Academic Edgelords

Critics like Shoshana Zuboff call Big Tech a parasitic system of control—but philosopher Peter Königs thinks that story is overblown. His 2024 Philosophy & Technology paper argues that the panic around “surveillance capitalism” exaggerates its harms and ignores its benefits. We discuss his case that targeted ads aren’t especially manipulative, that social media’s political and mental-health effects are far less dire than claimed, and that data collection doesn’t necessarily destroy privacy or freedom. Is Königs offering a reasonable correction to digital-age hysteria, or just apologizing for the algorithms that rule us? To help answer this, we are joined by STS scholar Michelle Charette The post EP30: Is Surveillance Capitalism Really That Bad? (On Königs “In Defense of ‘Surveillance Capitalism”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we read “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation”, by Stephen Kershnar and Nathan Bray. In it, they argue that cultural appropriation is neither morally wrong nor socially harmful. They reject claims that it constitutes theft, disrespect, or oppression, insisting that no one owns cultural ideas or symbols and that cultural mixing often benefits everyone. In this episode, we debate whether a property-rights-based argument for it holds up, whether offense and inequality matter morally, and if there are cases where cultural appropriation really is wrong. Ultimately, we agree that in cases when it seems bad, it’s usually bad for reasons other than the fact of it’s cultural appropriation. The post EP29: Is Cultural Appropriation Really That Bad? (On Kershnar and Brey’s “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

Is moderation just fence-sitting, or is it a forgotten virtue? In this episode, we sit down with philosopher Marcus Arvan to discuss his new book Why It’s OK to Be a Moderate. We dig into why radicals often steal the spotlight, how moral certainty can slip into fanaticism, and why history may vindicate moderates more than we think. We also debate Arvan on the moral permissibility of centrism. Marcus also runs the Philosophers’ Cacoon, a philosophy blog dedicated to early career philosophers. Check it out here. The post EP28: Is it Okay to be a Moderate? (On Marcus Arvan’s “Why it’s OK to Be a Moderate”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we explore a very provocative argument in contemporary animal ethics: the moral defense of violent direct action to protect animals. The pseudonymous philosopher Ivar Hardman challenges both mainstream liberal ethics and the cautious pacifism of figures like Peter Singer and Tom Regan. His essay, “In Defense of Direct Action”, argues that it is prima facie morally permissible, in some cases even required, for individuals to use coercion, including violence and property destruction, to prevent the serious and wrongful harm of animals. Drawing on common sense morality, Hardman builds a case for treating militant animal rights activists not as moral outliers, but as people following ordinary moral principles to their logical conclusion. We explore the paper’s key claims, how it situates itself against animal ethics orthodoxy, and what it implies for the legitimacy of groups like the Animal Liberation Front. If you want to offset your meat consumption (as mentioned by Ethan in the episode), check out FarmKind Check out Stephan Kershnar’s controversial publication record (we mentioned at the end of the episode). https://philpeople.org/profiles/stephen-kershnar The post EP27: Should We Use Violence To Protect Animals? (On Ivar Hardman’s “In Defence of Direct Action”) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.

In this episode, we delve into Emily Tilton and Briana Toole’s forthcoming chapter, “Standpoint Epistemology and the Epistemology of Deference,” featured in the Blackwell Companion to Epistemology. We are joined by two guests: Michelle Charette, who recently completed her PhD in Science and Technology Studies, and John Atytalla, who holds a PhD in Philosophy.​ Tilton and Toole critically examine the prevailing trend of epistemic deference – where individuals are encouraged to accept the judgments of marginalized groups as their own. While acknowledging the importance of recognizing marginalized perspectives, they argue that habitual deference can inadvertently hinder the socially dominant from cultivating essential epistemic skills, such as empathy and critical inquiry. They advocate for an epistemic framework centered on inclusion and active engagement rather than passive deference. We had a mixture of audio setups in this episode, so there are a couple of audio anomalies. Feature Image from Frits Ahlefeldt The post EP26: Should We Defer To Marginalized Perspectives? (On Tilton and Toole’s Epistemology of Deference) appeared first on Academic Edgelords.