TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    Flux Podcasts (Formerly Theory of Change)

    Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, The Electorette, and Embrace The Void.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © All rights reserved

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Encore: Pentecostalism is taking over the world of Christianity Jul 04, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryWe’ve talked a lot on Theory of Change about the political manifestations of fundamentalist Christian viewpoints in American politics, but the religious origins of these ideas are also important to understand. And right now there is no bigger force within American Christian fundamentalism than Pentecostalism, a movement of unaffiliated churches that together represent the fastest growing Christian sect in the world.But Pentecostalism is a broad movement with no centralized authorities handing down doctrines and many church organizations with history of labeling themselves as Pentecostalism now are refusing to do so. To the extent that many people know anything about Pentecostalism, it’s through ministers who are famous for scandals or for their feel-good music.Joining the program to talk in much greater depth about Pentecostalism, its origins, and its rapid growth is Elle Hardy. She’s a freelance journalist whose book Beyond Belief: How Pentecostal Christianity is Taking Over the World was published recently.A transcript of the edited audio follows. It’s computer-generated so may have some errors.(This episode previously aired on June 7, 2022.)TranscriptMATTHEW SHEFFIELD: Thanks for being here today.ELLE HARDY: Thanks for having me.SHEFFIELD: All right. So, as I said in the intro, I think a lot of people are aware that Pentecostalism exists, but in terms of what it believes or more particulars about it, I think people generally, unless you’re adjacent to it don’t know a lot about it. When did Pentecostalism get started? It got started in the United States and it’s been growing all over the world, but just tell us a little bit about the early history and what you found with that.HARDY: The person who is essentially considered the founder of Pentecostalism, William J. Seymour, the son of freed slaves from Louisiana. He had a revival called the Azusa Street Revival in 1906 in Los Angeles, and that’s considered the founding moment of Pentecostalism.But I actually think that his mentor, who was a white man in Kansas actually probably has a better claim. Pentecostalism was really coming out of the very American nature of religion in the late 19th century, where Mormonism and other things came from. It was people moving across the country, that frontier culture bringing in new ideas. But it really came out of Methodism, and it was really about harnessing a, for want of a better word, the power of the Holy Spirit.And it was new and radical and it was speaking to people’s needs at the time. And it’s speaking to people’s needs now. And that’s really what is behind this explosive growth. It speaks to people’s needs here now. And largely from, 1901-1906 through to now, it’s the idea of health and wealth. It’s the idea that you can have a good life in this life too.So it really is the faith of the global working poor, and when it started with William J Seymour, these were pretty radical ideas, it was speaking in tongues, it was having the Holy Spirit descend upon you. So you’re born again, accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and have a full immersion baptism usually, but then they filled again with the Holy Spirit and that comes comes through things such as you got the nine gifts of the holy spirit. Prophecy, miracles, healing, and most notably speaking in tongues.And that’s what the Pentecostals were really keen on. And that’s what they’re most famous for today, even though definitely not as many people speak in tongues anymore.SHEFFIELD: But just for those who don’t know what that concept is, what is the idea of speaking in tongues?HARDY: So it means that you’re filled with the Holy Spirit and that spirit is speaking through you in a language that you don’t understand, or that you might only understand in that moment.The original Pentecostals thought that they were being given the tongues to go and preach and convert people in foreign lands. That’s what happened in the Bible. That’s where the Day of Pentecost comes from, when the Holy Ghost 50 days after Jesus rose from the dead, the Holy Ghost came down to the disciples and gave them his gift of tongues to go out and convert people in foreign lands.And so the original Pentecostals thought that’s what they were getting. They thought they were speaking in Chinese. And a lot of them set sail for places like China and died horrible deaths of dysentery and other things because they were so ill-prepared. They really thought that they’d been given this gift and the end of days were coming and they had to come out and help all these poor people who hadn’t heard the good news.These days, it’s much more of a personal commune with God or, God speaking through you or a personal conversation that you’re having. And it definitely doesn’t have that power over people anymore. But often because it is a part of that conversion process– and the conversion being born again is really significant for Pentecostals and for anyone of the evangelical faith, because it becomes a real clear demarcation of life before and after they found God.And because so many people are converting, when they’re converting, they’re taking on God, it’s often a matter of getting their life together. It’s often them saying, ‘I’ve decided I’m going to this church, I’m going to stop drinking. I’m going to try and knuckle down and provide better for my family,’ and things like that.So people really have that before and after moment. So when the spirit descends on them, they might really feel as though they are having this particular moment of commune with God or something like that. And it winds up being very profound, but it isn’t as widely practiced as it used to be, or it isn’t as critical to the faith. But it’s still very much there.SHEFFIELD: Yeah and the traditional Christian interpretation of the gift of tongues as a doctrine, it was to speak in language that actually exists, to actually spread the gospel, that was the point of it. And so Pentecostalism as a movement, it’s sort of a re-interpretation of a lot of traditional Christianity, while also claiming that it is the actual restoration of the ancient Christianity. I think that’s something that you found in your research, that people see themselves as the true heirs of Jesus, right?HARDY: Yeah. But I think everyone does, don’t they? (laughs). Everyone that’s that’s pretty into their faith thinks that they’re doing it in the right way. So. Yeah. That’s an interesting question, probably one of the really notable things that modern Pentecostals are doing, Hillsong’s probably the most famous, modern Pentecostal congregation, even though they don’t say the Pentecostal anymore, they dropped that label and left the Assemblies of God a while ago, but they’re, they’re charismatic and they say they’re non-denominational now, but they’re they’re spiritual–SHEFFIELD: Well, actually can you just step back just to say, what is the Assemblies of God for people who don’t know what that is?HARDY: Ah, sure. That was one of the original founding umbrella movements that came out of early Pentecostalism and they first really started calling themselves that, and it was quite famously maybe a bit similar to the Southern Baptist Convention or something like that. Around the world, they would often be a collective, so there’s no Pentecostal Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury, but this was as close as you’d have to some sort of hierarchy and something keeping people in line. And, as I think we can go into later on, part of the rolling series of crises that we’re seeing at the moment is because these charismatic leaders, charismatic in temperament as well as theologically, just going out and doing whatever works to get people through the door.And they’ve been very off the leash and we’re starting to see that even churches like Hillsong that, that lack of oversight is really coming back to bite them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So, so your book. Just tell us you, you reported it on Pentecostals in different countries. Tell us a little bit about which countries you were focusing on and why you did.HARDY: Sure. So I think should move to my publicity spiel here. 12 countries and eight U.S. states I think. So I went to the different corners of the earth where Pentecostalism is really kicking off and changing and making a difference. I wasn’t able to go to all corners of the earth because a fair bit of my research was during the pandemic.But I want us to tell the different stories in different places. If there’s two countries in the world that probably best represent Pentecostalism now, it would be Brazil and Nigeria. Brazil was, I think there were 3% of the country were Pentecostal in 1980. It’s now 30%. And really growing fast, I think it could be in the next decade, if all this continues, it’ll overtake Catholicism. And that’s pretty wild, 500 years ago that the Catholic church came to Brazil and in 40 years they’ve taken a third of the flock.SHEFFIELD: The Brazil angle also, the rise of Pentecostalism there is directly tied to the political career of Jair Bolsonaro. That’s who voted for him.HARDY: They were very influential in his election, definitely. Incidentally, so was WhatsApp. WhatsApp has been changed globally now because there was such a misinformation campaign that was being used by that.And it’s not like it’s not like Facebook where you can see it happening. These are private numbers. I think you can only forward a message onto 32 people or something now, because in Brazil, everyone was using it to send these really unhinged rumors about that schools now are going to make your five-year-old boys start wearing a dress and become a girl.And there was all that, that really awful moral panic stuff that unfortunately we’re seeing pop up in the U.S. just this week at the moment. [Interview was recorded April 7, 2022.] And that was certainly very central to his rise and he played into it.His wife is Pentacostal. He is still officially Catholic as far as I know. But he went during the election campaign and got dunked in the Jordan river and said that he’d been born again. And that was certainly speaking to not just the Brazilian people, but also the evangelical caucus in Brazil, which is really growing in influence and popularity. And it was saying, ‘I’m with the program,’ and unfortunately for the people of Brazil, it worked and he got elected.SHEFFIELD: So you looked at Brazil and then you were mentioning you briefly mentioned Nigeria. Why don’t you talk a little bit about that for a second?HARDY: Yeah. So Pentecostalism is huge in Nigeria. It’s hard to get exact numbers, but the country is more or less 50-50 Christian- Muslim. And this is really a, it’s always been fairly prominent, but certainly since the seventies Pentecostalism has really just swept through so many Christians denominations and is really by far the most powerful denomination there.And what’s really interesting, and my friend, Ebenezer Obadare, who’s a really brilliant Nigerian-American sociologist. He’s at Kansas State, I believe. He wrote about this. And he helps me with the research in my book. And what Pentecostals have really done– Nigeria is a very complex country between the Muslim north and Christians in the south. And Pentecostals, some of these really big, powerful Pentecostal preachers are effectively becoming kingmakers. Now they don’t want the power themselves, but Muslim politicians, Christian politicians, anyone has to come and bend the knees to get their their say-so.And what they asked for in return is to define the world in spiritual terms, it’s to talk about things in terms of spiritual warfare, it’s to talk about battles of good and evil. It’s to be able to demonize your opponents. Not simply say that they’re your opponent and their idea is bad, to say that they are evil and possessed.SHEFFIELD: So I’m sorry. I want to make sure that everybody can keep up with the terms here. So you mentioned spiritual warfare. What does that mean?HARDY: So it’s an idea that came from a very influential American Pentecostal figure, C Peter Wagner, who died a few years ago.And it came out of his time as a missionary in Argentina, understanding Pentecostalism in the global south, which is where most of the world’s Pentecostals are, and understanding that it needs to fit in and feel and look like the local culture. And a lot of places, particularly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa for example, local folklore and customs is much more spiritually defined than, say, in the west. And people will talk about things in terms of good and evil. So he came up that there was this idea that we’re in a spiritual contest, where the bad spirits have come down into the earth, and we basically need to get rid of them to create the kingdom for Jesus to come back.But he came up with three different ideas of spiritual warfare. So there’s the kind of personal level where you’re possessed by something, usually in the form of illness. And then there’s a cult level, so that is “new age-ism” sorts of things.But then there’s strategic level spiritual warfare, and that’s the really big thing. And that’s an idea that you’re starting to see really creep into American, particularly the radical right Republicans. You’ll start to hear them talking in terms of spiritual warfare. Most notably Paula White Cain did, she was looking at demon sperm and things like that, that’s pure spiritual warfare.So strategic level spiritual warfare says that institutions can be possessed. So that’s really taken on– it combined very well with MAGAism shall we say? So it’s saying the Democratic Party is possessed. Originally it was meant to be like, oh, the Las Vegas strip is possessed, now it’s the Democratic Party, it’s your local school board.And it’s really empowering believers to go and wrest control of these spirits. So you’re getting people charging into school board meetings with guns and saying, ‘I hear that people are reading Harry Potter in this school and we have to take on,’ and it’s really become quite a dangerous idea that’s just saying to people, you’ve got to stop this any way you can, this is evil personified right here.And yeah, by saying that whole institutions and whole areas can be possessed has been a very dangerous turn that we’ve seen in Christian ideology in the last few years.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And and it’s important also to look at where, when these ideas become more regnant what can happen when you believe in literal spirit doings in the physical world. Unfortunately it’s common in a number of African countries to believe that various people are witches and people will get attacked for supposedly being a witch. And it’s led to, unfortunately, people getting hurt or killed. It’s really terrible.HARDY: Yeah. One of Pentecostalism’s greatest strengths is that it looks and sounds and feels like the local culture. So Pentecostalism will look very different in Korea to Nigeria, to Brazil.And that’s why people like it, it feels much more authentic. It feels much more often it’s working class, it’s bubbling up from below with you. It’s the people’s faith. It’s not brought to you on high by some white priest that’s been educated in Europe and that is very much a strength and what a lot of people like about it, but it does tend to take on a lot of demonology and folklore.And you can get to a biblical literalism with this kind of stuff that you can find justification for anything in the Bible. The spiritual warfare comes from Ephesians 6:12. It speaks of a struggle, which is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of these dark worlds, and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. So, you can take that to apply to almost anything, but it does tend to breed a certain amount of– or it tends to appeal to people, potentially with their paranoid view of the world or a very suspicious of elites and things like that.So you can understand how it’s be…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Why it matters that pluralism was the biggest innovation of the Renaissance Jul 01, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary  We live in an uncertain age, one in which wealthy and powerful forces are working tirelessly to overthrow democracy, turn back the clock on human progress and destroy the middle class. The sheer magnitude of the West’s crisis of democracy can be overwhelming, however, and that’s why in this episode, I wanted to take more than a few steps back to explore the Renaissance, a period of world history that is much discussed in popular media, but often in a way that overshadows the real people and their actual intentions. Where did the Renaissance come from and what exactly were the people who made it hoping to achieve with their efforts? And are there any lessons that we can take from that time period for today?These are very big topics, needless to say, and I could think of no better person to discuss them with than Ada Palmer. She’s a historian who teaches at the University of Chicago, and she’s written a fantastic review of the entire time-period called “Inventing the Renaissance,” which also discusses the historiography of one of humanity’s most written-about eras.Besides this and other history books, Ada writes science fiction as well, which we get into at the very end of our conversation in the context of what lessons modern people can take from the Renaissance.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are listener supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe to stay in touch!Related ContentAncient Greek Skepticism is surprisingly relevant in the social media ageInside the demon-haunted world of Christian fundamentalismAuthoritarian epistemology is as old as humanity itself 🔒The forgotten story of how the “religious left” birthed American superpowerIn the digital age, reactionary Catholicism is making a comebackAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction05:53 — Tupac’s continued global resonance09:14 — The origins of hip-hop and its commercialization11:35 — Tupac’s legacy of contradictions18:41 — The Black Panthers’ influence on Tupac’s mother23:50 — Masculinity and gender within hip-hop29:06 — Gender and sexuality in the Black Panther Party35:56 — Obama and Trump in rap39:12 — Former Panthers still have hope for the future despite Trump41:31 — Trump’s 2024 campaign reached out heavily to hip-hop artists46:22 — ‘Coolness’ as a non-political voter persuasion method50:22 — How Van Nguyen brought oral history into his book58:19 — Eazy-E, another political West Coast emcee 01:01:55 — The meanings of ‘thug life’Audio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So your book is called Inventing the Renaissance; before we get into the stories that you tell in the book, let’s just get into the larger question of the myth of the golden age. Because I think a lot of people may not be aware that a lot of this was kind of concocted by Protestant fundamentalists, which was then ironically picked up by atheists. There's a bit of an irony there.ADA PALMER: Yeah, I mean it's a myth that begins and has its earliest roots in the Renaissance itself and the invention in 14, 12, 14, 15, basically of history into three parts with ancient, middle, and then modern, which begins in the Renaissance itself, gets reinvented very heavily in the 18th century and the 19th century, and then many times [00:03:00] in the 20th century.Because once you have the idea that there is a golden age, you want to be able to claim that what you're doing is like that golden age, with the Renaissance, what we really mean by the Renaissance is the theory that there's some transitional phase at which the way things were pre-modern world suddenly gets changed by the arrival of something that changes it and makes the world start moving toward modern.And world begins to become more modern somewhere in the 14 hundreds or 13 hundreds or 15 hundreds, depending on when you center the Renaissance. And eventually it's to us. so the myth of the Renaissance is really about claiming what defines modern and then claiming that it comes in at a certain point and that this modern process is somehow good.Right. And that the Middle Ages are somehow bad, or the pre-modern world is somehow not as good or not as correct or not on the right path and trajectory of progress that [00:04:00] modernity is on leads to the utility of being able to claim it. And if you can say, X caused the Renaissance and we are continuing X, then that makes we good.And in the 18th century and in the 19th century, there kept being moments when people could claim X caused the Renaissance and then for some reason X stopped dominating in Italy and Spain and where the Renaissance sort of started.But we, whoever we continuing it so that the true spirit of Renaissance Florence and, Renaissance, Venice and so on, used to be in Italy but is now in Berlin, or is it now in London or is now in Boston, or whoever the speaker is, who can claim in some way that the ideology, which shape the Renaissance has its true continuation in.they are, usually not Italy. And so there are all of these constructions in the 18th and 19th century saying, look at all these geniuses, looking at all these beautiful artworks that we all go see on the grand tour. They were enabled [00:05:00] by X and now X resides with us in London or with us in Germany, or with us in America.And we are the true continuation of the ideology that brought us these geniuses and this of progress toward modernity. So the Renaissance keeps getting reinvented and whatever its cause is keeps changing based on what lets people claim it.SHEFFIELD: So it's like, using the, past as a narrative to justify your present tense, your present ideas.PALMER: ones to summarize, which is a 20th century, mid 20th century.One, there's a hypothesis that the Renaissance is enabled by advances in banking and finance and that new methods of lending money at interest and international cur currency exchange and insurance and investment would develop over the course of the 13 hundreds and, create these banking fortunes mean that and therefore exchange of materials and therefore innovation in materials are starting to flow in [00:06:00] this period in a way they didn't, things become more interconnected.Populations mix the stagnant Middle Ages turn into the dynamic mobile, commercial world of the Renaissance, and that's what enables all of the art and all of the innovation, and therefore one can say in 1970 capitalism is the true continuation of the Renaissance and our bad communist rivals are like the bad, no good communal, dark ages, right?This is a really popular theory in the West during the Cold War because it lets you claim that capitalism is the correct trajectory for the future, and communism is backwards. so that particular theory, which competes with dozens of other theories of whether renaissance happens, has a vogue when it's politically useful.And other theories have their Vogues either decades earlier or decades later whenever they approve politically convenient for somebody who wants to be able to claim. What I'm doing is the trajectory of modernity and the future. What my rivals are [00:07:00] doing is the trajectory of the backwards pre-modern, bad world.The continual mythic refounding of the RenaissanceSHEFFIELD: Yeah. and in fact the term, as, you were saying earlier, the narrative about the Renaissance as a, a refounding, if you will, away from the, a dark ages. I mean, that was a narrative that started in the Renaissance itself through one of the key figures who you talk about quite a bit in the book.PALMER: Yeah, through, through, a pair of figures in a lot of ways through Petrarch and then Bruni.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.PALMER: So these are figures living respectively just before and during, thus just after the year. 1400 bruni being of the student generation relative to Petrarchs, teacher generation. and Petrarch first articulates the idea that was this wonderful golden age, and now we are in a fallen age of ash and shadow.And that the world has become wretched and broken, with the absence of the stability of Rome and that something must be done about this. [00:08:00] He doesn't say the Renaissance is a golden age. He says, we must try to make a golden age in contrast with this bad age we are in now by trying to imitate the arts and methods of the ancients and their golden age.Bruni then, who is one of his successors, invents the three part division of history into ancient medieval, and for them present for us Renaissance. Saying there are three eras, the good past, the bad, recent past, and the present in which we are about to, and in the process of creating a golden age. it's anSHEFFIELD: Yeah.PALMER: rather than a factual claim, right?He's saying, we must make a golden age. Now it's just beginning. Here are the exciting new things. Let's do more.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and the thing about all of this is that, the study of history, it is about multiple causes [00:09:00] happening to things. And, I think ultimately that's unsatisfying to a lot of people who want to say no. It was this one thing that of why all this stuff happened.It was this one thing and everything else. it was there a little bit, but it was just this one thing. My favorite thing, as it happens always. But you know, at the same time, there were, as, as there were specific people who were involved with this, and they specific choices.one of them, was as, you talk about it, length, is, trying to. Unifying Italy or at least, maybe not unify, butPALMER: andSHEFFIELD: yeah,PALMER: going bunch. Countries, right? The different city states are different nations, but to get them toSHEFFIELD: yeah.PALMER: with each other, it's not,Solidarity vs. unity in ItalyPALMER: the European Union, but it's one of the bits of earliest rhetoric that the European can Union can look upon as a, we should have solidarity amongst [00:10:00] ourselves in order to defend ourselves against a world that doesn't share as many values as we share, even though we are also still separate countries with deep histories of fighting wars against each other, and in fact, loathing each other in the case of the Italian city states.SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, and they definitely, and nobody achieved that until, many hundreds of years later, in terms of unifying Italy. And so, I mean, ultimately probably the political I. The politics probably were the main that,PALMER: I mean, I,SHEFFIELD: you know,PALMER: toSHEFFIELD: that, that was different,PALMER: I think it'sSHEFFIELD: I guess.PALMER: talk about the difference between unity and solidarity.Right, not no Petrarch does not imagine Italy unifying to one country,SHEFFIELD: No.PALMER: and his peers, if ever they do discuss the possibility of Italy unifying, Dante discusses it in his De Monarchia, they agree the only way this would happen would be if a foreign conqueror cape came over the Alps and conquered all of us. Other than that, is just [00:11:00] not happening. But solidarity is, it's hoped. Could the solidarity in which city states that our neighbors stop viewing their neighbors as arch enemies and become willing to ally with each other, against outside threats, because this is a period in which gorgeous Italian city states of central and northern Italy are so sackable, right?They're so sackable, they're really, wealthy. The great banking fortunes are piled in bags of gold in people's basements. The treasures are everywhere. The agricultural fruits are everywhere. This is also the center of. production fabricSHEFFIELD: They don't have huge armies. Yeah.PALMER: they have tiny armies because they only have very tiny countryside.They can't press the thousands ofSHEFFIELD: Where are they gonna put 'emPALMER: can.SHEFFIELD: where are they get 'em from? Yeah.PALMER: all they can do is spend their money hiring mercenaries. But a mercenary by his very nature can be bought for money and therefore will often be bought out from under you by [00:12:00] arrival. And so if you wanna sack anything, right, if you're a young king and you wanna come home covered with glory and bring loot and make your people like you, do you wanna go anywhere else in Europe or do you wanna go into Italy where these tiny countries with few defenses and more treasure than anyone else?And it's useful to remember, these are large cities by European standards, right? Only Paris and, later on in the Renaissance, London can rival these Italian cities in scale. There are multiple cities over a hundred thousand, which for a period is enormous. Milan, Florence, the edges of Venice and, Padua combined, Naples, which is humongous, right?So there is a very strong incentive for any outside power. Is it the holy of an empire? Is it France? Is it Spain? Castile, Aragon, anybody Portugal, you want to come see some things. Italy is your oyster. It's the best place to have a war. It's also warm. It's agriculturally rich enough that you don't have to carry food for your soldiers.[00:13:00] Your soldiers can just get the food off the land as they move. It's the ideal place to wage a war. And so what Petrarch looks around and sees is. If all these Italian city states agreed to help defend their neighbors against the French, when the French come, or the ese, when the ese come, then we could defend ourselves.But instead, what happens is they arrive are two Italian cities. They hate each other because they're living in the plot of Romeo and Juliet. And the Montagues want nothing better than to see the deaths of the caplets and vice versa. So inevitably, one of them will side with the invader to help spite the other, because they loathe each other and then they both get conquered.Or one of them gets conquered short term and the other gets effectively politically dominated. And so solidarity in which these countries are willing to defend their neighbors instead of sell out their neighbors is very far from unity. But it is what Petrarch is imagining could be achieved if, the values of ancient [00:14:00] Rome, of service to the state of valuing the good of the people above other things.The values of the Roman Republic could somehow be dredged out of the libraries of antiquity.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah.Rediscovery of ancient textsSHEFFIELD: and the other thing about that, I think I mean, I guess I, think a lot of people have this idea that nothing from ancient Rome in Greece was known to people who lived during the medieval times. And needless to say that's not true at all. But nonetheless, a lot was kind of buried.And So, so,can you talk, aboutthat if you would?PALMER: and no. the, backbone of medieval education is the bits of Cicero they have Virgil and of it, they're all reading it. They're all studying it. These are books you used to learn Latin grammar to then move on to theologians. medieval kings are constantly comparing themselves to ancient ones.the coins have portraits on them, which are copied from [00:15:00] portraits of ancient Caesars. Ancient Rome is all over the place, all the way through the Middle Ages. The belief that it wasn't is propaganda of the Renaissance claiming, barbaric things have been using the antiquity wrong, and they've been using Latin wrong, and they've been using Aristotle wrong, and now we're gonna use all these things.Half Using things in a new way and using things with a new sense of urgency. Because when people talk about the rediscovery of ancient texts in the Renaissance, people are always imagining, Indiana Jones prying open a tomb, and there is the, tome next to the ancie…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Ten years of Trumpism: America’s lost decade Jun 23, 2025
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.community

    Episode Summary 

    It seems forever ago, but it has officially been 10 years since Donald Trump announced that he was running as a Republican presidential candidate in 2015. A lot of terrible things have happened since that time, but if you think in terms of the issues that have propelled Trump politically, his two presidencies have been a “lost decade” for his own supporters.

    Trump done almost nothing to help the people he promised: Food costs are higher than ever before, unauthorized immigration has remained low, and health care is still out of reach for far too many people.

    Instead of trying to create his own policies to bring jobs to blighted heartland areas, Trump and Republicans are trying to close rural hospitals, terminate disaster-preparedness funding, and cancel the green jobs programs that former president Joe Biden enacted that mostly benefit Republican-voting areas.

    Despite promising to be a completely different kind of politician, Trump has been a total pawn of the far-right activists who began flooding into the Republican Party in 1964. Less than six months into his second term, aside from his tariff obsessions, Trump’s policies are barely different from those of George W. Bush, right down to the Middle Eastern wars, the billionaire welfare handouts, and the harsh cuts to anti-poverty programs.

    At the same time, however, in the past ten years, Democrats have also barely changed a thing. Despite losing multiple times to Trump and his congressional allies, the national Democratic Party has continued to be governed as a gerontocracy, and instead of copying Republicans’ billion-dollar investments in advocacy media, Democrats have instead spent almost all of their funds on old-school television ads and door-knocking efforts, hoping that Americans will magically make the connection between Republicans and their very unpopular policies.

    All of this got me thinking about doing a podcast episode to mark the political milestone, and after reading the Trump 10-year retrospective that Paul Campos posted at the Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog, I realized I needed to invite him and his colleague Erik Loomis onto the program for a live-streamed discussion of the topic which we recorded June 19th, two days before Trump decided to launch airstrikes against Iran.

    The video of our conversation is available. The full audio and transcript are available only to paying subscribers.

    Theory of Change and Flux are listener supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe to stay in touch!

    Related Content

    —Donald Trump was never anti-war, and only lazy journalists and naive supporters thought otherwise

    —Why MAGA is the ultimate ‘globalist’ movement

    —January 6th was only the beginning of Trump’s insurrection against America, his attacks on California are his next major step

    —How labor unions preserved collective memory and why their decline has hurt Democrats so much (Erik’s first TOC appearance)

    —Why understanding a Nazi legal theorist can help you understand Trump’s domestic political strategies

    —How atheist technologists like Elon Musk are learning to love the fundamentalist Christian Right

    Audio Chapters

    00:00 — Ten years of Trumpism as America's 'lost decade'

    07:59 — The historical context of Trump's rise

    11:18 — Why Republicans are both isolationist and imperialist

    19:21 — Democratic leaders haven't changed a bit in response to Trump

    28:18 — Right-wing media and the doomed quest a 'liberal Joe Rogan'

    39:04 — Republicans spend billions on ecosystems, Democrats do not

    48:09 — Economic vs. social justice is a false and damaging choice

    58:50 — Conclusion

    Membership Benefits

    In order to keep Theory of Change sustainable, the full audio and transcript for this episode are available to subscribers only. The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests. You can also subscribe to the show on YouTube.

    About the Show

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.


    As Evangelicalism grows increasingly unhinged, where is Mormonism going? Jun 21, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary  Over the years on this program, I’ve often said that the political differences dividing Americans are really just artifacts of much deeper epistemic divides. In the episode before this one, we explored how those differences manifest psychologically—but psychology alone cannot explain why so many people feel so alienated that they willingly support political leaders like Donald Trump whom they acknowledge to be deceptive and chaotic.The truth is that most of Donald Trump’s supporters back him because they feel like their religious viewpoints are being shunted aside by scientific and educational progress that they cannot refute or even understand. The tension between recalcitrant belief and modernity has always been the core conflict motive of Christian fundamentalism, but how this works specifically in terms of doctrines varies widely across epistemic communities. That’s why in this episode, we’re going to focus on just one faith tradition, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormons. Our guide to Mormon epistemology is going to be Luna Corbden, the author of a book called “Recovering Agency: Lifting the Veil of Mormon Mind Control,” which discussed various cultural and linguistic methods that the church used on its members to keep them coming back for more. In a lot of ways, not much has changed within LDS Mormonism since Corbden published in 2014, but some things have—and they’re revealing some deeper divisions between the institutions of the Latter-Day Saint Movement and its longtime rival of Evangelical Protestantism.The transcript of this audio-only conversation is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe on Substack or Patreon and get unlimited access.Related Content—The long and tangled history of Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism—Religious authoritarians have always been at war with democracy, regardless of whether anyone else realized it—The Christian right was a theological rebellion against modernity before it became a political movement—How Mormons, evangelicals, Native Americans, and tourists mix in the state of Idaho—Salt Lake Tribune cartoonist Pat Bagley on politics, Utah, and being an ‘emeritus Mormon’—Luna Corbden on the Mormon Stories PodcastAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction04:06 — Challenges of free will and information control14:08 — Mormonism created new doctrinal controversies while solving for classical Christian dilemmas20:12 — Centralization and doctrinal evolution in Mormonism26:47 — Intellectual Mormonism’s conflicted epistemology35:42 — Sweeping embarrassing doctrines under the rug doesn’t make them disappear40:01 — Scientific claims and the Book of Mormon44:40 — Spiritual polygamy remains an actual practice in today’s Mormonism53:49 — Former Mormons and active progressive Mormons are reconciling58:42 — Reclaiming self-worth and autonomyAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So we're going to have a discussion here about Mormonism and Epistemology and all that. But before we get into it, I did want to talk a bit about your book specifically and what you meant by agency, because for people who are not familiar with Mormonism, the term of agency is a core doctrine and something that is very important.So what does Mormonism mean by the concept of agency?LUNA CORBDEN: Yeah, It is a core doctrine to, or what they call the plan of salvation or in recent, the, recent thing they call it is the plan of happiness. When I was still in it was the plan of salvation. And the idea is that in the war of heaven, Jesus and Satan both stood up and had a different plans for the, future progress of their brothers and sisters, spiritual humanity at that point.And Jesus wanted to send everybody down. We can make our own choices, and if we made the wrong choices, we'd have to be punished for them for some reason. And then Satan was like, we're Lucifer. we'll actually just force everyone to make the right choices and then that way we can save everyone and no one has to be punished.And there was a huge war in heaven over that. And Lucifer's obviously the bad guy, and he got cast out and we ended up in this. That's the. How Mormonism solves the problem of evil, which is not something they talk about in Mormonism, but you get out of it and you're like, oh, that's how they're solving the problem of evil is basically free will. It's basically free.Will we have the ability to choose good versus evil? We need evil in order to be able to choose good, because if our only choice was good, then it's not really a choice, and that's really central. So the idea is we are free to choose, but also we have to live with whatever consequences we end up with [00:04:00] except through the saving power of Jesus Christ, who can at least save us from the eternal consequences of that.Challenges of free will and information controlCORBDEN: and it's not entirely true, as I learned when I got out, the concept of free will is a very complicated one. One that has been debated by philosophers for thousands of years. There's no scientists study fruit flies, the see if fruit flies have free will.There's no consensus on it because it is a complicated question. It's not simple. And really the best way to get them to maximize the free will in your own life, regardless of what's going on around you, is through self-awareness and really understanding what your choices really are and what they aren't.SHEFFIELD: The other thing that's interesting about the concept of free agency within Mormonism is that as the growth of the LDS Church has slowed down quite a bit in recent years, they have used it as a way of explaining why the church continues to remain small, despite the fact that they believed for most of their history, that it was going to be the stone cut out of the mountain that fills the whole Earth as a phrase that they repurposed from the book of Daniel to describe Mormonism.So they have to say that this is. A belief system that most people are not going to choose the full truth. And that's unfortunate, but they have free agency.CORBDEN: Yeah. And I've been out for over 20 years, so when I left, they were still able to say, oh yeah, no, we're the stone, we're filling the earth because they were still growing.At the point that I left, I think they were at 10 or 11 million. People members, when I left, according to their reporting on their records, it wasn't really until the rise of the internet, the popularity of the internet, that more of this information that used to only be relegated to what they called anti-Mormon literature.[00:06:00] They were published books or videos and you had to go out and find them. And so it was that milieu control. That's one of the concepts I talk about in my book, restricting people's access to dis-confirming information. It was a lot easier to retain milieu control, whereas in the last two decades someone can go out and they can just search.SHEFFIELD: Hey, I'm sorry to interrupt your point here real quick, but what do you mean by milieu control? what is, what do you mean by that? What does that mean?CORBDEN: Yeah, So milieu control, was identified by cult researchers as being just the idea that in order to keep people from discovering.Negative aspects of your high demand group is you have to control their information intake. And there's various ways that different groups do that. Some have everyone move onto a compound, so there's no unapproved information coming in or out. Like you just cannot access it. Since Mormonism doesn't do that, at least LDS Mormonism, they have to use more softer techniques.And so they'll be like, don't read that information 'cause it's anti-Mormon. Don't watch those movies because they're R rated. Don't listen to anyone who's left because they have a chip on their shoulder. Or they're misled by saying, and so it's basically. Convincing its members to be afraid of or to not want to access information.But the trouble is with the internet is you go on there and maybe because Mormonism has a lay clergy, and so you might be researching a Sacrament meeting talk or a Belief Society lesson, and you're like, oh, I'm going to go look up some cool little vignettes about Joseph Smith's. Childhood and you, so you put in there Joseph Smith's childhood or whatever, and suddenly you're getting these websites from, often from ex Mormons or even just Wikipedia, and they're showing you information that the church was previously when I was coming up in Mormonism was restricted from me.[00:08:00] It's showing them just right there. Oh, the story about the Joseph Smith refusing to have alcohol when he was a boy was, that doesn't make any sense for lots of reasons or other aspects of church finances or all of the information basically that's freely available out there that a member of the church can just accidentally stumble on.That has caused quite a few people to not join the church, to who otherwise would've, or to leave the church or to be what they call female physically in mentally out. And so that has reduced the church's growth rate considerably. And in fact that kind. They hide their numbers a little bit, but many people say that if they were being realistic about their numbers, that the membership is actually decreasing or would be, if not for members having children.SHEFFIELD: and on that point, the LDS church is quite different from a lot of other congregations in that most churches remove you as a member if you stop showing up. Whereas in the Mormon church, they keep you on the rolls, even if they haven't seen you in decades until you're either 110 or 120 or something like that.I always forget the specific decade, that they cut you off. but yeah, they'll keep you there even if they haven't seen you in 50 years, they say you're still a member. Yes. but yeah, and so as a result, I think it's, hard to use public opinion surveys to gauge Mormon affiliation because it's just such a small group inherently and always has been.And so when you're dealing with a group that is smaller than the margin of error in public opinion surveys, it really makes it hard to know how big it actually is, right? Yeah. Yep. So just going back to the concept of free agency a bit here. So a lot of people have compared Mormonism to a cult. and I think one could also compare [00:10:00] a lot of other religious movements to cults as well.but that's a side point because really what you're doing with the book here is you're trying to show people this is what sound thinking actually looks like.CORBDEN: Yeah. Yeah. yeah, and that is my ko eye audience number one XX Mormons. Number two are Mormons. That might. In, but they're progressive or questioning, or like I said, chemo and they're just interested in what's, how they work.And then probably my third layer outer layer of audience are people from other high demand groups who can relate to the content because I do something that I hadn't seen in any literature prior to me, and that is that I, organized all of those manipulation techniques into one place as like a list or I identified 31 of them and put them in order.And then under each one I have examples, whereas. Other literature I'd read lift and had his eight and Ha Hassan had his bite model and everybody had their own little model and I just gleaned all of it, pulled it all out and put it all in one place. So I've had people who were, had a military wife who really related to it for military wife culture that she was in.So evangelicals, I had a lot of people from other high demand groups that really related to it. So those are my audiences and yeah, that's what the cult exit literature largely was saying. The best way to free yourself from that organization that you grew up in, or that you had joined for a few years is to really understand what focus a c look.What those techniques were, because those are still living in you. Even if you've rejected God or you've rejected that religion or that non-religious high demand groups. Those, levers, those less defined and they're not doctrines at that point. They're worldviews and beliefs about yourself and about the world that are [00:12:00] a little bit more insidious, a little deeper.And so that's what this does is goes through and says, okay, here's love Loving. It's an insincere. they love you and they pull you in, but it's not sincere. They just want you as a member, and as soon as they know that they have you, they drop you. they you're in and they're not going to send you cookies every week anymore, right?Or, here's sacred science. It's saying that organization has the truth and is one with God. Here's a doctrine over self that your own desires are less than what the religion or organization says is most important. And so you have to subdue your own instincts and your own promptings.And so then that, that way each reader can go through and say. Okay, that I remember I latched on Luna saying some scriptures here that do that, but I remember a talk that was given by so and so back when, and that really is what stuck in my head. And I still have that belief. And so they can revisit and then maybe decide.And then that's where the free agency comes in. Maybe there's a lot of Mormon doctrines and Mormon core beliefs that Mormonism instilled in me that I still follow today because I've consciously, and then it becomes a choice, right? Because I've consciously pulled it out and gone, that's actually a pretty good idea and I'm going to keep that internalized.Or I can look at other stuff and go, oh, actually that's not serving me. It's not serving other people. And so I'm.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and you make a good point there, because a lot of these high demand religions, people obviously think of them as extremely theological, which of course they are. But really what they are is totalizing philosophies. That's fully what they are. They're full systems that tell you what to think about everything and also how to think.So it's a philosophy with a mystical delivery mechanism, if you will. That's what [00:14:00] we're talking about here. And so Mormonism is not that unique, as you said, compared to these other groups like evangelical Christianity?CORBDEN: Exactly.Mormonism created new doctrinal controversies while solving for classical Christian dilemmasSHEFFIELD: The other way that Mormonism has a lot of similarities with other fundamentalist religions is that while Christianity itself had always had a very long tradition, in fact in the Roman Catholic Church of saying that the Bible was not to be interpreted literally in all places, and you didn't have to consider things that you thought were unreasonable or were unscientific, you didn't have to believe them.But a lot of Christians, especially Protestant Christians, they did see the Bible as a literal document, and Mormons did that as well. But they also have had some additional controversies on top of that. So while the. Fundamentalist Protestants have had to deal with the lack of evidence of the ancient Hebrews being in Egypt, or the fact that there is a lot of evidence that the God of the Bible is just one of several Canaanite deities that existed at…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    America’s political divide is psychological, not ideological Jun 10, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryPolitics in the United States and everywhere else has always been about policy—which party wants to do this, which party wants to do that. But in the 21st century, a new dimension has been added: true and false.That reality has become a serious problem for left-of-center political parties, because they have traditionally oriented themselves around an affinity for science and reason.As a result, right-wing parties with policies that are inherently anti-populist—policies that take money from the middle class and the poor and give it to the rich—are nonetheless able to get the votes of many lower- and middle-income people. Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, and a host of other right-wing authoritarian leaders are proof that this is indeed the case.We’re going to talk about these questions in today’s episode with Eric Oliver, a political science professor at the University of Chicago. He argues that American politics has become divided along epistemic and psychological grounds between “intuitionists” who think with their guts and “rationalists” who prefer science and logic.Originally the divide between the two epistemologies cut across political partisanship, but since he came along, Trump seems to have attracted the support of former Democratic intuitionists like Robert Kennedy Jr., a trend that Oliver and his co-author Thomas J. Wood all but predicted in their 2018 book, Enchanted America: How Intuition and Reason Divide Our Politics.You can also check out his podcast, 9 Questions, which will soon be distributed additionally via the Flux podcast network.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep going. Please become a paying subscriber and get unlimited access.Related Content—Tulsi Gabbard and the art of ‘post-left’ grifting—Despite its lofty language, Marianne Williamson’s self-help politics leads nowhere—Covid contrarians got much more wrong than public health officials, don’t let them forget it—Originally, staunch libertarians saw themselves as centrists—not any more—Why political extremism often derives from personal insecurity—The Christian right was a theological rebellion against modernity before it was a political force—The forgotten history of how William F. Buckley tried to steal away the John Birch Society’s supportersAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:19 — The intuitionist and rationalist spectrum07:04 — Intuitionism was originally cross-ideological, but Trump consolidated it11:47 — Intuitionism in everyday life15:24 — How to measure intuitionism vs. rationalism17:42 — Where Moral Foundations Theory falls short28:21 — How views about everyday scenarios can correlate with political opinions33:40 — Democrats' epistemic disadvantage countering Trumpian intuitionism38:52 — Case study: Lucy's contradictory beliefs43:16 — Conspiracy theories existed long before the internet46:05 — Conservatism vs. reactionism57:03 — Democrats are perceived as the status quo party01:00:44 — How intuitionism fueled conspiracy theories during the Covid-19 pandemicAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: The book here we're talking about today is not a newly released one, but on the other hand, I think that what you guys put into it and your general thesis and research, it really did accurately describe the phenomenon of Trumpism and the enduring popularity of it.J. ERIC OLIVER: This didn't start as a book on Trump. It actually started as a book on conspiracy theories. So, um, a few years earlier I had started doing research on conspiracy theories. I had some room on a survey and I put some items on, 'cause I had a long interest in conspiracy theories and came back with these very large percentages of Americans who were endorsing conspiracy theories.And this is in the early mid two thousands that. These data were coming in. And my co-author, Tom Wood, was a graduate student with me at the time. And I said, wow, we're getting back these crazy numbers. Let's see what's going on here. 'cause is this measurement error or is this really something that's kind of floating beneath the radar, at least a political science. And so we started doing more research into why people believe in conspiracy theories and to the extent that they do. And the two things that kept. Popping up again and again we're kind of what we would call magical thinking, so having a lot of paranormal and supernatural beliefs as being a very big predictor of whether or not people believed in conspiracy theories.So if you believe in UFOs or ESP or even general sense that there is a God who will respond to your prayers, you're far more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than not. Sort of across the board. And what we also found was that people who believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to believe in a host of other [00:04:00] kinds of things.Like, for example, natural medicines. Homeopathy. Uh, they tended to be more nationalistic in their orientations. They were a lot more populist in their orientations, just generally mistrustful of elites and sort of established groups. They often tended to be wary of foreigners and more xenophobic.And so we saw this kind of interesting constellation that seemed to defy normal ideology and it didn't necessarily align with race or even partisanship yet. It was this factor that really explained a lot of how people are understanding the world. And so we're in the process of doing all this research, this is 20 14, 20 15. We're fielding survey after survey to kind of generate all these data and who appears on the political horizon, but Donald Trump and he is emblematic of a lot of the things that we're studying.And what we, we came to realize was that with the popularity of Trump and this welling ground swell, um, around him in 2015, that American politics weren't simply divided by ideology or partisanship or race, but there was another dimension.And we ended up labeling this dimension kind of intuitionism. And most people are in the middle on this, but you can imagine the intuitionism dimension is anchored on two poles. On one side are people we call rationalist, and those are people who are products of the enlightenment. They believe in science, reason, logical deduction, empirical fact. And on the other end of this spectrum are people we call intuitionists and they believe in gut feelings, um, their own kinds of just intuitions about things. How they're very susceptible to feeling as a guide to understanding the world as opposed to say, for example, maybe thinking. Um, and they place a lot of weights and [00:06:00] then, inferential weight on their own feelings.And so what we found out and what we were, we were, we were speculating about was that this dimension can divide and kind of describe the American population and how far you are on one end of the other of the spectrum. We'll say a lot about your political beliefs, especially your willingness to subscribe to conspiracy theories to, and, you know, believe in homeopathic medicine to be hostile to vaccines, uh, to be more populist in your political orientations. And so we were devising scales to test this out, and when Trump entered the election, we started doing polls around, around testing these measures during the campaign. And sure enough, like his supporters scored really, really high on our measures of intuition. And so, uh, we ended up writing this book called Enchanted America, and it's really trying to describe what we think is this other dimension that organizes political thinking in the United States.Intuitionism was originally cross-ideological, but Trump consolidated itSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it's, I mean, fundamentally the division is epistemic rather than ideological. And I think the intervening years since you, you two published the book, only made the thesis even more, visibly accurate. Especially I think with the, the migration of Robert Kennedy Junior into the Trump coalition.I mean, that was almost, you know, you, you guys basically kind of methodologically predicted that that would happen in, in your research and in the findings that you.OLIVER: Yeah. You know, the, the thing that really struck us about this was that you know, at the time in particular, intuition is cut across ideology and party. And I had a sabbatical year, uh, back in Berkeley where I had done my PhD and I was surrounded by a lot of very, very liberal people who are very strong [00:08:00] Intuitionist, for example.And you could see this a lot in sort of their opposition to vaccines and traditional medicine. And the idea of really, and, you know, their, their apprehensions about corporate power their fetishizing this idea of something as being natural. And the interesting thing is they have that a lot in common with if you, when I would go to Texas to visit my family a number of whom are evangelical Christians, and they share a lot of the same beliefs. And you know, really, and that was kind of surprising to me. It's like, oh, okay. The Berkeley hippies and the Evangelical Texans have some strong commonalities here, and particularly around questions of, of health, of seeming, naturalism and a real susceptibility to conspiracy theories too.And, and these people were really what we would call kinda strong intuitionist. And so when I was thinking about sort of the political scene, it was inevitable to me that Donald Trump would probably draw into his orbit, not just people who believed in conspiracy theories, but probably a lot of people on the left who. Share this kind of strong intuitionist proclivity. And it's not that surprising to me, for example, that a lot of people who were formally, enchanted by Bernie Sanders when he didn't get the nomination, then switched over to Trump. Because Bernie tapped into a lot of those types of things that Trump, uh, those sentiments.There's some big differences between Bernie supporters and Trump supporters, by and large, but at least in some dimensions, especially this sort of political populism that is often embodied in intuition is uh, there, there was a strong commonality there. I,SHEFFIELD: Yeah. well, and yeah, and, and you guys did find that the Bernie Sanders supporters that you had surveyed did have a strong support for science. And if I remember right, they were the, the most strong supporters of science. Wasn't that right?OLIVER: well, I think, I think this is what, what's what separates a populist from a socialist and you, you can imagine that. [00:10:00] Populism is, the way we define it really aligns on three dimensions. There's kind of what we would call political populism, which is, uh, real mistrust of political elites and people in political power. There's what we would call, there's a cultural populism, which is mistrust of dominant cultural institutions and apprehensions about dominant cultural institutions. So, fear of Hollywood fear, fear of the media these types of things, um, medicine in that regard. And then there is strong nationalism. That's a big element within populism. And the interesting thing is, bernie supporters and Trump supporters both had very, very strong political populism scales, but where the Bernie supporters broke away from the Trump supporters was on the cultural populism. And, you know, particularly their embrace of science, and they're not nationalists, socialists don't tend to be nationalists.They tend to be more internationalist in orientation, whereas populist, um, tended to be much more, much, much more strongly kind of nationalist in their orientations there.SHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah. And, and it's also, and, and you do, you guys do talk about in the book that it, it, there's also more of a fearful orientation. and as an example would be somebody like Joe Rogan, who is, seen, he is constantly talking about various things, and he's afraid of, even though he has the image of being a tough, macho guy, he's constantly afraid of in his food.Or, things that, uh, he think can, can hurt him in, you know, in the air or, you know, fluoride or things. These are all things that, that you, that have a, sort of intuitive fear of things he doesn't understand.OLIVER: Yeah.Intuitionism in everyday lifeOLIVER: And, and maybe this is a good opportunity for me to describe what I mean by intuition is here, because it's, that's since this is sort of the central focal point, because what we were trying to do is try to figure out what what was underlying all of this, these [00:12:00] beliefs, why were the same people who believe in conspiracy theories also tending to be more populist or, um, more afraid of vaccines and all of these things.And, and so with this, this idea of intuition is based on kinda a long anthropological literature on magical thinking. And within this are sort of two key elements. When people draw on their intuitions to make inferences about the world, there are two key components that are gonna influence the way that epistemology works.And so one of them is gonna be their emotions. And so they're gonna utilize their beliefs to both manage their emotions. So if they are feeling fearful and they're feeling anxious, they're gonna look to those beliefs that will help kind of quell that anxiety, but they're also drawing on those emotions to inform their beliefs.And in the book I describe a story when my son was little and he was awoken in the middle of the night with, terror about, you know, monsters in the closet. And we went back and forth and back and forth, and finally he said, well, dad, you know, if there are no monsters in the closet, then why am I afraid I. And that's really a strong intuitionist proclivity. Children are big intuitionist thinkers. They don't really, they haven't been trained in rational thinking yet. So if you wanna really know how intuition is works, look at your kids. And their kids really draw on their emotions as informative of their realities.And someone like Joe Rogan does too. I think he's a guy who lives in a lot of fear. And, you know, both in terms of then his ideology, but you know, also his like performative masculinity. This need to like bulk himself up and, you know, and assume this like, like that he needs to be capable in some case because there's some threat that's imminent that's about to face him. The other thing to know about our intuitions is that they have a grammar that organizes them. So if you look at why certain kinds of magical beliefs hold the forms that they do it's because they reflect what are in our sort of innate judgment routines and psychologists have a word for this called heuristics and heuristics [00:14:00] are these kind of information shortcuts that we use to make quick decisions about the world.And so I'll give an example of this, like, I am in the wine store. There are lots and lots of wines to buy. I don't know which one is a good one. I'll typically just buy a wine from what is the emptiest rack because. That seems like, oh, a lot of other people are buying the wine. It must be a good wine. I assume that they know something. I don't. I'll buy it. That's the ex, that's an example of a heuristic. We have a lot of natural heuristics that shape our psychology. So for example, we have a heuristic around contagion. We are extremely, extremely sensitive to any kind of cues of contagion. And you can see this a lot in political rhetoric where, you know, you…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Republican men see masculinity as under attack, but most Americans seem to disagree Jun 03, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary Many people expected that Donald Trump's fate would be decided by women last year. It was, after all, the first presidential race since the Republican-dominated Supreme Court had decided to roll back a national right to abortion.But Trump upended that possibility by deciding to run a campaign that was focused very heavily on men and trying to attract the votes of men who didn’t commonly participate in voting.That’s why I wanted to bring Juliana Menasce Horowitz onto the show today. She’s a senior associate director of research at the Pew Research Center where she and several colleagues have come out with a very interesting report about how gender is presented in American society and how people think they present in that regard.The transcript of this audio-only episode is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep doing this. Please subscribe to stay in touch and get unlimited access.Related Content—Tradwives, Instagram farmers, and performative gender roles—Male pop-culture is obsolete, and men are suffering because of it—Trump, Nietzsche, and the politics of gendered religious despair—Seeing the bigger story behind Moms for Liberty’s narrative—Yes, fitness and politics have a history—How an oversharing Christian blogger inadvertently documented his own radicalizationAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction04:15 — Less of a partisan divide on whether men are valued for being caring11:57 — Why the Pew Research Center no longer uses terms like “Baby Boomer” or “Gen Z”20:07 — The challenge of sampling smaller demographic groups27:04 — Does self-reporting introduce error in polling?30:16 — Age differences in self-perception of femininity and masculinity32:43 — Influence of family and media on gender identity37:10 — Role of religion and coaches in gender identity38:29 — Marital status and gender identity41:40 — Societal acceptance of non-traditional gender roles46:26 — Republican voters seem to think hobbies are biologically based52:06 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: You have so many interesting findings in the report here, but one that really stands out in particular is that the Republican men that you talk to really seem to see the topic of masculinity and being a man quite a bit differently compared to other demographic groups.JULIANA HOROWITZ: Yeah, sure. So yeah, that's something that we sought throughout the report. We asked several questions about, um, you know, to, to sort of get at some of the topics that have been out there in the, in the public discourse and the political narrative about men and masculinity.And one of the things that we wanted to look at is whether the public perceives masculinity as being under attack. And so we asked the question about, um, you know, about whether people think other people in the [00:02:00] US have mostly positive or negative views of men who are manly or masculine. And, and for the most part, Americans don't see masculinity as being under attack based on that question. But Republican men were the most likely to say that people in the US have mostly negative views of men who are mainly or masculine. Um, and then we also asked some other questions that got at, um, you know, different traits that people think society does or doesn't value in men. And personal ratings of masculinity and femininity. So basically how people see themselves and through, you know, throughout the survey, through all these different topics, including the self ratings Republican men really stand out in being different from democratic men and from Republican women and democratic women,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, they do. And just zooming out on the question a little bit. So only 25% of the entire sample said that people have a mostly negative viewpoint of manly or masculine men, but among Republican men, that was 45% who said that?And that was, as you said, pretty unusual. So what was the finding with Republican women? What did they think on that same topic?HOROWITZ: Right, so among Republican women, we saw that about a quarter of Republican women said that people have mostly negative views, um, compared to 20% of democratic men and only 13% of Democratic women. So Republican women and democratic men actually had fairly similar views on this. And then democratic women were the least likely to see masculinity as being under attack. Under attack. And one of the things that's interesting too, is that for those who say, especially for Republicans actually, who say that people have negative views of men who are masculine, um, the vast majority of those Republicans say that that's a bad thing, right? So it's bad that people have negative views.It was different. For Democrats, it was a little bit more mixed. So for Democrats who say that people have negative views of masculine men, um, 45% said it was bad. Only 17% said it was good, and 37% said it was neither good nor bad. And so they had more split views as to whether it was a bad thing or sort of [00:04:00] neutral.Neither good nor bad that people have negative views of masculine men. Before Republicans, both men and women, um, who said that that was the case, they, they overwhelmingly saw that as a bad thing.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and that is interesting and we will come back to that in a little bit.Less of a partisan divide on whether men are valued for being caringSHEFFIELD: But one thing that also is interesting is that you and your colleagues also asked the survey respondents whether Americans place enough value on men being caring or open about their emotions, or soft spoken or affectionate. And the partisan divide was not nearly so great on this question, which I found kind of fascinating.HOROWITZ: That's right. And, and I wanted to mention, I wanted to, to be clear that we didn't present these traits as being masculine or feminine. I mean, we chose. A balance list based on, you know, based on what, what we read and based on what we know of how society sees these straits as being more associated with masculinity or femininity. Um, but we didn't present it that way to, to our respondents. And so, yeah. So a majority of Americans overall say that there's not enough value placed on men who are, you know, open about their emotions, soft spoken, um, caring, affectionate. There were differences. You know, Democrats are more likely to say that there's not enough value placed on, on men who have these traits, but even among Republicans, um, you know, the, the balance of opinion was that there's not enough, even if it wasn't a majority saying that, that Republicans were on the side of saying there's not enough value placed on men with these straits, it was a little bit different.Um. On the traits that might be considered more traditionally masculine. So confidence, assertiveness, um, being a risk taker, being physically strong there. Overall, we saw more, um, more mixed views among Americans overall. We didn't see a majority saying too much, not enough or about right, but we did say we did.See for the most part, people tended to be on the side of saying there's too much value placed on these traits for men than saying there's not enough. But Republican men were more likely to say that there's not [00:06:00] enough value placed on men who have these more traditionally masculine traits.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and just to underscore your earlier point, the traits were not said to be associated with any particular expression of being masculine or feminine or male or female.But you did also talk about some other traits on the list here. And they were broken down, including some traits that are perhaps associated with quote unquote toxic masculinity. And there with these traits, the partisan dynamic did come back a little bit more. Isn't that right?HOROWITZ: Yeah, well, so actually there, there, there is a little bit of a party of party division there, but for the most part, so, so in this list we ask about certain behaviors and, um, we, we ask people the extent to which they find these behaviors acceptable for men to do. Some of the things on the list that majorities of Americans, um, and this really crossed, you know, crossed parties even though there, there might have been differences, but it's majorities of both Democrats and Republicans who thought that things like throwing a punch of provoked, um, drinking a lot of alcohol when out with friends, having many different sexual partners or joining in when other men are talking about women in a sexual way. Majorities of Americans across party saw these as, as unacceptable behaviors for men. And so there were differences of degree, there were differences in the share saying that, but for the most part, this was not one where we saw or sort of our, our biggest partisan gaps.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Um, and I guess it was, uh, more of a difference, uh, uh, by gender in this case, right?HOROWITZ: We did see some differences by gender here too. Yes. Um, but again, like it was, um, you know, women were more likely to say these behaviors are unacceptable. But majorities of men also also said that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. It was just by a higher percentage,HOROWITZ: exactly. There's a, mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no. And then there were some, some age differences with some of these, uh, behaviors, such as, uh, [00:08:00] a divide between, uh, what people thought about the idea of men putting a lot of effort into their style and fashion, and also playing a lot of video games.There were age differences there that were interesting.HOROWITZ: Yeah. Those were interesting. Young people, both young men and young women, were more likely to say that those were acceptable behaviors for, for men to do. And so it was interesting to see that, that age gap there. Um, it was picking up more than, you know. I think sometimes we do focus on gender and party because that's where we see a lot of our gaps. But in this case, when it comes to, yeah, to putting a lot of effort into how you look and playing video games, both young men and young women we're the most likely to say that those are acceptable things for men.SHEFFIELD: Now, what about in terms of. Of whether, uh, men can take care of the house or, uh, take charge in day to day, uh, activities and things like that.HOROWITZ: Yeah. We asked a series of, of questions about behaviors or, you know, or things that men do that we presented as being specifically, you know, when thinking about men who date women or who are in a relationship with women. Um, and this was, um, well the one item where a majority said it was acceptable was, um, we asked about men, you know, focusing on taking care of the kids and taking care of the home while their wife focuses on, on working for pay. And 57% of Americans said that that was acceptable for men to do. Um, we, um, you know, we, we do see that as more acceptable among younger adults, but a majority across the board say that's the case where we saw a little bit more. Um, you know, when, when it was interesting was when it comes to splitting, the bill went out on a date. Um. It was interesting because we, you know, like that was more acceptable for, um, that that was more acceptable for older women. So it was, it was interesting because we saw both, um, this was a really interesting one. Like younger men thought it was [00:10:00] acceptable to split the bill on the date, and younger men were more likely than young women to say that that was the case. And then for women, it was the older women, women 65 plus were more likely to say that it was acceptable, um, to split the bill when, when, on a, when a man is out on a date with a woman. So I thought that was interesting, but that was one where we saw a difference between young men and young women where young men said, yeah, that's acceptable.And, and young women were less likely to say it's extremely or very acceptable. I mean, they, they thought it was acceptable too, but they tended to fall more on the somewhat acceptable and not firmly on the, on the extremely, very acceptable side.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, uh, but then also on the partisan, uh, their, uh, differences that they were pretty significant on that question as well, splitting the bill. Uh, there was a 20 point gap, uh, and yet, so while Democrats, 44 percent of them said that it was extremely acceptable, uh, to split the bill, it still wasn't a majority.of Democrats. So I found that kind of interesting,HOROWITZ: It wasn't the majority. And you know, what I didn't do was look to see the age differences within parties because we know that, you know, a lot of young women also lean democratic. And we know that young women are less likely in young men to say this is highly acceptable. And so it would be interesting to go in and kind of look at the, whether it's young women who might be pulling Democrats out, you know, not. Getting to a majority saying that. So I think that'd be an interesting thing to look at. But yeah, on a lot of these, so for example, on taking care of the home and children while their wife works for pay, there was a difference there too. Um, with, you know, two thirds of democrats say that that would be acceptable compared with about half of Republicans saying that that would be, again, like, I should say, highly acceptable. 'cause we did have a, a, um, a category that was somewhat acceptable. So it's very few people saw that as like,not unacceptable,SHEFFIELD: yeah, or inappropriate. Um, yeah.Why Pew Research Center no longer uses terms like "Baby Boomer" or "Gen Z"SHEFFIELD: And now one thing that [00:12:00] is, um, different also, if, if people are reading the, the web version of this, um, is that you guys are not using, generational labels, uh, which is a pretty big difference, uh, within the Pew Research Center. Um, the center was a big proponent, uh, historically of, of, of generational labels, but now, uh, you and your colleagues have decided to move away from those types of labels.Can we talk about that?HOROWITZ: Of course. So that's something that's happened over the last few years, maybe the last three or four years. And as we were gearing up to start looking at Gen Z, as Gen Z was moving into adulthood, we started doing some mythological explorations to see, you know, over time our surveys have moved from the phone to the web. One of the things that we started exploring was whether we could compare some of those surveys, because we have surveys going back a long, a long time, and we wanted to be able to look at other generations where they were coming into adulthood like Gen Z, and we realized we weren't able to do that because of the methodological and the mode changes. And then during that time, we started talking to different people, um, and there were some public, um, critiques of our, not just our work, but of using generational lens in general in social science research. And so we engaged with some of our critics. We had a lot of conversations with our critics, with other people, um, other researchers who used generational analysis and just really thought about. You know, and also thinking about the changing landscape and how generations have been used more recently, not by us, but you know, by people using it to really, um, you know, propagate stereotypes and talk about millennials, avocado toast, and those types of, those types of things that weren't really useful for understanding people and how they think and how they behave. Um, and so in thinking about all of that and doing some of the method…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Hazel Grace on reinventing the American Dream May 29, 2025
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityEpisode Summary Ever since he came back into office, Donald Trump has messed up a lot of things. The judiciary, the budget, federal employees, foreign policy, you name it. But we can’t forget that America’s economic, political, and religious systems were already failing a lot of people long before he ever came on the scene. That’s especially true for younger Americans who face skyrocketing college tuition, an inscrutable job market, and relationship expectations that are no longer matching reality. Some of them are dropping out of a rigged system, but others of them, like our guest on today’s episode, are thinking outside of the box.Hazel Grace was raised as a conservative Christian in Alabama, but she walked away from all that to become an adult media executive and performer, as well as a political activist. Her journey challenges a lot of assumptions, not only about adult media, but also about who is allowed to participate in politics and media, and why.Growing up in the Bible Belt, Grace was taught to be grateful for the bare minimum rather than expecting better. But rather than give up, Grace began crafting a new life on her own terms, rooted in honesty, autonomy, and openness. Her work today represents a fusion of personal liberation and social critique, a rejection of both religious conformity and economic exploitation.Several years into her career now, Grace leads InMelanin, a production company and community that promotes women of color in adult media. She’s also an advocate for civil liberties and privacy through her Porn Over Party initiative.Those are just some of the things we talk about in our very wide-ranging conversation. We also discuss her experience as a Southern girl who was skeptical of religion, and the difficulty that many black women encounter trying to earn a living in adult media. And perhaps most interestingly, we also discuss why she still identifies as a Republican, even though she can't stand Donald Trump.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You will need to be a paid subscriber to listen or read the full program.Related Content—As social stigmas fade, more women are coming out as bisexual—Why gay Republicans helped build a political party that hates LGBT people—Young Republicans can’t get a date — or a clue as to why—Society still stigmatizes women more than men for having casual sex—How a retired porn star is helping her male fans understand themselves better—A brief history of the world’s oldest profession—MAGA is becoming a sexual fetish, no really—Tolerance is winning, even though it might seem otherwiseAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction11:06 — Why Christianity wasn’t a good fit17:06 — Transition to the adult industry(Sections below are for paid subscribers only)24:04 — Open relationship dynamics26:39 — Who’s being exploited, performers or employees?29:18 — Challenges faced by black women in adult media38:25 — Building up InMelanin44:16 — Helping Republicans realize their party hates porn50:53 — The perils of being an anti-Trump Republican59:25 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: All right, well let's just maybe start off with giving people kind of a background of where you're from, where you grew up and all that stuff.HAZEL GRACE: I grew up in Alabama Millbrook, Alabama, small town.SHEFFIELD: What part of Alabama is that?GRACE: Central Alabama. Yep. I grew up there. I graduated in 2016. I got married in 2018. When I graduated, I had gotten accepted into a couple of colleges in north Alabama. And ultimately decided as I was registering for registering for classes that that is not what I wanted to [00:04:00] do.I, and even to this day, doing what I do and running my business and all that, like, I'm still this person of, like, I don't want to sign up for that amount of debt, not knowing how I'm going to be able to pay it off. And, and that point in 2016, the, the shine that was on top of college life had already been well, well gone for most people.Like we had seen people join sign up for the American Dream and. End up with 50 to a hundred thousand dollars in student loans and not able to get a job in the field that they wanted at that time. The, that whole college boom, that it was dead at that point in 2016. And so a lot of us were making were, we were over that lure and we were making an educated decisions based on all that information, and I decided, yeah, I just don't think this is a good move. At that time, it wasn't that I didn't still want to go to school, I still wanted to go. I still wanted to major in political science. I still had major dreams of becoming a politician someday. I just did not want to struggle all the way through.I just felt like, okay, I'll work, I'll start a job. I was serving, I was working at three different jobs and I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to save up money. My first was to get a car, move into a place, and then start saving up money so that I could at least pay for, I don't know, my tuition, my books, something, because to take on all of that.To me, just felt like I'm already starting at a loss. From a, a middle class to low class family in Millbrook, Alabama, I'm already starting at a loss to sign up for that much debt. In my opinion, I would always be working to pay off that debt. My life would never be mine. It would always be working towards this goal, and I never wanted to view life that way.I always felt like, if I'm going to live, I want to live for myself. I want to do things that I want. I want to do things that make me happy. I want to do things that make me feel fulfilled. And I just couldn't see myself being fulfilled or feeling fulfilled knowing that I had that hanging over me. To me, money is a big thing and money is a big thing in this country.And I just think a lot of people, when they think that it's for the greater good, which in, in a lot of cases it is, they tend to just brush that [00:06:00] off. And that's how so many people ended up with so much student debt to get to their prospective fields. And so, as during all that, I decide I'm just going to be a housewife.I'm going to, work my three jobs until I can afford to go to college. I meet my husband—well, I had already known my husband but we started dating right after I graduated high school and we got married in 2018. He joined the military, the Marine Corps, later that year, and we moved to California together so that he could start his duty station at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, California.SHEFFIELD: North of San Diego. For those who don’t know.GRACE: Yeah, San Diego. Sorry, San Diego. But yeah, I mean, growing up, growing up in Alabama, it was tough. It just felt like, okay, am I ever going to make it out of this? It's just one of those things where you're starting at the bottom and it feels nearly impossible to make it out. And it's also the Bible Belt and you're being told like, just be grateful for what you have.Just be grateful for what you have. Just be grateful for what you have. And it's like, yeah, but I could have more and I think I might deserve more. And so,that, that, that, way of thinking in Alabama is not really accepted. People are very grateful for, for what they have, even if it's the bare minimum.And the, I'm not no shame or shade on that at all whatsoever. You should be grateful for every little thing that you have, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't want or expect more especially if you see that it's out there for you. And so, beingSHEFFIELD: that's also why you're political tooGRACE: yesSHEFFIELD: You want to expand what's possible.GRACE: For everyone.SHEFFIELD: And you want people to think that they deserve more. And you are so right about that, that mentality, and it really has developed—unfortunately, as we've had more and more income inequality and things like that—that yeah, people just are like, well, I'm, all I can have is subsistence, survival.That's all I, that's my goal is survival. And it's like, that's fine if you really think that, but you're better than that. You, you're better than [00:08:00] that and you deserve more.GRACE: Yes. Because at the end of the day, you really have to think about it. If you're just surviving, just working your job and just surviving, who are you surviving for? Because the guy that owns that company is not coming into work every day and he's living his life while all of his little, these little worker bees just survive until they die.And that's just not fair. Everyone should have a piece of living. And everyone should have a piece of working too. Like it's not, one of those. Magical scenarios where everyone gets to live a duty free life. We all have duties to each other ultimately. And so I just knew I'd never be okay with the status quo.And that was then, it's gotten so much worse now. The way that corporations really rule everything, the corporateoverlords, they get to live their lives. They get to take vacations, they get to just do all the things that they want to do, and no one's telling them to be grateful for their employees and to make sure their employees are taken care of.But as far as, growing up as a little black girl in Alabama, we're told to be grateful for every little thing that we have, even if at the end of the day we deserve that. And yeah, it's a very unfortunate way of thinking and it drills into people that they shouldn't expect more. And yeah, it just never worked for me 'causeSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, you saw, you saw theGRACE: Mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: All right, so, so you were doing three jobs like what kind of jobs were they?GRACE: I was a server, a hostess, and a dishwasher. Cracker Barrel, Logan's Roadhouse. Sonic. Oh Charlie's.SHEFFIELD: Oh wow. That's like the Holy Trinity of the south!GRACE: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Okay. All right. Well, uh, and you know what, and, but I'm, and I'm sure you had a great time at those places,GRACE: did. I'm a people person. Being a server was great. Like it was almost hard for me to move into this field because ifit wasn't for my husband and his like unwavering support, I would've just stayed. Just because being a server, I can make more money on tips. Because I love, I'm just a people person, so I had a lot of fun.I love problem solving. Being a hostess and having people don't realize how [00:10:00] hard a hostess job is, it is actually quite difficult because you're dealing with. Four different sets of people you're dealing with, your servers, you're dealing with your your, your customers. You're also dealing with your kitchen.And so keeping all of those things in mind in this big equation in your head so that the store doesn't get over, the servers don't get overwhelmed, the customers aren't unhappy and the kitchen isn't over overwhelmed as well. So yeah, like that's one of those jobs that now being a producer, I'm like, I was, I was learning.I didn't go to college, but I've, I've had some experience with some almost impossible problem solving as a hostess.SHEFFIELD: And so you are always a person who was trying to find the, the bigger picture and trying to look beyond yourself but also being introspective. So, but at the same time, as you said, you grew up in the Bible belt where, you, everybody, especially for, for black girls, like you were expected to go to church and do all the things that they say. And that was as I understand, how you grew up, but you, you kind of started to see the bigger picture in that regard as well.GRACE: Yeah, definitely. Yes, for sure.Why Christianity wasn't a good fitGRACE: It wasn't like a one day, like a moment where I could remember where I was like, I no longer believe in any of this stuff. I'm no longer that person. I think it was a gradual thing for me starting as soon as I graduated high school, of like, okay, now it's up to me to get my, because I moved outta my parents' house two months after I graduated high school.I moved into my own place and it was just one of those things of like, okay, am I going to take myself to church now every Sunday? Right? Because it's on me to be a Christian now. And I think I meant maybe I went maybe once or twice, and ultimately I'm talking to myself. And this was my thought process. My thought process was I'm working a job, I'm working two jobs at the time.I'm working full as many hours as they will give me. And the, the, the trick with part-time jobs is they'll schedule you just an hour under that 40 hours so they don't have to make you a full-time employee. So I'm working two jobs and I'm still trying to get as much as I can hourly from those jobs and save up money to get a [00:12:00] car.I grew up in a household where I think a lot of of black families have this experience where as soon as you turn 16, 17, 18, and you graduate, you're expected to then start paying bills in your parents' house. You're supposed to help. Right? And so the reason I moved out as soon as I graduated was because I felt like if I'm helping you to pay bills, how am I going to grow and get to a point where I can, move out, right?I'm, I'm paying bills here that I can't really save up for that and save up for a car, save up for college, et cetera. And my purpose in doing that was. Alright, well if I'm going to be paying bills, I'm going to do it where I have some say in the house, or I'm going to do it where I can make my own rules. I can do all these things.But in black culture, you can pay rent. Doesn't mean that I'm still your mom. You still have to listen to me. You still have to do what I say. You still have to, and to me, not going to work for me if, if I'm working and I'm paying bills, I'm an adult in this house at this point. And so I decided I'm going to move into my own place.I'm still paying bills, so I still have to pay rent. And now I'm saving up for my car and I'm saving up for college. And I'm like, this is a lot on me. I'm getting paid 7 25 an hour at a job that should be paying far more. I'm working two jobs. I can still barely cover my rent and save up for a car and make sure I have food and all that stuff.On top of that, to get to and from work, I have to give people gas money to take me to work and to pick me up from work. because Uber wasn't a thing at the time and so it was just, it felt like I'm barely getting paid. I. Anything, and I've gotta spread that out as far as I can get it. As well as saving up.And so it really came down to having this conversation with myself of, I can still have a relationship with religion or with God and have my own relationship because if it's the God that I think, and it's the God that I want to love and look up to you, he's not going to judge me for doing what I need to do and working on Sundays instead of coming in to spend a few hours, at church.Because, and at that point, at that moment is when I started to paint my own picture. I was like, oh, well if I can, if I, if this is the God that I want, right? Because God is who you [00:14:00] believe that he is, and it's the person that you have a relationship and a connection with, if that's the cas…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    The right-wing wars on science and sex are linked May 18, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryThe Trump Administration's wars on federal employees and research science are getting a lot of headlines, but there's a third war that's being conducted by the radical right that doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should, and that is its efforts to control Americans’ bodily autonomy. Whether it’s trying to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, or trying to place restrictions on birth control, the reactionaries are trying to control sex itself. They’re even supporting laws to eliminate restrictions on child marriage so that minors can be forced to have babies.As disparate as right wing’s wars on governance, science, and sexuality may seem, they are actually linked because all three of these things are expressions of knowledge—about the world through science, about how to serve the public, and about ourselves and who we are. That is ultimately what these attacks on bodily autonomy are.Savannah Sly, my guest on today's program has thought a lot about all of these issues because she has been an advocate for sex workers' rights for quite a long time, including her efforts as founder of the New Moon Network, a board member at the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and with the Free Speech Coalition.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep doing this. Please subscribe to stay in touch.Related Content—A brief history of the world’s oldest profession and how monotheism canceled Yahweh's sex goddess wife—How #MeToo changed the adult media industry for the better—Male popular culture is obsolete, and men are suffering because of it—For a few decades, alt-weekly classified ads revolutionized dating and adult entertainment—Porn used to be a bipartisan industry, but not since Trump got in bed with the Christian right—How a retired porn star is helping her male fans understand themselves betterAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction03:18 — Understanding sex work and its misconceptions12:10 — Religious fundamentalism and control over sexuality17:07 — Impact of changing gender roles on society24:28 — Normalization and stigma of sex work during the pandemic27:54 — Sex work in right-wing political environments33:14 — Sex workers' access to power36:05 — “Traditional values,” polygamy, and non-heterosexuality41:29 — Moving forward48:28 — Right-wing groups want to ban porn via disingenuous “age verification” laws58:27 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So, before we get into the discussion of the topic here, let's can you just give the audience a bit of a background on what New Moon is and what you guys do there?SAVANNAH SLY: Sure New Moon is a national nonprofit located in the us. And our goal is to support the movement for sex workers' rights. We do that with three different areas of work. We talk to funders and philanthropy about the issue of sex workers' rights and how it might align with their current giving portfolios.And then we try and unlock dollars so we can channel funding into the grassroots movement. So this means hundreds of small. Sex worker and survivor led nonprofits around the us. We try and get them a little bit of funding to do their good work, and then we also do capacity building because we know it takes more than money to accomplish things.So we offer programming to help grassroots leaders be more effective and sustainable at what they're doing.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. All right, cool.And so I think a lot of people, you know who, who don't know anyone who or don't know that they know who was in, involved in. Erotic services in one waySLY: Mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: I think, that may seem all a bit strange and unfamiliar to them. So, and I'm guessing that that is something you have had to explain to people why this is more widespread and more important than they may realize.SLY: A time or two, I do find myself talking about what is sex work and. How is it different from sex trafficking? I, I, I have that conversation a lot and I'm always happy to have that conversation. I myself have been in the erotic industry since I was 18, so it's been [00:04:00] quite a while. And if I was not directly involved in sex work myself, I think that I would carry a lot of the assumptions that most people do because from the outside it looks pretty scary.And you might think, how could anybody ever voluntarily do this? But then when you're on the inside, it gives you a whole different perspective on the different motivations and realities faced by people in the adult industry. And you might notice that I'm using a lot of different phrases interchangeably sex work.Is a big umbrella term. That's sort of like a, a labor rights framework. And it's a, a phrase used to describe the exchange of money or something of value for a sexual or erotic service. So that's a, a lot of different kinds of behaviors and activities we're talking about everything from prostitution to, in my opinion, certain kinds of marriages.But then not everybody identifies with the phrase sex work. because they might be they might create adult content online. There might not be no sex involved. They're like, I'm not a sex worker. We, in the sex workers' rights movement, we include them, we advocate for their rights. But some people use phrases like adult content creator or erotic professional to describe their works.There's a lot of different words we use to describe similar things.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, there are, and there are a lot of different things, as you said, facets to that. But and as you alluded to earlier, I think a lot of people, they do have a lot of misconceptions about. The adult entertainment industry and people who, who work in it, and I probably most principally involving this idea that, oh, well, everybody who's doing it want to do it. And, oh, everybody's just being trafficked and, and they're, they're slaves and, and it's just not, it's not consensual for them. And none of that's true though.SLY: Well, it's kind of like anything else. It's, I mean, if you talk to people in the sex trade, the erotic industry, the adult industry, whatever we wanna [00:06:00] call it. And you ask them, why are you here? The vast majority of people are gonna say, to earn money, right? So it's a job, it's a labor sector. That's why we use that labor framing sex work when we're just talking about all these different kinds of activities.And so when you have an opportunity for people to make money. That means there's also an opportunity for other people to make money off of people. So I think where people get concerned about sex work is, in my ideal world, sex workers themselves would have labor rights and protections that are standard in other industries so that they could make their money for themselves and their families and if they were going to work with other people.They would have a lot of legal frameworks and assurances to make sure they couldn't be exploited because like in a lot of other industries it's easy for third parties to become motivated by profiting off of other people. And this is where you see in the, in the sex trade. You see people exploiting others, maybe even coercing them into the sex trade so that they can make money off of them, and that's a big problem.We don't like that. Nobody in the sex worker rights movement stands for exploitation or abuse of any kind.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, and, and it is, it does, it does happen. And, and there are organizations that are standing against it. but I think, a, a lot of people tend to. focus on that aspect of things. And especially when you look at other industries such as agriculture or hotels, cleaning services, or construction. Like those in industries, farm work, actually have trafficked people often and no one seems to care about those victims.SLY: There's also a great deal of sexual exploitation that can go along with those labor rights violations in those industries. I, I agree with you. I do feel that people give more attention to harms in the sex trade than they do in [00:08:00] other industries because of sex. And for a lot of people, sex causes a knee-jerk reaction.A lot of people themselves have traumatic sexual backgrounds. It's very hard for a lot of people to imagine sexuality being part of somebody's occupation, and I can understand that again if I had not done it myself. I might have had a hard time understanding it as well, but when we're looking at violations of human rights or harms or exploitation, if, if we do treat sex work like an occupation, and I've, I've talked to thousands of people who work in the sex trade mostly, mostly women.They're there to make money. So they're workers, okay. They think of themselves largely as workers. There is no other industry where workers are kept safer by taking away their rights or their ability to do their job. And so in the Sex Worker Rights movement, our whole thesis is that if you give sex workers, if you recognize their fundamental human rights for one, and then allow them to actually work towards.Formal labor recognition so that they can have workers' rights on top of human rights. We think that they will be in a better position to resist and deny people who would exploit them to reach out for help when somebody's trying to harm them. Like if there's a predator posing as a client and they assault somebody, a lot of sex workers don't feel comfortable even calling 9 1 1 if they've been assaulted or raped because they're afraid they're gonna get arrested.So if people can't even report crimes against themselves. How are we gonna mitigate harms in the sex trade? So we advocate for decriminalizing it, talking openly about it, letting people be sex workers above ground and not sort of in the black market shadows. And then we think that a lot of that quality of life and safety would improve greatly.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think so. And I, a, a lot of people when they think about this stuff, I think another reason why there is more of a, undue [00:10:00] focus on sex workers, as alleged victims of other people is, this, this this trope of trying to protect the, the, the dainty woman. and, and they don't, like people who are engaging in that.They don't really care about women who are being trafficked to clean hotels or to pick crops in the field. Like that doesn't matter to them because, well, they're, they're, they're. They're not dainty enough. They're not cute, they're not. Whatever it is, they might happen to think and it's just extraordinarily patronizing.SLY: I think what. If you were to read between the lines, the difference between society's impetus to protect women from engaging in sex work versus agricultural work or salon work or domestic cleaning work, where they might be subject to exploitation is sex is protecting women from sex because we think of sex as being, something inherently violent. I think I think especially a lot of women have sexual trauma in their lives. I, I know more women than not who have experienced sexual abuse or assault from young ages. That's a societal problem. And so I, I understand how it can be very hard. For people to take their personal experiences or their personal relationship to sex, or they might have a relationship to sex where sex is sacred and it's only something that you have with a trusted and beloved partner.If your binaries are trust and love is where sex happens or I. Coercion and assault and rape it, it's gonna be very hard to understand how somebody like me could choose to have sexual engagements with strangers sometimes for something as crass as money. So I understand people's knee-jerk reaction to wanna protect people, especially women from sex.But it's. Really patronizing, frustrating, and not helpful. If anything, it's kind of [00:12:00] endangering and I don't think that people realize that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, because it keeps people in the shadows. And when you're in the shadows, you, you don't have rights. And that's what it comes down to.Religious fundamentalism and control over sexualitySHEFFIELD: Um, but, but there's also, and you alluded to this a bit earlier, that, you know the, the religious agenda as well, and know when, and you can see that in so much of these state laws that these far right legislators are pushing through.And I imagine we. They may try to do that at the national level. I, I don't doubt that they will to try to, ban adult content within their site or require bogus age verification because they're trying to women's sexuality and repress it. ISLY: Absolutely. I've been very gentle with my language so far because, hello, I'm new to your viewers. I'm trying to meet you where you're at, but so when I was speaking about people having a knee jerk reaction to sex work, I was talking about. Everyday people who have, who, who think of themselves as having respect for their fellow human and they're not driven by an extreme religious doctrine when you're talking about religion and sexuality.It's a whole different ballpark, and my language is a little less gentle.SHEFFIELD: Oh, go for it.SLY: great. So religious fundamentalists around the world of different stripes from Christianity to other religions. The power is concentrated on controlling reproduction, and you can only control reproduction if you control the people who can reproduce, who are cisgender women or transgender men.Depending on how inclusive you wanna be in your language. But people with reproductive organs who can give birth, it's really important to control them. If your goal is to control a population to. Create a, a larger population so that you have an army or a labor force. You need to have something to control.And when people like me, when women like me, decide when. How, and with whom and why we have sex and whether we [00:14:00] reproduce or not. That's that's kind of a loose cannon for religious fundamentalists women such as me who exercise bodily autonomy and choose who we sleep with and why are a. Threat to religious fundamentalism because we will not be controlled.We will actually use our sexuality to create our own resources and our own safety nets with our communities and our own forms of stability for ourselves and our families. So it makes us less dependent on, I. A single man, which is a problem for religion, which is patriarchal. It's a problem for institutions like churches.If we're not dependent on a church as the center for which we get different resources to take care of our families or guidance on how to take care of our families or how to live a good life. If we're defining that for ourselves, they become obsolete. So this is why we see religious fundamentalists in politics pushing to eradicate abortion and criminalize it.Sex work has never been popular amongst different parties, even secular ones, but sex work is certainly in the cross hairs and then the censorship and criminalization of pornography because you just can't have things like that, or people start getting their own ideas about how to live a good life and what's moral and what's not.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and, and it also works the other way as well about about controlling cisgender men in that environment as well, because. Allowing men to, who t…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Creationism, AI, and techno-oligarchy: Understanding the new age of pseudoscience May 12, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary Donald Trump's second presidential administration has been remarkably different from his first one, primarily through his acceptance of long-standing reactionary goals to attack government and expertise—particularly federal agencies that produce and teach science such as NASA, the National Institutes for Health, and the Department of Education. What’s curious about this assault on science is that while it aligns perfectly with the radical Christian rights goal to destroy education and secular knowledge, the man who is administering the offensive is Elon Musk, a technology oligarch who built his entire personal brand and fortune on the claim that he was supporting science and had a scientific worldview. Musk’s actions seem incongruous, but they should not be surprising because the ideology that Musk is exhibiting has existed within the Silicon Valley right wing for many decades, a strange mix of poorly understood science fiction, quack nutrition beliefs, and militant metaphysics. In this episode, author and astrophysicist Adam Becker and I talk about how this mishmash of incoherent thoughts and dollar bills has a history—and an extensive desire to control the future of humanity.Our discussion is organized around his latest book, “More Everything Forever, AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity.”The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep doing this. Please subscribe to stay in touch.Related ContentThe far-right origins of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencyAfter failing in the marketplace of ideas, the right is using political power to force its ideologies onto the public and independent businessesRepublicans declared war on academic expertise and no university is safe from their bullyingHow Mastodon and the Fediverse are building a decentralized internetBig finance and tech monopolies are ultimately why social media is so terribleAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction03:29 — Ray Kurzweil and the "futurist" industry06:45 — Techno-optimism's biggest problem is timetables19:14 — The myth of self-sustaining Mars colonies23:28 — The religious undertones of techno-optimism24:00 — George Gilder and Christian fundamentalism among tech reactionaries34:29 — Bad fiction reading and techno-reaction38:36 — AI and the misunderstanding of intelligence44:28 — The problem with large language models54:00 — Billionaires' flawed vision of AI58:39 — Carl Sagan's warning01:05:13 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Adam Becker. Hey Adam, welcome to the show.ADAM BECKER: Oh, thanks for having me. It's really good to be here.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So, your book is really interesting and I strongly encourage everybody to check this out because I think especially for people who may come from a more science oriented background, I think, a lot of people who are professional scientists or engineers or physicists or something, they just live in their own little world, their own domain specific knowledge and just are like, well, I, my, I'm secure in my job and nothing's gonna happen to me.And well, Donald Trump is showing that that's not theBECKER: Yeah. Yeah. Unfortunately that's completely true.SHEFFIELD: And in some ways, like he's, he Trump with his NIH censorship and of, of various expenditures. It, he's, he's making the case that you are right in this book that the, this radical, right wing ideology is trying to destroy knowledge.BECKER: yeah, yeah. No, that's exactly what they're trying to do. They're trying to replace science with their vaguely scientific sounding ideas, which have no real basis, in fact.SHEFFIELD: No. And, and, and it is very much a, an attempt to pseudoscience, I would say is, is really what thisBECKER: Mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: I. and of course the most prominent figure, I guess chronologically speaking, the guy who really got a lot of this started is Ray Kurzwell who was very famous in the 1990s. But I think, in the years since, most people have not really heard of the guy much,BECKER: I mean, he had a new book out last year. I think I,SHEFFIELD: don't, did anyone read it? IBECKER: yeah, I mean he talked about it at South by Southwest, so that's not nothing. But yeah, I mean, I think his, his big books, the Age of Spiritual Machines, [00:04:00] which I think was the late nineties and the Singularity is near, which was the early to mid two thousands are, are the big ones.So I think you're right about that. The new book that came out last year though was titled The Singularity is Nearer, which sounds like a parody of itself.SHEFFIELD: I know. Yeah. It'sBECKER: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: because, and, and I would say that his star maybe fell because the dude's been writing the same fucking book for years now.BECKER: Yes, indeed. Yeah, yeah,SHEFFIELD: so, okay. So, but tell for those who haven't heard of him give, give us an overviewBECKER: yeah. So, Ray Kurzweil is best known for these books where he popularized and, and sort of unpacked the idea of the singularity. This idea that at some point in the near future, the rate of technological change will become so fast that, it'll transform everyday life. And if that sounds vague, that's because it is he did not originate this idea, but he's, he's, I think in the past decades, the most well-known exponent of this idea, the, the, the best known popularizer of it.And I should also say that in addition to that, he, he made his. Career as a very successful inventor, right? The guy, the guy was one of the first people to create, I think, text to speech and and also invented some really good other computer vision stuff and computer keyboards or electronic keyboards and stuff like that.So, he knows what he's talking about in that domain of expertise. But like a lot of the people in tech and who show up in my book, he seems to have confused expertise in one narrow area for expertise in everything.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and then of course, you know his, I think most odious act was the attempting to create this idea of a futurist as if he [00:06:00] knows what the future is.BECKER: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, futurists have been around since before Kurzweil, but Kurzweil certainly made very specific claims and it's still making very specific claims about what's gonna happen when, he's claiming that by 2029 we're all gonna get biologically younger with each year that passes because of advances in biotechnology.And he claims that by 2045, the singularity will be here. He thinks, he actually said last year that anyone who makes it to 2029 will live for 500 years or more, which is Yeah,SHEFFIELD: nice.BECKER: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: that be nice?Techno-optimism's biggest problem is timetablesSHEFFIELD: But yeah. And, and I mean, look, I, generically speaking, it is probably the case that these things will happen.BECKER: Some of them, I mean, we don't, we don't, yeah.SHEFFIELD: of it, yeah.BECKER: Like we don't,SHEFFIELD: Being able to, stop. not impossibleBECKER: yeah,SHEFFIELD: scientists could not unlock how cancer cells are immortal in the sense that they, are able to continue reproducing.BECKER: Maybe.SHEFFIELD: very conceivableBECKER: Sure.SHEFFIELD: possible.BECKER: Yeah,SHEFFIELD: And, and a lot of these things I mean, what the idea of current ais being sent in, which we'll get into later seems unlikely. But, some of these other things that he said they're not, they're not inconceivable. But it, with the specific timetables thatBECKER: yeah.SHEFFIELD: you know, hopelessly optimistic.BECKER: I think that's right. I think that's exactly right. I, it is possible that at some point in the future somebody will figure out how to radically extend human lifespan, but there is no indication that anything like that is in the offering in the next five years. Or even in the next 25.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, and even if it was, be just simply being able to take that from, just very simple, lab grown meat, [00:08:00] and then applying that to a actual living organism, that's a gigantic step. And ofBECKER: Yeah,SHEFFIELD: would be with something very simple, like a, sponge or something like that, like, and so that's, so much more complexity in between,BECKER: yeah.I, I think,SHEFFIELD: they would startBECKER: yeah,SHEFFIELD: nematode, they'd start with an nematode, which, hey. God bless 'em. I love nematodes. They're important for scientific research. ButBECKER: yeah,SHEFFIELD: We're, we're, we're a little bit more complicated than those, thoseBECKER: yeah. I, I, complicated iss a good word because like, I, I actually think that a lot of the problem here ultimately stems from an unwillingness to accept that the world is a complicated place. That, questions might have difficult answers, and some questions might not have good answers at all.Like, it is possible that we'll figure out how to radically extend human lifespan. It's also possible that we may figure out that it's not possible to radically extend human lifespan. We don't know curse oil is just way too confident that radical life extension is coming. That fully conscious, super intelligent AI is coming, that brain computer interfaces are coming that, make anything that currently exists look like a toy.And he's convinced that, nanotechnology, like the stuff championed in the eighties by Drexler nanotechnology that would reshape everyday life. He's, he's fully convinced that that's coming, even though experts in that field do not think that that kind of nanotech really makes any sort of sense.SHEFFIELD: Well, and then it's also predicated on quantum computing actually beingBECKER: yeah, there's, there's plenty of that too. Yeah. I mean, and quantum computing may end up working out there's, there's, I mean there's alreadySHEFFIELD: at thatBECKER: Yeah. Not the kind of, yeah. The kind of quantum computers that these people will often talk about. There's no reason to think that quantum computers are gonna be able to help with most of these scientific miracles that that kwe and others are promising.Yeah.SHEFFIELD: [00:10:00] Yeah. And what's, and what's interesting though is about this as a as a, an epistemology is that is very, very similar to religion. It is a scientism as it sometimes is referred to. And yet at the same time, it is using the methods of science. It is, it is this gross kind of distorted mirror, like zombie fi version of science.I think.BECKER: yeah,SHEFFIELD: And you call it in the book you, you, you refer to it as this idea of a technological salvation.BECKER: yeah,SHEFFIELD: expand that concept more for us, if.BECKER: yeah. So, basically there's this idea that these people have Kurzweil as one of them, but also, the, the tech oligarchs of Silicon Valley people like Musk and Sam Altman and Jeff Bezos and, and that whole crowd. There's this, this idea or set of ideas that that basically technology is gonna solve all of our problems and that only technology can solve our problems, and all problems can be reduced to technological ones and usually problems of computer programming.So, there's this idea that you can reduce these problems to that, and that this will lead to, perpetual growth and profitability and ultimately transcendence of, all possible boundaries and, and problems. So, trans transcending, that, that that sufficiently advanced technology of some kind allows you to transcend legal boundaries practical, physical boundaries limits set by the laws of physics and even moral boundaries.That, that you can just and, basically you can go to space [00:12:00] and live forever free of all constraints. And this is, not something that there's any evidence whatsoever to support and a great deal of evidence against. But these people nonetheless present it as though, almost as if it's a Faye Complete, like, almost as if, the, the evidence is just overwhelming.Kurzweil certainly does this. And and the rest of them. When they aren't doing that, or at least saying that this is the only possible good future for humanity and that it's, right there in the science. And it's not, there's no scientific basis for this. But one of the things that they want to do is they wanna replace science with this kind of pseudoscientific proclamation of what the future of science and the future of technology inevitably holds.Forgetting that science and technological development are human processes and they don't inevitably hold anything. And, and they're also constrained by nature. And we don't know what all those natural constraints are. They, they want to take the cultural power of science. This, this idea that science issues forth truth.And they want to agate that power for themselves and like anoint their ideas with this power of science.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's, it's interesting because it's the exact same mentality that the Soviet Union events during its entire existence that,BECKER: Hmm.SHEFFIELD: know, the idea of scientific scientific materialism, that our ideas, our viewpoints, our opinions, are science. And, and, and what. Was fascinating about this philosophy of science within the Soviet Union is that it led to a number of fundamental scientific errors particularly in the regards to [00:14:00] biology,BECKER: Yes.SHEFFIELD: they, they decided for the longest time that, that Darwin was wrong. And they had their own personal proprietary definition of how, what evolution was and how it worked. You want to talk about that because I, it's a, I think it's very relevant here to this discussion.BECKER: Yeah, no, they, they had lysenkoism this, this the details of which I don't remember, but but basically the idea that, competition and survival of the fittest was not really how nature worked. And and that, nature worked on something that, you know, in, in the same way that evolution superficially looks as though it's saying something about society and capitalism.That, that, the kind of competition that you have in capitalist markets is, is inscribed in the laws of nature, which is not what evolution says, but you can try to read it that way. They, they tried to do something sort of similar with communismSHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm.BECKER: it's, it doesn't work 'cause yeah.SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, and it's also because like they were claiming that in, in operationalized behaviors or traits could be passed down biologically,BECKER: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: is just simply notBECKER: Yeah, exactly.SHEFFIELD: now it is it, and it is like, it is true in, in one sense that, so like humans, in many ways replicate. Cognitive and epistemic evolution in child development. And so it is true that social species and species that engage in care you, care for the young, can accelerate epistemic evolution. That'sBECKER: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: but it's not true that, that they can also alter biological evolution,BECKER: I mean, at least.SHEFFIELD: through will sheerBECKER: Yeah, exactly. Not, not in the way that they needed that to be true. Right. There's, there's epigenetics and stuff like that that does show up that we've learned a lot about in the last few decades, but it, it doesn't mean that like [00:16:00] psycho egoism is correct. So yeah. Yeah. No, there's, there's a long history at variou…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    The ‘cancel culture’ myth was always about censoring the center-to-left Mar 29, 2025
    Show notes

    Episode Summary  For decades, the American far-right has been screeching constantly that its activists and politicians are being censored by “cancel culture.” It’s nonsense, of course, because almost invariably everyone who supposed canceled ends up with a huge media following and a very profitable victim narrative.But the lies about mass censorship of reactionaries and conservatives aren’t just about manipulating the public into feeling sympathy for completely unsympathetic figures like Donald Trump. They’re also about power. In the so-called marketplace of ideas, right-wing ideas lost decades ago. Among many other things, well-educated people know that race is a social construct, that transgender people have existed for centuries, and that America’s most-influential founders were not Christian nationalists. Reactionaries have failed to make their case, and this is the main reason they don’t get hired by universities. You can’t have a credible biology department if “creation science” is the mandated policy. Anthropologists pushing discredited “race science” are regarded as disturbed freaks, and rightfully so.But instead of trying to come up with some better ideas, like they’d have to in an actual meritocracy, the American far right has decided to force them into the public square. This is what the cancel culture narrative is all about, establishing a false scenario to justify the gigantic censorship regime that the second Trump White House is establishing.Outside of the United States, right-wing parties have been envying the success Republicans have had, and they are applying the lessons to their own countries. Unfortunately, the mainstream media in other countries have not learned anything from the mistakes of American journalists in falling for these deceptions.Will the left in the United States and elsewhere ever be able to effectively counter these manipulations? And are the people at the top even aware of what’s going on? We discuss it on today’s episode with Adrian Daub, the author of a book on the subject called The Cancel Culture Panic. He’s also a professor of humanities at Stanford University and the host of the podcast “In Bed With the Right.”The video of our December 3, 2024 discussion is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full page.Theory of Change and Flux are entirely community-supported. We need your help to keep doing this. Please subscribe to stay in touch.Related Content—Trump targets ‘improper ideology’ at Smithsonian museums—How the Trump administration is attacking science and scholarly merit at the National Institutes of Health—The forgotten history of how Republican college students invented canceling people—Inside the right-wing plan to ‘seize control of the administrative state’—University administrators are totally ill-equipped for Trump’s massive censorship regime—Trump, Nietzsche, and the collapse of the Republican mind—Inspired by Trump, reactionary comedians are the most popular media figures in the Republican party—Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA are building a reactionary cult for young people, does anyone on the center-left care?Audio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:17 — Why 'cancel culture' rhetoric is more about affirmative action for illogical reactionary opinions13:00 — Right-wing campus speakers are performance artists rather than academics19:11 — Campus speech surveys rarely ask if people are afraid to disclose marginalized identities22:39 — William F. Buckley Jr. and "God and Man at Yale"28:12 — Insincere 'censorship' arguments as a hack of liberal epistemology33:01 — Cancel culture narratives are about masking real power through fake populism36:31 — Alan Bloom and "The Closing of the American Mind"42:14 — Libertarianism and hierarchy in American politics47:26 — Lies about cancel culture as permission structures for reactionary repression 57:39 — Conclusion Audio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So let's focus our discussion here at the beginning about the premise of your book. Lay that out for us real quickly, if you could, please.ADRIAN DAUB: Yeah, so the idea is it's a story of or a history of the worry about cancel culture in U.S. media. And the argument is really threefold that one there is this longstanding discussion within the U.S. tends to start on the right, but then almost always makes its way to the center. That is that basically proposes that there is this rising tide of left wing liberalism or left wing censoriousness.And that cancel culture is basically the latest iteration of that. My book tries to show with what data we have available, that's very likely overstated. That is to say, that's not to say that there aren't people who have bad things happen to them on college campuses or in media based on what they say.It does mean that the picture, if you look closely is a lot less a lot less obvious and a lot less. Monolithic, then sort of narratives about cancel culture would make it seem right. That is to say, when you hear cancel culture, at least until recently, people would think, well, this is from the left.This is from young people. This has to do with online spaces. This has to do with wokeness, right? And that it does exist. But it turns out that kind of occludes much larger swaths of, things that we might, call cancellation, but we usually don't. That come from, state legislatures from Ron DeSantis, what have you, right?So that's the first part of the argument. The second part of the argument is that this debate really, unlike the earlier panic over political correctness, which [00:04:00] very much resembles, is something that didn't sort of get cooked up. In right wing spaces and then kind of jumped over this one traveled the opposite way it from the very beginning appeal to a kind of, I mean, some people might say reactionary centrist or, center right, kind of,SHEFFIELD: I call it conservative liberalism.DAUB: Yeah, exactly. Right. Like a, it started in the pages of the Atlantic and the New York times far more than it did on Breitbart or Fox News or whatever. And due to that fact, it sort of very quickly made its way across the globe and mostly as a print phenomenon, that is to say, before it's, not, it's a story about social media, but it's not a social, a story about social media that traveled through social media. It really is a story about social media that traveled.From the New York Times to Le Figaro in France, or to Die Welt in Germany, or to The Times in the UK, right? It becomes a kind of story about print journalism, and for a print magazine. Journalism audience, which is also to say that this is not really a freak out among people that we might think of as low information or might be in a kind of, or we sort of classically think are in a media bubble.These are people who are very interested, who are very well read, who consume media exactly the way, we're all supposed to consume media and none of us. Do any more right. By like picking up a paper in the morning. And yet I would argue that they're being fed something very close to disinformation when it comes to cancel culture stories.And then the third point is that what this really enables is a, bunch of breaking down barriers. There is a, it's a libertarian story. In an age where kind of libertarianism is making common cause with something far more authoritarian. It is a, as I say, a center, right? Panic. At an age when, especially in Europe, the center right is becoming more and [00:06:00] more curious towards the far right or the populist right.It is a panic for an age in which people not just on the right, but probably particularly on the right kind of have to, they wear two hats. They wear a hat, a populist hat and a institutionalist hat, right? On the one hand. Still have a residual respect for institutions that they nevertheless think have been degraded by You know the woke mind virus or whatever So it's it is this panic for an age in which A bunch of things that used to structure our politics rather clearly Are breaking down And it allows people to sort of not Have to make a decision.It's a sort of yes. And kind of panic a place where you can you don't have to pick whether you're a populist or an institutionalist. You can just be both. You don't have to pick whether you're libertarian or whether you really want those wokesters put in their place by some good old fashioned government intervention.You can do both, right? So it is a panic that catches a large segment of the population exactly where they're at. Where they would have to make some pretty troubling choices. Cancer culture is a way or yelling about cancer culture and about the young wokesters that promote it is a way to not have to make those choices.Why 'cancel culture' rhetoric is more about affirmative action for illogical reactionary opinionsSHEFFIELD: I mean, you could call that a dual choice, but also you could call it hypocrisy. And I mean, that's that sort of, innate hypocrisy is, it is endemic ultimately to reactionary thought because it reactionary thought isn't full thinking. It is an epistemology, a self-centered epistemology in which things are, to quote Stephen Colbert, his character, ‘that things are true because I believe them.’ And and that was what he meant in the context of “truthiness.”I mean, it's deeply ironic and unfortunate that [00:08:00] he was absolutely correctly describing what you're talking about here, and people on the left just thought it was a joke. But he was like, seriously describing the problem that we were up against, and nobody paid attention other than to think it was funny.DAUB: I think that's right. I think that there is I know that in your work, you think a lot about the, what do you call the dual fundamentalisms of politics and faith, and I think that in some way, Cancel culture kind of, or the worry about cancel culture fits into that really nicely.It's sort of the latest attempt to feign dynamism where there is none, right? There's the, this, language game always proposes there's this conservative position that's not being allowed expression and not expressing it is sort of hampering, the progress of science, of free inquiry, et cetera, et cetera.But if you drill down, the conservative position really, Hasn't changed. Right? The ever evolving specter of the censorious left is sort of the correlate of the things you're supposedly no longer able to say but that are really never changing. Right? That, that basically, it, the newness of the threat.It's supposed to lend novelty to ideas that if you drill down, we're, the same in 1995 or 1985, even. Right. Like,I, was censored for saying the thing I wanted to say. What is the thing you wanted to say? Oh, it's basically the bell curve. And you're like, okay, wow. We're still doing this. Have you gotten new material?Right. Like it is a way to re to rejuvenate material that is on the verge of going stale.SHEFFIELD: Well, it is. Yeah. And it's it's like, and, but it is the only way that they can have their ideas even discussed at all, because I mean, that's, is the kind of root cause of this rhetorical technique is that they, and I can say this as a former religious [00:10:00] conservative and a former secular conservative myself, that, deep down all of them know. That their ideas are insupportable. They know that what they believe is not true. They know that, the, that they can have no, that they have no proof that the earth was created in 6, 000 years. They know that while they feel like that women are dumber than men they know that they don't really have any proof of that. And, like, and they know that when, when, they make, panics about transgender people. They know that there are basically no transgender athletes in the world. the, percentage, the number of people affected by a trans athlete, in their locker room is probably less than a hundred in the entire United States. They know that's true, but it's just, this is like, it is the ultimate kind of quota thinking. Like, that's the deep irony of their, posture is they want affirmative action forDAUB: Yeah, exactly.SHEFFIELD: Essentially what they're arguing is that our idea, we can't prove our ideas are true, so we're going to make them true politically through power of the state.DAUB: Yeah, I think that's right. I think there is a tendency to, want, there's this picture, especially around college campuses that all ideas ought to be, heard and that there's a good in having every idea heard out on a college campus.And like, it's one of those ideas that like has a kind of surface plausibility. You think like that, if there's something that's widely held in society, it ought to be, at least talked about on university campuses. So I don't have like a huge problem with that. At the same time, if you drill down to it, you think, well, no the university is in some way a huge selection machine, right?There are certain things that they study and that they, that things that they don't study. There are there are questions that are open, that [00:12:00] scholars Open up for debate and then that, that you and I, when we're not in that field, might think like, this is crazy. Why are they debating this? What, are strings?I'm sorry. And conversely things that you and I might find really interesting and that a specialist in that field might say like, oh, This is kind of settled. We've decided to, or we've even decided that the debate doesn't go anywhere and we Have moved on to other things, right? So universities are by and large selection machines when it comes to where they put their attention and scholarly inquiry and And again, like, as you say, like, the people who make these kind of bad faith attacks on the universities know that they just want their things to be in the mix, right?And so they said, like, well, everything, all positions should be reflected on college campuses, and they don't believe that. I can easily,SHEFFIELD: Well, and through their own behavior, they show they don't believe that.DAUB: But even the ones that, let's say, sure, you have the Ron DeSantis of the world who are like, everything needs to be taught except for gender studies.Like, well, okay, it feels like a mild inconsistency there, bucko.Right-wing campus speakers are performance artists rather than academicsDAUB: But even the people who say like, who claim to take an absolutely libertarian stance on this, I think tend to not fully agree with that. Grapple with the fact that of course I could come up with a speaker invitation that they wouldn't want, right?Of course we could bring someone we could organize an event right now at you know Any University in the United States where an administrator would say like I feel like someone's gonna get killed I feel like I don't see the value in this like is this supposed to be funny? Is this performance art that you're even inviting this person, right?And, or where the framing is so off that, everyone's like, I don't feel like I need to go to this or support it. Right. There's a kind of, there's a, it's one of the, very frequently the cancel culture panic works when people who are not at certain institutions or in certain spaces apply a moral rigorism to them that crumbles.Once it comes into contact with reality. Right. Where basically you can sort of say like, well, I believe all, it should always be like [0…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 6 7 8 9 10 23 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights