5 Star Tossers

We tore open the homophobic response to the relatively new football play, the tush push.

...we Tossed our way into oblivion with the exciting new show Pluribus in this one.
Hello audient!
The new show Pluribus comes at us with all the niceties, trappings and plot pitfalls  to be found in our rot-attacked brains. While the first Season leaves many more questions than answers, leaving large holes in the logic and the story, it makes for a perfect Tossers episode; a real conceptual skeet-shooting playground.
Pluribus deals with an alien(?) hive mind that has taken over every person on Earth except for very few who had an "incompatible" genetic material. The fact that this hive speaks and behaves in an almost one-to-one parody on the "personality" of ChatGPT in our increasingly compartmentalized realities and interactions with one-another (like in Social Media) makes the connection to AI-related issues almost inescapable.
We'll mention here just one particularly interesting toss we cam across, concerning the 'body' (the 'animal' part of Aristotle's famous definition of the "Human" as 'a talking animal'). It juts out of the narrative like a sore thumb, like an unmourned loss: what does it mean for the main protagonist to "fall in love" with a body from the hive mind? How does a hive mind approach real issues of attachment, like pain and discord, as they arise through the "affair" with the protagonist? What is the role - within our attachments - of the body's memories, its unique history, when it is "pluribussed" like that?
This also connected to a recurring theme in the Tossers' arsenal, the ethical imperative we inherited from our Derrida(ddy), the one we express as "Never let the dead bury the dead." As the bodies of the entire world's population become an indistinct mass grave, a Frankenstein-monster-cum-Turing-machine, it becomes both overly relevant and no longer relevant: when the dead are recycled into food for the "hive-people" and yet you can fall in love with a person whose body is completely controlled by the "everyone" of the hive, including going and sleeping with another "survivor" (of the assimilation) while expressing love to our protagonist.
Confused? We hope so. But it is a rather productive confusion, we believe, in our day and age. Rather appropriately, all Stars made an appearance here in one way or another.
The rest will be told to our one, loyal (and virtual!) audient, and her flaming lips...

We discuss two very sad yet important contemporary ideas about how enormous companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon rule over us today. The first is Technofeudalism, a word coined by Yanis Varifoukas, which argues that capitalism has been replaced by a landscape of digital fiefdoms. The second is Enshittification, a word coined by Cory Doctorow, which explains why the apps we can never get enough of (Instagram, X, Amazon, and Facebook) continue to deteriorate while their parent companies make more and more money. 
Sagi insists throughout that whether or not we have transitioned from capitalism to a digital fiefdom, a Protestant ideology, one of labor and manifest destiny, continues to function and serve the hearts of all our beloved CEOs. 
Jack offers us an important history of the creation of Silicon Valley, tying a certain entrepreneurial optimism to a strange conflation of academia and the industrial military complex.
Andy reads technofeudalism as a kind of vampiric disease, where everyone is either becoming their own Dracula, holed up in their castle, or the rats and peons that will soon be devoured.
Jake gives as many examples as he can from Doctorow's book Enshittification, which he highly recommends.

Dear, surviving, audient: how is it hanging?
We\I sympathize.
If you were looking to art as an answer, hoping for some revolutionary frameworks, or just plain ol' solace inside --
            -- I'm afraid most of the pod's going to tell you to keep looking.
In this one we watched 2 "political" movies released this year: Ari Aster's Eddington and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.
More generally, the 2 movies raised the question of what it means to involve politics in a movie. Jake took this as an excuse to geek out on Grad school vibes and do a deep dive into Walter Benjamin's attempts to save aesthetics from the khaki schmattes of Communism.
Who said Marx Grudge?
Benjamin does brandish an interesting, rather Derridian, analytic tool in the distinction between allegory and the symbol; which I will anger Jake and summarize here as analogous (allegorical?!) to a movie whose special effects are shot on set with actual props, and the one where the effects are all programmed in (as CGI). Like shooting props, the allegory foregrounds its technicity, while the symbol will claim the harmony of form-function and content. 
Except the symbol doesn't work anymore. Like the pathetic attempt poor Andy had to suffer through, where the reinvented "Superman" is called-upon to white-wash the Gaza genocide (still a western debacle). The symbol rang so hollow it gave Andy bowel issues. 
(Editor's note:) We will NOT be getting into that.
Of course, the allegory's very apparatus makes it susceptible to Capitalist manipulations. This is where we take a more specific tack on Anderson's film: shot and directed, deliberately, in my opinion, as a post-fascist account of how pathetic and hopeless revolutions are, how revolutionaries are either posers or self-deceiving cucks.
And here is Anderson's genius, in recognizing the capitalist tentacles have already infiltrated all discourse -- which is a panicked, exhausted discourse these days (on "the left") -- "over-technicizing" allegory into social media reels and internet memes. His account gives the melancholia of a post-fascist winner looking back at history: disjointed, often accompanied by a (never happy or energetic or really calm) soundtrack, the characters are mostly isolated with superficial thoughts and relationships... it is the sad sigh of a fulfilled Sklavenmoral.
There was more tossed around, of course. Fair warning.
STARS: Marx Grudge (grudgingly); Beast & Sovereign... but really, all the Stars were there: the Il vaut mieux with differance; the Pervs R' Us with melancholy, the WWJD with 'Manifest Destiny'...
P.S. 
We have an official email address ([email protected]), for you, dear audient, to vent; a kind of a complaint/feedback box. We will collect the complaints (/corrections/disputes) to an episode where we address your mirror of our stupidities. 
5ST

We wanted to talk about the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination. We ended up returning to a question Sagi asked in the last episode (Bowser Bones): how do we talk to people who mean well but don't get more radical ideas? This question is so hard to answer, we meander on all sides of it. We speak about the violence of left and right, we speak about the performative insincerity of so many talking heads, and we think about a kind of psychotic manifest destiny that encourages so many people to embrace whatever is on a sale in the marketplace of ideas.
Sagi asks about the hypocrisy of the "punch a Nazi" idea, and Andy does not condone any violence of any sort.