Dr. Nice’s episode examines the "social hierarchy of pain," where empathy for others’ suffering is undermined by internet interactions, using a 2024 Twitter dispute as a case study. They targeted Snowden Bishop (ex-The Cannabis Reporter host) for promoting discredited claims like Judy Mykovitz’s debunked vaccine conspiracy theories in two 2020 episodes, later removed but still accessible on mirror sites. Despite evidence, Dr. Nice and the anti-vax group resisted accountability, framing criticism as "ableist" attacks due to Bishop’s autism—a tactic revealing how identity politics shields bad actors from scrutiny, even when facts are clear. [Automatically generated summary]
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast that's creating and interpreting the language of the disinformation age.
Before I start, I want to get right to this.
If anyone has any questions, comments, complaints, concerns about this episode, that email goes to truthunrestricted at gmail.com.
I'm also available on Twitter at SpencerG Watson and on BlueSky at SpencerWatson there.
So, just me today.
Getting right into it.
The social hierarchy of pain is a sociological principle that says that humans view the pain they personally have received or experienced as being of much greater consequence than the pain experienced by others.
This principle explains why our acts and fantasies of retaliation tend to be of greater magnitude than the pain that inspired them.
Something about the internet and social media in particular seems to amplify this effect.
It's probably the fact that most of the interaction is done through text and there's very little way to experience empathy for the other person in volatile exchanges.
We tend to imagine them as jeering bullies rather than wounded individuals.
In one of these escalating exchanges on Twitter, I've recently been defamed, smeared.
People called me names.
It didn't really hurt my feelings.
But I do feel the need to respond.
I have a platform and a reputation.
And I feel like those things require a defense.
In addition to defending my reputation, my goal is to defend myself in a manner that doesn't rub salt into a wound that requires additional verbal exchanges.
To not amplify the magnitude of my own pain such that the conflict escalates further.
So I need to tell you a bit of a story.
On November 5th of 2024, Donald Trump won his re-election.
Among people who opposed Trump and felt strongly that RFK Jr. was going to be given an important cabinet position with which to drastically affect the health of Americans, there was much consternation.
I decided to do something.
It was a very small something, and in the end, it didn't amount to very much at all.
Such is life.
Not every attempt leads to success.
Still, I succeeded at one thing, and that's the topic of this story.
The something that I started was an attempt to achieve better coordination with efforts to fight disinformation.
I'm not the first person to start such a group, and I won't be the last.
But the effort I started was a little different.
It wasn't going to focus on just one area of disinformation.
It was going to branch out into many areas, maybe all of them.
The hope was that ideas generated in one area might be able to be used to help other areas with their efforts.
Not all ideas would directly translate, but more ideas should lead to better outcomes.
I had another idea though.
I had noticed that some areas of disinformation heavily affect some groups that fight other areas of disinformation.
Nothing ever stopped people who pushed back against vaccine disinformation from believing that 9-11 was an inside job.
Nothing about combating Holocaust denial would prepare someone to not deny the results of an election.
I thought that it might be possible to use each group to help expose each other group to the correct information that would help them fight all disinformation more effectively.
In that, sadly, I was wrong.
It all started out nicely.
Enthusiasm was high because many people felt that the situation was going to get worse if we didn't find a way to redouble our efforts.
I created a Discord server and began handing out the invitation link.
At its most populous level, I think we didn't quite have 50 people as members.
That's pretty average for this kind of effort.
There was one particular person named Nicholas C. Gray, who features strongly in this story.
He's a good person who lives in Cambodia.
He's an artist who has created cartoon work in the past.
He sometimes feels like he can't say certain things because the government in Cambodia might consider him a political dissident of some variety and target him.
He gets nervous about it when people accuse him of things baselessly because the government in Cambodia doesn't always think that a person should be innocent until proven guilty.
but he does what he can to push back against vaccine disinformation online and is usually seen doing that when he's on twitter i met nicholas when i pushed back against a bully that had targeted him The bully's name was Aisha.
I wrote a thread on Twitter telling Aisha how it was that I knew she was a bully and thus how everyone should be able to tell from simply observing her behavior.
She didn't like that very much, but Nicholas did.
And we've become something like online friends.
Another person had been pushing back against Aisha's bullying and was very happy to see my thread.
Her name was Dr. Nice.
I just like to say that I know nothing about Dr. Nice except for the name she chooses as a Twitter handle.
When the time came to put together my little coordination effort after the election, I reached out to many people, including both Nicholas and Dr. Nice.
They were among the people who joined.
I gave them both admin powers on the Discord server so that they each could invite new people to the project that they trusted.
Dr. Nice was given the ceremonial role of being in charge of the anti-vaccine effort.
As I organized the Discord server, I named this role representative.
It made it seem official, but in actuality, it was just an admin with a special title.
Nicholas wasn't in charge of anything, but I needed him to have the power to invite, so he was made the default role of admin.
To people who run Discord servers, this is a very recognizable role.
As all that was happening, I was trying to put together groups to work on different areas of disinformation.
One of those areas was one we called Blue Anon.
This needs a little bit of explanation.
There are now coming to exist belief systems, which could be described as systemic, systematic, continual reinterpretations of events.
For people in these belief systems, everything about reality is fungible, non-tangible.
Nothing is definitely real, except for a select few fixed principles, and therefore these beliefs are best defined by these fixed principles.
The first and most primary example of one of these belief systems is QAnon.
Its fixed principles are that Donald Trump, the person, is always right, and always has been right and always will be right.
Also, they believe that a storm is coming in which all of their political opponents will be brutally murdered.
Oh, and they also believe that the Jews are terrible and that they have to not say that part explicitly.
Literally everything else about reality is up for grabs to the cue pilled.
Bluenon is the mirror of QAnon.
It has more fixed principles, but only marginally.
It isn't centered on a single individual, but rather on the goodness of the people who oppose that individual.
Everyone who fights against Donald Trump is a golden ally, a hero who has never been wrong and could never be wrong.
All the opponents of Trump must be elevated to elite positions so that they can better battle Trump.
Everyone who opposes one of these sacred heroes is secretly with Trump.
Bluenon is where you find yourself when an extreme ideology like QAnon has succeeded in gaining high office and you don't know how.
So you just start emulating everything you think QAnon did to make that happen.
It's the absolutist position on the left rather than on the right.
And it's gotten there by a slow and steady escalation of rhetorical force to match the rhetorical output from Trumpistan.
Many Bluenon influencers are former supporters of the Republican Party who now claim allegiance to the opposing side to catch the wave of discontent as the backlash to Trump rises in strength.
If left unchecked, it's possible that Trump goes away and the halls of power pass to a left-leaning authoritarian who thinks that everything they say and do can't possibly be wrong because they're not Trump.
In case anyone hasn't been paying attention, that's been a not insignificant portion of the campaign positions of the Democratic presidential candidates since Trump began his political career in 2016.
So, I wanted to have a group working against Bluenon.
All groups were going to be able to see each other's work, to better share ideas.
Dr. Nice was inviting people to the anti-vax group regularly, and I pretty much ignored all that because I knew Dr. Nice to be very capable.
I focused on the Bluenon group, where I began making a list of people who were problematic influencers, mostly people who were amplifying or even creating new disinformation that distorted the ability for people on the left to effectively see reality.
The hope for the Bluenon group was to find ways to make succinct arguments for why someone shouldn't follow a particular Bluenon influencer.
It isn't possible to separate this particular set of disinformation ideas from the names of the people who spread them.
As influencers, they tend to brand themselves with their own set of mythologies and rhetorical techniques.
We thought that maybe we could focus on the most problematic things they've said and start there.
The problem started when one of the Bluenon influencer names that we thought should be looked at was actually a person that Dr. Nice had invited to the Discord server.
That person was a woman named Snowden Bishop.
I didn't know she'd been invited because her Discord name didn't in any way identify her.
So I soldiered on as if nothing was wrong.
I didn't know much about Snowden Bishop, but I started looking into her content to see why other people had mentioned her name.
It turns out that Snowden Bishop used to host a radio show called The Cannabis Reporter.
That radio show was subsequently ported to a podcast feed so that the episodes could be listened to in perpetuity.
The link to that podcast feed was readily available on Snowden Bishop's Twitter feed.
Two episodes jumped out at me when I looked at the descriptions.
Twice, on March 3rd and April 4th of 2020, Snowden Bishop had interviewed Judy Mykovitz.
So some people know exactly what that name means and some other people need an explanation.
In May of 2020, there was a movie released called Plandemic.
Plandemic was a move against the COVID vaccine before the vaccine was ever made.
It featured Judy Mikovitz and relied on her supposed expertise to claim that vaccines in general do more harm than good and that the COVID pandemic was a planned event.
There was also a large number of other outright falsehoods.
The disinformation from Plandemic had a massive effect.
It was released in the middle of the lockdown period when people had nothing better to do than Google information about COVID in between episodes of Tiger King.
Mykovitz had already been discredited as a scientist 10 years before in 2010 when she had falsified data during some scientific research.
She'd spent the next 10 years until 2020 railing against the established scientific community saying that it was rigged against her, that she was being unfairly silenced, and all manner of demonstrable lie about the nature of HIV and AIDS.
I'll have a link in the notes for this episode giving many more details about all of Maikovitz's lies.
dr david gorski has me covered there so i had two episodes of a podcast feed where snowden bishop had interviewed judy mikevitz and i listened to them There was quite a lot of blatant disinformation there and I felt that they should be removed from the podcast feed.
So in my little Discord server in the channel name for Snowden Bishop, I duly made note of the two episodes.
I noted when they were released.
I provided links in case anyone else wanted to verify my information.
Okay, this is when the situation began to turn.
Some people from the anti-vax group began asking me why I was targeting Snowden Bishop.
I replied that as an influencer, she has a media platform to maintain and that the disinformation needed to come down.
It was in these exchanges that I was finally told that Snowden Bishop was a member of the Discord server.
I carried on because while it might have been somewhat uncomfortable, what I was doing wasn't wrong.
I hadn't defamed anyone.
No pejoratives were used.
No one had said anyone else was a bad person because of anything.
Everything I said was factual.
I readily admitted that it was entirely possible that Mykovitz had taken advantage of Snowden's lack of vaccine knowledge in those interviews.
Mykovitz likely took advantage of a lot of people over the course of her lengthy anti-vaccine career.
But I also said that despite that fact, the episodes will still need to come down.
I was asked why I would be doing this to an ally.
My response was that having this exist might be okay for some people, but I would need this removed before I could ever consider being allied with Snowden.
I have a reputation to maintain, and being linked to a person that had these very publicly available episodes was unacceptable for me.
I also said that we should note when it came down and keep all the details in case we needed them for anything later.
That this process could become an exonerative effort for people who let go of previous beliefs but didn't want to endlessly tell every new person the circumstances of the change.
When people asked us why we were working with someone who once interviewed Judy Mykovitz uncritically, we could point to the details of the podcast episodes being removed and why, and then carry on with the project.
The entire set of conversations happened over just three days.
At the end of those three days, the two Mykovitz interviews had been removed from the main podcast feed.
I felt like I had accomplished something.
Though the project that was barely yet alive got extinguished by the effort.
Dr. Nice left along with everyone she had invited to work on anti-vax disinformation.
Several other people who were more shy about conflict or who had reputations to protect that were worth more than a petty squabble stopped logging in and the whole thing ground to a halt.
I kept the entire exchange that happened in Discord because of how it turned out.
I had a strong feeling that people might later claim some things were said that actually weren't.
In the end, I was accused of being ableist because apparently Snowden is autistic and by expecting her to live up to a base level of good information citizenry, I had somehow expected too much of her or something.
For podcast listeners only, note that the accusation of ableism was sent in a direct message on Twitter from an account that I'll not name here.
That part actually made me angry because treating Autistic people as though they're unable to understand these sorts of basic things is actually the act of being ableist.
Treating someone as though they're lesser because of their difference in ability.
That's ableism.
When that person accused me of ableism there, it was actually them that was being ableist in an amazing attempt at reality inversion.
They were essentially saying that Snowden couldn't be expected to know how to handle vaccine disinformation on her own or how to deal with that disinformation now that she had come to realize the facts of the matter.
It's very similar to the way RFK Jr. treats autistic people as though they're lesser or flawed in some way.
For the record, most autistic people are able to live full and healthy lives without the need for supervision.
they're different but not faulty as i said i locked the channel so that no one could change it or delete anything Then I moved it to another section of the server so that people could read it if they ever needed to see it for themselves, how that conversation went.
Such is the world we live in, when people start accusing each other of the isms.
So, fast forward six months or so, I felt good about myself that I had removed the offending material and that Dr. Nice, though no longer a source of information I could personally use, was still toiling away pushing back against vaccine disinformation.
But then there was Nicholas.
Tired but relentless Nicholas C. Gray.
For reasons I have yet to fully understand, he has inspired the extreme distaste of the group of people surrounding Snowden Bishop, and they have occasionally said many untrue things about him, including that it was he who secretly pulled the strings behind the scenes to make the disruption in January happen.
The evidence used was that Nick was an admin in the Discord server.
This is a screenshot that was used to point out that Nick was an admin on the Discord server in question.
This was used to implicate him with some level of guilt in this.
But I made him an admin.
And I named the channel after Snowden Bishop.
And I came up with the method we were going to use to push back against disinformation from blue-and-on influencers.
I put the links to the interviews in the Discord channel.
And when fans of Snowden tried to discourage me from carrying on, it was me that stood my ground and insisted that the interviews come down.
Yet Nicholas took much of the heat.
So last week, Nicholas tagged me in a thread in which it was being dragged up once again.
So as these things do, it all had to be rehashed with fresh accusations.
Please observe the tweet from Dr. Nice claiming that my Discord channel about Snowden Bishop amounted to, and I quote, a targeted attack of a woman.
and that it was, quote, completely indefensible abuse.
So the nature of the abuse, as charged by Dr. Nice, is directly related to the fact that I am a man and the other person is a woman.
I want to be careful to make sure everyone understands that I understand that abuse does occur.
Men abuse women and yes, women abuse men.
It's more common for men to abuse women because of the raw difference in strength between men and women.
This doesn't make it okay, of course.
But the implication here is that it's unfair for me, a man, to criticize Snowden Bishop or Dr. Nice because they are women.
I need to make a few things very clear here.
It isn't misogyny for a man to criticize a woman unless the criticism is related to the fact that she is a woman.
It isn't misogyny for a man to criticize a woman for spreading vaccine disinformation, or for theft, or for littering, or for any other thing that isn't related to their status as women.
For that matter, it isn't racism for a white person to criticize an Asian person of spreading anti-vaccine disinformation, or theft, or littering.
If the roles could be reversed and the criticism still makes sense, then the ism in question simply isn't applicable.
We have a situation in our society wherein some people have repeatedly and systemically undermined the rights and privileges and happiness of other people.
Often this has happened along group lines because we're social creatures and tend to congregate and identify that way.
Every person deserves the same basic level of human rights and dignity.
Not because they belong to a certain social class or hold a certain passport or have a certain skin color.
All humans deserve the same basic levels of rights and respect and dignity.
But the idea has formed in some minds and has made sense to some people that if you belong to a certain category of people that has been systemically undermined, that you have achieved some protected status.
This is where the way my words are parsed becomes very critical.
We need to be certain that our political structures and casual social relations are not reducing anyone else's base level of experience here on earth or limiting the upper bounds of their potential achievements.
However, this does not mean that anyone who belongs to a group that has been systemically undermined gets a pass for social transgressions that are not related to their inclusion in that group.
Women don't get a pass for spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric simply because they're women, nor are they immune from such criticism when the criticism comes from a man.
Muslims aren't immune from being criticized for bullying, even when the person leveling the criticism isn't Muslim.
If a transgender person claims that the Holocaust was fake, we aren't required to wait for another transgender person to come along to tell them they're spreading dangerous disinformation.
Cisgendered people are allowed to tell transgendered people that the Holocaust was real.
This is also why criticism should remain impersonal.
No name-calling.
No attempt to identify or call attention to some feature of their body that they might feel insecure about.
No personal attacks, no insults or pejoratives.
No pointing out the thing that makes them different from everybody else.
And no aspersions cast or assumptions made about their IQ level.
Just the facts, as I've done in this case.
Now, back to Dr. Nice, who has absolutely accused me of being an abuser and has compared my criticism to physical abuse she has received at the hands of someone she once knew.
First, I feel immediate sympathy for her once she reveals this fact.
No one should be made to feel that way.
Not my allies, not my opponents, not anti-vaxxers, not Holocaust deniers, not white supremacists, not dentists or Amish people or Belgians.
No one.
Everyone deserves the same base level of respect and dignity.
They're people.
But let's also call this what it is.
My words don't carry additional force because I have a higher testosterone level.
My arguments don't land more solidly because of the strength in my arms.
My words have not been emotional and have not been designed to create an emotional response.
Dr. Nice's words have.
Dr. Nice wants everyone to sympathize with her.
And they should.
But not because of anything I've said.
They should sympathize with her for having suffered abuse.
And then after that moment, they should move on to all the other business at hand that's unrelated to the abuse she unfortunately suffered by another person's actions.
Which is what I've done.
I also need to call attention to another aspect of this.
The accusation of abuse is particularly pernicious.
In most cases of abuse, there are only two witnesses, the victim and the perpetrator.
Also, in many of those cases, the objective evidence of the abuse is also extremely personal.
For this reason, we develop social habits of believing the accuser as a default position.
We train professionals in determining the credibility of accusations in an attempt to both maintain the privacy of accusers, but also protect the accused from needless accusations.
But this situation is drastically different from those situations.
Nearly every word that has ever been shared between myself and Dr. Nice is publicly available on Twitter.
And the few things that weren't public on Twitter were a handful of DMs that she can easily screenshot.
Nothing about displaying evidence of this would require exposing anything about her private life.
This wouldn't require a professionally trained expert to assess the credibility of anything.
It's a situation in which the personal nature of the accusation and the strong emotional response it evokes is meant to carry onlookers past the need for evidence of allegations and force them to choose a side between abuser and abused.
But they aren't required to make that choice.
They can ask for evidence, and when, after a time, none materializes, they can begin assuming that none will.
But all of that should be very insulting to anyone who has been a victim of abuse, in which the evidence is intensely personal, and for which there were only two witnesses.
People who just needed someone to believe them.
Every accusation of abuse for which there should be evidence but that has none waters down the public's belief in future accusations of abuse.
The boy who cried wolf is one of the oldest and most easily understood morality tales in history for a reason.
So in this situation, we have Dr. Nice slandering me.
She has no proof of abuse.
She only has the implication that any mention of her name or Snowden's name itself is abuse.
But this is synonymous with creating a class of people, in this case women, who cannot be criticized by anyone outside that class, in this case men.
When I criticize Judy Mikovitz, also a woman, Dr. Nice doesn't speak up at all.
When I criticized Aisha for bullying, I received cheers from Dr. Nice rather than a staunch defense of the people with the protected status.
Apparently, it wasn't abuse for me, a man, to criticize Aisha, a woman.
Because this isn't about protecting women from men.
It's about applying the slander and repeating it as often as possible until the people around Dr. Nice stop questioning it.
It's about applying the emotional thrust that push people with empathy to believe the accuser without putting them through the ordeal of showing evidence, even though this is a situation in which evidence should be easily accessible.
It becomes socially unpalatable to ask for evidence in such situations, and this strongly discourages people from doing so.
The people close to Dr. Nice will be forced to choose between an allegiance to her and an adherence to the facts.
And most of the people that hear it will be getting their facts directly from Dr. Nice, and so don't need to confront any part of this other than what they want to hear.
Putting a person's identity or a person's inclusion in a class ahead of their ideas and individual deeds is identity politics.
It's the shield that Dr. Nice is attempting to use here to protect herself and Snowden Bishop from criticism.
And for reasons I have yet to understand, she would rather do this than face the idea that dangerous vaccine disinformation exists in the form of interviews done by Snowden Bishop.
Some will wonder why I bother with such a lengthy defense.
The accusation, if repeated enough, will become accepted as fact.
This happens because humans are pretty dumb with social information that's repeated to them without any opposing views expressed.
Criticisms themselves are not attacks.
Being a member of a particular group does not protect anyone from criticisms unrelated to that group.
but the real kicker comes next at the time when i was going through this on discord no one was denying that the interviews existed or what they contained They merely claimed that I should ignore them because of their personal relationship with Snowden Bishop.
The podcast episodes were deleted six months ago, and this is only coming up now.
Because the Mike of its episodes have been deleted, it has been claimed that Snowden Bishop is actually innocent here, that there was nothing problematic in either of the two interviews, and that my request to take them down was simply some sort of baseless accusation.
Note the comment from Dr. Nice here saying that the interviews here had zero to do with COVID.
I mean, okay.
But if then we find the audio of those interviews and it turns out that there really was vaccine disinformation discussed in them, then it really looks bad for whoever made the claim that there was nothing there.
Well, I have the audio from those interviews.
And this is a small sample.
You know, the 20,000-foot view of Plague of Disease, the first book called Plague, was that we identified a new family of retroviruses.
We isolated them from people with not only autism, but cancer, myalgic, encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue, syndrome, MECFS, sequences were found in prostate cancer.
So here now is a new family of viruses which caused devastating diseases that didn't kill you right away as HIV AIDS did, but of course were found, you know, we found the blood supply to be contaminated as we knew the blood supply was back in the 80s with HIV.
And of course, then one of our colleagues suggested this, that this retrovirus family, because it was related to mouse cancer causing and neurological disease causing viruses.
He said one of the most widely used products where we use mouse tissues biological therapies, including vaccines.
So how did a mouse virus get into humans?
Before we go any further, I want everyone to know that none of that was true.
If needed, I can go pester Dan Wilson to come on the podcast to give us an explainer.
But he's likely already covered this on his Debunk the Funk YouTube channel somewhere.
That audio is still available because I succeeded in taking the podcast episodes down from the main feed, but they still exist on several mirror feeds.
I didn't know this until this whole thing got dragged up again last week.
Now we start again with trying to work with Snowden Bishop to get these episodes removed.
Now, I'm no geneticist, or really any version of a doctor or biologist, but it sounds like in that clip that Judy Mikovitz is saying that autism, cancer,
And MECFS are all caused by viruses originating in mice and that they've made their way to humans via a tainted blood supply and that, in turn, the blood supply has become tainted because of and I just want to check my notes here so I don't get it wrong oh yeah, vaccines.
Maybe I'm mistaken as I try to retrace the labyrinthine path her mind has taken to get there, but I don't think so.
And maybe I'm wrong to have wanted those episodes taken down, but I don't think so.
And maybe I'm wrong with the way I did it.
Maybe, but let's remember that I didn't make any accusations in a public forum like Twitter.
This happened on a private discord server.
Less than 50 people had access to it and likely only 25 or so ever saw it.
Several of those already knew about it and many of the others saw it and said it was fine.
And, in case anyone is confused by what they heard, it's all complete fabrication.
It doesn't even match any of the other anti-vaccine lies that Mikevitz has said elsewhere.
She's an anti-vaccine fabrication generator and what she really needs is a team of mental health professionals.
And what's going on with Dr. Nice?
I'm not inside her mind so I can't say.
But, generally speaking, as the situation in the US gets worse.
As health professionals who have dedicated their lives to saving people systematically have their best tools denied them, they're likely to become more desperate.
That desperation increases the likelihood of irrational behavior and potentially believing other unreal things.
This is part of how this situation is going to get worse in the Trump administration as it continues to grind at the American, and every other country that is ground down with it will likely experience similar things, though not necessarily specifically with vaccines.
I mentioned the social hierarchy of pain earlier, the principle that encourages people to lash out with greater violence than that which caused them to suffer.
If that were the only aspect of this, I might be able to let this go, but the accusations of abuse from Dr. Nice go beyond mere rhetorical escalation.
If what she was saying was the equivalent of screw off, I don't want to talk to you anymore, I would be fine.
It wouldn't be the first time I've heard that and it won't be the last.
But what's what she's saying here?
Is you committed an ugly offense and no, I don't need to prove that you did and coming from such a prominent person who was respected by so many other people she and I both know this required a full response.
I think Dr. Nice is a good person who's gotten herself into a situation where someone else, i.e.
Snowden Bishop, appears to be the key to having the most effective result for her message.
I believe Dr. Nice when she says that she felt physically ill upon seeing the Mikeowitz interviews in the Discord channel.
Dr. Nice interpreted this as an attack on Snowden.
That sick feeling is more likely to be the product of extreme cognitive dissonance.
Being faced with two ideas that strongly conflict with each other in a person's mind that encourages their mind to reject one set of ideas entirely.
To Dr. Nice, I can't be correct about any of the things I say about Snowden Bishop.
I have to be an agent of disruption who is only here to tear down Snowden's effort.
It's the way Dr. Nice has made sense of her world.
Unfortunately, I cannot allow her to defame me in the process.
As I wrap up, I just want to say that no one should ever feel the need to defend me in any public space, be it related to this or with anything else.
Feel free to link me in when I'm being defamed or when the topic involves me.
But my own words expressed here should be enough of a defense in this situation.
If you see someone bringing this up and you think what I've said here is a cogent response, then feel free to leave a link to this podcast episode as a reply.
Leave my own words as the defense.
In 1931, there was a book published in Germany called 100 Authors Against Albert Einstein.
It was a collection of German intellectuals who were criticizing relativity and Einstein himself.
When asked about the book, Einstein said that he couldn't comment on it because he hadn't read it.
So he was asked about the title, and Einstein said, why 100 authors?
If I were really wrong, one would have been enough.
So to the fans of Dr. Nice and Snowden Bishop, I say, refute me.
Tell me what I've done wrong in clear language, as I've done here.