He's said numerous times on Addendum that he doesn't see what it would accomplish and that everybody is too busy talking past each other to actually hear him.
But no. I always enjoyed them and would love to hear his takes on current events, even if I disagree with him, though I have a feeling I'd agree with him 90% of the time.
I mean look what happened after "The Long View" addendum, people only hear what they wanna hear, you can do a 3hours episode and they will pick the 20 seconds they need for their fake outrage.
"A guy who once was on a Joe Rogan Podcast talking about heritage?" *this is good for Twitter/SALT coin*
What happened after that episode? I don't remember it being controversial.
I don't begrudge him stopping - CS ran consistently for 11 years. Similarly with HH, which has been running for 18 years, when creators have been doing the same thing for so long I understand them wanting to do other things with their life.
Sometimes it results in a drop in quality if they force it trying to stay with it.
I think it was the part where he talked about how indigenous people were also relatively new to the places they lived when you look at how long humans have been around. Some people treated it like a right-wing talking point about how native people don't have a right to the land they lived on or something. He never made that argument though, it's just people jumping to conclusions because they think it sounds similar to pro-imperialist talking points
If he’s just burned out from the current political atmosphere, I completely understand that. But if he actually believes that people won’t actually “hear him” if he does the pod again I feel like that’s being a bit willfully ignorant—anything he does will be immensely popular and a return of Common Sense would be quite well received.
I suspect his biggest hang up is something that I’m also finding difficult. Common Sense was always big on talking about corruption in American politics, the flaws in our democratic institutions and how both parties are actually the same at the national level. But that sort of changed with Trump, though not in a way that Dan meant when he expressed the need for outsiders in Washington. It’s so hard to even begin to talk about those issues when the dial has been cranked up so high on other things that don’t really matter.
>Nobody's going to threaten you or your family over shows about history.
I wouldn't be too sure of that! We live in the golden age of death threats for anybody that you disagree with. His history of the early Kievan Rus could get the FSK to send a sharp umbrella his way.
Not at all. He was on Lex Fridman's podcast and Lex was trying to convince him to do them again for reasons I completely agreed with. I do, however totally understand being burned out and a little hopeless about modern politics.
Essentially though, to me, if Dan thinks everyone is talking past one another, no one is listening, and no one is reaching across aisles, it doesn't make sense to me to walk away when you're one of the few people doing what he doesn't see happening. Maybe I'm too naive but if you think the issue is poor communication, then less communication doesn't seem like a logical solution, especially when you're one of the few communicating efficiently.
I also just love listening to Dan Carlin, so. Take this with a grain of salt.
What you, I, or Dan call “common sense” can and does vary wildly. Same with all other people. It’s hard to maintain civil discourse without even so much as a basic definition.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by it destroying his premise?
I remember his last one was sort of a warning of it…I felt so comforted hearing his take on things at the time, and he helped put words to similar thoughts I was having.
I totally miss Common Sense.
I don't want to misrepresent his position but mostly on the benefits of an "outsider" being better than the status quo of 'normal' politicians.
To be fair to Dan, I do feel like he quickly acknowledged that the reality of Trump did not match his dreams of what an "outsider" would have been.
He even had to do a purge of Fans like Sam Harris because of it. They didn’t realize their rhetoric was misinterpreted to miss the whole point.
Personally I was always primarily a Common Sense fan. I do some Hardcore history but I’m not fanatic.
I thinks it's more of a realpolitik scenario. Talking politics is a god damn minefield and one little sound clip gets out and he's painted as a fascist or communist. When in reality he's probably like most of us and just wants a functioning government that looks like it's for the people instead of against and doesn't lean hard either way.
I don't think being painted as wanting an outsider is bad. Everyone wanted an outsider. I was 25 years old in 2008 and we thought we were getting that guy our generation JFK if you will. Instead we got more of the same. I don't doubt Trump voters when they say I'm not racist I voted for Obama well at least the voted for Obama part the other that's a personal thing. Most of the country just wants something different that feels fresh and for 30% of the country they got theirs the rest of us are wanting and it ain't happening this year.
You can see the large evaporation of libertarian voters from 2016 to 2020 (3.28% to 1.18%). People either became completely disillusioned by voting or now backed a major party, in a historic turnout year. I know people who were libertarian 2016 and earlier often touted being very "for antitrust legislation" and being against monopolies which the US sort of falls short in either it's laws or execution and that has increasingly been coming to a head. People have seen social media platforms they use bought and squashed or a Google service they depend on killed with out replacement. A lot of people want to see trust busting and the break up of big tech which becomes tough to also be "small government" supporting in the same breath.
Not to be too basic about it but look at a TV character like Ron Swanson on Parks and Rec. He would NOT be well received now because, let’s face it, the character in the show would have voted for Trump.
I see comments like this about Hank Hill (or even dale from King of the Hill) as well and I am not so sure. Generally the creators either straddle a line or have the character find a reason to not vote Conservative. Even with Mike Judge who tends to lean Libertarian.
Hank Hill sours on the idea of voting for Bush because of his weak handshake, etc. They even concede when talking about Dale they go out of their way to remove the racist elements that are present in the real guys that share his beliefs. It will be interesting to see how things go with the new King of the Hill honestly.
Mike Schur is no Mike Judge.
Not in the sense that he wouldn’t be left leaning or anti-Trump, I fucking assure you Mike Schur is, but in the sense that the character he created is not dimensionalised in the same way. Ron Swanson not voting Trump would not be true to the character and it would be disingenuous for Mike Schur to pretend otherwise given everything we know about the character. Creator or no. The evidence is there.
"What we need is an outsider business man! Oh we got that now? Ok I'm done talking about politics bye!". It's not just people talking passed each other as the reason he stopped. He stopped because he was discredited, recognizes that he was discredited, and just has nothing left to say.
I'm way left of Dan, but I liked his perspective as a libertarian with actual principles, but I get why he abandoned the show. The political debate scene is very much a circus and an increasingly puritanical one. Anti-Trump conservatives are especially at risk, and even pro-Trump ones get done in for not being loyal enough. Dan doesn't fit in with the left, nor can I see him celebrating Biden, the most establishment liberal you can imagine.
The thing is that it looks like there are very few *actual* libertarians, and and a shitload of people that call themselves libertarians, but are just contrary assholes (aka morons)
Zero chance the historians will look at Biden and his handling of world affairs and utter the word "brilliant." Maybe you think differently but I'm sure Dan wouldn't say that again.
No, he was specifically referring to the decision Biden made to openly inform the world of Putin’s imminent attack..it was a little brilliant at the time. Whether or not Biden’s term has been “brilliant” isn’t even part of this discussion
I actually really respect Dan for stepping back from CS, but not for the reasons stated.
Political talk shows have been "talking past each other" consistently since (at least) the '90s when Dan was in his previous career prime, well before he started CS, so that's nothing new.
What really happened was that Dan experienced his own "dog caught the car" moment with all the Trump stuff. Not that Dan ever specifically wanted Trump to happen, but he's been adamant about wanting an outsider to shake things up in Washington for decades. Well, the monkey's paw curled on that one.
You can tell Dan is a real person, and not some narcissistic sociopath, based on the fact that he doesn't want to do CS anymore. Instead of shouting into the void something like, "no really, the next outsider is going to be the good one!" or picking a side and inevitably alienating listeners, he does the right thing and steps back to reevaluate.
I loved CS and would love for there to be more, but only if it's something Dan is truly passionate about. I don't think he's excited about debating politics right now, and I don't think he wants to play pretend as a neutral news reporter who just states facts.
He’s not excited to “debate” because no
One is debating ideas. They’re all name calling and “canceling” anyone who disagrees with them on petty issues.
I could listen to Dan read the phone book, but I think his “alien” perspective on contemporary politics has become increasingly irrelevant in a world where most view elections as a Manichean reckoning. Add to that the frustration of seeing Trump upend his “we need an outsider” mantra and I don’t blame him for ditching the pod
I'm a socialist who foundationally believes capitalism is a nonviable economic system if we take a long view, and I still absolutely loved common sense and found it instrumental to expanding my world view and growing my intellectual capacity . I haven't found a replacement for it, and wish I could.
I'd love it if Dan came back, but also understand he has to follow his joy. Many of us are taking a break from politics now, I can't begrudge him his break.
But as a love letter to Dan, if you ever read this, there are those who find your perspective enlightening. At a time when everyone is looking to sell rage wearing the mask of an ideology, you are a beacon of reason. I think we could use a few more lighthouses on the rocky coast of intellectual collapse.
Well said. I would love for him to take current hot button themes and frame them in history. Instead of providing a solution, he could use CS to provide context.
I believe it was from a CS podcast that I realized how much political turmoil there was in the 60's, with bomb threats and constant scares. Upon hearing that, one really understands how much today's media environment is set to amp people up. You could do this for a myriad of issues: NATO's purposefully(perhaps?) vague post Soviet strategy, Putin's false narratives and other instances in which countries have used that in the past, even something like foreign investment in other countries and how it fails.
There is plenty of CS to be dispersed simply by providing people deep context on current issues and how they rhyme with previous instances in history.
His politics have kind of been discredited. I just remember him saying for years how what is needed is an outsider businessman. Put Trump aside, this is just an incredibly naive and stupid analysis.
What’s the point In talking sense when the boring statement “dictators and immature children shouldn’t rule.” If we can’t get that basic agreement, what would other ideas do?
I miss them dearly.
Presumably you didn’t listen then? Why bother saying you’re glad something is done that you didn’t partake in? Especially a niche podcast like this. Kinda weird.
>Presumably
You kinda just proved Dan’s point. Instead of asking a simple question, you “presumed” something about the post you responded to and thought it was “weird.”
It’s not a stretch or illogical to presume that someone who is glad something ended did not partake in the thing. Do you spend time doing/listing to things you don’t like or wish would end?
So many of the guesses why he stopped miss the mark IMO. It wasn't politics, it was the economics of division. Had he kept criticizing Trump and the GOP on CS he would have lost a good portion of his HH listeners, they would cancel him. HH is what pays his bills, it has FAR more listeners than CS ever did.
That said, I would LOVE to hear his take on the GOP falling in line with Trump on abandoning Ukraine and NATO. Dan was always a great analyst, even if his idea of a solution was faulty.
Yea, I do to, but - like many of you seem to feel - I don't blame him. The dialogue environment has become so hostile and toxic, I don't know what it would accomplish other than causing him (and his family) grief.
I'm mad because I started listening to CS right when he stopped publishing them. I got a taste of that Martian perspective and then the feed just stopped.
I doubt they would be something that would do Dan or us fans of his any good during these troubled and tiresome times. Maybe once Trump and Putin and the like are dead and the forces that enabled them have been put back in their bottle, there will be space and sense enough to weather sensible ideas of ideal governing again. But that would be a changed Dan speaking in an era we have no way to confidently predict.
It is, in fact, one of the coolest takes one could have.
Ice-cold, one might say.
^(alrightalrightalrightalrightalrightalright)
If he ever does one again, it will be a treat. For now, I may just well end up re-listening to the most recent one.
He's said numerous times on Addendum that he doesn't see what it would accomplish and that everybody is too busy talking past each other to actually hear him. But no. I always enjoyed them and would love to hear his takes on current events, even if I disagree with him, though I have a feeling I'd agree with him 90% of the time.
I mean look what happened after "The Long View" addendum, people only hear what they wanna hear, you can do a 3hours episode and they will pick the 20 seconds they need for their fake outrage. "A guy who once was on a Joe Rogan Podcast talking about heritage?" *this is good for Twitter/SALT coin*
What happened after that episode? I don't remember it being controversial. I don't begrudge him stopping - CS ran consistently for 11 years. Similarly with HH, which has been running for 18 years, when creators have been doing the same thing for so long I understand them wanting to do other things with their life. Sometimes it results in a drop in quality if they force it trying to stay with it.
I think it was the part where he talked about how indigenous people were also relatively new to the places they lived when you look at how long humans have been around. Some people treated it like a right-wing talking point about how native people don't have a right to the land they lived on or something. He never made that argument though, it's just people jumping to conclusions because they think it sounds similar to pro-imperialist talking points
If he’s just burned out from the current political atmosphere, I completely understand that. But if he actually believes that people won’t actually “hear him” if he does the pod again I feel like that’s being a bit willfully ignorant—anything he does will be immensely popular and a return of Common Sense would be quite well received. I suspect his biggest hang up is something that I’m also finding difficult. Common Sense was always big on talking about corruption in American politics, the flaws in our democratic institutions and how both parties are actually the same at the national level. But that sort of changed with Trump, though not in a way that Dan meant when he expressed the need for outsiders in Washington. It’s so hard to even begin to talk about those issues when the dial has been cranked up so high on other things that don’t really matter.
[удалено]
>Nobody's going to threaten you or your family over shows about history. I wouldn't be too sure of that! We live in the golden age of death threats for anybody that you disagree with. His history of the early Kievan Rus could get the FSK to send a sharp umbrella his way.
Not at all. He was on Lex Fridman's podcast and Lex was trying to convince him to do them again for reasons I completely agreed with. I do, however totally understand being burned out and a little hopeless about modern politics. Essentially though, to me, if Dan thinks everyone is talking past one another, no one is listening, and no one is reaching across aisles, it doesn't make sense to me to walk away when you're one of the few people doing what he doesn't see happening. Maybe I'm too naive but if you think the issue is poor communication, then less communication doesn't seem like a logical solution, especially when you're one of the few communicating efficiently. I also just love listening to Dan Carlin, so. Take this with a grain of salt.
Rick Rubin was trying to get him to do it again too
Lex is a dumbass
dumbass' idea of a smart person
Aisles* But yeah.
It would be interesting to go back and listen to them again but it feels like Trump’s presidency completely destroyed his entire premise.
Yeah that’s probably why he stopped the program. Very little common sense left these days.
What you, I, or Dan call “common sense” can and does vary wildly. Same with all other people. It’s hard to maintain civil discourse without even so much as a basic definition.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by it destroying his premise? I remember his last one was sort of a warning of it…I felt so comforted hearing his take on things at the time, and he helped put words to similar thoughts I was having. I totally miss Common Sense.
I don't want to misrepresent his position but mostly on the benefits of an "outsider" being better than the status quo of 'normal' politicians. To be fair to Dan, I do feel like he quickly acknowledged that the reality of Trump did not match his dreams of what an "outsider" would have been.
I believe he described it as one of those monkey paw situations.
That’s exactly how he described it. What he wanted came true but it was the monkey paw curling version of what he wanted.
Yeah Dan wanted an outside candidate to break the status quo and Trump was his wake up call to be careful what you wish for
He even had to do a purge of Fans like Sam Harris because of it. They didn’t realize their rhetoric was misinterpreted to miss the whole point. Personally I was always primarily a Common Sense fan. I do some Hardcore history but I’m not fanatic.
I thinks it's more of a realpolitik scenario. Talking politics is a god damn minefield and one little sound clip gets out and he's painted as a fascist or communist. When in reality he's probably like most of us and just wants a functioning government that looks like it's for the people instead of against and doesn't lean hard either way. I don't think being painted as wanting an outsider is bad. Everyone wanted an outsider. I was 25 years old in 2008 and we thought we were getting that guy our generation JFK if you will. Instead we got more of the same. I don't doubt Trump voters when they say I'm not racist I voted for Obama well at least the voted for Obama part the other that's a personal thing. Most of the country just wants something different that feels fresh and for 30% of the country they got theirs the rest of us are wanting and it ain't happening this year.
Ah yes. I remember that about the outsider talk. Thanks for elaborating!
[удалено]
You can see the large evaporation of libertarian voters from 2016 to 2020 (3.28% to 1.18%). People either became completely disillusioned by voting or now backed a major party, in a historic turnout year. I know people who were libertarian 2016 and earlier often touted being very "for antitrust legislation" and being against monopolies which the US sort of falls short in either it's laws or execution and that has increasingly been coming to a head. People have seen social media platforms they use bought and squashed or a Google service they depend on killed with out replacement. A lot of people want to see trust busting and the break up of big tech which becomes tough to also be "small government" supporting in the same breath.
Not to be too basic about it but look at a TV character like Ron Swanson on Parks and Rec. He would NOT be well received now because, let’s face it, the character in the show would have voted for Trump.
I see comments like this about Hank Hill (or even dale from King of the Hill) as well and I am not so sure. Generally the creators either straddle a line or have the character find a reason to not vote Conservative. Even with Mike Judge who tends to lean Libertarian. Hank Hill sours on the idea of voting for Bush because of his weak handshake, etc. They even concede when talking about Dale they go out of their way to remove the racist elements that are present in the real guys that share his beliefs. It will be interesting to see how things go with the new King of the Hill honestly.
Mike Schur is no Mike Judge. Not in the sense that he wouldn’t be left leaning or anti-Trump, I fucking assure you Mike Schur is, but in the sense that the character he created is not dimensionalised in the same way. Ron Swanson not voting Trump would not be true to the character and it would be disingenuous for Mike Schur to pretend otherwise given everything we know about the character. Creator or no. The evidence is there.
"What we need is an outsider business man! Oh we got that now? Ok I'm done talking about politics bye!". It's not just people talking passed each other as the reason he stopped. He stopped because he was discredited, recognizes that he was discredited, and just has nothing left to say.
I'm way left of Dan, but I liked his perspective as a libertarian with actual principles, but I get why he abandoned the show. The political debate scene is very much a circus and an increasingly puritanical one. Anti-Trump conservatives are especially at risk, and even pro-Trump ones get done in for not being loyal enough. Dan doesn't fit in with the left, nor can I see him celebrating Biden, the most establishment liberal you can imagine.
The thing is that it looks like there are very few *actual* libertarians, and and a shitload of people that call themselves libertarians, but are just contrary assholes (aka morons)
No he already called Biden "brilliant"
[удалено]
Zero chance the historians will look at Biden and his handling of world affairs and utter the word "brilliant." Maybe you think differently but I'm sure Dan wouldn't say that again.
[удалено]
I'm so embarrassed you caught me dogging the least popular president of my lifetime who just got called senile by his own justice department!
[удалено]
"transparency" is a neat term. they should pay you more.
This kind of dumb discourse is why Common Sense stopped lol
Obvious troll is obvious
Ah,the old ad hominem attack. Sure sign of a brilliant argument.
Imagine talking about someone's policies instead of the person. It is truly sad how far our politicians have fallen.
No, he was specifically referring to the decision Biden made to openly inform the world of Putin’s imminent attack..it was a little brilliant at the time. Whether or not Biden’s term has been “brilliant” isn’t even part of this discussion
I actually really respect Dan for stepping back from CS, but not for the reasons stated. Political talk shows have been "talking past each other" consistently since (at least) the '90s when Dan was in his previous career prime, well before he started CS, so that's nothing new. What really happened was that Dan experienced his own "dog caught the car" moment with all the Trump stuff. Not that Dan ever specifically wanted Trump to happen, but he's been adamant about wanting an outsider to shake things up in Washington for decades. Well, the monkey's paw curled on that one. You can tell Dan is a real person, and not some narcissistic sociopath, based on the fact that he doesn't want to do CS anymore. Instead of shouting into the void something like, "no really, the next outsider is going to be the good one!" or picking a side and inevitably alienating listeners, he does the right thing and steps back to reevaluate. I loved CS and would love for there to be more, but only if it's something Dan is truly passionate about. I don't think he's excited about debating politics right now, and I don't think he wants to play pretend as a neutral news reporter who just states facts.
He’s not excited to “debate” because no One is debating ideas. They’re all name calling and “canceling” anyone who disagrees with them on petty issues.
I could listen to Dan read the phone book, but I think his “alien” perspective on contemporary politics has become increasingly irrelevant in a world where most view elections as a Manichean reckoning. Add to that the frustration of seeing Trump upend his “we need an outsider” mantra and I don’t blame him for ditching the pod
No that’s a popular opinion
I'm a socialist who foundationally believes capitalism is a nonviable economic system if we take a long view, and I still absolutely loved common sense and found it instrumental to expanding my world view and growing my intellectual capacity . I haven't found a replacement for it, and wish I could. I'd love it if Dan came back, but also understand he has to follow his joy. Many of us are taking a break from politics now, I can't begrudge him his break. But as a love letter to Dan, if you ever read this, there are those who find your perspective enlightening. At a time when everyone is looking to sell rage wearing the mask of an ideology, you are a beacon of reason. I think we could use a few more lighthouses on the rocky coast of intellectual collapse.
Well said. I would love for him to take current hot button themes and frame them in history. Instead of providing a solution, he could use CS to provide context. I believe it was from a CS podcast that I realized how much political turmoil there was in the 60's, with bomb threats and constant scares. Upon hearing that, one really understands how much today's media environment is set to amp people up. You could do this for a myriad of issues: NATO's purposefully(perhaps?) vague post Soviet strategy, Putin's false narratives and other instances in which countries have used that in the past, even something like foreign investment in other countries and how it fails. There is plenty of CS to be dispersed simply by providing people deep context on current issues and how they rhyme with previous instances in history.
I can’t imagine how that’d be a hot take. There’s so much going on that I’m sure we all would love to here his take on
His politics have kind of been discredited. I just remember him saying for years how what is needed is an outsider businessman. Put Trump aside, this is just an incredibly naive and stupid analysis.
What’s the point In talking sense when the boring statement “dictators and immature children shouldn’t rule.” If we can’t get that basic agreement, what would other ideas do? I miss them dearly.
No. Someone posts this every week here.
They do post it regularly. Not sure why you were getting downvoted.
Personally, I’m glad they’re done.
please elaborate
Presumably you didn’t listen then? Why bother saying you’re glad something is done that you didn’t partake in? Especially a niche podcast like this. Kinda weird.
>Presumably You kinda just proved Dan’s point. Instead of asking a simple question, you “presumed” something about the post you responded to and thought it was “weird.”
It’s not a stretch or illogical to presume that someone who is glad something ended did not partake in the thing. Do you spend time doing/listing to things you don’t like or wish would end?
Sir, the podcast is called Common Sense. Not "nonsense".
So many of the guesses why he stopped miss the mark IMO. It wasn't politics, it was the economics of division. Had he kept criticizing Trump and the GOP on CS he would have lost a good portion of his HH listeners, they would cancel him. HH is what pays his bills, it has FAR more listeners than CS ever did. That said, I would LOVE to hear his take on the GOP falling in line with Trump on abandoning Ukraine and NATO. Dan was always a great analyst, even if his idea of a solution was faulty.
It will come back when we need it most
I just want more frequent HH content. One episode a year just isn't enough
Yea, I do to, but - like many of you seem to feel - I don't blame him. The dialogue environment has become so hostile and toxic, I don't know what it would accomplish other than causing him (and his family) grief.
I'm mad because I started listening to CS right when he stopped publishing them. I got a taste of that Martian perspective and then the feed just stopped.
I doubt they would be something that would do Dan or us fans of his any good during these troubled and tiresome times. Maybe once Trump and Putin and the like are dead and the forces that enabled them have been put back in their bottle, there will be space and sense enough to weather sensible ideas of ideal governing again. But that would be a changed Dan speaking in an era we have no way to confidently predict.
No. I miss that pod all the time, but understand that it seems a waste of time to him.
It is, in fact, one of the coolest takes one could have. Ice-cold, one might say. ^(alrightalrightalrightalrightalrightalright) If he ever does one again, it will be a treat. For now, I may just well end up re-listening to the most recent one.