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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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.
Eat me.
Yes
Yes
Yes.
I also used the In the News segments suring Saturday morning cartoons to go get another bowl of Cocoa Pebbles.
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, 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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Better content-free gum flapping than your regular tide of idiot racist lies.
But, here’s the thing. We are not working out, we are not driving, we are sitting here, at a computer, right now.
If you were just recommending in general, “Hey, here’s an interesting podcast, I think that you guys should listen.” that’s one thing. There are a few podcasters that I would recommend in that fashion. Even, “here’s a podcaster that covers a subject that I find interesting.”
But you are telling us that if we want to join in this debate, we need to listen to this podcast. We need to listen to it before we can even know what is that we are debating about, even. And that means stopping what we are doing, finding some headphones, and then listening to a podcast, full of “uh’s” and “ums” and pauses. If I missed a bit of what he said, I have to click to go back, and try to find the spot that I left off at, rather than just reading the word again.
If I want to cite him, or ask a question about what he said, then I have to transcribe what he said, rather than just cut and paste.
It’s just not conducive to the medium that we are in, and that is why people will not engage you when you make these demands. Whine all you want, and even throw out insults towards people who won’t play your game, but, well, they ain’t playing your game.
Oh, okay - so we should also only be half paying attention to what’s being said. Seems like a great idea.
Take it from a fellow person on the spectrum - when everyone in the room gives you a social norm, and repeats it quite angrily, it’s usually not worth arguing about it. All that typically does is make everyone angry.
So, you’re using a subreddit dedicated to discussing podcasts as evidence that it’s okay to discuss podcasts?
Holy shit, Batman, we have a 26 year old genius on our hands!
BPC, we’re hearing disproportionately from people who are not only anti-podcast, but anti-Twitter, anti-meme, anti-YouTube, just anti-any-of-the-weird-shit-people-are-doing-today. If they are the local “social norm”, then frankly I don’t give a rat’s arse about violating their norms. I’ll be just a tad more current, regardless of what the curmudgeons here think (which is funny because I don’t even have an Instagram account, so I’m really just talking about GenX current, vs. the truly ancient in spirit if not in actual chronological age). I get into fights on Twitter all the time, as one does, but you know what? They are never litigated on the basis of the crap you are talking about here. That shit would trigger a massive snarkstorm, and deservedly so.
All that said, here’s Pesca, painstakingly transcribed by me, the slacker in residence. You’re welcome 
(:smack: I am generally a big fan of the Atlantic, but that is some bullshit right there.)
Pesca gets his ranting pants zipped up, and continues:
Pesca then goes on to poke holes in the plausibility of “Green New Deal” numbers, like the one about moving to 100% renewable energy in the U.S., from the current 20%, by 2030. He notes that AOC cites a Stanford study, and that he read the study and these professors are actually advocating 80% by 2030 (still a very ambitious goal), and 100% by 2050 (since, as anyone with a lick of sense knows, this is not a linear process and the last few percent will be much harder). He goes on to point out that the Union of Concerned Scientists has promoted a goal of 80% by 2050.
Pesca snarks, “But AOC wants to get to 100% in nine years, and how are we gonna get there? By dreamin’ big!” He then plays an audio clip of AOC embracing the “dream” label as a positive thing, and claiming that all great American programs, “from the Great Society to the New Deal”, began with people doing just that: dreaming big. And he quotes AOC as claiming that when JFK said we would go to the moon by the end of the decade, “people said it was impossible”. Pesca’s retort: “Yeah, some people thought it was impossible–people who thought the Earth was flat. You know who didn’t think it was impossible? Scientists!” He cites Werner von Braun as having written a government memo estimating that the U.S. could get to the moon by '67 or '68.
Pesca goes on to do more of that mean ol’ nitpicking from there, but you get the, well, gist (heh).
None of that’s true. You’re just spectacularly incompetent at not only framing a debate, but in participating in one. That’s what people are reacting to.
Well, that and you just being a garbage human being in general.
Okay, let me try again.
Shut the fuck up, you fucking idiot.
Oh look, a transcript.
Thank you for taking the time to type this out.
I am phenomenally glad I did not waste any time listening to this stupid shit. Mockery of an article he didn’t fucking understand. Stupid comparisons between AOC and Trump (which I am just personally sick to fucking death of; anyone willing to make them is just too fucking dumb to take seriously at this point). And… not much else?
You’re welcome.
That is funny, in the sense that I also do listen to podcasts; but, in the past when I pointed at podcasts from experts in the field of genetics, history of science and anthropology that replied to the nonsense that you spewed before; the result was that you just completely ignored everything of what they said.
That is willful ignorance, and it is no different when you use podcasts, twitter, YouTube or anything else, you do fall for ignorant or grossly incomplete arguments.