Episode 184: Oh God, No, Not This Again, Please Make It Stop
Oct 2, 2023
auto_awesome
Tech entrepreneur and activist Brianna Wu joins to discuss the controversy surrounding American Bully X. Topics include leaked chat logs, misinterpreted figures on dog bites, flaws in data collection methods, and the portrayal of American bullies as dangerous dogs. The hosts reflect on criticism received and express regret while highlighting the consequences of dog dumping and the impact of the internet.
Accurate breed identification in dog attacks is challenging and unreliable, highlighting the need for improved data collection methods.
Media coverage and public perception can influence breed bans, leading to an exaggerated perception of certain breeds as dangerous.
Improved data collection methods, such as DNA testing, should be prioritized for more reliable breed identification in dog attacks.
Deep dives
The limitations of data on dog attacks and breed identification
The podcast episode discusses the flaws in the data collection and breed identification methods used to determine the responsibility of American bullies for dog attacks. The episode emphasizes the difficulties of accurately identifying breeds involved in attacks and highlights the bias and limitations of relying on social media posts for data analysis. It also explores the need for improved data collection methods, such as DNA testing, in order to obtain more reliable information. The discussion acknowledges the complexity of the issue and the biases that exist on both sides of the debate.
The impact of media and public perception on breed bans
The podcast raises concerns about the influence of media coverage and public perception on breed bans. It highlights the tendency for news stories and social media posts to focus on high-profile dog attacks, leading to an exaggerated perception of certain breeds as dangerous. The episode discusses how this can impact public opinion and drive the implementation of breed-specific legislation. It also emphasizes the need for a more informed and balanced approach to breed regulation, considering the limitations of available data and the complexities of dog aggression.
Critiques of the podcast's handling of the topic
The podcast acknowledges several valid critiques, including the need to consult victims of dog attacks and gain a better understanding of the class dynamics involved in discussions about dog breeds. It also addresses criticisms related to the credibility of breeders and the potential bias in their claims about the temperament of American bullies. The podcast expresses regret for any oversights or shortcomings in the discussion and recognizes the importance of diverse perspectives and thoughtful engagement on the topic of dog breeds and attacks.
Demand for better data collection and genetic testing
The podcast underscores the necessity for improved data collection methods, such as DNA testing, in order to accurately identify dog breeds involved in attacks. It also highlights the urgency of addressing the flaws in current breed identification methods, which can be unreliable and subjective. The episode suggests that DNA testing may provide a more objective and scientific approach to determining breed types. It emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making in breed regulation rather than relying on visual identification or biased data sources.
The complex nature of the topic and the need for more research
The podcast acknowledges the complexity of the issues surrounding breed-specific legislation and dog attacks. It underscores the need for further research and a better understanding of the factors contributing to dog aggression. The episode recognizes that both sides of the debate have biases and that more comprehensive and unbiased research is required to inform effective breed regulation. It concludes by calling for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to the topic, with a focus on understanding the complexities of dog behavior and fostering informed public discourse.
Note: An earlier version of this episode contained a math error. I said “nine out of 15” when I should have said "11 out of 15.” Still somehow Jesse’s fault. It has been updated.—KH
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.blockedandreported.org/subscribe
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode