Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
Checked 6d ago
تمت الإضافة منذ قبل two أعوام
المحتوى المقدم من Academic Edgelords. يتم تحميل جميع محتويات البودكاست بما في ذلك الحلقات والرسومات وأوصاف البودكاست وتقديمها مباشرة بواسطة Academic Edgelords أو شريك منصة البودكاست الخاص بهم. إذا كنت تعتقد أن شخصًا ما يستخدم عملك المحمي بحقوق الطبع والنشر دون إذنك، فيمكنك اتباع العملية الموضحة هنا https://ar.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - تطبيق بودكاست
انتقل إلى وضع عدم الاتصال باستخدام تطبيق Player FM !
انتقل إلى وضع عدم الاتصال باستخدام تطبيق Player FM !
Academic Edgelords explicit
وسم كل الحلقات كغير/(كـ)مشغلة
Manage series 3487687
المحتوى المقدم من Academic Edgelords. يتم تحميل جميع محتويات البودكاست بما في ذلك الحلقات والرسومات وأوصاف البودكاست وتقديمها مباشرة بواسطة Academic Edgelords أو شريك منصة البودكاست الخاص بهم. إذا كنت تعتقد أن شخصًا ما يستخدم عملك المحمي بحقوق الطبع والنشر دون إذنك، فيمكنك اتباع العملية الموضحة هنا https://ar.player.fm/legal.
This is a scholarly podcast about scholarly provocateurs. Gadflys, charlatans, and shitposters sometimes get tenure, believe it or not. This is a leftist podcast that takes a second look at their peer-reviewed work, and tries to see if there’s anything we might learn from arguing with them. We are hosted by: Victor Bruzzone, Gordon Katic, Matt McManus, and Ethan Xavier (AKA “Mouthy Infidel”).
…
continue reading
24 حلقات
وسم كل الحلقات كغير/(كـ)مشغلة
Manage series 3487687
المحتوى المقدم من Academic Edgelords. يتم تحميل جميع محتويات البودكاست بما في ذلك الحلقات والرسومات وأوصاف البودكاست وتقديمها مباشرة بواسطة Academic Edgelords أو شريك منصة البودكاست الخاص بهم. إذا كنت تعتقد أن شخصًا ما يستخدم عملك المحمي بحقوق الطبع والنشر دون إذنك، فيمكنك اتباع العملية الموضحة هنا https://ar.player.fm/legal.
This is a scholarly podcast about scholarly provocateurs. Gadflys, charlatans, and shitposters sometimes get tenure, believe it or not. This is a leftist podcast that takes a second look at their peer-reviewed work, and tries to see if there’s anything we might learn from arguing with them. We are hosted by: Victor Bruzzone, Gordon Katic, Matt McManus, and Ethan Xavier (AKA “Mouthy Infidel”).
…
continue reading
24 حلقات
كل الحلقات
×![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP24: Do We Need Nuanced Academic Theories (On Kieran Healy’s Article “F**k Nuance”) 1:10:27
1:10:27
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:10:27![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
In this episode, we read Kieran Healy’s provocatively titled essay, “ F**k Nuance ,” where he argues that an overemphasis on nuance can hinder the development of effective sociological theory. He argues that piling on distinctions can make theories more convoluted without making them more useful. Instead of sharpening insight, excessive nuance can turn sociology into an endless exercise in hair-splitting—good for showing off, bad for explaining the world. We are joined by Science and Technology Studies PhD candidate Michelle Charette to debate the merits of Healy’s arguments. The post EP24: Do We Need Nuanced Academic Theories (On Kieran Healy’s Article “F**k Nuance”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP23: Is Monogamy Immoral? (EP19 follow-up Feat. Harry Chalmers) 1:27:24
1:27:24
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:27:24![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
On this episode, we return for a sequel to EP19’s topic: the potential immorality of monogamy. On that episode, we discussed Harry Chalmers’ paper “ Is Monogamy Morally Permissible? ” This time, we interview the man himself to see where our discussion might have gone wrong the first time around. We also discuss “ Monogamy Unredeemed ”, Harry’s defence of his original article, responding to a response paper from Kyle York. Subscribe to Harry’s substack here The post EP23: Is Monogamy Immoral? (EP19 follow-up Feat. Harry Chalmers) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP22: Should We Abolish Elections? (On Guerrero’s Lottocracy) 1:34:14
1:34:14
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:34:14![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
What if democracy isn’t broken, but its very foundation—elections—is the problem? In this episode, we unpack Alexander Guerrero’s provocative case for lottocracy : a system that replaces elected officials with randomly selected citizens. Guerrero argues that elections breed inequality, corruption, and short-term thinking, while lottocracy promises fairness and more authentic representation. But can we really trust random citizens to govern? In this episode, Ethan and Victor debate whether lottocracy can deliver better results than electoral democracy. The post EP22: Should We Abolish Elections? (On Guerrero’s Lottocracy) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP21: Is There Space for Revolutionary Thought Online? (Interview with Mike Watson) 1:12:20
1:12:20
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:12:20![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
In this episode, we welcome Mike Watson, political theorist, artist, and author, to explore the intersections of digital culture, socialism, and existential thought. We read Mike’s new book, Hungry Ghosts in the Machine , where he explores how online culture shapes community, addiction, and identity. On this episode we ask, is our malaise in the digital age caused by capitalism or is it intrinsic to the human condition? We also explore how the left might help us escape these patterns of media consumption. Follow Mike on Twitter: https://x.com/_leftaesthetics The post EP21: Is There Space for Revolutionary Thought Online? (Interview with Mike Watson) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP20: Are Humans Actually Irrational? (On Thaler and Sunstein’s Libertarian Paternalism) Feat. Gordon Katic 1:14:14
1:14:14
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:14:14![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
In this episode, we ask, how irrational are human beings really? To answer this, we read Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein’s classic essay on “libertarian paternalism” which argues that because human beings are easily manipulated by their surrounding “choice architecture”, governments should use this mechanism to manipulate encourage citizens to make better choices. We are also joined by our co-founder and former co-host Gordon Katic. We discuss Gordon’s excellent new Cited podcast series on the “Rationality Wars” that explores the way libertarian paternalism has benefitted big corporations and might be based on questionable evidence. Our discussion led to a broad debate about the nature of human agency and freedom. For a write-up on the role behavioural economics played to benefit big corporations, see Gordon’s recent article and Jacobin . For criticisms of libertarian paternalism we also read Gerd Gigerenzer’s “ On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism “. Production note: Gordon was traveling when we recorded this and did not have his mic. Therefore, his audio quality was not always the best. Apologies for this! The post EP20: Are Humans Actually Irrational? (On Thaler and Sunstein’s Libertarian Paternalism) Feat. Gordon Katic appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP19: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible (On Harry Chalmers’ Argument Against Monogamy) 1:37:13
1:37:13
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:37:13![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
In this episode, we examine Harry Chalmers’ provocative take : monogamy is morally suspect. Why should we treat restricting romantic partners any differently than restricting friendships? Since restricting our partner’s friends would seem pathological, so too, restricting sexual and romantic partners. Chalmers sets himself a high bar: not only does he need to show that non-monogamy is morally preferable, but that monogamy is in principle morally problematic. We discuss Chalmers’ main responses to defences of monogamy, including specialness, sexual health, raising kids, practicality, and jealousy. We also read and briefly touch on a response to Chalmers’ piece by Kyle York. The post EP19: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible (On Harry Chalmers’ Argument Against Monogamy) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP18: Is Free Speech Actually Bad? (On Brian Leiter’s Case Against Free Speech) 1:27:16
1:27:16
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:27:16![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
On this episode, we dive deep into Brian Leiter’s “ The Case Against Free Speech .” Leiter questions the sanctity of free speech, suggesting that not all speech deserves equal protection if it causes societal harm. Is it really a blanket right, or are we just covering up society’s harms? Tune in as we tear into the freedoms you thought you had and discuss whether Leiter’s ideas are a blueprint for a just society or just an excuse to gag annoying blowhards. See this Vox article for more Production Note: Victor’s mic broke right before recording, so his audio sounds worse than usual. The post EP18: Is Free Speech Actually Bad? (On Brian Leiter’s Case Against Free Speech) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
In this episode, we delve into Saul Smilansky’s provocative paper, “ Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First ?” which introduces the concept of “Designer Ethics” (DE). Smilansky argues that individuals’ moral views should influence how they are treated in moral dilemmas, suggesting that utilitarians, who support sacrificing one for the greater good, could be prioritized as potential victims. This week we are joined by Ben Burgis. He is a philosophy instructor and host of the YouTube show Give Them An Argument . Burgis is also the author of Canceling Comedians While the World Burns and Give Them an Argument: Logic for the Left . The post EP17: Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First? (Smilansky’s Designer Ethics) Ft. Ben Burgis appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
On this episode, we read Bass van der Vossen’s “ In defense of the ivory tower: Why philosophers should stay out of politics “. In it, van der Vossen argues that academic philosophers have a duty to avoid engaging in politics. On this view, philosophers should stay in their lane. That lane being, the pursuit of Truth! Partisanship is opposed to truth and is a danger to academic integrity. We do not find many of these arguments convincing. Listen to find out why! A note, this is our final episode recorded before our hiatus (over 6 months ago) in case we make any outdated references. The post EP16: Should Philosophers Stay Out Of Politics? (On van der Vossen’s Defence of The Ivory Tower) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
Hide your cats, hide your dogs, we’re talking about Zoophilia. In 2023, the very edgy Journal of Controversial Ideas published “ Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible “. In it, Fira Bensto (pseudonym) attacks one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos: animal-human sex. We recorded this episode more than six months ago and we’re excited (and nervous) for people to finally hear it. This one got contentious! We debate whether there are good reasons to think zoophilia is immoral. We also argue about whether it is even worth asking the question of the article. Consider this a trigger warning! The post EP15: Is Zoophilia Morally Permissible? (On Bensto’s Defence of Zoophilia) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP 14: What if Moral Philosophy is Immoral? (On Brennan and Freiman’s Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk)
We’re back! For our relaunch episode, we chose an article that helps us reflect on this podcast’s mission: “Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk” by Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman. The paper argues that there is a difficult dilemma at the root of moral philosophical inquiry: either philosophers should avoid risky topics that could violate moral norms (such as expressive duties not to offend), or they must be granted some level of exemption from these duties in their professional work. In this episode, we debate whether this dilemma is plausible, and whether our podcast risks violating certain moral duties if we decide to tackle especially edgy topics. The post EP 14: What if Moral Philosophy is Immoral? (On Brennan and Freiman’s Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament) 1:23:15
1:23:15
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:23:15![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
This week we ask probably the most commonly uttered philosophical question: is there a meaning to life? To help us approach an answer, we read the first few chapters of philosopher David Benatar’s The Human Predicament . Benatar’s answer is as edgy as it gets. No, there’s no meaning to life, and no matter how much we try to soothe ourselves, this is a terrible state of affairs. Though Benatar is a pessimist, he admits that human lives can have social or personal meaning, but on a cosmic scale we are totally insignificant. On this episode, we debate whether Benatar’s idea of “cosmic meaning” even makes sense. We also consider the way our own personal upbringings might influence the way we take up this question. The post EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP12: Is Making Friends with the Far-Right a Good Way to Research Them? (ft. Benjamin Teitelbaum) 1:08:48
1:08:48
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:08:48![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
In ethnography there has been a long-standing tradition to prioritize the interests of research participants through a scholar-informant solidarity. This week we ask, how far should this scholar-informant solidarity go in cases where the research participants are dangerous or otherwise unsavoury? In this episode, we interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about this question and his own work that entails a “deep hanging out” with his research subjects. As Teitelbaum describes them, “They go by many names: outsiders describe them as right-wing extremists, organized racists, or neofascists, and they tend to call themselves nationalists. I call them friends”. This week we read “ Collaborating with the Radical Right: Scholar-Informant Solidarity and the Case for an Immoral Anthropology “. In it, Teitelbaum defends his use of scholar-informant solidarity with the far right. Additionally, the article includes a series of responses to Teitelbaum’s argument from a collection of leading scholars in the field. Matt and Victor also interviewed Teitelbaum on PlasticPills about his book on Steve Bannon and Traditionalism called War for Eternity. You can find that interview here . The post EP12: Is Making Friends with the Far-Right a Good Way to Research Them? (ft. Benjamin Teitelbaum) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game) 1:11:16
1:11:16
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:11:16![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
We revisit a curious academic debate in science and technology studies, or STS. After 2016, some claimed that leftist humanities scholars played a role in creating the post-truth moment. And Steve Fuller argued that there’s nothing wrong with that. He likens post-truth to a kind of epistemic democratization that we should embrace. We read the third chapter from Steve Fuller’s book, Post Truth: Knowledge as Power Game . We also read three short essays that build on this debate. You can find those here , here , and here . In the episode, we ask: In what way is the reactionary right similar and different to the science studies left? What would epistemic democratization really mean, and is that a good thing? How far are we willing to go with ideas that stress the social construction of scientific knowledge? Do we counter the anti-science right by defending scientists, or by offering a broader political vision? And more generally, what should the left do when the right takes leftish ideas? The post EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1 EP10: Is Equality of Opportunity Not Valuable? (On Stephan Kershnar’s Attack on Equality of Opportunity) 1:20:43
1:20:43
التشغيل لاحقا
التشغيل لاحقا
قوائم
إعجاب
احب1:20:43![icon](https://imagehost.player.fm/icons/general/red-pin.svg)
This week we have one of our first encounters with the Academic Edgelord final boss, Stephan Kershnar. We enter the Kershnar-sphere by looking at his argument against equality of opportunity. For this edgelord — who is author of papers on adult-child sex, slavery, and more — its actually one of his milder takes. It’s from Why Equality of Opportunity is not a Valuable Goal , in the Journal of Applied Philosophy. We also read a response in the same journal from John O’Dea. We’ll look at Kershnar’s case, and ask what it misses about good equality of opportunity arguments. Plus: what exactly is he doing? We discuss whether Kershnar is a kind of useful gadfly, a dishonest ideologue, or just a petulant troll. The post EP10: Is Equality of Opportunity Not Valuable? (On Stephan Kershnar’s Attack on Equality of Opportunity) appeared first on Academic Edgelords .…
مرحبًا بك في مشغل أف ام!
يقوم برنامج مشغل أف أم بمسح الويب للحصول على بودكاست عالية الجودة لتستمتع بها الآن. إنه أفضل تطبيق بودكاست ويعمل على أجهزة اندرويد والأيفون والويب. قم بالتسجيل لمزامنة الاشتراكات عبر الأجهزة.