S19.E22: Donna de Varona; Malcolm Nance; Ben Shapiro

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Quote

This week, Bill opens the show interviewing two-time Olympic gold medalist Donna de Varona. For the panel, he's joined by Malcolm Nance, a career U.S. Counterterrorism Intelligence Officer and MSNBC contributor, alongside right wing commentator Ben Shapiro.

Original air date 2021.08.06

[letter8358]

Ben Shapiro.....?!? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Where's my remote? Thanks for nothing, Bill!

[arachne]

At first I'd forgotten just who Ben Shapiro is, but I was reminded PDQ! Is Bill really that hard up for panel guests? 😖

On the plus side, Bill's last New Rule about Congress is as true as it is sad. But to be fair, wouldn't it apply to Democrat members as well?

And oh yeah -- now I'm dying to know who Chris Price is! 😄

Edited August 7, 2021 by arachne
Just reminded about last night's New Rules.

[revbfc]

1 minute ago, arachne said:

At first I'd forgotten just who Ben Shapiro is, but I was reminded PDQ! Is Bill really that hard up for panel guests? 😖

I bet he has Nick Fuentes on next week, and let’s him “Both sides,” the issues, too.

[burghgal]

Just watched Bill with the first guest.  It makes me so mad.  I like this show ONLY because of Bill's writers and for some of the guests he has on that interest me.  He would NOT let his first guest, a sensible Olympic gold medalist who has thought through an issue from both sides, speak !!  It is infuriating, and he really does do it so much more to women.

Ugh, I really wish he would've let this guest speak more on what her organization promotes and says around a topic because it was at least a set of solutions (even if you disagree with them, it was trying to find a balance of promoting women and fairness in sports while accommodating transgendered athletes) -- all Bill could make it about was whining about wokeness,.

 

[DoctorAtomic]

Bill missed a good opportunity in the opening interview. She certainly had a different pov than you get, and that's probably why they invited her. But she didn't have room to get a word in. I really wanted to hear more because trans athletics is a really important issue. I was expecting Bill to be more terfy and glad he wasn't. 

Shapiro is worthless to me, but I will cut Bill a sliver of slack. It seemed Bill had him on to debate him on his book. I wouldn't have bothered myself, but Bill was clearly prepared. Moreso than last month. It's his show if that's what he wanted to do. 

I would agree that Carlson going to Hungary isn't good. To dismiss it because he's not an elected official is naive or deliberately misleading. 

Malcolm had NO TIME for that noise though. Shapiro just hammered the whatabout whatabout parsing words playbook. 

I had a good laugh when Shapiro asked him if his book got him thrown in jail and he was like, no, I got kicked off the air because of the administration. Crickets. 

My state has been going BONKERS over CRT. I'll give Shapiro credit that he defined it correctly, but they all missed the point - it's not being taught in K-12. It's a legal theory taught in graduate school. What is colloquially called 'CRT' is a political football tossed around as part of these so-called culture war. Credit to Bill - if CRT means this or that, I'm for/against it; teach history unvarnished, etc. Which is fine, but that's not what CRT actually is. That's the real problem. I think they missed it here. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by DoctorAtomic

[DoctorAtomic]

2 hours ago, arachne said:

On the plus side, Bill's last New Rule about Congress is as true as it is sad. But to be fair, wouldn't it apply to Democrat members as well?

I'd actually say that 'not having skills' to work in Congress is a good thing. You want a former bartender, a lawyer, doctor, electrician in there. I know that's not the overall point. Sure, it applies to both parties, but I think Bill's fundamental point is that there's too many people just going to Congress for these perks and not an honest motivation to make policy. The example of the woman from the Citadel summed it up well. 

2 hours ago, arachne said:

And oh yeah -- now I'm dying to know who Chris Price is!

One thing sorely missing in our modern age is the slamming of the phone down on someone. A lost art. 

[deirdra]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

One thing sorely missing in our modern age is the slamming of the phone down on someone. A lost art. 

And those old black rotary-dial phones were indestructible.  So satisfying to slam down!   Now you get a whole lot of nothing and cannot tell if the connection was merely lost due to poor cell coverage or if the other end slammed down their phone.

Edited August 7, 2021 by deirdra

[BrownBear2012]

One of the writers for Maher was a new add this year...Amy Holmes. Frequent guest on his show and very conservative Republican  mouthpiece. Her last writing gig was for Glenn Beck. For me, that shows a drastic turnaround in the vibe of the show. Expect to see more flame throwers like Shapiro on in the coming months. Shapiro is touting this new right wing talking point that Democrats don't like children and many of the Dems in Congress are childless...thus they shouldn't be elected and/or re-elected and be given a seat at the table of the "ruling class". I guess the Kennedy family wouldn't qualify for entree into this "club" or Nancy Pelosi who has five children? A most ridiculous and absurd argument that actually is a recycled one that started with Fox news guy Bernard Goldberg a few years back. I'm wondering of Shapiro is advising J.D. Vance who is running for office in a deep red area of Ohio...he was highly critical of Trump until he needed Trump's endorsement...then he switched gears and became a MAGA guy spewing stuff like this about Dems as children haters, even going so far as saying that George Washington was a bad president because he didn't have any bio children. That Shapiro...he's really a deep thinker and now an influencer?? IMO Shapiro doesn't deserve a seat at the Real Time table and should be relegated to a toilet seat in the back of a dive bar.

Edited August 7, 2021 by BrownBear2012

[Hanahope]

Nance was a great foil for Shapiro, much better than Maher could be.  
 

[heatherchandler]

I think Ben won every round against Nance.  Nance kept changing to some other subject whenever Ben would make a point.

[Hanahope]

I guess to each his own.  Nance kept pointing out how Shapiro had no actual experience in what he was talking about.

[ICantDoThatDave]

But by that logic those of us with no experience being on or hosting a talk show shouldn't be discussing what was said.

[ApocalypseThen]

Ben Shapiro did his usual schtick of whataboutism when it came to the authoritarian issue. Good that Bill pointed out how ridiculous it was to write a book about this topic while excluding the entire Republican party. 

That being said, I disagree that Shapiro should not be invited on the show. He represents a much larger constituency than the likes of Bret Stephens or S.E. Cupp. He's also not a full-on troll like Anne Coulter. If we want to try and understand why right wingers think and behave the way they do, one can learn something by listening to Shapiro. 

Also, Malcolm Nance was just awful. Nance was too condescending and doing ad-hominem attacks like "your show sucks". I would have liked to see a smart leftist like Thomas Frank go up against Shapiro in order to have a more policy-driven debate. 

 

 

 

[Milburn Stone]

Me, I thought not everything Shapiro said was wrong. He's just so thoroughly unpleasant while saying it. 

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, ApocalypseThen said:

That being said, I disagree that Shapiro should not be invited on the show. He represents a much larger constituency than the likes of Bret Stephens or S.E. Cupp. He's also not a full-on troll like Anne Coulter. If we want to try and understand why right wingers think and behave the way they do, one can learn something by listening to Shapiro. 

I tend to agree. I don't think Bill had him on because he believes anything he said. Right from the jump Bill went after him because of the book. To be fair, he graduated from Harvard Law School. It's not like the people who espouse his garbage are all living in the mountains with 20 million guns and a dixie flag. They're people like this that are driving the right wing narrative. 

I don't think he's in Coulter's ballpark because he actually believes his own bullshit. 

1 hour ago, ApocalypseThen said:

Also, Malcolm Nance was just awful. Nance was too condescending and doing ad-hominem attacks like "your show sucks". I would have liked to see a smart leftist like Thomas Frank go up against Shapiro in order to have a more policy-driven debate. 

I wouldn't go that far, but saying 'your show sucks' doesn't help either. I think Nance was pissed he was on the show with this guy. He didn't let Shapiro go on any screeds though and shut him down, which was appropriate. There were a few times where Shapiro just fell flat and looked like a dumb-ass, like when he said if Nance went to jail because of the book, and he retorted that he was taken off the air for three weeks because of a letter from the Trump administration. So, I think he shouldn't have been condescending, but at the same time, I didn't have a problem with him shutting Shapiro's shit down. You can only talk so much; while you want to understand why right wingers think that way, when it's clear it's just a whatabout screed, then you shut it down and don't qualify it as a legitimate argument.  

I don't know if it's still because of covid, but I prefer the two person panel. I would like a mid show guest to return though. Sometimes they don't add much, but sometimes there's surprisingly good discussion after you plug their book. 

[iMonrey]

Why is it that right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro feel they need to talk a mile a minute? Is it because they know, on some level, that what they're saying is so indefensible, that they have to get it out as quickly as possible because they know someone is going to try to cut them off? To me, it demonstrates an insecurity about them. Even if it's because they know they're preaching to an inhospitable audience there's still something very defensive about being a motor mouth like that. 

[sugarbaker design]

6 hours ago, ApocalypseThen said:

Also, Malcolm Nance was just awful. Nance was too condescending and doing ad-hominem attacks like "your show sucks". I would have liked to see a smart leftist like Thomas Frank go up against Shapiro in order to have a more policy-driven debate. 

 

 

 

Esp when Nance insisted 40,000 people stormed the capitol.

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by sugarbaker design

[Hanahope]

I don’t think Nance said 40,000 “stormed” the capital, but that 40,000 marched on the capital intending to “stop the steal” which was a big lie, and that having so many people allowed the thousand or so to cause real damage and harm. 
 

When the gop complain about BLM marches, they talk about the entire number of those marching, not just the few that cause trouble.

 

[deirdra]

48 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Why is it that right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro feel they need to talk a mile a minute? Is it because they know, on some level, that what they're saying is so indefensible, that they have to get it out as quickly as possible because they know someone is going to try to cut them off? To me, it demonstrates an insecurity about them. Even if it's because they know they're preaching to an inhospitable audience there's still something very defensive about being a motor mouth like that. 

Yes, and also they are trying to prevent anyone else from getting in a word edgewise.  Nance speaks more slowly but with no pauses for the same reason.  Having competing monologuers with Bill interrupting makes it hard to learn much from the show. I would also have liked to have heard the former Olympian complete her thoughts too.

Edited August 8, 2021 by deirdra

[lovinbob]

On 8/7/2021 at 11:59 AM, burghgal said:

Just watched Bill with the first guest.  It makes me so mad.  I like this show ONLY because of Bill's writers and for some of the guests he has on that interest me.  He would NOT let his first guest, a sensible Olympic gold medalist who has thought through an issue from both sides, speak !!  It is infuriating, and he really does do it so much more to women.

Ugh, I really wish he would've let this guest speak more on what her organization promotes and says around a topic because it was at least a set of solutions (even if you disagree with them, it was trying to find a balance of promoting women and fairness in sports while accommodating transgendered athletes) -- all Bill could make it about was whining about wokeness,.

 

100 percent agreed. He did not let her get a word in. I have no idea what her organization’s position is or what they propose.

I agree with Bill that the issue of trans athletes in competition is complex. I would much rather have heard from an actual authority on the subject instead of Bill who has a huge ax to grind re wokeness.

I agree that Nance was a bit condescending toward Shapiro but it’s hard to blame him. They are not equals by any stretch. 

Shapiro was superbly disingenuous regarding CRT and Nance’s response to it. And Bill was close minded as usual. We do not teach history adequately in this country. It’s not just Texas, Bill. I grew up in liberal New York and graduated high school and even college with a very inaccurate understanding of American history.

 There are events, policies, and injustices that most Americans learn nothing about because they don’t support the narrative of “the land of the free.” That is an issue that needs to be fixed in schools from early childhood through college. Not through the mythical Critical Race Theory but through a (lowercase) critical examination and overhaul of curriculum everywhere. 

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Why is it that right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro feel they need to talk a mile a minute? Is it because they know, on some level, that what they're saying is so indefensible, that they have to get it out as quickly as possible because they know someone is going to try to cut them off? To me, it demonstrates an insecurity about them. Even if it's because they know they're preaching to an inhospitable audience there's still something very defensive about being a motor mouth like that. 

It's so common, there must be some playbook or field manual their working off. It also indicates that you're not interested in engaging in dialogue. 

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

I don’t think Nance said 40,000 “stormed” the capital, but that 40,000 marched on the capital intending to “stop the steal” which was a big lie, and that having so many people allowed the thousand or so to cause real damage and harm. 

Yes because then he said, 'the first 1000 or so that got to the capitol first forced their way in,' but there were 40,000 people there who organized and rallied to 'stop the steal'. 

 

 

[RealHousewife]

3 hours ago, ApocalypseThen said:

Ben Shapiro did his usual schtick of whataboutism when it came to the authoritarian issue. Good that Bill pointed out how ridiculous it was to write a book about this topic while excluding the entire Republican party. 

That being said, I disagree that Shapiro should not be invited on the show. He represents a much larger constituency than the likes of Bret Stephens or S.E. Cupp. He's also not a full-on troll like Anne Coulter. If we want to try and understand why right wingers think and behave the way they do, one can learn something by listening to Shapiro. 

Also, Malcolm Nance was just awful. Nance was too condescending and doing ad-hominem attacks like "your show sucks". I would have liked to see a smart leftist like Thomas Frank go up against Shapiro in order to have a more policy-driven debate. 

I don't have an issue with Shapiro being on. One of the things Bill's show has going for it is the fact there's debate between people who have different ideology. I know a lot of news programs will invite guests with different views, but is there another hourlong show where there's a diverse panel like Bill's? I can't think of one at the top of my head. If there are, please let me know. I like to watch a variety of things.

Shapiro isn't my favorite, but I also thought Nance was too much.  "Your show sucks" was not necessary. 

I also noticed rightwing pundits like to speak quickly. Not sure if Shapiro started that trend or what. Also, since when did Ben Shapiro start cursing? Did Nance offend him that much, or does he curse now and then? 

[heatherchandler]

5 hours ago, ApocalypseThen said:

 

Also, Malcolm Nance was just awful. Nance was too condescending and doing ad-hominem attacks like "your show sucks". I would have liked to see a smart leftist like Thomas Frank go up against Shapiro in order to have a more policy-driven debate.

 

That’s what people resort to when they don’t have an actual intelligent reply.

 

4 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

 

I wouldn't go that far, but saying 'your show sucks' doesn't help either. I think Nance was pissed he was on the show with this guy. He didn't let Shapiro go on any screeds though and shut him down, which was appropriate. There were a few times where Shapiro just fell flat and looked like a dumb-ass, like when he said if Nance went to jail because of the book, and he retorted that he was taken off the air for three weeks because of a letter from the Trump administration. So, I think he shouldn't have been condescending, but at the same time, I didn't have a problem with him shutting Shapiro's shit down. You can only talk so much; while you want to understand why right wingers think that way, when it's clear it's just a whatabout screed, then you shut it down and don't qualify it as a legitimate argument.  

 

Was Nance actually taken off the air?  By Trump?  Trump apparently had the final say on msnbc??  Is there anything backing this claim up?  I’ve read some articles that Nance often gets in trouble for lying, or stretching the truth, but nothing about him taken off the air because of his book.

 

[lovinbob]

This might be splitting hairs, but I didn’t think Nance said that Shapiro’s show sucks, but rather his debate MO. He said something like, “Is this what you do on your show? Because it sucks.” 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Shapiro’s helium rapid fire voice was so annoying!  Never heard him talk before and never again!  

Agree Donna de Verona did not get much airtime thanks to Bill wanting to get his rants in.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Foghorn Leghorn

[ICantDoThatDave]

7 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Why is it that right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro feel they need to talk a mile a minute? Is it because they know, on some level, that what they're saying is so indefensible, that they have to get it out as quickly as possible because they know someone is going to try to cut them off? To me, it demonstrates an insecurity about them. Even if it's because they know they're preaching to an inhospitable audience there's still something very defensive about being a motor mouth like that. 

You're not wrong, but Nance did the same thing.  He was dismissive, condescending, & as has been pointed out above, went full ad hominem.  They both tried to whatabout-ism* each other, & Nance pulled the "you have no experience so can't comment" card (which would honestly disqualify most of us from ever criticizing the chef at a restaurant, or any director of a movie if valid).  I thought they were both terrible.  Bill was, oddly, the most reasonable one on the panel.

* I do wish someone on the panel had called Shapiro out on how he pointed out Nance was painting all Republicans with the Insurrectionists brush, but he had just done the same to BLM re: the rioters not a minute or two earlier

[ICantDoThatDave]

6 hours ago, Foghorn Leghorn said:

Agree Donna de Verona did not get much airtime thanks to Bill wanting to get his rants in.

I noticed that, too.

He kept doing that thing, in conversations, where it's clear the other person has something they desperately want to say, where they're like "Well I th-" but the initial speaker keeps talking & making points, & then they're like "Well I th-" & but the initial speaker keeps elaborating & doesn't pause, & they're still like "Well I th-" several times, until finally the initial speaker pauses or completes their thought (or just runs out of breath) & then finally the person waiting gets to say "Well I think..." & can *finally* just voice what they wanted to say from the beginning.

Not really meant as a judgment on the what either one said, just an observation, because I'm guessing most of us have done exactly that, & I KNOW I've done exactly that, but it was absolutely funny to observe it happening.

Edited August 9, 2021 by ICantDoThatDave

[ApocalypseThen]

4 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

That’s what people resort to when they don’t have an actual intelligent reply.

 

Was Nance actually taken off the air?  By Trump?  Trump apparently had the final say on msnbc??  Is there anything backing this claim up?  I’ve read some articles that Nance often gets in trouble for lying, or stretching the truth, but nothing about him taken off the air because of his book.

 

You're right about Nance getting in trouble for this type of thing. He tends to be on "Russiagate" mode way too much. Nance was the one who claimed that the Russians started targeting Trump through his wife Ivana in the 70s with no evidence. He also erroneously said Jill Stein had a show on RT so was compromised as well, etc. He accused Glenn Greenwald of being a Russian agent, again only with conjecture.  It's very dangerous and unethical to be making these types of accusations without any proof.

I've been trying to track down the original story, but if my memory serves me right Nance was taken off the air by MSNBC for a short period of time due to getting factual information wrong in a particular story (which is his MO at this point).

For some reason Bill has anointed him as some kind of intellectual heavyweight who can go up against right wingers. I hope he finds someone else for that role.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by ApocalypseThen

[ApocalypseThen]

7 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

I don't have an issue with Shapiro being on. One of the things Bill's show has going for it is the fact there's debate between people who have different ideology. I know a lot of news programs will invite guests with different views, but is there another hourlong show where there's a diverse panel like Bill's? I can't think of one at the top of my head. If there are, please let me know. I like to watch a variety of things.

I'm not sure if you've heard about the "intellectual dark web", which is essentially a group of podcasters with different types of ideologies who have long discussions about a variety of topics. Joe Rogan, Shapiro, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson are among the "members". 

Some of them are definitely grifters (Dave Rubin being the perfect example), but I do like the idea of just sitting down and debating complex topics with people who disagree with you in a "civilized" manner. They also don't have the time restrictions Bill's show does - as some of the discussions can last for 2-3 hours.

This last episode got me thinking that Bill should at least consider sticking to one topic for the entire show from time to time. Thinking back to the topics discussed - authoritarianism, CRT, the Cuomo scandal - it would have been better to just debate one of them and flesh out the arguments more. Bill's monologue, initial interview, mid show bit, and New Rules, means that each topic can only be discussed for about 10 minutes max. And that's even though he already eliminated the guest interview at the end of each episode. 

[ICantDoThatDave]

1 hour ago, ApocalypseThen said:

This last episode got me thinking that Bill should at least consider sticking to one topic for the entire show from time to time.

Definitely disagree with this.  I like that when the discussion has gone off the rails (as happened in this episode) or just petered out (as happens in other episodes), Bill pulls his Moderator Card & goes "ok, next topic".  IMO, he's good at recognizing when a topic has been run into the ground & they need to move on. I also like that he covers several topics, & does a Hard Stop on any one topic monopolizing the whole show.

Not saying you're wrong, just that I differ in how I like how he moderates things in that specific respect.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by ICantDoThatDave

[DoctorAtomic]

6 hours ago, lovinbob said:

This might be splitting hairs, but I didn’t think Nance said that Shapiro’s show sucks, but rather his debate MO. He said something like, “Is this what you do on your show? Because it sucks.” 

I think that's correct, though I only watched the show once. It's still kind of condescending, but as I said earlier, I think Nance was pissed from the jump that he was paired with Shapiro. I would question as to whether he knew who the other panelist was ahead of time if he would have booked the gig. It's hard not to condescend when you get really riled up seeing the same playbook over and over and over passing for legitimate discussion, and I'm not excusing him, but it must be exhausting. 

[ApocalypseThen]

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Definitely disagree with this.  I like that when the discussion has gone off the rails (as happened in this episode) or just petered out (as happens in other episodes), Bill pulls his Moderator Card & goes "ok, next topic".  IMO, he's good at recognizing when a topic has been run into the ground & they need to move on. I also like that he covers several topics, & does a Hard Stop on any one topic monopolizing the whole show.

Not saying you're wrong, just that I differ in how I like how he moderates things in that specific respect.

 

 

Yeah, I would agree that it needs to be flexible. If a discussion is going well, stick with the topic. If not, Bill should have more secondary topics ready that he could move onto. 

I've noticed that Bill often tries to squeeze in a final topic at the end just so it "gets covered", but it often consists of each panelist speaking once about it and then Bill goes to New Rules. 

I went to check how long the CRT discussion went on for - it was only 9 minutes (at least that's what showed up on Youtube, and it seems they had the entire discussion). That means that Bill had possibly intended for that discussion to be even shorter, while giving the Cuomo topic a few more minutes at the end. I think Nance was mainly to blame for this since he started rambling about his "great great great grandfather" which got the discussion off-track.

I think part of Bill's reasoning is that "people watch his show to get the news" so he feels like he needs to cover the biggest news stories of the week. I honestly doubt a significant percentage of the audience watches Bill's show for this reason. And he has his opening and closing monologue to go over important news stories anyway.

 

 

[RealHousewife]

5 hours ago, ApocalypseThen said:

I'm not sure if you've heard about the "intellectual dark web", which is essentially a group of podcasters with different types of ideologies who have long discussions about a variety of topics. Joe Rogan, Shapiro, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson are among the "members". 

Some of them are definitely grifters (Dave Rubin being the perfect example), but I do like the idea of just sitting down and debating complex topics with people who disagree with you in a "civilized" manner. They also don't have the time restrictions Bill's show does - as some of the discussions can last for 2-3 hours.

This last episode got me thinking that Bill should at least consider sticking to one topic for the entire show from time to time. Thinking back to the topics discussed - authoritarianism, CRT, the Cuomo scandal - it would have been better to just debate one of them and flesh out the arguments more. Bill's monologue, initial interview, mid show bit, and New Rules, means that each topic can only be discussed for about 10 minutes max. And that's even though he already eliminated the guest interview at the end of each episode. 

Thanks so much! I'm familiar with all the men you mentioned, but I hadn't heard of the intellectual dark web before. I just started following their podcast. 

Yeah, I'm familiar with Dave Rubin's reputation. I really do too. It's the best way to learn. 

3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Definitely disagree with this.  I like that when the discussion has gone off the rails (as happened in this episode) or just petered out (as happens in other episodes), Bill pulls his Moderator Card & goes "ok, next topic".  IMO, he's good at recognizing when a topic has been run into the ground & they need to move on. I also like that he covers several topics, & does a Hard Stop on any one topic monopolizing the whole show.

Not saying you're wrong, just that I differ in how I like how he moderates things in that specific respect.

I see both sides. I know to really get into a topic it might need more time, but I also don't care for tension. I like that Bill changed the subject when he did. He is a good moderator imo.

[DXD526]

When I first saw this episode listed, the panel guests were Shapiro and Tavis Smiley. So it appears that Nance was brought in at the last minute. 

[Winston Wolfe]

13 hours ago, DXD526 said:

When I first saw this episode listed, the panel guests were Shapiro and Tavis Smiley. So it appears that Nance was brought in at the last minute. 

Also, with all the media coverage around Cuomo and his sexual harassment issues I don't see any scenario where having Tavis Smiley as a guest is a good idea. Yeah, I know Neil De Grasse Tyson was accused of bad behavior towards women too, but he seems to have gotten off the hook somehow.

[BK1978]

1 hour ago, Winston Wolfe said:

Yeah, I know Neil De Grasse Tyson was accused of bad behavior towards women too, but he seems to have gotten off the hook somehow.

I have never heard anything about this.  I am going to have to read up on it.

In regards to transgender athletes, I am not sure there is a good reasonable answer to this issue.  I see both sides of the argument.

I would say perhaps have transgender athletes compete only against one another but there is probably not enough athletes to do that. 

[Winston Wolfe]

9 hours ago, BK1978 said:

11 hours ago, Winston Wolfe said:

Yeah, I know Neil De Grasse Tyson was accused of bad behavior towards women too, but he seems to have gotten off the hook somehow.

I have never heard anything about this.  I am going to have to read up on it.

Oh it was a pretty big thing pre-Covid.  Here's an article from the New York Times: Neil deGrasse Tyson Keeps Job Despite Sexual Harassment Allegations