Here’s my take: I hate “Subway Takes.” The Instagram show, hosted by comedian Kareem Rahma, features a simple premise: In each minute-long video, Rahma sits on a subway train with someone else and asks them for their unique hot take. He then evaluates whether he “100% agrees” or “100% disagrees,” and together, host and guest debate or further develop the take.
In my opinion, most of the takes, now almost exclusively offered by people with blue verification checks on Instagram, are uninteresting, wrong, unintelligible or all of the above. That said, it’s hard to pull my eyes away from the dumpster fire that is Subway Takes. That’s because it’s important to know other people’s opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them or critique them.
On Nov. 19, the @subwaytakes Instagram account posted an episode with comedian and actor Rachel Sennott, in which she professed her opinion that “Everyone needs to get addicted to one thing at least once in their life to prove to themselves that they can break an addiction.” After viewing the first few seconds of the video, the urge to swipe out of Instagram consumed me. The take is completely tone-deaf, horrifying in its own naivete to the terrible reality of addiction. I was crestfallen that anyone would even think of saying something like that in front of a camera. However, I kept watching, transfixed by my own disagreement with her.
It’s important to know other people’s opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them or critique them.
In an interview with The New Yorker, Rahma defended unpopular opinions offered by comedians on the show by arguing that they were sharing preposterously bad takes on purpose, as a bit. I don’t think that defense is necessary or even true — I don’t think Sennott was joking, and that’s fine. It’s okay for a take to be bad and wrong. After all, Rahma roundly disagreed with Sennott, responding that opioids, for example, are a dangerous addiction that should not be encouraged.
Upon the mention of opioids, Sennott immediately retracted her argument, stating that she hadn’t even considered how her opinion could be applied to other, less agreeable situations. At the end of the video, she conceded that her take was “ultimately wrong and dangerous and bad.” Even though I agreed with her on that — her take was distasteful at best, harmful at worst — I enjoyed watching the video. I appreciated getting a deeper view into Sennott’s mind, and I was glad to see that someone was able to talk her out of such an insensitive opinion. Public debate is beneficial: The video might have discouraged another viewer from being so flippant in discussing addiction.
Subway Takes is, admittedly, a silly show full of absurd takes. A more serious example of a questionable opinion being displayed in public is a recent episode of “Interesting Times,” a podcast by The New York Times hosted by Ross Douthat. On Nov. 6, an episode was published under the headline, “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” featuring two conservative critics of contemporary feminism, Helen Andrews and Leah Libresco Sargeant.
Watching this debate was the antithesis of easy enjoyment, but I thought it was a welcome reprise from my online echo chamber.
I found the debate, moderated by Douthat, reprehensible both in form and in content. The debate was often hostile, as seen in the two-minute promotional clip of the interview, and Douthat asked leading questions that were often ignored by his guests. I disagree with the core opinions: Andrews argues that feminism and wokeness have made workplaces too “feminized,” forcing out masculine “virtues,” while Sargeant argues that workplaces are not suited for women’s inherent qualities — which are different from men’s inherent qualities.
My critique is that their gender essentialist views are too simplistic and abstract; they rely on Aristotelian ideas of binary gender to describe contemporary experiences, which creates an irresolvable disconnect between their rhetoric and the real experience of women. They fail to acknowledge the continued culture of harassment against women that exists in many workplaces across the United States: Only two weeks after the release of the podcast episode, Amber Czech, a welder, was killed by a male coworker at her workplace.
As much as I disliked the debate, I defend the right for all three parties involved, and The New York Times, to release a debate on a premise I vehemently disagree with. I enjoyed dissecting the arguments made by the conservative thinkers, as I came up with defenses to my own feminist views that I wouldn’t have even thought necessary beforehand. The algorithms on the social media sites we use are designed to feed us content we agree with and enjoy uncritically; watching this debate was the antithesis of easy enjoyment, but I thought it was a welcome reprise from my online echo chamber.
In addition, the podcast spurred a wealth of interesting debate in the comment section on The New York Times website and other social media sites. The very title of the episode drew fiery criticism, with commenters arguing that it was harmful to even consider the idea that women could “ruin” a “workplace.” Ariel Dumas wrote a witty satirical piece reaffirming her own ruination of her workplace in The New Yorker. Inspired by Andrews’ and Sargeant’s debate, a wealth of other opinions were published defending women’s right to exist in the workplace without scrutiny or stereotyping.
Platforming Andrews and Sargeant shouldn’t be seen as a move to endorse either of their views, but instead an invitation for others to interact with their ideas through contradiction. I’m glad that other people took that invitation seriously and responded to the “Interesting Times” episode with concise and sharp critiques.
One caveat I’d like to make is the distinction between opinions, disinformation and hate speech. A debate between two conservative thinkers on a podcast produced by The New York Times is not the same as, for example, political influencer Laura Loomer’s extensive list of endorsed conspiracy theories, which have all been proven factually incorrect. Giving these erroneous claims airtime is dangerous, insofar as spectators might ignore any fact-checking and start to buy into the incendiary conspiracy theories.
I want her to voice her opinion because I want people to be able to disagree with her and change her mind, just as I’d welcome anyone arguing against my own take in this article.
It’s also unjust to allow for content creators, like Loomer or anti-feminist Andrew Tate, to profit off of spewing hate towards groups of people based on race, gender, immigration status or sexuality. My point is not to let anyone say anything in the public sphere without regulation — hate speech should be demonetized and deplatformed. However, it’s also important to publicly debunk and delegitimize these theories, which I’d argue are not opinions. It’s important to know what everyone’s beliefs are, no matter how absurd or harmful.
For example, United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) has publicly voiced his belief that vaccines cause autism since 2023. It’s important to note, of course, that RFK is factually incorrect — many large-scale studies have proven that there is no link between childhood vaccines and autism.
Because RFK was given a platform to speak his opinion, everyone knew that RFK espoused the erroneous belief that vaccines cause autism. When he was sworn in as Secretary of HHS earlier this year, greater scrutiny was applied to all the moves he made in his new, influential position. If we hadn’t already known his anti-vaccination views, which came directly from his mouth during interviews, would journalists know to spend more time covering vaccine-skeptical changes to the HHS website’s wording or to report on the new, quietly-appointed second-in-command at HHS, who is also critical of vaccines?
RFK’s views on vaccines are important to know if one wishes to understand his tenure at HHS. In order to discourage other people from believing the fallacy that vaccines cause autism, the best plan is not to stop reporting on RFK’s beliefs — rather, the most effective antidote is to repeatedly disavow and argue against RFK in the public forum. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and everyone has the right to disagree; these intellectual skirmishes are effective at enabling spectators to conduct their own research and understand various perspectives of a situation.
As the Trump administration continues to restrict reporters’ movements within the press department at the White House, further illustrating its desire to suppress media coverage critical of the government, it is all the more important to protect everyone’s right to participate in public debate. Words are incredibly powerful, and the right to argue cannot be restricted to one political ideology. That necessarily means that, if you want your voice to be heard, you must hear others’ you disagree with.
If I have the right to publish an opinion on the importance of opinions, then Sennott must also have the right to share her opinion that everyone should have an addiction once in their life. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with Sennott — it doesn’t even mean I have to pretend that her opinion is inalienable. I want her to voice her opinion because I want people to be able to disagree with her and change her mind, just as I’d welcome anyone arguing against my own take in this article.
Opinions are almost always particularly personal views, deeply rooted in one’s own experience. That doesn’t mean that all opinions have to be tolerated; however, all opinions have the right to be expressed, inviting pushback through discourse. We must understand that each person has the right to express their own individual takes; only then can we disagree wholeheartedly with them and engage in a good-faith debate.
