PJ- why did you drown your voice out behind subway noise instead of sharing your actual point of view with us? Would you be willing to publish your viewpoint(s) separately, perhaps to paid subscribers?
Perhaps instead of starting out with “as a white person” (and reducing identity and belief to skin color), he could have started out by saying, “as someone who has spent the last X weeks speaking with Y people from a diverse set of backgrounds, my viewpoint is … “.
While I don’t dismiss the fact that people have different life experiences depending on their “group”, one of the beautiful things about humanity is that we have a shared language to express our feeling and experiences. PJ, as a smart, good faith journalist, is capable of understanding and reflecting on various feelings and experiences, perhaps more than anyone else.
By reducing himself down to “just a white guy”, he is potentially depriving all people from all backgrounds a chance to more deeply understand a complex issue, perhaps in a succinct way that could boil down / concentrate the hours and hours of interviews into an easily digestible summary.
Instead of sharing insights that could be universally appreciated and understood, he signaled loud and clear that his skin color is more important than his own beliefs, however informed, inclusive, or representative they are of other groups.
I freaking love PJ and his podcasts are some of my very favorites. I was a huge Reply All fan as well, and was so sad to see that show go to shit thanks to this exact type of ideology.
Thankfully, good people are starting to realize the fallacies and unintended harm associated with it. IMHO, ditching it can’t happen fast enough and I hope PJ doesn’t wait too long before doing so himself.
He started out by saying something like “as a white person” and then blurred the rest in an acknowledgement that his point of view doesn’t matter, that it’s about the marginalized groups that he referenced right beforehand. In my mind, it was a take on the tendency (of bureaucracy, of society, etc.) to make a show of “listening” to marginalized groups but then give the white point of view the last word and only act to address that. Though he’s narrating the story, of course, and his voice is all over it, that was a small way to elevate and emphasize the other voices in the podcast.
Musical auto/biographies are my absolute fave! It's not a memoir but I constantly recommend The Fabulous Sylvester by Joshua Gamson. Cyndi Lauper's book is a surprisingly great read, Mo' Meta Blues by Questlove, Rat Girl by Kristen Hirsh, and Bobby Womack's My Story.
This is the sort of episode I love. It shows me why something that seems easy to answer is actually incredibly complicated. The idea of needing more police enforcement after legalizing vs just letting unlicensed go is so difficult to figure out.
If anything it shows the disfunction of procedures designed around identity and "justice".
I am hoping that the stuff that was drowned out by the subway was something along those lines:
Making stuff legal that was illegal and doing an amnesty on crimes of possession should be good enough. Making it even more complicated than whatever California did but without any policing did defies common sense. There can be no justice or legal market if illegal behaviour is not sanctioned. This has nothing to do with being white/brown/black whatever.
The new intoxicating substances need to be to be regulated to fit in with previously legal intoxicating substances.
The NOFX memoir is one of the most unvarnished autobiographies I’ve read. Really good.
If I had to pick just one other music biography, it would be Just Kids by Patti Smith. It is as much about NYC in the 70s as it is about Smith.
Others I’ve enjoyed:
- Beasties Boys Book by Mike D. Audio version is great!
- Acid for the Children by Flea. About his life before the RHCP.
- Without You by Anthony Rapp
- Girl in a Band by Kim Gordon
PJ- why did you drown your voice out behind subway noise instead of sharing your actual point of view with us? Would you be willing to publish your viewpoint(s) separately, perhaps to paid subscribers?
I’ll be honest, I thought that was the most brilliant thing Search Engine has done yet. Superb recognition by PJ.
Can you help me understand why he did so, and why you think it was so brilliant?
Perhaps instead of starting out with “as a white person” (and reducing identity and belief to skin color), he could have started out by saying, “as someone who has spent the last X weeks speaking with Y people from a diverse set of backgrounds, my viewpoint is … “.
While I don’t dismiss the fact that people have different life experiences depending on their “group”, one of the beautiful things about humanity is that we have a shared language to express our feeling and experiences. PJ, as a smart, good faith journalist, is capable of understanding and reflecting on various feelings and experiences, perhaps more than anyone else.
By reducing himself down to “just a white guy”, he is potentially depriving all people from all backgrounds a chance to more deeply understand a complex issue, perhaps in a succinct way that could boil down / concentrate the hours and hours of interviews into an easily digestible summary.
Instead of sharing insights that could be universally appreciated and understood, he signaled loud and clear that his skin color is more important than his own beliefs, however informed, inclusive, or representative they are of other groups.
I freaking love PJ and his podcasts are some of my very favorites. I was a huge Reply All fan as well, and was so sad to see that show go to shit thanks to this exact type of ideology.
Thankfully, good people are starting to realize the fallacies and unintended harm associated with it. IMHO, ditching it can’t happen fast enough and I hope PJ doesn’t wait too long before doing so himself.
He started out by saying something like “as a white person” and then blurred the rest in an acknowledgement that his point of view doesn’t matter, that it’s about the marginalized groups that he referenced right beforehand. In my mind, it was a take on the tendency (of bureaucracy, of society, etc.) to make a show of “listening” to marginalized groups but then give the white point of view the last word and only act to address that. Though he’s narrating the story, of course, and his voice is all over it, that was a small way to elevate and emphasize the other voices in the podcast.
Musical auto/biographies are my absolute fave! It's not a memoir but I constantly recommend The Fabulous Sylvester by Joshua Gamson. Cyndi Lauper's book is a surprisingly great read, Mo' Meta Blues by Questlove, Rat Girl by Kristen Hirsh, and Bobby Womack's My Story.
This is the sort of episode I love. It shows me why something that seems easy to answer is actually incredibly complicated. The idea of needing more police enforcement after legalizing vs just letting unlicensed go is so difficult to figure out.
Thanks for this episode.
If anything it shows the disfunction of procedures designed around identity and "justice".
I am hoping that the stuff that was drowned out by the subway was something along those lines:
Making stuff legal that was illegal and doing an amnesty on crimes of possession should be good enough. Making it even more complicated than whatever California did but without any policing did defies common sense. There can be no justice or legal market if illegal behaviour is not sanctioned. This has nothing to do with being white/brown/black whatever.
The new intoxicating substances need to be to be regulated to fit in with previously legal intoxicating substances.
Would I still enjoy the NOFX autobiography if I don’t listen to their music? The title alone is captivating
I do not think enjoying their music is a pre-req at all
So interesting! Thank you for sharing these.
Because the people that were supposed to do the right thing fell asleep at the switch.
And for me (a little old lady) I’d have to queue up for hours at the legal spot with a medical script to get an ounce.