Full Podcast Archive
-
EP22: Should We Abolish Elections? (On Guerrero’s Lottocracy)
Listen nowWhat if democracy isn’t broken, but its very foundation—elections—is the problem? In this episode, we unpack Alexander Guerrero’s provocative case for lottocracy: a system that replaces elected officials with randomly selected citizens. Guerrero argues that elections breed inequality, corruption, and short-term thinking, while lottocracy promises fairness and more authentic representation.
-
EP21: Is There Space for Revolutionary Thought Online? (Interview with Mike Watson)
Listen nowIn this episode, we welcome Mike Watson, political theorist, artist, and author, to explore the intersections of digital culture, socialism, and existential thought. We read Mike’s new book where he explores how online culture shapes our understanding of community, addiction, and identity in the digital age.
-
EP20: Are Humans Actually Irrational? (On Thaler and Sunstein’s Libertarian Paternalism) Feat. Gordon Katic
Listen nowIn this episode, we ask, how irrational are human beings really? To answer this, we read Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein’s classic essay on “libertarian paternalism” which argues that because human beings are easily manipulated by their surrounding “choice architecture”, governments should use this mechanism to encourage citizens to make better choices.
-
EP19: Is Monogamy Morally Permissible (On Harry Chalmers’ Argument Against Monogamy)
Listen nowIn this episode, we examine Harry Chalmers’ provocative take: monogamy is morally suspect. Why should we treat restricting romantic partners any differently than restricting friendships? Since restricting our partner’s friends would seem pathological, so too, restricting sexual and romantic partners.
-
EP18: Is Free Speech Actually Bad? (On Brian Leiter’s Case Against Free Speech)
Listen nowOn this episode, we dive deep into Brian Leiter’s “The Case Against Free Speech.” Leiter questions the sanctity of free speech, suggesting that not all speech deserves equal protection if it causes societal harm.
-
EP17: Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First? (Smilansky’s Designer Ethics) Ft. Ben Burgis
Listen nowIn this episode, we delve into Saul Smilansky’s provocative paper, “Should We Sacrifice the Utilitarians First?” which introduces the concept of “Designer Ethics” (DE). Smilansky argues that individuals’ moral views should influence how they are treated in moral dilemmas
-
EP16: Should Philosophers Stay Out Of Politics? (On van der Vossen’s Defence of The Ivory Tower)
Listen nowOn this episode, we read Bass van der Vossen’s “In defense of the ivory tower”. On this view, philosophers should stay in their lane. That lane being, the pursuit of Truth! Partisanship is opposed to truth and is a danger to academic integrity.
-
EP15: Is Zoophilia Morally Permissible? (On Bensto’s Defence of Zoophilia)
Listen nowHide your cats, hide your dogs, we’re talking about Zoophilia. In a 2023 article, Bensto (pseudonym) attacks one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos: animal-human sex.
-
EP 14: What if Moral Philosophy is Immoral? (On Brennan and Freiman’s Moral Philosophy’s Moral Risk)
Listen nowIn this episode, we debate a dilemma at the root of moral philosophical inquiry: either philosophers should avoid risky topics that could violate moral norms (such as expressive duties not to offend), or they must be granted some level of exemption from these duties in their professional work.
-
EP13: What if There’s No Meaning to Life? (On Benatar’s The Human Predicament)
Listen nowThis week we ask probably the most commonly uttered philosophical question: is there a meaning to life? To help us approach an answer, we read the first few chapters of philosopher David Benatar’s The Human Predicament.
-
EP12: Is Making Friends with the Far-Right a Good Way to Research Them? (ft. Benjamin Teitelbaum)
Listen nowWe interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about his controversial ethnographic methods and the unsavoury people he studies. “They go by many names: outsiders describe them as right-wing extremists, organized racists, or neofascists, and they tend to call themselves nationalists. I call them friends,” writes Teitelbaum.
-
EP11: Is Post-Truth Actually Good? (On Fuller’s Post-Truth as Power Game)
Listen nowWe revisit a curious academic debate in science and technology studies, or STS. After 2016, some claimed that leftist humanities scholars played a role in creating the post-truth moment. And Steve Fuller argued that there’s nothing wrong with that.
-
EP10: Is Equality of Opportunity Not Valuable? (On Stephan Kershnar’s Attack on Equality of Opportunity)
Listen nowThis week we have one of our first encounters with the Academic Edgelord final boss, Stephan Kershnar. We start with his argument against equality of opportunity. We’ll examine the case, and also ask what exactly Kershnar is in general: a useful gadfly, a dishonest ideologue, or just a petulant troll?
-
EP9: Are There Enough Conservatives in Academia? (On Whittington’s Case for Ideological Diversity)
Listen nowOn this episode, we debate whether ideological diversity on campus matters. We consider the extent to which it is even true that ideological diversity is a problem on university campuses, and if it is, what the best ways to solve it might be.
-
EP8: Should the Knowledgable Rule? (On Jason Brennan’s “Against Democracy”)
Listen nowOn this week’s episode, we read Jason Brennan’s 2016 book, “Against Democracy”. In it, Brennan offers a controversial argument for replacing democracy with an “epistocracy” – rule by the knowledgeable.
-
EP7: Should We Support Affirmative Action? (On Pojman’s Case Against Affirmative Action)
Listen nowOn this episode, we read Louis Pojman’s 1998 article, “The Case Against Affirmative Action”. We debate whether any of his arguments against the practice of affirmative action have any merit from the perspective of left politics. We also consider whether class-based affirmative action is preferable.
-
EP6: Is A.I. Going To Kill Us All? (On Richard Ngo’s A.I. Safety First Principles)
Listen nowMight a future AI actually take over and dominate, or potentially even destroy humanity like some Skynet-like scenario? Some technologists worry it might, and so does Ethan. We debate how seriously we should take the AI safety discourse.
-
EP5: Is Whiteness Parasitic? (On Donald Moss’ “On Having Whiteness”)
Listen nowWhen psychoanalyst Donald Moss published his essay “On Having Whiteness” in 2021, it caused the right-wing media outrage machine to move into high gear. On our reading, they seemed to only react to what was in the abstract. We read the article.
-
EP4: Is it Morally Wrong to Prefer Attractive Partners? (On ‘Lookism’ and William D’Alessandro)
Listen nowIf your partner is attractive, then you might be part of the problem. At least, that’s what one edgelord philosopher is suggesting. We discuss William D’Alessandro’s forthcoming paper, “Is It Bad to Prefer Attractive Partners?” (in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association). Is this “lookism” a kind of unjustified and harmful discrimination? If it is, is it realistic to expect us to modify our personal preferences for justice-oriented reasons?
-
EP3: 5 Years or 5 Lashes? (On Moskos’ & Brennan’s Defense of Flogging)
Listen nowIf you were offered the choice of a brutal whipping or an extended stay in prison, which would you take? Probably the former. Is that an argument for flogging? Today, we debate the ideas of two lash-wielding edgelords
-
EP2: Did the Unabomber Have a Point? (on Anarcho-Primitivism & Ted Kaczynski)
Listen nowThe ultimate Academic Edgelord has died: Ted Kaczynski, the domestic terrorist. He indeed was a scholar, with a few peer-reviewed works in mathematics. On this episode, we read his manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future. Why do so many people think the Unibomber was right?
-
EP1: Are We the Academic Edgelords?
Listen nowThis is a scholarly podcast about scholarly provocateurs. Gadflys, charlatans, and shitposters sometimes get tenure, believe it or not. This is a leftist podcast that takes a second look at their peer-reviewed work, and tries to see if there’s anything we might learn from arguing with them. But on this episode, we ask: should we even be doing this? Does engaging with odious ideas actually make us the academic edgelords?