We interview Benjamin Teitelbaum about his controversial ethnographic methods and the unsavoury people he studies. "They go by many names: outsiders describe them as right-wing extremists, organized racists, or neofascists, and they tend to call themselves nationalists. I call them friends," writes Teitelbaum.

We revisit a curious academic debate in science and technology studies, or STS. After 2016, some claimed that leftist humanities scholars played a role in creating the post-truth moment. And Steve Fuller argued that there's nothing wrong with that.

This week we have one of our first encounters with the Academic Edgelord final boss, Stephan Kershnar. We actually look at one his milder takes, which argues against equality of opportunity. We'll examine the case, and also ask what exactly Kershnar is in general: a useful gadfly, a dishonest ideologue, or just a petulant troll?

On this episode, we debate whether ideological diversity on campus matters. We consider the extent to which it is even true that ideological diversity is a problem on university campuses, and if it is, what the best ways to solve it might be.

On this week's episode, we read Jason Brennan's 2016 book, "Against Democracy". In it, Brennan offers a controversial argument for replacing democracy with an "epistocracy" - rule by the knowledgeable.

On this episode, we read Louis Pojman's 1998 article, "The Case Against Affirmative Action". We debate whether any of his arguments against the practice of affirmative action have any merit from the perspective of left politics. We also consider whether class-based affirmative action is preferable.

Might a future AI actually take over and dominate, or potentially even destroy humanity like some Skynet-like scenario? Some technologists worry it might, and so does Ethan. We debate how seriously we should take the AI safety discourse.

When psychoanalyst Donald Moss published his essay “On Having Whiteness” in 2021, it caused the right-wing media outrage machine to move into high gear. On our reading, they seemed to only react to what was in the abstract. We read the article.

If your partner is attractive, then you might be part of the problem. At least, that’s what one edgelord philosopher is suggesting. We discuss William D'Alessandro's forthcoming paper, "Is It Bad to Prefer Attractive Partners?" (in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association). Is this "lookism" a kind of unjustified and harmful discrimination? If it is, is it realistic to expect us to modify our personal preferences for justice-oriented reasons? For philosopher William D’Alessandro, the answer to both questions is yes.

If you were offered the choice of a brutal whipping or an extended stay in prison, which would you take? Probably the former. Is that an argument for flogging? Today, we debate the ideas of two lash-wielding edgelords