I love this podcast! I’m also a big fan of Peter’s other podcast, 5-4. That one goes into detail about some of the worst US Supreme Court decisions in history.
I love this podcast! I’m also a big fan of Peter’s other podcast, 5-4. That one goes into detail about some of the worst US Supreme Court decisions in history.
Same, and Michael's other podcast Maintenance Phase with Aubrey Gordon where they talk about diet culture, weird cookbook/diet books and other related topics. I liked their episode on ozempic...
Same, and Michael's other podcast Maintenance Phase with Aubrey Gordon where they talk about diet culture, weird cookbook/diet books and other related topics. I liked their episode on ozempic quite a bit.
Also Michael's former podcast with Sarah Marshall You're Wrong About. (Podcast still exist, he's off of it due to his other projects)
I like Sarah Marshall's podcast way better than either 5-4 or If Books Could Kill. Sarah was excellent at keeping Michael away from his worst rhetorical excesses on the OG run of You're Wrong...
I like Sarah Marshall's podcast way better than either 5-4 or If Books Could Kill. Sarah was excellent at keeping Michael away from his worst rhetorical excesses on the OG run of You're Wrong About [Grammarly DOES NOT like this sentence]. On Books, he has this compulsive need to dunk on the authors of the books they review. The book's content is enough of a self-own that there is no need to go into bitch eating crackers territory about the author's hair or playing games of "you know it's bad without needing to read it because of all the people who say it's good."
To make the previous paragraph flippant, I wish Michael would cut down on the catty gay persona.
I have some similar complaints with obnoxious presentation in 5-4. As much as I agree with their opinion that the SCotUS opinion was terrible, their group dynamics are grating. Stop shitting on Clarence Thomas and get to discussing the (de)merits of the case.
I really felt like Sarah Marshall and Michael Hobbes' dynamic was about perfect. Sarah has a weakness for sentiment, and will always give someone the benefit of the doubt, and Michael is very...
I really felt like Sarah Marshall and Michael Hobbes' dynamic was about perfect. Sarah has a weakness for sentiment, and will always give someone the benefit of the doubt, and Michael is very justice-minded and can lapse into black and white thinking. Working together, they checked one another's worse impulses, but, regardless of continuing success, I can't help but feel they've both gone into the weeds a bit.
I wanted to like Maintenance Phase, I appreciate the emotional arguments and lines of reasoning they use, and at the end of the day, very rarely are they arguing for something negative. At worst, they might be sapping some motivation from someone to lose weight, but if you're honest with yourself about the statistics, there's a reason that's pretty negligible. However, between Aubrey Gordon's insistence on positioning "fat people" as a minority class, which she doesn't seem to actually have a strong sociological or political argument to support, as every rebuttal is just dismissed, and leaning incredibly hard into a "victim mentality" that I struggle to find any more diplomatic phrasing to capture, and Michael's insistence that, because he's a journalist, he's a methodological expert (despite having practically no scientific or medical education or training), and therefore doesn't have to perform the same intellectual humility that he expects from people far more experienced in the particular field, I just can't handle the hypocrisy and smugness. I didn't listen to 5-4 because after that and the first episode of If Books Could Kill, I lost a lot of respect for his journalistic integrity.
YWA and You Are Good are easier to enjoy. The new format of YWA still works, with Marshall taking the commentary spot in response to issues brought by expert guests in most episodes, and in that context she can let her empathy act as a buffer for cold hard reality. It's still a shame to lose Hobbes' research acumen, not to mention the chemistry, and she's lost a lot of impetus for her passionate deep-dives, though that may be primarily an issue on the supply side. And You Are Good is literally a movie podcast centered on emotion, so that works there.
If you want one of Sarah's deep dives from YWA compressed into a single episode, American Hysteria has proven to be a decent replacement. It helps that Chelsea Weber-Smith is friends with Sarah,...
If you want one of Sarah's deep dives from YWA compressed into a single episode, American Hysteria has proven to be a decent replacement. It helps that Chelsea Weber-Smith is friends with Sarah, so they're frequent guests on each other's shows.
Jamie Loftus has some deep dive series, too. However, she shares the same struggle with nailing the endings that afflicts most books on "big ideas" or the history of science. Namely, the attempts to connect to the present day or center marginalized voices often end up being jarring nonsequiturs after a tightly constructed narrative.
My biggest beef with If Books Could Kill is that I've consumed a bit of the content their reviewing. When you have also read what they discuss, you realize their criticism is sometimes just their...
My biggest beef with If Books Could Kill is that I've consumed a bit of the content their reviewing. When you have also read what they discuss, you realize their criticism is sometimes just their own bias and/or lack of knowledge in an area. I find that Michael is biggest offender in that regard.
"and/or" is doing some heavy lifting here. can you recommend a book & the accompanying podcast episode that you think best encapsulates: a) their criticism being informed by their own bias b)...
their criticism is sometimes just their own bias and/or lack of knowledge in an area.
"and/or" is doing some heavy lifting here.
can you recommend a book & the accompanying podcast episode that you think best encapsulates:
a) their criticism being informed by their own bias
b) their criticism being informed by their lack of knowledge
I'll have to re-listen to the two specific episodes I'm thinking of in order to reply with specific detail, but I know the two episodes were Outliers and The Love Languages book. Both episodes...
I'll have to re-listen to the two specific episodes I'm thinking of in order to reply with specific detail, but I know the two episodes were Outliers and The Love Languages book. Both episodes made worthy criticisms, but both seemed to struggle in the way I described previously. I'll try and get back to you with specifics.
I think I'd like to add that I believe the inherent downside to a show that revolves around criticism is that if you work on a subject that turns out not to have as much to criticize as you need, you are then prone to make a mountain out of a mole hill where you can find it.
I can't say I'm surprised. Though I haven't read many, if any, of the books they review, I was drawn to the podcast because shitting on popular things is still a latent tendency of mine. What are...
I can't say I'm surprised. Though I haven't read many, if any, of the books they review, I was drawn to the podcast because shitting on popular things is still a latent tendency of mine. What are some notable stinkers of ignorant criticism of content from that podcast?
I really want to find a critical review of Starship Troopers that explains a democracy where all the citizens have served (yes it is written like this, shut up, non-military service is a...
I really want to find a critical review of Starship Troopers that explains a democracy where all the citizens have served (yes it is written like this, shut up, non-military service is a deception) is technically a military junta, and why that's a bad thing for say its foreign policy, and why its mindset of "we must dominate everyone and outbreed them to control all resources" is deeply unhealthy long term.
I love this podcast! I’m also a big fan of Peter’s other podcast, 5-4. That one goes into detail about some of the worst US Supreme Court decisions in history.
Same, and Michael's other podcast Maintenance Phase with Aubrey Gordon where they talk about diet culture, weird cookbook/diet books and other related topics. I liked their episode on ozempic quite a bit.
Also Michael's former podcast with Sarah Marshall You're Wrong About. (Podcast still exist, he's off of it due to his other projects)
I like Sarah Marshall's podcast way better than either 5-4 or If Books Could Kill. Sarah was excellent at keeping Michael away from his worst rhetorical excesses on the OG run of You're Wrong About [Grammarly DOES NOT like this sentence]. On Books, he has this compulsive need to dunk on the authors of the books they review. The book's content is enough of a self-own that there is no need to go into bitch eating crackers territory about the author's hair or playing games of "you know it's bad without needing to read it because of all the people who say it's good."
To make the previous paragraph flippant, I wish Michael would cut down on the catty gay persona.
I have some similar complaints with obnoxious presentation in 5-4. As much as I agree with their opinion that the SCotUS opinion was terrible, their group dynamics are grating. Stop shitting on Clarence Thomas and get to discussing the (de)merits of the case.
I really felt like Sarah Marshall and Michael Hobbes' dynamic was about perfect. Sarah has a weakness for sentiment, and will always give someone the benefit of the doubt, and Michael is very justice-minded and can lapse into black and white thinking. Working together, they checked one another's worse impulses, but, regardless of continuing success, I can't help but feel they've both gone into the weeds a bit.
I wanted to like Maintenance Phase, I appreciate the emotional arguments and lines of reasoning they use, and at the end of the day, very rarely are they arguing for something negative. At worst, they might be sapping some motivation from someone to lose weight, but if you're honest with yourself about the statistics, there's a reason that's pretty negligible. However, between Aubrey Gordon's insistence on positioning "fat people" as a minority class, which she doesn't seem to actually have a strong sociological or political argument to support, as every rebuttal is just dismissed, and leaning incredibly hard into a "victim mentality" that I struggle to find any more diplomatic phrasing to capture, and Michael's insistence that, because he's a journalist, he's a methodological expert (despite having practically no scientific or medical education or training), and therefore doesn't have to perform the same intellectual humility that he expects from people far more experienced in the particular field, I just can't handle the hypocrisy and smugness. I didn't listen to 5-4 because after that and the first episode of If Books Could Kill, I lost a lot of respect for his journalistic integrity.
YWA and You Are Good are easier to enjoy. The new format of YWA still works, with Marshall taking the commentary spot in response to issues brought by expert guests in most episodes, and in that context she can let her empathy act as a buffer for cold hard reality. It's still a shame to lose Hobbes' research acumen, not to mention the chemistry, and she's lost a lot of impetus for her passionate deep-dives, though that may be primarily an issue on the supply side. And You Are Good is literally a movie podcast centered on emotion, so that works there.
If you want one of Sarah's deep dives from YWA compressed into a single episode, American Hysteria has proven to be a decent replacement. It helps that Chelsea Weber-Smith is friends with Sarah, so they're frequent guests on each other's shows.
Jamie Loftus has some deep dive series, too. However, she shares the same struggle with nailing the endings that afflicts most books on "big ideas" or the history of science. Namely, the attempts to connect to the present day or center marginalized voices often end up being jarring nonsequiturs after a tightly constructed narrative.
My biggest beef with If Books Could Kill is that I've consumed a bit of the content their reviewing. When you have also read what they discuss, you realize their criticism is sometimes just their own bias and/or lack of knowledge in an area. I find that Michael is biggest offender in that regard.
"and/or" is doing some heavy lifting here.
can you recommend a book & the accompanying podcast episode that you think best encapsulates:
a) their criticism being informed by their own bias
b) their criticism being informed by their lack of knowledge
I'll have to re-listen to the two specific episodes I'm thinking of in order to reply with specific detail, but I know the two episodes were Outliers and The Love Languages book. Both episodes made worthy criticisms, but both seemed to struggle in the way I described previously. I'll try and get back to you with specifics.
I think I'd like to add that I believe the inherent downside to a show that revolves around criticism is that if you work on a subject that turns out not to have as much to criticize as you need, you are then prone to make a mountain out of a mole hill where you can find it.
I can't say I'm surprised. Though I haven't read many, if any, of the books they review, I was drawn to the podcast because shitting on popular things is still a latent tendency of mine. What are some notable stinkers of ignorant criticism of content from that podcast?
I really want to find a critical review of Starship Troopers that explains a democracy where all the citizens have served (yes it is written like this, shut up, non-military service is a deception) is technically a military junta, and why that's a bad thing for say its foreign policy, and why its mindset of "we must dominate everyone and outbreed them to control all resources" is deeply unhealthy long term.