Our old Aussie-Aussie-Aussie-Oi-Oi-Oi pal Josh Szeps, former host of the morning show Wake Up Ya C***s, was in New York this weekend and stopped by the Fifth’s Chinatown headquarters!
So, I had “that episode” downloaded to my podfeed but didn’t start listening until after the disappearing, so I still have it (and have since listened). HMU in WhatsApp or somewhere in the closed comments if you want to test if this is shareable. I don’t understand what was so contentious about that interview. It was generally agreeable, and absolutely so on Josh’s part.
Great episode, but it's disappointing to hear Josh Szeps repeat the "treated like fauna" myth. Indigenous Australians were very poorly treated, but this trope - sometimes including an assertion that their governance was authorised through some sort of "Flora and Fauna Act" of parliament - is rubbish, and his employer has made that clear: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650
You don't, for example, give fauna the right to vote, which Indigenous Australian men (and later women) received along with other Australians in the most populace colonies from the 1850s: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-australians-right-to-vote (Indigenous women in South Australia were voting 25 years before their white American counterparts.)
None of this is to diminish what Indigenous Australians actually did go through, but the true story is much more interesting and multifaceted than this old myth. (Granted, Szeps might not have intended it as literally as it's sometimes intended, but it's still disappointing to hear him reflexively gesture in that direction.)
It basically empowered the federal government to manage Indigenous affairs, which had previously been a state responsibility, and included non-integrated Indigenous Australians in the reckoning of population for the purposes of determining the distribution of electorates and so on (it was considered unfair, at federation, for the more reactionary states where Indigenous Australians happened to be more numerous to claim to represent these populations at the federal level, when they did much that they could to marginalise them).
The exclusion is kind of like that "African Americans will count for 2/3s a white resident" or whatever thing (forgive my memory) that was once part of the American constitution - intended to moderate the electoral power of the slave states, who couldn't credibly be said to represent the interests of those slaves.
Received an email telling me somebody called "crimewalrus" had left me this comment, but it seems he's deleted it due to shyness:
"Nothing I love seeing more than self described "scandinavians" with incredibly detailed opinions of the racial demographics [?] of countries they don't live in. Do the world a favor and kill yourself you worthless nazi shithea.d Nobody cares about your substack [?] and your family and friends will be happier wihtout you on this earth."
The reason I know anything about Australia is because I am half-Danish, half-Australian, grew up in Australia, but have lived most of my working life in Copenhagen. The reason I post about this is that it's a bit disappointing when the history of a country you care about gets a very rare outing beyond its borders and some fundamental things are misunderstood. Not the end of the world, not an offence to my "nazism," but worth a comment.
Sorry Kmele, Chris Anderson had an opportunity. He could have told employees who were upset about the Coleman Hughes talk to look back at the TED mission statement and realize their error. Does he really think any employee that doesn’t get it after that is worth keeping? Even with everything he did, does he think the loons that couldn’t deal with the ideas expressed aren’t going to actively undermine him?
Never, ever, give in to a woke mob. You show your weakness and you’ll be devoured quickly.
I would have liked to seen how the dissenters to Coleman's TED talk supposedly violated their sense of identity in writing and force Chris to try to justify his actions. I want people to see their members of Black at TED's justifications so that people in similar situations to Chris would be able to rebut these ideological arguments with better arguments.
Easy to say behind my screen while collecting a paycheck, but Josh...
Don't give in to threats. Fuck that lady for pulling that. Publicize that email, the context and, the episode. I'm assuming you could make more on substack going solo.
Josh saying “well, the managing director likes me” ==> Katie Herzog “Dan Savage and the publisher of the Stranger have my back.” Famous last words? (Hope not, but...) Better appease those 90’s babies!
Totally agree with Moynihan's take on the commentary from Chris Anderson & the TED debacle surrounding Coleman's talk. Pick a side when it comes to employees/audience/people push back and feeling unsafe, etc. and defend your organization's mission dude.
The film featuring Gael Garcia Bernal playing a gay wrestler is Cassandro and it's available on Prime. It's not directed by Almodovar though. Which is a shame, as that might have improved it. Might have glimpsed more magnificent man flesh too.
I think they got it confused with Bad Education which Almodovar did direct and in which Bernal played a transgender drag queen (and a gorgeous one at that - turns out that in a dress and make-up he's prettier than 99% of actual women).
So when it comes to Chris Anderson I'm a little more torn on the matter. How, exactly, does one who has not thought much on the matter protect his organization from capture by certain ideologies? It's not an easy question. If he fires these people, he'll be seen as taking a stance siding with right wing ideologues. If he sides with the elements he's failed to shutdown within his organization, then TED will be seen as ideologically captured by the left. It's not an easy spot to be in, and I do not envy him. However he failed to treat Coleman the same as the rest of the speakers he invited to speak, and he is showing a considerable amount of deference to his employees on this matter, even after admitting that he believes that Coleman has something to say. So who's the boss? Sounds to me like Chris Anderson is just a spokesperson for his organization now. He had better make sure to ask the proletariat of TED for permission next time he decides to invite a speaker to talk about race.
My problem was Adam Grant. I'm a little sick of scientists acting like activists. I'm not a scientist, but he presented authors quotes as definitive proof that Coleman was wrong, and those quotes hardly seemed as sure of their outcomes as Grant was. As a scientist he knows he is well below the threshold for the necessary amount of evidence, but he pretends it's more then enough because his forum is hardly official, or professional enough to incur malpractice claims. He hides behind free speech protections he's helping to erode over at TED. I'm not even a researcher who can actually challenge his claims, I just passed my high school science courses. So while I haven't thrown out his evidence as junk science just yet, I find a meta analysis of it to be highly suspect due to the "soft" nature of that particular field of science.
I want to be with Kmele here, and say that this episode is one that is showing progress against this censorship movement otherwise known as cancel culture, or woke. But I suspect that, until these people start to get fired for actually violating the mission statements of these organizations, they'll continued to be viewed as "captured" by one side of the other. That is the problem here. Neither side is willing to concede that the other might be coming to their positions honestly by and large.
Wait, colorblindness is right wing? I don’t think left or right owns it. It’s a philosophy. A different way of viewing the world.
Maybe Chris Anderson should just let ideas be shared. Balancing out left wing and right wing turf is a bad way to do it. Letting your employees have a say is just stupid. Do we think automakers let their employees vote for what car to make? Does McDonalds tailor the menu because the local staff doesn’t like French fries? Of course not. Nor should they.
Oh, I agree, though I suppose I should have pointed out that these ideologies often don't belong to either side. Again, the point I make at the end is that neither side really is willing to give the other the benefit of the doubt here. But I did make great fun of Anderson for being at the whim of a "proletariat" playing the roles of "employee". So, again, I get the point that what Anderson did was shitty overall, and doesn't deserve my sympathies, and agree with it fully. I, quite literally, only feel bad for the position he is in, and not because he made a bad choice that will make TED look captured to one audience or another. He, quite clearly, picked the side that coddles those that think that certain ideas are dangerous, and he is very wrong to do so.
If I were him I would have rejected everything from that employee group going forward just for having refused to meet Coleman honorably in the originally suggested exchange. Coleman opted to play a game he knew he shouldn't have to, and they avoided him like they're legitimately afraid of being interdicted by a legal enforcer. It really is rather pathetic, and a poor show of decency from a group attempting to portray themselves as victims. They don't deserve their jobs after that showing, and if Anderson truly thinks that they're worth it, then he needs to do something to remind them that they have a boss that they need to impress. But they'll just call that racist, and a sad, significant portion of the population will take it seriously.
I guess I had a strong reaction because I’m retired now and couldn’t imagine expecting my employer to bow to my opinions when I was working. It’s a different world today!
I work for myself now, but if I had pulled this stuff when I worked in an office, I would have been shown the door. I can't believe how fast the zoomers have taken over institutions and made them worse.
I would add to your criticism of Grant's response that his particular field has a horrible replication problem, so you have to take what those people say with a boulder of salt. When your incentive structure is as biased as his field's, it's exceedingly difficult to do real science.
He's not exactly their father. To make the lesson stick, he will have to make an example out of the ringleaders. Anything short of termination can easily be ignored. Think about it. What can he do? Send them home without pay for a few weeks and get sued? It's not like they're going to go home and reflect on their actions, they're much more likely to get on the internet and raise hell about it. Nah, I suspect termination will be the only thing that will put a majority of the less belligerent employees back in line with the mission of the organization. They've already ignored his attempt to bring this to a conclusion through reason, logic, and debate. Short of real, permanent consequences I don't expect anyone of these people will bother to take a single second to wonder if they're wrong for even a second.
Yeah, tell me more about name misspelling (and mispronunciation), not to mention the disappointment of some that, in fact, I'm not Black. In my experience, the only folks who are familiar with my name and pronounce it correctly are Eastern Europeans and Russians. I've worked with people for years who routinely get pissed at all the "racists" who mispronounce Latino names but continue to call me Dar-see-a, Darcie, and Da-cee-a. I appreciate the ones who've stuck with my old married last name because my "maiden" is just as eye-twitching for some as my first.
My name is Tysen with an E. I get people who have worked with me for years send an email with it spelled wrong (or even by accidentally calling me Tyler). It is fine.
So, I had “that episode” downloaded to my podfeed but didn’t start listening until after the disappearing, so I still have it (and have since listened). HMU in WhatsApp or somewhere in the closed comments if you want to test if this is shareable. I don’t understand what was so contentious about that interview. It was generally agreeable, and absolutely so on Josh’s part.
She kind of came off as unreasonable, and not a great thinker. Maybe that is why she wanted the episode taken down.
I do not see this episode in the Dishcast archive.
Do you have an episode date?
How did I miss that?! The convo with Josh was 😬😬😬
(*unless Matt says no)
Matt should download it and post it here.
Who was she?
Maywuno Gbogbo
Never heard of her but thanks!
A Szeps episode is always welcome!!
Great episode, but it's disappointing to hear Josh Szeps repeat the "treated like fauna" myth. Indigenous Australians were very poorly treated, but this trope - sometimes including an assertion that their governance was authorised through some sort of "Flora and Fauna Act" of parliament - is rubbish, and his employer has made that clear: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650
You don't, for example, give fauna the right to vote, which Indigenous Australian men (and later women) received along with other Australians in the most populace colonies from the 1850s: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-australians-right-to-vote (Indigenous women in South Australia were voting 25 years before their white American counterparts.)
None of this is to diminish what Indigenous Australians actually did go through, but the true story is much more interesting and multifaceted than this old myth. (Granted, Szeps might not have intended it as literally as it's sometimes intended, but it's still disappointing to hear him reflexively gesture in that direction.)
"Australian Aboriginals didn't get citizenship until the 1967 referendum," as Moynihan just stated, is also wrong.
See "What the referendum didn't do," here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Australian_referendum_(Aboriginals)
It basically empowered the federal government to manage Indigenous affairs, which had previously been a state responsibility, and included non-integrated Indigenous Australians in the reckoning of population for the purposes of determining the distribution of electorates and so on (it was considered unfair, at federation, for the more reactionary states where Indigenous Australians happened to be more numerous to claim to represent these populations at the federal level, when they did much that they could to marginalise them).
The exclusion is kind of like that "African Americans will count for 2/3s a white resident" or whatever thing (forgive my memory) that was once part of the American constitution - intended to moderate the electoral power of the slave states, who couldn't credibly be said to represent the interests of those slaves.
Received an email telling me somebody called "crimewalrus" had left me this comment, but it seems he's deleted it due to shyness:
"Nothing I love seeing more than self described "scandinavians" with incredibly detailed opinions of the racial demographics [?] of countries they don't live in. Do the world a favor and kill yourself you worthless nazi shithea.d Nobody cares about your substack [?] and your family and friends will be happier wihtout you on this earth."
The reason I know anything about Australia is because I am half-Danish, half-Australian, grew up in Australia, but have lived most of my working life in Copenhagen. The reason I post about this is that it's a bit disappointing when the history of a country you care about gets a very rare outing beyond its borders and some fundamental things are misunderstood. Not the end of the world, not an offence to my "nazism," but worth a comment.
I hope you're nicer in-person.
I mean why be accurate when instead we can just contribute to the virtue signaling?
Sorry Kmele, Chris Anderson had an opportunity. He could have told employees who were upset about the Coleman Hughes talk to look back at the TED mission statement and realize their error. Does he really think any employee that doesn’t get it after that is worth keeping? Even with everything he did, does he think the loons that couldn’t deal with the ideas expressed aren’t going to actively undermine him?
Never, ever, give in to a woke mob. You show your weakness and you’ll be devoured quickly.
I would have liked to seen how the dissenters to Coleman's TED talk supposedly violated their sense of identity in writing and force Chris to try to justify his actions. I want people to see their members of Black at TED's justifications so that people in similar situations to Chris would be able to rebut these ideological arguments with better arguments.
Love Kmele, but he needs to stick to his Be Brave, Call Bullshit mantra and Anderson did not.
Yes. Exactly. I thought we were finally moving beyond the fringe extremist left mobs.
Easy to say behind my screen while collecting a paycheck, but Josh...
Don't give in to threats. Fuck that lady for pulling that. Publicize that email, the context and, the episode. I'm assuming you could make more on substack going solo.
Be Brave, Call Bullshit
I get it though. He has a family to support.
Agree. Hard to do....but I agree.
Josh saying “well, the managing director likes me” ==> Katie Herzog “Dan Savage and the publisher of the Stranger have my back.” Famous last words? (Hope not, but...) Better appease those 90’s babies!
Hehehe it did sound like that.
“...and Kmele stood up like a seal clapping and making guttural noises in approval.”
Ironic. This absolute murder by Matt had me more or less doing the same.
i lol'd at least three times listening to the show on headphones & now the woman who shares my office thinks i'm mentally collapsing i'm pretty sure.
How many more times will Michael deprive us of his Indian accent? The people want to hear it.
He has my permission, I don't know what he's afraid of!
Not to encourage the lackadaisical publishing schedule but this was worth the wait.
Totally agree with Moynihan's take on the commentary from Chris Anderson & the TED debacle surrounding Coleman's talk. Pick a side when it comes to employees/audience/people push back and feeling unsafe, etc. and defend your organization's mission dude.
Exactly 👍👍
WAKE UP, YA CUNTS! 🤣
Thanks Moynihan, I thought I was alone in my love for that sound byte.
Just took my first sip of coffee.
The film featuring Gael Garcia Bernal playing a gay wrestler is Cassandro and it's available on Prime. It's not directed by Almodovar though. Which is a shame, as that might have improved it. Might have glimpsed more magnificent man flesh too.
I think they got it confused with Bad Education which Almodovar did direct and in which Bernal played a transgender drag queen (and a gorgeous one at that - turns out that in a dress and make-up he's prettier than 99% of actual women).
Holy crap, he looks like Juliette Lewis. Now that's a cero degree of separation that never crossed my mind until I googled this.
So when it comes to Chris Anderson I'm a little more torn on the matter. How, exactly, does one who has not thought much on the matter protect his organization from capture by certain ideologies? It's not an easy question. If he fires these people, he'll be seen as taking a stance siding with right wing ideologues. If he sides with the elements he's failed to shutdown within his organization, then TED will be seen as ideologically captured by the left. It's not an easy spot to be in, and I do not envy him. However he failed to treat Coleman the same as the rest of the speakers he invited to speak, and he is showing a considerable amount of deference to his employees on this matter, even after admitting that he believes that Coleman has something to say. So who's the boss? Sounds to me like Chris Anderson is just a spokesperson for his organization now. He had better make sure to ask the proletariat of TED for permission next time he decides to invite a speaker to talk about race.
My problem was Adam Grant. I'm a little sick of scientists acting like activists. I'm not a scientist, but he presented authors quotes as definitive proof that Coleman was wrong, and those quotes hardly seemed as sure of their outcomes as Grant was. As a scientist he knows he is well below the threshold for the necessary amount of evidence, but he pretends it's more then enough because his forum is hardly official, or professional enough to incur malpractice claims. He hides behind free speech protections he's helping to erode over at TED. I'm not even a researcher who can actually challenge his claims, I just passed my high school science courses. So while I haven't thrown out his evidence as junk science just yet, I find a meta analysis of it to be highly suspect due to the "soft" nature of that particular field of science.
I want to be with Kmele here, and say that this episode is one that is showing progress against this censorship movement otherwise known as cancel culture, or woke. But I suspect that, until these people start to get fired for actually violating the mission statements of these organizations, they'll continued to be viewed as "captured" by one side of the other. That is the problem here. Neither side is willing to concede that the other might be coming to their positions honestly by and large.
Wait, colorblindness is right wing? I don’t think left or right owns it. It’s a philosophy. A different way of viewing the world.
Maybe Chris Anderson should just let ideas be shared. Balancing out left wing and right wing turf is a bad way to do it. Letting your employees have a say is just stupid. Do we think automakers let their employees vote for what car to make? Does McDonalds tailor the menu because the local staff doesn’t like French fries? Of course not. Nor should they.
Oh, I agree, though I suppose I should have pointed out that these ideologies often don't belong to either side. Again, the point I make at the end is that neither side really is willing to give the other the benefit of the doubt here. But I did make great fun of Anderson for being at the whim of a "proletariat" playing the roles of "employee". So, again, I get the point that what Anderson did was shitty overall, and doesn't deserve my sympathies, and agree with it fully. I, quite literally, only feel bad for the position he is in, and not because he made a bad choice that will make TED look captured to one audience or another. He, quite clearly, picked the side that coddles those that think that certain ideas are dangerous, and he is very wrong to do so.
If I were him I would have rejected everything from that employee group going forward just for having refused to meet Coleman honorably in the originally suggested exchange. Coleman opted to play a game he knew he shouldn't have to, and they avoided him like they're legitimately afraid of being interdicted by a legal enforcer. It really is rather pathetic, and a poor show of decency from a group attempting to portray themselves as victims. They don't deserve their jobs after that showing, and if Anderson truly thinks that they're worth it, then he needs to do something to remind them that they have a boss that they need to impress. But they'll just call that racist, and a sad, significant portion of the population will take it seriously.
I guess I had a strong reaction because I’m retired now and couldn’t imagine expecting my employer to bow to my opinions when I was working. It’s a different world today!
I work for myself now, but if I had pulled this stuff when I worked in an office, I would have been shown the door. I can't believe how fast the zoomers have taken over institutions and made them worse.
I would add to your criticism of Grant's response that his particular field has a horrible replication problem, so you have to take what those people say with a boulder of salt. When your incentive structure is as biased as his field's, it's exceedingly difficult to do real science.
He doesn't have to fire anyone, he just needs to remind his employees that they're both employees and adults.
He's not exactly their father. To make the lesson stick, he will have to make an example out of the ringleaders. Anything short of termination can easily be ignored. Think about it. What can he do? Send them home without pay for a few weeks and get sued? It's not like they're going to go home and reflect on their actions, they're much more likely to get on the internet and raise hell about it. Nah, I suspect termination will be the only thing that will put a majority of the less belligerent employees back in line with the mission of the organization. They've already ignored his attempt to bring this to a conclusion through reason, logic, and debate. Short of real, permanent consequences I don't expect anyone of these people will bother to take a single second to wonder if they're wrong for even a second.
Exactly. Very well said. Agree.
Maywuno Gbogbo is the author with whom Zepps debated. Her Twitter is 🙄
Funny thing is, she bitches about her name being spelled wrong. CRY ME A RIVER.
Yeah, tell me more about name misspelling (and mispronunciation), not to mention the disappointment of some that, in fact, I'm not Black. In my experience, the only folks who are familiar with my name and pronounce it correctly are Eastern Europeans and Russians. I've worked with people for years who routinely get pissed at all the "racists" who mispronounce Latino names but continue to call me Dar-see-a, Darcie, and Da-cee-a. I appreciate the ones who've stuck with my old married last name because my "maiden" is just as eye-twitching for some as my first.
My name is Tysen with an E. I get people who have worked with me for years send an email with it spelled wrong (or even by accidentally calling me Tyler). It is fine.
😩😩
Ugh. “Szeps”!
Stones and glass houses, Shannon :-p
He deserved it!
‘Everybody’s so full of shit’
The news is just another show.
With sex and violence?