I would like to offer my sincerest appreciation for those of you playing with Slink. I don’t understand how you can manage it, but so long as he has one good attention thread he’s less likely to shit up more interesting discussions. Y’all are doing the Lord’s work.
That’s a pretty good burn, but perhaps counterproductive since you’ve got me curious to find these “interesting discussions” you refer to. 
Ass On Curb (Redbelt)
Messed the last link on my last post, the correct link is this one:
:rolleyes: Could somebody please make an audio clip of the following sentence and post a link to it for SlackerInc, because he really doesn’t seem able to process it via reading comprehension?
**Pointing out that podcasts are not as useful for certain specific purposes as reading written text is different from claiming that podcasts are intrinsically useless or unpopular or that nobody should listen to them. **
Kimstu, that’s one way to spin it–and you have always been a spinner extraordinaire. Looking back over the thread, I’m going to stick with “old fogey sticks-in-the-mud”:
:smack: FYI: you don’t need headphones to listen to podcasts; they usually aren’t full of “ums” and pauses because those are edited out; and there is always a “back” button, which in my podcatcher I have edited to be just ten seconds. No “trying to find” anything.
That’s because you’re still resolutely ignoring the point. The fact that some people personally don’t happen to like listening to podcasts doesn’t change the fact that podcasts are objectively less efficient for certain specific purposes than reading written text.
You didn’t even know that speeding up podcasts does not increase their pitch (despite the fact that I had explained this to you previously), so your Word of God on what is Objectively True is not convincing, #sorrynotsorry. 
Which also doesn’t change the fact that podcasts are objectively less efficient for certain specific purposes than reading written text.
It’s not a matter of taking my “word” for it: it’s an obvious consequence of the respective natures of audio recording versus written text, which you yourself personally experienced right here in this thread.
Namely, when you wanted to quote for your fellow posters on a written-text-format messageboard the exact content of certain specific statements Mike Pesca made, you had to go back to the podcast and laboriously transcribe them. If you had had those statements in electronic text form, you could instead have cut and pasted them into a quote box inside of five seconds.
It’s clearly, objectively the case that the latter method is a more efficient means of accessing the content of the statements, in a forum based on exchanges of written text, than the former.
Kimstu… do you not think OTIO yet?
Very few who can communicate in writing at this level, and prolifically post on the SDMB on top of that, could fail to understand your point. Don’t feed the thing. It may not be strictly trolling, but it’s also definitely not engaging in good faith.
I mean, I’m not trying to argument-block you or anything; if you want to get your freak on with this pointless digression, let your flag fly, friend. But, selfishly, I like to enjoy your commentary in discussions (and non-pointless digressions) that I actually find interesting and instructive. And here, I think you’re casting pearls (small and easy ones, to be sure) before a particularly recalcitrant swine.
FWIW, not all podcasts are just people talking at you. Some are more like audiobooks, other likes TV (well, radio) shows with story and plot. Some are more like listening in on some friends having a conversation, where it’s not your turn to speak. (You can speak on Twitter).
That said, informational podcasts do have this problem. Interviews can feel like people giving a speech. And if it’s someone literally just explaining something, that can feel like a lecture. I’d say the best tend to vary things up with clips and telling stories and other stuff.
However, some go too far and become hard to follow. It’s a difficult balance.
Still, personally, I mostly prefer actual information that isn’t story-based to come in text form, unless the speaker is just really, really good at being entertaining.
My favorite podcasts are conversational.
Kimstu (and anyone else), I challenge you to listen to the first ten minutes* of the New York Times bevy of op-ed heavyweights (Ross Douthat with Michelles Goldberg and Cottle) as they shed light on the Green New Deal issue, and tell me that’s just “infotainment”, or that it doesn’t have a value that transcends what you would get from the same writers in print (not that their writing doesn’t also have unique value). On balance, the conversation actually tugged me a bit to the left on this issue.
*Or less, if you speed it up! 
Of course it’s non-binding – it’s a resolution. That’s all it ever was.
I seriously wonder why everyone is kicking up so much dust over a simple resolution, which does nothing more than offer an amorphous vision for what a handful of congresspeople would like to see. It reads like a white paper or mission statement more than a piece of legislation, except for its legalistic prose.
The most controversial aspect of AOC’s resolution seems to be the idea of creating a jobs works program for the development of infrastructure. It’ll probably end up being a lot less controversial when we see actual legislation, because if it’s not, it’ll probably never get beyond committee hearings.
The way I see it, if AOC and her allies play their cards right, they can use this agenda to steer legislative efforts into several different directions. I can’t yet determine if this is just politically gimmickry in the age of Twitta-Gram, or if AOC possesses a much higher caliber of political acumen than I ever suspected and is actually, intentionally orchestrating a shrewed multi-pronged strategy to drive the platform for the next 4-6 years. She - and democrats - can use this platform to work with labor unions, the healthcare and public health fields, environmental groups, and other constituencies.
Before judging I’ll take a wait and see approach. But this is all overreaction at this point.
xeno’s got a point about not perpetuating this cycle of explanation and incomprehension, but just to address a couple of points with what I hope is unmistakable clarity:
“Infotainment” is not necessarily an insult, and I don’t intend it as such when describing podcasts or similar media, such as radio talk shows or television interviews, that address serious issues but necessarily can’t include the critical apparatus of serious research and analysis, such as footnotes, citations and bibliographies.
However, if it really makes you unhappy to have podcasts referred to as “infotainment”, I’m perfectly willing to stop using the term for them.
I repeat, for the tenth time or so: Nobody is claiming that podcasts don’t have value (even if some people happen not to enjoy listening to them, as a matter of personal preference). What we’re pointing out is simply that they’re less efficient for certain specific purposes than reading written text.
Why? What specific statement(s) in the podcast conversation changed your opinion, and why do you feel that you wouldn’t have been able to understand or appreciate them equally well by reading them in written form?
The best part of this green new deal is that the Democrat Party is stuck with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez for the next several years, and the press really loves to quote her. I believe Cortez-isms are really going to turn out the voters in 2020.
That’s nice, but try to keep in mind that you’re fuckng stupid.
I think the country is open to experimenting with ideas that are economically leftist, so I wouldn’t be so confident that she’s going to be laughed off the stage.
You wouldn’t be so confident, and that’s fine.
Personally, I envision Alexandria Ocasio Cortez heading the Democrat Party ticket for POTUS in 2020.
You might want to check her age.
At her age?