Here are things I have learned about WWII-era facism that I'd like the kids to learn: (1) Milgard's experiment. 60% of people are rule followers who will kill someone if ordered. To be fair, I did learn about this experiment in high school history class. I hope they are still teaching it. (2) It seems a weird thing, but hear me out: They teach Kristallnacht as if it was some sort of spontaneous thing. I recently learned that there's a sparking incident. Some Jewish person killed somebody in a German embassy, and everybody said "See? They are bad. They must go." And that you can absolutely see happening. I think somebody with a passing level of knowledge could participate in something evil like that and say "it's not the same, because this time we had a reason." There is ALWAYS a manufactured reason.
There was so much in this episode - and I listened to it over a couple days while driving, so two things:
1. I really appreciated the discussion points around both engaging with ideas no matter the speaker AND centering humanity always. The idea that we should stop dismissing all the things ties in with a variety of your episodes recently and I think you are on to something!
2. FWIW I hate watching videos. I am absolutely in the minority, but I love an only audio format and am here for PP continuing to focus on that format!
Picture a room of 22 liberal Christians and one conservative having a Sunday school class about Charlie Kirk. Anyway, I’m sending this episode and the last one to my class. Whew.
I really connected with the need for young people to have a place to work out ideas and opinions. I went to a very small very conservative school for PK-12th grade, and now as an adult, I look back and see that my experience participating in high school competitive debate was extremely important in my development. Here is the key thing about competitive debating- you are forced to write, present and argue both sides of the given resolution. A coin flip decides if you are PRO or CON before you start. I really think this is the antidote to the easy “well if you think XYZ you must just be a bad person”. I hope some high school kids are still getting this deep critical thinking experience! It definitely made me a more open and thoughtful person!
I wasn't in debate, but I do remember in my AP English classes we had to write essays where we were given some facts about a topic and then got to choose whether to write from the pro or con perspective. We didn't engage with both sides as rigorously as you would in a debate competition, but it did help me to practice thinking about an issue from both sides and trying to put together the strongest argument for each side.
Beth, I hate that there is so much pressure for podcasts to be on YouTube. I don't really get the appeal of watching a couple of people sitting there with headphones on, and it adds more pressure to the podcasters. I, for one, am usually not watching you!
Listened to this episode right before watching Josh Johnson’s latest. He talks about the algorithm, inherent value in humans, and he is funny. I wanted to share. I feel like the PP audience would appreciate it:
Sarah talking about her hardcore feminism in the past struck a chord with me. When my boys were little, born in 2006 & 2008, I remember being frustrated with cultural messaging around gender. There were a number of activities for young girls to build up their confidence, self esteem, & character building. When I asked about similar things for boys, I was told they are built up enough by society. That the goal was to build up a generation of young girls, but that the boys need to be brought up with counter messaging that humbled them & brings them down a few notches. And at the same time, we had lost the amazing dad role models from our screens & replaced them with the bumbling idiot dad who was funny, but not respected. I understand the intent, but it never felt right to me. And I can’t help but look at the Gen Z & the manosphere and see the long term impact of that messaging. And I hope we learn, but we probably won’t, that we don’t lift people up by bringing others down.
I’ve seen some discussions about Kirk since his death that go something like, “well, you know, he wasn’t ‘really’ debating, I mean the tactics he used weren’t actual debates, because….” Oh, get over yourself and STFU already. 🤣 It’s a somewhat typical response of the left to decide that something that clearly had something about it that attracted and resonated with people doesn’t “count” because it doesn’t meet some academic standard. Maybe that’s exactly what *did* appeal about him. There wasn’t a list of standards, rules, preparation and word policing, just show up and talk where you won’t be graded for it. That part isn’t about what he was saying, it’s just an easy forum to get a discussion going, and that had appeal to both people who agreed and disagreed with him.
Well, I'm going to say he wasn't really "debating".
I didn't follow Kirk nor listen to him. I have been listening to several of his podcasts and watching a few his debates that family members and friends have shared with me the past week, so I have been educating myself on Kirk on his debate style.
Personally, I didn't care for Charlie Kirk's style of debate. Although Kirk was practicing politics correctly, I don't think how he debated the issues was necessarily good.
Debaters are not supposed to "chew the scenery" and I felt Kirk did that a lot with the young people he debated with the interrupting, the overtalking, the confrontation, etc. I can see why many did not like and critiqued it. Whether that was Kirk's intention to come across as abrasive, I don't know. But I have watched a several of his debates and it felt like many young people wanted Kirk to listen to them. Not solve anything for them nor challenge them. But to listen to them. I wonder if Kirk really did listen.
Again, this is coming from someone outside looking in on Charlie Kirk.
What I was really getting at is that arguing about what the proper label is for what he did, and critiquing his tactics, isn’t wrong, or unfair, it just seems like a complete waste of time to focus on. Particularly if, as you said, you want to find out, “how we can help young people engage more,” because Kirk WAS doing that. Whatever you want to label it - debate, not debate, discussion, conversation, banter, arguments, whatever - it actually got young people engaged. I think there is absolutely a place for formal debate - between candidates, in Congress, legal settings, debate classes and competitions, etc. - for the population at large to observe. But, I don’t think an average voter looking to engage and participate in conversations on issues has any desire at all to get involved in a formal debate with a list of rules and timers. They just want to talk things out in a back and forth. If people could move past focusing on and critiquing Kirk’s beliefs and style of banter, and having arguments about technical definitions of what he was doing, it seems like there is much more to be learned from how his version of mixing with average people and talking about issues was appealing enough to draw large crowds and get them to engage. That seems much more valuable to spend time analyzing to maybe find ways to increase engagement with and interest in actual issues, versus trying to decide how we label his shtick.
I don't disagree overall with what you're saying, but I think it does make a difference to critique the style of whatever was going on IF you're engaging a young person and encouraging them to think critically about what they see online. The deceased and many others like him OF COURSE are not engaging in good faith debate. But they are masters at capitalizing on the instincts of young people--particularly young men--to "own" an opponent. This is fight club with words and the goal isn't to reach an understanding, which actual debate is meant to do. (And as a former debate judge, I can say wholeheartedly that teens and young adults are VERY good at debate with guardrails. Genius at it, actually.) So in the wake of what happened, I think its SUPER important for parents and other adults who spend time with young people to talk about all of the nuance that surrounds this kind of online culture.
But discussion and debate aren’t synonymous. Debates do have rules and a structure; debates are not supposed to engage in slippery slopes or ad hominem attacks or any number of logical fallacies. Debates require that each party get equal time without interruption so that each has an opportunity to make their points and respond in turn. The discussions I’ve seen making statements like you reference have been much more in line with Beth’s critique of CKs content in this episode, and I really think that commentary, which essentially boils down to this wasn’t debate, is fair on those grounds. Whether people are longing for discussion free of rules is a separate issue from whether CK engaged in actual debate. My counter to that, though, is that this generation of young people has grown up online, so it seems all they know is discussions and politics without rules and standards. So is it more about wanting an opportunity to have face to face interaction, some semblance of human connection, to speak without 7 layers of screens and anonymity? I truly don’t know—but I’m raising two kids so I want to ask questions and think critically about how we can help young people engage more and feel less despondent and numb.
I think more than anything else, young people want respect and autonomy, to be listened to and considered, to feel like they matter. I feel like we keep pushing adulthood further and further away (unless a teenager commits a violent crime, then they can be tried as an adult). We are also ok with them entertaining us as actors or through sports. It's maddening. I hated being young. I felt society didn't care about what I said or felt until I turned 30, even though I had 3 kids, owned a home, worked multiple jobs, and had served in the military by my early 20's.
The internet is the perfect place to get away from the bullshit authority figures and social controls that are keeping young people from being allowed to participate in society. They have made wildly successful internet empires without so much as a peep from "real adults". And it has evolved so fast that we can't keep up, which makes it even more attractive. When that world validates your existence more than "the real world" you might be prone to care less about it.
This idea of trying to move society onto the internet to reach our youth will be about as effective as the awkward middle-aged performers telling us not to do drugs in middle school. Or the corporate training videos for sexual harassment and time theft. We look like out of touch idiots trying to manipulate them to listen to us... and we are.
If we don't engage with our youth in a respectful and meaningful way instead of trying to figure out how to "fix them" from the outside, we're going to have a Nepal situation. I, for one, am a big believer in self-determination theory as a framework for understanding intrinsic motivation and how to engage with others effectively. (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/community-health/patient-care/self-determination-theory)
We need to ask ourselves a serious question - How do we actively demonstrate to our young people that they matter to our society? Until society accepts them, the attention economy is going to keep them.
Sarah - thanks for the nudge to listen to the Ezra interview with Ben Shapiro. I sort of rolled my eyes and couldn't believe that was his guest after all the events of the past week. After hearing your conversation I was encouraged to listen and I am so glad I did. I took a lot away from it and felt like I witnessed a healthy debate between two opposing view points. A true "I think you're wrong but I'm listening" conversation.
Petty alert - I don't know if his voice grew into his face or the other way around. I find him so painful to listen to and then on top of disagreeing with most of it makes it even harder. However, what I think frustrated me about it, was he was clearly a very different version of himself. I find Ezra to be Ezra whether on his podcast or anyone else's, or on a show or wherever. Ben was clearly more composed, less volatile, less insulting, more articulate than normal which means one version of him is a show/product. I "listened" to it and I could hear when Ezra gave him too much runway to talk without interruption he got faster in his speech, and slightly louder, and Ezra had a gentle redirect without being insulting which I think many could benefit from. Or asking him pointed questions or pushing back on some of what sounded completely off the rails (to me) view. It did get me to listen in a different way to some of the things of the past (around Obama) and I think that was a worthy exercise. As Beth said, for me, I just don't trust Ben to be trust worthy messenger so I'd need to hear those perspectives from someone without quite the agenda & platform as Ben to really give credit to it.
Shapiro's whole thesis of people being one thing or the other was a big eyeroll for me. Categorizing humans in only 2 ways (or even 4+) never sits well with me though. But yes I too agree it was a good example of how to respectfully communicate and without those moments, I don't think I would get much of the opposing viewpoints because their abrasive style tends to irritate me so much.
I give "Honestly" with Bari Weiss (the Free Press) a listen because she has a more respectful tone. She recently posted an interview with ACB and Rod Dreher that were both pretty interesting.
I loved this whole conversation. I picked up on this ab testing because I just posted on fb about what I call bot mines and how I think the administration may be using bots or A1 to , I said crowd source, but maybe it's ab test policy. This could be a realy initiative tool for the future. I do think the administration throws shut at the wall to see what sticks and maybe this is another form of that
The end of the shows reminds me of the last 5 minutes of therapy when my therapist is trying to walk me back from intensity to the present moment and my next actions for self care. Or when I would distract a toddler to help with emotional dysregulation. It's like a grounding exercise, mindfulness, closure, emotional regulation, zooming back in to simple things that also matter... can we call it "simple shit" 🤣🤣
Sorry, ladies, but I haven’t noticed the title changes. I see PP and just click Play. 😉 My RBF is terrible. I swear I’m not in a mood, it’s just my face. I spend most meetings internally repeating “Don’t look weird. Pleasant face.”
I think some of what was brought up in the episode, but not said exactly in this way, is how much people catastrophize politics. They if-this-then-that themselves into an anxiety-fueled fantasy of doom. They get 73 steps down the line based on IF step one happens before THAT has even happened.😵💫
Here are things I have learned about WWII-era facism that I'd like the kids to learn: (1) Milgard's experiment. 60% of people are rule followers who will kill someone if ordered. To be fair, I did learn about this experiment in high school history class. I hope they are still teaching it. (2) It seems a weird thing, but hear me out: They teach Kristallnacht as if it was some sort of spontaneous thing. I recently learned that there's a sparking incident. Some Jewish person killed somebody in a German embassy, and everybody said "See? They are bad. They must go." And that you can absolutely see happening. I think somebody with a passing level of knowledge could participate in something evil like that and say "it's not the same, because this time we had a reason." There is ALWAYS a manufactured reason.
There was so much in this episode - and I listened to it over a couple days while driving, so two things:
1. I really appreciated the discussion points around both engaging with ideas no matter the speaker AND centering humanity always. The idea that we should stop dismissing all the things ties in with a variety of your episodes recently and I think you are on to something!
2. FWIW I hate watching videos. I am absolutely in the minority, but I love an only audio format and am here for PP continuing to focus on that format!
Picture a room of 22 liberal Christians and one conservative having a Sunday school class about Charlie Kirk. Anyway, I’m sending this episode and the last one to my class. Whew.
New name for outside politics: B-Side Politics. As in besides politics, beside politics, B-Side of politics
I love this!
I really connected with the need for young people to have a place to work out ideas and opinions. I went to a very small very conservative school for PK-12th grade, and now as an adult, I look back and see that my experience participating in high school competitive debate was extremely important in my development. Here is the key thing about competitive debating- you are forced to write, present and argue both sides of the given resolution. A coin flip decides if you are PRO or CON before you start. I really think this is the antidote to the easy “well if you think XYZ you must just be a bad person”. I hope some high school kids are still getting this deep critical thinking experience! It definitely made me a more open and thoughtful person!
I wasn't in debate, but I do remember in my AP English classes we had to write essays where we were given some facts about a topic and then got to choose whether to write from the pro or con perspective. We didn't engage with both sides as rigorously as you would in a debate competition, but it did help me to practice thinking about an issue from both sides and trying to put together the strongest argument for each side.
Beth, I hate that there is so much pressure for podcasts to be on YouTube. I don't really get the appeal of watching a couple of people sitting there with headphones on, and it adds more pressure to the podcasters. I, for one, am usually not watching you!
Listened to this episode right before watching Josh Johnson’s latest. He talks about the algorithm, inherent value in humans, and he is funny. I wanted to share. I feel like the PP audience would appreciate it:
https://youtu.be/o4ZuXfl4yi8?si=f_FzU1wEB7DKTyXy
Not suggesting this for the ending title… just saying that every time I hear y’all use my exhale label, it makes me smile. ❤️
Sarah talking about her hardcore feminism in the past struck a chord with me. When my boys were little, born in 2006 & 2008, I remember being frustrated with cultural messaging around gender. There were a number of activities for young girls to build up their confidence, self esteem, & character building. When I asked about similar things for boys, I was told they are built up enough by society. That the goal was to build up a generation of young girls, but that the boys need to be brought up with counter messaging that humbled them & brings them down a few notches. And at the same time, we had lost the amazing dad role models from our screens & replaced them with the bumbling idiot dad who was funny, but not respected. I understand the intent, but it never felt right to me. And I can’t help but look at the Gen Z & the manosphere and see the long term impact of that messaging. And I hope we learn, but we probably won’t, that we don’t lift people up by bringing others down.
I’ve seen some discussions about Kirk since his death that go something like, “well, you know, he wasn’t ‘really’ debating, I mean the tactics he used weren’t actual debates, because….” Oh, get over yourself and STFU already. 🤣 It’s a somewhat typical response of the left to decide that something that clearly had something about it that attracted and resonated with people doesn’t “count” because it doesn’t meet some academic standard. Maybe that’s exactly what *did* appeal about him. There wasn’t a list of standards, rules, preparation and word policing, just show up and talk where you won’t be graded for it. That part isn’t about what he was saying, it’s just an easy forum to get a discussion going, and that had appeal to both people who agreed and disagreed with him.
When people say he wasn’t really debating, I wonder if they mean he was primarily performing & generating content. That’s my impression.
Well, I'm going to say he wasn't really "debating".
I didn't follow Kirk nor listen to him. I have been listening to several of his podcasts and watching a few his debates that family members and friends have shared with me the past week, so I have been educating myself on Kirk on his debate style.
Personally, I didn't care for Charlie Kirk's style of debate. Although Kirk was practicing politics correctly, I don't think how he debated the issues was necessarily good.
Debaters are not supposed to "chew the scenery" and I felt Kirk did that a lot with the young people he debated with the interrupting, the overtalking, the confrontation, etc. I can see why many did not like and critiqued it. Whether that was Kirk's intention to come across as abrasive, I don't know. But I have watched a several of his debates and it felt like many young people wanted Kirk to listen to them. Not solve anything for them nor challenge them. But to listen to them. I wonder if Kirk really did listen.
Again, this is coming from someone outside looking in on Charlie Kirk.
What I was really getting at is that arguing about what the proper label is for what he did, and critiquing his tactics, isn’t wrong, or unfair, it just seems like a complete waste of time to focus on. Particularly if, as you said, you want to find out, “how we can help young people engage more,” because Kirk WAS doing that. Whatever you want to label it - debate, not debate, discussion, conversation, banter, arguments, whatever - it actually got young people engaged. I think there is absolutely a place for formal debate - between candidates, in Congress, legal settings, debate classes and competitions, etc. - for the population at large to observe. But, I don’t think an average voter looking to engage and participate in conversations on issues has any desire at all to get involved in a formal debate with a list of rules and timers. They just want to talk things out in a back and forth. If people could move past focusing on and critiquing Kirk’s beliefs and style of banter, and having arguments about technical definitions of what he was doing, it seems like there is much more to be learned from how his version of mixing with average people and talking about issues was appealing enough to draw large crowds and get them to engage. That seems much more valuable to spend time analyzing to maybe find ways to increase engagement with and interest in actual issues, versus trying to decide how we label his shtick.
I don't disagree overall with what you're saying, but I think it does make a difference to critique the style of whatever was going on IF you're engaging a young person and encouraging them to think critically about what they see online. The deceased and many others like him OF COURSE are not engaging in good faith debate. But they are masters at capitalizing on the instincts of young people--particularly young men--to "own" an opponent. This is fight club with words and the goal isn't to reach an understanding, which actual debate is meant to do. (And as a former debate judge, I can say wholeheartedly that teens and young adults are VERY good at debate with guardrails. Genius at it, actually.) So in the wake of what happened, I think its SUPER important for parents and other adults who spend time with young people to talk about all of the nuance that surrounds this kind of online culture.
But discussion and debate aren’t synonymous. Debates do have rules and a structure; debates are not supposed to engage in slippery slopes or ad hominem attacks or any number of logical fallacies. Debates require that each party get equal time without interruption so that each has an opportunity to make their points and respond in turn. The discussions I’ve seen making statements like you reference have been much more in line with Beth’s critique of CKs content in this episode, and I really think that commentary, which essentially boils down to this wasn’t debate, is fair on those grounds. Whether people are longing for discussion free of rules is a separate issue from whether CK engaged in actual debate. My counter to that, though, is that this generation of young people has grown up online, so it seems all they know is discussions and politics without rules and standards. So is it more about wanting an opportunity to have face to face interaction, some semblance of human connection, to speak without 7 layers of screens and anonymity? I truly don’t know—but I’m raising two kids so I want to ask questions and think critically about how we can help young people engage more and feel less despondent and numb.
I think more than anything else, young people want respect and autonomy, to be listened to and considered, to feel like they matter. I feel like we keep pushing adulthood further and further away (unless a teenager commits a violent crime, then they can be tried as an adult). We are also ok with them entertaining us as actors or through sports. It's maddening. I hated being young. I felt society didn't care about what I said or felt until I turned 30, even though I had 3 kids, owned a home, worked multiple jobs, and had served in the military by my early 20's.
The internet is the perfect place to get away from the bullshit authority figures and social controls that are keeping young people from being allowed to participate in society. They have made wildly successful internet empires without so much as a peep from "real adults". And it has evolved so fast that we can't keep up, which makes it even more attractive. When that world validates your existence more than "the real world" you might be prone to care less about it.
This idea of trying to move society onto the internet to reach our youth will be about as effective as the awkward middle-aged performers telling us not to do drugs in middle school. Or the corporate training videos for sexual harassment and time theft. We look like out of touch idiots trying to manipulate them to listen to us... and we are.
If we don't engage with our youth in a respectful and meaningful way instead of trying to figure out how to "fix them" from the outside, we're going to have a Nepal situation. I, for one, am a big believer in self-determination theory as a framework for understanding intrinsic motivation and how to engage with others effectively. (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/community-health/patient-care/self-determination-theory)
We need to ask ourselves a serious question - How do we actively demonstrate to our young people that they matter to our society? Until society accepts them, the attention economy is going to keep them.
Sarah - thanks for the nudge to listen to the Ezra interview with Ben Shapiro. I sort of rolled my eyes and couldn't believe that was his guest after all the events of the past week. After hearing your conversation I was encouraged to listen and I am so glad I did. I took a lot away from it and felt like I witnessed a healthy debate between two opposing view points. A true "I think you're wrong but I'm listening" conversation.
Petty alert - I don't know if his voice grew into his face or the other way around. I find him so painful to listen to and then on top of disagreeing with most of it makes it even harder. However, what I think frustrated me about it, was he was clearly a very different version of himself. I find Ezra to be Ezra whether on his podcast or anyone else's, or on a show or wherever. Ben was clearly more composed, less volatile, less insulting, more articulate than normal which means one version of him is a show/product. I "listened" to it and I could hear when Ezra gave him too much runway to talk without interruption he got faster in his speech, and slightly louder, and Ezra had a gentle redirect without being insulting which I think many could benefit from. Or asking him pointed questions or pushing back on some of what sounded completely off the rails (to me) view. It did get me to listen in a different way to some of the things of the past (around Obama) and I think that was a worthy exercise. As Beth said, for me, I just don't trust Ben to be trust worthy messenger so I'd need to hear those perspectives from someone without quite the agenda & platform as Ben to really give credit to it.
Shapiro's whole thesis of people being one thing or the other was a big eyeroll for me. Categorizing humans in only 2 ways (or even 4+) never sits well with me though. But yes I too agree it was a good example of how to respectfully communicate and without those moments, I don't think I would get much of the opposing viewpoints because their abrasive style tends to irritate me so much.
I give "Honestly" with Bari Weiss (the Free Press) a listen because she has a more respectful tone. She recently posted an interview with ACB and Rod Dreher that were both pretty interesting.
Definitely agree about the thesis of his argument. I eye rolled what he said a lot.
I'll give your suggestion a listen!
I lasted one hour. Good luck.
Hey that’s a solid majority! 😆
I loved this whole conversation. I picked up on this ab testing because I just posted on fb about what I call bot mines and how I think the administration may be using bots or A1 to , I said crowd source, but maybe it's ab test policy. This could be a realy initiative tool for the future. I do think the administration throws shut at the wall to see what sticks and maybe this is another form of that
The end of the shows reminds me of the last 5 minutes of therapy when my therapist is trying to walk me back from intensity to the present moment and my next actions for self care. Or when I would distract a toddler to help with emotional dysregulation. It's like a grounding exercise, mindfulness, closure, emotional regulation, zooming back in to simple things that also matter... can we call it "simple shit" 🤣🤣
Sorry, ladies, but I haven’t noticed the title changes. I see PP and just click Play. 😉 My RBF is terrible. I swear I’m not in a mood, it’s just my face. I spend most meetings internally repeating “Don’t look weird. Pleasant face.”
Thank you! We do not want it to be onerous!
I think some of what was brought up in the episode, but not said exactly in this way, is how much people catastrophize politics. They if-this-then-that themselves into an anxiety-fueled fantasy of doom. They get 73 steps down the line based on IF step one happens before THAT has even happened.😵💫
Yes i can’t with that mindset, it leaves no room for hope