• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stopped listening, sadly.

Bram Kaandorp

Master Poster
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
2,534
Location
Limmen, The Netherlands
For a moment I thought I might be able to listen to the show.

After the NECSS hubbub I thought "Sure, I disagree with the decision, but the show still stands on its own merits.

But then in the beginning of episode 552, when discussing Jay's return to the show (after having been to Sweden), Jay asked if anything big had happened while he was gone, and everyone seemed to feign ignorance, as if they didn't know, yet did know.

It felt so disingenuous that it almost made my skin crawl.

After that moment, I unsubscribed.


It's one thing to not talk about it at all. They had addressed it a few episodes previously, and even though I disagreed, at least they were fair enough to mention it. The episode after that was back to normal, so I thought things would just be as they were.

But this feigned ignorance, this "Oh, did something happen?" mentality didn't sit well with me.

Please tell me why I'm being childish. I dare you :)

:boxedin:
 
I take it that this has something to do with Dawkins not being allowed to speak at a NECSS meeting (it would help if you explained what the issue as and wh you are so outraged).

In my view, meh. The show stands on its own and is outstanding. I'm never likely to go to a NECSS meeting, so I don't really care who is on it. Childish? Probably not. Unnecessarily outraged? Probably.
 
It's the flippant nature of the exchange on this week's show, as if it wasn't worth talking about.

Of course they already had mentioned it two shows earlier, so they were under no obligation to mention it again. But that's why it irked me so much that they threw in that aside this week.

As I said, it's not the Dawkins/NECSS business which stopped me listening. It's the things I mentioned above that stopped me.
 
To clarify further, here is a transcript of the bit I took issue with:

Steven: "Well, not much has been happening here while you were gone to be honest with you"
Evan: "It's been quiet"
Steven: "Typical week"
Jay: "Yeah, so what was the big thing that happened?"
Bob: "I got a haircut"
Evan: "I got a shave"
Steven: "So Bob, tell us about this week's forgotten superhero of science"

Again, maybe i am making a mountain out of a molehill, but at least tell me if this doesn't sound like they're beating around the bush.
 
To clarify further, here is a transcript of the bit I took issue with:

Steven: "Well, not much has been happening here while you were gone to be honest with you"
Evan: "It's been quiet"
Steven: "Typical week"
Jay: "Yeah, so what was the big thing that happened?"
Bob: "I got a haircut"
Evan: "I got a shave"
Steven: "So Bob, tell us about this week's forgotten superhero of science"

Again, maybe i am making a mountain out of a molehill, but at least tell me if this doesn't sound like they're beating around the bush.

You do realize that whole bit was tongue-in-cheek, right?
 
You do realize that whole bit was tongue-in-cheek, right?

Of course I do. It being tongue-in-cheek wasn't what annoyed me. It's what they were tongue-in-cheek about that annoyed me.

The issue was nontrivial, and that was acknowledged in episode 550. So to have them (not) talk about it in such a lighthearted fashion took me out of the enjoyment of the episode.

It sounded more like they tried to make a joke in order not to address it further.

Glossing over it was a phrase that came to mind.

And again, not talking about it at all anymore would have been fine. This, however...
 
Last edited:
I was most irritated by their new sponsor - Credit Karma. Sure, it's "free".

However, it may have been just a one-week thing.
 
I was most irritated by their new sponsor - Credit Karma. Sure, it's "free".

However, it may have been just a one-week thing.

It wasn't though. They've had them as a sponsor for some time, just not every week.


Upon further consideration, I've decided to continue listening. One bad joke a bad show doesn't make.
 
I'm an occasional listener, but sometimes the podcast bores me frankly, like when Bob is going on about something for too long. I mostly listen to it for Steve Novella, but I think it could do with some more editing. But it's free, and I guess I shouldn't expect production values like This American Life or some other really slick podcasts which are out there and are produced by professional radio people.

The "forgotten superheroes of science" thing? I get what they are trying to do, but it has gotten boring. Yes, there's lots of people who have made important contributions to science but who aren't household names. I get it.

ETA: When I do get bored or annoyed by them, I usually just skip ahead to the next podcast I have queued up. I usually have plenty of other material to listen to because there's a lot of podcasts I subscribe to.
 
Last edited:
I've never been able to listen to SGU, not the style of podcast I like, at least not for science related content. It's like overhearing a group of friends chatting in a bar. Blame it on being brought up listening to BBC Radio 4.

They have Cara Santa Maria? She's hot!

She wouldn't stay still long enough to get a decent shot.

P1080400 by zooterkin, on Flickr

ETA: Same nerdy glasses, I wonder if hers are plain glass like Rebecca's?
 
Last edited:
They started going downhill since Perry died. He was the one true skeptic of the bunch. Steve kept things listenable and he booked some interesting guests, but the podcast slowly turned into an echo chamber and Rebecca Watson SJW groupthink. Haven't listened in years and don't ever plan to go back.
 
It was one thing to mirror the "guys don't do that" thing...maybe you could argue that was ok

But when they circled the wagons repeatedly after rebecca started attacking people, it got silly.

And now its just plain the SJW guide to the SJWverse
 
Most of the middle third of this podcast discusses free speech vs. Social Justice and insight into the NECSS decision concerning Dawkins. It has been discussed on the podcast now in depth and, as usual, Novella is the voice of reason.
 
I wish someone had replied to my last post already so I could reply to that post instead of covering my own post, but it's OK. This is what I also thought when I posted previously and still think now.

Considering the theme of the thread, posting a picture of a woman who is speaking at a skeptical conference and then saying she is hot is clearly inflammatory given the topic. You wouldn't post a picture of a man speaking and say he was hot. I suspect I have a history of sexists posts -- but I always drew the line at what I thought might make the woman I was addressing uncomfortable.

My point is that perhaps some people who identify themselves as against SJWers need to think why they are against something instead of why they are for something. I think spending your time for something is more worthwhile.
 

Back
Top Bottom