The Safe Spaces Podcast reaches its monumental Episode 60! And we’re not slowing down anytime soon, which means more (podcast) bang for your (podcast) buck. Considering we serve this politically engaging dialogue up totally gratis, that’s quite a deal. Enjoy!

Speaking of not slowing down… your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to race out and see Tom Cruise do crazy, death-defying stuff in Mission: Impossible – Fallout! Well, that’s what half our co-hosts think anyway; Nate found the sixth entry in the long-running series the best and most action-packed yet; Anton found it boring. It’s perhaps the most aggressively separated the two have been since the birth of the very podcast your listening to, so stay tuned for the fireworks!

Less controversial, however, is their opinion of Disney’s new reboot/continuation/nostalgia-grabbing Christopher Robin, which follows a middle-aged Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor), now a father, who’s been neglecting his children; his only possible salvation the return of his beloved stuffed toys from a forgotten children. Will our co-hosts see it? You’ll have to listen to find out!

Things take a turn for the serious as the conversation switches over to the headline-snaring controversy concerning The New York Times’ decision to bring Korean-American tech-journalist Sarah Jeong into their editorial fold, a move that’s only controversial because of recently unearthed twitter rants purporting to show her clear distaste of white people.

Is Sarah Jeong a racist? More importantly, does she “hate white people” as her tweets and detractors claim?  As with all things, there’s more to the story… a lot more. But that would require a level of calm and respectful discourse neither side seem to be willing to agree on. One side screams “RACISM!!” while the other blames “ALT-RIGHT TROLLS!!”… It’s a battle of the extremes where the loudest voice often prevails; it’s a Heckler’s veto for a whole new generation of moral outrage.

Jeong claims her divisive tweets were satire, “rhetoric” in the style of the abuse she’s received online as an Asian-American woman on the internet. Her tweet history also include screeds against the police and – of all things – the media. Whether the facts back up her claims or not, her argument that “the ends justifies the means” in online harassment seems to have been accepted by The New York Times – and Jeong’s fellow online journalists.

Remember Therese Patricia Okoumou? If not her name, you’ll recall her antics, including her attempted scaling of the Statue of Liberty on July 4th to protest the Trump administration’s border separation of immigrant children from their parents. Okoumou claims her own status as an immigrant gives her unique insight into how the US actually works, and that her act of civil disobedience is justified because of her adopted country’s egregious errors in judgement.

There’s that word again: justify. Does one’s status, race, gender or religion give one preferred status over another? For the social justice advocates, yes, as evidenced by the status quo of white privilege and/or white supremacy. Diversity and inclusion can help neutralize this, or so they claim. Opponents claim this justifies an increase in anti-white racism, as demonstrated not just by Sarah Jeong’s tweets but the media culture – and increasing rhetoric of the political left. There’s no consensus coming anytime soon, but at least we’re still able to discuss things rationally. Right?