The Atheist Experience 29.44 with Forrest Valkai and Godless Engineer

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Christianity didn't arise as something entirely new and emerged from
the same cultural ferment that produced the Hellenistic mystery religions
spreading throughout the Roman Empire, adopting their structure of initiation, rights,
secret teachings, ritual meals, and promises of personal salvation through
participation in a dying and rising God. The earliest Christians
practiced baptism to symbolically reenact the death and resurrection of

(00:24):
their Savior. They participated in the Eucharist to commune with
that divine being, and organize themselves into levels of initiation
where higher ranking members possess secret knowledge forbidden to the uninitiated.
The exact features we find in cults in the cults
of mithras isis so Cyrus and Dionysus. Rather than Christianity

(00:45):
being unique among ancient religions, it fits perfectly within the
universal trends of Hellenistic religious syncretism, merging local traditions with
foreign elements, promoting monotheism over polytheism, and focusing on individual
salvation rather than co uneral welfare, and welcoming members from
all social classes and backgrounds. If you disagree with me

(01:06):
about the origins of Christianity. Then please call in because
the show starts now.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Dear God, it's happening again. Hey, everybody, welcome to the
Atheist Experience. I'm Forrest Valki and that was an amazing
intro by Godless Engineer. How are you doing, John? You know,
I'm doing pretty good.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
I had a pretty good Halloween weekend, great deal in
de las Mots.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
And you know, just all around good right now.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
You know, even though my own personal circumstances are a
little bit weird, I'm doing all right.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
I get that. I get that. It's it's a strange
time to be alive. It really is a lot of
horrible things going on right now, which I were not
allowed to mention specifics. But there's a lot of horrible
things going on right now, and so I encourage every
body to be kind to yourselves and to others out there.
If you have anything left around, any extra that you

(02:06):
can spare, donate it to your local food banks, because
right now your community needs you really, really bad. A
lot of people just lost their Snap benefits for reasons
that I'm not allowed to be specific about because this
is a nonprofit organization. So be sure to if you have.
It doesn't have to be a big thing. A lot
of people think that charity has to be some massive,
multi thousand dollars donation otherwise it doesn't matter. And that's

(02:28):
simply not true. If you have five bucks, twenty bucks,
fifty bucks, skip a cup of coffee a few days
in a row, and throw that extra money towards your
local food bank, your local food pantry, or if you're
not from around the US, or you don't know your
local food bank or whatever like that, donate to Feeding America.
They're another nonprofit organization that worked with a huge network

(02:48):
of food banks across the country, as well as doing
education programs, lobbying, all sorts of other great things to
try to help people get the food they need. We live,
we're in hell, but at least we're here together, and
that's what's important. Before we get started on the show,
I got to let everybody know that the atheist experience
is a product of the Atheist Community of Austin, a

(03:10):
five oh one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to the
promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation
of religion and government. Other thing that I gotta let
you know is that lines are open right now. If
you want to talk to two godless heathens, uh, this
is your chance to do so. The number on the
bomb of screen there five one two nine nine one
nine two four to two, or the weblink in the

(03:31):
description is available for anybody who believes in a god
or God's and wants to call and talk to us
about it. Also anti science calls, like if you if
you don't understand evolution and you want to call and
talk about if you want to understand the shape or
the age of the Earth and you want to call
and talk about it. If you think it's weird that
I'm saying understand and not believe, and you want to
talk about it, this is your chance. We would love

(03:54):
to talk to you. We've got you know, if you
want to come lay in about the Big Bang or
about you know, how I didn't come from no monkey.
This is your opportunity to have calm, sober, rational, quiet,
loving conversations with people who disagree with you and will
be as nice as you where we're always pleasant as
long as we can be. John is incredibly kind, I'm
incredibly stupid, and together will we'll make for a great team.

(04:17):
To help you work through whatever religious or scientific questions
you may have. So again the number on the on
the screen someone who'szero sorry five to one two U
nine nine one nine two four to two, or use
the weblink in the description John, anything you want to
talk about before we take our first call.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
No, I mean, I'm excited to take our first call,
but I I you know, jumping off of what Forrest
was just saying right there, Sorry to I point into
the wrong side of the screen.

Speaker 3 (04:42):
What Forrest was just saying right there? Uh, you know,
I'm I'm rather proficient in Christian history.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
I'd really love to talk to people about you know,
that kind of aspect too, So just the whole breadth
of topics that are generally covered in the atheist space.
Feel free to call in the numbers five one two
nine nine one nine two four to two.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
We'd love to hear from you most definitely. We'll jump
right in. We'll start with our first dast caller and
see where we can go with it. Let's talk to
Anson pronounce he and him calling in all the way
from jerrymanderd andis's who wants to talk about the end times? Anson?
You are on the atheist experience with Forrest and godless engineer.

Speaker 4 (05:20):
How are you doing today, I'm find yourself.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
Thank you never had a bad day? Man?

Speaker 3 (05:24):
Good?

Speaker 4 (05:24):
All right, Well, I just want to first start with,
I guess a preface, just to get it out of
the way. Make sure are you aware. I'm sure you
are aware of some of the see Christian beliefs when
it comes to well not all of them obviously, but
some of them in regard to the rapture and you know,
catching away at the church, and they believe that you know,
they'll disappear, And I just wanted to make sure you
guys were aware of that.

Speaker 2 (05:45):
Belief, which which Christian belief, because there's a lot of
different denominations of Christianity that I'll have slightly different flavors
of what the rapture would look like. So what are
you talking about?

Speaker 4 (05:54):
You're honest with you. I don't put myself in a denomination.
And I only say that because I'm always learning and
one day I might oh, hey, this one doesn't seem
to fit the doctrine that I read in regards to
the Bible all Testament investments, So kind of that whole thing,
I guess I can say, the closest I would consider
is Baptist. But I mean, there are some beliefs back

(06:15):
and forth that I found myself agreeing or disagreeing with.

Speaker 2 (06:18):
So righteous, Okay, cool, so we'll go with Well, I
will assume you are taking the new age kind of stance,
the very modern stance on the rapture and how it
will happen, that there are certain signs and signals that
will lead up to it, wars and rumors of wars,
famine specialists, blah blah blah, and the and where we're

(06:39):
waiting for the trumpets to sound, and then you know,
the four horsemen and the whole semi literalistic reading of revelation.

Speaker 4 (06:47):
Right, yes, and no. The only thing I will add
to that is I wouldn't necessarily call it modernistic. Even
though the belief has been adapted rather recently, it's not
that it wasn't there in the past. And the only
reason I say that is because, for example, the whole
uh Noah in his ark and all that going on,
it has a lot of illusions. And that's one thing

(07:08):
I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on is
a lot of repetition that foreshadows forecoming situations or or
whether that be other parts of the Bible or future
events that would be considered eschatology. I would say that
that's the only thing I wanted to just my my
belief at all.

Speaker 2 (07:24):
Men, do you believe that it is possible for any
person to know when the rapture is going to happen?
I guess I do not.

Speaker 4 (07:31):
I do not believe that is no, No, it's definitely
not nowadays. Yeah, okay, thank you. So, I guess the
biggest point I wanted to say is I know and
I was speaking with the young ladies on the phone previously, uh.

Speaker 5 (07:46):
That just I was clarifying with her.

Speaker 4 (07:49):
A lot of atheists believe that or have the the
the the notion that it's been going on for a
long time. Everybody's every generation says it's the end times,
and I completely agree with you in that regard. Every
generation says, okay, this is the last generation, and then
three hundred years go, why nothing happens. So the only
thing I wanted to bring up with, and that point

(08:09):
is that technically speaking in regards to the Bible and
description of what the aschatology is, it wasn't technically possible
until recently, mainly being nineteen forty eight in the Rebirth
of Israel. Considering a lot of the End Times prophecies
revolved around there being a.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
Nation, well, so hold on, so are you claiming therefore,
are you claiming that Paul was either lying or was
wrong about what Jesus told him?

Speaker 4 (08:39):
Can you please tell me and what you're referring to?

Speaker 1 (08:42):
Well, Paul seems to indicate that several points in his
epistles that the end or the the you know, Jesus's
Second Coming or whatnot, was going to be coming within
his own lifetime. For instance, his first First Thessalonians for
chapter four, verses thirteen through seventeen, seems to indicate that,

(09:05):
you know that Paul himself will be seeing the second
Coming of Christ and so basically happening within his own generation,
their own generation. And there's several other passages that we
could discuss on that, but it seems to me like
Paul Paul seemed to indicate that pretty early on the
Second Coming was supposed to come.

Speaker 4 (09:25):
Okay, yes, I don't exactly know the specific passage you're
speaking of, but I do know of some passages that
refer speaking of you know, surely you will see the
I guess the Son of Man or there are some
I don't. I don't remember each passage in each verse,
but I believe that the interpretation of that. And I'm
not saying that Alvis, please, buddy, I'm.

Speaker 5 (09:44):
On the phone, sorry about that.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
I'm not saying I believe that there's several interpretations of
something that there's I just believe that there's one, and
you know, you have to use other contexts throughout the
entire Bible to kind of figure out the best. And
that's why I'm saying, I'm always learning. I'm always, you know,
learning more things I don't.

Speaker 3 (10:00):
Can I read you another passage? Okay.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
First Corinthians, chapter seven, verses twenty nine through thirty one.
Paul is saying, I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed
time has grown short from now on, Let even those
who have wives be as though they have had none,
for the present form of this world is passing away
like present tense, like as in his lifetime. So like,

(10:26):
I mean, I understand that maybe you haven't read up
on these passages, but I.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
Feel like your whole idea here that the you.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
Know, this eschatological end or whatnot couldn't have come until
like nineteen forty eight when the state of Israel was
defined or whatever. You have to contend with the fact
that Paul definitely references this throughout all of his epistles,
that it was ending within his lifetime.

Speaker 4 (10:52):
Okay, So I think the best way that I have
come to understand this is that there are I guess,
two ways to describe the end times. You have the
Last Days and the end times. One last Day's being
a smaller time train towards the end of what would
be called the end times. But the end times themselves,

(11:15):
from my understanding and from you know, my study, I
believe that that would be considered after Jesus's resurrection and
the beginning of the New Testament church style, the New
Covenant and all that. And the reason I say that
is because you have the idea of the end happening

(11:36):
at twinkling and I and at an.

Speaker 5 (11:38):
Hour which no one knows.

Speaker 4 (11:40):
So it's that it's the end times have already begun
because it is now possible for the end to come.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
But sorry, I realize I'm interrupting you kind of a lot.
But the thing that you're Okay, the thing that you're
describing right now sounds like one of those businesses that
is constantly going out of business, like in order to
like create fomo that you're going to miss out on
some kind of a.

Speaker 2 (12:04):
Really great deal.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
But in reality they're not actually going out of business
because they cleverly named their business going out of business
or something like that. And so that's what it sounds
like to me. Are do you really want to represent
your faith as just a constantly like foamoing sort of
business that is driven on this idea that you're going
out of business quickly, but have been going out of

(12:27):
business quickly for like two thousand years.

Speaker 4 (12:30):
No, because that's kind of where I was saying that
I believe the marking of the latter days would be.
And that's why, when you know they I forget what apostle,
which everyone had said, you know, att with the signs
of the end times. The things he had mentioned were
things that kind of already always been going on. You
Earthquakes have always happened, war fam impact, all these things

(12:50):
he mentioned have always been happening, and it's just rather
an increase and the frequency and intensity kind of like
birth pains, you know, they get more and more. But
it's like I said, not that it's oh, you know,
this is definitely the age and this is the time
and all that. I'm just here to argue and my
belief that it wasn't quite possible for two scenarios. One

(13:12):
the rebirth of visual and that's when the time could
And I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened earlier.
Maybe or issue could have been reburnt reborn, I guess,
or at an earlier time perhaps, you know, I guess
that's kind of depending on human will and all that,
but that the specific, the specifics of prophecy clearly need,

(13:34):
you know, certain circumstances in certain areas that need certain
fulfillment without them happening. And I think that the one
major one that absolutely had to be fulfilled with nineteen
forty eight. Therefore thereafter it was plausible to happen. I'm
not saying that it's that even though I do believe
that we are in that latter half at end times,

(13:56):
I'm not saying that necessarily hold on.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
So what it feels to me like you're saying that
God was powerless until nineteen forty eight for him to
affect like this, this end times thing, and that for
some reason God is on human timetables because like Israel
becoming a state in nineteen forty eight, I feel like
that's a very human sort of situation there in order

(14:24):
for it to come, Like, why is God constrained and
confined by human actions? It seems like human actions should
be constrained and confined by God's actions if he's actually
real by you know, your Bible's description.

Speaker 4 (14:39):
So in that regard, I don't believe that it's that
necess so that he's restrained by those, rather that the
certain things that have to be fulfilled kind of determine
on what timetable, because again I believe he's outside of.

Speaker 5 (14:52):
Time, and that it's kind of you know, something that.

Speaker 4 (14:55):
Doesn't matter to him, going you know, a thousand years
ahead or whichever direction or whatever. I think it's kind
of irrelevant, but that his return isn't necessarily based on Hey,
I feel like coming today just because I feel like it.
I think it's based on the And then the Bible
does speak on the type of ramp and evil and
all that kind of what causes or rather what determines

(15:17):
that he he's like, hey, you know, it's time for
me to come back is the state of humanity, which
is the will of man, so it would technically be
determined by man in the sense of their own position.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
State of evil. What are you talking about when you
say the state of evil? Like nineteen forty eight, that
was after World War World War two ended and you know,
we had stopped evil, like we had stopped evil.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
God didn't do shit to stop that evil.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
So, like, I mean, it kind of seems to me
like God slept through the Holocaust and everything, and then
he comes in in nineteen forty eight and he's like, oh, look, yes,
now it's time for the end times. And it's like
every single year or every single decade or whatnot after that, it's.

Speaker 3 (16:01):
The end times.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
It's the end is near and all this other shit,
and it's just continuously like it's still regardless of whether
you start the time the clock in nineteen forty eight
or when Paul thought, which you still haven't answered my
question about whether Paul was lying or whether he was mistaken,
but whether whenever you want to start the clock, you're
still running out this whole filmo thing of going out

(16:24):
of business sale for Christianity, and I just you know,
at this point, it's it's really falling on deaf for years.

Speaker 4 (16:30):
Okay, So go back to the early question. I guess
I maybe not answered it clearly. I believe that Peter
or sorry, Paul himself may have personally believed that it
was his time, or that it was literal, or maybe
that he would be the you know, the end would
come during his lifetime generation, whatever it may be. I
do believe it's very possible that's what he personally believed,

(16:53):
but that he might have been misunderstood though even though
well did that, yeah, go on, I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (16:59):
No, no, so I mean, but the fact is is
that Paul only got his information from the revelatory Jesus.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
He received revelation.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
From the celestial Jesus that taught him these things. So
he wasn't preaching anything like when he was preaching something
that was his personal opinion, he maasued to preface it
with the fact that it was his personal opinion. He
does this several times, and I could look up the
exact quotes if you need me to. But when he's

(17:29):
talking about in general, what you know, the theology of
Christianity and all that kind of stuff. I mean, he's
talking about information he directly received from Jesus. So I
guess my question right now is have you received new
personal revelation from Jesus that seemed to indicate that nineteen
forty eight was the tipping point for this fomo action?

Speaker 6 (17:47):
You know?

Speaker 4 (17:49):
The I guess then't I wouldn't call it a revelation
simply using the context of the Bible as a whole,
because whenever, let's say, during the time of Peter Paul,
you know, the Apostles, there wasn't actual a Bible. They
had the Torah, and then they had various books that
the Jews had, you know, Captain that eventually was compiled
into the Old Tech and all that kind of stuff.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Okay, yeah, but I need you, I need you to
understand something. I need you to understand something. And so look,
it's about Paul having personal revelation from this celestial figure
that you probably agree is a real celestial figure. I
don't think that it's a real celestial figure, but Paul
seems to think that he was getting real messages from
the celestial figure directly. So it's either you think that

(18:31):
Paul was lying or he was just simply mistaken about it.
I'm just kind of curious which one you think it is.

Speaker 4 (18:37):
That's that's what I was saying. I believe he was
mistaken because not necessarily that because when you the weird
thing that I agree, I don't understand, but I have
definitely seen, is that whenever Jesus speaks or or has
our you know, whenever his words were recorded, a lot
of what he says can be really hard to understand,

(18:59):
and it's it goes a bunch of different ways. And
I believe that the reason for that is because he
had a really great understanding obviously at of the Old Testament.
So anytime he would say something, a lot of times
he would actually reference Old Testament or kind of have
like a juxtaposition of the current situation that he was

(19:20):
speaking on and the Old Testament events and all that.
So I think that for example, Paul, whenever he heard
it initially wrote it down you know, you know, later
became his epistles, all that he may not have one understood.

Speaker 5 (19:33):
It because he didn't, you know, look at this and
then go and like.

Speaker 4 (19:36):
Look at like the example I gave you in regards
to the the rapture kind of being.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
What evidence, what evidence do you have that Paul was
actually wrong?

Speaker 4 (19:44):
Though? Can you can you rephrase that?

Speaker 5 (19:46):
Please?

Speaker 1 (19:46):
What what evidence do you have that Paul was actually
wrong versus you just having a different opinion.

Speaker 4 (19:52):
I just believe that when you're when you're using other
portions of the Bible, it leans towards the well I
are you talking about. You're talking about of the situation
occurring on his lifetime, right, that he was wrong.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
I mean, I'm talking about Paul's actual understanding of the
of what his message was from Jesus who spoke to him,
or at least he received messages to him or from Jesus.
It seems to me like it was if Paul got
that wrong or misunderstood that, then what else could Paul
have gotten wrong?

Speaker 3 (20:27):
Kind of thing.

Speaker 1 (20:28):
So I'm kind of curious as to other than just
your opinion about, you know, when when the eschatological end
is supposed to come, like, other than that, like, what
evidence do you have to suggest that Paul was wrong
about when the end times was supposed to occur?

Speaker 4 (20:43):
Okay, So I'm sorry, I find answering this incorrectly in
regards to what you're trying to ask. But I believe
that it's a big thing on context, because whenever you're
not just context like you know Christians, oh context recontext.
I mean a lot of the documents that are recorded
and pistols and all that that's been compiled, they have,
like I guess you can say, several layers that you

(21:04):
can kind of look into and see, Okay, well this
actually could be referencing, you know, this Old Testament situation,
and you can kind of look at that and I
believe that, let's say, when he was writing it down,
for example, he might have been like, oh, so that
could be happening during my lifetime and he could write
that down and everything, but there could be another layer
that he maybe didn't see because of you know, he

(21:26):
didn't have the ability at that time to compile all
of what was written then later and before to kind
of understand the timeframe based on a lot of the works,
because that eschatology is kind of seeded throughout this So.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
The one the one thing I'm not hearing there is
any like tangible evidence that would definitely say that you're
right more so than Paul. Now, let me ask you this,
how do you get around the fact that the Book
of Revelation, which I'm sure plays into your estatological theology
here is written to describe, or more in a description

(22:04):
or a response to this circumstances of Roman imperial rule
over the Christians in the second century. It seems more
in line with what they were dealing with then, to
describe that particular strife that they were going through, as
opposed to like any kind of real end time sort
of idea.

Speaker 4 (22:23):
Okay, So, to be honest with you in regards to
that time and what it could be referring to, I
don't have the the the knowledge or information to answer
that honestly, but definitely something I can look into. So
I don't really have a great answer for you in
that regard now, Okay.

Speaker 1 (22:40):
So it seems to me and I know that I'm
kind of dominating this a little bit therefore us I'm
sorry about that.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Oh it's okay. I'm waiting for you because you're cooking,
and I have a different I have a completely different
set of questions, So I'm letting you do your thing first.

Speaker 3 (22:50):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (22:52):
It just seems to me like you have a different
opinion that's not based on any kind of evidence whatsoever,
that you're just taking the fact that Israel was established
as a state in nineteen forty eight to suggest some
kind of eschatology could only have happened at that point

(23:14):
or come to fruition at that point. But you don't
really have any solid evidence to say that, only like
your personal interpretations of a collective of different materials that
are fictional creations from the second century to describe the
Christian strife against Roman imperial rule. And I just don't

(23:34):
see how that actually gives us any kind of real
inclination as to whether or not this end times thing
is a real thing. For one, for two when we
should expect the end times to occur, and three how
the state of Israel being established by human authorities is
some kind of indication of some great evil coming about?

Speaker 5 (23:54):
Okay, but the only real quick just.

Speaker 4 (23:56):
Right, sorry about that. Yeah, So the the I guess
the evidence. I guess if this is what you're asking for,
specifically in regards to Israel being a nation having to
be a prerequisite of the end times, and eschatology is
where I get that from is various parts, and I
hate to say that I cannot quote verbatim or or

(24:19):
the verses, but there are verses that speak of their
first off, Israel being uh, well, it being the center
of the strife towards the end of the age. And
I just find it interesting that Israel has been one
of the you know, center pieces of war for this
last century, nearly at least ever since it's it's it's
formation in forty eight. But along with the necessity of

(24:43):
that being a state or or its sovereign nation in
regards to fulfill the prophecies or predictions or you know,
whatever you want to call it, of the aspect of
the end time scenario. And then I guess real quick,
since we've been discussing this topic for a minute, and
I've to you know, each time on the whole thing.
The second thing I guess I want to get to

(25:05):
on that same point is a lot of the things
that half that are described in the end times, you know,
and mainly I believe the New Testament wasn't necessarily possible
until modern technology in regards to nuclear arsenal and everything
like for example, Damascus and Isaiah seven. I believe being
destroyed in the room a heap in an hour, you know,

(25:25):
that's not something that was actually possible until you know,
this last couple of decades. Those are just the reasons.

Speaker 5 (25:31):
I know that we are approaching that.

Speaker 1 (25:33):
Sorry, sorry, sorry, I mean I so like I feel
like the media, the media that took out like a
majority of the dinosaurs, would like to have a word
with you about that, because I feel like at any point,
God could have you know, flung holy a holy meteor
or comment or something earth sway and and would have

(25:56):
been able to do more destruction than than a nuclear
arsenal could have. Yeah, I think that would have been
more indicative of God's ways, you know, acting through natural
means and whatnot. But I'm done cooking on this, I guess,
and I'm going to let Forrest sort of ask his questions.

Speaker 2 (26:11):
Thank you to night bought our automatic chat mod for
encouraging people to tune into the next eight the experience
with me and Godless Engineer. I just noticed that I
have a totally different series of questions really quickly, and
it's mainly just about like what Israel is, because the
whole premise here I understand is that in nineteen forty
eight state of Israel was established, and that's that was

(26:32):
the requisite necessary condition for then, you know, the rapture
to be happening. We're now in this phase of things.

Speaker 4 (26:39):
Well, okay, correct something real quick. I'm sorry, I'm not
yeah close a rapture, but the end times itself, because
of the end Times, the Israel being a nation is
part of that prophetic situation.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
Sorry, yeah, no, I get it. I would say so
it's in order for the end times to happen. One
of the things that had to also have happened is
that is Isel became a state, and like that bothers
the shit out of me for a lot of reasons.
Do you think that the prophecy is guided by your God,

(27:12):
that your God has some sort of power if obviously
it has some sort of foresight to know what's going
to happen in the future, like you think that God
has any kind of guiding hand in this.

Speaker 4 (27:22):
I believe that human hands drive are the primary drive
of it because of the descent that the past that
we're taking, but ultimately His hand is guiding throughout.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
Yes, I guess the clarifying question, just to make sure
is do you think that the power of the prophecy
and the will of God had more to do with
Israel being established when it was and where it was,
or do you think that had more to do with
political leaders in the United States and the UK who
were Christian and had a majority Christian population doing what

(27:57):
they thought they should do as Christians.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
The latter I would say that first and foremost because
kind of going back to what I was saying earlier,
is I believe that the end time scenario is ultimately
caused by human.

Speaker 5 (28:13):
You know, choice, and part of that.

Speaker 4 (28:16):
Is the culmination of the kind of things that kind
of were necessary that ultimately man has decided to do.

Speaker 2 (28:22):
Yes, right, The reason I ask is because like, is
it possible that like there was Rather than saying this
was a part of the end times thing, it would
be more appropriate to just say some Christians who believed
in Christianity did what they thought the end times would
look like. And now it fits the narrative better because

(28:43):
that's what Christians who also believe the same things you do,
forced into existence.

Speaker 4 (28:49):
I would say that that is quite possible. And I
and again kind of going back to y'all's y'all's belief
And I cannot completely understand how you can look at
it and go, you know, that's just some fulfilling prophecy,
of course, but the kind of the I guess the
end point of this whole conversation that I was hoping
to get to just for the sake of our times.

Speaker 5 (29:11):
I was kind of wanting.

Speaker 4 (29:12):
To lead this up into your opinion on and it's
kind of a weird tangent, but I'll get right back
around to it. For this reason, your opinion on ex
stress your life.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
I'm not going to change topics that. Yeah, I'm not
going to change topics that hard. I'm still on this
one time. I basically what like, what what I'm stuck
on here is you said that this, you know, the
creation of the state of Israel was necessary, and John
mentioned earlier where that came from, and that's kind of
where I've been this whole time. Is that, like the
reason it wasn't that all the Christians in the world

(29:44):
got together and sided, Hey, you know what will be
great is if we helped the rapture happen, the end
times happened a little bit more. So, we're all going
to get together and we're going to make this state
of Israel. No, there was a fucking holocaust and then
we and then the world leaders got together and decided, Hey,
here's this chunk of land and these a indigenous people
don't really seem to need it. So we're going to
carve that up and make it a nation state and

(30:06):
force it into existence. And now there's going to be
this religious ethno state that exists here. And after decades
of colonization, apartheid, and genocide, now we're going to have,
you know, the end times will be. And like, I
don't get personally why this almighty creator of the universe,
in his superpowers and foresight and all these things, requires

(30:30):
not cease to happen, millions of people to die, and
then different ethnic cleansing and different genocide to happen so
that through colonization, blood set and geopolitics, he can eventually
fulfill the prophecy that he himself made so that he
can return and the state of humanity is in the
right state. Like that just seems wildly fucking convoluted and dumb.

(30:53):
And if he was really a good God or any
of that shit, maybe he could just show the fuck
up and do good things and doesn't need all of
this nonsense. Why is geopolitics more important than just divinity?
Like what what the fuck is that? I don't understand
the point of the entire thing on So that's that's
where I'm at.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
Okay, if if I hold on Anson, I do want
to point out here that the genocide that the State
of Israel seems to be committing on Palestine right now
follows perfectly in line with like first Samuel fifteen one
through three, as well as the other guidance that Yahweh
has given, you know, in the Hebrew Bible as to
how the Israelites are to do war with people of

(31:33):
their space, so.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Much so that if I don't remember the name of them,
there there was that one Israeli politician who actually used
Amelek as an example of what exactly they're doing in
Goz at this moment, and so like, yeah, that's the end.
I'm just saying, like why that's That's My whole question
is why the hell? If this is this great prophecy
of the greatest creature in the universe, why are Nazis
a necessary part of God's plan? Why is genocide a

(31:57):
necessary part of God's plan? Why is any of this
a necessary part of God's plan? If the point is to,
as you said earlier, to get humanity to a better
state for God to come, that sounds like a fucking
horrific way to get to where that is.

Speaker 4 (32:12):
I'm sorry, just to clarify, I don't think that it's
that the requirement is to get to a better state.
I think the whole point is to essentially let because
we've we've been you know, our own devices have brought
us to this point. You know, it's it's kind of
humanity's direction that we are going at the point at
this moment. And I'm believe I'm not saying that we

(32:34):
have to get to a a good state for that
to come back. It's rather the opposite where this bad
things happening. And I just want to point out I
disagree Israel and Palestine side.

Speaker 2 (32:45):
Right inside what what is Palestine side as existing live?

Speaker 5 (32:51):
I disagree with both the policies.

Speaker 4 (32:54):
Of both that there's good and evil on both sides.

Speaker 2 (32:56):
What what's is it? Do you think the evil on
both sides is comparable?

Speaker 4 (33:00):
No?

Speaker 2 (33:00):
Okay, great, because I go, yeah, dude, you know a
guy kicking the shit of a puppy. Maybe that puppy
like stepped on a leaf too hard one time, and
that was evil, but like, holy fuck, dude.

Speaker 4 (33:09):
No, no, no, I just want to make it clear
I do not agree with Israel's so you say, ignore Palestine.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
So when you what are Palestine's actions, like, it sounds
like you're saying it sounds like you're saying, we're all sinful,
so we all deserve hell as like the whole everyone's evil,
everyone's wrong, that kind of thing, which in the context
of this is fucking weird, but like it still just
doesn't I would just love to answer the question of like,
why is all of this necessary for God's plan? That's

(33:37):
the main question I have.

Speaker 4 (33:38):
Yes, yeah, And that's what I was saying in regards
to It's not that it's so when you're looking at
the state of the world, whenever he returns, just in
that regard, it's going to be horrible, and that the
reason he's returning is because it's horrible. So it's not
that it's, oh, I want it to be this way,
therefore I can come back. It's because it's this way,

(33:58):
therefore I must come back. That's the point. It's not
necessarily that he wants it that way.

Speaker 3 (34:04):
So anson I do.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
I do want to point something out to you that
that the reason why I brought up earlier that Israel
is committing a genocide in line with how Yahweh has
dictated that Israel go to war. Is that you disagreeing
with Israel's tactics and actions here is disagreeing with how

(34:26):
Yahweh has dictated they do war. So like you saying
that all of this is like a commentary or or
the state of evil in the world. And so that's
why now is the eschatological end for Christianity. That doesn't
make sense when that is exactly what Yahweh. How Yahweh
wants them to do war with people, so that that's

(34:47):
an expectation of God. At this point, like you would
you're essentially disagreeing with God. And in order to to
to fall more in line with God and his the
way God dictates war to be done, you would only
have to disagree with the Palestinians wanting to you know,
retain their lives or to continue to exist, because God wants,

(35:11):
you know, everybody but his own chosen people to be
eradicated or people assimilated into His chosen people. So like,
the only way that this makes sense is if you
agree with Israel at this point.

Speaker 4 (35:25):
So when it comes to the Old Testament and the
New Testament, where you have the Old Testament where it
seems like you can look old and new and say, hey,
those are two different gods. A lot of people, most
people will come up to that conclusion because of the
drastic difference in the way the like, for example, Jesus
he speaks saying, hey, you know, forgive somebody seventy times seven,

(35:46):
and then of course they slap you turn around. But
then the Old Testament you look at it and it's
real harsh and bloody and just really hard to swallow
out of the content. And I think the reason that
there's a hard well, not necessarily, I don't. I'm gonna
be honest with you. I don't know why there's that
hartward shift, but I believe that the change of the covenant,
you know, of the New Testament has pretty much made

(36:09):
it to where like, for example, those those brutal I
guess actions and everything are not permissible. And I'm not
where does he say that I only know how to
I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (36:20):
So in second so in first Samuel fifteen to three,
go attack the Amalakites. Totally destroy all that belongs to them,
Do not spare them. Put to death, men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. That's
precided to their credit, that's precisely what Israel is doing
in Gaza. And that is why I found out it

(36:40):
was fucking Netanyahoo. Surprised I didn't remember that it was
him who said that that's exactly what they're doing back
in twenty twenty three. I raised a lot of alarm
bells then, and sure enough, two years later, look where
we're at. So where exactly in the Bible does God say,
never mind, stop doing things that way, that's no longer
how I want you to do.

Speaker 4 (36:58):
Or so the the way my understanding of it is
is obviously the punishment of sin is death, the punishment
for everyone of sin, and that includes the Israelites, that
includes their enemies. You know, death is the punishment for that.
Now when you when you look at it from God's
chosen people kind of thing. I don't believe that the

(37:19):
Israelites themselves are excluded from that punishment. It's simply a
I guess you can say, a mode or method of
which God uses. I guess, uh, what was the word
I'm looking for the car to which God uses to
show you know, hey, this is what evil is. You know,
it has to be eradicated because that's the punishment. And

(37:41):
then in the New Testament, because the idea of an
Israelite and God's chosen people has been changed from oh
it only Israelites the God's chosen people. It's become any
one is God's chosen people whom they come to Jesus.
So it kind of it's not that the laws changed,
it's that the perspective has changed, is best way I
guess I could put it.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
So, Yeah, but no where does Jesus say don't know that.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
Nowhere does Jesus say don't don't go to war like
I previously told you to like, he never renounces his
commands for how war is to be done or anything
like that.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
So uh, I mean, I feel.

Speaker 1 (38:17):
Like the vagueness of of of Jesus in these particular
points is a knock against you here, because obviously Jesus,
you know, reaffirms the laws of Moses as to what
constitutes sin when he says not a jod or tittle
will disappear from the law until the new Heaven and.

Speaker 3 (38:36):
New Earth come.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
So it's very obvious that the Old Testament still applies,
what is considered sin still applies. The main thing that
caught that is sin is disobeying God, and God is
mandated for you to do war in one kind of way.

Speaker 3 (38:51):
And that's for Samuel fifteen one through three.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
So where's where's the logic broken that that I just
rattled off to you? As far as whether or not
Israel Israel is going against.

Speaker 4 (39:03):
God, I honestly couldn't tell you with scriptural evidence. So
I can.

Speaker 5 (39:09):
Definitely give me a second make a note, because.

Speaker 2 (39:12):
I do, can I just like make sure I heard
you properly. Also, you were saying, I asked you why
these events were necessary, and you said they're not necessary
as events by themselves. It's that God wants to how
did you phrase it exactly? I don't want a straw
man you here. You said that these things aren't forcing
God to come back. It's that when all these evil
things happen, then God will need to come back and

(39:35):
set things straight, and so he's waiting for things to
get bad enough, and so the prophecy isn't this happens
that then allows me to come back. It's that this happens,
which forces me requires me to come back to fix things.
Is that fair enough? What you said?

Speaker 4 (39:49):
It's pretty close, But I would I would say, it's
not that it's being convening forced, it's that the reason
he comes back because it's gotten so bad. So the
reason it takes so long. First off, according to to
the Bible, the reason he's taking so long is so
that he could save as many as possible. But when
it gets.

Speaker 2 (40:07):
To the all the children and all the victims of
the Holocaust and all.

Speaker 4 (40:10):
That so saving, it that he's not talking about life.
He's talking about salvation. So people dying, that's always going
to happen. That's just the nature of humanity.

Speaker 5 (40:18):
We die.

Speaker 2 (40:19):
So he's waiting for enough people to be born, so
the global population is big enough that he can have
enough souls to.

Speaker 4 (40:25):
Save, not born. I mean, to be honest with you,
I think whenever an abortion occurs, I think that those
souls go straight to heaven.

Speaker 5 (40:32):
But that's kind of just.

Speaker 4 (40:33):
A tangent your pro abortion, then that's good anyway. So
when it comes to the state of the world getting
to a point, it's that you know, hey, it's to
a point that it's so full of evil because you look.

Speaker 5 (40:47):
Back, and that's kind of what I say about por shadows.

Speaker 4 (40:49):
When you look back at Sodom Gomore, he said, hey,
go there's ten people there, or actually he starts with
like fifty, Hey you can find fifty people. I'll go
and say the city. No, not fifty, cool, go to thirty. No, no, thirty.

Speaker 5 (40:58):
Can you find ten people and it's just your family?

Speaker 4 (41:00):
Then that's kind of the same foreshadowing of the end times.
When it comes to the timing, it's really dependent upon
the heart of the people. And the same thing with Moses.
Moses' family was the only one that was saved for
the flood and the door was shut and the people
came back to the end of they're like, oh, hey,
can come in. It's kind of the same setup in
both regards.

Speaker 2 (41:17):
Right, So I'm sorry, I just that was a lot
just to get to where we are now, where it's
like it's we're in the exact same place where best
case scenario, God is just watching these things happen indifferently
and knows that it's not going to matter anyway in
the end and is just waiting for the right time

(41:38):
when you can make the grandest of entrances, and it's
just this diva moment, and the worst case scenario is
this is all part of the plan, This is all
a good thing. This is something that we should all
be excited about because it means we've bring us closer
to the end times.

Speaker 4 (41:51):
So I believe the first scenario is more accurate. But
instead of him standing off and going, hey, let me
let people do what they want. I believe, like I
said at the beginning of.

Speaker 5 (41:59):
The call, that He does have a hand, that's a
hand that he guides and.

Speaker 4 (42:04):
Helps, you know, direct, even though man themselves make the
ultimate decisions in regards to oh, well, if we want
to blow up this country, yeah, Charlot, blow it up.
That's man's decision. But God does work within these scenarios.

Speaker 5 (42:16):
And I guess one of the points.

Speaker 4 (42:19):
That I can make in regards to that is, for example,
in Nigeria with with the horrible, and it's not just Nigeria,
it's all over the world. You have just people killing
for no reason just because they feel like it good
people or people you might consider good, people you might
consider bad. You know, I believe that there's just needless death.
And I believe that in those scenarios, He uses the

(42:40):
bad to have good and that's why you have some.

Speaker 5 (42:43):
And again this.

Speaker 4 (42:44):
Is it's not necessarily fact, it's kind of more of
just story. That's just here saying everything, but you have some.

Speaker 2 (42:51):
What's the good that we got out of the Holocaust.

Speaker 4 (42:54):
I'm not saying so. I believe the good would be
those so the per severance of the faith that then
later turned. You know, you can hear stories of people
going who were Nazis and her were the people murdering
and killing and everything that the horrible people who did that,
who had later come to the repentance of that. And

(43:15):
the good was that both the people that were involved
that were the oppressors and the people who were victims.
Both sides had scenarios of people coming to both repents
with their actions and turning to the right way. So
it's not that it all and all was good, it's
that there was good that came of it.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
Was that good worth it? Was? Was the fact that
a few Nazis said Sawi? Was that worth it?

Speaker 4 (43:39):
I honestly can't say with certainty one way or the other.

Speaker 2 (43:42):
I will say that this is all even remotely possible
that it's worth it.

Speaker 4 (43:48):
Yes, because I believe, and just to go off that,
and then you can respond the reason I believe that
is that let's say and and and then their scripture
to back it up.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
I don't really, I'm kind of I'm at this point
we are now at the Holocaust was worth it, and
I'm I'm I don't know why we're continued. That's kind
of where I'm at now, where it's like we I
tried to get there earlier. We started with My questions
were why was the Holocaust and then the force creation
of Israel and then the establishment and of an apartheid state,

(44:21):
and then ethnic cleansing, genocide, colonization following that, why are
these things a necessary part of this? And you said, oh,
they're not. They're they're not necessary. That's just the state
of the world. That's humans being evil. And I was
for a minute, and I was like, Okay, maybe maybe
he's going to turn this around, and now we're at
the Holocaust was worth it because somebody had some feelings afterwards,

(44:41):
and those were good feelings, and like, I just I
don't see the point in continuing to discuss anything with
you with after that. That's you should be ashamed of that.
Fuck your God. If your god thinks that this was
worth it, fuck your God.

Speaker 4 (44:52):
So as a last point, and we get in the
conversation if you don't mind.

Speaker 2 (44:55):
I'm not going to make you. I'm not going to
let you make a last point, and I'm not going
to do that. Why would I thought for sure when
I brought up like, hey, like why are geopolitics more
important than are like more influential than your God's almighty power?
I thought for sure that would be something that we
could agree is silly. But you're rolled with it, and

(45:18):
now we're at this point and I'm not. I'm not
going to do it. The genocide is wrong and there's
nothing that we can be like, but at least you
know somebody learned something from it. This one after this
dude killed a few million people, it really it opened
his heart, and that's what Jesus wanted. Like, I'm not
we're not doing that anyway anyway. If you have anything

(45:39):
left for for anson, John, I'm I'm You're welcome to.

Speaker 1 (45:42):
But I think it's a I think it's rather crazy
to state that the Holocaust was necessary just so that
some people could come to Christ.

Speaker 3 (45:51):
I mean, what that not?

Speaker 1 (45:53):
Not only does that just simply not make any kind
of sense for an omni benevolent God, but also what
you're claim I mean is that these people that did
horrible things in the moment, I guess, you know, you know,
torturing people, killing people and all this other stuff. As
long as they just said I'm sorry and they believe
in Jesus and everything like that, they get to go

(46:14):
to an eternal paradise afterwards and gets accepted by God.

Speaker 3 (46:19):
Like, I don't know, I feel like that is.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
A total lack of justice, which I know a lot
of Christians out there like to promote Christianity is like
the only time when justice is served. But it kind
of seems to me like the morals of a person
don't really matter to that kind of God. If that
kind of God just wants worship, then it really doesn't matter.
If you're you know, the shittiest human being to ever live,

(46:41):
obviously you can still go to heaven as long as
you bow down and you know, praise that God.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
Yep. That's what gets me is it's the whole thing,
like where where you're talking about, well, you know, the
individual human life and all this stuff and all the
suffering here on this planet, it doesn't really matter because
there's eternity on the line, and at the end of
the day, you know, the God's love is eternal and
so whatever happens here, it's nothing compared to that. And
you get into that that same ridiculous it's like divine

(47:09):
command theory, but like backloaded where it's like if you're good,
and if you if you're the most evil, horrific, fucking
murder puppy kicking asshole just in the whole world. This,
this piece of shit has just been raised. His first
word was the end word, and it's never gotten any better, right,
just this evil person just has to come to Jesus
and then he gets to go to heaven with Hitler

(47:30):
and me. And it's like fuck off, Like I'm not
I'm not gonna sit here and talk about what's worth
it when we're talking about the loss of millions of
lives and followed by the loss of millions more. It's
just not it's not appropriate, and it's not worth anybody's time,
and it's not worth taking seriously. And it's been fucking
forty two really fucking boring minutes just to get to
this point. And I'm just none of this goes any

(47:52):
farther than Anson's own personal opinions. None of this goes
any further than just like what this dude thinks because
of what he's read, because of what he imagines, because
of what he prefers, because of what aligns with his
personal morality, and whatever like that. It's it's just not
worth continuing on. So with that, lines are back open
for anybody else who wants to call in once again

(48:12):
five one two nine nine one nine two four to two,
or use the weblink of the description, but in the
description that he goes out, including to the person the
chat who's to have been here trolling for a long
time talking about how lost we are and wants us
to call into their show, which I checked, nobody's calling
in there. So you have now a show that gets
lots and lots of views on a channel with like

(48:33):
four hundred thousand subs. This is your chance. Pick up
that phone, set us straight, tell us what's up uh
five one two nine nine two four two, including the
people who always live in our comments sections, and tell
us how wrong we are about God, about sex and gender,
about evolution, about the age of the Earth, about Christianity,
about how we're not following the right version of Christianity,

(48:55):
how we're only taking the Bible out of context. Save
us theists, save our souls and all the people who
listen to us. This is your chance. Throw us that
life preserver. That's why he's called the savor. Right, pick
up that phone, make me less bored. Five.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
Yeah, and I will note that per the pull that's
up right now, there's at least twelve people, twelve whole
individuals in the chat that I think that Christianity is
not a cult and I think it continues to be
a cult today.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
That's you know, it says nine percent, and I can
only imagine that's that's nine percent of the entire world,
because that's who watches this show. So like that's eight
billion people time, zero point zero nine. That's that's at
least seven hundred and twenty million people that should be
calling in right now to tell us about Christianity. And
like we're here to take your calls. Until then, we'll

(49:50):
just sit here and wait, because we had a couple
of atheist callers that I guess got got tired of waiting.
Uh So in the meantime, let's read superchats because we
have plenty of them. Let's see where are our super chats?
There they are, They're in this table that I keep
forgetting exists. We've got, of course, ten dollars from our
beautiful blind Limey, who says two of my favorite blokes.

(50:11):
Anyone stepping up this evening is either brave or foolish.
It turns out they recognize that we've won. We won
the war because we don't have a Christian caller right now.
Oh and did I tell you about the anime Horse
Girls laughs in British. Don't make me think about laughing
in British. And also what the fuck Jamie is that?

(50:31):
Just so many things, oh man. And then we've also
got Afro story and sent five dollars as well for us.
As you see the paper on early Devonian lichen neat
so many exciting implications for the colonization of land and
deep time. I don't know what paper you're talking about.
I'm gonna look it up right now. Early Devonian Lichen Here,

(50:53):
I've got a paper. I've got sign news three days ago.
This must what we were talking about. Let's see if
it actually links what study they're talking about. So I
don't know what this is. Here go rise of Lichens
the colonization. Here, I've got Bruno Becker Kerber at all
twenty twenty five. So this is a very new one.
Let's pop over to scholar dot Google and tie that

(51:15):
in and see what we come up with. Hey, and
they've got the full pdf available full free. That's what
I'm talking about. The origin. The origin of terrestrial life
and ecosystems fundamentally change the biosphere Lichens, symbiotic fungiality partnership
or crucial nutrient cycling and carbon fixation today, yet their
evolutionary history during the evolution of terrestual ecosystem remains unclear.
To the scares fossil record, we demonstrate that the enigmatic

(51:38):
the eyes in this paper are really weird. It looks
like l's the enigmatter. Devonian fossil spongy phyton from Brazil
captured one of the earliest and most widespread records of lichens.
Fuck yes, early lichens y'all. The presence of internal hyphen networks,
algal cells, possible reproduction structures, calcium oxylate pseudomorphs, an abundant

(51:59):
nitrogen as compounds, and fossil lipid composition was that confirms
that it was among the first widespread representatives of likeanized
fung guy in irk's history. Tight lichens are cool as shit,
And what's really cool about it is like, that's what
they're talking about here is really important. Fun guy, were
the first thing, some of the first things to colonize
the land, which then allowed land plants to happen, which

(52:21):
then allowed you know, land animals to happen, starting with
insects which evolve from marine arthropods and then eventually getting
into tetrapods and whatnot. So, like, what a cool thing
that fills in some gaps that we didn't know and
like helps elucidate a situation hundreds of millions of years ago,
all talking about some of my favorite wool creatures. Lichens,
They're awesome. Well that's very cool. What a neat situation

(52:45):
four hundred million year old fucking fungus.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
So the there are there are some comments that we
could react to, and I wondering if we can go
to the fifth comment that we've got on our list.
It says, why do all of you need to have
pronouns in your bios? I feel like it should be
pretty obvious. One thing, at least growing up in the

(53:11):
South here, I fallen, uh, you know, prey to mis
gendering somebody just because of how their voice sounded to me,
and so us using like pronouns in our bios not
only normalizes, you know, the trans community and normalizes uh,
you know, requesting pronouns of people or at least addressing

(53:36):
the pronouns of people that they're preferred pronouns. And so
it's all about just normalization of being respectful to your
fellow human for one. And you know, for two, I
feel like people shouldn't just make you know, generalizations or
or broad generalizations about somebody just because of how they
perceive them. And so like putting pronouns in bios and

(53:58):
identifying pronouns in generalists.

Speaker 3 (53:59):
Just you know, I feel like it's a very important thing.

Speaker 2 (54:02):
Yeah, that's a big thing for me. Is like there
was a time when if you labeled your pronouns, you
were basically immediately outing yourself as trans. And now that's
not a thing anymore now as we normalize as practice.
Number one, like John said, is kind of getting people
out of this whole like well whatever it looks like
kind of thing. It also kind of helps protect the

(54:24):
trans community. I've been misgendered plenty times in my life.
When I was in middle school and junior high, I
used to have hair halfway down my back. And I'm
not a burly guy, you know what I mean. So
I was a little old, scrawny kid with long hair
and people thought I was a girl a lot of times.
It didn't really bother me. But I can't imagine if
I was actually having thissphoria, how that would have been
a problem consistently, and so like, yeah, just it kind

(54:44):
of avoids that. What I think is more important also
is that like it helps to like elucidate for people
and remind them that this is a social construct anyway,
gender and sex or different things. Gender is a social thing,
and it kind of gets people into the vibe of
not being being so perplexed and shocked whenever they hear,
you know, a pronoun being uttered, or at least they

(55:04):
them like you just just understanding that that's the thing. Is.
For some unbelievable reason, there's still a lot of people
out there that think that they and them are necessary plural,
which literally you actually have to try not thinking, like
you have to actively not be thinking to get But like,
for some reason, in the year of our Dark Lord
twenty twenty five, we still have this issue with people

(55:27):
still hung up on that. So like having that kind
of thing is just really really useful and having this
just be put in people's faces a little bit more
and a little bit more and a little bit more
and a little bit more to remind them that social
change is already here and it's for the best, and
it's been it's it's not anti science. It's backed by science.
It's been around for at least one hundred years. The

(55:49):
science behind all this. I get comments every day like, oh,
you call yourselble biologists. You have pronouns in your bios Like, yes,
because I understand biology, I have pronouns in my bio.
Like that's that's not hard. It's it's like saying, you
call yourself a biologists and you believe in evolution. Well yeah, duh,
it's because I understand how science works. So like, yeah,
it's a good thing all around. Another one I would

(56:10):
love to read is number three on our list there
speaking of evolution. Oh, so humans and animals and humans
are different, we have a whole I love the music
that comes up with this, the sad music that comes
along with these. Animals are different. We have a whole
set of values. Interesting, So evolution is a lie what

(56:32):
just what is That's it's crazy to me that, like
we're talking at the time, it has the context here
at the time, we were talking about how like comparing
humans to wolves doesn't make sense because there's a lot
of us that want to call themselves alphas, and I
was explaining that, like that's not a real thing in
wolves anyway, but also especially humans comparing to those other

(56:54):
animals is different, and this person saying, yes, humans are
animals are different. So evolution surprise, fish and snakes are different,
every kind of do. You could look to any two
types of life form and call them to You can
even use the creationist method and call them kinds. They're different.
That's how evolution works. Is that differences arise? Like do

(57:15):
you know the definition of evolution? My brother in not Christ.
It's any change in the heritable characteristics of a population
over the course of multiple generations. The word change is
in the definition. What are we doing?

Speaker 6 (57:28):
What?

Speaker 2 (57:28):
What is this? It's just the laziest I saw that
one on the fricking list, and it's just the laziest
possible thinking things are different. Things can't be different. Science
isn't what last things? And then we'll move on to
another call. We've got these quick announcements. If you like
what we do, please consider supporting us on Patreon, giving

(57:50):
to Patreon crew and ensures our ability to make more
cool stuff. You can sign up at tiny dot cc slash,
Patreon AXP. Another way to support this by sending super chats.
We already read two of those. You could also become
a channel member for as little as ninety nine cents
a month to click to join button down below the
video to sign up. For that, you get special chat
emojis and access to YouTube shorts and clips. And finally,

(58:10):
big thank you to our crew. We do love our crew.
They're amazing people that make this show a reality. We've
got producers and call screeners and people in the background
making sure that things aren't incredibly stupid, and we love
them for that. It's very very cool. I would like
to take this next call, but I want to wait
for just a second because we have someone on the

(58:31):
call screen right now that I really really want to
talk to you, So I'm sorry. So I'm just waiting
just in case that means what I think it means.
I want to take that call, So I'm going to
keep bullshitting for just a minute while Tina finishes up
screening that call, and we're just gonna wait for just
a second, and everyone's gonna have to be patient. In
the meantime, John, tell me more about why Christianity is bad,

(58:52):
so we don't waste time too much here.

Speaker 1 (58:55):
You know, I've been running with this one prompt over
there on the Tic talk about how Christianity does more
harm than good, and I think that, uh, you know,
with with that comes, you know, just the admission that
Christianity is responsible for a lot of the misogyny that
we have in our society, a lot of the anti

(59:16):
LGBTQ stuff, uh is uh, you know, run all throughout
our society. And it looks like, uh, it looks like
we got our caller.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Do you want to talk to Jason? Jason pronouns?

Speaker 7 (59:28):
He him?

Speaker 2 (59:29):
Uh calling in from uh misanthropic orangutans? Who wants to
talk about the use of pronouns. Jason. You're on, You're
on the ethic Experience with Forest John Heidntey.

Speaker 6 (59:39):
It's a good day.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
It's a great day. Yeah, what were you called to
talk about? Because it just the reason why I waited
for a second, because the call screen that Tina was
filling in. It just said pronouns and that was it.
And I want to know if we were going to
talk about it.

Speaker 8 (59:51):
Sure uh, I'm an English teacher, and I was wanting
to discuss the use of pronouns in education. From my
personal events teacher, there is a grammatical structure that is
broken with alternative and I see the history as supporting.

Speaker 6 (01:00:08):
Me leaving it the way it is and using.

Speaker 8 (01:00:10):
Pronouns that are like one or us in the stead
of the day them construction. I was wondering what you
thought of that, because I've thought about it for a
long time.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
Well, as an English teacher, you surely you know they
them are also singular pronouns, right, they can be singular
or plural. They've been used singularly since the thirteen hundreds,
So like, what's the issue with doing that?

Speaker 8 (01:00:32):
The issue with doing that is that, as happened one
hundred and twenty years ago when this was a thing again,
is that it breaks person in the number and it
creates confusion.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
When when does it create confusion? If I if I
tell you right now that someone just rang my doorbell,
like what pronouns would I use? I would say, I'm
going to go see what they want. I'm going to
go talk to them, and like, I hope that they
are a nice person, like I don't need to enforce
in I hope that he or she. I mean, that
doesn't really work.

Speaker 7 (01:01:01):
Well, we sure it works.

Speaker 8 (01:01:02):
In fact, I would say that both constructions work. But
I would also say that the history of he and
she supports the same usage that you have for they,
So that if I say he, when I'm speaking to
someone who's in front of me, say and that person presents.

Speaker 6 (01:01:19):
As male, and by the way, I mean.

Speaker 8 (01:01:21):
I understand that presentation is not an indication, and they
trans peopler people.

Speaker 7 (01:01:26):
That's not my issue. My issue is.

Speaker 8 (01:01:28):
Entirely grammatical and not political. And it frustrates me because
I don't feel like I can ethically teach a thing
that I perceive to be as a broken construction.

Speaker 1 (01:01:39):
So so hold on, let me let me Jason, let
me ask you this. If I get not not realizing
somebody would go by them because you don't realize that
they're there, not that they don't adhere to the gender
binary that you seem to want to, but once they
tell you, hey, uh, you know, I go by they

(01:02:02):
them like that's how I want to be referred to.
Are you saying that you're going to just deny that
and continue to misgender them?

Speaker 3 (01:02:11):
Is that what you're saying.

Speaker 8 (01:02:12):
No, I'm not saying that at all, and I am
not adhering to a gender binary I am saying that
we have pronouns in standard English that already serve the
function that is desired by those who would want alternatives,
want to use alternative pronouns.

Speaker 3 (01:02:29):
Therefore, for what say, them are part of that set.

Speaker 8 (01:02:32):
We don't need to uh create no ones now I'm
sorry I missed what you said.

Speaker 1 (01:02:37):
But not creating new ones they them's not new like
misunderstanding something here.

Speaker 7 (01:02:42):
I'll be more specific.

Speaker 5 (01:02:43):
I mean a new usage.

Speaker 7 (01:02:44):
I have no.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
Not a new usage. It's been around. Literally Shakespeare used
a singular day.

Speaker 6 (01:02:50):
Well, I understand.

Speaker 8 (01:02:52):
I also know that when people create alternative sets, there's
a geezu're out there.

Speaker 6 (01:02:57):
I think I'm pronouncing that properly.

Speaker 8 (01:03:00):
Pronouns Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry what those interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
Those are neo pronouns, Yeah, zim and jay and all
those things. They are new ones.

Speaker 8 (01:03:07):
Yeah yeah, I didn't quite have a name for those,
so that's great. See all I'm saying is this is
I can't see why I need to adopt this new
construction when the old construction one us, we already works
and I know that.

Speaker 4 (01:03:23):
It goes.

Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Just to be clear, just to be clear, you you
were saying one us and we are the ones that
you think are preferable here. So just to be clear,
when is we used as a singular pronoun.

Speaker 8 (01:03:38):
Well, I would say we as used when we talk
about ourselves as part of a larger group, as I've
heard people in the various shows referred to themselves when
they speak of the scientific community.

Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
We think that, sure.

Speaker 8 (01:03:52):
The Earth is not six thousand years old something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:55):
But that's but that is still when we talk about
the scientific community, that is still a group of people.
I'm asking, like, if I was to talk to John,
and John is non binary, right, So I'm sitting here
and I'm talking about John, and you don't want me
to use they, so I can't say they asked you
a question. You want me to refer to John as
we and us, And you think that's going to be

(01:04:15):
less confusing.

Speaker 8 (01:04:16):
No, I think that in order for someone to encompass
what they like to express about their gender or their nature,
that might be some sort of plurality or something in between,
a binary construction that we work in a lovely way
and that that person could use we and it would
work wonderful, and.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
That we as a royal we sure but like.

Speaker 7 (01:04:40):
Would do that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:44):
Using you're talking about using the royal we as a
common parlance thing that has no third party usage or
the third person usage that I know of in this way,
or that I think maybe there's an obvious one that
I'm not very intention to, right, but like, there's no
third person usage of we and us that I can
think of off the top of my head except for them,

(01:05:06):
and so like, it just doesn't really line up. And
at the end of the day, you're suggesting something that
I would argue is far more confusing and not culturally
relevant enough in order to replace something that is already
culturally useful. Like surely you can agree, Jason. All language
is made up all languages a cultural construction. All language
is something that changes and adapts over time. All we're

(01:05:29):
arguing for here is just using words the way that
they have been used for a long time in a
slightly new way to reinforce the understanding of something else
that is ultraly culturally constructed being gender.

Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
And I also, Jason, I want to go back, hold on,
hold on, I want to go back to my original
question here in that if somebody identifies as non binary
and they request that you say they them, that you're
not sitting there saying that you're going to refuse to
do that. This entire conversation is justifying you refusing to

(01:06:03):
not call them they them like they ask you to.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
It just makes you.

Speaker 3 (01:06:08):
Come off like a line bigot at that point.

Speaker 8 (01:06:10):
I don't think.

Speaker 6 (01:06:11):
And the reason I don't think so it is that,
I mean, I have.

Speaker 8 (01:06:15):
Been someone who has supported BGBT community, and I'm part
of it for thirty thirty five years, and I'm not
biased against a single soul.

Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
What I'm trying to okay, Jason, makes you come across
that way.

Speaker 8 (01:06:34):
I think that if someone comes to me to answer
your question and says, I would like to be used,
is they them? And I'm sorry to talk over your forest,
but I would say, what's your name?

Speaker 7 (01:06:45):
I get a name, and I.

Speaker 8 (01:06:46):
Would refer to them by their name because I don't
want to use that construction, and so my prices need
to be respected as well, and so I would.

Speaker 2 (01:06:56):
Just so oh my god.

Speaker 1 (01:07:00):
Yeah, are you seriously saying like it's too much to
ask me to use just different pronouns for another person
because I disagree with this this thing like I'm gonna
tell I'm like, I get it. You want me to
use them. Fuck that, I'm just gonna use your name
the entire time, which incredibly com believes the conversation.

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
That's so much more difficult to do.

Speaker 8 (01:07:25):
I'm sorry, godless engineer, your actual name is escaping me
at the moment. I'm sorry that it's difficult for you.
I just am saying I think the standard is fine
and we don't need to make a change.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
And again, you're wanting to force. Again, you're wanting to
force other people to follow your particular paradigm in this
particular respect. When somebody asks you to use they them
pronouns for them, you're sitting there and saying, Nope, I'm
not gonna do that. Instead, I'm just gonna use your
name every single fucking time. And that just makes you

(01:08:01):
come across as a transphobic or not sorry, not transphobic,
but just just just a bigot, a queer fo.

Speaker 3 (01:08:08):
Yeah, queer phobic, Yeah, queer phobic.

Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
That's the thing, Jason on. No one's saying you are
transphobia anything or saying it sounds awfully and it makes
you it makes you look that way if you like.
First of all, it's not changing the paradigm. The paradigm
is that they then pronouns can be either singular or plural.
Everybody uses singular day all the fucking time. And like

(01:08:29):
that's why I was saying earlier when I said before
you called that you have to go out of your
way not to think, because you have to go out
of your way to never never recall a single time
when you know somebody left a package at my door,
I wonder what they left it there for. People say
that shit all the time. You never say, I wonder
what one left it there for. I wonder what we
left it there for. You would never do that. That's ridiculous,

(01:08:50):
And you certainly wouldn't go hunt down the person to
find their name so that you could then say, I
wonder what Joe David left this package. It's just a
stupid thing to do. And what John's telling you is that,
like it is so much more difficult to try to
keep someone's name in your mind, so you can say
he said this, and she said that, and Jasmine said
that too. It's just pointlessly complicated when you could just

(01:09:13):
use a word that everybody already uses all the time
and has for hundreds of years.

Speaker 6 (01:09:18):
But they haven't used it for hundreds of years.

Speaker 8 (01:09:20):
It's gone out, Yes, they have come back. I'm sorry
if you don't understand.

Speaker 1 (01:09:26):
That, that is no no, oh my god.

Speaker 5 (01:09:30):
Time.

Speaker 2 (01:09:31):
You may be an English teacher, but I remember taking
English classes, and I remember my whole life. I've used
as a singular pronoun all the time. I've done it frequently,
I've done it today.

Speaker 8 (01:09:43):
Is that it breaks person in number?

Speaker 1 (01:09:46):
It doesn't okay, Jason, Jason, Jason. What you're telling us
here today is that it puts more of work on
you because you have a different understanding of I guess
the usage of words for some reason. And so you
don't want to be burdened with respecting another person. That's

(01:10:08):
what this really gets down to. You don't want to
be burdened with respecting another person and how they want
to be referred to. So you are going to impose
your own paradigm on that person. And I feel like
that just makes you kind of shitty at least it
makes you come across as shitty.

Speaker 8 (01:10:23):
I just said, because I'm trying to remain calm and
I'm trying to remain on topic. Can you tell me
what I just said?

Speaker 5 (01:10:29):
Did I?

Speaker 8 (01:10:30):
Or did I or not I agree with you?

Speaker 3 (01:10:32):
You know you're sounding like a bigot.

Speaker 6 (01:10:34):
I did.

Speaker 8 (01:10:35):
I actually said the words that I agree with you
about the usage pronounddy. But at the moment that both
of you are so emotional about this issue, which is
a hot but you have.

Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
Missed the fact I'm not emotional. I'm laughing about this.

Speaker 6 (01:10:49):
You get upset and tell me how.

Speaker 2 (01:10:50):
I'm upset, said, I'm not upset, and no one has
called you anything.

Speaker 8 (01:10:56):
You told me, Forrest, You told me that what I
was saying was stupid.

Speaker 2 (01:10:59):
No, I didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:11:00):
Oh No, what did what.

Speaker 8 (01:11:04):
You miss saying? Well, watch back to call you.

Speaker 2 (01:11:07):
Wait, I only cry myself. I probably did say what
you are saying is stupid. I I never said that
you are stupid. I never called you a name. But
I may have said that what you're saying is stupid.
I know for sure that I said it was unnecessary
and it was overcomplicated, and it was ridiculous and it
was silly. And I will continue saying those things. I'm

(01:11:29):
not calling you anything. I'm certainly not getting emotional. I'm
getting laughing a bit because it's kind of silly what
you're the links you're going to to avoid agree to.

Speaker 8 (01:11:37):
About that particular usage. And we didn't hear that because
we were too busy yelling at what kind of person
I am for my silly uses.

Speaker 2 (01:11:43):
He didn't say nothing. Did say you are.

Speaker 3 (01:11:45):
Busting No, no, Jason, Jason, I'm wondering.

Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
If you agree, if you agree that the word can
be used singularly and has been used singularly since the
thirteen hundreds, and like it's just a consistent thing that
everybody knows. If you would agree with all these positions,
then it reinforces what John and I are saying here,
which is that it seems that your position on this
issue is purely out of your own comfort and just

(01:12:10):
not wanting to readjust your language to what is really
more popular in modern times, which is how language has
always worked. So you, as an English teacher, are going
out of your way not to engage in the function
of English and instead are holding to this bizarre, convoluted
and if we're being very honest, selfish worldview about how

(01:12:30):
you think English should work.

Speaker 8 (01:12:32):
Well, I am a teacher. It's my job to teach
the standard and so I wanted to talk about the
ethics of that. And apparently you think it's a very
selfish thing for me to teach standard English in a
standard way in a public school classroom.

Speaker 5 (01:12:44):
That was my call.

Speaker 2 (01:12:47):
If you had taught Jason, if you were teaching standard English,
you would teach that they is a singular pronoun as
well as a plural pronoun. It can be used either
way again, and that as gender is a social construct,
there are more than two options. And so if you
don't want to call yourself he or she because you
don't feel you fall into those categories, they is an
appropriate way to refer to yourself. And it's very popular

(01:13:10):
and it's very common, and it's been around for a
long time. Those are all Standard English lessons.

Speaker 8 (01:13:15):
Well, I don't agree that it's been I know that
it was in usage, but it's gone out of usage
and it's come back. That's the history. I think you've
got a bandwagon fallacy there, and that is very popular.
I don't care if it's popular.

Speaker 6 (01:13:28):
That's a bandwagon fallacy.

Speaker 2 (01:13:29):
That I was saying, I'm not because it's popular. Oh
my god, dude, that's not what the band.

Speaker 1 (01:13:36):
Jason, Yeah, You're totally wrong about the fallacy there, because
Forrest wasn't saying it.

Speaker 3 (01:13:41):
It is correct because a lot of people do it
that way.

Speaker 1 (01:13:44):
What Forrest, maybe Forrest can correct me on my understanding
of what he was saying, was just that, you know,
the way that language changes, we are now using it
like in this way, which is still a fine way
to use it as perfectly permits well in the language.
It's just that culture has shifted to do this thing.

(01:14:04):
And that's not a bandwagon fallacy because it was never
wrong to use it a different way.

Speaker 8 (01:14:10):
Well that I think I'll concede that, but I don't
think it's working for the reason that you say you
were saying. The one thing that you did say that
I think makes it a band makes me wrong about
it is that people were using it. I'm not remembering
it precisely, but I'll agree with that that was not

(01:14:30):
a bandwagon fellacy. Well, again, what I'm trying to say
is if I disagree because of the structure, because of
the study I put into the structure of English, which
has an internally.

Speaker 7 (01:14:41):
Consistent set of rules and a bunch of idioms.

Speaker 8 (01:14:44):
How can I properly do it if I can argue
grammatically that it doesn't work, And that was the entire
purpose of my.

Speaker 2 (01:14:50):
Call, because you can't, because you can't argue grammatically that
it doesn't work.

Speaker 1 (01:14:54):
Well, hold on, I'm very confused because Jason, you seem
to agree that it's been used in a singular fashion
since you know the however long and it's been it's
been that way for the longest time. It's been grammatically
fine for the longest time. But it seems like now
you think that it's not grammatically working fine.

Speaker 8 (01:15:14):
Like, No, I agree that people use it. I don't
think it's a good usage when I was in school
thirty five years is it.

Speaker 3 (01:15:21):
A wrong usage? Is it not how English works?

Speaker 2 (01:15:25):
Is it?

Speaker 8 (01:15:25):
Is it not how English works?

Speaker 3 (01:15:27):
Is it not how English works? Does English work that way?

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
Does English work that way?

Speaker 7 (01:15:36):
Which way?

Speaker 4 (01:15:36):
Huh?

Speaker 3 (01:15:37):
Does does they?

Speaker 6 (01:15:38):
Then?

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
They them being used as singular to refer as as
a pronoun being used singularly to refer to a single person?
Is that not how it's always worked?

Speaker 3 (01:15:49):
Like in English? And so always worked?

Speaker 6 (01:15:52):
It didn't work always years ago, as they said earlier.

Speaker 2 (01:15:54):
So yeah, it it worked that way thirty five years ago, Jason. Like,
even Jason, first of all, you're fucking wrong, And second
of all, even if you were right, you yourself said
it went out of style, and now it's come back
into style, which means it's back in common usage, which
is why it's being used. Because words don't have strict definitions,

(01:16:16):
they have usages, right. It's why in the dictionary one
of the definitions of the word literally is not literally,
because that's the way it's used. And you could go
back at a certain time. You could go back to
the nineteen twenties and say cool to somebody and they
would wonder why you're talking about temperature. But for the
past hundred years, we've all known that the word cool

(01:16:36):
also means nonchalant and cavalier and attractive and stylish and
whatever else, right, because that's how fucking words work, dude. So, Like,
even if I agreed with your narrative that there was
a brief period in human history somewhere between the thirteen
hundreds and the twenty twenties where for some reason we
stop using the singular day, it's standard reason to say
that today we can't use it that way, and I

(01:16:57):
hear you talking over me, But at the end of
the day, it doesn't shange the fact that I've got
a fucking thing right here. The Oxford English Dictionaries website
has a whole fucking article on the history of the
singular day and how these fucking the editors in chief
of the dictionary to argue against people saying that it
can't be used singularly, like this is not fucking news, dude.

(01:17:17):
It's way more complicated to try to do things the
way you're doing it.

Speaker 8 (01:17:21):
I am I'm merely advocating for the standards of English
that's taught in classrooms, and I've been in classrooms for
decades and it's not what you're saying.

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
So, Jason, Jason, do you think do you think, Jason,
do you think the standard of English taught in classrooms
because you live in Missouri? Do you think the standard
of English taught in classrooms in Missouri not including the
idea of non binary gender pronouns? Do you think that

(01:17:53):
that is more guided by like academic standards of what
English is and how English works. Do you think that
has more to do with the fact that you live
in a very conservative state in a very conservative country
that is currently struggling with the idea of non binary gender,
even as the vast preponderance of scientists have come out
in favor of this, and like it's a big cultural movement.

(01:18:15):
You think maybe thirty five years ago, when none of
this shit was coming out and being as public, maybe
then also the culture in which you are living may
have influenced the fact that you weren't teaching about non
binary gender pronouns at the time.

Speaker 6 (01:18:29):
Maybe, I think, to genuinely answer your question, which.

Speaker 8 (01:18:33):
Was quite lengthy, so I hope I get a hold
of it, is that I don't think that it applies
the way you're saying a meaning because.

Speaker 6 (01:18:43):
That was a big one.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
It was a pretty simple question.

Speaker 8 (01:18:47):
Well it was, yes, but you said a lot of
different things, and I'll be honest with you, I didn't
quite internalize on it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:53):
So I fleshed out the idea, do you want me
to do it again? But but slower like I fleshed
out the idea. But it's a very simple question, all.

Speaker 8 (01:19:00):
The parts, and they didn't. And so here here's I'm
going to try and answer the question.

Speaker 4 (01:19:04):
Is I remember and I've got it?

Speaker 7 (01:19:05):
If I have it wrong, please correct. I don't think
the social climate of my time.

Speaker 8 (01:19:09):
Which was quite anti LGBT, et cetera, which is not
a part of what relates to my question, had anything
to do with how it was taught in those days.
I think it was taught as a standard, and that
there were usages for those pronouns that were in a
certain way, and they were used in that way and
they were not used differently. And when I was in
school and I misused it, which is the common alternative

(01:19:32):
usage now, I was chessized for misusing the pronouns. So
it was taught that way, and then I was taught
that way.

Speaker 3 (01:19:39):
And I still Jason must stand it.

Speaker 8 (01:19:42):
And if I've missed.

Speaker 1 (01:19:44):
Jason, Jason, let me ask you this. Do you think
that we should update our current usage in the modern context,
not in like any other older context. Do you think
that we should update our usage to include our ever
expanding knowledge of like sex and gender so that people

(01:20:06):
that are not part of the gender binary can be
fairly represented. Because let me just tell you right now, Jason,
if somebody comes up to you and be like, hey,
I'm non binary, I want you to use them for
me and then you ask their name and only will
use their name to refer to them. That is so like, uh,
I'm trying to think of the word you're, You're you're

(01:20:28):
dismissing their uh, their identity. At that point, you're dismissing
what they just told you.

Speaker 7 (01:20:33):
Such as you.

Speaker 8 (01:20:34):
And I hear one such as you speak and tell
me that I.

Speaker 7 (01:20:39):
Doing a certain thing that I am not doing.

Speaker 8 (01:20:41):
I find myself angered by you and others such as
you and one.

Speaker 2 (01:20:47):
Oh, so you're getting emotional, now, no, don't get emotional.

Speaker 8 (01:20:50):
Well I'm telling you by using the pronouns that you
say don't work.

Speaker 7 (01:20:55):
That'll work.

Speaker 3 (01:20:55):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:20:56):
So again, what I want to say is is that
you're making the case to just to defy you not
having to show respect to another person.

Speaker 2 (01:21:04):
Is what it boils down to, at least for me.

Speaker 6 (01:21:06):
No way.

Speaker 8 (01:21:07):
I am part of the LGBT community. I founded the
LGBT Sister at my college thirty years ago. I protest,
I vote in no way is what you're saying, correct?

Speaker 2 (01:21:19):
I okay, as.

Speaker 8 (01:21:20):
Standard English does what it should with the formal and
personal program, and I wanted to talk about the teaching as.

Speaker 2 (01:21:29):
A member Jason, the LGBT community, Jason Jason when Jason
Jason as a member of the LGBT community with a
trans Jason as a member as a member of the
LGBT community, I don't know what you are, right, but
you can tell me the god I'm assuming we can

(01:21:51):
engage in hypotheticals here. If you went up to a
person and said, like, I am a gay person and
I have a husband or whatever, use you explain I'm
married and I'm gay, and that person said, okay, who's
the man and who's the woman in your marriage? You
would understand how that's a shitty microaggression, right.

Speaker 6 (01:22:11):
I wouldn't call.

Speaker 8 (01:22:12):
Her micro aggression, that would just call a shitty but
that's not again.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
Okay, but so you understand how that would be shitty,
and how even if this person were to then tell you, well,
I mean, fuck, dude, the standard has been man and
woman in marriage. So I'm just putting it into the
standard the way it's always been in a way that
makes sense for me. And so like, I'm gonna know,
I'm not gonna misgender your husband. I'm not gonna call

(01:22:36):
your husband a different name. I'm not gonna call you
a slur. But I'm just gonna say that this person's
the woman in the marriage. Like as that's the standard,
you can see how that would still be an increasingly
shitty thing to do that. Maybe this person means well, thinks,
well whatever, but it's really just ridiculously dumb and it
goes well above like what you would expect a normal,

(01:22:57):
reasonable person to do. It's a shitty thing to do.
It over complicates a relatively uncomplicated situation. You get that right.

Speaker 8 (01:23:05):
There's there's been an awful lot said, and I think
we may have forgotten what I said at the beginning
of the call, which is the pronouns when you look
at their histories and I'm talking about he and I'm
talking about she can be used in this way. Man, Okay,
they can't.

Speaker 2 (01:23:20):
I just I just I'm trying. I'm just trying to
get across to you. And God, I'm just trying to
get across to you, Jason, that you are doing the
same fucking thing here when you tell someone when someone
approaches you and says, hey, I use they them pronouns,
and you say, okay, I'm only going to refer to
you by your name. I refuse to engage in the

(01:23:41):
pronouns that you use. I refuse to validate the pronouns
that you use. I refuse to accept and justify and
participate in this paradigm that you were expressing here, because
when you look at the history of the words, I
as an academic, and tell you, when you look at
the history of the language, it has this in this context,
nobody gives half a shit about your academic studies in

(01:24:03):
this way or the way that you think you have
a different superior opinion to other academics in this area
who don't think anything you're saying is reasonable and don't
support anything you're saying, and all it makes you sound
like is an asshole. You're over complicating something. And if
you come along and say no, it's okay, I'm LGBT,
I protest, it doesn't matter because all you gave this

(01:24:26):
person is I refuse to participate in your identity. It's
the same way as somebody asking a gay couple, well,
who's the man. It's just fucking shitty. It's over complicating
somebody that isn't complicated for your aerodite opinions. As a
great expert in this field that disagrees with other experts
in this field that nobody has time to listen to,

(01:24:48):
and you're not gonna explain. It just makes you look
like a dick, That's all we're saying.

Speaker 8 (01:24:53):
I think you've misrepresented what I'm saying. I don't want
and don't do the who's the man in the midd thing?
People have asked me about that with my boyfriend. It
is a shitty thing.

Speaker 2 (01:25:04):
I never claimed you did well.

Speaker 8 (01:25:06):
I mean well, I'm saying you are objecting to that
construction you talked about, how that very thing you used,
very example.

Speaker 7 (01:25:14):
I am starting to get a little emotional at this point.

Speaker 8 (01:25:17):
But here's all I'm saying is that there is a
history of pronoun being used in a gender neutral way.

Speaker 3 (01:25:22):
Yeah, Okay, we understand that they.

Speaker 2 (01:25:26):
Who gives a shit Jason?

Speaker 3 (01:25:27):
So I think I think the real cu Hey, Jason,
I need to ask you a question.

Speaker 8 (01:25:31):
I will concede they then if you will understand that
what I'm trying to say is now is that he
has had a gender neutral construct he does not.

Speaker 2 (01:25:40):
Okay, Yes, yes, Jason, sometimes he can be used in
a general neutral way, in the same way that the
same way that sometimes dude is used gender neutrally and
all sorts of things. Now, the question to you, Jason,
is if you walk up to a woman and call
her a he, do you think that she is going
to be hurt and offend an annoyed or do you

(01:26:01):
think she is going to stop and say? As an
English teacher, do you please explain to me the history
of the word he and how it can be gender
neutral in this way so that I can choose whether
or not I understand whether you're a bigot or just
someone with a great opinion. Or do you think she's
just gonna be fucking annoyed and hurt by that? What
do you think is gonna happen? Jason, don't think.

Speaker 7 (01:26:20):
That would be the usage I would use.

Speaker 8 (01:26:22):
I know that many times in my life, and I've
seen other people do it, and I've heard it on
these various shows where people referred to people as a
group as guys and nobody gets upset.

Speaker 2 (01:26:34):
So I mean, it's just, you know, guys and he
are different words, right, very common.

Speaker 8 (01:26:39):
Construction these days to say hey guys, and it has
a history of been used in a neutral way.

Speaker 2 (01:26:45):
So yes, there and there are Just to be clear,
there are some people who disagree with that and don't
think it should be used that way, and are arguing
for the language to be changed and for us to
all collectively stop using it that way because it doesn't
work that way. And it's I don't agree with their arguments,
but I think they're valid arguments. The question is you're
not using the word guys, Jason, You're arguing for the

(01:27:08):
word he.

Speaker 6 (01:27:09):
Sometimes it goes back and forth over time, so right.

Speaker 2 (01:27:12):
It goes back and forth over time like a language, Jason,
like a language that also uses a singular day.

Speaker 8 (01:27:20):
But I already considered that, did I not? I mean
I could, I could not avoid.

Speaker 3 (01:27:26):
Jason.

Speaker 7 (01:27:28):
What I said was talking about Jason.

Speaker 3 (01:27:31):
Jason.

Speaker 1 (01:27:32):
I have a question for you. Okay, I have no
let me no, I haven't. I have a question for you.
I'm one to know, uh, you know kind of. I
guess a good wrap up for our conversation here here
is answering just this one very poignant question. That's do
you think the ethics of using your idea of English

(01:27:52):
is more important than the ethics of you respecting someone's identity?

Speaker 8 (01:27:57):
I wanted to talk about that at the beginning of this,
but really upset I've been saying over and over again.

Speaker 2 (01:28:09):
Sorry, I'm sorry you screaming the words. Somebody got really upset.
It's really great. Oh my god. Okay, Jason, I would
like you to just ask yourself seriously, because I asked
the question a minute ago and I feel like you

(01:28:29):
didn't really answer it seriously. Just you walk up to
a trans woman and start calling her a he. You
walk up to a mask presenting non binary person and
start calling them a he. You just you start using
a male traditionally male pronouns and group collective nouns and
all these things for these people and say no, no, no,
it's okay, because I don't agree with your construction, all right,

(01:28:51):
this other one, it's just it doesn't make any sense.
And all John has been saying this whole time, and
all I've been saying this whole time is number one.
Ad Nimia disagrees with you. Just standard English that disagrees
with you. But most importantly, even if you had some
case for this, just common parlance doesn't work that way.

(01:29:11):
And you, as an English teacher of all fucking people,
should be able to recognize that language changes over time.
English changes over time, usages change over time. And you
sitting here arguing about this to somebody when they're just
looking for basic human dignity, especially in today's political climate,
doesn't make you academic or intelligent or any of that.
It just makes you a dick.

Speaker 8 (01:29:32):
Would I call them he? And I said no repeatedly,
So I'm telling you that I am willing to show yet.

Speaker 2 (01:29:37):
And yet that's what you're arguing for.

Speaker 8 (01:29:39):
In a classroom, And apparently we can't talk about that,
which is a shame, because I understand.

Speaker 2 (01:29:45):
How would you teach it in a classroom? How would
you teach it in a classroom that it's not appropriate
to use singular they despite the fact that lots and
lots of people do all the time and have for
a very long time.

Speaker 8 (01:29:57):
See, I feel like I'm being strong. Imagine that I
didn't say that, so you know you did. I wouldn't
do that. I wouldn't refer to it of a transgendent
person of as he is. That person is not ty
so and I feel from man did that regard? But
it doesn't matter. You're you're wanting me.

Speaker 7 (01:30:15):
To get off the call.

Speaker 8 (01:30:16):
Do you think I'm a set of ridiculous idiot? And
that's okay.

Speaker 2 (01:30:20):
Nobody said any of that either. It's again, it's very
funny to have you be fucking screaming about how somebody
else is emotional, and then in the same breath as
you claim that I'm straw manning you, you then say
you think I'm a ridiculous citiot. You want me to
get off this call, which no one has said at all.
You're just you're just wut words in our mouth.

Speaker 7 (01:30:39):
I'm I did do that wrong. You say I did
that wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:30:43):
Okay, So, Jason, I do want to clarify something we didn't.
We weren't trying to imply, like what you had said
about the trans person calling them he or whatnot what
you said originally, just so that we can, you know,
come back around to this. You said that you would
reject the usage of they them that is requested of you,
and you would instead just use their name. And I

(01:31:06):
pointed out at the time how that's very disrespectful and
also is dismissing their their their non binary identity. And
I wonder if you recognize that.

Speaker 8 (01:31:19):
I am disrespecting their gender by using the name by
which they are generally identified.

Speaker 7 (01:31:24):
I do not think makes.

Speaker 2 (01:31:25):
Sure you are disrespecting them by singling them out in
the way that you treat them, and making a really
complicated situation out of something that is genuinely, genuinely simple
and commonplace and every day and non consequential.

Speaker 8 (01:31:43):
And and and the standard, which is my job and
I want to.

Speaker 2 (01:31:47):
Do it is standard. It is standard, and it has
been standard for hundreds of years. And even if there
was this weird lapse in usage that you talk about,
which I don't believe exists, because the fucking Oxford English
Dictionary doesn't believe it exists. I'm not an English person,
you know, I'm just just a biologist, a big dumb,
stupid idiot. Uh. But like I can't, I.

Speaker 8 (01:32:09):
Can't your video about what transgender.

Speaker 2 (01:32:12):
People My God, Jesus Christ, I didn't say you were
calling me that I was making a joke. I was
being facetious and downplaying myself. How fuck this is the
most one sided emotional conversation. It's I've it's bizarre, Like
there's so much fucking anger and frustration coming from across

(01:32:33):
the phone and we're just trying to get down to
brass tacks with the fact like if you reject this concept,
you are not only doing English wrong, you're also just
being an asshole. That's the whole thing. That's the entire argument,
is that, like, even if I agreed with your academic
perception of what English should be, that isn't how it
is used commonly, And you're making a big deal out

(01:32:56):
of nothing, and you're further marginalizing non binary people and
making them feel more out of place and more rejected
and more of a fucking pariah. And you're making them
feel like they're out of like just this this thing
that everybody has to cater to and kowtow to, and
it's such a fucking inconvenience for you that you now
have to go out of your way to not use

(01:33:18):
pronouns at all when talking about them, but only use
their name, which, by the way, I can't get over
the fact that this whole time you keep saying I
would use their name to talk about them, you're using
fucking singular they in them. Dude. It's just like that,
that's a whole that whole fucking thing is just so
unnecessarily convoluted just to get to a point where you

(01:33:40):
feel more comfortable. It's not about your fucking comfort, Jason,
It's about their fucking humanity, and it's weird to me
that you're making this big of a deal out of it.
That's the whole thing. That's all I'm trying to get
across to you for thirty six agonizing minutes that you.

Speaker 8 (01:33:53):
Did, because it's not about my fucking comfort. I wanted
to talk about the ethics of the standard and not about.

Speaker 2 (01:33:59):
My thanks just using them. That's the ethical.

Speaker 3 (01:34:02):
Position, right right, Jason.

Speaker 1 (01:34:04):
I'm glad that you brought it back to the ethics, because,
like I want to know, do you think that your
ethics and your perception of correct grammar is more important
than the ethics of correctly identifying someone by their pronouns.

Speaker 8 (01:34:18):
I'm glad you brought that back, but I wanted to
answer that I don't think it's more important. But I
don't think it misidentifies the way I have described it.
I don't know if you caught it because I only
did it once and we've all been talking over each other. Okay,
but no, I don't think it's more important. I wanted
to talk about how to teach it, because Forrest, I

(01:34:40):
know you're a teacher.

Speaker 7 (01:34:41):
And so that's all I really wanted to do, and.

Speaker 1 (01:34:44):
I'm it seems yeah, but correct me if I'm wrong, Jason,
But it seems like your position on that is to
not teach it right, like you're saying, don't teach the
singular use of they them again.

Speaker 8 (01:34:55):
Not it's not that, No, it's how it is what
I wanted to talk about and what was ethically correct.

Speaker 2 (01:35:02):
Let me help you, let me help you, then I will.
I'll do that. I've got it for you. So it's
it's what I already did a minute ago, and then
you completely ignored it. And straw Man, if I was
speaking to a class, I was if I was an
English teacher today, if I was smart enough to be
an English teacher, I would be up in front of
classroom and I'm teaching about pronouns. I'm like, all right, y'all. Sometimes, right,

(01:35:25):
I don't want to use somebody's name over and over
and over because that's really weird and clunky and difficult
to keep up with. And so here's what we're going
to say. We can say he or him or it
or she or her or they or them. We have
all these words, and these are called pronouns. And so
typically typically boys are referred to with he and him

(01:35:48):
and his, and typically girls are referred to with she
and her and hers. But what if you're neither a
boy nor a girl, right, because gender is a social
construct is a really fuzzy thing. Well, we have this
other option. Most people who fall into that category, what
we call non binary, they generally like to go by
day and them, which it really works for them, but

(01:36:09):
there are also other options out there, and so it's
really just polite if you're not sure, to ask somebody.
And that's why I'll also notice a lot of adults
will introduce themselves by telling you what pronouns they prefer
as well. It doesn't always happen, but it does happen sometimes,
and that's just to make things easier. The most important thing,
kids is to remember to respect people's pronouns and if
you get them wrong, apologize and try to do better

(01:36:30):
in the future. That's the biggest thing. That's how I
would teach it if I was a teacher, John Jason,
that that'd be that fucking hard.

Speaker 8 (01:36:35):
So you that I am learning from this call for us.
I don't think I would disagree with anything you said,
except for one tiny tweet where I feel like I
have to address standard and non standard juicage because and Basically,
you've helped me understand how to better do these things,
both of you, and so I appreciate that. Okay, I
would I would probably give that speech that you gave

(01:36:57):
for US. I praise you would, But I would address
stand non standard issusing the history of the words to
show that, as you've pointed out repeatedly, language changes. I'm
very much aware of that, and and and and what
I'm trying to say is some of the older usages
aren't as deprogatory as as we're making them out to be.

(01:37:17):
And so I would encourage kids to learn about the
history of the language.

Speaker 7 (01:37:21):
Read buzz.

Speaker 8 (01:37:22):
History of the English language is a wonderful thing. And
so uh, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:37:27):
You know, you know what would be incredibly difficult in
that respect, Jason, Jason, it'd be really it'd be really
difficult for you to maintain that and and tell them
to read Chaucer or Shakespeare or Jane Austen, considering they
use the singular.

Speaker 8 (01:37:45):
I thought adults until adults said I could, I could
tell you who you're teaching how you do that, But uh,
you know, uh, I don't disagree. Well, is what you
said for us. I would probably say that in class
and that does help me do it better.

Speaker 2 (01:37:58):
Cool, all right, well, I'm glad we could be used. Jason.
We're going to talk to you later because we're already
seventeen minutes overtime. But thanks much for the call. Thank you,
bye bye. Well, someone please think of the grammar. Please
with that, y'all. It's the end of the show. It's
been a fun one. We're over seventy minutes over time
and I've got another show in thirty minutes that I

(01:38:19):
got a call time for, so I've got to go.
But John, anything that you want to wrap up with.

Speaker 3 (01:38:25):
You know, not really.

Speaker 1 (01:38:26):
I mean, that was an interesting last call there that
we had freaking pronoun It always it's always the pronouns.
I remember one guy we had wanted to identify as
a helicopter and then stupid about that whole thing. It
was really crazy. But in any case, No, yeah, I
feel like some progress. Yeah, yeah, I guess. So, I mean,

(01:38:47):
I don't know. I feel like I hope Jason learns
from that and maybe can communicate better. But it really
kind of came across, at least at first, like he
was like, well, it's more important to adhere to the
traditional usage of these things which I feel like he
wasn't even correct about.

Speaker 3 (01:39:03):
But it's, you know whatever, that's that's the bagint thing.

Speaker 2 (01:39:05):
I feel like he wasn't correct about these traditional usage.
And it depends on what you mean by traditional, right,
but I feel like he wasn't correct on the historical
usage of this. And again I share. I don't know
if it came up in chat because I don't have
the wrench, but like I did show this, do I
put singular? I close the tab? Here we go. I

(01:39:26):
did show this for a minute. This was a an
article from freaking the Oxford English Dictionary that I had
up on my screen for a moment there of a
brief history of the singular day. This is from oed
dot com. Hold on a second, I can actually bring
it closer to the middle of the screen, as I
have to make sure enough callin studio up because otherwise
I'm gonna doox a lot of people. There we go.

(01:39:47):
Now they put that back in the middle of the screen,
and now I can share it that way. Yeah, So
like you've you've got like this is the freaking Oxford
like with this whole history of it. And I highlighted
this at the very very end here about like, you know,
the editor, a former editor in chief of this dictionary
also is, had dismissed his objections to this singular use

(01:40:07):
of day being unsupported by historical record, And so it's
just like, I don't know, man, people who object to
singular day as a grammatical era use it themselves when
they're not looking. A sure sign that anyone who objects
to a singular day is, if not a fool or
an idiot, at least hopelessly out of date. I didn't
write that, the dictionary did, but like that's the thing

(01:40:28):
for me, is like it's even if I agreed with
what Jason was saying, it's just so unnecessarily clunky and awkward,
and it definitely is harmful. So I appreciate the fact
that at the end there he was saying, like, you
know that he's learned something from this call. That makes
me happy. I got heeded for a minute, but I
hope we came some common ground. As we wrap up
the show, i'd like to thank our backup post for

(01:40:49):
being our backup post and for hanging around for as
long as they did. That'd be Rob, How are you?
I am good?

Speaker 9 (01:40:57):
I'd really doubt you were watching cameras before some of
these calls.

Speaker 3 (01:41:01):
I was I was like leading back and I was convulsing.

Speaker 9 (01:41:09):
The support crew.

Speaker 2 (01:41:09):
Will attest to that, I am certain.

Speaker 9 (01:41:13):
The only thing that I wanted to mention with that
is that I do actually in some way understanding and appreciate,
I think with Jason's want to like appeal to the
historicity of it, which he couldn't write because you pulled
up the article.

Speaker 2 (01:41:25):
That doesn't exist.

Speaker 9 (01:41:26):
But the thing that really got me was that he's like,
I want to talk about the standardization of it, and
I just want to be like, okay, dude, and who
determines the standard?

Speaker 2 (01:41:36):
How did that come to be?

Speaker 9 (01:41:38):
Was it thinking people with beliefs and political ideas that
they would like to have?

Speaker 2 (01:41:43):
Why is it the standard? Dude? Like that's all they
wanted to have? It was? It was rough. It was
really rough. An what a call? What a way to
end it? There's a lot there with that. This is
the end of the show. You're here for it. Sorry,
that was it, but we'll be back next week. Next

(01:42:05):
week Sundays at four thirty pm Central Standard time, which
is the best standard time I'm pretty sure isn't. The
library is open all the time now if you want
to come see if you want to come watch live.
I'm pretty sure that's the thing now. And somebody is
either elated or mad that I'm saying that, So tune
into that if you want to or don't. I'm not
a cop. Please make sure to go to all the websites,

(01:42:28):
click all the links, sign up on Patreon, become a
channel member to do all the things the show. Be kind
your neighbors, donate to food banks, and help people out
who are losing their snap benefits right now. Thank you
to our callers, even the ones that sucked. Thank you
to our people in chat, even ones it sucked. Thank
you to our mods and chat. Thank you to the producers.
Thank you to the call screeners. Thanks all the people
make it show possible. Thank you to John and Rob

(01:42:49):
for being here. Thank you for watching. Have an all
smester day and f stop learning bye.

Speaker 10 (01:42:53):
Glad, start already, stop quessening the bullsh and embryo

Speaker 2 (01:43:05):
Around your mind.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Atheist Experience 29.44 with Forrest Valkai and Godless Engineer

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

The Atheist Experience 29.44 with Forrest Valkai and Godless Engineer

Dateline NBC