Seated In Action

In the first half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew continue and narrow their conversation from the previous episode about hate speech and dangerous speech; they use an article, written by Susan Benesch, about dangerous speech online in Myanmar. Benesch identifies three primary ways to combat dangerous speech online (targeting advertisers, drowning out dangerous speech with positive messages, and humor); in doing so, they evaluate the merits/disadvantages, ethics, and overall practicality of each methodology. Andrew makes a grave mistake and puts in his two-week notice, which Ryan accepts without hesitation. In the second half of the episode, your hosts finish off the two-part mini-series on Stasis Theory. The two levels discussed in this episode tackle questions of quality, or questions of value, as well as questions of policy. Andrew offers a recap for the previous episode by talking about the recent debate between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty; they then pivot back into the issue of climate change in o

Episode 4: Nazi Pugs, Dangerous Speech, & Stasis Theory Part IIn the first half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew discuss a controversial court case involving a Nazi Pug and a fine of 800 pounds; this serves as a springboard into a conversation about categories of speech—namely hate speech and dangerous speech. They primarily discuss the severity of the perceived issues of freedom of speech on American University campuses. Of course, a conversation about the proverbial marketplace of ideas cannot be meaningful without a discussion of platforms (and by extension the dreaded “no platforming”). Ryan defends Flat Earthers and Andrew champions obtrusive protest methodologies. All of the aforementioned conversational threads lead to one over-arching question: where do we draw “The Line?”In the second half of the episode, your hosts introduce an old rhetorical framework for co-investigation called Stasis Theory. What the hell is Stasis Theory? It’s essentially a way for people to ensure that they are agreeing on f

In the first half of the podcast, Ryan and Andrew talk about the notion of one’s perception about their own place within a broader society and the potential blindspots to which we all fall victim. Ryan later segues into a larger discussion about how most evidence suggests that the world is improving by most measures, despite the way that most people feel about overall sociopolitical and cultural tends; in doing so, they reference Steven Pinker’s epic tome, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. This, then, transitions into a conversation about unwarranted, and often unnecessary, pessimism that serves as shorthand intellectualism.In the second half of the podcast, Ryan does some fact checking and presents Andrew an opportunity to gush about a film he loves, although he promptly shuts him up. They then quickly change gears and discuss the notion (perhaps “illusion” is a better word) of the West’s decline. Of course, the issue of multiculturalism comes up (along with the usual suspects who a

In the first half of today’s episode, Andrew brags about his movie pass, which initiates a conversation about a famous quotation uttered by the notorious Oscar-award-winning director, Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu (you know the quotation). Ryan and Andrew discuss the notion of soft power and the cultural force that is cinema; and, in doing so, they discuss the virtues and vices of the standard American blockbuster as well as the incentive structure of the movie-making process. Andrew forces Ryan into a hot take; Ryan sings the praises of Communist Manifesto; Andrew (poorly) impersonates Alex Jones, takes his shirt off, and shits on prestige pictures; Ryan apologizes to Marshall McLuhan. Hilarity ensues. In the second half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew start off by talking about the issue of representation and diversity within American media; they then dive more deeply into blockbusters that “work.” They discuss the unique strengths of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” and explore the meaningful ethical

In part one of this episode, Ryan and Andrew discuss military advisor Bethany Lerch’s Ted Talk, “There are Wrong Ways to Help: Examples from Afghanistan.” Lerch’s talk explores the notion of action and its inherent consequences; in doing so, she questions whether or not it is advisable to act in any given geopolitical situation. Should we act when the stakes are sufficiently high? What must we take into consideration before acting? Ryan and Andrew dive into these questions and try their best to provide sound answers.In the second half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew address the current conversational climate in the public—and social media—sphere; they provide three basic rules or guiding principles for having better conversations with people you might not agree with (even though they admit that they fail miserably at adhering to the rules 100% of the time).

In this preview episode, the Seated in Action hosts, Ryan and Andrew, introduce themselves and lay out their mission statement and underlying philosophy—that of the righteous potato—a philosophy that encourages mindfulness and presence of mind, measured responses to loaded questions, effective communication skills, and a willingness to change the world from the comfort of an armchair. In addition to laying out their philosophy, Ryan and Andrew discuss potential topics of conversation, ranging from, but not limited to, the apparent threat of nuclear war, the cancer that is clickbait, the power of dialectic, the deterioration of interpersonal communication, and much, much more.