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
1
EP22: Should We Abolish Elections? (On Guerrero’s Lottocracy)
1:34:14
1:34:14
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:34:14
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 f…
…
continue reading
1
EP21: Is There Space for Revolutionary Thought Online? (Interview with Mike Watson)
1:12:20
1:12:20
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:12:20
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 dig…
…
continue reading
1
EP20: Are Humans Actually Irrational? (On Thaler and Sunstein’s Libertarian Paternalism) Feat. Gordon Katic
1:14:14
1:14:14
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:14:14
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 …
…
continue reading
1
EP19: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible (On Harry Chalmers’ Argument Against Monogamy)
1:37:13
1:37:13
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:37:13
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 …
…
continue reading
1
EP18: Is Free Speech Actually Bad? (On Brian Leiter’s Case Against Free Speech)
1:27:16
1:27:16
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:27:16
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 di…
…
continue reading
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 goo…
…
continue reading
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…
…
continue reading
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)…
…
continue reading
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 nor…
…
continue reading
1
EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament)
1:23:15
1:23:15
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:23:15
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…
…
continue reading
1
EP12: Is Making Friends with the Far-Right a Good Way to Research Them? (ft. Benjamin Teitelbaum)
1:08:48
1:08:48
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:08:48
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 ab…
…
continue reading
1
EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game)
1:11:16
1:11:16
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:11:16
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…
…
continue reading
1
EP10: Is Equality of Opportunity Not Valuable? (On Stephan Kershnar’s Attack on Equality of Opportunity)
1:20:43
1:20:43
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:20:43
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 Opportunit…
…
continue reading
1
EP9: Are There Enough Conservatives in Academia? (On Whittington’s Case for Ideological Diversity)
1:05:15
1:05:15
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:05:15
Academia is often stereotyped as a radical left-wing institution. This is especially true among conservatives who even see universities as “Marxist indoctrination camps.” So much so, that many conservatives are turning their backs on the academy completely. On this episode, we debate whether ideological diversity on campus matters. We consider the …
…
continue reading
1
EP8: Should the Knowledgable Rule? (On Jason Brennan’s “Against Democracy”)
1:21:25
1:21:25
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:21:25
Most political theorists assume that some form of democracy is the only legitimate political regime. Jason Brennan thinks this is an under-examined assumption. In fact, Brennan thinks there are many reasons to be critical of both the existing forms of representative democracy as well as more radical theories that endorse drastically increased democ…
…
continue reading
1
EP7: Should We Support Affirmative Action? (On Pojman’s Case Against Affirmative Action)
1:16:54
1:16:54
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:16:54
In June 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that “Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”. This effectively ended race-based affirmative action in higher education in the United States. This led us to ask, is this outcome a disaster for left-wing politics? On this episo…
…
continue reading
1
EP6: Is A.I. Going To Kill Us All? (On Richard Ngo’s A.I. Safety First Principles)
1:11:21
1:11:21
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:11:21
Many agree there is plenty of reason to worry about existing A.I., including how it perpetuates structural racism, invades privacy, erodes workers’ rights, and entrenches monopolistic firms. But might a future A.I. also take over and dominate, or potentially even destroy humanity, like some Skynet-like scenario? Some technologists worry it might, a…
…
continue reading
1
EP5: Is Whiteness Parasitic? (On Donald Moss’ “On Having Whiteness”)
1:03:42
1:03:42
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:03:42
When psychoanalyst Donald Moss published his essay “On Having Whiteness” in 2021, it caused the right-wing media outrage machine to move into high gear. For example, both the New York Post and the Daily Mail wrote articles that seemed, on our reading, to only react to what was in the abstract. So, we decided we should actually read the entire artic…
…
continue reading
1
EP4: Is it Morally Wrong to Prefer Attractive Partners? (On ‘Lookism’ and William D’Alessandro)
1:13:42
1:13:42
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:13:42
If your partner is attractive, then you might be part of the problem. At least, that’s what one edgelord philosopher is suggesting. We discuss William D’Alessandro’s forthcoming paper, “Is It Bad to Prefer Attractive Partners?” (in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association here). Is this “lookism” a kind of unjustified and harmful discr…
…
continue reading
1
EP3: 5 Years or 5 Lashes? (On Moskos’ & Brennan’s Defense of Flogging)
1:14:11
1:14:11
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:14:11
If you were offered the choice of a brief-but-brutal whipping or an extended stay in prison, which would you take? Probably the former. Is that an argument for flogging? Most people consider the idea of state-sanctioned flogging to be barbaric. Sure, Singapore does it, but they are known for authoritarian laws. Yet, Peter Moskos and Jason Brennan a…
…
continue reading
1
EP2: Did the Unabomber Have a Point? (on Anarcho-Primitivism & Ted Kaczynski)
1:12:30
1:12:30
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:12:30
The ultimate Academic Edgelord has died: Ted Kaczynski. This domestic terrorist was also a real scholar, with a few peer-reviewed works in mathematics. On this episode, we read his manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future. Why has Kaczynski become so popular with young people? He is just one extreme proponent of an anti-civilizational political…
…
continue reading
1
EP1: Are We the Academic Edgelords?
1:15:14
1:15:14
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:15:14
This is a scholarly podcast about scholarly provocateurs. Gadflies, 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 McM…
…
continue reading