0:21

Welcome to the to the Making Sense podcast.

0:23

This is Sam Harris. First I have an

0:26

I have an announcement to make. We are We are

0:28

making a simple but important change to the

0:30

platform over here. over here. We're

0:32

combining the the Making with my

0:34

my newsletter. newsletter. There are

0:36

several reasons for this. for this. But the

0:38

main one is that it will just be

0:40

better for everyone. everyone. It'll be It'll be better for

0:43

you because you'll be able to get everything

0:45

I produce in audio, video, audio, and print. and print

0:47

with subscription. And it it

0:49

will be better for me because I won't be

0:51

pulled in two directions. two directions. needing to create

0:53

content for separate audiences, divided by a

0:55

paywall. by a paywall. Going forward,

0:57

I'll decide whether something's best done in

0:59

in audio, video, or print. or some or

1:01

some combination of the and then just just

1:03

send it out everyone. Substack also

1:05

also so we'll so I'll eventually put my

1:08

audio and video there there too, and it has

1:10

it has live video that I'll experiment with at

1:12

some point. So if you're currently currently

1:14

an annual subscriber the both the

1:16

podcast and the newsletter. are paying for

1:18

the That is Sense for the making sense

1:20

website, my website. for the newsletter paying

1:22

for the newsletter over at out to you

1:24

by email be reaching out to you by email

1:26

to say that we've consolidated your subscription. you'll

1:29

see of course you'll see reduced shouldn't be

1:31

anything shouldn't be anything you need to do on your

1:33

end you you already have access to everything. And

1:35

and we'll delay renewing your subscription at the lower

1:37

price so you'll get some free months added to

1:39

your account. to your account. So you won't pay

1:41

a penalty for us not having figured out

1:43

that the out should have been combined from the

1:46

very beginning. from the very beginning. currently an

1:48

annual subscriber to the podcast the

1:50

the newsletter. that is, you is your

1:52

pain for one of them. your email address address

1:54

will soon give you access to everything. may

1:56

be a few kinks be a few kinks to

1:58

be worked out and in the two platforms. going

2:00

forward, going forward, whether you're subscribed

2:02

through my website or through sub stack,

2:04

won't won't matter. of course, of course,

2:06

we'll send an email you of this when everything

2:08

is sorted out. is sorted out. if

2:11

you have any problems, just email

2:13

support email .org. and someone

2:15

will help you. will help you. As As always,

2:17

if you can't afford a a subscription, email

2:19

support at .org and be given one

2:21

for free. one for free. Or or

2:23

you'll be given the option to pay whatever you want. whatever

2:25

you want. you know, I can only have

2:27

this policy because most of you who most of

2:29

to pay for a subscription to pay for do. And

2:32

that is a wonderful thing. is a wonderful thing. make

2:34

this flexible business model possible. possible.

2:37

and as important, you have immunized

2:39

me against many of the concerns. of the

2:41

that make other people make afraid to say

2:43

what they really think to say a wide variety

2:46

of important issues. variety of I suspect

2:48

that many of you still might

2:50

not understand still might rare my situation

2:52

is. is. So it's probably worth

2:54

spelling out. out. I've

2:56

consciously built a business. that

2:58

allows me to be honest about

3:00

all the lunacy. both on both

3:02

sides of our politics. As a matter of as

3:04

a matter of principle. simply I simply wouldn't

3:07

do this any other way. the point

3:09

But the point is I couldn't do it. you

3:11

without you paying subscribers. Because of

3:13

the Because of the platform we've

3:15

built together, my My only job is to

3:17

say what I really think. when what I

3:19

think what I think is

3:21

unpopular. inconvenient for my my side of an

3:23

argument. Very few few

3:25

people have this freedom. successful

3:28

successful are palpably are

3:30

palpably constrained by their audience

3:33

metrics. against which they sell

3:35

ads. have I don't have any

3:37

sponsors. and I and I don't track any metrics. And

3:39

this and this isn't an accident. I

3:42

realized ago. that if I if I

3:44

was going to spend my time discussing controversial issues

3:46

and ideas. issues had to do

3:48

it in a way that both allowed me

3:50

to be honest allowed me to be perceived as

3:52

being honest. being This is one

3:54

reason one avoided ads. avoided ads. I I

3:56

could honestly read ads here. are

3:59

many many companies. and products that I

4:01

love, but I didn't want to have

4:03

to think about their brand concerns when

4:05

deciding who to talk to or what

4:07

to talk about. And not having sponsors

4:09

has given me extraordinary freedom to just

4:11

think out loud and to create a

4:14

successful business while doing it. Again, I

4:16

don't think this is obvious to most

4:18

people. Why is a subscription model so

4:20

much better than running ads? Well,

4:22

just think about it. How easy would

4:24

it be for me to say something

4:26

or to have something said about me

4:28

that could cause half a dozen or

4:30

a dozen reputable sponsors to get spooked

4:32

and stop supporting the podcast? Now

4:35

imagine what I would have to

4:38

say, or have said about me,

4:40

that would lead tens of thousands

4:42

of subscribers to suddenly cancel their

4:44

subscriptions. There really is security in

4:46

numbers, and sponsors are much more

4:48

fickle than subscribers, for good reason.

4:51

They have their own reputations to

4:53

worry about. However, having subscribers can

4:55

still leave a person susceptible to

4:57

audience capture. That is, if they

4:59

have the wrong type of audience.

5:02

And from my point of view,

5:04

many podcasts and newsletters have cultivated

5:06

the wrong type of audience. Many

5:08

of the biggest podcasters know that

5:10

they can't afford to alienate their

5:13

right leaning or left leaning listeners.

5:15

because they've built the type of

5:17

audience that wants its biases pandered

5:19

to. Some of these people touch

5:21

very controversial topics, but you'll notice

5:23

that they do it always from

5:26

one side, and the hate that

5:28

they get is always from the

5:30

other side. But I don't have

5:32

a side, and that is a

5:34

very different situation to being. I

5:37

need to be free to alienate

5:39

either side by turns. Early on,

5:41

I noticed that a significant part

5:43

of my audience grew outraged whenever

5:45

I bumped up against left-wing orthodoxy.

5:48

So I made it a point

5:50

not to care. And when I

5:52

noticed that another part of my

5:54

audience supported Trump, I also refused

5:56

to care. Those of you who

5:59

have been with me for several

6:01

years know that talking about issues

6:03

like racism and police violence and

6:05

Islam and identity politics has effectively

6:07

gotten me canceled on the left.

6:09

There's no question in my mind

6:12

at least that had I had

6:14

a normal job in media or

6:16

at a university somewhere around 2018,

6:18

I would have been fired. because

6:20

of how fully I was smeared

6:23

by certain prominent people on the

6:25

left. And later on my views

6:27

about Trump and COVID and populism

6:29

and America-first isolationism and social media

6:31

and misinformation, all the bullshit around

6:34

Hunter Biden's laptop, all of that

6:36

effectively got me canceled on the

6:38

right. But the result is exactly

6:40

what I want. Most of you

6:42

don't get to see this. The

6:44

result is that my core audience

6:47

has been steadily purged of partisan

6:49

stupidity, all the while continuing to

6:51

grow. I have built an audience

6:53

that values how I arrive at

6:55

conclusions, rather than the conclusions themselves.

6:58

I have an audience that isn't

7:00

content for me to be right,

7:02

or to imagine that I'm right,

7:04

for the wrong reasons. You don't

7:06

want me taking cheap shots at

7:09

the other side, or to just

7:11

be a team player, because for

7:13

me and for most of you,

7:15

there is no permanent other side.

7:17

I'm not on a team, and

7:20

if there's a weakness in one

7:22

of my arguments, you want me

7:24

to be the first to spot

7:26

it. I don't

7:28

know if you've noticed, but that

7:30

is not what is happening in

7:33

most of our media, whether mainstream

7:35

or independent. If I know anything

7:37

about my core audience, it's that

7:39

you want me to embody certain

7:41

standards of intellectual and ethical integrity.

7:44

The point is not where I

7:46

arrive. It's how I get there.

7:48

So subscribing here isn't the same

7:50

as buying one of my book

7:52

simply because you want to read

7:55

it. If you're a subscriber, you're

7:57

supporting the next thing, I say

7:59

or do, not merely the last

8:01

thing. I can change my mind.

8:03

anything. I can grow interested in

8:06

or tired of anything. And that

8:08

is a freedom that most people

8:10

in media simply do not have.

8:12

Even some of the most successful

8:14

people in media are condemned to

8:17

fit a pattern defined by their

8:19

audience. I'm really not. And those

8:21

of you who subscribe make this

8:23

freedom possible. Allowing me to continue

8:25

to argue for basic sanity, which

8:28

will remain necessary for some time

8:30

to come. So as always, thank

8:32

you for your support. Okay.

8:36

And now for an important topic

8:38

on which I appear to have

8:40

offended many, many people, about which

8:42

many of these offended people appear

8:45

profoundly confused. I think this is

8:47

somewhere near the center of our

8:49

most pressing cultural problems, especially the

8:52

shattering of our information landscape and

8:54

the resulting hyperpolarization of our politics.

8:56

The result of this, especially on

8:58

the right, is an increasingly conspiratorial

9:01

view of the world. rather

9:04

than recognize that bad outcomes are

9:06

often due to ignorance or incompetence,

9:08

people on the right seem to

9:10

see malevolent competence and coordination everywhere.

9:13

This shattering is also fueling widespread

9:15

contempt for institutions. Needless to say,

9:17

any response to this contempt from

9:20

the institutions themselves tends to be

9:22

dismissed as just more sinister machinations

9:24

on the part of the elites.

9:27

Some of this populous backlash is

9:29

understandable. But increasingly, this seems like

9:31

a cultural death spiral to me.

9:33

Our institutions simply must regain public

9:36

trust. The question is, how can

9:38

they do that? At the core

9:40

of this problem lurks a fundamental

9:43

question about the nature of intellectual

9:45

authority. When do we rely on

9:47

it? And when are we right

9:49

to ignore it, or even repudiate

9:52

it? Everyone knows that you shouldn't

9:54

argue from authority. You can't say.

9:56

I'm saying is true because I

9:59

am saying it. Or it's true

10:01

because Einstein said it, or because

10:03

it's been published in a prestigious

10:06

journal. If a theory is true,

10:08

or a fact is really a

10:10

fact, it is so independent of

10:12

the identity of the person adducing

10:15

it. Consequently, no saying expert ever

10:17

really argues from authority. What actually

10:19

happens is something that is easily

10:22

mistaken for this. which is that

10:24

people often rely on authority as

10:26

a proxy for explaining or even

10:29

understanding why something is true. It's

10:31

a little like using money as

10:33

a medium of exchange rather than

10:35

hauling around valuable objects or commodities.

10:38

It's easier to carry dirty paper

10:40

in your pocket than a barrel

10:42

of oil or a bushel of

10:45

wheat. in the same way it's

10:47

easier to say or to think

10:49

that gravity is identical to the

10:51

curvature of space time because Einstein

10:54

proved it than it is to

10:56

really understand the general theory of

10:58

relativity. It's a shortcut that's necessary

11:01

for just about everyone most of

11:03

the time. The crucial point is

11:05

that there is a difference between

11:08

rejecting any argument from authority and

11:10

rejecting the value or reality of

11:12

authority itself. For instance, I often

11:14

speak with physicists on this podcast,

11:17

and when I do, it is

11:19

appropriate for me to assume that

11:21

they know their field better than

11:24

I do. After all, that is

11:26

what specialization is. If I spend

11:28

as much time studying physics as

11:31

a professional physicist and proved competent

11:33

at that task, I would be

11:35

a physicist. and when talking to

11:37

a physicist, it is important for

11:40

me to understand that I'm not

11:42

one. Of course, this is true

11:44

for any other area of specialization.

11:47

If I'm talking to Siddhartha Mukherji

11:49

about cancer, it is only decent

11:51

and sane for me to acknowledge,

11:54

if merely tacitly by asking questions

11:56

and listening to the answers, that

11:58

he being a celebratory knows

12:01

more about cancer than I do.

12:03

There simply is such a thing

12:06

as expertise, and to not acknowledge

12:08

this is just idiotic. And to

12:10

move through life, not acknowledging it,

12:12

is to turn the whole world

12:15

into a theater of potential embarrassment.

12:17

Relying on authority can produce errors,

12:19

of course, in the same way

12:22

that some of the money in

12:24

your wallet could prove to be

12:26

counterfeit, but not relying on it,

12:28

shunning it, just, quote, doing one's

12:31

own research, is guaranteed to produce

12:33

more errors, at least in the

12:35

aggregate. After all, what is one

12:37

doing when one is, quote, doing

12:40

one's own research, if not seeking

12:42

out what the best authorities have

12:44

to say on a given topic?

12:47

What the phrase doing your own

12:49

research usually refers to are the

12:51

efforts that people make to sort

12:53

through information, mostly online, when they

12:56

no longer trust what most mainstream

12:58

experts have to say. Usually what

13:00

this means is that they have

13:02

gone in search of other voices

13:05

that are telling them what they

13:07

want to hear. or perhaps what

13:09

they don't want to hear, but

13:11

it's now coming with a compelling

13:14

conspiratorial or contrarian slant. You don't

13:16

trust what the most respected doctors

13:18

have to say, because you think

13:21

they've all been captured by big

13:23

pharma, perhaps. So you found a

13:25

guy in Tijuana who says he

13:27

can cure your cancer. You don't

13:30

trust what the Mayo Clinic says

13:32

about vaccines, and now you're afraid

13:34

to get your kids vaccinated, because

13:36

you've listened to 14 hours of

13:39

RFK Jr. on podcasts. And now

13:41

you've started trusting him, as, what,

13:43

a new authority. We can't break

13:46

free of the circle of authority.

13:48

Of course, I'm not denying that

13:50

it's possible to do truly original

13:52

research, where you become the new

13:55

authority. But that is not what

13:57

we're talking about here. Doing one's

13:59

own research almost never entails running

14:01

the relevant experiments in virology oneself.

14:04

searching the Soviet archives oneself, or

14:06

translating the speech from Arabic oneself,

14:08

or interviewing the long dead politician

14:11

oneself. Most of the time we

14:13

simply have to trust that other

14:15

people did their work responsibly, that

14:17

their data isn't fabricated, that they

14:20

didn't devote their entire careers to

14:22

perpetrating an elaborate hoax. Again, there

14:24

are exceptions, but they are simply

14:26

not relevant most of the time.

14:29

That is what it means to

14:31

be an exception. Most of the

14:33

time, if you no longer trust

14:36

the experts, you've started trusting someone's

14:38

uncle. Most of the

14:40

time, real experts who have been

14:42

trained in the relevant disciplines through

14:44

real institutions offer the best approximation

14:46

of our knowledge within a field.

14:49

This is no more debatable than

14:51

the claim that most of the

14:53

time our best basketball players are

14:55

in the NBA. Is it possible

14:57

to find someone outside the NBA

15:00

who's amazing at basketball? Of course.

15:02

Is it also possible to find

15:04

someone in the NBA who shouldn't

15:06

be there? Probably. Though it's also

15:08

safe to say that such a

15:10

person will spend most of his

15:13

time sitting on the bench, it

15:15

is simply a fact that if

15:17

you had to find the best

15:19

basketball players in America in some

15:21

reasonable time frame, you could do

15:23

a lot worse than grab the

15:26

NBA All-Stars from any given year.

15:28

And so it is with scientists

15:30

and historians and other specialists at

15:32

our most elite institutions. And there

15:34

are two important caveats to this

15:37

general rule. The first is that

15:39

there are fake disciplines, or those

15:41

that are mostly fake, whole fields

15:43

of scholarship that pretend to be

15:45

scientific, or at least intellectually rigorous,

15:47

but they are mostly or entirely

15:50

a sham. And secondly, there are

15:52

real areas of scholarship that have

15:54

been corrupted to one or another

15:56

degree by politics or other bad

15:58

incentives. For instance, one cannot with

16:01

any confidence venture into a department

16:03

of Middle Eastern studies at an

16:05

American university and get a morally

16:07

sane, much less accurate account of

16:09

the conflict between Israel and the

16:11

Palestinians, or between Western values and

16:14

those of conservative Islam. but the

16:16

reasons for that failure are also

16:18

knowable and ultimately correctable. One reason

16:20

is that Qatar, an Islamic theocracy

16:22

and patron of terrorists, has given

16:25

more money to U.S. universities than

16:27

any other country on earth has.

16:29

This is a totally bizarre situation

16:31

that fairly shrieks of intellectual corruption,

16:33

if not suicide. But again, the

16:35

problem here is understandable and can

16:38

be fixed. and it is simply

16:40

one version of the problem of

16:42

bad incentives. The reason to worry

16:44

about bad incentives is that we

16:46

understand how they corrupt people. This

16:48

is why the Upton Sinclair line

16:51

is so famous, because it captures

16:53

a perennial problem in society. It

16:55

is difficult to get a man

16:57

to understand something when his salary

16:59

depends on his not understanding it.

17:02

Of course, this relates to what

17:04

I was saying about my business

17:06

model a few moments ago. Insofar

17:08

as it's possible, you want to

17:10

remove the bad incentives from your

17:12

life. And collectively, we have to

17:15

worry about bad incentives distorting our

17:17

view of what's important, or even

17:19

of what is real. Now,

17:22

most of the current skepticism about

17:24

establishment institutions and about mainstream expertise

17:26

generally is the result of the

17:29

various failures of scientific thinking and

17:31

communication that occurred during the COVID

17:33

pandemic. While many of these failures

17:36

were significant, there is no question

17:38

that they have been magnified and

17:40

distorted by our politics. In a

17:43

previous podcast, I made an invidious

17:45

comparison between Anthony Fauci and Francis

17:47

Collins, two doctors who are now

17:50

widely demonized, right of center, and

17:52

RFK Jr. My point wasn't to

17:54

absolve Fauci and Collins of all

17:57

responsibility for mismanaging our response. COVID.

17:59

For all I know, both men

18:01

should be investigated. I have no

18:04

idea what we would find. I

18:06

was simply pointing out that these

18:08

guys exist within a culture of

18:11

science where intellectual embarrassment and worse,

18:13

is still possible. RFK

18:15

Jr. doesn't. He is a

18:17

crackpot and a conspiracy nut.

18:19

That doesn't mean he's wrong

18:22

about everything, and that doesn't

18:24

mean turning him loose on

18:26

the bureaucracy of the HHS

18:28

might not do some good.

18:30

Perhaps it will. Is he

18:32

the best person to do

18:35

that good? Of course not.

18:37

But it is possible for

18:39

the wrong person to occasionally

18:41

do the right thing. However,

18:43

whatever good RFK Jr. may

18:45

accomplish in the future, my

18:47

point stands. Unlike Fauci or

18:50

Collins, he has no intellectual

18:52

reputation to maintain. He can

18:54

drag a dead bear into

18:56

Central Park and stage a

18:58

fake bike accident with it.

19:00

and it just serves to

19:02

burnish his brand for his

19:05

idiotic fans. He can also

19:07

spread lies and misinformation about

19:09

vaccines in a multi-decade contrarian

19:11

grift, and he will continue

19:13

to thrive in a parallel

19:15

reality, where Andrew Wakefield, the

19:17

fraud who originally linked the

19:20

MMR vaccine with autism, is

19:22

considered an unfairly maligned scientific

19:24

authority. If Fauci and Collins

19:26

or any other scientists are

19:28

guilty of scientific misconduct, that

19:30

is something that can be

19:32

found out and their reputations

19:35

will really suffer. not among

19:37

cultists and freaks, but among

19:39

the people who hold their

19:41

reputations in trust, other scientists.

19:43

Get real scientists and scholars

19:45

and journalists can be convicted

19:47

of misconduct or hypocrisy or

19:50

some other betrayal of intellectual

19:52

standards because they have such

19:54

standards to portray. There are

19:56

no standards of intellectual integrity.

19:58

Trumpistan. And there are no

20:00

standards of ethical integrity either.

20:02

If you live there, it

20:05

is literally impossible to be

20:07

a hypocrite. In Trump's orbit,

20:09

if you're caught cheating on

20:11

your wife or your taxes,

20:13

you can say, whoever said

20:15

I wasn't going to cheat

20:17

on my wife or my

20:20

taxes, fuck you and you

20:22

win. The truth

20:24

is, RFK Jr. doesn't belong anywhere

20:26

near the levers of power that

20:28

govern health policy in America. But

20:30

again, this doesn't mean that he's

20:33

wrong about everything. And it doesn't

20:35

mean that he can't possibly do

20:37

some good. And I hope he

20:39

does if he actually gets confirmed.

20:42

There are bad incentives in

20:44

the business of medicine and

20:46

medical insurance and pharmaceuticals, and

20:49

it would be very good

20:51

for someone to try to

20:53

sort them out. These are

20:55

very basic distinctions I'm making,

20:57

but over on X, that

20:59

Paradise for Free Speech, and

21:01

on many prominent podcasts, such

21:03

distinctions appear impossible to understand.

21:05

There are edge cases, of

21:07

course, that can be genuinely

21:09

difficult to resolve. For instance,

21:11

what about the possibility of

21:13

the lone self-taught genius who

21:15

just comes crashing through established

21:17

Orthodoxy bearing a new gospel?

21:20

How do we recognize that when

21:22

it arrives? Conversely, and much more

21:24

common, what about the pedigreeed expert

21:26

who looks perfect on paper? He's

21:28

got all the right degrees and

21:30

is published in good journals. But

21:33

due to some quirk and his

21:35

wiring, he becomes a crank or

21:37

a lunatic. And now he's on

21:39

Joe Rogan's podcast. And somewhere around

21:41

the four-hour mark, he divulges that

21:43

he was once abducted and lavishly

21:46

probed by extraterrestrials. It should be

21:48

obvious that either way mere credentialism

21:50

isn't a perfect filter. A PhD

21:52

from Caltech guarantees something. It more

21:54

or less guarantees that a person

21:56

is smart, but it can't guarantee

21:58

they are sane, and it really

22:01

is possible for someone to come

22:03

from outside a field and make

22:05

important contributions within it. There is

22:07

no formula for resolving doubt in

22:09

such cases, beyond getting other smart

22:11

people who are adequate to the

22:14

conversation, that is, other real authorities,

22:16

to render their judgment. Whether to

22:18

spend time doing this oneself and

22:20

risk wasting time, or harder still,

22:22

whether to give such a person

22:24

a public platform so that many

22:27

more people can hear and respond

22:29

to their views, can be hard

22:31

to decide. And I've made no

22:33

secret of the fact that I

22:35

think other prominent podcasters have screwed

22:37

this up repeatedly. Many have made

22:40

a habit of talking to people

22:42

who quite obviously don't clear the

22:44

bar, and is embarrassing. What's more

22:46

it's been damaging to the public

22:48

conversation about several important issues. However,

22:51

I'm probably guilty of making some

22:53

bad calls myself, and I will

22:55

probably make mistakes in the future.

22:58

But these are edge cases for

23:00

a reason. They're hard to figure

23:02

out. My general policy is that

23:05

the most respected mainstream voices on

23:07

most topics are generally worth listening

23:09

to. Again, in many fields, on

23:12

many topics, it's like finding your

23:14

next free throw shooter shooter in

23:16

the NBA. Not a bad place

23:18

to look. Of course, there are

23:21

exceptions. But RFK Jr. on vaccines

23:23

isn't one of them. And neither

23:25

is the comedian Dave Smith on

23:28

US foreign policy. nor

23:30

is Tucker Carlson on any

23:32

topic, other than what the

23:34

hell happened to him. Those

23:36

are easy calls. We're watching

23:38

our political, intellectual, and even

23:40

moral culture get torched every

23:42

hour of the day on social

23:44

media. And Elon Musk is

23:46

now one of the greatest arsonists

23:49

out there, while he and

23:51

his fans pretend that he is

23:53

the fire marshal coming to the

23:56

rescue. credulous and self-deceived people

23:58

as the person who is doing

24:00

more than anyone to restore

24:02

and protect the integrity of our

24:04

public conversation, while he is probably

24:07

doing more than anyone to

24:09

sabotage it. He's become almost an

24:11

apostle of a new religion,

24:13

whose sacrament is algorithmically amplified bullshit.

24:16

And like many religious figures,

24:18

he simply does not care about

24:20

misleading people. He isn't noticing his

24:22

errors, much less correcting them,

24:24

to say nothing of apologizing for

24:27

them. And if you notice

24:29

them for him, you become his

24:31

enemy, fit only to be

24:33

smeared and lied about in his

24:36

digital hall of mirrors. You have

24:38

to be able to hold

24:40

two thoughts in your head at

24:43

the same moment. Yes, the

24:45

man is the most talented entrepreneur

24:47

of his generation, and yes, he

24:49

has become a total asshole.

24:51

To call him reckless and irresponsible,

24:54

he is an understatement. He

24:56

simply does not care if he

24:58

spreads dangerous, defamatory lies. And

25:00

if you wonder whether I tried

25:03

my best to get through to

25:05

him in private, before saying

25:07

this sort of thing in public,

25:09

I did. And

25:12

it has been nauseating to watch

25:14

Elon pass the various loyalty tests

25:16

laid out for him by Trump,

25:18

minimizing the significance of January 6th,

25:21

for instance. It's interesting to wonder

25:23

what role incentives could play here.

25:25

May how has the richest and

25:27

one of the most famous and

25:29

powerful men on earth been incentivized

25:32

to behave this way? Well, as

25:34

I've said before, I think social

25:36

media has played a major role

25:38

here. At some point, Elon became

25:40

a kind of attention monster, which

25:43

is what Trump has always been.

25:45

I think it's safe to say

25:47

that attention, especially adulation, from the

25:49

wrong audience, is bad for you.

25:53

In any case, if you

25:55

think that concerns about misinformation

25:57

and disinformation and the spread

25:59

of conspiracy thinking. are just

26:01

fake. They're just smoke screens

26:04

thrown up by people who

26:06

don't like free speech and

26:08

favor government censorship. And you

26:10

think all the free-wheeling fuckery

26:12

on social media from Trump

26:15

and Elon is necessary and

26:17

noble? You're in a cult.

26:19

Spreading obvious lives is not

26:21

necessary or noble. Amplifying baseless

26:24

and divisive conspiracy theories and

26:26

ridicule and hatred isn't necessary

26:28

or noble. But this is

26:30

what Trump and Elon have

26:32

done at scale for years

26:35

now. If you're politically right

26:37

of center and you believe

26:39

that the problem of conspiracy

26:41

thinking is exaggerated, What

26:44

do you think about it over

26:46

on the left? Admittedly, it's not

26:48

as big a problem over there.

26:50

But it definitely exists. For instance,

26:52

there are people who believe that

26:54

Trump faked that first assassination attempt

26:57

against him. Have you heard about

26:59

this? Like most conspiracy theories, it's

27:01

ridiculous. But there are people who

27:03

believe this. If you

27:05

don't like the phrase conspiracy theory,

27:08

when stigmatizes some of the Trumpist

27:10

garbage, you are attached to. Do

27:12

you resist its application here? To

27:14

the truly ludicrous idea that Trump

27:17

hired someone to shoot him in

27:19

the ear? The shooter killed an

27:21

innocent person, and then got killed

27:23

himself for all the trouble he

27:26

took to perfectly Nick Trump's ear.

27:28

What do you think about a

27:30

person whose adventures online, just doing

27:32

his own research, have convinced him

27:35

that this is the best explanation

27:37

of what we all saw? The

27:39

problem of misinformation runs the other

27:41

way too, and I've defended Trump

27:44

against the most glaring instance of

27:46

it. not the so-called Russia gate

27:48

or Russia collusion hoax. Any of

27:50

you have these phrases rattling around

27:53

in your head are again in

27:55

a cult, and you have forgotten,

27:57

if you ever even knew, all

27:59

the ways in which Trump and

28:02

his 26. were compromised by weird

28:04

connections to Russia. The fact that

28:06

Paul Manafort was running his campaign

28:08

in and of itself was worthy

28:11

of investigation. Lobbying for foreign interests

28:13

was that guy's whole career. Even

28:15

Republican senators acknowledged that Manafort posed

28:17

a serious counterintelligence risk, and he

28:20

proved to be such an upstanding

28:22

citizen that he was sentenced to

28:24

years in prison. Of course, Trump

28:26

then pardoned him. Nothing to see

28:29

here, fellows. Trump's corruption has always

28:31

been in plain view and has

28:33

never required allegations of a hidden

28:35

criminal conspiracy. Anyone who uses the

28:38

phrase Russia gate or the Russia

28:40

collusion hoax is guaranteed to be

28:42

wrong about what the Mueller report

28:44

actually said. The truth is, you

28:47

have no idea what was in

28:49

the Mueller report and you don't

28:51

care. And ditto for the January

28:53

6th Commission report. You're

28:56

not tracking any of this because

28:58

you're in a cult. It's the

29:00

cult of who gives a shit

29:02

you elitist asshole, burn it all

29:04

down. The clearest

29:06

case of misinformation against Trump, that

29:08

I'm aware of, was the very

29:10

fine people on both sides, Calumny.

29:12

And almost everyone left of center

29:14

still believes that after that rally

29:17

in Charlottesville, Trump praised the assembled

29:19

neo-Nazis and white supremacists as, quote,

29:21

very fine people. They believe this

29:23

because a clip from one of

29:25

his press conferences was edited to

29:27

make it seem like he said

29:29

this. We are being driven, insane,

29:31

as a species, one misleading clip

29:34

at a time. As I pointed

29:36

out many times before, if you

29:38

watch Trump's remarks in context, you

29:40

will see that the claim that

29:42

he was praising neo-Nazis and white

29:44

supremacists is a lie. And I

29:46

have debunked this lie many, many

29:48

times, both on this podcast and

29:50

in print, to the consternation of

29:53

people on the left who just

29:55

want to score points against Trump

29:57

and Trumpism without any concern for

29:59

ethical or intellectual

30:01

integrity. Niles says they

30:03

have done this not out of any

30:05

love for Trump not out influence on our politics,

30:07

but out of a hatred for lies. but

30:10

out Trump for lies. But the

30:12

cults that they have

30:14

built that comfortable with

30:17

lies with lies and and

30:19

endless endless They are

30:21

perfectly content to watch our

30:23

political culture succumb to an

30:25

algorithmically mediated delirium. and they they

30:27

seem to have no concern

30:29

about destroying important institutions, and

30:32

in many cases declare themselves eager to

30:34

destroy them. eager Again, I'm

30:36

not rooting for these guys

30:38

to fail. guys to fail. And nothing

30:40

I've said here is predicated on

30:42

the conviction that they will. that

30:44

All of my complaints about

30:46

Trump about Trump and Elon their leveraging of

30:48

populist irrationality and rage and rage.

30:50

to harms that have already occurred,

30:53

moral injuries to our society that

30:55

we have already suffered, dangerous

30:58

lies that we're already told, were

31:00

with the full knowledge that

31:02

they were lies. that they were Who

31:04

knows what will happen in the

31:06

future? in the At least

31:08

it will not be boring. not be

31:10

boring. Thanks for for listening.