As if it’s spelled Nessle, haha. Glad I’m not the only one.
4 Likes
So I’m listening to the Rachel Hollis episodes now. I can’t remember if I read one of her books or if I listened to a by the book podcast episode but I had some negative impressions of her work before. I didn’t realize she was SO problematic though.
Girl, check your privelege.
6 Likes
I just listened to Belle Gibson episode and woah, um, I should have known this? Since it happened in my country? But also Hello Systemic Lack of Fact Check I feel like the majority was hugely interesting story and gossip and the last 15-20 minutes were, like, a whole meaty conversation I’d like to have about ethics and responsibility of morning TV shows and publishers.
8 Likes
I had never even heard of her before MP but that episode was so entertaining/wild.
2 Likes
Right? Woooaaah. I’m partway through her first episode… So far I like how it feels like a somewhat balanced recounting based on information they have, both sympathy for her background, admiration for her skills (she’s a good writer!) And then… The wtf over the bad/ ridiculous.
Rachel makes me think of Glennon Doyle but the dark version?
3 Likes
the ex-husband is a piece of work
I mean, I’m happy he is getting treatment now, but seriously question his choice of providers - it feels like it is the trappings of treatment without actually addressing the stuff? I have so many comments about his treatment of his kids during that infamous Instagram Live (gaslight? abusive manipulation? narcissism? on top of the appearing to be in a manic condition). Such a train wreck, difficult to look away.
The extreme lack of self reflection while claiming to be ‘doing the work’ is incredible to me. Perhaps I’m triggered by several coworkers who claim to be outwards giving “servant leadership” holier than thou while being so incredibly caught up in themselves and unwilling to recognize other people might have different life experiences or responses.
And yes, the ongoing ‘you can do it if you believe in yourself (and have someone around you willing to give you $$$)’, with the second half unsaid.
7 Likes
Listening to the latest episode now and it’s a great listen! I’ve learned a lot about diabetes, and I love the fact checking- especially how they break down big stats into their actual parts.
The 2 big things I thought were true before:
-
I thought it was true that type 2 diabetes got that name change was bc there are more kids with it now.
-
I also believed the whole “this generation won’t outlive their parents” had a basis way beyond “intuition”.
7 Likes
I found the history of the diabetes names really interesting!
4 Likes
I’m listening to Jordan Peterson.
Whaaaaaaaaat
4 Likes
That one was so wild!! I had no idea his whole Russian healthcare thing started with an extreme withdrawl. I felt kinda like the hosts, like even a dude with bad ideas shouldn’t be subjected to poor healthcare 
4 Likes
I’m not all the way through the second episode! But yeah his family has had some horrible experiences with medical issues.
3 Likes
I went on a rabbit hole with him when I first started hearing/seeing him all over the internet and was like “who dis?”. The first video of his I saw I was like, I have to know more about this because it was just a frail looking guy at a podium, shitty film and no editing, and it had like 15 million views or something. Wild. His whole story is like…such a time and place thing but also I enjoy psychoanalyzing him from my v comfy armchair, haha. The comments sections too…so much material. I haven’t listened to the MP episode yet though.
I just listened to the Dr. Oz one the other day–I didn’t even know about that guy. He had a pretty weird origin story too.
3 Likes
Yeah the Dr oz origin story surprised me!
Jordan Peterson I knew more about his politics because he’s local, but the diet and health stuff surprised me. I guess I have less patience for the complaints about foreign health care because he could have been treated here. He could have even gone to rehab. Just not had the protocol he wanted. During a pandemic 
9 Likes
I’ve never seen his show, but I thought they brought up an interesting idea on that episode: what does it mean to endorse something? Like, if you have a person on your show and interview them, does that necessarily confer endorsement? Is talking about a theory and the ideas behind it an endorsement? In the case of Dr. Oz I think he is being genuinely misleading in the clips they played on MP, but I see this perception a lot in general and it feels intellectually regressive but also very of the moment–like I don’t recall that concept being so prevalent 10-15 years ago.
That idea makes me want to put my back against the wall because it’s so intensely limiting in terms of who and what can be talked about. I hear it quite often though, like as evidence of the lack of value of an entire book or show or whatever (“Well they interviewed Polarizing Figure once so it’s a trash show”- type comments.) Do disclaimers make a difference, like should every show have a disclaimer at the start that explains that talking about an idea, theory, or to a person doesn’t confer consensus? I feel like the answer would be “yes” but that in practice that wouldn’t be carried through, and the perspective would remain. IDK. I guess I’d like to see how the hosts of MP would like a show that talks about alternative medicine or fringe ideas to present things-- or would they say those ideas shouldn’t be presented at all?
6 Likes
I absolutely agree! I do think that Dr. oz (and I’ve seen parts of his show) often did endorse what he was talking about. But in my childhood all the talk shows had terrible people and products on! Sometimes endorsing and sometimes not - and I also think that’s where internet cancel culture gets weird. Like anyone who was on tv in the nineties you could find clips of them talking about and being open to TERRIBLE ideas. Im from those times, so are those people! If they acted the same exact way now it wouldn’t work. But let’s not skewer everyone for existing in the nineties. I used gay and racist slurs at school before someone explained them to me. I do not use those now or for many many years.
I know that I follow podcasts that I think do a good job of discussing alternative medicine or new products or procedures, also that some of those won’t age well. One example is that I love a makeover show! The kind where you nominate yourself and have some say in results and are happy at the end! But I can’t find any makeover shows anymore because it’s not cool to want to look different.
6 Likes
Yeah I agree. I think people even overvalue what the “like” button means? I use it so I can remember which videos I’ve watched on YouTube and then find them again, lol, but if you looked through my history of “liked” videos and assumed that I personally agreed with 100% of the content of all of them? I mean it wouldn’t even make sense because so many of the videos are in direct conflict with each other. But I think that’s definitely how a lot of people take it, “like” means agree, reading something means you agree, talking about something means you agree. It’s the same here, I often use the like button to say, “I see your comment and have read it” or “I feel for you” not a literal “I LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING AND AGREE”. LOL.
I feel like it’s also loosely connected to this idea that the only people who enjoy debate/devil’s advocate/researching and talking about extreme ideas is some total asshole privileged white guy who has no stake in what happens, has never had anything bad happen to him, has zero compassion, and is somehow shielded from the impacts of harmful ideas/politics. But like…says who? That is not my experience at all with people who are highly curious. I think it’s just a personality thing. I mean, I genuinely enjoy hearing all sorts of ideas, including ideas that are actively hateful towards people like me…I just, want to know their thinking and how they arrived at it! Haha. I’m nosy! It doesn’t impact me in a really emotional way because it’s just, interest. I like trying to get to some kind of bridge-point of understanding like…ok I see how this is maybe appealing if xyz or if you think this is true, etc.
GIRL. Hahaha, yes. I also miss those. And I agree you cannot judge people of the past by today’s standards. I mean, if we start doing that even the most noble activists who helped us achieve huge strides in equality are going to come up massively short. And so are we in a couple of decades.
7 Likes
Just listened to this episode as well and it was a great one. I actually recently got screened for type 1 diabetes due to some symptoms that made it a slight possibility (all clear) and to be honest never realized before this that adult onset is also possible for type 1, the “juvenile” narrative is just so strong
6 Likes
They kind of addressed this in their most recent bonus episode, in which they were watching Goop Lab- Michael mentioned that they had no opposing views on. Like they talk to someone who says that X,Y, or Z is real and works, and then they (thin white women) try the thing, but they don’t talk to anyone who says nom that’s not how X, Y, or Z could possibly work.
6 Likes
That does make sense! And I remember the news used to always do that - have two or three guests discussing a topic. I can see it being harder to have the panel style in things like podcasts (both booking guests and the conversation not flowing) but asking hosts to mention the alternative or ask the guest about it makes sense
5 Likes
Right, something else I think he said was that they didn’t address any concern/counter-thoughts/etc. that people might have, in a “now you might think…” kind of way. Sometimes you can get away with just that if you have only one guest. But just ignoring that there ARE objections is concerning.
5 Likes