SIO10: Jordan B. Peterson is Just Wrong (or lying...or both).

Transcript

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

0:00:28 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only with your host Thomas Smith. This is episode number 10. And it's Thursday, so we're going to do some free inquiry. I will say, you know what? We're doing sort of a Trump-free week. Um, I it's, it's been too much now. I know it's a rough week Trump-wise, but I'm going to go ahead and save it for next week. And we're gonna talk about something not Trump related. We're We're going to talk about Sam Harris and his episode with Jordan B. Peterson, who, in my opinion, was completely dishonest and has made quite be honest with you out of misrepresenting Canadian human rights law and deceptive and really deceptivly stirring up paranoia over political correctness and stuff like that and profiting off of transphobia, to be honest. So let's, know those are big accusations, but after doing the research and seeing just how willfully he's misrepresenting everything, I don't know what else to think. And furthermore, as a huge Sam Harris fan, I'm just so disappointed he didn't look into it more. So let's get into those details.

0:01:42 Thomas: Alright, I really, desperately want to try to reach Sam Harris with this episode. Now, I know that might seem absurd in some ways, but someone Someone tweeted him our episode of Opening Arguments number 13 where we talked about Hillary Clinton's emails and he listened to it and he retweeted it and it's one of one of the proudest moments of my podcasting career, actually, so it's possible and I'm hoping if we all tweet this at him, maybe he'll listen. So in an effort to cut to the chase, in case you're listening, Sam, I'm, I just want to say I'm not going to go nuts on you and call you transphobic and call call you a bigot and call you all that. I'm not going to do any of that.

But I'm just going to say that I think you've got a blind spot, and it was one thing when it could sort of be... Brushed off as maybe an issue that you didn't really care about. Sure, maybe you had... Douglas K. Murray on and he went on a bit of a rant that arguably was a bit transphobic, and you sort of endorsed it, but whatever, maybe you weren't paying attention to the whole thing, maybe you didn't care about it that much, whatever. This time you've gone a little too far in your refusal to do your research on your guests. What's even more confusing about Jordan B. Peterson in this episode is you reference having heard a lot about it and followed what

0:03:02 Thomas: He said on this. You even reference a little bit of the criticism is he's received, but you make no effort to challenge him on it, and you provide a platform of, I think what you've boasted is millions of listens, to someone who is just spouting nonsense. He is spouting paranoid nonsense that is just wrong. I'm going to demonstrate that in a minute, but this is why this is so important. And prior to him speaking about it, you endorsed it, saying you fully agree. Here, I'll play the clip.

0:03:36 Clip: Talk briefly about the reasons why you've suddenly become so visible. But I don't think we Should spend a lot of time on them, because I think that's territory where you and I will almost fully converge. And And I think that's not what people are most interested in having us talk about. But

0:03:50 Thomas: And then, at the end of this little speech, he says this.

0:03:53 Clip: And then we'll move on to areas where you and I may not fully agree. Ten

0:03:56 Thomas: So already we've established this is so much more than, oh I'm not aware, what issues are you talking about Peterson? What's your deal? This is, we definitely agree on this, we fully agree on, this we're not even going to spend a lot of time on this because we so fully agree. So Sam, you're endorsing this. You are. So if you're endorseing this and giving someone your platform, which is millions of listeners strong, you better know what he's talking about and you better have verified it. There is no excuse for this. So let's look at these claims. Let's see. Maybe maybe maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're all right. Let us evaluate them So Peterson's fear and outrage comes from this Bill C-16, which just to play another short clip, here's what this does in his own words, I can't obviously play the whole podcast, but he has an extraordinary number of extraordinary claims about this Bill 16. Here's the first little thing he says.

0:04:50 Clip: You can now provisionally be prosecuted under the hate crime, uh, hate crime legislation federally for criticizing someone's choice of fashion, and I'm not being cynical about that.

0:05:04 Thomas: Really? You can now be charged with a hate crime for criticizing someone's fashion? Doesn't that sound a little bit suspicious, Sam? Like, Sam Harris, when you were hearing that, didn't you think, boy, that just cannot be right? Here's all Bill C-16 does. It adds the word gender identity or expression to the Canadian Human Rights Code. That's it. Now, here's the thing. Even if you thought this was a big deal, the funniest thing about this is that each territory now is a little confusing for me because I'm an American, I'm not Canadian. But as I understand it, these territories are somewhat equivalent to states. So this would be like if I said, yeah, all the state laws in the United States already had this.

There's just a federal law now that says the same thing. Well, that's what's happening here. In 2002, the Northwest Territory already added this. And then in 2012, Manitoba added it. And in the same year, Ontario and Nova Scotia added it, so it's already there in Ontario as of 2012. All Bill C-16 does is add it federally. So weirdly enough, this is already applied to Jordan Peterson since 2012, but all of a sudden Bill 16 makes a huge difference to him. So that's the first weird thing. But, like I said, all this does is add the phrase gender identity to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Let me

0:06:24 Thomas: Read the clause in question, a little bit long, but shouldn't be too terrible. The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated consistent with their duties, obligations, and obligations as members of society without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on, and here's what's already in the act, has been so for years and years and year and years, based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or conviction for an offense for which pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

All that will happen now for you people saying the world is going to end is gender identity will be added to those things that are protected, protected from discrimination. And here, the act itself defines what this means. Here are some discriminatory practices. Denial of good service, facility, or accommodation. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of good services,

0:07:45 Thomas: Facilities, or accommodation customarily available to the general public to deny, deny access to. This is all standard stuff. This is a lot like US law as well. Denial commercial premises or residential accommodation. Employment. Denial of employment applications advertisement. Employee organizations. That that one says it is a discriminatory practice for an employee organization on a prohibited ground of discrimination to exclude an individual from full membership, stuff like that, discriminatory policy or practice, Equal Equal wages, that sort of thing. That's what's being protected. This actually has nothing to do with being a college professor.

0:08:25 Thomas: This federal law just does not apply to what he's doing. Now, I guess we can, for the sake of argument and for the sake of trying to evaluate his claims in the fairest way we can, we'll just assume the Ontario law of 2012 that's already been in effect for now five years, we'll assume that's what he is actually talking about since he's, the University of Toronto is in Ontario. Listen to how Jordan Peterson talks about this law and the use of pronouns that he's just not comfortable with. Listen to just how paranoid this is.

0:08:54 Clip: I believe, and I think I have good evidence for believing, that these made-up pronouns, these manufactured pronouns, are part of the lexicon of the radical postmodern slash neo-Marxist left, and it's part of their general agenda to occupy the linguistic territory that we use for common parlance, and I don't like their philosophy, in fact I regard it as reprehensible, to say the least, and because of that I'm not willing to cede linguistic territory to them, certainly not by being being forced to use ideologically would saturate it as an ideologically saturated lexicon. And

0:09:41 Thomas: What kind of paranoid rambling is that? All that this amounts to is some people want you use a certain pronoun when you refer to them. That's it. Some people identify as male when they might appear to be female or vice versa, and some people just would prefer to be gender neutral, they would prefer you say they or them. They'll tell you, here's what I'd prefer, Professor Peterson, how you refer to me, or you can even just not do that, you can just say their name instead, you don't even have to use the pronoun. You You just can't decide you're going to use a different pronoun than what they say. That's all this is.

That's, this is just like, and Haley actually pointed this out and I totally agree. This is like the war on Christmas level paranoia. This is someone who is throwing a tantrum, and just an absolute tantrum over maybe having to call someone by a pronoun that they want. And that's it. That's it, all it is, is everything else he says is nonsense. I'll go, I'll go through some more of the claims, but he's got all kinds of claims. Did you, I already played the one where he thinks if you criticize someone's choice of fashion, you can be charged with a hate crime. That's absurd. That That is absolutely absurd. Now I've got here a letter that was written to him by

0:11:01 Thomas: The Department of Psychology in in response to his videos he did where he complained and whined and whine like a little baby about PC culture and all that, and here's what they wrote, it is so reasonable you will be amazed, he talks about this like it's some incredibly Draconian, threatening letter. Here's what it is. Firstly, let us be clear, I'm starting sort of in the middle here, but firstly let us be clear that the university is committed to the protection of freedom of speech as a core value for our community and for any university in a democratic society. Okay, there you go.

The university is likewise committed to protecting the academic freedom of our faculty members, including their right to criticize the university and society at large with freedom from institutional censorship, as articulated in Article 5 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Faculty Association. So that's already in their agreement. They cannot prohibit criticism or criticism of society. So they already have a great policy on that. The university's commitment to protecting these core values includes your right to express and debate views that may be discomforting or even offensive to others. However, as Professor Ferber has already pointed out to you, these rights are not without limitation and must be exercised in accordance with your responsibilities

0:12:21 Thomas: As a faculty member, including upholding applicable laws. What are these applicable laws? Well, it'll get to that. You have continued to state publicly that if a student or colleague or staff member requests that you refer to them using gender neutral pronouns, you will refuse to do so, and that you do not recognize the rights of others to tell you which personal pronoun to use when addressing them. The law of Ontario, specifically the Ontario Human Rights Code. Now, interesting that this letter doesn't refer to Bill C-16, because that doesn't matter because because this is already in the Ontario Human Rights Code. Now, if we're going to steal man, we'll just pretend that Jordan Peterson is concerned about that law because it applies everywhere.

But he talks about that Law as though that's what is mainly affecting him. But anyway, we'll ignore that. The Ontario Human Right Code protects against discrimination based on gender expression or gender identity. Depending on the context, if personal pronouns are being used, used. The refusal by a teacher or colleague to use the personal pronoun that is an expression of the person's gender identity can constitute discrimination. In many situations, it is not necessary to use personal pronouns at all, but where it is, the personal pronouns that is chosen as the personís gender identity-related and gender expression-related identifier should be used. Your statements that you will refuse to

0:13:42 Thomas: Refer to transgendered persons using gender-neutral pronouns, if they ask you to do so, are contrary to the rights of those persons to equal treatment without discrimination based on their gender identity and gender expression. That's all the university has said. They've said, Hey, you keep threatening to not use pronouns when you're specifically asked by a student to do so. That's discrimination. And mind you, this already is in place for all those other protected groups, age, sex, uh, race. Imagine if this, the equivalent is if Jordan Someone asked you to stop calling them a racial slur, and you said, nope, freedom of speech. I don't have to remember what, I don't want to have to be made to call you what you want to be called. That's absurd. That's legally equivalent. That is all this is doing. Is another absurd claim he makes. Now, I really do not have time to point out every single horrible, stupid claim that Jordan Peterson makes. I wish I did. But I'm trying to make this as fast and as shareable as possible. But here's another one. Here's anther claim he make. Thanks.

0:14:46 Clip: One of those is the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and they basically decided that they have the right to suspend normal legal, legal, normal legal and judicial procedure, and that they can more or less ascribe to themselves whatever rights, they whatever powers they choose, and that's written in their policy statements. And

0:15:04 Thomas: Now this is just absolute nonsense. So he's talking about these social justice tribunals and one of them is the human rights We'll see Tribunal of Ontario. Now, this sounds a little weird again to an American. What from what I gather and I'm on their website, I'm looking at it right here. All this is, is that your legal remedy if you believe you've been discriminated against here, there's a what we do section. If you believe you have experienced discrimination or harassment, you can file an application with the HRTO. The HRTO resolves claims of discrimination and harassment brought under the Human Rights Code in fair, just and timely way. Way, the HRTO first offers parties the opportunity to settle the dispute through mediation.

If the parties do not agree to mediation or mediation does not resolve the application, the application, the HRTO holds a hearing. Now, just like any form of justice, whether it's in the US or in Canada, I'm sure things aren't perfect, the justice system is never perfect, but all this is, is the way you would apply to see if you have been discriminated against. This is who you would appeal to, they would try to mediate it first, if that didn't work, then eventually you'd have to prove your case, and the burden of proof is like a civil case here, it's more likely than not, it is all pretty reasonable. I don't, there's nothing in

0:16:24 Thomas: Here about we get to decide to imprison you or suspend whatever rules or do whatever we want. He just made that up. There's nothing. In here about that. It's, it's completely made up. And by the way, these have existed for a very long time. I mean, it was created in, like, the 50s. It had its name changed from the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2008 to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. So sure, the name changed in 2008, but this has been around forever, for a very long time, and the act, the Human Right Act, has been round for a long time. It's already had race, it's already has sex, it already has age, it has all those other groups. All this does is add gender identity to it. It's not that hard. But now let's listen to the one time that Sam decided to kind of push back a little bit. Here it is.

0:17:14 Clip: I've seen that criticism. I've paid attention to what you've been saying on this topic, and some people have said that you are at least mistaken about the legal implications of these changes in the law or these rulings, but it seems to me the one thing you can't be mistaken about is is the treatment you have received thus far in response to your saying you won't use these pronouns. If the university lawyers hadn't been convinced that I was correct in my interpretation, they wouldn't have sent out a warning that I should stop doing it because it might be illegal. That's the best piece of proof supporting my position that the law has this draconian element because, you know, they didn't send me those letters incautiously. They had their lawyers reviewed the damn legislation and then came to the same conclusion that I did, right?

0:18:03 Thomas: Well, I read you guys the letter. It said, hey, you absolutely express yourself in these videos, do whatever you want, for the most part you can, you're entitled to free speech, all that, there is a restriction based on law that says you can't say you're not going to call someone by the gender pronoun they want. That's it. That is the only issue here. I wonder if that's maybe the major factor. I just wonder if maybe Sam Harris, and I hope he's listening, I doubt he is, but just in case, do you not understand how destructive that would be to a trans person?

This is not, oh, well, you've been treated terribly, Jordan B. Peterson, for saying, just for speech. No, it's not that. He's saying if a trans woman comes into his classroom and says, please use she to refer to me, he is saying he won't do it, and that's against the law. You can't just discriminate against people based on gender identity like that, if you're going to work at a university. If you want to do that in the privacy of your own home, you can. But if you are going to do work at the university, or if you work in the federal government, or provide a business place or accommodations, anything like that, you cannot do that. And just think

0:19:24 Thomas: About that argument he made from a skeptic perspective, because above all, we're supposed to be skeptics, right, Sam? We're all in the skeptic community. He made the argument that because he got sent a letter that told him to maybe stop doing what he's doing, therefore that proves that all of his interpretations of the law are correct. That doesn't follow. He could have just been doing... here's what the reality of it is. Is. He was doing one specific thing, which was saying he wasn't going to use gender pronouns if people asked him, and that's what they sent him a letter about. That doesn't mean that he was right when he said there's going to be these kangaroo court social justice panels, the tribunals that decide whatever his rights are and ignore procedure, and they're going to imprison him.

And like I played the quote at the outset, it's a hate crime to uh Criticize someone's fashion. He literally said that at the beginning. That would be a hate crime. None of that is true, and that letter doesn't mean any of that is true. All that letter says is, hey, could you not be an asshole about this one thing? Like, what, you do whatever, say whatever, you can even criticize transgendered people as a group. That's actually true. He can still criticize them. The The only thing he can't do is advocate for some sort of genocide or extreme violence against a group of people. He can criticize them all he wants.

0:20:44 Thomas: Here's a from a 2013 Supreme Court ruling on this very thing. "People are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects." And by the way, all of this already applies in Canada to race, religion, creed, age, all these other groups. This already applies. All these laws, they're all the same. Nothing else changes except it adds gender identity to that list. So I want to know, Sam Harris, what is it about the way that Jordan B. Peterson has been treated that is such an outrage for you? He's been sent a couple letters and told to stop being an asshole and stop violating the law. That's it. He still has his position. What his treatment are you so worried about? Here's another example of why this is not merely a problem of ignorance. I wish it were, but here's Sam talking about the problem with these gender pronouns.

0:21:45 Clip: This is a positive injunction, and you're demanding that people do something. For me to demand that people start using a word of my own invention, or if I say I want to be addressed by a 16-digit number and I'm going to be offended if you get the number wrong, this isn't imposing a cost on people. I'm not going to do that, and I'm going to take you to court, and you could be charged under hate speech. And I could change that pronoun in an hour if I want, or tomorrow, or the next day, on a whim, because

0:22:14 Thomas: Once again, paranoid, paranoid. This is War on Christmas level stuff. Really is. Do you really, how common do you think that is? How common, Sam Harris, how often do you think someone's going to ask you to refer to them as an eight digit, 16 digit number? Do you think that's going to happen a lot? Has that happened to you? No, it's not going to happen. Also, that's unreasonable. There is a clause in, in all the law that I've read about where if it's a, if there's, if you have a reasonable justification for why you weren't able to comply with this stuff, you're fine, just like if you happen to pay a man more than a woman, but it's because they have to lift very heavy objects, you're allowed to do that. There are reasonable accommodations to be made.

If you're really worried about someone changing their gender every hour, which again, is going to be a vast minority of what's happening here, for the most part, this just means a trans woman wants you to call her, her, and a trans man wants you call him, him, that's it, but for these other cases, in theory it's possible for someone gender fluid or someone to say, just refer to me as they, that, that is not that hard, not only that, there's even the part where you can just use their name. Let's say I'm Thomas, and I want you to, I don't want to be called by a gender pronoun, you can just say Thomas.

0:23:35 Thomas: Also, contrary to what Jordan just said, you can't be charged for hate speech for this. That's just not true. That's only if you're advocating genocide or the public incitement of hatred. Those are the only things that will get that to happen. There's no chance that it will just be because you accidentally went, he, oh, I mean she, sorry, or something like that. I mean, that's just going to happen, remember that the first part of your kangaroo tribunal you're so afraid of. The first part is mediation. And even if you go all the way through that tribunal, the most they can award is normally the amounts are like 500 to, you know, thousand small amounts.

The most they're going to award is like 40,000 in extreme, extreme cases based on how much damage you've caused a person. That's just not going to happen if you slip up and call someone the wrong pronoun or something like that. All you have to do is be courteous. That is all All this is asking you to do, to have the tiniest bit of concern and empathy and make a, make a tiny amount of effort. Again, if you are someone providing a public service, if If you are someone who works at a university, University You just have to make the slightest amount of effort to call someone the gendered pronoun they want, or to say they or something if they don't want to be referred to by a certain gender. That's it. This is not the

0:24:55 Thomas: End of the world, this is not a war on Christmas, you won't be huddled in a basement somewhere secretly and whispering saying, saying, I don't think trans people should really be referred to. No, you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. This doesn't even apply to most citizens. It just applies to certain people in certain positions of power. That's all it is. Last quote from this, and this one is just downright confusing, this is how Sam Harris sums it all up for, and again, this isn't even the point of this episode, they go on to talk about a bunch of stuff that I didn't even listen to, I'm sure it's interesting, maybe I'll get to it someday, but this first twenty-five minutes was so pathetic, there wasn't even any point, but here's how he summarized the first twenty five minutes of this conversation.

0:25:40 Clip: I don't think there's more to say here, because I think we probably agree about everything. I'm obviously not a lawyer. I'm certainly not a Canadian lawyer. So if there's any way in which we're getting some of the legal details wrong, I offer a blanket apology. But in But in terms of the belief that biology doesn't significantly determine gender or sexuality, or the wisdom and utility of inventing new identities and demanding that everyone keep track of

[0:26:14] them in perpetuity, I mean, I think you and I more or less totally overlap there. Now, this was confusing because

0:26:20 Thomas: I know that Sam Harris is pro gay marriage, is pro equality for, gay and lesbian

[0:26:26] people, but he seemed to say there that it was important that biology more or less determines sexual orientation. What does that matter? And he said the same thing about gender identity or gender. Sure, for the most part, most people who are biologically female identify as female. That's going to be most people. What is it, 90-something percent? And then for most females, rather, and then males, same thing. It's going to be a very high percentage. But not everybody. Does that matter? How does that matter, I mean, I'm sure Sam Harris wouldn't say, well, because 90% of men are sexually attracted to women, therefore gay rights is invalid. He wouldn't make that argument.

So what is the argument he's making there that I was genuinely confused by that statement there But nevertheless, he says that they probably agree on everything, and there you have it. So you want to know what's the most depressing and important part about this? Jordan B. Peterson has been on all kinds of podcasts, gotten all kinds of attention for spouting nonsense and for saying he is going to discriminate against transgender people because he doesn't want to use their pronouns. I found out there's a Patreon page for Jordan B. Peterson. You want to what it's at? $15,800 per month for just being bigoted, that's it. I mean, he's making a killing just Just because he hates the idea of having to

0:27:53 Thomas: Accommodate someone's gender identity. That's all it is. That's the entirety of what he has to offer. That's why his Patreon page is $15,800 per month. And just so you guys know, this is where the money is, by the way. Appealing to, sort of, uh, cis white people's fear about having to do horrendous things like call a trans woman she, or something like that, they have a lot of numbers, they a lot money. This is why Dave Rubin makes, I don't even, might be $30,000 a show by now. This why Dr. Jordan B. Peterson makes $15,800 a month for nothing. For speaking, for hating political correctness. Thank you for watching.

So, Sam Harris, I'm not going to call you a bigot, I am not going call you transphobic, I will not call you those things, but can you see why some people might, when you give someone like this, who is spouting nonsense, who's wrong on every point of fact, and if you research for 10 minutes, you would realize this. This is not hard. This was just me and Haley, doing a little internet research, research. Yes, we have a lawyer friend who also, we talked to Andrew Torrez, confirmed some of this stuff, but it's not hard. You can look right there on the law. You Can See Lawyers' Opinions Online. Anyone can do this.

0:29:14 Thomas: In order to believe this bullshit that Jordan Peterson is spouting, you just have to take his word for it. You just have do no research and you'll believe it. That's the only way. If you do any amount of research, you'll see that it's nonsense. And Sam, for being being a skeptic, for being someone who should be able to see through this kind of stuff, should be willing to put in the work. Again, this wasn't a situation where you just said, "I don't know much about this and I just didn't really want to shout." No, you explicitly three times explicitly said, "We agree on all this. You're right. Oh, I, I dunno if I've gotten the law entirely right, but if I have messed anything up, my apologies," that's not going to cut it.

0:29:54 Thomas: That doesn't cut it when you are hosting, giving an enormous platform to to someone like this, and I can't believe how many people have given this guy a large platform to spout his nonsense and have not challenged him on it. As always, I remain a fan of Sam Harris's. This has got to be one of the worst episodes he's ever done. This has got to be the most negligent thing he's ever endorsed. I can't believe it. I, I have to believe that if I were able to just have a conversation with Sam Harris, or someone maybe more persuasive than I were able to, that he would realize this is just nonsense, but I don't.

I don't know, I mean, I mean I'm a fan, I hope, I think Sam Harris's is very rational, I think he's reachable, um, other than that I'm, I'm incredibly disappointed, and and by the don't forget what Sam Harris said at the outset, which I already mentioned, Jordan B. Peterson, number one most requested guest, this is why people who are in favor of social justice are in a minority, I mean, this how you know. The people who against using a pronoun, something that is so simple and easy are the ones making absurd amounts of money on Patreon.com, and the ones who are the most requested guest on Sam Harris' show for nothing.

0:31:14 Thomas: It's absurd. But you know what the worst thing is? You don't have to take my word for it to do some Reading Rainbow on you. Really, if... I know there's no way Sam Harris is listening to this point, but it's not as though he would have to... This is an important thing. Why don't you maybe talk to a Canadian lawyer? Call a Canadian Lawyer. You know what? You know a bunch of your listeners are interested in this because they've been requesting Jordan Peterson as a guest non-stop. Call a canadian lawyer. Say, hey, find a reputable one. Say is his interpretation correct? And then you'd be an amazing hero for pointing out that this guy is just peddling nonsense. That's not hard. You have the resources. You have time.

0:31:54 Thomas: You have a podcast. By the way, Sam Harris's podcast makes tens of thousands of dollars per episode. You've got the resources, this isn't hard. You can pay the lawyer first time. I mean, seriously, and it's important. That's the thing. If this is nonsense, which I strongly contend it is, because it matters that someone is making this much money and is making this much of a name out of peddling nonsense and just stirring up sort anti-left paranoia and anti-trans paranoia. Alright, if I haven't made the point by now, I suppose I never will. So let's get on to some voicemails, shall we?

0:32:33 Thomas: It's time to check the voicemail. And of course, if you'd like to leave a message, that's 916-750-4SIO. That's 9-1-6-7-5-0-4-7 for six. Let's check out this week's messages.

0:32:48 Voicemail: Hey, Thomas, this is Alex from California. I was just listening to the podcast you did with Eli talking about punching Nazis. And I wanted to kind of add a little extra weight to one of the arguments you started making towards the end, which is How do we know if somebody really is a Nazi the next time that we want to punch them? I've seen this kind of alarming trend on Facebook where, like, the moment something happens, people start posting personal information about those people saying, go get them, that kind of thing. And right, I think it was the day after Trump was elected, somebody raised the swastika flag in a house in San Francisco. Before anyone could really find out what the deal was, people were Posting this personal information saying, "Here's his address, here's where he lives, go get him." As it turns out, it was a very poor joke, but the guy was definitely not a Nazi, he was just trying to protest using a weird way of doing it. But yeah, how do we know the next guy that we want to punch is truly a Nazi?

0:33:59 Voicemail: Hi, Zoran here. Anyway, I was calling about your conversation with Eli about punching a Nazi in the face, and I do think it should be totally okay to punch a Nazi in the. Simply because if you look through history, especially in the civil rights movement, sort of, there were a lot of militant, more militant groups that when the pacifist Dr.

0:34:23 Voicemail: King started to go along with his protests and that, there was a group of Black Panthers, Black people that made it safe to be, especially when that does. To me, I understand that, and I'm a pacifist, my sort of, and I would never reach somebody, but at the same thing, I can't be sad that there are people who would be willing to do it for me. Thanks.

0:35:07 Voicemail: Hi Thomas, my name is Rebecca and I am in the military and I wanted to comment on something that you said about the cabinet appointments. You kind of say offhand, like hey, we can't do anything about it, they are going to get confirmed. There's one thing we can and should be doing and that's calling our our representatives. Maybe that won't sway their vote, but they're definitely going to hear from us. I think this is particularly important with the education cabinet nomination. If we do damage to our education system, that eventually becomes a national security problem. And I certainly don't want to see that. So that's what I've been doing is contacting my representative. And I hope your listeners will do the same. Thanks.

0:35:54 Voicemail: Hey, Thomas, this is Josh from Iowa. I'm just Colin, I've been listening to you for a little while. I started listening when I heard about your opening argument on Hillary Clinton's email. So it's been a few months before the election, so I started to listen. I agree with you on the liberals versus conservatives on the anti-science views. Liberals do tend to be more anti-nuclear power, anti-animal research, but also conservatives are anti-evolution. They tend to beat us in the two polls. Another interesting thing from the two polls, this one from 2009, is that scientists seem to be more Democrat or Democratic-leaning. And that includes chemists, biologists, that kind of stuff, about 80%. If you just look at just Google scientists' political views, it's pulled from 2009. And they also seem to Be less religious than the general public, with about 40% of them believe in God or a higher power, or do not believe in god or a high power, which is much lower than the General Populist. Anyway, keep doing what you're doing, man. Look forward to listening to you later. Thanks.

0:37:01 Thomas: Hey, thank you guys so much for those voicemails and continue doing that guys. I got more this week and that was good. I had more to choose from. That's always cool. Please, I highly encourage you to keep doing that. I think it's a great addition to the show. It's a way to address comments directly. It's really fun. So thank you. I'm gonna go in reverse order because actually the first two were about the Nazi punch and I have some general comments about that, too. So let me just start in reverse-order.

Order uh josh on liberals versus conservatives yes uh that's interesting yeah also scientists are far more uh liberal or Also, you mentioned something which I neglected to mention and had another person send me a really great email about, and that is nuclear energy. It's true that liberals are not necessarily in favor of nuclear energy and that's something I should have brought up because that could be a major key in climate change. So while liberals definitely recognize the reality of climate change, that's a big problem because nuclear power is a way around that. It's a source of power that's not going to cause global warming, and that's certainly something to take into account. So I appreciate that. Evan McDonnell sent me an email about that, and he also had recommendations for experts to talk to about

0:38:22 Thomas: That. That. So I think that would be a good episode to do in the future, talking about nuclear power, and maybe, because I know I have a liberal audience, so maybe there's people listening who are anti-nuclear power, and we'll get a chance to examine that, see who's right, who's wrong, and re-examine that question. So thank you so much for that, and to Evan for that email. Great point. Rebecca, I have so much respect for what you did calling a congressperson and and call anybody else who did. I totally agree with that. I did say there was nothing we could do. And I want to be careful because I don't want to discourage people from doing that. I think that is a great thing.

0:39:03 Thomas: However, it didn't work and it's not going to work.

0:39:07 Thomas: Again, keep doing it. I'm definitely not saying it might do something like it might get them to think about it. It might. I mean, maybe if a bunch of people call somebody, Maybe it'll help. But I just saw on the news that Elizabeth Warren is backing Ben Carson and actually pretty much all the Liberals who have a say right now in that committee are backing him and I this is something I wanted to talk briefly about because people are outraged I understand I I couldn't believe that too when I saw that headline I don't get it I suspect there's some political maneuvering there one argument I've seen is if they don't approve of him Trump's just gonna nominate someone even worse I know that Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown Talked about the fact that Ben Carson pledged to, without hesitation, enforce HUD's equal access rules, so that's, you know, that's a good thing for him to have said.

He promised to advocate for investments in rental assistance for the homeless, promised to enforce lead standards and work with bipartisan experts on how to reduce the rates of lead poisoning. So, despite him being catastrophically inexperienced, he's said a few good things. What I don't get, I still will never get. And it probably will have something to do with the inner workings of Congress and what they're trying to bargain for, trying to

0:40:28 Thomas: Work for, I guess. But he's going to get through either way because Republicans hold a majority. Why not do a no vote on somebody who's just a terrible candidate? Because it's one thing to say, well, we can't do anything about it. But it's another to say well, why don't you just vote no anyway so that you don't look like a moron. If the worst candidate in the world gets through later on, right? I get my only guess is that in politics, when you can't do anything about it. Maybe do a yes vote to earn some sort of goodwill or something. I don't try to gain something from it at no cost since you weren't going to make a difference.

Anyway, all this is to say I predicted and I predicted accurately about Tillerson. Tillerson was my only hope because I thought he was the worst. He's the most sketchy to me. DeVos is up there, certainly. She's probably second worst. But with DeVos, Republicans seem to just support her. I'm not seeing any major Republicans of any kind saying, oh, no, she's inexperienced. So I thought we don't have a chance there. With Tillerson. I had told you. I told you Rubio had Had been outspoken about his Russian connections, and McCain and some others, and what do you know, I see in the news, oh, Rubio will back Tillerson. I cannot believe what a waste

0:41:48 Thomas: Of space Marco Rubio is in Congress. I mean, really. He doesn't want to be there. Andrew made this point over on an episode I think that'll be coming out next week on Opening Arguments, but I want to echo it and expand a little bit. It. He didn't want to be there. He said he didn't even want to work there anymore. He didn't. It was unequivocally, unequiviocally. I'm not going to run. I're not going to run for office. I's not running.

I am not running for my seat. I will not. He said it over and over. He tweeted it. Iwill not be running for. And then he gets reelected. He does it anyway. You can't trust anything he says. He stands up and gives a principled defense about why we shouldn't support Trump. And he tried to run against Trump in the primary and do all that. He backs him. Same thing with this. He talks about Tillerson's Russian connections, and then he ultimately backs him. He just cowers. He's so pointless. Marco Rubio is the most pointless person. I really don't get it. At least just, why are you pretending like you're going to try to be principled? What does that do when he stands up and asks some questions and says, well, I don't know if I can support this guy. This is an outrageous candidate.

December 11th, Marco Rubio tweeted, Being a friend of Vladimir is not an attribute I am hoping for from a Secretary of State. And he signed his little dash MR. So we really know it's from Marco Rubi- Oh, thank God. We know that's actually from Marco Rubio.

0:43:08 Thomas: And then he votes to confirm friend of Vladimir for Secretary of State. What is the point? Boy, is he a pointless person. Really, just don't bother. Don't bother with- What's the part where you're trying to be principled? There's really completely pointless, it blows my mind what a, what an empty vessel of a person. Like, he just wants to be president and he's, he's in the, this, his Senate seat just for that. He's for no other reason. He doesn't vote. He doesn't do it anyway. So long story short, Rebecca, I absolutely applaud the effort and I encourage everybody to do that.

0:43:49 Thomas: Maybe, maybe with DeVos there will be some chance. Call your representative. I agree, I personally do not hold out hope. I said that we couldn't do anything because I just feel like that has such a little effect, but that's me being pessimistic, and I hope that others are more optimistic and more activist and don't listen to my cynicism because, you know, the only problem is, like, ultimately what I mean by the, there's nothing we can do, is the Republicans, if they want the candidate, they can just vote for the candidate. I keep saying candidate, maybe a pointee or pick is a better word, but they can just make it happen.

And they have the numbers. And really, I mean, Tillerson, if Tillerson wasn't going to be stopped, which was the only one I saw with significant Republican resistance, then I don't know who can, you know? So that's why I was a little bit pessimistic. But thanks for that message, and it's a very valuable one. Okay, now I want to talk briefly about the Nazi Punch episode. That had a ton of listens. People were really interested in it. And I think it was pretty important. But I think we've made this way too important. Way too important! Now, it's something I'm not saying we should ignore it. It's an interesting ethical question. Totally valid, especially questioning ourselves

0:45:10 Thomas: On the left. Like, what do we believe in? Is it, you know, Is this okay? Certainly, I was very outspoken against any sort of violence for words, but now we're spending way too much time on it. I mean, Trump is ruining the planet and the country right before our eyes, and we're so concerned. I'm still seeing post after post about it. I don't know what the solution to that is.

0:45:36 Thomas: It's hard for me to say that when, yes, I spent an hour and a half with Eli talking about it, but that was it. I just wanted to cover it, done, whatever. Now we need to stop talking about that. Having said that, since I did get two great voicemails on it that were kind of opposing views, let me just take a minute to say some things that I forgot.

With Eli, one thing I wanted to bring up is with violence like this, even if you thought it was morally okay to punch a Nazi and we agreed on that, there's still very real concerns. Concerns, I already highlighted the fact that you don't know how much damage you could actually be doing and you could be killing someone. Also, what about bystanders? I mean, if bystander's just see you hit someone, they could just fight you. Like, they don't, what's going on. They don't know the story. They have imperfect information. That's a very real risk. And it's not so much for the Nazi as it is for you. And the fact you just never know. I mean, if they have a family member, you know, with them there, that family member is going to defend that Nazi probably, and you could be opening yourself up.

And, and the other thing I wanted to say is, uh, like, Alex's point about how do we know who actually is a Nazi, something I said to Eli, um, the, the reason that overall the principle for me is no violence for words, no matter how bad they are, and even when we take the worst case and we just limit

0:46:56 Thomas: It to Richard Spencer, Nazi, when we're just talking about that, that case. The problem is, like, violence to humans can be irreversible. It can be, it can be something where you get over it in a day. It doesn't matter. Or it can't be irreverible. And in a society where we can't all be reliant on the fact that we all agree on facts, that we are all on the same page on everything. A principle that avoids doing irreparable harm to somebody because of words, no matter how bad they are, is a good principle.

And it's, it's the, there's just too much danger to it. And so it's a way of allowing the, allowing for error, like allowing for, maybe Maybe you're wronng about the next person. You thought was a Nazi. Maybe somehow you were wrong about Richard Spencer. Maybe you caught a bad source. Maybe you're like Eli and you looked up a Yik Yak and you, someone actually isn't, it's all these human error reasons that you just don't want a policy of being, of it being morally permissible to do potentially irreparable harm because it's just not worth it, especially when it doesn't accomplish anything.

So I believe my other voicemail lever was Zorn. I think it was hard for me to hear your name. Sorry if I got that wrong, but it sounded like Zorn, um, maybe it's some other name that I couldn't hear, but anyway, I will say Zorn.

0:48:18 Thomas: Civil rights, the movement, he says, needed violent defenders of black people, people who are willing to commit acts of violence in defense of minorities for their rights. And I just don't know that that's equivalent to what's happening in this case. I would say that that certainly could be true if there's violence being perpetrated on whoever it is, Jewish people, people of color, whatever it is, if there's ever violence already being inflicted on people, absolutely stand up to it. And if you're going to go punch someone for that, that's cool with me. But if we're talking about someone giving an interview and expressing beliefs that we disagree on, no matter how egregious they are, that's a little different than the situation in the civil rights movement, where there's all kinds of horrible stuff going on, there's all kinds of violent abuses. I think it's a little bit of a different situation. I understand what you're saying, but it's just not quite the same. They're not in power as much. It's not the norm, like it might have been in the South during the 60s or something.

It is just today, Richard Spencer is not the normal. He is not in the power. I know the alt-right is in power, and we will see how that changes the facts on the ground, but I still don't think that overall we're going to live in a country where that's like acceptable behavior, no matter

0:49:38 Thomas: How bad our president is. So lots to think about there. Thank you so much for those voicemails yet again. I love it. Continue doing it, please. Alright, and with that, we're plumb out of time. I'd like to thank my new patrons for this week. I've got some good ones. Thank you so much for pledging, you guys. Patreon.com slash SeriousPod is where you want to go. Thank you Tracy Barber, Cory Markum, Nicholas Von Glahn, Bruce Chapman, David, Ashley Hall, Kelsey Underwood, jason mckay, Anissa K, Joseph Luke Seecharan. Thank you guys so much, for pledging this week, I cannot tell you how much it means to me.

It's very important to keep the show going, to keep Haley going on that research, which I think is very beneficial for the show and has really helped us all learn more. So thank you so much. And I also need to thank my top patrons, my all-time greats, they are Matt, Garrett, Dale, Brian Garefort, Peter Skelton, Steve Sigman, Adrian Borschoff, Roger Metcalf, Adam Hicks, Matthew Maxson, Andrew Waddington, David at TheRamblingBlog.com, Zabby, Matthew Staton, David, Ian Rosano, Jonathan Moyet, Kaylee Reiser, Jesse, Sakashite Fukasumi, Michael, Sammy, and Hunter Ash. You guys are the best. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Alright, that's it for this week, as always.

0:50:58 Thomas: Leave those comments, leave those voicemails, send those emails, comments to thomas@seriouspod.com, guests, suggestions, or other things like that to haley, h-a-e-l-e-y at seriouspod.com, and that's all I've got for you, thank you so much, looking forward to next week, I got a great interview, and of course we've got so many Trump updates, we can kind of keep an eye on how exactly he's ruining the world, talk about that more next week. But this was, you know, we needed a little Trump break. So with that said, have a great weekend and I'll see you on Monday.