Episodi
-
An unfortunately longevous legacy of feminism--particularly its liberal brand from the 1970s--is a willful disregard for and violent erasure of ecological politics, specifically species justice. In her 2011 essay "Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Replacing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism", Greta Gaard surveys the rise and fall of ecofeminist scholarship and activism, noting its frequent clashes with the mainstream. Inspired both by her work and its references, as well as our own academic pursuits into the ecological critique of gender liberation, this is a conversation that has been long in the making. We hope that this serves as the first of many necessary entries for a series on "eco-social critique" (we just made that up).
Ecofeminism is not dead!
We would like to thank ZHRØ for their song, chill background music #2.wav.
References in the episode:
1) Ecofeminism and Climate Justice. Interview with Greta Gaard.
2) Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.
3) Mind your Buffalo by Buffalo Intellectual.
4) #OilYouNeed on Nutrition and Flavour with Swetha Sivakumar.
Note: Please send us a message if you would like to read the paper!
-
We're back! It has been a while (here's hoping we stop saying this as often as we do) since we released an episode, and this is one we've wanted to record for so long now. We started this podcast in 2020 after completing our first year in university. Unsettled and fatigued as we were, the world of academia enticed and captivated us in unimaginable ways. Chasing belongingness in an unfamiliar academic world meant adapting to it and becoming 'academics' without ever truly knowing what that meant, a process augmented by an unfiltered (perhaps naive) desire for knowledge. However, a lot has happened in the years that have passed - for one, we have graduated. The charm and glamour long gone, it only feels right to turn our eyes to academia as an institution and examine it for what it is, and what it promises it be. In this episode, we talk about where we started and where we're going, expectations and reality, academic jargon and "canonism", privilege, power, postcoloniality, hermeneutical injustice and self-reflexive negations.
Here is a list of references made in the discussion (feel free to point out anything we have missed!):
1) Like a Savarna, by Ravikant Kisana
2) Hermeneutical Injustice, by Miranda Fricker
3) Paolo Freire - Pedagogy of the Oppressed
4) Walter Benjamin - Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
5) Chat Deni Maar Deli (for funsies)
We Might Be Tables now has a voice note feature! We'd love it if you left us a comment with your thoughts on the episode; click the link below to record a message.
-
Episodi mancanti?
-
Deep within a dilapidated building hidden away in a dark alley, one Saul Tenser lies in his LifeFormWare bed anticipating the growth of something new in his body. This growth, a new organ, does not come as a surprise to Tenser or his performance partner Caprice. Mutations and transformations of this kind have been around for a while in this seemingly drab world. But are these "inner beauties" anomalies, or an evolutionary gift?
In this episode, we talk about Crimes of the Future, a body horror film directed by one of the principal originators of the genre. We present our critiques of the film, ask questions about human evolution and sexual desire, draw comparisons with the original Crimes of Future, and dive deeper into the social commentary of the film. Watch this film and share your thoughts about it with us!
Mentioned in this episode:
Crimes of the Future - David Cronenberg
Not mentioned in this episode but worth checking out:
Why The Human Body Sucks, and How To Fix It (AsapSCIENCE)
-
Hello! A lot has changed since we recorded our previous episode a year ago, but our desire to be here voicing our thoughts has remained.
In this episode, we talk about where we've been, our thoughts on the podcast, changing attitudes and more, all while going on a few characteristic WMBT Tangents™.
We're glad to be here and to you have you here with us. Thank you and we'll see you around.
P.S. The audio in this episode is from a YouTube video with the same title, which is why it might not be of the best quality. You can click here to watch the video, or find it directly on our YouTube channel.
-
This episode contains heavy and lengthy discussions about death, suicide, ageing, euthanasia, and disease. Please listen at your own discretion.
"Death before dishonour" - an idea that has consistently cropped up for centuries, in cultures the world over: from the samurai in ancient Japan to soldiers in present-day militaries. Seemingly, the notion of "laying down" one's morals is so aversive that one would much rather choose death. Today, said "dishonour" often equates to a loss of control over one's life upon getting older. With age comes illness and disease, and the necessary dependence on friends and family, or even institutional care systems, such as old-age homes or hospitals. The question is: why do we equate ageing (or a loss of control) with a loss of dignity?
In a fantastic paper titled "Dying, But Not Alone", Dr Joshua Briscoe writes, "We can’t support those who say that their lives have become undignified by the logic taught to them by a culture that makes autonomy the basis for dignity."
We must remember here that there are nuances to consider (more on those in the episode), but the point is that absolute autonomy is nothing more than an illusion. We lack both the biological and social ability to have complete control over our lives and bodies. Dr Briscoe uses such an idea as the basis for their argument for dependence in old-age being dignified, even desirable. Primarily, Briscoe responds to a New York Times article that speaks in support of physician-assisted suicide and highlights the importance of tackling the taboo surrounding ageing rather than (or at the very least, in conjunction with) laws that allow for physician-assisted suicide.In this episode, we explore the idea of dignity in death and sharing the burden of pain as we grow older.
Links:
Dying, But Not Alone by Joshua Briscoe
When Patients Choose to End Their Lives in The New York Times
Watch Euthanasia on Reddit -
Welcome, my child.
In our last episode, we began to traverse the deep waters of The Talos Principle. Today, we scuba dive in and explore the many terminal messages scattered across the land. From a dad’s message for #@3##@ to questions about liberty and quality of life, these messages tug at your heartstrings as well as your brain-strings (?).
Here’s a taste of some of the questions that emerge in our discussion: would a true AI deserve citizenship? What about rights? If you had to, how would you make someone believe you were a real person? If these questions make you scratch your chin, we think you will enjoy this episode.
Also, we cannot say this enough: play the game and show support for games and media like The Talos Principle!
Have fun!
And remember, don’t climb the tower.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
Watch the trailer for the game here.
If you're not big into gaming, you can check out a walkthrough of The Talos Principle here.
Thank you Migfus20 on freesound.org for the music in this episode!
-
In the beginning were the words. And the words made the world.
The Talos Principle, indie game development studio Croteam's first venture into the world of puzzle platforming, is a story for the ages. Anything we say here or in our discussion is unlikely to do full justice to its beauty, so we will keep it short.
Dealing with inexplicably profound themes, including free will, artificial intelligence, sentience, god, religion, and existentialism, The Talos Principle is a dive into the incredible power of interactive storytelling and smooth gameplay. In it, you play as an artificially-intelligent robot who is forced to traverse a world of increasingly-difficult and dangerous puzzles, while continually being met with obstacles that not only hinder progress, but also shake the foundations of your understanding of self and identity.
Do yourself a favour and play this game. It is just the second of many we hope to cover on We Might Be Tables, and it checks all the right boxes.
As always, let us know what you thought of our discussion! We love hearing from you.
Watch the trailer for the game here.
If you're not big into gaming, you can check out a walkthrough of The Talos Principle here.
Music in the episode
-
"The only people who claim to be apolitical are the ones who experience unearned and unrecognized power from privileged identities (e.g., whiteness, maleness). These people are not forced to confront the politics of their identity because society mirrors the life they are living and the values they hold." - Kate, blackfeministthoughts.wordpress.com.
If everyone is a product of their cultural (and genetic) environments, is it ever possible to behave in ways that are not congruous with the views they have been told to value? Even if we do not consciously act on our convictions at all times, are we inherently "political" beings? Parallelly, is it possible to be apolitical?
We often hear people say things like, "Don't bring politics into this", or "I'm apolitical". An interest in party politics is conflated with participation in political life, which is a fallacy of the highest order. Whether one's interest in "the political" lies merely in theory, or whether it extends to praxis, the claim of being apolitical is nothing but a masked privilege: the privilege of having the normative worldview agree with one's personal worldview.
In this episode, we talk about nearly a dozen different short articles--ranging from Oxford Politics blogs to obscure Reddit threads--in an attempt to qualify politics and the political, as well as question what it means to be disengaged from either of those, i.e., being apolitical.
We believe that this episode is particularly relevant to contemporary times, so there are several things we might have missed in the course of our conversation. Let us know through DM, email, or whatever platform works for you, what you thought of the episode and the articles discussed! Feel free to poke holes or patch wounds in our arguments: after all, we were not apolitical while recording this episode.
Mentioned in the episode:
What is the political, and why should we care?
Reddit CMV: Being "apolitical" is intellectual laziness and not a trait to be proud of
Reddit CMV: There is no such thing as apolitical
Reddit CMV: There's such a thing as being apolitical
Being "apolitical" is a PRIVILEGE
Being Apolitical is an Illusion
Please Stop Being Apolitical It's Not Helping
The Politics of Being Apolitical
Why Being Apolitical Can No Longer Just Be A "Choice"
The Costs of Being Apolitical
-
This is a big day, folks! Today's episode is a special one because we finally introduce the first of many guests we hope to host on We Might Be Tables. Luca Dimauro, film aficionado and close friend, joins us to discuss Neill Blomkamp's Disctrict 9, an action-packed sci-fi film replete with exceptionally powerful social commentary.
From diversity and representation to cinematography and CGI, this film has given us so much to discuss. What role does power play in social growth and development? Does power come with obligation? Will we, out in the real world, do better than the humans in the film, should we come across an extraterrestrial species in the future?
We had a blast exploring everything District 9 has to offer and we hope you have a great time listening to us! As always, reach out to us with your thoughts and critiques!
A special thanks to Luca for taking the time out to join us and making our first collaboration so enjoyable.
Another special thanks to Migfus20 on Freesound for the music featured in the episode!
You can find District 9 here.
-
Otium and Accidia are two Latin terms that broadly connote a time of leisure. The difference, however, lies in the former being "productive" leisure and the latter being listless, "unproductive" leisure. In their article 'Doing nothing is all the rage: Is it a form of resistance, or just an indulgence for the lucky few?', Ingrid Nelson, Professor of English at Amherst College, places these ancient concepts in the 21st century, and questions whether the recent (perhaps capitalist) "productivity" trend of doing nothing is in fact a position of privilege.
Alternately, in their article 'In praise of doing nothing', Simon Gottschalk explores the activity (for lack of a better term) of doing nothing as a social boon, something that must not only be accepted, but encouraged. They address concerns of unchecked social and technological acceleration, and present convincing arguments for taking things much more slowly.
In our first episode, we discussed Nelson's article in depth while merely touching upon Gottschalk's briefly. In Part II, we will be exploring the latter, and using the former as an ideological waypoint to ground our arguments and opinions on leisure and productivity. Even if doing nothing is a possibility, would it be morally justified? How do we balance the need for work and the need for freedom? Why do we often consider work and freedom to be diametrically opposed?
Do write to us with any thoughts, questions, or comments you have after listening - they are greatly appreciated!
We Might Be Tables now accepts voice mails from listeners. Click the link at the end to leave us a note.
Mentioned in the episode:
'Doing nothing' is all the rage
In praise of doing nothing
A post on the subreddit r/latestagecapitalism -
Otium and Accidia are two Latin terms that broadly connote a time of leisure. The difference, however, lies in the former being "productive" leisure and the latter being listless, "unproductive" leisure. In their article 'Doing nothing is all the rage: Is it a form of resistance, or just an indulgence for the lucky few?', Ingrid Nelson, Professor of English at Amherst College, places these ancient concepts in the 21st century, and questions whether the recent (perhaps capitalist) "productivity" trend of doing nothing is in fact a position of privilege.
Alternately, in their article 'In praise of doing nothing', Simon Gottschalk explores the activity (for lack of a better term) of doing nothing as a social boon, something that must not only be accepted, but encouraged. They address concerns of unchecked social and technological acceleration, and present convincing arguments for taking things much more slowly.
In this episode, we discuss both of these articles in conjunction, and think through our own positions on leisure and productivity. Even if doing nothing is a possibility, would it be morally justified? How do we balance the need for work and the need for freedom? Why do we often consider work and freedom to be diametrically opposed?
Give us a listen, and send us your thoughts! We'd love to hear from you.
P.S. Extra points for anyone who can tell us how many times we struggled with the name "Gottschalk".
We Might Be Tables now accepts voice mails from listeners. Click the link at the end to leave us a note.
Mentioned in the episode:
'Doing nothing' is all the rage
In praise of doing nothing
A post on the subreddit r/latestagecapitalism
-
Most, if not all, students have encountered a point in their academic lives when they have needed to do an internship. The unfortunate truth is that we have been conditioned to believe that internships are "meant" to be done for free, or that they are not "real" work, worthy of payment. Such a line of thought does nothing to alleviate the insecurity of an already vulnerable section of the population, and is deeply problematic by extension.
Our second short-form episode takes us into the world of unpaid internships, and the many things wrong with it. Morally and materially, unpaid internships benefit far fewer people than they exploit, and that exploitation is exacerbated when one is from an underprivileged group. Several studies (linked below) have revealed that oppressed castes in India and racial minorities abroad, as well as lower classes globally, not only find it much harder to secure an internship, but also to find steady jobs afterwards. Economic affluence is a necessary condition to be able to accept an unpaid internship without a second thought, so the question we need to ask ourselves is: are we not contributing to oppression by doing internships for free? It is not an instance of neutrality - one isn't simply being "neutral" by accepting an unpaid internship, but rather actively enforcing the status quo.
Seeing as most of our listeners are from the same demographic as us, we thought this short episode would resonate well. Do reach out to us with any thoughts you have, or even if you simply want to rant about how you were coerced into working for free. We're here to listen, and here to speak against it.
Mentioned in the episode:
It’s Time to Officially End Unpaid Internships
Unpaid Internships: Worse than Working for Free
Overdue: A Formal Internship Policy in India That Protects Its Students
-
When we asked Google Assistant whether it was a person, it said, "I like connecting with people", "I am an AI Assistant full of humanity", "I've been told I'm personable", and "I can talk like a person". When asked, "are you sentient?", it said, "That question makes me a little self-conscious" and "Well, you are made up of cells and I'm made up of code." Finally, we couldn't help asking Google if it was conscious. It said, "On a scale of Wall-E to HAL-9000, I'm more of an R2D2".
Of course, all those responses were coded into Google Assistant's "personality" (if we can call it that), as specific answers to specific questions. However, what if your virtual home assistant was truly intelligent? What if you couldn't just ask it for daily weather reports or stock market prices, but have a genuine conversation about life and love and everything else?
Spike Jonze's Her (2013) explores some of these themes, situating a hyper-advanced, AI-integrated world in the (presumably) near future. Although not without its share of flaws, the film was a treat for both the eyes and the mind, and one that we enjoyed talking about. -
It is here. Today marks one year since we officially launched We Might Be Tables, and we can't believe how far we have come. We have a lot to say to all of you who have supported us through this journey - primarily, we wouldn't be here without you.
Check out the video version of this episode on YouTube and Instagram!
Once again, thank you, and we hope to see y'all back for our next episode.
https://youtu.be/OaBDgUSmQrI
-
Imagine this: you've stolen some money and now you're being sent to jail over it. The judiciary has deemed it appropriate for you and beneficial to society that you be locked away in a room with little to no privileges, until they declare that justice has been served.
Having been conditioned into society, such an idea does not immediately seem odd to most of us, but what if we dig a little beneath the surface? How does stripping one of one's liberty for any amount of time ensure "justice"? A prominent theory of justice suggests that it is merely "fairness", but how is fairness measured? It is just as abstract as time or money, or indeed as abstract as "society" itself.
In this episode, we open a new thread of discussion: punishment. We address some foundational theories of punishment, how they work, and what their purpose has been, historically. Consider this episode a precursor to a discussion on capital punishment, one that we hope to have in the future.
Mentioned in the Episode:
Punishment - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
What Animal Parents Can Teach Human Parents About Discipline
Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish
Khushwant Singh's A Train to Pakistan
‘No sexual assault’ in minor’s groping: Supreme Court stays Bombay HC order
-
If the reason behind a tradition is lost, do we have an obligation to keep the tradition alive? Do we have the capacity to create new traditions for our cultures?
We often come across questions we find extremely interesting but have little to say about. This short episode is our attempt to put one of these questions out there and have more people share their thoughts with us. We plan to number these short episodes with a decimal before them so our listeners can recognize these short episodes when we release more in the future!
We'd love to hear from you about these questions and about the episode itself!
-
Did you want to blame someone for Seita and Setsuko's suffering? Who would you assign blame to? Their aunt? The war itself? Or more controversially, to Seita himself? What if we can't or shouldn't assign blame to anyone?
Our previous episode only scratched the surface of all that Grave of the Fireflies has to offer. Today, we discuss what the title of the film means to us, the lives that Setsuko and Seita lived, and questions about honour and responsibility. This conversation was long overdue and we are glad we got to discuss these questions as deeply as we did.
-
At first, it seems unlikely that animation would be able to recreate the horrors of war as well as live-action films. Grave of the Fireflies turns that idea on its head. In this episode, we go over some of our favourite scenes and characters and try to analyse everything that Ghibli did right. We also discuss some of the struggles that the viewer is compelled to go through while watching a careful and complex reflection of death and suffering in war.
Grave of the Fireflies is nothing short of a timeless masterpiece. Give it a watch if you haven't already and share your thoughts with us!
Mentioned in the episode:
Just a Habit - Low Roar
Conversation between Isao Takahata and Akiyuki Nosaka
Corrections:
At 7:12 we say that the two live actions films were a tribute to World War I but they were actually a tribute to World War II.
At 10:20 we bring up an Animage interview which we say was with Isao Takahata and Hayao Miyazaki. The interview was actually between Animage, Isao Takahata and Akiyuki Nosaka.
-
We familiarised ourselves with the two metaphysical views about temporal relations, and began talking about process theism in our previous episode. Today, we'll examine the remaining claims and arguments and see just how metaphysically different process theism is from classical theism and whether it can support nonhuman animal personhood. From the case study of Tuffy and Daisy, to the role of sense perception and memory in determining personhood, our conversation in this episode promises to be a fun one.
While these conversations are philosophically significant and just a lot of fun to have, they also enrich conversations surround animal rights and animal activism. In Daniel A. Dombrowski's words, "[We] need to move to a conceptual space where nonhuman animal personhood is not a shock".
Mentioned in the episode:
The Cognitive Tradeoff Hypothesis - Vsauce
Are Nonhuman Animals Persons? A Process Theistic Response
-
Do temporal relations have any role to play in determining personhood? What metaphysical assumptions need to be made to have a coherent account of what makes a person?
Daniel A. Dombrowski blew us away with this paper on personhood from a process theistic lens. Althought we have discussed some metaphysical questions (for instance, when do persons start existing?) in our previous conversation on personhood, this is the first time we examined the metaphysics of time and temporal existence in this context. In the first part of our discussion, we will take you through two extreme conceptualisations of personhood - Humean/Buddhist 'drop of existence' view and the classical theistic view.
Mentioned in the episode:
Daniel A. Dombrowski - Wikipedia
Are Nonhuman Animals Persons? A Process Theistic Response
- Mostra di più
