Skepticrat 004: Crimea River Edition
Added 2015-02-16 05:59:35 +0000 UTCHopefully everyone will notice the concerted effort we made to increase our international appeal by talking about American politicians, even when they're in other countries.
Comments
While "Duotribe" works well enough, I think it could be more funny to call that segment the "Skeptic Screed". It's roughly synonymous with 'rant' or 'diatribe, it fits with the wordplay your podcasts are known for, and of course it could work into the friendly rivalry between you & Cognitive Dissonance. Plus, the word 'screed' just sounds like a noise a rat might make when sufficiently pissed off.
Keovar
2015-03-03 04:18:34 +0000 UTCyes, tshirts please
Daniel Kirsten
2015-02-22 00:53:44 +0000 UTCYou and our graphic artist think a lot alike...
The Scathing Atheist
2015-02-17 22:09:37 +0000 UTCThanks again for another great episode. When Heath introduced Noah as his fellow skeptic rat, it sparked an idea for branding for this podcast. I don't know if you are already set on artwork for this podcast but the idea of a rat pictograph that reminiscent of the donkey and elephant political party logos would be cool...
Gerald Lott
2015-02-17 16:35:57 +0000 UTCApology for the rant accepted... on the contingency that you forgive me for this one. Traditionally, when someone says "You're wrong about X", one would then point to a statement someone made and point out why it's wrong, but I don't see how that happened here. First of all, the fact that nuclear war would destroy all life certainly isn't a reason to ignore or not worry about that issue, so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there. Secondly, I don't think anyone doubts that Russian arms/troops are in Ukraine. The jokes we were making were about a specific flub that a senator made, bandying around 6 year old photos as if they were just taken. With the exception of Heath's joke about letting him have a satellite nation to make up for the olypmics (which I'd hope was obviously a joke), I don't think we ever implied that the US shouldn't offer aid to the Ukrainians. That being said, I think Germany's approach is valid and might actually have positive results. In other words, I don't know that you've made a case for war. And I certainly don't think you've made a case for starting one.
The Scathing Atheist
2015-02-16 16:25:20 +0000 UTCIMHO, guys, you're wrong about Ukraine. This is probably one of those rare occasions when oppressed actually truly need help to deflect an aggressor - and yet US still lingers with decision. Also, isn't argument about nuclear weapons at this state of age kind of moot? if someone uses it - we're done, and I mean, we're all done. Also at which point do you draw the line? Ukraine is fine for Putin to play with, but, for instance, Poland is not? and Baltic countries - eeeh, maybe US will do something maybe not? (not the best example as all those are NATO but you do see my point) Regarding the actual evidence of Russian troops and weaponry in eastern Ukraine. not sure what your senator was referring to, and maybe we was wrong, but I am pretty sure there is enough of actual evidence. and the same fucking thing happened in Crimea - until last moment Putin was saying "no russian troops", and then "oh THOSE ONES?! oh yeah, they were russian troops". Also just logically, with production and infrastructure destroyed in Donbas, where are "rebels" getting all the ammunitions and reinforcements from? OK, maybe not troops but weapons are definitely coming from Russia then. Sorry for the rant, sore spot.
GloryToUkraine-f@kpootin
2015-02-16 13:43:12 +0000 UTCI phone's player can't play the episode.
Joel Lopez-Bou
2015-02-16 11:56:32 +0000 UTCAll over this. Thanks again.
Grant Barnes
2015-02-16 07:35:19 +0000 UTC
