I'm torn. I'm happy the gang is back together and this is def worth a watch.

But something happened that disappointed me which I'll lay out in a short thread https://twitter.com/TheGrapevineTV/status/1253474770529726466

I wanted more takes on #blackaf which there are definitely here in the ep. And what I like about @TheGrapevineTV is that there is a point where the original topic evolves and the discussion becomes something nuanced and rewarding for those plugged into the space.

I ESPECIALLY enjoy when they talk about shows. The different POV really come thru and shine. Giving you things to think about and such. However sometimes something happens during these panels which I can only call " The Jimmy effect".

Jimmy is the resident dissenter from the liberal POV that occupies much of the panel. Which works out because as a Black conservative POV he usually avoids the low information trope that usually accompanies this mindset. And having that present does add dynamics not often seen.

How ever there are topics that Jimmy clearly has low information on, and usually the topic on hand isn't it but rather a related topic. So while his POV on #blackaf was interesting and well thought about, a related topic that came up he was way out of his depth on; Colorism.

This topic goes hand in hand with #blackaf creator Kenya Barris and usually comes up. But what Jimmy does is bring up straw man after straw man, essentially trying to downplay its existence, that the panel that WAS discussing #blackaf and its context in the media landscape...

Ended up just talking about colorism and proving its existence. Derailing the panel for an 1HR. No more #blackaf talk. Any potential to talk about Black philosophy, Black media history, Black hollywood patriarchal archetypes, nuanced power(inability) of a mixed writers room, GONE

Too belabor the point of colorism. The show runner literally had this issue happen to them IRL (contextually "you're too dark & a women therefore can't give you the job") so the dudes responses are just disingenuous AND disrespectful.

Which makes his POV USELESS because its not adding anything to discussion. It seems to be Instead of asking questions, its proposing niche scenarios and straw men. Like discussing climate change with someone who argues is the sky blue.

While the table is engineered for different opinions to exist, un-researched ones are a detriment to conversations as a whole. So instead of spouting an opinion because you heard something you don't like, challenge it with a good faith question to broaden understanding.

Jimmy's done it b4. Sharing his POV on globalism's convenience when other economies are just gaining the ability to compete, in relation to climate change. The dissection of Haiti's history in relation to the DR and colonial mindsets. To name a few.

I don't dislike Jimmy. In fact the reason i wrote this thread because i remember feeling huh a covsevative Black guy that can talk the talk lets do this. But I want homeboy to respect the RESEARCH and lived experiences of his panelists instead of belittling them.

For the sake of "a fresh and innovative take on panel style discussion. From the hands and minds of millennials"....

...last thing exceeds character count lol

If every panel devolves into a managing of the "Jimmy Effect" then its gonna mirror CNN and Fox. Where the point becomes:

The audience celebrating the "read" or "dunk" of bad opinions, instead of becoming a smarter & more critical diaspora as a whole.