So I am commuting quite a bit lately, so I have taken to listening to podcasts in the car. Thought people might be interested in what I've enjoyed, and perhaps be willing to make some recommendations.
Some of the ones I subscribe to:
Dan Carlins Hardcore History
http://www.dancarlin.com/hh-55/
Just really, really outstanding. A great overview of historical stuff, rather long form, but incredibly good. Probably my overall favorite, but maddeningly slow to come out with new content (which of course is because he is pretty thorough and long).
Dan Carlins Common Sense
http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/
His "companion" podcast on politics. Carlin is pretty small-l libertarian, and while I don't agree with everything he has to say, he is always interesting and tends to have pretty good guests. And I do agree with a lot of what he has to say in regards to corruption in politics and the overall health of the US system of government.
Waking Up with Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/waking-up
Pretty good stuff. Atheist with some pretty strong ideas about religion and the dangers thereof, has gotten himself into some trouble with some of his comments. Kind of a mix of new agey sort of mysticism grounded in at least some kind of nod to science though. Again, you may not agree with him on much, but he is interesting and has pretty cool guests usually.
Young Turks
Good for an occasional peek into the progressive world. Kind of over-done mostly though, sometimes I wonder if they are trying to be kind of a caricature, but I suspect not.
Freakonomics
http://freakonomics.com/radio/freakonomics-radio-podcast-archive/
Can be a little hit and miss, but overall pretty interesting stuff a decent chunk of the time.
Revolutions
http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/
History focused on covering his view son the great revolutions. Just finished up the French Revolution, which was very, very good, if a bit longer than maybe it needed to be. Going to do Haiti next, which seems kind of weird to me.
Startalk with Neil Tyson
Podcast on science stuff. I really like Tyson, but overall I don't much care for the podcast. The content seems interesting, but the format and delivery can be (IMO) incredibly annoying.
Serial
http://serialpodcast.org/
just finished up the first season of this. A spin off from This American Life, which I have not listened to - but this is out-freaking-standing. A really, really interesting look into a murder and trial in Baltimore back in 1999. Really, the content of this first season could warrant an entire thread of discussion on it's own. I would love to hear BBs take on the case, for example. I am actually trying hard to talk my wife, who has never listened to any podcast, into listening to this because I think she would really enjoy it. If I had to recommend one to a "general listener" that I didn't know their interest level in things like history, this would be it.
Anyway, if anyone has comments on some of them in particular, or good recommendations for non-freakazoid podcasts that are worth listening to, please let me know, I am looking for new content!
I'm usually listening at work, so I focus on lighter, less distracting fare like Comedy or Interview Podcasts.
Harmontown (http://harmontownpodcast.castmate.fm) - Dan Harmon can be a hug ass, but when he gets going on a rant it's absolutely nuts. Complete newbies playing PnP RPGs is also hilarious. For a short taste check out Harmontown At Largo (http://www.castmate.fm/embed_frame.php?s=1&i=5446&u=harmontownpodcast) which features the co-creator of Rick and Morty as well as John Oliver and Sarah Chalke.
Comedy Bang Bang (http://www.earwolf.com/show/comedy-bang-bang/) - A bit uneven, but worth a listen when one of the regulars (Paul F. Tompkins, Jason Mantzoukas, Lauren Lapkus and others) shows up.
Worst Idea of All Time (http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-worst-idea-of-all-time) - Two New Zealanders decide to watch the same terrible movie once a week for a year. Year one was Grown Ups 2, year two is Sex and the City 2. The impressive element is the effort they make to actually watch the movie each time, rather than just have it on in the background while doing other things.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 11:49:28 AM
Serial
http://serialpodcast.org/
just finished up the first season of this. A spin off from This American Life, which I have not listened to - but this is out-freaking-standing. A really, really interesting look into a murder and trial in Baltimore back in 1999. Really, the content of this first season could warrant an entire thread of discussion on it's own. I would love to hear BBs take on the case, for example. I am actually trying hard to talk my wife, who has never listened to any podcast, into listening to this because I think she would really enjoy it. If I had to recommend one to a "general listener" that I didn't know their interest level in things like history, this would be it.
Anyway, if anyone has comments on some of them in particular, or good recommendations for non-freakazoid podcasts that are worth listening to, please let me know, I am looking for new content!
Thanks for the list. It reminded me I really should give podcasts a shot during my own commute. I typically listen to streaming audio, but half of the LRT line is underground and thus out of any wireless signal.
I just downloaded the first two episodes of Serial. I'll give it a shot and report back, but I can't make any promises. I'm somewhat hit-and-miss when it comes to crime reporting. Sometimes I find it fascinating, sometimes though it just feels like work.
The only podcast I follow is The Co-Optional Podcast with Totalbiscuit, Jesse Cox, Dodger and *guest* where they bullshit about video games for three hours. Though I normally watch it on Twitch or on YouTube.
Quote from: frunk on October 01, 2015, 12:36:42 PM
I'm usually listening at work, so I focus on lighter, less distracting fare like Comedy or Interview Podcasts.
Harmontown (http://harmontownpodcast.castmate.fm) - Dan Harmon can be a hug ass, but when he gets going on a rant it's absolutely nuts. Complete newbies playing PnP RPGs is also hilarious. For a short taste check out Harmontown At Largo (http://www.castmate.fm/embed_frame.php?s=1&i=5446&u=harmontownpodcast) which features the co-creator of Rick and Morty as well as John Oliver and Sarah Chalke.
Comedy Bang Bang (http://www.earwolf.com/show/comedy-bang-bang/) - A bit uneven, but worth a listen when one of the regulars (Paul F. Tompkins, Jason Mantzoukas, Lauren Lapkus and others) shows up.
Worst Idea of All Time (http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-worst-idea-of-all-time) - Two New Zealanders decide to watch the same terrible movie once a week for a year. Year one was Grown Ups 2, year two is Sex and the City 2. The impressive element is the effort they make to actually watch the movie each time, rather than just have it on in the background while doing other things.
I listen to them while driving, so I actually want something pretty engaging and meaty. You know, so I don't fall asleep and drive off the road.
Red Bar Radio https://redbarradio.net (https://redbarradio.net) - a very irreverent comedy podcast with a guy commenting on current issues.
Feast of Fun http://feastoffun.com (http://feastoffun.com) - gay stuff
Real Time with Bill Maher - essentially podcast recording of the show
Friday Night Comedy from Radio 4 - essentially podcast recording of the show on BBC Radio 4, rotating 3 different shows each Friday night
Living Thelema - an occult podcast :ph34r:
That's it. With the exception of Bill Maher, I found and started to listening to all of them pretty much by chance.
A French Canadian Gaming Podcast called Radio Talbot
Rebel FM (http://rebelfm.libsyn.com/) A Gaming Podcast
CAG Cast (https://www.cheapassgamer.com/) Another Gaming Podcast
Nintendo Radio Free (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/podcast/) A Nintendo centric gaming Podcast
ESPN's PTI (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=2406595) Tony & Mike Sports show
Marek vs Wyshynski (http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/marek-vs-wyshynski/) Hockey Podcast
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 12:54:50 PM
I listen to them while driving, so I actually want something pretty engaging and meaty. You know, so I don't fall asleep and drive off the road.
I'm pretty sure these won't put you to sleep, but they may not be what you want.
Quote from: frunk on October 01, 2015, 01:30:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 12:54:50 PM
I listen to them while driving, so I actually want something pretty engaging and meaty. You know, so I don't fall asleep and drive off the road.
I'm pretty sure these won't put you to sleep, but they may not be what you want.
I am going to check them out, of course. Thanks for recommendations...
I actually do use some of them before falling asleep. They are perfect for this, as they occupy my mind without emitting light - I started doing so when I used to have sleeping problems, and now it's more of a nice habit.
That would drive me absolutely nuts. How do you know where you stopped listening so you know where to pick it back up???
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2015, 01:46:48 PM
That would drive me absolutely nuts. How do you know where you stopped listening so you know where to pick it back up???
It doesn't matter - I don't mind re-listening to the same episode.
I've been listening to several of Grantland's podcasts for a while. Particulary recomended for US sports fans, I guess, although they also have podcasts on movies and tv shows.
http://grantland.com/podcasts/all/ (http://grantland.com/podcasts/all/)
Mainly Radio 4 stuff:
More or less: Behind the stats - the reliability of statistics in newstories or the statistics behind news events:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/rss.xml
In Our Time - Melvyn Bragg and academics/historians discuss historical, scientific or philosphical thingys/stuff:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/rss.xml
Tweet of the day:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/totd/rss.xml
Short two minute items about a bird and it's song.
I love More or Less.
Other good BBC podcasts are Great Lives, Desert Island Discs, Witness.
Berkie, episode 1 of Serial was interesting. Will listen to more.
The presentation of the case is slightly annoying to me though, how it's cut up into 12 episodes. I guess it gives more structure to the podcast, but I'd kind of prefer to just get my big binders of disclosure from the homicide detectives and start reading from the beginning.
NPR's Planet Money: similar to Freakonomics, but comes across as more rigorous. I'm not a fan of Freakonomics and prefer this podcast instead.
NPR's Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me: comedy program centered around news/current events. Usually hilarious.
The History of Rome: I'm slowly making my way through this from the beginning. My biggest gripe is that the recorded volume is really low so I can't hear it in the car or subway, even with the volume cranked all the way up. Mike Duncan went on to do another podcast on Revolutions, which also seems interesting.
The Ancient World: Like History of Rome but with a different guy and focused on, naturally, the ancient world.
The China History Podcast: decent podcasts on topics from Chinese history. He can be a little long-winded though.
Occasionally I'll listen to Radiolab or This American Life. NPR's Invisibilia was pretty good too, but it had a short run, just 7 episodes.
I listen to News in Slow French and News in Slow Spanish. I'm looking for something a little more challenging in both languages; but still simple enough that someone who doesn't have complete fluency in both languages, could follow. Does anyone have any recommendations?
Slow news day?
A new Podcast is starting up called History on Fire. Only one installment so far on the slave revolts which occurred before Spartacus. It is really very good. Similar to the quality of Dan Carlin's material.
Also for people who liked the Ancient World Podcast give "History of our World" by Rob Monaco a try. I like his delivery and he gives a lot of details about the myths and day to day lives of the ancients that makes the subject quite engaging.
I personally don't see the appeal that Dan Carlin seems to have, I listened to a couple of his podcasts and his style really grates me, it's so sensationalistic and theatrical (you can really see that he comes from a radio jockey background). And that dramatic flair he puts on it turns all his podcasts into really long affairs. Personally I very much prefer Mike Duncan's more laid back tone.
A good contrast of these two styles is the episode Mike Duncan did for a project called "10 American Presidents" (http://www.10usp.com/ (http://www.10usp.com/)) for Washington. On it he goes deeper in the same direction he went for the segment on the American Revolution for his own podcast, basically that the colonists were a bunch of tax dodging crybabies and Washington himself a quite lousy general (except for logistics and retreats, in which he excelled), which really contrasted with some segments with dramatic background music and bombastic actors reciting from the period texts they used to illustrate some of the points they touched.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 06, 2015, 03:23:19 PM
I listen to News in Slow French and News in Slow Spanish. I'm looking for something a little more challenging in both languages; but still simple enough that someone who doesn't have complete fluency in both languages, could follow. Does anyone have any recommendations?
Canadian French language baseball.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 04:10:01 PM
Canadian French language baseball.
But they no longer have a team. Minor League baseball?
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2015, 09:21:33 PM
But they no longer have a team. Minor League baseball?
They still broadcast other cities' games.
Quote from: The Larch on October 06, 2015, 04:07:19 PM
I personally don't see the appeal that Dan Carlin seems to have, I listened to a couple of his podcasts and his style really grates me, it's so sensationalistic and theatrical (you can really see that he comes from a radio jockey background). And that dramatic flair he puts on it turns all his podcasts into really long affairs. Personally I very much prefer Mike Duncan's more laid back tone.
A good contrast of these two styles is the episode Mike Duncan did for a project called "10 American Presidents" (http://www.10usp.com/ (http://www.10usp.com/)) for Washington. On it he goes deeper in the same direction he went for the segment on the American Revolution for his own podcast, basically that the colonists were a bunch of tax dodging crybabies and Washington himself a quite lousy general (except for logistics and retreats, in which he excelled), which really contrasted with some segments with dramatic background music and bombastic actors reciting from the period texts they used to illustrate some of the points they touched.
I couldn't agree more. While the material may be interesting I cannot listen to Carlin.
I agree that he has a certain grating quality but his material is quite good.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 06, 2015, 03:23:19 PM
News in Slow Spanish.
I like this concept, but not gonna pay 50 bucks a year for the privilege. Que lastima.
Quote from: sbr on October 06, 2015, 09:32:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 06, 2015, 04:07:19 PM
I personally don't see the appeal that Dan Carlin seems to have, I listened to a couple of his podcasts and his style really grates me, it's so sensationalistic and theatrical (you can really see that he comes from a radio jockey background). And that dramatic flair he puts on it turns all his podcasts into really long affairs. Personally I very much prefer Mike Duncan's more laid back tone.
A good contrast of these two styles is the episode Mike Duncan did for a project called "10 American Presidents" (http://www.10usp.com/ (http://www.10usp.com/)) for Washington. On it he goes deeper in the same direction he went for the segment on the American Revolution for his own podcast, basically that the colonists were a bunch of tax dodging crybabies and Washington himself a quite lousy general (except for logistics and retreats, in which he excelled), which really contrasted with some segments with dramatic background music and bombastic actors reciting from the period texts they used to illustrate some of the points they touched.
I couldn't agree more. While the material may be interesting I cannot listen to Carlin.
The material is interesting indeed (one of the ones I listened was about the Münster rebellion and it was very interesting), what I can't stand is the delivery.
The makers of The Lego Movie are making a TV series of Serial.
"Everything - even potential miscarriages of justice - is awesome."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34411026 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34411026)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 06, 2015, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on October 06, 2015, 03:23:19 PM
News in Slow Spanish.
I like this concept, but not gonna pay 50 bucks a year for the privilege. Que lastima.
You can get a 7 minute version which covers one topic for free. Also if you go far enough back in the archives you'll find the complete 30 minute podcast for free.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 04:10:01 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on October 06, 2015, 03:23:19 PM
I listen to News in Slow French and News in Slow Spanish. I'm looking for something a little more challenging in both languages; but still simple enough that someone who doesn't have complete fluency in both languages, could follow. Does anyone have any recommendations?
Canadian French language baseball.
That's a good idea; thanks Yi.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Berkie, episode 1 of Serial was interesting. Will listen to more.
The presentation of the case is slightly annoying to me though, how it's cut up into 12 episodes. I guess it gives more structure to the podcast, but I'd kind of prefer to just get my big binders of disclosure from the homicide detectives and start reading from the beginning.
You get any further Beebs?
I've started listening to another podcast on the case, kind of run by the accused's aunt. Obviously there is a bias there, but it is pretty interesting to really dig into the nitty gritty details of a murder case, at least I think it is...
For me, it really raises some troubling questions about how crimes are "investigated", or rather, how the prosecution shifts from "finding out what happened" to "creating a case", and how that fundamentally changes their approach to investigation in rather disturbing ways.
Example from this one: A brandy bottle was found near the body. There were skin cells taken from the mouth of the bottle. During the investigation, when the focus of the investigation was on Anan, and investigators found out that he was Muslim and almost never drank, it was clear that it was incredibly unlikely that the bottle was a link to their suspect.
So they didn't do DNA testing on those samples, since it could not help their case, and in fact could very likely harm their case.
Here, the goal is not to learn more about what happened, but rather to construct a conviction. That bothers me....a lot.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 03:30:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Berkie, episode 1 of Serial was interesting. Will listen to more.
The presentation of the case is slightly annoying to me though, how it's cut up into 12 episodes. I guess it gives more structure to the podcast, but I'd kind of prefer to just get my big binders of disclosure from the homicide detectives and start reading from the beginning.
You get any further Beebs?
I've started listening to another podcast on the case, kind of run by the accused's aunt. Obviously there is a bias there, but it is pretty interesting to really dig into the nitty gritty details of a murder case, at least I think it is...
For me, it really raises some troubling questions about how crimes are "investigated", or rather, how the prosecution shifts from "finding out what happened" to "creating a case", and how that fundamentally changes their approach to investigation in rather disturbing ways.
Example from this one: A brandy bottle was found near the body. There were skin cells taken from the mouth of the bottle. During the investigation, when the focus of the investigation was on Anan, and investigators found out that he was Muslim and almost never drank, it was clear that it was incredibly unlikely that the bottle was a link to their suspect.
So they didn't do DNA testing on those samples, since it could not help their case, and in fact could very likely harm their case.
Here, the goal is not to learn more about what happened, but rather to construct a conviction. That bothers me....a lot.
I got through about three episodes. Sorry.
Tunnel vision is a definite risk in this line of work to be sure. WHen I was with the Feds we did a one-day workshop precisely on that topic together with RCMP. In this particular instance though... there are limits on resources. DNA testing is expensive, and the labs will often reject or limit the number of tests they perform (plus, unlike CSI, results take 3-6 months, not 30 seconds). In this case the body was found in a park often frequented by winos and drug users. Even getting a DNA hit on someone else doesn't mean the bottle was in any way associated with Hae's body.
In some ways that kind of frustrated me about the show. It went off on all these side-routes, when the case lived and died by Jay's testimony. He was an eyewitness. Either his story is true, or he is inventing it out of whole cloth. Let me know more about him, and less about these unimportant side-stories.
Also, it did seem a bit too much like work. Right now, for example, my desk is buried in the "nitty gritty details" of a string of smash-and-grab B&Es.
I understand the idea of limited resources. But the bottle was found literally within inches of her body, and the body was only there for a short period of time.
So that means that the bottle was there *while* the killer was burying her, but was not kicked or thrown out of the way while they dug her grave - possible, but not terribly likely, or the bottle was connected, or it ended up there afterwards. Again, possible.
And yes, the case lives and dies on Jay's testimony. You see this as a tangent, because it doesn't speak to his testimony, and hence is not interesting from the standpoint of getting a conviction.
It could be VERY interesting from the standpoint of indicating that there might be a line of questioning that is worth pursuing other than what the investigators seemed to have already locked in on - namely Adnan.
What if they run that and find out the DNA matches to another killer who had abducted and strangled another Woodlawn student 6 months earlier, and dumped her body in Lincoln Park as well...for example?
I think that changes the entire focus of the investigation. I can understand that if you think you know who killed her already, that isn't intereting. But that is my point - at that point you are no longer engaged in an investigation, you are making a case, and trying pretty hard to ignore the evidence that doesn't help you do so.
I get that this is somewhat necessary. You can't just spin your wheels forever chasing down every lead.
Beebs, I get that this could be incredibly uninteresting to you, btw.
I find it incredibly fascinating - it makes me wish I had chosen a different line of work.
Feel free to blow me off as my participation level is going to inevitably vastly exceed your own tolerance for responding to my thoughts.
Does any of you follow "When diplomacy fails"? It is apparently highly recommended.
http://whendiplomacyfails.libsyn.com/ (http://whendiplomacyfails.libsyn.com/)
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2015, 12:19:31 PM
Does any of you follow "When diplomacy fails"? It is apparently highly recommended.
http://whendiplomacyfails.libsyn.com/ (http://whendiplomacyfails.libsyn.com/)
I tried WDF. I really tried. However, I just can't stand the podcaster's nasal teenage voice, and most of the content is parts taken word from word from his sources, rather than synthesize it in his own narrative style (like Mike Duncan does for Revolutions and The History of Rome). This is disappointing, because AFAIK it is the only podcast who does the whole Thirty Years War with any level of detail.
The latest Hardcore History is out. :ph34r:
Apparently ESPN is shutting down Grantland. :( I followed lots of their podcasts, I'm really going to miss them.
The last couple of weeks I've been listening to all of Star Talk (Dr Neil is The Awesome, but Bill Nye is on many of them, and I just can't stand him).
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 30, 2015, 02:42:59 PM
The latest Hardcore History is out. :ph34r:
Oh Thank God. I was worried we would only get one all year.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 30, 2015, 02:42:59 PM
The latest Hardcore History is out. :ph34r:
This is one of my favourites. Very well structured.
I started listening to the Revolutions podcast yesterday. Most of you have probably been listening to it for the last year or so. For those of you who haven't yet, I highly recommend it.
Bumping this!
After going through all of Mike Duncan's currently published material, I'm looking for some other good history podcast recommendations. I would be particularly interested in the history of the Americas (north and/or south), since the fragments in Revolutions that touched upon the continent whetted my appetite in that direction, and it's not a part of the world I'm super-knowledgeable about.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 30, 2015, 02:55:43 PM
The last couple of weeks I've been listening to all of Star Talk (Dr Neil is The Awesome, but Bill Nye is on many of them, and I just can't stand him).
I really like Tyson of course, but can't really stand Star Talk.
The other people babbling are fucking annoying as hell, and not even close to as funny as they think they are, I just want them to STFU.
Some podcasts I'm listening to, all highly recommended:
Revolutions
History of Rome
History of Philosophy without any gaps
In Our Time
The Maritime History Podcast
The Infinite Monkey Cage
and a glorious short series on Venice by Serge Simonart (in Flemish)
I've been enjoying Probably Science (http://www.probablyscience.com), which is 2-4 comedians with STEM background doing either recent science news sometimes with celebrity guests, or interviews with scientists about their field. Generally fun and interesting.
I listen to podcasts every day on the daily walk to work, so I spent a bit of time scouring for them. Here's a list of favorites:
Serial (season 1). Never really got into season 2. If you enjoy the true crime stuff, Criminal (http://thisiscriminal.com/) does standalone stories on true crime, often quite esoteric and quirky. Definitely worth a listen. If you just want more about Adnan Syed, there's Undisclosed, which is a more opinionated and infinitely more detailed examination of the finer details of the case. Gets tedious after a while, but it makes you realize how much deeper the layers are and how extensive a relatively simple case can actually be.
99% Invisible (http://99percentinvisible.org/) is a podcast about design in the broadest sense of the word. The recent episode on "Unpleasant design" (specific elements designed to deter people sleeping on benches or loitering in public spaces etc.) is definitely worth a listen, "Home on Lagrange" covered Gerry O'Neils designs for a space habitat etc. Definitely a must listen in my book. Invisibilia from NPR is somewhat in the same category, but slightly broader and more focused on human behavior, not design. Occasionally pretty good, but I much prefer 99% Invisible.
Imaginary Worlds is a show about how we create them and why we suspend our disbelief. Often dealing with themes in fiction (dopple gangers, expanded universes etc.) or specific genres, it's an intellectual treatment of nerd culture, mostly science fiction, fantasy or other types of alternate realities. Highly recommend this, it's very cool.
Planet Money has already been mentioned, along Freakonomics. Both great, but I also prefer the former, as it's a little tighter. The Economist: Money Talks will sometimes stray into similar topics, but is more focused on current affairs.
Startup from Gimlet Media is very cool for anyone who ever thought about running their own business. Season 1 chronicles the founder (a former Planet Money and This American Life guy) trying to get Gimlet Media (a podcasting company) off the ground and is a blast. Season 2 was less compelling for me (about a dating company), but season 3 is a great anthology of big and small stories about starting a business.
Reply All is also a Gimlet show and it's a weird show about stuff that happens on the Internet. It's less of a tech show and closer to a cultural magazine in a lot of ways, but focused on online culture and interesting stories from the Internet. Highly recommended. The hosts did a show called TLDR before that, which is probably dead now, but most of the backlog of episodes is worth listening to. It's essentially the same setup.
The other Gimlet shows (Mystery Show, Sampler, Surprisingly Awesome) all have great moments, but are a little more of a mixed bag. Their new Science vs. show sounds pretty good, but I haven't checked it out yet. They have also put out a sponsored show with eBay called Open for Business that I haven't tried yet.
The Blizzard podcasts are simply articles from the magazine (https://www.theblizzard.co.uk/), read by the authors. The Blizzard is a very intellectual and well crafted football magazine, often dealing with how football expresses trends or events in politics and history. Probably requires an interest in football and politics/history, but pretty unique. Guardian Football podcast have done some specials that are somewhat similar.
Flip the Table is a podcast about a bunch of pretty avid and pretty serious board gamers who play weird, cheesy and obscure board games, discuss them and review them (tableflipsyou.blogspot.com). Listening to these guys play the Superman III board game from 1982 may not sound great, but it is pretty funny. For modern board game news and reviews, I like Shut Up and Sit Down, which is a very British, pretty unceremonious, but ultimately rather well informed source of information about new board games.
My Dad Wrote a Porno has three friends reading and discussing an erotic novel written by the father of one of the hosts. It's called "Belinda Blinked", was self published and is very cringe worthy. Absolutely hilarious at times, though it ultimately is a little repetitive.
How did this get made are panel debates about terrible movies. It's a little shouty at times, but also has some fantastic moments along the way. In depth conversations about the themes and the plotlines of Master of the Universe or Crocodile Dundee 2 are not to be missed.
Quote from: bogh on July 14, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
I listen to podcasts every day on the daily walk to work, so I spent a bit of time scouring for them. Here's a list of favorites:
Serial (season 1). Never really got into season 2. If you enjoy the true crime stuff, Criminal (http://thisiscriminal.com/) does standalone stories on true crime, often quite esoteric and quirky. Definitely worth a listen. If you just want more about Adnan Syed, there's Undisclosed, which is a more opinionated and infinitely more detailed examination of the finer details of the case. Gets tedious after a while, but it makes you realize how much deeper the layers are and how extensive a relatively simple case can actually be.
99% Invisible (http://99percentinvisible.org/) is a podcast about design in the broadest sense of the word. The recent episode on "Unpleasant design" (specific elements designed to deter people sleeping on benches or loitering in public spaces etc.) is definitely worth a listen, "Home on Lagrange" covered Gerry O'Neils designs for a space habitat etc. Definitely a must listen in my book. Invisibilia from NPR is somewhat in the same category, but slightly broader and more focused on human behavior, not design. Occasionally pretty good, but I much prefer 99% Invisible.
Imaginary Worlds is a show about how we create them and why we suspend our disbelief. Often dealing with themes in fiction (dopple gangers, expanded universes etc.) or specific genres, it's an intellectual treatment of nerd culture, mostly science fiction, fantasy or other types of alternate realities. Highly recommend this, it's very cool.
Planet Money has already been mentioned, along Freakonomics. Both great, but I also prefer the former, as it's a little tighter. The Economist: Money Talks will sometimes stray into similar topics, but is more focused on current affairs.
Startup from Gimlet Media is very cool for anyone who ever thought about running their own business. Season 1 chronicles the founder (a former Planet Money and This American Life guy) trying to get Gimlet Media (a podcasting company) off the ground and is a blast. Season 2 was less compelling for me (about a dating company), but season 3 is a great anthology of big and small stories about starting a business.
Reply All is also a Gimlet show and it's a weird show about stuff that happens on the Internet. It's less of a tech show and closer to a cultural magazine in a lot of ways, but focused on online culture and interesting stories from the Internet. Highly recommended. The hosts did a show called TLDR before that, which is probably dead now, but most of the backlog of episodes is worth listening to. It's essentially the same setup.
The other Gimlet shows (Mystery Show, Sampler, Surprisingly Awesome) all have great moments, but are a little more of a mixed bag. Their new Science vs. show sounds pretty good, but I haven't checked it out yet. They have also put out a sponsored show with eBay called Open for Business that I haven't tried yet.
The Blizzard podcasts are simply articles from the magazine (https://www.theblizzard.co.uk/), read by the authors. The Blizzard is a very intellectual and well crafted football magazine, often dealing with how football expresses trends or events in politics and history. Probably requires an interest in football and politics/history, but pretty unique. Guardian Football podcast have done some specials that are somewhat similar.
Flip the Table is a podcast about a bunch of pretty avid and pretty serious board gamers who play weird, cheesy and obscure board games, discuss them and review them (tableflipsyou.blogspot.com). Listening to these guys play the Superman III board game from 1982 may not sound great, but it is pretty funny. For modern board game news and reviews, I like Shut Up and Sit Down, which is a very British, pretty unceremonious, but ultimately rather well informed source of information about new board games.
My Dad Wrote a Porno has three friends reading and discussing an erotic novel written by the father of one of the hosts. It's called "Belinda Blinked", was self published and is very cringe worthy. Absolutely hilarious at times, though it ultimately is a little repetitive.
How did this get made are panel debates about terrible movies. It's a little shouty at times, but also has some fantastic moments along the way. In depth conversations about the themes and the plotlines of Master of the Universe or Crocodile Dundee 2 are not to be missed.
Bogh, thanks for that, some good suggestions there. :cheers:
Reply All is great when they do humor/weird, not so good when they try serious/maudlin.
Quote from: bogh on July 14, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
How did this get made are panel debates about terrible movies. It's a little shouty at times, but also has some fantastic moments along the way. In depth conversations about the themes and the plotlines of Master of the Universe or Crocodile Dundee 2 are not to be missed.
How did this get made is pretty great. The Master of the Universe episode is a good example particularly since it is so easy to be charmed by Tatiana Maslany. Punisher: War Zone is another good one just for having the director Lexi Alexander and fan Patton Oswalt on.
Anybody who wants to weigh in on the great Richard III history debate it is now open: http://historyofengland.typepad.com/
You have until the episode on the 24th to think about it then we all vote. Join the very understated and self-deprecating English fun...presuming there is another sort of fun the English have.
Alright so here is David Crowther putting forth each case like the English Barrister he is: http://historyofengland.typepad.com/files/188-richard-iii---knave-fool-or-saviour.mp3
You have until the 29th to decide. I think #2...I guess it all depends on who you view the assertion of the Princes' illegitimacy. I just think he took steps to protect himself and it all blew up. I will have to think about it a bit though.
Anybody else?
Huh. No War of the Roses fans here eh?
We are going to the Princes in the Tower soon so watch this space. Or not. Whatever.
Another Podcast I really like: http://www.historyinthebible.com/episodes.html
The history stuff is fantastic and it is great to learn about the more recent stuff. The weakness is he actually takes the time to tell you the story, which takes up a bit too much time. Oh well. Still pretty great.
grallon
Oh wait, it's *podcasts*.
I recently started enjoying the Joe Rogan podcast. Not all episodes are great and I generally skip the MMA ones, but quite a few of the comedians and academics are excellent.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 01, 2016, 11:36:04 AM
I recently started enjoying the Joe Rogan podcast. Not all episodes are great and I generally skip the MMA ones, but quite a few of the comedians and academics are excellent.
Yeah I have listened to his Dan Carlin interviews and those are always pretty good. I was a huge Newsradio fan back in the day. Glad to see he is doing well.
Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2016, 09:58:05 AM
grallon
Oh wait, it's *podcasts*.
Damn :weep:
I don't get it. My honorary gay award looks in peril.
Pederast. :secret:
Bumping this again. Any recommendation for a podcast dealing with the Napoleonic Wars? Just finished listening to Mike Duncan's take on the French Revolution, and since he closes shop with the Brumaire coup, it has left me thirsting for the Empire years.
I was listening to an iTunes University course on the history of ancient Greece. The professor discussed the story in Herodotus about Solon and Croesus where Solon told Croesus that Tellus of Athens was the happiest of men since he had good children, lived to see his grandchildren and died defending his polis. It struck me that by the standards of our culture Donald Trump is the happiest (or most fortunate, since as Solon points out no living man can be judged to have a happy life) of men. Trump has celebrity. He was born with an enormous fortune which he has kept and therefore he has lived richly. He has had numerous beautiful wives which he divorced before they became old or fat. What more could a man want (other than to be president)?
So this one is in Danish, but it's so good it's worth learning Danish for.
http://www.radio24syv.dk/programmer/den-korte-radioavis/
Legbiter, this is the radio show I was telling you about, time to brush up your Danish and laugh your ass off with this satirical take on everything. It's like a female Colbert only a bit more aggressive towards mocking the left.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 25, 2016, 09:00:00 PM
I was listening to an iTunes University course on the history of ancient Greece. The professor discussed the story in Herodotus about Solon and Croesus where Solon told Croesus that Tellus of Athens was the happiest of men since he had good children, lived to see his grandchildren and died defending his polis. It struck me that by the standards of our culture Donald Trump is the happiest (or most fortunate, since as Solon points out no living man can be judged to have a happy life) of men. Trump has celebrity. He was born with an enormous fortune which he has kept and therefore he has lived richly. He has had numerous beautiful wives which he divorced before they became old or fat. What more could a man want (other than to be president)?
Once again, how I hate it when the joke is on me. <_<
Oh well, maybe there is such a thing as Nemesis.
New Dan Carlin podcast is up ("the Destroyer of Worlds"). 6 hour "blitz" edition.
Also wanted to mention that Dan Carlin took down the forum on his website... it was overrun with "the_donald" types dominating it such to the extent that he decided to just delete it completely.
Hello from the Magic Tavern (https://hellofromthemagictavern.com/2016/10/31/85/) - Podcast set in a tavern on a fantasy world. This particular episode features Windsprinkle the Unicorn (played by Peter Sagal of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me). The musical interlude is by Mike Doughty, former frontman from 90s band Soul Coughing.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 11, 2016, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 25, 2016, 09:00:00 PM
I was listening to an iTunes University course on the history of ancient Greece. The professor discussed the story in Herodotus about Solon and Croesus where Solon told Croesus that Tellus of Athens was the happiest of men since he had good children, lived to see his grandchildren and died defending his polis. It struck me that by the standards of our culture Donald Trump is the happiest (or most fortunate, since as Solon points out no living man can be judged to have a happy life) of men. Trump has celebrity. He was born with an enormous fortune which he has kept and therefore he has lived richly. He has had numerous beautiful wives which he divorced before they became old or fat. What more could a man want (other than to be president)?
Once again, how I hate it when the joke is on me. <_<
Oh well, maybe there is such a thing as Nemesis.
He might die serving his polis, wouldn't just be him that was happy :cool:
I recommend the Trojan War podcast. :)
The only podcast I listen - not systematically and not enterely (the radio calls part do not interest me)- is Patriots Football Weekly in Progress. PFW is the official paper/online magazine from the Pats. I like the cast. They are up to 4 and have great chemistry. Each has his distinct personnality.
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/audio/pfw-in-progress
Wow I have to say Rex that was not what I expected when I saw you recommended a podcast :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2017, 11:57:55 PM
Wow I have to say Rex that was not what I expected when I saw you recommended a podcast :P
You were expecting a classical music podcast? or a cat podcast? :D
I don't time for that. I prefer to listen to music and watch cats.
I'm enjoying Athletico Mince. Excellent banter and you can't go wrong with Bob Mortimer.
In depth 10 part BBC podcast series about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the 'deep state' in Pakistan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05r6cgx/episodes/downloads (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05r6cgx/episodes/downloads)
Rather interesting.
Sam Harris is still just freaking excellent. He has really figured out how to make podcasting interesting, and his style of conversation is pretty compelling, IMO.
He gets interesting people on, and talks to them. He doesn't try to trap them into saying anything, and works hard to make sure his guests get to say exactly what they mean, while being very willing to challenge them when his views diverge.
Really just high quality stuff.
I've been following Open Yale American Revolution (http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-116), taught by the ever entertaining Joanne Freeman. My favorite anecdotes thus far:
Freeman was in Nevis researching Alexander Hamilton. To get court house records she had to first purchase a stamp and get the stamp placed in the courthouse book. The stamp man (at the post office, as you might expect) kept Caribbean hours which caused so many delays with her research that eventually she thought "Curse that stamp man." At which point she realized she had just experience her own American Revolution moment.
In the 18th century British universities were a place you went to become the right sort of person, and to meet the right sort of people. Due to their ties to :o dissenter :o religions, colonial universities were more akin to 19th century British universities, institutions that stressed mental development. The exception to that was William and Mary, which was like an 18th Century British university. One of the reasons Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia was that he was so disappointed with the education he had received at William and Mary. His idea was that it would be a temple of learning, without ties to any religion and where students could select their courses. While this did eventually become the template for the American university, at first it didn't quite work out like that. The students would spend their times racing their horses across the campus green and shooting guns in the air. Jefferson was so appalled by this that within seven months of the university's foundation he gathered the entire student body to rebuke them. As he got up to talk, he was overwhelmed with emotion and broke down into tears. The students were so moved that they promised to behave. (That didn't last for long, but it was a start.)
I also learned the Jefferson considered Patrick Henry lazy, ignorant, volatile and poorly read, but a fantastic orator (the Donald Trump of his day.) Henry's famous speech to the Virginia house of Burgesses might be more legend than fact, the first transcripts of it didn't appear until nearly fifty years later.
Freeman is a UVA grad ;)
What do you think of her class beyond the anecdotes?
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 30, 2017, 09:56:42 AM
Freeman is a UVA grad ;)
What do you think of her class beyond the anecdotes?
I've enjoyed them so far (though I'm only up to the Stamp Act.) She does manage to convey a lot of information (despite being entertaining.) She obviously is very well informed on her topic, and brings in a lot of individual narratives into her lectures.
Did you just call Donald Trump a great orator? :wacko:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 30, 2017, 09:15:28 PM
Did you just call Donald Trump a great orator? :wacko:
Have you not heard him hold forth on oreos?
Quote from: Savonarola on December 30, 2017, 08:42:31 AM
I've been following Open Yale American Revolution (http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-116), taught by the ever entertaining Joanne Freeman. My favorite anecdotes thus far:
Freeman was in Nevis researching Alexander Hamilton. To get court house records she had to first purchase a stamp and get the stamp placed in the courthouse book. The stamp man (at the post office, as you might expect) kept Caribbean hours which caused so many delays with her research that eventually she thought "Curse that stamp man." At which point she realized she had just experience her own American Revolution moment.
In the 18th century British universities were a place you went to become the right sort of person, and to meet the right sort of people. Due to their ties to :o dissenter :o religions, colonial universities were more akin to 19th century British universities, institutions that stressed mental development. The exception to that was William and Mary, which was like an 18th Century British university. One of the reasons Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia was that he was so disappointed with the education he had received at William and Mary. His idea was that it would be a temple of learning, without ties to any religion and where students could select their courses. While this did eventually become the template for the American university, at first it didn't quite work out like that. The students would spend their times racing their horses across the campus green and shooting guns in the air. Jefferson was so appalled by this that within seven months of the university's foundation he gathered the entire student body to rebuke them. As he got up to talk, he was overwhelmed with emotion and broke down into tears. The students were so moved that they promised to behave. (That didn't last for long, but it was a start.)
I also learned the Jefferson considered Patrick Henry lazy, ignorant, volatile and poorly read, but a fantastic orator (the Donald Trump of his day.) Henry's famous speech to the Virginia house of Burgesses might be more legend than fact, the first transcripts of it didn't appear until nearly fifty years later.
Hey Sav, this sounds great - is it a podcast? The link doesn't seem to have a download source.
It used to be on ITunes U. It should be available on ITune store still, for free. Or you can click on the tabs: "sessions" have downloadable mp3 and video files. Like here: http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-116/lecture-1
Freeman is also on Twitter (for all your Hamilton, and bird-related snippets...): her next project, on American political violence (including within the halls of Congress) should be of interests to some of you.
If it isn't in the search category of the "Podcasts" icon on my phone, it doesn't exist. I mean really, WTF? Is it hard to get listed there?
Probably not hard. Probably not a huge priority either. Open courses as podcasts are a thing of the past.
It is still available through iTunes U (sorry Berk), it's the second "Top rated" course in the history section. The first, "Early Middle Ages" (also by Open Yale) is very well done as well. In that one the professor keeps mentioning that the various barbarian kings and queens would make great cat names. (If I weren't allergic to cats I might get a Fredegund and Brunhild.)
Do you know Freeman personally, Oex?
Those Open Yale "Early Middle Ages" bits seem to be available on YouTube as well:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL77A337915A76F660
No, I do not know her biblically.
Finally got into Dan Carlin's Hardcore History - I tried before but his style turned me off, but he has finally clicked for me after listening to his WWI series.
Since he's got most of his work behind a paywall, which ones do you believe I should definitely get?
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2018, 02:44:20 PM
Finally got into Dan Carlin's Hardcore History - I tried before but his style turned me off, but he has finally clicked for me after listening to his WWI series.
Since he's got most of his work behind a paywall, which ones do you believe I should definitely get?
IMO get his Death Throes of the Republic and Wrath of the Khans series.
My favorites of his one-offs: Logical Insanity, Prophets of Doom, The American Peril, and Suffer the Children
But you cannot really go wrong with any of them, though the earlier episodes were very short.
What Valmy said. Death Throes of the Republic and Wrath of the Khans are his best works.
Another story from Open Yale's American Revolution:
During the Washington Administration Thomas Jefferson (then Secretary of State) had John Adams (Vice President) and Alexander Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury) over for dinner. After dinner the guests noted three portraits on the wall and asked Jefferson who they were. Jefferson replied that they were his "Holy trinity:" Francis Bacon, the philosopher of science who expounded that the laws of nature could be determined through reason; Issac Newton who had used reason to unlock the secrets of nature by discovering gravity and John Locke who had used reason to determine the laws of society and good government. These three were, in the opinion of Jefferson, the greatest men who had ever lived.
(A long pause)
Alexander Hamilton: The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar.
Thomas Jefferson: :o :o :o
It's possible that Hamilton had admired Caesar for his statesmanship, or that he bought into Shakespeare's line that he Caesar had tried to save the republic. It's quite a bit more likely that he just said that to get Jefferson's goat. Since we know of this story through the writing of Jefferson, if that was Hamilton's plan he succeeded.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 25, 2018, 01:38:44 PM
Another story from Open Yale's American Revolution:
During the Washington Administration Thomas Jefferson (then Secretary of State) had John Adams (Vice President) and Alexander Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury) over for dinner. After dinner the guests noted three portraits on the wall and asked Jefferson who they were. Jefferson replied that they were his "Holy trinity:" Francis Bacon, the philosopher of science who expounded that the laws of nature could be determined through reason; Issac Newton who had used reason to unlock the secrets of nature by discovering gravity and John Locke who had used reason to determine the laws of society and good government. These three were, in the opinion of Jefferson, the greatest men who had ever lived.
(A long pause)
Alexander Hamilton: The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar.
Thomas Jefferson: :o :o :o
It's possible that Hamilton had admired Caesar for his statesmanship, or that he bought into Shakespeare's line that he Caesar had tried to save the republic. It's quite a bit more likely that he just said that to get Jefferson's goat. Since we know of this story through the writing of Jefferson, if that was Hamilton's plan he succeeded.
I love that story and that is a great class. I really enjoy Joanne Freeman, she has a very infectious passion for the 18th century.
A new Dan Carlin Hardcore History episode is out.
Is he any relation to George?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 28, 2018, 08:08:35 PM
Is he any relation to George?
Even if he is they have little in common :P
Whilst a podcast, but more light relief than some of the weightier ones here, it's worth catching the BBC Friday Night podcast, especially DeadRingers with an excellent series of sketches on David Davis - Brexit Bulldog. :bowler:
I've recently started listening to a comedy podcast called Adventure zone (http://www.maximumfun.org/shows/adventure-zone (http://www.maximumfun.org/shows/adventure-zone)), in which three brother comedians and their father play D&D. It's more than worth a shot if you're into nerdy banter. They've been going at it for several years and have plenty of available material from their campaigns.
Skylines, the City Metric podcast.
Because trains and urban development :nerd:
https://www.citymetric.com/content/skylines-podcast
I've been listening to "Grand Reportage" a French podcast from RFI. The episode I just listened to was about this mysterious third world kingdom called Virgínia Ocidental and their King, Donald Trump.
;)
Most of the people interviewed on the program had to be translated. One guy gave this spiel on how great Donald Trump was and ended it with a hearty laugh. The translator did the whole thing and ended it with a lifeless "Ha-ha-ha." It was an amusing contrast.
There's a new Hitchhikers's Guide to the Galaxy BBC Radio series just starting, 1st episode here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09th4hf (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09th4hf)
:bowler:
Professor Stephen Hawking has a cameo in it too.
I've been listening to an online course called "Life in the Universe." It's a generic earth and life SCIENCE! course that describes how life occurred on earth and how it might occur on extraterrestrial environments. He was describing cataclysmic events and mass extinctions covering the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. While that did give rise to the niche environment which allowed mammals to rule; if the asteroid had missed us he speculated that intelligent theropods may have arisen and the class might have occurred sixty five millions earlier populated by giant chickens. My very first thought was:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/x6BiqStRr8I/hqdefault.jpg)
Chickens are the closest living relative to the theropods. At a different point he said that "If you ever wondered what dinosaur's tasted like; they probably tasted like chickens." (Yes, as you probably guessed, the course is offered at Ohio State University. Despite that it is quite informative.)
The podcast I've been listening to about the Roman Empire is Emperors of Rome. (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/emperors-of-rome/id850148806?mt=2) I've enjoyed it; it's worth it for hearing "Ave" with an Australian accent. Rhiannon Evans also has a course on iTunes U called "The Roman World" from La Trobe University. The course is a general introduction to the Roman portion of classical studies and covers both history and literature. (There's similar one for the Greek world called "Ancient Greece, Myth, Art, War.")
Another one that I've enjoyed is NPR's: Alt Latino (https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510305/alt-latino) podcast. Sometimes the speakers will get way beyond my knowledge of Latin music (and now a discussion the roots of the boogaloo and its impact on modern Hispanic pop-culture) but the music is nice.
A podcast I recently found has become my addiction. https://literatureandhistory.com/
This is the lit prof you wish you had in university. He places the literature in its historical context and gives an excellent synopsis of the literature he is examining in that episode. He also finishes each episode with a humorous song. If you love history you will love this podcast - with the added advantage that you will learn about the literature that has influenced our cultural development.
Can't recommend this highly enough.
Stephen Fry's Great Leap Years is very enjoyable.
Been listening to Philosophize This! A history of philosophy podcast. It starts pretty plainly, but as it happens with many of those podcasts the guy grows confident as time goes on and he ends finding his niche and pushing you quite a bit, he's pretty good at observing the environment philosophers lived and how it possibly molded their ideas, plus their place in the continuum of human culture and thought. If you're interested in philosophy, it's a great listen.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 31, 2017, 11:03:34 AM
Open courses as podcasts are a thing of the past.
Why is that? Lots of good material from the ones that were released.
Yep. But it's become a brand management thing for elite universities, and can't be monetized properly for starving state schools. The boondoggle of online education has moved to coursera for state schools, and has been fought with increased success by faculty in other institutions.
You'll still get great podcasts, but they will be produced explicitly as outreach programs by rich institutions, or as individual faculty initiatives, not as courses.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2018, 10:40:29 AM
A podcast I recently found has become my addiction. https://literatureandhistory.com/
This is the lit prof you wish you had in university. He places the literature in its historical context and gives an excellent synopsis of the literature he is examining in that episode. He also finishes each episode with a humorous song. If you love history you will love this podcast - with the added advantage that you will learn about the literature that has influenced our cultural development.
Can't recommend this highly enough.
The literature and history podcast put me onto a new one - Mirror of Antiquity http://www.mirrorofantiquity.com/
Profs from Vasser discussing modern events and what classical literature has to teach us about them. Perfect for the discerning Languishite.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2018, 03:32:40 PM
The literature and history podcast put me onto a new one - Mirror of Antiquity http://www.mirrorofantiquity.com/
Profs from Vasser discussing modern events and what classical literature has to teach us about them. Perfect for the discerning Languishite.
Thanks CC, that sounds like an interesting one. :)
edit:Not strictly a podcast download yet, but Radio 4 are doing an interesting 10 part series of 15minute programmes about aspects of the new age of capitalism, worth a listen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bkfml9/episodes/player (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bkfml9/episodes/player)
When Diplomacy Fails is starting a series on the negotiations which occurred after Armistice Day.
Joe Rogan
Another insight from "Life in the Universe": The moon is tidal locked with the earth, which means that its revolution and rotation periods are the same. Consequently there is an earth facing side of the moon and a non-earth facing side; but there is no Dark Side of the Moon. :(
;)
Certain exo-planets (we think) are tidal locked with their stars, so they would have a dark side and a light side.
The lectures were recorded in 2012 (I'm really not sure how many of the students would have gotten the Pink Floyd reference. My college roommate had a prof who made a joke that a resolver (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolver_(electrical)) was the name of a Beatles album and no one else got the joke.) At the time there were about 750 known exoplanets. Today the number is nearly 4000. (https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html) The first exoplanet was discovered in 1995; what a time to be an astrophysicist or astronomer.
I also heard an episode of the nerd podcast "Fallo de Sistema" in which they interviewed Sandy Petersen; the man who wrote the original "Call of Cthulhu" game. He explained that the primary challenge of the game was that the monsters in the game were fundamentally different from Dungeons and Dragons. Other game systems would have made Cthulhu the boss monster; he had to create a system which presented Cthulhu for what he is. At which point I thought; "Why can't we just accept Cthulhu for what he is?" :(
:cthulu:
He went on to do design work on Doom and Quake, which is why the monsters have a Cthulhuesque design. He also did some work on Sid Meier's Civilization; which did come close to driving me insane in the early 90s.
Waking up has a great episode for our times, and I think a LOT of Languishites could appreciate.
https://samharris.org/podcasts/142-addiction-depression-meaningful-life/
Quote from: Savonarola on November 15, 2018, 04:59:07 PM
I also heard an episode of the nerd podcast "Fallo de Sistema" in which they interviewed Sandy Petersen; the man who wrote the original "Call of Cthulhu" game. He explained that the primary challenge of the game was that the monsters in the game were fundamentally different from Dungeons and Dragons. Other game systems would have made Cthulhu the boss monster; he had to create a system which presented Cthulhu for what he is. At which point I thought; "Why can't we just accept Cthulhu for what he is?" :(
:cthulu:
He went on to do design work on Doom and Quake, which is why the monsters have a Cthulhuesque design. He also did some work on Sid Meier's Civilization; which did come close to driving me insane in the early 90s.
I was back up in Detroit last week, and met up with some friends. I was describing this to one of my friends who is a monster Cthulhu fan; his (new) girlfriend said, "Women always wonder what men talk about when they're not around..."
In any event, the newly revamped "Broken Record" podcast is really good so far. The first two episodes are interviews with Rick Rubin and Niles Rodgers.
The School of Advanced Study from the University of London offers a number of online continuing education style lectures in a variety of subjects. I've started going through the ones put on by the Centre for the History of Arabic Studies in Europe. The first one I listened to was about Montesquieu's views of Islam. I had thought that the "Lettres Persanes" were just a criticism of French society; but the lecturer made the case that they also reflected Montesquieu's antipathy towards Islam, which would be much more fully developed in "l'Esprit des Loix".
Quote from: Savonarola on December 05, 2018, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 15, 2018, 04:59:07 PM
I also heard an episode of the nerd podcast "Fallo de Sistema" in which they interviewed Sandy Petersen; the man who wrote the original "Call of Cthulhu" game. He explained that the primary challenge of the game was that the monsters in the game were fundamentally different from Dungeons and Dragons. Other game systems would have made Cthulhu the boss monster; he had to create a system which presented Cthulhu for what he is. At which point I thought; "Why can't we just accept Cthulhu for what he is?" :(
:cthulu:
He went on to do design work on Doom and Quake, which is why the monsters have a Cthulhuesque design. He also did some work on Sid Meier's Civilization; which did come close to driving me insane in the early 90s.
I was back up in Detroit last week, and met up with some friends. I was describing this to one of my friends who is a monster Cthulhu fan; his (new) girlfriend said, "Women always wonder what men talk about when they're not around..."
In any event, the newly revamped "Broken Record" podcast is really good so far. The first two episodes are interviews with Rick Rubin and Niles Rodgers.
It would be hilarious if that were true - that as soon as menfolk were alone, they all, without exception, discussed Cthulhu. :D
In the latest episode of "Emperor's of Rome" they were discussing middle republic literature. They were discussing Ennius; whose works exists only in fragments. Cicero discusses the dream of Mars; which the commentators said sounded quite modernistic as it's unclear from his quoting if Ennius had written a prophetic dream or an event that occurred. Another fragment we have of Ennius is that he was Homer reborn with an intermediate life as a peacock; which the commentators found psychedelic.
Of course even professors of classical studies (as these commentators were) view the classical world from the perspective of the early twenty-first century (and being a peacock is certainly no weirder than what's found in "The Golden Ass" or Ovid's "Metamorphosis"). Still "Psychedelic Rome" struck me as amusing.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 29, 2019, 04:30:30 PM
The School of Advanced Study from the University of London offers a number of online continuing education style lectures in a variety of subjects. I've started going through the ones put on by the Centre for the History of Arabic Studies in Europe. The first one I listened to was about Montesquieu's views of Islam. I had thought that the "Lettres Persanes" were just a criticism of French society; but the lecturer made the case that they also reflected Montesquieu's antipathy towards Islam, which would be much more fully developed in "l'Esprit des Loix".
In another lecturer from this series (this one about the impact of the Koran on western literature) the lecturer read a quote by Jorge Luis Borges: "The lack of camels in the Koran is proof of its authenticity." ("Authentic" in the sense that it originated in the Middle East; a hoaxer would have loaded the narrative with camels in order to give it local color.) Unfortunately there are camels mentioned in the Koran (Borges probably misunderstood a line in Gibbons); but it's still a good quote.
Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History Podcast (http://revisionisthistory.com/) just started a new season. The first two episodes were a really good listen--they cover the logic (or lack thereof) behind testing for speed on standardized tests in general and the LSAT in particular.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 30, 2019, 10:37:47 AM
In the latest episode of "Emperor's of Rome" they were discussing middle republic literature. They were discussing Ennius; whose works exists only in fragments. Cicero discusses the dream of Mars; which the commentators said sounded quite modernistic as it's unclear from his quoting if Ennius had written a prophetic dream or an event that occurred. Another fragment we have of Ennius is that he was Homer reborn with an intermediate life as a peacock; which the commentators found psychedelic.
Of course even professors of classical studies (as these commentators were) view the classical world from the perspective of the early twenty-first century (and being a peacock is certainly no weirder than what's found in "The Golden Ass" or Ovid's "Metamorphosis"). Still "Psychedelic Rome" struck me as amusing.
Another plug for the Literature and History podcast - he is going through Roman literature now. There are a number of episodes devoted to that topic now.
I've started listening to podcasts on my way home from work. Now during the winter I have a couple of different hockey podcasts I won't bore anyone with.
But I want to put a plug in for The Bulwark podcast by Charlie Sykes. The Bulwark is an explicitly #NeverTrump conservative webpage that was formed out of the ashes of The Weekly Standard when its owner decided he didn't like owning an anti-Trump website anymore. Charlie Sykes was a conservaive radio talk show host in Milwaukee for years and years, until the 2016 election broke him and he realized he didn't understand his own audience anymore.
So anyways, it's a daily podcast about american politics all from a right-wing anti-Trump perspective. I like it because it re-assures me that there are other people who view politics the same way as I do in this age of Trump. And Sykes, what with his decades of radio hosting experience, is a very smooth podcast host.
Any good yank sports podcast besides Bill Simmons? Preferably not baseball-centric, since I don't care for baseball.
Quote from: celedhring on July 07, 2019, 04:29:24 PM
Any good yank sports podcast besides Bill Simmons? Preferably not baseball-centric, since I don't care for baseball.
As mentioned above I know some Canadian-based hockey podcasts if you're interested... :whistle:
Quote from: celedhring on July 07, 2019, 04:29:24 PM
Any good yank sports podcast besides Bill Simmons? Preferably not baseball-centric, since I don't care for baseball.
The Steve Austin Show isn't a sports podcast, but it often features sports (especially wrestling) and is a fun listen even if you (like me) couldn't care less about wrestling.
I was listening to a 2016 era episode of Bret Easton Ellis's podcast (about popular culture and the entertainment industry.) At the time of recording Bret was dating a 29 year old man. Bret made his boyfriend watch "Dog Day Afternoon." His boyfriend said, in amazement, "They used to show movies like this in the theaters?"
I was listening to Fallo de Sistema (http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/audios/fallo-de-sistema/) in which they had an interview of John and Brenda Romero. They said they had gotten offers to do a reality show of them similar to "The Osbournes." They both thought that watching video game designers work would be really boring television.
I was listening to NPR Alt.Latino podcast; in the latest episode they were discussing the Hispanic roots of rock and roll. They were discussing how Mambo was huge in 50s era New York extending well beyond the Cuban or even Hispanic communities. There was even a Jewish mambo movement called "Mamboschewitz."
Alas, Google doesn't have any hits on that term; I wonder why Sergey Brin would try to cover something like that up. :hmm:
There is, however, a documentary coming out about 50's era Jewish Mambo dancers called "The Mamboniks." That might not have a wide release...
When Diplomacy Fails is starting a series on the 30 Years War with a review of the military capabilities of the period. Here is an episode describing the innovations of every Paradoxian's favourite Swede.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/when-diplomacy-fails-podcast/id528826104?i=1000452853549
Couple of history podcasts that may be of interest.
Bad Gays - A podcast about evil and complicated gay men in history. Why do we remember our heroes better than our villains? Hosted by Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller.
The hosts are two left gay writers (one a novelist and the other a historian at the Gay Museum in Berlin). And yes they are very aware of the anachronism risk but look at these men and their sexuality and history through the lens of gayness.
The first series:
Ernst Röhm
Bosie
Lawrence of Arabia
James VI and I
Andrew Sulivan
Sir Anthony Blunt
Friedrich Radszuweit
Ronnie Kray
Leopold and Loeb
Roy Cohn
Common themes in the first series: evil twinks, the psycho-sexual trauma of British men and the links between gayness and colonialism.
Also the Faces of Fascism - 15 minute each series running, mainly chronologically through Mussolini, Hitler and Franco's lives (upcoming special on Salazar) to try - as best he can to work out what Fascism is, or what faces it presents.
No Hoover?
I had to look up Friedrich Radszuweit. Why is he a bad guy?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2019, 11:22:51 AM
I had to look up Friedrich Radszuweit. Why is he a bad guy?
Answer's in the pod :contract:
QuoteNo Hoover?
Series two. There are a lot of bad gays :(
Here are the Podcasts I listen to regularly:
Stuff You Should Know
This covers a wide variety of topics including science, history, etc. Topics are generally "What was X?" or "How does X work?". The hosts are good at explaining the topics, and they have good chemistry. Good for listening while driving or doing household chores.
Stuff You Missed in History Class
Similar to Stuff You Should Know, but with a focus on history, particularly on obscure people and events. They cover a wide variety of subjects: scientists, activists, artists, political leaders, and so on.
Our Fake History
This history podcast does a deep dive into the myths and legends surrounding a historical event or figure, such as Robin Hood, the Crusades, the Pyramids, Atlantis, and more. Many two and three part episodes. Only comes out every two weeks and takes long breaks between seasons, but its worth it to go through the full archive at least once.
Smashing Security
This podcast covers current events in the hacking, cybersecurity, and technology worlds. Episodes are short and follow a pretty standard formula: each of the two hosts plus a guest introduce a topic from the news and discuss, and then each person discusses a "pick of the week", sometimes but not always security related.
Darknet Diaries
This one covers hacking and cybersecurity topics. Each episode either covers one event (e.g., NotPetya, ATM hacking, Hacker Giraffe) in-depth, or is an extended interview with someone interesting (e.g., a penetration tester hired by a company to test their security).
Opening Arguments
A biweekly podcast that discusses politics, law, and current events from a legal perspective. One podcaster is a layman and the other is a bona-fide lawyer. Tuesday episodes usually cover a particular topic (historical or current) in-depth, and Friday episodes cover issues from the weeks events. In the Trump era, episodes have been more current events focused than they were previously. Also, the layman answers a bar exam question each week, and its pretty fun to play along and see how well you can do.
God Awful Movies
Reviews religious (mostly Christian) movies and makes fun of them. Very off-color senses of humor. Personally I find them hilarious (though not all episodes are winners), but definitely not everyone's cup of tea. I'll usually put this one while working or doing chores. They've invited the Opening Arguments guys over occasionally to review movies involving Christianity and law (like The Devil's Advocate).
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 16, 2020, 09:19:30 PMOur Fake History
This history podcast does a deep dive into the myths and legends surrounding a historical event or figure, such as Robin Hood, the Crusades, the Pyramids, Atlantis, and more. Many two and three part episodes. Only comes out every two weeks and takes long breaks between seasons, but its worth it to go through the full archive at least once.
I'm taking a look at this one and it seems intriguing. Which episodes do you recommend?
They are all good. Pick a topic that interests you and give it a go.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 17, 2020, 09:27:05 AM
They are all good. Pick a topic that interests you and give it a go.
Yeah, this. I started with "Are the Dark Ages a Myth?" and then just went back to the beginning and went through them all.
Harris has a pretty interesting podcast about nukes out right now.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ancient-greece-declassified/id1158506284?i=1000468646648
Something I think languish will like
Rome conquered the Mediterranean world without a professional army, relying instead on its citizens to take up arms when necessary. How did these part-time soldiers defeat all the great powers of the ancient Mediterranean?
Our guest Steele Brand offers an original answer to this question in his new book Killing for the Republic: Citizen Soldiers and the Roman Way of War. Brand is professor of history at The King's College in New York City. His understanding of military matters is informed by his service in the US army as a tactical intelligence officer including a combat tour in Afghanistan.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2020, 08:49:15 AM
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ancient-greece-declassified/id1158506284?i=1000468646648
Something I think languish will like
Rome conquered the Mediterranean world without a professional army, relying instead on its citizens to take up arms when necessary. How did these part-time soldiers defeat all the great powers of the ancient Mediterranean?
Our guest Steele Brand offers an original answer to this question in his new book Killing for the Republic: Citizen Soldiers and the Roman Way of War. Brand is professor of history at The King's College in New York City. His understanding of military matters is informed by his service in the US army as a tactical intelligence officer including a combat tour in Afghanistan.
Interesting, thanks for that CC.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2020, 08:49:15 AM
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ancient-greece-declassified/id1158506284?i=1000468646648
Something I think languish will like
Rome conquered the Mediterranean world without a professional army, relying instead on its citizens to take up arms when necessary. How did these part-time soldiers defeat all the great powers of the ancient Mediterranean?
Our guest Steele Brand offers an original answer to this question in his new book Killing for the Republic: Citizen Soldiers and the Roman Way of War. Brand is professor of history at The King's College in New York City. His understanding of military matters is informed by his service in the US army as a tactical intelligence officer including a combat tour in Afghanistan.
I don't think you can call soldiers that enlisted for multi-year tours "part-time". :hmm: AFAIK during the Republic infantry enlisted for 6 years minimum, plus up to 10 more afterwards.
I think his point is the transition over time from citizen farmer soldiers being levied to a more professional army is what doomed the Republic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2020, 09:03:57 AM
I think his point is the transition over time from citizen farmer soldiers being levied to a more professional army is what doomed the Republic.
I think the Republic was doomed before that though. The reliance on citizen soldiers is what bankrupted so many families and allowed the elite to get most of their lands and populate it with slaves right?
I mean the Gracchi came along before Marius.
But I guess the professional soldiers were what ended up destroying it and installing what the military considered to be basically a dictatorship under their control. But maybe it would have been something else without Marius, things were not exactly going great for the Republic before then.
But...I should probably listen to the podcast before commenting :lol: :blush:
His thesis is not inconsistent. It was the failure of the Republic to prevent the concentration of wealth and take steps for the citizen soldiers to keep their land after returning from fighting for Rome that led to the downfall.
The podcast is also interesting to hear the author explain why citizen soldiers where superior to the professional armies Rome faces and ultimately defeated.
The citizen soldiers lost lots of battles, sometimes disastrously, while Rome's professional army very rarely was ever defeated. Yet Rome with the citizen soldiers had a resilience that the professional army lacked. The comparatively tiny Italy only Roman Republic could sustain losses against Hannibal that dwarf (I mean...presuming their casualty numbers can be believed...but even so something like three Consular Armies were destroyed) what happened to Valens at Adrianople that so crippled the gigantic Roman Empire.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2020, 01:01:36 PM
The citizen soldiers lost lots of battles, sometimes disastrously, while Rome's professional army very rarely was ever defeated. Yet Rome with the citizen soldiers had a resilience that the professional army lacked. The comparatively tiny Italy only Roman Republic could sustain losses against Hannibal that dwarf (I mean...presuming their casualty numbers can be believed...but even so something like three Consular Armies were destroyed) what happened to Valens at Adrianople that so crippled the gigantic Roman Empire.
Yeah he covers all that
It would really help if you listened to what the author has to say before critiquing
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2020, 01:35:07 PM
Yeah he covers all that
It would really help if you listened to what the author has to say before critiquing
Jesus Christ even when I put in a disclaimer you hammer me on this :lol:
I wasn't critiquing. I just enjoy talking about the subject. Once I have a moment I will give it a listen.
I tried to be gentle. :D
I actually had you most in mind when I posted it. Would be interested in your thoughts.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2020, 01:01:36 PM
The citizen soldiers lost lots of battles, sometimes disastrously, while Rome's professional army very rarely was ever defeated. Yet Rome with the citizen soldiers had a resilience that the professional army lacked. The comparatively tiny Italy only Roman Republic could sustain losses against Hannibal that dwarf (I mean...presuming their casualty numbers can be believed...but even so something like three Consular Armies were destroyed) what happened to Valens at Adrianople that so crippled the gigantic Roman Empire.
yeah republican rome and the ability, and i'd even say tendency, to lose whole armies and just go out and conscript new ones. they just ground down their enemies. Which is kind of odd in a way, plenty of nations had citizen soldiers (I know about mainly the greek cities) but I think the other latins in Italy were the same, but they didn't have the same ability as the romans.
Fore the empire I guess when the army has the ability to replace the emperor they're less likely to take the loses and just say screw it?
I think I've mentioned it before but the LRB's Talking Politics podcast is really good - and if I ever say anything interesting I stole it from them.
But they're also doing a special 12 part series to the end of May on the History of Ideas which is well worth listening to. Yesterday's was on Hobbes on the State (particularly relevant now - as we're in quite a Hobbesian moment). Today's episode is Mary Wollstonecraft on Sexual Politics.
Edit: Full list can be found here:
https://www.talkingpoliticspodcast.com/history-of-ideas
Still listening to the History of Ideas series (it will end this month). So far, in addition to Hobbes and Wollstonecraft, we've had:
Constant on liberty, Tocqueville on Democracy, Marx and Engels on Revolution, Gandhi on self-rule, Weber on leadership, Hayek on the Market, Arendt on Action and Fanon on Empire.
Still to come:
MacKinnon on Patriarchy and Fukuyama on History.
This is one of those amazing internet moments - it's just incredible to have access to these 12 hours of free lectures from a Cambridge Professor of Politics, they are all basically first year introduction lectures but fascinating if this isn't your field.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 18, 2020, 04:21:46 AM
Still listening to the History of Ideas series (it will end this month). So far, in addition to Hobbes and Wollstonecraft, we've had:
Constant on liberty, Tocqueville on Democracy, Marx and Engels on Revolution, Gandhi on self-rule, Weber on leadership, Hayek on the Market, Arendt on Action and Fanon on Empire.
Still to come:
MacKinnon on Patriarchy and Fukuyama on History.
This is one of those amazing internet moments - it's just incredible to have access to these 12 hours of free lectures from a Cambridge Professor of Politics, they are all basically first year introduction lectures but fascinating if this isn't your field.
I've devoured this podcast since seeing your post about it, and it is indeed brilliant. Thanks for the recommendation. I found the hosts confession on avoiding Hannah Arendt interesting and that when finally confronting her topics was blown away (but still finding some pretentiousness there). I've found myself going down the Wikipedia and other rabbit holes on her labour, work, action themes... not to mention ideas raised in other episodes as well.
Yeah - agreed. Glad you've liked but I have the same thing, that it does send me down rabbitholes and I am (maybe) going to read some of the texts now. I think the only one I'd read before was the Wretched of the Earth.
I just binged it all today - I had intended on just listening to the first one on Hobbes. But I found it so engrossing that I kept listening and now, a few hours later, I want to listen to it all again.
One jarring moment though. In the lecture on Mackinnon he mention an experience he had travelling in the eastern block countries in 89 at the age of 21. I realized he and I could have had a beer together when I was doing the same in 89 at the age of 21. Of course he went on to make something of himself.
For me one of the more interesting aspect of that series is that, thanks to the quick summary of so many books, it becomes apparent how much the authors' individual circumstances both personal and historic, influence their thinking (naturally) and thus how they should not be handled as timeless sources of wisdom.
Arendt in particular, irked me with the supposed loss of humanity due to modernism. It stroke me as someone comparing little understood reality iod their present to their imagined idealised version of a past that never existed outside of the literate upper classes that had the rights and the means to be all humanised about their existence.
Is it modernism or the machinery of the state she was addressing?
Your comment that these books are not timeless sources of wisdom is at odds with the premise of the series that Hobbes still has much to offer to help us think about politics in a modern state. Also think about the observation that the weaknesses of the US system observed by Toucqueville are applicable today.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2020, 09:57:28 AM
Is it modernism or the machinery of the state she was addressing?
Your comment that these books are not timeless sources of wisdom is at odds with the premise of the series that Hobbes still has much to offer to help us think about politics in a modern state. Also think about the observation that the weaknesses of the US system observed by Toucqueville are applicable today.
Sure its not a universal truth but neither everything that the authors wrote are.
Sure, but they all pose interesting questions about politics in a modern state.
Really good episode of the (normal) Talking Politics with Sarah Churchwell on American Fascism: Then and Now.
So on History of Ideas, they've just released a Q&A and mentioned that they might be doing a follow up season. The Q&A also explains why it (probably) won't include Locke. But sounds like they might do Rousseau.
I'm still following The Delta Flyers, i.e. Garret Wang (Harry Kim) and Robert Duncan McNeil (Tom Paris) where they go through the Star Trek Voyager episodes chronologically. I actually pay $5 to their Patreon to get the extended video with some bonus stuff. It's quite entertaining to have them reminisce about their time on the show, the people they worked with, and also critically viewing the episode. :)
I found an interesting Swedish podcast "When we were kings" going through historic football. Made by one of Sweden's best football journalist and some sidekick it spends an episode or two on a specific team season. It could be Milan 88-89, Brazil 2014 or the one I'm listening to now, Real Sociedad 80-81. It's just fascinating to listen to these histories of past events.
There must be some English or even German equivalent. I would be very interested in something similar in any kind of sport really. Any tips?
This popped up in my feed. David Tennant has a podcast; today's episode he interviews Neil Gaiman:
https://pod.link/tennant
Probably of interest to literally just me, but interesting Radio 4 "grand tour" of the thinkers and forces behind British socialism, conservatism and liberalism (episodes show the latest released first - so need to go to page 2 of each to start <_<).
Socialism:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09t896q/episodes/player?page=2
Conservatism:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039tp4k/episodes/player?page=2
Liberalism:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06t44pc/episodes/player?page=2
Not sure if we still have any Phlegms around, but the Leopold II podcast is very good.
Now if I can only find the time for 90 minute podcast episodes.
A new series by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook has been getting rave reviews. Good idea to put an ancient and a modern historian together
https://play.acast.com/s/the-rest-is-history-podcast
Enjoying the new Bill Gates podcast.
Started listening to Philosophize this. Only 6 episodes in, but it already feels very dense in terms of content. I'm reading A New History of Western Philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_History_of_Western_Philosophy), and I'm feeling a strong urge to take a head dive into Plato's and Aristotle's workse. :unsure:
Series 2 of Talking Politics History of Ideas has now launched.
Episode 1 - Rousseau on Inequality :o :w00t:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2021, 05:48:30 AM
Series 2 of Talking Politics History of Ideas has now launched.
Episode 1 - Rousseau on Inequality :o :w00t:
Oh nice. I'm finally nearing the end of series 1.
I'm still on Philosophize This. I'm 50 episodes in out of 150. He's spending 8 episodes on Immanuel Kant (and yet only scratches the surface). The podcast gives me some ideas for areas of self study, though, so that's good. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2021, 05:48:30 AM
Series 2 of Talking Politics History of Ideas has now launched.
Episode 1 - Rousseau on Inequality :o :w00t:
I have been looking forward to this. Once again thank you for recommending this podcast. :)
Celedhring, Larch, you got any Spanish language recommendations (not futbol related)? Trying to increase my share of Spanish podcast content.
Quote from: ulmont on February 04, 2021, 07:02:06 PM
Celedhring, Larch, you got any Spanish language recommendations (not futbol related)? Trying to increase my share of Spanish podcast content.
Any particular topic? There are a few historical ones around, but personally I'm not a huge fan as they tend to be either quite disorganized or highly jingoistic.
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:04:10 PM
Any particular topic? There are a few historical ones around, but personally I'm not a huge fan as they tend to be either quite disorganized or highly jingoistic.
Anything you find interesting that isn't soccer.
Quote from: ulmont on February 04, 2021, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:04:10 PM
Any particular topic? There are a few historical ones around, but personally I'm not a huge fan as they tend to be either quite disorganized or highly jingoistic.
Anything you find interesting that isn't soccer.
Give this one a shot, then: https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/ (https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/)
It's about episodes of the history of Spain, it veers towards jingoistic at times, but I remember it had decent production values and the guy speaks in a clear way.
Just saw they have an episode about the (according to them, unacknowledged) Spanish participation in the American War of Independence named "USA. A debt with Spain". :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 04, 2021, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:04:10 PM
Any particular topic? There are a few historical ones around, but personally I'm not a huge fan as they tend to be either quite disorganized or highly jingoistic.
Anything you find interesting that isn't soccer.
Give this one a shot, then: https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/ (https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/)
It's about episodes of the history of Spain, it veers towards jingoistic at times, but I remember it had decent production values and the guy speaks in a clear way.
Just saw they have an episode about the (according to them, unacknowledged) Spanish participation in the American War of Independence named "USA. A debt with Spain". :lol:
Thanks! Downloading now.
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 04, 2021, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:04:10 PM
Any particular topic? There are a few historical ones around, but personally I'm not a huge fan as they tend to be either quite disorganized or highly jingoistic.
Anything you find interesting that isn't soccer.
Give this one a shot, then: https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/ (https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/)
It's about episodes of the history of Spain, it veers towards jingoistic at times, but I remember it had decent production values and the guy speaks in a clear way.
Just saw they have an episode about the (according to them, unacknowledged) Spanish participation in the American War of Independence named "USA. A debt with Spain". :lol:
We already paid Spain back by taking Florida off their hands.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2021, 12:53:34 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 04, 2021, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2021, 07:04:10 PM
Any particular topic? There are a few historical ones around, but personally I'm not a huge fan as they tend to be either quite disorganized or highly jingoistic.
Anything you find interesting that isn't soccer.
Give this one a shot, then: https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/ (https://memoriasdeuntambor.com/)
It's about episodes of the history of Spain, it veers towards jingoistic at times, but I remember it had decent production values and the guy speaks in a clear way.
Just saw they have an episode about the (according to them, unacknowledged) Spanish participation in the American War of Independence named "USA. A debt with Spain". :lol:
We already paid Spain back by taking Florida off their hands.
In retrospect, I guess me should be thankful. :lol:
No Florida Man FTW.
https://historyofphilosophy.net/all-episodes
Damn. Talk about Archive Panic (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArchivePanic). 365 episodes and they've made it as far as the Renaissance. "History of Philosophy Without Gaps" indeed. :D They also have 60+ episodes on Indian and African philosophy each on top of that.
I'll be sticking with Philosophize This for now. :lol:
Quote from: Syt on February 12, 2021, 03:18:08 AM
https://historyofphilosophy.net/all-episodes
Damn. Talk about Archive Panic (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArchivePanic). 365 episodes and they've made it as far as the Renaissance. "History of Philosophy Without Gaps" indeed. :D They also have 60+ episodes on Indian and African philosophy each on top of that.
I'll be sticking with Philosophize This for now. :lol:
I've listened to a couple of early ones when he started, thought it was pretty good. Also, the episodes were fairly short iirc.
But yeah, I lost track because of the sheer volume. Same with the history of Byzantium, 200 episodes to get to the First Crusade. I'm really interested, but come on.
Quote from: Maladict on February 12, 2021, 06:23:54 AMSame with the history of Byzantium, 200 episodes to get to the First Crusade. I'm really interested, but come on.
Well, he has several centuries of history to account for before he gets at that point. :P
I have that one currently on hiatus around the time of Manzikert. It took me a while to get into it, but ended up taking a liking to Pierson's style, I started thinking he was so slow, but now I appreciate his calmness. The 200+ episode count is a bit padded, though. There are several interviews mixed around, recapping episodes at significant marks as well as more narrative episodes that don't really follow the history.
He will stop and talk about cultural trends and stuff like that.
He is on hiatus to help his father with a film project right now though. He will be back in the summer I think.
I'm in the 80-ish episodes for Philosophize This. He's sprinkling in general debate questions which I like. The last few episodes were about Marx and Kierkegaard re: their views on religion and Marx/Austrian School of Economics re: value theories (the latter was actually familiar, as I remembered that discussion from school :D ).
The latest episode (151) is about the Frankfurt School and Fromm about Freedom. I notice he's also on YouTube (on Spotify one of the Marx episodes is actually a repeat of one of his argumentative fallacies, so I had to look for it elsewhere). https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjnpuIGovFFUBLG5BeHzTag/featured
His first few episodes are a bit rough (and his metal riffs in the first two or three episodes probably ddidn't help), but he quickly settles into his own style and voice.
Latest History of Ideas podcast is about Samuel Butler Erewhon. Never heard of him you say? Well I think Frank Herbert did. Hearing Runciman talking about this I can't help but think Dune is based on Erewhon's ideas - at least Herbert had the good grace to at least name the rebellion against machines the Butlerian Jihad.
I listened to the latest "When in Rome" podcast and they discussed The Bikini Girls of Villa Romana del Casale:
(https://www.italianways.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mosaico-fanciulle-villa-casale-piazza-armerina-02.jpg)
Notice the phenomenal abs. In the Classical Period men would compete in athletic contests nude, but women would wear these bikini like outfits. The woman in the upper left is holding a set of weights that was used for broad jump (I guess the momentum of the weights would propel the jumper.)
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2021, 07:30:59 PM
Latest History of Ideas podcast is about Samuel Butler Erewhon. Never heard of him you say? Well I think Frank Herbert did. Hearing Runciman talking about this I can't help but think Dune is based on Erewhon's ideas - at least Herbert had the good grace to at least name the rebellion against machines the Butlerian Jihad.
Latest episode on Carl Schmitt which is very interesting because I think he is an important thinker at this moment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 16, 2021, 11:27:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2021, 07:30:59 PM
Latest History of Ideas podcast is about Samuel Butler Erewhon. Never heard of him you say? Well I think Frank Herbert did. Hearing Runciman talking about this I can't help but think Dune is based on Erewhon's ideas - at least Herbert had the good grace to at least name the rebellion against machines the Butlerian Jihad.
Latest episode on Carl Schmitt which is very interesting because I think he is an important thinker at this moment.
I am going to have to listen to that a time or two more. Thinking of liberal thought as separate from democratic principles is an interesting one. And is perhaps the problem I had with Mounk's book The People vs Democracy in which he accepted that liberal values were inseparable from democratic principles and that both were equally imperiled by a growing loss of faith in democracy.
Perhaps the most insightful analysis of politics in our world from the 70s to present and the near future.
https://www.talkingpoliticspodcast.com/blog/2021/314-adam-curtis
So, I went and checked whether Mike Duncan was finished with the Russian Revolution, since I like to binge these things. He's been two years and 60 episodes in, and has just reached 1916. God damn.
Quote from: celedhring on June 19, 2021, 10:45:26 AM
So, I went and checked whether Mike Duncan was finished with the Russian Revolution, since I like to binge these things. He's been two years and 60 episodes in, and has just reached 1916. God damn.
The amount of background info he's been giving on the Russian Revolution is astounding. He actually split the whole thing in two parts, a 1st part covering from 1864 to 1905 that is already over (until episode 39) with all the background about politics (the first 10 episodes or so are all on the birth of Marxism, Bakunin, the 1st International, the Paris Commune, etc.), the structure of the Russian Empire, Tsarist absolutist thought, all the Russian pre-revolutionary movements from the late XIXth century onwards (which are A LOT), all culminating in the 1905 Revolution and the Russo-Japanese war. If you want to start listening to it, that first part is ready to be digested.
In any case he hasn't been non-stop on this for two years, he actually took a months long hiatus at the end of the 1st part in order to finish his book on Lafayette, and had a couple of shorter breaks here and there recently to do editing on the book and because he moved back to the US from France.
Has he said when he'll end this revolution/what the "end-point" is for him? Lenin's death?
At the end of the Mexican one he seemed to suggest that he'd reach at least Trotski's death.
Quote from: celedhring on June 19, 2021, 12:03:34 PM
At the end of the Mexican one he seemed to suggest that he'd reach at least Trotski's death.
The Death of Stalin has already been done.
I've started to listen to the online lecture series "International Systems in the 20th Century" from Stanford. The presenter (Dr. James Sheehan) made what I think are a couple interesting points.
At the end of the 19th century the ancient empires (Ottoman, Persian and China) all had their sovereignty curtailed by the Great Powers. This, at least to a certain extent, explains the sort of government their successor states have and how they behave in world affairs.
One of the challenges to the Concert of Europe was the rise of three new Great Powers (Germany, Japan and The United States.) All three went through a transformation in the 1860s (Wars of Unification, Meiji Restoration and Civil War, respectively) and all became colonial powers by the 1890s (and, of course, all three would meet up in the 1940s.)
I've started listening to The Ancients. A podcast that interviews historians on random topics of ancient history.
Couple episodes in and enjoying it quite a bit, but I'm only 4 episodes in. Episodes are generally between ca. 30 and 60 minutes.
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 10:53:24 AM
I've started listening to The Ancients. A podcast that interviews historians on random topics of ancient history.
Couple episodes in and enjoying it quite a bit, but I'm only 4 episodes in. Episodes are generally between ca. 30 and 60 minutes.
It is one of my favourites.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 23, 2021, 10:49:36 AM
One of the challenges to the Concert of Europe was the rise of three new Great Powers (Germany, Japan and The United States.) All three went through a transformation in the 1860s (Wars of Unification, Meiji Restoration and Civil War, respectively) and all became colonial powers by the 1890s (and, of course, all three would meet up in the 1940s.)
The Concert of Europe's problems were not with the US or Japan, they were specifically with Germany. The Concert of Europe was designed around the idea that no single Great Power could take on another with assurance of success, and so everyone had an interest in settling things diplomatically. That was true of Prussia, bit not Germany. when Germany was founded, there was a GP strong enough to be confident of winning a war against any other Great Power. So the threatened Great Powers, Russia and France, formed a formal alliance. The Concert was replaced by the interlocking alliance systems and the powers started to look for military solutions to Europe's problems.
A new BBC radio 4 series on the early history of England, fronted by Ian Hislop, starts this evening, available here from 8pm:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ydlb (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ydlb)
Quote
This Union: The Ghost Kingdoms of England
Episode 1 of 4
East Anglia - Sutton Who?
With current debate about the stability and durability of the United Kingdom, Ian Hislop felt it was a good time to explore how it was that England, the core of that union, came to be. In this series he tells the story of four great Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, East Anglia, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex, celebrating their golden ages and trying to understand their journey from groupings of assimilated peoples from across the North Sea to powerful kingdoms, and ultimately a single entity.
In spite of a relatively limited written record, it's a period of history that is being constantly re-written, thanks to the impact of new archeological techniques and the rise of the amateur detectorists. Ian hears from authorities on the early medieval period including Michael Wood, Marc Morris, Janina Ramirez and the British Museums curator of Medieval coinage, Gareth Williams, as well as talking to people with local interests in the Anglo-Saxon story.
He's on the look out for ways in which these regional identities have left a mark beyond the occasional use of their names for utility companies or railway services, and he explores the factors that kept the Kingdoms apart but eventually drew them together; common enemies, a unifying language, the church and the residual aspiration to be as the Romans once were.
In today's programme he begins in Colchester, a Roman stronghold which the arriving Angles and Saxons chose to leave alone. But not far up the coast is the place that revolutionised the study of Anglo-Saxon history when it was excavated just before the 2nd World War - Sutton Hoo. Was this the burial of one of the earliest of the great Kings of the Anglo-Saxon period in East Anglia's golden age.
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2021, 08:42:36 AM
A new BBC radio 4 series on the early history of England, fronted by Ian Hislop, starts this evening, available here from 8pm:
Thanks :bowler:
So one podcast I listen to is Jonah Goldberg's The Remnant. Jonah was for a long time with NRO, is a righty Never-Trump conservative (though he would reject that label, but he has no time for Trump). If you're into right-of-centre politics it's interesting.
But in the most recent edition he ditches the politics and interviews the guy behind Steak-umm's Twitter account. Which if you don't use Twitter sounds completely insane, but if you do follow Twitter you'd understand how cool that was.
Yeah his podcast is very good. It is a refreshing experience to hear not-idiotic right wing takes from time to time.
So I finished with "International Systems in the 20th Century" and moved onto "How to Start a Startup" also from Stanford. It's put on by a venture capitalist firm and (this being Stanford) features a number of alumni-entrepreneurs as lecturers. While, as you may expect, there's a lot of balloon juice in this (great companies have great ideas!) it does provide some amusing insights. Thus far I've learned:
"The Social Media" was entirely fiction. Not only do startup founders not go from party to party while thinking up billion dollar ideas; Mark Zuckerberg isn't actually a sociopath. (The latter destroyed my concept of right and wrong :()
The person who gave that lecture was one of the co-founders or early employees of Facebook. The job was so all consuming and his lifestyle was so unhealthy that he threw out his back every six months starting at age 21.
The Air B&B founder used to ask "If you knew you only had a year to live would you take this job?" as an interview question.
The students were mostly from the engineering school. One lecturer told them that technical students tend to think of business as mildly distasteful; so when they go looking for a partner or early hire in the business area they tend to ignore their gut feel for people since they assume that all business students are distasteful. This is not actually true, many business students are not actually distasteful (and again my concept of right and wrong was destroyed. :()
Listening to the In Our Time summer repeats and on the one on "the evolution of teeth" which is simultaneously very interesting and the horrifying stuff of nightmares :ph34r:
Very excited at the latest episode of In Our Time on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth :mmm: :w00t:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 14, 2021, 06:05:17 AM
Very excited at the latest episode of In Our Time on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth :mmm: :w00t:
Indeed, I just missed it this morning, so I'll record it tonight. :bowler:
Shelf, In Our Time tomorrow is about something you may like:
The Song of Roland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00114m8 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00114m8)
Great Lives - JRR Tolkien
QuoteHistorian Niall Ferguson proposes Tolkien - creator of The Hobbit, Gandalf, Gollum and Sauron - for Great Lives"
Available as a podcast to download after transmission 4.30pm today on Radio 4.
details here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00127zh (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00127zh)
Interesting BBC podcast about the rise of Q Anon and early days of the anti-clinton conspiracies and the part played in the storming of the captial;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001324r/episodes/downloads (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001324r/episodes/downloads)
Quote
QAnon and the plot to break reality.
A year on from the Capitol Insurrection in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Gabriel Gatehouse journeys into the dark undergrowth of modern America. He's looking for the origins of the story that drove the crowds to storm the heart of US democracy. From conspiracy-soaked barrooms in 1990s Arkansas, via spies in hotel rooms in the shadow of the Kremlin, to anarchic chatrooms on the early internet, this is a search for the answer to one big question: did this just happen, or is somebody trying to break reality?
If you like the show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia the cast's podcast is interesting and funny.
Oh no :(
QuoteTalking Politics
@TPpodcast_
After six years and more than 300 episodes, we've decided to wind down Talking Politics. It's been fascinating to cover such a tumultuous time in politics, and to have had such wonderful engagement from our listeners. 1/4
There's never a good time to end - we are all very aware that British politics is in the middle of another convulsion - but David, @HelenHet20 and our producer @CatherineECarr are increasingly busy with other projects, and we wanted to finish this podcast on a high note. 2/4
We still have episodes to come on the French presidential elections, on Boris Johnson, and, most importantly, on @HelenHet20's new book, Disorder. Our last episode will be on 3 March, and our website and archive of past episodes will remain accessible for the long term. 3/4
We want to thank our friends at the @LRB for their support and say thank you to our listeners: we do hope you have enjoyed and valued listening to our podcast as much as we've enjoyed and valued creating it. 4/4
I mean they are all busy people with real jobs so it makes sense but this is probably my favourite current podcast. It's incredibly informative and insightful - I loved the History of Ideas series they did and I will be getting David Runciman's book on Hobbes and Helen Thompson's new book.
Also given the last six months or so I think about the number of times over the last few years of listening to this podcast on various subjects Helen Thompson's flagged the energy politics and its implications - which it fees like we're now living out.
I was devastated when I heard them announce it. :cry:
Something for Shelf and other Francophiles here, a new radio series about France and Algeria, starts off with failed wine makers moving to Algeria:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0014pt2 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0014pt2)
Quote
The Shadow of Algiers
The Great Seduction
Episode 1 of 5
Sixty years after the Algerian War of Independence - and as France prepares to elect a new President - Edward Stourton presents stories from a colonial past which still cast their shadow over the present. It's a very different colonial story from our own - even more brutal, more complex and more secret.
In the first of five programmes, Edward tells the surprising story of how an ugly bug - a tiny insect called phylloxera - created the climate for the Algerian War. The insect all but wiped out the French wine industry and caused huge numbers of French people to move to Algeria.
The French were initially seduced by the sun, sea and light of Algeria, exoticism captured in Albert Camus' famous novel, 'The Outsider'.
But the love affair quickly turned sour....
There is more than phylloxera to explain settlers in Algeria though, not to mention the much later war.
Most wine in Algeria was bad by the way, back then.
The finale of Talking Politics was thoroughly depressing. Not only is the world losing their political commentary and analysis at exactly the wrong time, but Runciman frankly said - you know how over the last six years I have been arguing against the claim that this is the 1930s all over again, well I was wrong. And then Thompson corrects him, it is except nobody had nukes in the 30s.
Yeah I wish they'd come back :lol:
The biggest impact on my thinking from that podcast is that almost any story I read I think "but what's the energy politics angle here" - and there almost always is one :ph34r:
Yep, I am about half way through her book. She certainly brings a fresh insightful perspective.
Instead of "It's the economy stupid" we should all have been saying "It's all about energy stupid!"
:lol: I need to get it. It sounds very interesting. I want to get Runciman's Confronting Leviathan too - which is based on his first summer of lectures because I really enjoyed them, especially the one on Hobbes.
It's slightly crazy but I have that and then the Bunga boys' The End of the End of History. I'm getting both - which are books by genuine academics in different bits of politics - because of listening to their podcasts which is never how I imagined the whole podcast thing would end up.
But I find those ones that take a step back and try to do some proper analysis so much more interesting than anything by journalists about just what's happening or anything too "newsy". Honestly I've trusted the journalist ones less and less as times goes on just because of the number of controversies that always seem to happen - I think the demands of narrative are higher in podcasts than other forms of journalism and that can get in the way of ethics and facts. But I enjoy more and more the thoughtful/analytical ones from experts or thinkers.
Big and pretty positive write up of a podcast I love - Know Your Enemy:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/04/marx-buckley-know-your-enemy-podcast-conservative-history-socialists-left-right-00005345
It's really interesting especially if you have any geekish interests in the weird, complicated history of the American right. I wish there was anyone as interesting and informed willing to take the British right as seriously in a podcast - sadly I can't think of anyone who could make this point so it's all just, at best, shallow:
Quote"Our premise is not some, like, liberal fantasy of bipartisanship, but I do think that just rejecting the conflation of a deep understanding with cooperation as the goal is a feature of the podcast," Adler-Bell said. "Once you give up on the idea that taking your political opponents seriously means that you sympathize with what they want to do, it opens up your intellectual horizons quite a lot."
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2022, 07:55:52 AMInteresting BBC podcast about the rise of Q Anon and early days of the anti-clinton conspiracies and the part played in the storming of the captial;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001324r/episodes/downloads (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001324r/episodes/downloads)
QuoteQAnon and the plot to break reality.
A year on from the Capitol Insurrection in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Gabriel Gatehouse journeys into the dark undergrowth of modern America. He's looking for the origins of the story that drove the crowds to storm the heart of US democracy. From conspiracy-soaked barrooms in 1990s Arkansas, via spies in hotel rooms in the shadow of the Kremlin, to anarchic chatrooms on the early internet, this is a search for the answer to one big question: did this just happen, or is somebody trying to break reality?
This proved to be an excellent series, I now have a firm grasp about it's origins, evolution and how it was wepaonised by some key republican operatives.
If there are any X-Men fans here, CEREBROCast (https://www.connorgoldsmith.com/cerebro) is absolutely amazing. The host, Connor Goldsmith, brings on a different guest each week and they break down a character's full story. I've enjoyed the heck out of it and caught up on the missing time between Claremont, a brief return for Morrison, and Krakoa via these episodes. The guests are all super passionate about the characters and there are a ton at this point to pick and choose any that appeal to you as they aren't super order dependent or necessary to listen to them all.
I've been enjoying Unclear and Present Danger. It's Jamelle Bouie of the NYT and John Ganz who's a left-wing journalist talking through the thrillers of the 90s - or as Bouie called them "boomer dad films". Like me, they have a deep affection for a lot of these films. But they're also looking at trying to view the politics of them in the context of the 90s and America's quest for another adversary, plus how that relates to today largely from a left-wing perspective (particularly with Ganz).
They've got a master list but have so far talked about:
The Hunt for Red October
Patriot Games
Clear and Present Danger
No Way Out
The Package
The Fourth War
By Dawn's Early Light
Hidden Agenda
The Russia House
Going Under
As I say they've got a master list - and I can't wait until they get to Arlington Road. But if, like me, this is a "genre" you like then I recommend it.
There is a very particular political thriller genre that I think died in the 90s with the erotic thriller and the serial killer thriller (plus the Grisham adaptations). They weren't all great but as a chunk of work I quite like those genres and slightly miss them - I wonder if it's just the decline of mid-budget Hollywood? :hmm:
Edit: Though I far prefer Bouie's contributions to Ganz :blush:
New bbc Radio 4 series / podcast telling the stories of historians down the ages:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00159rj (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00159rj)
QuoteThe Dawning of History
Making History: The Storytellers Who Shaped The Past by Richard CohenEpisode 1 of 10
Richard Cohen examines the storytellers of the past, how they worked and how their writings still influence our ideas about history.
Who were the historians who changed the way history is written? How did their biases affect their accounts? Is there such a thing as objective history?
The series explores lives and works from the Greek historian Herodotus, through the great Roman historians Tacitus and Livy, with their great epic stories of war and plagues, all of them inventing stories to be more reader friendly, and then moving through Arab and Islamic writings, to the medieval historians like Bede and Geoffrey of Monmouth – the latter famous for his economy with the truth, in other words, making it all up.
The great Italian Niccolo Machiavelli became a historian by accident, Voltaire and Edward Gibbon changed the way history was written, breaking away from a God centred universe. Then there's the Red historians from Marx (always in debt and crippled by boils on his skin) to Eric Hobsbawm, the emergence of female historians, and false accounts of history.
Episode 1
The lives and works of the earliest historians, the Greek Herodotus in 450 BC , indulging his curiosity about the habits of his neighbours (for example, descriptions of the sexual habits of the Egyptians) and his successor Thucydides, who shaped his material to enthral his readers. The great Romans Tacitus and Livy, with their epics of plagues and wars, embellishing the truth whenever it took their fancy. Livy was the tabloid journalist of his day.
Incidentally it's starting on FM Radio 4 now, 12.30gmt
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2022, 07:09:31 PMBig and pretty positive write up of a podcast I love - Know Your Enemy:
Just to mention this one again as I just listened to an episode with a historian who's just written a book called Mothers of Conservatism which is basically about the role of organising activist 50s housewives in the creation of modern American conservatism - it is incredible, really worth listening to.
It's really interesting both on its own terms and the fascinating gendered angle of this history - but also it's echoes with the current moment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 15, 2022, 11:05:42 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2022, 07:09:31 PMBig and pretty positive write up of a podcast I love - Know Your Enemy:
Just to mention this one again as I just listened to an episode with a historian who's just written a book called Mothers of Conservatism which is basically about the role of organising activist 50s housewives in the creation of modern American conservatism - it is incredible, really worth listening to.
It's really interesting both on its own terms and the fascinating gendered angle of this history - but also it's echoes with the current moment.
I wonder if this has been linked in any way with groups like the "Daughters of the Confederacy", it could give an overall view on the role of women in reactionary/conservative politics in the US through the ages.
Quote from: The Larch on March 15, 2022, 03:07:16 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 15, 2022, 11:05:42 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2022, 07:09:31 PMBig and pretty positive write up of a podcast I love - Know Your Enemy:
Just to mention this one again as I just listened to an episode with a historian who's just written a book called Mothers of Conservatism which is basically about the role of organising activist 50s housewives in the creation of modern American conservatism - it is incredible, really worth listening to.
It's really interesting both on its own terms and the fascinating gendered angle of this history - but also it's echoes with the current moment.
I wonder if this has been linked in any way with groups like the "Daughters of the Confederacy", it could give an overall view on the role of women in reactionary/conservative politics in the US through the ages.
Its got the makings of a good PhD thesis.
:lol: It was one - the guest's PhD and later book:
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163918/mothers-of-conservatism
QuoteMothers of Conservatism tells the story of 1950s Southern Californian housewives who shaped the grassroots right in the two decades following World War II. Michelle Nickerson describes how red-hunting homemakers mobilized activist networks, institutions, and political consciousness in local education battles, and she introduces a generation of women who developed political styles and practices around their domestic routines. From the conservative movement's origins in the early fifties through the presidential election of 1964, Nickerson documents how women shaped conservatism from the bottom up, out of the fabric of their daily lives and into the agenda of the Republican Party.
A unique history of the American conservative movement, Mothers of Conservatism shows how housewives got out of the house and discovered their political capital.
Particularly interesting - how family/protecting family from interference by the state was a very important mobiliser but also open to conspiracy theories like the weird obsession with UNESCO. Or the campaign against "progressive education" which was being imposed by school district officials and getting in between parents deciding what to teach kids (and probably communism). And the absolutely wild story of the American Siberia conspiracy theory about mental health spending in Alaska (then a territory).
It's really worth a listen.
Harris has Gary Kasparov on his latest Common Sense, talking about the Ukraine war. Good stuff, but nothing really that new.
But it is interesting to hear an actual Russian talking about how Russia works, and how dumb the West can be in response.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2022, 08:28:31 AMHarris has Gary Kasparov on his latest Common Sense, talking about the Ukraine war. Good stuff, but nothing really that new.
But it is interesting to hear an actual Russian talking about how Russia works, and how dumb the West can be in response.
It does always amaze me that despite the fact that the United States usually has hundreds, if not thousands, of first generation immigrants from whatever country we are dealing with and some pretty brilliant people in our state department we still never seem to have any idea what we are doing. Ah well. I imagine most countries feel frustrated with their government's foreign affairs.
Anyway I generally enjoy listening to Kasparov talk chess so this one has been on my list of things to listen to at some point.
Oh. Sam Harris. Cool. :x
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 16, 2022, 07:18:41 PMOh. Sam Harris. Cool. :x
Yeah,it is difficult to listen to Harris' view of the world. When he has interesting guests I try, but it's often not worth it.
Well, he is rather anti-woke, and anti-left wing virtue signalling while actually trying to accomplish things, so I can see why some people cannot handle listening to him.
He is also a condescending ass when speaking to his wife when she was on the early podcasts. He is also completely oblivious to the fact there are other valid points of view which he dismisses out of hand. Typical of someone who claims they are the one applying common sense. But I can see how it appeals to a certain close minded segment of the American public who naturally gravitate to such views.
You clearly do not actually listen to him, since he is much more willing to engage with people who disagree with him then 95% of the people who disagree with him. He just actually argues facts instead of emotion, which infuriates the woke crowd.
It is in fact the exact opposite of close minded, which is in fact why I like listening to him, even though I disagree with him on many details, but I don't have that emotional, anger driven response to that fact that he disagrees with me others immediately go to...The irony of you complaining about someone being closed minded is delicious when it comes to explaining how you find it "difficult to listen to".
You see the difference, right? I don't always agree with him, but I don't find my disagreement results in me getting all emotionally charged up about him the way the left wing woke crowd does - because their disagreement, unlike mine, is actually about their faith, rather then actual policy or facts.
:huh: I said in my first post that I have listened to some of his shows. How do you think I formed my view about him? Your characterization of what occurs in his shows are not what I have heard. And is why I don't listen much any more. But he certainly reflects your world views (as you have expressed them here) and so I can understand why you find him so appealing.
Time to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
That is so perfectly aligned with exactly what I was talking about - thanks!
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
Where?
I can't find it or am I on mute also :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on March 17, 2022, 06:56:37 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
Where?
I can't find it or am I on mute also :unsure:
Top left of the screen where it has your user name. There's a little triangle for additional options. One of them is the ignore list.
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2022, 05:49:47 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
That is so perfectly aligned with exactly what I was talking about - thanks!
I find you to be almost fully detrimental to my enjoyment of this community and will not miss your posts in the slightest. Enjoy your arrogance, your bigotry, and your general douchebaggery, I'll channel Depeche Mode and enjoy the silence. :)
Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2022, 07:16:42 PMQuote from: mongers on March 17, 2022, 06:56:37 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
Where?
I can't find it or am I on mute also :unsure:
Top left of the screen where it has your user name. There's a little triangle for additional options. One of them is the ignore list.
This is going to be a very interesting experiment.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 07:23:31 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 17, 2022, 05:49:47 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
That is so perfectly aligned with exactly what I was talking about - thanks!
I find you to be almost fully detrimental to my enjoyment of this community and will not miss your posts in the slightest. Enjoy your arrogance, your bigotry, and your general douchebaggery, I'll channel Depeche Mode and enjoy the silence. :)
Can you cite an actual example of me being a bigot? That's an interesting accusation from someone who claims that just listening to different viewpoints make them ill.
As far as arrogance is concerned, I can live with the accusation, especially from people who claim they are oh so open minded that they have to actively avoid dissenting opinion and fly into a rage at the suggestion that not everyone believes exactly as they do.
Enjoy not having to argue with people who disagree with your humble, open, and so very non-douchebag manner of discussion. Because making a bunch of rather incredibly impolite personal attacks while storming away is definitely totally not arrogant or bigoted or being a douchebag at all.
PS: I don't even know who the hell you are, but....whatever?
Well, that was a damn tragedy.
I do find it interesting how emotional the left gets about Harris though. The right hates him and disagrees with him and think he is a liberal dumbass intellectual elite asshole, but the left - omg the woke left, at least those who don't like him, just absolutely go bonkers over him.
I think the fact that he is actually a progressive, left wing intellectual who rejects the craziness of the radical woke left is just absolutely infuriating in a very interesting way. His demand that you back up arguments with facts and data and his willingness to just follow data (and of course that doesn't mean he is right, or follows the data perfectly, or interprets the data correctly) is just absolutely beyond the pale for the uber left.
I do like Sam Harris. And not because he represents my world view, but because he actually represents what I think is important in how to think and evaluate the world - with facts, data, and reason. I don't like him because he agrees with me in his conclusions, because sometimes I don't agree with him. I like him because he agrees with me on how one should argue honestly and with an attempt to actually understand the people we are talking to and a desire to actually reach some kind of practical way forward, rather then arguing from conclusions based on emotion and what we wish was true. Something sorely lacking in much of the radical left, and of course completely absent from basically all of the right entirely.
Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2022, 07:16:42 PMQuote from: mongers on March 17, 2022, 06:56:37 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
Where?
I can't find it or am I on mute also :unsure:
Top left of the screen where it has your user name. There's a little triangle for additional options. One of them is the ignore list.
Thanks Jacob, it's more because for some unknown reason both Hakakau and Grumbler are on it and I have to click on an unignore link to read every one of their posts.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 07:23:31 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 17, 2022, 05:49:47 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
That is so perfectly aligned with exactly what I was talking about - thanks!
I find you to be almost fully detrimental to my enjoyment of this community and will not miss your posts in the slightest. Enjoy your arrogance, your bigotry, and your general douchebaggery, I'll channel Depeche Mode and enjoy the silence. :)
Berkut's bigotry? What the hell?
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2022, 09:01:08 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 07:23:31 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 17, 2022, 05:49:47 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
That is so perfectly aligned with exactly what I was talking about - thanks!
I find you to be almost fully detrimental to my enjoyment of this community and will not miss your posts in the slightest. Enjoy your arrogance, your bigotry, and your general douchebaggery, I'll channel Depeche Mode and enjoy the silence. :)
Berkut's bigotry? What the hell?
He likes Sam Harris. Sam Harris has opinions on the transgender community that aren't positive and inclusive.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 17, 2022, 09:07:51 PMHe likes Sam Harris. Sam Harris has opinions on the transgender community that aren't positive and inclusive.
Well I listen to all kinds of people with opinions different than mine.
What exactly is Sam Harris' opinion on Transgendered people? I honestly don't know.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2022, 09:16:50 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 17, 2022, 09:07:51 PMHe likes Sam Harris. Sam Harris has opinions on the transgender community that aren't positive and inclusive.
Well I listen to all kinds of people with opinions different than mine.
What exactly is Sam Harris' opinion on Transgendered people? I honestly don't know.
You need to subscribe to listen to this particular person you disagree with. So I am not sure why you would spend money to do that when you can just log onto Languish for free :D
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2022, 09:16:50 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 17, 2022, 09:07:51 PMHe likes Sam Harris. Sam Harris has opinions on the transgender community that aren't positive and inclusive.
Well I listen to all kinds of people with opinions different than mine.
What exactly is Sam Harris' opinion on Transgendered people? I honestly don't know.
It's all 2nd hand information but he has apparently called them a conservative community that reinforces traditional gender roles.
Sam Harris views on transgendered people are, so far as I can tell, basically in line with what you would expect any sane, progressive human being to have. They should be supported, concerns about bathrooms are stupid, etc., etc., etc.
He gets in trouble though because he isn't willing to follow it to any possible extreme. As an example, he called into question what exactly it means when a born male athlete transitions to female, and then goes out and absolutely crushes all competition in female sports, and doesn't just absolutely accept the attitude that that should be perfectly fine, and we should accept that without any question or discussion.
This, of course, is intolerable to the woke crowd, so he is "not positive and inclusive" even though the sum of his views are absolutely positive and inclusive. Just not absolutely so.
This actually sums up the entire problem of the ultra woke left with Harris. He is progressive, a complete lefty, and is supportive of basically every single progressive social view. But he isn't absolutely so, and is willing to actually discuss hard questions about what a progressive society should *actually* look like in practical matters.
He is all for universal health care, but is willing to ask how it ought to be paid for in a rational manner, and under what circumstances it would not be entirely universal. OMG! Somone get a rope!
He thinks wealth inequality is a huge problem, but also recognizes that in fact overall economic conditions for most humans on the planet over the last 4 decades have improved immeasurably, and notes that we should probably make sure we maintain that broad success driven by global free markets.
He despised the Clintons - I wonder if that is a good chunk of the hate for him?
He also was no Bernie fan, and was quite comfortable noting that the guy is, after all, a self described socialist who was not a member of the Democratic Party, so why is anyone surprised the Democratic Party didn't try to help him get elected? So that REALLY pissed a lot of Bernie Bros left off, of course.
At the same time, Andrew Yang credited him with kick starting his Presidential campaign. So the idea that Harris is NOT a progressive is just ludicrous.
I don't agree with him on some things, but I agree with him on the importance of reason, thought, and honest communication and refusing to bow down to the cancel crowd on the left or the crazy fucking religious fundy/Trumpers on the right.
We need a lot more Sam Harris's in our public discourse.
CNN actually just published an article that pretty fairly sums up the controversy:
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/33492251/lia-thomas-controversy-surrounds-ncaa-swimming-championships-incites-national-debate
QuoteWHEN IT COMES to disagreements about whether or not Thomas -- and other transgender women -- should be allowed to compete in the women's category, the question is often posed as one of fairness. But it is also about identity, sex and what the word "woman" means.
"There are two philosophies that are clashing right now," Hogshead-Makar said."One is an ideology of gender identity and the other one is the idea of science and biology. The ideology is trans women are women. For the most part, people were onboard for the idea that you want transgender people to be welcome in employment and public accommodations. But then there's the biology part of it when it comes to medical treatment, or women's sports. That ideology is not fact. It is not a fact that trans women are women."
The science of transgender athletes is an evolving space, but there are a few things that are known: testosterone is, on average, many times higher in those assigned male at birth compared to those assigned female at birth; testosterone confers physiological and metabolic advantages such as increased muscle mass, lung capacity, increased height, etc.; testosterone suppression effectively reduces levels in transgender women to be on par with those of cisgender women after approximately one year.
What is interesting here is that the objections here are not about these debates. It is the insistence that even having the debate is conclusive proof that you are a bigot.This is why the woke left is so fucked up today.
Someone from NYT must've been reading this thread. Today it published something that I would not expect from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html
I particularly welcome the explicit distinction that they point out between First Amendment protections and actual freedom of speech. My impression was that New York Times was solidly in the "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian, so it's a good sign that they're waking up the danger.
Quote from: DGuller on March 18, 2022, 11:07:52 AM"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian
Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?
I find interesting that in the poll a lot of younger people feel they can speek more freely about race relation - possibly a sign that racial minorities feel safer to speak out about injustices. And the number of women holding back their opinions for fear of consequences at 50+% - would like to know if it's gone up or down.
Quote from: Syt on March 18, 2022, 11:51:11 AMQuote from: DGuller on March 18, 2022, 11:07:52 AM"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian
Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?
I find interesting that in the poll a lot of younger people feel they can speek more freely about race relation - possibly a sign that racial minorities feel safer to speak out about injustices. And the number of women holding back their opinions for fear of consequences at 50+% - would like to know if it's gone up or down.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
There isn't some binary answer. Or rather, both binary answers lead to unacceptable states for society, and hence there has to be general principles that motivate our evaluation of the specifics of the circumstances.
It was very kind of BA to provide kind of a mini-microcosm of the basic problem.
He called me a bigot (and I noticed nobody from his side of this debate had the courage to call him out on that, so they either think I am a bigot, or think it is ok to call people bigots who clearly are not as long as it is seen as useful for your tribes argument), not because of any particular bigoted view I have ever expressed, but simply because I thought someone else had arguments worthy of being listened to, and then personally canceled me in order to not have to engage anything I say on the merits of what I say, but simply because I ought to be ignored no matter the merits of my argument.
This is cancel culture in a nutshell. The idea that the best way to win the social battle for hearts and minds is through fear, rather than reason. Make taking a contrary position so personally dangerous to someone through threats to their livelihood, credibility, or character that you don't have to even engage in the argument to begin with on its merits. It is not different in its basic structure to Putin threatening to put someone in jail for saying there is a war going on, rather then having to go to the trouble of convincing people that his war is justified.
Its just a very nasty ad hominin fallacy.
So the Sinica podcast is always pretty interesting but the recent one on what China's reading was really good.
Worth a listen and going to try to pick up a few in translation. Separate to the books though, the discussion of the dystopian world of Chinese internet fiction was fascinating.
@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.
The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.
For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations. You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say. In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech. If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function. And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.
Quote from: DGuller on March 18, 2022, 11:07:52 AMSomeone from NYT must've been reading this thread. Today it published something that I would not expect from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html
I particularly welcome the explicit distinction that they point out between First Amendment protections and actual freedom of speech. My impression was that New York Times was solidly in the "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian, so it's a good sign that they're waking up the danger.
" People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes, and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation."Is there any cultural question right now more validly recognized as something that "society is working through" then how to handle transgendered people? I mean, it is literally a problem that has never existed before in the way technology has made it exist today. Why is anyone surprised that handling it, especially in the corner cases, is going to be hard, and that people can and will take up positions in good faith that deserve honest engagement?The CNN article on this had some notes about how US Swimming is changing the rules on what would allow trangendered athletes to compete, and doing so in such a way that if the NCAA were to adopt those rules today (they have not) Lia Thomas would not be allowed to compete at that level. Is that not something worthy of discussion? How would they even figure out those rules if even suggesting that there is in fact a actual difference between women and trans-gendered women is evidence that you are a bigot? Every single person involved in figuring out the solution would, under this criteria that saw Sam Harris being labeled trans-hating and negative and non-inclusive, would have to be similarly labeled. The very people who would have to be the ones to figure out the best way for us to handle this.Harris pointed this out - if this is the criteria, then the only possible other way to handle this issue is to literally say that anyone showing up to any competition has to be allowed to compete in it as long as they simply state that they are whatever gender that competition restricts itself to is their gender. The moment you make a single rule that says "...and you have to have some means of evidencing that you are in fact that gender" you have to think about how to do so fairly and reasonably. That can only happen through discussion, science, understanding the reality of what is going on, and its impacts on that particular sport and at that particular level. The answers are going to, should be expected to be, different. Maybe it makes no difference at all for high school ping pong players. Maybe it make a little difference for college swimmers. Maybe it makes a hell of a lot of difference for professional MMA fighters. There is not going to be one neat answer. This is the position that got Sam Harris labeled a transgender hating non-inclusive bigot.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 12:12:56 PM@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.
The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.
For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations. You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say. In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech. If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function. And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.
I disagree completely.
Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.
Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.
And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!
None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.
The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.
Quote from: Syt on March 18, 2022, 11:51:11 AMQuote from: DGuller on March 18, 2022, 11:07:52 AM"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian
Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?
I think both of these are bad examples, because neither is protected by the First Amendment (or its interpretation). I don't believe that freedom of speech should be absolute, but I do believe that restrictions on that freedom should be explicitly specified. Freedom by definition is lack of prohibitive consequences, so this saying really means "freedom doesn't mean freedom". You're actually not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2022, 12:19:38 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 12:12:56 PM@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.
The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.
For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations. You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say. In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech. If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function. And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.
I disagree completely.
Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.
Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.
And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!
None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.
The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.
I recognize that you fundamentally disagree. However, I do not know how you both recognize legal freedom of speech rights do not extend to the private sphere, but then insist on some variant of that extending to the private sphere. The whole purpose of freedom of expression is to prevent government from curtailing criticism - but here you are advocating for some kind of private restriction on that very thing.
Quote from: DGuller on March 18, 2022, 12:27:59 PMQuote from: Syt on March 18, 2022, 11:51:11 AMQuote from: DGuller on March 18, 2022, 11:07:52 AM"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian
Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?
I think both of these are bad examples, because neither is protected by the First Amendment (or its interpretation). I don't believe that freedom of speech should be absolute, but I do believe that restrictions on that freedom should be explicitly specified. Freedom by definition is lack of prohibitive consequences, so this saying really means "freedom doesn't mean freedom". You're actually not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
So answer the question, am I not free to criticize someone if that critique results in them no longer being listened to because I have convinced others their ideas are foolish and should not be given the dignity of a platform?
Since we're talking about cancel culture, and trans issues came up...
One of the podcasts I listen to is Blocked and Reported. They describe their beat as "internet bullshit", which basically means that as two left-of-centre journalists they do stories on the worst excesses of left-wing twitter.
They often come back to trans issues, where the one host Jesse Singal gained online notoriety for a piece on trans issues he did for the Atlantic several years back on detransitioners - people who stopped being trans. This has earned him the enmity of trans activists. Despite Singal having what would seem to be pretty progressive views on trans people (people should be called what they want to be called, should get access to hormones / medical interventions, use people's preferred pronouns), he has questioned how quick we are to put kids who say they are trans on hormones.
Anyways if you're interested in such topics it's an interesting listen.
Thanks, I will give it a listen.
For those of you missing the Talking Politics pod... Helen Thompson will be on an upcoming episode of Dominic Sandbrook & Tom Holland's "Rest is History" podcast. Probably out next week.
They also have a "Rest is Politics" sister podcast with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. It's relatively new but has been interesting so far.
Quote from: PRC on March 18, 2022, 04:15:44 PMThey also have a "Rest is Politics" sister podcast with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. It's relatively new but has been interesting so far.
I've listened to their podcast and there are interesting points in it (I loved someone's Stewart = Schwarzenegger comparison recently), mainly when they talk about their personal experience. But ultimately Alastair Campbell was the spin doctor for New Labour which has been repeatedly described as profoundly changing British politics especially around spin/honesty in politics (and which I quite liked so I am sympathetic to - and I quite like Campbell generally) and Rory Stewart was an ambitious Tory MP who voted for every single cut and all of the policies of the coalition through May governments.
I get that they really dislike where we are now but there are times when I hear them talk about it where I just think of this meme :bleeding:
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/037/873/We're_All_Trying_To_Find_The_Guy_Who_Did_This_banner_1.jpg)
They had a recent semi-clash because Campbell is pretty fierce on education (and I totally agree with him) and Rory is an old Etonian who, reading between the lines, was basically saying he'd like to send his sons to Eton too - and I think they did hold off each other and let things slide.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 07:23:31 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 17, 2022, 05:49:47 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 17, 2022, 05:12:06 PMTime to try out that new "mute user" feature! :)
edit: Niiice!
That is so perfectly aligned with exactly what I was talking about - thanks!
I find you to be almost fully detrimental to my enjoyment of this community and will not miss your posts in the slightest. Enjoy your arrogance, your bigotry, and your general douchebaggery, I'll channel Depeche Mode and enjoy the silence. :)
Ignoring for the moment the whole
ad hom attack here, you are not buying much credibility by responding to a poster you claim to have put on your ignore list.
If the impression I've gotten is correct and it still shows that they've posted something but not the content, it'd take a lot of willpower not to look when it's in direct response to yourself.
Yeah I love Rest is History but I was not impressed by Rest is Politics' first session (to be fair they are done by different people)
.
It sounded like a couple of guys knowledgeable and critical of politics, but the latter mainly because their own influence on it has diminished. Especially true for Rory.
Yeah and Alastair Campbell is literally the inspiration for Malcolm Tucker in The Thick Of It :lol:
So I get that they are knowledgeable in different ways (though I'd quibble on that with Rory Stewart) and critical - but notably not very reflective.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 02:10:01 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 18, 2022, 12:19:38 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 12:12:56 PM@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.
The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.
For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations. You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say. In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech. If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function. And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.
I disagree completely.
Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.
Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.
And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!
None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.
The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.
I recognize that you fundamentally disagree. However, I do not know how you both recognize legal freedom of speech rights do not extend to the private sphere, but then insist on some variant of that extending to the private sphere. The whole purpose of freedom of expression is to prevent government from curtailing criticism - but here you are advocating for some kind of private restriction on that very thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 02:10:01 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 18, 2022, 12:19:38 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 12:12:56 PM@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.
The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.
For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations. You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say. In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech. If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function. And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.
I disagree completely.
Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.
Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.
And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!
None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.
The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.
I recognize that you fundamentally disagree. However, I do not know how you both recognize legal freedom of speech rights do not extend to the private sphere, but then insist on some variant of that extending to the private sphere. The whole purpose of freedom of expression is to prevent government from curtailing criticism - but here you are advocating for some kind of private restriction on that very thing.
I've never advocated or insisted on extending first amendment legal protection to the private sphere.
Who are you arguing with?
Quote from: Berkut on March 20, 2022, 02:54:13 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 02:10:01 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 18, 2022, 12:19:38 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 12:12:56 PM@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.
The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.
For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations. You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say. In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech. If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function. And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.
I disagree completely.
Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.
Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.
And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!
None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.
The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.
I recognize that you fundamentally disagree. However, I do not know how you both recognize legal freedom of speech rights do not extend to the private sphere, but then insist on some variant of that extending to the private sphere. The whole purpose of freedom of expression is to prevent government from curtailing criticism - but here you are advocating for some kind of private restriction on that very thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 02:10:01 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 18, 2022, 12:19:38 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2022, 12:12:56 PM@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.
The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.
For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations. You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say. In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech. If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function. And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.
I disagree completely.
Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.
Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.
And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!
None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.
The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.
I recognize that you fundamentally disagree. However, I do not know how you both recognize legal freedom of speech rights do not extend to the private sphere, but then insist on some variant of that extending to the private sphere. The whole purpose of freedom of expression is to prevent government from curtailing criticism - but here you are advocating for some kind of private restriction on that very thing.
I've never advocated or insisted on extending first amendment legal protection to the private sphere.
Who are you arguing with?
Was it necessary to double quote the whole thing?
Ok Berkut, if you think it is ok for people to criticize others and convince other not to listen, then what is your issue?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2022, 06:08:01 PMOk Berkut, if you think it is ok for people to criticize others and convince other not to listen, then what is your issue?
Its funny how you jump back and forth in your constructed strawmen.
You said that I advocated for private restriction, and then when I said I never said that, followed up with "its ok to...convince others not to listen"
Neither of those are my position, or suggested by anyting I have ever said.
I think the cancel culture world is a cultural phenomenon. People do not have to do it - and people (like you) do not have to cheer them on and support it.
I think people should not do it, nor do I think we should cheer them on when they do do it, and in fact I think the left should be champions of free speech and the right and practical power to allow people to say what they want without fear of being cancelled, even if they say something we do not like.
I think the twitter mob and people like you should come out in favor of letting people you don't agree with speak freely, even while you vehemently disagree with them, rather then thinking that the best way to win the culture war is to make sure people with the wrong views are cowed into silence by the mob.
I listened to a recent episode of Nómadas a Spanish tourism podcast. In this episode was about Atlanta and they discussed Coca Cola and the fine dining at La Casa del Gofre. Sadly they missed the airport; otherwise it would have been just like The Futurama Episode about the lost city of Atlanta. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeYihjMo0Bk)
;)
(Okay, they did also mention the civil rights monuments and the hipper neighborhoods as well.)
Quote from: Berkut on March 20, 2022, 08:38:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2022, 06:08:01 PMOk Berkut, if you think it is ok for people to criticize others and convince other not to listen, then what is your issue?
Its funny how you jump back and forth in your constructed strawmen.
You said that I advocated for private restriction, and then when I said I never said that, followed up with "its ok to...convince others not to listen"
Neither of those are my position, or suggested by anyting I have ever said.
I think the cancel culture world is a cultural phenomenon. People do not have to do it - and people (like you) do not have to cheer them on and support it.
I think people should not do it, nor do I think we should cheer them on when they do do it, and in fact I think the left should be champions of free speech and the right and practical power to allow people to say what they want without fear of being cancelled, even if they say something we do not like.
I think the twitter mob and people like you should come out in favor of letting people you don't agree with speak freely, even while you vehemently disagree with them, rather then thinking that the best way to win the culture war is to make sure people with the wrong views are cowed into silence by the mob.
No need to be snide. I am genuinely confused as to what your position is.
I do not understand how one can advocate for freedom of speech but say that freedom of speech does not include criticism of others.
Your post above does nothing to illuminate what your position is other than to repeat a bunch of rhetoric I often hear from the likes of Harris about how terrible it is that people are exercising their freedom of speech in a way they don't like.
I think there is a need to be snide, because you keep stating what are obvious strawmen like "... say that freedom of speech does not include criticism of others." and " how terrible it is that people are exercising their freedom of speech in a way they don't like."
I pretty clearly never said that. So what is the point of discussion, if I have to say over and over and over again that I am not saying what you claim I am saying?
You don't seem to be confused at all about my position - you seem to know it considerably better then I do, in fact.
The entire discussion is just me saying what I think, then you saying I said something else entirely, and asking me to defend it. Then I repeat that I don't think that, explain what I do think, and then you do the exact same thing again.
It is not clear at all to me how one stops the kind of speech you find distressing without interfering with the very freedom you rightfully cherish. If you do not wish to explain your position, that is fine.
I certainly don't wish to continue explaining it to someone who clearly isn't interested in actually understanding it.
Ironic that you could not resist throwing in a strawman (stops the kind of speech you find distressing) into your post about how sad it is I don't want "explain my position".
I have said a few times I do want to understand how you square that circle. If there is no answer, like I said that is fine. I can't think of what the answer might be and that is why I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
I think schools should not cancel people because the twitter mob screams bloody murder. I don't think there should be a law against them refusing to allow someone to speak, I just think they should not do it because that is not a good idea.
And people like you, instead of making excuses, strawmen, and insisting that cancel culture does not exist, should have the courage to demand that people who do agree with you be allowed to speak, rather than demanding for them to be silenced, and then pretending like it never actually happened.
You saying you want to understand, then simply repeating what you know perfectly well is a sequence of strawmen, makes it clear that you do actually understand fine, you would just rather not argue against my argument, but the one you wish I had made instead. There is no circle that needs squaring.
This used to be a useful thread.
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2022, 03:31:16 PMI think schools should not cancel people because the twitter mob screams bloody murder. I don't think there should be a law against them refusing to allow someone to speak, I just think they should not do it because that is not a good idea.
And people like you, instead of making excuses, strawmen, and insisting that cancel culture does not exist, should have the courage to demand that people who do agree with you be allowed to speak, rather than demanding for them to be silenced, and then pretending like it never actually happened.
You saying you want to understand, then simply repeating what you know perfectly well is a sequence of strawmen, makes it clear that you do actually understand fine, you would just rather not argue against my argument, but the one you wish I had made instead. There is no circle that needs squaring.
Ok so your belief in freedom of expression is qualified. It is ok if it is exercised in a way consistent with your view of the world, but if it is exercised in a manner you deem to be "screaming bloody murder" that should not occur. I think that is explanation enough.
There is a world of difference between saying someone shouldn't do something and saying they can't do something.
I've made a thread for discussing free speech here: https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16540.0.html
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2022, 06:52:49 PMI've made a thread for discussing free speech here: https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16540.0.html
Excellent idea.
Very interesting podcast on Aufhebunga Bunga about the trucker convoy:
https://bungacast.com/2022/03/22/249-dances-with-truckers-ft-ashley-frawley/
Disagree with chunks of it but an interesting conversation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2022, 05:26:26 PMQuote from: Berkut on March 21, 2022, 03:31:16 PMI think schools should not cancel people because the twitter mob screams bloody murder. I don't think there should be a law against them refusing to allow someone to speak, I just think they should not do it because that is not a good idea.
And people like you, instead of making excuses, strawmen, and insisting that cancel culture does not exist, should have the courage to demand that people who do agree with you be allowed to speak, rather than demanding for them to be silenced, and then pretending like it never actually happened.
You saying you want to understand, then simply repeating what you know perfectly well is a sequence of strawmen, makes it clear that you do actually understand fine, you would just rather not argue against my argument, but the one you wish I had made instead. There is no circle that needs squaring.
Ok so your belief in freedom of expression is qualified. It is ok if it is exercised in a way consistent with your view of the world, but if it is exercised in a manner you deem to be "screaming bloody murder" that should not occur. I think that is explanation enough.
That is the most tortured defense of an attack on freedom of speech by a left wing cancel culture warrior I've ever seen. Well done.
I am standing here saying people should be allowed to say what they like, and *I* am the one who has a "qualified" belief in freedom of expression. This is straight up Orwell - congratulations.
So not a podcast tip (but I really enjoyed the latest episode of Politics Theory Other on decolonisation and its legacy) and not totally linked to the whole Spotify controversy - but there's been a really striking trend in the last few months of BBC star journalists and producers who've worked on podcasts either getting poached by commercial radio/podcast networks, or setting up their own radio/podcast station.
It's happened with Emily Maitlis and Job Sopel (who were both talked about as possible BBC Political Editors - which is one of the biggest jobs in the BBC for journalists), as well as the producer behind Brexitcast and other podcasts in recent years. But also Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode who've been doing a very popular film review show on various radio stations (and as a podcast) for over 20 years are off to their own radio station (where they also do other shows) and producing the podcast independently - again taking their producer.
At the same time, from what I understand, advertisers get a broadly similar (and more easily tracked) return on podcast advertising as they do through online advertising via Facebook or Google - but it's a fraction of the cost. This is probably something that makes media publishers very happy and excited as it's a new revenue stream that's more or less directly between them and advertisers with no need to give most of their cut to Google.
It's not I think where anyone would have guessed media going a few years ago - and is quite interesting as a trend :hmm:
It feels like one that broadly does tilt the balance (for now) back in favour of established media companies because they can basically have their journalists cover something for the newspaper, then do the explainers on how they broke the story plus analysis from commentators on the podcasts etc. And as ever one of the first to get this was probably Rupert Murdoch - News UK launched Times Radio with lots of Times (and some Sun) journalists moving over as full or part time hosts on this new commercial radio channel. It was announced pre-pandemic and the main purpose was to drive subscriptions to the Times, but has probably actually become its own thing with radio shows running through each day with some also doubling as podcasts.
I wonder if the move to newsletters will end up in a similar way - and similarly it's an advertising revenue between publishers and advertisers without any need for Facebook or Google :hmm:
And it sort of makes sense because I suppose this is where people thought the interview would go - you can personalise your content to the podcasts/newsletters on topics you're interested in. But that stuff still needs curating/editing and there's no-one better for that than existing newspapers who use them to cross-subsidise other bits of their operation.
An interesting radio programme about 'The Little Black Book' starting on Radio 4 in 5 minutes and available to catch up on BBC Sounds:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017t95
QuoteGrowing up in New York in the 1980s, Laurence Legall was more than aware of the dangers of walking down the street. It didn't take much for a young black man to be stopped and searched by the city police - and if you made a wrong move, you could end up dead.
In this programme, from his home in Brooklyn where he has lived for much of his life, Laurence tells the story of the small but vitally important book created by his mom to help young black men stay safe on the streets of NYC.
It all began one day in 1985 when he went to buy some shoes with friends. They were robbed by a group of young men. Seeing a police car, they flagged them down but the NYPD didn't take their complaint seriously. When he got home, his mom was furious. But rather than just accept it, she decided do something about it.
And she was no stranger to 'doing something about it'. Back in 1957, Carol Taylor fought discrimination on the airlines to become the first black flight attendant in the United States. A few years later, she took her place on the podium at the March on Washington in 1963 with other civil rights campaigners.
And then years later, she wanted to make a stand for her son and all other young black men. Laurence's experience had been the last straw and, that evening, Carol sat down and wrote a list of survival rules for not just her son but for all black men to follow in the event of being stopped by the police. She called it The Little Black Book. This programme charts the story of that book, its important list of 30 rules and how it continues to be relevant nearly 40 years after its first publication.
Producer: Caroline Heywood
Executive Producer: Ashley Byrne
A Made in Manchester production for BBC Radio 4
I've mentioned the excellent Bad Gays podcast before - but they've now got a book about Bad Gays which I'm looking forward to getting. In part it'll be about how we can learn about the historical construction of homosexuality through looking at the bad gays as much as the icons and heroes - in particular because, they argue, it is linked to colonialism and (obviously particularly in the UK) class which are two areas with lots of villains.
Anyway an excerpt from their book on Ronnie Kray:
https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/books-art-and-culture/bad-gays-extract-ronnie-kray-huw-lemmey-ben-miller/
Another really impressive hire into podcasts - Global have now got Dinos Sofos (star BBC producer who did shows like Brexitcast and Americast for the 2020 etc), Emily Maitlis (former host of Newsnight, the BBC's flagship news show), Jon Sopel (BBC Washington correspondent and considered a leading candidate to become Political Editor) and now Lewis Goodall (BBC Policy Editor).
It's really striking to see companies making this sort of investment - and raiding really good BBC staff - for podcast, although Goodall's also been brought in to do more video content. I think they all also work for LBC which is basically a private version of talk radio in the UK - so they do radio shows but then also podcast content.
As I said before I can't believe that 10 years ago - with the launch of (the very good) Buzzfeed News, multiple pivots to video, social news etc - that anyone would have predicted there'd be big hires and investment in, basically, radio. In part it is very much helped by people being willing to pay for some subscriptions more than other content channels, but also I understand that the return on ads on podcasts is really, really good - plus you can do live shows/tours plus merch etc. It's an impressive bit of the media that can very much turn a profit.
And it was there underneath radio station's noses all this time :lol: I remember when the BBC wouldn't even call them "podcasts" because they thought that term was just associated with Apple so it might be accidentally/inadvertently promoting Apple products - but just think of all the Melvyn Bragg merch opportunities they missed out on :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 01:39:43 PMAnother really impressive hire into podcasts - Global have now got Dinos Sofos (star BBC producer who did shows like Brexitcast and Americast for the 2020 etc), Emily Maitlis (former host of Newsnight, the BBC's flagship news show), Jon Sopel (BBC Washington correspondent and considered a leading candidate to become Political Editor) and now Lewis Goodall (BBC Policy Editor).
It's really striking to see companies making this sort of investment - and raiding really good BBC staff - for podcast, although Goodall's also been brought in to do more video content. I think they all also work for LBC which is basically a private version of talk radio in the UK - so they do radio shows but then also podcast content.
As I said before I can't believe that 10 years ago - with the launch of (the very good) Buzzfeed News, multiple pivots to video, social news etc - that anyone would have predicted there'd be big hires and investment in, basically, radio. In part it is very much helped by people being willing to pay for some subscriptions more than other content channels, but also I understand that the return on ads on podcasts is really, really good - plus you can do live shows/tours plus merch etc. It's an impressive bit of the media that can very much turn a profit.
And it was there underneath radio station's noses all this time :lol: I remember when the BBC wouldn't even call them "podcasts" because they thought that term was just associated with Apple so it might be accidentally/inadvertently promoting Apple products - but just think of all the Melvyn Bragg merch opportunities they missed out on :o
Shelf do you ever reccomended much BBC podcast/radio out put or does it have to wait for them to join non-state media/broadcast companies? :P
Not really. I don't really listen to BBC podcasts to be honest - I listen to In Our Time and I listened to Kermode and Mayo (and followed them to their new home - again interesting that they set up a private radio/podcast company as an exciting media venture in the 2020s :huh:).
I think probably because I don't really listen to the radio very much and I've never downloaded the BBC Sounds app I'm not that exposed to what's going on there. Having said that, except for Football Weekly and maybe some of the Athletic affiliated podcasts, I don't really listen to any podcasts that are by a legacy media company.
But I couldn't tell you what's on BBC or ITV or Channel 4 either. I use iPlayer, All4, ITV Hub but don't really watch linear TV - I don't have an aerial and haven't for years.
I do listen to a couple of popular history podcasts by the BBC, "You're dead to me", by Greg Jenner, and "Evil genius", by Russell Kane. :smarty:
Both are a good mix of proper history and comedy. In "You're dead to me" they analyze most of the times a character and sometimes a topic or event with a guest historian, a specialist on the topic, and a comedian that provides banter and wittycisms, sometimes with a personal connection to what is being discussed. "Evil genius" discusses a controversial historical character and provides sometimes little know facts about their lives, and a 3 people panel of comedians have to vote to decide if that person was a genius or evil depending on what they did historically and what they've learned about their lives during the program.
Some games podcasts I've enjoyed recently:
- Three Moves Ahead; well over 500 episodes, focused on strategy and wargames
- Single Malt Strategy; similar strategy focus, but I feel they cover more niche/wargame titles
- eXplorminate; also covering strategy games, but looking more at 4X games
- Space Game Junkie; mostly about Space Games (duh), but also branching out into other genres or more general gaming related discussions
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 03:35:13 PMNot really. I don't really listen to BBC podcasts to be honest - I listen to In Our Time and I listened to Kermode and Mayo (and followed them to their new home - again interesting that they set up a private radio/podcast company as an exciting media venture in the 2020s :huh:).
I think probably because I don't really listen to the radio very much and I've never downloaded the BBC Sounds app I'm not that exposed to what's going on there. Having said that, except for Football Weekly and maybe some of the Athletic affiliated podcasts, I don't really listen to any podcasts that are by a legacy media company.
But I couldn't tell you what's on BBC or ITV or Channel 4 either. I use iPlayer, All4, ITV Hub but don't really watch linear TV - I don't have an aerial and haven't for years.
Right so your choices are idealogically driven. :p
Incidentally there's an interesting Johnathan Freedland series starting on R4 today, about the Jewish guy who escaped Austwitz so as to alert the world to what was going on in the death camps.
Quote from: mongers on June 20, 2022, 04:00:17 PMRight so your choices are idealogically driven. :p
:lol: Yes - I listen to (and pay for) more podcasts by people who write for New Left Review or the London Review of Books than is remotely healthy :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 04:04:55 PMQuote from: mongers on June 20, 2022, 04:00:17 PMRight so your choices are idealogically driven. :p
:lol: Yes - I listen to (and pay for) more podcasts by people who write for New Left Review or the London Review of Books than is remotely healthy :ph34r:
Shelf, something you might enjoy, this lunchtime Radio 4 are doing 10 short programmes each covering a different Larkin poem, read and 'analysised' by the national poet:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019yy1
QuoteBorn Yesterday
Larkin Revisited
Across ten programmes and ten iconic Phillip Larkin poems, Simon Armitage, the Poet Laureate, finds out what happens when he unpicks Larkin's poems in his centenary year, and lets the language that entered the culture resonate as he goes about his own life as a poet ( 'Sent out of sight/ Somewhere becoming rain.', 'It becomes still more difficult to find/ Words at once true and kind/ Or not untrue and not unkind.').
Larkin's poems still feel like contraband: saying the unsayable, facing the reality of time and its passing - whilst offering moments of astonishing beauty and transcendence. Simon has lived with Larkin's work ever since he was told as a teenager that there was a real poet living in Yorkshire. He is fascinated by the way his poems are constructed; the way they often seem to tear things down, often exposing the truth of something difficult, and yet can also be freeing – the opposite of platitudes.
The poems Simon has chosen to explore (including 'Aubade' and 'The Whitsun Weddings') show Larkin's range and achievement; they are poems that face the truth of relationships, of death, as well as poems of place and civic life like 'Bridge for the Living' (an unusual commission for Larkin which celebrates Hull as an 'Isolate city').
In this series Simon takes us to the places Larkin's poems understood intimately – Coventry, and Hull – as he 'roadtests' different poems, to see what survives of them in 2022, especially when we know so much more about the private world of this complex and contradictory poet, than his first readers would have known.
Episode one;
Simon Armitage explores Philip Larkin's poem 'Born Yesterday' - a poem written to celebrate the birth of a baby girl, and which suggests she might be happier if she can be dull.
A podcast to mark Werner Herzog's 80th birthday, including a new interview with the man himself:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001bcpb
QuoteWerner Herzog at 80
To mark the 80th birthday of one of cinema's most enigmatic and polarising characters, Mark Kermode and Ellen E Jones explore the work, myth and legacy of Werner Herzog.
An encounter with Herzog is always compelling, and sometimes risky. When Mark interviewed him in the Hollywood Hills in 2006, the director was shot - an incident he dismissed as 'not significant'.
From the safe distance of a few thousand miles away, Mark and Werner reconnect (over Zoom) to address the conspiracy theory that the shooting was staged. Herzog also looks back at the enduring appeal of Fitzcarraldo, how his world view informs his work, and why there's a lesson to be learned in keeping up with the Kardashians.
To separate fact from fiction, Ellen E Jones talks to volcanologist and co-director of two Herzog documentaries, Professor Clive Oppenheimer. They discuss Herzog's scientific mind and why Clive kept quiet about a near miss with a lava bomb as they filmed Into the Inferno.
Writer and director Zak Penn used the Herzog legend as the inspiration for his mockumentary Incident at Loch Ness, which starred Herr Herzog as himself. Ellen and Zak discuss the tricks he played on his leading man, how he's easy to surprise but impossible to shock, and why Werner Herzog is such a beloved and supportive collaborator.
Very much enjoying the Empire podcast.
It's a good 'un. As expected, Dalrymple is an excellent storyteller.
What is that? The only thing I can find that appears to be Empire seems to be about movies?
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/empire/id1639561921
It's interesting because they came up as the number one option on my Spotify when I heard about them (and it is very good) but now are being swamped by Empire (which is a big film magazine here).
An interesting new radio series on rare earths elements starting now on Radio 4/ BBC Sounds::
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001cdr6
QuoteThe Scramble for Rare Earths
1. The Magnificent Seventeen
The Scramble for Rare Earths
Episode 1 of 5
Misha Glenny explores the world of rare earth metals and other critical raw materials. They are vital for the future of technology and the green transition. But some see China's monopoly on production as a major global threat.
In the first of five episodes, Misha finds out what the 17 rare earth metals are and hears about their weird and wonderful applications. He also discovers how China has managed to dominate the mining and refining of them.
Guests:
Dr Julie Klinger, Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware and author of Rare Earth Frontiers: From Terrestrial Subsoils to Lunar Landscapes
Sophia Kalantzakos, Global Distinguished Professor in Environmental Studies and Public Policy at New York University and the author of China and the Geopolitics of Rare Earths
Quote
I've really been enjoying History of the Germans recently.
https://historyofthegermans.com/
It has a short 3 episode prologue, but starts proper in 918 AD. If you like medieval politics and shenanigans, betrayals and backstabbings, then the show has you covered. I came across it looking for a medieval podcast NOT heavily focusing on Britain.
The creator is taking his time and is thorough. He's at episode 80 and has progressed only to about the year 1200 with his latest episode. :ph34r:
Would you know if it's quality is on the level of British History Podcast? Slow and methodical going with an academic slant?
Haven't heard the British history one. But his focus (he is not an academic historian) is definitely more on narrative history, not analysis so far (I'm 15 episodes in), but that suits me fine; I have forgotten much of that period from when our history class in school covered it.
Quote from: Syt on October 28, 2022, 08:27:41 AMI've really been enjoying History of the Germans recently.
https://historyofthegermans.com/
It has a short 3 episode prologue, but starts proper in 918 AD. If you like medieval politics and shenanigans, betrayals and backstabbings, then the show has you covered. I came across it looking for a medieval podcast NOT heavily focusing on Britain.
The creator is taking his time and is thorough. He's at episode 80 and has progressed only to about the year 1200 with his latest episode. :ph34r:
I'm currently following one about the history of Italy (https://ahistoryofitaly.com/ (https://ahistoryofitaly.com/)), now at episode 146, and they're still on the XVth century, after starting at the fall of the Western Roman Empire. :ph34r:
Til Death do us Blart, five podcasters watch Paul Blart, Mall Cop II every year for Thanksgiving, forever. If one of them dies there are appointed successors to take on the burden. They just finished #8, and they are starting to add traditions. The one for every eighth year was to secretly pick one of the podcasters to watch Here Comes the Boom instead. The experience was compared to Andy Dufresne drinking a beer on the roof in Shawshank Redemption.
https://blart.libsyn.com
Any thoughts on Lex Fridman podcast? I listened to parts of a couple of episodes recently, as he's popular and he interviewed some guests I find interesting. I'm getting a vibe that there is no there there, although I can't put my finger on exactly what I find unsettling.
Quote from: The Larch on October 28, 2022, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Syt on October 28, 2022, 08:27:41 AMI've really been enjoying History of the Germans recently.
https://historyofthegermans.com/
It has a short 3 episode prologue, but starts proper in 918 AD. If you like medieval politics and shenanigans, betrayals and backstabbings, then the show has you covered. I came across it looking for a medieval podcast NOT heavily focusing on Britain.
The creator is taking his time and is thorough. He's at episode 80 and has progressed only to about the year 1200 with his latest episode. :ph34r:
I'm currently following one about the history of Italy (https://ahistoryofitaly.com/ (https://ahistoryofitaly.com/)), now at episode 146, and they're still on the XVth century, after starting at the fall of the Western Roman Empire. :ph34r:
Well hell the History of England (https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/) is on episode 358 and just started Charles I's personal rule.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2022, 12:43:56 PMIt's a good 'un. As expected, Dalrymple is an excellent storyteller.
Y'all got me hoooked on it. Immensely informative and entertaining, although I wish they devoted more episodes to the EIC than they did to that friggin' diamond.
I also noticed they started one on the Ottoman empire which is one of those subjects I always wanted to learn a bit more about.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2022, 09:40:47 AMAny thoughts on Lex Fridman podcast? I listened to parts of a couple of episodes recently, as he's popular and he interviewed some guests I find interesting. I'm getting a vibe that there is no there there, although I can't put my finger on exactly what I find unsettling.
He seems like a bright and thoughtful guy but in a crowded talk market he's lacking that oomph. Too soft spoken and I've never heard him say anything all that interesting.
Quote from: celedhring on December 27, 2022, 03:27:24 PMQuote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2022, 12:43:56 PMIt's a good 'un. As expected, Dalrymple is an excellent storyteller.
Y'all got me hoooked on it. Immensely informative and entertaining, although I wish they devoted more episodes to the EIC than they did to that friggin' diamond.
I also noticed they started one on the Ottoman empire which is one of those subjects I always wanted to learn a bit more about.
:cheers: Same RE: the diamond, but for free entertainment it's hard to complain.
The rest is history is pretty good. Tamas recommended it.
Quote from: celedhring on December 27, 2022, 03:27:24 PMY'all got me hoooked on it. Immensely informative and entertaining, although I wish they devoted more episodes to the EIC than they did to that friggin' diamond.
:lol: Yes. Although I'm sure it's not because of the podcast just general concerns, I believe Camilla won't wear the koh-i-noor in the coronation which is probably for the best.
I found the episode on Jinnah really interesting because I've always wanted to know more about him and understand his perspective (got a bit from The Nine Lives of Pakistan too - recommended by a friend and really good) because I think everything I've read about independence and partition has been far more sympathetic to Nehru and Gandhi. But they did a few on independence struggle figures which I enjoyed.
QuoteI also noticed they started one on the Ottoman empire which is one of those subjects I always wanted to learn a bit more about.
It's good so far. I'm not sure who they'll do next - the Mughals would be good - but I'd love them to keep doing more about the Eurasian land empires because, obviously, here when we talk about "empire" we mean European and maritime. But big empires like the Ottomans or the Mongols are a bit of a blind spot at least for me.
Maybe of interest to some. For something lighter.
I've gotten into the parenting hell podcast of late. Oddly entertaining.
https://open.spotify.com/show/1Zuurv8AZFWti60lSXiDgz
Malthus's aunt is on this programme tonight, discussing among other things the influence '1984' had on her 1985 'Handmaiden's tale'. Should be interesting.
Will be available on BBC Sounds and as a podcast after broadcast.
Details here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001kppn
QuoteMargaret Atwood
This Cultural Life
Margaret Atwood talks to John Wilson about the formative influences and experiences that shaped her writing. One of the world's bestselling and critically acclaimed authors, Atwood has published over 60 books including novels, short stories, children's fiction, non-fiction and poetry. She's known for stories of human struggle against oppression and brutality, most famously her 1985 novel The Handmaid's Tale, a dystopian vision of America in which women are enslaved. She has twice won the Booker Prize For Fiction, in 2000 for The Blind Assassin and again in 2019 for her sequel to The Handmaid's Tale, The Testaments.
Growing up in remote Canadian woodland with her scientist parents, she traces her career as a story-teller back to sagas that she invented with her older brother as a child, and her first 'novel' written when she was seven. She recalls an opera about fabrics that she wrote and performed at high school for a home economics project, and how she staged puppet shows for children's parties. Margaret Atwood also discusses the huge impact that reading George Orwell had on her, and how his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four especially influenced The Handmaid's Tale. She reveals how that novel - written whilst she was living in Berlin in 1985 - was initially conceived after the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan and the resurgence of evangelical right-wing politics in America.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/p0fcmlp6.jpg)
An interview with Ehrman on his new book about how Revelation has been warped by modern day Christian theology to predict end times in our age, and particularly in NA.
Something I did not realize is that it started in Britain in the aftermath of the French Revolution.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167715957/armageddon-shows-how-literal-readings-of-the-bibles-end-times-affect-modern-time
You might also like this In Our Time episode on the apocalypse - where it's from, how it still shapes our thinking is particularly interesting and also how readings of it change over time:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0054914
French Revolution feels late for reading your times through revelation. Although the Rapture definitely originated in a British - I think Irish clergyman - in the early 19th century (there's another In Our Time on that.
A particularly interesting example is the Orthodox reluctance to include it in the Bible - it still isn't for Ethiopian Christians. The Orthodox forbid reading aloud from Revelations or depicting any scene from it, until the fall of Constantinople which they saw as a precursor of the coming of the Antichrist.
But also there's a lot of parsing our times in the Reformation and for Britain and North America especially the Puritans in the 17th century, for example. The Fifth Monarchists are a really strong example - there's lots of pamphleteers and movements who are entirely interpreting the 17th century British wars through revelation.
They also give the really interesting example of Columbus' Book of Prophecies where he ticks off the things from Revelation that he's done: discovered the garden of Eden (Venezuela); discovered the missing tribes of Israel; made a world emperor (Isabel and Ferdinand).
Thanks :)
New series of Screenshot starts, first episode is a special on 'The Long Good Friday' including contributions from Helen Mirren, podcast download here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001kpzy
QuoteThe Long Good Friday
The Long Good Friday elevated the British gangster film to a level not seen for a decade since Get Carter, and sees London gangster Harold Shand (Bob Hoskins) and his girlfriend Victoria (Helen Mirren) embroiled in a scheme to redevelop parts of London's Docklands with finance from a New York mafia boss.
The film features some prophetic scenes in which Harold espouses a new future for London, a London at the centre of Europe, with opportunity to create incredible wealth - a wealth he would most likely have made had the IRA not started interfering in his affairs.
In this episode of Screenshot, Mark Kermode speaks to Dame Helen Mirren about the changes she made to the script and to her character's role, and also about how her uncle's connections to the London underworld helped her in the part. Mark also talks to tour guide Rob Smith, who leads a tour of the film's locations around London's Docklands.
An engaging interview of Sarah Neiman - author of The Left is Not Woke.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-23-ideas/clip/15977818-left-is-not-woke-susan-neiman
A criticism of the Woke from the left.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2023, 11:41:33 AMAn engaging interview of Sarah Neiman - author of The Left is Not Woke.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-23-ideas/clip/15977818-left-is-not-woke-susan-neiman
A criticism of the Woke from the left.
It is rather interesting that she struggles as much as anyone to define "woke." If she is correct and that "woke" means tribal and anti-intellectual support for restitution of wrongs, then "the left" may not be woke, but almost no one else is woke, either. Certainly those I know who consider themselves woke don't reject the principals of the Enlightenment and leave justice behind.
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2023, 07:49:58 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2023, 11:41:33 AMAn engaging interview of Sarah Neiman - author of The Left is Not Woke.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-23-ideas/clip/15977818-left-is-not-woke-susan-neiman
A criticism of the Woke from the left.
It is rather interesting that she struggles as much as anyone to define "woke." If she is correct and that "woke" means tribal and anti-intellectual support for restitution of wrongs, then "the left" may not be woke, but almost no one else is woke, either. Certainly those I know who consider themselves woke don't reject the principals of the Enlightenment and leave justice behind.
I think that is a valid criticism of her definition. But I think she has a point when she argues that those who engage in identity politics are acting in a tribal rather than universal manner. One of the terms I have come to loathe is "lived experience" as if one needs to have characteristic X in order to possibly understand an issue related to people with that attribute.
Not to mention it is hard for me to accept that someone in their early 20s has lived or has experience (outside of extreme outliers). But I recognize that is just me shouting at clouds. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2023, 07:59:07 PMI think that is a valid criticism of her definition. But I think she has a point when she argues that those who engage in identity politics are acting in a tribal rather than universal manner. One of the terms I have come to loathe is "lived experience" as if one needs to have characteristic X in order to possibly understand an issue related to people with that attribute.
Not to mention it is hard for me to accept that someone in their early 20s has lived or has experience (outside of extreme outliers). But I recognize that is just me shouting at clouds. :D
I agree about the identity politics concern, but, again, don't know of any people who consider themselves woke and also reject the universality of the problem of oppression. I know that such people exist, and call themselves "woke," but to claim that they have the correct definition of woke means accepting the demonizing definition of the term.
The ability of pretty much anyone to define woke as it serves their own interests means that the term really isn't useful in anyone's arguments. We need some new term that isn't simply generalized "progressive" or "leftist."
Couldn't agree more :)
I think some people here, like me, really liked the Talking Politics podcast - so delighted that David Runciman is back hosting a new podcast for the LRB:
https://shows.acast.com/londonreviewpodcasts/episodes/introducing-past-present-future
(And he will have Helen Thompson on soon :w00t:)
And he just did an episode with Helen Thompson on how Dallas explains everything which was very, very good :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2023, 06:29:48 PMI think some people here, like me, really liked the Talking Politics podcast - so delighted that David Runciman is back hosting a new podcast for the LRB:
https://shows.acast.com/londonreviewpodcasts/episodes/introducing-past-present-future
(And he will have Helen Thompson on soon :w00t:)
:w00t:
This was quite interesting:
Marvel vs DC: Contest of the Champions
download/listen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mbmw
QuoteMarvel and DC, the two titans of America superhero comics, have been locked in cosmic battle for over six decades - raging across publishing, radio, TV, movies, gaming and animation.
It's one of the greatest rivalries in the history of pop culture, ferociously debated by generations of readers, fans and industry creatives alike.
While both companies are now worth billions, this wasn't always the case.
This feature goes back to their early comic book roots, where DC comics and young upstart Marvel both had offices in 1960s Manhattan - and yet differed widely in their approach to the genre, posing very distinct ideas of what our superheroes should be – and as a result, what it means to be human. Do we want to look up to the skies or do we really want to see a reflection of ourselves? Are our heroes other, outsiders like gods – or are they basically people like us, who gain strange powers but keep their flaws? Readers had a choice.
The creative rivalry between Marvel and DC comics has always been more than a question of sales or market share. It is a fascinating culture clash of ideals, morals and even politics. It has constituted one of the greatest post-war, pop-culture wars of our times.
For years DC Comics dominated the super-hero genre with its pulp tales of super-powered crime fighting, bright costumes and capes, shiny headquarters, secret identities and primary colours. Their heroes - Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, the Flash, the Green Lantern – have a kind of mythic grandeur. But dig deeper, and there's another story. DC's creative department had its own secret identity, driven mostly by writers and artists who felt themselves to be at the margins of mainstream American society.
Marvel Comics in its modern form arrived later, in the early 1960s, a totally different cultural era. In every way the precocious new kid on the block, Marvel offered a widely different set of ideas about what superheroes ought to be - they would be like us. The tone was less authoritarian than the opposition, politically liberal under the stewardship of Stan Lee, tapping into the emerging counter-culture and creating a web of integrated characters (the 'Marvel Universe'). Marvel heroes - Spider-Man, the Hulk, Captain America, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four - lived in our world and suffered as we do. They had financial difficulties, dead-end jobs, romantic heartache, teenage angst, even drug addiction, suffered blindness, breakdown and divorce. They encountered street protest and the counter-culture, gang violence and organised racism. .
Each company watched the other. Each company tried to outdo the other, either on their own terms or – sometimes brilliantly - their opponents'. This is the comic-book bedrock upon which the blockbuster superhero movie franchises are currently fighting tooth and nail.
Talking to industry legends from both companies, artists, writers, experts and diehard fans, this Archive on 4, presented by documentary maker and lifelong Marvel and DC comics fan Simon Hollis, tells the story of the Greatest Battle on Earth.
This one is tailor made for Languish.
Its got the ACW (do you need more) and an examination of the history of the US from Lincoln to present in the context of the Republican party.
Interested to see what our resident American history buffs think of the observations made by the American scholar who is being interviewed.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/from-lincoln-to-trump-what-happened-to-the-republican-party/id1682047968?i=1000621730069
Just in time for Halloween there's a new bbc Lovecraft series/podcast:
The Lovecraft Investigations
The Haunter of the Dark:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gkgh5m
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/p0gkgh64.jpg)
They've also done:
The Shadow Over Innsmouth
The Whisperer in Darkness
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward
which are available to download here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06spb8w/episodes/downloads
Quote from: mongers on October 30, 2023, 06:48:44 AMJust in time for Halloween there's a new bbc Lovecraft series/podcast:
The Lovecraft Investigations
The Haunter of the Dark:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gkgh5m
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/p0gkgh64.jpg)
They've also done:
The Shadow Over Innsmouth
The Whisperer in Darkness
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward
which are available to download here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06spb8w/episodes/downloads
I had just stumbled on this the other day. Interesting at least with Charles Dexter Ward, they have modernized it.
This sounds very up my street - possibly also of interest to Jos:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001vcdr
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2024, 06:12:50 AMThis sounds very up my street - possibly also of interest to Jos:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001vcdr
That does seem interesting. There's been a book on the topic on my "some day" list for a while
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 20, 2023, 11:47:44 AMThis one is tailor made for Languish.
Its got the ACW (do you need more) and an examination of the history of the US from Lincoln to present in the context of the Republican party.
Interested to see what our resident American history buffs think of the observations made by the American scholar who is being interviewed.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/from-lincoln-to-trump-what-happened-to-the-republican-party/id1682047968?i=1000621730069
I didn't see this the last time this thread bubbled to the surface, but listened to it now. You are correct that it seems tailor-made for Languish. I'd never viewed this history through the lens of the forces shaping political parties (in this case, the republican Party) in quite this narrow sense, but the podcast does pose an interesting question: how did the Republican Party, founded in large part on anti-Catholic politics (the "Know Nothings" being a major component of the first Republican coalition) end up being the party that championed Catholic values on the Supreme Court?
Gary Gerstle proposes that the reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants that emerged in the 1960s through the 1970s challenged some major assumptions of both parties. Both had eschewed religion in politics before that, as religion divided the parties and so was kept low-key. Once religion was no longer so divisive, though, the Republicans began to promote explicitly religious values. The Democrats could not do the same, as they still had a substantial Jewish base that wouldn't take kindly to such a program. The Democrats couldn't follow the Republicans into that arena, but also couldn't effectively counter the Republican use of it. The Republican shift from an ideological movement to a moral movement led them to where they are.
What Gerstle mentions in passing but does not explain is the death of the Republican "establishment." I've never quite understood how the party of GHW Bush became the party of Donald Trump and why the Republican establishment folded when confronted with all the MAGA nonsense. Thoughts?
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2024, 09:09:27 PMWhat Gerstle mentions in passing but does not explain is the death of the Republican "establishment." I've never quite understood how the party of GHW Bush became the party of Donald Trump and why the Republican establishment folded when confronted with all the MAGA nonsense. Thoughts?
I also enoyed it - and generally like that podcast. Helen Thompson's also moved to a new podcast (These Times) and between them they just about fill the hole from the end of Talking Politics, but they're really best working together :lol: :ph34r:
On this question though - three thoughts and I've no idea which if any are right (not least as they're a little contradictory).
Could the same not be said of GHW Bush in 1980? Actually the party is taken over by these Goldwater inspired crazies who want to dismantle the New Deal state, are very aggressive in foreign policy and openly appealing to evangelicals in a way that's a little uncomfortable. Looking at the American right from the New Deal you have Taft, the politics of the 50s (and reading the Hoover biography has shifted my view of Ike), Goldwater, Nixon's rat fuckers, the Reagan Revolution, Contract with America, W, the Tea Party, Trump. Is the real question not why the Republican establishment folded, but why does it have such a hold on our imagination that we think it exists at all? Its heroes are the incidental Presidents and all it really is is a "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar"?
Another thought is tied to something I've said before about how key Mitch is in Trump's first term - but in substantive terms weren't the major political accomplishments of Trump's first term tax cuts and judges? Which is exactly the same as what an establishment Republican would have tried to achieve? He couldn't pull troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria, he didn't blow up NATO etc - but he did deliver what the establishment Republicans have been pushing as their main agenda for 40+ years. I think a second Trump term is a very significant risk - but is it crazy of them to think they can do the same again?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2024, 01:54:21 PMOn this question though - three thoughts and I've no idea which if any are right (not least as they're a little contradictory).
Could the same not be said of GHW Bush in 1980? Actually the party is taken over by these Goldwater inspired crazies who want to dismantle the New Deal state, are very aggressive in foreign policy and openly appealing to evangelicals in a way that's a little uncomfortable. Looking at the American right from the New Deal you have Taft, the politics of the 50s (and reading the Hoover biography has shifted my view of Ike), Goldwater, Nixon's rat fuckers, the Reagan Revolution, Contract with America, W, the Tea Party, Trump. Is the real question not why the Republican establishment folded, but why does it have such a hold on our imagination that we think it exists at all? Its heroes are the incidental Presidents and all it really is is a "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar"?
Another thought is tied to something I've said before about how key Mitch is in Trump's first term - but in substantive terms weren't the major political accomplishments of Trump's first term tax cuts and judges? Which is exactly the same as what an establishment Republican would have tried to achieve? He couldn't pull troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria, he didn't blow up NATO etc - but he did deliver what the establishment Republicans have been pushing as their main agenda for 40+ years. I think a second Trump term is a very significant risk - but is it crazy of them to think they can do the same again?
So there's no question that the GOP has evolved over time.
Let's talk about the "Reagan Revolution". It really was revolutionary. The pre-Reagan GOP establishment was very much the country club Rockefeller GOP. Under Reagan however you had the creation of conservative "fusionism" - it combined what would otherwise be somewhat disparate groups of economic conservatives (the old country-club types), social conservatives (including more and more evangelicals), and anti-communist foreign policy hard-liners. Reagan and the GOP managed to convince these otherwise separate groups that they were better off together, rather than separate.
That conservative fusionist orthodoxy held for decades. It was challenged at times - Pat Buchanan ran as an isolationist, GWB wasn't much for fiscal prudence / Tea Party held fiscal prudence above all - but generally the fusionist orthodoxy held.
Until Trump. You can kind of see how at the beginning the "establishment" felt like this too could get absorbed into the GOP mainstream, but really Trump didn't believe in any of the three legs of the GOP triad - he was a big believer in debt and trade barriers, the thrice-divorced "grab 'em by the pussy" guy was no social conservative, and he loved China and Russia.
Turned out though that if the GOP base ever believed in those things in the past, they no longer did by 2016.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2024, 09:09:27 PMWhat Gerstle mentions in passing but does not explain is the death of the Republican "establishment." I've never quite understood how the party of GHW Bush became the party of Donald Trump and why the Republican establishment folded when confronted with all the MAGA nonsense. Thoughts?
I think you pinpointed it in the prior paragraphs; the composition of the party base changed.
The original GOP drew strength from "mechanics," professionals, industrialists, free hold farmers, mainline Protestants, and African Americans. The Democrats from southerners, northern white immigrants, evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, urban laborers. The first transition was that African Americans moved over to the Democrats, which prompted conservative white southerners to move to the GOP; that process completed by the early 90s, when the last of the Gramms and Shelbys affiliated GOP. The second transition was the postwar movement of evangelicals to the GOP. And the third was the movement of some working class white and Catholics moving the GOP in response to Nixon/Reagan culture war appeals. At the same time, educated professionals and mainline Protestants who supported the Eisenhower/Rockefeller wings of the GOP, drifted to the Democrats. That latter group, along with Wall Streeters and haute bourgeois industrialists, was the core support for the GOP establishment.
I.e. the problem that the GOP establishment has is that they've lost much of their voting base, which has been replaced by a different demographic hostile to them. Within the GOP, the establishment still has the support of the industrialists and Wall Street, but while that group controls lots of resources and power, they are an insignificant voting bloc. Hence why we see that any credible candidate with establishment credentials and support can quickly raise tons of $$ but struggles to gather votes in primary elections.