I think calling him an idiot is too reductive. It side-steps and betrays a proper attempt to diagnose his pattern of behavior and thinking, and disables our ability to meaningfully counter his positions to him or in the public sphere where his ideas are retweeted and discussed by people sympathetic to his positions as "one of the good ones".
Generally speaking, it's dangerous to just call people "idiots" unless their IQ is 70 or something. It's essential that the mentality and belief system of such people be fully understood so that we can address them and people who think like this definitively and effectively, with the goal of limiting the germination and spread of these embryonic thoughts.
Yeah no, his content within the interview is enough for me to call him an idiot. This same guy thinks today's NBA players are spoiled when he did what they did back in the day, is anti-Analytics despite them having legitimacy in the NBA, and that's before getting into some of his nonsensical politics/society views. An idiot like him thinks it's possible for one of -if not- the most stubborn and child-minded president(s) in American History to simply listen to whatever GSW would have to say, and completely ignore Trump's history as a bigot, sexist, jingoist and whatever else -ists. That is the definition of being ridiculously disingenuous, especially when he as a black man should know how incompatible Trump's policy interests is with his (and every other black man, woman, children, etc) experience as a Black American.
Additionally, the discussion of patterns and behaviours would only work if the other side is willing to concede. Given how Trump, Barkley, etc. act on social media, and their propensity to be stubborn, there is absolutely no way a proper discussion can be had. They aren't going to admit that they are wrong, so what's the point?
