Critical Feedback – Episode one

I dont’ intend to do this for every episode but… it makes sense to do it for episode one and maybe if we get scandalous later on.

Episode one was plagued with audio issues that all drew from the one issue. We tried to use two USB mics to drive the show (one mic for host/cohost) but used a software plugin that we live tested. It was getting an echo so I pulled the software mic which appeared to disconnect us and change a bunch of audio settings at the same time. It wasn’t totally fixed until about mid show but then the other issue started to rear it’s head.

Episode one was also haunted by network or service issues. We were disconnected from the BTR service at least a half dozen times. Annoying. It’s unclear if these disconnects were service related, network related, and/or related to rain in CA which seriously is infrastructure related. Drag.

Finally these issues couple with first time jitters made for a less smooth interaction than anticipated. Hopefully this will all level out as we go. We had great callers. A call about us being boring (by like a 6 year old) was a fantastic challenge. A call discussing blood and soil vs indigenous world views was totally engaging. Wombat is always good for a laugh. Notnull turned the discussion practical in a way that I hope shifts the way we consider 2019!

Please share your feedback and criticisms of episode one here!

4 Replies to “Critical Feedback – Episode one”

  1. semiosphere

    Putting the tech issues aside it went very well. You tried to compact a lot in the time provided which isn’t really necessary in a single episode -but that’s just a matter of establishing a comfortable pace for yourself. You put more into it than JZ has done in his show over the last few years.
    My only concern was raising the political and them being your enemies. Imho that will need to be revisited and unpackaged a couple of times for those who haven’t came across your thinking before.
    Apologies for using a pseud but I have always preferred a low profile.
    [Am a listener to both The Brilliant and Anarchist News since episode #1]

  2. Matt Dionysus

    Regarding the criticism that action isn’t always preferable to doing nothing, I would argue that this is an oversimplification of the criticism – at least as I would want to present it. The dilemma raised by the question, “is action always preferable to inaction” isn’t simply a binary choice between “doing something” and “doing nothing.” Rather, it is an opportunity to take a closer look at the broad range of reasons *why* someone calling themselves an anarchist might choose to take action *or not,* what forms their action/inaction may take, and what motivations for either taking or not taking action are genuinely consistent with an anarchist ethic of individual autonomy and self-liberation.

    It’s been my experience that the anarchist subculture in North America is basically a meritocracy. Those who demonstrate a ready willingness to take action in furtherance of “the Cause” are rewarded with high social standing within “the Scene” whereas those who ask pesky questions about why and how anarchists do what they do are penalized with marginalization and ostracism. As a result, the vast majority of actions that anarchists wind up undertaking come from a perceived sense of *duty and obligation* rather than a genuine *desire* to act as one chooses. Initially, this sense of obligation may be experienced as ‘externally-‘imposed by the largely unspoken social pressures of the subculture itself; but, over time, people begin to internalize these social pressures and acquiesce to a set of values and norms that they eventually dupe themselves into believing were their own to begin with.

    If any aspect of the anarchist subculture will ultimately prove to be worth salvaging (and, in my opinion, the jury’s still out on that one), it will only be after a fundamental overhaul of its core value system. The logic of duty and obligation needs to be replaced with one of *autonomy and desire.* In other words, *if* you choose to act, then act because you genuinely *want* to and not because you feel that you “should” – whether that perceived obligation is placed on you by others or by you yourself. If the people around you want to take actions that don’t interest you, then find new people who want to take actions that *do.* And, if you can’t find anyone who wants to take actions that interest you, then strike off on your own and do your own thing – or nothing whatsoever if that’s your preference. The idea that anarchists need to “prove” themselves to other anarchists is beyond ridiculous and needs to be dispensed with entirely.

  3. Panik

    Aragorn: I found the segment on “blood and soil” to be interesting only for the sake that it seemed you could not, or were not willing to, differentiate your views on a racial type “owning” a piece of land (first nations/indigenous americans) vs. another racial type (germans). Your two points seemed to be: 1. ignorance of the german conception (okay, fine), 2. the idea that indigenous people had conception of “always living there for all time” and… the germans didn’t?

    Is there a place where you have fleshed out your views? I just don’t see how these aren’t racialist views, tbh. The endorsement of polygenisis seems to reinforce the notion that “your people” evolved into humans apart from other modern humans. To me, it seems that you’re willing to say that it’s a “species level” difference, though interbreeding is still possible (a species isn’t necessarily define by inability to interbreed).

  4. 1st Time Listener

    I binged listened to Episode 0 (more frank in tone.) and Episode 1. When trying to do something brand new such as cover the beautiful idea, discussion with be “take chances , make mistakes, get messy” (Magic school bus.

    The part on projects was interesting. Why agile was mentioned is because it gets quick short-term results. But these may impact long-term goals.

    What I have done successfully (but not in anarchical spaces) is self-organizing, self-managing small project teams interested in both short-term and long-term goals. It helps not to have personality clashes to do this. Managing by consensus for projects can and should be done.

    Not committed to long term listening. But will give a few more episodes. Listening also to RevLeft and Anarchy Radio which also has call-in segments.
    Missing out on IRC chats after the call. Covering some of the best comments in future calls could be a possibility

    Wishing you great success.

Comments are closed.