Home Artists Posts Import Register
Join the new SimpleX Chat Group!

Downloads

Content

Here’s the premise. Maggie chose a movie for Adam and Adam chose a movie for Maggie. The goal was to choose a movie that encapsulates their co-host. Then, the chooser finds out if the other can decipher why they chose that film. For Adam, Maggie chose the 1998 British village film, Waking Ned Devine, about finding out who won a lottery. For Maggie, Adam chose the Kevin Spacey vehicle, The Life of David Gale. These are insane picks so listen and find out why. I don’t know what this show is anymore, but it’s charming as fuck.

Email us suggestions for episodes at magsandganz@gmail.com.

Adam Ganser: https://twitter.com/therealganz

Maggie Mae Fish: https://twitter.com/MaggieMaeFish

Files

Comments

Steven Assarian

1.) Man, what a great episode. Keep it up y’all. 2.) Can we get the hour-long Fish/Ganser politics podcast because that sounds dope. 3.) I think we focus way too much on decisions we make in the moment when it comes to free will. As in, we think we’re Green Lanterns and if we just go ‘urgh!’ enough times we’ll be moral. But rarely do we think about the systems we make in our lives long before that decision gets made. Adam, that speaks to your point, like it’s a thousand little decisions that make our moral selves. If you want to be a moral person, maybe don’t go into payday loans or baby candy theft, right? Something interesting I notice here, per Maggie’s point, is that you all have come to success here at Small Beans by building systems, not of dominance but of friendship. As in, you all work together because you’re friends, and it would be much harder to build an exploitative mind within a system like that. So she’s probably right that Adam won’t become a proverbial Franco. So you got that going for you. 4.) Is it weird that the older I get, the more anarchy as a political system makes sense to me? 5.) Anyway thanks for the great conversation.

Jason Olshefsky

Well a week late in my comment, but I loved the meaty middle! One kernel I think you two concluded was that introspection alone is not enough to protect against "bad" behavior. As someone who has a lecherous side and who is introspective, I know that is a dangerous area for me. Thus, I can empathize more directly with (specifically) men who take things too far with young women—at least taking things a *little* too far. I have a fear of a situation where I have the ability to do something lecherous and I'm shielded from external consequences. Then I would be left only with an introspective conscience yelling that the short-term pleasure would not be worth the ongoing regret played solely against the urgency of my inherent nature. As a more concrete example, if I were somehow a famous actor and a desirable young woman were to, let's say vaguely, "be available to me", I am not confident in my ability to resist. Fortunately that is not the case, and I'm not anywhere near being in that position. I'm not even in minor situations like being a college professor with a student propositioning for a better grade. And also fortunate is that I made it to an age where sexual energy is not so damn urgent. So it's not so much that I am a decent and trustworthy person but that I'm aware of evil in me that I need to be vigilant against. So putting psychopaths aside (who don't have the capacity to value others), there are people who just don't have the bad tendencies to begin with, and then there are those who do—only some of whom have introspection and internalized guilt strong enough to temper those behaviors. And then ... no idea what to do with that information.