AS241: Social Justice Commentary 2

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Atheistically Speaking, this is episode 241, and we are moving on from the social, just kidding, just kidding, we're not. I so, I tweeted and asked my patrons if they would like another episode of commentary on the debate. Because there was so much I didn't get to, I hardly was able to share your opinions, and there were a ton of them, so lots to choose from there. So, and I am really blown away by the universal enthusiasm for that idea. I really only had just Ben Young III. That was the only person who was like, "Ah, I'm kind of done." And literally every other comment was, "Yes, please do another one," because and that tells me that this is really it really is as big of a divide as as I thought, you know.

0:01:22 Thomas: And I think it's well worth the discussion. It's something that our community, the atheism skeptic community, really cares about, I think, on either side. And so I hope this is helping clarify thoughts for people. Maybe it'll change someone's mind on it. I don't know. Like I said, I've got some messages of people saying it's changed their minds. So I'm really excited to get to a lot of the things I wasn't able to get to in the first one. But this, I promise, will be the last one for a little while. No more commentary on this debate in particular. I'd say if we're going to revisit the issue, we'll have another debate. Maybe we can find different guests. We'll see where we want to go. But this will be it for the time being. Let us hear that music.

0:02:07 Thomas: So Well, I already have to issue a retraction. Well, a correction, I guess, as I was already starting to record. Patron Jeff Williamson commented, "I really don't think it's worth dragging out. James's summary of safe space terminology being hijacked early in their discussion and Eli wanting to ignore this reality pretty much sums up the whole thing, apart from trigger warnings, and that's an issue for academics, lecturers, not comedians, to debate. Leave well enough alone, it only gets messier from here." So sorry, Jeff, you were outvoted and your vote was just just a little too late. It might have. Now you're still outvotted like, I don't know, something like 40 or 50 comments to two, I think, across all platforms. That's just so many comments. It's not, of course, a very high percentage of listeners, but, you know, not not very many listeners actually comment.

0:03:03 Thomas: It's a very high percentage of the people who actually comment on stuff, which is why I was so blown away by the response. But let's use that as a jumping off point. I mean, sorry, Jeff, I do kind of disagree with your analysis. I think that trigger warnings and that sort of thing. I mean the reason this is such a big issue, and this is actually important to address, even though there are people who say, you know, this is just stuff going on in college campuses. This is, you, know, I think Eli has said at times, you don't take what college students, 18 year old, 19 year old crying college students are saying as an indicator of, you know, the actual position, stuff like that. I think these criticisms fail on both sides, personally, because what's going on, in my opinion, what's on college campuses is immensely important to all of us, I mean, for so many reasons.

0:03:49 Thomas: It shapes what's gonna be the future of, honestly, society. I mean, colleges have always been kind of on the leading edge of progress, and they always tend to be liberal and progressive and that sort of thing. And I'm sure most of us who don't already have kids in college, you know, most of us who are maybe my age who are looking to the future when we might have kids and might be sending them to college, we want to know what's going on. We want to have a say somewhat in what's going on there. And I know we don't get a direct say at all times or anything, but I think it's important to people like me and people like all the listeners, virtually every listener that I've heard from, it's a big deal for.

0:04:35 Thomas: I don't think it is something just to leave for academics. And in general, I think that, you know, one comment about the particular debaters that we had, Eli and James, they were, from what I could find, and still to this day, I don't know that I have a good alternative for two more speakers to find, people who are willing to have that discussion, especially for four hours, you know, people on each side who are really willing to stick up for what they believe in. So I don't, you know, it's not as easy as just, oh, I'll find whoever I want at any time. A lot of people just, just reject the offers. I've emailed, I've emailed a lot of people to be honest about, um, online harassment before about, uh, about trigger. It's just all kinds of stuff like that.

0:05:20 Thomas: And the most common thing is no response. And I certainly understand. To some extent, it's like, why should I come on to a podcast and talk about things? There's not a whole lot to gain, especially if you think that people are not receptive to your point of view. So I think people are afraid of that. But Eli and James were absolutely great for this reason, that they were both willing to fight for the thing. So no, I don't really think it's just a question up for academics and lecturers. And furthermore, I mean, James, I can't remember if he's currently in a position still, but on and off has been a lecture or a professor of some kind. And Eli worked in Safe Spaces. So, I mean, they both did actually have relevant experience, so I suppose I'd be someone who doesn't have relative, relevant experience other than I did go to college.

0:06:12 Thomas: I've heard of what a college is, so that's all I have to say on that. But again, let's jump off from what you said about, you said, Jeff, James, and you won't be the only comment, already I'm going to read other comments, but I just saw it because he just made it now and I thought it was funny that right when I said it was universally people wanted another episode, someone made a comment saying, "No, but you said James's summary of safe space terminology being hijacked," which is so odd to me because Eli's whole argument is this is the safe space definition, that I work in, that I've saved spaces across the country in universities. And it's people like James and others who are hijacking it. So I think it's a little weird.

0:06:57 Thomas: Now, I'm not saying that that's a 100% sound argument. I think that's what I want to look at that I didn't get a chance to look at last episode. How do we decide who is hijacking what? So Jeff points, I mean, it seems like Jeff has his position here. He seems to be much more pro-James, and I don't mean to dismiss what he's saying because of that, but that seems to the angle that he's coming from.

And as such, he said James's summary has been hijacked by Eli. Now, I just don't quite see it that way. One of Eli's best points, I think, was when he referenced the Peter Boghossian tweet that said something like, it was a list of 20 safe spaces and his tweet was 20, I actually have it up, 20 colleges with safe spaces, translation 20 nurseries where you'll strengthen the conclusions you came in with and Eli pointed out, look, these are, and it's even listed, here's, I asked Eli for a source on what he was saying and he didn't even need a source because it's literally in the link that Peter Boghossian tweeted, it talks about the fact that, you know, Eli counted them out, but most of them are LGBT safe spaces. Some of them Are Green Zone, which is safe space for veterans. And it's right there in the very link that Boghssian was tweeting.

So I thought that was an excellent point on Eli's part where it's not just a question of, okay, look, here's these people making fun of safe spaces, but they mean a particular kind of safe space. I think it's incumbent upon people who are ridiculing something to be reasonably clear about what it is they're ridiculING.

0:08:37 Thomas: Now, I know you can, if we're talking about making jokes, you could just lose that to death. I mean, you Could just clarify a joke to death and at a certain point, that's unreasonable. Reasonable. I mean, if someone wants to make just a joke, ha ha, funny joke, it's unreasonable to expect, no, you need to clarify every single time exactly what you're talking about. But I would point out that people like Bogosian and James and others who are criticizing this, they aren't really making jokes. This isn't really a laughing matter. I'm sure there's the annoying trigger warning joke I've made fun of over and over that is not funny because it's just so overused. And there's jokes about safe spaces here or there, but that wasn't a joke. I mean time, I mean, that tweet right there, safe spaces, nurseries where you'll strengthen the conclusions you came in with. I mean I think that's very literally his criticism.

0:09:25 Thomas: So I think when you're ridiculing something in that way and when you're insulting something in that way, I think you ought to know, especially when in the link you're tweeting, I think you want to know what it is. And I think you ought to be specific and not tweet a link where it's talking about green zones and LGBT safe spaces that are specifically how Eli defined them. And some of the colleges in the link, you can, uh, I will post this link in the show notes. I'll post the link to the link that Peter Boghossian linked, et cetera, et cetera. Um, some of them are safe zones, which may be distinct from safe space. I'm not sure. I don't know all the technical details, but from what I'm reading in their description, it's about creating, uh, an environment as a whole.

0:10:13 Thomas: It's actually not a certain room or a certain whatever like that. This one, for example, I'm reading right now, and this is in several of the colleges that are referenced. It says you can become a member of the safe zone and you can display a sticker in your classroom if you want. And that just means you're kind of a resource. It doesn't mean, now before people go crazy, that sticker doesn't mean no counter ideas are allowed in this room.

So it's not a safe space kind of thing. But a lot of the ones that it's talking about, that this link is talking about that Boghossian tweeted, is just saying you can take a three hour, I think if you want, you can volunteer. It's not mandatory, but if you wanna help the safe zone initiative, you Can take a three hour course and it just teaches you about some of the issues these students might be facing. And then when you display the sticker somewhere, wherever you want, I think students and faculty alike can do it, and other staff, that just means you've had the training, you can be a resource if someone needs you.

Now, who knows if this was due to time or whatever, but I don't even think Eli mentioned that, and certainly that's not in James' definition of a safe space, but this safe zone and green zone and stuff like that, it does seem to be a lot of these 20, and it just, I mean, can't we expect, especially if people like Bogosian and James and all that, especially if their main message, which I agree with, is one of a battle of ideas, being open to, you know, Peter's whole book is about being doxastically open and changing people's mind and all that.

0:11:53 Thomas: Can we at least expect that you'll read through your links before you link them and like, and know what you're talking about? Is that, isn't that the least we can expect? Not so long ago, I think it was about a month ago,I reposted this on Twitter. Peter Boghossian linked an Info Wars link to prove a point he was making about, I think it was safe spaces or trigger warnings, one or the other. And even Matt Dillahunty called him out and said, are you really linking InfoWars right now? I think that was all he said. Like, is this really happening? We just need to be careful of that. I mean, what could be more agenda-driven than finding sources from Alex Jones and linking them when it proves your point? I mean that is a terrible source. That is not not reliable. I went back just to make sure I wasn't just speaking, you know, out of my ass on this, and it actually was in the same thread that I mentioned where Boghossian had tweeted about the 20 safe spaces.

0:12:49 Thomas: So within that same thread, he tweeted a link from Alex Jones from InfoWars saying that some people freaked out, some students, you know, protested and requested a safe space after seeing Trump in chalk. Turns out, if you look that up on Snopes, didn't exactly happen. And so I just think that these things need to be taken into account. I mean, it's one thing if you're anti-safe spaces and anti-trigger warnings and you're supposedly all about a free exchange of ideas, but make sure you are actually evidence-based. Make sure you're not citing Alex Jones or doing things like that or retweeting links and not even reading them fully before you start criticizing them. I mean, stuff like that matters. I think that that all gets lost. And both sides do it. I'm not trying to pick on one side on this.

0:13:35 Thomas: These are just the examples at hand. But that stuff gets lost in the in-group, out-group and the claiming of sides and all that. It becomes like politics where each side just kind of ignores the bad parts of their side and only focuses on the bad part of the other side. But I really hope we can do a little bit better than that, just because we're being rational is so supposedly important to our community, so... But back to the general issue of safe spaces, the main thing up for debate there, as you'll remember, was Eli saying, "Look, here's what a safe space is. I work in safe spaces. There's thousands of examples all across the country. Every day, they're X." And then James saying, "Well, you've lost the definition." I think he made a really good point when he made the meme comparison.

0:14:22 Thomas: That's interesting to think about. I don't know that it's exactly analogous because Eli makes a good argument that these safe spaces exist all throughout the country. It's just the ones you hear about are the misuses. Whereas meme, I mean, that has just taken over the internet. That's pretty much a bajillion to one in terms of use versus misuse or, well, however you want to put that. I mean the way it's used now, the way the word meme is used now, every single day, a kajillion times on the internet versus a Dawkins book from the 70s or whatever it is. He's definitely lost that one. Whereas I think Eli makes a good point that if it's used every day, if the term safe space is used every day, then that's still the correct term.

0:15:07 Thomas: I still, I'm sympathetic. This one's tough. I think a lot of people, this really showed in comments where people already stood to to begin with, because a lot of people just, you know, doubled down on their own side and just said like, yeah, well, of course, yeah. Well, of course, and just repeated the argument. It's kind of interesting because that is one of those arguments where I don't fully know where I stand other than to say, I think both those things are true. I think safe spaces are in use appropriately and with the right definition all across the country. But I also see a dangerous trend that people are trying to make campus-wide safe spaces. The whole example of Mariam Namazi that Eli brings up, I don't know if it's because of the episode I did, but I did an episode way back when, when that happened, about how the, sort of in response to Eli's first episodes on here, about how they have a safe space policy.

0:16:03 Thomas: The student union at that college, Goldsmiths, has a safe place policy that they say applies to any speaker and any student group. So, that's an example. I mean, it's hard to know. I've seen throughout this whole discussion, I've seen, I don't know, 10, 12. It's hard to say that that's representative of the entire university climate in the entire world. But it's definitely something to worry about. And I would say all that we should do now is if you're going to criticize safe spaces, just make it clear you mean campus-wide safe spaces or something. I mean, I don't think it's that hard. Twitter, it does suck because I think it is a battle to see who gets to use the shorter term so that, you know, your Twitter character limit doesn't constantly hit. Everyone's like, no, I want to call it just safe.

0:16:51 Thomas: Then that way I can say a bunch of scathing things after that and I won't hit my 140 character limit. But yeah, I think it's tough. I think campus-wide safe space would be a good critique, a good way to create, because I'll be right there with anybody who wants to say campus-wise safe spaces are a bad idea. Eli has said that too. I mean, he said he would be on the same side. And so that seems like an easy way to me to resolve all that. Let's just, if you're going to criticize safe spaces and you really do only mean this type of safe space, i.e. campus-wide or some sort of overreaching safe space policy, just try to signify that in your discourse. Don't share articles that are actually only talking about the strict use of safe spaces, etc. So, that's kind of where I stand on that.

0:17:36 Thomas: It's a tough issue because we unfortunately, we, I mean, no one's collected the data that I know of. It'd be something that I would like to try to do, but I don't know that anyone's collected the data of, here's how many universities there are that, I don't know, in what, the English-speaking universities, I guess, because Goldsmiths is in the UK, so I guess we'd even branch out there. I don't know, in the Western world, I don't know what you would even want to count. And then here's how many have a overreaching safe space policy. No one has done that math, and I think that's important. I mean, what is it? 5%, 2%, 50%? I think that makes a difference. If it's 5%, then I think Eli's right. If it's 20, going on 30% or something, then I would be worried. So until someone has that data, I think let's be safe and just try to specify which type of safe space you are, in fact, mocking or criticizing. Let me read a comment by Kristinn Theodorsson. Sorry for not being able to pronounce names that aren't really easily American.

0:18:40 Thomas: Lovely rant about the Trump thing. Okay, so this was on... let me say what this was on. This was on the... oh, this comment was on my last commentary episode, so the last episode. It wasn't on one of the interview episodes. Lovely rant about the Trump thing. Yes, PC culture is problematic, but no excuse to support Trump. Milo and his friends are a juvenile bunch. You could do one more commentary about this. This is one of the comments that led me to believe that I could do more commentary on this. Give She says, the shirt gate thing and more are perhaps a part of the PC culture debate, and I think Eli misrepresented the SJW attitude to these things, because they really are unnecessarily damning and overwhelming at times, like James said and complained about. Blowing that off as nothing is all too common. The problem with SJW should be acknowledged, I think.

0:19:29 Thomas: So, yeah, and I actually, the reason I liked this comment was because I wanted to talk about just that thing in this extended time. So I've I've been talking quite a bit against the James side, quote unquote, I know that's not really, I don't want to misrepresent it as two even, totally distinct sides, because people have commented on that, but anyway, I've been talking kind of pro-Eli, anti-James side for the first part, now let me say where I think I agree with James, and I even, you know, chimed in on the original podcast, yeah, this Shirtgate thing, I'm going back and looking this up, and I mean, I remembered at the time, of course, some, for anyone who doesn't know, this is when they landed a, it was an incredible scientific achievement.

0:20:16 Thomas: They live streamed coverage of the spacecraft Philae, I think, however you would pronounce that, it landed on a comet. This was in November 2014. The Rosetta mission is what it was. So, it's a huge, huge achievement. Some guy who worked on this was wearing a shirt with, well, how would you describe that? I suppose scantily clad women. I don't think there's any nudity, but they are posing weirdly and provocatively. And it's a weird shirt. I'll be honest, I would never wear a shirt like that in a thousand years. Turns out a woman actually made the shirt for this dude. And here, I'll read the tweet. I made a shirt for one of my close pals for his birthday.

0:21:03 Thomas: Did not expect this, is what she tweeted. So there was a absolute shit storm, and that spawned the hashtag shirt storm over this. And I understand wanting to say like, hey, maybe just don't wear that shirt if you're going to be on TV. But it got really, really vicious and really bad. And I think it's safe to say, if Eli wants to portray this as, oh, nothing, that's no big deal, which he did, he really did write this off in those original episodes. As He was saying the feminists who would criticize and go nuts over this shirt are a minority. Well, they're a minority who brought a grown man to tears on a live broadcast the following day, or maybe it was later that evening.

0:21:51 Thomas: It was so fast. I think it was the following day. I mean, they brought this grown man to tears saying he was really sorry for wearing a shirt. And, you know, look, I agree that you probably shouldn't wear that shirt when you're going on a live stream, but to paint this as feminists who have no real power in it and they're just kind of a small minority that, well, no. I mean, when you get that kind of reaction, I'm sorry, I don't think you can say that that's a tiny minority of people. And I think when Eli is on the side of being very sympathetic, empathetic to people having trauma, people going through who might be triggered by stuff, that sort of thing. You got to be at least a little sensitive to the reaction that this community, this online shitstorm was able to get out of this poor guy.

0:22:44 Thomas: Because, okay, bottom line is when a girl makes him this shirt for his birthday and he wears it, you can't really say he's like a misogynist for that, can you? I mean, it would be one thing, I think you can say, bad judgment. You know, I can say that. Bad judgment, maybe don't wear that shirt when you're going to be on a big live stream or even on TV. But does it really warrant the kind of viciousness that we saw? Now, I know that goes around, again, all this stuff goes around. It goes around both sides. I get it. But I just think that this is strong evidence that this wasn't just a tiny minority of people that can be easily ignored. I don't think it was ignored at all. It was covered on CNN, The Telegraph. Let's see, I got a list here. Talking Points Memo, Daily Mail, The Guardian.

0:23:31 Thomas: Widely covered, got a lot of press. I get it. I mean, I don't think Eli should just write that off. I think it's a significant number of people who caused that reaction. Alright, I like this idea of going through comments that kind of launch into bigger topics, so I got one here that was very long, someone who's a huge fan of people like Sargon of Akkad and is very clearly on the anti-social justice side, makes only that this person says they are definitely voting for Trump, uh, over Hillary because of, of exactly what I said didn't exist, which is people who are so anti social justice that they'll vote for Trump. Now you'll recall Mr. Commenter that I also said, if people are that dumb like you, uh that they're They're going to make that decision to vote for someone who's insane, someone who has no business being in the White House, or even a major candidate.

0:24:25 Thomas: If you are really going to vote for Trump, and forgive me for speaking so plainly, because this is, usually I try to give commenters the benefit of the doubt and stuff, but you were very direct about how off I was for not understanding parts of James' miraculously perfect arguments. If you're really voting for Trump, if you really are because of social justice warriors, quote unquote, then you're, I mean, you're beyond hope. There's no, there's nothing the social justice side could do to stop you from voting for a racist, sexist, misogynist, actual misoginist who is behaving in ways that are incomprehensible for a major candidate, that you would vote for him over Hillary because of the social justice movement.

0:25:12 Thomas: I mean, I don't even know what to say. I mean, that, that's, that is not anyone's fault. I know that is your fault, sir, whoever you are. I think you're being too neutrally biased. Eli's side knows damn well who the brunt of the trigger warning jokes are aimed at. It's patently obvious. No one ever in serious mainstream conversation has complained about... "This video may contain graphic content, viewer discretion advised," in fact, that's the damn norm. So if a joke is to be made about trigger warnings, spoiler alert, it's probably not that. No extra nuance be made here, unless you want to believe that out of nowhere the internet is deciding to meme against a perfectly normal mainstream view of how we consume media, out of nowhere.

0:25:57 Thomas: Redundant, but anyway, yeah, that's, that's a consideration. I mean, without, you, you could take away some of the snark of your comment, but that is a consideration.

0:26:08 Thomas: But here's what I'll say on this, because this commenter, like I mentioned, thought James was right on on trigger warnings and that Eli and I were morons for not understanding what he was saying.

0:26:20 Thomas: James both claimed that the jury is out and also would not back away when we said, well, then is ridiculing trigger warnings appropriate? He said, well, it will be if it turns out, you know, such and such, which is a terrible argument because you can't just bank on how you think. You can't both claim the jury's out, which was his claim. The jury is still out on this. We don't know. The research might indicate that, you Know, maybe these aren't don't help or something like that. You can't both claim that and claim that it's okay to ridicule them because maybe it'll be okay. It'll turn out that we were right to ridicule them. That doesn't work because then you can say, OK, well, maybe we're also right to to Be in favor of trigger warnings that you can't just appeal to, well, maybe the research will turn out this way someday, but here's why I put the fault more on James in episode three, because this guy is saying it's obvious.

0:27:13 Thomas: It's obvious that we're not just talking about the normal graphic content kind of trigger warnings. Well, as it turns out, as I mentioned on last episode, those are the kind Eli was talking about the whole time. Right. And furthermore, James was the one who dominated the conversation in that episode. So given that James dominated the confrontation, would not let Eli clarify, and that's my fault, I should have let him poke in a little more, given that that's the case, and he never bothered to find out what kind of trigger warnings Eli even supports, I put that a little bit more on him, not 100%, but a littlebit more on James. So I think that was an appropriate criticism to say that he never really clarified his argument there because, as I said, Eli and actually more people that I've talked to, that person I referenced last episode who said trigger warnings would be a huge help to her, turns out she only supports the ones that are like violence, rape, all the stuff you think is the norm.

0:28:08 Thomas: Well, it turns out most trigger warning supporters might end up being that. So that's why I'm really worried about the trigger warning debate. Debate. I really am, because I wonder how much of a debate it really is, and how much is just people picking sides based on incomplete knowledge of the criticisms they're hearing. And I'll put it right back on you, commenter, if it's so obvious that those ones are good, and it turns out those are the ones Eli is supporting, then it can't be that James' research was talking about those, right? I mean, there definitely was a miscommunication there, and I think, I mean, I put that a little more on James, on myself too, I think I should have done better to clarify, but I didn't know, this was actually completely educational to me, I didn't know how big of the divide was in trigger warnings and who supports what.

0:28:58 Thomas: But it's a good time to talk about that now. I mentioned the person that I mentioned last episode, a little inception going on there. Now I sent her a URL, I've been even having a hard time finding a list of trigger warnings that people do or whatever, there's not even good data on that, but I found some sort of Tumblr page that had common trigger warnings we should do, and I asked this person from last episode, I said, can you tell me, since you are pro trigger warning, you say you're pro trigger warning, you know, you have PTSD and you really want it for that reason and all that. Do you support these triggers or do you support use of these? And here's what they are. I'll read a few of them. Swearing. I guess for kids or something. Rape.

0:29:43 Thomas: Abuse. Sure, sure. Child abuse. Pedophilia. Sure. Self-injurious behavior. Self harm. Eating disorders. Talk talk of drug use. Now that, yeah, that's getting a little weird. Suicide. Okay. Fair enough. Descriptions of medical procedures. Descriptions or pictures of medical procedures, even if they don't contain blood or gore. Really? Is that corpses, skulls, or skeletons? I get you on corpses. Skulls, or skeletons is a bit, that is a bit protective. I think you can have a skeleton. There is a skeleton in the Goonies. Like, I think we're okay on skeletons. Needles, discussion of isms, shaming or any kind. Okay. This is where it goes a little crazy.

0:30:28 Thomas: Uh, so racism, classism. So you have to say trigger warning classism, you have to give a warning for that. See, this is okay. I'm not going to go through the rest of these, but this is where I think I will draw my personal line. Trigger warnings that can actually relate relate to real PTSD, real stuff, actual stuff, violence, you know, rape, suicide was a decent one. I understand if you've, you know, someone you know just committed suicide, it's, you might want a heads up. And the fact that it's so low cost in terms of time, in terms of like resources to actually give a trigger warning, which was what Eli kept trying to say, then I don't, I'm fine with that. It's fine. Trigger warning, there's some blood here. There's some, you know, warning, there's graphic, whatever.

0:31:14 Thomas: I'm cool with that. Anything that, but anything that is beyond that, this is getting a little ridiculous. Spiders, insects, snakes. That's getting, if it ever got to the point where those were mandatory trigger warnings in a classroom, that would be pretty crazy. Now, I don't, I haven't found any instance of these being mandated yet. So that's another point that Eli makes. Like no one's mandating these. However, we do have transgender bathroom bills that are happening. This is a bigger problem in our society. We should be focusing on that is a point Eli made. So, you know, I'm against those trigger warnings. I think we really need to actually stipulate where we are on that. Any trigger warning relating to actual PTSD, because that's what every argument I've heard is that, oh, it triggers PTSD.

0:31:59 Thomas: Okay. But then we're just talking about those. And the two people I've, I've talked to in detail on this, I've heard from a lot of people, but talked to two people in detail on this, they both have said, Eli is one of them, and the commenters, the other, or the person I messaged, they both have said, oh, yeah, I don't support these. I don't support these weird extended trigger warnings about classism. Trigger warning classism, that's going too far. I mean, it really is. You don't need a trigger warning for that. You can just encounter classism and say, "Oh, that's classism." Huh. I mean, you're not going to have PTSD from classism. That's not going to happen. That really would be a very particularly weak way to have a society where we're so afraid of encountering a description or a depiction of classism that we need a warning for it.

0:32:50 Thomas: I can understand why that, you can still make the argument, oh, it doesn't cost you anything. Just do the warning. Yeah, but when we start adding up all these things, I mean if you need a trigger warning for that, what don't you need a trigger warning for? If you need one for spiders and insects, you know, what don't you need a warning for? Nazi paraphernalia. That was another one. That's funny. Slimy things. Trigger warning, slimy things. This is a real list. I'll, maybe I'll link it. So this is a list and this wasn't, keep in mind, this isn't a list of, ah, check out these stupid trigger warnings. This is the list of trigger warnings for spiders. This is, again, I don't know how big this Tumblr is. It might be nothing, but it is a list saying, hey, if you're going to post pictures or notes about these things, issue a trigger warning. This is a pro-trigger warning page.

0:33:38 Thomas: It wouldn't be an episode without some Mike Paps comments. Listeners, long time listeners will know who that is. I got it, there's a quick one. "Thomas, I really wish you would stop calling one side the social justice side and the other side, the other side, or the antisocial justice side. I'm sure I and James as well support the ideals of social justice as much as Eli does." Yeah, I, there's no, I don't know what to call it. No one has come up with names.

I literally don't know what to call these sides, and I'm not, like, even if I just want to be descriptive, like, like I'm merely trying to just describe the two sides, and I don't know how to do it because they don't, all they have are insulting names, like they're, seriously, there's, and Mike didn't even offer like a better thing, you know, he just, he just said, so he says I should call one the social justice warrior side because he doesn't like that side, and then that, but that's like an insult, I'm not gonna describe a side insultingly if I can help it, I'm gonna try to decide, describe both sides in a neutral way when I'm trying to talk with both sides or describe both sides. I don't, it's really hard. If anyone has a suggestion on that, let me know. And then further, here's another comment from Mike that I found funny for some certain reasons.

"Thomas, maybe you can explain this to me. You said that someone like Milo speaking hurts transgendered people. Why is that? I asked for two reasons. First of all, my son-in-law is transgender, and he thinks people like Mila are idiots. It might, might annoy him that such idiots exist, or anger him when such sentiments hold sway and result in legislation that prevents him from using certain bathrooms, but it doesn't hurt him."

0:35:17 Thomas: "I'm skeptical of that claim. Secondly, I'm an atheist living in Alabama. I am surrounded by people who think I'm wrong, people who should suffer in hell for eternity. My sentiments toward them mirror my son-in-law's feelings toward people like Milo." Yeah, I agree with that. "Now, I am not totally heartless, and can imagine some emotionally fragile people being hurt, but I think in most cases it's anger and the desire for retribution that motivate people who wish to no-platform him, not hurt feelings. Also, are we helping those emotionally fragile people by no-platforming Milo, or might it not be better for them to see large numbers of people protesting in support of them and speaking in opposition to Milo?" I think you'll recall, this is weird, Mike, because this is exactly what I said.

0:36:04 Thomas: So I don't really know who the question is for, because I said just that. I'm not in favor of no-platforming Milo. I said that. I'm not in favor of it. I think we should let Milo speak. He should be allowed to speak at a university if a group wants him to, and people should be allowed to protest it. So not really sure who you are. I guess you're just arguing against when I said what he says hurts transgender people, and And, uh, yeah, I'll explain that to you. Um, people with human hearts are sometimes hurt when people talk like that about them. I mean, that's, I don't know what else to say, man. I'm, I'm being a little flippant. I understand, but I don'T know what else to tell you like that. It is hurtful when people say transgender, when, when someone who's transgendered, when someone I've had, uh.

0:36:49 Thomas: Few different trans people on this show, someone who has heard it all has gone through a life of abuse, of physical and sometimes and really being ostracized their whole lives. Someone who's gone through that, finally coming around to showing what they, you know, have felt their true gender is their whole life. And to hear someone like Milo say, no, you're just diseased mentally and you shouldn't be allowed or you shouldn'T be treated by having, you you know, gender reassignment surgery or by doing that, you need to be, you know—and so getting treatment for this disease that you have rather than accepting their gender choice, yeah, I mean, that's hurtful.

0:37:34 Thomas: I don't get—I mean, again, I think he shouldn't be no platform because he's not advocating violence. I Don't—and that was another comment I should talk about, but I'll get to it in a sec. He's not Advocating Violence. I think that is a clean line we can draw. If there is a line we can draw, but it's the same line as, that's the same as free speech in general. I mean, you can, in general society, you can say anything as long as you're not threatening actual violence. So that, I don't think that's a new line we're drawing. And I don'T think he is doing that. He just, he has a different theory on transgenderism, as he would say. And I DON'T, but, but it's still, I mean isn't it easy to see how that would hurt someone's feelings? I mean, that's not hard to imagine.

0:38:20 Thomas: So I don't, I just thought that was funny. Mike puts all, Mike and actually the only reason I bring it up is it's not just Mike. There are commenters who put all the responsibility on the hearers of the, of the words, which I get it. I, I think that way for myself. You know, I, we'll say that people can't really say stuff that's going to get to me, but that That doesn't mean when someone says something shitty to me that I can't be mad at them. Like, I can still say, you shouldn't say that. And that's all I'm doing. That's all we're doing, Mike. We're saying you shouldn't say that. So not just Mike, there was a theme of some comments of like, yeah, just you should be able to listen to anything and never be hurt by it. And I just think that's unnecessarily callous and focusing only on one side.

0:39:09 Thomas: It's fine to say, try not to let things affect you. I get it. You know, you can say, try to try not to let, you know, sticks and stones can break your bones, et cetera. But, but still, it doesn't mean you can't also call out the other side for and get, Try to ask them to not say shitty things. It's not that hard. It's a all or nothing thing. We can do both. And when I focus on the other side, who are the ones saying shitty things, I get called out by people like Mike saying, you know, why should this affect you? Explain this to me, Thomas. Why does this hurt transgender people? Really? You don't understand why that hurts transgender people. How about you focus on people actually saying shitty thing for once? I don't ever see Mike, I don't ever see you commenting saying like, uh, yeah, no, that's shitty that he says that maybe I should go, maybe we should go try to raise awareness on that.

0:40:02 Thomas: You know, it's always the other thing. It's always, it's always someone's responsibility to not be hurt by someone saying shitty things. And I, I just, again, in the end, I think we agree, cause I don't want Milo to be no-platformed, but I just think it's curious. I think it's curious that it's always, for some commenters, it's always on people of color to be totally fine when there's a KKK speaker because they should be able to get education out of it. I don't think it's fine. I think you should protest. I think you should throw a fit, but within the law and within reason and all that. But it doesn't mean you have to be totally stoic about it. There's no expectation that we're all supposed to be stoics like the great Greek philosophers. I don't think that's how most people go through life.

0:40:50 Thomas: Last comment I bring up. Someone messaged me that they thought I was pretty crazy for suggesting that a student group who would invite the KKK to come speak would be ostracized, and that it's a result of my being raised in California, and that in the South, things are much worse. And, uh, this certainly gave me pause, um, and yeah, I mean, I do, I am from California, so I, I, do admit that's, that can skew things for me. Uh, I was raised in a very conservative area though, so I will, I do have that going for me, actually, incredibly conservative. California is liberal, but it's the cities that are liberal. So it's, you know, San Francisco, LA, uh, those areas, the every, everywhere else is actually very conservative for the most part. And that's where I was raised. And actually, that's even where I went to college. I went to a university that the surrounding area is very conservative, but it was, of course, a super liberal college, because universities tend to be that.

0:41:58 Thomas: Now, I'm open to, certainly open to the idea that in the South it could be different. I really am. And I did say that I thought there's no chance that a student group would, in earnest, and not for for some joke or to prove a point or to be anti-KKK, but if they in earnest invited a KKK member, I do not think that that would be welcomed. I mean, I think they would be ostracized and I searched it. I can't find that it's ever happened, but the person who sent the message did say, well, what about the racist chant recently? And I think, I'm not positive, but I think think they are referring to the SAE thing. That's a Sigma Alpha something, Epsilon maybe. It was a frat where they were chanting.

0:42:46 Thomas: I'm going to say it, and I'm also going to give you guys, any new listeners, a heads up. This is a result of speaking with Ishmael from the Angry Black Rant, who insists that when we're covering these things, we should say the words. So there was a chant that that was, there will never be a nigger SAE, you can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me. So, that is what they said in the video. You can find the video, it's a nine-second clip. And he cited that as evidence, and I will point out that the backlash was huge against that. So yes, that did happen, and that's horrible. That frat is definitely racist, and so it does exist. I mean, I don't think it doesn't exist. I didn't mean to paint any sort of picture of like there's no racism in America.

0:43:34 Thomas: I just think that campuses tend to be so much more liberal and given that any event like this receives so much coverage. And I looked it up. So what happened after this video is two students were expelled from it. Imagine, I mean that's a big deal, expelling students for a video where, you know, you're chanting something awful. I get it, but, but that's expulsion for a verbal offense is a big deal. That's taking it seriously.

And, um, and also the, uh, the entire fraternity was disbanded there. So they, and, and the, the school said like, yeah, easiest decision we ever made. Literally. I think that was one of the quotes like, yeah, we're definitely just disbanding this. And it, and there's more to it than that because it's obviously there was actual discrimination happening, not just chanting, chanting, which I'm not saying is not bad, of course, but there was, they were also, in addition to that, they weren't allowing black people into their frat and were actively discouraging them and threatening them. So that's a violation of Title IX, and Oh, wait, it might be Title 11. Sorry, I'm so used to it being Title 9. But I think it says here Title 6, actually. I got to get my Roman numerals, but Title V1. So it says Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act. So, I mean, that's a major violation.

That's not just here we're having someone speak. That is actually also discrimination. So, and I will say to this person's credit, that was action that the university had to take. So if we're trying to look at, does a university need to step in? And in this case, yes, but because it was a violation of actual Title VI, like it's illegal.

0:45:13 Thomas: I mean, they can't do what they're doing. So in that case, I mean it's a little different. Now, let's say this frat, hypothetical, let's say this frat hadn't been actively discriminating that we, you know, we can't, there wasn't any example of that, but they maybe were racist and they tried to invite someone from the KKK to speak. What kind of, what kind of reaction could we expect? Well, honestly, I mean, if this chant is bad, inviting someone in the Klan to speak, I just, I'm sorry, I still can't believe that wouldn't be met with total, you know, just ostracizing. Really, on a university? Maybe there is one somewhere in this country where they wouldn't be ostracized, but just look at the reaction that happened to this.

0:45:59 Thomas: It's hard to imagine. So, that goes back to my point, which is I don't think the university exactly needs to draw a line. I think that you draw a line when you hopefully admit students who are smart and you educate them. Hopefully, that does enough of drawing a line, I'll allow that if a university invites a speaker who genuinely threatens violence, of course, I mean, that I think that's a pretty easy category, but one comment that I saw that I thought was interesting was someone said, "Oh yeah, let's see where it was. Trans women of color are the most at-risk population in the country. Transwomen are currently in large numbers being attacked, raped, and murdered for being trans. Yes, a college group that invites Milo to speak probably already agrees with him, but the whole point of the group bringing him to speak would be to get this message to a larger audience that was previously unfamiliar with him."

0:46:53 Thomas: I'm not sure that's true, actually, really. I mean, these campus groups, like when a secular group has Mariam Namazi speak, I don't know that it's just a little classroom, you know, or it might be a little bigger depending on how big the school is and the student group. But I don't know. They want him to speak. Maybe the message is going to get to some people, but it's not as though he's broadcasting this to the entire school. That's not how it works, that I know. If he is promoting transphobia, then the university is directly contributing to the spread of violence against trans women. No counter-protest is going to unspread the hate he has spread. Okay, so, and then to this person's credit, to this commenter's credit. I replied and I said, I don't think, as egregious as Milo's views are, he is in no way advocating violence against trans people.

0:47:41 Thomas: He is, I totally agree. Well, I'll just read my comment because she ended up conceding, and so it must have been okay. I have nothing but agreement with you that these issues are hugely important and transphobia is an enormous problem, but Milo's view is that trans people need therapy instead of gender reassignment surgery. Can you really say that that promotes or encourages violence against trans people in any way? This is why people are wary of this kind of censorship. Who gets to decide that he's encouraging violence in this case? It seems like a very species connection to me. And I don't think we should stifle free speech based on reasoning like that. And then she actually conceded. So she just wasn't familiar with Milo. That rarely happens, but kudos to Kate for conceding in real time. Never happens.

0:48:26 Thomas: But that's why I want to err on the side of not stifling the speech. Because look, you know, most of us here, I'm sure I have some Milo fans listening. I think I do. But a lot of us here will recognize his views on transgender, transgenderism, transgender people are not right. I mean, they're not right, they're varying levels of hurtful depending on how flippant he's deciding to be, and I think a lot of us agree on that. Where I disagree is I just don't think that should be ground, I don't think we should be making these tenuous connections of, well, transphobia is a problem, and he's contributing to transphobia, therefore he's contributing to violence. Like, those those connections, who gets to decide that that's sound logic? You know, people aren't really held accountable for that.

0:49:13 Thomas: And that's why I don't want universities to be in that business, really, when it comes to student groups. When it comes a commencement speech where it's the university itself, sure, be as strict as you want to be. But when it come to a university group has invited this person to speak, they want to attend it, I just, I don't like that. I don't' like that no no platforming. I think that, well, I've already made the case. I made the case last episode. I thank a lot of people agree, a lot of people disagree. It's a pretty divisive issue, so I'm not confident that I have the exact right answer. I just really do think it's, if, like I said before, I'll make this my last thing. If you already have people who agree with Milo, then blocking Milo from coming and speaking is, I don't, I just don't think that solves it.

0:50:02 Thomas: Like, I think that the best way to do it is to encourage more speech. I really do. And again, I'll put the one obvious caveat that if someone is actually, actually threatening and encouraging violence, then that's a different story. But if you're just making a tenuous little argument of, well, wait a minute, because he promotes this, and that's part of this, and then there's this going on, it's too tenuous. It's too indirect. I don't think the rule should be if you can draw some, you know, facile conclusion based on, you know, some loose reasoning that someone is promoting violence and therefore the university has to block him. I don't like that. And that's it. Thanks for all the comments. I got the million I didn't get to, but I got to a lot of them today. So I feel good about that. And I will say thank you so much for listening. This will be the last commentary on this debate.

I'm not, like I said, I pushed it to another one because people wanted me to get into some of the stuff I didn't get into, but this will be it until we, but it won't be it for this issue because this is a hugely important issue. It's a hugely popular issue. And I think that's a signal that it's a huge divide in our community. And And I want to continue to do my best to facilitate that debate in any way I can.

So maybe we'll have a debate with more people, with different people, but that'll be the end for this one in particular. So that's it for my show. Thank you so much to my patrons. I'll thank you on Thursday more formally, but if you want to go to patreon.com/atheist and support the show, you'll get the bonus Jake content.

0:51:33 Thomas: We did a bonus episode that just came out that actually it had some friendly banter, but it also had an interesting issue at its heart. So that was fun. You can get that on patreon.com/atheist. Atheist, thank you so much to everyone listening and thank you for your comments. And here's hoping that we can bridge this gap, at least somewhat, you know, we can try to heal the community a little bit. I don't know that's going to happen, but this is the only way to make it. To try is to try to see both sides of the issues, which I do my best to do. It doesn't mean I'm neutral on every issue. I think I take stances kind of here and there, depending on where I think the evidence is. But I think that's, that's the only way. And the only ways to actually engage both sides. So I'm doing my best. I really want to try to do that. And thanks to everyone who's helping and who's listening, because you really are contributing to that. So thank you, and I'll see you next show.