|
I don't mean this as an insult, but I feel like there's a really good chance Harry Enten is mildly autistic. Aside from his job in data journalism, he's also really really into weather. Plus the socially awkward stuff, of course.
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Chazani posted:I couldn't finish History of Rome because of his narration, occasional smacks and the breathing sounds. Admittedly, I do have ADHD and all those little annoyances made me lose focus on the content, on which there is no fault. It wasn't bothering me until I got to the first Punic War, at which point he seems to have decided to make a podcast about wet mouth noises. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:God loving dammit I now have the brain worms you people have that make it so I can't stop hearing Mike Duncan's mouth sounds. What the gently caress! gently caress you guys! I'm struggling not to laugh out loud at work about this. They definitely peaked in the first few dozen History of Rome episodes (along with heavy inhales directly into the microphone), but most of the way through the series they still haven't stopped entirely, and my understanding is that they're still a thing in Revolutions. I'm okay ignoring a few here and there, but man some of those earlier episodes made me want to puncture my ear drums. Right now his biggest tic that I can't stand is when he talks about how emperors are going to die like five episodes ahead of time. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:RE: Indianapolis, Carlin. He must have meant that while it was a huge success (it's called the first blockbuster for a reason), a number of critics at the time didn't care for it, whereas its critical reception would presumably be closer to unanimous today.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
I just finished History of Rome this week, and I don't know if it's that I burned out and my attention span wasn't up to the task, or he did (probably a combination of both), but I felt like some of the episodes toward the end were harder to follow. In the 100th episode special he talked about how the podcast had kind of just turned into talking about emperors, and said that he wanted to get away from that, but I don't think he ever really did, presumably because it's such a convenient narrative arc to follow. Since the position of emperor was falling apart toward the end, maybe it makes sense that the narrative kind of faltered too, though again it could just be that I listened to too many episodes at once and it's more about me than him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Any thoughts on History of Byzantium? I finished History of Rome and 12 Byzantine Rulers, and I feel like going a little more in depth on Byzantium might be interesting, and it looks like this podcast might have more 'life in the empire' elements than History of Rome did, but from what I can see it also looks like a lot of comments on the podcast say the guy's really milking it with paid episodes and starting to lose the plot. I'm also a little concerned that I might have just heard all the interesting parts in 12 Byzantine Rulers, but I could always just come back to it later if repetition becomes an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Thanks for the opinions. Given that everyone who listened to it seems to have stopped, I'm going to put it into the 'maybe later' pile. I'm a little tempted to skip around and just check in on the interesting parts, but I guess I basically just got that with 12 Byzantine Rulers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Yeah, I get the criticisms of it being too slow. It's fair given how byzantize Stuff like the end of century roundups are actually the main reason I'm interested, because I feel like that's what History of Rome was missing when it turned into the Roman Emperors Podcast. He paused for a bit to talk about how Diocletian's reforms affected people and paved the way for serfdom, but one big thing he didn't talk much about was how population migrations affected the people already living in the areas the Romans lost effective control over. It sounds like Robin Pierson's actually planning on going back and doing those for History of Rome when he finishes this one, so I guess I have that to look forward to if I'm still alive by then. When I do jump in on this, I'll probably try to find natural end points (like Heraclius) to stop on for a while instead of rushing to hit the content wall. On a tangentially related note, Mike Duncan was asked during a twitter AMA yesterday what revolution before the beginning of the Revolutions podcast he feels like he missed, and he answered with Dutch Independence. As was pointed out in the comments there, the Almost Forgotten podcast just did a season on that, so I might check that out in preparation for Revolutions and thought some of you might be interested in that too: https://t.co/lnaU8hYBQS Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 18:46
|
|
some of the issues Rome faces during its medieval period.
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Is that the last part? Nope. He said after this one it's going to be mostly combat until '45 so it should be more straightforward, but I wouldn't be on part three being the last one either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure he said he just doesn't know enough about Chinese history to do it justice, and there's too much there to fake it by cramming.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
I saw an interview from 2015 where he said he'd probably do Iran, but IIRC he's said anything more recent than that is more history than current events (and he may have included that revolution as current events at the time), so it'll be the last one if he does it. I hope he does Cuba too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Is there any podcast that serves as a good follow up to the first season of Revolutions? I'm not looking for a whole history of England, though I guess I could jump in for some episodes of that if I have to, but it feels like Duncan only covered half the revolution, and he's even said if he had it all to do over again he'd cover the Glorious Revolution, so I was wondering if there's anything that fills the void kind of like History of Byzantium followed up History of Rome.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:https://twitter.com/mikeduncan/status/1218894471175311367?s=20 I haven't listened to Russia yet, so maybe all of this background is incredible and worth it (I'll find out eventually--I'm on Haiti now), but when I saw that he's nowhere near 1917 after this many episodes I was pretty disappointed. It makes sense that he'll end after Russia given that it's basically gone in scope from a season of the Revolutions podcast to a History of the Russian Revolution(s) podcast, but I wish he'd pared it down so he could have done Cuba and/or Iran. That said, ending on the enormous one does make some sense, so it's not the end of the world or anything. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I did kinda lose a lot of interest in the History of Rome after the emperors consolidated their power away from the rest of the public and you only occasionally got to hear what normal people's lives were like because everything is either dynastic politics dealing with the whims of the emperor and the small circle around him or career military officers having their go at making their own dominion. In one of the anniversary episodes or something he even calls himself out for turning it into the podcast about Roman emperors and said he wanted to be sure to cover other stuff more, but other than stopping to explain how Diocletian started proto-feudalism I don't think he really succeeded. I haven't listened to much of it yet, but from what I can tell it looks like History of Byzantium does more of a deep dive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Is Tides of History otherwise solid? I listened to Fall of Rome, and thought it was really interesting to have a more academic view, with lots of discussion of recent scholarship, of the era that Mike Duncan kind of rushed through/didn't get to as he was wrapping up his show. Wyman's dissertation having to do with the subject matter makes me wonder if the show took a hit when it switched to new subjects he didn't previously study as much, or if it's still really good and feels like something he covers with expertise. The prehistoric stuff that's available for free atm doesn't sound as immediately interesting to me as the rise of the modern world stuff that's paywalled, so I'm particularly curious about the quality of that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Thanks for the opinions on Tides last week. One thing I can say for sure is that I agree about the sound effects being bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Carlin's always been one of those dads who got way too into the History Channel, for better or for worse. He uses the line about not being a historian as a bit of a shield maybe, but I think it's also just him being honest about being an entertainer and not actually having much interest in keeping up with new scholarship or whatever. As for his contemporary politics, while he reflexively goes to both sides arguments, at least he was anti-Trump, which is probably better than you can say for most 55 year old history dads.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
I think the extent to which even most Americans really understand the war in the Pacific is being dramatically overstated here. History nerds might have a pretty solid idea, but I feel like Hardcore History is enough of a gateway podcast that plenty of people really will be hearing about a lot of it for the first time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I think in today’s world someone like Carlin might struggle to get off the ground, but someone like Duncan would be fine. History of Rome stands on its own. I think it might be the other way around. Neither one had any credentials or serious education in history when they started, but Carlin was at least radio trained with a bombastic personality. Duncan's early episodes were pretty rough, and I think he'd have a harder time standing out in a field crowded with more credentialed people these days.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Cockblocktopus posted:We're fifty episodes/two years (in like two weeks) into the Russian Revolution and Mike just introduced Rasputin; we've probably got at least two more years to go, especially since he's got another book coming out that'll he have to tour and promote. I wonder if he regrets doing 1905 at this point. Obviously there were delays not related to his pace in the actual podcast, but even if it's not actually another two years, he's going to dramatically overshoot his summer 2021 mark for ending this thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
Don't bother with the American Revolution episodes imo, especially if you're actually American. As noted earlier, he's said he'd cover them differently if he did it now (inspired by doing the Haitian Revolution), but as it stands if you already have familiarity with the subject you aren't going to get much in the way of a new perspective.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:I'm partial to the Mexican episodes myself. He addresses this at one point near the end, but his clear sympathy for Pancho Villa through the majority of it before quickly kind of admitting that he was a pretty lovely guy who did a bunch of bad stuff was a little weird to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:nah sorry, given his tacit endorsement of the Black Hundreds and their pogroms as well as their publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion he and his family deserved a hell of a lot worse fate than being shot in the basement The 'and his family' part there is pretty hosed up. You can understand why revolutionaries might have incentives to wipe out the line without outright saying a teenage girl deserved to be murdered because of who her dad was.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
Like I said in my first post, there's a difference between understanding the incentives the murderers had to do what they did and thinking the royal children actually deserved to die. This is getting pretty close to 'of course the families of terrorists should be fair game because they might grow up to want revenge.'
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
GodFish posted:I found the first chunk of the prehistory to be impossible to focus on or retain any information from but once he switched to talking about the development of agriculture and societies in different locations it got a lot better and more interesting. It's funny because I'm kind of having the opposite problem. I thought the pre-civ stuff was fascinating to me, and the more it gets into dawn of civilization (though the explanation for the start of agriculture was legitimately really interesting), the more I'm like okay how far is this actually going?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, my opinion is that it takes a hell of a lot to convince people to throw themselves in front of guns which you need for revolution and as such, in just about every case, they could've diffused the situation by just loosening the screws in a few places before the whole machine snapped under tension. A lot of revolutions actually come when bottled up tensions boil over after a regime loosens up a bit and emboldens the people who see it as weakness.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
Monaco too. It's easier when you're running a rich statelet. I assume part of the reason it's easier is because it's relatively simple for anyone who doesn't like the status quo to leave.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
To the extent that the Saudis are happy, it's because they're exploiting what is near slave labor at best, and which does at times veer into outright slavery at worst. On top of being a petrostate, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
The article basically says it wasn't genocide because some white people weren't killed (which is an absurd standard since genocide can obviously be more specific than just skin color, and doesn't require 100% of the target population to be eradicated) and also because it was justified because they were colonizers so how dare you call it genocide. I think it's totally reasonable to understand why it happened, and failing to contextualize it in a way that makes Haitians the villains of the story would obviously be unfair/racist (and isn't what Duncan did, obviously) but just handwaving civilian massacres away as anti-colonialism (which obviously carries a positive connotation) isn't really an accurate telling of history so much as speaking euphemistically about an inconvenient truth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
evilpicard posted:Colonizers are the real victims here great job guys That definitely looks like a good faith reading of what was said here, great job.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Didn't know the Germans had a bunch of women and children born into living there, weird! Also the Soviets did accept Nazi surrenders, even if the treatment was obviously not always up to Geneva Convention standards.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
One interesting thing I read recently is that Haiti and the Dominican Republic actually had pretty similar per capita GDPs well into the mid 20th Century, which complicates a lot of narratives about Haiti's distant past being responsible for its present. You can still attempt to draw a line by suggesting that Haiti's institutional failures and distrust of foreign capital could be affected by the past, but then you still have to explain why they weren't really doing worse than the DR until relatively recently. The DR did have longer life expectancy, so maybe some seeds had already been planted that led to greater economic success later, but the divergence coming after Haiti had finished paying off its (still brutally unfair) indemnities suggests that cause for their current circumstances has been overblown too. And just to be clear, the Dominican Republic isn't just doing well in comparison to Haiti, but seems to be on a path to become richer (per capita) than countries like Mexico and Brazil.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:It’s a shame because Death Throes of the Republic, Punic Nightmares, and Wrath of the Kahns series were incredible, especially at the time. Seems like right around his WWI series he started to lose the ability to form a tight narrative, and then he started to double down on libertarianism I guess. I think he's actually less of a libertarian crank than he used to be, that just used to be more or less walled away on Common Sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Eldoop posted:Does anyone have recommendations for a more topic-based podcast on Rome? I'm nearing the end of History of Rome and I'd like to go back and broaden out a bit. Fall of Rome is really great, and covers the part Duncan had to speed through the most because of the whole having a kid thing. But it's also way different in that Wyman had a real academic background studying the topic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
kiminewt posted:Never heard of the podcast, but I assume if you're on season 3 then the first two were good and accurate? Just from listening to their Chapo episode, it feels like the goal is more to dunk on the mainstream American narrative than to approach the subject with an open mind and tell the whole story, and that a lot of the praise it gets is for confirming the priors of people who are already die hard anti-imperialists. I haven't listened to the podcast itself, but when the way today's North Korean dictatorship is described is by skirting around how it's not free in the sense that most of us here in the West would be comfortable with but it's not as bad as we're told, it sure feels like one side's flaws are going to be minimized away while the other's are put under a microscope. I'm really not trying to say it's a piece of poo poo or anything, just that while I think the traditional American narrative is self serving to the point of being full of poo poo, podcasters who clearly have preconceived notions of their own speaking to an audience that they know wants to hear how bad the US is might not be the most accurate way to debunk it. That said, if you've only heard the traditional narrative before, I'm sure it'll at least be an interesting counter-narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:hmmm I'm not saying it's propaganda so much as it's clearly biased. Like yeah the broader narrative Thwomp mentioned sounds reasonable, but I think it's fair to suggest people should be aware of the podcasters' open bias as they assess the show's accuracy when it comes to detail and whether the hosts might be overly credulous (or cynical) on some points. Objective history is basically impossible even with the best intentions, so I think it's good for people know what angle they're approaching the show from, and to their credit I don't think the guys making it are trying to hide that at all. I wouldn't have said I think it's a useful counterpoint to the traditional narrative if I thought they were engaged in a bad faith effort to mislead people.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
I explicitly said I haven't, but the Chapo episode was obviously a bit of a preview.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:bias is when you don't declare, unprompted, on a different podcast, 'North Korea isn't perfect' enough times. Sorry I didn't do enough gushing praise, maybe you'd prefer for me to prostrate myself and cry while calling them dear podcasters. Really I enjoyed the episode and feel like I learned from it, and again I said I think it's a useful counterpoint to the traditional narrative, so I don't know why you're so upset that I said they're coming from a clearly biased perspective. It's not something they're trying to hide. As I said, I haven't listened to the whole podcast myself (at least yet), and I'm not an expert on the subject who's going to do a full fact check, but it seems like they're attempting to do serious work. I just think it's worth keeping in mind that there's going to be a bit of a filter here even if they take efforts to be accurate about what they do cover.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
Cool, glad we solved this crisis of someone talking about your favorite podcast in a way that you found objectionable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
rotinaj posted:Desperately insisting that you’re not mad you got told is a very cool look and we are all glad to hear your unrelated and uninformed opinions on things I don't really think the podcasters themselves talking about their podcast on another podcast one of them used to produce is entirely unrelated, but ymmv. If I "got told" for offering a relatively mild opinion about the hosts (while still kind of recommending the show for offering an atypical perspective if people are interested in the topic), I guess I'll have to find a way to live with that, but I really don't understand what you're so worked up about. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 00:43
|
|