Author Topic: What would it take for you to stop listening to and/or supporting the SGU?  (Read 12016 times)

CarbShark, Eternally Learning and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline random poet

  • That's bullshit!
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
  • On n'a jamais le temps, le temps nous a.
    • I have a LJ

Also, if only iTunes could play podcasts at x2 speed, I might actually still listen, maybe?
Pocket Cast, anything under 1.5x sounds like everyone's drunk.
I KNOW, RIGHT?
Aujourd'hui j'ai vu un facteur joyeux.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6827
One of the rogues talking about a former wife (girlfriend?) in derogatory tones bothered me. That was quite some time ago. The original female British voice of the podcast was summarily removed, what was that all about? Did she request to be removed or was her former rogue partner feeling butthurt?
That was Bob's ex wife putting on an accent (badly). She was not British. When they had the opportunity to get Iszi to record a proper version, they took it. (Also, who would wants to listen to one's ex-partner's voice every week?)

Actually, they first replaced the voice with another fake accent before Iszi volunteered to record it.  They made the change at the same time that they switched the theme song to a version recorded by George Hrab, and for the same reason: they were going to start syndicating the show in sattelite radio, and did not have broadcast rights to the track (which was podsafe, but only for non-commercial use).
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 542
I am particularly bothered when the SGU avoids clarifying their positions under the guise of not wanting to wade into non-science topics. The controversies that I want them to address are ones that they've already waded into on their own. They gave a platform to Marty Klein (on multiple interviews and NECSS), Marc Randazza (interview and NECSS), Brian Dunning, and Joshie Berger. The SGU is clearly friendly with these people, and allowed them to use the SGU to self-promote and promulgate their views. The SGU follows up when they screw up science facts, and they should follow up with their interviews, too.

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1971
I don't expect them to be perfect. The only thing that would stop me listening was if they stopped being interesting and/or relevant.

I don't know what more they can do regarding Joshie. Steve has said he will never be back on the show. Bringing it up on the show isn't really required. They have tried to avoid personal attacks and stick to science and skepticism. They would only be repeating what has been brought up on this forum. They are hardly going to be able to investigate it or get either of the 2 people involved to talk about it on the show.

More could be said about Dunning. He has admitted guilt though he has tried to mitigate it and make himself come off as hard done by. Not unknown among convicted fraudsters.
He does appear to be more interested in the money side of skepticism than the education side. Putting all his past content behind a pay wall isn't in the best interest of reaching the non-skeptics.
I still listen to his show. Only to hear about subjects that I'm not familiar with. I find his voice, style and delivery actually annoying. More than 10 minutes and I would probably give it a miss.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4162
I think this kind of subject is more appropriate for blogposts (Neurologica) than for being on the podcast.

Not to defend anyone or anything, but I guess that in Steve's eyes, as he has previously stated that he thinks sexism and racism are unacceptable within the skeptical movement, there is no need for him to say anything further regarding various individuals. I have noticed over the years that he is not prone to repeat himself very much.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 10:28:36 PM by Quetzalcoatl »

Offline moj

  • beer snob
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9867
One of the rogues talking about a former wife (girlfriend?) in derogatory tones bothered me. That was quite some time ago. The original female British voice of the podcast was summarily removed, what was that all about? Did she request to be removed or was her former rogue partner feeling butthurt?
That was Bob's ex wife putting on an accent (badly). She was not British. When they had the opportunity to get Iszi to record a proper version, they took it. (Also, who would wants to listen to one's ex-partner's voice every week?)

But yeah it doesn't sound like Bob's on good terms with his ex.

I thought it way Jay's ex. But in any case, I can't hold it against any podcast producer that they don't use their ex as intro voice.
Not sure, I might have substituted a brother, there.
For the original question, I haven't listened to a whole episode in like a year or more.

To relate to the original question, how come?
Lack of time, shifting interests, disillusionment about the skeptical scene.

Also, if only iTunes could play podcasts at x2 speed, I might actually still listen, maybe?

Sames, I don't listen to podcast nearly as much as I use to but when I do don't have time for ones that long. I'm also less involved or care about skepticms as a movement. I was a a lot more active from 07-12 but it really shat the bed and don't see how it can successed in its current state. I still agree with being pro science, and favoring truth and logic. I think being part of the skeptical movement makes pushing those goals harder, not easier. No need for anther label, skeptic, just be.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 01:20:28 PM by moj »

Online Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8893
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!

With the former, I know it's long stood that they seem very averse to stepping into any political or socially contentious conversations as they say that they want to focus on science and skeptical news. 
That is their mission statement from the very beginning. There are PLENTY of other people that can bring in the other stuff if they want.

I don't think you must have fully understood what I said in that post.  My whole point was that there were multiple categories of the negative feelings I have towards the show.  The one here is not one that makes me angry in the least.  At worst, I would say that it's intensely disappointing that they are not using their unique position in the community to at least broach the subject on occasion.

The thing is, there are some real and deep schisms that are widening with every passing day in the Skeptical community because of these issues and almost all of the conversations are taking place among angry people with much smaller and ubiquitous built in audiences. 

I see no reason for them to jump to a sideshow.

I would hardly call it a sideshow.  At any rate, it's certainly no more a sideshow than movie reviews and discussions about personal PC upgrades.


 They are the perfect show with the perfect format to talk about how we, as skeptics, should be dealing with the #metoo movement.
Why? As much as I support the #metoo movement, them getting into it would be far outside their mission statement and their expertise.  Nothing perfect about them getting into areas that fall outside--well outside their mission statement.

Because skepticism is being commonly invoked as a reason to not act on these accusations for one.  For another, it's a major topic of conversation in just about all the arenas that they usually discuss things in; politics, science communication, the skeptical and atheist communities, and so on.  You say these topics are outside their area(s), I say it's perfectly within it (them) as the whole point is to discuss how skeptics interpret and parse these types of accusations that actually effect them.  Maybe someone like Al Franken would be a bit superfluous, but certainly Krauss isn't. 


It would be immensely effective if they showed their audience how to process each accusation against famous skeptics and atheists as they happen so that they can spread that around.
They aren't lawyers. They shouldn't be expected to parse testimonials. Skepticism can help, but most of what is involved here is not much more than testimonies.

I'm not asking for answers to legal questions.  I'm asking for a discussion about how individuals parse these kinds of things which would lead to them continuing to support or stopping their support of people like Krauss. 

It's maybe akin to the deputy that didn't go into the Parkland school when he heard the shooting; incredibly disappointing that he didn't step in and attempt to help, but I can't really shit on him too much for it since it's only natural to not want to die, which he almost certainly would have I'd think.
That's a fucking crappy and heartless analogy.  There mission is NOT to police the community for anything other than scientific integrity.

Not sure why it's heartless.  I concede the analogy doesn't 100% line up with what I'm describing in the SGU so maybe it could reasonably be called crappy, but most analogies break down at some point or another or else they wouldn't be analogies; they'd be the same thing.  Clearly, the only correlation I was intending to draw was that in both cases, I see a missed opportunity to have made a difference by someone well-placed to do so, but it's hard to hold it against them too much given that acting on that opportunity entails a decent amount of risk.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 03:20:06 AM by Eternally Learning »

Online Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8893
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
The perfect is the enemy of the good. They are doing good work, and that's good enough for me. They're not perfect. Obviously, some of that stuff is so important to some folks that they cannot give their support. But nobody's ever going to do things exactly the way I think is best, and I appreciate when people do something that is good.

I don't expect perfection, but when item after item stacks up that I actually do care about, I begin to ask when it is too much for me to accept.  The main reason for starting this thread was to get a feel for where everyone else's lines were.  Also, if I'm honest, to vent a little too.

Online daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7510
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
I would hardly call it a sideshow.  At any rate, it's certainly no more a sideshow than movie reviews and discussions about personal PC upgrades.

I wish they would leave off the movie reviews and discussions about personal PC upgrades, as well as all the fandom about fantasy/fiction. I listen to the show for science and skepticism, not to be a voyeur into their private lives or to learn about the latest fantasy movie.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. They are doing good work, and that's good enough for me. They're not perfect. Obviously, some of that stuff is so important to some folks that they cannot give their support. But nobody's ever going to do things exactly the way I think is best, and I appreciate when people do something that is good.

I don't expect perfection, but when item after item stacks up that I actually do care about, I begin to ask when it is too much for me to accept.  The main reason for starting this thread was to get a feel for where everyone else's lines were.  Also, if I'm honest, to vent a little too.

That's perfectly legitimate. If the show annoys you and/or you don't find it interesting, then you shouldn't listen. I hope I'm not criticizing you for your opinions, and I certainly don't intend to. But answering your question, the things that annoy you do not bother me, or at least not enough to spoil my enjoyment of the show.

The line that would get me to stop listening is where it stops being fun to listen to; and the line that would get me to stop supporting is if I no longer cared to listen, or they did something I regarded as reprehensible. Failing to denounce other skeptics does not meet that criterion for me. Even inviting a convicted criminal on the show does not meet it for me. After all, I'm a convicted criminal myself.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline seamas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2265

Not sure why it's heartless.
Because you are using a tragic murder to advance your completely unrelated point. It is cheap and disgusting.

Offline seamas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2265
I don't think you must have fully understood what I said in that post. 

You think wrong.

Offline 6EQUJ5

  • The Swoligator
  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
... I'm very worried about whatever issue pushed you over the edge with your support of the SGU. It's discouraging to know that there is even more bad stuff out there than what I am currently aware of.

Do we know that there is more "bad stuff"? We only know that one person was told something that disturbed him but that he's unwilling to share. In my opinion, it is extremely bad form to say of someone "I know some horrible stuff about so-and-so but I won't say what it is." The implication is "If you knew what I know, you would not like that person either."

What's been said cannot be unsaid, but IMO Eternally Learning should have stuck with the issues he's willing to talk about, without adding ... and I know something terrible about them also.... Especially when that something terrible is hearsay.

I'll base my opinions and support or non-support of the rogues on their performance on the show and what's publicly known about them. If there are allegations I'll try to judge those as well as I can, taking into account my best judgement of the reliability of the accuser. But I will not be swayed by hints that an unknown accuser has made unknown allegations.

I really really appreciate that Eternally Learning didn't say anything. I am the one who confided. Instead of being public about what happened, I discussed it directly with them but have been disappointed by their response.
I've got to go.  Have you got a clock?  I'm meant to be helping save the Universe.

Offline 6EQUJ5

  • The Swoligator
  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
One of the rogues talking about a former wife (girlfriend?) in derogatory tones bothered me. That was quite some time ago. The original female British voice of the podcast was summarily removed, what was that all about? Did she request to be removed or was her former rogue partner feeling butthurt?

That same rogue says bad stuff about a LOT of women.
I've got to go.  Have you got a clock?  I'm meant to be helping save the Universe.

Offline 6EQUJ5

  • The Swoligator
  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
One of the rogues talking about a former wife (girlfriend?) in derogatory tones bothered me. That was quite some time ago. The original female British voice of the podcast was summarily removed, what was that all about? Did she request to be removed or was her former rogue partner feeling butthurt?
That was Bob's ex wife putting on an accent (badly). She was not British. When they had the opportunity to get Iszi to record a proper version, they took it. (Also, who would wants to listen to one's ex-partner's voice every week?)

But yeah it doesn't sound like Bob's on good terms with his ex.

For the original question, I haven't listened to a whole episode in like a year or more.

No, it was Jay's ex wife.
I've got to go.  Have you got a clock?  I'm meant to be helping save the Universe.

Offline 6EQUJ5

  • The Swoligator
  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Anyone who wants to know about the incedent(s) Eternally Learning is referring to, can pm me.
I've got to go.  Have you got a clock?  I'm meant to be helping save the Universe.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain