SIO14: President Bannon

Today Thomas is taking a closer look at the other terrible hairstyle in the White House, Steve Bannon. There has been a lot circulating about how much power and influence Bannon may have, many say it’s far too much. So we decided to look into just who this guy is and exactly what kind of power he actually has. As seems to be the case with most current political news, what we found is…concerning.

Thomas also replies to some of our wonderful listener comments and voicemails. Keep them coming, we love hearing from you!

NY Times OpEd- I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn’t Belong There.

CNN- David Axelrod: I woke up this morning as an alternative fact

NPR- FACT CHECK: Spin Aside, Trump’s National Security Council Has A Very Big Change

 

Leave us a Voicemail: (916) 750-4746!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod

For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com

Questions, Suggestions, Episode ideas? email: haeley@seriouspod.com

 

 

Direct Download

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "SIO14: President Bannon"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
kyle
Guest
I see what you mean about there being an important distinction between pointing to a different language system as a functional possibility and suggesting that its existence proves our established language system is capable of taking on those features. That said, I don’t see any compelling evidence that such a change is impossible, or even unlikely. I keep thinking about terms like police officer, fire-fighter, flight-attendant, congressperson, etc. The idea that we can supplement gendered pronouns seems like such a seismic shift, but then I consider that feminist movements have made such significant progress in calling attention to gendered terms,… Read more »
St. Ralph
Guest
I think the Bannon administration is reminiscent of the Chaney/Rove administration—just scarier. Trump needs Bannon to lend him shape and form. Trump by himself is an undifferentiated blob of sociopathic narcissism. Bannon serves as a nozzle to direct Trump’s high pressure vehemence in semi-coherent politically philosophical directions so that Trump doesn’t always come across as a toddler throwing a hissy fit. There may be some un-gendered languages, but there are many, like Spanish for instance, in which neuter words of any kind, nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, names and place names are very, very rare. Virtually everything in Spanish has a… Read more »
kyle
Guest
I’ve noticed you’ve made similar points before, presenting a change in language as some sort of new mandate that requires a press briefing and very clear instructions for all foreseeable instances of its use. Maybe I’m reading too much into a rhetorical device, but it doesn’t reflect reality. It’s as if you were arguing that there had to be a team meeting of all English speakers before anyone could be given a name (e.g., “Do we all accept ‘Wendy’ as a valid thing to call a person?”). English used to have gendered nouns until the 1100’s, and somehow that stopped… Read more »
St. Ralph
Guest
“English used to have gendered nouns until the 1100’s, . . .” So how many years was it until English lost it’s gendered nouns? A thousand? I’m not sure when English started being called English. I’m not saying any of this can’t happen; I’m just saying it will take a long time because for the 99 (and growing) percent of the world outside of the SJW bubble, there’s very little awareness and motivation to drive the change. If you said that in 150 or 200 years a cosmopolitanized Spanish would begin to loose it’s baked-in gender specificity driven by general… Read more »
St. Ralph
Guest
Dan
Guest

If it’s just Employers and Landlords how did two comics get Human Rights cases brought against them?

From the Website, here are the list of areas that should be covered:

The five social areas are:

Employment
Housing
Goods, Services and Facilities
Contracts
Membership in trade and vocational associations (such as unions).

Which area covers comics working in a nightclub?

kyle
Guest

Not a lawyer, but “Goods, Services, and Facilities” is my guess.

Dan
Guest

That means any speaker can be subject to this law. That would have to include on the street since the owner of the club was not the subject of the tribunal but the person speaking. The act of speaking is what is bringing offence not the person providing a service. That’s a bridge too far since this addition makes you say specific words determined by another person not by yourself.

kyle
Guest
I don’t know that your conclusion necessarily stands. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve listened to enough podcasts to know that legal terms have contextual, legal meanings (e.g., “right to privacy”), and that as far as the law is concerned, exchanging money alters the nature of a relationship (e.g., sex for pleasure is legal, but sex for a fistful of toonies is a criminal offense). I can imagine some vagary in contract work, or performance-based work, or the implied contract between an audience member and a comedian in addition to that between a patron and the bar-owner who provides… Read more »
Dan
Guest
The point is that people saying the words in a theatre context do not have power over the audience. The audience member was not denied access to the show. No one should have the right to not be offended. Overall, since comedians have been put through this process and lost it is not limited to what Thomas keeps saying it’s limited to. Mike Ward is appealing his case so maybe that gets overturned. As of now it’s still possible that regular people can be caught up in this change more easily than the other changes. Peterson is in hot water… Read more »
Dan
Guest

Some “AntiSJW” types I would consider having a decent conversation with would be:

Jeff Holiday, Bearing, Sargon of Akkad, TJ Kirk(The Amazing Atheist), Chris Ray Gun, Morally Gray, TL;DR, Vernaculis, Armoured Skeptic

These are not in order of preference.

kyle
Guest

I just found a discussion/debate between Sargon of Akkad and Michael Brooks about the “existence of the regressive left” the other day. Seems relevant.