Speaker 1: M what's exposing my genitor? Oh no, no, no, I
Speaker 1: gotta stop myself on that one. Sophie's not here, Uh,
Speaker 1: Cody and Katie are, And I am ashamed that I
Speaker 1: even tried that one. In my defense, we were talking
Speaker 1: about chat roulette. We were that the whole context of
Speaker 1: that joke makes it better. We were just talking about
Speaker 1: because then you just let it fly real quick. But
Speaker 1: we will not be informing the listeners at the context.
Speaker 1: But I will inform them that my co host today
Speaker 1: are Katie Stole, Cody Johnson, some news and even more
Speaker 1: news news of a network dot com integer. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: were really creative when we thought of these names, and
Speaker 1: yes we are all creative geniuses. Um. Well, if you
Speaker 1: have a show and you're like, how to do that,
Speaker 1: but more of it? Humble, humble, creative geniuses, humble, sexy
Speaker 1: creative geniuses. Uh sexy of well, sexy, unstoppable, creative, unstoppable, Yeah, powerful,
Speaker 1: you should probably had a second humble in there too. Um.
Speaker 1: I mean what we were, what we really are is
Speaker 1: is news grifters. But today we're talking about a less
Speaker 1: ethical kind of grifter. Free speech grif yes, but free
Speaker 1: speech is important. It is. And also this is behind
Speaker 1: the bastards, the body in all history. And forget to
Speaker 1: announce things because I'm hanging out with my buds and
Speaker 1: not doing my job. We're doing against. Sophie is not here,
Speaker 1: which is why I have a podcasting machetes. Does not
Speaker 1: let me bring my eighteen inch long machete, but I
Speaker 1: have it. Let fly with it in your hands. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: you can fly with machetes. You can before you all know,
Speaker 1: he's justesturing with it. And I said, when he said,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, you can fly with machetes, he pointed it
Speaker 1: right at me. Well you're a good two three ft away.
Speaker 1: It's true. Yeah, like this this paper. Yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: it's gesturing. It's a tool. I wouldn't describe it as
Speaker 1: wildly brandishing your machete. No, no, no, because I have
Speaker 1: not started drinking. When I will be drinking is when
Speaker 1: we do our election year podcast, and then I will
Speaker 1: be drunkenly gesturing with machete. Perhaps at Sea Pack, maybe definitely,
Speaker 1: it's maybe definitely at Sea Pack. It's going to be
Speaker 1: a I got my lanyard. We're gonna phone record at
Speaker 1: all Yeah, yeah you can. We can name the video
Speaker 1: masch Saniard. Well, we should probably get into content that
Speaker 1: will be enjoyable for people who aren't the three of us.
Speaker 1: If you're not interested in the Machanyard podcast, then okay, okay, um,
Speaker 1: how are you guys doing? I didn't that on this?
Speaker 1: Thank you talking for hours? Alright, yeah, okay, good, good, good,
Speaker 1: We're good. We're well cool. All right, Well, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get into this and it's not focused around
Speaker 1: a person, which is my norm, but it's focused around
Speaker 1: some people, and I think folks will find a bastards beastards.
Speaker 1: Over the last few years, particularly since two thousand sixteen,
Speaker 1: the cause of free speech has become one of the
Speaker 1: most vicious and blood soaked battlegrounds in our national culture war.
Speaker 1: It's a unique one, too, because while most of America's
Speaker 1: political fuffles revolve around issues like abortion air gun rights,
Speaker 1: where there really is little common ground, free speech is
Speaker 1: a thing that everyone, at least in theory, supports. Big Fan,
Speaker 1: Big Fan, I love speaking freely, Big Fan love shouting freely.
Speaker 1: Fran over here with their shouting big Fran BF now uh.
Speaker 1: In August third, two eighteen, famous tabloid The New York
Speaker 1: Post published an article titled how Liberals turned against free speech.
Speaker 1: It opens with this line, why is it considered liberal
Speaker 1: to compel others to say or fund things they don't believe?
Speaker 1: That's a question raised by three Supreme Court decisions this year,
Speaker 1: And it's a puzzling development for those of us old
Speaker 1: enough to remember when liberals champion free speech, even advocacy
Speaker 1: of sedition and can servatives wanted government to restrain or limited.
Speaker 1: So that's the that's the opening of the article. And
Speaker 1: the three cases were. Two of them were one California
Speaker 1: case overturning the statute that required anti abortion pregnancy centers
Speaker 1: to inform clients of where they could obtain abortions uh
Speaker 1: and the reversal of a forty one year old president
Speaker 1: which stated that public employees didn't have to pay union
Speaker 1: fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining. And the
Speaker 1: third was one of those stupid fucking cases about a
Speaker 1: Christian bakery not wanting to of course for gig people.
Speaker 1: Classic at least of all these stories confuse me as
Speaker 1: to how, like that abortion thing, what about that's free speech?
Speaker 1: Like not informing That's a great question, that's a great question.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna dig into that one specific um,
Speaker 1: but I do want to note that the Post article
Speaker 1: quotes Neil Ferguson, who argues that liberals are increasingly authoritarian,
Speaker 1: and it ends on this line, like the liberal Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices who see no constitutional problem with compelling crisis
Speaker 1: pregnancy centers to send messages they find repugnant, or acquiring
Speaker 1: union members to subsidize political speech they disagree with, or
Speaker 1: force and people to participate in ceremonies prohibited by their religion.
Speaker 1: They seem not to have noticed Yale law professor Steven
Speaker 1: Carter's observation that every law is violent because behind every
Speaker 1: exercise of law stands the sheriff. Carter calls for a
Speaker 1: degree of humility in passing and enforcing laws that compel
Speaker 1: speech against conscience. Something today's liberals seem to have forgotten.
Speaker 1: Liberals is in quotation, Yeah, I gotta get those square quotes,
Speaker 1: and yeah, so it's easy to see you, I can
Speaker 1: see how someone might be convinced by that line of reasoning. Um,
Speaker 1: Like if if someone believes abortion is wrong and they
Speaker 1: open a clinic to help pregnant women in crisis, it's
Speaker 1: good to help pregnant women in crisis, and people who
Speaker 1: think abortion is wrong shouldn't be required to push people
Speaker 1: towards abortion doctors. That's an argument you could make, and
Speaker 1: it's an argument that if you have exactly that much
Speaker 1: evidence available to you, is there's logic to it on
Speaker 1: the surface. Yeah, Now, when you read a little bit
Speaker 1: more into these centers, it becomes easier to see the
Speaker 1: authoritarian liberal argument as to why that maybe doesn't include
Speaker 1: all of the relevant facts. I mean a quote from
Speaker 1: a report by the a M, a famed liberal lobbying group.
Speaker 1: All of the doctors. Drive down any highway in America
Speaker 1: and you might see a sign pregnant Scared called phone
Speaker 1: number first. Often these signs of advertisements for crisis pregnancy
Speaker 1: centers CPCs. CPCs sometimes known as pregnancy resource centers, pregnancy
Speaker 1: care centers, pregnancy support centers, or simply pregnancy centers, or
Speaker 1: organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended or crisis
Speaker 1: pregnancies who might be considering abortion. And then a little
Speaker 1: further down it notes CPCs as a rule not only
Speaker 1: discourage abortion, but also refused to provide referrals to abortion clinics,
Speaker 1: although they often provide counseling about dangers associated with premarital
Speaker 1: sexual activity. Women who visit CPCs typically do not realize
Speaker 1: that they are not in an abortion clinic and are
Speaker 1: surprised to find that abortion is not considered an option
Speaker 1: at these centers. As obstetrician gynecologists, we have had several
Speaker 1: disgruntled patients come to us who are disappointed and felt
Speaker 1: deceived by the care that they had received at CPCs.
Speaker 1: It's not as it's not I'm not going as simple
Speaker 1: as these do gooders being forced to speak against their will.
Speaker 1: It's somebody dressing up a religious mission as a medical exactly. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: cool cool. So if you're pregnant and you go there
Speaker 1: and you feel like you're in crisis and you're pregnant,
Speaker 1: one of their solutions is to teach about the dangers
Speaker 1: of premar Yeah, is that affect. It's It's kind of
Speaker 1: like if you go into the doctor with lung cancer
Speaker 1: after life of smoking, the doctors will say, well, if
Speaker 1: you try not fucking smoking. You know smoking is bad
Speaker 1: for you, you know, but you know those cigarettes aren't
Speaker 1: good for you. Put on this film strip real quick
Speaker 1: about how smoking is bad not doing you know favors.
Speaker 1: I love doctors that are helpful. There's a lollipop on
Speaker 1: your way. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that specific story
Speaker 1: bugs me. Yeah, it's frustrating. That's why that's the one
Speaker 1: I chose to focus on, because it frustrated me too.
Speaker 1: Um So, yes, if you read into a little bit,
Speaker 1: it becomes clear that, despite how it was framed by
Speaker 1: The New York Post, this is not a pro or
Speaker 1: anti free speech argument. Instead, it's an argument over whether
Speaker 1: or not religious organization should be allowed to masquerade fraudulently
Speaker 1: as medical practitioners and lie about health care options, which
Speaker 1: is maybe maybe a little different than see maybe mumb mumble,
Speaker 1: mumble mumble. Now, the fight over Christis pregnancy counseling centers
Speaker 1: is emblematic of the broader debate over free speech currently
Speaker 1: consuming our national discourse. Take a serious political issue that
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with the First Amendment, rap it
Speaker 1: in that cloak intard the other side of being anti
Speaker 1: free speech, so they have to defend themselves on that
Speaker 1: front rather than actually debate you over the harms of
Speaker 1: what you're doing. Strategy smart works. It's like if you're
Speaker 1: hunting a deer instead of camouflaging yourself. You dress yourself
Speaker 1: up as another deer, but with a gun for a mouth.
Speaker 1: This may not in fact be an analogy. It's perfect.
Speaker 1: Then you got to argue with that gun mouth deer
Speaker 1: instead of well, you're clearly you're a hunter and you're
Speaker 1: not a gunmouth, dear. But now I'm I want to
Speaker 1: debate that gunmouth to dear well. And you know that old,
Speaker 1: that old, that old chestnut of country wisdom. Nobody ever
Speaker 1: wins a debate with a gunmouth to dear well, you
Speaker 1: can't because as soon as he tries to talk a
Speaker 1: bullets exactly exactly. That's a good, good argument from the gunmouth, dear.
Speaker 1: Thank you for embracing my I still don't think it's
Speaker 1: an analogy of perfect analogy. My perfect analogy deally lost
Speaker 1: the thread, but I'm on, Thank you, Thank you. Also,
Speaker 1: just full disclosure. I mix up analogies and similes to metaphors,
Speaker 1: all of it. Metaphors. Oh my god, participles dangling. Those
Speaker 1: aren't related at all. No, no they're not, but it
Speaker 1: makes me uncomfortable to think about things dangling, particularly participles. Yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: the free speech grift as it's been coined by some critics,
Speaker 1: has risen to become the centerpiece of right wing politics
Speaker 1: because it is so much easier than actually arguing the
Speaker 1: merits of aggressive policies and abortion, racial justice, or anything else.
Speaker 1: It is brilliant strategy because it allows them to co
Speaker 1: opt the support of a sizeable number of moderates and
Speaker 1: liberals who are either too dumb to see what's happening
Speaker 1: or who are eager to capitalize on the grift themselves.
Speaker 1: In fact, the origins of our modern free speech grift
Speaker 1: trace back to a two fifteen article in The Atlantic
Speaker 1: titled the Coddling of the American Maya. Yeah you like
Speaker 1: you know, like that? Yeah, you're almost touching your nipples cotting. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm very exciting now. The article written by Greg Lukianoff
Speaker 1: and Jonathan Hate. Or the article is written by Greg
Speaker 1: Lukianof and Jonathan Hate, And the thrust of it is
Speaker 1: that political correctness has completely overtaken American campuses, assuring in
Speaker 1: a terrifying new era where art is censored and languages
Speaker 1: destroyed to please howling hordes of liberal zombie I so
Speaker 1: obsessed with these college campuses. They are big fans of
Speaker 1: college campuses, you know how like college, this is where
Speaker 1: like you learn and like you do some dumb stuff
Speaker 1: and like maybe you make things uh to be more
Speaker 1: than they are, and then you sort of grow out
Speaker 1: of it, and then like you go into the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah maybe you try. Yeah, maybe you put cocaine up
Speaker 1: your butt a couple of times you realize it's not good,
Speaker 1: and then you can go into the world and you
Speaker 1: snort cocaine like an adult. Point is how it's done.
Speaker 1: That's how it's done. This is the one problem facing
Speaker 1: America today. That's what I was getting a college. College
Speaker 1: and PC culture and culture. You know, Let's not try
Speaker 1: to be courteous and empathetic to other people. Let's not
Speaker 1: try to listen to other people in their perspectives. It's
Speaker 1: just fuck them because it's it's violence to me. If
Speaker 1: you say that kind of made me feel bad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm deeply offended that I offended you. I'm gonna quote
Speaker 1: from the article. For example, some students have called for
Speaker 1: warnings that China Chebes Things Fall Apart describes racial violence,
Speaker 1: and that f Scott Fitzgerald's The Great catsbeat or trays
Speaker 1: misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been
Speaker 1: previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to
Speaker 1: avoid these works, which did they believe might figger a
Speaker 1: recurrence of past trauma. Some recent campus actions border on
Speaker 1: the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American
Speaker 1: Student Association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians
Speaker 1: through an installation on the steps of an academic hall.
Speaker 1: The installation give examples of microaggressions such as aren't you
Speaker 1: supposed to be good at math? And I'm color blind
Speaker 1: I don't see race, but a backlash arose among other
Speaker 1: Asian American students who felt that the display itself was
Speaker 1: a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president
Speaker 1: wrote an email to the entire student body apologizing to
Speaker 1: anyone who was triggered or hurt by the content of
Speaker 1: the microaggressions. So that's the that's the that's the what
Speaker 1: they're what they're what they're complaining about, the coddling in
Speaker 1: the American mind. Yeah, okay, that, um, that one small story,
Speaker 1: Um has changed my mind about this about this issue.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, yeah, see that that's what they do in
Speaker 1: the articles they pick out a couple of stories where
Speaker 1: it's pretty easy, Okay, yeah, that's a group of that's
Speaker 1: a group of people may be behaving in a way
Speaker 1: that I would consider a little bit unreasonable or like
Speaker 1: that's or at least the way that it's characterized makes
Speaker 1: it seems like they might be a little unreasonable. But
Speaker 1: it's not interestingly enough for logic ration people like the
Speaker 1: folks who tend to be on the script. It doesn't
Speaker 1: delve much into actual I just tapped my papers on
Speaker 1: the table for influence UH statistics to tell us maybe
Speaker 1: if this is a I wonder if that information is available.
Speaker 1: It is here. I do have it right here courtesy
Speaker 1: of I didn't do the research myself, being a hack
Speaker 1: and a fraud, but I did find the research done
Speaker 1: by the Nscanon Center, a nonpartisan than tank dedicated to
Speaker 1: fostering an open society. They collected data from a number
Speaker 1: of studies on the beliefs of the Eye generation a
Speaker 1: k A. Generation Z a k A the kids who
Speaker 1: are in high school and college currently, and it turns
Speaker 1: out these kids are less likely to strongly favors free
Speaker 1: speech bands than any other age group. So actually kids
Speaker 1: in college right now are the least likely to support
Speaker 1: any restrictions on freedom of speech. Quote. A decade of
Speaker 1: data from the Night Foundation on high school students tells
Speaker 1: a similar story. Support for the First Amendment is currently
Speaker 1: at its strongest level yet recorded, with a majority of
Speaker 1: high schoolers fifty percent disagreeing with the statement the First
Speaker 1: Amendment goes too far in the rights it protects. Note
Speaker 1: that there is no change during the years when Eigen
Speaker 1: would be entering high school. And contrary to hates theory
Speaker 1: about the relationship between social media and free speech, the
Speaker 1: Night Foundation survey also found that high schoolers who actively
Speaker 1: engage with news on social media, discussing stories, posting comments,
Speaker 1: and leaking to articles consistently demonstrate greater support for free speech,
Speaker 1: not less interesting. So maybe taking isolated incidents that are
Speaker 1: sort of like charged with emotion. Yeah, of the thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands of campuses in the country and hundreds of thousands,
Speaker 1: and then pinpointing and saying like this is a nation,
Speaker 1: this is every college scientific Yeah, maybe it's complete nonsense.
Speaker 1: Maybe he's intellectually dim, Yeah, maybe just lying. Can we
Speaker 1: say playing on a podcast, I think we can, well,
Speaker 1: you can bleep it. We can believe it. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make a bleeping noise by hitting this empty
Speaker 1: Lacroix can with a machette. And we can just we
Speaker 1: can put that in a post. It's a good idea.
Speaker 1: Don't worry, it's fine. Can Well, we'll post that every good.
Speaker 1: It's the best I've ever heard. Thank you. Okay, And
Speaker 1: now you've got a place to put your knife. I
Speaker 1: know now, it's not that. It's a nice little machete holder. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I made a little pocket for it. Everything works out. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I like that about the world now. Uh. The NIS
Speaker 1: Canon Center Uh. Summary also notes that in a later
Speaker 1: article Hate and another writer's site that two thousand seventeen
Speaker 1: Night Foundation study that was just quoted above to make
Speaker 1: the same point, noting a rise in the number of
Speaker 1: college students who say the climate on my campus prevents
Speaker 1: some people from saying things they believe because others might
Speaker 1: find them offensive. The rises from two sixteen to six
Speaker 1: in two thousand seventeen. But Hate and his co author
Speaker 1: and neglect to mention that two thousand sixteen in two
Speaker 1: thou seventeen are the only years for which data on
Speaker 1: that question is available, making it essentially meaningless as a
Speaker 1: way to identify a trend. They also insinuate that this
Speaker 1: increase in censorship is driven by liberal and leftist students. However,
Speaker 1: quote this increase is being driven by perceptions of self
Speaker 1: censorship among about crats and independence. The number of Republican
Speaker 1: students who reported a cinsorious climate on campus actually dropped
Speaker 1: from six. Cool. Uh you love to laugh, you love
Speaker 1: intellectual honesty. Yeah, Um, this is uh wholly unsurprising. I
Speaker 1: don't think I've seen this data you referring to. I
Speaker 1: saw a similar report about this, and there's actually quite
Speaker 1: a lot of data. Yeah, um, basically yeah, saying the
Speaker 1: same thing that like, uh, the perception is actually the
Speaker 1: opposite of reality. Yeah, and uh and this is like
Speaker 1: you can see this kind of generally throughout history of
Speaker 1: like a lot of the left gets censored. People who
Speaker 1: actually want society to change in massive fundamental ways often
Speaker 1: censored themselves often. Um, and uh, even just like professors,
Speaker 1: Like definitely professors get censored a lot more than any
Speaker 1: of these people. And we'll get into that. Oh good, yeah, yeah, Now,
Speaker 1: that nis Cannon study does also note that, according to
Speaker 1: a two seventeen YouGov study, conservative students were more likely
Speaker 1: to report censoring themselves in the classroom versus and outside
Speaker 1: of it vers But even this data does not tell
Speaker 1: the entire story. A survey conducted by CATO and YouGov
Speaker 1: notes that fifty percent of Americans nationwide reports self censoring
Speaker 1: their views among other people. Conservative college students are actually
Speaker 1: less likely to report censoring themselves than conservative Americans outside
Speaker 1: of colleges, and liberals on college campuses sinser themselves more
Speaker 1: often than liberals in the general population. Um so are
Speaker 1: you suggesting that that is the opposite again? Yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit the opposite. I'm just clarifying. I
Speaker 1: I'm just clarifying. Thank you for clarity. Is important? Again, unsurprising? Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: In other words, the entire story of free speech suppression
Speaker 1: on American college campuses is a lie. The reality is
Speaker 1: literally the opposite. In spite of this, right wing groups
Speaker 1: like Turning Point USA, Cody's Favorite, My Favorite, my Favorite
Speaker 1: fellows Yeah, have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to
Speaker 1: influence political elections on college campuses and crusade against safe
Speaker 1: spaces at their campus clash events. Uh. Their two thousand
Speaker 1: nineteen tour include speakers like tp USA founder Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Jr. Candice Owens, and Kyle cash Of who
Speaker 1: recently got his Harvard invitation assented for writing racial slurs
Speaker 1: in several text messages to classmates and an open Google doc. Cool.
Speaker 1: Are you suggesting that the president's son is being censored? Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that point saying that the president son has a free
Speaker 1: speech problem and the suck to be the president's son
Speaker 1: and to be so rich. It's a shame when millionaires
Speaker 1: funded by billionaires, Uh, just say lies and someone gets
Speaker 1: angry at someone, and that is the death of free speech.
Speaker 1: Someone getting angry at a millionaire being paid by billionaires
Speaker 1: to lie. That censorship, That censorship, criticism, oppression, guys, call
Speaker 1: it what it is. I should also note that free
Speaker 1: speech bastion tp USA donors include such luminaries as Greg
Speaker 1: Ganforte assaulted a Guardian journalist for asking him questions. I
Speaker 1: didn't know Greg was involved with them. Thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of the guy who assaulted a journalist for asking a question.
Speaker 1: You guys want to hear an unrelated quote from Thomas Jefferson. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: we're left to me to decide whether we should have
Speaker 1: a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I
Speaker 1: should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. Interesting,
Speaker 1: you know, it goes well with those gestures. Products services also,
Speaker 1: but yes, products, Yes, you were right, Katie. I was
Speaker 1: so excited to get one right. You did, you got it,
Speaker 1: you nailed it. Would you like to throw in a
Speaker 1: free ad for something? This is your this is your time.
Speaker 1: I'd like time in here. Well, right now I'm craving
Speaker 1: gummy bears, so I'd like to throw in an ad
Speaker 1: for gummy bears. The concept of gummy bears, bouncing, hippie
Speaker 1: hopping it all around the forest, fantastic, filled with juicy flavors,
Speaker 1: juicy flavors, gummy bears filled with juicy flavors. I love
Speaker 1: eating candy I find in the forest. Yeah, forest candy
Speaker 1: the best kind of candy. But also it's when you
Speaker 1: wanted the most, Like I imagine you hungry in the
Speaker 1: forest and you're not sure when you're with some friends
Speaker 1: years back in the Texas in the summer and we
Speaker 1: had a big bag of gummy candy and we left
Speaker 1: it outside and it all melted together into one giant,
Speaker 1: like four pounds like ball, of so good, beautiful, fucking
Speaker 1: so tasty, all the flavors in one, well, if you
Speaker 1: want all the flavors in one by the products advertized,
Speaker 1: We're back for a flawless ad pit. Really, thank you, Katie.
Speaker 1: Oh you're you know what, You're welcome, You're you're so
Speaker 1: much better. You are nailed it. Humbly good, humbly good,
Speaker 1: humbly good. Uh yeah, So, Turning Point USA doesn't just
Speaker 1: sponsor speeches and debates on college campuses to foster free speech.
Speaker 1: They also compile and maintain a professor watch list, which
Speaker 1: is definitely a thing that sounds good for free speech.
Speaker 1: As a watch list of professors, yeah. Typical of the
Speaker 1: list is the entry for Professor Betsy Stevenson. Quote. Betsy
Speaker 1: Stevenson is an associate professor of economics at the University
Speaker 1: of Michigan. Stevenson made the list after making the claim
Speaker 1: that the lack of women found in economics textbooks is
Speaker 1: the reason so few women pursue economics as a major.
Speaker 1: In a study she conducted with Hannah's Latnick, she found
Speaker 1: that seventy of people found in the leading economics textbooks
Speaker 1: were mail. That sounds like a reason to be on
Speaker 1: a watch list for her research and speech fire her. Um, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is uh now, maybe it's a watch list of
Speaker 1: good researchers. Stuff that's true. Maybe I should read the
Speaker 1: next paragraph. Maybe you should, Maybe I should. Can't agree
Speaker 1: with you more. When the watch list was originally created
Speaker 1: in November of sixteen, t p U SA writer Matt
Speaker 1: Lamb described its purpose thus, Lee, we aimed a post
Speaker 1: professors who have records of targeting students for their viewpoints,
Speaker 1: forcing students to adopt a certain perspective, and or abuse
Speaker 1: or harm students in any way for standing up for
Speaker 1: their beliefs. Okay, do you want to read your example
Speaker 1: again from earlier? Oh my god, Well she's sensitive little
Speaker 1: tweets she claimed that women were unrepresented in economics textbooks
Speaker 1: and then proved it with rigorous data. Well that's threatening.
Speaker 1: I feel attacked, and I think you should apologize to
Speaker 1: us both, Katie, because I'm a woman, exactly, I refuse. Wow.
Speaker 1: I think I think I know a watch list you're
Speaker 1: going I always wanted if you want to watch it.
Speaker 1: I feel need now to join Turning Point USA, which
Speaker 1: incidentally has them. I feel the need to go up
Speaker 1: to Gregg Gianforte ask him a question to get hit
Speaker 1: in the face. Uh, well, that's uh. I'll leave that
Speaker 1: to you. I'll get on the watch list of speech.
Speaker 1: We can all do different parts of it. Yeah, we're all.
Speaker 1: We're all just different free speeches. Cool fitness. Cannon study
Speaker 1: also looked into the frequency with which college faculty members
Speaker 1: are fired due to criticism from the left and the right.
Speaker 1: The results are fascinating, and I'd like to quote from
Speaker 1: that study again to begin to answer this question. I
Speaker 1: gathered together all cases from two thousand fifteen to two
Speaker 1: seventeen involving number one, a faculty member and an American
Speaker 1: degree granting post secondary nonprofit institution who was fired, slash,
Speaker 1: resigned as part of a settlement, or demoted, denied promotion
Speaker 1: due to speech that perceived by critics as political. Okay,
Speaker 1: it seems reasonable. What remains are forty is from two thousand, fifteen,
Speaker 1: two and seventeen where a faculty member was fired, resigned,
Speaker 1: or demoted, denied promotion due to speech tamed by critics
Speaker 1: is political. Of these, more than half twenty six occurred,
Speaker 1: seen the clear majority nineteen being over liberal speech. This
Speaker 1: disparity persists even after removing terminations occurring in private religious institutions.
Speaker 1: For liberals, the most common types of speech to result
Speaker 1: in termination where those perceived by critics as anti white
Speaker 1: or anti Christian. For conservatives, that were anti minority or
Speaker 1: anti diversity, now because their diligent this. Cannon notes that
Speaker 1: the higher frequency of professors being caned for left wing
Speaker 1: speech may have more to do with the fact that
Speaker 1: there are more left wing professors than right wing professor
Speaker 1: is absolutely a factor. Um so because they're let's not
Speaker 1: be mean with our facts. Facts are facts. Do care
Speaker 1: about their feelings? I got it. I got a D
Speaker 1: on my history paper because I'm conservative. That's why my
Speaker 1: history of paper was just why was Hitler the bad guy?
Speaker 1: He shouted at the people, I shout at the whole
Speaker 1: thing about how the Civil War was only about states rights?
Speaker 1: And they gave me a D. And I was like,
Speaker 1: what is because of my I voted Republican. It's censorship.
Speaker 1: I agree, it's censorship because as far as I'm aware,
Speaker 1: there was never any slavery in the South. I learned
Speaker 1: that from my sheltered upbringing. I guess, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I my history textbook went from the founding of humanity
Speaker 1: to one and then started right back up again in
Speaker 1: you get all the key parts. Yeah, skip the nonsense,
Speaker 1: skip the skip all that bullshit, Yeah, get right back
Speaker 1: into the good stuff right in the roar and eighties.
Speaker 1: So yeah, Well, there's no evidence that conservative voices are
Speaker 1: being silenced in academia. This data does not necessarily suggest
Speaker 1: that the opposite is happening. However, quote the size of
Speaker 1: the disparity in two thousand seventeen Bears Watching is it
Speaker 1: may mark the beginning of a trend in precarious liberal speech.
Speaker 1: A proper assessment would also need to take stock of
Speaker 1: the data ugorization issues surrounding religious institutions. Determinations for political
Speaker 1: speech especially difficult to capture. So, like actual researchers, you
Speaker 1: care about facts. Even when they have a lot of
Speaker 1: data that this canon, people hesitate to draw conclusions that
Speaker 1: are overly broad based on the information they have because
Speaker 1: they're trying to do actual research, as opposed to picking
Speaker 1: out a single issue on a single campus and saying,
Speaker 1: look at what these liberals are doing to free speech. Well,
Speaker 1: now I don't know what to think. Now you don't know.
Speaker 1: They seem like two equally credible people yeah. I mean,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, whatever dumb ship you said. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, this report, So we're going to do
Speaker 1: join TUSA. Yeah. Now, while we're on the subject of professors,
Speaker 1: we should probably talk a little bit about Cody's favorite professors.
Speaker 1: Doctor Jordan's fucking Piers was waiting because as soon as
Speaker 1: you said professor watch list, like yeah, it was the
Speaker 1: only person to talk to about after this. Yeah, now
Speaker 1: doctor professor Peterson describes some Stordan Peterson bad boy Peterson.
Speaker 1: He describes himself as quote a classic British liberal who
Speaker 1: defends individual freedom from collectivists. Now he has a particular
Speaker 1: hatred for the Ontario Institute for the Studies of Education.
Speaker 1: The organization's mission statement seems mild enough, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: a little bit confusing. It says that its goal is
Speaker 1: to prepare scholars, teachers, and other professional leaders to be
Speaker 1: equipped with the skills in global awareness required by an
Speaker 1: increasingly challenging and complex society, ready to influence policy and
Speaker 1: practice in their fields. But Peterson takes issue with what
Speaker 1: I suspect is that last line, claiming the o I
Speaker 1: S is basically a training ground for dastardly social justice warriors. Sorry. Uh.
Speaker 1: In a two an teen interview with Epic Times, he
Speaker 1: stayed at the Ontario Institute for the Studies of Education.
Speaker 1: That bloody thing is a fifth column. The people who
Speaker 1: are producing the educators that emerge from that institute, they
Speaker 1: should be put on trial for treason. Like it's serious stuff.
Speaker 1: The idea is that the purpose of education is to
Speaker 1: get them while they're young in kindergartens, that this radical
Speaker 1: postmodern Marxist ideology can be so thoroughly inculcated when they're
Speaker 1: young they have no chance of escaping from it. And
Speaker 1: that's what's happening in the education system. This paranoid maniac.
Speaker 1: They need to be tried for treason. Precise in your speech,
Speaker 1: Cody takes off his glasses and puts his head in
Speaker 1: his hands. Just everyone is the visual I have. You
Speaker 1: know how you know when you play like an Xbox
Speaker 1: and you're playing a video game and they've got all
Speaker 1: these different like little awards you can win for doing
Speaker 1: shooting people in the head or whatever. My my one
Speaker 1: for this podcast is going to be giving Cody an
Speaker 1: embolism getting there god quote Yeah, it's his entire self
Speaker 1: in sentence. Yeah, Yeah, these people are teaching things I
Speaker 1: don't like. They should be on trial for I love
Speaker 1: free speech. This is like yeah. Additionally, back in two
Speaker 1: thousand seventeen, to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that doctor professor
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson planned to a build a website listing university
Speaker 1: courses in Canada that had what he claimed were postmodern,
Speaker 1: neo Marxist course content. He told CTV, We're going to
Speaker 1: start with the website in the next month and a half.
Speaker 1: That will be designed to help students and parents identify
Speaker 1: post modern content and courses so that they can avoid them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now there's created a bit of an uproar. According to
Speaker 1: the website Inside Higher Education quote and a YouTube video
Speaker 1: posted to his personal account, he highlighted English literature, anthropology, sociology,
Speaker 1: women studies, and ethnic studies as the types of courses
Speaker 1: that quote that have to go. Professors at the University
Speaker 1: of Toronto expressed concern that they would be targeted by
Speaker 1: such a list, which also led to fears of harassment.
Speaker 1: Instructors of the potentially targeted courses believe that they're auto
Speaker 1: to me as educators maybe under threat. The proposed website
Speaker 1: has created a climate of fear and intimidation, the University
Speaker 1: of Toronto Faculty Association set in a statement to Canadian
Speaker 1: media Now. Shortly thereafter, free speech warrior doctor Professor Jordan Peterson,
Speaker 1: professor doctor announced on Twitter that he had shelved for
Speaker 1: now his plans to build a website listing courses he
Speaker 1: thought should be banned, like women's studies. Good, yeah, I
Speaker 1: was about to ask you. You did say women's right,
Speaker 1: who would need to study women? You did say anthropology, right, yes,
Speaker 1: Also sociology, also ethnic studies. Also English literally English literature
Speaker 1: be banned. The fact they don't that should be bad.
Speaker 1: Have to go to Okay, let's not say that would
Speaker 1: be the wrong word. Band, have to go. He's being
Speaker 1: censored for his and we should be taking him seriously.
Speaker 1: Famous censored millionaire doctor, Professor Jordan Peterson, who only eats meat,
Speaker 1: who only eats beef and salt and water coops. I'm
Speaker 1: sure fascinating, unbelievable. They are unbelievable poops. Yeah, they're unfathomable poops.
Speaker 1: He's got um. This is the man who um had
Speaker 1: literal apocalyptic dreams about the end of the world and
Speaker 1: wanted to start a church and believes that his wife
Speaker 1: has prophetic dreams. If he is the special boy who's
Speaker 1: going to save the world from destabilization to destruction. I'm
Speaker 1: not making this up now. In a different era, this man,
Speaker 1: while he is scary, would be a worldwide threat of
Speaker 1: some sort. Yeah, it sounds a little I don't want
Speaker 1: to say hitlery, you know, That's what I was going at,
Speaker 1: dreams of you saving the world from a one could
Speaker 1: say cultural Marxism. He might have a different word for it,
Speaker 1: savior syndrome type thing. Because there's a natural there's a
Speaker 1: natural order. Um. I think we need to spell out
Speaker 1: really directly why you and I see Nazi peralilels and
Speaker 1: someone what's going on, because it is a little bit obscured.
Speaker 1: I had actually an argument with this about my dad
Speaker 1: recently because he doesn't understand like that when people talk
Speaker 1: about cultural Marxism, Um, when they when that, which is
Speaker 1: a big thing for Jordan people, that's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: That's what he said it before. What's the exact wording
Speaker 1: he says postmodern neo Marxisms, like he talks about how
Speaker 1: they switched it and stuff like that. But there are
Speaker 1: other clips of him talking about literally cultural Marxisms. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it's like he clearly used one term and then
Speaker 1: switched to another term. The idea cultural Marxism comes from
Speaker 1: fucking Nazi propaganda in the twenties and thirties when they
Speaker 1: called it cultural bolshevismos or something like that, and the
Speaker 1: idea was both that Marxism was infiltrating society and specifically
Speaker 1: that it was infiltrating society through the Jews. And we're
Speaker 1: trying to like undermine this is why we we see
Speaker 1: when we make snide comments about Dr Jordan Peterson may
Speaker 1: kind of bascists, we're not like reaching super far. There
Speaker 1: was this ideology that was this attitude of cultural Marxism.
Speaker 1: That's the thing that exists that was created by the
Speaker 1: Nazis to justify what they did to the Jews. And
Speaker 1: then a new generation of people has just sort of
Speaker 1: cut the Jews out of cut the Judeo out of
Speaker 1: Judaeo Bolshevis, and but they're like, no, there's still cultural
Speaker 1: bolt It's now like it's like the liberal academia and
Speaker 1: the left like radical leftist and their cultural like and
Speaker 1: how like it's uh an amalgam of of these groups
Speaker 1: that are doing this instead of just the Jews. Yeah, um,
Speaker 1: and uh, it's the it's yeah, the line is very
Speaker 1: clear and like it's it's one of the things like, no,
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson isn't a Nazi. He would have been. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's not. Even so there's that, but even beyond that,
Speaker 1: someone that says that, oh my wife had a prophetic
Speaker 1: dream that I am this your type person, or someone
Speaker 1: that says, you know what, yeah, only eating meat that'll
Speaker 1: cure depression. And I want to open up church and
Speaker 1: want to open a church. We need to ban women's
Speaker 1: studies at studies that for apology, which is just like
Speaker 1: that's absolutely nuts. So that's somebody that's a maniac. I
Speaker 1: don't know how else you describe him. And if you
Speaker 1: get into power, this person gets into a power, it's terrified. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's got I don't want to I don't want to
Speaker 1: oversell the state of the threat, but if Dr Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson gets his way, we will lose the best season
Speaker 1: of Community. Are we really willing to Absolutely? No, window, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's a good show. It's great. It's a great show.
Speaker 1: A high note. Yeah that was actually really except gone
Speaker 1: but yeah, that was that was Oh yeah, no, that
Speaker 1: both of all the actors they brought in for the azing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it a lot. Writing is perfect, really yeah,
Speaker 1: nice note cheers me up a little bit every time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we've gotten well. Love of dragon. Now let's talk about
Speaker 1: free speech warrior Dr Jordan Peterson, who was a big
Speaker 1: fan of free speech, big fan of free speech, clearly
Speaker 1: huge lover of free speech. In June of two nineteen,
Speaker 1: the Doctor Professor was invited to speak at the Brain
Speaker 1: Bar in Budapest by Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban. Mr
Speaker 1: Orbon wanted to speak with a doctor professor about current
Speaker 1: political issues. According to New York Magazine quote, The Orbon
Speaker 1: friendly news outlet Hungry Today described their meeting as an
Speaker 1: amiable conversation about the dangers of a legal immigration, political correctness,
Speaker 1: and Jean Claude Junker's apology. As for Karl Marks, Peterson
Speaker 1: and Orbon also touched on a current tendency to minimize
Speaker 1: the crimes committed under communist regimes. They cited an infamous
Speaker 1: speech by European Commission President Jean Claude Junker, in which
Speaker 1: they said he defended Carl Marks. Now, if you lean
Speaker 1: a little bit more towards the conservative end of the spectrum,
Speaker 1: and you have not kept a pace with Hungarian politics,
Speaker 1: you may not immediately see what's so funked up about.
Speaker 1: Victor Orbon is an avowed advocate of what he calls
Speaker 1: alliberal democracy a k a. Not really democracy at all illiberal.
Speaker 1: In his two thousand eighteen acceptance speech, he declared, an
Speaker 1: into the era of liberal democracy. We have replaced a
Speaker 1: shipwrecked liberal democracy with a twenty first century Christian democracy
Speaker 1: which guarantees people's freedom security. It supports the traditional family
Speaker 1: motto of model of one man and one woman, keeps
Speaker 1: anti Semitism at bay, and gives a chance for growth.
Speaker 1: M free speech lover Victor Orbon now after his election
Speaker 1: he passed a series of punitive laws and launched a
Speaker 1: propaganda campaign that forced the Central European University to withdraw
Speaker 1: from his country. New York Magazine describes them as a
Speaker 1: liberal institution whose avowed purpose was to protect the open
Speaker 1: society from a from authoritarianism of the right or left.
Speaker 1: They also note that at the nation's remaining colleges, Orbon
Speaker 1: has banned fields of study that conflict with the state's
Speaker 1: conception of truth. And will Orban identifies as in the
Speaker 1: Liberal Democrat. His party has insulated its power against the
Speaker 1: threat of popular rebuke to such a degree that many
Speaker 1: scholars describe his regime as a creeping dictatorship. Now, in
Speaker 1: a teen interview, Dr Peterson himself agreed that Hungary's assaults
Speaker 1: on academic freedom were unacceptable, yet he agreed to sit
Speaker 1: down with Orbon and have a convivial talk about the
Speaker 1: danger of cultural Marxism. Meanwhile, Peterson decried the idea that
Speaker 1: people ought to accept different gender pronouns for trans and
Speaker 1: non binary people as being dangerously in line with quote
Speaker 1: the Marxist doctrines that killed at least a hundred million
Speaker 1: people in the twentieth century. What what Dr Professor Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson there expert on the world? The world? UM it's
Speaker 1: so interesting to hear him talk about UM and it's
Speaker 1: like one of those things like you don't hear him
Speaker 1: talk about the other side of this. Um are the
Speaker 1: people that die from uh fascist extension of sort of
Speaker 1: what he espouses, You don't. It's just interesting. It's only
Speaker 1: communism people um on. He doesn't feel compelled to talk
Speaker 1: about that. It's his right, it's his right spear point
Speaker 1: of order. Uh. Jordan B. Peterson, who's a clinical psychologist Dr.
Speaker 1: Dr Professor J. Peterson, clinical psychologist UM, has on more
Speaker 1: than one occasion on camera claimed to be an evolutionary
Speaker 1: biologist UM and a neuroscientist, two things he is not,
Speaker 1: two things that a respectable uh A professor or doctor
Speaker 1: wouldn't claim to be if they were not. UM. It
Speaker 1: seems like perhaps he's uh adult, dishonored, dishonest. Also, he's
Speaker 1: once asked if he supported gay marriage the cultural Marxists
Speaker 1: are supporting, and he was like, well, if culture Marxist
Speaker 1: supported I wouldn't support it. So oh cool, very cool.
Speaker 1: That's a solid intellectual line to take. Now. Earlier in
Speaker 1: this episode and we started talking about the Good Doctor,
Speaker 1: I noted that he identifies personally as a classic British liberal.
Speaker 1: Probably heard that, Kay, yeah, this is not an uncommon
Speaker 1: statement from intellectual figures on the right. Many of them
Speaker 1: identify as classical liberals. When they do so, they are
Speaker 1: putting themselves in line with an intellectual tradition that is
Speaker 1: descended in large part from a nineteenth century philosopher and
Speaker 1: British member of Parliament named John Stuart Mill in his
Speaker 1: influential essay on Liberty, Mill wrote this, there ought to
Speaker 1: exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing as a
Speaker 1: matter of ethical conviction. Any doctrine, however immoral, it may
Speaker 1: be considered. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion,
Speaker 1: and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind
Speaker 1: would be no more justified in silencing that one person
Speaker 1: than he, if he had the power, would be justified
Speaker 1: in silencing mankind. Now on classical liberals like Peterson talk
Speaker 1: about free speech, they are calling upon the ideas they
Speaker 1: inherited from Mill, or at least the ideas they believe
Speaker 1: they inherited from Mill. I found a great article about
Speaker 1: this on The Conversation titled the Strange Origins of Free
Speaker 1: Speech Warriors quote in truth, thinkers such as Mill were
Speaker 1: far from being libertarians, and what's more, would never have
Speaker 1: embraced the borderline absolutist position of today's free speech warriors.
Speaker 1: Based in what is called the harm principle, Mill argued
Speaker 1: for a big government approach to situations into situations in
Speaker 1: which the exercise of liberty might result in the harm
Speaker 1: to others or even to the individual practicing it, and
Speaker 1: on liberty. He argues that parents of poor moral fiber
Speaker 1: may have their children removed from the home, and causes
Speaker 1: and calls for similar state and intervention to stop the
Speaker 1: harms caused by gamblers, prostitutes, and the drug addicts. Even
Speaker 1: more broadly, he decides that the uncultivated cannot be competent
Speaker 1: judges of cultivation. Those who most need to be made
Speaker 1: wiser and better usually desire at least, and if they
Speaker 1: desire it would be incapable of finding the way to
Speaker 1: it by their own light. They've got to go. Yeah. Yeah, Now,
Speaker 1: I'd be a little bit remiss in talking about the
Speaker 1: harm principle without getting into a little little bit of
Speaker 1: the history of US Jewish prudence as it relates to
Speaker 1: free speech cases. In March of nineteen nineteen, which is
Speaker 1: about a hundred years ago, Oliver Oliver Windell Holmes, Oh Homie,
Speaker 1: Classic wind Holmesy, Oh Windy, A good names whimsy. That's
Speaker 1: a good nickname for whimsy. Supreme Court Justice wrote a
Speaker 1: series of unanimous opinions on three cases upholding the convictions
Speaker 1: and prison sentences of members of the Socialist Party. These
Speaker 1: people's crime had been writing and distributing some fifteen thousand
Speaker 1: flyers too, men who were in the process of being conscripted.
Speaker 1: The flyers argued that conscription was in voluntary servitude and
Speaker 1: prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. Also involved with the court
Speaker 1: cases of Eugene Debs, a socialist presidential candidate who protested
Speaker 1: against World War One. In a speech, Deb's and his
Speaker 1: comrades were found to have violated the Espionage and Sedition Acts,
Speaker 1: and justifying their incarceration, Holmes wrote, words which ordinarily, and
Speaker 1: in many cases would be would be within the freedom
Speaker 1: of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject
Speaker 1: of prohibition when of such nature and used in such
Speaker 1: circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that
Speaker 1: they will be bring about the substantive evils of which
Speaker 1: Congress has a right to prevent. Free speech. Free speech
Speaker 1: sounds kind of Peterson, sounds a little bit petersonny. Now,
Speaker 1: Holmes went on to write a line that has since
Speaker 1: become famous. The most stringent protection of free speech would
Speaker 1: not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a
Speaker 1: theater and causing a panic. That's where that comes from.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna quote next from an article in the l
Speaker 1: a review of books by Stephen Rhode about sort of
Speaker 1: where all this ends after we we jail all these
Speaker 1: socialists for a free speech that's too dangerous to be allowed.
Speaker 1: Only eight months later, in November nineteen nineteen, joined by
Speaker 1: his protege, Justice Brandeis, in the case Abrams v. United
Speaker 1: States Homes, would signal a dramatic and pivotal shift in
Speaker 1: his approach to the First Amendment, as recounted in the
Speaker 1: illuminating essay write Skepticism and Majority Rule at the Birth
Speaker 1: of the Modern First Amendment by Vincent Lassi Coreless Lamont,
Speaker 1: Professor of Civil Liberties at Columbia Law School, which explains
Speaker 1: why the year nineteen nineteen deserves to inaugurate the free
Speaker 1: speech century. Holmes descent planted the fertile seeds of our
Speaker 1: modern day First Amendment jurisprudence. Holmes declared that the ultimate
Speaker 1: good desire is better reached by free trade and ideas,
Speaker 1: that the best test of truth is the power of
Speaker 1: the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of
Speaker 1: the market, and that the truth is the only ground
Speaker 1: upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. He
Speaker 1: saw the Constitution as an experiment, as all life is
Speaker 1: an experiment. But he warned that we should be eternally
Speaker 1: vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that
Speaker 1: we loathe and believed to be fraught with death, unless
Speaker 1: they so immediately threatened interference with the lawful, impressing purposes
Speaker 1: of the law, that an immediate check is required to
Speaker 1: save the country. Okay, this is what he does. Eight
Speaker 1: months after agreeing that those socialists A would be jailed
Speaker 1: for saying the traction people slavery, now Holmes his views.
Speaker 1: The new views that he shifted to JA they would
Speaker 1: be codified in American law. Fifty years later, during the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty nine Brandenburg v. Ohio case and another unanimous decision,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the KKK leader
Speaker 1: who had led a rally of armed men. These klansmen
Speaker 1: had burnt crosses and talked about taking revenge against the
Speaker 1: Inwards and Jews that in claimed that the US government
Speaker 1: continues to suppress the white Caucasian race. They announced plans
Speaker 1: for the fourth of July march on Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: In his pure curium opinion for the Court, Justice William
Speaker 1: Brennan wrote, the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free
Speaker 1: press do not permit a state to probid or prescribe
Speaker 1: advocacy of the use of force or of law violation,
Speaker 1: except where an advocacy is directed to inciting or producing
Speaker 1: imminent lawless action and as likely to incite or produce
Speaker 1: such action. It's interesting to me when we talk about
Speaker 1: the history of the evolution of free speech in this
Speaker 1: country that when socialists told draftees that being conscripted violated
Speaker 1: their human rights, that speech was too dangerous to be protected.
Speaker 1: But when white supremacists carried guns and promised to take
Speaker 1: vengeance on black people and Jews, the Supreme Court decided
Speaker 1: that's explicitly protected. As long as they do say that
Speaker 1: vengeance should occur on this exact day, I would say
Speaker 1: it's unbelievable us right, yeah, man, the people threatening lives
Speaker 1: are fine. This adds up to me. Don't if you
Speaker 1: don't say a date, if I don't say if you
Speaker 1: don't say date, just say we should take revenge against
Speaker 1: the Jews. But don't say we should take revenge against
Speaker 1: the Jews on July. That's where so as long as
Speaker 1: it's not like an organized flash mob type situation. Then yeah,
Speaker 1: good to know. Cool? No, what else is cool? Both?
Speaker 1: Oh boy, I I hope it's a dick pill ad.
Speaker 1: We really could use some dick pills. Hims, great dick
Speaker 1: pills him him. You sure about that? There's a new
Speaker 1: drug being developed for for women to make women aroused,
Speaker 1: and like that seems like incredibly it seems like complicated morally.
Speaker 1: Its like it's like like a dangerous kind of try
Speaker 1: to make available to just like two women. Um, I
Speaker 1: think it's a dangerous ring to make available to. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm might wearing. I have no issue with women
Speaker 1: taking whatever drive all for women taking control of that.
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about men getting hold of that drug. Yes,
Speaker 1: I hear you, But you know what, I'm not concerned
Speaker 1: with services products. I was going to say, just erection
Speaker 1: drugs in general. Yeah, sure, because I don't know if
Speaker 1: you guys know this, but the climate is collapsing and
Speaker 1: sex is zero emissions. Uh the rise, it's on the rise.
Speaker 1: It's good, it's good to have and some with all
Speaker 1: these horrible facts we read, sometimes it's hard to get
Speaker 1: an erection. So you guys should be women slipping their
Speaker 1: your dig pills and two drinks. That. Yeah, the one
Speaker 1: thing I I don't I don't know where to go.
Speaker 1: It's probably gonna be a Microsoft ad after this anyway,
Speaker 1: which oh perfect, Oh yeah, talk about it one way
Speaker 1: or the other. Buy some dick pills. That was a
Speaker 1: free addict be Microsoft. That was so good. I think
Speaker 1: we get like like twice as much ad money from that.
Speaker 1: We get millions of dollars, millions of dollars. We'll be
Speaker 1: like Dr Jordan Peterson, I'm going to tell people to
Speaker 1: only eat meat. I do not want to be like, no, no,
Speaker 1: all right, go here's some ads. We're back from our digression. Jesus,
Speaker 1: Cody's pretending to Peter again. Peter, I've never done it
Speaker 1: a lot. I'm working on it. He's working on it.
Speaker 1: He's doing it, getting his tight five with the comedy seller. Now,
Speaker 1: we just talked a little bit about, you know, the
Speaker 1: worrigins of free speech low and how it's evolved over
Speaker 1: the less inury. How maybe four on one side and
Speaker 1: not so much forgiven when it's really really extreme and yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe that's when it's related to human rights sort of
Speaker 1: like the other way. Yeah, yeah, Now let's talk about
Speaker 1: the organized and well funded campaign to make sure freedom
Speaker 1: of speech continues to evolve in a very specific direction.
Speaker 1: Freedom of speech law, I should say, the concept itself,
Speaker 1: although that too. Ye ever heard of Brett Weinstein? Sure have.
Speaker 1: I was going to bring him up earlier, And here
Speaker 1: we are, and here we are. He was a biology
Speaker 1: professor at Evergreen State College. He went viral online for
Speaker 1: opposing a protest that asked white students and faculty to
Speaker 1: stay home as part of a symbolic protest against white supremacy. Now,
Speaker 1: he was not fired for this, but he was criticized
Speaker 1: for his actions. So he resigned, sued the school, and
Speaker 1: got a bunch of money in a settlement, and then
Speaker 1: did the rounds talking to Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, David Reuben,
Speaker 1: and the other icons of what is now called the
Speaker 1: intellectual dark Web. Now, another member of the intellectual dark Web,
Speaker 1: and a guess on literally all those same podcasts, is
Speaker 1: a guy named Jonathan Hate, co author of the Atlantic
Speaker 1: article The Coddling of the American Mind. Yeah, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm building to right now? The legs lately? Do
Speaker 1: your thing? Do it? I like he's explosed to it's exciting. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we can do a whole episode like this of ours
Speaker 1: talk like, we'll get you some thorzine. We'll get Cody
Speaker 1: and I. What kind of drug makes your voice high? Helium?
Speaker 1: Helium and thorizine. Day. That's how we do the Autism
Speaker 1: one conference episode, nailing it, making plans. We're making plans, folks,
Speaker 1: is gonna be a great podcast. Let's continue the podcast.
Speaker 1: The world the current one? Yeah. Now. The intellectual dark
Speaker 1: web itself was first coined and defined by Barry Weiss,
Speaker 1: staff editor of the New York Times Opinion section. She
Speaker 1: has also been a guest on Joe Robin's podcast Now.
Speaker 1: We noted earlier that the claims of that coddling of
Speaker 1: the American mind article don't hold up to evidence. Uh,
Speaker 1: four years of college, of course, makes people less supportive
Speaker 1: abandoning any kind of free speech, and young people are
Speaker 1: more tolerant of offensive speech than older Americans, no matter
Speaker 1: what academic free speech grifters like Weinstein may claim. The
Speaker 1: Foundation for Individual Rights and Educations found that in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eighteen, there were a grand total of eighteen
Speaker 1: disinvitation attempts across all colleges and universities in the United States,
Speaker 1: not all of those succeeded. Given that young people are
Speaker 1: more likely to tolerate offensive speech and that college students
Speaker 1: are less likely to support free speech restrictions in the
Speaker 1: general population, one is left wondering what all this hubbub
Speaker 1: arose from. It may have something to do with the
Speaker 1: fact that Generation Z, or the Eye generation, is further
Speaker 1: to the left than any other group in this country.
Speaker 1: Seventy percent of them believe the government should be more
Speaker 1: involved in problem solving, say racial and ethnic diversity is
Speaker 1: good for society, compared to forty nine and forty eight
Speaker 1: percent of Baby Boomers, respectively. That yeah, Now, Generation Z
Speaker 1: also prefers socialism to capitalism by a marked majority party.
Speaker 1: And this, you might expect, is terrifying to several small
Speaker 1: but influential groups in our country. And when I say small,
Speaker 1: I mean like two guys the Coke Brothers go. I'd
Speaker 1: like to quote next from a fantastic article in The
Speaker 1: American Prospect by Aaron Friedman, which inspired this episode. Quote.
Speaker 1: Dave Reuben's influential podcast at the Reuben Report has a
Speaker 1: financial partnership with Learned Liberty I think Tanks started by
Speaker 1: the Coke funded Institute for Humane Studies i h S,
Speaker 1: where Charles G. Coke himself sits on the board. When
Speaker 1: the Canadian government denied Jordan Peterson funding for his work,
Speaker 1: Rebel Media, a group funded with Coke money and headed
Speaker 1: by Ezra Levant, a far right islamophobe with ties to
Speaker 1: the Coke network, raised cash for him. Peterson has since
Speaker 1: returned the favor. Fundraising for the i h S. Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro has collected speaker fees from the Coke funded Young
Speaker 1: Americans Foundation and Turning Point USA, and Brett Weinstein was
Speaker 1: hosted by the University of Wisconsin stouts free Speech Week,
Speaker 1: a project of their Center for the Study of Institutions
Speaker 1: in an Nations, funded by you guessed it, the Charles G.
Speaker 1: Coke Foundation. It's not just the I d W itself,
Speaker 1: some of its key popularizers also get Coke funding. Barry
Speaker 1: Weiss and The Atlantic's Connor Freezerdorff, who has been one
Speaker 1: of the most visible defenders of Peterson in the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: have both received cash prizes from the Coke funded Reason Foundation,
Speaker 1: where David Coke himself sits on the board of trustees.
Speaker 1: And remember the coddling of the American Mind Well. One
Speaker 1: of its co authors, Greg Lukianoff, is the head of
Speaker 1: that campus free speech watchdog Fire. That organization is funded,
Speaker 1: of course, by the Coke brothers. For good measure, at
Speaker 1: the Charles Coke Institute also did a laudatory right up
Speaker 1: of the piece. Did you mention the Daily Caller? Not yet?
Speaker 1: Oh no, yeah, they also there. The Atlantic is perhaps
Speaker 1: the worst defender. Last year, it launched the Speech Wars
Speaker 1: Are reporting project that seeks to understand where free speech
Speaker 1: is in danger and where it has been abused. Even
Speaker 1: though the magazine had just been bought by billionaire Lareen
Speaker 1: Powell Jobs and was seeing all time high circulation web traffic,
Speaker 1: the Atlantic solicited funding for the project from none other
Speaker 1: than the Charles Coke found The Reporters Committee for Freedom
Speaker 1: of the Press and the Fetzer Institute were also underwriters.
Speaker 1: When I asked The Atlantic for comment, a spokesperson replied
Speaker 1: that the editorial control for the series, as with every
Speaker 1: piece of journalism we create, restlely with The Atlantic. But
Speaker 1: the magazine refused to tonither reporters and editors with the
Speaker 1: Speech Wars Are ever in contact with the Coke Foundation
Speaker 1: editor in chief Jeffrey Goldbrick did not respond to my
Speaker 1: request for comment, and The Atlantic is not disclosed how
Speaker 1: much money it is received from the Coke Foundation. That's
Speaker 1: actually pretty surprising for me. Yeah. The first half I
Speaker 1: was like yeah, yeah, I was like wait, what I know,
Speaker 1: and then that excuse me, I just kept going yeah,
Speaker 1: interesting all together. And they're terrified. Yeah, they are scaredy
Speaker 1: young folks. They're I mean, they're like really going forward
Speaker 1: with funding a lot of like uh centrists for the
Speaker 1: and like, yeah, they are terrified losing of literally losing
Speaker 1: like two to of their wealth. Richard Fink, president of
Speaker 1: the Charles G. Coke Charitable Foundation, has explained this whole
Speaker 1: strategy in talking about his Structure of Social change philosophy.
Speaker 1: The basic idea is to spend Coke money in strategic
Speaker 1: waste to influence broad social change. I think believes college
Speaker 1: campuses are one of the most important places to spend
Speaker 1: money in order to institute changes. And that's why all
Speaker 1: this is happening. The Cokes and their billionaire friends who
Speaker 1: help fund their foundation directly to fund the free speech
Speaker 1: grifters because they see what's coming a generation who wants
Speaker 1: to take their money and use it for such violins
Speaker 1: as clean water in American cities, roads and basic healthcare.
Speaker 1: They aren't scared on behalf of free speech. They're scared
Speaker 1: on behalf of their bank accounts. I mean that's it.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's it. Right there reminded me of you know,
Speaker 1: the Daily Beas is obviously very liberal. Yeah, the thing
Speaker 1: half the time, not half the time, but every so
Speaker 1: often you go on there and they've got an article
Speaker 1: and ad mass grading as an article by the Koch brothers.
Speaker 1: They're like the Koch Brothers plan to make the world,
Speaker 1: to save the world. I think that's actually the headline
Speaker 1: where one of them was the Koch Brothers plan to
Speaker 1: save the world. Who may be advertising on this episode,
Speaker 1: like you, there's a chance, there's non zero chancing. The um,
Speaker 1: it's always it's it's always so obvious and interesting and
Speaker 1: keeps going and going. The just the amount of projection
Speaker 1: from these people. UM. Obviously the free speech thing and
Speaker 1: the sense of ship on campus is the opposite, as
Speaker 1: we've discussed. But then like you have all these people
Speaker 1: who really go hard in on like George Soros is
Speaker 1: using is billions of dollars to like stay like all
Speaker 1: the all that kind of stuff. But everyone who's saying
Speaker 1: that is funded by these you're show man, how did
Speaker 1: you get that idea in your head? The personal experience
Speaker 1: and like also like just even if you take it
Speaker 1: on face value, like well, who's like, what are the
Speaker 1: what's the purpose? One is like for humanitarian reasons, and
Speaker 1: one is to protect their money. Yeah, it makes me
Speaker 1: crazy that this age we live in is like not me,
Speaker 1: you know you. Yeah, it's very frustrating. It's very frustrating,
Speaker 1: very frustrating and frustrating. I love that the media is
Speaker 1: constantly attacked for being liberal and left leaning, but even
Speaker 1: very liberal sites will regularly host op eds about how
Speaker 1: the Koch Brothers are great and libertarian is good and
Speaker 1: limits on emissions are bad. But you know you're not
Speaker 1: gonna see on the Atlantic. You know what you're gonna
Speaker 1: see in the Daily Beast is like an article on
Speaker 1: why workers should control the means of production. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: framing of like the far left media, it's just so frustrating.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen an article about how profits are theft
Speaker 1: from workers. Yeah, I haven't seen that in a while.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen anybody. Also the media, I mean obviously
Speaker 1: there's a bias against Trump and everything. But even at that,
Speaker 1: even talking about stuff, they're so concerned with not appearing
Speaker 1: biased that they you know, oftentimes, Yeah, it's like the
Speaker 1: fucking these people who call themselves fucking journalists and I
Speaker 1: want to just punch in the face for even using
Speaker 1: that word, who like say, look, it maybe accurate to
Speaker 1: call them concentration camps, but like it really offends people,
Speaker 1: and in order in order to have a productive conversation,
Speaker 1: we should like, that's not journalism. That's not that's not
Speaker 1: how it works. Journalism is looking outside and being like,
Speaker 1: oh hey it's raining. Oh hey, there's a concentration camp.
Speaker 1: Look at it. It's a concentration camp. Let me describe
Speaker 1: what I see at this concentration camp. It's going to
Speaker 1: hurt the feelings of all the dry people, so make
Speaker 1: people jealous hashtag dry pride. I didn't realize Verry Weiss
Speaker 1: was also fun. Yeah, that was a surprise too. That's
Speaker 1: a real real cool. I didn't realize the Atlantic got
Speaker 1: coke money either. Yep. Very disappointing. That's wild. Um, this
Speaker 1: is probably a torpedo in my chances to write a
Speaker 1: not bed for the Atlantic. Just give them some mad money.
Speaker 1: I'll give them some mad money for my dick pills,
Speaker 1: just like even separate from a company, just of the
Speaker 1: concept of pills that give people erections advertise what about that?
Speaker 1: It's like, what about pills for your dick? And then
Speaker 1: I'll sneak in a line about how if you if
Speaker 1: you pay attention to the way the economy works. Whenever
Speaker 1: wages rise, the stock market falls because it's fundamentally outside
Speaker 1: of the interests of the capital holding classes for workers
Speaker 1: to make more money because that money, uh that goes
Speaker 1: to them in wages does not go to the stockholding
Speaker 1: class in profits, and as a result, that people who
Speaker 1: actually own stocks have dimetrically opposed interest to everyone listening
Speaker 1: to this podcast, Dick Pills penises. That's I love whenever
Speaker 1: that happens, Like, oh, the stock markets on the rise,
Speaker 1: So like, how many stocks you got? Any of these people?
Speaker 1: If I know you, like you prob probably have enough
Speaker 1: money for rent and a couple of six packs, And
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, you're not, probably not gonna if you
Speaker 1: have a four oh one k you got out the
Speaker 1: way I did, which is not knowing you had a
Speaker 1: four job and you're like oh okay, thank you, thank
Speaker 1: you for this understand. Yeah, anyway, that's the episode. That
Speaker 1: was a great episode, frustrating all the things that are expected.
Speaker 1: Glad I stopped myself from going on. Alright, various tired.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do a dangerous thing and then I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have you guys plug your way out. I've got the
Speaker 1: half smashed Lacroix bottle and I got a machete and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to hit it into the sounding boards
Speaker 1: as if as if I am batting a tennis ball.
Speaker 1: I don't know what kind of ball you bat this way,
Speaker 1: but that's what I'm gonna do now for this audio
Speaker 1: only podcast. Yeah, manute a decent distance, didn't hit the
Speaker 1: sounding boards, got close. It was fun. Yeah, good time.
Speaker 1: You could do it again if you practice. You guys
Speaker 1: want to plug your plugables? Yeah, you know. Check us out.
Speaker 1: We have a podcast called even More News and also
Speaker 1: a YouTube show called some More News. That's correct. My
Speaker 1: name is Katie Stole. You can find me on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Katie Stole. My name is Kady Johnston. You can
Speaker 1: find me on Twitter at Dr Mr Cody. My name
Speaker 1: as Katie Johnston. And Robert Evans and actually you can
Speaker 1: find me at the internet. Sophie's not here. I am
Speaker 1: not doing well. You're doing great, You're doing great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about it. Behind the Bastard's dot Com is
Speaker 1: our podcast where you can find all the sources for
Speaker 1: this episode. You can also find us on public dot com,
Speaker 1: where you can buy shirts and cups, and that will
Speaker 1: make someone's stock market price, someone's stock some some stock
Speaker 1: will go even it's sucking cotton stocks anyway, and then
Speaker 1: everyoneman will leave Vetter, is I understand the stock market? Um?
Speaker 1: You can find me on Twitter at I right, okay,
Speaker 1: you can find us on Twitter, Instagram, and at bastards Pod.
Speaker 1: At the fucking episode go home or riot in the streets,
Speaker 1: one of the two good patroon dot com, Slash said,
Speaker 1: oh yeah for stock, Oh yeah, for stock. That's kind
Speaker 1: of stock I can get bought exactly stock m m
Speaker 1: m