problem for me and also just too many talking heads beating one subject to death for hours.
Yeah that gets boring after a while.
We can all thank Ted Turner for starting 24/7 news. It's so ironic when you consider how much actual news could be covered in 24 hours, 7 days a week.
People might actually benefit by being better informed instead of having the same standardized crap repeated over and over for days on end by multiple people at one time!
But the general populace is more ignorant of world & national events than ever.
I generally dislike when people interrupt me and I afford the same courtesy to anyone I watch. So when I see someone like Joy Ann Reid interrupting a Byron Donalds and I am just like "let the man speak" but the youtube comments are all...REID DESTROYS UNCLE TOM!!!
I mean the video with her in a bonnet going on about DEI. Girl, check your privilege.
Oooff. Yikes