0:06 - Introduction to the Debate
1:26 - The Question of Expertise
9:07 - Credentialism in Question
16:33 - Experts' Failures and Accountability
22:45 - Experts vs. Podcasters
26:25 - Competition and Fair Play
31:41 - The Foul Nature of Media Politics
39:07 - Engaging with Bad Ideas
44:16 - The Despair of Douglas Murray
52:36 - The Limits of Experience
56:11 - Consequences for Experts
1:05:34 - The State of Trust in Experts
1:11:18 - Media Lies and Accountability
1:21:05 - Audience Engagement and Feedback
In this episode, we dive into a thought-provoking debate featured in Joe Rogan Experience 2303, featuring Dave Smith and Douglas Murray. As someone who has engaged extensively with all three individuals, I bring my insights into the philosophical layers of their conversation, which revolves around the contentious theme of expertise. This discussion unpacks important cultural differences surrounding expertise, particularly contrasting American and British attitudes. While British culture is often characterized by a hierarchical disposition, I explore how this snobbery is linked to notions of expertise and elitism.
The crux of the debate hinges on the expectations surrounding individuals who assume the mantle of expertise. Murray presents a compelling argument that anyone claiming expertise must possess a certain level of discipline and rigor in their analysis. He expresses frustration with podcasters like Smith, who engage in discussions about complex topics without the necessary credentials or extensive research that he believes are essential for claiming expertise. However, this leads to a broader question: what truly constitutes an expert?
Throughout the episode, I articulate the nuances of this question by drawing on varied examples, including historical events and personal experiences with expertise in different domains. An expert, as I define it, is someone who possesses deep knowledge that transcends confirmation bias, duly integrating opposing perspectives. This leads to a vital discussion on the validity of credentialism, an idea that seems increasingly rejected in favor of experiential wisdom and diverse sources of knowledge, considering that many individuals cultivate expertise outside traditional academic environments.
I not only critique the rigid standards often associated with expertise but also shed light on the consequences when experts fail to uphold these standards. Drawing parallels between the podcasting community and traditional experts, I highlight the growing skepticism towards credentialed individuals, especially when their predictions and analyses have repeatedly proven inaccurate. Notably, the failures regarding COVID-19 policies and misinformation about vaccines are cited as critical points where established experts have faltered.
A particularly engaging segment of the discussion centers on the idea of “platforming” controversial figures and the dilemma it poses for those seeking to safeguard public discourse from harmful ideas. Murray's disdain for platforms that provide space for "bad ideas" comes under scrutiny as I propose that the approach should instead be one of engagement and critique rather than exclusion. By illustrating the importance of addressing and debating opposing viewpoints, I emphasize the need for a more open dialogue rather than silencing those with whom we disagree.
Throughout the conversation, I continually check in with the audience to gauge their interest, demonstrating the interactive nature of my approach to these weighty discussions. In addressing the critiques of how misinformation spreads in media and the subsequent distrust towards established narratives, I urge listeners to remain discerning participants in discourse, and not merely consumers of expert opinion.
Towards the conclusion, I reflect on the overarching theme of the episode: the relational dynamics between experts and the growing influence of non-traditional media figures. I argue that the era of credentialed expertise may be ebbing, replaced by a robust dialogue within the podcasting space, where audience trust is earned through transparent discussion rather than lineage or titles. This episode offers a layered examination of what it means to be an expert in today's complex landscape and encourages active participation in conversations surrounding expertise and knowledge dissemination.
[0:01] Good evening, everybody. Welcome to your Friday Night Live.
[0:07] We are going to go deep into a very interesting debate. A lot of philosophical depth in this debate. And the debate is Joe Rogan Experience 2303, Dave Smith and Douglas Murray. And this was a debate. And it's interesting. I did double-check this. So i've done three shows with joe rogan i've done a bunch of shows with dave smith back in the day and i did a show with douglas murray i think back in 2017 which is not to uh throw shade on douglas murray but uh we did a show uh together so i've actually talked to all three of these men.
[0:49] And joe i did three times in person and then of course with dave it was remote as it was with Douglas. So I had a little bit of a chat about all of that. And this was a very interesting debate, and there's a lot to talk about. You don't have to have watched the debate in order to gain value out of what it is I'm going to talk about. You don't have to. I mean, wouldn't hurt, doesn't hurt, but you don't have to have watched the debate to get value after what it is that I'm going to say.
[1:26] So, the question of expertise came up. I'm going to go real wide and deep. I got a bunch of notes here. So, yeah, the show with Douglas Murray is 3738, The Strange Death of Europe.
[1:49] So the debate is around expertise And that's kind of an interesting question, question, and it's a big difference between American culture and British culture. British culture is very hierarchical. There is snobbery in the schools. There's a sort of insufferable superiority in this kind of elitism that goes on in the UK, a very class-based society.
[2:15] And the question is around expertise. Now, what I found fascinating about this discussion is that I can see everybody's point of view. I can see everyone's point of view. Now, I'm going to characterize these individuals' points of view. Whether I get it exactly right doesn't really matter, but this is the general thing. So Douglas Murray is saying, look, if you're going to put yourself forward as an expert, you need to have some rigor, some discipline, some standards, some strictness. You need to not to just do confirmation bias, you need to do a proper analysis, of the topic as a whole, if you're going to put yourself forward as an expert. Now, the frustration that Douglas Murray had was he was talking about some podcasters, I can't remember, Jake Shields, I think was one, there was some other guy. And he was talking to Dave Smith and saying, look, you're an expert on this, that, or the other. you talk about history, you talk about US foreign policy, you talk about whatever, right? And if you're going to be an expert, you need to have some rigor, you need to have some discipline, maybe you need some training, maybe you need, you know, to work in the archives, or you need to have some, you can't just go and shoot from the hip, and then say, you're an expert. And then, of course, the response to that tends to be, hey, man, I never claimed to be an expert.
[3:44] And that is and to which Douglas Murray was like well this is like trying to nail jello to a war trying to sort of get an answer right so if you free form have a debate conversation for two hours on u.s foreign policy you're explicitly you're implicitly communicating expertise right so i've done one show on the armenian genocide i really don't know much about armenian history so i I couldn't do two hours on Armenian history. But, you know, if you're Dave Smith and you do two hours on U.S. Foreign policy and things like that, then you're implicitly communicating expertise. So if someone says, well, you claim to be an expert, but you don't have the rigor of an expert, the answer is not to say, hey, man, I never claimed to be an expert. That's a cop-out. That's a cop-out. And love Dave Smith. Just by the way, I have a bias towards Dave Smith. But nonetheless, if somebody were to say to you, you claim to be an expert, but you don't have the rigor and discipline and training and credentials, maybe credentials of an expert, the answer is not to say, hey, man, I never claimed to be an expert. The correct answer is what is an expert.
[4:53] What is an expert now you could say somebody with a phd in armenian history is an expert me who knows actually nothing about armenian history i'm not an expert right somewhere somewhere in there right what is an expert and this frustration where they were talking about was it Ian Carroll and there was some other guy I can't remember, this guy is not working in the archives this historian guy he's not the historian of the generation to which you know Joe Rogan and Dave Smith say well he never claimed to be he never claimed to be these things, that's not an answer though, if you're going to do 30 hours on say the rise of Nazism or, the fall of Constantinople or the Roman Empire, then you are, this is the Dan Carlin argument, I did some shows with him back in the day, you are implicitly communicating expertise. And if you are communicating that you are an expert in something, you have to have some rigor. And the way that I view it, this is sort of my definition of an expert, an expert is someone with deep knowledge that surmounts or opposes confirmation bias.
[6:19] In other words, have you read opposing arguments? Have you integrated opposing arguments, opposing data, opposing, quote, facts or whatever, right? So an expert to me is someone who has a more 360 view, right, of a particular issue, right?
[6:37] So if you are going to put yourself forward as an expert, ideally you should work with some source materials and not just read what other people say, because then you're just an expert who's interpreting what other people say. You know, if I was in my History of Philosophers series, if I didn't read the actual philosophers, but just read what other people said about them, I'd be an expert in other people's opinions of those philosophers, but not the philosophers directly.
[7:05] So, the frustration that Douglas Murray had, which I sympathize with to some degree, and I'll sort of get into sort of when and how and why. And by the way, just is this of interest to you guys? do you.
[7:22] Hit me with a why if this I want to make sure that the show is of interest and a value to you, yeah okay good I think the question of expertise is really really fascinating, so
[7:41] If, like Dave Smith does, you're going to talk for a long time about particular technical subjects like U.S. Foreign policy or the causes of the war in Ukraine or the sort of Wesley, the General Wesley, the seven nations that were supposed to have a regime change and so on, right? Well, then you're claiming a certain amount of expertise. And if somebody says, well, you claim to be an expert, but you lack this or that or the other, the answer is like, hey, man, I never claim to be an expert. But if you don't claim to be an expert, why are you talking continually about these particular topics? So I think that's a dodge, and I don't think it's a reasonable dodge. So the answer is, what is an expert? And that's a fascinating question to me, a really deeply fascinating question. What is an expert? Now, in the past, I would say as a whole in general, that expertise used to be credentialism. You went to Yale, you went to Harvard, you went to Stanford, you went to Oxford, you went to Cambridge, you come out and you've got the four-point hat and you've got the cloak of all of that, and you are an expert. Okay.
[9:07] But tell me if you think this is true. I think for the most part, for a lot of people, not for everyone, but for a lot of people, for the most part, credentialism is kind of dead.
[9:23] Do you agree? Do you disagree? Credentialism, well, this person has a PhD, this person is a professor, and therefore this person is correct. I mean, not for everyone, but I certainly think in this group, certainly for me, I'll just be honest with, I view credentialism as a negative now. To me, it's not just dead, it's like anti-life. Now, Douglas Murray has an undergraduate degree in English and speaks about all kinds of topics. In fact, I saw a clip of him not too long ago talking about AI. I'm not sure how having an undergraduate degree in English qualifies you to talk deeply about AI. But so what is an expert? I think to me, an expert is someone who's read deeply in a topic, has thought deeply about a topic, and has absorbed more than one perspective. Right? I mean, I did a whole presentation, it was available to an NFT a while ago, called The Rise of Nazism. And I read an ungodly amount of fairly horrible material at times and went with a variety of sort of understandings and explanations and...
[10:41] Oh, congratulations on getting your PhD, my lady. So I just did a little bit on just a couple of notes here about big things that experts got wrong. COVID lockdowns, the vaccine. If you get it, you can't get COVID. And a lot of people who got it got COVID even more. If you get it, you can't transmit it. Turns out it was never tested for transmission. Big things experts got wrong. Global warming, at least in terms of the catastrophes that were predicted in the 80s, totally wrong. And if you look at all the models versus the actual temperatures, there's really not much in common.
[11:20] The melting pot, that you can just get a wide variety of cultures and they're going to kind of blend into one goo. That was foundational to a lot of policies. Doesn't really seem to be happening. The IQ research that I was revealing to the world some years ago.
[11:38] The sort of chemical imbalance theory of mental unease, depression, anxiety, and so on, that you have a chemical imbalance and you take these pills to restore that chemical imbalance, that appears to be pretty false. There's a replication crisis in science as a whole, and in particular in psychology and, Um, experts, um, have seen the rise in autism and experts are not moving heaven and earth to find the source of autism. Although RFK Jr. is now talking about having that data out by September, October, um, which is going to be interesting. Uh, although it's fair to say that the diagnosis of autism has gone up with government money for autism, um, a media bias, right? So these in the media, mainstream Western media, these are experts who claim to be unbiased. the reporters, they're well-trained, they claim to be unbiased. And I think fairly clearly, it's pretty ridiculously biased, right? Was it NPR? I'm sure that they would say that they're objective. And NPR has no non-democrats in any positions of power. Feminism is supposed to be about female equality and has morphed into female supremacy in many ways. Almost 60% of university attendees are women now. And there isn't like, oh, we've got to find a way to bring more men back. It's just going more and more women.
[13:05] Immigration, certainly what the experts want and what the general population want is quite divergent. The welfare state solving the problems of poverty has not happened. And of course, one of the things that I talked about many years ago was people in the West were told, oh, there's too many people, you shouldn't have kids. And then and it's like, oh, we don't have enough people, we need lots of immigration. And there's this intransigence to all of this expertise, right? The intransigence is they just don't admit fault. You know, one of the things that is really essential for me in terms of credibility as a whole is... I need people to admit fault and take responsibility for getting things wrong. Right? I mean, as you know, I've got a whole series of shows called I Was Wrong About. Now, I've had made my apologies. Because if you want to be an expert, you have to be able to admit fault. Otherwise, you're just an ideologue, right? So, I think people are quite frustrated about all of this stuff.
[14:22] Yeah you guys are ability to process source data is my big criteria if you're an expert yeah either source data or in the philosophical realm being able to make arguments from first principles if somebody says same oh and by the way freedomain.com slash donate if you could help out the show i know i've been a little bit lower energy this month but it was just a health issue and if you could help me out i'd really appreciate it freedomain.com slash donate we're quite low compared to where we were last month, and I really would appreciate your support. Somebody says, same. If I hear on the news, experts say, I assume they're just trying to push a narrative. Someone says, he says, Dave Murray, I think you mean Douglas Murray, also criticized poor white Americans for being hopeful that Trump would help them, as if they had any choices, yeah. Somebody says, trust me, bro, versus my university trusts me, bro. Either way, it doesn't prove actual understanding, predictions track record seems to be the way forward.
[15:23] These experts' failures are almost always in trying to prove leftist narratives, yeah? Yeah. Yeah, credentialism is important, right? People in higher ed cannot admit wrong unless it's in submission to someone else with a sparkly PhD. Yeah, and so where are the error corrections, right? Expertise means that you have to have an error correction. Other things that I thought about with terms of experts got wrong, people have real big questions about the food pyramid. The idea that fat causes fat was not very well studied in many ways. Lots of doubts about statins. And of course, post-COVID and post-COVID vaccine, there's a lot of people who have massive amounts of skepticism about what in general is considered factual or true in medicine as a whole. And particularly in diet, right? because the problems of obesity, particularly in America, are so extraordinarily high that there has to be some real problems and issues about this stuff.
[16:33] And I had Robert Whitaker on the show twice, I think. Really great. You should read the book Mad in America. I think there's a revised version out now. Fantastic book. And the basic thesis is that if all of these psychotropics are supposed to help with mental illness, then why is mental illness getting worse and worse as time goes forward, right? I mean, if you have something like insulin supposed to help with people with diabetes, then as insulin spreads, issues with diabetes should go down. If you have an antibiotic that's very effective against infection, then as that spreads and is used, infections should go down, people should be healthier and so on, right?
[17:11] So, are people... Oh yes, so you want to look at 3175. Myths and facts about antidepressants. So what I want to know with people who are, credentialed, or they have credentialism, it's like, okay, so what is the price of being wrong? What is the price of being wrong? That's an interesting question, right? Thank you for your tips it's an interesting question and if somebody doesn't pay any particular price for being wrong, you know I mean what happened to all the people who got the Iraq war wrong what happened to all the people who were of the opinion or the perspective that going into Afghanistan was going to create a Jeffersonian paradise of democracy and freedom and.
[18:18] So, that's a big, big question. All right. Now, the credentialed class is having a big problem with the podcasting class. Of course. I mean, this is the aristocracy versus the bourgeoisie. Those who have a kind of privilege versus those who have particular talents. So the aristocracy inherited all the land, largely by being very efficient murderers on behalf of the king. And then the bourgeoisie came along and started to make money through capital and investment and businesses and factories and so on. Oh my God, the upstarts. So why are people going to podcasters? Why are they going to podcasters? Well, if you like your doctor, if your doctor is good, your health is good, and you get good advice, you don't go looking for a new doctor. So I think a lot of podcasters, a lot of the audience for podcasts, comes out of frustration with the experts. Have the experts been accurate and right and self-critical enough and self-policing enough to maintain or to win over and maintain the trust of the audience.
[19:47] And I think the answer to that is no. The experts, the credentialed classes, the professional intellectual classes have not had the rigor, the objectivity, the incentives, the motivations, the self-criticism to maintain the general population's trust in their expertise. So you can look at Martin Luther's criticism of the Catholic Church in the 15th century, in the Reformation, where the Catholic Church was selling these indulgences, where you could buy your way out of purgatory by giving money to the priest who would then give you, take a thousand years off your time in purgatory. You could end up doing this ahead of time. So I'm going to go have a naughty weekend with my mistress. Here's, you know, five gold coins and I'll be fine, right? And he got, you know, kind of grossed out by that. And so there was a split, right? A split from traditional Catholicism to the various denominations of Protestantism. So why are people going to podcasters?
[20:55] You have a competition issue if you are a credentialed person, a quote expert, a credentialed person. You have a credibility issue. The other thing, too, is that they don't tend to criticize each other very much. You know, one thing that's true in the sort of alternative media spaces is a lot of cross-pollination and cross-criticism, which is, you know, a lot of competition, a lot of people taking digs at each other, you know, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. But it's a brawl, brawl space, right? Whereas the credential classes don't tend to criticize people that much.
[21:41] So this is the big question to me so when experts are faced with growing competition, of alternative media which is I'm going to say experts versus podcasters just because it's, I just need a common phrase for the two. Experts are those generally with credentials and social support for their perspectives. And the podcasters are, you know, the Wild West, the free formers, the free ballers and so on, right? So when experts are faced with growing competition, what do they do? I mean, I remember many years ago showing my daughter like I do a tweet and here's how many people like and read and share it and then we went to this we went to CNN we went to the New York Times and so on and here's their tweets and you know it was night and day right.
[22:45] So, when experts are faced with growing competition, what do they do? What do they do? Now, two things that heavily influenced me in my life, the business world and the sports world. I was very big into sports, played a lot of team sports when I was younger. I had a water polo team, swimming team, cross-country running team, although that's more solo. So I was both singles and doubles, tennis, volleyball, soccer, a lot of team sports. And I would play several times a week. I'm not a morning person. I would get up and practice swimming. So I did a fairly massive amount of sports when I was younger. Now sports sports are really important because you you don't sabotage right you know i mean i remember seeing um there was an episode a couple episodes of the show glee where i think the cheerleaders were sabotaging another cheerleader by telling her she she had to stop eating or couldn't eat and then she had no energy to right to compete with them so.
[24:04] When you're on a sports team and somebody comes along who's really good it tends to up your game they've done studies on this that runners run faster when somebody's running slightly faster than them you get better with competition, so I learned a lot about competition from doing huge amounts of sports and I still do fairly significant amounts of sports so.
[24:32] You don't sabotage, right? You certainly don't sabotage on your own team, and you don't sabotage the other team, right? So in the business world, there's competition, and competition drives innovation, right? So, I mean, because our customers always wanted to change the system, I wrote code that allowed the program to change itself. So they'd just hand over the program, let the customers change the system as they saw fit, right? This gave us a huge competitive advantage. And i learned a lot about because i did a lot of sales marketing so i learned a lot about how you deal with competition when you're talking to clients potential clients rfps requests for proposals you go down and give a presentation so you don't badmouth your competitors you position your strengths against their weaknesses you admit where their weaknesses are stronger, where their strengths are better than yours and and you would learn from them you would try to you'd go to their website you'd look at their demos you you wouldn't cheat and pretend to be a customer, but you would try and figure out what they were doing, and so on, right?
[25:38] So, you don't badmouth your competitors, you say, here's where our strength is, they do have these strengths, to be fair, so that you sound, you're objective, and you learn from them, right? And it actually is, it's fierce, but friendly, if that makes sense. Fierce, but good-natured. Like sports. Sports are fierce, but good natures, right? You try to win and then you shake hands afterwards, right?
[26:07] Now, and because I came from the sports world and I came from the business world, entering into the world of media and politics was fucking foul. It was fucking foul.
[26:25] I don't think I've ever, like other than coming home from a rational universe to my family of origin, I don't think I've experienced anything fouler. It's one of the reasons why I eventually just had to bust out of politics and this sort of media stuff. It's foul. It's foul. I don't think, I didn't find it foul among the podcasters, but it's fucking foul. It really is.
[26:57] So when I was in competition with other businesses to try and sell environmental management information systems, health and safety information systems, all the stuff that I had programmed and worked on, I mean, we fought hard. And I remember calling people up, congratulating them. They called me up to congratulate me. But we fought hard against each other, but we shook hands, right? And we needed each other because, you know, if you've got five competitors, they're all advertising. And that saves you money on your advert. If you're the only person, then you have to do all the advertising. So it's fierce but friendly.
[27:36] Now, what I couldn't imagine was going up against a fierce competitor or a series of fierce competitors. Losing to them and then trying to get them debanked by lying and saying they were money laundering or they were fraudulent or like, I couldn't conceive of that. I mean, that would be like your concerns that you're going to lose a running race to some guy. So what you do is you spike his drink with some performance-enhancing drug, and then you make an anonymous call to get him tested. That's fucking foul.
[28:31] That's incomprehensible like from the i've never heard of anything like that honestly never heard of anything like that in the business world.
[28:50] Yeah miss dis mal yeah misinformation disinformation mal information is all they do yeah.
[28:58] Yeah they run to the government and then that happens in the business world as well joe rogan was pretty foul to you as far as i recall yeah that's true that's true yeah you're right james you don't go nancy kerrigan right well actually tanya harding was the one who i think she hired her boyfriend to take a pipe wrench in nancy kerrigan's knee or something like that right i mean i used to uh back in the day in another life um i was i've always been well i I was an introvert, pretty shy as a kid, but I really worked hard to sort of overcome that. And I used to go down to Vegas and you set up this whole, I'm sure you've been to conferences properly at one time or another. So we would go down, you'd set up your booth and I would chat with people and make jokes and show them our software and you'd offer them an iPod if they'd give you a business card and then you'd go and call them later and so on, right? And, of course, we would go over to our competitors' booths. We would. We would go over to our competitors' booths. And, you know, it was a tiny bit intense, but it wasn't hostile. You joke with them a little bit, and you got us on that one, but we got you on this one. And, you know, you just play like children play, very seriously, right? Right.
[30:25] So that's the sports world. If you want to beat somebody, you figure out what they're doing that's better than you, and you try to replicate it, right? If somebody's got a, what was it, Andre Agassi versus Bjorn Borg. I think Andre Agassi figured out that Bjorn Borg used to stick out his tongue when he was going to go left or right on the serve. So it gave him a tiny, tiny advantage, right?
[30:53] So in the sports world in the business world you compete hard you play hard, but you don't lie about people you don't accuse them of heinous things you don't sabotage them you don't spike their drinks you don't spread rumors about them that are dangerous and false. I've never heard of that in business. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but I did a lot of, you know, I did a lot of business with a lot of different companies and this was never a thing. It was fair. It was fierce, but it was fair. But media politics, is foul.
[31:41] And the one thing that I did notice certainly in the world of business most people had done sports, like serious sports I mean there was still that stuff going on I mean when I worked at my first programming gig we went and played squash a lot and people were pretty good a lot of golf of course tennis, pickleball, and all of that a lot of people do sports particularly the sales people.
[32:12] So, you know, hopefully this makes sense as to what I'm talking about. You've got the expert class and you have the podcasting class. And the podcasting class is eating the expert class alive. Now, in general, if you're losing to a competitor, you've got to figure out what they're doing that's better. That's one option. But that's not the option in general. That happens in the realm of politics. What happens in the realm of politics in the media is lying about people, trying to get people to platform, trying to get people to not talk to people, attacking anyone who talks to someone, that kind of stuff.
[33:04] So in my view in my view uh douglas murray was really talking to joe rogan not really to dave smith and there was this whole was it 40 minute struggle session at the beginning like how dare you platform these people kind of thing but that's the big challenge right and and i'll go with what douglas murray says like let's say that there is i'm not talking about any particular individuals because I don't know their work, but let's just say there's Bob. Bob is out there and Bob is just saying terrible stuff. There's terrible stuff, right? Stuff that's just really bad. Okay. And let's say Bob has a big audience, right? So what do you do? Bob has got a big audience and he's saying terrible stuff. Let's just make the case, right? What do you do? What do you do? Well, I think you have to figure out what niche Bob is filling. Why do people want to listen to Bob? And let's just say, again, we'll just make Douglas Murray's case as strong as possible, say Bob is saying objectively terrible stuff.
[34:14] Well, how do you help people who are drawn to bad information? Bad arguments, negative stuff, whatever. How do you help them? Well, you have to figure out what need is being served, right? And then you have to try and fulfill that need in a better way. You have to understand why people are drawn to Bob. And then you have to figure out how to give them better information, lure them away. Because the moment you say, nobody should talk to Bob. Now, it's not censorship, right? It's not censorship to say, you shouldn't talk to so-and-so. I mean, just making a case, right? Censorship is, to me, certainly if you get people deplatformed fraudulently, or if you lie about people, and that's fraudulent, and that's bad. Or, of course, if the government passes a law, you can't talk about X, Y, Z. That's censorship, right? So if Bob is saying bad things.
[35:32] Then you need to engage with Bob. You need to set up a debate with Bob because that's how things work in the real world, right, in the world of business, right, in the world of sports, right? So if Bob is saying this egregious stuff.
[35:45] And Douglas Murray is very upset and angry that Bob is saying all this terrible stuff, or whoever, right? Then go and talk to that person and correct that person. And have the debate and have the facts and so on, right?
[36:01] I mean, I've talked to, gosh, I've talked to child abusers on this show. I've talked to communists. I've talked to fascists. I've talked to, not quite the same category, of course, the modern monetary theory people. I've talked to socialists. I've talked to, you know, people that I would consider, you know, fairly terrible, but try to have those conversations, right? And I have, you know, gone through the Communist Manifesto. I did this with my daughter some years ago. I've gone through the Communist Manifesto, and I have struggled to understand and explain why people are drawn to it, to childhood stuff, and all of that, right? The Origins of Evil. I've read the whole Origins of War and Child Abuse, which you should check out, freedomman.com, slash books, it's a great book. Lloyd DeMoss, the late Lloyd DeMoss. So, obviously, I'm not trying to say, oh, the sincone, the perfection is me. I'm not trying to say anything like that. I'm just saying that I've tried to sort of live by this, engage with people. I've engaged with mystics. I've had debates with out-and-out mystics. Or is it Thaddeus Russell who believed that a woman could get pregnant by having sex with a tree?
[37:18] I had conversations with a leftist anarchist. I had two shows with Noam Chomsky. When it came to the IQ research, I talked to people who are from all left-right centrists, people who believed it was more genetic, people who believed it was more environmental or exclusively environmental. Let them make their case. So you engage with people, right? You engage with people.
[37:51] I had a conversation with a fine young black fellow about the IQ issues. And it's really important to keep the conversation open. Now, I understand people like Richard Dawkins who say, look, I'm not going to debate creationists because that's science versus a form of superstition or mysticism. I can sort of understand that. But this is not that, right? Sorry, let me just check in with you guys. Yeah i did a whole show with the thank you oliver yeah i did a whole show with the flat earther it's very interesting.
[38:40] John stossel tries to get people to debate all the time dodging direct debate is a common strategy for these bob types right could be it could be it could be absolutely could be so let's say that Bob is saying all this terrible stuff, and Bob won't debate with you, okay? So then you, as an expert, should get a transcript of what Bob has said, and you should take it apart sentence by sentence, and I've done this a lot.
[39:08] I just did this with Noam Chomsky and... Lordy, both. Braid fart, I have it. I always forget this guy's name because of revulsion. Michel Foucault. I did Michel Foucault and Noam Tromsky, a famous debate that they had, I think in the early 70s. And I've gone through a bunch of socialist stuff. Just so if you can't get the debate going, then, you know, go through what they're saying. Peter Joseph. I did the whole Peter Joseph debate and all of that. Yep. Yeah, the show is 5886. Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault, debate analysis.
[40:00] So if you're bothered by people having bad ideas, engage with them or engage with their ideas. Make the case. Show them how they're wrong. Tell them how they're wrong. I think that's i think that's the thing to do now then the question is well why wouldn't you right, because, i should it's completely unfair it's not his fault at all but douglas murray reminds me so much of my brother it almost gives me hives i'm telling you.
[40:40] My brother spent a lot more time in England than I did, so I had to sort of you know zen breathe through that right, so the hostility and contempt that Murray had towards these you know Bob whoever the bad actress that he was viewing I think it comes from a kind of despair, which is the people who like whatever the eponymous Bob has to say won't listen, they can't reason, they're just reactive, they're dangerous, they're beyond reason. So we can't save people, we can't help people, they won't listen to reason, so silencing them is the only course of action.
[41:30] Don't talk to them, don't platform them, don't have them on. As opposed to, well, they're saying these things that are false, and therefore we should say things that are true. Now, when it comes to things like IT platforming, then, I mean, massive amounts, I think it's 40% in some departments of academics in America, probably is not wholly dissimilar in, say, England, although I think Douglas Murray is now in the U.S., not in Canada. Sorry, not in the U.K., but 40% in some departments are outright Marxists. Now, whatever Bob is saying that's negative, this made-up guy Bob, right? Whatever he's saying that's negative, did it get 100 million people killed in the 20th century? So if you're comfortable having outright marxists in the university it's kind of tough to make the case for deplatforming people isn't it.
[42:43] So if if bob's audience is just full of terrible people who believe terrible things, then you should engage with Bob or you should at least engage with Bob's ideas or arguments. Because if you say, well, you just can't talk to Bob and Bob should not be platformed, so to speak. I'm not saying that's the same as censorship unless you lie and misrepresent, right? That's the form of fraud or slander maybe. So silencing is the only cause of action either because you don't have a good answer to what Bob's saying or because you believe that Bob's audience is just too dumb and bigoted to ever be helped, right? Okay, but to abandon people in that kind of way is to just carve off entire slices of the population and say that they're completely beyond reason and should just be absolutely segregated and separated from society as a whole. It's kind of like a moral apartheid state. Hmm.
[43:44] Yeah, so the hostility and contempt and disgust from Douglas Murray was really, really kind of fascinating. And I think that the underlying part of that is just this despair that there are just these people who believe whatever Bob is saying. It's just terrible. They can't be fixed. They can't be helped. There's no point engaging. You just have to cut them out. You have to separate them from society, carve them off, amputate them from social discourse. I gotta tell you, I'm not entirely sure that works as well as you think it does.
[44:16] Like refusing to engage with bad ideas, I don't think it works out as well as you think it does, because it doesn't make those bad ideas go away. It just means that they no longer get corrected in the public square. And you are, of course, handing a bit of a weapon. Saying, look, that they won't even engage with us because they can't disprove us or whatever, right?
[44:48] And of course, it is kind of anti-democratic to say there are people so easily influenced by a podcaster that they can't think for themselves. They just swallow whatever bad stuff the podcaster is putting out. Well, so people can't choose their own podcast rationally, but apparently they can choose their own political leaders. Like, it's very anti-democratic.
[45:16] I mean, I don't advocate for silencing other philosophers. I just try to win over their audience in the same way that I wouldn't lie about a business competitor and accuse them of fraud in order to get them investigated, or money laundering to get them investigated. I just try and write better software.
[45:37] Oh, yeah. Taxi cab geometry guy. Yeah, the guy with the missing wife. All right. Somebody says, I didn't get that sense from Douglas. I only watched the first 50 minutes. I believe he was saying that the people who advocate for this crazy stuff should get paired with some expert who could pick them apart. Yeah, maybe. Maybe. It's not what I got, but, you know, again, I'm not going to argue with you about that.
[46:17] Yeah, I think most philosophers have not done a great job in philosophy. They just haven't. And do I then say they should have their books burned or be stripped in the library or nobody should read them? I mean, I literally have done a 23 or 24-part series History of Philosophers where I talk about the philosophers, strengths and weaknesses, comparisons to my own arguments, and so on. So, I do think that people should not be forced to pay for propagandists or ideologues in universities and schools, but that's a free market education scenario. All right, get to your questions and comments. I have one other thing to say, but...
[47:14] Can you talk about places you've not visited? That was an interesting question. And he was basically saying, can you talk about Gaza and Israel if you've not visited those places? Which he was saying to Dave Smith, right? And Dave Smith, I didn't think it was a particularly strong argument to say, well, can you talk about Nazi Germany? Well because you can't time travel right so but can you talk about north korea if you've never been to north korea now obviously it's a little easier to go to israel than it is to go to north korea but michael malice managed it if i remember rightly but this um you know the consequences of these arguments are very dark and bad, right? Again, if you are concerned about the consequences of arguments being very dark and bad, which I accept, it can happen, then you need to figure out what's going on with communists in both lower and higher education. Or, you know, some hostility that comes out of the concept of white privilege and so on. Like, if you're not talking about that stuff, then don't cherry-pick, right?
[48:37] All right.
[48:44] So, it was a very interesting conversation. To me, I always find it just unsatisfying. To me, it's just very unsatisfying. And of course, I kind of help but put myself, oh, well, I would have said this. Of course, it's easy, right? It's easy when it's not you, right? I would have said this, I would have said that, and so on, right? And maybe I'll do a little bit more of that if I review this in more detail. Yeah, but I do think that it is a shame, of course, that people can't build up from first principles. And, I mean, I know Dave Smith is a very smart guy and can do that. I think that Douglas Murray, obviously a very smart guy too, but I don't think he's got quite as much first principle stuff.
[49:38] Anyway, so those are my thoughts. If you want to give me your questions, comments, issues, challenges, I'm very happy to hear, and thank you for your patience as I work through this, and, of course, freedomain.com slash donate. Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show. You can, of course, tip as well here on the app, which I appreciate as well. All right, let me just make sure I don't... I'm not seeing any tips on the app. Oh, blinded by the light.
[50:27] Ah, there we go.
[50:32] Blinded by the light. Wrapped up like a deuce, another runner in the night. No live tips, my gosh. When our taxpayer dollars are being sent to the Middle East, I think we have at least some input in the disaster, right? Can you go into more detail about why you didn't like dave's rebuttal about visiting countries, well because if something is possible you can't compare it to something that's impossible so when douglas murray says well you haven't been to israel or gaza therefore you can't talk about it or that or therefore you have less credibility and he used this particularly at least have the courtesy to go and visit these places bitter scathing fang dripping content content contempt, So if Douglas Murray is saying to Dave Smith, you could have gone to Israel, you could have gone to Gaza, and that would give you more credibility, I mean, you can argue whether it would or wouldn't, but then for Dave Smith to say, but you haven't visited Nazi Germany, well, you can't visit Nazi Germany because you can't time travel, right? So taking something which is possible, which is going to Israel, and comparing it to something that's impossible, which is to visit Nazi Germany, is not a valid comparison. I think it's a very good answer.
[52:02] But, I mean, my particular answer would be that I don't need to go to Israel to know that physics work in Israel. I don't need to go to Israel to know that there's sunshine in Israel. I don't need to go to Israel to know that there's gravity in Israel and morality is universal.
[52:37] And this is why I don't need to go to Nazi Germany to know that it was a totalitarian dictatorship, because I saw the law as I know what happened, right? You can see the loss right thank you Lloyd and best of luck with your job interviews, Somebody says, it's a shame that this trust that was put into the experts has been transferred to the podcasters instead of the trust being destroyed altogether, like it should have been. Well, I think some people don't trust, I hope. But of course, the interesting thing with Douglas Murray is he's saying that those who make bad arguments or those who say things that are egregious, that they should suffer negative consequences.
[53:36] Well, what negative consequences has Douglas Murray advocated for those who got the war in Iraq wrong, the war in Afghanistan wrong, COVID wrong, the financial crisis wrong? Has he also suggested that those people should suffer massive negative consequences, or is it only for people in the podcasting world?
[54:03] Because if you're saying that negative consequences should accrue to people in the podcasting world and i don't know i don't know maybe he has you know like like iceland did you know advocated for jail for the banksters who ripped off a lot of people in the 0708 financial crisis or maybe he said war crimes tribunal should have been convened for those who lie people into war and so on right maybe he has i don't think so i don't think so because then it's just kind of punching down right and that's fine i mean you know punch down all you want but that's let's not pretend your principles right i want this i want bob de-platformed bob has no particular power right okay then it's not it's not people who do bad things should suffer negative consequences It's just that I have power over Bob, and I can make Bob do stuff, and whatever it is, right? Or harm Bob in a way that I can't. Yeah, is he applying these things universally.
[55:11] I mean, it seems to be fairly clear that some American funding went into the Wuhan Virology Lab. Right? And what should happen to people who fund gain-of-function research? What should happen? I think Douglas Murray was like, yeah, yes, people definitely got things wrong over COVID, but moving on, it's like, it's kind of a big moving on thing. But no, this podcaster must pay. Ah.
[56:12] Yeah, experts are kind of for sale, right?
[56:28] All right. Let's see if you have any other questions, comments, issues, problems. Zarel says, Hey, Stef, hope you're having an awesome evening. Have missed your show I continue to support your work I hope everything's going well with you and the family thank you I am recovering, more questions would you be interested in a Minecraft movie review, Minecraft movie review yes no or indifferent yes no maybe what you got What you got? Hum-bye. Oh, let me see if I have any good bookmarks here.
[57:28] Jeffrey Tucker promoted, and you should check this out, the Brownstone Institute's got a book coming out called The COVID-Responsored Five Years, A History of the End of Civilization. Keep your eyes peeled for that. This is pretty wild. A man named Juan Catalin spent nearly six months in jail for the murder of a teenage girl until his lawyer found unused footage from HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, which provided evidence that he was at a Dodgers game with his six-year-old daughter at the time of the crime. Isn't that wild? Oh, yeah, there's a terrifying movie. It came out in 2019 called Marriage Story, with Scarlett Johansson and that Neanderthal-looking guy, Adam Driver. He used to be a Marine, I think. Terrifying movie. Oh, my God. People just tearing each other apart. Directed by Noah Baumbach. Yeah, just shredding each other. Ah, horrible. Just horrifying.
[58:48] The red-headed libertarian wrote George Washington received a limited formal education and was mostly self-taught American exceptionalism does not require credentials right, I mean America was founded on a repudiation of the old world and all of the experts who said here's how society should run let's give them free speech and guns right, so credentialism does not work very well in America.
[59:14] So somebody said what Douglas Murray was saying was that oh so this is the historian Daryl Cooper Ian Carroll are happy to wield a degree of influence in public historical discourse that is typically reserved for experts but refuse to be held to the intellectual standards we hold experts to, okay so if you're going to hold experts to these standards what happens when they fail these standards, right what happens when they fail these standards In other words, has Douglas Murray gone on a tour saying, well, these experts got a whole bunch of stuff wrong, right? These experts got a whole bunch of stuff wrong. And, you know, COVID, danger wrong, vaccine dangers wrong, global warming, the melting pot, IQ research, some psychotropics, replication crisis in science, causes of autism, media bias, feminism, welfare state, depopulation versus we need immigration, and so on. So, if Douglas Murray is, well, you know, you've got to hold people's feet to the fire if they get things wrong. Okay. So, has Douglas Murray gone on a tour to try and get no one to talk to all of the experts who got all of these things wrong? If not.
[1:00:42] Then it's not about expertise and it's not about blowback for errors or wrongs or problems. Then it's just going for, the competition. So long as it's with Izzy, Izzy has already seen she's already seen the Minecraft movie and she loved it she was very very concerned that it was going to shred some of her key childhood memories but she loved the movie and she and her friends had a blast, they went to a late show, I'm sure she'll see it again though, she could just do the whole movie review yeah maybe, i'd be interested in the phenomenon of minecraft audiences throwing food all over the theater like rabbit animals it's a long way from coming with the wind isn't it.
[1:01:52] That was a bitter movie. Saw it two years after my parents divorced. Felt like a sequel. Yeah, it's a nasty movie, man. I hope so. The mash guy. He's also very good in that. Plays an old lawyer. Hmm. What are your thoughts on the philosophy of the labyrinth or maze? Why are some interested in them and some royal gardens made into them? Well, I would certainly say that it's a form of, stator signaling like I'm rich enough to afford a maze Alan Alda, thank you and also I would say that mazes are a good torture device for older siblings to younger siblings.
[1:02:47] I don't have to be an expert as someone to know that the government shouldn't be taking 30% of our money for 27 years to send it to almost every other country yeah, yeah and of course all disciplines are founded by non-experts by definition right, I mean Socratic reasoning was founded by Socrates who was not an accredited expert, because he was inventing it, right? Like Pascal with probabilities or, calculus from Isaac Newton and so on, right? So if I got some of these right, it's always funny to me that credentialism arises from non-credentialism and then attacks non-credentialism, which is the source of its power, right? My nephews love Minecraft, would be interested in a review. I have never liked that game, really. Never liked that game. Blocky as hell.
[1:03:48] I only got 10 minutes into the Rogan video, says someone, but Murray seemed to have a motive further than simply holding amateurs accountable for their arguments.
[1:03:58] Okay, so who has caused more problems and negatives and dangers and blah, blah, blah in the world? The people that Douglas Murray is listed.
[1:04:12] Or the communists and COVID lockdowns and harms from vaccines, the COVID vaccine and so on, right? So, you know, I mean, just have a standard, right? The way that it works in my brain is if you're going to say, well, I need to hold people's feet to the fire for negative consequences for their arguments or perspectives. Okay, then let's hold people's feet to the fire for these things. So then what you do is you don't just say, well, I don't like this guy. I mean, that's emotional. That's immature, you say. Okay, so I wish to hold people's feet to the fire and cause negative outcomes for people who have said or done destructive things. Well, done destructive things, I guess, would be for the courts, right? But people who have said egregious, terrible things that have caused a lot of real-world harm. Okay, so let's do that sorting, right? Okay, so those who advocate for spanking, it's pretty bad, right? Those who advocate for communism, totalitarianism, those who advocate for lockdowns, those who advocate for war under false pretenses, is a little bit more fucking dangerous than a couple of podcasters, wouldn't you say?
[1:05:34] So I look for the sorting mechanism. Ah, ah, says someone. You know, those people who say bad things, they make arguments that have negative, real-world negative outcomes. Oof, damn it. I'm going to make those people pay. I'm going to advocate for negative consequences. I'm going for these podcasters. Oh.
[1:06:10] Melbourne, Australia was the most locked down place on earth because of 25 year high in suicides. No one is held accountable for this. An immediate memory holder. Oh yeah, lockdowns were brutal. And I remember standing up against some trees, making the case, I think it was very early in 2020, I think March or so saying, the lockdowns are going to cause far more harm than they could possibly save. Yeah, I mean, you had massive crash-outs in children's IQ, in educational attainment. You had people missing preventive treatments, cancer screenings. You had depression, anxiety, suicidality. You had addiction. You had just, you know, and of course, you know, there's a number of people whose constitution, mental constitution is kind of weak, and if you expose them to too much fear, it becomes a permanent state of mind. Really, really does. It tears people apart. I mean, how many hypochondriacs, lifelong hypochondriacs could have been made from this, right?
[1:07:17] And what are the consequences for those who advocated these things? What are the consequences for all of those who said, COVID vaccines, they stop transmission, they stop you, you'll never get sick, right? If they had stopped travel from China right away, there's estimates that it would have had a 97% reduction per illness. You know, there was a study that came out, I think it was in 2020, where they polled Americans' belief in the danger of COVID, and it was 50 times higher than the actual number.
[1:08:16] I mean this is something else that was wild as well which is uh you know they said well you can't get together with four friends but there can be you know massive riots all summer in 2020 that's fine it's fine you know they they arrested people walking alone on the beach they just know It was just madness. I mean, I myself and my family, my daughter and I got kicked out of malls on a regular basis. We wanted to eat, to go eat in the snow.
[1:08:52] I mean, all the fraud that is being uncovered by Doge. I mean, we'll see. We'll see. Yeah, you can't go to church, but the liquor stores stay open. Mom-and-pop stores have to be closed, but the big-box stores can stay open, right? I mean, you were told to wear a mask that on the box is said does not protect from coronaviruses. So, you know, if you want to hold people's feet to the fire and suggest negative consequences to people because of what they said had bad outcomes, okay. Are you going to start with podcasters? Objectively? Objectively? Okay.
[1:10:02] I mean, this is the same argument I have with the libertarians. Non-aggression principle? Great. Let's do the non-aggression principle. What's the biggest violation of the non-aggression principle that you can do the most about? Spanking. So let's focus on that. No. No, it's the Fed. It's a little bit depressing over on Locals that I got two bucks. I'll just tell you straight up. It's a little sad. I worked pretty hard on this show. But I'm not going to blame the customers. I just have to do better. Yeah, somebody says, Chris says, Walmart was essential and a local organic grocer wasn't in some cases. Yeah. Somebody says, Victoria police opened fire with rubber bullets on protesters. At the War Memorial in Victoria. All they were doing was holding up signs. Yeah.
[1:11:19] Yeah, I mean, media lies are pretty common, right? I mean, you'd think that Douglas Murray would be upset about things like the Russia collusion conspiracy hoax theory, right? What sanctions is he proposing for that? No, no, but that podcaster. Joe Rogan, you talk to that podcaster. It's really bad. All right. Any other last questions, comments, issues, challenges, if you're listening to this later, and you find it helpful and valuable what I am doing, if you could help me out at freedomain.com slash donate, trying to recover the finances for this month, I would really appreciate that.
[1:12:11] Just in case anybody's typing any last questions, I'll wait for a moment.
[1:12:18] Oh, that's interesting. Dudes posting their wins. Guys will receive one compliment and remember it for the rest of their lives. And somebody wrote, I think it was a woman, how rare is it for men to receive genuine compliments? And she said, there's this guy that I see frequently at a store I visit. He works there and I've been interacting with him for probably two years. I've always thought he was attractive and made a point to see if he wears a wedding ring. He doesn't. In the past, I've also tried to extend our conversations a couple of times, but he never really seemed interested. He's usually in a t-shirt and jeans, but today he was wearing a very nice button-up shirt. I mentioned to him that he was a little dressed up today, and he replied that he just felt like wearing a button-up. I replied that it looks nice on him. His jaw dropped. You'd think I flashed him. He eventually replied, Thank you. I was leaving when we had the conversation, So I continued towards the door and then turned around to wish him a good night. And he was still staring at me with a confused and shocked face. All I did was pay him a genuine compliment. I felt like I just unlocked a dating achievement, and that giving a guy a genuine compliment is key to initiating flirting. Just curious to learn how often men in this group receive genuine compliments.
[1:13:30] Somebody wrote, whenever somebody wants something from me. Somebody says uh 2001 two young female sales associates said they were jostling to serve me because i smelled good remember it as if it was yesterday.
[1:13:48] Um dated a lot married three times some in the military no compliments the one effing compliment i recall was a rando mexican girl in her hb market in el paso who noticed my butt when i was leg pressing 850 i spent two to four hours working out every day for 10 years and she was only one to say a word. If I didn't speak Spanish, I wouldn't have even known. Somebody wrote, two women opened the door for me at the bank a few weeks ago and smiled. I was frozen. I didn't know what to do. I just said, thanks. Walked back to my car and left. Never went to the bank. It messed me up. Somebody says, I remember I took my teenage daughter clothes shopping. And when she was trying on clothes, a woman complimented the way I spoke with my daughter about the items she chose. That was over 25 years ago. Still feel good about it. Fellas, a single compliment is our Nobel Prize. That's pretty funny.
[1:14:56] Yeah i still remember um after i was in to play our town in high school and uh this one girl was very drunk at the after potty and said, ah, you're gorgeous, Stef, but you float with everybody. I still remember that. Good Lord. 40 years later. 41. Crazy, man. Thank you, Chris. I appreciate that. The tip.
[1:15:33] My dispatch lady used to call me honey and i appreciate it yeah damn life as a dude sounds pretty sad yeah it's true what is your take on revisionist history as an argument for criticizing events or historical figures um i i gotta tell you i've kind of lost interest in history, I really I really have I've kind of lost interest in history, because because I studied and did a lot of work in politics um and.
[1:16:08] And I realized really just how much has been lied about over the last 15 years, right? When did I really start politics? About 10 years ago, maybe 12 years ago. I started doing True News. No, it was probably about 15 years ago. I started to do True News. And when you do enough of that, like you do enough philosophical analysis of current events, and you just realize like, holy crap.
[1:16:37] Just everything's a repulsive lie and you just i just have less interest in history, because when you see how much is lied i mean here's the funny thing right this is sort of the fine people hooks right that the idea that at charlottesville and was it 2016 that donald trump said that neo-nazis were very fine people which he didn't right he said they should be condemned utterly he said there's fine people on both sides um so even when, people can see the video like you can beam it to their pocket in three seconds and you they can play the video and that lie persists so even if you even if you show people the direct this what Uri Besmusov referred to as demoralized it doesn't matter what facts you bring anymore it's demoralized so, when you if you can show people something right in front of their face and they won't believe you, what good is history going to do.
[1:17:46] So I don't have as much. I mean, Peaceful Parenting, PeacefulParenting.com, you should check that out. But I'm not particularly interested in history anymore. People don't even believe what's in front of their face. What are they going to believe about 500 years ago? Somebody says, I always remember some beautiful woman with a British accent helped me bring out my groceries to my apartment. Stef, your daughter's argument re-empirical apologies versus mere verbal ones was good. Care to talk more about your thoughts on the matter since then? Because I've been dealing with a health issue, I haven't really had much time to think about it, but now that seems to be resolving. I certainly will. So, I appreciate that. Let me just make a note of that lovely question of yours.
[1:18:36] Oh, it's not there. That's over there. There we go. Thank you for the question, Oliver. I will not forget it. Ah! But apparently I can't copy it either. There we go. All right. Thank you. Look at that. We've done a bit of a longer show lately. Because that buzzing in my ear is much, much better. Any other last questions? Last. Queues. Oh, you know what? Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. That's depressing and comforting at the same time oddly yeah, i have not watched any anime yet i'm afraid, i'm currently trashing on white collar it's trash but it's fun trash, yeah trump told people i mean i did the whole untruths about donald trump right.
[1:19:39] Let me ask you this. In terms of the show, I should start doing this now that I'm almost 20 years in. 19. How would you rate the show, the conversation tonight, the back and forth, the arguments, and the level of interest? Give me a 1 to 10. I'd like to know how I'm doing. I'm going to start doing this. I should start doing this. I mean, I'm supposed to be good at marketing, right?
[1:20:14] I'm going to give this show, I think, 8.5. I think that's pretty good. Chris says, good point about history. I've tried to present lesser-known information about 9-11, but it clearly doesn't address the virtue and honesty one is applying, in their own lives in the present. Oh, honesty one is applying, yeah, for sure. I still absolutely love your historical shows like the French Revolution. Yes, but the French Revolution, sorry, I found I really did enjoy doing the French Revolution, but that really is about the future, right? The French Revolution show is about the future. Five, but came in very late. Nine, thank you, JP, appreciate that. Eight, Chris, appreciate that. I will obviously strive to do a 10 every time. Four, I'm in Scotland, it's 1.26 a.m. and I missed your politics, but still love you.
[1:21:06] Thank you. I appreciate that. Well certainly if you've come here for geopolitics a four is a fair is a fair mark.
[1:21:23] All right. And again, if you're listening to this later, freedomain.com slash donate. Eight seems like a great idea to me. Yeah, I think so. Seven, appreciate that. Nine, thank you, Johanna. Appreciate that. Okay, I appreciate that. Solid nine, great engagement. Thank you very much. I have so many notes about this show, that, you know what? I'm going to put this, I'll put the notes. I'll put my notes. Bob is a mean podcaster. I'm going to put these notes in the show notes. I'm going to go with a 7. It was a great show. I found the topic interesting. It also got me to vent out some frustrations, but it's not my preferred topic. I appreciate that. 9 for sure. I came in absolutely against Douglas, but gained a different view. 9. Thank you. It was very cool having some homework before the show. That was a first. Yeah. High 7, low 8. I think that's fair. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, I do get where Douglas is coming from. I really do. Like, it is frustrating when people hold themselves forward as implicit experts, and you say, well, you don't have the same rigorous experts. I say, hey, man, I never claimed to be an expert. It's like, eh. Nine for the portion of the show I watched. Thank you, Zyrol. Nice to see you back.
[1:22:44] Yeah, it's a cop-out. I'm an expert in philosophy. Well, I don't claim to be an expert. I rewrote all the moral rules of mankind from first principles. I think that's about as good an expert as you can get.
[1:23:08] Won't you please let that sun look good going down. All right. Thank you, everyone, for a lovely evening. FreeDemand.com slash today to help out the show. Really do appreciate your time care and attention lots of love from up here my friends I will talk to you Sunday morning and we're going to aim for a 10 a 10 baby big 10 inch record all right lots of love my friends bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
