Podcasts about structurelessness

DEI programs are being shut down left and right, and the toxic culture of white supremacy is becoming more rampant. This has led to more and more people making white privilege a norm in their own workplace cultures. Davey Shlasko, founder of Think Again Training, leads the revolution in shaping inclusive, diverse, and anti-racist leaders. Joining Corinna Bellizzi, he shares how to build the right leadership that addresses bias, discrimination, perfectionism, and an unfair focus on hierarchy. He also discusses how the worsening perspectives on DEI adversely impact the state of economy, minimum wage, business hiring practices, and a person's choice of pronouns.About Guest:Davey is the founder and director of Think Again Training & Consulting, a collaborative consulting practice that supports organizations to integrate equity, inclusion and social justice into their long-term planning and everyday practices. Davey co-created the Antiracist Development Group for white managers, an 8-week cohort program based in frameworks of intersectional social justice and challenging white supremacy culture that prepares white people in leadership roles to bring antiracist practices into their management, supervision, planning and everything about their leadership.Guest LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/90517341Guest Website: https://www.thinkagaintraining.com/blog/whyantiracismskillsGuest Social: https://www.instagram.com/thinkagain_tc/https://www.youtube.com/@shlaskohttps://www.facebook.com/thinkagaintrainingAnti-Racist / DEI Reading ListOn Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From The Twentieth Century by Timothy SnyderHow We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective, edited by Keeanga-Yamahtta TaylorEmergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds by Adrienne Maree BrownPleasure Activism: The Politics of Feeling Good by Adrienne Maree BrownHow to be an Anti-racist by Ibram X KendiHow to be a (Young) Anti-racist by Ibram X Kendi Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor by Layla F. SaadWhite Supremacy Culture by Tema Okun and Kenneth JonesThe Anthropology of White Supremacy: A Reader Edited by Aisha M. Beliso-De Jesús, Jemima Pierre, Junaid Rana The Body is Not an Apology by Sonya Renee TaylorThe Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jorene Freeman, 1972Beware the Tyranny of StructurelessnessAnti-Racist / DEI Podcasts to Listen To:Code Switch 1619 Octavia's Parables Seeing White Mother Country Radicals Show Notes: Final audioJOIN OUR CIRCLE. BUILD A GREENER FUTURE:

In Episode 72, we're joined by Cecilia Guerrero, an organizer in Nashville, Tennessee, helping to innovate a new generation of socialist movement-building deep in the American South. We discuss what it's like organizing in Tennessee, the fantastic gains being made by the new network of organizations springing up there — including an unprecendented wildcat union of Uber and Lyft drivers — and the many lessons to be learned for socialists operating in such an environment. Part of the Quest for the Offline Left series.Show NotesThe Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo FreemanAmber Frost on nonprofits - Dirtbag‘Nonprofit Mystification, Counterinsurgency and George Jackson' - Interview with Hiram Rivera on Millennials are Killing Capitalism'Hundreds of Nashville rideshare drivers vote to unionize' - Tennessee LookoutA Luta Sigue official websiteA Luta Sigue on IGTennessee Drivers' Union on IGNashville People Power on IGSouthern Youth Solidarity Network on IGFollow Fucking Cancelled on InstagramFind merch in our shopClementine MorriganJay LesoleilFucking CancelledTheme song by ST x LIAM.Mixing and editing by Charlotte Dora.Jay Lesoleil is a writer, artist, and shelter worker from Montréal with a background in political anthropology. Jay is also one half of the podcast Fucking Cancelled.Clementine Morrigan is a writer, zinester, and public intellectual based in Montréal. She writes essays and literay nonfiction on culture, politics, ethics, relationships, sexuality, spirituality, and trauma. She is one half of Fucking Cancelled. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fuckingcancelled.com/subscribe

In the Gaming Hut beloved Patreon backer Jason Thompson asks if the group dynamic known as the Tyranny of Structurelessness applies to GM-less roleplaying games. Estimable backer Gray St. Quintin seeks the regular confines of the Architecture Hut to ask about Walter Burley Griffin, designer of Canberra and avid anthroposophist. Fun With Science ensues when […]

Guest Nathan Schneider Panelist Richard Littauer | Leslie Hawthorne Show Notes In this episode of Sustain, host Richard is joined by Leslie Hawthorne, and features a discussion with guest Nathan Schneider, an assistant professor of media studies and the director of the Media Economics Design Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder, about his new book,”Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life.” The conversation explores the motivations of the book, which stems from Nathan's experiences in running online spaces and his realization of the inadequacies in tools available for practicing democracy in these spaces. Richard, Leslie, and Nathan delve into the historical development of online spaces, the challenges in creating democratic governance online, and the potential impact on global democracy. The discussion also touches on open source sustainability, governance failures and potentials in open-source projects such as Git, and the role of protocols in shaping online communities. Additionally, Nathan argues for diverse forms of governance and shares examples of successes in opensource governance. Press download now to hear more! [00:01:40] Nathan explains the motivation for his book, “Governable Spaces.” [00:05:24] The discussion dives into the concept of the book with Richard questioning the practical existence of such spaces based on the book's definition. Nathan confirms the book focusses on the absence of democratic infrastructures in digital lives and the lack of support for cooperatives online. [00:09:09] Richard relates the discussion on culture and democracy to media archaeology and questions how this relates to open source sustainability. Nathan acknowledges the importance of the topic and brings up the example of Git to discuss absences in open source governance. [00:13:41] Leslie asks Nathan to elaborate on his views regarding the lack of governance and democratic sharing of responsibilities within the structure that have developed, particularly in open source. Nathan responds by identifying two approaches to this issue. He first addresses the cultural aspect, and then the technical and legal aspects. [00:16:44] Leslie further inquires whether Nathan has considered in his book that the lack of governance could be due to the backgrounds of early internet designers, who were not from marginalized or vulnerable populations and thus did not prioritize governance structures. He talks about the colonization metaphor in the early internet's language, specifically the term “homesteading,” and how it reflects a flawed understanding of democracy and governance. [00:18:18] Nathan mentions Jo Freeman's essay, “The Tyranny of Structurelessness,” which warns against the absence of explicit governance leading to the rise of implicit governance by those already privileged. He also emphasizes that despite the dominant structures, there are examples of democratic practices in online spaces, especially among non-dominant identity groups. [00:20:33] Richard questions the robustness of democracy and brings up a point from Nathan's book that raised some questions to him. He also wonders it was difficult for Nathan to use terms that don't hold up under scrutiny for his book, and Nathan acknowledges the complexity of the term “feudalism,” and expresses gratitude for medieval governance structures. [00:24:50] Nathan and Richard discuss the topic of crypto, and Richard appreciates how Nathan's book puts together the chapter on crypto with transformative justice and brings up that the book doesn't go deep into the specifics of internet protocols. Nathan expresses a strong interest in protocols as a means of social organization and elaborates on the significance of crypto and blockchain protocols in breaking away from traditional centralized models. [00:30:30] Leslie asks Nathan about the Fediverse and federated social networking. Nathan shares his positive view on the Fediverse and discusses his experience co-founding a Mastodon server, acknowledging the potential for creating governable spaces while also recognizing the challenges in ensuring democratic governance. [00:32:40] Find out where you can get Nathan's book for free and to purchase. Quotes [00:02:52] “The tools we have are really crappy for practicing democracy.” [00:05:57] “While working on this book, I started realizing how much my interest is in what we don't have, it's in the absence of our digital lives.” Spotlight [00:33:40] Leslie's spotlight is her community devroom co-organizers for FOSDEM'24: Shirley Bailes and Laura Czajkowski. [00:34:04] Richard's spotlight is the Vermont Arts Council. [00:34:32] Nathan's spotlight is a group called the Exit to Community collective. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) podcast@sustainoss.org (mailto:podcast@sustainoss.org) SustainOSS Mastodon (https://mastodon.social/tags/sustainoss) Open Collective-SustainOSS (Contribute) (https://opencollective.com/sustainoss) Richard Littauer Socials (https://www.burntfen.com/2023-05-30/socials) Leslie Hawthorne LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/lesliehawthorn/?originalSubdomain=de) Nathan Schneider Website (https://nathanschneider.info/) Nathan Schneider X/Twitter (https://twitter.com/ntnsndr?lang=en) Governable Spaces-Democratic Design for Online Life by Nathan Schneider (https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520393943/governable-spaces) The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness) Start.coop (https://www.start.coop/) FOSDEM '24 Community devroom (https://fosdem.org/2024/schedule/track/community/) Shirley Bailes LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/shirleybailes/) Laura Czajkowski LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauraczajkowski/) Vermont Arts Council (https://www.vermontartscouncil.org/) Exit to Community (https://e2c.how/) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guest: Nathan Schneider.

On this episode of Rehash, we're speaking with Brennan Mulligan, DAO Program Manager at SuperRare Labs, about effective leadership strategies in DAOs, new spins on progressive decentralization, and Brennan's new ultrarunning career.If you're a DAO operator or a facilitator or manager in any organization, you'll really enjoy this episode and learn something new from Brennan. He shares so many insightful learnings from his time in DAOs and pulls from his background in cognitive science to really understand the ways in which people and organizations function. COLLECT THIS EPISODEhttps://www.rehashweb3.xyz/ FOLLOW USRehash: https://twitter.com/rehashweb3Diana: https://twitter.com/ddwchenBrennan: https://twitter.com/Bmulligan56SuperRare: https://twitter.com/SuperRare LINKSAnticapture by Spencer Graham: https://spengrah.mirror.xyz/f6bZ6cPxJpP-4K_NB7JcjbU0XblJcaf7kVLD75dOYRQThe Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htmHats Protocol: https://twitter.com/hatsprotocolATX DAO: https://twitter.com/ATXDAORareDAO: https://twitter.com/rare_protocolSuperRare Forum: http://forum.superrare.com TIMESTAMPS0:00 Intro2:38 Brennan's background in DAOs6:26 Have Brennan's feelings toward DAOs changed?7:39 Brennan's definition of DAO9:07 What is “capture resistance”?13:25 Brennan's biggest learnings from organizing people in DAOs21:31 Balancing inclusivity with productivity in DAOs29:15 Trust enables centralization35:09 Progressive decentralization38:35 DAO compensation models47:17 Ultrarunning and the human body as a DAO55:28 How Brennan crypto pills his friends and family56:13 Brennan's podcast guest nomination next season56:47 Brennan's favorite tech drama58:31 Follow Brennan DISCLAIMER: The information in this video is the opinion of the speaker(s) only and is for informational purposes only. You should not construe it as investment advice, tax advice, or legal advice, and it does not represent any entity's opinion but those of the speaker(s). For investment or legal advice, please seek a duly licensed professional.

参考にした「Dodging The Tyranny of Structurelessness in DAOs」はこちら→https://tally.mirror.xyz/H_G5KF8CByhQO4jO88RrP2jBHbnyS6M2iAYDaxi2ubI 1.DAOの課題について 2.2種類のDAO 3.DAOとガバナンスの進化 4.DAOガバナンスの3つの柱 5.核となる柱 #1: 正式な構造 Optimismの二院制のガバナンスシステム、集団的意図、ミッションとアライアンス 6.核となる柱 #2：戦略 プロトコルファーストDAO戦略の実際： ユニスワップのビジネス・ソース・ライセンス 7.核となる柱 #3：実力主義と多様性 YouTubeはこちら→⁠https://youtu.be/KO5qVB4izaM⁠ 金城：⁠https://twitter.com/illshin⁠ 中司：⁠https://twitter.com/nakatsukasa_13 AKINDOのプロジェクトはこちら：⁠https://twitter.com/akindo_io⁠

„Sobald (mindestens) zwei Menschen aufeinandertreffen, fängt das Phänomen Autorität an, sich zu entfalten und zu wirken.“ Die vielen Perspektiven auf Führung avancieren immer mehr zum Leitthema im Kontext von Unternehmenskultur. Die Frage der Autorität wird dabei jedoch häufig vorsichtig umschifft. Der Begriff wirkt ein wenig aus der Zeit gefallen. Fast hat es den Anschein, dass sich niemand mehr traut, eine solche Perspektive in den Kontext moderner Führung einzubringen. Ganz so, als hätte sich das Thema von allein erledigt. Dem ist nicht so. Frank Baumann-Habersack ist Autoritätsforscher und geht früh bis spät diesem Phänomen nach, das ihn fesselnderweise manches Mal sogar um den Schlaf bringt. Aber was genau macht ein Autoritätsforscher? In dieser Folge räumen wir gehörig auf mit ein paar Mißverständnissen zum Thema Autorität. So erklärt uns Frank Baumann-Habersack u.a. was Autorität wirklich mit Führen und Folgen und einer freiwilligen Zuschreibung zu tun hat. Er spricht auch von seinem Konzept der transformativen Autorität und geht den historischen und semantischen Wurzeln des Begriffs Autorität nach. Es ist ein herrlicher Deep Dive zu einem Thema, das fast so etwas wie einen blinden Fleck all unserer Bemühungen rund um die zukunftsfähige Arbeitskultur repräsentiert. Hört rein in dieses Gespräch mit einem sehr klugen, tief- und weitdenkenden Experten, der sich offenbar sein ganz eigenes Wirkungsfeld gesucht und erfolgreich geschaffen hat. Wie schön, dass wir davon profitieren dürfen. Interview: Jule Jankowski Franks Lesetipps: Frank Baumann-Habersack: „Mit transformativer Autorität in Führung“. Springer Gabler Verlag Wiesbaden. Hilge Landweer (Hg.), Catherine Newmark (Hg.): „Wie männlich ist Autorität?“. Campus Verlag. Arno Grün: „Wider den Gehorsam“. Klett-Cotta Verlag. Aufsatz von Jo Freeman: The Tyranny of Structurelessness. In: JoFreeman.com. Hier der Link zum Ansatz der transformativen Autorität und zu Frank Baumann-Habersack: https://baumann-habersack.de/transformative-autoritaet/ In unserem GOOD WORK Salon versammeln sich spannende Zeitgenossen: Echte Vordenker:innen, Paradiesvögel ebenso wie fleissige Arbeitsbienchen, Leute aus der Mitte und aus den Nischen unserer Arbeitswelt - kurz: ein bunter Reigen an Menschen, die mit uns ihre klugen Gedanken und gelebten GOOD WORK Geschichten teilen wollen. Die Salongespräche laden ein zu einer wahrhaftigen Begegnung mit diesen Menschen. Im gleichermaßen tiefgründigen wie leichtfüßigen Dialog mit ihnen werden wir uns ausgewählten Phänomenen der Transformation widmen. Dabei wird neben all den inhaltlich wesentlichen Aspekten Platz sein für die menschliche Perspektive. Wir rücken ein Stückchen näher heran an unsere Gäste und laden Sie ein, etwas aus ihrem persönlichen Leben mit uns zu teilen. Der Kontext ist und bleibt die Transformation unserer Arbeitswelt auf ihren unterschiedlichen Bühnen. Unsere fünf GOOD WORK Prinzipien bleiben weiterhin als Struktur im Hintergrund bestehen. Wir sprechen künftig auch immer über gelungene Beziehungsgestaltung, flexible Strukturen, digitale Balance, gelebte Agilität und das Denken in Möglichkeiten. Die Zeit zu lernen ist: JETZT!

In this extra special episode, the boys are joined by Grant Hummer and Matt Liston, two of Ethereum's most original gangsters, to discuss the blockchain's complicated past, its mistakes and pitfalls, and what the future might hold for our favorite L1. Matt, a cofounder of Augur and Gnosis, previously worked for the Ethereum foundation, while Grant founded San Francisco's oldest Ethereum developer meetup. Assisted by your handsome co-hosts, our guests also explore the future of blockchain on Urbit, the pitfalls of inadequate leadership, startup pessimism, how to found a crypto religion, and the metaphysical ecstasy of blockchain contemplation. This is an episode you won't want to miss. Timestamps:0:00—Intro1:25—The dark, twisted history of Matt Liston5:15—The macabre, terrifying background of Grant Hummer8:01—Capital formation and the "Golden Age" of ICOs17:33—The state of Ethereum today (and the case for optimism)26:35—Crypto metaphysics and a blockchain religion37:14—Scaling, functional crypto, and the development of "fundamentals"44:59—Urbit, baby (and Uqbar)48:11—The mistakes of early Ethereum and the importance of leadership58:53—Is Urbit ready for the outside world?1:06:06—Wrap-up1:08:16—OutroMentions: Out of the Ether by Matthew LeisingThe Cryptopians by Laura ShinThe Infinite Machine by Camila RussoThe Tyranny of Structurelessness by Joe FreemanConnect:Matt Liston (~tacsup-datsynGrant Hummer (~habnec-fidlyx / @gphummer)~bichul-ritsen (@bichulR)~timluc-miptev (@basileSportif)~nilrun-mardux (@AlephDAO)And, if you liked the episode, don't forget to give us a five star review. Say something nice and we'll even read it on the pod.

PART ONE: "Trashing - The Dark Side of Sisterhood & the Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman, discussed by Marian Rutigliano, Sheila Jeffreys, Lierre Keith & Jo Brew. Radical feminist perspectives - This series of webinars is run by radical feminists whose voices have been cancelled or silenced in universities, schools and the media. Frustrated that we cannot share what we know in these places, we are offering this online series of webinars here. Enjoy! If you have not already registered for this series, register in advance for this webinar: bit.y/wdirfp After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

PART TWO: "Trashing - The Dark Side of Sisterhood & the Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman, discussed by Marian Rutigliano, Sheila Jeffreys, Lierre Keith & Jo Brew. Radical feminist perspectives - This series of webinars is run by radical feminists whose voices have been cancelled or silenced in universities, schools and the media. Frustrated that we cannot share what we know in these places, we are offering this online series of webinars here. Enjoy! If you have not already registered for this series, register in advance for this webinar: bit.y/wdirfp After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Organising Principles of Radical Feminism & "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman, discussed by discussed by Lierre Keith, Jo Brew, Sheila Jeffreys and Marian Rutigliano. Radical feminist perspectives - This series of webinars is run by radical feminists whose voices have been cancelled or silenced in universities, schools and the media. Frustrated that we cannot share what we know in these places, we are offering this online series of webinars here. Enjoy! If you have not already registered for this series, register in advance for this webinar: bit.ly/wdirfp After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Guest Courtney Miller | Hongbo Fang Panelists Richard Littauer | Eriol Fox Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain! The podcast where we talk about sustaining open source for the long haul. We are super excited to talk to our guests today on the topic of toxicity in open source. Today, we have joining us, Courtney Miller and Hungbo Fang, who are both PhD students at Carnegie Mellon University. We asked them to come on because we were curious about their work, and they came highly recommended by Bogdan Vasilescu. We'll hear more about Courtney's talk and her paper on her award-winning work exploring toxicity in open source communities, and we'll find out the work Hongbo has done focusing on information flow and where people talk about open source. Download this episode now to learn more! [00:02:49] Courtney tells us about the talk she gave at the Linux Open Source Summit on her work exploring toxicity in open source communities. [00:03:55] We find out if there was a data set that was used to find the information. [00:05:08] Hongbo focuses on information flow and where do people talk about open source, and he tells us what his involvement is with this work. [00:06:57] Courtney tells us what she saw within the hundred issues and how she broke them down and tagged them to get to the conclusions she had. [00:08:44] We hear how Courtney used the technical definition of toxicity introduced by Google's Perspective API tool to inform the decisions of what toxicity means. [00:12:01] Eriol wants to know whether Courtney's had thoughts or intentions of looking into the content moderation space to see if there's any similarities between what's happening there. [00:14:29] Richard wonders what we can do to improve the state of toxicity in open source and wonders if she has any future work that can make this better. [00:16:08] Hongbo shares his thoughts about the future and what we can do to solve this from a quantitative angle. [00:17:02] Based on Courtney's work, we find out if she thinks AI has improved, if she has hope, and Hongbo shares his thoughts as well. [00:19:20] Eriol wants to know how community members can help researchers by talking about things that are less referenced in the paper, and how Courtney thinks about tackling some of the harder to read parts of toxicity with new emerging spaces. [00:24:54] We find out if there's a place where open source could have a restorative justice around toxicity and what action is there for the open source community to move from talking about our experiences of toxicity to how we can heal. [00:27:40] Hongbo explains what his work is mainly focused on, how he's holding this space, and suggestions he has for the future on how we can improve information flow. [00:34:31] Richard talks about a paper called, The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman, and wonders if Hongbo has any suggestions for how to help open source projects with information gap issues. [00:39:33] Find out where you can follow Courtney, Hongbo, and their work online. Quotes [00:12:11] "Open source toxicity is not new, it's very old. The long-term effects of this toxicity, especially in open source, is why I was really moved to do this research.” [00:14:56] “If you can identify toxic comments, and deal with them, instead of making the maintainers spend the emotional labor every time dealing with this stuff – [that] can be very helpful.” [00:15:17] “Maintainers are often toxic in their own projects.” [00:15:40] “We have issue templates – what about issue response templates?” [00:25:47] “If a community has leadership that tolerates certain things, it's going to happen. If the community has leadership that does not tolerate certain things, it's not going to happen.” Spotlight [00:41:21] Eriol's spotlight is Digital Safety Snacks by Pen America. [00:41:58] Richard's spotlight is an article he read called, The Opposite of Rape Culture is Nurturance Culture by Nora Samaran. [00:42:40] Hongbo's spotlight is the book, Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure by Nadia Eghbal. [00:43:32] Courtney's spotlight is the book, Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software by Nadia Eghbal, and the tool, Betty. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) podcast@sustainoss.org (mailto:podcast@sustainoss.org) Richard Littauer Twitter (https://twitter.com/richlitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Eriol Fox Twitter (https://twitter.com/EriolDoesDesign) Courtney Miller Twitter (https://twitter.com/courtneyelta?lang=en) Courtney Miller-GitHub (https://courtney-e-miller.github.io/) Courtney Miller LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/authwall?trk=gf&trkInfo=AQGvhLpJ5bQFGAAAAYK81Q-A0uWlwtLgwE79a-9Evj7n8RNvlxcJ-ev6jmZWyxl-7O3juI8yF9SLUUwAQQ8Xs_d3Re5brEfG26DUUnt2ZH3YGYXmQGAaEhwNubkkw1Ilf5Ottjo=&original_referer=&sessionRedirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fcourtney-e-miller%2F) Hongbo Fang Twitter (https://twitter.com/fang_hongbo?lang=en) Hongbo Fang LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/hongbo-fang-358ba615b) Sustain Podcast-Episode 40: How Open Source Maintainers Don't Get Rich with Bogdan Vasilescu (https://podcast.sustainoss.org/guests/bogdan-vasilescu) Perspective API (https://perspectiveapi.com/) Christian Kästner (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ckaestne/) Kat Lo Twitter (https://twitter.com/lolkat) Meedan Twitter (https://twitter.com/Meedan) Open Source Diversity (https://opensourcediversity.org/) The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman (https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) “Did You Miss My Comment or What?” Understanding Toxicity in Open Source Discussions (paper) (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/People/ckaestne/pdf/icse22_toxicity.pdf) Roads and Bridges (https://www.roadsbridges.com/) Sustain Podcast-Episode 51: Working in Public: Nadia Eghbal and her new book about Making and Sustaining Open Source Software (https://podcast.sustainoss.org/guests/nadia) Nadia Asparouhova (Eghbal) Website (https://nadia.xyz/) Digital Safety Snacks by Pen America (https://pen.org/event-series/digital-safety-snacks/) The Opposite of Rape Culture is Nurturance Culture by Nora Samaran (https://norasamaran.com/2016/02/11/the-opposite-of-rape-culture-is-nurturance-culture-2/) Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure by Nadia Eghbal (https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-reports/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/) Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software by Nadia Eghbal (https://press.stripe.com/working-in-public) Betty (https://github.com/leopard-ai/betty) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guests: Courtney Miller and Hongbo Fang.

“It's true: We're in trouble,” writes Michelle Goldberg of the modern feminist movement. “One thing backlashes do is transform a culture's common sense and horizons of possibility. A backlash isn't just a political formation. It's also a new structure of feeling that makes utopian social projects seem ridiculous.”It wouldn't be fair to blame the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and the ensuing wave of draconian abortion laws sweeping the nation on a failure of persuasion, or on a failure of the women's movement. But signs of anti-feminist backlash are permeating American culture: Girlbosses have become figures of ridicule, Amber Heard's testimony drew a fire hose of misogyny, and recent polling finds that younger generations — both men and women — are feeling ambivalent about whether feminism has helped or hurt women. A movement that has won so many victories in law, politics and public opinion is now defending its very existence.Goldberg is a columnist for Times Opinion who focuses on gender and politics. In recent weeks, she has written a series of columns grappling with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but also considering the broader atmosphere that created so much despair on the left. What can feminists — and Democrats more broadly — learn from anti-abortion organizers? How has the women's movement changed in the half-century since Roe, and where can the movement go after this loss? Has feminism moved too far away from its early focus on organizing and into the turbulent waters of online discourse? Has it become a victim of its own success?We discuss a “flabbergasting” poll about the way young people — both men and women — feel about feminism, why so many young people have become pessimistic about heterosexual relationships, how the widespread embrace of feminism defanged its politics, why the anti-abortion movement is so good at recruiting and retaining activists — and what the left can learn from them, how today's backlash against women compares to that of the Reagan years, why nonprofits on the left are in such extreme turmoil, why a social movement's obsession with “cringe” can be its downfall, how “safe spaces” on the left started to feel unsafe, why feminism doesn't always serve poor women, whether the #MeToo movement was overly dismissive of “due process” and how progressives could improve the way they talk about the family and more.Mentioned:“The Future Isn't Female Anymore” by Michelle Goldberg“Amber Heard and the Death of #MeToo” by Michelle GoldbergRethinking Sex by Christine EmbaThe Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise PerryBad Sex by Nona Willis Aronowitz“Elephant in the Zoom” by Ryan Grim“The Tyranny of Structurelessness” by Jo Freeman“Lessons From the Terrible Triumph of the Anti-Abortion Movement” by Michelle GoldbergThe Making of Pro-Life Activists by Ziad W. MunsonSteered by the Reactionary: What To Do About Feminism by The DriftBook Recommendations:Backlash by Susan FaludiNo More Nice Girls by Ellen WillisStatus and Culture by W. David MarxThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Sonia Herrero and Isaac Jones; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski.

✨ Subscribe to the Green Pill Podcast ✨ https://availableon.com/greenpill  

In this episode we take a look at the growing prevalence of "platform philanthropy" (i.e. giving and organising via online platforms) and the opportunities and challenges this presents. Including:The rise of the platform economy & the current state of platform philanthropyAre we seeing a shift from dedicated platforms for giving, towards commercial organisations adding giving functionality to their existing platforms?How is the growing use of direct payment platforms like CashApp and Venmo affecting philanthropy?Who owns the the platforms we use for giving and what drives them?Are there risks to our growing dependence on platforms?How do platforms shape our choices when it comes to giving?What can the recent controversies over Spotify and the Joe Rogan podcast, and GoFundMe withholding donations to the Freedom Convoy, tell us about the responsibilities that platforms bear regarding the organisations they enable people to give to?Is platform technology bringing us full-circle back to the traditional model of person-to-person giving? What opportunities and what risks does this present?Why does the history of Victorian voting charities have to tell us about the potential risks of bias in crowdfunding and P2P giving?Will perverse incentives within the "attention economy" lead to new challenges for CSOs?Will platforms and the rise of Web3 lead to more emphasis on decentralised forms of organising in civil society?Can technology overcome the known weaknesses of decentralised models, or do we risking discovering old problems in new forms?Related Links:Philanthropisms podcast conversation with Lucy BernholzRhod's 2020 piece for Alliance, "The Ethics of Platform Philanthropy"Rhod's paper presented at the 2019 ARNOVA conference, "Networking Opportunities: Rediscovering decentralisation in philanthropy & civil society?""The Giving Apps: How Venmo and Cash App Upended a Century-Old Charity Model"Rhod's HistPhil article, "Networked Social Movements and the 'Tyranny of Structurelessness'"Rhod's 2019 Charity Digital News article "Before Diving Into 'Platform Philanthropy', Charities Need to Ask Some Big Ethical Questions"

In this episode, we open with a brief comment about the horrendous, so-called Freedom Convoy, and what the left needs to do to fight fascism. Then we proceed with the main focus: Mass collective struggle is where we will learn how to become better organizers. Workplace strikes are a crucial opportunity to put our ideas into practice. Now that the 2021 University of Manitoba Faculty of Association(UMFA)Strike has ended, we can reflect and draw some lessons. Listen to Travis, Mads, David and Joe reflect on lessons from strike both from a worker and student organizing perspective. In their discussion they share experiences, challenges, and next steps. Check it out and Happy Organizing! Resources: -Article by Judy Rebick and Corvin Russell "The left is nowhere on covid and that's a big problem" https://rabble.ca/columnists/the-left-is-nowhere-on-covid-and-thats-a-big-problem/ -Our Episode 11 (December 2021) talking about the UMFA strike while it was going on https://soundcloud.com/solidarity-winnipeg-sw/episode-11-umfa-strike -Jo Freeman's "Tyranny of Structurelessness" was mentioned. Here's the wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness A google search can help you locate the short essay.

A listener asks us about why social hierarchy and popularity norms matter so much in team discussions. We riff on a number of ideas this inspires including the Tyranny of Structurelessness and the Core Protocols. - Tyranny of Structurelessness article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness - Project Aristotle (Google study): https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?smid=pl-share - Core Protocols: https://liveingreatness.com/files/core-protocols-3.03.html - Liberating Structures: https://www.liberatingstructures.com - Six Thinking Hats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats - Google Re:Work: https://rework.withgoogle.com/ - Schwarz, Skilled Facilitator: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/221980.The_Skilled_Facilitator ---- Our new book, Agile Conversations, is out now! See conversationaltransformation.com where you can order your copy and get a free video when you join our mailing list! We'd love to hear any thoughts, ideas, or feedback you have about the show. Email us at info@conversationaltransformation.com

Na twee kritische afleveringen te hebben gemaakt over het treurig stemmende gebrek aan diversiteit in de architectuur, vonden we het wel tijd voor een lekker positieve aflevering. Hoe kan het dan wel? Feministisch werken, hoe doe je dat dan? Paulien Bremmer hielp ons op weg: in de vorige aflevering suggereerde zij dat gebouwen die door een collectief zijn ontworpen, inclusiever en minder ongenaakbaar zijn dan gebouwen die bedacht zijn vanuit één hoofd. Maar de praktijk bleek weerbarstig, en die collectieven best moeilijk te vinden. Die puur positieve aflevering is er dus nooit gekomen. Onze vragen over collectief en feministisch werken leidden niet tot eenduidige antwoorden maar tot een nieuwe zoektocht. We onderzoeken de relatie tussen collectief werken en de geschiedenis van democratisering en feminisme met ingenieur en onderzoeker Lidewij Tummers, die veel van wat er in het feminisme nu wordt besproken, al eens heeft meegemaakt in de vorige feministische golf. Met Willie Vogel en Davida Rauch hebben we het over hun ervaringen met samenwerken in allerlei vormen. En architect Hanneke Stenfert leert ons dat je jezelf niet onzichtbaar hoeft te maken, om andere stemmen te horen. -- Architectuurpodcast Respons wil een plek creëren voor het onderzoeken en bespreekbaar maken van feministische vragen in architectuur. Het is een meerstemmig project geïnitieerd door Veerle Alkemade en Catherine Koekoek nadat ze in 2019 afstudeerden bij de master architectuur in Delft. -- We komen graag in contact met méér stemmen die hun ervaringen in de architectuur met ons willen delen, zowel positief als negatief. We zijn te bereiken via instagram en email. Wil je een seintje krijgen wanneer een nieuwe aflevering online staat? Schrijf je dan in voor onze nieuwsbrief: https://responspodcast.substack.com/ Respons is trotse deelnemer van het Archined Lab, een initiatief waarin onafhankelijke, experimentele architectuurprojecten een podium krijgen. https://www.archined.nl/artikelen/categorie/lab/ Respons is tot stand gekomen met financiële steun van de Fleur Groenendijk Foundation. Logo door Anne de Zeeuw. www.instagram.com/re.spons/ responspodcast@gmail.com -- Shownotes The Tyranny of Structurelessness: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm Collecting Otherwise (HNI) : https://collectingotherwise.hetnieuweinstituut.nl/ De Marina van Damme Beurs: http://www.marinavandammenetwerk.nl/ Genomineerden Turner Prize: https://www.tate.org.uk/press/press-releases/turner-prize-shortlist-announced-0 Kritiek van één van de genomineerde collectieven op het TATE, dat de prijs uitreikt: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/may/12/collective-nominated-for-turner-prize-criticises-awards-main-sponsor

Note: the recording of this episode starts a minute or two into the show.Ali recommends: The Hard Thing about Hard Things  by Ben Horowitz [0:18]Ben recommends: High Output Management by Andy Grove [4:36]Marc recommends: Who Really Matters: The Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege, and Success by Art Kleiner [10:48]Best read for enterprise sales: Power Base Selling by Jim Holden, et al [13:06]Microsoft, Google, government contracts, and politicized workplaces [16:28]Marc recommends: The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman [29:32]Ali recommends: Radical Candor by Kim Scott [33:19]Ben recommends: No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention  by Erin Meyer and Reed Hastings [44:19]Ben recommends: Working Backwards: Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside Amazon by Colin Bryar [50:28]How they are approaching the return to work and remote work [53:00]Boss Talk is the Clubhouse show where a16z cofounder Ben Horowitz and Ali Ghodsi, the Founder/CEO of Databricks, discuss CEO stuff, leadership stuff, management stuff... boss stuff. Live every Tuesday 5-6pm on Clubhouse. For more a16z Clubhouse shows, follow the a16z Club on Clubhouse or visit www.a16z.com/clubhouse. 

Michael and Xava talk stonks, hierarchy, the commons, tzedakah and the benefits of collective ownership using a sugye from Eruvin 3a. Plus we reveal that our theme song can be found at https://youtu.be/sJnE616RucQ! Visit our website to ask us questions at xaihowareyou.com and call or Text the Talmud Hotline at 401-484-1619 and leave us a voicemail! Support us on patreon at patreon.com/xavadecordova. Follow us on twitter @xaihowareyou and @miss_figured. Music by Ben Schreiber.

The panel discusses "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman, taking over politicians' houses, and how political movements become appealing. The print magazine is real, and it's good. Subscribe at https://www.currentaffairs.org/subscribe or, if you're already a Patreon subscriber, you can upgrade to the $10 tier for access to the print magazine, the digital magazine AND the podcast bonus episodes. "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" can be read here: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm This episode was edited by Dan Thorn of Pink Noise Studios in Somerville, MA. Music: Acid Trumpet by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3340-acid-trumpet License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Wind Of The Rainforest by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/5729-wind-of-the-rainforest-preview License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

In today’s episode, in honor of Bastille Day next week, and Fourth of July last week, I want to talk about the ongoing evolution in elitism, and the problem of how the emerging new elites can be better than the old ones being toppled.1/ Elites are a constant and arguably necessary presence in history. Political revolutions that try to do away with elites invariably seem to either fail quickly, or install new elites without meaning to. So the question for me is not how to get rid of elites, but how to try and ensure the ones we end up with are better than the last lot.2/ I’m going to sketch out a rough theory of elitism and its dynamics, and then get to posing the question itself, and then propose an answer, from the perspective of both the new TBD elites, and the masses they define, so let’s get started.3/ First, the concept of an elite is not dependent on a particular structure of society. Elites might be kings, nobles, elected leaders, bureaucrats, scholars, scientists, priests, cult leaders, media leaders, business executives, or subcultural inner circles. The prevailing idea of masses is induced by the prevailing idea of elites as a complement.4/ So there’s always a subset that regards itself, and is regarded as, entitled to a sustainably better than average human condition, with attendant privileges. And importantly, it is a stable equilibrium. Those who are worse off, the non-elites, and think the elites don’t deserve their better conditions, still live with it. The masses rarely disturb the peace unless they are under extreme stress.5/ Elitism and privilege go together of course. The word privilege literally means private law. Elites are a group for whom laws apply differently, or a different set of laws apply. In the most extreme case, they are formally above the law entirely. That’s the usual definition of a monarch and the dividing line between monarchs and ordinary nobles. 6/ The nobility might have a privileged code of law, but they are still governed by a rule of law, even if it’s not the same one as applies to non-elites. This special treatment has to be pretty special though, so I don’t use privilege in the broad social justice sense of the term, as in white privilege. That’s a different, more diffuse sense of privilege as a structural advantage. I’m talking narrow privilege where you can get exceptional, personalized treatment under whatever rule of law applies to you. 7/ For example, in medieval Europe, the nobility had hereditary property rights, governed by Church law, and the commoners mostly didn’t have the same sorts of property rights, only duties. But what made the law for the nobility special was that it was personally administered, with exceptions being more important. Laws honored in the breach rather than observance, as Shakespeare put it. 8/ So for example, there were laws against consanguinous marriages, but the Church did brisk business in allowing exceptions. Or you have indulgences absolving you of sins that are more easily available to nobility. Or in more modern times, draft exemptions. That’s what privilege looks like.9/ So one way or the other, some subset of humans will create not only better than average conditions for themselves through private laws, they will even get exceptional treatment under that private law. Or a position above the law entirely.10/ A big part of the stability of this condition is personal social capital: knowing the right people, with the right level of trust, to get rules bent or interpreted in your favor. Or being treated as an exception. Or in the extreme case, laws simply made to your specifications to benefit you and disadvantage others. In the most extreme case, they simply don’t apply to you.11/ If you ignore human fallibility and corruption, and look at this as a systems design, it is actually kinda smart to divide the world into 3 zones this way: a zone where the rules apply absolutely, a zone where they can be bent and exceptions are possible, and a zone outside the laws. It gives you a broad ability to evolve the system. 12/ It’s like how, in The Matrix, the architect declared that the city of Zion, Neo, and the Oracle were as much part of the design of the system as Agent Smith. You could even argue that though the architect was God, Neo was the emperor, the citizens of Zion, both red-pilled and native-born, were the nobility, the Oracle was the chief priestess, and the bots like Agent Smith and the blue-pilled people in the Matrix were the non-elites.13/ But back in our world, I asked my Twitter followers whether they consider themselves part of the current elites. Out of 468 respondents, 34% said yes, and 66% said no. Which seems about right since I write for a pretty privileged class of readers.14/ Okay, so with this definition, if you look back at history, it looks like a series of experiments in elitism rather than a series of experiments in governance. Some of them end well, some end badly. But all of them end. The conceptualization of an elite class is not stable.15/ Definitions of elites shift pretty slowly, and typically only move significantly when the technology of trust changes. It used to be about provably noble blood-lines. Then it was about visibly living by a particular code, noblesse oblige. Then it was about money, then it was about education. Maybe in the far future, it will be about being red-pilled out of an AI simulation, so the rules don’t apply to you.16/ Now, while a notion of elite is stable, there is what Vilfredo Pareto called circulation of elites. He traced how two kinds of elites, which he called lions and foxes based on earlier terminology from Machiavelli, tend to simply take turns being the elites. Foxes rule by the power of the pen, lions through the power of the sword. 17/ As I have said, the economy of elitism is sort of system independent, and is based on personal trust and social-capital based computing within a calculus of privileges — exemptions from the law. 18/ A good model of this calculus is Selectorate Theory, which is described in The Dictator’s Handbook, compares all kinds of political systems in terms of 3 groups: influentials, essentials, and interchangeables. Influentials are always elites, interchangeables are never elites, and some essentials are elites. It doesn’t matter whether it is a dictatorship or democracy. This is how governance by elites happens.19/ My final theoretical point is about knowledge. The relation among elites and masses is one usually based on what are called noble lies, where elites exploit their privileged access to ideas, information, and education, to craft false consciousnesses for the masses to inhabit. Think of them as blue pills. How you feel about these noble lies, or blue pills, is a big part of your philosophy of elitism.20/ You can distinguish two basic approaches of elitism. There is what is sometimes called Straussian elitism, which is generally conservative, but not always, and is based on the paternalistic belief that elites lying to the masses for their own good is a good thing. So you get a distinction between esoteric elite red-pill knowledge and exoteric, non-elite blue-pill knowledge meant for the general public.21/ The other approach, which you could broadly call pluralism, is more democratic in spirit, and eschews noble lying, at least conscious noble lying, based on the principle that even if it gets noisy, messy, uninformed, and ignorant, it’s a good thing to level the epistemic playing field, and not privilege some flavors of knowledge structurally. I’m pretty strongly in this camp. There is no blue versus red pill. Everything is available for anyone to learn.22/ Okay, now that we have this basic historical sense of what elitism is, and how it works, we can ask, what makes for good elites versus bad elites? It is important to keep a sense of the real history of elitism when you talk about this question, because it is easy to get caught up in theories. In the collage image accompanying this podcast, I’ve included several famous historical examples. 23/ The storming of the Bastille, the American Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and Lee Kuan Yew, Nehru, and Jomo Kenyatta giving their famous speeches. I also included a picture of Muammar Qadaffi’s corpse after he was killed by a mob — it is important to remember that elitism can end like that. So this is the gestalt of what elitism as a historical practice is. Or to use an esoteric word, the praxis of elitism as a consciously held philosophy.24/ But we shouldn’t anchor too much on these iconic moments when one set of elites takes over from another, or when non-elites temporarily bring down elites altogether, creating a vacuum. The essence of elitism isn’t in these moments of creative destruction of elite power, but in quieter unaccountable workings away from public scrutiny.25/ So think of closed-door board meetings, experts in a committee meeting setting health standards, Congressional committees hashing out the details of a bill, lobbyists waiting to meet a senator to push some agenda, unaccountable editors in a press room deciding which public figure to attack. Unaccountable tech leaders deciding how an algorithm should work. That’s day-to-day elitism.26/ This unaccountability by the way, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is what it is. To the extent the elites are agents of the will of society at large, there is just so much detail involved in the exercise of actual power that there is no possible way all of it could be made transparent to everybody. At best you can be slightly less opaque and unaccountable than the last crowd.27/ There’s also a middle-class, provincial version I don’t want to discount too much, like a local city leader calling in a favor with the local police chief, or a powerful business person talking to a school principal about their child. Any behavior that exercises privilege is elite behavior. The defining bit is not amount or scale of power, but the fact that it is exercised in privileged ways — private law, with a degree of unaccountability and exceptionalism.28/ Now that I’ve painted a portrait, there’s a fork in the road. You can either accept that this is the way the world works and always will, or you can imagine some sort of utopia where there are no elites and no zone of society that operates on the basis of privilege. 29/ Whether you are a commune anarchist who believes direct democracy or consensus will get rid of elites, or a blockchain libertarian who thinks code-is-law will get rid of elites, down that road I think is mainly delusion. I’ll just point to a famous article, the Tyranny of Structurelessness and leave it at that. Getting rid of elites does not work.30/ One reason is of course that elites have power and they use that power to keep themselves in power even as structural definitions and models of elitism change, become more or less informal, and ideologically different and so on. Angry masses understand this aspect of the persistence of elites. But this is not the biggest reason.31/ The biggest reason, which revolutionaries routinely discount, is that humans seem to desperately want elites of some sort. Maybe not the current sort, or the current model, and definitely not the current specific people, but some elites. Maybe you want black instead of white, women instead of men, techies instead of lawyers, or trans instead of cis, the point is, you want elites.32/ There may be strong preferences for a system of choosing elites. That’s kinda what ideology is. Or looser preferences. For example, I tend to prefer fox elites over lion elites, a large selectorate to a small one, and pluralism over noble lies. I also prefer strong mid-level mini-oligarchic patterns of power to either imperially centralized patterns or extremely fragmented, decentralized patterns.33/ The psychological function of elites appears to be to model how life can and ought to be lived. But this is a pretty loose specification. Christians think in terms of What Would Jesus Do. Confucians in ancient China thought in terms of how to codify the will of the Emperor into law. Woke elites think in term of how to turn intersectional theory into prescription, and anti-Woke elites think in terms of making classical liberalism great again.34/ It’s important to keep your definition of elites broad. For example, many people pretend that people like court jesters (and people often classify me as one) are among the non-elite. Maybe formally, but informally, they wield power and privilege — in my sense of access to exceptional treatment — in ways that makes them elite. So today in the US, the cast of Saturday Night Live, stand-up comics, and people like Jon Stewart and Trevor Noah are definitely elites. 35/ Anti-elite philosophy and philosophers are also necessarily elite simply by virtue of how their influence operates. So whether you’re taking about the Taoist sage Zhuangzi in ancient China or important figures like Robert Anton Wilson in the Discordian subculture of modern America, they’re all elites. Just because you laugh at other elites with sticks up their asses doesn’t make you not elite.36/ There’s many theories of this psychological function. There is a basic ethics theory of people just wanting guidance on how to have a good life, and looking for teachers. There is the theory of elites as surrogate parental figures. There is the Girardian theory of mimetic envy. Each theory explains some aspects and some situations well, and others poorly, but the point is, that psychological function exists. Elites are models of how to live life.37/ Okay, so now that we know what elites are, who counts as elites, how elitism and privilege work, and why they are both psychologically necessary for societies and structurally hard to eliminate, you can finally ask, what makes for good elites.38/ It’s an important question to ask right now, because the current regime of elites is definitely nearing its end. Chris Hayes wrote a good book about this back in 2012, called Twilight of the Elites, and there’s been a lot of other writing about it, like Moses Naim’s End of Power, and Martin Gurri’s Revolt of the Public. 39/ The elites are of course not going quietly. My friend Nils Gilman wrote a great article about the reaction, called The Twin Insurgency, and there is in general a lot of attention on how the current elites are rapidly trying to secure what they have, and sort of batten down the hatches. 41/ But I think the old elites are kinda done for in the next decade. My hypothesis about this is a simple one about how elites fail. In general, elites fail when their relationships with each other become more important than their relationships with the world. Not just masses, the world. The inner reality of the elites absorbs all their attention: whether it is court intrigues, scholarly debates in journals, boardroom battles, product architecture arguments, rivalries among schools of economists, or media wars. 42/ Once an elite class has turned into this kind of inward-focused blackhole unmoored from the larger universe, it’s only a matter of time before it self-destructs. With or without help from the revolting masses. It doesn’t really matter how much power they have. Their hold on that power is a function of the strength of their connection to the world.43/ This is one reason the function of policing is in the spotlight, because the job of the police is to enforce a particular relationship between elites and masses. When this enforcement gets particularly one-sided, they turn into a Praetorian Guard like in ancient Rome. So calls to defund, deunionize, or demilitarize the police, and theories of how policing itself can be ended as a function, are also part of new experiments in elitism.44/ Whether it goes down in flames or more peacefully, change of some sort is coming. If my theories are correct, any non-elite period will be short-lived. The shorter, the bloodier. The current idea of power may be ending, but the role of elite power and privilege will not end. Policing as we know it may end, but some enforcement of elite-mass relationships will remain. It will simply take on a new form in the new medium.45/ Already you see weird kinds of new elites, like online personalities, offline protest coordinators, skilled hackers, and people who are good at crafting spectacles like videos of bad “Karen” behavior. Much of this gets labeled populism, but it’s important to note that each of these manifestations of so-called populism comes with its own breed of new elites, mostly descended from old elites.46/ I think the populist phase of the culture wars might even be over. The actual commoners are exhausted from decades of violence, both physical and cultural. They can at most come out to riot online and offline occasionally. The real battle now is between old and new elites, and within old and new group. And of course, it’s confused by lots of overlapping membership.47/ For example, in the last few weeks, an open battle has broken out between tech industry thought leaders and media leaders. And right now there’s a weird letter doing the rounds on Harpers magazine, signed by a bunch of old elites denouncing a bunch of the new elites. 48/ The elite wars have really gotten going now, because everybody senses old institutions are dying, and emerging ones are at the point in their evolution where they are ripe for capture by one faction of wannabe elites or another.49/ Basically, you could say a new era of experiments in elitism is about to get underway, with more or less blood on the streets around the world. The question again is, what experiments should you support? How can you minimize the bloodshed? How can you try and ensure the new elites are good. If you’re a candidate elite, how do you plan to be good?50/ I don’t know the general answers to these questions, but I suspect I have an approximately equal claim to being a D-list member of the elite in both the old and new worlds. So I can only share my answer. I think the key to being a good elite is to take your function — serving as a model of how life should be lived — seriously. This means thinking more about your connection to the world than your connection with other elites.51/ If you want to define this function more precisely, I think it has to do with the idea that humans are ideally the measure of the world, not the other way around, and privilege is about being among those who get to measure the world rather than being measured by it, and in doing so, create ways to measure non-elites. So if you voted to self-identify as an elite in my Twitter poll, ask yourself: how do I measure the world with my life. 52/ The price of your privilege — which, remember, is special, personalized treatment under private law via access to social capital — is that you are expected to be at the forefront of relating to the wider world, and taking its measure on behalf of all humans. Which means facing uncertainty, and taking on risks, physical, intellectual, and psychological. This is why there is a natural relationship between being a member of the elite, and being expected to lead in the fullest sense of the word. 53/ To lead is to ultimately function as a model to non-elites on how to live, and not just live, but live with, for want of a better word, courage. Since that’s what it means to be the measure of the world, take risks, and deal with uncertainty. Otherwise you’re just a parasite pretending to be a lordly predator. And there’s no real way to fake this. People can tell when you are living courageously.54/ To be non-elite in 2020, on the other hand, is to be measured in a hundred different industrial-bureaucratic ways. The world measures you. Height, weight, gender, wealth, skin color, zip code, credit score, criminal record, degrees, job titles, parentage, and so on. This is what makes you part of the industrial-age masses. This idea didn’t come from nowhere, and is only a century or so old. It’s the complement of the industrial age definition of elites.55/ Being utterly unique and specialized with your 100-dimensional address in society is pretty new. The Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset studied how this industrial non-elite human differed from the peasants of the past. My gloss on his theory is that the masses were measured the way they were because the elites were measuring the world in a specific way: through science and rationality.56/ One of the main proposals for new elites on the table right now looks like an extreme form of industrial bureaucratism, namely intersectional bureaucratism. The other one looks like a throwback to agrarian feudal elitism, with nobility and peasantry. Both are of course lazy and lousy, and you can tell because neither is in the least bit courageous, and both involve an existing set of elites primarily dealing with each other rather than with the world.57/ If you think you aren’t elite now, or won’t be elite in the future, your part of the equation is to ask, first, whether you think elites are necessary, and if so what kind you want. A way to restate that question is to ask: how do you want to measure yourself against the world? The elites you want are the ones measuring the world itself in a complementary way.58/ Whatever it is, it is a particular model of courage that inspires you enough to follow. Your main challenge is spotting real courage facing the world, which does not lie in facing competing elites. If your chosen elites are elites primarily by virtue of battling or beefing with the elites you don’t choose, they are not good elites, and you are not choosing particularly good elites to define who you are. Both of you are going to be miserable.59/ The good news is, there’s never been such a culture of widespread experimentation in new modes of being elite, so you have a lot of choices. The bad news is, it’s going to get really ugly while it plays out. The future elites are going to be playing Game of Thrones for a while, and the future masses are going to be playing Hunger Games for a while.60/ So all I can say is, may the best elites win, and may the best measure of the masses prevail. Get full access to Breaking Smart at breakingsmart.substack.com/subscribe

Sorry for being gone for so long. I hope you can forgive Andrew and I. I will be posting much more regularly.  The essay I read for this episode. (https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

In this episode, Carson speaks with Professor John Gastil from Penn State University about the history and development of deliberative mini-publics.    John is the author of many books and papers on deliberative democracy including Democracy in Small Groups and is currently undertaking research on the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review and has a book coming out about this research soon.   John identifies that the term mini-public has become a term of art and means a randomly selected group with a focused charge, although there is a lot of varieties to how these processes are designed. The core idea of deliberation is ‘weighing’ of evidence, concerns, perspectives before making a decision or recommendation.   John sees these type of processes starting with Ned Crosby (see episode 1) and Peter Dienel (see episode 2). With the next major developments being deliberative polls run by James Fishkin (who we will interview in a later episode) the British Columbia’s Citizens’ Assembly where a citizens’ assembly was charged with drafting new legislation the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review which he is researching, and finally The Irish Citizens’ Assemblies which have had perhaps the most real-world impact.  John suggests that the inter-disciplinary nature of deliberative democracy and the practical nature of the field may be both strengths and weaknesses for the field. Whilst he has an affinity with the practical side of facilitation deliberative processes he sees that his value add is being able to get research grants and write academic articles.   Both Carson and John note that facilitators often come from backgrounds where they have developed interpersonal skills particularly around working with groups, for example as educators, within religious groups. He recommends the book Freedom is an Endless Meeting by Francesca Poletta which talks about group processes in social movements.    He thinks the processes of deliberative mini-publics have become more structured over time and he sees this as a good thing because structure and process provide protection to all participants. See The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman.   John identifies the best facilitators as being  humble yet confident good listeners, and  flexible. John and Carson agree that having more than one facilitator allows for a range of skills to be made available to the deliberative mini-public as well as a way to build the skills of facilitators new to the deliberative processes. Sometimes co-facilitation is done by splitting the focus of facilitation roles between process and task.   John suggests that we should think about both deliberative democracy and democratic deliberation to provide a focus on different aspects of the process.    His key conclusion is that deliberative mini-publics work - they demonstrate that all is not lost in democracy today.    Music acknowledgement.

On today's episode, our guests are Susan Basterfield and Gina Stevens-Rembe, collaborators in the Enspiral Network, a collective of social enterprises, ventures, and individuals working collaboratively across the world to support people who want to spend their lives changing the world. Enspiral builds collaborative tools and processes to facilitate the sharing of money through participatory budgets, the sharing of control through collaborative decision-making, and the sharing of information through their Handbook of agreements and guidelines.  Aside from her role as Enspiral's Foundation Director, Susan also co-founded Greaterthan, a professional training and coaching organization at the forefront of decentralized, self-managed, and participatory work.  Gina's passion for equity and justice led her to her current role as Operations Lead of Enspiral's Developer's Academy.  We speak to Susan and Gina today about the work they do, the vision they bring, and how they are leveraging both to transform the way we think and go about work.  Part 2 of our conversation continues our discussion with Susan and Gina and delves into the examples of initiatives and ventures within the Enspiral Network and how they are building cultures that support agency, autonomy, and self-organization. During our conversation, Susan, Gina, and I referenced the following resources and topics: The network's book, "Better Work Together" "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman The Enspiral and Loomio Cooperative Handbooks, Software Mill's Handbook for New Employees A company in the US called Ouishare questioning and experimenting with social models based on collaboration, openness and fairness Mingyur Rinpoche's book, "The Joy of Living:  Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness" and his Tergar meditation community who is featured in the recent Netflix special, "The Mind, Explained" Frederic Laloux's "Reinventing Organizations" --- Thanks for tuning in to the en(gender)ed podcast! Be sure to check out our en(gender)ed site and follow our blog on Medium. Consider donating because your support is what makes this work sustainable. Please also connect with us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Don't forget to subscribe to the show!

On this week's episode, LET'S GET THAT BREAD. We have not just one but two returning guests on the show to help us do just that. Comrades Courtney and Jordan return to the library to discuss the classic of anarcho-communist theory, The Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin. We keep this one a bit more loose than our usual format as we talk about some of Kropotkin's ideas of what an anarcho-communist society would look like, the question of human nature, BioShock, the Unabomber, Monty Python, and lots more. We also discuss a lot about anarcho-communism in general and what it offers the Left in terms of organizing and political vision.  Further Reading/References Pyotr Kropotkin The Conquest of Bread Summary Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution Summary Charles Fourier Phalanstere The Libertarian Experiment in Van Ormy, TX Monty Python and the Holy Grail Teaches Us about Anarcho-Communism Know Your Meme! - Google Murray Bookchin Murray Bookchin Rojava The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman Summary of The Island by Aldous Huxley Vercingetorix "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ------------------------------------------------ Email us at redlibrarypodcast@gmail.com Follow us on Twitter at Red Library@red_library_pod Click here to subscribe to Red Library on iTunes  Click here to support Red Library on Patreon Click here to find Red Library on Facebook Click here to find the host's political theory blog, Capillaries: Theory at the Front

In episode 57, we talk to Rose Longhurst about participation in philanthropy and her experience of radical approaches to grantmaking with Edge Fund (and others). Including: What is Edge Fund, how did it come about, and what are its aims? Where does Edge Fund fit in the wider landscape of participatory grantmaking? How does its approach help to overcome some of the concerns about existing models of philanthropy? i.e. that they are undemocratic, that they fail to redistribute power, that they are incapable of addressing structural inequality? Could more traditional funders replicate the Edge Fund approach? Which elements? And what would they need to change in order to make this happen? There is a lot of focus on participatory approaches to grantmaking at the moment as part of the solution to the criticisms being levelled at philanthropy. How much of the rhetoric is reflected in reality? Are there limits to participatory grantmaking? i.e. are there some situations in which it is better for expert funders to set aims and design programs? Edge Fund itself has adopted a fairly radical, non-hierarchical structure. What is the rationale for this? What are the strengths of non-hierarchical or decentralised structures? What are the weaknesses or challenges? Does a flat structure without clear leaders limit a non-hierarchical organisation’s ability to maintain sustained influence? How do you prevent the emergence of hidden elites, or some groups prospering at the expense of others within a non-hierarchical network? (i.e. “Tyranny of Structurelessness” objections).   Related Links Rose’s LSE Atlantic Fellowship bio EDGEFund FundAction Edge Funders Alliance GrantCraft Participatory Grantmaking report Rhod’s World Economic Forum blog “Philanthropy is at a Turning Point: Here are 6 ways it could go” Rose’s blog on participatory approaches to grantmaking for Lankelly Chase Rose’s Alliance article on “5 Reasons to Support Participatory Grantmaking”  

In this edition of Comfortably Dressed Radfem Reading Hour, Karen gets cozy and reads the The Tyranny of Structurelessness, required reading for those who wish to organize.

Sponsors Cachefly Panel Pia Mancini Richard Littauer Joined By Special Guest: Samson Goddy and Vipul Gupta Episode Summary Samson Goddy and Vipul Gupta join the panelists Pia Mancini and Richard Littauer to talk about open source activities in Nigeria and India. Samson is the Member of the Oversight Board at Sugar Labs and co-founder of Open Source Community Africa and Vipul is a Global Outreach Team Lead at Sugar Labs. Sugar Labs is an activity-focused open-source software learning platform for children. Both Samson and Vipul agree that a lot of developers they talk to are not very familiar with open source and the most common question they receive in meet-up groups is how one can start to contribute to open source. They then discuss what can be done to have more open source contributors and conference attendance from the rest of the world. One of the main issues that make travel difficult is obtaining visa for non-USA and non-UK citizens. A practice that France has been doing for conference specific visas is brought up as a beneficial example. Links: https://www.oscafrica.org/ https://sustainoss.org/ 
https://www.sugarlabs.org/ Vipul Gupta's LinkedIn Vipul Gupta's Twitter Samson Goddy's Twitter Samson Goddy's LinkedIn https://pydelhi.org ALiAS https://opencollective.com/osca https://twitter.com/unicodeveloper https://www.yegor256.com/about-me.html Bounties - Open Collective Docs Sustain Summit 2018 | Sustain Open Source Picks Pia Mancini: Suggestion for certifications for open source contributions Suggestions to move opencollective forward Vipul Gupta: https://swipetounlock.com/ Richard Littauer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness Redshirts by John Scalzi Samson Goddy: Nigerian Jollof rice Black Panther (2018) Special Guests: Samson Goddy and Vipul Gupta.

Sponsors Cachefly Panel Pia Mancini Richard Littauer Joined By Special Guest: Samson Goddy and Vipul Gupta Episode Summary Samson Goddy and Vipul Gupta join the panelists Pia Mancini and Richard Littauer to talk about open source activities in Nigeria and India. Samson is the Member of the Oversight Board at Sugar Labs and co-founder of Open Source Community Africa and Vipul is a Global Outreach Team Lead at Sugar Labs. Sugar Labs is an activity-focused open-source software learning platform for children. Both Samson and Vipul agree that a lot of developers they talk to are not very familiar with open source and the most common question they receive in meet-up groups is how one can start to contribute to open source. They then discuss what can be done to have more open source contributors and conference attendance from the rest of the world. One of the main issues that make travel difficult is obtaining visa for non-USA and non-UK citizens. A practice that France has been doing for conference specific visas is brought up as a beneficial example. Links: https://www.oscafrica.org/ https://sustainoss.org/ 
https://www.sugarlabs.org/ Vipul Gupta's LinkedIn Vipul Gupta's Twitter Samson Goddy's Twitter Samson Goddy's LinkedIn https://pydelhi.org ALiAS https://opencollective.com/osca https://twitter.com/unicodeveloper https://www.yegor256.com/about-me.html Bounties - Open Collective Docs Sustain Summit 2018 | Sustain Open Source Picks Pia Mancini: Suggestion for certifications for open source contributions Suggestions to move opencollective forward Vipul Gupta: https://swipetounlock.com/ Richard Littauer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness Redshirts by John Scalzi Samson Goddy: Nigerian Jollof rice Black Panther (2018)

Sponsors Cachefly Panel Pia Mancini Richard Littauer Joined By Special Guest: Samson Goddy and Vipul Gupta Episode Summary Samson Goddy and Vipul Gupta join the panelists Pia Mancini and Richard Littauer to talk about open source activities in Nigeria and India. Samson is the Member of the Oversight Board at Sugar Labs and co-founder of Open Source Community Africa and Vipul is a Global Outreach Team Lead at Sugar Labs. Sugar Labs is an activity-focused open-source software learning platform for children. Both Samson and Vipul agree that a lot of developers they talk to are not very familiar with open source and the most common question they receive in meet-up groups is how one can start to contribute to open source. They then discuss what can be done to have more open source contributors and conference attendance from the rest of the world. One of the main issues that make travel difficult is obtaining visa for non-USA and non-UK citizens. A practice that France has been doing for conference specific visas is brought up as a beneficial example. Links: https://www.oscafrica.org/ https://sustainoss.org/ 
https://www.sugarlabs.org/ Vipul Gupta's LinkedIn Vipul Gupta's Twitter Samson Goddy's Twitter Samson Goddy's LinkedIn https://pydelhi.org ALiAS https://opencollective.com/osca https://twitter.com/unicodeveloper https://www.yegor256.com/about-me.html Bounties - Open Collective Docs Sustain Summit 2018 | Sustain Open Source Picks Pia Mancini: Suggestion for certifications for open source contributions Suggestions to move opencollective forward Vipul Gupta: https://swipetounlock.com/ Richard Littauer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness Redshirts by John Scalzi Samson Goddy: Nigerian Jollof rice Black Panther (2018)

This week Dave (https://twitter.com/davidegts) and Gunnar (http://atechnologyjobisnoexcuse.com/about) talk about AI vs. AI, people vs. AI vs. people, AI vs. people, and people vs. people (in that order) Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 (https://www.redhat.com/en/enterprise-linux-8) Dark (https://www.netflix.com/title/80100172) Camping towels (https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-packable-camp-towels/) Researchers Fool ReCAPTCHA With Google’s Own Speech-To-Text Service (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pa55z8/researchers-fool-recaptcha-with-googles-own-speech-to-text-service) One year later, restaurants are still confused by Google Duplex (https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/9/18538194/google-duplex-ai-restaurants-experiences-review-robocalls) Hey Alexa, Why Is Voice Shopping So Lousy? (https://www.wired.com/story/why-is-voice-shopping-bad/) Google launches CallJoy, a virtual customer service phone agent for small businesses (https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/01/google-launches-calljoy-a-virtual-customer-service-phone-agent-for-small-businesses/) Uber’s premium customers can now push a button to tell their drivers to be quiet (https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/5/15/18624906/uber-black-quiet-mode-luxury-feature-lyft-zen) Quake III Arena is the latest game to see AI top humans (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/googles-ai-group-moves-on-from-go-tackles-quake-iii-arena/) Capture the Flag: the emergence of complex cooperative agents (https://deepmind.com/blog/capture-the-flag-science/) Centaur: How combined human and computer intelligence will redefine jobs (https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/01/how-combined-human-and-computer-intelligence-will-redefine-jobs/) Princesses need pockets: A plea for jeans that fit our lives and our waistlines (https://www.androidcentral.com/princesses-need-pockets) Articles of Interest #3: Pockets (https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/pockets-articles-of-interest-3/) Tyranny of Structurelessness (https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) by Jo Freeman Cutting Room Floor * Even more secret Telegrams (https://medium.com/@labunskya/secret-telegrams-bdd2035b6e84): how to do a private covert channel over users blocking each other on Telegram * For less than $10, anyone can make an AI write a fake UN speech (https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/07/for-less-than-10-anyone-can-make-an-ai-write-a-fake-un-speech/) * User Inyerface (https://userinyerface.com/game.html) We Give Thanks * The D&G Show Slack Clubhouse for the discussion topics!

In episode 53, we look at structure and philanthropy. Exploring how philanthropy and civil society has become structured over time, what the drivers for this are, and what new possibilities the future may hold. Including:  The reformation and the dismantling of medieval catholic infrastructure for giving Urbanisation, poverty and associated philanthropy The charitable/philanthropic tradition vs the mutual/cooperative tradition in the UK Concerns about 'faction' and voluntary association in the US Benefits of structure: coordination, economies of scale, setting and maintaining strategy, separating the individual from their role, making rules explicit Structure and power: formalisation as a form of social control? Endowed structures: foundations, trusts and waqfs Nonprofit and charity structures in the UK and US Donor Advised Funds and Charitable Remainder Trusts Non-traditional structures: LLCs, B Corps etc. Disintermediating giving: direct cash transfers and crowdfunding Network social movements and the "Tyranny of Structurelessness     Related Links: -My book, Public Good by Private Means: How philanthropy shapes Britain -Dobkin Hall, P. (1999) “Resolving the Dilemmas of Democratic Governance: The Historical Development of Trusteeship in America, 1636-1996” in Condliffe Lagemann (ed) Philanthropic Foundations: New Scholarship, New Possibilities -Morris, R.J. (1990) “Clubs, Societies & Associations” in Thompson (ed) The Cambridge Social History of Britain vol 3. -Morris, R.J. (1983) “Voluntary Societies and British Urban Elites, 1780-1850: An Analysis”, The Historical Journal, vol 26, No. 1 -Davies (2014)“Give Me a Break: Why the UK should not aspire to a ‘US-style’ culture of charitable giving”, Giving Thought discussion paper -My piece for HistPhil on “Networked Social Movements and the “Tyranny of Structurelessness””    

In episode 48 we talk to Megan Ming Francis, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington, about her recent paper “The Price of Civil Rights: Black Lives, White Funding and Movement Capture” and her wider work on the role of philanthropic funders in supporting the civil rights movement. Including: Is “movement capture” something that reflects a deliberate desire on the part of funders to change the goals or strategic focus of grantees, or is it just an inevitable consequence of the power imbalance in the funder/recipient dynamic? Does the legitimacy that funders are able to offer to radical causes add to the power imbalance? Is the imbalance between funder and grantee particularly striking in the case of the NAACP in the early C20th, given the racial division and the background context of Jim Crow? Can grantees be “victims of their own success” if they make headway on radical causes using novel techniques (as the NAACP did on the issues lynching using legal challenges), and funders want to replicate that success on other causes? Is funder ego (i.e. funders wanting to see themselves as “having the answers”) a barrier to getting genuine shifts of power from funders to grantees? Does a spend-down strategy for a foundation impose time constraints that can drive foundation staff to demand a greater degree of say over how money is used? How much of movement capture is due to the overt influence of funders and how much s due to grantees tailoring applications or plans based on their perception of funders’ priorities and preferences? Where else in the history of philanthropy should we look for other examples of movement capture? Informal networks and movements are less likely to keep archives or records than institutional funders: is there a danger that this asymmetry will make it harder to assess other instances of movement capture? In a modern context where there is an increasing emphasis on networked social movements to drive change, and interest from funders in how to support them, do we need to be particularly aware of the dangers of movement capture? Are looser, non-hierarchical network-based organisations more likely to be susceptible to movement capture than those with some modicum of structure? What value can a historical perspective bring to philanthropists, funders and non-profit professionals? Are there limits to the utility of historical comparison in understanding the present? What should we take into account or be aware of?     Related Content   Megan’s Paper “The Price of Civil Rights: Black Lives, White Funding and Movement Capture” Megan’s Website and her book, “Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State” My HistPhil article on “Networked Social Movements and the ‘Tyranny of Structurelessness’”  

Our first guest for this episode is See Eun who was into breakdancing and danced professionally for more than 10 years. He served in the military, curated and wrote for a hip-hop blog and lead hip-hop education efforts before the Bitcoin bug bit him. He started ‘The Blockchainers”, the first Blockchain Cryptocurrency YouTube channel in Korea with his co-host Young Hoon who is the other guest on the show. Young Hoon majored in math and computer science at the University of Oxford and upon graduation had short stints in McKinsey and Macquarie before also serving in the military in Somalia for a counter-piracy mission for the Korean army. Together, they also started and currently run Nonce Community, an open-source co-working, co-living Blockchain/Cryptocurrency space based on Proof-of-Work. Nonce community started as a few people who worked in this ecosystem living together in a 3 bedroom apartment and has since grown to a whole building which can currently accommodate upto 100 Blockchainers. Tune in to hear about: Their fascinating background and what got them into crypto First Korean Blockchain Youtube channel they started - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsH44G5T4hHXYrb1aGUB1Gw Nonce Community - Blockchain community - co-living, co-working, open-source Blockchain community based on Proof-of-Work How they went from a 3 bedroom apartment to a building that can accommodate a 100 people Decentralised governance model for the community - decentralised way to make decisions including deciding who gets to stay How the environment was like initially An essay that inspired them (Tyranny of Structurelessness): https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm Different verticals at Nonce Community: Tokeneconomics consulting, smart contract auditing, media and community management, fund and research arm Studio Decentral (Media arm): http://www.studiodecentral.org/ See Eun’s views on the current perverse media model in the Blockchain/crypto ecosystem Other resources mentioned: Epicenter Podcast (https://epicenter.tv/), Let’s talk Bitcoin (https://letstalkbitcoin.com/) Gary Vee! - https://www.garyvaynerchuk.com/ Fund - arbitrage, market making and ICOs - due diligence process and fund structuring Research - Whitepaper.foundation Scalability solutions and their trade-offs: Plasma, state channels and sharding Thoughts on scalability through centralisation of block production Thoughts on move from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake consensus mechanism Store of Value vs Tokens of protocols becoming store of value Bitcoin: Store of value vs medium of exchange Using Blockchain and Cryptocurrency to help society and the planet

Twitter: https://twitter.com/pgbovineSupport with Patreon, PayPal, or credit/debit: http://pgbovine.net/support.htmhttp://pgbovine.net/PG-Podcast-38-Chris-Martens.htm- [Chris's original tweet that inspired this episode](https://twitter.com/chrisamaphone/status/997886390854672387?s=12)- [PG Podcast - Episode 16 - Claire Le Goues on the glamorous life of assistant professors](http://pgbovine.net/PG-Podcast-16-Claire-Le-Goues.htm)- [Your Research Garden](http://www.chrisparnin.me/docs/phd/Garden.html) by Chris Parnin- [National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity](https://www.facultydiversity.org/)- [The Tyranny of Structurelessness](https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) by Jo Freeman- [PG Vlog #51 - Word Choice](http://pgbovine.net/PG-Vlog-51-word-choice.htm)Recorded: 2018-06-13 (3)

anarchy .(2)........ jesus Spoke with UO Theater professor Michael Najjar about Arab theater, how arts humanize, art as a threat, defund & defang, cinema vs. live performance, the power and energy in silence, serious listening, the "Pinter Pause", the importance of contemplation, "Angels in America", waking people up, Middle Eastern feminist theater, the Theater of Exile, authoritarian & collaborative arts, the joy and beauty of chaos, staying flexible, solidarity, broken windows, the L.A. riots/uprising, veneers of civility, and how empathy is a political act. Referenced: Angela Davis on violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HnDONDvJVE The Tyranny of Structurelessness: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

Hilary and Roger have a late-night discussion about JupyterCon, data analysis and decisions, and other deeper topics. Show Notes: JupyterCon: https://conferences.oreilly.com/jupyter/jup-ny Financial stability monitor: https://www.financialresearch.gov/financial-stability-monitor/ Catistician: https://twitter.com/ChelseaParlett/status/902581025175429120 Tyranny of Structurelessness: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm Data Alone Isn’t Ground Truth (by Angela Bassa): https://medium.com/@angebassa/data-alone-isnt-ground-truth-9e733079dfd4 Support us through our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/NSSDeviations Roger on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rdpeng Hilary on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hspter Get the Not So Standard Deviations book: https://leanpub.com/conversationsondatascience/ Subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/not-so-standard-deviations/id1040614570 Subscribe to the podcast on Google Play: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Izfnbx6tlruojkfrvhjfdj3nmna Find past episodes: http://nssdeviations.com Contact us at nssdeviations@gmail.com  

Wherein we are joined by attorneys Sam Natale & Ramsin Canon to discuss Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio and the legal questions concerning the limitations of said power, the possibilities of litigation arising from disputes within private organizations related to Danny Fetonte and the Democratic Socialists of America NPC. Special shoutout to @OfficerComrade on Twitter. Sam Natale: https://twitter.com/PubicDefender Ramsin Canon: https://twitter.com/ramsincanon "Do the Process" http://bit.ly/2iCqWIT "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdf

Inspired by Nickolas Means' fantastic RailsConf keynote, we discuss the corollaries between Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works projects and our software development projects. Sean's DXRacer Chair Skunk Works by Nickolas Means Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Big Design Up Front Kelly's 14 Rules and Processes Rules Made Up by You - Kelly's rules as applied to modern software development Factory, Workshop, Stage by Sarah Mei The Tyranny of Structurelessness How to Crash an Airplane by Nickolas Means

For episode 42 we are blessed by the wonderful and talented Laura Thomson, Senior Engineering Manager at Mozilla. Laura drops science on managing engineers, Minimum Viable Bureaucracy, HHVM and Hack, and her mid-Atlantic coast accent. This is a must-listen for folks who manage tech teams. Check out our sponsors, Engine Yard and WonderNetwork Follow us on Twitter here. Rate us on iTunes here Listen Download now (MP3, 34.5MB, 1:17:38) Links and Notes RCS PHP and MySQL Web Development (5th Edition) Minimum Viable Bureaucracy: Video, Slides The Tyranny of Structurelessness Jeri Ellsworth leaving Steam Sara Golemon (is awesome) HHVM blog Hack for HHVM Coffeescript Go CodeIgniter seeking a new home

This is an essay written by Jo Freeman during the 1970s concerning the quest for a structureless womyns liberation movement and at the same time critiquing the structures that occur (seemingly from out of nowhere) within groups.download