Ep. 103 - Why It's Impossible To Have Fruitful Debates In Our Culture
Norm MacDonald is the latest public figure to feel the wrath of the outrage mob for making a perfectly valid point about a contentious issue. This is how things go in America now. Nobody is allowed to think for themselves or introduce a divergent opinion into the mix. Nuance and subtlety are rejected. People just want to hear their own shallow thoughts repeated back to them. Fruitful debate will be impossible in this country until we learn how to engage ideas that differ from our own.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
So, Norm Macdonald, the comedian Norm Macdonald is the latest to end up getting trampled by the Pitchfork mob.
And this was, I mean, this was inevitable.
This was going to happen with Norm Macdonald because he's known for being irreverent and politically incorrect and all that.
And also he's got a Netflix show coming out.
So he's been, he has poked his head up above everybody else and made himself visible.
And once you do that, Then they're going to come after you and try to beat you back down.
That's the way it goes. So his appearance on The Tonight Show was canceled a couple nights ago amid outcry over some comments that he made, comments that allegedly minimized sexual assault and racism.
Supposedly, I'll read the comments to you in a minute, but his comments were so terrible that they made some producers on The Tonight Show cry.
Jimmy Fallon came into him before they were about to go on air and said, you know, my producers are in tears.
Now, I can't...
These were comments that Norm MacDonald made to The Hollywood Reporter.
He was giving an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
I can't imagine reading an interview in The Hollywood Reporter with a comedian and weeping.
I can't imagine anything.
I mean, literally, I cannot think of a single thing a comedian in The Hollywood Reporter could say that would make me weep.
I just can't imagine what that would be.
But that's what happened.
So the appearance was canceled, and then there have been a lot of hot takes in the media explaining why Or McDonald's comments were problematic and symptomatic and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So let me, I think of everything that he said in the interview.
Here are the two segments that have gotten all the attention and are supposedly controversial.
I'll read them to you. He says, I'm happy the Me Too movement has slowed down a little bit.
It used to be 100 women can't be lying.
And then it became one woman can't lie.
And that became I believe all women.
And then you're like, what?
Like that Chris Hardwick guy, I really thought he got the blunt end of the stick there.
And then a little bit later on, he says, Well, Louis C.K. and Roseanne are the two people I know, and Roseanne was so broken up that I got Louis to call her, even though Roseanne was very hard on Louis before that.
But she was just so broken and just crying constantly.
There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day.
Of course, people will go, What about the victims?
But you know what? The victims didn't have to go through that.
Okay. Now, let's just say first and foremost here that the outrage is ridiculous because he's not wrong about what he said, is he?
What did he say that was wrong?
What's he wrong about?
And I know that doesn't matter anymore.
It doesn't matter with the outrage culture.
It doesn't even matter if what you said is true.
People will say, it doesn't matter if it's true.
You shouldn't have said it anyway. It's hurtful.
It hurts people. People might be hurt by the truth, so you shouldn't say it.
But I think it does matter.
It does matter whether, if something is true, if it's a valid point, then there's no reason to be upset about it.
So, where is the wrong part?
What did he say that was wrong? Let's go through this.
Let's go through this one more time.
Let's go through it again and try to find the wrongness because I didn't see it.
I didn't see it at first blush.
I couldn't find it, but let's go through it again.
He says, I'm happy the Me Too movement has slowed down a little bit.
It used to be 100 women can't be lying, then it became one woman can't lie, and that became, I believe, all women.
So, okay, is he wrong there?
That is the trajectory, right?
That is how it's gone. It used to be that you have a bunch of women accusing a guy, and then we would say, well, look, all these women, it doesn't make any sense to say that they're all lying.
Either the guy is lying, or 12 or 15 women are lying, and it just doesn't make any sense to assume that all those women are lying and the guy's telling the truth.
So, you know, that's how it used to be.
But then it became, and Norm is right about that, then it became, well, if one woman accuses a guy, then we automatically have to believe the woman.
We cannot even consider the possibility that maybe she's the liar and he's telling the truth.
We can't even consider it. And then that became, and this is the mantra of the Me Too movement and of feminists, I believe women.
Believe women. What kind of statement is that?
Believe women? So I have to believe whatever a woman tells me because she's a woman?
Like, a woman can never lie?
Is that what you're telling me? Of course, that's crazy!
So he's right there.
He's right to criticize that.
And then he says Chris Hardwick got the blunt end of the stick.
What's wrong with that? He did get the blunt end of the stick.
Chris Hardwick was accused in a blog post that he never even was mentioned by name, I don't think.
It was an anonymous accusation In a blog post by one person, and he was never even accused of doing anything criminal.
He was basically accused of being a bad boyfriend, and there was no evidence.
There was nobody corroborating it.
In fact, a bunch of people came out in defense of Chris Hardwick, including women who knew him, former girlfriends and current girlfriend and whatever, and they came out and said, no, that's not the guy I know.
I don't believe any of that.
And yet, he still suffered consequences for that in his career and his reputation.
That's not fair. Why should that have any weight?
Because one person writes a blog post detailing things allegedly from your private life, and we're supposed to believe that?
It should have no weight whatsoever.
If it's one person versus another person, and everyone that's come out is on the side of the accused, then that has no weight.
And then he says, you know, he expresses some sympathy for Louis C.K. and Roseanne, who are his friends.
Is he wrong for having sympathy for them?
They're his friends. What is he supposed to say?
Oh, yeah, they're my friends, but they're total scumbags.
I'm glad their lives are ruined.
I hope they die. Is that what he's supposed to say?
I guess that's what he's supposed to say.
Is that what you would say about your friend?
If your friend did a bad thing and their career was ruined and their lives were in shatters because of it, Would you then come out in the media and jump on the dog pile?
No, if you would, then you're a terrible friend.
Feel sorry for your friends in that case.
So he's just being a good friend here.
The only part of this that could even be considered halfway controversial is where he says, they lost everything in a day.
People will go, what about the victims?
You know what? The victims didn't have to go through that.
Okay. Again, is he wrong?
He's right that Roseanne and Louis C.K. did lose everything.
I mean, they were...
Roseanne had the number one show on TV. She lost it.
I mean, she was having this resurgence in her career.
That was taken away from him.
Louis C.K. was this, you know, considered this comedic genius, and he was award-winning, critically acclaimed, popular.
I mean, he had everything.
He was popular and he had critical acclaim, which is really hard to do, especially in comedy.
And he had all of that, and then all of that went away.
Now he's a disgrace, and he has a punchline, and he lost everything.
Now, whether or not you think that they deserve that, it is true that that happened to them.
And it's also true that if you're a friend of those people, I think you would have some sympathy for that.
Um, and then his other claim is that, well, that's not what happened to the victims.
Okay. Well, first of all, who was Roseanne's victim?
She wrote a mean tweet about Valerie Jarrett.
Is Valerie Jarrett a victim?
If that makes you a victim, then I myself am a huge victim because people write mean things about me online all the time.
But regardless, did Valerie Jarrett lose everything?
Was her whole life destroyed because Roseanne wrote a mean tweet about her?
No, I don't think so. And then Louis C.K. He sexually harassed several women.
He doesn't even deny it, so we don't even have to say allegedly he did do it.
As far as I know, I don't like reading all the gruesome details of these things because I don't think I need to know it, but from my understanding of the Louis C.K. situation is that he exposed himself and...
Pleasured himself in front of several women.
But as the story goes, as far as I know, he would ask them, is it okay if I expose myself?
And then they would say yes, and then he would do it.
But then now they're saying, well, you know, I said yes, but I thought he was joking.
I didn't know he'd actually do it. And I wanted to leave the room.
I was very uncomfortable or he was like in the way of the doors, you know.
And, and, and regardless, it's, obviously, it's creepy and disgusting for Louis CK. That's just, that's, even if you ask, that's just not a question that you ask some strange woman, or, you know, some acquaintance, you know, you just, it's just, it's, it is not an appropriate question to ask, right?
But, what Norm MacDonald is saying is, well, these women, Yes, it was wrong what Louis C.K. did.
Were their lives destroyed, though?
I mean, was the whole course of their life ruined because of this incident?
Are their lives left in ruins and tatters because of this?
Because of Louis C.K. exposing himself?
You could make the argument that no, probably not.
So that's all. You know, that was his only point.
I think it's a valid point.
It's not a crazy point.
Is it? It's not crazy. It's not insane.
It's valid. And it does raise questions about proportionality.
Even when someone does something disgusting and wrong, and then their whole life is destroyed, is that proportionate?
And so it's a discussion that we can have.
Why can't we talk about that?
And here's the greater point I want to make.
You see here why it's impossible.
It's impossible to talk about anything in America anymore.
We can't have discussions.
We can't have debates.
Because if you commit the crime of giving a unique perspective in public, people will seize hold of it and sift through it looking for the one or two most controversial sentences and then they'll divorce those sentences from their context and search desperately for the most uncharitable possible interpretation To ruin you with it.
And there's no attempt to understand the actual point that you were trying to make.
No attempt to understand what was said.
There's no engagement, no discourse.
Speech is treated like this game with arbitrary rules and whoever breaks the rules will be punished regardless of intent.
It's insane what we do now.
The way that we totally disregard intent is maybe the most remarkable aspect of this.
And it's because it happens all the time that somebody will say something and then the outrage mob will take it and they will find the most outrageous possible interpretation.
And so with something like this, like when we're talking about sexual assault, sexual harassment, the Me Too movement, anybody who tries to find a nuanced perspective or anyone who even hints that possibly in some of these cases, the penalties have been disproportionate to the offense committed.
anyone who even begins to sort of make that point will be accused of defending sexual harassment or being an apologist for rape.
Which is the most outrageous possible interpretation of what they actually said.
But then what happens is, so, you know, the outraged mom comes and they'll say, we're offended because we think that you meant X, Y, Z. We think that you meant that it's okay to sexually assault and harass people.
That's how we took it.
And then the person will go, no, that's not what I meant.
That's not what I meant. No, I'm totally, of course, I'm totally opposed to sexual assault and harassment.
I think what they did is terrible.
I'm just trying to raise another question so that we could talk about this.
But now that right there, that should end it.
That should be the end of the controversy.
That should be it. Because he just told you what he meant.
You were wrong.
You misinterpreted it.
And so he's telling you what he actually meant.
And he knows what he meant.
He is the only authority over what he meant.
Not you, him. He's the one who said it.
He's in his mind. He knows what he meant.
He's telling you what he meant.
That should be it.
There's once... When someone says something, and you interpret it in a way that makes the comment offensive, and then he says to you, no, I didn't mean it in that offensive way.
I meant it in this way. That should be it.
You have no basis now to continue being offended.
He has taken it from you.
If you continue being offended, it's because you want to be offended, and you don't even care what he said, so you're a liar, and you are disingenuous.
Because it just doesn't make any sense.
When someone clarifies what they meant, it doesn't make any sense for you to go, yeah, well, I'm going to stick with my original interpretation of your words.
I don't care what you think you meant.
I'm going to go with what I think you meant.
Because I know more about what you meant than you know about what you meant.
That doesn't make any sense. But as I said, it's all a game.
Nobody wants to actually talk about anything because everybody's just laying traps and claiming trophies.
And that's it. That's the way it works.
Here's how it works. Every topic, every issue is A or B now.
That's the way it works in America.
It's A or B. And so the mindless masses on both sides, that's how they see it.
They see it as an A or B thing.
Every issue, whatever the issue is, A or B. Those are the, you know, if you're in the mindless masses on either side, you're looking at it as you can have A position or B position and that's it.
That's all that's allowed.
But the real problem, and we have to understand this, okay, about the way this works.
For both sides, okay, they see their own position as the A position, and the other side is the B position.
And the B position is always going to be a caricature.
It's not a real position.
It's a caricature of a position.
Okay. But the real problem is that the A or B dynamic is applied to every issue, which means that nobody is allowed to find something in between A and B. Or nobody's allowed to go and take a little from column A, a little bit from column B, and say, you know, I can see what they mean on this side.
I can see what they mean on this. I think they both have valid points.
They're not allowed to do that.
And certainly nobody's allowed to come with a C position or a G position.
God forbid a Y or a Z position.
God forbid someone really legitimately comes from left field and says something that's way outside of that paradigm completely.
If you do that, you're just going to be devoured.
Nobody's even going to begin to listen to you.
So what we have here is what I have been calling for a long time.
It is the death of nuance.
It is the death of subtlety.
It's the death of distinction.
It is, more to the point, it is the death of interesting ideas.
Because every position has to be something that you can summarize in one sentence.
And the other side, if they don't hear their sentence repeated back to them, They'll just descend on you and rip you to shreds.
That's all. That's what a discussion is supposed to be.
Each side, they have their sentence.
They have their sentence, their position, and they just want to hear their sentence said back to them.
And if they don't hear it, then you're in trouble.
Both sides do this, by the way.
It's not just a liberal thing.
I hate to tell you, this is not...
This is not like liberals do this, but conservatives are intelligent and are always subtle and nuanced, and they're always looking for the interesting...
No, that's not...
Maybe it used to be kind of how it goes.
That's not how it goes anymore.
Now, for liberals, let's just take an example of how this works.
Let's use the example we've been using so far.
When you take an issue like Me Too...
The way they approach it is that everyone must take the position that all accusations are true.
Every accused man is a scumbag who should die.
Whatever penalty he's suffering is fair, no matter how severe.
Every victim has been irreparably and profoundly harmed and traumatized.
And no consideration whatsoever should be given to the men, innocent or not.
And especially if the man is guilty, you're not allowed to have any sympathy at all for him.
None. That's their position.
That's not a caricature of their position.
That is really their position.
As I said, believe women.
That's not my slogan.
That's their slogan. Which is an absolute statement.
Believe women. If a woman says it, believe her.
That's really their position.
And for them, it's the only acceptable one.
Any differing position will be put into the B camp.
So that's A camp for them.
That's right. If you say something different, you're in B camp.
And B for them is the position that sexual abuse is good and all women are liars.
Okay? That for them is B position.
Now, here's the problem.
Nobody actually holds that position.
Nobody's saying that.
I've never heard anyone say that.
That is not a position that anyone holds.
That position doesn't exist in real life.
But they have created it, and anyone who fails to parrot their opinions back to them on this issue will be thrown into B-Camp.
So if you try to say, yeah, sexual harassment, sexual assault, terrible things, we've got to root those out.
However, you know, as soon as you start the however, they won't even listen to the rest of your sentence.
They're throwing you into B-Camp.
If you say, yeah, there's a sexual abuse problem, but it's also true that women lie sometimes, and so we have to account for, nope, you're going in B. Doesn't matter.
Stop right there. You're in B. Or if you say, yeah, you know, these men, they've done a terrible thing, but...
Not all forms of harassment are the same in terms of degree and severity.
So maybe they don't all necessarily deserve to have their lives completely destroyed for it.
And maybe, nope, you're going in B. Doesn't stop right there.
You're going in B. I don't even want to hear the rest of it.
And that's the way it goes.
Now, the right does this too.
And I know a lot of people listening to this and watching this right now, this is the part you don't want to hear.
You've been with me so far.
Now you don't want to hear the rest of this.
And if you're thinking right now, and now you're getting upset because I'm...
Well, then you're part of the problem, okay?
Because the right does do this.
And take it from me, okay?
Let's take one example.
For many people on the right, when it comes to Donald Trump, there are only two positions.
Their position, the one that they take, is that this is the A position for them.
It's that Donald Trump is a genius and a hero, and he is saving the world.
Okay, again, that is not a caricature.
That is an actual position.
Not only an actual position, that is the position.
That is the kind of mainstream right-wing position.
And... This comparing Donald Trump to biblical heroes like King David, I didn't invent that.
That's what people actually say.
Comparing him, really making him into this messianic figure who saved America from the edge of destruction.
And that is the A position.
That's the position you have to take.
And then there's the B position.
And that's everything else.
And if you're in the B position, that means that you're a liberal and you hate America.
So if you try to offer any criticism of Trump at all, in any situation, for any reason, you're going to be thrown into B camp.
I know what I'm talking about.
This happens to me all the time.
I have been told so many times, if any time, I mean any time I offer any criticism of Trump, and I say, you know, I think he's wrong on this one.
Or I think he should have done this, but instead of doing that.
Or, you know, really, I think tweeting like a 12-year-old girl all the time is maybe not becoming for a president, and maybe he should stop it.
Anytime I say that, I'll let people say, well, you're a liberal.
What are you, some kind of lib?
You libtard? And you hate America.
This is what I'm told. Me, a liberal.
I wrote a book called The Unholy Trinity about transgenderism, abortion, and gay marriage, calling that The Unholy Trinity.
That's a book that I wrote, and I'm a liberal because I don't like Donald Trump's tweets.
This is the mentality that people actually have.
And it's not just a few people, a lot of people.
So distinctions, nuances, opposing ideas, These really are not accepted by either side anymore.
They don't want to hear it.
I can't tell you how many times.
I mean, it's a daily occurrence.
Then I'll venture outside of the accepted mainstream conservative paradigm on some random issue, whether it's Donald Trump or anything else.
And then I'll have people tell me.
I mean, this happens, like I said, it's a daily occurrence.
Someone will say to me, you know, I've read your stuff for years.
I've been a fan for five years.
I'm done. You're unfollowed.
I'm not following you anymore because of your position on this one single topic.
It happened to me just the other day when I... The other day, and I've said this before, but...
The other day I suggested that our reaction to the anthem kneelers, okay, maybe is a little bit overblown.
Like, maybe it's time to move on.
And right now in the NFL, there are like one or two guys.
On any given Sunday, you're going to have over a thousand NFL players on fields across, you know, America and various states.
And you might now find one, two, maybe three Players out of a thousand who are kneeling.
So that to me is, it's not an issue.
Two or three guys out of a thousand, who cares?
Who cares what they're doing?
Do we really need every single last person?
So we're going to boycott the NFL until every single last person associated has the correct posture during the anthem?
I just find that to be a, it's just, it's a, It's ridiculous.
Now, I'm not agreeing with them.
It's not an agreement. So there's a slight nuance.
It's, I agree, I don't like the anthem protests.
However, yet as soon as I tack that however on, that's when people, and just the other day, people told me, they're done following me because of that.
If it's actually true that they've been following.
So think about that. I've been reading your stuff for five years.
I respect your opinion.
I've been with you.
You have ventured away from me on this one slight issue, and so I'm done.
That mentality is so shockingly Small-minded and narrow and ridiculous, but it's how people function.
And this is why there can't be any meaningful discussion in America.
Because people on both sides, they simply don't want to hear any divergent opinion at all.
Now, you know what's the worst thing about all this?
The worst thing is that it's so boring.
It makes our discussions in this country so helplessly, awfully boring because nobody's allowed to be interesting.
No one's allowed to make an interesting point.
No one's allowed to be challenging.
No one's allowed to come out of left field with something.
Nobody's allowed to introduce a thoughtful nuance to a discussion and therefore develop the discussion a little bit.
Like with the anthem thing.
Yes, we've all heard for three years now.
We've heard the standard conservative stand for the anthem.
Yeah, I get it. Fine. I mean, how many times do we have to say that?
Can we develop the discussion and talk about something else related to it that's a little bit more interesting?
Do we really have an insatiable appetite to hear our one-sentence thought on this topic repeated to us over and over again for three years?
Is that what we need? But it's not allowed.
And the effect is the collective stupefying of America.
The people are... And the people who are leading the discussion, the people who have platforms in this country, the people in the media, they contribute to the problem because they know that this is the dynamic.
And so they know they're not going to get away with a nuanced position.
They know they're not going to get away with challenging their own side.
And so what they do is they just, for every position, they think of the most simple, simplified perspective, and they just keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over again.
Why has this happened? I mean, why has it gotten to this point?
Well, I think there are a lot of explanations.
Number one, just intellectually.
People are intellectually lazy.
They don't want to apply their brain to anything.
Number two, I think people are, you know, it's a little bit of a cowardice.
People don't want to be challenged.
They're afraid that if they allow their position, their opinion to be challenged, that they may find out they're wrong about something.
And if they're wrong about this, then maybe they're wrong about that and that.
And then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
People are afraid of that, so they don't want to hear it.
And number three, I also think, and this goes to the intellectual laziness, so it's not really a third thing.
It goes back to number one, but people don't People don't read.
We're so used to little sound bites and having everything packaged for us in the most entertaining and simplified way.
Because people don't read whole books anymore.
If you're in the habit of reading whole books, like actually whole chapters and everything, then you're going to have more patience For someone to express an idea that takes more than one sentence to explain.
But most people don't read books, so they don't have the patience for that.
Maybe they don't have the ability anymore to understand an idea that takes more than one sentence to explain.
And so that's the problem.
Now, two other quick points.
People will say that I'm guilty of this, right?
And I don't deny it. I'm not saying that I'm innocent.
Whatever. Maybe I'm 100% guilty with all this stuff.
I mean, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
It doesn't matter to me.
I'm not saying I'm innocent.
But let me also just add that there are two types of black and white thinking.
And I'm accused of being a black and white thinker all the time.
But there's the bad kind of black and white thinking, and then there's the good kind.
And maybe I do both.
But what I've been talking about here is the bad type of black and white thinking.
The black and white thinking that is not interested in nuance, is not interested in subtlety, is not interested in any kind of distinction whatsoever, and which just wants to hear its own ideas parroted back to it as simplified and stupefied as possible.
Okay, so that's the bad kind of black and white thinking.
But then there's another black and white type of thinking where you have firm fundamental principles which you do not compromise on.
And which you will not look for any gray area on.
And then, so, for me, a fundamental principle is that human beings have worth and dignity, okay?
That's a fundamental principle that I have.
And it's right, I will not accept, I'm black and white, I won't accept any gray area on that.
I think every human being who exists has worth and dignity.
Period. Okay? No gray area.
So, on that you can accuse me of black and white thinking.
But, then the interesting thing is to take that black and white principle and apply it to figure out how it applies to various different situations.
And so that's where you can have some really interesting discussions.
Now, with something like abortion, I think it applies very simply.
Abortion is a terrible, evil, period, end of discussion.
Something like capital punishment, well, now here's an interesting way of thinking, because you can make an argument on either end.
You've got the firm fundamental principle, okay, that's black and white, no gray area, but now you're injecting it into this very complicated subject where you can make an argument that it could lead you in either direction.
And so that's interesting. So being black and white on principles, that does not negate or interfere with nuanced and interesting discussions.
In fact, I think being black and white on principle is necessary to have nuanced and interesting discussions.
Because that's part of the problem here.
Is that people are very black and white on the superficial talking point level.
Like, on the surface level, people are black and white.
But when it comes to the principles underneath that, people have no idea what they believe.
They don't have firm principles.
All they have is the conclusion.
They have no idea what principles actually inform those conclusions.
So it's exactly reversed.
But when you're firm on your principles and you know what they are, and you're talking to someone who's firm in their principles, that's when you're going to have super interesting...
Like with my family, okay?
You know, you should...
You know, when I get together with my family, we'll have the most knock-down, drag-out debates you can imagine.
Not literally knock-down, drag-out, although it's come close to blows a few times.
But, you know, we just have really passionate debates.
Okay, and yeah, there will be screaming and shouting and everything, right?
It gets crazy.
Even though we agree on almost everything when it comes to the fundamental principles.
You know, we're all Christian.
We all believe in God. We're all conservative.
You know, we're all super ultra-conservative, all of us.
Yet we have these intense debates.
And I think those debates are possible because we agree.
We're talking the same language.
We agree on the principles.
So we can kind of get past that, and then we can have super interesting discussions about how do we apply those principles to this situation.
And I think that's such a fascinating conversation to have.
And that's why, among conservatives, we should be able to have really interesting debates among ourselves.
Because, supposedly, we agree on the principles.
And we should be able to have...
Now, it's harder to have these nuanced discussions with someone where you don't share any fundamental values whatsoever.
It's another thing that interferes with the debate between...
One of the reasons why the debates between conservatives and liberals are so fruitless is that we don't have any common ground.
We don't share the same language. We don't have any of the same presuppositions or anything like that.
So there's no basis.
There's no solid ground upon which to stage this conversation so that every discussion ends up devolving back down into, like, is there a God, right?
But among conservatives, because we supposedly agree, most of us, on the fundamentals, We should be able to have really interesting conversations.
And I think there was a time in conservatism when that did happen.
And there was this really intense, edifying, mentally strengthening debate within conservatism on various issues.
That's not how it goes anymore.
Because most people...
Even among conservatives, they don't want to hear.
They have their A position, one sentence on every issue.
That's all they want to hear. All they want to hear from you is that you agree with it.
All right.
Oh, well, I've been going on for a while now.
And even this. I mean...
Going on, like, I've been talking for 35 minutes about the same topic.
People tell me all the time, like, you know, the videos are too long.
Why don't you talk about multiple topics in a video?
Like, who wants to hear a 30-minute conversation about the same topic?
Maybe nobody wants to hear it.
I don't know. But to me, I think that's interesting.
We should be able to spend 30 minutes.
We should be able to spend three hours on just one topic, getting into all the nuances of it.
People don't want to hear that. That's why all the Facebook, you know, you see all these conservative Facebook stars, and they developed this huge following By putting out, like, two-minute videos on some issue.
How could you possibly say anything interesting or worthwhile in two minutes?
There's not enough time.
Yet people love it. They just want to hear the two-minute, you know, a few sentences, two minutes, repeating their own ideas back to them so they can share it and say, Amen!
Oh, yeah! That's, yes!
Tell it like it is!
Wow! That person didn't say anything.
What do you mean? Wow! They didn't say anything interesting.
Did they really say something that made you, like, think differently about this issue?
