Armstrong & Getty On Demand — A&G Replay Wednesday Hour Three

Date: August 27, 2025
Podcast: Armstrong & Getty On Demand (iHeartPodcasts)
Hosts: Jack Armstrong & Joe Getty

Episode Overview

This hour of the Armstrong & Getty Replay centers on two lively, in-depth discussions: first, the cultural overanalysis of iconic movies—specifically, the 50th anniversary of Jaws and how media reinterpretation can border on parody; and second, a thoughtful debate about the atomic bombings of Japan as the 80th anniversary approaches, diving into both historical context and ongoing controversy. The hosts' dynamic banter, humor, and genuine curiosity shine as they reflect on intellectual trends, social psychology, history, and personal interactions.

Main Discussion Segments

1. The Over-Intellectualization of "Jaws" (04:18–14:34)

• Anniversary Reflection:
  Jack and Joe note the 50th anniversary of Jaws and how its cultural impact is being re-examined by contemporary media, particularly a recent Atlantic article arguing the movie anticipated political class struggles in America.

• Mocking the Trend:
  The pair lampoon the tendency of some writers to force deep, political meanings onto straightforward entertainment, comparing it to elaborate academic “grievance studies” hoaxes.

  • “I could switch the Mach 1 with the Atlantic piece and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.” – Jack (04:52)

• Reading Parodies:
  Jack reads excerpts from Noah Rothman’s satirical response and actual passages from the Atlantic’s analysis, highlighting the overly elaborate interpretations, such as Quint representing "the suppressed male ID" and the shark symbolizing "the black and brown diaspora of the Bundung revolution."

  • “The character Quint represents the suppressed male ID which struggles against structural and meta social taboos…” – Jack, quoting parody (06:17)
  • “The drive to open the beaches by the 4th of July is a classic expression of American jingoism…” – Jack, parody (06:47)

• Critique of Intellectual Vanity:
  Joe explores the psychology behind why people accept such interpretations, attributing it to "intellectual vanity," especially in left-leaning circles.

  • “There are some ideas so ridiculous only an intellectual would believe them.” – Joe, paraphrasing Thomas Sowell (11:15)

• Mockery of Academia:
  Jack and Joe reminisce about pseudo-intellectual trends in college, such as seeing subliminal messages in advertising and forcing meaning into innocuous things.

  • “This is like staring at clouds and you can think they are anything—there's no subliminal anything going on here.” – Jack (13:50)

2. Resting "Bitch Face" and Social Perception (15:03–19:56)

• Jack's Self-Experiment:
  Jack asks colleagues if he seems unapproachable due to his facial expression ("RBF") and shares tips he's tried to counteract it, such as practicing a neutral or slight smile.

  • “Do I come off as unapproachable when really I'm just... this is just my normal face?” – Jack (15:15)
  • Colleagues confirm (humorously) that he gives off that vibe.

• Practical Tips Discussed:

  • Practicing neutral expressions in the mirror.
  • Slightly lifting the corners of the mouth.
  • Relaxing one’s brows; maintaining open posture and eye contact.
  • Using a subtle "soft smile" in social interactions.

• Results from Experimenting:
  Jack notes that he got noticeably more positive responses when using a slight smile during daily interactions.

  • “I was going around with the kind of neutral, slightly upturned expression and getting a noticeably better result out of people…” – Jack (18:44)

• Humorous Anecdotes on Nonverbal Cues:
  Joe describes someone learning to look attentive even when bored, while Jack likens facial habits to muscle memory.

  • “In my mind, it feels like I'm grinning like the Joker from Batman. But I look in the mirror and it's just completely neutral.” – Jack (19:31)

3. The Legacy of World War II and the Use of Atomic Bombs (25:29–40:10, 44:42–47:27)

• Eighty Years Since Hiroshima/Nagasaki:
  Jack transitions to a history segment, connecting the current U.S. military nuclear capacity with the sobering reflection on the 80-year anniversary of America dropping atomic bombs on Japan.

• Persistent Warfare:
  Both hosts remark that the end of WWII was not truly the end of global conflict.

  • “We've now had more people die in wars since World War II than happened during World War II.” – Jack (26:09)

• Debunking Historical Myths:
  Referencing historians like Victor David Hanson and Richard B. Frank, they highlight that the Pacific and European theaters of WWII were largely separate, and the Japanese regime was as ruthless as the Nazis or even more so.

  • Japan’s invasion of China in 1937 killed 8 million before Pearl Harbor.

• The Decision to Drop the Bomb:

  • Military Reality:
    The Japanese military’s extreme resistance and the cultural context made surrender almost unthinkable. Invasion would have been catastrophically costly.
    • “Japan had never surrendered… No Japanese unit, not one, had surrendered in any battle.” – Jack (32:35)
  • Soviet Entry Myth:
    They dismantle the argument that Japan surrendered only because of the Soviet Union’s entry into the war—calling it a popular but poorly documented narrative.
  • Ethical Dilemmas:
    The hosts juxtapose the appalling violence of Pacific trench warfare with the harrowing decision to use atomic weapons, emphasizing that alternatives like a ground invasion or blockade would have caused even higher civilian casualties.
    • “Around 200,000 people were killed by the bombs…twice as many Japanese as that died at the hands of the Russians in the very same weeks…” – Jack (35:00)

• Why the European Theater Overshadows the Pacific:
  Jack posits the European war is more covered in media because it was morally clearer, less brutal in warfare style, and easier for film crews to document.

  • “Things got so ugly against the Japanese, bit by bit, island by island, where both sides…just…freaking Lord of the Flies war.” – Jack (45:13)
  • Intense brutality—US and Japanese soldiers committing atrocities.

• Social & Academic Attitudes:
  The hosts reflect on how some, especially in progressive circles, focus more on American wrongs than on enemy atrocities, critiquing a tendency toward “self-hatred” and the social pressure to hold anti-patriotic views.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Intellectual Vanity:
  “Appeal to the intellectual vanity of a certain crowd...they will believe freaking anything, no matter how laughable it is.” – Joe Getty (08:57)

• On the "Jaws" Parody:
  “Martin Brody...the weak and crumbling edifice of the post war consensus. Exhausted and plagued by indecision, he serves as our link to the fraying social order of the past. His triumph is pyric…” – Jack (08:10)

• On Personal Social Perception:
  “I have sat in meetings thinking, oh my God, you’re radiating hate visibly.” – Joe Getty, to Jack (15:27)

• On Results of Changing Expression:
  “I was going around with the kind of neutral, slightly upturned expression and getting a noticeably better result out of people…” – Jack (18:43)

• On the Pacific War’s Brutality:
  “Our marines would come across dead US soldiers who had their genitals cut off and shoved in their mouth sometimes while they were alive by the Japanese.” – Jack (45:22)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 04:18–14:34 — Media over-analyzing “Jaws” & intellectual trends
• 15:03–19:56 — Resting bitch face, social cues, and practical life hacks
• 25:29–40:10 — WWII, nuclear weapons, debates about the atomic bomb, history myths
• 44:42–47:27 — Pacific War brutality, why Europe gets more attention in media

Tone & Style

• Witty, sarcastic, accessible: Satirical takedowns and friendly banter dominate.
• Candid, thought-provoking: Willingness to challenge popular academic and social narratives without sugarcoating.
• Historically detail-oriented: Referencing books, historians, and statistics informally but accurately.
• Self-reflective and practical: Personal experiments on social cues and psychological observations.

Summary Takeaways

• Armstrong & Getty use current anniversaries (Jaws and Hiroshima/Nagasaki) to launch into critiques of intellectual trends, American self-perception, and historical narratives.
• They argue against projecting excessive political meaning onto art, lampooning “intellectual vanity.”
• The hosts offer relatable, even comical, advice on how strangers perceive us based on our facial expressions.
• The multipart discussion on WWII emphasizes complexity, myth-busting, and the lasting legacy of decisions like atomic bombing.
• Their discussions blend humor, skepticism, and seriousness in exploring both personal and national history.