March 16, 2025 • 51 mins
Matt and Mike explore cognitive dissonance in political values, examining how party loyalty often overrides moral consistency, particularly regarding responses to global genocides versus performative corporate boycotts.
• Discussion of selective outrage: boycotting companies for one day while ignoring ongoing genocides
• Examination of how political tribalism leads to moral inconsistencies
• Analysis of capitalism's role in keeping citizens divided against their own interests
• Consideration of how class warfare is disguised as partisan political conflict
• Reflection on meaningful versus performative activism
• Personal safety considerations when speaking out against powerful interests
• Practical suggestions for making impact while maintaining personal wellbeing
If you'd like to be a guest speaker on the show, please contact Matt with specific ideas rather than AI-generated pitches. We always appreciate listener feedback and suggestions for future episodes!
Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
https://uppbeat.io/t/hartzmann/no-time-to-die
License code: S4CEQWLNQXVZUMU4
Artwork and logo design by Misty Rae.
Special thanks to Joanna Roux for editing help.
Special thanks to the listeners and all the wonderful people who helped listen to and provide feedback on the episode's prerelease.
Please feel free to email Matt topics or suggestions, questions or feedback.
Matt@unitedstatesofPTSD.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
This podcast is not intended to serve as therapeutic
advice or to replace anyprofessional treatment.
These opinions belong to us anddo not reflect any company or
agency.
Hello everybody and welcomeback to another episode of the
United States of PTSD.
I have Mike Thibault back withme again for this week's episode
(00:35):
.
Say hi to everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Thanks for having me back, Matt.
It's good to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Of course, glad to have you back.
I have a funny story I want toshare.
I just thought of it when I wasrebooting because we had just
tested the audio for those ofyou listening.
So I have a lemon tree in myhouse that has one lemon on it
that's been growing since May oflast year because apparently it
takes a really long time forthem to grow.
But interesting story is thatso self-pollinating for those of
(01:03):
you that have plants or tryingto get into, uh, growing plants
does not mean that theypollinate themselves without
help.
When I thought about that lateron, it kind of made sense.
But when they saidself-pollinated, I really just
assumed that they were going todo it right.
Then I was talking to somebody.
They're like no, you have toactually pollinate it on your
(01:23):
own.
So one of of the other.
I have another lemon tree andif I had about I think a
painting just fell down rightyeah, I'll fix it in a minute I
think about 10 flowers hadbloomed and I pollinated it with
a brush and now I have probablyabout 10 lemons growing on that
tree.
So valuable lesson out there,anybody?
(01:50):
if you see self-pollinating itdoes not mean they magically
self-pollinate.
Oh, that's so funny.
I know it sounds like anO'Brainer, but I certainly
didn't think of that.
So we're going to talk aboutthe last episode that we did.
We're going to talk more aboutthat the problems with
capitalism.
But the other thing I wanted totalk about was having recently
been grading a lot of papers.
I am so sick of AI usage.
(02:10):
I have to tell you it's so bad.
And even for the podcast, I getmaybe 10 emails a week, maybe
from people who want to come onthe show, but all of the emails
are written by the same AIprogram because they almost say
verbatim.
It'll say something like oh,the riveting and captivating
episode for last week withso-and-so caught my attention.
(02:31):
Then, of course, when I emailthem back and say what
specifically did the speaker saythat caught your attention, one
of them said oh sorry, I havethe flu.
I'll get back to you in a week.
It's so annoying, I don't know.
What are your thoughts on AIand the usage of it?
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I really think it's to the detriment of everybody.
I mean, I think there arecertain benefits of AI, I think
it can help with proofreading,things like that, but I mean, if
you're using it to actuallycreate your content or your
material, I mean it's only toyour detriment and then to
everybody who consumes that.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah, it's becoming a huge problem and you can't we
can't necessarily prove it.
That's the other issue.
I can tell you.
I know the difference.
I've been reading papers for 14years now and as a writer
myself, I know.
When I'm reading AI, I know it.
There are certain words thatjust you know populate among
(03:26):
these papers that people arewriting, but you can't prove it
and my concern is that it'sreally adding to dumbing down of
our population.
And then, when you look atthings like in our particular
profession, they decided topilot a program where they got
rid of the licensing exam fortwo years on top of people using
AI to graduate is reallyterrifying for our future.
(03:49):
That's my concern about that.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Yeah, I get really worried with the use of AI in
classes, specifically as astudent myself.
In general, I mean, I don'tunderstand how you're supposed
to enter the workforce and,especially in social work, do
this kind of work that is.
It's really impactful to peopleand I don't I worry for the
competence of workers in thefuture if they're using AI to
(04:12):
complete all their assignments.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
What you said earlier , and I think this is a good use
of AI.
I use AI in writing adescription for the podcast, but
I'm but I'm you, like you and Iare doing the podcast, so it's
not used as like a dictatingprocess and of course, I
proofread it afterwards.
What you had said about usingit as a way to create an outline
or to check something or tolook for references I think
(04:35):
those are all positive uses ofit, much like a calculator and
math, like using it to doublecheck your work.
But if the calculator fails,you need to know how to do the
work and I'm concerned that this.
What we are seeing, is a peoplewho fundamentally do not have
the ability to do the work, thatare not given an exam to test
them, and are now going to bepracticing.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Yeah, absolutely, and I mean I can only hope that
it's something that you knowprofessors are on top of and
catching, as it happens, and youknow responding to
appropriately.
But of course I mean that putsa lot of faith in the system.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
And it's hard to prove.
I mean otherwise than knowing,when you read it, that it's it's
fake.
I mean, you can run, you canrun a paper through three
different detectors and getthree different percentages as
to what it is.
I mean, and they theyapparently are not as accurate
as they used to be, but it's aconcern.
I never, I never thought that Iwould spend more time trying to
(05:35):
figure out if people arecheating than actually providing
quality feedback like that's,and I'm super concerned about it
.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, that's a really goodpoint too, where it's taking
away from your ability toactually reflect upon the work
that people are handing in,because ultimately, you know, I
personally find the feedbackthat I get from my professors to
be one of the most usefulthings to improving, which I
mean in general, I guess isapplicable to most things.
You know, if you don't getcriticism or feedback, how are
(06:05):
you supposed to do any better?
And if that feedback A isn'teven on your work but B is also
kind of, you know, restrained,in the sense that most of your
time has been used justdetermining if it was even their
work in the first place, I mean, it's both the professor and
the student who are at adisadvantage here by the use of
AI.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Yeah, I agree it's very alarming and I think we're
going to see it get worse andworse and worse over time.
And the other thing that'sreally difficult, too, is if
it's a well-written paper that'scompletely written by an AI.
There's a certain amount ofbeing disingenuous that goes
into giving feedback because Iknow they didn't read it I mean,
they didn't write it so butthere's nothing substantial that
(06:48):
I can say.
Okay, here is, you know, here'sfeedback, because they don't
care.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
It's really disappointing.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
It's super disappointing, but anyway,
that's not what our topic wasabout today, but I just I had to
go down that rabbit hole for asecond.
Maybe later on we'll.
We'll explore that in thefuture.
But we were going to talk aboutthe.
Was it the abandonment ofvalues for the abandonment of
personal values for a party, forparty alignment?
(07:17):
Can you?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
talk a little bit about that, mike.
Yeah, I think this is somethingthat we've seen on both sides
of the political spectrum where,especially in the past few
elections, I think, voters,individuals, have really become
staunch in their alignment withtheir party, whether that's
Democrat or Republican, speakingspecifically to America,
obviously, and I think with thatthere's been the abandonment of
(07:43):
personal morals and values thatare, you know, supposed life
and promoting well-being of allpeople.
You know, I don't know how youcan align with candidates who
(08:12):
support genocide and then, inthe same breath, have human life
be your argument for voting forthat candidate.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
I agree with you.
For people who actively listento the show, they know we talk
about the topic of genocidequite often and we certainly
have a couple of guest speakerscoming on.
They're going to talk moreabout it in the next couple of
weeks and I'm not going to stoptalking about it because we
can't stop talking about it.
I think right now it is one ofthe most pressing issues that
(08:37):
are going on, and there'smultiple genocides going on.
We have the genocide in theCongo, the Sudan, palestine, I
mean they just they keephappening and we keep, as a
country, ignoring it.
Some of us individually arelooking at it and certainly it's
impossible to put as mucheffort into every single problem
as one person.
We only have a certain amountof energy.
(08:58):
So we certainly even on thepodcast we could be talking
about the other ones, but Idon't know if I have the time to
do all of that.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
With the ability of each and every person.
I mean, everybody has their ownlives going on and is is under
immense stress right now,whether it be economically,
socially, politically, to yourown capacity, be involved to
whatever, wherever you can.
But I also, you know, I don'tmean to imply that, and so with
that too.
I also think you know itshouldn't mean to imply that,
and so with that too.
I also think you know itshouldn't be about necessarily
abandoning all of your, you know, personal responsibilities and
(09:29):
issues just to, you know,promote the, the political
causes that you're passionateabout or the social causes that
you're passionate about, but towhatever capacity you're able to
.
You know, ultimately we haveour own things going on and I
think it's important to fit inthe social, political stuff
where you can, but it doesn'thave to be your whole life
really.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
I can call myself out for saying this too, about
being busy.
I mean I am busy, but again,there's a certain amount of
privilege in also saying like Idon't have to deal with all
these issues, I'm just going todeal with the ones that are most
relevant, and we all have to befully aware of that.
That, but to your point as well, we cannot, we can't take
(10:10):
everything on, and I've seensome people right now who are
making really big mistakes wherethey're.
They are failing in the selfcare department and, you know,
based on what we do for a livingand based on just just humans
in general, we can't help takecare of somebody if we're not
taking care of ourselves.
And I've seen a few people Iknow fall into this trap where
(10:32):
they just can't get off socialmedia.
They are just fixated on it andthey're like responding to
everything and they get suckedin.
And there is no, as we talkedabout in our last episode, there
is no neutrality.
Both sides are toxic, bothsides are lying, both sides have
an agenda that they are pullingpeople in.
It's just clickbait oneverything right, like you'll
read a title of some superprovocative article, and we've
(10:57):
all been guilty of this withresponding and not really
looking the article up andseeing what the truth behind it
is.
But I just I'm seeing more andmore people fall into that trap
and they don't even realize boththe hypocrisy and the irony and
some of the stuff that they'retalking about.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
I totally agree.
I don't at all mean to say thatthat we shouldn't be involved
or that you shouldn't be payingattention, but rather that you
know, like you'd said there,there is a certain privilege to
not paying attention, but I alsothink there's a certain
privilege to having the time andthe resource to engage with
these issues.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Yeah, I was actually calling myself out.
I wasn't even in my ownnarrative.
I was like you know, if it'sreally we have to make time for,
at least I have to make timefor it in my, in my personal
life, because it is reallyimportant to me.
But you know, I don't thinkeverybody can do that oh yeah,
no, non-taken, uh.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
And then to your second point.
I I totally agree that you know, if you ultimately are not
taking care of yourself, it isreally ineffective to be engaged
with these issues.
Um, ultimately, I think it isvery like it's very easy to to
go down the rabbit hole and touh kind of spiral as you learn
more and more about these thingsand kind of get that sense of
(12:11):
hopelessness or or a sense ofinability, which I think is very
easy when you are down theholes.
Um, and you know, with that.
I think that's why a certaindistance from it is is important
, just to maintain your ownability to even engage with them
in the first place.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
And it.
Sometimes it's disappointingtoo.
So, for example, we the first,the last episode we did we did
before the February 28thblackout for purchasing stuff,
and I know Target has been ahuge target right now because of
the removal of the DEIinitiatives, and people were
(12:51):
posting all over Facebook aboutnot buying any products on that
one particular date to make astatement against Target.
When I saw it, it's all thesepeople that I'm friends with and
all these people who I thinkare well-meaning and
well-intentioned, and the firstthing I thought is you have been
silent the entire time.
(13:11):
A genocide has been going on.
None of you have said a damnword, and now, because of DEI
initiatives being rolled back,you're going to boycott target.
Now here's my problem with that.
These are also the same peoplewho are unequivocally supporting
Ukraine and putting up Ukraineflags, and I'm not not
supporting Ukraine, but I wantto point out the difference.
(13:32):
So you are supporting Ukraineand you are angry at Target for
removing DEI initiatives.
Meanwhile, you have threedifferent genocides happening in
three different countries thatyou're ignoring, and I wonder
what the difference between thepopulations of those countries
and the Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Hmm, that's a juicy one.
I have a lot I want to sayabout that.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Because it's glaringly obvious they're white
(14:17):
unwavering.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Meanwhile, to even get a mainstream media outlet to
like acknowledge that thatPalestinians are being murdered
and not just, you know, randomlykilled, is such a challenge.
And then I mean, I also want toaddress your point about the
target boycott, because I thinkit goes back into our last
episode's topic of oh gosh, whatwas the term we used?
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Selective outrage.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Selective outrage.
Yes, thank you, because I dothink that ultimately, if you
really you know, I mean if youreally mean to make an impactful
difference, then you should beboycotting these companies, like
by and large across the board,not simply for one day, and
that's something that we've beenengaging, and I know, you and
me personally and a lot ofothers uh, in terms of
(14:59):
boycotting companies who havesupported the genocide, and
that's been going on for over ayear now, unfortunately.
Um, and with that I don't meanto criticize activism, because I
mean I think it's it's a fineline between, um, the set, like
that self-righteous kind ofactivism versus really impactful
stuff.
But ultimately, I mean, ifyou're boycotting a company for
(15:21):
one day to make a statement andthen you go back the next day
and shop there again, I mean,how does that really align with
your values?
If you're saying that thiscompany isn't aligning with your
values, yeah, which isperformative.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
I mean, that's what we talked about last episode was
some.
I don't even think peoplereally understand what they're
doing right.
So if you are, I mean the point.
The reason why people areboycotting DEI is because
they're saying that the removalof it is racist and it is not
factoring in for equality anddiversity and equity.
Okay, I get that.
That makes sense.
(15:54):
But then if you're also sayingthat you are for diversity,
equity and inclusion, but thensingle-handedly ignoring
genocide not war genocidebecause the difference with
Ukraine is they have afunctioning army and the amount
of people that are dying inUkraine not that I'm justifying
anybody dying is far less thanthe people that are dying in any
(16:16):
of these genocides that aredying in ukraine.
Not that I'm justifying anybodydying is far less than the
people that are dying in any ofthese, these genocides that were
happening, that that arehappening in countries that do
not have armies, and thesecountries are black, brown and
indigenous people.
So how can you, in one breath,say you are for diversity and
equity and inclusion and thenignore the fundamental slaughter
of the same people that youwere claiming to care about?
(16:38):
And that, to me, was I wasdisgusted when I saw it actually
, because these are people thatI generally respect.
And then, and I'm thinking tomyself are you so blind that
you're drinking the Kool-Aidthat you can't even see that
exactly what you were claimingto do is exactly what you're not
doing?
And I agree with you, likeboycotting for one day, who
(17:00):
cares?
And then you know people arepatting themselves on the back
and they're like I boycottedTarget for a whole day, let's do
it for a whole month.
Really, I've been boycottingcountry companies for over a
year and those are companies I'mnever going to go back to doing
business with Never, becausethey are still funding genocide
and they don't get a pass.
I'm never going to go back tobusiness with them ever.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Yeah, I think that's very well said.
Ultimately, I think, if youractions do not align with these
broader fundamental ideologiesor values that you claim to hold
like, for example, with theTarget boycott if you're saying
that your values are alignedwith supporting DEI diversity,
equity, inclusion and you careabout these black and brown
lives, black and brownbusinesses, then how are you, in
(17:40):
the same breath, going tosupport the genocide of brown
people in the Middle East?
Because, ultimately, I thinkthe dissonance there is really
really too big to ignore.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
And when I call people out on it, they don't
even respond.
They just look at me blanklybecause I mentioned it on
Facebook, don't even respond.
They just look at me blanklybecause I mentioned it on
Facebook.
I had said can you pleaseexplain for the people who are
boycotting Target, can youplease explain to me why you are
not boycotting genocide?
And not one person responded.
Because it is such a level ofdissonance.
(18:09):
Now, I had sort of beenboycotting Target all along
because target has starbucks init, and I've boycotted starbucks
since october of last year no,the year before, right two years
now.
Yeah, it was october of theyear before, correct?
So I've been boycotting itsince then.
And because starbucks is intarget, I generally don't do a
(18:30):
lot of business with targetanyway.
So you know.
And then the other thing I'vebeen hearing and I don't know if
you've been hearing maybe wementioned this on the last
episode, I don't.
I don't remember, but I dounderstand that some level of
boycotting is privilege andpeople have said like, oh, I
can't boycott things out ofprivilege.
I get it when it comes tofundamental needs like clothing,
(18:51):
food, things that you canafford, like certainly you have
to shop within your, but youcannot tell me that boycotting
Netflix and boycotting Disneyand boycotting like all of those
other companies is a privilegebecause they're privileged to
have in the first place.
There should be no issue inboycotting any of them and I
don't want to hear anythingabout it being out of privilege.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Yeah, I'm really glad you said that, because I do
think it's important toacknowledge the fact that
boycotting certain companieslike Target, walmart, etc.
It is a privilege to an extent,especially for people who are
experiencing financial hardshipright now and really don't have
the means to shop locally or togo out of their way to shop at
businesses who are moreethically aligned with them.
But ultimately, I think a lotof people are in the position to
(19:36):
do so and ultimately, if yourboycott of those companies is
only for a day, out of your ownself-righteousness, I would
really question whether or notthat's actually an alignment of
your personal value, or if it'smore, so that you can feel good,
or if it's more you know, sothat you can feel good.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Yeah, and I often wonder the people who are being
the most loud about pattingthemselves on the back if
they're doing anything besidesthat, if they're contacting
their senators and congressmen,although we know that they don't
care, or if they're doinganything outside of just typing
oh, I didn't go to Target today.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Yeah, that's a really good point too.
Um, I mean, obviously you andme know that, unfortunately,
writing to your state reps isn'tnot, um, isn't always the most
effective thing that we have,because a lot of the times our
words do fall on deaf ears.
Uh, but with that I mean, ifyour only action is a single day
boycott, I think we can dobetter, you know, and if you
(20:35):
have the ability to engage withthat in the first place, I don't
want to be too assuming, but Imean, ultimately, I really feel
like you probably could engagewith more.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
I agree, and the divisiveness to you would you.
I know you wanted to talk aboutthe impact of capitalism and
how that certainly does benefitfrom keeping us all divided, but
what I, what I've also noticed,is and I hold, I'm certainly
going to hold the democraticparty a little bit more, I think
, responsible in this becausethey are the ones that preach
(21:03):
higher values.
So if you're preaching highervalues, you better be living up
to higher values.
But what I've noticed is thatthose they have no problem.
They have no problem being meanand divisive to anybody who
doesn't agree with them, whilethen yelling that people are not
listening to them.
And you can't do that.
(21:25):
If you want to be listened to,then you have to listen to other
people.
You can't just start callingpeople all sorts of names and
then expecting them to come toyour cause.
It doesn't work like that.
You can't call people stupidand all of you know like inbred
or whatever they're saying.
Or my thing is, how many peopleand I'm going to be honest about
(21:46):
this, I did this the first timeTrump was in office how many
people make fun of Melania basedon like what she's wearing, or
like what she's or like howshe's presenting?
So sexism is OK if it's fromthe democratic party, but if
it's the other way around, likeif they're making fun of
michelle obama for the way shelooks, it's both racist and
sexist, but it's okay for thedemocratic party to do it
(22:08):
because they're coming from adifferent place.
That, to me, is mind-numbing,which is why I think both
parties are ineffectively flawed.
If there are even two parties,because I still don't even
believe there are two parties Ithink we have one party, but I I
don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
That's the stuff that pisses me off yeah, I, I'm
really glad you said that.
Um, I think there is thiscertain moral high horse that
comes with the democratic partythat does not always align with
their action.
I think the example that youused of Melania is actually
really, really good, and I wouldlike to run with that a little
(22:45):
more, even because I've seen,just anecdotally, like on
Twitter and Instagram, you know,posts of her standing next to
Trump or not holding his hand,or maybe she has, like a face of
disdain, as it's perceived, andyou know people will say, oh,
she's so fed up with him, she'sso done, blah, blah, blah.
But she's the first lady of theUnited States.
I mean, she, she is a fullycapable, functioning person who
(23:06):
could, you know, she could leavehim at any point in time if she
wanted to, and I think it'salso womanizing to assume that
she's just like this, likenon-functioning, being, uh,
being that that isn't capable of, like acting or thinking
outside of, uh, just what herrole is in terms of her marriage
to this man, um, and I think,uh, in terms of, you know, like
(23:28):
the uh, the criticism of thephysical appearance of her as
well in a lot of cases.
I mean, that's a goodcomparison next to michelle
obama, where I think bothexamples are sexist and with
michelle Obama it is racist.
But ultimately it's okay if theDemocrats are doing it, because
they're the moral high ground.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Yeah, and another example of this that happened
since our last episode rememberwhen I was talking about Al
Green and how the articles ofimpeachment he put in or that he
was putting in, that happenedbefore the incident recently
where he got censured like ithappened like maybe a couple
days later and you know, peoplewere.
I remember people were veryupset that he was censured
because of his behavior and thencompared it to marjorie taylor
(24:06):
green and lauren bobert andtheir freaking, ridiculous
antics and kind of saying likewell, first of all, both sides
(24:38):
are wrong, they shouldn't bedoing it, right.
So but if you say that, which Idid automatically agree with,
or they're pointing out like ahypocrisy and saying like hey,
these two things can't coexist,because you can't say that you
are, that you are against racism, while ignoring racist behavior
, like you can't do that.
You can't say that you're for,you're against sexism, but then
engaging in sexist comments.
(24:58):
You can't do that.
And when you point that out topeople, it's met with hostility
and anger.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Absolutely, and I do think that that sense of
superiority does kind of put upa wall for a lot of people who
identify with the DemocraticParty, which is really
unfortunate, because I think itreally gets in the broader sense
in terms of these identitiesand really analyze what that
means and how those sharedvalues are aligning with our
(25:36):
actions, then ultimately it's ameaningless label and I don't
think that there's any value inputting up that wall and simply
standing your ground based onthe idea that you do have this
sense of superiority.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
I know you want to talk about the impact of
capitalism.
How do you think that ties intothe stuff that we're seeing?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Yeah, specifically as it applies to our party
identities.
I do think, ultimately,division is a tool of capitalism
and I think that's veryimportant to recognize.
If we don't have a unifiedworking class, a unified lower
class of people, then ourenemies are each other.
Uh and, and I really believethat we should be viewing, um,
(26:19):
our current circumstance as apeople, as a class war and not
as a party war.
Um, I really agree with youwhen you talk about how, uh, two
, the two parties are the same,they're two heads of the same
beast, excuse me, and ultimatelythey're bought out by the same
organizations like AIPAC.
And I don't think that there'sany value in us fighting against
(26:42):
each other when really we don'thave any.
We don't at this moment, wedon't have any sight of our
common interest, which is thatwe are all struggling
economically, we're allstruggling socially.
And I don't, at this moment, wedon't have any sight of our
common interests, which is thatwe are all struggling
economically, we're allstruggling socially, and I don't
think that we should becontinuing on the way we are
with this type of division andhaving that sense of superiority
or that sense of hatred towardseach other only stifles any
(27:03):
ability for us to work togethertowards a common interest.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
In terms of the capitalistic market.
Do you think it benefits, orwho does it benefit to keep us
divided?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
privileges amongst groups, whether it be racially
based, sexuality basedorientation, ability or
disability.
Society is set up to reallyhighlight those differences
(27:35):
between us and create in groupsand out groups.
The way I see it, and when youhave those formation of groups,
we have flaws or perceived flawsto look at each other by and
identify those as personaldeficit rather than structural
deficits within the way that weset up our society.
And so when we're able to lookat those deficits and point at
(27:55):
each other as the problem, thenultimately there is no unity to
work against that 1% that'sconstantly scalping our labor
and scalping the efforts that weput in every single day for
their profit.
What do you think the solutionis?
It comes down to theacknowledgement of what our
common interest is, which is, Iknow, easier said than done.
I think, with the current stateof division in this country,
(28:17):
it's a really difficult anddaunting task.
I think there has to be a lotof putting aside of that sense
of superiority between bothparties and the highlighting of
what our personal differencesare in terms of our identities
and our experiences.
I don't think that it's an easyfeat to accomplish, but I do
(28:41):
think ultimately we have torecognize our common enemy which
, in my opinion, are thesebought out politicians and
oligarchs who are continuallygetting more interfered with our
government.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Yeah, I 100% agree with you.
I just don't know how that.
I don't know how we're going tofix that.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Yeah, I think it's really.
It's hard to say without sayinganything that would get me put
on a watch list.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
But yeah, we don't want to put on the watch list,
neither one of us.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
No, probably not.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
It is really difficult to make changes,
though, when the people who makethose changes, the people who
can impact it and fix thesethings, are the same people who
are being funded by anothercountry to cause division.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Yeah, and that's that's another really good point
.
You know, I do think it has.
It has to be said that when youhave another country, a foreign
entity, who has so muchinfluence over our not only our
political ideology, but evenlaws and and I mean the policy
that we have in place of courseI am referring to Israel I mean
(29:47):
it is to me, I mean I don't, Idon't understand how people can
justify that involvement asanything other than treason or
corruption.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
I just found this out the other day that there's a
person in our government whogoes to work in it or went to
work in an IDF uniform Like Idon't even know how that is a
thing and we have sittingmembers of Congress who have
flags in their office that arenot American flags.
I don't know how we arepretending that that isn't
(30:21):
happening.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Right.
I mean, I think even more thanthat.
It's like beyond pretendingthat it isn't happening but
pretending that it's okay andthat it's completely acceptable.
I mean, we're based on thisidea of America first,
supposedly with this newadministration, and yet our
state houses are filled with theflags of a foreign nation and
our policies are fostered aroundthe promotion of that foreign
(30:44):
nation.
How can you possibly say thatyour ideology is America first,
whether or not and by the way,I'm not saying that I agree with
that ideology?
But if that's supposedly thetrack that we're heading on, the
evidence does not suggest thatwe are.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
Yeah, the same, you know, and it's interesting too,
because the same people get keepgetting reelected.
I think one of the one of thesolutions is to get rid of every
single and I've said thisbefore, I said it before the
election, I'll say it again isanybody who is an incumbent.
Get rid of them, every singleone of them, top to bottom.
(31:18):
They all need to go.
They have all failedsystematically.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Every single one of them is a failure, absolutely.
And another thing, too is, Ithink and a majority of
Americans agree with thiswhether you're Democrat or
Republican or independent termlimits need to be established,
because, ultimately, careerpoliticians are the problem, and
when you have people who are inpositions of power for extended
periods of time across theirentire life, where they have
(31:40):
immense opportunity to garnerwhether it be social power,
economic power, influence, theyhave the massive incentive to
remain in office, and so, withthat, there's no incentive to
create legislation that limitstheir ability to stay there.
So, ultimately, it's reallydifficult to accomplish that
when the people who create thesepolicies are the ones who
(32:01):
benefit from being in power.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
Yeah, and they have one goal.
That one goal is gettingreelected.
Their goal is not to actuallyfix anything If they did have
term limits or if they couldonly serve for one term because
I think there is.
I think Ireland does that.
I think it was Dublin when Iwent there they talked about it,
I think it was the mayor onlyserves like one term their
entire lifetime.
Then the focus becomes aboutmaking change.
(32:23):
It doesn't become about gettingreelected, because they know
they can't get reelected.
But we both come from stateswhere we have elected officials
that have been in office for 20plus years and continue to just
get reelected with almost nocompetition.
And if they do have competition, that competition disappears
(32:43):
pretty quickly.
The energy costs in Connecticutare like how high they are and
how shady the politics behindthat, where they're just they're
getting more and more money byrobbing or raping the
constituents of Connecticut,Cause that's what they're doing
by increasing energy costs.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
I mean they are outrageous?
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think when you haveincumbents who have the uh, not
only the like reputation aroundthem, whether that be good or
bad, but also the politicalsupport and, you know, the
alignment with other candidatesand people in power, it just
becomes so difficult to actuallypropel a candidate who could
actually do something better butalso, you know, garner the
(33:24):
amount of support needed tothrow out an incumbent.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Yeah, I mean again.
I don't know what we're goingto do about it.
Otherwise, then vote them allout, but that doesn't seem to be
working.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
No, unfortunately it does not.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
So, on a positive note, like what I know, people
keep asking what, what we can doto make changes, and I
personally think one of thethings that we can each do is
hold each other accountable.
I personally think one of thethings that we can each do is
hold each other accountable.
So if we see and not in acritical or insulting way, but
(33:58):
if we see somebody doing twodifferent things like with the
boycotts, like here we have yousaying this, but then doing that
is to just show them like hey,these two things can't coexist.
So we're never going to get outof that state of dissonance
unless we start to confront itand realize that there is this
level of dissonance going on.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Totally Absolutely.
And once we do that, I also dothink that we need to
collectively regarner ourcollective power as constituents
and as voters, as justindividuals.
In the economy, I mean,division also serves a really
good tool of kind of disruptingour ability to organize with
(34:41):
each other.
But I think we need to be outin the streets and protesting
way more.
I mean, you know, say what youwill about France, but I always
look at them as a really goodexample of people who know how
to protest.
They have one thing that doesn'tgo their way and they are out
in the streets.
Their economy is disrupteduntil they get what they want.
And obviously France is a muchsmaller country than the United
States.
But even if you look at it likestate by state, and if we were
(35:03):
all protesting our state houses,I mean there is absolutely
collective ability to disruptthese systems.
I mean there is absolutelycollective ability to disrupt
these systems and if we tookadvantage of that, we would have
so much more ability to createchange than just relying on
voting.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
I was thinking about that the other day with pilots.
You know we had the you knowthe recent plane crashes or near
crashes that we've had over thepast couple of weeks, since a
lot of jobs have been terminated.
Could you imagine how quicklythat would change if every pilot
that worked in the UnitedStates stopped flying?
Speaker 2 (35:36):
Yeah, totally, I mean , and also um, reminds me of uh,
um, the, the protests that werehappening with truckers a few
months back, where, you know,people were really, really
scared and upset becausetruckers were were protesting,
uhers were protesting for betterworking rights and that was a
major disruption to the shippingroutes all across America and
(35:57):
the price of goods all acrossAmerica.
That's a prime example of thecollective power that just one
industry has.
So imagine if multipleindustries all came crashing
down together in order to createthis pressure on the political
adversaries who oppose that sortof change, in order to create
this pressure on the politicaladversaries who oppose that sort
of change.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
I think the glaring problem that's fundamentally
built into that is that thepeople who are affected
immediately are the people whoare doing it.
So, with the truckers, or likeif pilots all did say like you
know what, we're not flyinganymore until we have better air
regulation and people workingthere to stop that stuff,
they're the ones that aren'tgetting paid, so the ceos are
not going to get the hit rightaway, and that prevents a lot of
(36:35):
people from doing it, just liketeachers or like any, or nurses
or anybody else.
I mean if they all said you knowwhat I mean, health care is a
shit show.
And if every single health careprovider said that's it done,
like we're not providing anymore care until you give us
better working conditions andyou know you pay us better and
you, you, you fund more staff.
Because the biggest issue, atleast in this, in this in the
(36:56):
states we live in, is agenciesare way understaffed because
they're underfunded and thenmistakes happen and the people
who work there are getting burntout and at the same time
claiming we have all thesewonderful services that we
really don't.
And it's not for lack of tryingbecause we know that if we did
fund them they would work,because they didn't they have in
the past.
And you know, when people aretreated well, they do their jobs
(37:20):
well.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Yeah, that is a really good point and I'm glad
you said that, because there isdefinitely a certain privilege
that comes with the ability toprotest and, you know, I think
ultimately asking people to putaside their careers and their
means of living aside in orderto promote these larger
structural societal issues, itis a big ask for a lot of people
, especially in the economicconditions that we're currently
(37:42):
in.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
And so, with that, I think you know it was a bit
privileged of me to frame itthat way, and also to your point
of yeah, and Mike, I wasn't andagain, I wasn't calling you out
on that by any means, becausewe all have great ideas and
there's certainly it could work.
It definitely could work ifeverybody was on the same page
(38:05):
about it.
I think with protests that'sreally scary for a lot of people
too, because think about thelaws that they're trying to pass
now, where you now, where youcan be expelled from college if
you're protesting, or deportedor all of these terrible things
can happen to you.
So sure you can go protest, butthen if you're going to get
arrested and then you're goingto lose your job or never be
(38:25):
able to work in the field thatyou work in, or get deported
because you're protesting it, itobviously people aren't going
to do it, no, or should they?
Because they're puttingthemselves in really dangerous
positions.
But that just goes back to ourI guess our encroaching fascism
no, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
I mean it is unfortunate because you're
absolutely right, people do haveto prioritize their self
interests at the end of the dayand and put themselves and their
families at the front line ofyou know where they, where they
decide to put their efforts.
And so I think it is.
It's a really big ask to asksomeone to go against an entire
industry, whether that be, youknow, collectively with other
(39:04):
workers or not.
I think, like you said, if thatbars them from the ability to
make ends meet or to reenterthat industry, you know, really
it's a very, very daunting andreal threat.
So I don't think that it shouldbe taken lightly and you know,
I know you don't mean to call meout, but I do think I phrased
that a bit inconsiderately.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
It's all learning.
I mean that's what we are alldoing.
It's all learning, I meanthat's what we are all doing.
You also had and I don't wantyou to talk about the details of
it at all, but I just want tokind of point out the general
theme behind it.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
You were recently in a situation and I've commended
you many times for taking astand and really being very
brave because you have butrecently, you were in a
situation where you couldn'ttake a stand on something
because if you did you wouldhave been in a lot of trouble,
and you knew that.
(39:57):
Yeah, um, I guess I don't wantto really reveal too many, I
guess I don't give away thedetails yeah, but um, uh, I was
in a situation where, um, I willjust say vaguely, in a class of
mine.
Uh, there was a situation wherethere was something glaringly
against my morals that we wereengaging with in class, but
ultimately I really did not havethe ability to speak out and
(40:20):
say anything about it.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Because it would not have been safe for you.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
No, it would not have been, it wouldn't have been
safe for my standing in myeducation, in my career track.
And you know, I think it's avery, very good example of what
you just talked about, whereit's a daunting threat that
exists with this sort of protestor protest in general.
And so with that, you know,there really is an unfortunate
(40:46):
dichotomy that exists between,you know, prioritizing yourself
versus the collective benefit ofeverybody, and it's really hard
to find that middle ground.
But I think it does come backto just that point of what your
ability and capacity is toengage with this kind of stuff,
and so to speak out where youcan protest, where you can
boycott, where you can, and, youknow, keep it consistent.
(41:08):
But if there's something thatis threatening to your
livelihood, then of course Ithink it's completely
understandable to abstain.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
Yeah, and I still think you're incredibly brave.
I just want to say that, and Ithink the reason why I'm
bringing that example up isbecause what I want everybody to
hear is that you can makechanges but also stay safe.
So you know, you don't have tomove mountains, because that may
not be possible, but if you cando small changes, that'll help
(41:41):
other people make small changes.
I mean, I know, when I startedthe podcast, when we originally
started this discussion inseason one about the genocide, I
was given warnings about nottalking about it because they
were, because people had.
You know, if you talk about it,you're going to get into a lot
of trouble.
And and I said you know what?
I don't care, I am not going tosit back and watch a genocide
and pretend it's not happening,and if I get in trouble, I get
(42:01):
in trouble, like, but I'mcertainly not going to to ignore
it.
But there are definitely certaincircumstances where I would not
.
I would do the exact same thingyou would have done, where,
like, I can't take stands oncertain things because I know
the impact will be far worse.
So you do what you do, you dowhat you can do, but then you
also say like, okay, like,here's the line.
(42:23):
I know, if I cross that line,that if I get into enough
trouble, then I'm not going tobe helping anybody.
So you have to.
It's tough, it's really, it'sreally difficult.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
Yeah, no, very well said, I mean it's.
I think it's a very difficulttask to assess that risk,
whether it's, you know, broadly,or situation by situation, to
determine what your ability is.
And with that you know, I don't.
I don't think it it's, I don'tthink it's an easy thing to
accomplish to, by and large,across the board, put your
(42:55):
entire self or livelihood orstakes at risk.
And I mean back to the point, Iguess, of just engaging in what
you can and remaining steadfastin the areas where you feel
comfortable assuming the riskthat comes with it.
But if there's situations whereyou know that risk is, you know
(43:15):
, if the deficit is tooimpactful to your life overall,
then of course you know, I don'tthink it's unreasonable to not
engage.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
If you would have ever asked me 10 years ago if I
thought it would be risky toprotest a genocide, I would have
said no.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Yeah, and that's the crazy part.
Really, I don't think we shouldbe in the situation we're in at
all.
It's it's really kind of it'sit's ghastly to think that you
know, speaking out against agenocide is something that
threatens your livelihood andthreatens the ability for you to
be in really any field, becauseit's becoming incredibly more
(43:56):
obvious that this is impactfulto really every field, no matter
what industry you're in.
Trey Lockerbie 1.0 and I knowyou talked to me about the other
day the example of you know, ifyou've ever wondered what you
would do during the Holocaust,you're doing it right now.
Speaker 1 (44:11):
Yep absolutely.
Speaker 2 (44:13):
And yeah, I think it's really, really shocking
yeah, no, it is still shockingto even even like a year and a
half later after the start ofthis, to look back and just see
how people have engaged broadlywith, with a modern day
Holocaust.
It's, it's pretty unfathomableto think that the state of our
(44:37):
country, at least, is one thataligns with it and that speaking
out against it is somethingthat threatens you.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
But that you know, if you think about it, that was
the same during the Holocausttoo.
I mean people who were peoplewere being killed, who were
fighting against it, and peopleand people.
There were some people thatwere helping in ways that were
beneficial, and then there werecertain people that were helping
in tremendous ways.
So everybody can play a role init.
It's just what your comfortlevel is, but the one thing that
(45:02):
we can't do is just becomplicit and pretend it's not
happening.
So if you even did like onething, if you even just wrote
like one email to your Senatoror your, your Congressman, or
like anybody, or like talk toone person about it, that would
still be some level of change.
It doesn't have to be beyondthat, it doesn't have to be.
You know you're marching out onthe streets, losing your job
over it, but you can't.
(45:23):
I mean you can, but I don'tknow how you live with yourself
Like I.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
I don't know how you live with yourself.
Like I, I couldn't do that, Icouldn't just pretend something
like that wasn't happening.
Yeah, absolutely.
Um, and I really liked thatpoint too, because, I mean, I
think there's a differencebetween, like that,
self-righteous activism versus,um, the the levels to it of, of,
you know, like you said, notbeing able to move mountains,
but just in conversation,expressing your support, or in
the spaces where you feelcomfortable doing so.
(45:51):
You know, I don't think thatjust because you're not making a
large scale change means it'sperformative, and so I do think
it's really important just toremain steadfast where you can
and where you feel safe to.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Yeah, the impact.
I mean I had somebody tell methe other day, in a setting you
know, they just said thank you,and I know they were saying
thank you because I was givingthem the space to talk about it
that it wasn't being addressedanywhere else, and that's
something right.
Again, it doesn't have to bethese massive things, absolutely
(46:24):
.
So, wow, that was a lot.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Yeah, was there anything we forgot to talk about
that that you wanted to add?
I don't think so, but I mean, ifwe're kind of reaching the
wrapping point, I mean I thinkI'd just like to end with with
saying that we are in a classwhere, right now, I think the
example of luigi mangione isactually, uh, still really
relevant in that where there wasa lot of bipartisan support for
this man, and I think that isbecause people recognized how he
(46:51):
you know, I mean he allegedlykilled a CEO of a major
corporation that actively causesharm to people every single day
, and I think it was amanifestation of the larger
scale issues that are happening.
And I think also the responsefrom the states, from the
government, was also reallytelling of how that threat of
(47:15):
our unison is so real to them.
Because the scrambling thathappened afterwards to create a
narrative of this man as aterrorist and to create this
idea that threatening a mega CEOis a threat to the average
person, it really it's not justa falsehood, but it's such a
(47:36):
it's very deceiving, and I thinkthat's very intentional.
So I think we need to keep inmind who our common enemy is,
which really is the 1%, thosewho hoard wealth in this country
and try our best to see acrossthe bridge to identify that
enemy.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
You know I meant to say this earlier.
The parallel between the showSquid Games and the Beast Games
just displays how muchcapitalism turns people against
each other.
So you have people with lots ofmoney using money as a way to
(48:15):
pit people against each otherand then also having a sense of
like they're getting off on it,you know, for their enjoyment.
Much like the Roman Colosseum,right Like throwing in
gladiators and like throwing in,you know, people to fight each
other for the amusement of therich people.
That's right in our face.
(48:35):
With these two shows it can'tbe any more obvious to watch
them.
You know, you see how somepeople do maintain their moral
integrity, which I think isawesome, it's great to see.
But then you see other people.
Their moral integrity is so itjust vacillates, based on their
level of power, when in realityevery single person in that that
(48:57):
was on that show could have wonsome of that money.
Do you know what I mean?
Like it's just.
It's just wild.
Speaker 2 (49:04):
Yeah, absolutely, and I think it actually reminds me
of that idea that we weretalking about in the
post-election episode, when youspoke about the idea of people
voting under duress in thiscountry.
And it's not just voting underduress but vindictive of each
(49:43):
other.
So easy, like exemplified withyou know, the squid games or Mr
Beast games.
Uh, that we.
It's so easy, when we'reunderneath that duress, to
pinpoint each other as the enemy.
When it's the stakeholders whoare our enemy, they're the ones
who are watching the show andscraping the resource off of our
backs.
So that the message is be likeFrance, right, that's be like
(50:08):
France get out in the streetsand start flipping some cars
over.
Speaker 1 (50:14):
Man.
All right, everybody.
Well, we do have.
I am working with Dr Hendel,erika from a couple of the
episodes that we did before, andthey are lining up some awesome
speakers, so I'm lookingforward to even more exciting
episodes coming up in the nearfuture.
So again, thank you forlistening.
I really appreciate everybody'ssupport and feel free to email
(50:36):
me any suggestions or ideasabout other episodes you'd like
to see, and I'm always lookingfor guest speakers who send me
emails that are not written byChatGBT.
So if you would like to be aguest speaker on the show,
certainly you can contact me.
And again, thank you so muchfor listening and thank you,
mike, for being here again.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
Thank you for having me back.
It's been a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (51:26):
Hello everybody and thank you again for listening.
This is just a reminder that nopart of this podcast can be
duplicated or copied withoutwritten consent from either
myself or Wendy.
Thank you again.
This podcast is not intended to serve as therapeutic
advice or to replace anyprofessional treatment.
These opinions belong to us anddo not reflect any company or
agency.
Hello everybody and welcomeback to another episode of the
United States of PTSD.
I have Mike Thibault back withme again for this week's episode
(00:35):
.
Say hi to everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Thanks for having me back, Matt.
It's good to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Of course, glad to have you back.
I have a funny story I want toshare.
I just thought of it when I wasrebooting because we had just
tested the audio for those ofyou listening.
So I have a lemon tree in myhouse that has one lemon on it
that's been growing since May oflast year because apparently it
takes a really long time forthem to grow.
But interesting story is thatso self-pollinating for those of
(01:03):
you that have plants or tryingto get into, uh, growing plants
does not mean that theypollinate themselves without
help.
When I thought about that lateron, it kind of made sense.
But when they saidself-pollinated, I really just
assumed that they were going todo it right.
Then I was talking to somebody.
They're like no, you have toactually pollinate it on your
(01:23):
own.
So one of of the other.
I have another lemon tree andif I had about I think a
painting just fell down rightyeah, I'll fix it in a minute I
think about 10 flowers hadbloomed and I pollinated it with
a brush and now I have probablyabout 10 lemons growing on that
tree.
So valuable lesson out there,anybody?
(01:50):
if you see self-pollinating itdoes not mean they magically
self-pollinate.
Oh, that's so funny.
I know it sounds like anO'Brainer, but I certainly
didn't think of that.
So we're going to talk aboutthe last episode that we did.
We're going to talk more aboutthat the problems with
capitalism.
But the other thing I wanted totalk about was having recently
been grading a lot of papers.
I am so sick of AI usage.
(02:10):
I have to tell you it's so bad.
And even for the podcast, I getmaybe 10 emails a week, maybe
from people who want to come onthe show, but all of the emails
are written by the same AIprogram because they almost say
verbatim.
It'll say something like oh,the riveting and captivating
episode for last week withso-and-so caught my attention.
(02:31):
Then, of course, when I emailthem back and say what
specifically did the speaker saythat caught your attention, one
of them said oh sorry, I havethe flu.
I'll get back to you in a week.
It's so annoying, I don't know.
What are your thoughts on AIand the usage of it?
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I really think it's to the detriment of everybody.
I mean, I think there arecertain benefits of AI, I think
it can help with proofreading,things like that, but I mean, if
you're using it to actuallycreate your content or your
material, I mean it's only toyour detriment and then to
everybody who consumes that.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah, it's becoming a huge problem and you can't we
can't necessarily prove it.
That's the other issue.
I can tell you.
I know the difference.
I've been reading papers for 14years now and as a writer
myself, I know.
When I'm reading AI, I know it.
There are certain words thatjust you know populate among
(03:26):
these papers that people arewriting, but you can't prove it
and my concern is that it'sreally adding to dumbing down of
our population.
And then, when you look atthings like in our particular
profession, they decided topilot a program where they got
rid of the licensing exam fortwo years on top of people using
AI to graduate is reallyterrifying for our future.
(03:49):
That's my concern about that.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Yeah, I get really worried with the use of AI in
classes, specifically as astudent myself.
In general, I mean, I don'tunderstand how you're supposed
to enter the workforce and,especially in social work, do
this kind of work that is.
It's really impactful to peopleand I don't I worry for the
competence of workers in thefuture if they're using AI to
(04:12):
complete all their assignments.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
What you said earlier , and I think this is a good use
of AI.
I use AI in writing adescription for the podcast, but
I'm but I'm you, like you and Iare doing the podcast, so it's
not used as like a dictatingprocess and of course, I
proofread it afterwards.
What you had said about usingit as a way to create an outline
or to check something or tolook for references I think
(04:35):
those are all positive uses ofit, much like a calculator and
math, like using it to doublecheck your work.
But if the calculator fails,you need to know how to do the
work and I'm concerned that this.
What we are seeing, is a peoplewho fundamentally do not have
the ability to do the work, thatare not given an exam to test
them, and are now going to bepracticing.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Yeah, absolutely, and I mean I can only hope that
it's something that you knowprofessors are on top of and
catching, as it happens, and youknow responding to
appropriately.
But of course I mean that putsa lot of faith in the system.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
And it's hard to prove.
I mean otherwise than knowing,when you read it, that it's it's
fake.
I mean, you can run, you canrun a paper through three
different detectors and getthree different percentages as
to what it is.
I mean, and they theyapparently are not as accurate
as they used to be, but it's aconcern.
I never, I never thought that Iwould spend more time trying to
(05:35):
figure out if people arecheating than actually providing
quality feedback like that's,and I'm super concerned about it
.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, that's a really goodpoint too, where it's taking
away from your ability toactually reflect upon the work
that people are handing in,because ultimately, you know, I
personally find the feedbackthat I get from my professors to
be one of the most usefulthings to improving, which I
mean in general, I guess isapplicable to most things.
You know, if you don't getcriticism or feedback, how are
(06:05):
you supposed to do any better?
And if that feedback A isn'teven on your work but B is also
kind of, you know, restrained,in the sense that most of your
time has been used justdetermining if it was even their
work in the first place, I mean, it's both the professor and
the student who are at adisadvantage here by the use of
AI.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Yeah, I agree it's very alarming and I think we're
going to see it get worse andworse and worse over time.
And the other thing that'sreally difficult, too, is if
it's a well-written paper that'scompletely written by an AI.
There's a certain amount ofbeing disingenuous that goes
into giving feedback because Iknow they didn't read it I mean,
they didn't write it so butthere's nothing substantial that
(06:48):
I can say.
Okay, here is, you know, here'sfeedback, because they don't
care.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
It's really disappointing.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
It's super disappointing, but anyway,
that's not what our topic wasabout today, but I just I had to
go down that rabbit hole for asecond.
Maybe later on we'll.
We'll explore that in thefuture.
But we were going to talk aboutthe.
Was it the abandonment ofvalues for the abandonment of
personal values for a party, forparty alignment?
(07:17):
Can you?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
talk a little bit about that, mike.
Yeah, I think this is somethingthat we've seen on both sides
of the political spectrum where,especially in the past few
elections, I think, voters,individuals, have really become
staunch in their alignment withtheir party, whether that's
Democrat or Republican, speakingspecifically to America,
obviously, and I think with thatthere's been the abandonment of
(07:43):
personal morals and values thatare, you know, supposed life
and promoting well-being of allpeople.
You know, I don't know how youcan align with candidates who
(08:12):
support genocide and then, inthe same breath, have human life
be your argument for voting forthat candidate.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
I agree with you.
For people who actively listento the show, they know we talk
about the topic of genocidequite often and we certainly
have a couple of guest speakerscoming on.
They're going to talk moreabout it in the next couple of
weeks and I'm not going to stoptalking about it because we
can't stop talking about it.
I think right now it is one ofthe most pressing issues that
(08:37):
are going on, and there'smultiple genocides going on.
We have the genocide in theCongo, the Sudan, palestine, I
mean they just they keephappening and we keep, as a
country, ignoring it.
Some of us individually arelooking at it and certainly it's
impossible to put as mucheffort into every single problem
as one person.
We only have a certain amountof energy.
(08:58):
So we certainly even on thepodcast we could be talking
about the other ones, but Idon't know if I have the time to
do all of that.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
With the ability of each and every person.
I mean, everybody has their ownlives going on and is is under
immense stress right now,whether it be economically,
socially, politically, to yourown capacity, be involved to
whatever, wherever you can.
But I also, you know, I don'tmean to imply that, and so with
that too.
I also think you know itshouldn't mean to imply that,
and so with that too.
I also think you know itshouldn't be about necessarily
abandoning all of your, you know, personal responsibilities and
(09:29):
issues just to, you know,promote the, the political
causes that you're passionateabout or the social causes that
you're passionate about, but towhatever capacity you're able to
.
You know, ultimately we haveour own things going on and I
think it's important to fit inthe social, political stuff
where you can, but it doesn'thave to be your whole life
really.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
I can call myself out for saying this too, about
being busy.
I mean I am busy, but again,there's a certain amount of
privilege in also saying like Idon't have to deal with all
these issues, I'm just going todeal with the ones that are most
relevant, and we all have to befully aware of that.
That, but to your point as well, we cannot, we can't take
(10:10):
everything on, and I've seensome people right now who are
making really big mistakes wherethey're.
They are failing in the selfcare department and, you know,
based on what we do for a livingand based on just just humans
in general, we can't help takecare of somebody if we're not
taking care of ourselves.
And I've seen a few people Iknow fall into this trap where
(10:32):
they just can't get off socialmedia.
They are just fixated on it andthey're like responding to
everything and they get suckedin.
And there is no, as we talkedabout in our last episode, there
is no neutrality.
Both sides are toxic, bothsides are lying, both sides have
an agenda that they are pullingpeople in.
It's just clickbait oneverything right, like you'll
read a title of some superprovocative article, and we've
(10:57):
all been guilty of this withresponding and not really
looking the article up andseeing what the truth behind it
is.
But I just I'm seeing more andmore people fall into that trap
and they don't even realize boththe hypocrisy and the irony and
some of the stuff that they'retalking about.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
I totally agree.
I don't at all mean to say thatthat we shouldn't be involved
or that you shouldn't be payingattention, but rather that you
know, like you'd said there,there is a certain privilege to
not paying attention, but I alsothink there's a certain
privilege to having the time andthe resource to engage with
these issues.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Yeah, I was actually calling myself out.
I wasn't even in my ownnarrative.
I was like you know, if it'sreally we have to make time for,
at least I have to make timefor it in my, in my personal
life, because it is reallyimportant to me.
But you know, I don't thinkeverybody can do that oh yeah,
no, non-taken, uh.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
And then to your second point.
I I totally agree that you know, if you ultimately are not
taking care of yourself, it isreally ineffective to be engaged
with these issues.
Um, ultimately, I think it isvery like it's very easy to to
go down the rabbit hole and touh kind of spiral as you learn
more and more about these thingsand kind of get that sense of
(12:11):
hopelessness or or a sense ofinability, which I think is very
easy when you are down theholes.
Um, and you know, with that.
I think that's why a certaindistance from it is is important
, just to maintain your ownability to even engage with them
in the first place.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
And it.
Sometimes it's disappointingtoo.
So, for example, we the first,the last episode we did we did
before the February 28thblackout for purchasing stuff,
and I know Target has been ahuge target right now because of
the removal of the DEIinitiatives, and people were
(12:51):
posting all over Facebook aboutnot buying any products on that
one particular date to make astatement against Target.
When I saw it, it's all thesepeople that I'm friends with and
all these people who I thinkare well-meaning and
well-intentioned, and the firstthing I thought is you have been
silent the entire time.
(13:11):
A genocide has been going on.
None of you have said a damnword, and now, because of DEI
initiatives being rolled back,you're going to boycott target.
Now here's my problem with that.
These are also the same peoplewho are unequivocally supporting
Ukraine and putting up Ukraineflags, and I'm not not
supporting Ukraine, but I wantto point out the difference.
(13:32):
So you are supporting Ukraineand you are angry at Target for
removing DEI initiatives.
Meanwhile, you have threedifferent genocides happening in
three different countries thatyou're ignoring, and I wonder
what the difference between thepopulations of those countries
and the Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Hmm, that's a juicy one.
I have a lot I want to sayabout that.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Because it's glaringly obvious they're white
(14:17):
unwavering.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Meanwhile, to even get a mainstream media outlet to
like acknowledge that thatPalestinians are being murdered
and not just, you know, randomlykilled, is such a challenge.
And then I mean, I also want toaddress your point about the
target boycott, because I thinkit goes back into our last
episode's topic of oh gosh, whatwas the term we used?
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Selective outrage.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Selective outrage.
Yes, thank you, because I dothink that ultimately, if you
really you know, I mean if youreally mean to make an impactful
difference, then you should beboycotting these companies, like
by and large across the board,not simply for one day, and
that's something that we've beenengaging, and I know, you and
me personally and a lot ofothers uh, in terms of
(14:59):
boycotting companies who havesupported the genocide, and
that's been going on for over ayear now, unfortunately.
Um, and with that I don't meanto criticize activism, because I
mean I think it's it's a fineline between, um, the set, like
that self-righteous kind ofactivism versus really impactful
stuff.
But ultimately, I mean, ifyou're boycotting a company for
(15:21):
one day to make a statement andthen you go back the next day
and shop there again, I mean,how does that really align with
your values?
If you're saying that thiscompany isn't aligning with your
values, yeah, which isperformative.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
I mean, that's what we talked about last episode was
some.
I don't even think peoplereally understand what they're
doing right.
So if you are, I mean the point.
The reason why people areboycotting DEI is because
they're saying that the removalof it is racist and it is not
factoring in for equality anddiversity and equity.
Okay, I get that.
That makes sense.
(15:54):
But then if you're also sayingthat you are for diversity,
equity and inclusion, but thensingle-handedly ignoring
genocide not war genocidebecause the difference with
Ukraine is they have afunctioning army and the amount
of people that are dying inUkraine not that I'm justifying
anybody dying is far less thanthe people that are dying in any
(16:16):
of these genocides that aredying in ukraine.
Not that I'm justifying anybodydying is far less than the
people that are dying in any ofthese, these genocides that were
happening, that that arehappening in countries that do
not have armies, and thesecountries are black, brown and
indigenous people.
So how can you, in one breath,say you are for diversity and
equity and inclusion and thenignore the fundamental slaughter
of the same people that youwere claiming to care about?
(16:38):
And that, to me, was I wasdisgusted when I saw it actually
, because these are people thatI generally respect.
And then, and I'm thinking tomyself are you so blind that
you're drinking the Kool-Aidthat you can't even see that
exactly what you were claimingto do is exactly what you're not
doing?
And I agree with you, likeboycotting for one day, who
(17:00):
cares?
And then you know people arepatting themselves on the back
and they're like I boycottedTarget for a whole day, let's do
it for a whole month.
Really, I've been boycottingcountry companies for over a
year and those are companies I'mnever going to go back to doing
business with Never, becausethey are still funding genocide
and they don't get a pass.
I'm never going to go back tobusiness with them ever.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Yeah, I think that's very well said.
Ultimately, I think, if youractions do not align with these
broader fundamental ideologiesor values that you claim to hold
like, for example, with theTarget boycott if you're saying
that your values are alignedwith supporting DEI diversity,
equity, inclusion and you careabout these black and brown
lives, black and brownbusinesses, then how are you, in
(17:40):
the same breath, going tosupport the genocide of brown
people in the Middle East?
Because, ultimately, I thinkthe dissonance there is really
really too big to ignore.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
And when I call people out on it, they don't
even respond.
They just look at me blanklybecause I mentioned it on
Facebook, don't even respond.
They just look at me blanklybecause I mentioned it on
Facebook.
I had said can you pleaseexplain for the people who are
boycotting Target, can youplease explain to me why you are
not boycotting genocide?
And not one person responded.
Because it is such a level ofdissonance.
(18:09):
Now, I had sort of beenboycotting Target all along
because target has starbucks init, and I've boycotted starbucks
since october of last year no,the year before, right two years
now.
Yeah, it was october of theyear before, correct?
So I've been boycotting itsince then.
And because starbucks is intarget, I generally don't do a
(18:30):
lot of business with targetanyway.
So you know.
And then the other thing I'vebeen hearing and I don't know if
you've been hearing maybe wementioned this on the last
episode, I don't.
I don't remember, but I dounderstand that some level of
boycotting is privilege andpeople have said like, oh, I
can't boycott things out ofprivilege.
I get it when it comes tofundamental needs like clothing,
(18:51):
food, things that you canafford, like certainly you have
to shop within your, but youcannot tell me that boycotting
Netflix and boycotting Disneyand boycotting like all of those
other companies is a privilegebecause they're privileged to
have in the first place.
There should be no issue inboycotting any of them and I
don't want to hear anythingabout it being out of privilege.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Yeah, I'm really glad you said that, because I do
think it's important toacknowledge the fact that
boycotting certain companieslike Target, walmart, etc.
It is a privilege to an extent,especially for people who are
experiencing financial hardshipright now and really don't have
the means to shop locally or togo out of their way to shop at
businesses who are moreethically aligned with them.
But ultimately, I think a lotof people are in the position to
(19:36):
do so and ultimately, if yourboycott of those companies is
only for a day, out of your ownself-righteousness, I would
really question whether or notthat's actually an alignment of
your personal value, or if it'smore, so that you can feel good,
or if it's more you know, sothat you can feel good.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Yeah, and I often wonder the people who are being
the most loud about pattingthemselves on the back if
they're doing anything besidesthat, if they're contacting
their senators and congressmen,although we know that they don't
care, or if they're doinganything outside of just typing
oh, I didn't go to Target today.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Yeah, that's a really good point too.
Um, I mean, obviously you andme know that, unfortunately,
writing to your state reps isn'tnot, um, isn't always the most
effective thing that we have,because a lot of the times our
words do fall on deaf ears.
Uh, but with that I mean, ifyour only action is a single day
boycott, I think we can dobetter, you know, and if you
(20:35):
have the ability to engage withthat in the first place, I don't
want to be too assuming, but Imean, ultimately, I really feel
like you probably could engagewith more.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
I agree, and the divisiveness to you would you.
I know you wanted to talk aboutthe impact of capitalism and
how that certainly does benefitfrom keeping us all divided, but
what I, what I've also noticed,is and I hold, I'm certainly
going to hold the democraticparty a little bit more, I think
, responsible in this becausethey are the ones that preach
(21:03):
higher values.
So if you're preaching highervalues, you better be living up
to higher values.
But what I've noticed is thatthose they have no problem.
They have no problem being meanand divisive to anybody who
doesn't agree with them, whilethen yelling that people are not
listening to them.
And you can't do that.
(21:25):
If you want to be listened to,then you have to listen to other
people.
You can't just start callingpeople all sorts of names and
then expecting them to come toyour cause.
It doesn't work like that.
You can't call people stupidand all of you know like inbred
or whatever they're saying.
Or my thing is, how many peopleand I'm going to be honest about
(21:46):
this, I did this the first timeTrump was in office how many
people make fun of Melania basedon like what she's wearing, or
like what she's or like howshe's presenting?
So sexism is OK if it's fromthe democratic party, but if
it's the other way around, likeif they're making fun of
michelle obama for the way shelooks, it's both racist and
sexist, but it's okay for thedemocratic party to do it
(22:08):
because they're coming from adifferent place.
That, to me, is mind-numbing,which is why I think both
parties are ineffectively flawed.
If there are even two parties,because I still don't even
believe there are two parties Ithink we have one party, but I I
don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
That's the stuff that pisses me off yeah, I, I'm
really glad you said that.
Um, I think there is thiscertain moral high horse that
comes with the democratic partythat does not always align with
their action.
I think the example that youused of Melania is actually
really, really good, and I wouldlike to run with that a little
(22:45):
more, even because I've seen,just anecdotally, like on
Twitter and Instagram, you know,posts of her standing next to
Trump or not holding his hand,or maybe she has, like a face of
disdain, as it's perceived, andyou know people will say, oh,
she's so fed up with him, she'sso done, blah, blah, blah.
But she's the first lady of theUnited States.
I mean, she, she is a fullycapable, functioning person who
(23:06):
could, you know, she could leavehim at any point in time if she
wanted to, and I think it'salso womanizing to assume that
she's just like this, likenon-functioning, being, uh,
being that that isn't capable of, like acting or thinking
outside of, uh, just what herrole is in terms of her marriage
to this man, um, and I think,uh, in terms of, you know, like
(23:28):
the uh, the criticism of thephysical appearance of her as
well in a lot of cases.
I mean, that's a goodcomparison next to michelle
obama, where I think bothexamples are sexist and with
michelle Obama it is racist.
But ultimately it's okay if theDemocrats are doing it, because
they're the moral high ground.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Yeah, and another example of this that happened
since our last episode rememberwhen I was talking about Al
Green and how the articles ofimpeachment he put in or that he
was putting in, that happenedbefore the incident recently
where he got censured like ithappened like maybe a couple
days later and you know, peoplewere.
I remember people were veryupset that he was censured
because of his behavior and thencompared it to marjorie taylor
(24:06):
green and lauren bobert andtheir freaking, ridiculous
antics and kind of saying likewell, first of all, both sides
(24:38):
are wrong, they shouldn't bedoing it, right.
So but if you say that, which Idid automatically agree with,
or they're pointing out like ahypocrisy and saying like hey,
these two things can't coexist,because you can't say that you
are, that you are against racism, while ignoring racist behavior
, like you can't do that.
You can't say that you're for,you're against sexism, but then
engaging in sexist comments.
(24:58):
You can't do that.
And when you point that out topeople, it's met with hostility
and anger.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Absolutely, and I do think that that sense of
superiority does kind of put upa wall for a lot of people who
identify with the DemocraticParty, which is really
unfortunate, because I think itreally gets in the broader sense
in terms of these identitiesand really analyze what that
means and how those sharedvalues are aligning with our
(25:36):
actions, then ultimately it's ameaningless label and I don't
think that there's any value inputting up that wall and simply
standing your ground based onthe idea that you do have this
sense of superiority.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
I know you want to talk about the impact of
capitalism.
How do you think that ties intothe stuff that we're seeing?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Yeah, specifically as it applies to our party
identities.
I do think, ultimately,division is a tool of capitalism
and I think that's veryimportant to recognize.
If we don't have a unifiedworking class, a unified lower
class of people, then ourenemies are each other.
Uh and, and I really believethat we should be viewing, um,
(26:19):
our current circumstance as apeople, as a class war and not
as a party war.
Um, I really agree with youwhen you talk about how, uh, two
, the two parties are the same,they're two heads of the same
beast, excuse me, and ultimatelythey're bought out by the same
organizations like AIPAC.
And I don't think that there'sany value in us fighting against
(26:42):
each other when really we don'thave any.
We don't at this moment, wedon't have any sight of our
common interest, which is thatwe are all struggling
economically, we're allstruggling socially.
And I don't, at this moment, wedon't have any sight of our
common interests, which is thatwe are all struggling
economically, we're allstruggling socially, and I don't
think that we should becontinuing on the way we are
with this type of division andhaving that sense of superiority
or that sense of hatred towardseach other only stifles any
(27:03):
ability for us to work togethertowards a common interest.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
In terms of the capitalistic market.
Do you think it benefits, orwho does it benefit to keep us
divided?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
privileges amongst groups, whether it be racially
based, sexuality basedorientation, ability or
disability.
Society is set up to reallyhighlight those differences
(27:35):
between us and create in groupsand out groups.
The way I see it, and when youhave those formation of groups,
we have flaws or perceived flawsto look at each other by and
identify those as personaldeficit rather than structural
deficits within the way that weset up our society.
And so when we're able to lookat those deficits and point at
(27:55):
each other as the problem, thenultimately there is no unity to
work against that 1% that'sconstantly scalping our labor
and scalping the efforts that weput in every single day for
their profit.
What do you think the solutionis?
It comes down to theacknowledgement of what our
common interest is, which is, Iknow, easier said than done.
I think, with the current stateof division in this country,
(28:17):
it's a really difficult anddaunting task.
I think there has to be a lotof putting aside of that sense
of superiority between bothparties and the highlighting of
what our personal differencesare in terms of our identities
and our experiences.
I don't think that it's an easyfeat to accomplish, but I do
(28:41):
think ultimately we have torecognize our common enemy which
, in my opinion, are thesebought out politicians and
oligarchs who are continuallygetting more interfered with our
government.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Yeah, I 100% agree with you.
I just don't know how that.
I don't know how we're going tofix that.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Yeah, I think it's really.
It's hard to say without sayinganything that would get me put
on a watch list.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
But yeah, we don't want to put on the watch list,
neither one of us.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
No, probably not.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
It is really difficult to make changes,
though, when the people who makethose changes, the people who
can impact it and fix thesethings, are the same people who
are being funded by anothercountry to cause division.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Yeah, and that's that's another really good point
.
You know, I do think it has.
It has to be said that when youhave another country, a foreign
entity, who has so muchinfluence over our not only our
political ideology, but evenlaws and and I mean the policy
that we have in place of courseI am referring to Israel I mean
(29:47):
it is to me, I mean I don't, Idon't understand how people can
justify that involvement asanything other than treason or
corruption.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
I just found this out the other day that there's a
person in our government whogoes to work in it or went to
work in an IDF uniform Like Idon't even know how that is a
thing and we have sittingmembers of Congress who have
flags in their office that arenot American flags.
I don't know how we arepretending that that isn't
(30:21):
happening.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Right.
I mean, I think even more thanthat.
It's like beyond pretendingthat it isn't happening but
pretending that it's okay andthat it's completely acceptable.
I mean, we're based on thisidea of America first,
supposedly with this newadministration, and yet our
state houses are filled with theflags of a foreign nation and
our policies are fostered aroundthe promotion of that foreign
(30:44):
nation.
How can you possibly say thatyour ideology is America first,
whether or not and by the way,I'm not saying that I agree with
that ideology?
But if that's supposedly thetrack that we're heading on, the
evidence does not suggest thatwe are.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
Yeah, the same, you know, and it's interesting too,
because the same people get keepgetting reelected.
I think one of the one of thesolutions is to get rid of every
single and I've said thisbefore, I said it before the
election, I'll say it again isanybody who is an incumbent.
Get rid of them, every singleone of them, top to bottom.
(31:18):
They all need to go.
They have all failedsystematically.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Every single one of them is a failure, absolutely.
And another thing, too is, Ithink and a majority of
Americans agree with thiswhether you're Democrat or
Republican or independent termlimits need to be established,
because, ultimately, careerpoliticians are the problem, and
when you have people who are inpositions of power for extended
periods of time across theirentire life, where they have
(31:40):
immense opportunity to garnerwhether it be social power,
economic power, influence, theyhave the massive incentive to
remain in office, and so, withthat, there's no incentive to
create legislation that limitstheir ability to stay there.
So, ultimately, it's reallydifficult to accomplish that
when the people who create thesepolicies are the ones who
(32:01):
benefit from being in power.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
Yeah, and they have one goal.
That one goal is gettingreelected.
Their goal is not to actuallyfix anything If they did have
term limits or if they couldonly serve for one term because
I think there is.
I think Ireland does that.
I think it was Dublin when Iwent there they talked about it,
I think it was the mayor onlyserves like one term their
entire lifetime.
Then the focus becomes aboutmaking change.
(32:23):
It doesn't become about gettingreelected, because they know
they can't get reelected.
But we both come from stateswhere we have elected officials
that have been in office for 20plus years and continue to just
get reelected with almost nocompetition.
And if they do have competition, that competition disappears
(32:43):
pretty quickly.
The energy costs in Connecticutare like how high they are and
how shady the politics behindthat, where they're just they're
getting more and more money byrobbing or raping the
constituents of Connecticut,Cause that's what they're doing
by increasing energy costs.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
I mean they are outrageous?
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think when you haveincumbents who have the uh, not
only the like reputation aroundthem, whether that be good or
bad, but also the politicalsupport and, you know, the
alignment with other candidatesand people in power, it just
becomes so difficult to actuallypropel a candidate who could
actually do something better butalso, you know, garner the
(33:24):
amount of support needed tothrow out an incumbent.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Yeah, I mean again.
I don't know what we're goingto do about it.
Otherwise, then vote them allout, but that doesn't seem to be
working.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
No, unfortunately it does not.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
So, on a positive note, like what I know, people
keep asking what, what we can doto make changes, and I
personally think one of thethings that we can each do is
hold each other accountable.
I personally think one of thethings that we can each do is
hold each other accountable.
So if we see and not in acritical or insulting way, but
(33:58):
if we see somebody doing twodifferent things like with the
boycotts, like here we have yousaying this, but then doing that
is to just show them like hey,these two things can't coexist.
So we're never going to get outof that state of dissonance
unless we start to confront itand realize that there is this
level of dissonance going on.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Totally Absolutely.
And once we do that, I also dothink that we need to
collectively regarner ourcollective power as constituents
and as voters, as justindividuals.
In the economy, I mean,division also serves a really
good tool of kind of disruptingour ability to organize with
(34:41):
each other.
But I think we need to be outin the streets and protesting
way more.
I mean, you know, say what youwill about France, but I always
look at them as a really goodexample of people who know how
to protest.
They have one thing that doesn'tgo their way and they are out
in the streets.
Their economy is disrupteduntil they get what they want.
And obviously France is a muchsmaller country than the United
States.
But even if you look at it likestate by state, and if we were
(35:03):
all protesting our state houses,I mean there is absolutely
collective ability to disruptthese systems.
I mean there is absolutelycollective ability to disrupt
these systems and if we tookadvantage of that, we would have
so much more ability to createchange than just relying on
voting.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
I was thinking about that the other day with pilots.
You know we had the you knowthe recent plane crashes or near
crashes that we've had over thepast couple of weeks, since a
lot of jobs have been terminated.
Could you imagine how quicklythat would change if every pilot
that worked in the UnitedStates stopped flying?
Speaker 2 (35:36):
Yeah, totally, I mean , and also um, reminds me of uh,
um, the, the protests that werehappening with truckers a few
months back, where, you know,people were really, really
scared and upset becausetruckers were were protesting,
uhers were protesting for betterworking rights and that was a
major disruption to the shippingroutes all across America and
(35:57):
the price of goods all acrossAmerica.
That's a prime example of thecollective power that just one
industry has.
So imagine if multipleindustries all came crashing
down together in order to createthis pressure on the political
adversaries who oppose that sortof change, in order to create
this pressure on the politicaladversaries who oppose that sort
of change.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
I think the glaring problem that's fundamentally
built into that is that thepeople who are affected
immediately are the people whoare doing it.
So, with the truckers, or likeif pilots all did say like you
know what, we're not flyinganymore until we have better air
regulation and people workingthere to stop that stuff,
they're the ones that aren'tgetting paid, so the ceos are
not going to get the hit rightaway, and that prevents a lot of
(36:35):
people from doing it, just liketeachers or like any, or nurses
or anybody else.
I mean if they all said you knowwhat I mean, health care is a
shit show.
And if every single health careprovider said that's it done,
like we're not providing anymore care until you give us
better working conditions andyou know you pay us better and
you, you, you fund more staff.
Because the biggest issue, atleast in this, in this in the
(36:56):
states we live in, is agenciesare way understaffed because
they're underfunded and thenmistakes happen and the people
who work there are getting burntout and at the same time
claiming we have all thesewonderful services that we
really don't.
And it's not for lack of tryingbecause we know that if we did
fund them they would work,because they didn't they have in
the past.
And you know, when people aretreated well, they do their jobs
(37:20):
well.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Yeah, that is a really good point and I'm glad
you said that, because there isdefinitely a certain privilege
that comes with the ability toprotest and, you know, I think
ultimately asking people to putaside their careers and their
means of living aside in orderto promote these larger
structural societal issues, itis a big ask for a lot of people
, especially in the economicconditions that we're currently
(37:42):
in.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
And so, with that, I think you know it was a bit
privileged of me to frame itthat way, and also to your point
of yeah, and Mike, I wasn't andagain, I wasn't calling you out
on that by any means, becausewe all have great ideas and
there's certainly it could work.
It definitely could work ifeverybody was on the same page
(38:05):
about it.
I think with protests that'sreally scary for a lot of people
too, because think about thelaws that they're trying to pass
now, where you now, where youcan be expelled from college if
you're protesting, or deportedor all of these terrible things
can happen to you.
So sure you can go protest, butthen if you're going to get
arrested and then you're goingto lose your job or never be
(38:25):
able to work in the field thatyou work in, or get deported
because you're protesting it, itobviously people aren't going
to do it, no, or should they?
Because they're puttingthemselves in really dangerous
positions.
But that just goes back to ourI guess our encroaching fascism
no, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
I mean it is unfortunate because you're
absolutely right, people do haveto prioritize their self
interests at the end of the dayand and put themselves and their
families at the front line ofyou know where they, where they
decide to put their efforts.
And so I think it is.
It's a really big ask to asksomeone to go against an entire
industry, whether that be, youknow, collectively with other
(39:04):
workers or not.
I think, like you said, if thatbars them from the ability to
make ends meet or to reenterthat industry, you know, really
it's a very, very daunting andreal threat.
So I don't think that it shouldbe taken lightly and you know,
I know you don't mean to call meout, but I do think I phrased
that a bit inconsiderately.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
It's all learning.
I mean that's what we are alldoing.
It's all learning, I meanthat's what we are all doing.
You also had and I don't wantyou to talk about the details of
it at all, but I just want tokind of point out the general
theme behind it.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
You were recently in a situation and I've commended
you many times for taking astand and really being very
brave because you have butrecently, you were in a
situation where you couldn'ttake a stand on something
because if you did you wouldhave been in a lot of trouble,
and you knew that.
(39:57):
Yeah, um, I guess I don't wantto really reveal too many, I
guess I don't give away thedetails yeah, but um, uh, I was
in a situation where, um, I willjust say vaguely, in a class of
mine.
Uh, there was a situation wherethere was something glaringly
against my morals that we wereengaging with in class, but
ultimately I really did not havethe ability to speak out and
(40:20):
say anything about it.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Because it would not have been safe for you.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
No, it would not have been, it wouldn't have been
safe for my standing in myeducation, in my career track.
And you know, I think it's avery, very good example of what
you just talked about, whereit's a daunting threat that
exists with this sort of protestor protest in general.
And so with that, you know,there really is an unfortunate
(40:46):
dichotomy that exists between,you know, prioritizing yourself
versus the collective benefit ofeverybody, and it's really hard
to find that middle ground.
But I think it does come backto just that point of what your
ability and capacity is toengage with this kind of stuff,
and so to speak out where youcan protest, where you can
boycott, where you can, and, youknow, keep it consistent.
(41:08):
But if there's something thatis threatening to your
livelihood, then of course Ithink it's completely
understandable to abstain.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
Yeah, and I still think you're incredibly brave.
I just want to say that, and Ithink the reason why I'm
bringing that example up isbecause what I want everybody to
hear is that you can makechanges but also stay safe.
So you know, you don't have tomove mountains, because that may
not be possible, but if you cando small changes, that'll help
(41:41):
other people make small changes.
I mean, I know, when I startedthe podcast, when we originally
started this discussion inseason one about the genocide, I
was given warnings about nottalking about it because they
were, because people had.
You know, if you talk about it,you're going to get into a lot
of trouble.
And and I said you know what?
I don't care, I am not going tosit back and watch a genocide
and pretend it's not happening,and if I get in trouble, I get
(42:01):
in trouble, like, but I'mcertainly not going to to ignore
it.
But there are definitely certaincircumstances where I would not
.
I would do the exact same thingyou would have done, where,
like, I can't take stands oncertain things because I know
the impact will be far worse.
So you do what you do, you dowhat you can do, but then you
also say like, okay, like,here's the line.
(42:23):
I know, if I cross that line,that if I get into enough
trouble, then I'm not going tobe helping anybody.
So you have to.
It's tough, it's really, it'sreally difficult.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
Yeah, no, very well said, I mean it's.
I think it's a very difficulttask to assess that risk,
whether it's, you know, broadly,or situation by situation, to
determine what your ability is.
And with that you know, I don't.
I don't think it it's, I don'tthink it's an easy thing to
accomplish to, by and large,across the board, put your
(42:55):
entire self or livelihood orstakes at risk.
And I mean back to the point, Iguess, of just engaging in what
you can and remaining steadfastin the areas where you feel
comfortable assuming the riskthat comes with it.
But if there's situations whereyou know that risk is, you know
(43:15):
, if the deficit is tooimpactful to your life overall,
then of course you know, I don'tthink it's unreasonable to not
engage.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
If you would have ever asked me 10 years ago if I
thought it would be risky toprotest a genocide, I would have
said no.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Yeah, and that's the crazy part.
Really, I don't think we shouldbe in the situation we're in at
all.
It's it's really kind of it'sit's ghastly to think that you
know, speaking out against agenocide is something that
threatens your livelihood andthreatens the ability for you to
be in really any field, becauseit's becoming incredibly more
(43:56):
obvious that this is impactfulto really every field, no matter
what industry you're in.
Trey Lockerbie 1.0 and I knowyou talked to me about the other
day the example of you know, ifyou've ever wondered what you
would do during the Holocaust,you're doing it right now.
Speaker 1 (44:11):
Yep absolutely.
Speaker 2 (44:13):
And yeah, I think it's really, really shocking
yeah, no, it is still shockingto even even like a year and a
half later after the start ofthis, to look back and just see
how people have engaged broadlywith, with a modern day
Holocaust.
It's, it's pretty unfathomableto think that the state of our
(44:37):
country, at least, is one thataligns with it and that speaking
out against it is somethingthat threatens you.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
But that you know, if you think about it, that was
the same during the Holocausttoo.
I mean people who were peoplewere being killed, who were
fighting against it, and peopleand people.
There were some people thatwere helping in ways that were
beneficial, and then there werecertain people that were helping
in tremendous ways.
So everybody can play a role init.
It's just what your comfortlevel is, but the one thing that
(45:02):
we can't do is just becomplicit and pretend it's not
happening.
So if you even did like onething, if you even just wrote
like one email to your Senatoror your, your Congressman, or
like anybody, or like talk toone person about it, that would
still be some level of change.
It doesn't have to be beyondthat, it doesn't have to be.
You know you're marching out onthe streets, losing your job
over it, but you can't.
(45:23):
I mean you can, but I don'tknow how you live with yourself
Like I.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
I don't know how you live with yourself.
Like I, I couldn't do that, Icouldn't just pretend something
like that wasn't happening.
Yeah, absolutely.
Um, and I really liked thatpoint too, because, I mean, I
think there's a differencebetween, like that,
self-righteous activism versus,um, the the levels to it of, of,
you know, like you said, notbeing able to move mountains,
but just in conversation,expressing your support, or in
the spaces where you feelcomfortable doing so.
(45:51):
You know, I don't think thatjust because you're not making a
large scale change means it'sperformative, and so I do think
it's really important just toremain steadfast where you can
and where you feel safe to.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Yeah, the impact.
I mean I had somebody tell methe other day, in a setting you
know, they just said thank you,and I know they were saying
thank you because I was givingthem the space to talk about it
that it wasn't being addressedanywhere else, and that's
something right.
Again, it doesn't have to bethese massive things, absolutely
(46:24):
.
So, wow, that was a lot.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Yeah, was there anything we forgot to talk about
that that you wanted to add?
I don't think so, but I mean, ifwe're kind of reaching the
wrapping point, I mean I thinkI'd just like to end with with
saying that we are in a classwhere, right now, I think the
example of luigi mangione isactually, uh, still really
relevant in that where there wasa lot of bipartisan support for
this man, and I think that isbecause people recognized how he
(46:51):
you know, I mean he allegedlykilled a CEO of a major
corporation that actively causesharm to people every single day
, and I think it was amanifestation of the larger
scale issues that are happening.
And I think also the responsefrom the states, from the
government, was also reallytelling of how that threat of
(47:15):
our unison is so real to them.
Because the scrambling thathappened afterwards to create a
narrative of this man as aterrorist and to create this
idea that threatening a mega CEOis a threat to the average
person, it really it's not justa falsehood, but it's such a
(47:36):
it's very deceiving, and I thinkthat's very intentional.
So I think we need to keep inmind who our common enemy is,
which really is the 1%, thosewho hoard wealth in this country
and try our best to see acrossthe bridge to identify that
enemy.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
You know I meant to say this earlier.
The parallel between the showSquid Games and the Beast Games
just displays how muchcapitalism turns people against
each other.
So you have people with lots ofmoney using money as a way to
(48:15):
pit people against each otherand then also having a sense of
like they're getting off on it,you know, for their enjoyment.
Much like the Roman Colosseum,right Like throwing in
gladiators and like throwing in,you know, people to fight each
other for the amusement of therich people.
That's right in our face.
(48:35):
With these two shows it can'tbe any more obvious to watch
them.
You know, you see how somepeople do maintain their moral
integrity, which I think isawesome, it's great to see.
But then you see other people.
Their moral integrity is so itjust vacillates, based on their
level of power, when in realityevery single person in that that
(48:57):
was on that show could have wonsome of that money.
Do you know what I mean?
Like it's just.
It's just wild.
Speaker 2 (49:04):
Yeah, absolutely, and I think it actually reminds me
of that idea that we weretalking about in the
post-election episode, when youspoke about the idea of people
voting under duress in thiscountry.
And it's not just voting underduress but vindictive of each
(49:43):
other.
So easy, like exemplified withyou know, the squid games or Mr
Beast games.
Uh, that we.
It's so easy, when we'reunderneath that duress, to
pinpoint each other as the enemy.
When it's the stakeholders whoare our enemy, they're the ones
who are watching the show andscraping the resource off of our
backs.
So that the message is be likeFrance, right, that's be like
(50:08):
France get out in the streetsand start flipping some cars
over.
Speaker 1 (50:14):
Man.
All right, everybody.
Well, we do have.
I am working with Dr Hendel,erika from a couple of the
episodes that we did before, andthey are lining up some awesome
speakers, so I'm lookingforward to even more exciting
episodes coming up in the nearfuture.
So again, thank you forlistening.
I really appreciate everybody'ssupport and feel free to email
(50:36):
me any suggestions or ideasabout other episodes you'd like
to see, and I'm always lookingfor guest speakers who send me
emails that are not written byChatGBT.
So if you would like to be aguest speaker on the show,
certainly you can contact me.
And again, thank you so muchfor listening and thank you,
mike, for being here again.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
Thank you for having me back.
It's been a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (51:26):
Hello everybody and thank you again for listening.
This is just a reminder that nopart of this podcast can be
duplicated or copied withoutwritten consent from either
myself or Wendy.
Thank you again.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.