Seated In Action

Episode 22 — Can Political Violence Ever Be Justified?Disclaimer: The first half of the episode came out a bit tinny and lo-fi. We don’t know why and we aren’t sure what we did wrong, but we will attempt to change things on the backend to ensure the podcast’s quality is as high as it can be. Sorry. Please love us.In the first half of this episode, your hosts spend some time meditating on the issue of violence. Is it ever justified? Obviously, most can agree that there are instances wherein violence is completely justifiable. But, is it ever acceptable in the political realm? To answer this question, Ryan and Andrew each quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a springboard into a broader conversation about violence as political strategy. The conversation that ensues encompasses violent revolution, non-violent protest, and the subtleties of the nature of violence as a methodology for change. In the second, better produced, half of this episode, Ryan introduces yet another quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

Episode 22 — What is Postmodernism?In the first half of this episode, Ryan and Andrew talk about the notion that people on both sides of the aisle, but primarily those on the right, use and misuse the term “postmodernism.” This begs the question, “what is postmodernism?” Is it an epistemology? Is it a theoretical lens? Is it an ideology that, when mixed with Marxism, will bring about the downfall of the West? But, before Ryan and Andrew can answer any of these questions, they must first answer the question, “what is modernism?” Your hosts spend the first half of this episode defining and describing this term. In the second half of this episode, your hosts transition into a deeper analysis of what constitutes “postmodernism.” In doing so, they explore some of the central tenants of the movement and compare them to how the term is used colloquially. By the end of the episode, through their investigation of these deep questions, your hosts return to a basic truth about philosophical and aesthetic movements… and

In the first half of this episode, your hosts talk about their recent appearance on Steve Zelt's podcast, "A Small Good Thing" (for more information about the podcast, visit https://www.asmallgoodthing.org/). The conversation lasted about two hours, but the content will be redacted to a trim thirty minutes. Within this conversation, your bois and Zelt grappled with the notion of what universities ought to do, though they did not do so thoroughly. So, we decided to devote an entire episode to talking about what we think the purpose of a university ought to be; in doing so, we articulate six principles upon which universities ought to based.First, we argue that colleges ought to challenge students. We do not merely imply that university coursework ought to be difficult; rather, we argue that professors ought to present controversial ideas that challenge students' fundamental suppositions about what they think they know. Secondly, we argue that in order to achieve the first goal, colleges need to place students

In the first half of the episode, your hosts congratulate themselves for reaching twenty episodes and usher in the new age of "season two." They move on to apologize about the episode's title. From there, they elaborate on the emotional responses that lie beneath the prevalence of clickbait and other such annoying internet attention grabbers. In the second half, Ryan and Andrew discuss how clickbait titles work to create a less informed audience before moving on to some advice that just might fix the internet if enough people get behind it.You can reach out to Seated in Action by email us at seatedinaction@gmail.com Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, check out our website at www.seatedinaction.com, stayed tune for our next episode, and leave us a (preferably favorable!) review on your podcast app of choice.LINKS:Music Notes:“As Colourful as Ever” by Broke for Free: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Broke_For_Free/Layers/As_Colorful_As_EverArticles:“One Amazing Reason Clickbait Can Be Bad For You!” by Simon

At first, your mindful, forward-thinking hosts wanted to make a state of the union podcast for the 20th episode, but then we realized that we already technically released a 20th episode; so, before releasing the actual 20th episode, we're releasing a state of the podcast episode (as, technically, our 22nd episode...). Are we illogical? We like to think not. Is our podcast scheduling odd? Maybe a little. Is this arbitrary? Absolutely, but you've stuck with us thus far and we really wanted to take the time to talk about our first four months in the podcasting world. In this episode, we talk about things we've done poorly, things we've done well, potential plans for the future, and we let you in on some of the back-end/behind-the-scenes information about how we put this podcast together (and we let you in on our pitiful statistics). And, for the first time, we seek to give a little something back to you, kind listener. We're giving away a copy of Johnathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided

In this episode, Ryan and Andrew discuss a compilation film called Ten Years. The film is split into five distinct chapters, all of which were written and directed by different auteur Hong Kongese directors. The first episode, Extras, follows two characters (an immigrant from India and a middle-aged failed-Triad) who are caught in a plot to instigate a false flag attack on two public officials; the second episode, Season of the End, explores anthropological taxidermy and the razing of houses at the behest of an ever-encroaching authoritarian government; the third, Dialect, chronicles the day in the life of a Cantonese-speaking taxi-driver who is marginalized due to his inability to speak Madarin (Putonghua) fluently; the fourth episode, Self-Immolator, mixes genres in order to tell a sort of whodunit story about an unknown person who sets themselves ablaze in front of the British consulate; and, finally, the fifth episode, Local Egg, tells the story of Uncle Sam, a Hong Kongese grocer, who seeks to run his sh

In the first half of this episode, Ryan and Andrew attempt to identify the constitutive elements of political populism. Of course, one cannot define populism without first talking about the notion that both left and right populism often manifest as anti-establishment, anti-elite ideologies; however, your hosts attempt to more fully flesh out American populism. In a rare (maybe?) disagreement, Ryan claims that populism is a neutral movement whereas Andrew claims that populism is almost always charged because it is inherently divisive (and therefore moralistic). Your bois, thankfully, adhere to their own conversational advice and, in doing so, they find some common ground. As a supplement to their conversation, Andrew brings up Uri Friedman's article "What Is a Populist?" (which is well worth a read). In the second half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew drill down on left and right wing populism--they use Donald Trump as the embodiment of right wing populism and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the embodiment of left

Episode 17 - The Aesthetics of Separation: Hou Hsiao Hsien's THREE TIMESIn this, our first official film review, episode, your bois discuss Hou Hsiao Hsien's 2005 triptych, THREE TIMES. THREE TIMES is a film divided into three 45-minute sections. Each section is played by the same actors, though the times and characters are different (one takes place in 1966, one in 1911, and one in 2005). In exploring the themes and motifs of THREE TIMES, Ryan and Andrew discuss the cultural and political landscapes of Taiwan during these three eras, and they explore how the characters' identities are shaped by their surroundings and cultural context. This will be the first of three movie reviews as an overview of Chinese cinema (that is, Taiwanese, Hong Kongese, and Mainland Chinese). In a few weeks, we will drop the next episode in the sequence, which will cover a compilation of short films (title: TEN YEARS) from Hong Kong. We will explore the themes in a similar manner in an attempt to understand how people are influence

In this episode, Andrew and Ryan discuss the lessons that can be taken from the newly coined "Intellectual Dark Web." The hosts cover the ideological connective tissue between the members of the collective, their points of departure, and the limitations of the movement. They move on to the rhetorical strategy of rebranding and manipulating language in order to persuade listeners and give a movement new life. They then grace the audience with their knowledge of photography while critiquing rebranding gone awry. Music Link:http://freemusicarchive.org/music/N_Dropkick/Article Discussion:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.htmlHOW TO FIND US:Website: www.seatedinaction.comSpreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/seated-in-actioniTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/seated-in-action/id1375517639?mt=2iHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/seated-in-action-29346647/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_pRDw72eDnL1f5j8oCkLMQSoundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/seatedinaction

We’re talking about Russia today—but first, your hosts talk about a webcomic from The Oatmeal about the Backfire Effect, a psychological phenomenon that tracks the ways in which our brains respond to ideas that challenge our most fundamental ideological suppositions. Studies conducted at the University of Southern California suggest that, when we are faced with such ideas and challenges, our amygdalae fire up and put us in a state of fight or flight—such a phenomenon presents obvious, real world problems. Your hosts use this discussion as a segue into a discussion about memetic theory and the emotional and psychological state of the social media landscape.In the second half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew talk about a tumblr memo that catalogued the expulsion of numerous Russian bot infiltrators on their platform. Ryan points out some of the patterns in the Russian bot names and, in doing so, shows how said pattern functions as a mean to spread discord within the American political factions. This serves as a

In the first third (yes, third!) of the episode, your bois catch up on their adventures. Andrew sings the praises of the Milwaukee weather and the South Milwaukee DMV, and Ryan talks about gallivanting through the Scottish countryside. After they're done catching up, they begin a discussion about the notion of protest. Are all protests monolithic? If not, what are some of their key differences? What are the proximal and distal consequences of protesting in specific manners? Ryan and Andrew seek to answer these questions; and, in doing so, they come to conclusions about the specific benefits of Occupy Wall Street, the Travel-Ban Airport Protest, and The Women's March. In the second third of the episode, Andrew and Ryan take a surprising amount of time (note: time well spent) to respond to a follow up email about the Jordan Peterson/PragerU series of episodes. In doing so, they further explore the potential meanings of the term indoctrination, the question of indoctrination vs propagandizing, the problem with

Today’s episode is atypical—Andrew is moving to Milwaukee and Ryan is vacationing around the United Kingdom, and, thus, they will not be able to put together an episode during the third week of July. So, they thought ahead—for once—and planned a bonus episode while they do their thing. So, while the bois are away, take a listen to this episode, wherein we talk about world cinema. Originally, your hosts wanted to put together an international movie podcast, but it wasn’t in the cards; however, as the podcast grows, and as we talk more and more about soft, cultural power and global politics, it now makes sense to repurpose this original idea within the context of Seated in Action’s values (which continue to morph and change, unsurprisingly). HOW TO FIND US:Website: www.seatedinaction.comSpreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/seated-in-actioniTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/seated-in-action/id1375517639?mt=2iHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/seated-in-action-29346647/YouTube: https://www.you

In the first half of the episode, your hosts discuss the next set of claims laid out in the PragerU video; they start their discussion off by talking about the differences between those who hold power within the university system and those who interface with students (hint: they are not often the same group of people). They then talk about the various levels of professorship within the academy and the types of classes each level of professor teaches. After defining terms and showing how the different levels of professorship function, Ryan and Andrew then tackle the claim that professors’ primary objective is to overthrow or subvert Western culture and deconstruct free market capitalism with their postmodern Neo-Marxist ideology. Finally, they round out the first half of the episode with a brief discussion about Ryan’s boi, Karl Marx, and his myriad influences. In the second half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew talk about how imperialism and colonialism have contributed to international and international confl

In the first half of today’s episode, your hosts tread carefully into the deep, hot water (though Andrew flubs this by making a spicy joke right off the batt) that is Jordan B. Peterson’s political and philosophical oeuvre. Your hosts begin their critique of Peterson’s PragerU by talking about the way the federal and state governments allocate funds into the education system (both lower and higher education systems) in order to address the first of many claims Peterson makes. They also attempt to articulate and demystify the fundamental differences between different types of colleges and, by extension, the differences in the types of students who attend said colleges. They round out the episode by discussing the many benefits of the American University system and discuss some, obviously not all, of the major flaws (real flaws) that plague an otherwise healthy institution of intellectual pursuit. In the second half of the episode, your hosts read their first listener email. In an attempt to set a precedent, An

Today’s episode is something of a departure from the norm. Here at Seated in Action, we don’t really like to talk about people; rather, we like to explore ideas, arguments, and rhetorical strategies—that said, we feel as though our hand has been forced. A couple of weeks ago, the notorious Lobster King himself, Jordan B. Peterson, professor of psychology at University of Toronto, produced a video with PragerU (titled “Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids”). Normally, your hosts would not take the time to pick apart a PragerU video, but we contend that the video contains an inordinate amount of not optimally valid and, at times, troublingly alarmist claims. Before we seek out to address the video point-by-point, we want to set the table for a broader conversation about said claims; in doing so, your hosts articulate the nature of their exposure to Peterson’s body of work, express their general feelings about Peterson as a public intellectual, and, in the spirit of Stasis Theory, define some key terms (e.g.

In the first half of the episode, your hosts talk about the issue of moral reframing as presented in Rob Willer’s Ted Talk, “How to Have Better Political Conversations,” which asks a difficult question: why do we attempt to persuade someone by employing arguments that we find compelling (as opposed to arguments that our interlocutors might find compelling)? In doing so, they talk about how to reconfigure political arguments within other moral matrices. Does this sound Machiavellian? Yeah, maybe it’s a little Machiavellian, but the conversations need to take place, and our messages, whatever they might be, need to be palatable to another person before they can hope to accept said arguments as valid.In the second half of the episode, Andrew further explains how moral matrices are, to some extent, genetically predetermined; that is, moral frameworks are dispositional in nature, and, thus, an individual’s genetics and their environment push them towards one moral matrix over another. They then extend this notion

In the first half of the episode, your hosts finally introduce the topic of effective altruism. This topic was briefly alluded to in the previous episode (about global aid), and Andrew, of course, articulates the principles central to the effective altruistic movement by disparaging mainstream, traditional charitable organizations. Ryan re-centers the conversation, and the two discuss, at great lengths, the rational, empirical methodologies the effective altruists employ when determining the effectiveness of a given charity, the criteria they use to determine which global problems to address, and the goals they lay out when prompting people to rethink the ways they give to charity. In the second half of the episode, Andrew discusses the merits of the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and the Sight Savers organization; Ryan, then, discusses the merits of the Against Malaria Foundation and an organization called “Give Directly.” They then provide some practical advice about charitable donations and lay out a f

In this episode, Ryan and Andrew discuss the rains down in Africa. Responding to the documentary, Poverty, Inc, they articulate some of the ways that programs meant to help those living in poverty don't always achieve their intended effect. The conversation takes a turn into economics and sociology as they discuss which economic policies work best for connecting people with a steady income and how bad policies can effect even the most primal of human behaviors. The conversation also diverges when the hosts discuss which services should be incentivized with a profit motive and which shouldn't. They also provide some practical advice to make sure that your charity donations get to the people who need them most.You can reach out to Seated in Action by email us at seatedinaction@gmail.com Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, check out our website at www.seatedinaction.com, stayed tune for our next episode, and leave us a (preferably favorable!) review on your podcast app of choice.Links:https://www.povertyinc.org

In today’s episode, Ryan discusses the concepts and notions advanced in Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson’s Why Nations Fail. In the first half, Ryan summarizes some of the main arguments—namely their claims about what types of policies are effective and which are not. Your hosts then discuss the disconnect between the efficacy of specific policies and the values that voters hold; in doing so, they pose the following question: If a policy that clashes against your values is effective at achieving its goal (and let’s assume this is a favorable, positive outcome), would you want to uphold it despite the fact that it runs counter to the values you hold most dear?In the second half of the show, Ryan talks about the notion of extractive versus inclusive nations and policies; to illustrate this point, Ryan assesses the pros and cons of feudalism and colonialism. He then argues that there are certain prerequisites to which all effective policies must adhere (among these being safeguarding both property rights and

In the first half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew discuss Jonathan Haidt’s Ted Talk about what he calls The Righteous Mind (this later became a book of the same name). Haidt suggests that there are five pillars of morality, and that said pillars manifest through political outlooks and ideologies. For the first half, Ryan and Andrew discuss three of these pillars: care/harm, fairness/reciprocity, and in-group loyalty. In the second half of the episode, they discuss the remaining two pillars: authority/respect and purity/sanctity.In their discussion, Ryan and Andrew lay out how liberals (or, put another way, progressives) configure their moral matrix in a different manner than traditional conservatives. They disagree on a few issues that arise out of the conversation; but, they try to figure out the nature of the disagreement and diffuse the situation while maintaining the values articulated in the mission statement.You can reach out to Seated in Action by email us at seatedinaction@gmail.com Be sure to subscri