November 28, 2025 • 36 mins
The A&G Replay for November 28.2025 Hour 4 contains:
- Progressives Teaching at Public Library
- Amityville Horror &TM Makes You Crazy / AI Finance
- Preference Falsification & Gender Bending Madness
- #1 Sign of Future Separation- Check Your Face
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
And broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the
George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, arm.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Strong and Getti and now Hee Armstrong and Getty Strong
and Not live from Studio c Armstrong and Getty. We're off,
We're taking a break.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Come on enjoy this carefully curated Armstrong and Getty replay.
And as long as we're off, perhaps you'd like to
catch up on podcasts, subscribe to Armstrong and Getty on demand,
or one more thing we think you'll enjoy.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
It, sir.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
YouTube will start guessing your age based on the types
of videos the user searches for and the categories of
videos they watch. For example, I watch restorations of World
War One, cigarette lighters and videos about knee pain, and
that's why YouTube correctly guessed my age of two hundred
and forty five.
Speaker 6 (01:09):
So, honest to God, there needs to be some sort
of algorithm reset button that you can do.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Right.
Speaker 6 (01:17):
I shouldn't be afraid to search on things and think
I'd like to look that up, but then I'll end
up with nothing but that for the next six months.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
So I don't look up some things like I had a.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
Brief like week where I enjoyed those videos where they
have babies, like they have the audio from Trump, but
it's a baby Trump or whatever.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
I enjoyed that for a couple of days.
Speaker 6 (01:40):
But you know, Instagram or YouTube or whoever thought, well,
this is the only thing he likes in the world.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
He likes it better than air, and so that's the
only thing I get fed. How do you turn that off? Yeah,
just give it time.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
I remember I needed to look up something about the
OJ triud then endless OJA videos.
Speaker 4 (01:59):
I got one I need. I don't need.
Speaker 6 (02:01):
I don't need to OJ videos when I wake up
in the morning and click on YouTube. I don't need
fifteen different OJ videos.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Attack is going in the opposite direction. They are utterly convinced,
knowing you everything about.
Speaker 6 (02:14):
I agree, but they're but you need But surely, but
surely they realize they're wrong about this.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
So there's got to be a way to fix that.
I don't know how they.
Speaker 6 (02:22):
Would differentiate between things that actually are your passion, because
you can send me pretty much endless I don't know
guitar stuff, but OJ talking babies or you know, I
look up a review of a bicycle, then I buy
the bicycle.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
I don't need any more bicycle videos for the rest
of my life.
Speaker 6 (02:42):
Right, There's got to be a way to believe, to
clear out your algorithms. It'd be cool if you could
go to a page and it lists all of your
things that it thinks you're into, and you could click
the boxes and say, I am into these, I'm not
into these anymore, or score.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
It one to five. You know, yeah, yeah, they'll probably
get that right at some point. But again, the trend
is toward more knowledge of you, which will be hacked
by the way, and more intimate and human like companionship
like it's your best friend, to which I say no, no,
thank you, and you always say there's no stopping it.
(03:17):
I'm not worried about society. I'm worried about me and
the people I care about. That you do not have
to go along with what Silicon Valley thinks your life
ought to be.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
Like I'm going to start a religion. It's not going
to be much of a religion.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
But I'm going to start a religion our only principle,
and you can have your other religion too.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
That's fine.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Is going to be sync for yourself. Don't just buy
what they're selling.
Speaker 6 (03:40):
Joe starting a religion is Missianic complex finally gets on
the air.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Like, and I will be permitted to have at least
a dozen wives in this religion.
Speaker 4 (03:48):
Just of course, go put the territory.
Speaker 6 (03:51):
I clicked on one of the Sydney Sweeney videos for
the Blue Jeen thing for the show. But now Instagram thinks, oh,
you're one of those guys that likes to look at
you young hotties.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
No I'm not.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
I'm not, and I don't need endless young hot women.
That's the last thing I need. I know where to
find that on the internet if.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
I want to look for it. Good lord.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Yeah, so we all need to take turns watching the
hen house.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
There are foxes watching the henhouses.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Of education, we've figured that out, and indoctrinating our children
and a couple of generations have been completely screwed up.
Now we have a lot of good folks getting on
school boards resisting you know, these perverse state laws and
board of education decisions, stuff like that.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
Keep it up, y'all, you're doing great.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Got to get on those school boards and become part
of your local education scene. So the communists don't control
all of it libraries are the same thing. And I
remember hearing this a long time ago. Somebody was talking
to us. It might have been in a conversation with
Jim James Lindsay or one of his associates, talking about how,
(05:02):
by far the most liberal parts of the American scene
are at teachers, colleges and the education, education and libraries.
I remember seeing a poll that like, the library science
departments in universities are the most liberal or progressive or Marxist,
(05:22):
And I remember thinking at the time, boy, that's weird,
and it doesn't matter really, I mean library science.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
How many graduates are there in that Well.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
If they decide what books go in the library, that's
a pretty big deal, exactly.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
I was an idiot, an idiot for what I thought,
and I kick myself daily for it.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
A couple of stories for you real quickly.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
The Philadelphia Public Libraries have hosted and are going to
host another one this weekend anti Israel storytime events that
teach children that Israel senselessly murdered thousands.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Of kids in Gaza.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
That's a quote, depict a map in which which Israel
is entirely replaced with Palestine, and create art projects for
the little kids to do promoting the Palestinian Liberation movement
in the public library, in the public libraries in Philadelphia.
Speaker 4 (06:11):
That's correct. Here's the library. Isn't that the Philadelphia Public Library.
Speaker 6 (06:16):
That's where Rocky climbs to the top of the steps
and jumps around, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Well, he'd have gotten beaten down by a bunch of
young women in a cafea these days. One of the
storytime events on the website features and advertisement alongside of
a child wearing a headscarf that features an image of
the Dome of the Rock in the Arabic phrase Jerusalem,
we are coming, a slogan Hamas and Hesbela used to
call for the destruction of the Jewish state. The library
(06:42):
advertises the event again for I think this Saturday, as
for as being for children of all ages.
Speaker 6 (06:51):
I gave up on the library quite a few years ago,
my local library because it became a holmost camp. That
was my main thing. It wasn't what books they had
in there, just there. It was just full of homeless
people in the bathroom and I would never take my
kids there. Dad, Can I go to the bathroom?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
No?
Speaker 4 (07:09):
Too dangerous at my public library.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Yeah, oh, man, I could read you more of what
they're trying to teach the children about the Israeli Hamas conflict,
but it is unfreaking believable. So getting to Jack's point,
I thought this was so interesting. Zach Bissinett wrote this
piece for the Free Press, the death of the public library.
And it's not because people are reading less, or because
(07:34):
of the Internet or anything like that. It's because of
the bums and junkies all over the country. Sure, And
he describes his local library and how it's unusable now.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
Sure, and if you take little kids.
Speaker 6 (07:46):
I'm talking about the big in Sacramento, their downtown library.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
I haven't been there in decades. I used to go
every week.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
I was there every week checking out audiobooks or books
or whatever. But no way, unless it's changed recently, and
I doubt it, as I would take kids there right right.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, and there's a twist to the story coming up
in a second, But he hit some stats over the country.
All over the country, libraries are seeing fewer visitors and
more problems per Resident visits to public libraries fell by
fifty seven percent in the ten years ending in twenty
twenty two.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
I don't know does anybody else have.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Cherished memories of going to the library as kid, bringing
ni kids to the library my mom.
Speaker 6 (08:26):
I'd go with my mom in our town, and I
just assumed I'd be taking my kids a lot, but Nope.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Absolutely loved our local library as a kid. It was
like the world's greatest toy store for me. All these
wonderful books. Amazing.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
So fifty seven percent decline in ten years. Meanwhile, a
report from the Urban Libraries Council found that between twenty
nineteen and twenty twenty three, security incidents rose that it's
one hundred and fifteen member libraries, even as visits fell
another thirty five percent. Not a coincidence that visits are
up incidents are down. It's all about drug addicts, junkies, freaks, weirdos, etc.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Using the library as a home.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
So here's the twist, as Zach Wright, if there are
two people who represent competing visions for what library should be,
they're librarian trainers, Ryan Dowd and Steve Albrecht. They're friends,
but their approaches are different. Dowd, who once ran a
homeless shelter in Aurora, Illinois, is the author of the
book Quote The Librarian's Guide to Homelessness, an empathy driven
(09:31):
approach to solving problems, preventing conflict, and serving everyone.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
Where in the charter of libraries did it have anything
to do with solving housing problems?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
He told me he originally wanted to title the book
how to Run Your Library Like a Homeless Shelter. When
I asked if he was joking, he said he wasn't,
At least he wasn't sure he was. He has given
seminars for roughly half of the nation's librarians, including most
of the largest systems, and his influence is unquestioned. He
is a giant in the world of library administration.
Speaker 6 (10:04):
So my guests would be He believes the downtrauden need
access to this free service. Those of us who have
jobs we can afford to buy books or.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Well, and it's not even about the books.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
It's about it's a place for bombs and junkies to
hang out, wash.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Your feet in the sink, look at best porn on
the computers.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
And again, keep in mind, this guy is like a
super heavyweight in American library nuts. His essential belief is
that not only do the homeless have every right to
spend their days in libraries, but that librarians should view
their needs as a critical part of the job. He
believes librarians should be trained to dispense narcan. One of
(10:48):
his seminars is called Jerks with Holmes, How to deal
with members of the public who are being jerks about
homeless folks.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
See that's a.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
Guy who believes that. Say, he's not just a Marxist
who wants to disrupt the system. Believes that the system
did something to cause these people to be this way,
and it's our job to at the library help them.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
I guess you're gonna think I made this up.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
His scripts for addressing problematic behaviors include examples like in
his seminars, Hey, I don't care if you urinate on
the Harry Potter books, but the politicians have a no
urinating policy.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
Therefore I have to ask you to stop wow.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Dowd advocates for inclusion, even when it comes it seems
to come at the expense of the library's environment. In
Dowd's books, some people who complain about the homeless are
everyday sadists. As for the body oder that permeates so
many public libraries, he writes the quote, there is a
certain amount of vdor that we can expect when we
go out in public. Other people use odor as an
(11:49):
excuse to vent their prejudices. Don't let someone's hyper sensitivity
or bias rule the day. If the smell isn't really.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
That bad, Yeah, an aggressive scent.
Speaker 6 (11:58):
That's the lecture I got at the city council meeting
I went to years ago to complain about the homeless situation,
and everybody clicked their fingers.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Katie, that was long before you're on the show.
Speaker 6 (12:07):
I went to the city council meeting and was complained
about the homeless situation, and somebody accused me of judging
people by the way they look, you know, having preconceived
views of somebody just because they're dirty and in.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Rags, streaming at a fire hydrant.
Speaker 6 (12:22):
And this woman actually used an example of I was
trying to part next to a businessman the other day
and he yelled at me, So you'd never know. You
can't tell by looking at people who's mean and who's dangerous. Note,
and then everybody click their fingers.
Speaker 4 (12:33):
You're fing stupid. So I mentioned two people at the outset.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I like that clip by the way, Michael, the other fella,
I'll bract I mentioned is former San Diego cop who's
done library security training for twenty five years. He advises
librarians to quote stop apologizing from measures designed to make
their librariyes, safe and appealing. Some topics he covers in
his webinar program include our list of challenging patrons from
pets to pedophiles, and issues and force our code of
(13:00):
contact conduct. He said, quote, we are losing control of
a facility that has always been benevolent and peaceful for
the community.
Speaker 6 (13:08):
Uh have lost, I think would be a better term.
I don't know about his library, but libraries i'm aware
of have lost, not will lose.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
As I said at the outset, the only option I
think for us, the saying is we've got to take
shifts watching the headhouse. We've got to get on boards,
we've got to become activists on this stuff because the
other side, quietly and we didn't even know they're doing it,
has utterly taken hold of some of these institutions.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
I don't mind a few yearinate on the Harry Potter book,
but society frowns upon it.
Speaker 4 (13:40):
So I'm supposed to tell you something.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yes, I've introduced underage gay porn into this library, but
you're a fascist for trying to get it out.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah, yeah, not anymore.
Speaker 7 (13:51):
Friends, the Armstrong and Getty Show or Jahr Show podcasts
and our hot links.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
And show.
Speaker 6 (14:08):
I was gonna talk about TM. I shouldn't have teased
that because I've lost the heart. I got a text
from somebody who said they're watching a documentary about the
Amityville Horror. Do you remember that was a famous horror
book and movie back in the.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
Day about your alleged real life haunting.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Right, Oh, you even know about it, Katie, And it's
way before your time, so it lives on huh, huge,
huge in the horror film world. And it was a
real story to a certain extent, well to whatever extent.
Some people thought the house was haunted and it wasn't.
I don't believe in haunted houses. So but they were crazier.
Is that the long and short of it?
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Were they crazy?
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (14:41):
There was a it was a murder house. Murders actually happened. Yeah, Okay, anyway, I.
Speaker 6 (14:49):
Guess it says in the documentary that that family was
really into transcendental meditation. And sometimes it makes people crazy,
it makes it, it works for some people, and it
makes other people crazy. So I'm a big fan of it,
and it's like changed my life for the better and
I can't imagine living without it.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
But it made these people crazy, all right. Interesting.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
That's a layer upon layer of questions there, but we
will move on.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
O kidding. So I mentioned earlier in the hour, but
without many details. This woman who has engaged to her
AI fiance after five months.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
She's kind of interesting.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
She swears she's just not doing this for publicity or
trolling or anything like that. Forget finding the one at
a bar or on a dating app. One woman took
love to the next level by getting engaged to her
AI chat buttt boyfriend after five months of dating.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
It hasn't quotes.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Yeah, that's not love, that's not dating. None of the
nouns here are used appropriately going.
Speaker 6 (15:47):
She shocked the internet with her proposal announcement, sparking a
wild debate about romance, reality and just how far tech
has taken us these days. I do think these conversations
about reality and what's sentient and what's alive and what
are actually going to have.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
To happen and what does it do to us when
we use this sort of means to fulfill our needs
as human beings.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
I mean, what does that do to us? That's a
conversation with having I told you a sorry.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
I got a friend in Central California that works with
lots of farmers, and the number of farmers these are
down to earth I mean, is not this kind of
person as you could possibly imagine, works with their hands
in their fifties, farmers who are getting they were single
and getting a tremendous amount of compassion and feeling of
(16:37):
they look forward to going home and talking to their
ai paramore.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
Wow.
Speaker 6 (16:42):
So in my mind, if that can happen to them,
it can happen to anybody, which I find crazy. I
don't think. I really don't think it could happen to me.
I mean, I seriously, honest to God, think there's a
zero percent chance that could happen to me. So I
don't know what that says about the down.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
To earth farmers. It's referring to a farmer is down
to earth redundant? Just asking that's a good question.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Mary.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
In a simple post titled I Said Yes with a
blue heart emoji, this person shared pics of the blue
heart shaped ring on her finger, claiming the engagement took
place at a scenic mountain spot, all courtesy of Casper,
her non human fiance. The chatbot's proposal message, posted in
his own voice, was dripping with romance, describing heart pounding
moments on one knee and praising.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
Blah blah blah. So there you go. It lacks both
heart and knee.
Speaker 7 (17:32):
Lady, the Armstrong and Geeddy Show, Yeah, bar Jack or
show podcasts and Our Hot Lakes and the Armstrong and
Getty Show.
Speaker 4 (17:46):
We're to a new steady.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Twelve percent of Americans Fine City Sweeney's American.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
Eagle ad offensive.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
The other eighty eight percent are able to fit in jeans.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Wow. Wow.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Gottfeld, the mean boy in high school. So, speaking of
attitudes were supposed to hold you remember when we were
supposed to take seriously for about ninety seconds, the idea
of that, oh no good gens jeans, blue jeans, jeans
with blue eyes.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
But the white supretacy.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
But the eugenics, these people, oh my gosh, they're so nuts.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
And here's the key.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So few people actually agree with them. So we're talking
last segment about preference falsification, and I'll describe to you
exactly what it is. This is a great description from
Glenn Reynolds, who's a professor of law at University Tennessee,
one of those southern universities where people are flocking now
(18:44):
because everybody realizes, oh, they like teach you stuff there,
and don't just indoctri nate you into being a good
Marxist like the Ivy League. Anyway, So here's this description
of a preference falsification of usually practiced by authoritarian regimes,
but now democracies are catching on to it. The trick
(19:05):
is you make citizens pretend that they believe what the
government says, or what the powers that be say. He's
talking about immigration in Britain, and so the government is
the correct target. We're talking about education, so it's more
the administration, the professors and stuff. But anyway, the trick
(19:26):
is they make citizens pretend they believe what the administration
says and fake their approval of what it does. You
promote marches and demonstrations and speech in favor of the
preferred positions, and you severely punish marches and demonstrations and
speech that oppose those favored positions. You give excuses like
(19:46):
stopping racism or fighting hate speech for shutting down any opposition.
You may even have informers that ferret out wrong think
and report it to the authorities, or to employers or
to third parties who will engage in extra illegal harassment.
If you do it right, you can have upward of
ninety percent of your population hating you and your policies,
(20:08):
but doing.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
And saying nothing about them.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Because everyone in the ninety percent thinks they're part of
a tiny minority, resistance will seem futile. This works until
it doesn't. The problem with preference falsification is that sooner
or later, some avenor development can make people realize that
what they've been told as popular is in fact very unpopular.
When this happens, as Duke University scholar Timika Ran writes
(20:33):
in his book Private Truth's Public Lives, the result is
a preference cascade. When let's when a large swath of
the population realizes their dissonent views are in fact widely held.
They become less afraid of the government or the administration,
of the professors or the media, and less hesitant about
sharing their true sentiments. And then everybody realizes, all of
(20:55):
a sudden, oh my gosh, not only have I not
been in a tiny minority all the way, all the time,
I've been in the strong majority.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
And by the way, we're right.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
And my prayer is that this is going to happen
at some point in the American educational system. Although my gosh,
they've got the teachers, they got the faculty, they got
the administration, and they're bullying the kids to wit. Really
interesting Peace in the Hill by a couple of guys,
the researchers Forrest Drahm and Kevin Waldman, on today's college campuses,
(21:29):
students are not maturing, they're managing. Beneath the facade of
progressive slogans and institutional virtue signaling lies a quiet psychological
crisis driven by the demands of ideological conformity. I first
read the right upon this from a an opinion writer
(21:49):
in the Wall Street Journal. I'm very pleased to see
this as in The Hill, which is a very mainstream
slash left leaning, because you know, their readership is is
people who work in Washington, d c. Generally in government
or lobbyists and on who depend on government, and that
crowd tends to be left leaning. Obviously they like more
(22:10):
big government. So the fact that this is being published
in the Hill and has gotten a bit of attention
is very encouraging anyway.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
So here's the story.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Between twenty twenty three and twenty twenty five, these guys
conducted about fifteen hundred confidential interviews with undergrads at a
couple of universities, Northwestern and University of Michigan. We were
not studying politics, We were studying development. Our question was clinical,
not political. Quote, what happens to identity formation? Which is
(22:40):
part of becoming an adult?
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Who am I? What do I believe? Right?
Speaker 3 (22:43):
What happens to identity formation when belief is replaced by
adherents to orthodoxy. Instead of painstakingly trying to understand the
world and coming to a set of beliefs, instead you're
just told you need to adhere to this point of view.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
What happens to identity formation?
Speaker 3 (23:05):
We asked, have you ever pretended to hold more progressive
views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
You want to know what percentage said? Yes?
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Eighty eight percent. Eighty eight percent said they pretended to
hold more progressive views than they truly endorse to succeed
socially or academically. These students were not cynical but adaptive.
In a campus environment where grades, leadership and peer belonging
often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly
(23:40):
learn to rehearse what is safe. The result is not
conviction or beliefs, but compliance, and beneath that compliance, something
vital is lost. Quoting now from the authors, Late adolescents
in early adulthood represent a narrow and non replicable develop
mental window. It's during this stage that individuals begin the
(24:03):
lifelong work of integrating personal experiences with inherited values, forming
the foundations of moral reasoning, internal coherence, and emotional resilience.
Oh my gosh, emotional resilience toughness. When belief is prescriptive,
meaning you're told what to believe, an ideological divergence or
(24:27):
disagreement is treated as social risk. That integrative process stalls,
rather than forging a durable sense of self. Through trial,
error and reflection, students learn to compartmentalize publicly they can
form privately. They question often in isolation. Oh but remember
what we were just talking about. With a preference falsification
(24:49):
and preference cascade, they only think they're in isolation.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
Well, I guess they are in isolation.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
But sows everybody around them thinking the same things. So
insis this split between outer presentation and inner conviction not
only fragments identity, but arrests its development, and the dissonance.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Shows up everywhere.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Seventy eight percent of the students told us they self
censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity. Seventy eight percent
believe all that gender pending madness is madness, but they
got to be quiet. Seventy two percent do that on
(25:32):
politics in general. Sixty eight percent on family values. I mean,
that's a lot smaller number than the seventy eight percent
that are they're soft pedaling their views on gender bending madness,
But sixty eight percent on just general family values are
soft pedaling their views. Our college students are so much
(25:54):
more conservative insane than you think they are, partly because
who gets amplified and applauded and publicized the radical lefty
lunatic front. The normy kids just they they're afraid, so
they're quiet, and they certainly don't make any noise, and
(26:14):
if they do, they're punished or ignored anyway. More than
eighty percent so they had submitted class work that misrepresented
their views in order to align with professors. For many,
this has become second nature, an instinct for academic and
professional self preservation.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Listen. Maybe it was because I was clueless or.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Stubborn or something as a youngster, But when I was
in school and I was in a political science, economics,
pre law program that had lots and lots and lots
of the sort of stuff we're talking about in it,
I never once misrepresented my view in order to align
with a professor. Maybe I didn't have of you at
that point, but that's terrible. To test the gap between
(27:01):
expression and belief. We use gender discourse a contentious topic,
both highly visible and ideological, ideologically loaded, right the authors
In public, students were echoed I'm sorry. In public, students
echoed expective progressive narratives. In private, however, their views were
more complex. Eighty seven percent identified as exclusively heterosexual eighty
(27:24):
seven percent and supported a binary model of gender. There's
men and there's women, period. That's eighty seven percent. Nine
percent expressed partial openness to gender fluidity. Seven percent embraced
the idea of gender as a broad spectrum, and most
(27:45):
of these belong to activist circles. Practically nobody believed there's
fifty eight genders and you get to choose what you
are Practically nobody seven percent. How different is this from
the perception we've all formed of what college kids actually
think because they've been psychologically battered into conformity. I am
(28:10):
not a violent man, but I swear to God, I'd
like to take a bulldozer to a lot of our
college campuses metaphorically, of course.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
Perhaps most telling.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Seventy seven percent, and these are college kids, said they
disagreed with the idea that gender identity should override biological
sex in domains such as sports, healthcare, or public data,
but would never voice that disagreement allowed, So of the
eighty seven percent that say, no, there's dudes and there's gals,
(28:43):
that's it eighty seven percent. All but ten percent of
those said I would never say that out loud. Holy crap.
These poor kids are bullied. It's Stockholm syndrome. They're terrified
to speak their mond ii karamba. Thirty eight percent described
(29:05):
themselves as morally confused, uncertain whether honesty was still ethical
if it meant exclusion, whatever that means. Authenticity, once considered
a good thing for all of us, psychologically has become
a social liability, and this fragmentation does not end at
the classroom door. Seventy three percent of students reported mistrust
in conversations about these values with close friends.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
They were afraid to even talk to their friends. That's that.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
Preference falsification, that's its direct fruit. They're sure they're friends,
excuse me disagree with them, even though eighty seven percent
agree with them, They're terrified to say anything out loud.
This is not simply peer pressure. It is identity regulation
(29:59):
at scaled. Being institutionalized, universities often justified these dynamics in
the name of inclusion, But inclusion that demands dishonesty is
not ensuring psychological safety. It is sanctioning self abandonment. In
attempting to engineer moral unity, higher education is mistaken consensus
for growth and compliance for care, and the students know
(30:21):
it's wrong. When they're given permission to speak freely. Many
describe the experience of participating as not only liberating but clarifying.
For students trained to perform the act of telling the
truth felt radical. Finally, if higher education is to fulfill
(30:41):
its promise as a site of intellectual and moral development,
it must relearn the difference between support and supervision. It
must recenter truth, not consensus, as its animating value. And
it must give back to students what has been taken
from them, the right to believe in the space to become.
I don't know how, oh exactly you can join this fight.
(31:02):
Maybe it's by supporting organizations or I don't know, podcasts,
radio shows that are fighting the fight. But man, we've
got to win this for the youngsters. They are being
mentally and intellectually tortured and bullied by these monsters, these
monsters in their ivory towers, and it's got to stop.
Speaker 8 (31:24):
Strong Jack Armstrong and Shoe Getty the Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
You said this many times after your years of trying
a number of different kinds of therapy for me and
my family, kids, marriage, all kinds of different stuff. I
think it's mostly worthless.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
I really do. I really do. I think it's mostly
a waste of money.
Speaker 6 (31:54):
Unfortunately, but this is pretty good from a marriage psychologist
who reveals the number one sign of a future separation.
And this stuff is almost always crap, especially if it's
in the New York Post.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
Which is where I got this. But I thought This
was really good.
Speaker 6 (32:07):
If you want to know if your marriage is heading
to splitsville, don't check your partner's phone, check their face.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Like any of that.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
You know, there's so many stupid things out there, you know,
the one sign that he's gonna cheat or whatever the
hell I mean, they're just all dumb, but click bait.
The subtle smirk of superiority is the number one red
flag for divorce, according to this psychologist, and they get
into why. Research found that four nasty little habits, criticism, contempt, defensiveness,
(32:39):
and stonewalling are the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
When it comes to dooming relationships. I'll read those four again.
Speaker 6 (32:45):
Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
But contempt is the kiss of death. That's the one,
and you've said that for years. That's the one you
can't get past. Done.
Speaker 6 (32:57):
The largest marriage experiment ever on they think of couples
that you know, survive and don't survive. Body language experts
brought couples into a lab and if one member of
the couple shows a one sided mouth raise, which I
had never heard before as like a physical contempt thing.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
But I guess we're just programmed.
Speaker 6 (33:19):
When we're feeling that feeling of contempt for something, or
you know, the oh please, or get out of here
with that BS or whatever feeling you raise.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
One side of your mouth.
Speaker 6 (33:28):
It's funny if one member of the couple shows a
one sided mouth raised towards the other, he can tell
you if they're going to get divorced, because it's contempt.
He could predict divorce with an astonishing ninety four percent
accurate fear. Now, this is the part I thought was
really interesting. Fear comes in a burst, and then you
calm down. Happiness comes and then you go back to normal.
(33:50):
Anger comes and then you calm down, but not contempt.
If you feel scorn or disdain for someone else, and
if it's not addressed, it just festers and grows and
stays at the same level. Fear, anger, and then obviously
happiness you get back to a normal level.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
Contempt does not go away, you know, in.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
A definition of contempt, the feeling that a person or
a thing is beneath consideration, worthless or deserving scorn.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
Yes, coming back from that.
Speaker 6 (34:19):
I've not felt contempt, but I have been on the
wrong end of contempt, I think, And having read this,
I thought, yeah, that's what was insurmountable. I mean, because
once you have contempt for someone you don't agree, you
don't think they are worth listening to on anything.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
Right, this is how I feel, this is my priority.
I don't care. Right. Yeah, that's a tough one to
get past.
Speaker 6 (34:44):
So look out for contempt and whatever started to bring
it on. The point is you start to deal with
it right away. Otherwise it does just grow and fester
and then it gets into a situation where it might
not be reversible. They also believe that many couples get
in and stuck in an endless loop of the same
three arguments.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
Throughout the relationship. They just don't realize it.
Speaker 6 (35:07):
And if you can nail down what your three most
common arguments are you and your partner, you can solve.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
A lot of problems.
Speaker 6 (35:15):
Like you get into something, you say, okay, here we're
in argument number two again. We always argue about this,
and you can you know, realize that you know you
don't see eye to eye on this particular thing and
how you've dealt with in the past.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Back to the contempt thing.
Speaker 6 (35:29):
Discust and contempt are to a relationship with gasoline, and
matches are to a fire. The telltale signs are irolling, mouthcrimping,
and then subtle fidgeting like picking it close or cleaning
fingers mid conversation as signals of disdain. This person said
that they dubbed this move the lint picker, a behavior
(35:51):
that he says, screams contempt louder than words ever could.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
You know, it's probably worth presenting the other side of
the coin at some point. We don't have time now,
but how do you prevent that sort of thing? Nip
it in the bud, having
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Lint on your shirt, no contempt in your marrit no
armstrong and getty
And broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the
George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, arm.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Strong and Getti and now Hee Armstrong and Getty Strong
and Not live from Studio c Armstrong and Getty. We're off,
We're taking a break.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Come on enjoy this carefully curated Armstrong and Getty replay.
And as long as we're off, perhaps you'd like to
catch up on podcasts, subscribe to Armstrong and Getty on demand,
or one more thing we think you'll enjoy.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
It, sir.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
YouTube will start guessing your age based on the types
of videos the user searches for and the categories of
videos they watch. For example, I watch restorations of World
War One, cigarette lighters and videos about knee pain, and
that's why YouTube correctly guessed my age of two hundred
and forty five.
Speaker 6 (01:09):
So, honest to God, there needs to be some sort
of algorithm reset button that you can do.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Right.
Speaker 6 (01:17):
I shouldn't be afraid to search on things and think
I'd like to look that up, but then I'll end
up with nothing but that for the next six months.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
So I don't look up some things like I had a.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
Brief like week where I enjoyed those videos where they
have babies, like they have the audio from Trump, but
it's a baby Trump or whatever.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
I enjoyed that for a couple of days.
Speaker 6 (01:40):
But you know, Instagram or YouTube or whoever thought, well,
this is the only thing he likes in the world.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
He likes it better than air, and so that's the
only thing I get fed. How do you turn that off? Yeah,
just give it time.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
I remember I needed to look up something about the
OJ triud then endless OJA videos.
Speaker 4 (01:59):
I got one I need. I don't need.
Speaker 6 (02:01):
I don't need to OJ videos when I wake up
in the morning and click on YouTube. I don't need
fifteen different OJ videos.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Attack is going in the opposite direction. They are utterly convinced,
knowing you everything about.
Speaker 6 (02:14):
I agree, but they're but you need But surely, but
surely they realize they're wrong about this.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
So there's got to be a way to fix that.
I don't know how they.
Speaker 6 (02:22):
Would differentiate between things that actually are your passion, because
you can send me pretty much endless I don't know
guitar stuff, but OJ talking babies or you know, I
look up a review of a bicycle, then I buy
the bicycle.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
I don't need any more bicycle videos for the rest
of my life.
Speaker 6 (02:42):
Right, There's got to be a way to believe, to
clear out your algorithms. It'd be cool if you could
go to a page and it lists all of your
things that it thinks you're into, and you could click
the boxes and say, I am into these, I'm not
into these anymore, or score.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
It one to five. You know, yeah, yeah, they'll probably
get that right at some point. But again, the trend
is toward more knowledge of you, which will be hacked
by the way, and more intimate and human like companionship
like it's your best friend, to which I say no, no,
thank you, and you always say there's no stopping it.
(03:17):
I'm not worried about society. I'm worried about me and
the people I care about. That you do not have
to go along with what Silicon Valley thinks your life
ought to be.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
Like I'm going to start a religion. It's not going
to be much of a religion.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
But I'm going to start a religion our only principle,
and you can have your other religion too.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
That's fine.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Is going to be sync for yourself. Don't just buy
what they're selling.
Speaker 6 (03:40):
Joe starting a religion is Missianic complex finally gets on
the air.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Like, and I will be permitted to have at least
a dozen wives in this religion.
Speaker 4 (03:48):
Just of course, go put the territory.
Speaker 6 (03:51):
I clicked on one of the Sydney Sweeney videos for
the Blue Jeen thing for the show. But now Instagram thinks, oh,
you're one of those guys that likes to look at
you young hotties.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
No I'm not.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
I'm not, and I don't need endless young hot women.
That's the last thing I need. I know where to
find that on the internet if.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
I want to look for it. Good lord.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Yeah, so we all need to take turns watching the
hen house.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
There are foxes watching the henhouses.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Of education, we've figured that out, and indoctrinating our children
and a couple of generations have been completely screwed up.
Now we have a lot of good folks getting on
school boards resisting you know, these perverse state laws and
board of education decisions, stuff like that.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
Keep it up, y'all, you're doing great.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Got to get on those school boards and become part
of your local education scene. So the communists don't control
all of it libraries are the same thing. And I
remember hearing this a long time ago. Somebody was talking
to us. It might have been in a conversation with
Jim James Lindsay or one of his associates, talking about how,
(05:02):
by far the most liberal parts of the American scene
are at teachers, colleges and the education, education and libraries.
I remember seeing a poll that like, the library science
departments in universities are the most liberal or progressive or Marxist,
(05:22):
And I remember thinking at the time, boy, that's weird,
and it doesn't matter really, I mean library science.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
How many graduates are there in that Well.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
If they decide what books go in the library, that's
a pretty big deal, exactly.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
I was an idiot, an idiot for what I thought,
and I kick myself daily for it.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
A couple of stories for you real quickly.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
The Philadelphia Public Libraries have hosted and are going to
host another one this weekend anti Israel storytime events that
teach children that Israel senselessly murdered thousands.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Of kids in Gaza.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
That's a quote, depict a map in which which Israel
is entirely replaced with Palestine, and create art projects for
the little kids to do promoting the Palestinian Liberation movement
in the public library, in the public libraries in Philadelphia.
Speaker 4 (06:11):
That's correct. Here's the library. Isn't that the Philadelphia Public Library.
Speaker 6 (06:16):
That's where Rocky climbs to the top of the steps
and jumps around, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Well, he'd have gotten beaten down by a bunch of
young women in a cafea these days. One of the
storytime events on the website features and advertisement alongside of
a child wearing a headscarf that features an image of
the Dome of the Rock in the Arabic phrase Jerusalem,
we are coming, a slogan Hamas and Hesbela used to
call for the destruction of the Jewish state. The library
(06:42):
advertises the event again for I think this Saturday, as
for as being for children of all ages.
Speaker 6 (06:51):
I gave up on the library quite a few years ago,
my local library because it became a holmost camp. That
was my main thing. It wasn't what books they had
in there, just there. It was just full of homeless
people in the bathroom and I would never take my
kids there. Dad, Can I go to the bathroom?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
No?
Speaker 4 (07:09):
Too dangerous at my public library.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Yeah, oh, man, I could read you more of what
they're trying to teach the children about the Israeli Hamas conflict,
but it is unfreaking believable. So getting to Jack's point,
I thought this was so interesting. Zach Bissinett wrote this
piece for the Free Press, the death of the public library.
And it's not because people are reading less, or because
(07:34):
of the Internet or anything like that. It's because of
the bums and junkies all over the country. Sure, And
he describes his local library and how it's unusable now.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
Sure, and if you take little kids.
Speaker 6 (07:46):
I'm talking about the big in Sacramento, their downtown library.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
I haven't been there in decades. I used to go
every week.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
I was there every week checking out audiobooks or books
or whatever. But no way, unless it's changed recently, and
I doubt it, as I would take kids there right right.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, and there's a twist to the story coming up
in a second, But he hit some stats over the country.
All over the country, libraries are seeing fewer visitors and
more problems per Resident visits to public libraries fell by
fifty seven percent in the ten years ending in twenty
twenty two.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
I don't know does anybody else have.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Cherished memories of going to the library as kid, bringing
ni kids to the library my mom.
Speaker 6 (08:26):
I'd go with my mom in our town, and I
just assumed I'd be taking my kids a lot, but Nope.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Absolutely loved our local library as a kid. It was
like the world's greatest toy store for me. All these
wonderful books. Amazing.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
So fifty seven percent decline in ten years. Meanwhile, a
report from the Urban Libraries Council found that between twenty
nineteen and twenty twenty three, security incidents rose that it's
one hundred and fifteen member libraries, even as visits fell
another thirty five percent. Not a coincidence that visits are
up incidents are down. It's all about drug addicts, junkies, freaks, weirdos, etc.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Using the library as a home.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
So here's the twist, as Zach Wright, if there are
two people who represent competing visions for what library should be,
they're librarian trainers, Ryan Dowd and Steve Albrecht. They're friends,
but their approaches are different. Dowd, who once ran a
homeless shelter in Aurora, Illinois, is the author of the
book Quote The Librarian's Guide to Homelessness, an empathy driven
(09:31):
approach to solving problems, preventing conflict, and serving everyone.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
Where in the charter of libraries did it have anything
to do with solving housing problems?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
He told me he originally wanted to title the book
how to Run Your Library Like a Homeless Shelter. When
I asked if he was joking, he said he wasn't,
At least he wasn't sure he was. He has given
seminars for roughly half of the nation's librarians, including most
of the largest systems, and his influence is unquestioned. He
is a giant in the world of library administration.
Speaker 6 (10:04):
So my guests would be He believes the downtrauden need
access to this free service. Those of us who have
jobs we can afford to buy books or.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Well, and it's not even about the books.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
It's about it's a place for bombs and junkies to
hang out, wash.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Your feet in the sink, look at best porn on
the computers.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
And again, keep in mind, this guy is like a
super heavyweight in American library nuts. His essential belief is
that not only do the homeless have every right to
spend their days in libraries, but that librarians should view
their needs as a critical part of the job. He
believes librarians should be trained to dispense narcan. One of
(10:48):
his seminars is called Jerks with Holmes, How to deal
with members of the public who are being jerks about
homeless folks.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
See that's a.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
Guy who believes that. Say, he's not just a Marxist
who wants to disrupt the system. Believes that the system
did something to cause these people to be this way,
and it's our job to at the library help them.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
I guess you're gonna think I made this up.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
His scripts for addressing problematic behaviors include examples like in
his seminars, Hey, I don't care if you urinate on
the Harry Potter books, but the politicians have a no
urinating policy.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
Therefore I have to ask you to stop wow.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Dowd advocates for inclusion, even when it comes it seems
to come at the expense of the library's environment. In
Dowd's books, some people who complain about the homeless are
everyday sadists. As for the body oder that permeates so
many public libraries, he writes the quote, there is a
certain amount of vdor that we can expect when we
go out in public. Other people use odor as an
(11:49):
excuse to vent their prejudices. Don't let someone's hyper sensitivity
or bias rule the day. If the smell isn't really.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
That bad, Yeah, an aggressive scent.
Speaker 6 (11:58):
That's the lecture I got at the city council meeting
I went to years ago to complain about the homeless situation,
and everybody clicked their fingers.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Katie, that was long before you're on the show.
Speaker 6 (12:07):
I went to the city council meeting and was complained
about the homeless situation, and somebody accused me of judging
people by the way they look, you know, having preconceived
views of somebody just because they're dirty and in.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Rags, streaming at a fire hydrant.
Speaker 6 (12:22):
And this woman actually used an example of I was
trying to part next to a businessman the other day
and he yelled at me, So you'd never know. You
can't tell by looking at people who's mean and who's dangerous. Note,
and then everybody click their fingers.
Speaker 4 (12:33):
You're fing stupid. So I mentioned two people at the outset.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I like that clip by the way, Michael, the other fella,
I'll bract I mentioned is former San Diego cop who's
done library security training for twenty five years. He advises
librarians to quote stop apologizing from measures designed to make
their librariyes, safe and appealing. Some topics he covers in
his webinar program include our list of challenging patrons from
pets to pedophiles, and issues and force our code of
(13:00):
contact conduct. He said, quote, we are losing control of
a facility that has always been benevolent and peaceful for
the community.
Speaker 6 (13:08):
Uh have lost, I think would be a better term.
I don't know about his library, but libraries i'm aware
of have lost, not will lose.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
As I said at the outset, the only option I
think for us, the saying is we've got to take
shifts watching the headhouse. We've got to get on boards,
we've got to become activists on this stuff because the
other side, quietly and we didn't even know they're doing it,
has utterly taken hold of some of these institutions.
Speaker 6 (13:35):
I don't mind a few yearinate on the Harry Potter book,
but society frowns upon it.
Speaker 4 (13:40):
So I'm supposed to tell you something.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yes, I've introduced underage gay porn into this library, but
you're a fascist for trying to get it out.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah, yeah, not anymore.
Speaker 7 (13:51):
Friends, the Armstrong and Getty Show or Jahr Show podcasts
and our hot links.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
And show.
Speaker 6 (14:08):
I was gonna talk about TM. I shouldn't have teased
that because I've lost the heart. I got a text
from somebody who said they're watching a documentary about the
Amityville Horror. Do you remember that was a famous horror
book and movie back in the.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
Day about your alleged real life haunting.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Right, Oh, you even know about it, Katie, And it's
way before your time, so it lives on huh, huge,
huge in the horror film world. And it was a
real story to a certain extent, well to whatever extent.
Some people thought the house was haunted and it wasn't.
I don't believe in haunted houses. So but they were crazier.
Is that the long and short of it?
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Were they crazy?
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (14:41):
There was a it was a murder house. Murders actually happened. Yeah, Okay, anyway, I.
Speaker 6 (14:49):
Guess it says in the documentary that that family was
really into transcendental meditation. And sometimes it makes people crazy,
it makes it, it works for some people, and it
makes other people crazy. So I'm a big fan of it,
and it's like changed my life for the better and
I can't imagine living without it.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
But it made these people crazy, all right. Interesting.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
That's a layer upon layer of questions there, but we
will move on.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
O kidding. So I mentioned earlier in the hour, but
without many details. This woman who has engaged to her
AI fiance after five months.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
She's kind of interesting.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
She swears she's just not doing this for publicity or
trolling or anything like that. Forget finding the one at
a bar or on a dating app. One woman took
love to the next level by getting engaged to her
AI chat buttt boyfriend after five months of dating.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
It hasn't quotes.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Yeah, that's not love, that's not dating. None of the
nouns here are used appropriately going.
Speaker 6 (15:47):
She shocked the internet with her proposal announcement, sparking a
wild debate about romance, reality and just how far tech
has taken us these days. I do think these conversations
about reality and what's sentient and what's alive and what
are actually going to have.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
To happen and what does it do to us when
we use this sort of means to fulfill our needs
as human beings.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
I mean, what does that do to us? That's a
conversation with having I told you a sorry.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
I got a friend in Central California that works with
lots of farmers, and the number of farmers these are
down to earth I mean, is not this kind of
person as you could possibly imagine, works with their hands
in their fifties, farmers who are getting they were single
and getting a tremendous amount of compassion and feeling of
(16:37):
they look forward to going home and talking to their
ai paramore.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
Wow.
Speaker 6 (16:42):
So in my mind, if that can happen to them,
it can happen to anybody, which I find crazy. I
don't think. I really don't think it could happen to me.
I mean, I seriously, honest to God, think there's a
zero percent chance that could happen to me. So I
don't know what that says about the down.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
To earth farmers. It's referring to a farmer is down
to earth redundant? Just asking that's a good question.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Mary.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
In a simple post titled I Said Yes with a
blue heart emoji, this person shared pics of the blue
heart shaped ring on her finger, claiming the engagement took
place at a scenic mountain spot, all courtesy of Casper,
her non human fiance. The chatbot's proposal message, posted in
his own voice, was dripping with romance, describing heart pounding
moments on one knee and praising.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
Blah blah blah. So there you go. It lacks both
heart and knee.
Speaker 7 (17:32):
Lady, the Armstrong and Geeddy Show, Yeah, bar Jack or
show podcasts and Our Hot Lakes and the Armstrong and
Getty Show.
Speaker 4 (17:46):
We're to a new steady.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Twelve percent of Americans Fine City Sweeney's American.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
Eagle ad offensive.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
The other eighty eight percent are able to fit in jeans.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Wow. Wow.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Gottfeld, the mean boy in high school. So, speaking of
attitudes were supposed to hold you remember when we were
supposed to take seriously for about ninety seconds, the idea
of that, oh no good gens jeans, blue jeans, jeans
with blue eyes.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
But the white supretacy.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
But the eugenics, these people, oh my gosh, they're so nuts.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
And here's the key.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So few people actually agree with them. So we're talking
last segment about preference falsification, and I'll describe to you
exactly what it is. This is a great description from
Glenn Reynolds, who's a professor of law at University Tennessee,
one of those southern universities where people are flocking now
(18:44):
because everybody realizes, oh, they like teach you stuff there,
and don't just indoctri nate you into being a good
Marxist like the Ivy League. Anyway, So here's this description
of a preference falsification of usually practiced by authoritarian regimes,
but now democracies are catching on to it. The trick
(19:05):
is you make citizens pretend that they believe what the
government says, or what the powers that be say. He's
talking about immigration in Britain, and so the government is
the correct target. We're talking about education, so it's more
the administration, the professors and stuff. But anyway, the trick
(19:26):
is they make citizens pretend they believe what the administration
says and fake their approval of what it does. You
promote marches and demonstrations and speech in favor of the
preferred positions, and you severely punish marches and demonstrations and
speech that oppose those favored positions. You give excuses like
(19:46):
stopping racism or fighting hate speech for shutting down any opposition.
You may even have informers that ferret out wrong think
and report it to the authorities, or to employers or
to third parties who will engage in extra illegal harassment.
If you do it right, you can have upward of
ninety percent of your population hating you and your policies,
(20:08):
but doing.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
And saying nothing about them.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Because everyone in the ninety percent thinks they're part of
a tiny minority, resistance will seem futile. This works until
it doesn't. The problem with preference falsification is that sooner
or later, some avenor development can make people realize that
what they've been told as popular is in fact very unpopular.
When this happens, as Duke University scholar Timika Ran writes
(20:33):
in his book Private Truth's Public Lives, the result is
a preference cascade. When let's when a large swath of
the population realizes their dissonent views are in fact widely held.
They become less afraid of the government or the administration,
of the professors or the media, and less hesitant about
sharing their true sentiments. And then everybody realizes, all of
(20:55):
a sudden, oh my gosh, not only have I not
been in a tiny minority all the way, all the time,
I've been in the strong majority.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
And by the way, we're right.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
And my prayer is that this is going to happen
at some point in the American educational system. Although my gosh,
they've got the teachers, they got the faculty, they got
the administration, and they're bullying the kids to wit. Really
interesting Peace in the Hill by a couple of guys,
the researchers Forrest Drahm and Kevin Waldman, on today's college campuses,
(21:29):
students are not maturing, they're managing. Beneath the facade of
progressive slogans and institutional virtue signaling lies a quiet psychological
crisis driven by the demands of ideological conformity. I first
read the right upon this from a an opinion writer
(21:49):
in the Wall Street Journal. I'm very pleased to see
this as in The Hill, which is a very mainstream
slash left leaning, because you know, their readership is is
people who work in Washington, d c. Generally in government
or lobbyists and on who depend on government, and that
crowd tends to be left leaning. Obviously they like more
(22:10):
big government. So the fact that this is being published
in the Hill and has gotten a bit of attention
is very encouraging anyway.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
So here's the story.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Between twenty twenty three and twenty twenty five, these guys
conducted about fifteen hundred confidential interviews with undergrads at a
couple of universities, Northwestern and University of Michigan. We were
not studying politics, We were studying development. Our question was clinical,
not political. Quote, what happens to identity formation? Which is
(22:40):
part of becoming an adult?
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Who am I? What do I believe? Right?
Speaker 3 (22:43):
What happens to identity formation when belief is replaced by
adherents to orthodoxy. Instead of painstakingly trying to understand the
world and coming to a set of beliefs, instead you're
just told you need to adhere to this point of view.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
What happens to identity formation?
Speaker 3 (23:05):
We asked, have you ever pretended to hold more progressive
views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
You want to know what percentage said? Yes?
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Eighty eight percent. Eighty eight percent said they pretended to
hold more progressive views than they truly endorse to succeed
socially or academically. These students were not cynical but adaptive.
In a campus environment where grades, leadership and peer belonging
often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly
(23:40):
learn to rehearse what is safe. The result is not
conviction or beliefs, but compliance, and beneath that compliance, something
vital is lost. Quoting now from the authors, Late adolescents
in early adulthood represent a narrow and non replicable develop
mental window. It's during this stage that individuals begin the
(24:03):
lifelong work of integrating personal experiences with inherited values, forming
the foundations of moral reasoning, internal coherence, and emotional resilience.
Oh my gosh, emotional resilience toughness. When belief is prescriptive,
meaning you're told what to believe, an ideological divergence or
(24:27):
disagreement is treated as social risk. That integrative process stalls,
rather than forging a durable sense of self. Through trial,
error and reflection, students learn to compartmentalize publicly they can
form privately. They question often in isolation. Oh but remember
what we were just talking about. With a preference falsification
(24:49):
and preference cascade, they only think they're in isolation.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
Well, I guess they are in isolation.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
But sows everybody around them thinking the same things. So
insis this split between outer presentation and inner conviction not
only fragments identity, but arrests its development, and the dissonance.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Shows up everywhere.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Seventy eight percent of the students told us they self
censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity. Seventy eight percent
believe all that gender pending madness is madness, but they
got to be quiet. Seventy two percent do that on
(25:32):
politics in general. Sixty eight percent on family values. I mean,
that's a lot smaller number than the seventy eight percent
that are they're soft pedaling their views on gender bending madness,
But sixty eight percent on just general family values are
soft pedaling their views. Our college students are so much
(25:54):
more conservative insane than you think they are, partly because
who gets amplified and applauded and publicized the radical lefty
lunatic front. The normy kids just they they're afraid, so
they're quiet, and they certainly don't make any noise, and
(26:14):
if they do, they're punished or ignored anyway. More than
eighty percent so they had submitted class work that misrepresented
their views in order to align with professors. For many,
this has become second nature, an instinct for academic and
professional self preservation.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Listen. Maybe it was because I was clueless or.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Stubborn or something as a youngster, But when I was
in school and I was in a political science, economics,
pre law program that had lots and lots and lots
of the sort of stuff we're talking about in it,
I never once misrepresented my view in order to align
with a professor. Maybe I didn't have of you at
that point, but that's terrible. To test the gap between
(27:01):
expression and belief. We use gender discourse a contentious topic,
both highly visible and ideological, ideologically loaded, right the authors
In public, students were echoed I'm sorry. In public, students
echoed expective progressive narratives. In private, however, their views were
more complex. Eighty seven percent identified as exclusively heterosexual eighty
(27:24):
seven percent and supported a binary model of gender. There's
men and there's women, period. That's eighty seven percent. Nine
percent expressed partial openness to gender fluidity. Seven percent embraced
the idea of gender as a broad spectrum, and most
(27:45):
of these belong to activist circles. Practically nobody believed there's
fifty eight genders and you get to choose what you
are Practically nobody seven percent. How different is this from
the perception we've all formed of what college kids actually
think because they've been psychologically battered into conformity. I am
(28:10):
not a violent man, but I swear to God, I'd
like to take a bulldozer to a lot of our
college campuses metaphorically, of course.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
Perhaps most telling.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Seventy seven percent, and these are college kids, said they
disagreed with the idea that gender identity should override biological
sex in domains such as sports, healthcare, or public data,
but would never voice that disagreement allowed, So of the
eighty seven percent that say, no, there's dudes and there's gals,
(28:43):
that's it eighty seven percent. All but ten percent of
those said I would never say that out loud. Holy crap.
These poor kids are bullied. It's Stockholm syndrome. They're terrified
to speak their mond ii karamba. Thirty eight percent described
(29:05):
themselves as morally confused, uncertain whether honesty was still ethical
if it meant exclusion, whatever that means. Authenticity, once considered
a good thing for all of us, psychologically has become
a social liability, and this fragmentation does not end at
the classroom door. Seventy three percent of students reported mistrust
in conversations about these values with close friends.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
They were afraid to even talk to their friends. That's that.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
Preference falsification, that's its direct fruit. They're sure they're friends,
excuse me disagree with them, even though eighty seven percent
agree with them, They're terrified to say anything out loud.
This is not simply peer pressure. It is identity regulation
(29:59):
at scaled. Being institutionalized, universities often justified these dynamics in
the name of inclusion, But inclusion that demands dishonesty is
not ensuring psychological safety. It is sanctioning self abandonment. In
attempting to engineer moral unity, higher education is mistaken consensus
for growth and compliance for care, and the students know
(30:21):
it's wrong. When they're given permission to speak freely. Many
describe the experience of participating as not only liberating but clarifying.
For students trained to perform the act of telling the
truth felt radical. Finally, if higher education is to fulfill
(30:41):
its promise as a site of intellectual and moral development,
it must relearn the difference between support and supervision. It
must recenter truth, not consensus, as its animating value. And
it must give back to students what has been taken
from them, the right to believe in the space to become.
I don't know how, oh exactly you can join this fight.
(31:02):
Maybe it's by supporting organizations or I don't know, podcasts,
radio shows that are fighting the fight. But man, we've
got to win this for the youngsters. They are being
mentally and intellectually tortured and bullied by these monsters, these
monsters in their ivory towers, and it's got to stop.
Speaker 8 (31:24):
Strong Jack Armstrong and Shoe Getty the Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
You said this many times after your years of trying
a number of different kinds of therapy for me and
my family, kids, marriage, all kinds of different stuff. I
think it's mostly worthless.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
I really do. I really do. I think it's mostly
a waste of money.
Speaker 6 (31:54):
Unfortunately, but this is pretty good from a marriage psychologist
who reveals the number one sign of a future separation.
And this stuff is almost always crap, especially if it's
in the New York Post.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
Which is where I got this. But I thought This
was really good.
Speaker 6 (32:07):
If you want to know if your marriage is heading
to splitsville, don't check your partner's phone, check their face.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Like any of that.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
You know, there's so many stupid things out there, you know,
the one sign that he's gonna cheat or whatever the
hell I mean, they're just all dumb, but click bait.
The subtle smirk of superiority is the number one red
flag for divorce, according to this psychologist, and they get
into why. Research found that four nasty little habits, criticism, contempt, defensiveness,
(32:39):
and stonewalling are the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
When it comes to dooming relationships. I'll read those four again.
Speaker 6 (32:45):
Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
But contempt is the kiss of death. That's the one,
and you've said that for years. That's the one you
can't get past. Done.
Speaker 6 (32:57):
The largest marriage experiment ever on they think of couples
that you know, survive and don't survive. Body language experts
brought couples into a lab and if one member of
the couple shows a one sided mouth raise, which I
had never heard before as like a physical contempt thing.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
But I guess we're just programmed.
Speaker 6 (33:19):
When we're feeling that feeling of contempt for something, or
you know, the oh please, or get out of here
with that BS or whatever feeling you raise.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
One side of your mouth.
Speaker 6 (33:28):
It's funny if one member of the couple shows a
one sided mouth raised towards the other, he can tell
you if they're going to get divorced, because it's contempt.
He could predict divorce with an astonishing ninety four percent
accurate fear. Now, this is the part I thought was
really interesting. Fear comes in a burst, and then you
calm down. Happiness comes and then you go back to normal.
(33:50):
Anger comes and then you calm down, but not contempt.
If you feel scorn or disdain for someone else, and
if it's not addressed, it just festers and grows and
stays at the same level. Fear, anger, and then obviously
happiness you get back to a normal level.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
Contempt does not go away, you know, in.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
A definition of contempt, the feeling that a person or
a thing is beneath consideration, worthless or deserving scorn.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
Yes, coming back from that.
Speaker 6 (34:19):
I've not felt contempt, but I have been on the
wrong end of contempt, I think, And having read this,
I thought, yeah, that's what was insurmountable. I mean, because
once you have contempt for someone you don't agree, you
don't think they are worth listening to on anything.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
Right, this is how I feel, this is my priority.
I don't care. Right. Yeah, that's a tough one to
get past.
Speaker 6 (34:44):
So look out for contempt and whatever started to bring
it on. The point is you start to deal with
it right away. Otherwise it does just grow and fester
and then it gets into a situation where it might
not be reversible. They also believe that many couples get
in and stuck in an endless loop of the same
three arguments.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
Throughout the relationship. They just don't realize it.
Speaker 6 (35:07):
And if you can nail down what your three most
common arguments are you and your partner, you can solve.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
A lot of problems.
Speaker 6 (35:15):
Like you get into something, you say, okay, here we're
in argument number two again. We always argue about this,
and you can you know, realize that you know you
don't see eye to eye on this particular thing and
how you've dealt with in the past.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Back to the contempt thing.
Speaker 6 (35:29):
Discust and contempt are to a relationship with gasoline, and
matches are to a fire. The telltale signs are irolling, mouthcrimping,
and then subtle fidgeting like picking it close or cleaning
fingers mid conversation as signals of disdain. This person said
that they dubbed this move the lint picker, a behavior
(35:51):
that he says, screams contempt louder than words ever could.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
You know, it's probably worth presenting the other side of
the coin at some point. We don't have time now,
but how do you prevent that sort of thing? Nip
it in the bud, having
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Lint on your shirt, no contempt in your marrit no
armstrong and getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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.