I was wondering when Saagar thinks the morally right thing to do is the all-things-considered right thing to do? Obviously, sometimes prudential considerations override moral ones -- but when does the latter override the former. Based off the Tuesday show, it seems that the argument turned on 'whether history remembers you'. Is that right? Would you be able to clarify your position?
Ken Klippenstein just figuratively pissed in the photocopier and left The Intercept with a middle finger in the air. He made a goodbye post on his substack. https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/why-im-resigning-from-the-intercept I'm sure it'll get talked about by Ryan and Emily, but can you guys get him on for a sit-down?
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/30/dozens-occupy-hamilton-hall-as-pro-palestinian-protests-spread-across-campus/ "A Facilities worker who was in the building exited the building at around 12:40 a.m., after shouting at the protesters occupying the Hamilton lobby to let him leave. As he left Hamilton, he yelled at the crowd, “They held me hostage.” Protesters removed the barricades blocking one door at 1:10 a.m., allowing several individuals who had remained inside Hamilton—including at least three Facilities workers, according to a source inside the building—to leave. Afterward, the protesters immediately relocked the door."
Do you guys think that because of Republican voter’s sense that they are always behind the eight ball in terms of culture war, they give their congress people more leeway to display heterodox views? Nancy Mace on abortion and Thomas Massie on foreign aid come to mind. But if a progressive happened to agree on the Dobbs decision or oppose funding Ukraine there seems like there would be a bigger backlash even from their voters.