SIO112: Fat-Shaming Trump or Hypocrisy-Shaming? plus Listener Voicemails!

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Thomas: For $30 off your first week of HelloFresh, visit HelloFresh.com and enter promo code SERIOUSPOD30.

0:00:39 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only. This is episode 112. I'm your host, Thomas Smith. Alright, couple things to mention before we get to the bulk of today's show. First up, Monday's show, I have scheduled right now a recording of people on kind of opposite sides of the Aziz Ansari thing. I'm very interested to have this conversation because I have seen, frankly, very intelligent feminists come out on either side of this. It really seems to be a divisive thing. I think that more conversation is important rather than less. I think that the more we can try to get on the same page, the more we're going to effectively learn the lessons of Me Too, and we're going to be able to apply them in a way that makes sense for everybody and is not going to be too far one direction or the other.

0:01:32 Thomas: So I'm really looking forward to trying to find a sensible set of lessons we can learn from the Aziz Ansari article. So that's what's up Monday. Today, I'm going to be taking your calls, your voicemails. Got some great ones to talk about. Some of my favorite episodes are voicemail episodes. I hope you enjoy them as well. First, I want to talk to you about a couple of things. I want talk about something, though, just to lead off. I posed the question on my Twitter, essentially talking about Trump and fat-slash-looks shaming. It came up for me because, I'm sure you've heard by now, but his doctor issued another one of these really ridiculous reports where he's a picture of health, he's everything that is man. Now, there were some negatives. He said he was 10, 15 pounds overweight and needs to eat better, but they reported his height and weight, and it's frankly completely unbelievable.

0:02:24 Thomas: I don't know that anyone can really accept it with a straight face, and I've seen a lot of fat shaming, look shaming of Trump, and it is very easy. It's always very easy for someone who you hate, for someone whom you think is ruining the world and is an awful person, it's very easy to slip into those comfortable middle school insults. But I just posed the question, a couple questions actually that I want to look into more in depth right now. On Twitter, I went with the assumption that fat shaming and look shaming is wrong. I guess I'll go into that for a minute. I very much feel that's the truth. I do my best not to ever shape insults in that direction. Doesn't mean I've always been perfect at it, but I do believe that that's true.

0:03:10 Thomas: I wouldn't go so far as, now this will probably be a topic for another show, I wouldn't go so far, as some people do, I've noticed in this country there's a movement for fat acceptance to a degree that I don't quite think is right. So denying that there's any link between obesity and bad health, that there are no health concerns for being very much overweight, that's not somewhere that I think the evidence takes us. However, that does not mean that it's appropriate to shame people who are overweight or that's appropriate to insult people who ARE overweight. Two totally different things. I think someone's weight is really between them and their doctor, maybe them and their loved ones if it's a major health concern or something, but that is something that I don't think it's inappropriate to shame someone for.

0:04:01 Thomas: I also think the research backs up the fact that shaming people for their weight just doesn't help. It's not as though that's what's standing in between them and losing pounds is more shame. It doesn't, that doesn't at all seem to be the truth. So that's why I do my absolute best on my social media to try not to insult people on their looks, even if it's someone I really don't like, even si it's Chris Christie, even if it's Donald Trump, I do try not ever to play into that. But the question I posed on Twitter was, what about in the case of Trump? And this is pretty unique to him, where he has made a career out of insulting women's looks and being highly critical, highly insulting to women who are, frankly, far and away out of his league.

0:04:52 Thomas: Is it possible to be consistent in your principles and say, okay, well, if you've done that, you've opened yourself up because you're being a total hypocrite? I posed the question on Twitter. I didn't really say either way which way I come out. Got some really interesting answers. And side note, I mean, this is one reason I still use Twitter. It can be very useful in some ways. And talking to and getting reactions from my listenership, which I think is smarter than the average bear, as an old teacher used to say all the time. I love it. And I got some good answers. People on the sidelines may end up being, you know, shamed and feel really crappy about things you may say about Trump's looks or weight.

0:05:39 Thomas: People who you don't intend, it's not as though you're, you're trying to insult those people, but if you are doing so publicly, even if Trump may deserve it, someone on the sidelines, a bystander doesn't, and it's not as though those words don't hurt them as well. I thought that was very thoughtful. It is hard, though, to completely ignore the hypocrisy that is Donald Trump criticizing women for their looks and the fact that that comes from this incredible entitlement, incredible entitlement for him to be totally ignorant and not care at all about his appearance and his eating habits and the fact that he doesn't exercise and all that, but to have such high expectations for women and insult them if they don't meet them. There must be a way to point that out that doesn't shame anyone for, you know, no matter what they look like.

0:06:26 Thomas: I think that is something that that's not something that I think we have to feel obligated to just completely ignore. But I think that can be done in ways like, essentially, we all ought to say, take a look in the mirror, pal. That kind of thing. Referencing his tweets to women that he doesn't like or whose looks he doesn't approve of. Take a look in the mirror or maybe, you know, if you were held to anything like your same standards, you would not possibly pass. Another thing I don't think one ought to be required to ignore is blatant lying that Trump is doing and his doctor is doing. I don't know. This is a tough one because I, on one hand, if this were just an everyday person, who cares? You know, people lie on their driver's license about their weight, whatever.

0:07:14 Thomas: I mean, I'm not the weight police to to make sure people tell the truth about their way. I don't care. But when it's the president and everything he does is a lie, and this is one more brick in the wall of dear leader, you know, who shot 18, who got holes in one on every single hole of a golf course. I mean, really creepy stuff, a pattern of lies. And the fact that his doctor said he got a perfect score on a cognitive test. Could we inquire about the details of that test? What is it? What's the methodology? What's, you know... What did you do? Can you prove it? I mean, that I think is a bit of a different story when you are the leader of, well, what used to be a great country and have access to the proverbial nuclear button.

0:08:00 Thomas: But there's an article on Sports Illustrated, SI.com, that's athletes who are the same size as Donald Trump. And it's funny, again, and I think this can be parsed. I think This Is Funny, not in a fat shaming way, but in a shaming of liars way, which is essentially, here is all the visual evidence in the world that you are lying. And that's why it is so funny. And I might link it just because it's too good. The athletes that are allegedly the same height and weight as Donald Trump, the visual comparison. And the last line is so great. It's a quote from the doctor who gave him the exam. It says, he would like to lose 10 to 15 pounds. And then it goes on a little bit.

0:08:45 Thomas: And then the last line of the article is, that would put him more in the Bryce Harper, or Des Bryant range. So it would be a different set of athletes that he would be compared to at that range. I just thought it was too funny. But just to wrap this up, I retweeted someone that I thought really summed it up perfectly, which is Susie Meister, who said, look, I don't care how much Trump weighs, but just so we're clear, he knows we can see him, right?

And that's essentially it. It's not, who cares? It's not about weight shaming, it's not about body shaming, it's about blatant lying, that's something that is, I don't think we ought to be required to just lap up these blatant lies and not be able to say anything about it because we're worried about offending anyone. I don't think that's how it should work. However, I will say that a lot of people do border into really insulting and offensive behavior and mockery when they mock people, people they don't like, you know, people on the right, maybe if it's liberals, when they mock them for their looks. It goes into a level that I think is really offensive and shouldn't be done. So I hope all that made sense. I'm open to feedback on that, but that's how I'm thinking about this kind of thing in my head. All right, enough of me. Let's get to your voicemails and then more me responding to them. But your voicemail.

0:10:06 Clip: 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 916-750-4746. Let's check out this week's messages. Music

0:10:26 Voicemail: Hi Thomas, on one of your recent episodes you said that you support a race-neutral fix for injustices because it's the only fix we're going to get and you're a pessimist, and I was just wondering if you prefer fixes that aren't race-neutral, even if you think they'll never happen. For instance, do you have an opinion on reparations? Thanks.

0:10:43 Thomas: They are just starting with an easy, non-controversial one. Well, I think that Ta-Nehisi Coates' The Case for Reparations is a powerful case. It's interesting. I bet you even maybe five years ago, if someone would have said, Thomas, do you support reparations? I would have said, you're crazy. Look, slavery was how long ago? You know, like how many people, can you even be sure there's any connection? Who would we give these reparations to you, all these questions. But now that having learned a lot more, I think it's something we should at the very least take seriously. I think that as an American, knowing what I do about our history, we owe it to read people like Ta-Nehisi Coates, and there's others.

0:11:31 Thomas: He references a lot of people who've done a lot of work on this. We owe it to black Americans to at least listen. Listen, and that is what, and Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about it in his article as well, or maybe it was a book I was reading, so I've been reading a lot lately, so sometimes it blends together, but this can't even go up for discussion. I mean, this hasn't even been allowed to go up discussion for discussion for generations. This is something that, and reparations would have made a whole lot of sense right after these things happen. That's when it makes the most sense, when you can very tangibly say, okay, wow, we essentially strip you of all your property and money and anything. And we've really caused a lot of harm and specific economic harm to you.

0:12:20 Thomas: Let's go ahead and make that right. That makes a whole lot of sense right away. And it makes less sense, you know, the more hundreds of years you go down the line. But the problem is we never as a country even entertained the idea. We never even entertained it. I mean, some people did very briefly, but that's what I find frustrating is this overcompensation. And even now, if you mention the word reparations, you will get just a slew. I might even get it for this episode.

Just a slew of, let's face it, white people yelling at you for it. So the first thing I would say is we owe black America more than that. I really think we do. Given the history, I think we do. And the reason that I think there is a compelling case for reparations of some kind is because it's not just, as I mentioned earlier, this naive notion that it's, oh, slavery was terrible so we need to pay black people today. That's not really how it works. It's the fact that yes, slavery was terrible and systematically deprived black people of any ability to build wealth, but also through Reconstruction and into the New Deal. The New Deal was one of the biggest social programs ever, one of many social programs, and it systematically was withheld from black people.

So at a time when the whole country needed help to recover, to build wealth, to buy houses, to do all that kind of stuff, it was kept from black people and housing policy made it so that black people couldn't get the same loans, couldn't get the same, you know, federally backed loans, all this stuff that, and that's not that long ago.

0:14:03 Thomas: And the issue is wealth is very heritable, I guess. Is that the word hereditary? One or the other? I don't know if they're interchangeable. How well off you are is very strongly correlated with how well off your parents were. And so, yes, the same people aren't alive that might have been the victim of some of this stuff. Certainly that were the victim of slavery or even the children of the victims of slavery, certainly they aren't alive. So if you think that's your knockdown case against reparations, sure. But that's not the whole story. Probably the major source of income inequality and wealth inequality between black and white Americans probably comes down to what happened during the New Deal.

0:14:49 Thomas: So I do think on a principle level, on like a theoretical level and a fairness level, I do think we're never going to fully make up for that. Now, I also think maybe when we open the can of worms of 200 years of history, maybe there's a bunch of other stuff we'll have to figure out how we make amends for.

And for that reason and sort of that impracticality of it, and because because this is actually referenced in Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay that someone made the case for, I don't know, one of the people he references, makes the case that the public is just never going to buy reparations for black people today. They will never accept it. And I think that it actually makes more sense to base something like that on income, Because you could be a wealthy Black immigrant who just came to this country in 2010 and then you would benefit from some sort of reparations as given, you know, that kind of thing.

I just think that it's such an opportunity for hatred and for a feeling of unfairness when, you know, if really poor white people see, you know, really poor black people getting something they're not getting. I just think, practically speaking, that that's just not a good idea. And why not have programs that benefit the least fortunate among us anyway? And in general, that is what I think I referenced in that podcast, which is we ought to be doing far more for those who are less fortunate in our country anyway.

0:16:26 Thomas: And I think universal basic income is a really interesting idea. At any rate, we all have health care. We ought all be able to take care of ourselves. Stuff like that. I think that's a better route than something like reparations specifically geared toward race. But that's different from the moral case for it. I have to say, I think there is a strong moral case. And read the piece. I'll link it. Please read it before yelling at me because it really, really does lay it out well.

0:16:55 Voicemail: Hey Thomas, this is Ari. I just listened to your episode that was half voicemail and half Europeans on the whole Cenk Uygur scenario going on right now, and you mentioned several times that even though you're a progressive, you don't really follow Cenk Uygur. You don't consider yourself a fan of him or the Young Turks, and I wanted to give my perspective as someone who is definitely a fan the Young Turk. I've been watching and listening to them since 2010 or 2011, so yeah, I definitely have a bias coming into this a little bit. But I want to agree with both of the major points that you made, your first major point being that you don't think it's fair for people to be, I guess, ousting Cenk from progressive circles for something that he wrote 17, 18 years ago and took down because he changed his mind on it.

0:17:42 Voicemail: I mean, what else is he supposed to do, go back in time and not do it? Like, how do you come back from a situation like that? I think we need to, especially on the left, I've noticed this more and more, which is unfortunate because it goes along with the right-wing talking points about ideological purity and all that. But I have noticed more and more on the left that progressives will cut each other's throats over the slightest thing that they've done in the past, and I don't think it's fair to expect people to be perfect. I think you should expect people to learn and grow, which I think Cenk has done. Of course, the things that he said on those blog posts were pretty bad, and he also read some quotes from more recent times. I don't remember when the most recent thing was. It might have been, like, 2013 or something. And I also agree with you on that, that he still does hold some, I don't know if you would call them views, but he does have some innate biases that are towards more traditional gender roles.

0:18:37 Voicemail: But I think in the last few years, especially as I've been watching, he's really grown in that area. You know, when I first started watching, you mentioned several clips where they talked about sexual misconduct of older women against younger boys and how he was making light of that. Yeah, he has done that in the past, and that makes me uncomfortable. But definitely in the last two, three, four years, I've seen him really start to change on that, in the sense that he admits that his first reaction to hearing a story like that is that kind of, oh, well, you know, boys love having sex with women and was she a hot teacher and all that. But then he comes back and says, but I know that that's not right, especially there are other hosts on the show. You know, Cenk is the founder and the main host of Young Turk, but there are several other hosts.

0:19:26 Voicemail: And they probably, the second in command is Anna Kasparian. And, you know, being a woman, she pushes back against Cenk quite a bit. And I think that she's had a really great influence on him as far as changing his mind and getting him out of that kind of boys club kind of mentality.

0:19:42 Thomas: Was cut off by the voicemail limit, but a great message. I agree with what you're saying. I think that this is a problem. I really do think that there's a certain kind of person who actually isn't very liberal and then expresses an illiberal view and then complains when they get shit for it. But there's also, there, there also is, as you pointed out, Ari, there's, there is plenty of like purity policing. And there's a dynamic, a very human dynamic that affects everybody, which is we want to see others taken down sometimes. And, and I, you know, do my best not to be included in that, but I think that our media environment is certainly that. Our media is, there's these, all these little websites that want to make it, make it big by reporting on any sort of possible malfeasance of any kind, especially in the wake of MeToo.

0:20:40 Thomas: And it's not always done in the best way. And it'S, it's a lot of, there'S a lot OF people are assuming how other people will feel about this. I mean, certainly in the case of Cenk Uygur, with the 17-year-old recordings that he deleted did or blog posts that he deleted. I mean, really, who is that harming? We'll just take the hypothetical. If he's not the perfect example, I know there are plenty of others, but take him. If it's just these blog posts from 16, 17 years ago and more, by the way, some of them were 20 years, that he delete it and he's changed his mind. Let's forget everything else. If it is just that. Who is it hurting? It's literally inaccessible until you dig it up somehow, until some website digs it up and then airs it.

0:21:28 Thomas: It's like, who is the one causing harm in this situation? Is it Cenk Uygur or is it the website? I mean, that's a weird thing. There's one other example that I have just been agnostic on. I've been kind of just waiting to see if more comes And that is Prairie Home Companion Garrison Keillor. That is such an odd story. And all we heard was his side of it. And so when people have brought this up to me as well, can you believe what happened? I keep saying, well, we don't really know what happened. You know, we don't, we've gotten his side of it. And I did some more reading into it just to prepare for this. And we still, I mean, the woman still hasn't talked about it. I know she shouldn't be obligated to or anything, but it's such a confusing one that, boy, would I love a little clarity, if not from her, then from whoever investigated it.

0:22:22 Thomas: Because what we know, what's in the public, sounds like nothing, and it's, it would be incredibly sad and it wouldbe an instance of, you know, Me Too gone too far. If I want to strongly, strongly emphasize, this is a hypothetical, if his version is true, that's way too far. I mean, firing someone for virtually nothing and ruining their whole legacy, like 30-year career, more, 40-year career, or whatever it is. That's too far. But they've said they investigated for a month. They've gotten all, everybody's versions of it. I have to believe. I mean, again, I'm agnostic because I don't know for sure, but my priors would be that, okay, if they investigated for a month and it's not as though, I mean this is someone who is admired.

0:23:09 Thomas: It's not so there's any reason they would be looking to get rid of a cash cow, like someone who's beloved on public radio. There must be something we don't know. There must be something to the story that you and I haven't heard, but maybe there's not. That's one where I still don't know. And I have to really hope that the organization, I think it's Minnesota Public Radio, that they operated properly. But when we don't know the details of it, it looks very scary that your whole career could be ruined for nothing. Thing. Now, again, I don't dwell on this because there are a gajillion examples of men behaving horribly whose career should be ruined. And that doesn't, you know, very valid uses of Me Too and of finally taking this seriously.

0:23:57 Thomas: You guys know where I stand on that. I hope I don't in any way mean to sound like I'm one of those horrid, "Me Too has gone too far, it's a witch hunt" people. But this one instance is very odd, and I do wonder if it was, part of, Ari, what you were talking about, this quick gut check reaction, like, "Oh, I did, this is everybody's probably gonna hate this guy, so I'm gonna hate this guy too, because something came out," you know, that kind of thing that does exist, and it is something we should fight against. Get to the next voicemail. I want to tell that today's episode is brought to you by HelloFresh, what they, well, they're the meal kit delivery service that shops, plans, and delivers your favorite step-by-step recipes and pre-measured ingredients so you can just cook, eat, and enjoy. And they make it easy to cook delicious balanced dinners for less than $10 a meal.

0:24:46 Thomas: It's Best thing is it's simple for even a non-cook like me, it won't take you an hour, two hours, the entire recipe will take you around 30 minutes. I love that they actually even have a lot of one-pot recipes, which means you won't make an entire dinner for hours and then you look at the kitchen, it's just a massacre of pots and pans and different things you didn't even know you had that you had to use. Simple It's and easy.

To, but its still new an exciting. One of my favorite things is you get to try things you would never think of to cook on your own. My imagination for cooking is definitely quite limited, but But with HelloFresh, I get to try all kinds of new things. That's really cool. Can select either classic, veggie, or family. And now my favorite part where I get to mention their notable recipes coming up, Hall of Famer, customer voted favorite, Juicy Lucy Burger with tomato onion jam and arugula salad, Oh man, that sounds good right about now, there's... there's also kid-tested recipes made specifically with families in mind, easy peasy ravioli, stuff like that. Boy, I'm sure I'm going to have a picky eater in Phoebe when she grows up. I was a really picky eater as a kid. Not so much now. Out of town or something, you need to skip a week, HelloFresh allows you to do that. Should try it, and if you use my promo code SERIOUSPOD30, that's hellofresh.com, promo code SeriousPod30, you.

0:26:23 Thomas: Against. Hey.

0:26:23 Voicemail: Hey Thomas, this is Josh, going back to the Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro thing, I appreciate all your comments on this, and I do agree with you on pretty much everything you say, I think you are unfairly characterizing Sam a little bit, and when you listen to the beginning of his podcast, introing his debate with, or talk with Shapiro, and himself, he was saying that he was kind of trying to play the part between host and and debater, which is very difficult sometimes, so I think either Sam was definitely uninformed on the case, also he was just up against the clock and keeping things interesting and keeping it moving, so I take all Your points, and I appreciate you adding everything to the to the conversation, but I just think you're a little unfair on Sam, granted I'm not a fan, I don't support everything that Sam says either, but I think you're being a little unfair to him, love you dude, keep up what you're doing, rock and roll, later.

0:27:27 Thomas: Josh, you win best sign-off to a voicemail so far. Okay, so there's a lot I want to say about this, actually, I heard the same podcast. Of course, I heard him say, "Yes, you know, I tried to play between host and debater. Hopefully I did a good job." And then I think he said, "I did about as good as I could in the circumstances." So it didn't sound like he thought there was anything wrong with, with how he performed. Here's, here's the analogy. I just, I'm going to bring up next time someone, uh, you know, cries foul on this kind of stuff. Uh, or you guys can bring up too, if you're in an argument, I really would like you everyone out there to imagine, especially if you are a Sam Harris fan or Dave Rubin fan or anything like that. Imagine what would happen. Just imagine what would happen if Sam Harris's guest on his show was Linda Sarsour.

0:28:16 Thomas: And then imagine if what happened, if the only thing they argued about was Sam said, "You know, Linda, I just, do you believe in free will? We should have that discussion." And they had a little discussion on free will and she, she, you know, because she's Muslim, maybe she talks about God a little bit. And he said, "Well, you know, how can you," yeah, and he argued with her about Islam and religion. And then, "Okay, well great show. So it's so, it's such a pleasure to have you, Linda. I know it's great. You know, people don't want to have conversations. So glad you're here though." And that was it. Can you imagine the reaction the center lords would have that he didn't bring? Whoa, whoa. You had Linda Sarsour and you never asked her about X. You never asked you about Y. What about all this stuff about like Sharia law and how she's kind of support what they would rattle off and just a deluge of things he should have asked her about.

0:29:08 Thomas: That just doesn't happen. It doesn't happened that Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, whoever has a guest like that on and does the same thing. And the reason is because of the bubble that Sam Harris is in, that was my main point. It wasn't, oh, I hate Sam Harris. He's a bad person, whatever. It wasn't any of that. My point is that I've come to understand, I think, and my theory is he and Steven Pinker, by the way, who I'm going to talk about in a minute with some of these voicemails, but they are in a different bubble. I believe they are In a bubble where everyone around them, for the most part, is liberal and they are rebelling a bit against some of what they see the excesses of that to be. And so it's like they never feel like they need to even bother exploring the left wing side, like they feel like it's the default.

0:29:56 Thomas: Fault. And so they can bring on a just far right Ben Shapiro who doesn't think you should be able to be trans and and go to the bathroom if you choose, just all this just ridiculous horrible right-wing stuff and just not even care about challenging them, challenging them on it. All they would, but, but again, if he had Linda Sarsour, imagine there is no way he would not challenge her on Sharia law, all these tweets, everything, you know, all these things that the the center complaint about her about. So just ask yourself, what is the difference? Why would one conversation with, say, Ben Shapiro be framed as, "Well, you know, yes, we disagree politically, but we can come together and have a conversation." Whereas the other, that never happens with a far lefty.

0:30:41 Thomas: Why is there never a Linda Sarsour, a controversial left-wing figure? There's other examples. Why is they're never that equivalent case. There's never a, well, we disagree, but we can have a conversation. He just doesn't bother. And really what I meant to do by highlighting the fact that he had sided with Ben Shapiro over FFRF, even if he wasn't familiar with the case, I think he seemed at least passably familiar with it. I just think that's so indicative of where priorities are. I think anti-progressivism trumps everything now. I Think that he doesn't care about the the masterpiece cake shop case, because that's, you know, that's a secular issue where atheists usually like the FFRF would come down against Republicans. Nah, doesn't really care, but enough to know about that.

0:31:28 Thomas: What he cares about is let's talk about how crazy these progressives are and I'll find common cause with even Ben Shapiro over that. My ultimate criticism on Sam Harris with this is, again, it's not he's evil. He's a Nazi. I'm not, none of that, but he's in a bubble. And I think he doesn't know about this bubble. I think that's the danger. Nothing wrong with being in a bubble sometimes, but I really do think he's not quite aware of this one and it makes it so he's just completely ignorant about things like C-16 when Jordan B. Peterson comes and just misrepresents it. He just doesn't know what he doesn't know. All right, next caller, I actually don't have his name. He called a number of times in one of his messages, all great messages, by the way, but one of them was about hiring. He works at a university in some capacity And he gave some inside information as to how hiring works. I think it's a good bit of information to stand on its own here. Let me play it.

0:32:22 Voicemail: When faculty members, at least at big state schools, hire people, there's quite a bit to overcome biases, mostly around racial and sexual preferences, to not be biased against minorities, people of color, and LGBTQ people, but really, I'm an atheist, that's how I got involved with listening to your show, and I've had some candidates that we've looked at who are pretty big in religious communities. And, you know, I mean, we have a rubric in front of us that has to do with their number of publications in the field, has to deal with their teaching evaluation, has to do a variety of metrics, none of which can really, you know, center around that.

0:33:10 Voicemail: You really have to go through and justify it. Are people biased? Absolutely. I mean, sure, you can never say that people aren't biased, and that doesn't change people's ratings, but as far as, you know, this bias against conservatives, absolutely it exists to some small extent, bias exists on every level, um, you know, we just are biased creatures, but there's really a lot of safeguards in place to really try to hedge out those biases, and obviously they're not going to to be perfect, but as far, you know, it doesn't surprise me that the resume studies fall a little bit flat, as far as, um, you don't find any significant bias, because the most places probably, I mean, unless it's super private institution that can do whatever you want, and they're probably more likely to be conservative organizations, you know, most state schools, most publicly funded schools are We're going to have state requirements that are just going to require so much unbiased training, and as well as rubrics that, again, are not trying to screen for conservative bias, but are just trying to screening myself.

I mean, I've seen, I've been on it, and I was like, "Oh, man, this person looks like a religious fundie." But honestly, I, you know, ultimately I have to write a little description about each candidate and then rate them, and they, and then describe how they are based on their publications and their work in the field, and so you know, I try to honor that, you know, as much as possible.

I hire a religious fundamentalist who's conservative, good, I mean, you know, whatever is that, they're doing good work with the students, and they've got a lot of publications in the field, they're gonna bring in grant money, but that's what we care about, you

0:34:54 Thomas: Well, thanks. I know that was a little ranty and out of context for the listeners, but that's what happens when you don't jot down stuff and just give a quick minute, minute and a half full of context. But that's okay. I thought that was valuable because it's an insider view related to something I was talking about an earlier episode, which was this alleged liberal bias in universities. Now, it does exist, as the caller indicated, but I think that tells a story about where it's coming from. And it's one that I agree with. I think it's correlation, not causation. I don't think that liberal professors or any liberal supervillain is causing only liberal ideas to be accepted at universities. Is, I think it's the other way around. I think it's that the truth has a liberal slant, and for the most part, people who go into investigating things like history, the humanities, or anything like that, they tend to turn out liberal.

0:35:49 Thomas: You know? I think that's how it works. That's my theory. And furthermore, if you're a James Damore fan, someone I'm going to get to in a second with another voicemail, you ought to think, well, if conservatives are just opting not to go to university, well that's their problem. And there's no reason there's a problem with liberals being dominant in universities. They choose it. There's no evidence of people keeping conservatives out. I mean, if you find that evidence, let me know. But other than a few select cases here and there, as I referenced, those resume studies aren't doing it. That's something that's not true in tech. We know that resume studies indicate that minorities and women are kept out of certain positions. But in this instance, not the case. So look for consistency there.

0:36:36 Voicemail: Hey Thomas, this is Donald from upstate New York. I just got finished listening to your episode with Andrew on the Google lawsuit, and at the end you were speculating about whether or not libertarians were wanting to include politics, our political views as a protected class, but I think you missed the point. They actually want to get rid of all protected classes. That's where the ultimate aim is, not to add politics to it, but to show that it is not reasonable and to get get rid of all protected classes. So just my thought. Thanks a lot. Great. Love the show. Bye.

0:37:06 Thomas: Hey, Donald, I thank you for the call, but I think I fear it was you who missed the point that was meant to be, or maybe I didn't deliver it well, but that was, that was meant to me a bit tongue in cheek. Obviously libertarians don't want to expand the power of government usually. So that was me trying to point out the hypocrisy of being a strong libertarian, as James Damore identifies as, and wanting to increase the power of the state when he's wronged, and wanting to decrease it elsewhere. There's another voicemail related to this that goes more in depth and I think is excellent. So let me play that one as well. And then I'll comment more.

0:37:45 Voicemail: My name is Matthew. I'm a new listener to your show. I just listened to the Google Lawsuit podcast and thought I wanted to just weigh in a little bit. I thought I had a couple questions. I'll try to keep it short, though.

Basically, in a sense, I'm glad I listened to last part of the podcast, because you mentioned that something about libertarians, if they want to change political stance to a protected class, I don't know if we'd have to go to that level, but if we did, I would almost actually be in favor of it, although I don't know if I'm libertarian.

I don't know what I am, but, um, I don't like this idea, this road that we're going down, and I think if I want James Damore's lawsuit to win at all, it would win on the merits of, you know, making companies have to go through a little bit more trouble to fire you for having some sort of political opinion or having an opinion that they don't like.

My impression of this, love this incident with James Damore, was that he was solicited for responses, he offered this memo with alternate suggestions for, or how to increase diversity at Google,

0:38:42 Voicemail: They didn't like some of the language that he used inside of it, which is fine, but where's there like a conversation or the suspension or maybe, or not even a suspension, maybe have, I don't know how to handle it, but to fire a person. I feel like the people who don't care that he got fired or dismiss the fact that he got fired have never been fired. I've lost two jobs because of layoffs. And I almost lost one job at a major company because I had tweeted something. I corrected a person on Twitter that called me a faggot, and I corrected his spelling, joking around. But because I had corrected his spellings and put that word in my tweet, I almost lost my job for that reason, and it was petrifying. Fortunately, my supervisors really went to bat for me, and a person I had never met at AOL who wanted me gone listened to them and erred on my side, and I was able to keep my job.

0:39:33 Voicemail: So it's petrifying to lose a job, to not be able to pay your mortgage, to have young children. It's a really serious thing. It's not something that should just be taken lightly. And I think this James Damore lawsuit, when I heard your explanation and Andrew's explanation of it, it sounds like nonsense. I don't know why he went this route with it. But to me, if the lawsuit does any way towards pushing us in the direction of, you know, I don't know about forcing companies, but finding some way to make it difficult for companies to just get rid of you because they don't like you. I should be able to work at Hobby Lobby as of what I consider myself a left-wing person or a liberal person. I should be able to work at Hobby Lobby and talk about how I like, I don't know, Hillary Clinton or that I'm pro-choice and not get fired for it. It just seems awfully, you know, unless I'm really being annoying about it, which I didn't think this was the case. Anyway, I went on too long. Take care.

0:40:20 Thomas: Hey, Matthew, I really appreciate this voicemail. I think you brought so much to it in your experience and you're thinking, there's a lot there. Okay. I've got a lot to react to. I, I think that when it comes to James Damore, there's a certain element of pointing out the inconsistencies in his libertarian views and slash, you know, what do we actually want to be true? So I am certainly open to the argument. I'm absolutely open to the argument that maybe political views could be a protected class. However, when I'm faced with someone who argues against the Civil Rights Act or against protecting other classes of people altogether, until all of a sudden they're wronged in some way, and then it's like, "Well, hold on, hold on."

0:41:06 Thomas: I want not only what the protections that say, you know, minorities have, but I want more protections that they don't even have. I don't take that seriously. Um, I, that is, that is way too self-serving, way too hypocritical. And also, as you outlined, the important, one of the most important things is, is this currently how the law works? No. If that, if not, then then this case is kind of bullshit. This complaint is a waste of everybody's time, and it's mainly a PR document. So that's criticism in one sense. But I really appreciate and admire the sincerity of your voicemail. And I think it is certainly an argument to have, to say, "Okay, forget James Damore and the hypocritical libertarian nonsense. Let's just say it's you and I talking, and let's say we're both liberals, and you're concerned you've been fired from a job or two."

0:41:56 Thomas: You're really concerned. You don't think companies should be able to fire people for political views, we can have that conversation. So here are my thoughts on it. I really sympathize with your story. That is very interesting that you corrected someone's spelling of a derogatory word and that was going to somehow result in your firing. Wow, I would be very curious to hear the details of whoever was trying to fire you. I mean, is this a case where a company is downsizing and they're just kind of looking for any excuse to fire anybody? Or was that actually someone who was was so sensitive and thick that they couldn't understand the context of what you did. I would be curious, but that's an extreme scenario. I hope that doesn't happen every day, but who knows? As I referenced in that episode, and a lot of people on Twitter have referenced too, like, hey, people get fired all the time for really stupid reasons.

0:42:42 Thomas: I don't think it would be like the worst thing in the world if we added political views to protected classes, but I actually, it would cause some harm. Now, unless you could somehow legislate around this, and I don't think you could, this would mean if you are a business owner, like let's say I, and again, this affects all businesses, small business. Let's say, I own a business. I want to hire somebody and I find out they are a KKK member. That is a political view. Now, you were framing it in the lens of, I don't want to be fired for something, but you also need to look at it in a lens of what is government going to require me to do as as a business owner, and requiring someone to employ, to keep the employment of someone with really odious views, I don't know that that's where we want to be.

0:43:30 Thomas: Now, again, I actually don't think it would be the end of the world. Like, I think we could adjust. I think that if we adjusted our cultural expectations to where if someone works for a company and we find out they're a a white supremacist in this new kind of background where we all know every, all the information is known that you can't really fire anyone for that reason, then we wouldn't blame the company as much. So, so there's, let's say the Arby's Twitter account, you know, it turns out whoever's managing that says some, has some really, really terrible views. I think we would adjust to where it's like, well, I guess we don't blame Arby's because they, they're not allowed to fire that person. And I don't think that's like an impossible way to live, but I ultimately don't think it's the best way.

0:44:15 Thomas: I think that companies should be able to make choices like that. I think maybe a better solution would be just making the social safety net better. So if you get fired for some bullshit, make it so that it's not a catastrophic existential threat to your well-being, you know, make sure that you're not still have health care and maybe you'll have serviceable unemployment, that strong safety net would fix some of those concerns. But I don't know. Again, I think that's a legitimate discussion.

I also think it's something we could try to adjust socially. So we could trying to just do the social part of it where we try to decide it. I don't know how we go about this, but if as a society we tried to move away from being so quick to blame a company for the views of its employees, where some company could make a statement like, hey, we found out, you know, someone who works for us in their off time, not on company hours, has very hateful views towards somebody. You know, we that's what people do on their own time is their own Time. If they do anything at work, we'll fire them. But if not, that's their own. Time.

We don't pry into the business of, you Know, if we wanted to try to shape society to be be a little more that way, that might be a good thing, honestly. That might be a good think, but there's also downsides, you know. That's why, with all these things, it is kind of trade-offs.

And I think the way it is where certain characteristics that are, you cannot change about yourself, those are the things we try to protect so that people aren't discriminating just because of how someone was born.

0:45:57 Thomas: But I think as a society, we tend to look at political views is something you can change. And we tend to want to maintain some sort of libertarian view toward employment so that as a company, as a business owner, you're not required to keep people employed when you vehemently disagree with them and you think it's not good for your company culture, that kind of thing. I hope that clarified things. That is ultimately where I come down, though I, you know, it does go both ways. So as Andrew said, it does go with ways if, if Hobby Lobby is firing liberals, we can't really complain about that. If we're not complaining about James Damore getting fired for his conservative views. That's, that's kind of how it goes. So I guess what I'm trying to do is lay out the framework there.

0:46:45 Thomas: And then we can argue about, okay, which side do we want to take? And if we do take this view, are we being consistent? I think I've laid that out. I've laid out my view, but I think there's definitely cases to be made for things to be different than they are. But what case can't be made, yet again, just to emphasize, is the idea that this lawsuit has any merit because it doesn't.

0:47:08 Voicemail: Hey, Thomas, this is David in Kentucky. I just wanted to make a quick comment about Steven Pinker, more specifically, The Better Angels of Our Nature. I mean, I'm like you, I'm a liberal, and I think there are tremendous gains to be made, and it aggravates me to no end that people try to use that book to say that we've won, it's all over, you know, everything's fine now. At the same time, I often reference it for people because people generally seem to have this kind of attitude that the world is so much worse than it's ever been, you know, it's not like the good old days, quote unquote, I just can't stand the good ol' days, so I'll point to the points that even Tinker makes in the book of the larger picture, that this the human condition, but at the same time, I don't think that the improvements take care of the baby, have a good time, and you're awesome, and I hope to hear more.

0:48:07 Thomas: Thank you for the call. I got another one that was eerily similar from a different caller, like very, very similar to this. I want to emphasize that I don't think it's a crime to reference Pinker's work at all. I hope that wasn't what I was saying. I just very specifically have some problems with A, with his views, but also with the way he set it up with progressives hate progress. I mean, that was so unnecessary. It wasn't backed up by his talk. It was proven. It was needlessly antagonistic toward progressives. And I've seen more evidence now that Steven Steven Pinker, for example, sided with Christina Hoff Summers on Gamergate. And so he's in that kind of bubble too. I think it's very similar to the Sam Harris bubble.

0:48:52 Thomas: Taking Christina Hoff Summer seriously is definitely something you only do if you're in a bubble because she's very consistently in the young, you youngins are getting out of hand with your feminism and your rights and all that. I find her to be wrong on just about everything she touches. But anyway, someone sent me a link of Steven Pinker acknowledging that the U.S. was lagging behind the world in a lot of these areas of progress, which makes it even more frustrating that he would try to frame things as progressive state progress. I think it's very clear that there's plenty we need to progress on in the U S and even, even if it were true that the things were better than they ever have been, which is not true. I mean, there are plenty of measures that I outlined the other episode that are going backwards.

0:49:40 Thomas: But even if it were true that things were better than they've ever been ever of all time, it just is a non sequitur to say that you can't therefore want to make, to continue to make things better. It's just completely, I, that's what was so flabbergasting about that. So I know I expressed some, a certain amount of frustration with Steven Pinker, but one thing I'm trying to do and that I wish we would all do, I'm just starting with myself though, is, you know, I acknowledge that he's done interesting work in other areas. I'm not trying to throw him out completely and say he's a horrible person or anything. I just, I outlined very specific places where I disagreed. So to the callers, a couple of callers who called in, including this one saying, you know, oh, mea culpa, I reference Steven Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature.

0:50:27 Thomas: Yeah, no, no need to do that. That's, you know, that's fine. It's valid to reference it if you want to make a point about it. It's also, I mean, it's also interesting research. I'm, I think learning more things about the world is great. Learning, putting it in perspective, uh, certain measures that are doing better than ever. That, that's all interesting. It's the part where people try to weaponize it against progressives. That is of course, my, my complaint is very frustrating that people do that.

0:50:54 Voicemail: Yo, Thomas, it's Aaron Rabi from Embrace the Void, thanks, I really enjoyed your episode with Tom, and I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about how we can develop a more nuanced view of social media, because it seems to me that there's a lot of pushback about the idea that social media is bad, but not a lot discussion about the ways in which it can be very constructive and ways that we could develop more functional models in order to address the issues that we're currently seen with their business models. So maybe you could talk a little bit more if you think that that's an issue at all, or if you're thinking that it's as terrible as some people have said, then that's great too. So thanks very much.

0:51:35 Thomas: Always great to hear from Aaron of Embrace the Void. Love that guy, Aaron. Yeah, no, I Think this is probably something to tackle at a later date maybe, but I do, I just listened to, there's a Weeds episode on this very topic. Not 100% what you're saying, but a lot of what you touched on. And it talked about Facebook's recent business decisions. Well, are they business decisions? I guess that's part of the controversy because they recently said, you know, we're going to change the newsfeed around so that it doesn't prioritize pages. Side note, this is a good time to say, this is why I do virtually nothing on the Serious Inquiries Only Facebook page anymore. Facebook has basically eliminated your ability to see anything I do on that page.

0:52:23 Thomas: It doesn't come across your nude newsfeed. I almost said nude feed. I think I'll leave that in. It does come across her nude feed or your newsfeed, probably for similar reasons. But another reason is they have their algorithm set to just not bother with it unless unless you pay them money, which is their business model. And I just, I just didn't feel like doing that. I felt like, you know, trying to engage you guys in different ways. And, and by the way, that's one reason why I emphasize friend me on facebook.com slash Thomas podcast, because in addition to, you knows, being my friend, that's fun. Um, also that's just where I do my Facebook activity now for pretty much this very reason. But anyway, they're making it even worse now. Now, and this is allegedly their response to like, oh, fake news problems.

0:53:09 Thomas: And they also say, look, we've looked at studies and social media is making people unhappy. So here's what we're doing about it. But they pointed out on the weeds that actually that's not really what the studies are saying. You know, Facebook was trying to say, oh. We're going to prioritize people. So here is how we're fixing the online interaction. Here's how we're fixing the social media interaction to reference more directly your question, Aaron. They were saying, OK, we'll make it so it's more about people and less about pages and video, because Facebook pushed all this video stuff, their own video platform. And indeed, they actually even paid businesses to like make video content to put on so that it would launch their kind of Facebook video thing.

0:53:54 Thomas: And that's what they're now outlining and identifying as this is where the source of the fake news thing, we're going to get rid of this. It's going to make people happier and all that. But actually the research shows that just even just looking at people like you're friends with and seeing the fact that they're always, and this touches on a bit of what Tom said, they're all just, you know, they're just, they don't know what they want to do. They're always catering what their image is. So you're reviewing Facebook, you're going over the the Facebook newsfeed, and all you see are the best moments. Like for example, me, you're just seeing awesome pictures of my baby because she's awesome. I don't even post that many, by the way, people, people have actually asked me to post more. So I, I figured that's a good place to be in. People are like, Hey, you know, you don't really posting pictures of your baby post more I'm like, okay, good.

0:54:40 Thomas: That's, that's the sweet spot. I wanted to post just enough to where people want more. Um, but anyway, that, that of course will give people like, Oh, say Aaron Rabi. Now Now, Aaron's going to feel all bad about himself because he doesn't have my fine baby, my exquisite baby. I'm targeting him because we've joked about this before because I'm a filthy breeder and he, at least for now, is not. But no, I mean, it's that thing in general. You see your friends getting married. You see Your Friend's eating an awesome meal. You see, you know, so that's actually what makes people unhappy. And so Facebook's business model changes where they're going to change the algorithm, them, take away from pages, and make it more personal, that's actually not going to help us be happier. It might sort of help the news issue.

0:55:26 Thomas: But if you listen to that, I recommend that Weeds episode. It's just the latest one on the podcast, The Weeds, if you want to check it out. It is interesting. They talk about what Facebook could do. And they also mentioned that the minute Facebook made this change, this policy change, their stock dipped pretty dramatically. They lost a lot of money. And that should tell you something right there. So the minute they said, you know, we're going to do something a little different, that's maybe not necessarily geared 100% toward engagement. You know, it's geared toward a more allegedly altruistic cause. They dipped, you know. The value of the company dipped dramatically because I think the market Market knows that the value is created as, again, a lot of what Tom talked about, too.

0:56:14 Thomas: The value is create from getting people to stay on Facebook. That's what the company does. Getting people to say on Facebook and selling ads and other things. And the minute they talk about any sort of altruistic or or just more beneficial to us, not as units of ad consumers, but as people, then the company takes a hit. So who knows if they'll want to continue doing that, you know, but I'm open to guest suggestions because I personally don't think I have any expertise on how to make, how to use social media in a way that would be better for us and all that. If there's any guest suggestions, anyone who's written a book or anything, let me know. I can reach out. I would say just off the top of my head, my personal philosophy, like, oh, one thing that was mentioned either, oh shoot, either on that podcast or on another one.

0:57:04 Thomas: Now I'm blanking, but it was very interesting information, was that someone has noticed that the more techie a person they know, so like the more involved in Silicon Valley a person is, the more they restrict their own kids' usage of social media. And I know that's anecdotal, of course, but I thought it was interesting, and it was coming from someone with firsthand knowledge. Oh, I remember now, this was on the Ezra Klein Show, and it was an interview with Jaron Lanier. And I wasn't familiar with this person, but he has a ton of history in Silicon Valley, some sort of Silicon Valley guy. And he was the one who talked about the fact that the people he knows who are the most in the know on social media stuff, so like making, actually programming and running these companies, they don't allow their kids to use this stuff except for in very structured ways.

0:58:02 Thomas: I think that's something I certainly want to do with Phoebe. I don't want, you know, I'm never going to try to ban something. I just don't think that really works that much with kids. I think it tends to backfire, but restricting it and trying to not make it immediately available to her at such a young age is certainly something that I plan on doing. I'm going to form more of a plan on that as I go, but I think that moderation is good, but I don't know that I'm a good person to ask, because I think my own personal happiness right now is so tied to the fact that I've got this baby that makes me happy all the time. I think I've, my immunity is a bit higher up to the woes of social media. So I think I should talk to more of an expert on that.

0:58:49 Thomas: But yeah, I see the problems of it and I share your sentiments of wanting to find a way to make it better. But I don't know that we can rely on these companies to do it because the minute they announce something like that, then their stock takes a hit. So that's certain. I'm sure other companies took note of what happened when Facebook made this announcement. And I don't know that they'll make the same mistake. So let me know your suggestions on that, anyone listening, and maybe that's something I can do in the future. All righty, it is that that time to thank my new patrons, who, by the way, get an ad-free show. That applies to both Patreon and on my website, SiriusPod.com support. But of course, on SiriusPod.com support, you get extra stuff.

0:59:35 Thomas: So here are the latest signees onto the new site. Thank you so much to Zoran. Ari Stillman is a wholesome person who deserves love. And actually, that one again. Again, so Jeremiah, I don't know if he signed up twice, if that was intentional or not. I'm seeing two come up. So let me know if we need to fix that or anything. But anyway, good timing on the Ari Stillman shout out since they were in this episode in voicemail form. Door to door shoulder bullshit salesman.

1:00:05 Thomas: Damn, now I have to think of a new joke for this. Thank you to Skeptic Math Teacher, Kayla, Rapture Squirrel of the Apocalypse, trademark. Jesse Hoffner, Raphael, Catherine Koldehoff, Heinz Monkey, New Orleans will pay France to take us back, please. Thank you to Adam the Progressive who hates progress. Kevin Strasters, Flying Dutchman, and thank you to Evil Liberal College Teacher. Boy, that is who supports this show. That is a good cross sampling of people who support this show, progressives who hate progress and evil liberal college teachers and so forth. And of course, I also need to thank my all-time greats, my top patrons, and they are Scott M., John, Karen Sheetsoul, Emily Gallus, Corey Johnston, host of the Brainstorm podcast and the Hardcore Skeptic, Jesse Hamblin, Andrew the Waddington, Left of the Valley podcast, Luke Voucher, Marco Rosano.

1:01:03 Thomas: Yes, the Marco Rosana. Just listen to the Wayward Willis podcast already. Thank you, Marcel, long-time patron, first-time member. Hire new grad Lucas at offworldstudios.com for front-end web dev in SF. Michael Schaefer feels free to put in a funny message, chooses not to. Thank You, NZ Tim, door-to-door shoulder bullshit salesman. Zabby and Jay Aldenwald, thank you so much for being my top supporters at seriouspod.com slash support. All right, that's it for today's show. Thank you so much for listening. I'm looking forward to Monday's conversation, assuming there's no scheduled snafus. And thanks most of all to my supporters I just mentioned, and I will see everybody on Monday.