I’m not posting this podcast episode link here to promote its political content, but because it contains a wonderful interview with Arundhati Roy. The interview with Ms. Roy begins at the 37:30 mark.
This OP raises a large and consequential question. What in your thinking is “political content”?
My theory is that different conceptions of what is “political” often leads to breakdown in understanding right from the outset.
I don’t understand how one can promote this interview without also, in some way, favoring it’s content. And the interview is almost entirely political in it’s content. If you had written one sentence to explain why you judged the interview “wonderful” you might have avoided this appearance of contradiction.
I have pointed out similar contradictions to persons whose political content I mostly agree with and support.
There is a common bias that tends to privilege and categorize certain types of political speach as somehow less political than others. In my opinion your OP is a wonderful illustration of this bias trap.
What is described as a “wonderful interview” is almost completely focused on political content. But no political content is promoted here?? If you take away the political content of the interview there is little left. So how is the interview “wonderful”? Did you like the sound of her voice?
I am in great sympathy with Arundhati Roy when she speaks of
the amount of deceit and intellectual dishonesty that has gone into the construction of this narrative is shameful.
That happens sometimes IMO with Buddhist political actors too.
I have no obligation to answer to your weird meta-obsessions about the style and contents of people’s posts.
I didn’t accompany the post with any of my own comments because I didn’t want to color Ms. Roy’s views with my own perspective on them. People who choose to listen can come to their own conclusions.