This podcast discusses engaging with scholarly provocateurs and the importance of critical engagement with edgy academic ideas. They explore the negative perception of engaging with the other side from a left-wing perspective and emphasize the need to analyze and challenge right-wing arguments. The hosts also discuss the concept of liberal socialism, the value of intellectual arguments in political movements, and the unique skills and strengths of academics and activists.
The podcast aims to engage with academic ideas that challenge mainstream perspectives and provoke intellectual debate.
Engaging with controversial ideas allows for critical exploration and sharpening of arguments, supporting persuasive political projects.
Arguments and influencing public opinion play a vital role in challenging dominant interests and advancing progressive causes, beyond just building power and organizing.
Deep dives
The Goal of the Podcast: Engaging with Contentious Ideas
The podcast aims to engage with academic ideas that are counterintuitive, controversial, or seemingly objectionable in their conclusions. The hosts want to explore arguments that challenge mainstream perspectives and examine peer-reviewed works that provoke intellectual debate. They aim to bring a left-wing perspective to these ideas, while also acknowledging their commitment to egalitarianism and social justice. The podcast seeks to present these ideas as an intellectual exercise, showcasing the value of critical engagement and exploring counterintuitive concepts.
The Importance of Open Discussion and Challenging Ideas
The hosts discuss the significance of engaging in open discussion and challenging ideas, even those that may contradict their own beliefs. They argue against the notion that engaging with controversial ideas trivializes or disrespects different experiences or viewpoints. Instead, they advocate for a critical approach that allows for intellectual exploration, sharpening arguments, and making themselves more persuasive in their political projects. They want to foster a culture that is not afraid of contention and is willing to argue assertively for their positions, while studying opposing ideas to create convincing cases for their political projects.
Navigating Standpoint Epistemology and Recognizing Limitations
The hosts acknowledge the potential limitations of their perspectives as a group of white males, and they engage with the challenge of how to navigate standpoint epistemology when discussing topics related to identity or lived experiences. While recognizing the importance of different viewpoints, they argue that many arguments can be evaluated based on logic, reason, and empirical evidence, regardless of the identity of the individuals making the arguments. They encourage transparency and open discussion about their partialities and potential limitations, while considering the option of having guest hosts for certain arguments that might require a more intimate understanding of specific identity groups.
Engaging in Arguments with the Right
The podcast discusses the value of engaging in arguments with right-wing perspectives. The hosts highlight the importance of responding to and debunking conservative arguments, as it allows for a robust exchange of ideas and helps clarify the position of the left. They argue that arguments constitute a significant component of politics and can play a role in mobilizing support, challenging dominant interests, and shaping public opinion. By engaging with right-wing arguments, progressives can demystify their claims, reveal their weaknesses, and provide a counter-narrative that counters their supposed subversiveness. The podcast emphasizes the need for diversity of perspectives, acknowledging that personal experiences can both enhance and cloud one's ability to engage and critically evaluate arguments.
The Role of Arguments and Intellectual Ammunition
The hosts discuss the role of arguments and intellectual ammunition in the struggle for power. They highlight the value of making strong arguments, responding to conservative objections, and influencing public opinion. The podcast draws inspiration from intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, who emphasize the significance of propaganda and manipulating public opinion as a tool for maintaining power. The hosts refute the notion that focusing solely on building power and organizing is sufficient, arguing that influencing how people think is an integral part of the power struggle. Additionally, they dismiss the notion that academics should refrain from making arguments and propaganda, asserting that leveraging arguments and influencing public opinion is essential for challenging dominant interests and advancing progressive causes.
This is a scholarly podcast about scholarly provocateurs. Gadflies, 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. We are hosted by: Victor Bruzzone, Gordon Katic, Matt McManus, and Ethan Xavier (AKA “Mouthy Infidel”).
Usually, we talk about a peer-reviewed book or article. On this first episode, we go meta. We discuss why we are doing this, and whether we should be doing this at all. We also briefly discuss Nathan J. Robinson’s book on debating the right, and specifically the critical review that called him a “leftist debate bro.”
How far can debate get us? Does engaging with odious ideas actually make us the academic edgelords?
