In the first half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew continue and narrow their conversation from the previous episode about hate speech and dangerous speech; they use an article, written by Susan Benesch, about dangerous speech online in Myanmar. Benesch identifies three primary ways to combat dangerous speech online (targeting advertisers, drowning out dangerous speech with positive messages, and humor); in doing so, they evaluate the merits/disadvantages, ethics, and overall practicality of each methodology. Andrew makes a grave mistake and puts in his two-week notice, which Ryan accepts without hesitation.



In the second half of the episode, your hosts finish off the two-part mini-series on Stasis Theory. The two levels discussed in this episode tackle questions of quality, or questions of value, as well as questions of policy. Andrew offers a recap for the previous episode by talking about the recent debate between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty; they then pivot back into the issue of climate change in order to demonstrate how to talk about issues of quality or value. They finish up the episode by pivoting to a discussion about gun control policy (smart move? probably not…).



You can reach out to Seated in Action by email us at [email protected] Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, check out our website at www.seatedinaction.com, stayed tune for our next episode, and leave us a (preferably favorable!) review on your podcast app of choice.



Links:



Susan Benesch’s article Flower Speech: New Responses to Hatred Online: https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7



John R. Edlund’s instructional worksheet for Stasis Theory: https://www.cpp.edu/~class/english-foreign-languages/docs/StasisTheoryIntro.pdf



David Pakman’s interview with Destiny (Steven Bonnell): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUyAn4qe0Jk

Episode 4: Nazi Pugs, Dangerous Speech, & Stasis Theory Part I



In the first half of the episode, Ryan and Andrew discuss a controversial court case involving a Nazi Pug and a fine of 800 pounds; this serves as a springboard into a conversation about categories of speech—namely hate speech and dangerous speech. They primarily discuss the severity of the perceived issues of freedom of speech on American University campuses. Of course, a conversation about the proverbial marketplace of ideas cannot be meaningful without a discussion of platforms (and by extension the dreaded “no platforming”). Ryan defends Flat Earthers and Andrew champions obtrusive protest methodologies. All of the aforementioned conversational threads lead to one over-arching question: where do we draw “The Line?”



In the second half of the episode, your hosts introduce an old rhetorical framework for co-investigation called Stasis Theory. What the hell is Stasis Theory? It’s essentially a way for people to ensure that they are agreeing on facts and definitions so that they may address the same fundamental questions and progress towards a shared goal. Ryan and Andrew lay out the first two of four levels of stasis and provide concrete examples so that you can try it out in your next heated debate (either around the dinner table with family or at the bar with friends).



You can reach out to Seated in Action by email us at [email protected] Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, check out our website at www.seatedinaction.com, stayed tune for our next episode, and leave us a (preferably favorable!) review on your podcast app of choice.



Music Notes: Government Funded Weed by Black Ant www.black-ant.bandcamp.com



Links:

John R. Edlund’s instructional worksheet for Stasis Theory: https://www.cpp.edu/~class/english-foreign-languages/docs/StasisTheoryIntro.pdf