Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we take a look at the state of Florida's move to ban kids from using social media. And in part two, we weigh in on President Biden's issuance of a statement recognizing trans visibility Day, which generated a lot of controversy because the day this year fell on Easter.
Hello. Welcome to the call like I see it podcast. I'm James Keys, and riding shotgun with me today is a man who may be middle aged, but he's ready. Yoga and Lana unde, you ready to show the people how you like to party?
[00:00:46] Speaker B: Always, man. You just said I'm ready.
Let's do it. I'm just middle aged, so it'll take a little longer than it used to for me to get wound up. But when I get there, we'll be partying when I arrive.
[00:00:58] Speaker A: There we go.
[00:00:59] Speaker B: There we go. Take me a little while.
[00:01:01] Speaker A: All right, now, before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you hit subscribe and like the show on YouTube or your podcast app by doing so, really helps us get the show out there.
Now, recording this on April 2, 2024. And Tunde, last week, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill that bans social media accounts for kids under 14 and requires. It also requires parental consent for kids that are 14 or 15. And it requires some websites, particularly like adult content websites, to have age verification in place to keep minors from accessing them. That's the kind of broad strokes of it. So what are your thoughts on? Primarily, I want to get to the. We can talk about the whole thing, but just the move to ban social media accounts for kids under 14, that's.
[00:01:52] Speaker B: A very good question. And I would say I generally am supportive of it.
I would say I know that there's, and we'll get into some of the pushback against this, but we both have discussed this on this podcast over the years as well. As, you know, it's been talked about extensively in various spheres of media, which is all the studies that have been conducted, including by some of these own companies themselves, internally, that show the damage that social media and the use of it has done to young people, primarily teenagers. And I would say people that are kind of in that young, early teenage period of, let's say, 12, 13, 14 years old, rates of depression, suicidal tendencies, all that have increased with the use of this. So to me, just like any other new thing that hits society, and over time, society gets to see how it plays out.
You know, I'm sure at some point there was rules to regulate tobacco amongst kids and how it was used or alcohol or firearms or other things. So this is, I think our society is at a point where we've seen the evidence of harm to young people by using social media. And so this is a measure that the governor has taken to address it.
[00:03:14] Speaker A: Yeah. No, no. I mean, I think we can all agree there's a problem, you know, and that's where I think we can start here. Is that, okay? We all see it. There's a problem. And so I support the idea of what is, you know, like, hey, let's. Let's try to limit, if this is a problem, let's try to limit the damage in some way.
But see, the thing is, is that I think it's a bit ham fisted. And, you know, and we've seen this throughout other, other states have, you know, tried to go about, you know, in similar ways, trying to keep minors off of social media. And typically, the constitution stands in the way, so the constitution means we can't be ham fisted about this thing. We have to go about it in ways that are, that don't run afoul, particularly the First Amendment, which minors, it's been held. Minors have First Amendment rights. So that distinguishes this from something like tobacco smoking is not speech, you know, or be it ability to access speech or to make your own speech, you know, something like that. So to me, the.
There is much we can find in common about that. We say, hey, there is a problem here, but I think we're still at the initial stage here in terms of, okay, so we agree there's a problem. What do we do? Because I don't think this going about it this way is the right way to go about it, because I just think that the Constitution means that we got to be a little more creative than this, or we have to. Instead of attacking social media in general, maybe we need to, and this is a similar theme to when we talked about TikTok, maybe attack the things, if social media is harmful, let's attack the things about social media that's harmful. And you see this sometimes, some of the. The quote unquote addictive features and so forth. So, you know, like, I'm kind of there, but then on the same, same hand, I'm kind of skeptical because I'm just like, hey, why do this if it's going to get ruled unconstitutional anyway? And it probably should get ruled unconstitutional because, you know, we're limiting minors access to either make or to receive speech. You know, it's not much different than banning a book.
[00:05:02] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, you know, I was going to go in that direction too, which is, and it's, and it is an interesting thing. You bring up the tension with the First Amendment, and I agree. I mean, that should all be looked at in a very nuanced way. I don't think we should throw, you know, sledgehammer at any of this.
However, I will say that we have other examples where, for the sake of the good of people's health in the society, that there are certain caveats.
I was going to say work around, but that's not what I want to say with the constitution. Like yelling fire in a movie theater. Right? Like the famous one. Right? Like they just, you know, if you're gonna have speech that ends up harming people, then, you know, there's limits to that, right?
[00:05:46] Speaker A: But the violence is that it's not the existence of social media accounts that's actually creating this problem. It's the way that social media accounts have been. Or so, excuse me, social media itself has designed itself to be more addictive and to generate certain types of emotions in people for the purposes of monitor, better monetizing those people and better monopolizing their attention. It seems like we should be attacking those types of things to the social media experience, which wouldn't necessarily be. It's saying, you can't have an infinite scroll is not free speech. You know, it doesn't implicate free speech in that sense. But if that's one of the things that social media accounts learned over the past twelve years, that, hey, infinite scroll means people will spend more time on it. It's more addictive. It's like, well, that may be the lessons, or that may be the direction to me. But again, I start from the place of, yeah, we all agree there's a problem here. And some would say, hey, this is no different than in the nineties, people saying there was a problem with the video games. You know, oh, you know, like violent video games and everything like that. And they may have a point, you know, I don't think that, like, the desire for easy solutions sometimes can lead you astray, can lead you in the wrong direction. And so my caution basically is that, hey, let's not necessarily say what's the most ham fisted or quote unquote, easy way to deal with this. That shouldn't be our guiding principle in terms of how to address it. You know, like, some of it is going to come down to, quote unquote, personal responsibility and people parenting and so forth. And then if society can help in terms of the type of levers that a parent couldn't exert in saying, hey, social media companies, it can only be make this thing 20% less addictive. How about that? You know, like, which, again, you know, it's not the craziest thing in the world.
[00:07:24] Speaker B: You bring up a good point, and it goes back to our conversation on TikTok, and not just us, but that others have had, which is, and this speaks to something. I'm not saying this as anything critical. It's more of an observation. Right. It's the uniqueness of the american system of federalism, the ability for states to create their own laws that can limit certain activities of the population. So, for example, firearms. The different states have different ways they regulate firearms and how you can buy them and sell them and all that stuff, you know, driving laws, divorce laws, probate laws. You know, like, we have a very. There's a lot of things in our country that are only handled by states. You know, there's no federal probate laws. When someone dies, there's no federal divorce court. Right. These are all things that are happening on the state level. State legislatures deal with them all that. So this is another example, unlike maybe divorce in traffic court and probate, where those are very specific to the individual people going through those different issues. And, yeah, that should probably be more of a state by state because different states have different cultures in the way they want to do things, but something like social media are, they're things that are being kind of created and disseminated by just a handful of companies that are located only in a few regions of the country, and they blanket everyone with their products. So this does require some sort of look like we've discussed from the federal government and what we're seeing with Governor DeSantis and others, which is really the states trying to solve an issue that Congress, because all laws in the United States at the federal level start in Congress and the body of the House of Representatives, that they are not paying attention to this stuff for whatever reason. This is not a priority.
[00:09:16] Speaker A: But you raised the context or the concept of federalism. And one of the benefits of federalism also, though, is that the states can kind of be a research lab. You know, like, so different states can try different approaches, and then we can see what may be effective. And then if something's effective, then maybe the federal government can. Can go that direction and not too different than healthcare, for example, Mitt Romney and healthcare in Massachusetts became the blueprint of what Obamacare became. You know, like, and so it was started as something that was a moderate republican kind of thing. And then it became Obamacare because it was like, okay, well, this seems to work okay, or it didn't, you know, that became the basis for it. So having different states try different approaches is probably a good thing, you know, because it allows us to kind of look before we leap in a sense.
Obviously, if all the states keep doing it in a way that's unconstitutional, it's not really providing many data points for us to learn from to then say, hey, man, now let's take this federal. So that's, again, that's kind of my thing of, hey, let's, why don't we try a different approach? You know, why don't we try an approach that goes after, what are the things about this that we're saying are creating the increased depression or that are, you know, that are, that are doing, what are the things that are causing the negative stuff? Because, you know, big secret here is not really a secret. This is also causing problems for adults, you know, like the social media use itself. Now, obviously, you can't regulate it to the same, or you wouldn't necessarily regulate it to the same degree for adults as you would for kids. But at the same, if there are things that are being done intentionally that are causing, that don't need to be there for the experience to be about the same, then maybe that's what we can look at.
I want to ask you another question on this. And that deals with just the messenger here, so to speak. You know, this is Ron DeSantis. You know, this is mister, the parents, you know, need to have more control over what their kids see and what their kids can do and so forth. And so he caught a lot of blowback from his critics, you know, with this because it's the state saying something is banned for kids under 14, leaving the parents kind of out of it. The parents don't get a say here. So, you know, they, a lot of, a lot of DeSantis critics were saying, he's being hypocritical here because when it came to black history or, you know, things like that, he was saying, oh, we gotta have the parents have more of a role and everything like that. So what do you think about the critics we'll get into? Well, secondly, we'll get into whether or not we think it's hypocritical. But just what do you think of this kind of point that's been raised like, oh, deSantis, easy. He's a hypocrite. You know, he talks about parental rights and now he's saying, oh, parents have no rights when it comes to deciding social media use for kids under 14. Excuse me, under 14? Yeah.
[00:11:46] Speaker B: I mean, look, I think that's just the normal kind of cheap shots of politics. And I say this as someone that has a lot of, has had a lot of criticism of Governor DeSantis behavior in the last two years, using his position of authority as governor as what I feel as a big government authoritarian. So. And that's, you know, we don't need to get into all those. People can go watch our old shows and watch me rant and rave about that. But, you know, as trying to be a fair minded person, I look at this and say, okay, like we just been talking the last few minutes. I mean, you know, this is something that everyone agrees is an issue and agrees that, you know, the mental health of future generations of humans and those humans that happen to be in America is something we should consider as important. So, you know, that's why I say I support, you know, the spirit of what the governor's done. And I, and I do think that those who I've seen detracting, you know, it's the typical, you know, I would just say that the schadenfreude type of attitude that we see in political banter. Right. That's someone, you know, has gone against the grain of the way they've kind of traditionally acted. And now, you know, that the people on the other side of the political spectrum are saying, hey, see, you're such a hypocrite. And look, we see that all over the place and in all directions, so it doesn't surprise me.
And I just say, you know, doesn't seem to be too many people dying on that hill, but I see them out there, so.
[00:13:17] Speaker A: Well, yeah, it's interesting. I mean, I think that there's two thoughts I have on this is one is that I, well, I should say this, you know, like the calling him out and saying he's being hypocritical. I think that's fair.
Really. What they're doing, though, is they're still arguing the other point. Like, they're not really, that's not really a substantive either support or criticism of what is actually being done. Now, that's saying, that's trying to relitigate what he already did and say, oh, yeah, see, we shouldn't have, you shouldn't be trying to ban black history because, you know, it'll make some kids feel guilty, you know, and you should let the parents decide, you know, like, or whatever. Like, you know, parents should be able to decide to opt in to AP african american history if they want, you know, so to speak. And so you take the choice away from the parents. So they just want to have that argument, again, is what I like. And I think that's fair. You know, but again, it's not like a, it's not the, the best approach, necessarily to have that argument again. But they're seeing it as an opportunity. Hey, let's, let's relitigate this issue. And what, yeah, I think they, I think it's a fair point, you know, but I'm just saying, like, that's what it is. You know, like, it's not really a substantive thumbs up or thumbs down or substantive analysis of the actual fact that matter or the fact in hand. Right now, it's an attempt to look backwards. But also, I find this, I mean, this goes back to just kind of in the, in the modern, you know, post 2000, this goes back to the, the Bush v carry flip flopper, and, you know, somebody takes a position, and then later on, either they, the exact same issue, they have a different position, or on a, on a related issue, they have it. They look at it differently. And I think we got to be careful with that in general. And I'll just comment on that briefly in that if we want people to just have, we want people to have judgment, you know, we want our leaders, like we should elect leaders, necessarily, not because they have this list of positions, but because we trust their judgment. Because sometimes when you, if you might have a consideration and say, okay, based on these set of factors, I fall on this end of the spectrum, and I might fall in a different area of the spectrum, even though my core beliefs are the same, based on a different set of character or factors, you know, so if we wanted to just say, plug in input, get out output, we could have an algorithm for that, you know, so, but sometimes decisions take a little more, have a little more texture to them than that. And so just in general, if, quote, unquote, the threat is different or in his mind, and again, this is, I'm not commenting on, like, yeah, I have a lot of criticism of deSantis, but I would say just in general, if the threat is, if he deems the threat to be different here than it would be from kids being exposed to certain types of african american history, then I wouldn't necessarily object to saying, okay, then we're gonna take a different approach to it, you know, but the question would come down to, like, well, hold up. Why do you think that the threat here is so much, you know, different than or why do you think this is a comparable threat to that black history would be or a greater threat that black history would be? But again, that's trying to litigate the other issue. And if you're gonna do that, just do that. Just say that's what you're doing. You know, don't try to hide it in and distract from the actual issue because some people want to have a discussion on, on this actual issue right now.
[00:16:17] Speaker B: I think there's several things. I mean, look, obviously we can't get into individual people's head on what they think. But I think what you're, if I can go 30,000ft, what does it represent, what we're talking about here? I think it represents this is the result of just, you know, decade and a half, two decades of hyper partisanship, you know, especially being disseminated online where we all have our ecosystems.
[00:16:38] Speaker A: I don't know that that's fair, though, man, because people would, you're saying do this in 1950?
[00:16:43] Speaker B: Well, maybe not the same percentage of people is my point, because I just am saying that we, everyone is just knee jerk reacting constantly. It's like a trigger and response. And like you said, there's no, what people aren't doing is taking the time between their trigger and when they respond to actually do the judgment thing, like you're saying, to sit back and scratch their head and say, well, let me just make sure and see this one a little bit detailed. And is this exactly what I think that hypocrisy and all this? Or is this something that is an issue where maybe more of us in America can agree that, you know, this should be looked at, like we said, like maybe it's not perfect, but let's just take a look at it. And, well, you know, it reminds me of it just because this is something else recent in our just media discourse is kind of a little bit reminds me of the reverse of the blowing up of the immigration policy that was worked on for four months recently and earlier this year in 2024, which is, you know, you know, Republicans and most Americans tend to trust, let's say, Joe Biden less on the border topic than they do Republicans or Donald Trump. Whether one thinks that's fair or not, that's just the way it is right now in our political discourse. So when Biden finally comes around and the Democrats recognize that this is something they need to get on board with, whether it is because it's an election year or because they genuinely now believe that it's an issue. The Republicans had a chance to go along and say, okay, finally we got these people to agree with us and then they blew it up partially because of distrust and because, you know, I know there's other arguments that they need an issue to keep going. But this is where, this is what hyper partisanship leads to in general, at 30,000ft is. That's not, you don't trust the person that you've been told not to trust when they come around to do something that could be seen as positive by the majority of people in this society.
[00:18:35] Speaker A: But that only works if you're saying that the people who are saying that DeSantis is being hypocritical were out in front saying, we need to ban social media for kids before. Like, the unique thing about what you're pointing out with the immigration is that the people who had been saying for years, we need to do this thing on immigration all of a sudden turned around and said, no, we don't want to do it right now. You know, and so that was kind of the same.
[00:18:58] Speaker B: I was saying at 30,000ft, I get it.
[00:19:00] Speaker A: Like, I get it.
[00:19:01] Speaker B: It's not the same. Exactly. And I understand the point, but I.
[00:19:04] Speaker A: Don'T even think it's fair because if people were already skeptical of social media bans, them saying that this is hypocritical may be them that may be part of them arguing against this. Anyway, whether you were a for or against a social media ban before DeSantis tried to do it would be a defining issue or defining point. There is kind of my point. But again, I want to ask you the actual fact of the matter. But I mean, to me, I think the biggest, the problem with it more so is that I wanna have this conversation right now. How should we go about trying to deal with the social media issue with kids or whatever? And the concern I have is that trying to call him a hypocrite right now kinda, again, takes the conversation in a different direction. Like, can we have a conversation on the best way to do this right now? And then we can. I would like to go, yeah, let's go talk about the banning of black history. I'm happy to talk about that, but let's not do it right now. Like, let's talk about this thing right now, the social media thing. And so the further we get away and start talking about all this other stuff, we can't have a conversation on the best way to try to limit the negative effects that we're getting from social media. So, you know, just get to the fact of the matter. We comment on it, you know, oh, the critics, you know, and what, you know, they're saying this. What do you think? Do you think he's being hypocritical?
[00:20:16] Speaker B: No, not in this specific instance. Now, just to finish up that part of the discussion, I could see it being hypocritical for those who, let's say, would rail against, let's say, the use of big government. Right.
And this whole, and actually the people that may have supported him, like I'm thinking about the moms for Liberty crowd, the people that wanted to have parental rights in the schools and all that, that now they're saying, oh, well, now you're taking away the rights of parents. And that's where to me, I don't see it so much as hypocritical what he's doing now, because I look at it as we've made a decision as a society that people under 18 can't drink alcohol, they can't go get tattoos on their own, they can't buy firearms, they can't join the military, they can't drive a car under age 16. We have these limits already in place for things that we think that a child that's 1213 years old, if they start doing this while still in a child development state, they're going to harm themselves long term.
[00:21:17] Speaker A: Let me add some people to your adults.
[00:21:19] Speaker B: Let me add, let me just finish it off. Let's, let's let people become adults so that they can make those decisions a little bit with a little bit more of their own clarity and their own decision. And just to finish off just going.
[00:21:30] Speaker A: But let me say this, because there's something that will, that's important here is that you got to separate out the constitutional piece from the piece that what you're saying, because the people that are saying he's being hypocritical, they're not saying he's being unconstitutional. So what you're saying is a good point in response to anyone setting aside whether this is constitutional, just the people that are saying, hey, hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite. It's like, well, hold on. You know, like, so, but go ahead. I just wanted to make sure that.
[00:21:52] Speaker B: Yeah, and so what I look at here as it relates to other issues, like you said, that people might be thinking of bringing up now that have been done in the past, like, you know, when he's, his anti woke stuff and all that stuff, I agree with you. We shouldn't try and put this all in one big box to talk about it. And I think that that's what I meant when I said the partisanship angle of the media today and social media and all that is, it's like everybody just says, okay, that's one box over there. This guy's got this box over here, and everything they do has to be put in those boxes. And my point is really saying that what you said is very important. And I think this is where we should just look. I mean, I don't want to twist myself into a pretzel trying to make this case, but the idea that Ron DeSantis and the legislature in Florida believes that parent, parents should have rights for their kids, blah, blah, blah, and that things shouldn't be forced on kids like in school and all this. And to your point, so when there is an active use of legislature time and resources to attack and ban things like AP courses in high school that talk about the contributions of blacks, that's much different than saying we're trying to change american history or indoctrinate kids. It's saying we're going to teach american history. We're just going to include the contribution of this group of people. Right.
And it's an elective course because it's an advanced placement course. So it's not something that's forced on every kid. A parent and their child are allowed to have a conversation in their private home if the parent does not want their child taking a black history AP course that's private. The state came in and said to everyone, like me and you, your history.
We don't feel it should be included with the greater history of this state in this nation. And they did that for a fact. And anyone who wants to question that, I looked at the Florida budget for last year. It's a $15 billion budget. One of the line items that was vetoed was a $200,000 grant to educate students in Florida about the history of African Americans in the Florida music scene. Now, people could look at me and say, well, that's not something kids need to learn about and all that.
[00:24:03] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:24:04] Speaker B: I'm just saying that someone made a conscious choice on a $15 billion budget to look for these kind of items that are so small and that's an ideological play. So, yes. Does it feel weird that the government is using its power in our state in these different ways and saying it's all for parental rights and all that? Yeah, but that's where we can see some of the ideology play in. And this is where I'm trying to be disciplined and say, I see all that over there. But I can separate in my mind that shenanigans and efery with the reality that social media is hurting young kids. And if the governor is trying to do something about it, I don't have to beat them up for that. I'll beat them up for the other stuff.
[00:24:46] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, well, you gotta, that's a good way to look at it in the sense that, yeah. Like the, the question of, hey, let's try to address this. You kind of almost can't let yourself get too clouded in whether or not he was being hypocritical in order to, so we can honestly critique what he's doing now needs honest critique, not deflecting critique. You know, like, oh, this is hypocritical from where you were before. Like, so we actually need to critique what he's doing now, like the constitutionality of it, the effectiveness of it. Will this really work? Like, that's the stuff we need to be looking at now. I don't think it's, I doubt it's going to be constitutional. And so it's like, what's a waste of time? You know, it's like, let's, why don't we try, like, why don't we try to do it this way? Why don't we try to do it that way, a way that might withstand constitutional scrutiny? But to, I think that whether he's being hypocritical or not, I think it appears he's being hypocritical in the sense that he's the guy, he's the guy that got out in front all the cameras and said he was the parental rights guy. And now when it comes to this, he's taken away the parental rights for kids under 14. You know, like, so it appears he's being hypocritical. But again, whether that matters in the context of let's debate this and less critique, I talk about this a lot of time with progressive versus conservative, which getting in, setting aside the labels and whether or not people really live up to those labels anymore, particularly on the conservative side, that we need progressives to try to do things or come up with ideas, and we need conservatives to critique those ideas and say, hey, I don't know, maybe you might be going too far here and so forth. So, like, there needs to be this back and forth process. So we need kind of this. It's not really adversarial. It's just people coming from different perspectives, looking at the same issue and having different ideas based on that. And so, again, I like whether he's being hypocritical. I think he is. You know, I think it looks to me that he's being hypocritical. He's determined, in this case, parent parental rights don't, aren't as important as what he wants to do. You know, where in his other case, parental rights are, you know, like, oh, well, parents should be able to do this and that.
But again, it's very, it's a very dangerous place to go down when, as a society, we do need to have a conversation about this and, and we do need to critique what they're trying to do, honestly, so that we can try to get to a better place so the next state will try it and maybe it's a better way to do it and so forth. But, I mean, you raised something to me offline. And just in terms of, it's kind of jarring that we're talking about these two things side by side, two things being the teaching of black history and how that may make people feel, and social media, which is, like, documented to increase suicides and depression. Cause it's like, well, man, are we, are we backdoor? I mean, what do you think on this? Are we backdoor? The idea that the black history is as harmful as, or more harmful than social media to refer for the people Ron DeSantis is concerned about?
[00:27:27] Speaker B: This is interesting. Just being, you know, watching all this stuff in the last few years is like, it's interesting and as having a show with you. And I wonder how people think when they watch guys like us talk like this. Because I love America so much. I love this country, and I'm all in for it, right? But I'm realizing there's this whole other lane of culture and people that consider themselves the real Americans out there, and the rest of us are just renting this space. They don't consider us as part of the story. And that's what I mean is that, and I'm going to say this in a very serious way.
What this shows me, the hypocrisy part, to me, I don't know if it's actually, that's the right definition, but this, where this looks afoul, right from my angle, is what this has shown me, is that Governor DeSantis and others and the people that support this kind of policy and all this kind of stuff about this anti woke ism and all this, you know, us intellectual types are the ones that would sit there and say, oh, CRT has never been taught in the, you know, k through twelve. And, you know, no one is talking to, you know, k through third graders about gay stuff when he had the don't say gay Bill and Disney went nuts, you know, and what I realized is all that type of trying to bring facts and all that is obviously a waste of time. That's why hypocrisy and all these kind of talks don't work. But what it made me realize in this, when we're talking like Hussein about this one, is that no. Where Governor DeSantis and the people that support this way of thinking, they feel that the use of state power should be in protecting kids from things that would harm them in the future. And like we talked about tobacco. Right. Can't use it in Florida.
[00:29:10] Speaker A: Yeah. And that's something that a lot of people, you know, a lot of state, every state around the country agrees on. Yeah. Yeah.
[00:29:14] Speaker B: Yep. And now social media is the new one. And so what that made me think was, well, for the first time, it made me realize, well, the fact that the black history courses in our state, and I know we're focusing on the black history stuff, but we could, by extension, say certain lgbt kind of topic.
[00:29:31] Speaker A: Yeah. They don't say gay stuff.
[00:29:33] Speaker B: Yeah. Just this whole anti woke thing, which is a catch all for, you know, basically bigotry and trying to say that it's okay because we're using different words now and different slogans.
It's the first time I can really feel and realize that, wow, somebody actually treats the teaching of the contributions that people like you and I and our ancestors made in this state and in this country is just as threatening to their children as the negative effects, like you said, of social media that causes depression, anxiety, all that. And the negative effects of things like alcohol and tobacco on children.
[00:30:13] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:14] Speaker B: And that is a different conversation that we're not having in this country because we have a lot of people in this country that just want to shut that down and not talk about it. And it's just like.
[00:30:23] Speaker A: It's a great point, man. No, it's a great point because freedom of speech.
[00:30:27] Speaker B: So we'll keep talking about it.
[00:30:28] Speaker A: Well, no, but it's. So essentially, if you want to say that DeSantis isn't being hypocritical, then basically the point being would be that he, Ron DeSantis, has decided that he believes that government intervention is required to protect kids from social media and to protect kids from black history. This is like, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's where we are right now. But. Oh, go ahead.
[00:30:52] Speaker B: No, let me just get this.
[00:30:53] Speaker A: That's why I want to keep us moving. But it's.
[00:30:56] Speaker B: I just want to say, James.
[00:30:58] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:58] Speaker B: That's why I wanted to bring up that line item about that $200,000 thing in the budget about black contribution to music in Florida, because it's not the surface of that. Like, oh, I care so much about the music, but it's just like, well, what if we learned that, you know, the blues started in Tallahassee, in North Florida, and it wasn't started in Mississippi? That would be cool to learn, right? What would if we learned, you know, and it's just like, so for someone to look at a budget of 15 billion and to literally start saying, well, this 200, I bet there's so much waste in that budget that, you know, could be addressed in different ways. And that's to our point that we're talking here. That's an ideology. That's someone that's saying that. That, like we're saying that is as damaging for kids to learn that stuff. It threatens me and how I see my worldview as I find damaging what I'm hearing about social media or kids, you know, smoking marijuana under 18 in a state where it's legal for medical use. So I don't know. You know, that's pretty offensive to me.
[00:31:56] Speaker A: Well, what it is is people telling you, you know, it. That is. That's how people tell you their priorities and their beliefs.
[00:32:01] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:32:02] Speaker A: So, you know, you need to stop.
[00:32:03] Speaker B: Pretending that this isn't these people's priorities. Let's just say it. Call it for what it is. And I wish more people see it, you know? Yeah, call it.
[00:32:11] Speaker A: Call, I guess. Yeah, I guess.
[00:32:13] Speaker B: Pun intended. Yeah, there you go. There you go.
[00:32:16] Speaker A: But I mean, it's like. And again, but that is a separate conversation. And I just want to reemphasize that. Like, you can look at that and you can have that conversation, but you shouldn't let that distract you totally from the issue at hand, which is what should we do with social media for minors, you know, for kids for under 14, or if we're going to treat them under 16 different, you know, 1615 and 14 different and all that. But that's still an open question from a governance standpoint, and we need to direct it. Hit that head on, hit that directly. But on the side, we can take this as a data point also. Okay. Okay. Here's an ideology or a worldview that we're dealing with, and you can either view it as hypocritical, like, okay. Or you can say, okay, maybe it's not hypocritical. It's just this is how you see things, and this is how you see how you evaluate the threats that you think face the kids that you're concerned about. So I do want to close it up from there. We're going to end part one now, and, you know, we'll be back with part two short.
All right, for our second topic today, we're going to get into weigh in on the reaction that we saw. Firestorm, really, where President Biden issued a statement recognizing National Trans Day, which was a big deal, because this year, Easter, National Trans Day is typically, from what I understand, from what I was reading, March 31 every year, but this year, Easter fell on March 31. So it became a firestorm where a lot of people were accusing Biden of trying to replace Easter or to change Easter into something else, or it's an attack on Christianity and so forth. So it's quite, you know, quite, quite the media firestorm. A lot of people weighed in. So I wanted to get your thoughts. So what was your reaction? What did you make of the claim that Biden was trying to kind of replace Easter or undermine Easter with the trans visibility day announcement?
[00:34:03] Speaker B: I was very shocked and surprised. I didn't know that a president of the United States had the ability to change a religious holiday from the actual, like, religion. You know, like, to change something like Easter and just make it go away.
[00:34:18] Speaker A: Look, man, which is an interesting point, by the way, because that suggests that the person, that some people are looking for their president to be a religious leader as well, apparently.
[00:34:27] Speaker B: Well, hey, that's a. That's another show. I think we did that one a month ago.
[00:34:31] Speaker A: I thought we didn't want that. I thought. I thought that was fun. First amendment right there.
[00:34:35] Speaker B: We didn't plan that. But for anyone listening, go look at our archives if you want that show. But it's called God made Trump, by the way. But. But no, it's. It's. Look, I I got a lot to say on this, which we will. That's why this is a topic for our show. But I think my initial reaction is, like, I'm surprised people aren't exhausted, honestly, of just these rolling, like, kind of hysteria, like, meme. Like, I just. I started thinking about, like, doctor Seuss and the gas stoves and the transgender person with the beer can and the Taylor Swift psyop with the Super bowl and Kelsey. And it's just like, man, like, every time there's something new that is just like an absolute hysteria thing. And it's kind of like what we alluded to a little bit in the first part of today's discussion, separate topic, but just this idea of fact checking something just slowing down when you get triggered and you're all hot and just saying, let me look at this and see how accurate it is. And then the idea that just facts don't matter, right? Like all this stuff that came out Sunday about, you know, people, I'm watching other news shows where they're like, well, you know, this has been going on since 2009. And you know, because of the leap years in February and all that, this is the first time in like eleven years that Easter happens to fall on Sunday, sorry, on that day of the trans day on the 31 March. And the whole thing about the, and it's funny for me is a little bit personal because I grew up in Washington, DC and I remember doing the Easter egg roll when I was in a kid in elementary school. And I remember meeting Nancy Reagan and all that on the White House lawn. And, you know, they're talking about the Easter egg roll. And that was a big hysteria all over certain media outlets about the, you know, you can't put religious symbols on the eggs and all this. And then again, the facts come out that, oh, this has been a policy since 1978 and even a Trump administration for four years didn't have the religious things on the Easter. And it's like, it's like the debt ceiling debates. Like how did this become now a hysterical thing when this stuff is stuff that's been going on for a very long time and no one made a big deal about it? Oh, I guess until we need both to make money on entertainment now and to deflect people from other things. And I just don't, it just, I mean, to me it's hysterical.
[00:36:59] Speaker A: It just, it's wild.
[00:37:01] Speaker B: It's wild. And a month, everyone will have forgotten this. We'll be talking about something else. The other thing I'm thinking about is remember the bridge collapse in Baltimore? That feels like five years ago now. Remember that it was not a container ship that just happened to have a malfunction and hit a bridge and collapse.
[00:37:15] Speaker A: And I would spawned all these conspiracy theories.
[00:37:18] Speaker B: It was like that.
[00:37:19] Speaker A: Yeah. And it was turned, it was the.
[00:37:20] Speaker B: Immigration thing and the COVID vaccine and.
[00:37:22] Speaker A: Yeah, well, I think that's my answer. You raised the right point, but I don't think you connected the dot.
I think the exhaustion is it, it's the exhaustion. But what it is, basically, is that these things, people are exhausted, or at least the consumers of this, the people that, that do get worked up about this, they are exhausted and, but these are the things they use to reenergize them. So this will work to re energize them for a couple of days or a week or so, then they'll need something else because remember, it's the end of the world all the time. Like, it's the end of the world.
[00:37:57] Speaker B: I realize it's a dopamine hit is smack. It's like a sugar rush. And now people just need it more, you know?
[00:38:04] Speaker A: Yeah, nor, it's like, yes, adrenaline. No, you got it. Like, it's, yeah, this will fire people up for a few days and then it'll come back down and then they'll need something else. And so that is basically what we're witnessing here. And, I mean, the dishonesty struck me as well. You know, like, and just like, it's not like Biden created this, like, the, the entire basis of, it's like, hey, let's take a, but let's try, let's try to have people misunderstand this so that we can then get them worked up about it and then, yeah, get them fired up again in the direction we want to get them fired. And so that, to me, is shocking because I've told you this before. Like, to me, I'm very, once somebody tells me something and then if I find out later it wasn't true or that they were exaggerating, they lose credibility with me. I'm like, oh, well, this person, I don't trust what they're saying anymore. Like, you fool me once, you know, type of thing. But it amazes me how often that this, you have this outrage generated by dishonesty. And then we'll find out later on. Now, we won't find out in as it won't be, you know, broadcast to the same degree, but we'll find out later on, oh, this was an exaggeration or, oh, this wasn't exactly it. Or something like that. And it's like, well, and then we sign up for the same thing again where it's just like, okay, yeah, like, like you said, the whole religious symbols thing. Yeah. That's been going on for, you know, 40 years and yada, yada, yada. Like, is nobody gonna ever find out about that? That they were, that they were deceived about that and that that wasn't Biden's call or is nobody gonna find out that you know, this has been going on for years.
[00:39:34] Speaker B: Is that triggering response?
[00:39:36] Speaker A: I guess that doesn't leave time for thinking about it. I know.
[00:39:39] Speaker B: That's what I mean is that's why it's like the smack, it's the dopamine hit, and it's like.
So here's what happened to me Sunday. I'm enjoying my Easter Sunday, which is I'm not on social media, and I'm not sitting there absorbing cable news, because I don't wanna do that on Easter Sunday. And so I get a text from one of my friends who's, you know, we have a lot of fun, and he's a maga guy, right wing guy. But we're good friends for, you know, a long time, and we have a good time going back and forth, you know, one of those genuine banters. And he texts me just this thing from Twix, Twitter, x, whatever the name is now. And it's. Yeah, Twix, actually, listen, thank you.
[00:40:21] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:40:21] Speaker B: So, hey, you're the intellectual property attorney, and we need a patent that's. I'm gonna sell it to Elon Musk.
[00:40:28] Speaker A: I don't think we.
It's still a good nickname, though.
[00:40:31] Speaker B: Yeah, I'll sell it to Elon Musk for a dollar. That's it. I don't want too much money. You know, I know he's got a lot, but. No but. So on. Twix, that's our new name for it.
There was this thing about this transgender day and all this. And so, you know what the first thing I did was? Cause it kind of was sound like, really, like this is, you know, now, today I gotta hear this stuff. So I just googled it, and that's where I actually found out, oh, this is a real thing. And then I just saw the next clip next to it. Well, you know, the writing thing was. Yeah, this is just the first year it happened to fall on Easter Sunday since 2009. And I just thought, okay. And that's why it was, like, Monday. The day after is when I started to look on some stuff online. And I thought, man, this is what people were spending their whole Easter Sunday about. Like, this. Like, this is crazy.
And what's sad is I can see a lot of people I know that watch all this stuff, and they're really nice people. Like, they're actually good people. I care about them. I love them.
They get so anxious and they're worked up and they're sitting inside their homes, and it's sad. Like, they're not enjoying their family and friends.
[00:41:41] Speaker A: They're sitting there glued to this stuff, angry about.
[00:41:43] Speaker B: And it kind of reminds me of this first conversation we had on part one. Like we're saying, and we're acknowledging this stuff is bad for kids, this type of constant triggering of emotions and all this stuff. And you're right. Like, we're not respecting it, that it's also affecting us as adults.
This is so negative. And then where I see this as being different than even just a few years ago, like, this is a lot of quick, rapid change in recent years. What disappoints me is the piling on by people in leadership who know better. For real. Like, I was watching this lady, Marsha Blackburn, a senator from, from Tennessee, who's been in the Senate like ten years. Like, she knows this stuff about the Easter egg thing. She could easily be a leader in the United States as a, someone at the top political level as a us senator, and just be interviewed on those shows and say, look, I don't like Biden. I don't like liberal stuff. But hey, you know, ever since I've been in the Senate, this has been a normal thing, even through the Trump administration. Kind of tamped some of this stuff down.
[00:42:43] Speaker A: But instead, she's leaning into her supporters context. How about she get, like, she could give them context or she could try to further disturb them, but instead she's.
[00:42:51] Speaker B: Leaning into it about he's attacking Christianity. And I was like, really? Like, well, my point is, and my last joke, and I'll leave this with you because this is going to be a fun joke. So I heard someone say this.
[00:43:04] Speaker A: No.
[00:43:04] Speaker B: And so I looked it up on my calendar. Everyone can look next year because of the lunar calendar being all out of whack. I didn't believe this at first because Easter was on the 31 march.
[00:43:14] Speaker A: Yeah. The date of Easter Sunday. Based on, you know, like, yeah, the moon and everything. Like that moon size. Yeah.
[00:43:19] Speaker B: And so next year it falls on April 20, which I was just thinking, wow, that's a long way. But I looked and it's accurate. So I'm already gonna, let's have fun and start predicting the next conspiracy theories of why Easter will fall on 420. And should we be smoking weed in the parking lot at the church or afterwards when we're having Easter bunch? Because when I have Easter dinner of, with my wife and my kids, if I show up to the dinner table high, I'll have a right to. Right.
[00:43:46] Speaker A: And it's legal Christianity.
We can figure out what's going to be.
[00:43:50] Speaker B: So that's an attack on Christianity, because that's drugs. And it's, you know, so. And that's my point. I make that joke not to make fun of Christianity. So I want to be clear about that, is to make fun of the people that are constantly hysterical and being driven into these things. And I find that you must want that.
[00:44:06] Speaker A: That's my, let me say something before you go down that road, because, like, to me, it's the tax on Christianity piece is interesting. I'm not going to go too far into that. But Jesus never said anything about trans, you know, like, that's kind of to your joke. Jesus never said anything about, you know, smoking marijuana either. So, you know, it may be an attack on the way certain people want to see, you know, have, have decided to look at. But it's not some fundamental premise of Christianity that was laid down by Jesus Christ that's being attacked here. But I want to say just you pointed out the thing about Marsha Blackburn, and this is across the board, you know, for any, anyone in leadership. And it really does like the technique, the tactic that they're using is very disturbing. Instead of, as you pointed out, instead of trying to calm her people, the people that look to her for information and who trust her and trying to calm and say, hey, let me give you some perspective here. This is what's really going on. You don't need to be all up in arms about this. You know, yes, I don't like that guy. There's a lot of reasons to not like that guy. Here are those reasons. But what you're hearing now is blown out of proportion. Let me give you some context. Let me help you so that you. Let me soothe you. She doesn't do that. She does the exact opposite. And she wants to lean in. She wants to further disturb people. So in a sense, what she's doing is she's trying to make the people that trust her feel more isolated, more like she wants to isolate them from their countrymen, you know? And I'll tell you, that looks a lot like, that sounds a lot like the way abusive spouses behave. You know, where they want it. They take the spouse that's being abused, and they want, they don't want them to feel like people on the outside care, people outside of their immediate circle care, or that would, if you reach out to them, they're just gonna hit your hand. And, you know, like, it's fomenting this, this isolation in a way that you do that to people when you want to be able to manipulate them as much as you want, you know, and so it's notable to me that the leadership leans into that because that's a, that is a setup and that's a form of being able to, to manipulate with impunity because they are trying to isolate people and make them feel like anywhere else you turn, everybody else is against you, including your own countrymen. And that says a lot about that leadership. You know, the leadership of those people or the character of those people that they, that's what they want to do to the people that trust them and support them.
[00:46:28] Speaker B: You know, it's terrible when you put it that way. It's really sad. And you make a great analogy with the abusive relationship because, you know, if I can go even just 30,000ft on that one, it's really about authoritarianism. Right. This is why authoritarian.
[00:46:44] Speaker A: Everything else is scary. Turn to me and I'll protect you.
[00:46:47] Speaker B: Yeah, correct. That's why they don't like other information in. That's why, again, going back to, you know, the first amendment, right, it's, it's a blueprint of everything that an authoritarian would want to take away from a society. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, all that kind of stuff, and trying to implement a national religion, things like that. And that's also that people will fall in line and they can be more easily controlled. And I think that what we're seeing at a certain level, and this is why it's a little bit difficult to put your finger on it because you can't really see it visually. This is more of understanding humans. You know, I've read studies and heard kind of about 40% of the human population will just follow authoritarian ways.
[00:47:32] Speaker A: And something you put in the correct mindset, like, it's not hard to get them there, basically.
[00:47:37] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's a great point. I think that's what we saw in the last 100, 120 years of the experiments in different societies, like fascism, like in Mussolini's case, or the Nazism in the german case, which is charismatic leaders taking people who otherwise might not look at their fellow countrymen and other things in such a negative way, but playing the fear game at a time. There might have been, on the 1930s, there were genuine things to be upset about, like bad economies and you're coming off World War one and all that kind of stuff. Right. But then taking those and making them so hyperbolic that the only remedy is to then go and hurt other people because they're the ones causing us this.
[00:48:20] Speaker A: The remedy is to give me all the power. Then.
[00:48:25] Speaker B: I forgot about that part. But, yeah, but the point is, and this is where the, it's analogous. And this, you would just help me see something because I, what I said was, in the last few years, I've seen this getting worse at the top, meaning there's always been people in every society, and especially in a democracy like America, that has freedom of speech. We've always had people on the fringe that say stuff. Right. And crazy stuff. And, you know, in politics, those were guys that were a little bit on the fringe. And I say this out of respect because some of the things they were saying were valid, like Ron Paul or Ross Perot in our lifetime, those were the guys that were a little bit on the edge. And like I said, some of the stuff they said made sense. But some of it, when you looked at a bigger picture, it's like, okay, you know, I don't know if that's gonna really work for everybody. And so to your point, it's like since the big lie in January 6, I feel like the, the higher level political brass has also taken upon themselves to say, okay, I see this landscape here, and if I want to stay in power, I've seen what happened to the people like Aliz Cheney or someone else or Mitt Romney, people who try and stand up for the Constitution in the way that many Americans before them.
[00:49:35] Speaker A: The Jeff flake and, you know, right.
[00:49:39] Speaker B: And kind of the destruction of those type of people within the party to the point where recently when former President Trump's daughter in law takes over the RNC, I mean, these are things that don't get reported as much. He said, I don't want Romney's in this party. So it's, it's a shift that has been, that's happened. And I think you're right. From an authoritarian standpoint, the people that have remained in that party have also made a decision that they're going to play along with that. So this is not going to get any better. This is going to get worse in terms of the division and the need for that class of leader in our political discourse to try and shield their viewers from things that otherwise might have the viewers questioning their own leadership.
[00:50:24] Speaker A: Because if put differently, it requires them to remove all context because they constantly have to submit, present this other side, so to speak, as evil and an enemy in order to keep the alignment under the authoritarian type of principle and approach. Like one man can solve everything. So what's there to solve? It has to be this. You have to create the boogeyman and you have to continually build up the boogeyman. And you can't soothe people and call them and say, it's okay, things are okay. You know, we'll, you know, we'll do this, we'll do that. You know, but we don't like this. But, you know, it's, it's no big deal. You know, it has to be. Everything is the end of the world. Just briefly. Before we get out of here, though, I want to ask you, you know, like the, we've talked about this in a media context, and that may, it may come into this also, but this is political, just broadly, you know, whether political media or just politics and political leaders, this kind of outrage, do you think it's supply driven or demand driven? Like, do people demand this? And that's why then the people like, all right, well, people want it, so we'll give it to them. If we don't give it to them, then, you know, like, they'll be unhappy. Or is this something where, you know, like, more. And again, it's not going to be one or the other. It's just more. What's more prevalent here? Or is this something that if the supply wasn't always readily there, that people would kind of. People wouldn't miss it, you know, they'd be fine, they'd good about their lives?
[00:51:41] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. I don't know. At this point, I can't look back and say where it started in terms of, was it first the supply of this stuff that got people kind of hooked on the smack? Or is it that people were just demanding this and somebody in the marketplace said, hey, let me deliver what you want. I think we're too far into it, at least for me to go see and figure that out. And I don't think it matters anymore because I think it's a symbiotic loop. It's a snake eating its tail.
This doesn't end well.
[00:52:12] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:52:13] Speaker B: Yeah. Historically, this doesn't end well for societies. Right. Like, you were not going to have if this continues, and I'm not saying we're going to be Russia or North Korea because the american system will adjust to it differently. But we may not be, you know, if we keep going down this road, just the America that we had that you and I grew up in. And so it just might look different. And so I will say this. I think we're at the point to what we just been talking about, that it doesn't matter, because if I think about it, like, after the 2020 election, think about what a lot of people in Congress and the Senate were telling the media when they were asked, well, how come you didn't certify the election? Or how come there's not, they wouldn't take responsibility and say, well, because I know the election was stolen and here's the proof I have. And they wouldn't take responsibility by saying I voted to certify the election because there's no proof. And then I got to be a leader and talk to my constituents that way, even if it cost me my job. What they said was they took, the people that survived all this and are still there generally took the direction of, well, my constituents believe it. So I just have to look into it. And that's to me, the feedback loop because it's very intentional that a channel like Fox News spent all of Sunday talking about the transgender and the Easter egg stuff and not talking about other things.
And so I think it was very intentional that these channels, we learned this through things like the discovery and what came out in the Dominion lawsuit. Fox tried to be honest with its viewers after the 2020 election and start explaining and doing the things we're talking about, explaining to people, hey, you know what? This is how the election actually went Biden's way in all this. And what happened is the viewers started leaving.
[00:53:57] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:53:58] Speaker B: So the reason why they, which would.
[00:54:00] Speaker A: Suggest there's a demand, you know, or at least once you hit a certain threshold, there becomes a demand that cause that, that would suggest demand driven. I look at like, from a historical context, I look at like McCarthyism, which to me would suggest that it's supply driven because once McCarthy falls, it does. Someone immediately doesn't come and take that mantle and then become in scratch that itch in that sense, that kind of energy tamped down. And what it illustrates to me, and it's one of your truisms, you know, one of the things that I can't believe we made it through this show so far. I know you haven't said it yet. Leadership is important. You know, it seems like it's supply driven. But there is a, from a demand standpoint, there's a susceptibility that a certain percentage, and this may be that 40% of the population, but just whatever, there's a susceptibility of a large percentage of a not small number, you know, a significant number of people in a population have for this type of messaging. And once you start triggering that, once you start tickling that in that in those folks, they start demanding it more, you know, but leadership can intervene and provide context and understanding and soothe and make and soothe that people, so they're not demanding it anymore. And so it seems like what happens is, is that the supply is given, and if the supply is given in a right way, it's going to trigger the susceptibility in a large number of people, and then that's going to get the site, the loop going. So it kind of, it's both in a sense, but I think it originates with the supply because it seems like once leadership, and this requires we have two parties, so it requires leadership from both parties, decide that this isn't the way that we want to go about business, this isn't the way we're going to be able to solve our problems in the future or at best, deal with things in the present. Once leadership is able to move forward and not trigger the susceptibility in a certain number of people in the population, then it doesn't seem to really take over that. But when it, once it's triggered, it's really difficult to get out of that loop.
[00:56:01] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think that's where leadership is important. And there we go.
[00:56:05] Speaker A: All right.
[00:56:06] Speaker B: Yeah. But, and for whatever reason, you know, and this is, I don't like to sound partisan here, but the Republican Party in the last decade has chosen leaders that become more and more polarizing and behave in the way that we're talking about.
[00:56:21] Speaker A: Well, that's the cycle, though, I think, until leaders in the Republican Party, or from coming from that angle until a significant number of them together, obviously, because we see individuals can't do it, but together, try to break the feedback loop, you won't see because it was once again rolling. It keeps rolling. It's like a bolt down a hill.
[00:56:39] Speaker B: And that's why I think it's going to be the snake eating its tails is going to have to implode on itself, because if I look at it, I mean, the Democratic Party is not perfect. Right. But they have an interesting diversity with him. You got everyone from Elon Omar to Joe Manchin in the same party, and they generally don't kill each other. Right. I mean, it's the Republicans that talk about rhinos and they're not pure. They got to get out and all this stuff. And so what really hit me with what you've been saying is the need, like an authoritarian, like a bad relationship to keep, like an abusive partner. I might be beating you, I might be abusing you emotionally and all that, but if you go outside this house, it's so much worse out there.
[00:57:20] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:57:20] Speaker B: You need me I'm the only one. And, you know, some people can break out of that themselves. Other people need the support of friends and loved ones. And when I think about. And that's why I'll just finish on this, why do they need to continue to build new realities for their viewers to keep them entertained? One is, I think, a true entertainment value. Just like WWE, baby faces and heels, people want their heroes and villains. The other thing, I just started thinking about recent stuff, because you don't have anything good, really, to talk about on your own side. Because I thought think about they spent all this time Sunday on these cable networks talking about this stuff that doesn't really matter. Big picture. But what does matter is, I was thinking the last two months, we have President Trump going from selling sneakers to bibles. Last week, unholy week, that wasn't really talked about, you know, saluting the national anthem when it was being sung by criminals. I wrote that down as if something recently happened. I was thinking about last week, a lady won a congressional seat in Alabama by 25% because she ran on the IVF issue. They don't want to talk about that.
[00:58:27] Speaker A: No, that, which was a Democrat winning in a traditionally republican area.
[00:58:31] Speaker B: Yeah. Like Alabama hunts. Like, that's what I mean. It's. So the idea is that, and we know the pushback to the Dobbs decision that took away Roe versus Wade, all that, these people have policies that are very unpopular with the majority of Americans, and then they have someone who they've chosen as to lead the party that continues to look like he's spiraling emotionally out of control. Because the other thing I didn't mention.
[00:58:55] Speaker A: Is we'll go further and further into isolation as well. Like, that's kind of. And he's take the group of people further and further into isolation. Yeah.
[00:59:02] Speaker B: Yeah. And as I was gonna say, Donald Trump made 77 posts on truth Central, truth social just on Sunday, and they were all crazy, like, all caps and stuff. So in order to not let people see that, they need to keep this outrage stuff so that people keep getting glued to transgender stuff and all these things that really aren't a big percentage of this population, but they. But there's nothing else it matters to.
[00:59:26] Speaker A: Someone'S day to day life, you know, like the National Trans Day or the trans visibility day. Like, that didn't have any effect on my life yesterday, you know, or, excuse me, on Sunday. Like, it's like that. If you want to pay attention to that, you can. And if you don't, you don't like it's not something that is, it's not like, oh, yeah. It's not a bridge falling, you know, where it's like, whoa, whoa. This is, you know, or, you know, the freeway over in, you know, in California, the big sur area, that collapsing like that, something's like, hey, our roads, we all drive on roads type of thing. There are things that matter and that we should be paying attention to. But I'll say this, and I'll end with this. What it does illustrate to me is there is, I mean, human beings are different. We have, but, you know, certain people, you know, have different types of wiring, and there may be certain types of people that are wired in similar ways. And so what it illustrates to me is like, a, and you, if we don't, I say this because if you're not wired like this, you may not see it, but a lot of people are wired live and let live, and a lot of people aren't wired like that. They want to impose, you know, what, the way they want to be on everyone else. And so what this does with this, what I see this as is that, you know, Biden recognizing this day doesn't say to anyone that they can't do whatever they were going to do already anyway. If you want to go spend the day at church or if you want to do this and that, it doesn't stop you from doing that. You know, like, and so really, what it is when people say this is an attack on Christianity or anything like that, what they're saying, and this is similar to when you say, oh, well, you're going to recognize Hanukkah in addition to Christmas or, you know, different things. It's a attack on the exclusivity in our society of Easter. Like, is Easter only gonna be the only thing that's going on for everyone, or can there be other things going on? Again, it doesn't have to be what you do, but, and so certain people apparently, you know, clearly are offended by the idea that what, whatever they want to do isn't going to be the only thing that everybody does. And that's really what this, what we're seeing, this outrage is based on. Because, again, there was not, even if you're, even if you follow down the rail, the road and say, hey, yeah, biden, why did you do this on Easter? Why did you recognize this on Easter? And it's like, well, but it's still not anything that says that anybody who wanted to do, go to church or do an Easter egg hunt or do any of that stuff, they can still all do that stuff. Like, it had no bearing on that. All it was was saying, hey, there's something else going on. And hey, you know, a hat tip to them, and that's it. So if you are a live and let live person, that doesn't even trigger you or that doesn't even register as a thing to you. But if you're a person that wants to impose the way you want to live on others, then that may be the greatest offense in the world. And that's kind of how we see this interpreted sometimes.
[01:01:57] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I agree. And that's why it's the danger here is this is why they do this. They need to infuse things that are very emotional. So when you infuse religion and you say that someone is trying to change your religion or they're trying to take it away, that, I mean, that's what I mean. The ability to go from trigger and response for most people is it shortens that they can't stop in the middle.
[01:02:22] Speaker A: And say, yeah, it's like, stop and.
[01:02:24] Speaker B: Say, well, let me judge.
[01:02:26] Speaker A: This can figure out one guy really.
[01:02:28] Speaker B: Just take away a religion, you know, can it? And so, yeah, so I think that's.
[01:02:32] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[01:02:32] Speaker B: So it'll get, it's gonna get worse from here. That's my.
[01:02:35] Speaker A: But we see the cycle, though, and I think it was good to point out, like, that this, the need to constantly do this because, you know, like, otherwise, people are exhausted in dealing with this stuff all the time.
[01:02:45] Speaker B: So you got, your analogy of the abusive relationship is very good because that's why it can't go forever. Either people are gonna break out of this, or the abusive partner is going to eat the non abusive partner alive, one or the other.
[01:02:59] Speaker A: But no, we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review us, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time. I'm James Keys.
[01:03:07] Speaker B: I am Tunde O gun. Lana.
[01:03:09] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
