My title basically sums up my thoughts on why I didn't think this episode was the best. In many ways it was fine. The first guest was an interesting young data analysis. The monologue and new rules were good. Both of the members of the panel offered some interesting perspectives at times; Especially Nick Gillespie who I didn't know-about prior to this episode.
One of the new rules involved making fun of Tucker Carlson. And it stood-out as really-funny. Probably largely because it was different than normal. The show also offered some good discussions about the issues on the far-left being really anxious to bow to Twitter mobs and condemn living people for minor transgressions or errors from the past. Unlike right-wing shows, the "cancelling" issues rightly (IMO) aren't presented as the biggest slippery slope direct threats to America, like the sort of nonsense Jim Jordan and others are tying to sell to Americans. Instead cancelation incidents were presented as indirect issues because the over-prioritization of often trivial transgressions (if they're even transgressions) damages the image and reputation of generally preferable left-leaning politicians. It makes Democrats look like they're against some people ever not-being-punished or bullied for needing to learn or reconsider anything that a celebrity was ever personally seemingly wrong-about. And a lot of times it seems that the cancellation incidents are more about the publicity, money and attention of the complainer's public condemnation, than the actual problem that they're trying to show everyone that they're so outraged about. That's part of the problem too. It seems as if a lot of people aren't interested in what the person they're talking about really would think if their blog post or tweet was read by the alleged offenders. Instead the concern is about what one's cult of social media audience will think of what one presents. That too is part of the problem.