March 22, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:47:32
The Strategy in IRAN! X Space
Stéphane Molyneux argues modern warfare relies on IQ, claiming Iran's pool of 160+ geniuses creates a deceptive strategic advantage over the West. He dismisses ground troop fears in mountainous terrain while addressing a caller's hypocrisy regarding infidelity and lying to his son about a drug-addicted mother. The discussion shifts to high-trust versus low-trust societies, where Molyneux refutes the idea that nation-states operate under separate moral rules, insisting the non-aggression principle applies universally. Ultimately, the episode suggests that ignoring objective ethics in favor of political realism or genetic determinism leads to societal decay and corrupted parenting. [Automatically generated summary]
If you wish to listen, ears, if you wish to talk, you can, of course, ask me on X if there's anything you'd like to chat about.
I do have some thoughts about the war.
I posted about this this morning.
I actually had a big criticism from a listener, which I appreciate.
I honestly do not take it personally.
I am thrilled when people criticize and correct.
I am not interested in being right, but in being accurate.
See, of course, as you know, most people in the world do not process existence in a truth versus false paradigm.
They process the world as best they can, which is usually pretty badly, in an us versus them paradigm.
So I got a big criticism.
I actually recorded a response to it for about 20 minutes.
I'll probably do it again at some point.
But unfortunately, there was a technical problem.
The video did not save.
And so I will just touch on a few points briefly here.
It's really, really important to understand war.
And if you don't understand war from an IQ standpoint, you don't understand war at all.
Modern warfare in particular, war as a whole, but modern warfare in particular is fought on IQ.
And the most dangerous opponent is a high IQ dictatorship.
The most dangerous opponent is a high IQ dictatorship, particularly if that high IQ dictatorship also includes significant engineering skill, because war is engineering plus IQ.
And of course, for a lot of people, what is it, the old saying that war is God's way of teaching American people geography?
A lot of people think that Iran and Iraq are kind of the same when they're not the same.
And it really is amazing just what an IQ difference between the two organizations.
Iran often pegged at a little over 100.
Iran mid-90s.
It's a pretty wild thing.
The tail end of the IQ is where the brilliance of a country lies.
And when you have IQ differences and it says, oh, it's 10 points or whatever, 12 points, it's not that big a deal.
And for the average person, it is, of course.
It would be tricky to say, be able to easily tell the difference in conversation between somebody with an IQ of 95 and an IQ of 105.
It's, you know, you may notice a few things, but you wouldn't want to judge any individuals just based on a conversation in that IQ range.
But that's not where war is planned and fought.
That's not where war is planned and fought.
Wars are planned and fought at the very highest IQ levels.
So all war is based upon deception and misdirection, right?
As the old Sun Tzu argument goes, the art of war is to get your enemy to attack you where you are the strongest and to avoid you where you are the weakest.
So war is based on war in the Middle East in the modern sense.
Military Strategy and Deception00:02:55
And again, I'm not talking about the morals or the geopolitics, but simply the basic military strategy.
I've done a, you know, am I a military expert?
No, I am not a military expert, but I did take courses on war and military strategy at the graduate level.
And I've done a lot of research for books that I've written on military strategy and war.
And so, you know, I'm an amateur, okay-ish, right?
So none of this is any kind of claimed expertise.
But to me, it's just kind of common sense.
So Iran, of course, what do they want to do?
Well, they want to use their least valuable and easiest to shoot down missiles to bleed off defenses, right?
You have your anti-missile defenses, your iron dome, and so on.
And so what Iran wants to do is to give easy victories in the early part of the war.
Of course, right?
You want to give easy victories.
It's sort of like if you're in a running race, like a long-distance running race.
You want your opponents to tire themselves out early.
And so you'll give them a little bit of race.
You'll let them go ahead a little bit, and then you'll save your energy for the final 10%, where they're tired and you're still somewhat fresh.
So what Iran wants to do is to launch its least effective, cheapest, oldest, most ridiculous missiles.
And then the countries around it will burn up their defenses and they'll say, gee, we're really, really great at intercepting these missiles, right?
Because you don't want to waste your expensive good missiles on still strong defenses.
What you want to do, send up your old crap and let the defenses take them out.
This gives your enemy a sense of overconfidence.
And what you really want to breed in your enemy is overconfidence.
Your overconfidence was your weakness.
So that's kind of inevitable.
So there's going to be a lot of early victories, and people are going to say, gee, we're fantastic at shooting these rockets down.
Bless, blah, And then, since defense is limited as well, there's not an infinity of anti-missile defenses.
And so when your anti-missile defenses run low because they've intercepted all of your easy rockets, you will then, and only then, will you start using your effective rockets, your most effective rockets, after you've led your opponent dry of defenses.
I mean, so the idea that the war is going super well and that they're just kicking Iran's ass and so on, there should be caution about this.
High IQ Armies in Dictatorships00:07:05
Again, what do I know?
I'm just some podcaster, so this is all just foolish rambling, although there may be a grain of value in it.
But that's the way it works.
And the willingness to let your enemies crow in their victory laps, that's kind of a high IQ trait.
To let your enemy appear to be winning takes a lot of deferral of gratification and self-restraint.
It's a high IQ trait.
And if you look at the IQ curves, just to compare Iran with Iraq, if you use the generalities, Iran in the low hundreds, Iraq in the low to mid-90s, not a huge gap.
10 IQ points, 12 IQ points, maybe.
Not a huge gap.
It is in the smartest people that the biggest gaps occur.
Because when you look at this, how it's an IQ of 100 is the average, there's a gap of 10, so that there's 10% more smart people in one country versus the other on average, but that's not how it works at the level of war.
War is fought IQ 130 to IQ 160 plus.
And if you just look at IQ 130 plus, if you just look at a mean 100, IQ 130 plus, it's not 30% higher, it's 30% more, no, no, or 30% fewer.
So high IQ individuals at a mean 100 IQ average, IQ 130 plus are only 2.3% of the population.
And I assume IQ 130 plus is at the general's level, but at the Supreme Commander's level, at the very highest levels of the military, I assume that you want IQ 160 plus.
Now, if you look at IQ 160 plus, you're in a whole different category.
Just compare Iraq versus Iran.
So IQ 160 plus, Iran has 10 to 15,000 people like that, whereas Iraq only has a few hundred.
So small mean shifts in IQ cause huge relative differences far out.
So IQ 160 is very rare.
It's about one, for a mean IQ of 100, it's about 1 in 30,000 people.
It's extremely rare.
So Iraq would have only a few hundred people at very high IQs, whereas Iran has 10 to 15,000 of them.
So you want to think of high IQ as armies.
And armies like medieval armies that really are based on sort of swords and shields and arrows and so on.
And so if you understand that, that high IQ is the army, because that's who's fighting, especially when you're looking at drones and deception and so on.
So you haven't, if you would imagine Iran versus Iraq, then you would have an army of 10 to 15,000 people versus an army of just a few hundred.
And, you know, while there may be differences in martial courage and some localized skills, it's not going to, it's not going to win.
Few hundred versus 10 to 15,000, all other things being equal, because we're talking about IQ 160 plus, right?
So that is what I would argue is the real battle.
And for a lot of people, they think Iran is like Iraq, and it's not.
It's a different population.
And Iran is Persian to a significant degree.
And of course, Persians are Caucasians that left some thousand years ago for various reasons and ended up in the Middle East.
So when you are facing a brilliant population, which is the 10 to 15,000 of IQ 160 plus in Iran, it's a whole lot different from facing a few hundred people with such a high IQ in Iran.
And of course, some of those IQ 160 people would not be suited for military service.
And this is why I said a high IQ dictatorship is your most dangerous enemy, because a high IQ dictatorship can force its brilliant people into the military.
Do you see what I mean?
So in America or in the West as a whole, if you have IQ 160 plus, do you want to go into the military?
Well, it's less likely as a whole because IQ 160 plus, you can do just about anything.
I mean, obviously, you could be a fantastic lawyer or world-class surgeon.
You can be an entrepreneur.
You can work with computers.
You can work with computers.
You can do finance.
Finance is a big one for hoovering up high IQ people.
And very high IQ people in a relative free market are less likely to go into the military.
I would imagine not more than one in 10 or 1 in 20.
Very high IQ people are going to go into the military.
So that's going to be a lower number of high IQ people you get into the military.
Of course, in a dictatorship, you can just order people to go into the military on pain of being thrown into dungeons or tortured or killed.
And so you can get your geniuses into the military and the dictatorship in a way that you really can't in a free society.
And this is why I'm saying.
If you have 10,000 IQ 160 plus people in two countries, one of them is a relatively free and can't force people in this military, can't draft them, and the other is a dictatorship, then you will end up with a massive higher proportion of IQ 160 plus people in the dictator's military than you would in the free country's military.
So it's a challenge.
And of course, because people can't talk much about IQ, and people aren't generally aware of this stuff, although there was a study in Nigeria that was recently run by blacks, for blacks.
So all Kevin Samuels thinks, black demographics.com.
Statistics by black people for black people.
So this IQ test was run, and the average was 67, 68, something like that.
Or the mean.
Anyway, so because people can't talk about IQ, they can't analyze the differences in the military that you're fighting between, say, Iran and Iraq.
Western Military Misunderstandings Iran00:04:34
And I'm not trying to pick on Iraq, of course.
I'm just pointing out that it's a different thing to deal with.
So, yeah, it's something that because people don't talk about it and won't listen about it, I don't know if this is dealt with at the military level or not.
I don't know.
I don't know if the Western military looks at these kinds of things.
The media certainly won't, right?
The media won't point out the dangers.
And now, of course, there's because Iran is supposed to have hit a military base over 2,000 miles away with missiles.
Who knows if this is true?
Fog of war, doesn't really matter.
And everyone's, England is like, oh my gosh, they could hit London and we have no defenses against blah, And it's like, but it's so weird to me because the whole war was embarked upon based upon the West's incredibly deep and detailed knowledge of Iran's military capabilities, right?
Because they were within two weeks of getting a bomb, nuclear bomb.
So there was a very deep and certain knowledge of Iran's military.
And this is the general disconnect of the Western population.
Of course, the Western media, they're completely hopeless, just a bunch of mouth-breathing propagandists.
But, I mean, just the general population, the intelligent people.
And again, it's always possible I'm missing something obvious.
It's always a possibility.
But for me, what I do is I say, okay, well, if they're really surprised that Iran has missiles that can reach Western targets, it's Berlin, of course, probably one of the closer ones.
If people in the West, our high-level people, media in the West, are shocked that Iran has long-range missiles, then it means that they did not know very much about Iran's military capabilities.
And of course, if the West didn't know much about Iran's military capabilities to the point where they're shocked, shocked, I tell you, that Iran has long-range missiles, then how on earth could they know that Iran was two weeks away or a month away from developing nuclear weapons?
Of course, people don't ask these questions and so on.
It's also the last thing I'll say, I know we got some callers, last thing I'll say is that Iran has put out some pretty strengthy demands in the latest negotiations.
And assuming that your enemy is bluffing is always a big challenge.
Always a big challenge.
But the demands are pretty wild these days.
Oh, especially not these days, recently.
And they're saying that, I mean, so Washington has sent this demand to Tehran via Egypt, Qatar, and the UK.
They say your halt missile program for five years, end uranium enrichment completely, shut down Natanz, Isfahan, and Ford reactors, allow full international inspections, limit missile stockpile to a thousand, cut all support to Hezbollah, Houthis, and Hamas.
And I mean, that's really unconditional surrender terms and so on, right?
And Iran has some pretty heavy counter-demands, right?
America withdraw all of its military bases, shut down all its military bases in the Middle East, that America, and I think that Israel pay some reparations and sort of other things.
And also that, of course, they demand a ceasefire, guarantees against future attacks, compensation, and so on.
And so that is very clearly to say that Iran appears to be quite confident in the direction that the war is going.
Now, of course, overconfidence, I mean, anybody who's ever played poker, overconfidence or seeming confidence can be a bluff or it can be real.
If somebody is confident or appears to be very confident, it could just be that it's a bluff for sure, or it could also be that they know something that you don't.
So we shall see.
We shall see.
But I do not expect, I do not expect a quick resolution.
Chuck Norris Overconfidence Bluff00:06:20
And I do not expect, I mean, the idea of ground troops in such a mountainous country is wild.
This mountainous country similar to Afghanistan, which is the graveyard of empires, as I've mentioned before on the show.
So just a little quick analysis.
I'm certainly happy to talk to callers.
DL, if you want to unmute, I'm overjoyed to hear what is on your mind.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, go ahead.
Hi, Stefan.
I've been watching you for years.
Nice to finally get on with you.
Nice to chat.
What's up?
I was calling because I just watched the Chuck Norris salute video.
And I was impressed by it.
You did all the jokes and you think highly of them too.
And I wanted to poke around and talk to you.
So I just completely got a brain rot right now and I can't think of what I want to ask you.
But I have been watching him for years and always like, God, I want to ask him this question.
I want to ask him this, but now I'm here.
I can't think of it.
How are you?
Well, it's a little awkward.
I'm doing a call-in show, and you have nothing to say.
I'm sorry.
I didn't think you were going to pick up my call.
All right.
Do you know that Chuck Norris was robbed?
No.
Well, this was in the 80s.
And Chuck Norris was walking down the street.
I think it's early 80s.
And two robbers sat upon him.
And then when the police showed up, they had like broken arms, broken ribs, concussions, just lying there in a heap.
And Chuck Norris sort of standing calmly by, quietly.
And the police laughed at the robbers.
And they said, what?
I'm obviously paraphrasing here.
They said, what kind of chuckle-headed dundernuts attacks Chuck Norris?
And they said, no, they said, didn't the police said, didn't you know who he was?
And they said, well, yeah, we knew he was a celebrity.
You know, we just figured that the tough guy stuff he did on TV was just an act with like stunt doubles and it's not real, you know?
Yeah.
And I said, well, you've learned your lesson there.
So, I mean, that's kind of funny to me.
And it's not often, of course, that I think a lot of people trained in martial arts dreaming of the day when they get to protect someone on a subway.
God help them, Daniel Penny style.
But Chuck Norris was the real deal.
And what's interesting about Chuck Norris is that when you see his fight with Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, I mean, obviously he looks like a werebear.
He looks like a Sasquatch.
Bro doesn't even have abs or veined arm muscles.
And yet, you know, an absolute powerhouse.
I mean, the physical competence that Chuck Norris has, I mean, didn't come out of nowhere.
You know, there's a sort of Stephen Seagal meme where it's like he's not that good.
Well, Stephen Seagal was actually very good.
He grew up in Japan and was like a dojo master and all that.
He was very, very good.
He became a bit of a goofy caricature later on in his life, as a lot of martial arts people do.
They become kind of goofy caricatures.
And there's a level of cringe that runs through a lot of martial arts stuff that is kind of goofy.
Not all of it.
Of course, some of it's very, very interesting.
But yeah, the degree of competence and the degree of lethality that Chuck Norris possessed was staggeringly real.
And he actually got a chance to show that in the real world when he was actually set upon by two criminals and took them out very efficiently.
And maybe this is the overconfidence thing, right?
I was talking about this with the war, right?
But the overconfidence thing is like the criminals are going up to this guy.
And Chuck Norris, I'm sure he said something like, you kind of don't want to do this.
Like, I know I look maybe a little bit small.
I don't look super, I'm not like bulked up like Schwarzenegger or something like that.
But, you know, guys, if I'm going to give you one piece of advice today, it would be don't do the next thing that you want to do.
You know, like you should walk away and so on, right?
So I'm sure, given how lethal he knew he was, there's kind of a code of honor in martial arts that you don't surprise people with your abilities because that's not particularly fair.
So I'm sure that when Chuck Norris was set upon, that he said to the robbers, no, please, like, I'm begging you, don't make me do this because it's going to go very badly for you and you don't know what you're doing.
Obviously, they didn't have guns, I assume.
But even if they had knives, he would have very little difficulty taking them out.
And so he took them out.
And, you know, maybe the story is apocryphal.
I haven't exactly tracked down the original police reports or anything like that.
If it's true, if it's a true story, then that is interesting because a lot of people train for that stuff and never get a chance to implement it in a real world scenario, which he absolutely did.
So, sorry, you keep saying stuff and I keep talking over you.
Go ahead.
I apologize.
That could have been how the legend started.
It could have been a true story.
And then we're like, holy cow.
He was one of my favorite stars that never turned out to be a douchebag.
Like so many of them tend to do.
I mean, up until the end, he was what he presented himself to be for the most part.
I use his lines all the time from when I was watching his movies growing up, Invasion of America, when I'm wrestling with my sons, and I'm getting tired.
And I'm like, okay, I want to stop, but I'll get up behind him.
I'm like, okay, it's time to die.
And then I'll be like, it's not time yet.
And then, you know, that's from that movie.
And they don't know the reference, but I still, you know, I'll find myself getting on a dirt bike saying, where's the missiles at?
You know, like from Delta Force.
And he was just always in the back of my mind for just cool, manly shit.
Wrestling with My Sons00:15:17
Sorry about cussing.
No, it's fine.
When he, I think it was Lone Wolf McQueen, when that big bodyguard, like Odd Job or whatever his name was, comes up and he just smacks him and then he goes sliding across the driveway.
I'm like, yeah, that he should have known better.
Just imagine it with two guys trying to mug him or something.
I was like, damn, he was always a great guy.
I always wanted to pivot.
I'm pivoting to my question.
I tried showing you to my girlfriend a long time ago when you talked about single parents and single moms and how they're the way they are and how they push away the man in their life for, and then they wonder why there's no men around.
They hook up with the Chad and then they realize they made a mistake, that kind of shit.
She got livid when I showed her that.
She's like, that is not the way it is at all.
And I just, everything you said was exactly it, but it like hit her closer than the truth hits some people.
I just wanted to tell you that.
Of course, she won't listen to you with me anymore because truth hurts some people.
Sorry, was she a single mother herself?
Yeah, yeah, she hooked up with a Chad in high school and got 20 CCs of disappointment injected in her.
And now she has a son.
And then she met me at like 26, and we hooked up.
And I kind of got along with her because she's not crazy as much as some of the other women I've dated.
But she, you know, stuck around.
We get along.
We've been having fights lately.
Like I've been paying all the bills.
I just started my own trucking company.
And I'm getting kind of burned out having to do everything on my own.
And it's really starting to hurt strain our relationship.
I'm sorry.
How old are you guys?
I'm actually both 47.
47.
And when did you first meet her?
26.
Oh, my gosh, 21 years.
I know.
She's so old.
Well, no, it's not that so much.
Okay, so she had a kid, and then you met her 21 years ago.
And did you have any children with her?
Complicated.
She wasn't able to conceive, and I wasn't able to behave.
So she's raising my son from When we were on a break, um, now as her own, she took on the full role of mom, and I can't falter for that because if there's one job that she does help out with, is uh spoiling the out of him, you know.
Well, that's not good, is it?
It's spoiling a kid.
Uh, it's good, it's something I didn't have like anything I wanted.
Yeah, but you gotta worry, you gotta worry about the pendulum swing, you know.
Well, my parents were too harsh on me, so I'm not gonna have any rules with my kids.
You know, I have nothing growing up, so I'm gonna give my kids everything.
You know, that the two extremes does not add up to a mean.
Sorry, go ahead.
I have rules, I gotta be the bad guy.
I'm like, no, no, we're not buying any more Roblox bucks or whatever.
No, we are not doing that.
Wait, you're 47.
How old's your kid?
Nine.
Oh my gosh.
Okay.
Yeah, we started.
So, but she could conceive, she could conceive, right?
Because she had the kid, obviously, by definition.
So, what do you mean when you said she couldn't conceive?
That's why you didn't have miscarried a couple times.
We just, it just, I don't know, there's no like medical reason for it.
Just oh, so she could conceive, she just couldn't carry it to turn.
Yeah, okay.
So, you got together with a single mom.
Was the dad in her kids' life?
Um, when I met her, he was in uh, what she called timeout for eight years, he was in prison.
Oh, my God, bro, pissed away.
Oh, my God, you got together with a single mom who couldn't give you kids to raise a kid whose father was in prison.
I know, I know.
Well, you get it, I got along with her, so there's that.
Well, it's pretty easy to get along with people if your standards are in the basement.
That's true.
My standards are pretty loose, but okay, how pretty is she?
Very, yeah, it's just a cinnabast.
And look, we've all fallen prey to it.
I mean, at least any man with any reasonable dose of testosterone.
So, yeah, you just got turned by a pretty face and you gave up your bloodline.
Uh, uh, for a time being, what I what I told her, which I haven't told anyone, but I guess I'm gonna tell the world now.
Um, when I got the other girl pregnant, I kind of wanted to do it for her so that way she could help and we could have the baby together.
And it turns out that that girl, okay, no, slow your role, slow, slow your roll.
This is nuts.
Okay, so you got another girl pregnant because you wanted your girlfriend to raise that other girl's child or your child with the other girl.
Yeah, it was kind of a surrogate thing after she was pregnant.
And uh, okay, slow down, slow down.
I don't know what that means.
So, you're on a break from your girlfriend, yeah, wife at that point.
I guess oh, she's wife.
Okay, sorry.
Okay, so you're on a so you're on a break from your wife, and you knock up another girl.
Was that intentional?
I think I knew what I was doing, yes, we actually know what you're doing, right?
You're in your 23, okay, 37.
All right, so you knock up this other girl on purpose and with the goal of what?
Uh, we were both hitting 37.
I knew this girl from high school, and uh, she was she was hitting the wall, and uh, she was finding her options pretty low, so but she still wanted to have kids, and I still wanted to have kids of my own, and uh, I we just kind of conspired to conceive with the goal of what, though, with the goal of what to have kids, yeah.
I know that I understand that you conceive with the goal of having children.
I'm not like you 80.
So, what I mean is that who was going to raise the kids if you were separated from your wife and you're having a child with this 37-year-old woman.
The intention was to be with her, actually.
To be with the other woman.
With the new girl.
I broke up with her, with my wife.
She was, it wasn't working out.
We weren't having kids.
You know, she didn't want to hang out with me.
She fucking just completely blew me off.
So I started talking with her, and then we were conspiring to get together and start a new life.
But she had a chemical dependency, and she hit it very well for the first four months.
But then after a while, it was just like, I know what do you mean, a chemical dependency?
She liked toluene or she was a drug addict?
Painkiller, morphine.
Painkiller.
Whatever the state provided.
They gave her 30-day supply for free.
Okay, so you knocked up a drug addict.
Yeah, she wasn't a drug addict in high school, man.
You didn't knock her up in high school.
No, I didn't.
I tried a lot.
Okay, so this was another pretty girl, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Pretty girl.
Yeah.
All right.
So beautiful soul.
Dude.
I don't know what any of that means, beautiful soul.
But what I'm saying is that so you got a drug addict pregnant while on hiatus from your single mother wife.
Yeah.
How long have you been listening to what I do?
Since YouTube used to allow free speech, and like you were the only ones on, I don't know, a good 15 years, I would say, since 2010.
And it's so funny.
I actually think that you all are sent by the devil to make me think that what I do serves no purpose.
I think you do God's work.
What are you talking about?
I still tune in.
Why don't you listen, though?
You got a lot of stuff to say.
I'm trying to write it all down.
All right.
Let's finish up with the 37-year-old woman.
Okay.
37-year-old woman.
You get her pregnant.
She has the baby.
You want to be with her, but the relationship ends.
Yeah.
Yeah.
She's still looking at her other options.
She's trying to hook up with a hockey player, baseball player, someone a little bit more rich than I am.
And I catch her doing it.
And I'm just like, I lose all trust for her and breaks up.
And she goes back with her also drug addict mom and lives with her.
But then she tells me she's pregnant and we go through the whole custody thing.
Every bad thing you've ever heard is she pulls, she said, I wasn't a father.
After she tried to put me on the birth certificate, tried to sue me for child support.
I had to sue her for paternity.
And she had a warrant, so she didn't show up to court, but she called in.
It was just like every bad thing you could think of.
But in the end, she couldn't lift her head up off the table in court long enough for the judge to say, okay, you have the rights to the baby.
So they gave it to me.
And I didn't want child support because she was on a fixed income at the time anyway.
And I don't want to take all of her money.
All I wanted was supervise visits for her.
And then she pays the visitation fee, which I got half of that.
I had to pay the visitation fee.
But she only got three a week.
She started not showing up two a week, one, and then they just canceled the whole thing.
And then like two years, she never saw my son.
I was like, anytime, anywhere, but I'm not going out of my way to help you out for you to see him.
You want to, we'll go to Chuck E. Cheese.
You want to go to the park?
Just let me know when and where, but I'm not, I'm not picking you up.
I'm not paying for an Uber.
I'm not going that extra mile.
You do your part and I'll bring him.
And then 2022, like in October, I'm starting this new job.
And I get a call in the middle of the night from her brother saying that she passed away.
And I'm like, from what?
She goes, oh, probably imbalance in her medication or something.
Yeah, it was like the last time I ever heard from him, too.
They blocked me after that.
They have no, he has no touch with his biological family at all.
And I don't even know if I want to tell him about it.
So she did.
They worked together with your wife.
Yeah, they were twins.
One of them died.
I did tell him.
Wait, slow down.
Slow down.
What the fuck?
But that's like the other.
Hang on.
When I say slow down, that means stop talking for five seconds.
All right.
Sorry.
I get excited.
Okay.
It's your life.
You understand it.
I'm coming in fresh.
Don't know what the fuck is going on.
All right.
Who's twins?
My son and daughter with the new, with the new woman.
Okay, the dead woman.
Yeah.
Yeah, she died.
So she had twins, but only one of them lived.
Is that right?
Yeah.
The baby girl was stillborn.
Okay.
Got it.
And then how did you end up getting back together with the single mom wife?
I text her after four months of not talking to her.
I'm like, hi.
And then she waits a day and writes back hi.
And then we start talking about the minions movie and trying to figure out what language they're speaking.
And, you know, we just kind of the minions.
The minions movie.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
With the little yellow guys.
Okay.
Yeah.
Because I think it was the one dedicated to him or it was one of the group ones.
But sometimes I'd hear Spanish and I'm just like, what the hell language are they speaking?
And this is some of the stupid shit we talk about.
So I figured I could ask her.
And yeah, we just ended up hooking back up.
And then I cheated on the new girl with the old girl.
And the new girl.
Wait, wait, hand again.
Slow down.
Slow down.
I don't know what you're talking about.
So are you saying that the dead mom of your son, you were cheating with your ex or with your wife on the new woman who was pregnant with your son?
Yeah.
What is wrong with you?
I don't know.
Probably a lot.
I mean, tell me.
I mean, you're not a kid.
And you just, would you stick your dick in a fucking knot hole in a tree?
No, I don't think so.
I do have my standards.
That's why I didn't.
Really?
Okay.
Tell me what are your standards?
Well, she was, I already found out this.
She was searching.
She was trying to hook up with this doctor at her pain medicine clinic and the new girl.
So she wasn't staying completely with me.
She was like out of it for like 12 hours at a time on some drug bender, you know.
So I was thinking it was going to be over anyway.
This is before I even knew she was pregnant.
But I was just like, I can't deal with this.
I can't.
Well, but then as an honorable man who has standards, you would say to the new woman, I'm going back to my ex.
So I'm not going to be with you.
Is that what you did?
Because if you break up, it's not cheating, right?
Well, at that point, I didn't have the respect enough to tell her.
I'm just like, it's over.
Go move back in with your mom.
And were you double dipping?
Were you sleeping with both women within a particular time period?
There might have been one or two overlaps, but it was clearly cut off.
Like I already told her, you know, hit the bricks.
I don't want to do this anymore.
And then I started getting with the other, with the wife again.
I'd go over to her house after work or something.
Just listen, slow down.
So what do you think it's like?
I'm just testing a theory of mind here, testing a basic empathy thing here.
What do you think it's like being on the receiving end of this information?
Shit.
I never really thought about it.
I think you should because you're going to try and raise a son.
And it would be nice if he had a theory of mind that included more than his own lusts.
I'm actually, my libido took a height.
I don't know.
See, I'm asking you what you think it's like to be on the receiving end, and what do you immediately talk about?
Yourself again.
Clarify that question.
Testing Empathy Theory of Mind00:14:59
I'm not picking up what you're tone down.
Okay.
What do you think it's like when you're making these very corrupt and immoral decisions, which harm people, and you're calling me up as a moral philosopher saying, hey, man, I've been a fan for a long time.
Oh.
No, it's not funny.
It's not funny.
So the chuckle is weird.
What do you think it's like being on the receiving end?
It's got to be horrifying for you, I'm assuming.
Okay.
I obviously didn't take any of your advice.
Well, you kind of did the opposite, right?
Yeah.
This is not your teachings.
So why would you listen to it?
Hang on.
So why would you listen to me, do the opposite, and then talk about it with me in public?
Just to show you that, you know, people tend to think for themselves and don't always take good advice.
No, don't, no.
Don't always.
Okay, tell me when you did take my advice.
Well, I gotta say, not to trust all women blindly.
Don't throw them up on pedestals.
Okay, you're cutting out a little bit there if you need to go back to where you were if you're moving around.
Sorry.
You know, don't trust all women.
You know, don't put them up on pedestals.
Trust but verify.
I think that's one of your teachings for everything, actually.
Isn't it?
Okay.
So you live together with a girl you had the hearts for in high school, who turned out to be a drug addict who seems like most likely died of an overdose.
What did you verify about her?
Nothing.
It was less.
So you say, well, you know, here's some advice that I listened to you.
Well, no, I didn't.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think it helps or harms the value of philosophy in people's minds to hear stories like yours?
Maybe.
Okay, tell me how it helps my show and what I'm trying to do for you to tell this story publicly.
Well, I hope it's got some juicy content.
Maybe people are listening.
Ah, so that's what the philosophy for.
It's for the juicy content.
It's like a fun story.
Well, aside from that, well, you're not in it to make better decisions, for sure.
You're not in it to listen to advice.
So are you trying to provide me?
Hang on, hang on.
Are you trying to provide me juicy content so that more people listen?
I'm just saying that that could be a good side effect as long as it's not boring.
I mean, there was some wins for men in here.
I mean, I got full custody.
I could have got child support.
Usually the mom's going there and completely decimate the man in divorce courts and everything.
But, you know, I won.
I'm saying it.
It can be done.
Bro, it's not.
None of this is about you.
This is the narcissism or whatever the hell's going on.
I've been talking, God, this is not about you.
Right.
Who's it about?
Because of your choices, your son is growing up with a dead mother and a chamber full of secrets and a father who is a hedonist and irresponsible to the nth degree.
Ouch.
Well, I was kind of thinking.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
I mean, I'm happy to be corrected if I'm being unjust or unfair.
I want to say that I'm doing it doing good for good reason, but sometimes you got to do bad.
I mean, aside, if this was in nature, I mean, it's how species, you know, procreate and carry on.
You do what you got to do.
So, your defense is that animals do it.
Yeah.
Jesus.
It's pretty lustful.
I don't know what we need, but we need something other than this.
Okay, so if only animals do it, do animals do philosophy?
No.
Okay, so why are you calling off a philosophy show saying, well, animals rut, so do I.
I think we're all animals.
We're just a little bit more sophisticated than they are.
Okay, so you're raising your son, saying, Son, you're just an animal, no higher calling, no morals.
Just follow your lusts, do whatever the hell you feel like, and never think about its impact on other people.
That's how you're raising your son?
No.
Okay, how are you raising your son?
To do the right thing.
In spite of, I'm doing my best on that.
I'm not trying to be a man or a man.
Don't lie to me.
Don't come on a show about philosophy and lie to me.
You just told me we're all animals.
We just do what animals do.
Yeah.
And that's your philosophy of life.
You just act like an animal.
And then you say to yourself about your son, no, no, no, I'm trying to raise him the right way and give him morals and blah, You can't have it both ways.
You can't defend your own actions saying animals do it.
And then say, well, I'm raising my son to be the opposite of my quote philosophy.
It's not absolute.
I'm just saying we're a lot more like animals than we're not.
So, you know, the need to breed took over.
That's all it was.
It was lust.
But I'm not doing any of that with my son.
I'm trying to teach him right.
I'm helping him with math.
I want him to get into motorcycles and ATVs and know that his dad's a blue-collar truck driver and he could work, start his own business.
Maybe one day, if it's easy enough, do his own taxes.
How are you?
Let me ask you this: Do you want your son to shack up with a single mother and not have any children of his own?
No.
Okay, fantastic.
So, how are you going to teach your son to be different from you if you're not willing to criticize yourself?
Good point.
Where do I start, though?
Don't go rubber bones on me, bro.
I just told you.
I'll criticize myself.
Yeah, every time I point out something that you've done, you have an excuse.
Well, it's just the need to breed, and we're animals and lust, and it's good.
And, you know, sometimes you've got to do bad to do good.
And right, you just make up justifications.
You just excuse your own actions with an appeal to nature or lust or hedonism, right?
Whatever you justify in yourself, you foster in your son.
Whatever you justify in yourself, you recreate in your son because your son is going to want to be like you.
That's what boys do.
They want to copy-paste their dads.
So, whatever you justify in yourself, that is the train track you put your kid on.
So, What would well, I think you say your advice every day, but what are you thinking?
Stop justifying.
Tell him it was wrong?
Or, well, he doesn't know about any of it.
I haven't told him about any of it.
Okay.
Do you think he has a right to know who his mother was?
Yeah.
At some point, I assume you will tell him.
Yep.
And then he's going to have a couple of questions.
Yep.
Okay.
So I'll pretend to be your son at whatever age you're going to tell him, and you pretend to be you telling him.
And I would say, so who was my mom?
If that's not my mom, Dad?
I'll tell him his name or her name and say she was a beautiful girl that I knew from high school and was an angel.
And it didn't work out and she died.
Wow.
So just do the real conversation.
So, Dad, she was an angel.
Okay.
Wow.
Why didn't it work out?
If she was an angel, wouldn't that make you a devil?
I wasn't good enough for her.
So we broke up.
But turns out she was.
Okay, Dad, sorry.
In what way were you not good enough for her?
Well, hopefully by then he'll be a big-time hockey player to star.
But I'll be like, you know how all those hockey bunnies are all over you?
Well, that's what she is.
And she wanted the status and the money, and I didn't have either.
But, Dad, you warned me about the hockey bunnies.
So how was mom an angel if you warned me about how dangerous the hockey bunnies were, Dad?
Well, when I knew her in school, she was an angel.
A lot happened.
She hurt her.
She was an angel and then she died.
So how can she be an angel and the kind of 304s you warned me about in the hockey arena?
Yeah.
Well, I made a promise to the baby mama in one of our text messages that weren't fighting.
She said, she asked, what would you tell him about me if I die?
And I promised that I would say nothing but good things about you if you died.
So I wouldn't tell him that she's a drug addict or whatever.
So Dad, let's just pretend the converse is still going on.
So Dad, what did mommy die of?
Unknown.
I never did get a definitive answer.
What do you think she died of?
That medication combination is about the best answer I got.
Oh, so she took the wrong medication.
What was she taking medication for, Daddy?
Pain, I forget what that's called.
Pain discipline or whatever.
Pain management.
Yeah, pain management.
And I think she had some heart issues, but I know for sure it was just pain management, a lot of painkillers.
And what pain was she managing?
She had a bum knee, nerve damage or something, excruciating pain.
And the doctor screwed up the suit surgery and left her kind of permanently disabled.
She sued him, got a settlement.
She blew all that, of course.
But she had a bum knee for when I when I re-hooked back up with her.
Oh, so she was already on a lot of pain medication when you dated her.
Yep.
I mean, didn't you notice that?
Yep.
But girls hide things at first, like all their bad habits and their crazy cuckoo clock.
Oh, so hang on.
So, Daddy, if I think I'm meeting a nice girl, I should be really paranoid about her because she might be hiding a drug addiction.
So I can't really trust women, at least for the first four to six months.
I would say that's not bad advice.
I mean, don't blindly trust someone you just meet.
Hang on, but you knew that she had a bad knee and you knew that she was in a lot of pain, right?
Yeah.
Later.
Later, I found that.
No, no, but when you met her, did she already have the bad knee?
Yeah.
She walked on.
So hang on.
So you knew she had a bad knee.
Did you think she wasn't taking any pills for her bad knee?
No, yeah, she warned, she warned me.
She took, she had a patch of painkiller patch that she flipped on.
And she said, if it ever comes off and she's, and I see it, not to touch it because I could OD from touching it or something like that.
I don't know.
But I'm going to guess because I find the patch in the bed all day.
But when did you find that out?
I was want to say a month after we hooked up.
Okay.
So that's before she got pregnant.
Yeah.
So you got a woman who had such dangerous drugs in her system that you couldn't even touch her medicine without dying.
Yeah.
Okay.
So she was, we can say for whatever reason, but she was definitely.
Oh, it sounds like she was addicted to these drugs because they were very strong, right?
Yep.
Yep.
And do you think that had something to do with her death?
I'm almost certain of it.
Yeah.
So she died of a drug overdose because she was addicted to pain meds because she was in pain.
What do you think?
Well, I didn't see her for like three years after we broke up until I heard out that she died.
I don't know if anything changed, but yeah, I mean, free drugs, you know, did you break up with her because of the drug addictions?
Yeah.
Yeah, I did that before.
Was there anything else?
Was there anything else or just the drug addiction?
And she was, she was keeping her options open.
I don't know what that means, Daddy.
When a girl tells you she loves you, but she's texting other dudes and trying to hook up with them and, you know, will drop you once she gets her hooks into another guy.
Those are options.
She's keeping her options open.
Oh, so she was sleeping with you and also trying to sleep with other men.
Yeah.
I mean, ultimately, kind of like we're a bunch of animals.
Oh, we're animals, are we, Daddy?
So how I thought she was an angel, though.
Is she an angel or an animal?
I would say she's an angel because she's your mom, but yeah.
But she had some definite issues and I couldn't help her with them.
And it just didn't work out.
And could you not get a woman who wasn't a drug addict to date you, Daddy?
And who wasn't trying to sleep around with other men?
Yep.
And then I stick with her for 20 years.
Sorry, who?
My wife.
She's not like my stepmom.
Yeah.
Okay.
She's not a junkie.
Okay.
Is it hang on?
So would you say that there are good women in the world, but you can't date them?
Yep.
And why can't you date good women, Daddy?
From my ugly face, my bad sense of humor.
So if I have an ugly face, Daddy, if I have an ugly face, then I can't date good women.
No.
No, you can date ugly women, ugly fat women.
That's a fallback.
Okay, just to break the roleplay, you realize how appalling this is, right?
Parenting Lies and Roleplay00:05:13
I know, but I'm assuming my son is in his 30s during this conversation.
No, no, no, no.
Come on.
He needs to know about his life before that.
Well, I.
Okay, let's just run through the checklist.
Let's just run through the checklist here.
First, you lie.
start off by saying she's an angel, which is not true.
So you lie.
And you give yourself permission to lie.
Let's go through the other checklist.
You have also said to your son that men who aren't handsome can't date good women.
They can date fat, ugly women and bad women, drug addicts and single moms and other sorts of assorted negative behavior.
You've also told your son that he can't trust women, at least for the first four to six months of a relationship.
Now, of course, a quality woman will not date anyone for four to six months who doesn't trust her.
She won't get together with anyone who doesn't trust her because that's paranoid.
Because if the woman is functional and healthy, you should be able to figure that out pretty quickly.
So you are, and then you said, we're just animals.
We're just animals.
It's just lust.
You just bang whatever you can.
So this is the parenting that you are doing.
I didn't say I was a good parent.
I'm just trying to be the best.
No, I'm not the best parent.
I'm just trying to be a good parent.
Okay, so what in the previous conversation would you call good parenting?
Well, he didn't die of a drug overdose in his mom's custody.
I know that's I'm I'm trying.
He's an amazing kid, and I have very little to do with it.
He is going to excel all on his own.
He's not going to require the hand-holding and the tiger momming that some people do.
I mean, I'm just there to guide him, tell him don't step into the body.
You're guiding him with lies and corruption.
Well, I don't tell him my business.
No, I mean, he's going to, this is implicit in everything you do.
See, we like to think that our abstract philosophy doesn't show up in everything we do.
We're wrong.
It absolutely does show up in everything we do.
And so everything that you justify in yourself, this casual attitude you have towards catastrophic decisions, when you damn well knew better, because you've been listening to a moral philosopher for 15 years.
This laziness, this self-indulgent behavior, where you just do whatever the hell you feel like, come up with lazy ass justifications, and that's going to transmit down to your children.
Anyone ever told you it's not easy to be you?
It's very hard.
Well, I would say it's actually a whole lot easier to be me than it is to be you because I don't have to lie my ass off myself to myself every day.
I know, but it's not easy.
If I took your advice word for word, I don't think I'd recognize myself.
Well, yeah, yeah.
But I find myself having to do it my own way to get any kind of positive results.
And so these are your positive results that you have at the age of 47.
You've been with a single mom who doesn't like you too much for 21 years.
You broken up and then you banged a pass around drug addict, had a kid, fought with her like crazy.
She died, and now you have to lie to your kids.
That's your doing it your own way.
Yeah, that's oversimplifying it in a bad way, but yes, that's kind of what's happening.
Okay, tell me what I got that was not accurate.
Well, I didn't know she was a pass around drug addict, or else I would have passed on it.
I don't go that route.
You said you weren't afraid of dating her.
I mean, you knew she was in pain, right?
She's limping.
Come on, man.
This is like saying, I didn't know that my girlfriend had no nose.
See, this is just it.
So, listen, I'll stop here.
I would beg you to not tell people you listen to what I do because that's not for what it is that I do.
And I would also say that your only real hope to have any kind of happy and peaceful old age is to stop lying to your children.
I don't hold that much hope, but that would be the thing.
All right, let's talk to Will.
What is on your mind, my friend?
Don't forget to unmute.
Oh, thank you, Stefan.
How are you?
I'm fine.
How are you doing?
I'm doing all right.
You know, it's I was listening to your conversation a lot today, and uh, there's certain areas where I kind of disagree in terms of overall perception.
Um, sorry, do you mean the conversation that I just had with the last caller or something else?
Uh, in certain areas, I would say yes, however, I mean, that wasn't really my bro, bro.
I don't know what that means.
I ask you, was it just the conversation I had with the caller or something else?
And you said, in many ways, yes.
And it's like, I don't know what that is.
Are you referring to the conversation I just had or some other conversation?
Trust Societies and Moral Actions00:15:28
Certain parts of it.
Yeah, both.
Actually, many different things.
Like, my mind can be all over the place sometimes.
Okay, so if it's if you can pick it from the recent conversation, it's both fresh in our minds.
So, if you could tell me what you disagreed with the last conversation, that would be helpful.
Well, I do agree that children will emulate certain aspects of their parents.
However, I don't agree that they'll necessarily emulate every aspect of it.
So, I mean, hang on, hang on, hang on.
When did I say children emulate every aspect of their parents?
You never did, but you said that they generally do that.
Hang on, hang on.
So, don't start off with the straw man, bro.
If we're going to have a good conversation, don't start off by lying about what I said.
Okay.
So, I mean, when it comes to like, let's say, being an example to one's kids, so like, let's say I'm not against people wanting to be good examples for their own children, but at the exact same time, they can also learn from it and come to conclusions that they don't want to, let's say, copy like certain aspects of that as well.
So, okay.
And, I mean, that's that's a given.
So, you're basically telling me that the sun is bright and the earth has gravity.
All right, but all right, I'll find an area where it might not be as obvious, but I kind of disagree.
I think high trust societies are definitely overrated, and that it's more important for, let's say, people to be able to function and navigate in low-trust societies.
And one of my like hypotheses for this would be: well, if you can't really deal with common bumps that might be more likely to violate someone else's like natural rights, how can you like really deal with government tyranny or the state, which relies on violating people's rights in a much more orderly, systematic way?
So, I mean, you're just stating some opinions.
I mean, I like cheesecake and carrot cake, and I enjoy tennis.
I mean, I'm not sure how we're supposed to have a conversation on things that you just have preferences for.
I mean, you seem to be a fan of high-trust societies, so it's like I kind of just think of them as a bit overrated.
So, it's well, yeah, here's another thing.
Um, sometimes it's like in my mind, I'm like, should passively.
Okay, let's let's back up there for a second here.
So, you say, I seem to be a fan of high-trust societies, okay?
So, what is it that defines a high-trust society?
Um, predictiveness, I would say, in individuals, um, Less overall fear of having your property stolen or vandalized.
People generally being able to keep contracts.
I'd say a certain level of trust in systems as well.
Like governments, I think.
So.
Okay, that's high trust.
Hang on.
So a high, I'm just trying to clarify.
So a high trust society for you is one where people don't initiate the use of violence too much and don't steal each other's property.
I'd say like that's generally a good thing, honestly.
No, no, hang on.
I'm not asking your opinion of it.
I'm asking you to clarify if that's what you mean.
So you're saying when people don't use violence as much and don't steal as much, that's a high trust society, right?
That's part of a function of it, I would say.
It's a pretty important function of it, though, right?
I would say so, yes.
Okay, so is not initiating the use of force and not cheating, stealing, and ripping people off and defrauding them and keeping your contracts, are those moral actions?
Or are they more moral than randomly beating people up, murdering and raping them, and stealing from them, defrauding them, and breaking contracts?
Yes, of course, it's way more moral.
Okay, so let's just be clear about what you're saying.
You're saying that a moral philosopher prefers moral actions.
I mean... I just want you to understand how little you're adding to the conversation, because you're saying you seem to be a fan of high-trust societies.
I'm like, so a moral philosopher has a preference for moral actions.
That's really what you're saying.
Now, do you consider that to be something that's a great addition to say a moral philosopher has a preference for moral actions?
I mean, I'm not saying like that's a bad thing, but like one of the things I've noticed personally, even in like relatively low trust societies or even places like where people might say are high in crime, it's not like 99%, even like if you look at a bad person, 99% of the time they can act as a good person.
So I think that like that fear of them is like definitely also kind of a problem as well.
Okay, so what do you cover?
Let's not talk abstractions.
What have you done that you consider immoral in your life?
Immoral.
Well, when I was seven, I definitely got into plenty of fights as a kid.
Yeah, I'm talking about when you weren't seven, because seven is marginal in terms of moral responsibility, something that you would hold yourself responsible for.
You want me to confess my sins to you?
Well, I want to know if you're just if your interest in this topic is because of something personal.
Because if it's something personal that you're not revealing, you're not going to be rational about it.
Well, I mean, like, hang on.
Let me give you an example.
So if Bob, and I'm not putting you obviously in this category, it's just an analogy.
If Bob is a serial killer who's buried a bunch of bodies in his backyard and there's some cousins, nieces, whatever, they're over at Bob's house and they're digging around in the backyard.
What will Bob do?
He would probably more likely not want them to be there.
Right.
He's going to say, hey, kids, stop digging in the backyard.
Right?
And let's say it's just a mess.
It's not gardened or anything like that.
Now, then someone who's an adult, maybe the parents of those kids who's over at Bob's house, says, oh, come on, they're not doing any harm.
And he tries to engage in a rational conversation with Bob about digging in the backyard.
Now, is Bob, excuse me, is Bob going to be able to be rational about the conversation about digging in the backyard, whether it's okay or not?
He's not going to sound as rational, but it doesn't mean like, hey, I'm a murderer, or even that, hey, I necessarily function.
Hang on, hang on.
I explicitly told you that I'm not putting you in this category.
Do you remember me saying that?
No, I don't.
Okay, so that means you're not listening.
So when people have, and this is just a general note for the audience, when people have a strange intensity about abstract topics, it's because they're not abstract.
And so if people have done wrong, which, if it's any consolation, everyone's done wrong.
We've all done wrong in our lives.
I kind of misrepresented it.
I'm still talking.
I'm still talking.
So in my experience, and Lord knows I've had some experience.
It's been close to 45 years I've been doing this over thousands and thousands of conversations.
I'm a smart guy.
I know the patterns.
So when people have an irrational focus and aren't able to reason about a particular topic, it's because it means something personal for them.
And so I don't pretend to engage in rational arguments with people who are taking something personally because they can't be rational about it because there's too much emotional intensity and avoidance going on, which is why I'm asking you.
Now, listen, you don't have to tell me anything.
It's a public conversation.
I get that.
But what I do need you to understand is that if you have done wrong things in your life, then you will be drawn to particular moral justifications.
I mean, we heard this in the last caller, right?
The last caller had done some pretty egregious wrongs in his life.
I mean, he brought a child into the world with a ridiculously dysfunctional mother, which causes significant harm to that child.
I honestly don't see that as that wrong.
I know you don't, because you have things to defend in your life.
I honestly don't have any children I'm aware of.
And I've only ever, you know, I kind of don't want to like get.
I'll keep the topic a bit more clean in that regard.
I don't know what that means.
So, like, I also disagree with you in this respect that, like, let's say there's people who do quite the opposite and will try to seem overly zealous and virtuous to cover up the fact that they've done wrong as well in their own conscience.
So, yes, I mean, that is certainly true, for sure, which means that they have an irrational intensity about particular moral topics.
So, a man who's cheating on his wife, when the subject of infidelity comes up, can he be objective about the topic?
Can he be objective?
Yeah, I think he could, honestly.
No, you're wrong.
I mean, it depends.
No, you can't.
You can't.
If you're cheating on your wife, you cannot be objective when the topic of infidelity comes up.
You're either going to say it's fine, or you're going to say it's wrong, but there's going to be an oddness about it because you are condemning your own behavior while continuing to pursue it.
So, if you are cheating, I'm not saying you, if a man is cheating on his wife, he cannot be objective when the subject of infidelity comes up.
And what I've learned, again, through painful experience, what I've learned is that when people have peculiar intensities about moral issues, it's because they're compromised in some way morally themselves, which is why they can't be rational about it.
This is where I'm also.
Sorry, go ahead.
Oh, yeah.
So I also would say I misrepresented my whole argument or point about high trust societies.
I'd say like they definitely can have moral wrongs, especially like amongst families, let's say.
They're kind of expected to, let's say, I don't know, like steal or have like all sorts of like violations, et cetera.
Like usually not to the same intensity as, I mean, no, never mind.
Actually, I kind of misrepresented that as well because you do have like domestic.
Okay, so stop, stop, stop.
You're just rambling, right?
Do you get that?
I'm not sure.
No, I'm not going to say like I'm not just rambling, but it's that.
No, you're saying, oh, this is a high trust society.
No, I misrepresented that.
No, I just misrepresented that.
No, I just misrepresented.
It's rambling, right?
You're just saying things because you feel a level of emotional discomfort around trust.
Now, you don't have to tell me.
I would say we're both pretty silly.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
You don't have to tell me why you have an emotional discomfort around the issue of trust, but I guarantee you that you have done things that are untrustworthy in this life, which is why the topic of a high trust society and how it's overrated bothers you.
Because if people have a high standard or requirement for trust and you are not trustworthy, you are going to suffer.
So then you're going to say, well, having a high trust requirement is not great.
In the same way that a shoplifter doesn't want security cameras installed, you want to lower the value of trust because you're not trustworthy.
Well, first of all, no, it's not even that simple.
Like, hey, if I, if it were up to me, I would be like, you know what?
You should be allowed to shoot people that walk in your lawn or whatnot or lop off people's hands that steal from you, kill people that defraud you.
But also, I would say that if someone's not even willing to defend their own, my whole point that I was trying to make was that if someone only is around like high trust societies and doesn't know how to deal in like low trust environments.
Yeah, you said that at the beginning.
Hang on, hang on.
I'm sorry.
You already already said that.
You already said that.
Okay.
So let me ask you this.
Why do you think I perceive you as untrustworthy?
I'm not saying that.
Somebody's discreet.
Hang on, I'm not saying whether you agree with me or not, but why do you think I would perceive you as untrustworthy?
Because I'm a bit cynical sometimes.
I'm Jewish by descent, and my dad's side is Chinese, so I don't trust my own race.
Okay.
So the reason I'm not going to ascribe it to any kind of ethnic origins, but the reason that I would describe you as untrustworthy is because at the very beginning of the conversation, you misrepresented my argument.
So it's not complicated.
If the first thing you start off is with the straw man, like, well, children, Steph, you were arguing that children exactly copy their parents or, and I said, did I ever say that?
Right.
And so you were strawmanning me at the very beginning.
Well, I mean, I said my mind was all over the place.
So it's not like I took this conversation as the most serious one I've ever had.
Sorry, so that's another straw man, right?
So I point out that you're strawmanning.
Sorry, I wasn't sure if you had anything else to add because that's such a non-sequitur.
So did I ever say or imply that this is the most serious conversation you've ever had?
No.
However, like if I'm going to do something, like what are some areas where I would be more serious in?
Let's say if I had to like talk about like a product or an ideal, like there's two areas where I don't joke on.
I don't joke about the Holy Spirit and I don't joke about, let's say, making deals with people, like financially.
If I were going to say, I'm offering this for blank or whatnot, you know, it's that would be a different story.
Okay, so in making deals with people, you prefer to be in a high trust environment.
I prefer to know that I can, there have to be something I can trust in general.
But it doesn't mean like I'm not going to be able to do that.
You're not answering that question.
This is so rude.
Why do people do this?
It's so bizarre to me.
Because there's no.
I'm asking you a simple question, bro.
I'm asking you if, since you say that you would never lie or cheat or steal when it comes to financial dealings or contracts, so I said, or I asked, so when you're dealing with financial issues or contracts, you prefer to be in a high-trust environment.
That's kind of a yes or no question.
I prefer that there's some way that I can trust that either I prefer that there's something that I can trust in the sense that I can trust in what I'm offering that I can deliver blanks.
Ethical Contracts and Preferences00:02:00
Okay, if you prefer to be in a high trust environment when you're doing contracts, right?
You prefer that you don't have to go to court to enforce your contract.
Hang on, hang on.
Hang on.
You've got to let me finish my sentences.
So you prefer to be in a high trust environment when conducting business.
In other words, you like it when people voluntarily keep their contracts and you don't have to threaten them with legal action in order to get them to fulfill their snitch, dude.
I prefer using a baseball bat and or enforcing them myself.
Okay, even if we assume that this lunatic behavior is even remotely true, let's say that you prefer not to use the aforementioned baseball bat to have your contracts fulfilled.
You would prefer that people fulfill their contracts based upon their word, right?
Correct.
Okay.
Fantastic.
Okay.
So that's it.
So this guy prefers operating in a high-trust environment, but then he says that high-trust environments are overrated.
I love it.
I love it when people do this kind of stuff.
It's wild.
All right.
Brian.
Sorry, Brian.
I'm just enjoying this nonsense.
People come up with it so wild.
Not you.
Not you, Brian.
I'm sure you'll be great with integrity.
But Brian, if you want to unmute, hey, Stefan, how you doing?
Good.
How you doing?
Good.
I talked to you before.
Always am impressed by your ability to gab for hours on end.
I get a little nervous myself.
I can already feel my heart racing a bit.
Not sure how you're doing.
This is no problem.
And I appreciate that.
This is my job, not yours.
But just as a whole, if you, just for people, just write down your questions beforehand.
I mean, I'm preparing for a debate.
I do ridiculous amounts of prep and write all my arguments down.
And I just be prepared if you're going to come on to a complex and challenging show like this.
Just write down the.
Nation States vs Citizen Morals00:11:36
It's just a little tip, right?
Just write down your argument, your questions ahead of time, and then you don't have to try and think of them in the moment.
But sorry, go ahead.
Yeah.
So I've been kicking around a moral, ethical idea.
I was thinking about writing a paper on it, but I'm going to run it by you, see what you think.
And it has to do with the disparate ethical frameworks that individuals have and nation states have.
And it seems like, you know, we as like the populace have something of like a humanist or I think it's an offshoot of our Christian ethical framework that we believe in like the sanctity of all human life.
But then nation states, they operate under a different framework.
They, you know, it's a political realist kind of framework where they need to just acquire more power and whatever they need to do to acquire more power and influence, they're going to do that.
And there's a dissonance between these two views of moral reality.
And the government often has to convince the people through propaganda that they're operating under the same ethical framework.
You know, for instance, we'll say, oh, we had to overthrow this country because they're going to be the next Nazi Germany.
We have to prevent these mass killings or whatever.
But really, it's about acquiring more power for the nation state.
So the heart of the question is like, are nation states, are they operating under the correct moral framework?
It's almost like a Nietzschean kind of ethical framework.
Or like, are they just evil?
So yeah, are the people operating under the correct moral framework?
Or are they deluded about the right ethical framework?
Or are the nation states operating under the correct ethical framework?
Or are they evil?
I know that's kind of convoluted, but.
Okay, let me ask you this.
How can a nation state operate without people doing things?
It can't.
I mean, I assume that the leaders, they understand that they're operating under this political realist ethical framework.
Okay, so, sorry, nation-states don't act.
People act, right?
Sure.
Okay.
So is there any valid objective moral system that would prohibit a moral action from one person, but encourage it in another person?
Is there any valid ethical moral system that would say to one person, theft is immoral, and to another person, theft is good?
No, that would be a form of subjectivism.
Right.
Well, relativism or whatever.
But it's kind of, because it would be kind of absolute in both scenarios.
So in the same way, as a biologist, you couldn't classify a mammal as warm-blooded and cold-blooded because they would be distinct properties that would not be compatible.
So when you say nation-states, you're talking about people.
Universal moral standards cover all people at all times.
Otherwise, they're not universal, right?
We can't say it's good on Tuesday, but bad on Wednesday, or it's good for Bob, but bad for Jane or something like that, right?
So the non-aggression principle and a respect for property rights covers all people at all times, which covers the individuals who are in charge of nation states, right?
So when you say that nation states seem to operate in a different moral category or an opposing moral category to their citizens, what you're saying, really, I think, tell me if I'm incorrect in this, I think what you're saying is some people have opposite morals than everyone else.
Yeah.
Okay.
So that's not moral then.
Morality is objective and universal, which I've proved through UPB, which you can get at freedomand.com slash books.
Universally preferable behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics.
The people who initiate the use of force are immoral.
The people who steal are immoral.
And the term nation-state is like an alternate dimension where up is down, black is white, gravity is anti-gravity, attraction is repulsion.
And so you create an opposite moral universe.
You put some people in it, and they are encouraged to do the opposite of that which is evil for others.
And you call this alternate opposing moral universe a nation-state.
Does that clarify?
Yeah, yeah.
I guess it's okay.
Why is this disappointing for you?
You sound disappointed.
Yeah, I guess.
Hang on.
So, listen, I've just poured almost a half a century worth of clarity in philosophy, morality, and politics into like a couple of minutes.
That's an amazing answer.
I got to give myself credit because I've worked very hard on this kind of stuff and written tons of books on it.
And I'm able to explain it in a way that is pretty clear to people.
So, if you get a great answer to a hugely challenging question, why would you be disappointed?
Well, it means that you're not looking for the answer, you're looking for something else.
So, sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, it just because it does seem like it's beneficial for these nation states to behave like this sometimes.
That's different.
That's different.
Because then you're talking about: can evil have beneficial outcomes for the evildoers?
And the answer to that, of course, it does.
Otherwise, it wouldn't exist.
If everyone who did evil immediately had a fatal heart attack, we wouldn't have any evil, right?
So, of course, evil benefits the people who do it.
I mean, from a raw genetic standpoint, rapists might be able to spread their seed more effectively, just look at Genghis Khan, than men who woo and are monogamous.
So, of course, evil has benefits to people.
That's why it exists.
That's why it is a strategy that is pursued.
I mean, nobody would buy lottery tickets if there was no prize.
So, when you say to me, well, some individuals who call themselves the nation-state that that immorality is beneficial to them, yeah, okay, but that's not an argument.
I mean, that's an observation that is kind of banal, which is that a thief who steals ends up with more property than if he didn't steal.
It's like, well, yeah, I mean, that's kind of elementary, isn't it?
I mean, I'm not saying you're elementary, I'm saying that the observation is probably not as valuable as you think it is, because you're saying that people act out of a perceived benefit, and sometimes that benefit is real.
Well, sure, of course, everybody does that, right?
A student who cheats on a test is doing so because he wants to avoid the pain of studying and he wants the reward of a good mark without the difficulty of studying and memorization, and maybe he's not smart enough to remember or reason these things or something like that, right?
So, you're saying that sometimes cheating benefits people, and it's like, well, yeah, of course, of course, it does.
So, when you say that nation states act in ways that benefit the people in power, well, yes, but I just don't know that it's adding much value if you're basically saying that wrongdoing has benefits.
Well, let me try to offer an analogy here and bring it down to like a maybe more microcosmic level with the family.
Like, let's say a man goes out.
Hang on, hang on.
Sorry, are we going from the government to the family?
Or are we using the family to illustrate the government?
Yes, the latter.
Okay, sorry, go ahead.
A man has to go out into the cutthroat business world, right?
Secure means for his family and he provides stability and and wealth uh, for his family and his children, and his and his wife can operate in this.
More communistic, uh um, humanistic family is not communism.
Family is not communism.
Family is voluntary, I mean not for the children, but that's the nature of life, right?
But communism is a political doctrine of economic totalitarianism that the government owns everything, everything which is, the people in the government assert property rights over everything in a geographical region, and so a family is not communism.
I mean, a family is to eat from each according to their ability to do, each according to their needs.
That's fine.
The father goes out to work and the children get food and toys uh so, but I just want to make sure that we don't disrespect the family, because i'm an anti-communist and I have a family, so I don't want a family being bundled up with communism.
Do you understand the analogy that i'm trying to make, though?
That well, I just don't want you to make an incorrect analogy by saying that a voluntary family full of love is the same as a system that got a hundred million people slaughtered sure um the, the meat, the meat of.
My point though, is that the, the family can operate under a different.
They're.
Essentially, the man has created a cocoon of uh, a kind of utopian uh, bliss for the family, because he goes out and um operates in a certain way in, okay sorry, I get it.
The man pays the bills.
We don't need a huge amount of verbiage.
So a man pays the bills and the women and children consume his excess productivity.
Uh so um, what's your point?
Um, and it operates in a similar way that, let's say, a country like the United States.
Nope no, i'm anti-statist.
I have a family.
Are you saying that i'm now somehow a government?
I'm just trying to.
No no, that's what i'm asking.
The question, uh-huh.
So governments exist through violations of property rights and the non-aggression principle, and if you say that's analogous to a family, then you're saying, my family exists because i'm violating property rights and the non-aggression principle.
If you're making an analogy and I will strongly resist any intimation that my family is immoral uh-huh.
Okay, so maybe the analogy doesn't work.
Valuing Helpful Answers00:15:28
Um, it still doesn't explain why you were disappointed when I gave you a clear and immensely valuable answer.
Normally, if i'm trying to solve a tough problem and someone gives me a very helpful answer, i'm a little thankful.
Well, i'm grateful so, especially if they do it for free.
You believe in uh, an objective uh, moral law is, is what i'm saying.
All right, let's back up a little.
What did I just say?
Well, that was essentially your, the the answer To my query.
No, no, let's back up a little.
What did I just say?
I should be more thankful to you for answering that question.
You're not at all thankful.
In fact, you're giving me negative stimulus for providing you with valuable answers.
Because I gave you a great answer in just a few minutes.
That is a distillation of decades of research and study and writing and debating.
I distilled it all down for you and saved you years and years of challenging thought.
And not only did you not say thank you, which to me would be polite, it's polite, but you also seem disappointed.
Like, yeah, well, but and then you went off on another topic.
And then I reminded you that you were giving me negative stimuli for providing you with free and valuable answers, and you just changed the topic, which means that you're not interested in the answers.
Because if I'm interested in the answers, like let me ask you this: Have you ever been in a car?
If you're if you're older, you've you've lived prior to GPS, sure, right?
Yeah, have you ever been in a car and had to stop and ask for directions?
Yeah.
Okay, so let's say that somebody says to you, hey, man, go down this road, but you've got to jog a right and then a left because you want to get around this neighborhood where people get their cars hijacked all the time.
Right?
And somebody is not only giving you the destination, but helping you avoid a potentially dangerous situation.
What would you say?
Thank you.
There you go.
Now, what if it was a nice Pleasantville town and they stopped and gave you 30 seconds or 60 seconds of their time to give you directions without helping you avoid any danger because there's no danger in the town?
What would you say?
Thank you.
There you go.
So I give you decades worth of distilled political analysis in an easy to digest format that answers your question about states versus individuals.
And what do you say?
What did I say or what should I say?
Well, what did you say?
Well, I wanted to continue the.
No, what did you say?
I tried to maybe clarify why it wasn't so easy to answer so succinctly.
How do you know it isn't so easy to answer so succinctly?
Is it possible that it's easy to answer so succinctly?
I suppose it is possible, yes.
Okay.
Now, does it take a while to digest what I've said?
Yeah.
And I was trying to reiterate it to you.
No, but you sounded to me, and I think if we play back, oh, like you sounded disappointed and there was no appreciation.
Like, wow, that's a really interesting answer that you've clearly thought about this a lot.
I have a couple of more questions, but I really appreciate that way of framing it or that way of discussing it or something like that, right?
You gave me no thanks and you went on a rather negative path towards another topic.
Now, the reason I'm saying this, look, I'm not desperate for thanks.
I think it's kind of scant as a whole in the world, at least with philosophy.
It's not like I'm desperate for thanks.
What I am saying, though, is that if you ask experts to give you free answers to very challenging questions and you don't express any appreciation, what that tells me is that you're not really interested in the answers.
There's something else going on, which I guess ties into the last conversation.
But also, how much do people want to give you information if you never express any appreciation?
See, I want you to be in a situation in life where people really want to give you good information.
Right?
Now, if you ask someone with almost a half century of expertise to distill and give you a great answer to a very challenging question, and I do that, and you express mildly negative things and go off in some other direction, and then say that my family is a dictatorship or akin to a dictatorship or analogous to a dictatorship.
How much this is the theory of mind conversation, right?
How much do I want to continue giving you answers?
You're in a restaurant and you order coffee and a piece of pie, and the waitress brings you a coffee and a piece of pie.
What do you say?
This is a very frivolous exercise.
What do you say?
I say thank you.
There you go.
See, you say thank you.
And you're tipping her.
You're not tipping me.
How much do I want to continue to give you my wisdom when you're not appreciative at all?
Change the topic and seem negative about my answers.
I'm just asking you objectively to try and jump into my shoes because this is the empathy question.
It's the empathy show, right?
It's the theory of mind show.
How much do I want to continue to give you answers when you show no appreciation and seem negative about what I'm doing and then analogize my family to a communist dictatorship?
Do I feel motivated?
Do I feel happy?
Do I want to continue to give you answers?
It seems like you're overreacting here.
You're not answering the question because overreacting is just a subjective thing.
I'm trying to help you.
This is not about me.
This is about you.
I want you to be in a situation where people want to engage with you and want to give you good answers.
I mean, your life would benefit if people want to engage with you and give you good answers, right?
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I'm telling you, because nobody else will, because I like to be sort of as honest and direct as I can.
I'm telling you that the way that you go about asking for answers and then the way you handle getting answers will not motivate anyone to want to give you answers.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I accept your answer.
And I don't, then you don't allow me to continue to think through the problem in my head.
You know, the conversation has just ended with your answer.
And that doesn't seem like a fruitful discussion.
It's just a dead end of a conversation.
Okay, so hang on.
So stop.
So now you've made another accusation against me that I have prevented you from thinking over the answer in your head.
How have I prevented you from doing that since I have no control over your mind?
Because you are getting wrapped up in...
That's another insult.
I mean, I'm just telling you that I've tried to provide you good feedback and you just continue to insult me.
I'm overreacting.
I'm wrapped up, which signals irrationality and so on.
So if you put people down, do they want to engage with you?
Well, I mean, you're putting me down.
How am I putting you down?
By getting wrapped up in these, like, my apparent lack of manners in the beginning of the conversation.
Well, no, it wasn't in the beginning of conversation.
Okay, let me ask you this.
Do you think that people respond to incentives?
Sure.
Okay.
Do you think that if you show appreciation for what people have done for you, that they're more likely to want to continue to provide value?
Of course.
Okay.
That's all.
So I'm not insulting you.
I'm trying to help you get more value into your life.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's interesting that we've kind of devolved into this.
See, that's another insult.
You can't stop yourself.
You can't.
Like, it's really wild.
You can't.
Now, if you insult people and put them down and say that they're wrapped up, they're irrational, and the conversation is devolved based upon me expressing my preferences, do I want to continue the conversation?
Probably not.
There you go.
See, I don't want to continue the conversation because of how you've acted.
And that's fine.
Listen, it's an open show.
It's an open format.
You can act however you choose.
You can act however you please.
I'm just telling you that in the free market of conversation, I don't have to talk to you.
You certainly don't have to talk to me.
And if you make it difficult or unpleasant or unrewarding to talk to you, what am I going to do?
Yeah, kick me.
Well, I mean, I don't know about kick you, but I'm not going to want to continue the conversation.
And if you think I have value, it's important that I also enjoy the conversation, wouldn't you say?
Sure.
Okay.
So that's just something to remember as you go through life.
This is the theory of mind stuff.
It is important as you go through life to make sure other people are enjoying what it is that you do.
One of the basic things is to show appreciation.
So if I had a big question that had been tormenting me for a long time, as this fellow undoubtedly has, and I called up someone who was a big expert and they gave me a very clear explanation, which I agreed with, right?
Because I asked him, would an objective moral system cover everyone?
Would you have one moral rule for one person and then the opposite to make sure that he agreed with my answer?
So I did answer his question.
Now he said, well, I want to do other things or talk about some other something or other, but showed no appreciation for an answer, not that I had inflicted upon him, but that he agreed with.
And then, you know, the mild put-downs of like, you're hung up on this stuff, you're making the conversation devolve, you know, just things like that.
It's just negative, right?
And it's just an interesting thing to me.
I don't know where it comes from.
And maybe this is, maybe I'm a little British this way.
But I'm very concerned that other people are getting value out of the conversation, which is why I work very hard to provide clear analogies and rational arguments for complicated stuff.
And I would invite everyone, but that's a universal.
So the reason I'm saying this is like, well, was he enjoying the conversation?
It's like, well, but that's a different matter.
Because if I say, I'm not enjoying the conversation, like if I give someone a really big answer, they seem disappointed and they just go off on some other tangent, then it's important for me to understand that.
Because if I have a complicated question and then I agree with someone's answer, I would show them appreciation.
I mean, we show appreciation when someone we're tipping brings us a coffee and a piece of pie.
So no, like, wow, you know, that's really interesting, or I really appreciate that.
Thank you for putting it so clearly or thank you because he agreed with me.
He wasn't like, I wasn't inflicting anything on him.
He agreed every step of the way.
But when I give an answer to someone who's begging me for an answer and they seem to be disappointed and negative towards the answer, then it's perfectly reasonable to say, well, hang on, you gave me a complicated question.
I gave you a clear answer that you agreed with, and you wouldn't even show any appreciation at all.
Or even like, well, that's a great answer.
They just need to be, oh, thank you, Steph, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, it wouldn't, you know, and I'm doing it for free.
So, I mean, we thank people we pay who are doing a job, right?
We thank the waitress who brings us the pie, even though she's being paid.
We're tipping her, it's a job.
I'm not getting paid.
And normally, if you're not getting paid, the appreciation should be a little more.
So I don't like getting into conversations where people are only pretending to want answers.
And so one of the things that happens for me is that if I provide a good answer for someone that they agree with, that clarifies a complex question, I would expect some appreciation for a free service that's more important than a fucking coffee and a piece of pie.
Right?
And so if somebody appears to be disappointed in an answer that they have agreed to is an answer, is a correct answer, then, of course, I don't believe that they want answers.
So if somebody's calling me up, asking for an answer, I provide an answer that they agree with, and they appear to be disappointed and just start moving the goalposts, then of course they don't want any answers.
And I don't like engaging in pretend conversations.
I like engaging in conversations where there's a genuine and deep commitment to pursuing the truth.
So if you want people in your life to give you value, a little bit of appreciation goes a long way, or at least don't be disappointed.
I mean, and we know this in relationships.
If I say to my wife, man, you make a fantastic bumbleberry pie, would you mind terribly to make me a bumbleberry pie?
And then she goes out and she buys all the ingredients and she puts on her apron and she whips up a baking frenzy and she produces a pie.
And then she says, do you like the pie?
And I say, this pie is perfect.
I'm just, I'm kind of disappointed in the pie.
I don't, you know, I think I want something else, right?
Then she would be annoyed, right?
Because I'm not showing any appreciation.
I'm being kind of negative about the pie, which I already admit is perfect.
There's nothing wrong with the pie.
And this guy admitted that my arguments were fine and there was nothing wrong with my arguments.
So yeah, we all know that, I mean, if you put out a lot of effort for someone and they're just negative and disappointed about the effort that they have already agreed is valuable.
I don't say there's anything wrong with the pie.
I say the pie is perfect.
I just, I don't, you know, I don't really want it.
I guess I want something else.
You know, I think that you're a tyrant, right?
Because he analogized.
And he did it twice, right?
So I corrected him the first time about communism and then he went back to that analogy.
So, and then you saw the insults, right?
When I said, am I enjoying the conversation?
It's not just about you and it's not just about me, right?
Frustrating Interactions and Effort00:02:11
All of your interactions should be aiming, and this is a big secret to life, and I give it to you for free, right?
All of your interactions should be aiming for mutual benefit.
All of them.
Now, if you end up in some combat, that's a different matter.
All of your interactions should be aiming for mutual benefit.
So if somebody works very hard to provide you with something that you agree is hugely valuable, appreciation is important, or at least not negative feedback.
So there are people out there in the world who exist to frustrate you.
I mean, did we have three of them tonight?
Yeah, maybe.
Pie.
See, 3.14159627, blah, blah, blah.
So there are people who exist in the world to frustrate you.
In other words, they don't want answers.
They just want to frustrate you.
It comes out of passive aggression and feeling thwarted in their own lives and feeling helpless in their own lives.
So they want to spread that helplessness.
And I've been doing this long enough to know the science.
So it's the yes, but people.
I got a big problem.
Well, you could do this.
Yeah, but blah, blah, blah.
Well, you could do that.
Yeah, but.
And all they're doing is trying to spread their own frustration through the alchemy of passive aggression.
So if people, and I'm aware of this, and I know that there's a lot of people out there, and a lot of people out there do this in the realm of philosophy.
And I'm alert to this and I'm aware.
And I don't want you guys to think I'm not alert to and aware of this.
Sorry, I know we got some more callers, but I'm going to stop here because I have some other stuff to do this afternoon.
And I really do appreciate everyone dropping by today.
But look out, look out for the sticky people, the quicksand people, and don't dance to their tune.
If I'm not enjoying the conversation, I have every right to say so.
I have every right to say, I'm not enjoying this conversation.
I have every right to say, where's your appreciation?
I have every right to say that.
And if people get pissy with me because I'm expressing a preference, then they can take a long walk off a short peer.
As a guy I used to work with up North used to say, fill your boots, go take a long walk off a short peer.
And so if someone is giving me a negative experience in the conversation and I say so, and they get pissy and insult me further, the conversation can go take a long walk of a short peer because I don't do that stuff.
All right.
Supporting Free Domain Content00:00:24
Freedomain.com slash donate.
I know, I know, I know.
It's very useful stuff, very helpful stuff.
And if you could show your appreciation to help pay for this whole experience being ad-free, can you imagine in the middle of one of these conversations a 60 or 90 or 120 second ad for something?