A few months ago, I wrote a column saying I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over Donald Trump. I may not agree with some of her policies, but culture is more important than politics. She does not spread moral rot the way Trump does.
Now I have to decide if I’d support Bernie Sanders over Trump.
We all start from personal experience. I covered the Soviet Union in its final decrepit years. The Soviet and allied regimes had already slaughtered 20 million people through things like mass executions and intentional famines. Those regimes were slave states. They enslaved whole peoples and took away the right to say what they wanted, live where they wanted and harvest the fruits of their labor.
And yet every day we find more old quotes from Sanders apologizing for this sort of slave regime, whether in the Soviet Union, Cuba or Nicaragua. He excused the Nicaraguan communists when they took away the civil liberties of their citizens. He’s still making excuses for Castro.
To sympathize with these revolutions in the 1920s was acceptable, given their original high ideals. To do so after the Hitler-Stalin pact, or in the 1950s, is appalling. To do so in the 1980s is morally unfathomable.
I say all this not to cancel Sanders for past misjudgments. I say all this because the intellectual suppositions that led him to embrace these views still guide his thinking today. I’ve just watched populism destroy traditional conservatism in the G.O.P. I’m here to tell you that Bernie Sanders is not a liberal Democrat. He’s what replaces liberal Democrats.
Traditional liberalism traces its intellectual roots to
John Stuart Mill,
John Locke,
the Social Gospel movement and
the New Deal.
This liberalism believes in gaining power the traditional way: building coalitions, working within the constitutional system and crafting the sort of compromises you need in a complex, pluralistic society.
This is why liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren were and are such effective senators. They worked within the system, negotiated and practiced the art of politics.
Populists like Sanders speak as if the whole system is irredeemably corrupt. Sanders was a useless House member and has been a marginal senator because he doesn’t operate within this system or believe in this theory of change.
He believes in revolutionary mass mobilization and, once an election has been won, rule by majoritarian domination. This is how populists of left and right are ruling all over the world, and it is exactly what our founders feared most and tried hard to prevent.
Liberalism celebrates certain values:
reasonableness,
conversation,
compassion,
tolerance,
intellectual humility and
optimism.
Liberalism is horrified by cruelty. Sanders’s leadership style embodies the populist values, which are different:
rage,
bitter and relentless polarization, a
demand for ideological purity among your friends and
incessant hatred for your supposed foes.
A liberal leader confronts new facts and changes his or her mind. A populist leader cannot because the omniscience of the charismatic headman can never be doubted. A liberal sees shades of gray. For a populist reality is white or black, friend or enemy. Facts that don’t fit the dogma are ignored.
A liberal sees inequality and tries to reduce it. A populist sees remorseless class war and believes in concentrated power to crush the enemy. Sanders is running on a $60 trillion spending agenda that would double the size of the federal government. It would represent the greatest concentration of power in the Washington elite in American history.
These days, Sanders masquerades as something less revolutionary than he really is. He claims to be nothing more than the continuation of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. He is 5 percent right and 95 percent wrong.
There was a period around 1936 or 1937 when Roosevelt was trying to pack the Supreme Court and turning into the sort of arrogant majoritarian strongman the founders feared. But this is not how F.D.R. won the presidency, passed the New Deal, beat back the socialists of his time or led the nation during World War II. F.D.R. did not think America was a force for ill in world affairs.
Sanders also claims he’s just trying to import the Scandinavian model, which is believable if you know nothing about Scandinavia or what Sanders is proposing. Those countries do have generous welfare states, but they can afford them because they understand how free market capitalism works, with fewer regulations on business creation and free trade.
There is a specter haunting the world — corrosive populisms of right and left. These populisms grow out of real problems but are the wrong answers to them. For the past century, liberal Democrats from F.D.R. to Barack Obama knew how to beat back threats from the populist left. They knew how to defend the legitimacy of our system, even while reforming it.
Judging by the last few debates, none of the current candidates remember those arguments or know how to rebut a populist to their left.
I’ll cast my lot with democratic liberalism. The system needs reform. But I just can’t pull the lever for either of the two populisms threatening to tear it down.
It may be obvious that people who identify politically as liberals and conservatives think differently because they disagree on issues ranging from immigration to climate change policy. But what are the deeper psychological roots that drive their political beliefs? In the aftermath of the federal election, the Agenda explores the conservative mind vs. the liberal mind.
14:59
the first place Rob well you’ve got the
15:02
floor let’s just dive a little deeper
15:03
here on some of the work that you’ve
15:05
done comparing the moral beliefs of
15:06
conservatives and liberals and let’s
15:08
start with this to what extent do you
15:09
think people on the right and the left
15:11
live in different moral worlds yeah I
15:15
think that I think there’s a lot of
15:16
truth in that there’s pretty robust
15:18
finding in the political psychology
literature that liberals tend to endorse
and and deploy moral values like
protecting people from harm
empathy fairness and equality more than
can
servus do while conservatives deploy
moral values like
group loyalty
patriotism
respect for authority and
moral purity and sanctity
more than then
liberals do and we find that you know
when they go to make the case for those
specific political positions liberals
and conservatives tend to rely on these
their their respective moral values but
this can often lead them to make to make
cases for their politics that don’t
resonate with the other side might not
even be legible to someone on the other
side well that’s lorilynn you’re hearing
yeah let me follow up on that no I do I
want to do two quick follow-ups with you
right here because give us a for
instance if a liberal we’re trying to
change a conservatives mind about for
example climate change what would be the
better arguments to Marshall given what
you’ve just told us
yeah our research suggests that a
conservative might be more responsive to
an argument about the environment or
climate change if it was articulated in
terms of purity sanctity and pollutants
being disgusting D sanctifying human
bodies and and nature that that’s sort
of a message because it fits with the
conservative value of moral purity we
find tends to be more effective than a
more conventional argument that a
liberal would be more likely to make in
terms of the need to protect vulnerable
ecosystems from from harm which doesn’t
tend to move the needle at least among
conservative and let’s do the other side
of the coin what about a conservative
trying to impress upon a liberal the
importance of let’s say military
spending something like that yeah so we
also find that this principle that if
you want to make an effective political
appeal you ought to think very carefully
about the person you’re communicating
with moral values and deeply all beliefs
we find it applies in both directions so
if you were trying to convince a liberal
to support high levels of military
17:32
spending it might not make a lot of
17:34
sense to make an argument in terms of
17:36
patriotism and the authoritative power
17:38
of the American military and instead you
17:41
might think well how could I tie this in
17:43
with liberal concerns about equal
17:45
opportunity and so we found that
17:48
an appeal that emphasized that the
17:50
military is a place where the poor and
17:52
minorities can achieve on a more level
17:55
playing field than in the you know the
17:57
open society that that’s sort of an
18:00
appeal LED liberals to say oh maybe
18:02
maybe I do support high levels of
18:04
military spending because they can it
18:06
helps the poor and minorities advance in
18:08
society hmm this potentially potentially
18:12
Paul opens the door to well who knows
18:16
everybody’s in their respective corners
18:18
right now in the boxing ring that is you
18:20
know the world today and I wonder if the
18:22
arguments could be reframed so that
18:24
people could speak a little could speak
18:27
to conservatives in a language that they
18:28
would appreciate better and vice versa
18:30
could you reduce polarization in the
18:33
world I think you can I think rob has
18:34
some excellent ideas now to do it I also
18:37
think we could we don’t have to give up
18:39
on idea of focusing on our common ground
18:41
so it’s true that conservatives in some
18:43
ways focus much more on groups and
18:45
issues of patriotism and nationalism but
18:48
liberals are no stranger to calls for
18:50
identity and group identity in fact
18:52
identity politics focusing on your
18:54
ethnicity or your gender your sexual
18:56
orientation is very much of an explicit
18:58
focus of a lot of liberal thoughts so in
19:00
some way they’re speaking the same
19:02
language they’re just talking about
19:03
different things and there’s something
19:05
else as well regarding reconciliation
19:08
and agreement which is I think by nature
19:11
by inclination by how we think there’s
19:13
an enormous amount of overlap between
19:14
liberals and conservatives but in the
19:16
hurly-burly political world and social
19:19
media there was a huge split of us
19:21
versus them where all of a sudden being
a liberal I’m not responding to a
certain claim or idea based on how I
naturally react to it but I is it is it
from my team or is it from your team and
there’s a lot of research finding that
if you give people an idea cap-and-trade
a response to climate change
funding for private schools and you tell
them this is a liberal idea or this is a
conservative idea they react very
differently to it your study after study
finding people don’t even care about the
idea they just care about is it my team
or is it your team and if we could rid
political discourse of that or at least
diminish it we do
much much better well Becky let’s do an
example of something you’ve studied
fracking tell us the story so I think
that this speaks to Rob suggestion of
how to play to people’s morality and
having this kind of discussion so we
examined people’s favorability towards
hydraulic fracturing and the degree to
which they thought this was risky and we
found that people who are higher in
political conservatism were more
favorable towards hydraulic fracturing
and they saw it as less risky
we also measured knowledge about
fracking and people that knew more about
it had less favorable attitudes about it
and they thought it’s more risky however conservatives that knew more
about hydraulic fracturing for them they
had even more favorable attitudes and so
it is even less favorable than
conservatives that didn’t know a lot
about it and you find this same pattern
when you look at climate change so this
kind of goes against this notion that if
we just educate other people and they
know more and they’re more aware of
these issues they’ll get what I think
and they’ll be on board with my attitude
or the way that I see the world and
that’s not what happens you have another
question yeah do you think I don’t know
if you’ve done this but do you think
21:05
have you told a group of conservatives a
21:07
group of liberals and saying you know
21:09
what do you think of fracking and let me
21:11
tell you this Bernie Sanders Elizabeth
21:13
Warren one thing they agree on is we
21:15
need more fracking of this type it’s
21:17
very important it’s important for their
21:18
environment or to help American business
21:19
to increase minority access to jobs do
21:22
you think being told that would sway
21:24
their views I think it depends on who it
21:26
is so people that don’t know as much
21:28
about politics and don’t have that kind
21:30
of firm identity or just knowledgeable
21:32
for them it could sway them but for
21:33
people that are very knowledgeable at
21:35
these things they understand what
21:36
defines a conservative position and a
21:38
liberal position it’s not going to sway
21:40
them so I think that political identity
21:43
in belonging to these groups is really
21:44
important in dictating our beliefs or
21:46
attitudes how we vote but it’s not the
21:48
only thing and I worry sometimes that we
21:50
overstate it so I think it depends on
21:52
the person and I think it depends on the
21:53
context so in an American context right
21:56
now where the stakes are really high you
21:58
can see how people might be more apt to
22:00
kind of be like okay I can give that up
22:01
right now even it’s important to me
22:03
because I want my team to win but kind
22:05
of under normal circumstances or less
22:07
high threat or high stakes situations it
22:10
shouldn’t have the same kind of impact I
22:12
mean living in a state in the age of
22:13
Trump
22:14
very much in a high polarization time
22:16
there is a study that was recently done
22:18
which ask people about cap and trade
22:19
what do you think of cap and trade and
22:21
people had very strong views about it
22:23
then they asked them another question
22:24
what is cap and trade and I gotta say I
22:31
like I’m not I have found myself
22:32
exposing strong views and realizing I
22:35
don’t know that much I just know what
22:36
views I’m supposed to have yeah I’m
22:38
still waiting for the moment where there
22:39
where the conservative person says wait
22:41
a second Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren
22:43
are in favor of fracking date you don’t
22:45
think anybody would say that they would
22:47
be surprised they would be surprised
22:48
indeed if they were to say that okay
22:50
let’s um yeah
22:52
apropos of my team is better than yours
22:54
let’s go on to this in today’s polarized
world is it simply okay Rob you start
with this is it simply more important
okay for for for people to say I’m with
my team I don’t care I’m not
influenceable by facts I don’t care what
the facts say loyalty to my team is all
what it’s about nowadays right yeah I
think there’s a lot of evidence for that
and I think that what we see when we
look at trends and polarization in the
US over the last 40 years or so and this
is in the general public mind you that
you don’t see as much of ideological
polarization wherein people are clumping
around coherent ideological worldviews
because people are kind of they’re a
little bit disorganized in in their
thoughts they don’t spend all their time
thinking and talking about politics and
those who do they are very ideological
on average but what we see very clearly
is this rising antipathy across party
lines where Democrats and Republicans
you know increasingly dislike the
political out group and favor their own
in-group over the last 40 years or so
and if you look for like well what what
sparked all this I think that the
biggest thing that sparked it was that
at the elite level elected politicians
Congress people the president and so on
they polarized first they separated
along party lines and became
ideologically distinct you know by the
80s or so in a way that was not so much
24:26
the case in the 50s and
24:27
once that happened it became easier to
24:30
say okay no I really am a Democrat
24:32
because I’m a liberal and I really am
24:34
not like those other people and in fact
24:37
I really dislike them but when things
24:39
were a little more mixed up in terms of
24:41
what Democrats Republicans believed as
24:43
was the case in the 50s it was harder to
24:46
hate the other side cuz they were not so
24:47
clearly different from from your own
24:50
Becky let me let me pursue with you the
24:53
notion about whether or not we are less
24:54
polarized in Canada than they are in the
24:56
United States basically everybody who
24:59
gets elected down there is a Democrat or
25:00
a Republican basically I mean you got a
25:02
few independents along the way but
25:03
basically that’s it we just had an
25:05
election which is going to send liberals
25:06
and conservatives and New Democrats and
25:10
block East’s and greens to our federal
25:14
parliament and the People’s Party even
25:16
they didn’t win any seats but they got a
25:17
bunch of votes what does that say I
25:19
think there’s several things that are
25:21
going on I think we’re not immune to the
25:24
kind of quote/unquote tribalism that’s
25:26
happening south of the border but I
25:28
think that we have some buffers in the
25:30
sense that we have a multi-party system
25:31
now if any one of those parties should
25:34
gain more popularity to kind of lose
25:37
some of those I think we would be in
25:39
greater danger of having this kind of us
25:41
versus them mentality and I think that
25:42
still exists here but it’s difficult to
25:44
have that to the same extreme because we
25:46
have more than one party so there’s
25:48
multiple people kind of vying for power
25:50
how accurate do you think the view that
25:53
conservatives have of liberals and vice
25:55
versa
25:56
all is yeah there’s been a lot of work
25:59
on this and and there are two things one
26:01
thing is that psychologists are always
26:03
interesting everybody’s interested in
26:05
bias against against women against black
26:08
people against gays and their subtle
26:09
measures of this but the bias is we have
26:12
at least in the states towards the other
26:13
political team are anything but subtle
26:16
they’re powerful people to say if you’re
26:19
a Republican I don’t want to see a
26:20
Democrat I don’t want my kid to marry a
26:21
Democrat and then you get to kick the
26:23
question of accuracy so when you ask
26:25
people about other groups let me ask you
26:27
some questions about about gay people
26:28
about women it turns out a lot of
26:31
studies have been done showing that to
26:32
bet people have a pretty good perception
26:34
of the other group what jobs they tend
26:37
to have all sorts of other factors about
26:39
them but this goes to garbage
26:41
when you ask people politics so Liberals
26:44
have very confused ideas about
26:46
conservatives and conservatives very
26:48
confused ideas about liberals and what
26:50
happens is that this sort of tribalism
26:52
we’re talking about distorts our
26:54
thinking if you’re my worst enemy in the
26:56
world I’m not gonna think about you in
26:58
an objective fashion I’m gonna pile upon
27:00
you every stupid and ugly attitude and
27:03
and and you know if if if not it’s not
27:06
hard to see that this is not a good
27:08
thing politically and maybe this is why
27:09
Canadian politics which doesn’t have too
27:12
strict you know either-or dichotomy that
27:14
American politics has is less vicious
27:17
than American politics so a lot less
27:20
interesting too the last time you were
27:21
on this program and in fact I can see
27:23
your book on the Shelf right over there
27:24
we talked about your book about empathy
27:27
and so I’m going to facetiously say to
27:29
you right now because I know what your
27:30
answer is gonna be more empathy would
27:32
help this right well I’m not gonna say
27:34
yes come on I’m sighs you to say yes I’m
27:37
sure will surprise me which is it
27:39
depends what you mean by empathy so so
27:41
one sort of empathy which means feeling
27:43
the pain of others feeling the suffering
27:45
of others a study came out last week
27:47
which is causing a lot of play which
27:49
finds that the more empathy you have of
27:51
that sort the the more you hate the
27:53
other group why because you devote all
27:56
that feeling and empathy towards your
27:58
own group it makes you more tribal on
28:00
the other hand there’s another sort of
28:03
empathy which the most understanding
28:04
people perspective taking and I think
28:07
that is mostly for the good I think that
28:09
that you know if I if I was I was a
28:12
Hillary voter I don’t need to put myself
28:15
in the shoes of a trump voter but I
28:17
should try to understand why they voted
28:18
for Trump among other things if I want
28:21
my side to win the next time it sure
28:23
helps to know why why I didn’t win last
28:26
time just a few minutes to go here and
28:28
let me get Jonathan Hyde into this
28:30
conversation and the social psychologist
28:32
recently had this to say left and right
28:34
are like yin and yang both see different
28:37
threats push in different directions and
28:39
protect different things that matter and
28:42
that are at risk of getting trampled by
28:44
the other side okay bigger picture here
28:47
do liberals and conservatives need each
28:49
other in some way less their own
28:51
impulses turn inward and destructive
28:54
back
28:55
so I’d say on a macro level that is
28:57
probably beneficial to have a diverse
28:59
pool of ideological outlooks
29:01
I think anything in the extreme could
29:03
kind of lead us down a dangerous path
29:05
and I think there’s many examples of
29:07
very extreme right-wing or left-wing
29:09
governments around the world the kind of
29:10
plate of that to illustrate kind of the
29:12
dangers I think having a sort of push
29:14
each other back and forth and keep us in
29:15
check again on a macro level is probably
29:18
beneficial on the whole Rob I disagree
29:20
with everything you say but damn it all
29:21
I need you is that what we’re saying i I
29:24
you know I think there’s a lot of truth
29:26
in that I think ideological diversity
29:28
can help groups make better I’d you know
29:31
better decisions and come up with more
29:33
different possibly better ideas I also
29:36
think that an ideologically pluralistic
29:38
society is a difficult one to steer
29:42
effectively because it’s disposed to
29:45
creating these sort of tribal
29:47
differences
29:48
so if I have deeply different views on
29:50
things that matter a lot from you in an
29:53
ideal world we get together we you know
29:55
we come up with a way to get all the
29:57
advantages out of that and none of the
29:58
weaknesses but I think there is also a
30:01
very strong tendency for us to decide
30:02
that we are fundamentally different and
30:04
our differences are irreconcilable
30:06
because they go all the way down to our
30:08
bones to our values and so I have a
30:11
little bit less of a rosy picture of
30:13
moral pluralism Paul last thirty Seconds
30:16
to you we know that when political
30:17
parties want to raise money all they do
30:19
is put every alleged sin of their
30:22
opponents in those letters and they just
30:24
watch the shekels come in we’re kind of
30:26
doomed in this regard aren’t we we have
30:29
our worst instincts and people there’s a
30:31
lot of money and votes and power in
30:33
exaggerating the differences that exist
30:36
between these groups but I I agree with
30:38
with these other guys on pluralism is
30:40
what we should we just aspire for as
30:42
voters and as individuals authoritarians
30:45
on both sides will try to shut that down
30:46
they’ll try to shut down free speech
30:47
they’ll try to shut down communication
30:49
and I think we have a sort of moral duty
30:51
liberals and conservatives both to to
30:54
try to listen and try to try to get
30:56
together and try to be pluralistic in
30:57
the best of all possible ways amen
30:59
that’s a great place to leave it I want
31:01
to thank all three of you for coming out
31:02
of TVO tonight Rob will are at Stanford
31:04
University in California
31:06
Becky Toma from Ryerson University
31:08
in toronto Paul bloom from Yale
31:10
University in New Haven Connecticut it’s
31:13
great to have all of you on TV Oh
31:14
tonight thanks so much thank you
31:19
the agenda with Steve Paikin is brought
31:21
to you by the chartered professional
31:22
accountants of Ontario CPA Ontario is a
31:25
regulator an educator a thought leader
31:28
and an advocate we protect the public we
31:31
advance our profession we guide our CPAs
31:34
we are CPA Ontario and by viewers like
31:38
you
31:38
thank you
Douglas Murray, author of “The Strange Death of Europe” which is out now, is an author, journalist, and political commentator. He is the founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion and is the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society and associate editor of The Spectator, a British magazine discussing culture and politics.
49:13
I was in discussion with a modern cleric
who’s a sort of reformist figure and
Meyer in some ways who in a discussion
about something said well you know also
Mohammed Prophet Muhammad peace be upon
him was was he took criticism in his
early he took criticism very very well
he never minded people criticizing him I
like that’s absolute crap that is real
crap I mean whatever else you say he Muhammad not really good on this on the
criticism of himself
bit and I gave an example of a female
poet s who he had killed because she
criticized him and this guy went
absolutely apeshit and refused to
continue and so on and because you gave
an actual because I gave historical
example from his own religious texts and
and in the end it was a pre-recording
day and the end the BBC were like it was
can you find another way of trying to
make the same point and you know and
that was what we had to do I mean I mean
another way of making the same point yet
rather than pointing out the historical
exact same that showed that Muhammad did
have a female poet killed yes you just
what other way would there be to make
that point that is hard but that’s the
ultimate way to make that
exactly which is by pointing to the
texts and the facts but you know I can
think of no other situation in which
somebody has veto rights like that yeah
in a normal discussion and it’s because
they were terrified of the retaliation
yes I mean I knew everyone in the
production box was like oh no what’s
Douglass done so how can we stop it
affecting us
what was his clerics response to that he
yeah he just he went yeah they’re a bit
nuts and wouldn’t continue unless I you
know wouldn’t say that
and so what did he deny that it was in
the tent oh yeah yeah I said I was
making it up and has a liar
I’m used to that but that that’s a crazy
thing for him to say when someone can
just read the text yeah but they have
they’re banking on nobody doing that
well no this day and age don’t bank on
that yeah this is this is one the
releasing things isn’t it because
although it’s true you can like suppress
a lot of this you know we do live in an
age when basically anyone can google and
find texts and they can destroy a time
did a billion people of read I’m not
sure they’ve read it but yeah well
possess it they don’t know how many
people you think read it how many really
think read the Bible like if you had a
like gasps there are number of
Christians in this country there are
those tests on that they’d sometimes to
the human society invaded a few years
ago asking very basic questions and self
professed Christians about their
knowledge of the texts and very few my
52:03
favorite is self professed Christians
52:05
with religious tattoos like hey man you
52:08
got to read the whole book like you are
52:12
literally showing on your skin right
52:15
that you didn’t read the whole book
52:16
didn’t pay attention don’t do that yeah
52:20
this is Leviticus is in Leviticus that’s
52:23
got the implications against writing
52:25
like you know if you read a little bitty
52:28
there’s a heck of a lot you can’t do if
52:29
you if you go down where are two pieces
52:32
of different cloth yes exactly
52:35
yeah Leviticus is a wonderful book it’s
52:37
going it’s very good for the mohair what
52:39
Leviticus wasn’t the one which was the
52:42
book where the guy called upon the
52:45
she-bear to kill
52:46
children who were mocking his baldness
52:49
do you know about that one my favorite
52:52
special on bald guy this guy was getting
52:56
mocked by children fucking kids and God
53:00
called upon a she-bear to come down and
53:04
tear apart these children who were
53:06
making fun of his bald head here uh-ohhh
53:09
lash and the two bear two kings yeah
53:13
look at that Wow
53:14
went up to pass if you were going to
53:17
intervene in human affairs for anything
53:18
this would be the time that’s got a step
53:20
in Jung kid young kids came out from the
53:27
city and mocked him and said to him go
53:29
up you bald head go up you bald head
53:32
which is very mild and when he looked
53:35
behind him and saw them he cursed them
53:38
in the name of the Lord all caps then
53:41
two female bears came out of the woods
53:43
and tore up 42 lads of their number and
53:47
he went from there to Mount Carmel it’s
53:49
like you know deal it’s over got it done
53:52
and that’s that’s yeah that’s my
53:55
favorite reading from Scripture was the
53:57
one at the end of one of the books that
53:59
come which one it was I was a chorus
54:01
when I was young I always made me laugh
54:03
there was a this did the destruction of
54:05
the city of Nineveh it really in it
54:07
finish is I think not any faces chapter
54:09
of the whole book it says you know and
54:10
and lo in that in that city were forty
54:14
thousand human souls that were destroyed
54:16
and had also some cattle cattle just by
54:22
disassociation some cattle bad cows
54:25
there are bad cows some of those cows
54:28
too but no the rather bald-headed one
54:31
that’s very that’s that’s a yeah that’s
54:34
a heck of a time to you know to tread
54:35
into human descent even an insult you
54:37
know all dead no your bald head is just
54:39
an accurate description the I mean that
54:41
is not an insult
54:42
if you like you ugly sloppy bald-headed
54:47
loser okay yeah then maybe God need to
54:49
step in and see some wolves to attack
54:51
you and vitamin D specify that they’re
54:55
female yeah yeah why is it female 32
54:58
number yeah 42 kids two bears for those
55:02
of subhead those are some bitch-ass kids
55:04
need to learn how to run that doesn’t
55:06
even make sense how the fuck those bears
55:07
even catch all 42 of those kids what
55:09
kind of kids are they raising over there
55:10
in Bethel they’re well they’re all
55:17
sitting around waiting their turn yeah I
55:18
mean trying out cuss words til one
55:21
causes the Bears to calm down you shaggy
55:26
bear that didn’t work you Shaggy’s mangy
55:29
dirty stinky bear head yeah there’s so
55:35
many of those stories that are so
55:36
strange but I’ve been I bet I bet that
55:38
that most if we were to go to the the
55:41
people who say that their questions in
55:43
the polls and ask him about we don’t
55:45
even need to go the baldhead bear right
55:47
I’ll catch them it is they don’t except
55:49
though most people don’t even bother
55:50
reading that cuz it’s just it’s almost
55:52
too crazy yeah but but but yeah the very
55:56
very little knowledge even about very
55:57
basic things you know even Commandments
56:02
and so on all right so that’s the case
56:04
with the religion that America and
56:06
Britain is known best with Christianity
56:08
so there’s no reason to assume that
56:09
that’s not the case with Islam as well
56:11
isn’t that just the case with people I
56:12
mean it seems to be the same thing that
56:13
we’re talking about with headlines
56:15
someone reads the headlines they don’t
56:16
bother reading into it and then they
56:17
accuse someone or something it’s almost
56:19
like with religion I’m a Christian and
56:21
I’m a Christian man oh really
56:22
please tell me about the Bible right
56:26
it’s um there’s something better I’ve
56:29
often thought this is one of the reasons
56:31
why there’s it’s possible to get a
56:33
certain fanaticism going within Muslim
56:35
communities on some issues to do with
mass for me is I think is to do with a
realization of this you said that this
was the case about our prophet I didn’t
know there I he did what I had this all
my life with with arguing with Muslims
about things the they very rarely know
for the problems in their own tradition
and when you bring them up what he did
what like the Christians with the bald
ben and and this causes a really serious
problem for them because they are told
from the cradle that that they are
following a religion founded by the most
perfect man imaginable and if you
discover that if you it’s like you know
no there’s no description of Helen of
Troy
in the ancient texts why does nobody
escribe Helen of Troy why didn’t nobody
say did you know she was a sort of this
beautiful blonde ringlets order it’s
because it actually catches on as a
theme because everyone makes Helen of
Troy their most beautiful woman if you
57:44
start to describe you me like I’m not
57:45
into redheads everyone would Helen of
57:51
Troy becomes a person upon you whom you
57:53
put all of those things and in the same
57:56
way Mohammed becomes if you say is the
57:58
perfect human being the people will just
58:00
throughout their lives put the kind of
58:01
things they think are perfect on to
58:03
Mohammed you must be very kind very
58:04
generous very caregiving and so on
58:06
so that if you then say well what about
58:09
when he then did this I think it just
58:12
causes an extra hurt this is something
58:15
they’ll have to get over of course
58:17
because I mean we can’t go away and not
58:20
rather identify these for these issues
58:22
but it causes in the short term an
58:25
enormous enormous pain I have a an
58:27
example I gave recently in a book of
58:29
them somebody I spent some time with
58:31
couple years ago an extraordinary man
58:33
called Morten storm he was a Danish
58:37
bikers a big in a biker gang and
58:40
in Denmark went to prison and in prison
58:43
about 2000 or so he converted not just
58:46
to Islam he converted to al-qaeda
58:48
basically he’s not a not a common person
58:50
in any way and he ended up being the
58:55
main go-to person for so our Lackey was
58:58
a head of al-qaeda in Yemen and in fact
59:01
was asked to give him up get a wife our
59:03
Lackey to supplement his wife collection
59:05
and a Morten storm a lot of things ended
59:09
up falling out with al Qaeda and ended
59:11
up working for the CIA and Danish
59:12
intelligence and ended up helping lead
59:14
them to our Lackey who was then droned
59:16
by Obama in 2011 or so anyhow I once
59:20
said to MotorStorm what was the moment
59:23
that made you get out of al-qaeda and he
59:27
has such a fascinating answer he because
59:28
he came out of al-qaeda and Islam at the
59:31
same moment he says what was happening
was he was sitting in his he was waiting
for a package when I’ll kind of drop off
to get then from him to our Lackey and
the the person carrying the package was
late and then really late and he was
sitting in his apartment somewhere in
Germany I think at that point and he was
so pissed off about this and he had a
laptop that was there on the table and
he thought basically how can i express
my pissed-off Ness with my al-qaeda
colleagues for wasting my time like this
so much and he went to Google and he
typed in contradictions in Islam and
began to read that was how he got out
Wow that’s what did him in some just
late he just started reading again they
told me this they never told me that I
never knew that and that was so as I say
he’s a very very uncommon but but I
think that might be happening quite a
lot more than we know people just
googling things finding stuff out for
ourselves it’s the most dangerous
religion to leave because they kill
apostates they do yeah so what’s how is
he dealing with that well he lives in
hiding I mean wow
60:50
yeah yeah fancy may he read a book agent
60:54
storm two years ago one of the weirdest
60:59
conversation that I ever saw anybody
61:01
have with someone who was a believer was
61:04
Dawkins I think it was yeah was having a
61:08
conversation with someone in the asked
61:09
him point-blank whether or not he
61:10
believed that Mohammed split the moon oh
61:13
yes I think I know this was with a very
61:17
close enemy of mine called Mehdi Hassan
61:18
who worked for Al Jazeera and who
61:21
Richard Dawkins did a interview with and
61:23
I think he that’s why he fluffed
61:26
something earlier on Dork is he didn’t
61:29
take him on then he took him on on this
61:31
that’s wrong and I think that Sam said
61:34
yes yes yes and then it led to this
61:37
terrible problem which is a really
61:38
interesting interesting problem of our
61:40
era which is then dorking said I can’t
61:43
believe that somebody or said afterwards
61:44
I can’t believe that somebody could be a
61:45
working journalist and believe that you
61:47
know Mohammed Sloot a meal and a half
61:49
human horse right and of course I mean I
61:54
there’s a interesting point there yeah
61:57
but of course we do quite rightly allow
61:59
people to believe bizarre and insane
62:02
thing well sure exactly and if we
62:06
started saying you can’t have public
62:07
office of working journalism if you
62:08
profess to be of this particular faith
62:11
then we wouldn’t get any way we wouldn’t
62:12
have anyone left and how does the story
62:14
go Mohammed flew to the moon on a half
62:16
human horse yeah and split the moon with
62:18
a sword as I would yeah I counted they
62:20
could have then been attacked by female
62:23
bears but I can’t no I can’t
62:25
yes he it’s the night journey which is
62:28
central and how the moon get glued back
62:30
together again
62:31
is it back together it looks like it is
62:34
I haven’t looked close maybe I need to
62:37
pay more attention it’s just the the
62:41
fact that a per mile I believe this was
62:43
a few years ago let’s just say it was
62:45
2010 that this interview or that this
62:47
debate took place yes he was around then
62:50
eight years ago that someone would be
62:52
comfortable saying oh that they believe
62:55
that oh you see I got into a little
62:56
trouble Richard Dawkins got a bit
62:58
annoyed about me because I took the
63:01
mickey out of him for dodging the one
63:02
earlier in that what was the earlier one
63:04
he a great admirer of it as everyone is
63:09
sure but he he knows exactly where the
63:14
cliff edge is hmm and in that interview
63:17
he he was asked on al-jazeera by this
63:21
interviewer he read out the bit from The
63:25
God Delusion about you know as a great
63:27
bit of rhetoric about the most the God
63:30
who smokes God is something like the
63:31
most appalling narcissistic murderous
63:34
blob of our character in all of fiction
63:36
is a terrific piece of writing and the
63:39
interviewer says the Dawkins do you do
63:42
you stand by that as a description of
63:44
the Christian God Dawkins says yes this
63:46
is you stand by it does the description
63:48
of the Jewish God says yes and then he
63:49
says and would you say the same thing
63:50
about the Muslim God and I just knew
63:54
exactly what’s happening at Richard
63:55
Dawkins says um about the Muslim God I
63:58
didn’t know so much which he as I say he
64:02
thinks I shouldn’t rip him on this and
64:05
the thing was what I noticed was just I
64:07
just I know I completely felt he’s been
64:09
a very brave and brilliant writer and
64:12
thinker on these matters and nobody’s
64:13
done more in some ways but he I knew
64:17
exactly what was happening he was
64:19
staring right over the cliff edge and
64:20
somebody was behind him nudging yeah and
64:24
that if he had have said as it were live
64:27
on al Jazeera oh yes
64:29
Allah you know the total bastard then I
64:34
don’t know maybe yes maybe you’re then
64:38
in real trouble you know and so he
64:41
stepped back from the brink there and I
64:42
rather crudely perhaps took the mickey
64:44
out of him afters for it I said that it
64:46
was just that Richard Dawkins was
64:48
demonstrating a survival instinct of his
64:50
species but I I feel bad about it but it
64:54
is true it is true but we’ve all been
64:56
there to some extent and what was his
64:58
response to that though to my general
65:02
criticism he well he basically I think
65:07
he did take it on board in a way
65:10
so complex reasons but I know I know he
65:15
was also annoyed that I was where I
65:16
think he felt that I was doing that to
65:18
him then you do it right right and that
65:23
is very common in that I’ve had that a
65:25
lot in my life of in this particular
65:28
area of people trying to egg me over why
65:31
don’t you say that
65:32
mmm of course and and you know that
65:36
they’re the people who’ll be a million
65:38
miles behind me oh yeah they would their
65:40
ears plugged yeah I behind a wall I was
65:43
a very I was a very very visual aid of
65:45
it somebody who etches is a terrific
65:47
reformer in Islam that now and another
65:51
cleric who once described me he went to
65:53
fight for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan
65:54
and you know 30 years ago now and
65:57
described to me he’s not very fighting
65:59
li-like person but described how he did
66:01
actually sort of really rile them up to
66:02
sort of run over and get at the Soviets
66:04
and he’s like you know we’re all agreed
66:06
yes we’ll go yes and I go and he guys
66:13
guys and everyone else stayed in the
66:15
trench and I’ve always thought this is
66:17
exactly the experience of anyone in this
66:21
area what grabbed eyes is that there’s
66:23
inherent danger and this criticism even
66:25
that’s the discussion right now I’m sure
66:27
that people right now firing up their
66:29
webcams and writing blogs and tweeting
66:32
and getting upset about it yeah it’s any
66:35
rational discussion of that particular
66:37
subject you could kind of get away I
66:40
mean I get criticism from Christians but
66:44
it’s not scary right yes that is um
66:48
that’s that is a big difference of the
66:50
timing isn’t it right this is this is
66:52
something it’s just so important about
66:54
the new ones that almost never gets
66:56
added in but of course we all just
66:57
assumed it so we don’t think it’s worth
66:59
saying but we are aware that any
67:00
religion or thought like this could be
67:03
this dangerous at different phases yes
67:06
you know we might under wanted to be in
67:09
Spain in certain points in the last
67:12
millennium sure we might not have wanted
67:16
to be a Catholic descent to at certain
67:17
points or Protestant dissenters others
67:19
and so on and so forth we all know that
67:20
yes it’s just that at the moment that’s
67:23
pretty question
67:24
and and quiet and of course it’s less
67:27
quiet here than it is in my country one
67:30
can’t imagine the Anglican Church
67:31
becoming militant about anything at any
67:33
point soon you do have some angrier
67:37
types of Christian here than we have in
67:38
my country so it’s easy for me to think
67:40
they’re slightly less risky at some
67:44
point in the future than than you might
67:46
but but it’s just that we do recognize
67:48
this could happen elsewhere as well it’s
67:50
just at the moment it’s it’s it’s not
67:51
the Quakers they they really don’t send
67:57
me a death threat from one year to the
67:58
next right rather nice people there’s an
68:02
inherent danger of a retaliation from
68:06
people who are more radical Christian
68:10
that if this continues and if you see it
68:13
more and more of more and more attacks
68:16
from people of Muslim faith yes you
68:18
could possibly see a retaliation from
68:21
people especially in this country like
68:23
after 9/11 there was an extreme amount
68:26
of hate for Muslims and irrational hate
68:30
mostly which nothing directed at Sikhs
68:33
yes well there was a lot of that out of
68:35
ignorance they just didn’t they didn’t I
68:37
mean that was the most disturbing
68:39
because Sikhs are pretty interesting
68:41
people and the fact that they just
68:45
instantaneously with no information at
68:48
all no understanding out of complete
68:50
ignorance yeah attack them I I have a I
68:54
second no one in my gloominess about
68:56
some of the things that we’re going to
68:57
go through in Britain and Europe and
68:58
their coming years but I recently had a
69:02
reason to even more gloomy about one
69:04
aspect of it relating to this which is
69:05
this we had three big bad terrorist
69:10
attacks last year in the UK including
69:13
the Manchester Arena bomb 22 young
69:15
people were blown up on a Monday night
69:17
for going to hear ariana grande and
69:22
after the third of those attacks which
69:25
was on London Bridge went three people
69:28
who actually known the authorities as
69:30
they generally are slashed people’s
69:33
throats on the street and ran to borough
69:35
market as people were drinking and
69:36
stabbed people while shouting this is
69:39
for Allah after the third of those
69:41
attacks it was a fella is this really
69:45
just gonna keep happening what are we
69:48
gonna do about it and what can we do and
69:50
after the Manchester one in particular
69:51
there was this kind of thing of everyone
69:54
saying apart John Lennon’s Imagine there
69:56
was this hit don’t Lee don’t look back
69:58
in anger and these themes that say we
70:01
weren’t meant to think anything other
70:02
than that we weren’t meant to be angry
70:03
enemy and then then just terrible thing
70:09
happened from another direction
70:12
outside Finsbury Park mosque which the
70:15
muscular very troubled and bad history
70:18
in London a guy from Wales in a van
70:22
drives into the crowds as they’re
70:25
milling around outside the mosque kills
70:28
one man and injures a number of others
70:32
that guy by the way just show how
70:34
complex all this can get is he was tried
70:38
and guilty last month in the courts in
70:41
the UK he he had been his office he very
70:45
mentally deranged and had a history of
70:47
mental illness and all that sort of
70:48
thing as very often people do in these
70:50
situations but he he had watched the BBC
70:54
drama called three girls which is the
70:56
first time the BBC had really addressed
70:59
the issue of the Rotherham
71:01
Rochdale rape gangs that happened in the
71:04
last decade in the UK which is still a
71:05
saw that’s going on where about 1,500
71:07
girls in one town alone were basically
71:10
abused by gangs of Muslim mainly
71:15
Pakistani men and it’s a very very ugly
71:18
business partly because it was so awful
71:21
that nobody there that nobody at the
71:22
State at the police level and the arts
71:24
wanted to look into it and they are now
71:26
in the governing choir so they they
71:28
didn’t be looking to excel worried about
71:30
being called racist and there’s a Lama
71:31
phobic and so on the press did a lot of
71:33
not being interested in this as well
71:35
eventually after all these years the BBC
71:38
makes a documentary called three girls
71:40
about three of the girls who suffered
71:42
from these rape gangs and then a man in
71:45
Wales sees it and gets so enraged people
71:48
say at the local pub he was railing
71:49
against the bloody
71:50
limbs and all this sort of thing and
71:51
then he hires a van and drives in to
71:53
have a crowd of people outside a mask
71:55
and you have this awful feeling that the
72:00
BBC didn’t want to deal with the issue
72:02
that the program was about for years
72:04
because it was so awful and ugly and
72:08
sounded like something made up by some
72:10
kind of nativist racist you know it’s
72:12
had everything and then they do and then
72:17
it turns out remember the public sees it
72:19
and drives a van into a crowd yeah I
72:20
mean you know this this sort of couldn’t
72:23
get more complex and wait so and I
72:25
thought after that okay maybe maybe the
72:27
maybe the BBC were right maybe they
72:30
shouldn’t maybe they should cover up the
72:32
gang rape for 1500 girls maybe the
72:35
public can’t cope with it maybe they
72:37
will get into vans now as it happens I
72:39
know the British public I think fairly
72:41
well and I think that that guy in well
72:44
is a very very unusual figure I don’t
72:46
think it’s very common I don’t think
72:47
everyone’s going to do that I don’t
72:48
think we’re all like that wicked
72:50
Madeleine but I don’t know I mean I
72:54
don’t know for sure everywhere I don’t
72:56
know what the I don’t know what happened
72:58
in this country with various other
72:59
countries if there were three attacks
73:00
like that in quick succession I don’t
73:02
know but this is this is really it is
73:07
going to get complex it’s already
73:09
complex and the response to it’s complex
73:12
to how do you how do you if you if you
73:16
are a journalist if you are television
73:20
channel how do you report on this do you
73:22
think about the responsibility of
73:24
alerting someone to these actual real
73:27
atrocities that’s going to force them to
73:28
react on innocent people that did
73:30
nothing in front of this mosque that the
73:32
fact that these people in this mosque or
73:34
somehow or another connected to these
73:36
people that did these horrible crimes
73:37
just by virtue of the fact they’re in
73:38
the same religion that’s insane – yeah
73:41
it’s all insane I mean it seems to me
73:43
the only the only way through it is to
73:45
say first of all I mean I don’t I I
73:48
really American press all the time I
73:49
think that it’s it’s worse than the
73:50
British press in in in that
73:53
self-appointed role of believing its
73:54
task is to stand between the public and
73:57
the facts you know and sort of negotiate
73:59
between the to see what they think the
74:01
public can cope with or shouldn’t know
74:03
and
74:03
and feed them that the American press
74:07
seems to me to be rife with that that
74:09
temptation as ours is but it seems to be
74:12
the only way around this is to not not
74:14
give in to that and to try just to
74:16
publish the facts when they happen
74:18
because it’s just obviously seems to be
74:20
much work we always know in political
74:22
scandal what’s worst to cover up it’s
74:25
always the cover-up right and that that
74:27
may be the case with all this maybe
74:28
maybe the the argument for just the
74:31
papers explaining stuff that’s happened
74:33
is maybe that’s maybe that’s all they
74:38
can do and that it I could just say to
74:41
them it’d be a lot worse if you bottle
74:44
this up because otherwise people will
74:47
get the idea that there is some
74:48
conspiracy to cover over certain stories
74:51
and and they’ll be on to something in
74:53
fact if you think about the millions of
74:55
people that must have seen that the
74:57
story on the rape of fifteen hundred the
75:01
fact that only one person responded that
75:03
way right it’s a pretty extraordinary in
75:05
and of itself yes yes III would have and
75:07
I would have thought on some of this I
75:09
mean you know I don’t know again I mean
75:11
there are there are lots of examples one
75:14
could use but when something bad happens
75:17
like the Manchester Arena attack I’m
75:21
amazed in a way that people are so
75:23
decent I mean I’m so pleased they are
75:26
but they we really we don’t go out
75:29
looking for people to attack you know
75:31
that the public certainly Britain I can
75:33
that happy saying I think it’s a
75:34
monomeric the public we’re not really
75:36
lynch mobs waiting to be got going again
75:39
but the expectation that we are is the
75:42
only possibility of creating us in such
75:45
a way it’s only by treating us as if we
75:49
can’t deal with ugly things that go on
75:52
that you could see the situations where
75:55
you’ve again to see the situation in
75:56
which that all goes wrong in that
75:57
different way yeah I mean I don’t envy
76:03
their position especially trying to pick
76:05
up the ball from here yes with all the
76:08
history and all the terrible things
76:10
especially in England with so many
76:12
attacks over such a relatively short
76:14
period of time where there was a very
76:16
small hist
76:17
before yeah it seemed like this
76:19
immediate eruption of all these issues
76:21
yes and I mean the country in some ways
76:24
I wrote about my latest but most is
76:26
France where yes you the book comes out
76:29
in translation there in a couple of
76:30
months time very interested to see what
76:32
happens because France had of even I
76:36
mean we mention Charlie I’ve David that
76:38
eighteen months or so it had was just I
76:40
mean again we’d all sort of disappears
76:43
now every day’s got bad news of some
76:44
kind but you know to have a major
76:48
Western capital city with 130 people
76:50
killed in an evening with multiple
76:52
suicide bombings and people being gunned
76:54
down from mopeds as they’re sitting
76:56
outside a bar and you know another group
77:00
of people going into a rock concert and
77:02
and you know going through the disabled
77:04
section shooting everyone one by one in
77:06
the disabled section and gunning
77:07
everyone else down and catch him in the
77:09
lavatories and shooting him in there I
77:11
mean that that happened in one night
77:14
alone in Paris the Parisians didn’t
77:17
become you know they didn’t become
77:20
wicked terrible people anything but they
77:22
have I think these I think that the a
77:25
lot of these terrible events have
77:27
happened
77:27
they actually what happens is they sink
77:30
down to a lower level of our
77:32
consciousness so that we what actually
77:35
happens is we we we get over the
77:37
immediate thing quite fast but that
77:40
something that the foundational level
77:42
changes I had a case nobody really
77:44
wanted to linger on but there was one in
77:46
in November in the UK on Oxford Street
where because of course everyone does
after these attacks they always say you
know we will not be changed everyone tries to sort of channel the spirit of Churchill and all that sort of thing I
in Churchill hear me roar and and so on
and and actually the the facts are
otherwise in November on Oxford Street
there was a wall we know is that there
were two men who may have had some
disagreement on the platform of a tube
Trevor tube platform whatever happened
it was misunderstood by crowds and it
developed into a stampede out of the
tube station then all the way down
Oxford Street people were locked and
barricaded into the big department
78:26
stores a pop singer got Olly Murs
78:30
tweeted out his
78:31
million followers you know there are
78:33
shots of being fired I’m in the back
78:35
room of the store H&M; and there’s
78:37
something and other people claim that a
78:39
truck had gone down Oxford and mowing
78:42
people down they’ve seen bodies the
78:44
police said it was a major terrorist
78:45
event they were on top of an and the the
78:48
press were all you know running stories
78:50
turned out nothing happened nothing
78:53
happened the next day two men handed
78:55
themselves into a local police station
78:56
saying they thought they might have been
78:58
responsible for it but they were let off
78:59
without any charge what I’m saying is
79:02
they thought they might have been
79:03
responsible for it because they had been
79:04
in an argument that they’d had an
79:06
argument maybe they were they they won’t
79:07
say we’re responsible healthy but like
79:08
they were asking for information and
79:11
they will let go but my point is is that
79:14
is that we can simultaneously say we
79:18
will not be cowed and also actually be
79:21
at the stage where if you just hear a
79:23
bang yeah everyone goes running you you
79:26
don’t want to be the last person to
79:28
figure out what’s going on so as soon as
79:31
something you think is happening people
79:34
in this day and age when there’s just
79:35
this recent history of horrible things
79:38
happening over and over again in Orlando
79:40
here I mean there’s just so many of them
79:42
just instantaneously want to react and
79:46
then like in the Vegas shooting one of
79:48
the things that was very confusing about
79:50
the big Vegas shooting is people would
79:52
go into casinos they would flee from the
79:55
concert into casinos and then talk about
79:56
a shooter and then people would say
79:59
there’s an active shooter at Tropicana
80:01
there’s an advocate always happens
80:02
there’s always that’s why I never
80:04
believe immediate aftermath there’s
80:05
always a claim of other shooters there’s
80:07
always a claim of something that turns
80:08
out not everywhere they were there were
80:10
claiming their shooters all over the
80:12
city but there was no actual shooting in
80:14
these other casinos who was just reports
80:16
of active shooters that’s and by the way
80:20
if you’re interested I there’s a
80:23
fascinating thing about why this happens
80:25
and I wrote a book some years ago about
80:28
Bloody Sunday a terrible event in
80:30
Northern Ireland in 1972 and one of the
80:33
things I went through all the tests many
80:35
of everyone who one of the most
80:36
interesting things was the number of
80:38
people whose memories were just totally
80:40
different from what we know
happened and you know one of the
conclusions I came to was that there’s a
book by a Harvard professor but they
called the seven sins of memory about this but one of the things that clearly happens is after any very traumatic event or very terrible event where
people are effectively in the situation
of a war zone when they were just
shopping or a concert a moment before is
that our memories immediately become even more suggestible than they are
already and the most obvious thing of
suggestibility in these situations is
that the situation was was worse around
you and you came off better than you did
and that’s almost always the case the
shots that were quite quite a bit away
were very close you you you have to your
memory without knowing it we all do it our memory tells us we behave better than we did and that the threat was worse because this is our over one of our ways of coping I think mm-hmm
but but it’s a terrible thing obviously
with the I mean with these school
81:46
shootings and things that are going on
81:48
here at the moment I mean this is
81:49
obviously one of the things I watched
81:52
your podcasts the other day where you
81:53
were discussing this for the latest one
81:54
with the Florida and and I think you
81:58
know in a way bafflement
82:00
going on in this society about this is
82:02
understandable yeah the I mean it’s the
82:06
unimaginable horror of being involved in
82:09
that situation your mind is just not
82:10
prepared to cope with that I mean maybe
82:12
if you are a soldier and if you
82:13
experienced combat exactly and you know
82:15
how to stay calm and a firefight because
82:18
you’ve been at a bunch of them but for
82:19
the average person I mean it’s one of
82:21
the reasons why I witnessed testimony
82:24
it’s one of the worst pieces of evidence
82:25
you could ever get including I mean
82:27
about it about basically everything
82:29
about fistfights you know anything oh
82:32
yeah now we all have examples in our
82:33
lives of seeing you know friends who’ve
82:35
been through the same thing we know that
82:37
they’ve burned through the same thing
82:38
and yet they have two totally different
82:39
right so of course you know what
82:41
happened I mean that’s that’s a real
82:44
problem but now you have this thing here
82:46
where I mean some ways even worse than
82:48
we do of the search to notch it up for
82:52
your own political science yeah or
82:53
against the enemy yeah same thing with a
82:55
Twitter
82:56
the Twitter pointment that I mean this
82:58
this obscene glee that goes on after any
83:02
terrorist attack in Europe but I think
83:03
also here as well the attempt is to
83:05
immediately call it for the other side
83:08
or for your side or whatever and to try
83:12
to use terrible events as a way to
83:14
justify whatever your own team is yes I
83:19
have I find it amazing with a gun debate
83:21
here and I would find it amazing coming
83:24
from a different society on it but the
83:26
wages will not shit up for one side or
83:28
the other in it and it’s you’ve got a
83:32
real problem on it I’ve been watching a
83:34
lot of it from the perspective of the
83:36
gun owners NRA members and the people
83:40
that want to defend the idea of having
83:43
guns even of arming teachers and you’re
83:47
looking at their perspective on it and
83:48
their perspective on it is all about
83:50
their rights all about the Constitution
83:52
all about the bill of rights all about
83:54
protecting the second Amendment all
83:56
about its gun ownership being taken away
83:59
gun ownership under attack the NRA under
84:01
attack they’re coming after our guns and
84:03
this is this constant battle of ideas
84:05
it’s on Twitter not addressing the
84:08
actual issue I mean I’m sorry no it’s
84:12
watching this thing harming teachers
84:16
yeah that’s insane I mean this Samuel
84:18
Jackson had a great quote about it but
84:20
you mean it’s you know he put it on
84:23
Twitter like someone tell a motherfucker
84:25
who’s never been in a gun fight the
84:26
problems of arming a bunch of teachers
84:29
right yes somebody said someone’s been
84:31
in a gun fight please tell ya
84:33
motherfuckers somebody said somebody
84:35
said anyone who thinks is a good idea
84:36
giving teachers guns is clearly never
84:39
seen one try to use an overhead
84:40
projector ah yeah there’s there’s Samuel
84:42
Jackson look at that three hundred and
84:44
six thousand likes so you know was an
84:47
effective tweet check the number it was
84:52
only yeah you got three tweets it can’t
84:54
be true nobody likes yeah I I thought
84:57
there was a very pertinent one a few
84:58
years ago in New York on fifth when
85:00
somebody shot their colleague and
85:04
outside the office they came back his
85:07
disgruntled worker shot the colleague
85:08
and
85:09
locally there was some policemen around
85:11
the corner and they came out and started
85:13
firing at the guy who’d done it ended up
85:17
wounding about 11 pedestrian well you
85:19
would I mean I’m not saying by the way
85:22
we have we have our own problems but I
85:24
mean this is a big problem for American
85:25
what I kind of more guns and we have
85:27
people I mean I completely understand
85:31
why the Amendment exists and I think
85:35
it’s a very good idea for the time and I
85:38
think it’s a very understandable idea to
85:39
hold on to it now but but why can’t
85:43
people say for instance I mean we all
85:45
have abstract ideas we have to hold on
85:46
to but we and we all in our countries
85:48
have like weird things that other people
85:50
don’t understand that I think it’s odd
85:52
to have a hereditary constitutional
85:54
monarch for instance and right it is
85:57
weird
85:57
it’s a great way to put it it’s strange
85:59
and if you were starting from now you
86:01
might not do that but but clearly with
86:05
the gun ownership thing it is we are
86:08
willing to take bad things happening
86:12
quite often because we want to hold on
86:14
to the Second Amendment well the second
86:17
amendments been around forever the bad
86:18
things happening quite often is really
86:20
from Columbine on I mean there was a few
86:22
of them before there was the Austin
86:24
Texas but Tower shootings but it seems
86:28
to me I mean again I mean just it’s such
86:31
an obvious point and I don’t it sound
86:32
like it’s not he Britt his saying
86:34
something about America that’s not at
86:37
all welcome but it seems obvious that
86:38
you just you could do a lot more damage
86:41
with a semi-automatic rifle than you can
86:45
with a knife and most people we see this
86:48
in the terrorism as well there are
86:50
really committed terrorists who don’t
86:52
commit acts of violence unless they can
86:54
get hold of a the means to do it
86:57
because we often think well why don’t
86:58
you just like go out with a knife some
87:01
people do but most people actually want
87:04
to go out in that way and what they see
87:05
as being a blaze of glory right so they
87:09
like stopping them having the means of
87:12
getting that very easily seems to me
87:14
very obvious but that isn’t to say that
87:17
I mean of course I think you made a
87:18
point near the dam it’s like saying if
87:20
you say everyone who has a gun is part
87:22
of promises and
87:23
see not because it’s like saying
87:24
everyone who’s got a truck is about the
87:25
problem right but there is there are
87:27
obviously two things one is the
87:29
psychological and whatever the social
87:30
issues are that caused this to keep
87:32
happening and that that is obviously
87:34
very very important to try to get to the
87:36
root of but you can get to the root of
87:39
that or try to get through to that and
87:41
also recognize that people having access
87:43
to some of the weapons they have access
87:46
to in this country must be a part of the
87:49
problem it has to be and there also the
87:55
idea that you should just be able to go
87:59
out and buy a gun without really
88:01
understanding how a gun works at all
88:03
yeah and which is exactly how you do it
88:05
I got my first handgun license in 1994
88:08
that’s when I bought my first handgun I
88:10
just went and bought a handgun I did a
88:12
background check on me that’s it
88:14
I mean I went to the range they showed
88:15
me what the safety is pointed this put
88:17
the earphones on make sure you don’t
88:19
blow your is out bang bang bang and then
88:21
you leave with a gun I mean once your
88:23
background checks clear they find out
88:24
you’re not a criminal there’s not much
88:25
to it there’s a there’s a giant problem
88:29
with that if you want to drive an
88:32
automobile you have to show that you
88:34
understand the laws you have to
88:35
understand you have to sit with an
88:38
expert was to sit there a driving
88:39
instructor they have to go through it
88:41
with you they have to watch your
88:42
movements they have to watch you make
88:44
turns they have to wouldn’t wouldn’t you
88:47
imagine that it would be a good idea to
88:49
have some sort of a clinical evaluation
88:51
of a person that’s gonna gonna buy a gun
88:53
and here’s another thing there was an
88:56
article recently that was saying
88:58
contrary to popular belief most school
89:00
shootings are not committed by people
89:02
who are mentally ill well that’s a
89:04
fucking stupid thing to say you know why
89:06
because if you’re you’re committing a
89:08
school shooting but you’re mentally ill
89:09
okay period then on top of that what
89:13
they’re ignoring conveniently and this
89:15
is another headline thing psychiatric
89:17
medications right these people are
89:20
almost entirely on some form of
89:23
psychiatric medication whether it is
89:26
anti-anxiety pills
89:28
whether it’s antidepressants whether
89:29
they’re they’re all I’m not saying that
89:32
correlation equals causation I’m not
89:34
saying that but to say that
89:36
or not this is just a bullshit this is
89:38
clickbait headlines they’re mentally ill
89:40
100 percent 100 percent of them are
89:42
mentally ill there’s there’s a
89:44
conservative commentator in the UK
89:46
called Peter Hitchens who always makes a
89:48
point after Islamist terrorist attacks
89:50
in Europe that there’s a large number of
89:52
them as well as other types of attack
89:54
who seem to be on some kind of
89:55
medication yes and my point is always
89:58
I’m very very happy to have that
89:59
conversation I think we need to have
90:01
that conversation and we also have to
90:03
have the other parts of it as well
90:05
yes you’re right to say yeah I can’t see
90:08
why we can’t have all of this it’s the
90:10
same thing that we were talking about
90:11
earlier it’s these idea sports right
90:14
these Wars people don’t want to give up
90:17
their idea they don’t want to give up
90:18
any ground whatsoever on their second
90:21
Amendment rights whether it’s owning a
90:23
50 caliber fucking tank gun or whether
90:26
it’s having a gun for home safety or for
90:29
hunting they don’t want to give up
90:31
anything and they feel like it’s a
90:33
slippery slope the people that I follow
90:34
online that are tweeting about this on a
90:36
regular basis if you can go to a lot of
90:38
them like they’re making videos about it
90:41
Dana lash and Colin it is actually its
90:46
name is it’s not Collins Co Lyon Co Lyon
90:49
noir noi are he’s very very vocal about
90:53
and i’m reading all the stuff it’s like
90:54
all anyone’s taking into account is that
90:57
this idea that they’re coming after your
90:59
rights right and and emphasizing the
91:02
idea of a good person with a gun that
91:05
can protect people in these terrible
91:07
situations which can happen as well but
91:09
with what we have to address that’s not
91:11
we’re talking about we have to address
91:13
how the fuck do these crazy people get
91:15
guns why why are so many people on
91:18
mental health medications yeah well
91:20
that’s a huge huge I can’t understand we
91:23
always have this sort of wanting to have
91:25
the conversation about it but there’s
91:26
very little done on it that’s one thing
91:28
I’m very struck with we we have in all
91:31
our countries I miss slipped into a very
91:33
weird attitude towards this type of
91:35
medication yes very weird very just very
91:39
accepting of something that radically
91:41
alters the way your mind works I and
91:45
macaws there’s not an incentive drug
91:48
companies obviously don’t have an
91:49
incentive quite the
91:50
to look into it but it’s another example
91:53
of the the set of a set of things we
91:57
should be thinking about at the moment
91:58
and looking at which we just don’t
92:01
why don’t we because it’s sort of shut
92:03
down because we shut it down ourselves I
92:06
I think it’s just such a range of issues
92:09
this is the case with and it’s always
92:12
the same thing it’s always that if you
92:14
address the question difficult as it
92:16
might be you are attacking an individual
92:19
who might suffer from it yeah who might
92:21
be upset by us addressing the question I
92:24
mean I have a lot of suspicions about
92:27
all sorts of things I’m a very you know
92:29
skeptical person as it were about things
92:31
that I’m told so I’d like to look into
92:32
intending I’m amazed at the number of
92:35
things in our societies that we just
92:37
don’t discuss and they’re all the things
92:39
that we ought to be discussing issues
92:42
like mental health issues issues that
92:45
have to do with the social presumptions
92:47
that are going on left right in the
92:48
center at the moment where you’re not
92:50
meant to discuss things that have Puffs
92:53
anything else very very interesting and
92:54
very important and I just see it
92:59
everywhere this might by the way so this
93:02
is a slightly strange segue to make but
93:04
there was a fascinating one in in
93:07
Britain a couple of days ago a slightly
93:10
lighter subject but there was not that
93:12
much like that but there’s a diver in
93:16
the UK called Tom Daley who married a
93:17
screenwriter from Hollywood called
93:19
Dustin Lance Black and it was announced
93:21
a couple of weeks ago on Valentine’s Day
93:23
that they were having a baby and there
93:25
was a photograph of them holding a scan
93:27
they sent out on their Twitter of two
93:30
men who married who have ultrasounds
93:32
gear and all of the papers and the BBC
93:35
and Evan also report is saying Dustin
93:37
and Tom are having a baby and I mean I’m
93:42
gay and I’m I don’t think I’m homophobic
93:44
but I look this as a thing how someone
93:50
else involved I mean you know there’s a
93:52
joke yeah
93:53
gays a kind of Tim doesn’t mean we can’t
93:55
keep trying but I just glued his eyes
93:59
although nothing
94:01
in the articles about this tells me
94:03
anything I would like to know like I
94:06
know that they didn’t just have a roll
94:07
around and woke up in the morning and
94:08
one of them was preggers I know that and
94:10
I know that there has to be a woman
94:13
involved at some point we know this but
94:16
we are meant just like adapt okay great
94:20
cool
94:21
and it’s almost as if it’s set up so
94:23
that somebody says wait isn’t isn’t
94:27
isn’t a woman isn’t there a uterus so
94:31
that then everyone goes biggert right
94:39
and and of course somebody did somebody
94:43
from the Daily Mail wrote a column
94:45
saying come on to Dad’s isn’t a new
94:47
normal sort of thing and of course then
94:49
everyone piled in on that and all these
94:51
advertisers withdrew their advertising
94:55
literally literally until the day before
94:57
yesterday it was possible to say I don’t
95:00
think you guys can just like have sex
95:02
and make a child literally that was okay
95:05
until the day before yesterday and it’s
95:06
not okay today so what will not be okay
95:09
tomorrow and I just think I think and I
95:13
wrote about it and and maybe a couple
95:16
other people ended up doing it too but I
95:18
think that’s really interesting like a
95:20
lot of this answer I think it’s really
95:22
interesting about this that you are the
95:24
things that seem very obvious to us are
95:27
all the things you’re not meant to write
95:29
about almost as if they’re like booby
95:31
traps where you need to go off yeah and
95:33
and I just think why don’t more people
95:36
pile on in right um because we could
95:39
have a heck of a time and we might well
95:45
people don’t want to pile in on anything
95:47
revolve involving gender or sexuality
95:49
it’s too scary it’s a landmine field joe
95:54
they just name it is then walk in
95:56
especially as you said earlier people
95:58
with regular jobs yeah if you get called
96:00
out for being a racist or a homophobe or
96:02
anything along those lines you’re doomed
96:04
sure it’s some manat case anyone who
96:09
does have a voice
96:11
as a writer or speaker whatever
96:14
broadcaster I think has a
96:16
disproportionate duty to do so right to
96:19
do so I mean there’s no point in just
96:22
repeating those same new lies there’s a
96:26
disproportionate duty to try to break
96:28
them down yeah I come I’m one of my
96:30
favorite quotes that one from HL Mencken
96:31
who says you know that history was
96:32
always progressed by jolly fellows
96:34
heaving dead cats into sanctuaries and
96:37
going roistering down the highways of
96:39
the world and I just I I I wish that
96:44
there were more dead cat heavers it’s
96:51
not a bad job you can make a living
96:52
sometimes and and it’s it’s it’s one of
96:56
the only things worth doing if if we’re
96:58
all going to be told lies and expect it
97:00
to go along with them whether it’s about
97:02
terrorism or gay parenting or mental
97:07
health or anything else
97:07
whole set of them it’s a really
97:09
target-rich environment it is and I
97:12
think there’s more people doing that now
97:14
than ever before but it’s more people
97:17
like you and I who can kind of get away
97:19
with it yeah I don’t know what why do
97:21
you think you get away with it
97:22
me yeah cuz you can’t take me seriously
97:24
right I’m a cage fighting commentator
97:27
and a dirty comedian writing nobody’s
97:30
listening to me and taking me seriously
97:31
in that regard yeah book sort of it’s I
97:37
just first of all I’m a kind person I
97:43
think that helps like I’m not a mean
97:45
person right when I’m saying these
97:47
things I’m saying these things from I’m
97:48
going what what the fuck is this like
97:51
here was one that I thought was really
97:53
fascinating and this is one of the great
97:55
example of how strange we get on
97:59
subjects Caitlyn Jenner when when
98:02
Caitlyn Jenner transitioned that was the
98:05
primary thing that people talk about oh
98:07
my god she’s a woman now and it was
98:09
right after she had been spacing out
98:12
behind the wheel slammed into a woman
98:15
and pushed her into traffic and a
98:16
head-on collision and the woman died and
98:18
that was almost just completely
98:20
forgotten
98:20
yes completely forgotten yes not only
98:23
that she doesn’t believe in gay man
98:25
right like what your you have the wrong
98:30
spokesperson I mean you could not have a
98:33
more wrong spokesperson yeah but yet
98:36
ESPN and glamour Woman of the Year and
98:39
these all these different things and
98:41
athlete of the year yes wearing dresses
98:43
and fabulous and glam and let’s get your
98:45
chin shaved down right because that’s
98:47
who you really are who you really are is
98:49
not this person there now you got to you
98:52
got to shave your chin down it’s it’s
98:54
it’s big it goes right that thing about
98:56
the almost as if you’re being dead yes
98:58
you better discuss it I said this to Sam
99:01
Harris I got him into trouble just on
99:03
his podcast by saying this and he didn’t
99:05
attack me apparently he got a whole load
99:07
of transfer of accusations because of me
99:09
but I said to him I thought what was
99:12
happening was that we were being asked
99:14
not only to agree that Caitlyn Bruce
99:16
Jenner to become Caitlyn general the
99:17
Caitlyn Jenner was a woman but that but
99:20
that you had to find her yes Jenny you
99:26
were just and and I find those those
99:29
ones are just there was one the other is
99:30
a bit like that they gave her it’s like
99:33
I dare you you just you just try
99:35
pretending pretending that Tom and
99:37
dusting can’t happen and and it was the
99:41
same with those a little while ago
99:42
there’s a boy in Britain who was I kind
99:45
of whether he he wanted to turn up to
99:47
school in a dress he’s like nine years
99:48
old and I think there was a row I kind
99:50
of where the school said yes or no it
99:53
was a big thing and then it became her
99:54
way in on the behalf of the
99:55
nine-year-old trans kid lots of
99:59
questions to ask there yeah and and then
100:02
it became the the nine-year-old kid was
100:04
a was was a became a model for a fashion
100:08
shoot and then it’s like find the
100:12
nine-year-old boy who said he’s a girl
100:14
attractive and say it’s beautiful how
100:19
much more do you want to push people
100:21
like no they’re rewarding they’re like
100:24
like isn’t she lovely right what are you
100:30
doing to us I what are you trying to
100:34
make us agree to what what’s the cause
100:38
of
100:39
all of us you must have been talking
100:42
about this like what this is this
100:44
bizarre illogical conversation that
100:46
falls into these very convenient yeah
100:49
well cut grooves that you’re really not
100:52
allowed to slide the ideas arrived
100:54
what’s causing this I think it’s so many
100:59
things I one is one is that it’s
101:00
possible this is what happens when the
101:03
economics goes wrong I’ve got a feeling
101:06
the economics I mean is that if people’s
101:09
if people aren’t saying like wait it
101:11
increases in their living senses I mean
101:13
my generation I know I’m 38 by just
101:17
above this generation but the
101:18
generations ever so slightly below me is
101:21
becoming aware that France it won’t get
101:23
on the property ladder at all maybe
101:26
property ladder meaning owning a home
101:28
owning a home the things that their
101:30
parents generation got not easily by any
101:33
means but it wasn’t the wasn’t easy for
101:35
boomers but that that somehow they’re
101:40
going to have it harder than their
101:41
parents generation or might not enjoy
101:43
the living standards that their parents
101:45
generation enjoyed might be certainly in
101:48
Western Europe coming home it might be
101:50
occurring to them what do you do in
101:52
those search situations you’ve got to
101:56
have other things to to get worth from
101:58
if for instance you’re not going to own
102:01
a home until you’re 40 and at that point
102:04
if you’re a woman at your career you
102:05
need to have children but you can’t
102:06
afford to take the time off work and you
102:09
might not be able to start a family and
102:10
then you’re trying to start a family in
102:12
your 40s and it’s harder very hard and a
102:15
whole set of other things like that that
102:17
are definitely delayed for new
102:19
generation I think that it’s possible I
102:21
not saying certainly it’s it’s possible
102:24
it seems to me that that generation
102:25
might discover new gods and might want
102:30
to enforce the new rules just as avidly
102:33
as the old gods and and there is an
102:38
element of that going like I can’t
102:41
understand why otherwise every time I
102:43
talk about the things we talked about
102:46
there they would just continuously be
102:48
this very angry reaction not oh that’s
102:51
interesting you know I never thought I
102:52
know
102:53
I think probably like you now I mean
102:54
it’s quite hard to shock me it ought to
102:56
upset me you know that’s interesting you
103:00
know why do you think that but so why do
I always get this like we’ve got to stop
him other than that these are new Commandments that we’re breaking hmm and
and white so and I mean they’re all sort
of connected aren’t they these things
yeah they’re all attempts to but they’re
all attempts to something like purity
which disturbs me we’re sort of if we
could just get everything in a row you
know you even hear that thing get in
your lane yeah that’s Oh get in your
lane
Oh do you think you are what’s my lane I
think I’ve said it a few times you know
but I mean but only people that needed
to stay in their Lane New York I’m
different New York Times yes as we disap
103:50
Lane over okay no I’m reading your times
103:52
the plane oh and and there’s a there’s a
103:54
question as you know agony aren’t we
103:57
call it what do you call self help
103:58
whatever advice column hmm this woman
104:00
says she was on the on the train a
104:04
couple days ago and there was a man who
104:06
came on with his girlfriend he was being
104:07
really abusive to her and it just kept
104:09
happening and he was really it was kind
104:10
of nasty brawler violence situation she
104:15
doesn’t know what to do other people the
104:16
care they’ll move away isn’t and she’s
104:18
and of course you can see what’s coming
104:19
the culmination of it is she says she
104:21
gets off the train and she wonders
104:23
whether she should have said something
104:24
but she says conscious of her white
104:26
privilege and these people were people
104:29
of color hmm and I am reading this I’m
104:33
thinking what you now now if you saw a
104:38
man of different skin pigmentation from
104:42
you abusing a woman of different skin
104:45
pigmentation from you the right thing is
104:48
not to defend the woman that seems like
104:50
a just a real justification for being a
104:53
coward yes
104:54
but but but I tend the advice was you
104:56
know you did sort of the right thing
104:57
maybe you should have spoken to an
104:58
official certainly but there was no kind
104:59
of so all this stuff all this weird get
105:02
in your lane no you know notes your
105:06
privilege you know way up your privilege
105:07
I mean that’s a good way to make society
105:09
have a nervous breakdown wake up you’re
105:11
privileged you know it’s privileged
105:12
scorecards I mean my god I am but but
105:16
all of these things seem to it’s almost
105:18
as if people think if we get the the the
105:21
lanes correct everything will be sorted
105:25
and here’s a problem is that that first
105:29
of all the means of doing this are just
105:31
hideous
105:32
I mean hideous they accentuate racial
105:35
difference they accentuate sexual and
105:37
gender difference they accentuate
105:39
everything else and the destination is
105:43
horrible it is not the Nirvana they
105:47
think that they’re creating mmm so this
105:50
is a really good moment to try to look
105:53
at some of this and to talk about it and
105:56
to think about as widely and as freely
105:58
as we can and yet and yet the effort is
106:02
to do the opposite I think your honor
106:04
something with the idea that this
106:05
radical progressive very restrictive
106:08
line of communication ideology that
106:11
we’re experiencing we’re talking about
106:13
it’s coming from a lot of people that
106:15
don’t have a religion yes they’re
106:17
atheists or they’re at the very least
106:19
agnostics modern progressives very
106:21
rarely religious yes and this mouse
106:25
before somebody who’s non-belief like
106:27
myself this is a painful thing to look
106:29
at but again we have to think about it
106:31
but that’s isn’t that an interesting
106:32
thing as well because you think of
106:34
yourself as being on a team with these
106:35
other atheists or agnostics see I don’t
106:38
but you don’t but I’m saying as an
106:40
atheist yourself you have to look at it
106:42
that way you’ve already lumped yourself
106:43
in with them yes III had speaking of
106:46
camps in the US a while ago and I spoke
106:48
to a guy who’s really really clever
106:50
skewed and he was a free thinker he said
106:54
he said the afters we were talking he
106:56
said you know he’d had some hideous
106:58
experience at a local free thinker
106:59
Society you know where everyone’s like
107:01
get in your lane and he was like I
107:03
thought that being among free thinkers
107:06
like the rest would all be good they no
107:08
no no they they’re free thinkers turn
107:11
out to be just as able to be blindfolded
107:13
if you know on certain things down when
107:18
you imagine is of course self proclaimed
107:20
freethinkers would be even more inclined
107:22
to adopt a rigid ideology they’re
107:25
proclaiming themselves to be a free
107:27
thinker and and it’s possible this comes
107:29
from that you know the the old Jaguar
107:33
sensors you know that the sensor knows
107:36
everything that the people are really
107:38
into and I spoke once to a band who was
107:42
on the British Board of Film
107:43
classification
107:44
he said all day watching really hardcore
107:46
pornography deciding what could be
107:47
legalized so that’s you must have a very
107:50
dark view of humanity it wasn’t justice
107:53
scalia’s interpretation of pornography I
107:56
don’t know how to describe it but I’ll
107:58
know it when I see it right exactly
108:00
like why aren’t you our fucking judge
108:02
and it may be it but it may be that
108:04
these people but a lot of conservatives
108:07
have this thing that one becomes rigid
108:09
about something because you’ve seen into
108:12
the abyss because you don’t know you
108:15
might and behave in a certain very
108:18
terrible way and so you you you want to
108:22
pull back from that chaos you want to
108:25
pull other people back as well it seems
108:27
to me that a lot of so-called free
108:28
thinkers self designated free fingers
108:30
may well have these glimpses and may
108:33
well think I don’t know what’s holding
108:35
this together and therefore might
108:39
precisely for that reason be
108:41
disproportionately rigid on almost any
108:44
new ideology that came along get in lane
108:47
yeah yeah I like this idea that this is
108:53
almost like a substitution for religion
108:55
it’s almost like there’s an inherent
108:57
need that we have because human beings
109:00
have operated under these patterns for
109:02
so long we can’t have this yeah yeah
109:10
it’s it’s interesting because the more
109:12
you like we found ways to mock it right
109:16
and one of the ways to mock it and I
109:17
think that that’s important and that
109:19
mockery although it seems trivial what
109:22
it does do is let people know how
109:24
ridiculous other people feel those ideas
109:26
are and then it makes them really they
109:29
don’t like being mocked the term social
109:31
justice warrior is wonderful for that
109:33
because it just makes you look like such
109:34
a fucking fool you know social justice
109:37
warrior yes like that I was a colleague
109:41
of mine a spectator in London called
109:43
a-rod little wrote a few years any any
109:45
man who says he’s a feminist clearly
109:47
just as seeking a shag for sure well I
109:51
mean it’s one thing to want equality but
109:54
to proudly state that you’re a feminist
109:57
is it’s almost yeah I have joked around
109:59
about it like I see what you’re doing
110:00
yeah you don’t run fast you can’t pick
110:03
things up there was must he liked to
110:04
fuck I get it somebody said is very
110:07
faulty in Britain they said they
110:10
described himself as an anti-racist
110:12
party and some comedian who said it
110:14
actually makes makes you think they
110:16
might be racist
110:17
we like saying you’re an anti pedophilia
110:21
children’s agency that’s hilarious
110:30
that’s so true it’s so true it’s a it’s
110:33
virtue signaling to the highest degree
110:34
it’s like you you’re putting up your
110:36
flag of moral superiority standing on
110:39
your high ground but it is it is it
110:40
obviously means a great deal to these
110:42
people but yeah but then the question is
110:44
just how to how to invite them not to
110:46
think like that
110:47
I think mockery mockery is one of the
110:49
best ways because it just lets them know
110:52
that other people think it’s
110:53
preposterous so it’s not achieving the
110:55
desired result the desired result is oh
110:57
look at this amazing person there’s
110:59
incredible progressive ways of thinking
111:01
not like oh look at this transparent
111:03
fuck who’s just trying to get laid
111:06
that’s that’s how a lot of us see it
111:09
yeah they don’t see that we see it that
111:11
way and some of them I mean it’s in a
111:14
lot of ways a lot of our behavior is its
111:18
experimental you know I mean people are
111:20
experimenting with various different
111:22
ways of gaining social preference points
111:26
well this is this is why I was saying if
111:29
people aren’t believers there are things
111:32
they can learn from religion and from
111:33
tradition mm-hmm
111:35
and I’ve always thought that the I’ve
111:38
always thought there’s one central
111:39
insight to the judeo-christian tradition
111:42
which I wish that the social justice
111:44
warriors bore in mind and that is that’s
111:46
the guy
111:47
Navid n’ and and and the the or can’t
111:51
recall the Crooked Timber of humanity
111:53
mm-hmm just just to recognize the
111:55
central truth which is in that tradition
111:57
and in others that that we’re not born
112:01
in this situation of Rousseau e’en
112:04
perfection or goodness quite quite
112:08
otherwise we are we are this very very
112:14
contorted being which is part which is
112:17
capable of incredible greatness and
112:20
beauty and kindness and forgiveness and
112:23
also capable of their opposites and
112:26
that’s and that it’s not it’s not that
112:28
you are one and other people are the
112:30
other but all of us all of us both all
112:35
the time and so there never is a victory
112:38
and there never is a win rather than
112:41
trying to deal with and restrain your
112:47
own worst impulses in the life that you
112:49
have and honestly express all the issues
112:53
that arrive while you’re trying to do
112:55
that absolutely and and trying to tell
112:59
the truth where you see it and and
113:01
giving voice to it and trying to I mean
113:04
you know this is just it’s just you so
113:06
clear to me that that if people if
113:08
people could realize this is a central
113:10
problem of the thing that you and I and
113:12
others all faces the the desire to claim
113:16
that the that somebody who disagrees on
113:18
an issue isn’t just of a disagreeing
113:22
mind but evil hmm and that in any you
113:27
know we have in Britain we are wracked
113:29
at the moment still by 18 months after a
113:32
single vote on a single matter of
113:34
governance we are still wracked by
113:35
really unpleasant politic from brexit
113:39
yeah
113:39
and I suspect it’s it’s not I hate the
113:41
overlap of the two but it’s probably
113:43
something like the Trump events here but
113:46
again and again you come back to the
113:48
same thing which is just instead of
113:49
thinking one side is entirely right and
113:52
the other entirely I didn’t say you give
113:53
up on objective fact or anything I’ve
113:55
been just consider that your opponent
113:57
might be approaching this with an honest
113:59
mode
114:00
I might have honest reasons for
114:03
disagreeing with you and in the absence
114:05
of that and with media just endlessly
114:07
feeding us whatever wood is we know our
114:09
own side happens to think in the absence
114:13
of that I just see our trenches in both
114:15
our countries just being dug deeper and
114:17
deeper until until there’s just no hope
114:19
of being able to even shout over the top
114:21
and be heard and one can only get to
114:25
that stage if if as I say you recognize
114:28
that it’s it’s it’s not a constant fight
114:32
against Nazis and you know I mean it’s
114:38
by the way and also never to forget that
114:41
the Nazis didn’t seem like the Nazis to
114:43
a lot of people when the Nazis were
114:44
being with Nazis but it’s just it’s just
114:48
not as easy as that no it’s not you know
114:52
but it’s it’s an easy way to demonize
114:54
the other side yeah it’s an easy way to
114:57
prop up your side it’s a it’s a cheap
114:59
trick it is but came back to where we
115:02
started
115:03
what if the cheap trick ends up having
115:05
some terrible consequence hmm of making
115:10
all of our defenses go down you know
115:18
well the both of you that I mean we
115:20
started the conversation off with that
115:22
Community Guidelines strike good lord
115:26
yeah this is this really is a very very
115:30
strange time very strange always was
115:33
Douglas thank you very much I really
115:35
really enjoyed this conversation I
115:37
really appreciate it and your book that
115:39
is out now is death of Europe it’s
115:42
called immigration identity Islam and
115:45
it’s variable if you can find any book
115:47
shops left minutes um you gotta get it
115:50
online you can get it online as well
115:52
there’s a few Barnes and Nobles out
115:53
there all right thank you Douglas Murray
115:55
ladies and gentlemen great pleasure
115:56
thank you
115:58
[Music]
116:02
[Applause]
116:07
[Music]
116:12
Anyone who has argued with an opinionated relative or friend about immigration or gun control knows it is often impossible to sway someone with strong views.
That’s in part because our brains work hard to ensure the integrity of our worldview: We seek out information to confirm what we already know, and are dismissive or avoidant of facts that are hostile to our core beliefs.
But it’s not impossible to make your argument stick. And there’s been some good scientific work on this. Here are two strategies that, based on the evidence, seem promising.
1) If the argument you find convincing doesn’t resonate with someone else, find out what does
The answer to polarization and political division is not simply exposing people to another point of view.
In 2017, researchers at Duke, NYU, and Princeton ran an experiment where they paid a large sample of Democratic and Republican Twitter users to read more opinions from the other side. “We found no evidence that inter-group contact on social media reduces political polarization,” the authors wrote. Republicans in the experiment actually grew more conservative over the course of the test. Liberals in the experiment grew very slightly more liberal.
Whenever we engage in political debates, we all tend to overrate the power of arguments we find personally convincing — and wrongly think the other side will be swayed.
On gun control, for instance, liberals are persuaded by stats like, “No other developed country in the world has nearly the same rate of gun violence as does America.” And they think other people will find this compelling, too.
Conservatives, meanwhile, often go to this formulation: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
What both sides fail to understand is that they’re arguing a point that their opponents have not only already dismissed but may be inherently deaf to.
“The messages that are intuitive to people are, for the most part, not the effective ones,” Robb Willer, a professor of sociology and psychology at Stanford University, told me in 2015.
Willer has shown it’s at least possible to nudge our political opponents to consider ideas they’d normally reject outright. In 2015, in a series of six studies, he and co-author Matthew Feinberg found that when conservative policies are framed around liberal values like equality or fairness, liberals become more accepting of them. The same was true of liberal policies recast in terms of conservative values like respect for authority.
Willer has shown it’s at least possible to nudge our political opponents to consider ideas they’d normally reject outright. In 2015, in a series of six studies, he and co-author Matthew Feinberg found that when conservative policies are framed around liberal values like equality or fairness, liberals become more accepting of them. The same was true of liberal policies recast in terms of conservative values like respect for authority.
So, his research suggests, if a conservative wanted to convince a liberal to support higher military spending, he shouldn’t appeal to patriotism. He should say something like, “Through the military, the disadvantaged can achieve equal standing and overcome the challenges of poverty and inequality.” Or at least that’s the general idea.
In a recent effort Willer and a co-author found, in a nationally representative sample, that conservatives would be more willing to support a hypothetical liberal candidate for president if that candidate used language that reflected conservative values. For instance, conservatives who read that the candidate’s “vision for America is based on respect for the values and traditions that were handed down to us…” were more likely to say they supported him than when the candidate’s message was framed with liberal buzzwords.
How to sway the other side: Use their morals against them
Willer’s work is based on moral foundations theory. It’s the idea that people have stable, gut-level morals that influence their worldview. The liberal moral foundations include equality, fairness, and protection of the vulnerable. Conservative moral foundations are more stalwart: They favor in-group loyalty, moral purity, and respect for authority.
Politicians intuitively use moral foundations to excite like-minded voters. Conservative politicians know phrases like “take our country back” get followers’ hearts beating.
What moral foundations theory tells us, however, is that these messages don’t translate from one moral tribe to the other. “You’re essentially trying to convince somebody who speaks French of some position while speaking German to them,” Willer says. “And that doesn’t resonate.”
Willer cautioned that it’s still extremely difficult to convert a political opponent completely to your side, even with these techniques. “We found statistically significant effects,” he says. “They’re reliable. But in terms of magnitude, they are not large.”
The chart below shows how well the moral reframing worked for each policy area in Willer’s study. To be clear, there’s only so much that reframing in terms of values can do: It can’t turnan anti-Obamacare conservative into a proponent, but it can soften his stance and get him to listen to counterarguments.