Now That You Mention It

What is the most alarming part of Donald Trump's presidency? Certainly the theater of Trump is distressing: the antics, the buffoonery, the duplicity, the degradation of political norms, the coarsening of public discourse...and yet, of course, the actual policies (or lack thereof) implemented by the Trump administration are alarming as well. But is there really a fundamental distinction to be made between past presidents and Trump? Or is Trump, by handing over the machinery of government to bankers, conservative think tanks, and corporate elites, indistinguishable from any other right wing politician? Or, for that matter, distinguishable from any other politican, period? This one got a little heated, in a good way: Dane and Kevin argue about moral imperatives as applied to politics, the valorization of voting, and the logic of "lesser of two evils" thinking. The thirtieth episode is a milestone, no? And special thanks to Hale Allen (https://www.haleallen.com/) for supplying the episode inspo. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Chris Hedges: The Useful Idiocy of Donald Trump (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/01/29/useful-idiocy-donald-trump) List of 100 environmental rules reversed by the Trump administration (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html)

What is to blame for still existing racial disparities in American society? Are they, as someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates would say, attributable to an historical, implacable, and foundational white racism? Is racism the engine of American history? Is race itself real, ontological--or are we free to say that racism is real but that race is a fiction? Here we go: on episode 29, Dane and Kevin are talking woke politics, the neoliberal tendency to divorce race from class, and the pitfalls of reducing everything to race; needless to say, Dane got mad uncomfortable disagreeing with Ta-Nehisi Coates. Before that: a detailed look at how "hip hop" pundit DJ Akademiks used victims of Chicago gun violence to create a vast and lucrative social media following. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Touré Reed: Toward Freedom: The Case Against Race Reductionism (https://www.versobooks.com/books/3166-toward-freedom)

Can violence be an effective tool for social change? Under what conditions is violence permissible? And who gets to determine what counts as violence in the first place? Judith Butler argues that reenvisioning the concept of the self entails a broad commitment to nonviolence as a way to protect against violence, while Frantz Fanon makes the case not just that violence is justified, but that it is a necessary part of overcoming oppression, especially in the colonial context. Who's right? Once violence is used as a tool for self-defense, is it possible to distinguish it from the violence against which it's meant to protect? Is armed struggle even feasible in developed, miltarized nations? And perhaps most importantly, are there even right and wrong answers when it comes to the permissibility of violence, or are we forced to admit a kind of nihilism about when violence is or isn't justifiable? Before that: drinking hot tea out of a glass is far more urbane than drinking tea out of a ceramic mug, and Joe Rogan's conspiracy theory relativism is insufferable. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Judith Butler: The Force of Nonviolence (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/622855/the-force-of-nonviolence-by-judith-butler/) Frantz Fanon: The Wretched of the Earth (https://groveatlantic.com/book/the-wretched-of-the-earth/)

What explains wealth inequality? Are inequalities between individuals the result of natural differences, or are they the result of societal institutions? How do Enlightenment values like the notion of the individual and the concept of private property undergird manifestations of inequality? And what, anyway, is so morally objectionable about wealth inequality? Is inequality, in and of itself, immoral? We're trying to answer all these questions and more, and we're using two heavy hitters, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Harry Frankfurt, as inspo. Before that: Kevin delivers a dope ass monologue about "Fuck Racism" merch and how corporate PR strategies undermine social protest. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Harry Frankfurt: On Inequality (https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167145/on-inequality) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c7b1/f7a25325a96d38b3c705d840e0ef70643e0b.pdf)

In the wake of the brutal murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police, we find ourselves living through yet another variation on that historic theme of American racism. What do the protests, and the police resonse to them, reveal about the way American society is structured? Given the origins of policing in this country, is the term "good cop" oxymoronic? And most importantly, will anything change? AFTER that, we're talking Soren Kierkegaard's famous essay, "On the Present Age." Is ours an age of hollow reflection and inaction? What is the mass media's role in flattening class consciousness? Is true rebellion even possible? Kierkegaard might have been on to something but given how 2020 has gone, we're hoping he's wrong. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Naomi Klein: No Logo (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780312429270) Soren Kierkegaard: On the Present Age (https://www.harperacademic.com/book/9780062930859/the-present-age/)

How does the mass media function in American society? Is the media landscape really an egalitarian one, wherein news outlets aim to attract audiences by presenting information in a value-neutral way? According to Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, nah: they say the mass media is a system of propaganda that functions, ultimately, to preserve and protect the interests of media company shareholders, their advertisers, and governmental and corporate sources. But are they right? How has their model, originally published in 1988, stood up to the test of time? Are there distinctions to be made between organizations like The New York Times and Fox News? We're dissecting the mass media not as a cabal of nefarious execs scheming to deceive the public, but rather as a set of bureaucracies and incentives oriented, fundamentally, around the bottom line and maintaining the status quo. Before that: when to shower during quarantine, cologne is superfluous trash, and the myth of Elon Musk as a self-made innovator who's invested in the welfare of humanity (he's not). Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited Alex Graham: A Deep Dive Into Elon Musk's Investments (https://www.toptal.com/finance/venture-capital-consultants/elon-musks-investments) Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/78912/manufacturing-consent-by-edward-s-herman-and-noam-chomsky/) Jerry Hirsch: Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies (https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html) Julia Carrie Wong: Tesla workers say they pay the price for Elon Musk's big promises (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises) Matt Robinson and Zeke Faux: When Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon-musk-tried-to-destroy-tesla-whistleblower-martin-tripp) Noel Randewich: Musk's Tesla stake worth $30 billion after electrifying stock surge (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-tesla/musks-tesla-stake-worth-30-billion-after-electrifying-stock-surge-idUSKBN1ZY2Y4) Philip de Wet: Elon Musk's family owns an emerald mine in Zambia (https://www.businessinsider.co.za/how-elon-musks-family-came-to-own-an-emerald-mine-2018-2) Will Evans and Alyssa Jeong Perry: Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books (https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is-safer-but-it-left-injuries-off-the-books/)

It's the return of the Now That You Mention It podcast: Coronavirus thrust us into quarantine, and Amazon was slow to deliver the equip that'd allow us to record remotely. But we're here now, so enough with the preamble: in the opening seg, Kev gets into a theory about how Roc Marciano is the Marcel Proust of hip hop, and Dane delivers a monologue about the moral relativism of the Netflix doc "Tiger King". And in the main segment it's all things COVID-19, from the ineptitude of the government's response, to the role of the federal government in general, to the misleading messaging about "essential workers", and much, much more Coronavirus bullshit. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/).

What explains the celebrification of the NBA? In other words: why is it that nowadays, fans gravitate towards individual players as opposed to teams? Are the days of loyal fans and regional alliances to teams gone? On top of that: does the notion of remaining a loyal franchise fan even make coherent sense, given how often teams undergo changes? We're casting a lot of "overrated" aspersions, too, and taking a big picture look at the reality show that is the NBA. Before that: Lil Wayne dropped new music, Coronavirus is surging, and Bloomberg's out here lurking. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/).

Before there was Biggie, Pac, Jay, or Nas--the gods of the hip hop pantheon--there was Rakim. No one before or since has changed the rap game as much as Rakim--but why does it still feel like his legacy goes unrecognized by the majority? Why do the innovators and trailblazers of hip hop get relegated to the periphery of its history? What does it mean to be a paradigm-shifter within a given art form? Has hip hop lost sight of its roots? In episode 22, we're taking on all these questions and more, but mostly we're celebrating and discussing the work of the John Coltrane of hip hop, Rakim Allah. Before that: remembering Kobe, and Dane continues to get disrespected by doormen. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Rakim: Sweat the Technique: Revelations on Creativity from the Lyrical Genius (https://www.amazon.com/Sweat-Technique-Elements-Writing-Anything-Rakim-ebook/dp/B07DHMS5QL)

What is hate speech? Is it legal or illegal, here in the United States, to engage in hate speech? What, for that matter, are the limits of free speech in general? And why is it so crucial to protect free speech above--seemingly--everything else? This is the culture wars episode: we're talking Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, campus culture, selective outrage, counterspeech, and much more. Before that: parents need to get back on that corporal punishment tip, and New York City can't handle a little snow. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Nadine Strossen: Hate: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship (https://www.amazon.com/HATE-Should-Resist-Censorship-Inalienable/dp/0190859121)

What does it mean--conceptually--to be a billionaire? What explains the unfettered financialization of our economy? What bearing do soaring GDP and stock market prices have on the majority of Americans? What does it say about our society that the richest 400 Americans paid less in taxes than everyone else? Capitalism, undoubtedly, has gone sicko mode. Before that: Dane can't grow a beard, and Kevin's disgusted at y'all for the World War 3 memes. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Anne Fisher: What Harm Can a 'Survival' Job After College Do? (https://fortune.com/2018/08/16/college-graduates-first-survival-jobs/) Louis Jacobson: What Percentage of Americans Own Stocks? (https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/) Joel Shannon: Amazon Pays No Federal Income Tax for 2018, Despite Soaring Profits (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/15/amazon-pays-no-2018-federal-income-tax-report-says/2886639002/) How Does the Current Cost of Living Compare to 20 Years Ago? (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-current-cost-living-compare-20-years-ago.asp) Just 8 Men Own Same Wealth as Half the World (https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world) Reddit post: Conceptualizing Billionaires (https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/cudo09/bernie_sanders_welcomes_the_hatred_of_billionaires/extdljj/?user_id=63042671)

There will inevitably come a time when we'll wax nostalgic about the music of the 2010s. We'll get glassy-eyed thinking about the first time we heard good kid, m.A.A.d city, reminisce about the halycon Odd Future days, and maybe even look back fondly upon the pre-Trump-obsessed Kanye. But before those rose-colored lenses become permanent, we're here to remind you that a straight up egregious amount of really, really awful music came out this past decade. The Decade Ranneth Over With Trash: Future inexplicably put out an anthology of mixtapes, each one more insipid than the last, Jay-Z dropped one of the worst albums in hip hop history, Big Sean insisted on letting the public know he can rap despite having absolutely nothing to say, and much, much more. As for the opening: the politics of free agency and fandom...and Dane's got dry skin. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/).

How do multinational corporations destroy the environment with impunity? What the fuck are PCBs? And how is it that lead continues to be a life-destroying force for so many Americans? We're here to tell you that, yup, all of the above questions are inextricably related: in the second part of our series on environmental racism we're talking Monsanto Chemical, the history of lead, corporate PR strategies, and much more. All of it is terrifying. Before that: Dane's got OD social anxiety especially when it comes to getting his hair cut, and the subtle art of ordering embarrassing-ass oat milk lattes for your girl. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Harriet A. Washington: A Terrible Thing to Waste: Environmental Racism and Its Assault on the American Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Terrible-Thing-Waste-Environmental-American-ebook/dp/B07F65ZFFV)

One of the prevailing assumptions about IQ is that it is fixed at birth. But is that really true? And if not, then how do our environments shape our intellectual potential? Exposure to chemcials like PCBs, phthalates, and hydrocarbons, as well as heavy metals like mercury and lead, has been shown to have deleterious effects on brain development and function. And in the United States, people of color are the ones most likely to be affected by these intelligence-lowering chemicals: hence the term, and subject of episode 17, environmental racism. Large corporations are out here poisoning people en masse, black Americans are far more likely to live in "sacrifice zones", and the Flint, Michigan water crisis is worse than you thought it was. This one's terrifying, and part two is coming next week. Before that: Kevin updates us on his grad school apps, Lakers fans do mental gymnastics, and Dane rants about old school Upper East Side doormen. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Harriet A. Washington: A Terrible Thing to Waste: Environmental Racism and Its Assault on the American Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Terrible-Thing-Waste-Environmental-American-ebook/dp/B07F65ZFFV)

What makes an effective diss track? Should we solely be concerned with aesthetics when evaluating how devasting disses are, or do good disses demand that one rapper "expose" his or her opponent? What's the relationship between diss tracks and battle rap at large? And should we give any credence to the idea that a hit diss track is more destructive than a diss that doesn't attain commercial success? Spoiler: we most definitely should not. It's episode 16: we're talking diss tracks from classic to contemporary, from Jay and Nas to Jeezy and Freddie Gibbs. Before that: it's a long-ass opening segment, featuring topics such as: competing definitions of racism! Kevin Durant's awful press run and ridiculous comments about the Knicks! Zuckerberg is trash! Big data collection! AOC's senatorial glasses! And much more! Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/).

Ok, so conspiracy theories are everywhere--what are we supposed to do about it? Are there even reliable ways to separate the truly wacky theories from the ones that might be onto something? After all, conspiracy theories are especially well equipped to handle skepticism: evidence could have been covered up, or whistleblowers silenced; witnesses coulda been popped and the media could be in on it too. Fortunately, we're here to tell you that yes, there are good ways to determine just how implausible your homie's wild theories about our reptilian overlords are. Our first part 2 episode ever! And in the opening segment, we introduce a genuinely novel, innovative, and groundbreaking practice: fact checking! Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Joseph M. Parent and Joseph E. Uscinski: American Conspiracy Theories (https://www.amazon.com/American-Conspiracy-Theories-Joseph-Uscinski/dp/0199351813)

What the fuck is up with the widespread proliferation (and acceptance) of conspiracy theories? Where once the caritcature of a conspiracy theorist was a Doritos-eating, basement-dwelling white guy pushed to the margins of society precisely because of his nutty-ass beliefs, it's now become clear that conspiracy thinking has permeated the mainstream American psyche. Or...has it always been that way? Maybe the tendency to conspiracy theorize is more deeply embedded in our national DNA than we'd like to admit. And what gives rise to conspiracy thinking anyway? Our emotions? Our ideologies? Our identities themselves? In part 1 of the Now That You Mention It podcast's first ever 2-part episode, Dane and Kevin argue about the forces that shape conspiracy thinking and the social contexts out of which they arise. Before all that: Dane's a fake audio engineer, Bill Maher is...aight, and Roc Marciano lyrics are back under the microscope. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Joseph M. Parent and Joseph E. Uscinski: American Conspiracy Theories (https://www.amazon.com/American-Conspiracy-Theories-Joseph-Uscinski/dp/0199351813)

What's wrong with cultural appropriation? Moreoever, what exactly is cultural appropriation? Can culture really be owned? In other words: does it even make sense to talk about culture as "property"? And on what basis can members of a contemporary cultural group claim the art and artifacts of an ancient culture? We're back after a quick break to break down (bars) cultural appropriation and answer the perenially recurring question: is Gold Chain Dane a culture vulture?? Before that: Kevin showcases a Roc Marciano line for another edition of Good Rapper, Bad Bars, Dane's grammar is bad, and the algo remains inscrutable. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Ethics of Cultural Heritage (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-cultural-heritage/)

What is celebrity, and why do we exalt it? Is fame ever earned in a truly meritocratic way? What does it mean to be "famous for being famous"? Does everyone really, deep down, wanna be famous? And what's up with the trend of celebrities claiming they're victims of cyber-bullying? Can celebrities be victims of cyber-bullying? Things get confusing and surprisingly heated as Dane and Kev attempt to break down the bizarre world of celebrity. Opening segment: Hurricane Dorian turns out to be the plug, the world is ending, and cats really don't know how to use apostrophes. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Jed Lea-Henry: Audiences for Our Lives: The Philosophy of Fame (https://medium.com/@jrleahenry/audiences-for-our-lives-the-philosophy-of-fame-c78cc32a432e)

Food porn, sneaker porn, car porn, design porn, penmanship porn, power washing porn, even, yes, "things cut in half" porn: what exactly is going on with the way we use the word "porn" today? According to philosophers C. Thi Nguyen and Bekka Williams, this new, generic sense of "porn" is applicable when we use images or other media for "immediate gratification" while "avoiding the complexities" of the actual thing. But are they right? Is "food porn" really used for immediate gratification, or does porn--in any of its forms--stimulate desire, rather than gratify it? Are things like food and car porn really harmless, as the authors claim? And what is the relationship between this new sense of "porn" and traditional, sexual pornography? We're deep into our porn bag on this one. And before that: self-help guru Charlamagne tha God jumped the shark on a recent IG inspo post, so naturally we're breaking that down. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: C. Thi Nguyen and Bekka Williams: Why We Call Things 'Porn' (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/opinion/sunday/porn.html) Maggie Jones: What Teenagers are Learning from Online Porn (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/magazine/teenagers-learning-online-porn-literacy-sex-education.html) Charlamagne's Ridiculous IG post (https://www.instagram.com/p/B1tRh8pAN3t/)

What exactly is an internet "troll"? Is trolling simply the act of posting inflammatory messages on the internet, or is there a subtler, more sophisticated art of trolling? Why do the trolls troll anyway? And how did trolling become a part of mainstream culture? Where once trolling was a behavior relegated exclusively to the internet, it's clear that the phenomenon has seeped its way into our offline lives as well: superstar celebrities troll their fans and detractors alike, multinational corporations put out products that appear to be trolls; one most definitely could, with a whole lot of plausibility, claim that the president of the United States is a practitioner of the art of trolling. It's episode 10, ya heard! Dane and Kevin are talking all things troll: Kanye, Tekashi, Soulja Boy, Donald Trump, Balenciaga, Surrealist art, that ridiculous motherfucking top 50 rappers of all time list, and much more. As for the opening segment: a quick installment of Good Rapper, Bad Bars, a diatribe about Big Pun's Capital Punishment, and a few brief remarks about the shocking revelation that Jay-Z is concerned primarily with...getting wealthier??? What??? Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Christine Cook: Under the bridge: an in-depth examination of online trolling in the gaming context (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322127655_Under_the_bridge_An_in-depth_examination_of_online_trolling_in_the_gaming_context) Jesse Fox: Why the Online Trolls Troll (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/better-living-technology/201408/why-the-online-trolls-troll)

"We tell ourselves stories in order to live," reads the famous opening line of Joan Didion's 1979 book of essays, The White Album. In 2019, the line reads like prophesy: with the proliferation of social media, it almost seems like a truism to note that we're constantly writing and rewriting our lives, consuming the lives of others, imposing a narrative line on the raw experience of our day-to-day lives. But we can intentionally distort the story of our lives on social media, too (see: the tragic case of Lil Bow Bow and the subsequent "Bow Wow Challenge"). We can, for example, make our lives appear to be nothing less than a series of enviable triumphs, one after the next. We can project the image of a perfect life, and, importantly, let our followers know that they can have a perfect life as well. Enter the concept of "inspo," or social media self-helpism. Episode 9 of the Now That You Mention It podcast features Kevin and Dane interrogating the idea of the narrativity of self, the self-help industry at large, and the widespread and sometimes bizarre phenomenon of Instagram "inspo". Before that: another installment of Good Rapper, Bad Bars, this one featuring Prodigy (again), and Jay-Z. Plus, what's up with these wack, click-bait top 50 rappers of all time lists? Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Alexandra Schwartz: Improving Ourselves to Death (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/improving-ourselves-to-death) Instagram Star Reportedly Couldn't Sell 36 T-Shirts to 2.6 Million Followers (https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/instagram-star-tshirts-followers-bubble-bursting-report) Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson: Getting A Life: Everyday Uses of Autobiography (https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Life-Everyday-Uses-Autobiography/dp/0816624909)

What is the difference between "highbrow" and "lowbrow" art? Is there a distinction between the two at all, or are the categories just social constructions? Can certain genres have their own, built-in hierarchies of high brow and low brow? And how does the high vs. low distinction apply to hip-hop? Episode 8 of the Now That You Mention It podcast features Kevin and Dane arguing about elitism, populism, the properties of "high" vs. "low" art, MF DOOM, Kendrick Lamar, and more. As for the opening: Kevin introduces a new segment, Dane has an infuriating experience at Urban Outfitters, and the two revisit a discussion on race relations as applied to food. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: John A. Fisher: High Art Versus Low Art (https://spot.colorado.edu/~jafisher/OnLine%20papers/High%20Low%20Art%20Ch%2046.pdf)

What does it take to be your favorite rapper's favorite rapper? On episode 7, Kevin and Dane theorize about how rappers are perceived amongst their peers, and argue-really argue-about the tension between artistic purity and commercial viability. Do rappers compromise their integrity if they consciously craft a radio-friendly song, or is that all part of the game? Is the main draw of signing to a major label the money, or the exposure-or is it a combination of both? But before that: Dane rants about getting accused of being unsanitary at the gym, Kevin notices an absurd tattoo trend, and together, they speculate about what it means to "do it for the culture". Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/).

It's hip to complain about gentrifiers. At the same time, it's hip to be one. But what is gentrification precisely--and more importantly, what are its causes and effects? Does gentrification have a moral valence? In other words: is gentrification a good thing or a bad thing? Can it even be classified along moral lines? And what is the effect of gentrification on urban authenticity? In the main segment of episode 6, Dane and Kevin cite the work of Richard Rothstein, Peter Marcuse, and more to break down (and cringe at) the phenomenon of gentrification. As for the opening segment: The Great British Breaking Show is a grotesque display of over-consumption, and Dane rants about the news-making accusation that air conditioning is sexist. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Peter Marcuse: Gentrification, Abandonment, and Displacement: Connections, Causes, and Policy Responses in New York City (https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=law_urbanlaw) Richard Rothstein: The Color of Law (https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/) Tom Slater: Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification and Displacement (https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tslater/missingmarcuse.pdf)

Everyone seems to agree that there's mad bullshit out there: social media is bullshit. Politics is bullshit. Punditry, in its many forms, is bullshit. But what exactly is bullshit, and why is there so much of it? Philosopher Harry Frankfurt thought he had a good idea, and here, Kevin and Dane break down his 1986 essay, "On Bullshit." What's the difference between lying and bullshitting? Is bullshit in some sense a necessary part of our social and professional lives? And who's worse: the bullshitter or the liar? Episode 5 of the Now That You Mention It podcast features a whole lot of bullshit. Before that, though: Kevin's got an issue with oversized jackets, and Dane might be a prisoner of the moment for liking Freddie Gibbs and Madlib's new album Bandana more than their classic from 2014, Piñata. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Harry Frankfurt: On Bullshit (http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf)

In the post #MeToo, post sort-of-revelatory-R-Kelly-documentary era, we're constantly confronted with the question: "Can you separate the art and the artist?" In episode 4, Dane and Kevin address the question head on, and attempt to answer a few more: is it morally permissible to consume art created by morally repugnant individuals? Does listening to an artist like Chris Brown signal our indifference to victims of assault? Should we "cancel" the work of Roman Polanski and Bill Cosby, or should we let the art stand for itself? Also: Kevin is a self-identified foodie, but does that mean he knows anything about food? Plus: Zac Efron is trash at acting, Drake is a clown, and Now That You Mention It officially has podcast beef with Trevor Noah. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Aristotle: Rhetoric (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html) Jacob Kuppermann: On the Impossibility of Separating Art from Artist (https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/10/21/on-the-impossibility-of-separating-art-from-artist/) W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley: The Intentional Fallacy (http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/Fallacy.htm)

Is it morally permissible to be a billionaire? Should the ultra-rich be expected to give their fortunes away? And in what sense are the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world truly deserving of their enormous wealth? In the third episode of the Now That You Mention It podcast, Dane and Kevin rant about Jeff Bezos, translate David Hume into modern parlance, and use the work of utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer as a backdrop for discussing the ethics of being a billionaire. Before that, though: Kevin shouts out SZA while drinking a pineapple-moss smoothie, and Dane wonders what's up with hip hop's weird obsession with The 48 Laws of Power. Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: A.Q. Smith: It's Basically Just Immoral To Be Rich (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich) David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm) Peter Singer: The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle (https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm)

What is hype, and where does it come from? More broadly, what is fashion, and what do fashion choices say about the people who make them? Does fashion really communicate anything anything at all? And what the fuck is up with cats paying a stack for a Supreme hoodie? In this episode, Dane and Kevin dive into the philosophy of fashion, break down the concept of "cool", and wonder what it says about them that they both (occassionally) display hypebeast tendencies. In the main segment of the show, they're joined by Will Jones of Supreme, who gives an insider's perspective on the brand and the hype surrounding it. Also: what's the whiter food, mayonaisse or tuna casserole? Are corn dogs considered a white food, or do they transcend racial boundaries? Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano (https://www.instagram.com/chris_giuliano_gs/). Works Cited: Dinerstein, Joel. The Origins of Cool in Postwar America (https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo6880323.html), 2017. Gladwell, Malcolm. The Coolhunt (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/03/17/the-coolhunt), 1997. Svendsen, Lars. Fashion: A Philosophy (https://www.amazon.com/Fashion-Philosophy-Lars-Svendsen/dp/1861892918), 2004.

What are the criteria by which albums are deemed "classic"? Are there important differences between a classic album and a classic mixtape? Can a classic sound dated, or have bad songs? In the first episode of the Now That You Mention It podcast, Dane and Kevin attempt to answer all of the above questions, and more. Artists discussed in this episode include Isaiah Rashad, Drake, Kendrick Lamar, Nipsey Hussle, Dom Kennedy, Wu-Tang, the Diplomats, and DMX. Also: Kevin shouts out Tinashe, and Dane notes the cringe-inducing qualities of Jonah Hill's recent hip-hop centric press run. Works Cited: Kendrick Lamar, Drake and the Definition of a 'Classic' Rap Album (https://theundefeated.com/features/kendrick-lamar-drake-definition-of-a-classic-rap-album/)