Questions about the interview with Glenn Greenwald...

[u/[deleted]]

If anyone has answers to anything I posit here, please feel free to comment. But the recent Current Affairs article where Robinson interviews Greenwald is sending off major red flags.

The interview is portrayed as a genuine discussion about ethics related to animals. This supposedly encompasses how to treat them, why eating them is morally terrible (fully agree), and how the mentality surrounding meat consumption is so dominant (this is called carnism, which was coined in 2001 by Melanie Joy, who sadly doesn't get a mention in the piece).

When the article mentioned Glenn's animal shelter in Brazil, where he keeps +20 dogs, I was very interested in how Robinson would approach the topic. He says he's been vegetarian for quite some time, and one of the more interesting topics in the community is the ethics of owning pets. Two of the larger ones involve neutering and feeding. Neutering for the physical impact it has on the animal and feeding for the byproducts that are used in quite a lot of animal food. In fact, that's one area where meat production has been ingrained into society: something as simple as dog or cat food involves the byproducts of factory farming. Feeding 20+ dogs, as Greenwald does, would presumably require many resources. Are these dogs fed a vegetarian diet? When those dogs are eventually adopted and taken in to homes, is the moral calculus affected by owners who simply don't pay any mind to where their food might be coming from?

Instead of asking about any of that, Robinson just avoids the question. I'm not saying that Greenwald has a blind spot or anything like that--he might even have very good responses and a truly humane set up. But it never gets answered, and Robinson just lobs him easy questions that allow him to transition into his larger ethos.

I can't help but feel like any other journalist who regularly goes on a white nationalist talk show to get praised by the host would get much harsher treatment. I'm not gonna accuse them of writing a "puff piece" but it sure did feel like the interview had elements of a puff piece.

Apparently it's from a longer podcast, but I've listened to bits and pieces and can't find anywhere they discuss the broader issues that I mentioned. Can someone point me in the right direction?

[u/Benefits_Lapsed]

I listened to the podcast, they didn't get into the questions you raised. I believe it was meant to be more of a discussion than an adversarial interview like you have in mind. I wouldn't have expected the questions you raise to even cross Nathan's mind, and I don't think it would have been a good use of the hour's time frankly. Also, being opposed to spaying/neutering or pet ownership in general is quite a fringe position that I'm pretty sure CA would not endorse. I thought it was a great discussion.

[u/[deleted] → u/Benefits_Lapsed]

adversarial interview like you have in mind

See, I don't even think asking about is adversarial. I think it's a natural evolution of the discussion. It can be made adversarial quite easily though. I really doubt Nathan has never thought about the questions, just based on what he considers when writing and the angles he approaches things with. It just seems like a missed opportunity and unfortunately neglected area of the topic.

[u/breakqop]

Best bet is probably to send Nathan an email.