Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

OK BUNGER! The Problem of Generations, pt. 4 (Patreon)

Published:
2021-10-12 06:00:03
Edited:
2021-10-18 19:45:59
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

  • OKBunger-4-Xers.mp3

Some files exceed the archive size limit and weren't saved: 1 file. Please note these limits are in place to keep this site running long term, without costing a fortune. You can favorite the creator though, certain milestones increase the limit.

Content

The fourth in a special five-part series on generational consciousness and conflict.

In this episode, we examine Generation X – the generation of the End of History. How was this generation overshadowed by the Boomer's failures? In the Eastern Bloc, the fall of Soviet regimes was a traumatic moment – how did this shape consciousness? And how did the Iranian Revolution – and subsequent war – shape the political perspectives of Iranians?

Guests include:

Maren Thom, film scholar

Alexei Yurchak, professor of anthropology at Berkeley

Jennie Bristow, senior lecturer in sociology at Canterbury Christ Church University

Josh Glenn, semiotician, author, and publisher of HiLoBrow

Arash Azizi, historian of Iran at New York University

Felix Krawatzek, political scientist at the Centre for East European and International Studies in Berlin

Original music by: Jonny Mundey

Additional music:

Kit Kruger / Freakin' Freefall / courtesy of epidemicsound.com

Files

Comments

Davka Smolah Collective

Really happy to hear it openly acknowledged that the issue of "reboot culture" isn't about a lack of creative labor, but about the unwillingness of (cultural) Capital to invest in novel creative labor.

DTC

I still can’t tell if this series is just talking about history or some type of historicity of generational studies, especially when josh glen is speaking, which seems like absolute pseudoscience backed up by generalizations. This is supported by his own biography, wherein his university declined to allow him to pursue his research. I’m curious as to why you all included him? What those bits are intended to illustrate? As far as I am concerned, he set up a dichotomy in the first part that essentially stated that either he is on to something or it’s all rubbish and the answer seemed pretty obvious to me. I’m glad you’re all experimenting with a new style and there are aspects that I do enjoy., especially in episode 2. That being said, my favorite part of the show are your collective interlocution, which is never pandering and sometimes even hostile (i.e., the episode about rave politics). The interviewees talking without that sort of degrades the conversation into something more like a rock band documentary.