Straight Dope Message Board

[SlackerInc]

Mike Pesca delivers a nice takedown of AOC’s truthiness schtick in the latest episode of his daily Slate podcast The Gist, starting at 19:30:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-new-deal.html

Note that Pesca (like me) is a center-left Democrat, and he explicitly says he would be cool with Scandinavian style democratic socialist policies, though he doubts they could get past political hurdles in the U.S. But what AOC is talking about here goes far beyond that, and what really alarms me is the Trump-style dismissal of the importance of fact checking. Just dream big, kids!

[Budget Player Cadet]

Man, you learned nothing from the last thread you started with nothing more than a link to a podcast.

[nightshadea]

too bad the other party doesn't have anyone who will question their own comrades like that eh?

[Darren Garrison]

Yes, it is clueless crackpottery that rivals Trump's "land a man on Mars by next Tuesday" proposal in it's disconnect from reality. Let's replace every building in the country! And build new railroads everywhere. But--you know--do it carbon-neuturally! Get rid of all fossil fuels and also cows!

[Darren Garrison]

Couple of interesting articles.

[Ravenman]

I read a summary of the proposal, and was rather shocked to learn that all elements of the plan are non-binding. As in, the Green New Deal amounts to as much hot air as any of Trump’s stupid speeches.

So some people are going to fight tooth and nail over a statement of ideas, whereby even if they win, they get nothing concrete? Jeez, isn’t there something that can ACTUALLY be done about the problem?

ETA: and by the way, I’m not going to listen to a fucking podcast.

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Jeez, isn’t there something that can ACTUALLY be done about the problem?

IMO, no. It is a "civilization is screwed" problem on the scale of trying to stick a cork in a supervolcano.

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

ETA: and by the way, I’m not going to listen to a fucking podcast.

A number of people here are so weird about podcasts. I never see this anywhere else. Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, to watch PBS Newshour segments, or YouTube videos? How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

[Darren Garrison]

A well-thought out and written piece beats a stream-of-consiousness audio (or video) recording of an "internet famous" person 99.999% of the time.

[Balthisar]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

A number of people here are so weird about podcasts. I never see this anywhere else. Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, to watch PBS Newshour segments, or YouTube videos? How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

I read at roughly 3x the rate that most people speak, because I've been reading my entire life. I was too poor for a TV as a young child, so I took my entertainment from books. When I want to fix something in my car, I look for a Hayne's manual, not a stupid Youtube video, because the diagram is right there without having to listen to some bozo’s introduction, and explanation of the correct screw driver, and other senseless background.

No, I don’t listed to NPR or watch PBS Newshour. I will, however, read reports on significant happenings. I’ll also use, say, a forum such as this one instead of doing social media with Snapchat, Youtube, and other non-text formats.

As it happens, sometimes I’m stuck in my car, and as a captive, I will listen to audiobooks or podcasts (I’m currently going through my archive of Econtalk). But I’m not on the SDMB while in my car. The issue people have with podcasts and responding to them here is that there’s an expectation of immediateness. We can easily skim an article you might post, but we can’t drop everything to listen to some obscure podcast that you link to. That’s not how conversations happen.

[elbows]

(Pssst...for non Americans...AOC=A specific politician, who’s name apparently cannot be mentioned!)

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

A number of people here are so weird about podcasts. I never see this anywhere else. Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, to watch PBS Newshour segments, or YouTube videos? How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

"Why won't people spend half an hour listening to audio (meaning they cannot read at their own pace and cannot listen at work) to have an argument about a subject I refuse to summarize in the BBQ pit?"

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by elbows

(Pssst...for non Americans...AOC=A specific politician, who’s name apparently cannot be mentioned!)

It's Slacker. You can't expect him to write a whole three words when he can abbreviate, anymore than you can expect him to be arsed writing a thread when he can link to a podcast.

[thunderdog]

The "Green New Deal" is nothing more than a conspiracy to guarantee that Trump is re-elected.

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

A number of people here are so weird about podcasts. I never see this anywhere else. Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, to watch PBS Newshour segments, or YouTube videos? How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

Most of us aren't Slackers, and therefore don't have tons of free time to listen to some podcast some other moron recommended.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by elbows

(Pssst...for non Americans...AOC=A specific politician, who’s name apparently cannot be mentioned!)

I'm an American (although an expatriate) and had no idea what the fuck the OP was talking about either until I figured it out.

Apparently the OP thinks that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez already has the status of FDR, JFK, or LBJ to be immediately recognizable by initials. (This is a knock against the OP, not Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.)

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Apparently the OP thinks that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez already has the status of FDR, JFK, or LBJ to be immediately recognizable by initials. (This is a knock against the OP, not Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.)

That's an unfair criticism--everywhere is calling her AOC.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

A number of people here are so weird about podcasts. I never see this anywhere else. Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, to watch PBS Newshour segments, or YouTube videos? How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

Oh, I listen to NPR and the news because it is generally informative outside of the context of a half-assed argument that you're trying to peddle. I'm not going to waste my time listing to god-knows how much audio -- which takes much more time to digest than the written word -- for the sake of an internet argument.

You're lazy and its your fault.

[bump]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

That's an unfair criticism--everywhere is calling her AOC.

Mostly because her name is like 10-11 syllables if you say all of it out loud; nobody's got time for that.

I suspect if she went by "Alex Ocasio", that would be what she's called, but instead, we get the Latin-style father's surname and mother's surname combination, both of which have several syllables as well as a rather multisyllabic first name.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

That's an unfair criticism--everywhere is calling her AOC.

It's idiotic to think that what you see is what everyone sees. No, she's not called that "everywhere." The abbreviation is meaningless where I am, and in many other parts of "everywhere." Your thinking that the US is "everywhere" is just blinkered.

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by bump

Mostly because her name is like 10-11 syllables if you say all of it out loud; nobody's got time for that.

I suspect if she went by "Alex Ocasio", that would be what she's called, but instead, we get the Latin-style father's surname and mother's surname combination, both of which have several syllables as well as a rather multisyllabic first name.

Slight hijack: didn't she go by "Sandy" at one point?

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

Slight hijack: didn't she go by "Sandy" at one point?

Looks like it.

[Darren Garrison]

And I see from that search that AOC is her tweety thing, too.

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

Yes, it is clueless crackpottery that rivals Trump's "land a man on Mars by next Tuesday" proposal in it's disconnect from reality. Let's replace every building in the country! And build new railroads everywhere. But--you know--do it carbon-neuturally! Get rid of all fossil fuels and also cows!

Yes, let's continue letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't stop all murders, so let's stop trying. We won't be able to stop poverty, so let's not help them at all. We can't replace building or be immediately carbon-neutral, so let's not even try. Instead of going through the dozens of recommendations and ideas in the plan and debating their worth, cost, and feasibility, let's just make fun of her for actually trying to make a change.

[Bruce Wayne]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Apparently the OP thinks that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez already has the status of FDR, JFK, or LBJ to be immediately recognizable by initials. (This is a knock against the OP, not Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.)

She referred to as AOC in nearly every medium I’ve seen her mentioned. The OP doesn’t live under a rock, I don’t how that counts as a knock against him.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Yes, let's continue letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't stop all murders, so let's stop trying. We won't be able to stop poverty, so let's not help them at all. We can't replace building or be immediately carbon-neutral, so let's not even try. Instead of going through the dozens of recommendations and ideas in the plan and debating their worth, cost, and feasibility, let's just make fun of her for actually trying to make a change.

Well, that's easier, right?

[Bone]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

A number of people here are so weird about podcasts. I never see this anywhere else. Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, to watch PBS Newshour segments, or YouTube videos? How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

I love podcasts.

A summary of what you're asking people to read would be a lot less lazy on your part.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Colibri

It's idiotic to think that what you see is what everyone sees. No, she's not called that "everywhere." The abbreviation is meaningless where I am, and in many other parts of "everywhere." Your thinking that the US is "everywhere" is just blinkered.

Would you settle for, "She's called AOC everywhere on this very message board?"

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ght=AOC&page=2
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&highlight=AOC
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ght=AOC&page=8

And so on, and so on.

I'm not saying you're wrong to not know of the term AOC, but personally I can't swing a dead cat on this board without hitting the initials.

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Yes, let's continue letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This isn't the perfect being the enemy of the good--this is the remotely possible being the enemy of the harebrained. "The way to save the environment is massive amounts of new construction, and also universal unions, free healthcare, and lifetime support for those 'unwilling to work.'"

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

A number of people here are so weird about podcasts. I never see this anywhere else. Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, to watch PBS Newshour segments, or YouTube videos? How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

Fuck you, dipshit. I can read like 1000x faster than most people speak. Fuck you.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

This isn't the perfect being the enemy of the good--this is the remotely possible being the enemy of the harebrained. "The way to save the environment is massive amounts of new construction, and also universal unions, free healthcare, and lifetime support for those 'unwilling to work.'"

Good to know that you oppose universal health care coverage that would include stay-at-home moms.

[Babale]

This Green New Deal is pretty much exactly what we would have to do to prevent the damage that's coming due to global warming -- according to the latest studies we need to cut emissions to half of 2010 levels in the next 10 years to stop it.

That's definitely possible. In fact, it's EASY - invest heavily in nuclear energy in the short term while transitioning to renewable power. It's also very expensive and politically unfeasible, so the ecology of Earth is beyond screwed.

It's not all doom and gloom though. Global warming won't kill us, or the planet. It WILL cause trillions of dollars in damage over the next century, take many human lives, and destroy the ecosystems we know and love. Apparently, none of that is worth a damn to the people who make decisions in this country, but it is what it is.

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

This isn't the perfect being the enemy of the good--this is the remotely possible being the enemy of the harebrained. "The way to save the environment is massive amounts of new construction, and also universal unions, free healthcare, and lifetime support for those 'unwilling to work.'"

You left off the "unable".

Frankly, I see nothing that's not "remotely possible" except in the minds of Real Murkins (tm) who equate driving anything other than their SUV/monster-pickup/minitank/penis substitute with Gawdless Communism. Is it a little pie-in-the-sky? Maybe. What a pity that the country that built the Panama Canal, put men on the Moon and eliminated smallpox has lost the ability to Dream Big.

[HurricaneDitka]

wrong forum

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

She referred to as AOC in nearly every medium I’ve seen her mentioned. The OP doesn’t live under a rock, I don’t how that counts as a knock against him.

Thank you!! The “get off my lawn” mojo is getting REALLY thick around here. “Dadgum podcasts! ‘AOC’, who the hell is that?” Srsly, people?

To be into politics in 2019 but be anti-podcast and have no idea what “AOC” means...that’s not me who comes across looking incredibly out of touch. It’s not a good look for this board, I promise you—and it doesn’t augur well for the future health and vitality of this forum, TBH.

Originally Posted by muldoonthief

Most of us aren't Slackers, and therefore don't have tons of free time to listen to some podcast

I don’t shrink from my slacker identity (obviously). But this specific critique is wrongheaded, and frankly clueless. The whole reason podcasts have become such a “thing” is not that people sit down on their couches and listen. Maybe some people do, but I and every podcast listener I know listens to them while working out, driving, cooking, etc. So it’s just the opposite of what you’re imputing to me here. In fact, if I were fabulously wealthy and could REALLY be as lazy as I wanted to because I could hire people to do all drudgery for me, I’d listen to podcasts a lot less—as I’d be more tempted to spend the time reading, posting, watching TV, playing tennis at the indoor club I’d be able to afford to join, etc.

And BTW, I DID briefly summarize what I agreed with in Pesca’s rant. That’s why the OP as some other sentences, which all you text-lovers can presumably parse, beyond “here’s a podcast, check it out”.

ETA: The segment of the podcast I pointed to (a daily editorial feature Pesca calls “The Spiel”) is less than fifteen minutes in length. If you listen at 1.5x like I do, it’s less than ten.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Thank you!! The “get off my lawn” mojo is getting REALLY thick around here. “Dadgum podcasts! ‘AOC’, who the hell is that?” Srsly, people?

To be into politics in 2019 but be anti-podcast and have no idea what “AOC” means...that’s not me who comes across looking incredibly out of touch. It’s not a good look for this board, I promise you—and it doesn’t augur well for the future health and vitality of this forum, TBH.





I don’t shrink from my slacker identity (obviously). But this specific critique is wrongheaded, and frankly clueless. The whole reason podcasts have become such a “thing” is not that people sit down on their couches and listen. Maybe some people do, but I and every podcast listener I know listens to them while working out, driving, cooking, etc. So it’s just the opposite of what you’re imputing to me here. In fact, if I were fabulously wealthy and could REALLY be as lazy as I wanted to because I could hire people to do all drudgery for me, I’d listen to podcasts a lot less—as I’d be more tempted to spend the time reading, posting, watching TV, playing tennis at the indoor club I’d be able to afford to join, etc.

And BTW, I DID briefly summarize what I agreed with in Pesca’s rant. That’s why the OP as some other sentences, which all you text-lovers can presumably parse, beyond “here’s a podcast, check it out”.

ETA: The segment of the podcast I pointed to (a daily editorial feature Pesca calls “The Spiel”) is less than fifteen minutes in length. If you listen at 1.5x like I do, it’s less than ten.

Would you be more satisfied if debates on this message board consisted entirely of dueling memes?

[Gatopescado]

I just don't like the word 'podcast'. Very tinny.

And my internet is shit.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

The whole reason podcasts have become such a “thing” is not that people sit down on their couches and listen. Maybe some people do, but I and every podcast listener I know listens to them while working out, driving, cooking, etc.

Sure, nobody's saying that podcasts are a bad thing. We probably all enjoy listening to and learning from them as a convenient form of "infotainment" or "edutainment". And a properly researched podcast can contain statements that are just as reliable and informative as those in a properly researched print article.

But here's the thing, which has been explained to you before but which you seem for some reason incapable of understanding: Podcasts are an extremely inefficient way of presenting information and opinions as a basis for debate.

A spoken conversational dialogue, or even a monologue, is nowhere near as clear and concise as a few paragraphs of well-written exposition. A stream of recorded speech with no transcript or timestamps is far less convenient to discuss and quote than a digital version of a formatted written document with a visually apparent topical structure. An oral "op-ed" or "sermon" exposition is far less useful than an electronic written document with citations and links to other written sources that also have all the advantages of immediate skimmability, visually apparent topical structure, citations and links, and so forth.

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

And BTW, I DID briefly summarize what I agreed with in Pesca’s rant.

Your summary is minimal and not particularly helpful to anyone who really wants to understand the content of what Pesca is saying. Unfortunately, you can't be more clear or more specific because you don't really remember the details of what you heard, and you have no idea how they connect to specific sources presenting other points of view.

Your summary basically amounts to "Here's the gist of something somebody was saying about something somebody else was saying. If you want to have any clearer or more detailed idea of what I'm talking about, you have to spend fifteen minutes listening to a speaker droning on about it, or nearly ten minutes listening to a speaker squeaking like a chipmunk about it at 1.5x. Then we can argue about the stuff we think we remember the speaker said."

For literate people with an internet-ful of published detailed research and opinion articles right at their fingertips, and almost instantly surveyable via their eyes, what you propose is an exasperatingly fuzzy and half-assed way to consider and debate complex topics of the day. Why should we have to play your low-level, limited-input, kiddie version of the game Arguing About Stuff when we have nearly unlimited access to the highest level of gameplay and, in most cases, the experience and ability to use even the most advanced tools effectively?


TL;DR: The problem, SlackerInc, is not that there's anything wrong with podcasts in themselves. The problem is that you are so consistently shit at establishing a textual basis for debate that's appropriate for intelligent, literate, debate-experienced grownups.

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by Gatopescado

I just don't like the word 'podcast'. Very tinny.

And my internet is shit.

Blog is a properly woody word.

[SlackerInc]

Kimstu, I tried to educate you on this before, but it apparently didn't stick: speeding up podcasts does NOT create a "chipmunk" effect. The technology is sophisticated enough to use pitch control.

The rest of your "argument" is just stupid. If it were actually applied, we could not talk about the SOTU, political debates, or for that matter movies or TV shows. (I await your interjecting yourself into threads about those things with complaints that they are not in text form, that you don't have time to listen/watch them, etc., as opposed to reading the OP, deciding you aren't going to take time to consume the media content in question, and moving on to some other thread. )

And in this case it's just ten or fifteen minutes of audio! So it's shorter than any of those other things, and can--again--be consumed while busy doing other things.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Would you be more satisfied if debates on this message board consisted entirely of dueling memes?

Okay, Grandpa.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Kimstu, I tried to educate you on this before, but it apparently didn't stick: speeding up podcasts does NOT create a "chipmunk" effect. The technology is sophisticated enough to use pitch control.

The rest of your "argument" is just stupid. If it were actually applied, we could not talk about the SOTU, political debates, or for that matter movies or TV shows. (I await your interjecting yourself into threads about those things with complaints that they are not in text form, that you don't have time to listen/watch them, etc., as opposed to reading the OP, deciding you aren't going to take time to consume the media content in question, and moving on to some other thread. )

You constantly impress me with your ability to reach new plateaus of utter fucking stupidity.

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Miller

You constantly impress me with your ability to reach new plateaus of utter fucking stupidity.

You don't impress me with your consistent ability to flap your gums without saying anything. That's a pretty common trait, and just makes you one more bit of detritus lowering the signal/noise ratio in the world, which is exactly what we all need.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Kimstu, I tried to educate you on this before, but it apparently didn't stick: speeding up podcasts does NOT create a "chipmunk" effect. The technology is sophisticated enough to use pitch control.

Okay, I'm happy to substitute "chittering like a squirrel" for "squeaking like a chipmunk". Pesca's voice is not enjoyable to listen to, either at regular speed or at 1.5x, with or without pitch control. But the point is that if what you want to debate is the content of somebody's ideas, it's absurdly inefficient to require your debate opponents to listen to several minutes of said ideas being recited orally (with all the tedious vocal effects of "um"s and pauses etc. that accompany such recitation) rather than being able to refer to them in easily accessible and nonlinearly arranged written form.

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

If it were actually applied, we could not talk about the SOTU, political debates, or for that matter movies or TV shows.

Nonsense. Transcripts of the SOTU and political debates are generally available within minutes after the broadcasts conclude, so it's easy to refer to and quote their content. In the case of movies and TV shows, what viewers are discussing is not solely the content of their ideas but rather how they present them in the context of their visual/performing artform.

Now, if what you're really after is likewise a debate about the qualities of Mike Pesca's podcast as an example of the podcast artform, where you include not just the content of his remarks but his speaking style, his intro music, or whatever other audio features he incorporates, feel free. I've already contributed to such a debate with my opinion of his inharmonious voice.

But if all you want to discuss is the content of Mike Pesca's opinions on the "Green Revolution" political movement, then a podcast is, as I said, a supremely tedious and inefficient way to access that content.

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

And in this case it's just ten or fifteen minutes of audio! So it's shorter than any of those other things, and can--again--be consumed while busy doing other things.

But if you want to be able to discuss the podcast's ideas in an intelligent and informed manner instead of like a halfassed slacker, you have to take the time to make a note of specific statements you want to address and the timestamps where they occurred. And you have to transcribe the statements that you want to quote verbatim as part of your argument, possibly listening to them multiple times to make sure you quote them correctly. And then you have to look up the specific remarks or positions of other people that the statements were referring to, because there aren't any links or footnotes in the podcast. And you end up having to listen to almost all of the recording at least twice in order to make sure that you didn't miss any caveats or modifications of what the speaker said in an earlier part of the podcast. (Yes, I know you don't bother to do any of those things, SlackerInc, but that's because you don't have any particular standards about debating in an intelligent and informed manner.)

All of which is a massive waste of time compared to reading a properly researched and documented article, which can easily be skimmed, revisited and cross-referenced at any point, as well as connected directly to relevant citations and context.

I repeat, SlackerInc: If you just want a sloppy cracker-barrel-style back-and-forth about whatever fuzzy recollections of Pesca's podcast you happened to retain from listening to it in the intervals of being distracted by whatever else you were doing, hey, that's up to you. But don't expect other people with higher standards of critical thinking and argument to take it seriously as a debate.

[SlackerInc]

Eat me.

[GreysonCarlisle]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Do you also refuse to listen to NPR

Yes

to watch PBS Newshour segments

Yes

or YouTube videos?

Yes.

I also used the In the News segments suring Saturday morning cartoons to go get another bowl of Cocoa Pebbles.

How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”?

I don't have anything against old gits. Not sure why you do.

But it's different because, as others have mentioned, we can read one hell of a lot faster than some younger git can talk, and reading a message board isn't significantly slower than reading a physical newspaper, book, or magazine.

Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.

Seriously, no. My time is too valuable to waste on some sick new video. (You young gits still say sick, right?) Give me a summary or a link to some relevant piece of the video that backs up whatever claim you're making.

[scr4]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

The rest of your "argument" is just stupid. If it were actually applied, we could not talk about the SOTU, political debates, or for that matter movies or TV shows.

If this were a CS thread about how great The Gist podcast is, then nobody would complain. But it isn't. You are citing the podcast to back up a point you are trying to make about politics. Nobody is going to listen to a podcast just to understand the point you are trying to make about this topic.

And it's easy to find the SOTU transcript and skim through, or do a keyword search. Maybe next time you can link to the podcast transcript so we can do the same?

[SlackerInc]

There is no transcript.

And although it's not necessarily relevant here, anyone analyzing the SOTU based on the transcript (written ahead of time) is not credible. Much of what was significant about this most recent one, for instance, involved Nancy Pelosi's paper shuffling and sarcastic clapping, the Democratic congresswomen dressed in white, etc.

Since I do actually stubbornly want to convey what Pesca had to say, I will re-listen and serve up some bullet points as soon as "Jeopardy" is over. (BTW, does anyone else think it's unfair that a contestant was judged wrong when he responded to a clue about "this" not being in the center of the galaxy, but actually 30,000 light years from the center, with "Earth" when the "correct" answer was said to be "the Sun"? I thought for sure the judges would ultimately reverse this and give him credit, but so far no.)

[Kimstu]

If we want to discuss the SOTU as political theater, complete with audience reactions, clothing choices, etc., then of course we have to watch it or at least clips of it in order to be able to talk about it intelligently.

But if we just want to discuss the content of specific statements the President made in the SOTU, then referring to a transcript is just as accurate and far more efficient.

The trouble with trying to discuss the content of statements based on an audio stream from a podcast isn’t that it’s too new-fangled; it’s that it’s insufferably old-fashioned. Listening to statements orally declaimed in archaic Sunday-sermon format is fine for one’s personal enjoyment and enrichment, but just plain silly as a foundation for critical discussion in a world where we can scroll through a hundred pages of text in a few seconds and jump to the relevant crossreference or citation in the click of a link.

[SlackerInc]

The many, many Redditors who participate in, for just one of countless examples, the Very Bad Wizards subreddit would presumably tend to disagree. As would those who discuss podcasts on Twitter and Facebook, or on the blogs/sites associated with individual podcasts. Not your cup of tea? That's your prerogative. But to dismiss it as "silly" is presuming to speak for large numbers of people who manage to have perfectly functional discussions of podcast episodes.

[Kimstu]

As I said, there’s nothing wrong at all with people wanting to discuss podcasts qua podcasts, any more than with discussing sermons or TV shows. What is silly, I maintain, is requiring people to go through the chore of listening to a podcast just in order to talk about the paraphrased content of a particular statement in that podcast.

I don’t mind at all if you want to start fanclub threads saying “Hey, let’s talk about so-and-so’s podcast!” Where I think you’re way out of line is when you whine that people pointing out that podcasts suck as a means of efficiently and accurately accessing content for critical debate must just be closed-minded old gits who need to “get with the times”. Now THAT is a profoundly silly claim.