Author Topic: Episode #693  (Read 2861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4168
Episode #693
« on: October 21, 2018, 03:40:39 PM »
There is no thread for episode 693. I guess Steve just missed to create it. Perhaps someone here should do it? I noted I can't create threads in that section.

It was a very interesting episode, and a welcome variation from the standard routine.

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7513
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2018, 04:58:56 PM »
There is no thread for episode 693. I guess Steve just missed to create it. Perhaps someone here should do it? I noted I can't create threads in that section.

It was a very interesting episode, and a welcome variation from the standard routine.

Yeah, I have some comments to post about it, and no thread to post them in.
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 arthwollipot

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7987
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2018, 05:46:43 PM »
To be fair, I believe they've been rather busy recently.
Self-described nerd

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2018, 11:40:38 PM »
I got about 30 seconds into Steve's opening gambit on the initial debate topic and decided not to bother listening any further. Live show recordings just don't interest me and the debate format was an instant turn off.

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2018, 08:32:53 AM »
I can't agree with Cara about podcast advertising. It's not that ads are running that bothers me, it's that podcasters are reading them. Ask the advertiser to supply the voice. An ad doesn't have to be a musical, a voice artist with a much better set of pipes than you reading the copy would allow the skeptic podcaster to keep their distance and still fund the enterprise. Traditionally, at least in North America, one way to disrespect a relationship was for a friend or relative to suddenly drop into their Amway routine or drive up metaphorically in a pink Cadillac with malintent, etc. Casper mattresses, Dollar Shave Club, the latest dog toy subscription seem to me just as corny as legacy direct marketing sales reps behaving like little Jehovah's Witnesses hawking bullshit gleefully.

Then there's the matter of 'midroll' that Cara brought up. Why in the hell would you want to shit on your listeners with an ad in the middle of a podcast? Were you commanded to do that? Aren't you in charge of your standards? Shouldn't you be dictating the terms to advertisers? You look weak and it's unnecessary. Even Cara's confused buddy Joe Rogan puts all of the ads at the beginning of his podcast where the listener can conveniently skip them all. Almost exactly nobody wants to hear ads. Rogan even mocks the ad copy sometimes. I haven't heard skeptics doing that (if they have let me know).

I find it disappointing to see skeptics putting their skepticism aside for the puppeteers and dancing to their tune. Show me some backbone. You'd appear more honest to me if you tattooed Casper Mattress on your foreheads.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2018, 08:43:26 AM »
I think I disagree with everything you’ve said.  As long as it is clear where advertisements begin and and end, I have no problem with them and do not think they affect the honesty or skepticism of the show.
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 DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2018, 10:13:09 AM »
I think I disagree with everything you’ve said.  As long as it is clear where advertisements begin and and end, I have no problem with them and do not think they affect the honesty or skepticism of the show.
I think the rogues and other skeptics would be less likely to criticize the particular claims of one of their advertisers. I think the SGU could do a show dissecting the techniques advertisers use to motivate people without any hesitation, and have a discussion, but am doubtful they would use any of their advertisers as examples in any negative way.

SGU has some nice cash flow now through Patreon (Sam Harris has three times as many Patreon supporters and was able to drop ads.) Do you recall if the SGU ever said they'd drop ads if they had enough support? Science Based Medicine said they would but haven't yet reached their goal yet. Because SBM made that promise, seems to me they accept it is better not to have ads. To me the better scenario is listener supported SGU, That may not be possible but would be nice.

Would you object if advertisers read their own copy? I promise I won't move my goalpost, were that achieved I'd never mention podcast ads again.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2018, 10:44:29 AM »
1. I don’t see how advertiser-provided audio would improve any of the concerns you raise in your first paragraph. To be clear, I don’t hold those same concerns, but I fail to see how having a third-party reading the copy would change them.

2. I absolutely loathe advertiser-produced ads in podcasts.  I far prefer my hosts read the copy; it’s much less jarring.

3. The SGU did give a sponsorship goal when they first started doing advertisements that would allow them to replace the ad revenue.  I do not know if that same goal is still a reasonable one, as the company and its costs have grown over time and they have added new goals including hiring a full-time employee.

4. This was first discussed on the forums when they first started tried advertisements.  Steve participated in the discussion, and the consensus around here (aside from a few hardliners) was that advertisements were okay as long as the ads were clearly delineated and noted as advertisements. At that point, the SGU stopped airing advertisements for a time and returned then in a way that I believe conformed to that consensus.  I think the SGU does advertisement about as responsibly as any podcast, and I am entirely satisfied with it.
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 DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2018, 11:35:55 AM »
1. I don’t see how advertiser-provided audio would improve any of the concerns you raise in your first paragraph. To be clear, I don’t hold those same concerns, but I fail to see how having a third-party reading the copy would change them.
I want to agree with you. Yet I feel there is a testimonial flavor to podcaster read ads that I can't get comfortable with. If the podcaster said something like "Casper is supporting our show, in consideration of that you might look into their foam mattress product line at Casper.com" I can't find fault with that. Might be more effective for Casper, too. PBS ads were or are like that. Flowery phrases out of the mouths of rational thinkers bug me.




Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2018, 11:55:03 AM »
1. I don’t see how advertiser-provided audio would improve any of the concerns you raise in your first paragraph. To be clear, I don’t hold those same concerns, but I fail to see how having a third-party reading the copy would change them.
I want to agree with you. Yet I feel there is a testimonial flavor to podcaster read ads that I can't get comfortable with. If the podcaster said something like "Casper is supporting our show, in consideration of that you might look into their foam mattress product line at Casper.com" I can't find fault with that. Might be more effective for Casper, too. PBS ads were or are like that. Flowery phrases out of the mouths of rational thinkers bug me.

But the concerns you raised and to which I was responding were not about a flavor of endorsement, but about the SGU being unwilling to criticize their advertisers.  I don’t see any reason to believe that they would be more likely to criticize an advertiser who provided them produced audio than one who provided them copy to read.

Moreover, I think that SGU advertisements are endorsements.  The SGU chooses their advertisers carefully, and they advertise products they themselves have tried.  And I have no problem with that, as long as they make it clear that they are being paid for their endorsements.
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 DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2018, 12:40:46 PM »
But the concerns you raised and to which I was responding were not about a flavor of endorsement, but about the SGU being unwilling to criticize their advertisers.  I don’t see any reason to believe that they would be more likely to criticize an advertiser who provided them produced audio than one who provided them copy to read.

I considered that before I originally posted yet still posted because I felt there is a greater investment in a personal testimonial thus a greater reluctance to criticize.

Was thinking -- motorcycle magazines routinely criticize their advertisers' products. There's an integrity there. If Ducati ads ever show up on the SGU I suspect the rogues will tackle the matter of whether desmodromic valves are a gimmick or not with uncompromised vigor.

I commend the SGU for offering an ad free version of the podcast. That's extra work for them and a nice reward.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 01:12:29 PM by DevoutCatalyst »

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2018, 02:12:30 PM »
Technically the ad-enslaved version is the extra work. Unless they include ads first and then have to remove them from the ad-free version.

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7513
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2018, 09:28:07 AM »
Steve is a very talented debater. It's one of the things I dislike so much about debates: A really good debater arguing the wrong side of the issue will win the debate against even a knowledgeable person if that person is not a skilled debater. In the debate about genetically modified people (GMPs) Steve managed to couch the argument as (to paraphrase): "There's so much good we could do that it should be allowed," and the opposing team got sucked in and the debate never addressed the actual question, which was "Should there be limits on the genetic modification of people?" Not, "should it be allowed?" but "should there be limits?" I think there should be limits, and it's a conversation we need to have, because it's coming and we cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

On movies vs. books, I agree with Cara. It's true that film is an entirely different medium and that it has elements that books don't (music and visuals) but Cara's point is, in my opinion, the most cogent: Reading a book is an actively creative experience, as your brain draws the pictures the words inspire; whereas watching a movie is a passive endeavor where everything is done for you and no imagination is involved. I enjoy both, but if I had to give up one there'd be no contest: I'd give up movies (and tv) and keep books. And while Steve pointed out that movies can do some things books can't, the flip side is that there are things you can describe in words that cannot be shown visually. (Though CGI has expanded what movies can show.) There is an art of words (it's called poetry) that, sadly, is under-appreciated. And the very best books are poetic even when not written in verse.
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 stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10132
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2018, 11:25:18 AM »
Steve is a very talented debater. It's one of the things I dislike so much about debates: A really good debater arguing the wrong side of the issue will win the debate against even a knowledgeable person if that person is not a skilled debater. In the debate about genetically modified people (GMPs) Steve managed to couch the argument as (to paraphrase): "There's so much good we could do that it should be allowed," and the opposing team got sucked in and the debate never addressed the actual question, which was "Should there be limits on the genetic modification of people?" Not, "should it be allowed?" but "should there be limits?" I think there should be limits, and it's a conversation we need to have, because it's coming and we cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

On movies vs. books, I agree with Cara. It's true that film is an entirely different medium and that it has elements that books don't (music and visuals) but Cara's point is, in my opinion, the most cogent: Reading a book is an actively creative experience, as your brain draws the pictures the words inspire; whereas watching a movie is a passive endeavor where everything is done for you and no imagination is involved. I enjoy both, but if I had to give up one there'd be no contest: I'd give up movies (and tv) and keep books. And while Steve pointed out that movies can do some things books can't, the flip side is that there are things you can describe in words that cannot be shown visually. (Though CGI has expanded what movies can show.) There is an art of words (it's called poetry) that, sadly, is under-appreciated. And the very best books are poetic even when not written in verse.

What's the first rule of Debate Club?


Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7513
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #693
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2018, 02:32:54 PM »
What's the first rule of Debate Club?

No idea.

I've never been in a debate club.
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

 

personate-rain
personate-rain