Source: Tommy Siegel
I listen to audio dramas and real-play rpgs.
YouTube personalities talk about stuff for 3 hours
Darknet Diaries: lmao we live in a surveillance state
The following don’t seem to fit any of these (and they’re all excellent):
- Radiolab
- Savage Love
- Throughline
- Climate Denier’s Playbook
- The Urbanist Agenda
- CBC Embedded
My list includes 99% invisible, That’s absurd please elaborate, Lateral
I would like to add “last podcast on the left” for consideration on this list
Missing the science podcast, but I’m not sure there is a humorous way to say "explains a scientific concept over 30-150 minutes. "
They forgot:
The Shouty and Mumbles Show
Dead podcast about your niche interest that produced three episodes in 2012.
The “informative” podcast where one host pretends to be an idiot to ask obvious questions so we can drag 3 minutes of content out to half an hour and sell more mattresses and socks.
Church sermons.
There’s also the hybrid ones where the two hosts are your first two examples at the same time. Shouty makes stupid questions stubbornly while mumbly tries to convince them they’re wrong.
If your podcast isn’t fictional, spooky, and gay I don’t want it.
Pseudopod? Welcome to Night Vale?
What about Hello From The Magic Tavern?
I’m not sure David McRaney’s You Are Not So Smart fits any of these.
Or Dear Hank & John either, for that matter.
Funny Leftists describing the abhorrent crimes of history.
Source: The Dollop, Behind the Bastards
Where’s the “fashy youngster who believes if he misgenders trans people and calls all immigrants criminals, the evangelicals won’t ban his anime porn”?
Shut up and take my upvote!
Not sure that My brother my brother and me fits this chart.
History podcasts are my catnip at the moment. I’m not alone.
History podcasts are my catnip at the moment
Mine as well. Regular history for sure (I was an archaeology major after all), but also history mixed with category one, murders. I love a good historical unsolved mystery.
You completely glossed over podcast that are more dramatically creations or just pure fiction. Something like welcome to night Vale is one of my favorite ones or horror story ones such as SCP archives or the no sleep podcast.
Have you listened to the magnus archives yet?
E: you’d think that, after typing “magnus” at least 300 times, my phone wouldn’t autocorrect “magnus” to “major”, and yet, it did.
Does this count as a podcast?: https://youtube.com/@qnaline
I clicked on it and the first video recommended was a thumbnail of two guys sitting in front of microphones looking like that last image with the title “the bible is true cause it says so?”
So… Yes. Very much so.
So, scientists and skeptics on a talk show debunking fundamentalists and reactionaries on guest calls count as “low-iq comedians having a playful banter”?
Not directly but I will call it an homage to it. Cause they are still platforming the extremists.
Its why no one thought Bill Nye’s debates with creationists were a good idea.
I think that description fits dipshits like Tucker Carlson much better though.
And I don’t like formal debates either as no debate I’ve ever watched to this day has had a moderator who would be willing to keep the debaters on topic and force concessions when they try to evade, move goal posts etc. I prefer live, online discussions much more.
And platforming morons is only bad when one can’t debunk them, or when one is too kind and meek to actually properly push back. This is why I like Professor Dave and a lot of the people hosting The Line. They do not argue in that docile way typical of leftist commentators. They call their opponents out for lying, force concessions, and do not act kindly to them (unless they’re literally just misguided).
Both sides are getting their clippable audio snippets and dragging around audiences to feel like they are fighting with them.
I truly don’t agree that platforming extremists to argue against them for publicity and money is ever worth it. The sides lean against each other to grow larger and these are people who it is in their financial interests to not change their opinion. And religion debates are not productive, those are personal and faith based. Can’t argue someone rationally out of something that wasnt rationally entered.
You asked about qnaline, not Tucker.
I was talking about the “playful banter with the most evil people in the world” text when I gave the Tucker Carlson example.
Their religion debates are mostly against evangelicals and biblical literalists, who generally do think that their beliefs are rational, so an in-depth deconstruction is really beneficial, a lot of the time not to the caller but to the impartial layperson viewer.
I understand your criticism here, but also one can’t make do without the opposition making some content like this, especially when this sphere is dominated by uneducated right-wingers like Joe Rogan.
I understand fighting fire with fire, but dont mind me while I dont praise the arsonists.
