真巧

How to lose a debate(00:46) 辩论没有发生(08:03) 辩论充满着底线(17:53) 辩论没有任何底线(28:36) the importance of being a deaf mute狗别怂 狗再叫：百度贴吧里有哪些神贴？ -知乎 https://www.zhihu.com/question/20011317/answer/683892729DFW, E Unibus Pluram jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdfDFW, Joseph Frank’s Dostoevsky https://www.villagevoice.com/feodors-guide-joseph-franks-dostoevsky/自由的爱的不可能性 https://book.douban.com/review/16539777/Kill the Computer, A New Form of Violence https://open.spotify.com/episode/5h08J4DrkECXlbjH6zDJE6嗜（shi4）血 (12:05)。

A textbook self-defeating episode. Plz make it to the end这只是你现实生活不如意的投射(0:52)，大家都有发表自己观点的自由(3:03)，我要起诉你(4:33)，你的观点无人在意(5:30)，这本来就不是写给你的(6:11)，爱具体的人(8:33)，真诚即可(9:42)，你也有立场(10:59)，不辩了外面见(12:03)，减免证明责任(19:30)，这确实只是你现实生活不如意的投射

太巧了

the Iliad, the inevitability of modern meritocracy, and me(3:57) 人神关系；选择你的英雄；本体喻体合体(20:42) 失败学导论；优绩主义批判光谱，与荣耀意识的大变形术(40:53) 免费的答案：死(52:29) how i stopped worrying and loved the gameMore on Iliad:The Iliad of Homer, Richmond LattimoreHomer and His Iliad, Robin Lane Fox (also RLF on ⁠podcast⁠ with The History of Literature)Homer on Life and Death, Jasper Griffin《与父亲的奥德赛》，丹尼尔门德尔松⁠“为他构思死亡”⁠，豹子头林黛玉⁠《伊利亚特，或力量之诗》⁠，西蒙娜薇依⁠Iliad⁠, Grey Area (with Emily Wilson)⁠The Iliad⁠, In Our Time⁠Homer⁠, The History of Literature⁠Mother Tongue⁠, The New YorkerHades, Supergiant GamesOther references include: 东周列国志，Oppenheimer, 路加福音第4章，The Tyranny of Merit, 《历史的终结与最后的人》(32:07)，《论美国的民主》，赵丹喵，Erich Fromm，陀思妥耶夫斯基，《偶像的黄昏》，《进击的巨人》，白鲸与火线与T. S. Eliot与但丁，兰亭集序，（反）《正义论》，魔戒，何兆武《上学记》，施特劳斯《进步还是回归？》，与，伟大的，阿庇安《罗马史》。思考题：​西庇阿引用的是哪一处伊利亚特？​假设同一个人写了奥德赛和伊利亚特：如何解释Achilleus后来又说“O shining Odysseus, never try to console me for dying. / I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another man, one with no land allotted him and not much to live on, / than be a king over all the perished dead.”？​What does Death of a Salesman say about meritocracy?本集标题出现在(16:16)!

Call it tiktok ban, PAFACA, 啪发卡；it’s been upheld and we try to make sense of it. Too long don’t listen version: 言论自由天下第一，但国家安全是天。(1:27) some (not much) context(6:34) How can 啪发卡 be so well drafted in such a bad way? 群众互斗，名列前茅，卡点巧思，与忒修斯之船(17:11) What was the F word that screwed tt 3 times in the decision? 言论价值倒反天罡，tt的诉讼不可能两全策略，与帝国落日的边疆(44:12) What implications ensue? 压力来到了SCOTUS，川普，和马斯克这边（吗？）(1:01:26) 彩蛋；or, any freedom thereof notwithstanding, how not everyone can give a nice speech.本期（事实上，任何一期）播客不构成法律建议或雇主意见而只是sound and fury told by two podcasters signifying nuthin'. This is not even a 法律播客，but a parody of a 法律播客，ffs.Some references:TikTok v. Garland (D.C. Cir. 2024)“Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” or the “RESTRICT Act”, S.686 (118th Congress 2023-24)“Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” or 啪发卡，H.R.7521 (118th Congress 2023-24), as a part of H.R.815Ashcroft v. ACLU (SCOTUS 2004) (filters are a qualified alternative to criminal penalty/fines of for distributing minor-harmful content) (3:43)Murthy v. MO (2024) (users lack Article III standing to seek injunction of gov’t from pressuring social media platforms to censor speech) (8:58)Moody v. NetChoice (SCOTUS 2024) (”Corporations, which are composed of human beings with First Amendment rights, possess First Amendment rights themselves. But foreign persons and corporations located abroad do not. So a social-media platform’s foreign ownership and control over its content-moderation decisions might affect whether laws overriding those decisions trigger First Amendment scrutiny.") (14:57)Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (SCOTUS 2015) (18:16)Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (SCOTUS 2010), and Breyer’s dissent (18:32) [was actually only cited 11 instead of 100 times here, majority & concurrence combined]Gov’s redacted brief (or the lack thereof) (21:38)Lamont v. Postmaster General (SCOTUS 1965) (29:58)“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Terminiello v. Chicago (Jackson’s dissent, 1949) (36:59)Australia banning stuff (53:50); Brazil banning and unbanning stuff (56:26)Brown v. Entertainment merchants Ass'n (SCOTUS 2011) (54:50)NY v. Ferber (SCOTUS 1982) (55:13)Murdoch seeking citizenship (59:37); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (SCOTUS 1978) (1:00:07)附加思考题：​What about overbreadth doctrine? What about vagueness doctrine? And why did Tiktok not argue them? ​How was the FCC-Murdoch regulation constitutional? bgm credit to suno ai

老登必须死，但是what for? (0:08) 爱看不看 (3:27) 兼论为什么反对轻率地将道德叙事引入文艺评论 (19:05) 兼论脆弱现代逼 (33:01) 兼论真左翼的永恒漂流 I know if ppl wanna cancel you they kinda don’t care whether you beg them not to but don’t cancel me. References include: 苏联笑话，性感台灯测试，川普在宾州 (5:59)，Hacks S1E1, 《中产阶级的孩子们》，血腥的布尔迪厄 (13:11)，残酷的马克思， Dopesick, 《风险社会中的刑法》，《时间与他者》(24:15)，《分成两半的子爵》，Antony and Cleopatra, The Closing of American Mind, 詹明信 (27:29)，buttered cat paradox, Chuck Palahniuk "quite liked the CN ending," Brave New World, 《流动的现代性》，与，最高雅的，《阿凡达》(37:31)。 ending BGM credit to suno ai

全体注意必须紧急停止引用茨威格。 (01:29) 必须超越身份政治 (16:28) 必须明白他人存在 (23:58) 必须走出昨日世界 (30:18) 必须（稍微）爱（一点儿） 开玩笑的kids don’t do this at home (29:59) Some references: “The quintessential condition of 21st century liberal/progressive Democrat/Labor politics: a couple of fundamentally good guys imagining a more just world that their core political philosophy has absolutely no ability to bring about.” Freddie deBoer, Liberalism Cannot Produce Outcomes Satisfactory to Liberals, https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/liberalism-cannot-produce-outcomes (02:07) Daniel Finn, Two Centuries of the National Question, https://jacobin.com/2023/02/two-centuries-of-the-national-question (07:27) 福山《身份政治》 quoting Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (08:06) 陈嘉映，《救黑熊重要吗？》，https://www.sohu.com/a/496864704_121119350 (10:22) “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932) (Brandeis, dissenting) (12:41) “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?” Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men (20:56) “I want to earn enough money I can get away from everyone.” DDL, There Will Be Blood (PTA, 2007) (33:13) “右派注重自由，左派注重平等。而法国的口号是：自由平等博爱。”马克龙，2024 (33:56) 葛兰西《狱中札记》(34:55) 茨威格《昨日的世界》(36:11) BGM credit to deca joins

Twice we found the Google cases mildly irritating… 在民主党离开白宫前夕，我们聊了这一届administration留下的关键遗产：一大堆乱七八糟的反垄断。这次讨论绵延四天，补录三次，横跨大选，到最后我们都筋疲力尽，我感到要想把反垄断陈述清楚真的是不可能。一只与资本主义鳄鱼牙齿调情的小鸟；一部末法之法。而我们对于有形无形手的这些精妙意见也实际改变不了任何事到最后只是entertain了我们自己。 (03:51) 大水漫灌Sherman Act (08:04) Google Play Store案 (Epic v. Google). P.s. But Apple did it too (and worse). - We trashed market definition, tying, consumer information costs and paternalism. We took a short halftime and grabbed some soda (25:44). Then we trashed the consumer welfare standard and the antithesis of the consumer welfare standard. (39:13) Google search engine案 (US v. Google). P.s. This time Apple really did it too. - We trashed the breakup proposal, exclusive dealing, pricing as signal and the outer boundaries of antitrust law. (52:50) Last thoughts & 彩蛋。We trashed each other. Cliffhanger: did we fall out over this? Some references: Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Co. (1985) (12:00) Louis Kaplow, Why (Ever) Define Markets?, 2010 (14:34) Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Servs. (1992); Scalia’s dissent (17:33) US v. Microsoft (D.C. Cir. 2001) (27:08) (41:30) (53:30) Robert H. Bork, Legislative History and the Policy of the Sherman Act, 1966 (32:18) Barak Orbach, The Antitrust Consumer Welfare Paradox, 2011 (32:44) Oliver Williamson, Economies As An Antitrust Defense: The Welfare Tradeoffs, 1968 (32:53) Lina Khan, Amazon's Antitrust Paradox, 2017 (33:43) [懒得读以上四篇可以直接读Hovenkamp, Is Antitrust's Consumer Welfare Principle Imperiled?, 2019] Tim Wu, Tyranny of Convenience, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/sunday/tyranny-convenience.html (38:05) Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 1985 (43:30) 这一期观点是真的真的不代表我们老板也真的真的真的不是法律意见。 BGM credit to Suno AI

Everyone else just doesn’t seem to get it! 拨乱反正。本期开头不建议跳过因为有好多disclaimer和一个笑话！(04:45) 选举人团致使小州摇摆州僭越伦常倒反天罡？(17:49) 选举人团放大一小撮坏分子的错作用？(22:30) 选举人团叠床架屋扰乱全国一盘棋？(28:34) What if democracy isn't just about popularity, and State boundaries aren't gerrymandered conspiracies.(35:14) Self-celebration, agreeing to each other, etc.p.s. 我的JDVance turncoat时刻 (03:36)References:(12:51), (18:05) Bush v. Gore (2000) - 推荐Fiasco (podcast with Leon Neyfakh), 和Recount (HBO 2008, starring a sex offender)(22:53) Trump’s efforts, an Act from 1887, and “failed to make a choice” https://www.propublica.org/article/the-long-odds-facing-trumps-attempts-to-get-state-legislatures-to-override-election-results (note this article was written pre-Jan 6); also see 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act as a response(25:19) Article II Section 1 Clause 2 ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...")(33:15) Did Founders NOT envision parties? See James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 10 (“The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. […] that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.”)(36:18) National Popular Vote Interstate Compact附加思考题：​普选制下人口更密集的城市吸引更多竞选资源（低成本接触大量选民），这是不公平的吗？​普选制下全国margin过小也会trigger national recount吗？​到底什么是普选票？假如有个州采取ranked-choice voting, 按选民对候选人的喜好排序进行逐轮淘汰决出胜者，候选人在该州到底是获得了多少票呢？注：这个州叫Maine, which is currently NOT a winner take all state. ​De facto联邦可能存在完美普选吗？​从立宪初期的3个winner take all states，到现在的48个州自主选择winner take all，这是race to the bottom/囚徒困境吗？(spoiler alert: 不是。)我们不是你的律师；我们不是我们的雇主；我们只是妄议的aliens；所有谬见jointly and severally remain our own.BGM credit to Suno AI

让规定性来得更猛烈些吧 (02:06) 上班；or the tyrannical and surprisingly sweet lack of editorial discretion (12:27) 自由作为代词、副词、占位词 (24:18) 自由并非创世常量，无法提供大一统解释，或还原“事情本来应该有的那个样子” (29:50) “这个世界不会好了但你的世界还可以好” 纯粹自由批判摘选 “尼采说，一个人的本质可以被定义为给人以承诺的能力。从这个意义上说，人生不是遍地是选择的旷野，你不能做自己，你应该沿着自己许下过的承诺所划定的轨道，一路走到底。”——我的朋友东林君 “我的壮举是获得了老板的青睐。成之前必须先彻底完100次，我已经完88次了。”——我的朋友周紫一 “我那个话的目的是让[王c]好好投入丰富的规定性中。”——我的朋友朴若松 DFW references, et al. Teaching Materials, The DFW Reader (6:09) Something to Do with Paying Attention（McNally出版了单行册，但它亦是最后未完成的The Pale King的第22章）(10:20) This is Water, ⁠https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/⁠ (28:31) Please, please also read his Authority and American Usage (1999). P.S. ⁠https://www.douban.com/note/698183929 ⁠(22:02)；⁠https://www.douban.com/note/864390271⁠ (27:39) — I hope this doesn’t feel cringe.