The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - The Canceling of the American Mind — with Greg Lukianoff

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

Greg Lukianoff, a free speech advocate, first-amendment attorney, and president of FIRE, joins Scott to break down the rise of cancel culture and its chilling effect on free speech.  They discuss why social media supercharged censorship, how college campuses became ground zero for speech suppression, and why younger generations may be more fragile and less free. Greg also opens up about his own struggles with anxiety and how cognitive behavioral therapy helped rewire his thinking. Follow Greg, @glukianoff. Algebra of Happiness: in memory of George Thomas Galloway (1930 - 2025) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 2023, a 54-year-old man named William Woods told police that his identity had been stolen. But there was a problem. Another man said that he was the real William Woods and it was his identity that had been stolen. There's no way that two human beings could have the same name, the same date of birth, the same social security number. So someone clearly was not telling the truth. Listen to our latest episode on criminal, wherever you get your podcasts.

Episode 357. 357 is the area covering parts of central California. In 1957, the baby boom hit its peak with more than 4.3 million births and Sputnik launched, which kicked off the space race. I remember when I was a younger man, a boy actually saying to my mom, Mom, someday I'm gonna be shot into space. To which my mom replied, well, if your dad had done his job, that would have happened.

Go, go, go! Welcome to the 357th episode of The Prop G Pod. I am in Aspen. Why am I here? Because I can be. I absolutely love it here. Building a home here. This is where I'm going to sit around and wait for the ass cancer. Meaning this is where I think I'm going to leave feet first to where I plan to wind down and give a podcasting

when I'm, I don't know, 93, I think that would be a good time. I used to think when I was a younger man, when I was in my 40s, that I was gonna create space or room and go totally dark on social media and stop podcasting by the time I was 50. But here's the thing, I love the fame, the relevance, and the Benjamins. But I am here and our technical director, Drew,

rented an apartment called the Aspen Alps right on the mountain here and set up this giant studio. So I hope you appreciate all the production values here. They told me to take off my hat because they didn't like the way it looked. And I took it off and I thought, you know, fuck it. It's my image. It's me, they're AI. I'm me, I own me't like the way it looked. And I took it off and I thought, you know, fuck it. It's my image.

It's me. They're AI. I'm me. I own me. I own the digital Scott. I've been, it's been an emotional weekend for me. I'll get back to that later in the episode. And I look like shit and I'm self-conscious and you know,

all that good stuff. But what are we doing here? We're very much enjoying ourselves. I think I used to come to Aspen in the winter, put our kids on skis, came here in the summer, now just come here in the summer. I think mountain towns in the summer are absolutely wonderful. I went to this place called Woody's Creek Tavern,

Woody Creek Tavern yesterday, and a bunch of people rolled up on a horse, which I thought was ridiculously cool. Okay, what's going on? The Epstein file. I got this wrong. I thought it was gonna blow over. I thought people were sick of hearing about it,

but it ends up that when you promote conspiracy theory for a good, I don't know, five or seven years, won't stop hammering on it and then keep talking about this file and this list that when you decide, Oh no, I'm on the list and I'd rather not come out. So nothing to see here. Folks keep moving along that everyone gets angry. I did watch, I did enjoy watching Alex Jones crying his car over the Epstein List. But a lot of this comes down to sort of a major theme,

I think, or a broader theme, and that is one of identity. And I think under the auspices of being able to create bots, not being subject to standards around moderation, a public, and not taking responsibility for the comments they make, that identity or specifically some sort of fidelity or irrational passion for the value of anonymity has really hurt our society. And that is, whether it's,

look at the most depraved behavior on behalf of our government right now. I would argue that it's simply put is, is it the administration cutting food stamps? That's right up there. that it's simply put is, is it the administration cutting food stamps? That's right up there. Or the world's wealthiest man murdering or killing the world's most vulnerable and poorest children. That's right up there. But right close, maybe a close third would be a bunch of individuals who've

been weaponized to create a private army for the president who separate ripped families apart are now, I guess, rounding up citizens as well. When you treat people differently based on identity, that is the definition of racism. And these actions are in fact racist, where they're targeting people based on their identity, not on their behavior.

And what do we have? We have individuals who realize how depraved this behavior is so they wear masks, they hide their identity. And online we have a lot of people with masks. It's somewhere between 20, 40, 50 percent sometimes of activity on a social media platform or bots who have been weaponized by someone who doesn't want you to know their identity because what they're saying is either slanderous or they're too cowardly to live up to it or they would be embarrassed to say such aggressive, inaccurate things. And so we tolerated under this embolshed notion that a civil rights activist in

the Gulf needs anonymity. Well, with the blockchain, you could probably allocate a certain number of accounts for anonymous accounts if in fact they needed the anonymity. But the 99.9% of people who are just acting like cowards or being aggressive or tearing at the fabric of our society because of anonymity. I don't buy that bullshit. When some idiots at UCLA decide to pass out bans to non-Jews and then we'll let anyone without a band, i.e. Jewish people, onto certain parts of the UCLA campus, the UCLA leadership does not show up to stop that shit right away. What do those people do? They wear masks.

So I think it's pretty easy to spot people with depraved who are about to engage in things that they do not want to associate their identity with because they are wrong. And whether it's a stormtrooper for Star Wars, a member of the KKK, a member of ICE, or all of these bots online, anonymity has become a real problem in our society.

And that is, uh, just as an example, I get a lot of really nice messages online. I also get some of the vilest shit I've ever seen in my life. And if I were a woman, I would be really, I would feel physically intimidated. And I've been forwarded some messages that some of my female friends get online and it is just totally unacceptable. And it'd be pretty easy. Find out who that motherfucker is on the other side of that keyboard and they will stop because they will realize what they're doing not only carries

penalties but just does not acquit them very well. And but instead we decided, oh, we need to sell more Nissan ads and under this bullshit notion that anonymity is key to progress. No, it's not. And you could have a certain amount of anonymity for people who have a legitimate reason to be anonymous, but there is an issue here around our love of letting people have no

accountability for their actions under the auspices of some sort of first amendment or free speech or protection. And it has gone too far on the snake is eating its tail. I would like to see, I like the fact that there's cameras everywhere in New York and London. What you also need when you have this kind of surveillance technology is really strong laws to ensure,

I don't even think any camera footage or online tracking can be used to prosecute someone in a misdemeanor. I think it has to be a very serious crime, and there has to be a lot of safeguards that err on the side of not getting a search warrant for that data, such that people feel comfortable being their true selves, but at the same time have to represent their identity. But where I was headed was some really vile shit online. If I've been recognized several times in Aspen and people couldn't be nicer, wherever I am

in the world, even when people disagree with me, they come up and say, I didn't like your take here. This is what I think. And they listen and they're thoughtful. And one of the really terrible things about AI and LLMs is LLMs are crawling the online world, which is much harsher and much more cowardly and much more mendacious why because of anonymity. Whereas if these AI LLMs were crawling the real world where people have to take responsibility for what they say and you get to look them in the eye when they say something. I think the world would be a better place because AI would be training people how to behave in person

where you have accountability as opposed to training the world to behave the way they behave online and it's not only people who individually pulse negative behavior there are people who want to create dissent and tear at the fabric of America i.e. the GRU and the CCP, and create millions of bots that manufacture content that doesn't even reflect how any individual feels, but gives you the impression that this is how millions of people feel. If you wanted, say you were pro-Ukraine, say you were a professor who was constantly talking about Putin's illegal invasion of Europe and how the US should absolutely allocate the funds to push back on a murderous autocrat. Wouldn't you be

stupid not to create a troll farm in Albania and then slowly but surely using AI try to undermine that professor's credibility with negative comments all of the time about any of his or her content? And I believe those lists have been assembled. It would be stupid not to weaponize those lists. And oh, great, we have social media platforms that love the lies, because the lies and the aggressive behavior create more engagement. The algorithms are Tyrannosaurus Rex. They're attracted to movement and violence.

And it creates more clicks, more engagement, and more Nissan ads. So where are we? Should an individual have First Amendment rights and be able to say pretty much anything about pretty much anybody at pretty much any time? Yeah, I think so. But should a bot have First Amendment protection?

I don't think so. Should we be creating this atmosphere? And it has gotten much worse over the last 20 years where anonymity serves as a chaser and an incendiary to take the worst among us and absolutely expand that behavior and forgive them for it and encourage that behavior and also let bad actors pretend to be people who engage in some of the most uncivil conduct experienced in our society. So I'm a big fan of getting rid

of this love of anonymity. And if you look at what's going on, whether it's ICE, whether it's troll farms, whether it's people spewing hate speech on campus, what's the problem? Anonymity. You wanna show up and protest, fine. But I don't think a movement where everyone on your side

feels the need to wear a mask, I think that says something about what you're saying and says something about your character. Anonymity has been abused and it is tearing at the fabric of our society. Okay, moving on. In today's episode, we speak with Greg Lukianoff, a free speech advocate, First Amendment attorney,

president of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, and most recently, The Cancelling of the American Mind. I'm gonna bring up some of these topics with Greg. We discussed with Greg free speech in a divided country, how council culture took off, and what today's campus protests tell us

about the state of open debate. We also get into how schools are failing to build resilient students. So with that, here's our conversation with Greg Lukenoff. Greg, where does this podcast find you? Maine, actually. This is my first day up here since last year.

First day up there. Where are you usually? DC. Oh, nice. So let's bust right into it. Give us your thoughts on council culture. How did it start? Brief history of it.

And how does it differ from accountability, so to speak? Sure. I wrote a book called Cancelling of the American Mind with a, when I started the project, 20-year-old Ricky Schlott, who's absolutely brilliant and I feel very lucky to work with her. It definitely was one of those things that was a really striking discontinuity from the rest of my career.

I started working defending free speech on campus in 2001. And back then, you were most likely to get in trouble on campus from administrators. Professors were fairly good on freedom of speech. Students were great on freedom of speech and freedom to differ, differing opinions. But right around 2013, going into 2014, a cohort of students showed up that were much less, just to be blunt, tolerant of difference. Essentially you started seeing a lot more demands that speakers be canceled, you started seeing demands for new speech codes, and this was a big shift from what I'd seen before.

But I also started seeing some of this happening off campus. So I tried to define cancel culture as a historical period because all moments in the history of censorship have commonalities, but they also have things that make them distinct. And I think one of the distinct characteristics of cancel culture is that it was essentially impossible to have it as we understood it without something like social media. Something that allows you to create the reality or oftentimes appearance of a sudden mob that's demanding you fire that one employee.

This wasn't a subtle shift. I'd been doing this job for a long time prior to 2014. From 2014 on, I've seen more professors lose their job, more tenured professors lose their job than, you know, what I'd seen in my previous half of my career, you know, times 20. You know, it was really quite a shift. So the way that Ricky and I define cancel culture is the uptick of campaigns to get people fired, punished, penalized, expelled, or otherwise punished for speech that would be protected under the First Amendment. There I'm making an analogy to public employee law, which basically means that there's some common sense injected in there,

but that essentially you're not supposed to fire people just for their outside speech as a citizen, and the culture of fear that resulted from it. And one thing you should notice about that definition is there's no political valence to it. So cancel culture is cancel culture whether it comes from the left or the right. Isn't that one of the deltas though that there's always been shaming or criticism of people if they, you know, if their narrative doesn't match yours or an opportunity to play it kind of playing a gotcha culture. But what I see is the big difference of the last 10, 15 years is the discovery that you could go

after people's livelihood. It used to be that that was somewhat isolated. Like we're, I mean, I don't like what Greg says. I'm going to publicly shame him. I'm angry at him. He's a bad person. You shouldn't be his friend. You shouldn't be listening to him.

But it never jumped the shark to now go after his livelihood. Wasn't that the big difference here? Well, that was part of the definition. Um, it, it, our campaigns to get people punished in some real material way, like get them fired, expelled, et cetera. It's not cancel culture. If you're just telling it, there was, there was a phenomenon called trashing in the 1960s that Musa Al-Gharbi likes to point to and it's this really nasty vitriolic way of going after your political enemies that was everything you're talking about. It's like

the person's a bad person, don't listen to this person anymore, they're not, you know, they're not doctrinaire as I would like them to be doctrinaire, but it generally didn't get to the point of, and this professor has to be fired. And the biggest shift, the one that kind of shocked me, was the uptick around 2017, because at first students were focusing on each other and outside speakers, but 2017 really marks the moment when they started going after professors in large number.

Talk a little bit about, quote unquote, de-platforming. De-platforming is just the idea that essentially, the way we define de-platforming in our research department at FHIR is essentially getting a speaker, either getting them disinvited or making it so difficult to hear them or otherwise chasing them off campus. The ones that scare me, the kind of deplatforming that actually scares me the most are the ones that involve violence

or the threat of violence for obvious reasons. It's primarily targeted at speakers. We also consider it deplatforming if you do the same thing to like, say, playing a movie, that essentially you're showing a documentary that's not very popular on campus, students show up and shout it down. But this is actually one of the areas where a lot of it actually comes from the right as well, because for a lot of speakers on campus, there'll be off-campus pressure to

get that person, to get that person disinvited. And this is particularly true of, say, speakers that could be painted as a pro-choice and sometimes Catholic groups. I think the Cardinal Newman Center's big on this. Pressure schools to disinvite that person. So generally, and this is for fairly obvious reasons, if the threat to free speech and that deplatforming

comes from the left, it tends to come from on campus. Ifforming comes from the left, it tends to come from on campus. If it comes from the right, it tends to come from off campus. I saw some of this as a faculty member at NYU. I remember about 10, 15 years ago, it became sort of in vogue for department chairs to put out very long emails about how certain microaggressions would not be tolerated. And it was okay. We're charging kids $280,000 to come here. Some of them leave riddled in student debt.

Two thirds of the faculty probably isn't holding the weight. So there was an opportunity to step into this virtue circle and no one could ever criticize them. I'd do anything but applaud. Otherwise you were a racist. And no one could ever criticize them. I'd do anything but applaud. Otherwise you were a racist. And there was this, almost this sort of self appointed police that, um, and it

was always quite frankly, uh, and I consider myself a proud progressive, but people never got canceled for being, um, too progressive and it felt very unhealthy. And then, uh, well, comment on that. And then I'm going to play identity politics and just make some anecdotal observations in the classroom and see if there's any actual data that supports my thesis, but talk about how all of a sudden, do you think some of it is, I just thought as people who weren't adding any actual value and we're trying to find some merit

and grab virtue or some sort of relevance and saw this as an easy way to try and grab status, so to speak. Yeah, I think it's a lot of things going on at once. I think a lot of younger people were taught. One thing from my work with Jonathan Haidt, one chapter we ended up leaving out because I just didn't have enough research to back it up, was my intuition that a lot of the phenomena we were seeing seemed to

be playing out some of the values of the circa 2010 anti-bullying movement. If you could give me a little time to develop this, I could explain it. So in coddling, we talk about there being three great untruths, which are basically terrible advice to give someone that's inconsistent with either modern psychology or ancient wisdom, and that will make you more miserable if you believe them. And so we give this negative advice as what doesn't kill you makes you weaker, you know, kind of like the opposite of Nietzsche. The second one is always trust

your feelings, which sounds nice, but is just awful advice. And three, life is a battle between good people and evil people, which is contrary to more sophisticated understanding of that everybody has some aspect of good and evil within them, which is more how I was raised. And there was a critic who pointed out after coddling came out in 2018, that these were more or less kind of like the way anti-bullying was being taught

after sort of like a moral panic about it. Not that bullying isn't real and should be addressed, but things manifest in their own ways. And this was primarily due to parents being aware of more of this stuff due to the fact that they could see it on their cell phones, they could see it on their screens. And this did have an emphasis of human fragility.

If you feel that you've been wronged, you've been wronged, and that there's basically only two types of people, good people and evil people, you know, good people, victims, and bullies. I think that this wasn't the only cause by any stretch of the imagination, but to explain why I think young people had such sympathy for this movement, I think they were framing it partially in that way.

But unfortunately, because the rule of human behavior is that all motives are mixed, it also met with something that my very young colleague and co-author on Canceling the American Mind was able to point out that she was part of the first generation of people to grow up with cell phones in her pocket.

She had them since she was 10. In junior high school, it took on very much the nature of what you would expect. A mass communication device given to kids in junior high school, it became a way of showing aggression against your perceived enemies, but doing it within the rules of the time,

which you don't call out someone for being unpopular or ugly, you call them out for being something more that allows you to feel more moral. So I think these two mixed motives kind of came together for the students. When it comes to the utterly crucial role, though, of the administrators, because if administrators looked at this and went,

no way, no, no, no, no, you're not getting a professor fired because you don't like what they said. This would have died in the crib. But they had met those same administrators we've been fighting for, fighting against at, at fire forever. And together it created this kind of calamity for, for freedom of speech where these people who already believed it was their job to say what shall be orthodox on this particular campus met a cohort of students that were more willing to play along with that too. And again, as with all things, with mixed motives.

He said something that I thought was so, I don't know, puncturing. He said that students are being taught the mental habits of anxious and depressed people, which really struck me. I thought we're teaching the kids to be fragile and actually make them less resilient. It's more than just word. These, I have seen this evolution where kids in my class, they feel weaker. It's not just, it's not just a cool virtue thing and trendy or fashionable. They appear to me to be less resilient.

Talk about that. Yeah, I mean, the whole project with me and John came out of my observation when I was dealing with my own anxiety and depression and cognitive behavioral therapy is what saved me and utterly transformed my life, which is a process by which you develop all these tools and sort of talking back to the exaggerated voices in your head that tell you things like you're doomed or you're a failure or nobody loves you. All of these kinds of voices that to a degree, to be clear,

everybody except sociopaths have, but you know, when you're anxious and depressed, they're louder, and they're harder to ignore. The amazing thing about CBT is it teaches you that if you actually rationally, not power of positive thinking stuff, but just rationally interrogate these, you realize you're overgeneralizing or engaging in fortune telling that you know what the future is going to look like or mind reading, all these things that logically don't really stand up to scrutiny. And the observation that really brought me to talk to John about a potential collaboration, although actually I just told him the idea that I thought was cool, I didn't actually

think we'd collaborate on it, that was a dream that was a dream come true was just that it was like we were teaching kids reverse CBT that we were teaching them do overgeneralize, do catastrophize, do engage in binary thinking, do, uh, uh, do believe, you know, the future and, and, and, and, and it comes from, I believe two different places, one, a very well-meaning idea from both parents and administrators all through K through PhD, and an instinct to protect young people and to insulate them from harm. But then a less admirable quality is that essentially, if you make people feel guilty or frightened it's in

theory will motivate them towards political action that you prefer and to me that's that that's the one that makes me pretty angry the first one makes me kind of sad because it's like yeah no it's an understandable instinct but it's still terrible advice and you should have known that the second one is the idea that we can sort of guilt, shame, anger, upset through telling people that they are more fragile than they are, that they are in greater danger than they are, that that will somehow result in a better world. And I always make the point, listen, this is a bad calculation even just

rationally, because people who are filled with despair and anxiety don't always choose, to say the least, the best course of action to get from point A to point B. Yeah, I wanna make some observations anecdotal and you tell me if there's any data back it up. Then in terms of, I think I'm trying to get that product, was it called JotForm where all of a sudden someone would get upset by something

and spin up an online petition and within a certain amount of time. Everybody thought it was cool to join in and the Dean had to deal with this bullshit. And, and I do think a lot of it was bullshit, but a couple observations and you tell me if, if the nullifier validate them, uh, I would never got in the way or I was never subject to this sort of scrutiny or

blowback because the first thing I say in class, one I'm known as being provocative and quite frankly, a little bit aggressive and obnoxious. So the expectation is there. And the first thing I say is if you think there's a non-zero probability of something I say is going to trigger you, I curse, I have certain unconscious biases I'm still working on.

But if you think something's really going to emotionally trigger you, you should call your parents and tell them to come get you because you're not ready for college. So there's a certain expectation that I'm gonna be a little bit out there and no one ever has, I've never gotten run over by this. I have some colleagues who are much more thoughtful

and considerate than me 99.9% of the time. And then they make an error. They're, they're inarticulate around something and it's shocking because they're known as these nice, benign people. And, and then they get taken, you know, they get taken out and shot because it's almost like those of us who are a little bit more aggressive and provocative regularly are not subject to the same scrutiny as someone Who makes one false move and then the second observation I would make and this is identity politics, but I'm gonna do it anyways

The people I have observed in class who get really upset. I mean physically upset. They're not faking it It tend to be women Tend to be white women tend to be white women. Upper-class white women, yes. What's the data there? The data on women, particularly white women, and particularly upper-class white women being more free speech skeptical is just very apparent. And that's one of those things that makes me a little uncomfortable to say it, but it's a consistent finding. And it's something that we found

among the professor, among students as well. And of course, I think the free speech skepticism comes from a good place, but so does all of censorship. So I don't think that that's a strange observation. The observation that the professors who start out more sympathetic tend to be more vulnerable definitely accords with my professional experience, that it certainly seems that way. But then there's also a category of sort of outspoken conservative or outspoken, you know,

iconoclastic professors that I've definitely seen get targeted quite aggressively over the years. So in some ways, I will say that some of your observations come a little bit from luck, because like you get one student or one administrator who decides, I'm getting Scott Galloway, and the whole dynamic changes. We'll be right back after a quick break. No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC optimum points on your first five orders.

Shop now at NoFfrills.ca. It's today explained what's going on, my boys, and in some cases, gals. Recently, one of you emailed us with this request. You've got mail. Hello, I'm an avid listener, and I strongly believe you should cover the story of Curtis Yarvin. It's important to explore who he is

and how he has influenced the MAGA and the Tech Bros movement. Curtis Yarvin is a very online far-right philosopher whose ideas include the fascinating, the esoteric, the absurd, the racist, and so on. Six months into the Trump administration, there's evidence that he is influencing the MAGA movement and even President Trump. JD Vance knows him and likes him. Elon consulted him about this third party idea. Yarvin can take some credit for inspiring Doge. And as you'll hear ahead, one of Trump's most controversial, doesn't even begin to cover it, ideas may have come from Yarvin or someone who reads his sub stack. I can almost

guarantee you that Trump does not. Everything's computer. Today Explained. Weekday Afternoons. This week on Net Worth and Chill, we're diving deep into Trump's one big, beautiful bill, the sweeping legislation that promises to reshape America's economic landscape. From tax cuts to student loans. I'm breaking down what this massive piece of legislation actually means for your wallet, your investments and your financial future.

We're going to find out who wins and loses in this economic overhaul, analyze the market reactions that have investors buzzing, and discuss whether this bill will deliver on its promises or create unexpected consequences. Just because you're not on Medicaid doesn't mean this doesn't impact you. Poor people don't stop having medical emergencies. They just stop being able to afford them. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com slash your rich BFF.

What are your thoughts on how the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn handled that situation and generally assess their response, Congress's or the congressional committee's viewpoint in this on this and This is a difficult one. What is the line between free speech and hate speech from people in masks that creates an environment that's unhealthy for the community? Your thought. Now, there have been critics who have been really critical of those professors when they went to

the anti-Semitism hearing in December of 2023, there have been people who have been primarily critical of the fact that when asked if calling for genocide was protected or not on their campus, they said it depends on context. Now, here's the truth. It does depend on context. In First Amendment law, if you're saying something, and particularly academically, if you're saying something theoretically, if you're saying something in the course of a philosophical discussion,

that is different than being like, I'm going to kill you. So context is right. But the reason why I nonetheless have zero sympathy, actually to be fair, I have sympathy for the president of MIT because MIT has not been the best, but it sure as hell has not been the worst. Penn and Harvard, Claudine Gay, I had no sympathy for them at all. Because the reason why I have no sympathy for them is they've been utterly terrible on freedom

of speech prior to that point. And definitely critics, including people like Barry Weiss have a good point that saying these people who claim to be exquisitely sensitive about fat phobia, as the example that she usually uses, were suddenly not caring if someone said something that sounded an awful lot like your country should be wiped off the map.

So what is the line? The line as far as a fire is concerned, and we think to a large degree the law is, is something that actually crosses the line. The line as far as a fire is concerned, and we think to a large degree the law is, is something that actually crosses the line into anti-Semitic or racial or sexual harassment. And that's not as simple as just saying something offensive. Actually, it can't just be saying something offensive, which by the way, I think is absolutely the right rule. I think the situation for free speech would be even worse than it currently is if we didn't have that bedrock

principle, which is called in the law. It has to be a pattern of discriminatory behavior directed at somebody for it to be harassment. But a lot of what we saw on campus after October 7th, you don't even have to get to that question. A lot of what we saw was violent you know, violent attempts to intimidate actual threats, in some cases, physical assault, taking over buildings, all of these things that are just not protected nor should they be. And particularly, this is something that I just did a TED talk. And the thing that I, and I probably angered some people by opening up with this example, but I want to be really clear here.

There was a speech, for example, at Berkeley. There was an Israeli Defense Force speaker there, and students organized to... And it's nice to have this actually like in a screenshot of a tweet, of a text message to everybody, shut it down. And 200 students stormed where the guy was supposed to speak, broke down a door, broke down a window, and chased the guy off. And I always have to explain, okay, that's mob censorship. That is an attempt by people to say, 200 people to say to anybody who would want to hear this person, you're not allowed to hear this person because I don't approve of them. That's not okay. That's the kind of thing that in my opinion should get you kicked out of

university because it means you're not actually understanding the point of university. One of the reasons why this angered some people is because I also tend to point out that from October 7th on, all but about three and the two worst years for deplatforming involving violence and involving shout downs as are called, all but three were pro-Palestinian activists. So like it was one of these things we're spending plenty of time defending the

free speech rights of pro-Palestinian students, pro-Palestinian professors. But nonetheless, we were also seeing these same students and who expected to be protected by freedom of speech, showing no respect whatsoever for the free speech of others. So a lot of these issues are actually not that hard. The hardest issue you get into is essentially if it's not a threat, if it's not blocking someone from getting from point A to point B, it's just really, really offensive. At what point does that actually

become anti-Semitic or racial or ethnic harassment? And the answer is essentially that Davis test that we always refer to at FIRE, which is, is it severe, persistent, and pervasive, such that it causes a reasonable person to be denied effectively in education? So that's a high standard, but it should be if you're dealing with something that has an offense aspect in it. But again, for a lot of these situations, you didn't even have to get to that analysis

because what the students were doing wasn't protected in the first place. So, I'm asking us to learn not to make a statement, but I struggle with, I feel like anonymity has been conflated with free speech to our detriment. That some of the really vile things you see online, I understand how important it is for individuals to have First Amendment and free speech rights, but I don't think that applies to bots. And I think that an understandable protection for anonymity has morphed into

a total lack of accountability and a real coarsening of our discourse online. And I think it extends into letting government agencies wear masks and things like that. But I'm curious, I'd love to just get your thoughts on the fulcrum between the importance of people having the right to say things anonymously because what they're saying could trigger danger or harm for them. And at the same time, how this reverence for anonymity may have gone too far and resulted in a lack of accountability and some really ugly shit spreading online.

Your thoughts, Greg? Well, in terms of first amendment law, anonymous speech is protected, but, um, but I don't think that's sufficient enough of an answer. Um, and I think I tend to think of the justification for anonymity as like a seesaw. That is actually if we lived in a free and enlightened society in which people welcomed dissent and welcomed disagreement and there was no imaginable idea that you'd be punished for it, then the justification for anonymity would kind of fall out of the ring hollow to people. They'd be like, who cares? But we don't live in that world and we live less in that world than we used to

Because even I'd say ten years ago Before twelve years ago before cancel culture The idea of saying something that was your genuinely held opinion had a much lower likelihood of ruining your career Add to it the possibility of being actually punished in some way. Now that certainly applies to now to a much larger degree than I ever thought I'd see to say a lot of countries in Western Europe at this point, a lot of countries in the Anglosphere. I mean, by different estimates, they're arresting something like 30 people a day for offense speech in Britain.

By far different accounts, but generally, they go between seven and 40 people being arrested a day for that. Germany, like they will brag about the fact that they did morning raids. They did this on 60 Minutes, was what I'm going to brag about doing morning raids on someone who called a politician a penis. Under that situation, the justification for having an out-of-the-speech goes way up.

Can it and is it abused? Absolutely. But, you know, I think actually, I'm going to quote Milton Friedman here, but it's just a really good quote. Something isn't a right unless it can be abused. I like that. What about, so Section 230, the idea that these nascent platforms aren't subject to the same kind of libel, slander, disparagement laws, the traditional media platforms. What are

your thoughts on that? I think we toy with Section 30 to our great peril. I think that it's, you know, like democracy, it's the worst of any system except all the others. Now, to be clear, there might be some other system that I haven't thought of that could be better. But when it comes to things, but I do find it particularly almost amusing that conservatives are going after 230 or were going after 230 with such gusto. Because if you actually, even let's just take it to the defamation protections that 230 gives to ISPs, to internet service providers. If suddenly that were to vanish, it would lead to internet service providers censoring a lot more, like a lot lot more, because they can be held liable for defamation. And I think that given the biases in a lot of social media companies,

that would wildly disproportionately affect what conservatives say. So I think that overall we benefit so much from 230. Of course, it's going to have downsides, but I'm more afraid of monkeying with it. But you see, you don't see an issue that traditional media platforms, which were struggling to stay viable and raise the funds to do fact-checking and put out, I don't want to say the truth, but a greater attempt to do the good work of journalism and fact check and do their research. You don't see that a problem with holding traditional media

to an entirely different standard, a higher standard than these online platforms? Yeah, and that's generally the way they're held. Essentially traditional media that's responsible for the content that they produce, I think it makes more sense to hold them liable for not doing the sufficient fact-checking for defamation,

as opposed to something that hosts everything. I mean, something that hosts the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and YouTube, and everything else under the sun, is something that's quite distinct than just the New York Times by itself. Do you think there's opportunity for nuance or gray area? And I'll propose a solution or what I think we should think about. I think about 230 a lot. The idea that people can break through and say things, impose something, and that a company that creates a lot of economic

value, lets a lot of interesting opinions, when sometimes the conspiracy view ends up being actually more true than you think. There's been some just wonderful things about these platforms and the ability for viewpoints and consumers or content producers to kind of go direct to consumer and kind of have at it. At the same time, I worry that the protection is not consistent in the sense that, well, let me propose a solution. So if my cohost on one of my podcasts, Raging Moderates, and she's the kind of the sole Democrat on this show, which is actually the most watched show on cable news called The Five, someone got upset that she called out Ken Paxson or something and mocked up a picture of her, uh, with her previous boyfriend and his, you know,

has gone into this tried and true misogynistic slut shaming, misinformation, having an affair from her first husband, hasn't been married to, I mean, just total nonsense, right? And the algorithm on Twitter loves that because it creates a lot of comments, a lot of engagement, people weighing in conspiracy theorists, and also people protecting her creates more, um, Nissan ads because, and the algorithm itself from Twitter is trained to elevate that content and give it broader and further reach than it would organically because it creates Nissan ads.

In other words, there's an economic incentive to spread this information. Do you think there's a solution or some gray area where maybe we say, okay, you're a bulletin board and you can't be responsible to, it's unrealistic, suppression of speech, economic impairment, if we're responsible for policing everything someone pins up on the board. But if you as a social media company decide to elevate

algorithmically content and give it more spread than it might organically, at that point, are you really different than an editor at CNBC or MSNBC or at Fox who's subject to a different set of standards, shouldn't they be subject to the same standards if they make the conscious decision to algorithmically elevate content?

I'm always worried about the distortive impact of government, also regulation sometimes, and liability. And so I'm very hesitant to change anything without, and my job is to make the argument for, err on the side of free speech as much as possible and err on the side of as little, as few things being banned and as few things being government regulated as possible. So my fear is that essentially if you started having government entanglement with algorithmic

choices, you really got to decide one, which government do you trust? Do you trust Biden to do that? Do you trust Trump to do that? But also particularly when it's a liability standpoint, how distortive that actually can be to what gets reported in the first place. Because this is, in a sense, kind of like why everybody sues for libel in Britain. Even though they've made slight improvements around the edges, it's still much easier to find people guilty of committing libel in Britain than it is the United States. We

actually have a shield for the country basically saying, you know, providing some modicum of protection for people in the US from libel tourism that takes place in the UK. So, you know, I'm always gonna be fairly skeptical of that kind of stuff, but it's also my societal role to be skeptical of that kind of stuff. We'll be right back.

There's regular cold, and then there's the mountains are blue cold. Mountain cold refreshment. Coors light. The chill choice. Celebrate responsibly. Must be legal drinking age. Stop.

Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now. And get a free chili dog. Chili dog new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now and get a free chili dog. Chili dog not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now, August 1st. Summer's here and you can now get almost anything you need for your sunny days delivered

with Uber Eats. What do we mean by almost? Well, you can't get a Wellgroom lawn delivered, but you can get a chicken parmesan delivered. A cabana? That's a no. But a banana? That's a yes. A nice tan? Sorry, nope. But a box fan? Happily yes. We're back with more from Greg Lukianoff. details. We're back with more from Greg Lukianoff.

So I want to throw the kind of the most difficult stuff at you and get your thoughts. So if I were Putin and I were, I'd lost a million men to a war and spending 70 to $100 billion a year on a losing war. And at some point, if this war continued to wreak the kind of economic and human damage, if it were to continue to do it, at some point I might find myself falling out of a window. So I think he would be stupid not to weaponize and spin up troll farms in Albania and then create a list of the

10,000 most influential people online who are pro Ukraine and Start attacking their reputation with millions of bots in a very thoughtful. You're already doing that though Well, yeah I think he is and that's my question and that is do bots have First Amendment rights, and do these platforms have some sort of obligation, which I think would only be registered or adhered to through some sort of regulation, to protect us against bad actors that might be quite frankly raising a generation of military, civic, and nonprofit leaders who don't like America or begin to have their views shaped, and ultimately our votes and our military

decisions shaped on outside forces that are taking advantage of the very porous and lightly regulated tech ecosystem and platforms. Your thoughts? The question of whether or not bots have First Amendment rights, of course they don't, but do bot creators have First Amendment rights? At least when they're't. But do BAC creators have First Amendment rights? At least when they're in the United States, absolutely. Certainly, they do. When you're talking about the kind of propaganda, kind of warfare and targeting that is possible in the age of the Internet,

in the age of social media, when you've kind of fall down this rabbit hole of how you actually address it without actually devastating, without having huge government encroachment, which will end in bad places as well, or without creating massive unintended consequences. The best way to do this historically has simply to have authorities that people actually trust. And we have blown giant holes in the only thing that really can protect you from disinformation and misinformation and you have to start

figuring out ways to get authorities that that people essentially trust because one of the ways we could potentially address some of this stuff is by having institutions pointing out what is troll farms and what isn't. But under the current environment, there's gonna be a lot of like, sure they are, you just don't like what they're saying, is gonna be the response there. And in a situation where these institutions

had better societal trust, it'd be like, oh my God, you're right. So you're a First Amendment attorney, what are we not paying attention to in the courts? Have there been any legal decisions that you think are especially important to the future of First Amendment or speech or its regulation or lack thereof? What have you seen come down the pike that you think has not gotten enough attention? Yeah, I mean, I think it got good attention, but I think people haven't thought through

all the ramifications of it. And this gets to your point on anonymity, where we may disagree to some degree. But the change in the law to say that you can actually require verification for kids, and actually really for anybody to use porn sites in Texas is a case that could really have some serious bad ramifications unless it stays relatively cabined. Now I was definitely among the First Amendment people saying listen there's a case called New York v. Ginsburg from the late 1960s that says you can require store owners to put the nudie mags on the back shelves and to make sure that minors don't get them.

But then we had decade after decade of the Supreme Court and other courts basically saying, but online that can't possibly apply for all sorts of, and to be clear, very serious reasons. I knew that wouldn't last forever. And that eventually, Texas passed a verification regime that was actually more complex than I originally understood, but was first marketed as something where you had to basically show like a driver's license if you want to see porn. That would also include that they had to have disclaimers saying that porn is harmful to your mental health and all this kind of stuff, which has compelled speech issues. I think they

they made some efforts to sort of improve the law, make it clear that there's other ways to verify anyway. So that fight was something that I predicted we were going to lose in the Pax and case. Now here's the question. Are we then going to, with the best of intentions, create an environment where you essentially can't use the internet without identifying yourself in some way? And that scares me because I do actually think that the situation for free speech, even in the so-called free world, is dodgier than it's ever been in my lifetime. And the idea that at this precise moment, we'd also be, make it harder for people to hide what they're looking at or what they're reading scares me.

So our efforts at FIRE are definitely going to be to make sure that that decision, as much as possible, stays stays cabined to kids access to adult materials. Do you think the platforms are already doing that? Do the platforms already know exactly what we're doing, saying and when, but as long as they use it to monetize advertising it seems to be there's a tolerance for it. I think the cat's already out of the bag. I think they already know everything we do and what we say. We don't seem to have worried about that. But then we have this, do we have this tremendous

fidelity for protecting them when it comes to any, I don't know, forward-facing viewpoints that might result in more, I don't know, just more, it seems like we're just protecting them in the wrong areas and not looking at them in others. I apologize for know, just more, it seems like we're just protecting them in the wrong areas and not looking at them in others. I apologize for the word salad there, Greg. Do you see any inconsistency? Yeah, no, I definitely get the concern, but I do think that there are tools that people

badly underutilize that can actually protect your privacy. Well, they're purposely made complicated to utilize. Have you tried to regulate your kids content on face on meta? I mean, they are not, I would argue they are not readily accessible purposefully, or they're not easily used. Yeah, no, and I definitely asked for help to make with my kids stuff. But now we have, you know, we have signal, you know, for example, we do duck duck go, you know, for example, we do DuckDuckGo, you know, like the... Yeah, custodial, install on my kids' phones. Yeah, there are some basic steps you can do to somewhat protect your privacy.

And of course, when it comes to private corporations doing bad things, and this is something that I feel like we have an entire generation of young Americans sort of brainwashed to believe that you should be more afraid of corporations and you should be of governments. And I just think that's absolute nonsense, particularly, particularly foreign governments, but also also frankly, the US government and that corporations, you know, people talk about that evil profit motive. And I'm kind of like, I prefer the profit motive to a lot of the other motives you can have for finding this stuff out.

And profit motive often lends itself to, and by the way, we protect our users' privacy in a way that, you know, the Chinese, the CCP or Russia, or even our own government is like, no, we want this information for other reasons. So just, you know, just I'm very good at turning this podcast into, it's really just an excuse for me to talk about me. Steve Bannon suggested that the president, that the administration sue me for some of the things I've said about him. I called him a rapist. And do you feel that the president is in different ways trying to suppress free speech? And if and what laws or what do you think should be done about it?

What are your views on it? It feels to me like free speech has been chilled from the administration. And I'm just curious, curious to get your thoughts on it. Sounds like you agree with it, but what can and should be done to push back on that? Well, it's tough because the, okay, so the ways in which it's being chilled just really quickly. There's been, you know, attacks on mainstream media. People can argue that it's deserved, but that doesn't mean you get to violate the First Amendment. There's attacks on higher education. Again, you can feel like it's deserved, but it doesn't mean you get to violate the First

Amendment or existing laws. And then there's the attack on the law firms, which probably is the one that I think gets the least attention, but probably scares me the most. When it comes to the media, for example, like we're the group defending Ann Selzer. Ann Selzer is the pollster in Iowa who got the poll really wrong right before the election, having Kamala up by two points in Iowa. And of course, that was way off. She was like 11 points off. But when it came out, she apologized. She explained how she got it wrong, saying that she was using methodology that was really effective maybe 10 years ago, but has gotten increasingly ineffective as fewer people have landlines and that kind of stuff.

Because she used to be considered like the gold standard of pollsters. But she was nonetheless sued by Trump himself actually, this is before inauguration day, for under a Consumer Protection Act in Iowa. The Consumer Protection Act was really designed for preventing false advertising, like as in commercial speech, saying that these pills will help you lose was really designed for preventing false advertising, like as in in commercial speech, saying that, you know,

these pills will help you lose 40 pounds a day type things, not getting a poll wrong, which is, you know, good faith reporting. So we're defending her in that case. Then there's also like the 60 minutes situation, ABC News. The 60 minutes one, I think of as particularly bad because it really seemed like the administration was dangling a proposed merger with Skydance in front of CBS saying, kind of implying we're not going to agree to this unless you play ball, which is good.

The university stuff, nobody's been a bigger critic of Harvard, for example, than I've been. They have finished dead last in our campus free speech rankings. One of the best and most data intensive things that fire does or the most data intensive thing that fire does. And Harvard was dead last two years in a row. But we're currently defending Harvard because the letter the administration sent to Harvard was basically saying because you're probably in violation of Title VI, which they may be,

and Title VII, which when it comes to admissions, probably are, that we essentially have to nationalize Harvard. Basically, the government gets to decide all of the key things about what Harvard would decide on its own, which is not a power the government's been granted. And when it comes to the law firms, I mean, like that, that's the one that I, I wrote on this, my substack,

the eternally radical idea about the, about all of these, these cases. And it started with them just going after attorneys who would oppose the Trump administration, even like people like Robert Mueller, and where they had law firms and saying that they would be denied their secret service protection, not secret service, their- Pete Slauson Yeah, their security details. Repackage violence. If you're someone who ordered a strike on Suleiman ahead of the Iranian security forces

and you take away a general's security detail, you're putting that person in harm's way, in my view. And get rid of their security clearance and then also deny them access to federal buildings, which of course include courtrooms. And that's to me like some of the most chilling stuff. Now what can be done about it? The most, the thing that's happening consistently is that Trump is losing in court. So far, he's mostly been abiding by those rulings.

I'm a little bit concerned given how fast and loose sometimes this administration plays the rules that might not hold up when push really comes to shove. But fingers crossed. In terms of what else people can do about it I think it really is a question of what happens in the next in the midterms and then of course in the presidential election but It's it's it's troubling but not unexpected. Yeah shocking, but not surprising Just as we wrap up here Greg a lot of young men listen to this podcast

Shocking, but not surprising. Uh, just as we wrap up here, Greg, a lot of young men listen to this podcast, um, based on some of the many challenges, all young people, but especially I would argue some young men in our society are facing right now. A lot of them are struggling with their own mental health. And I appreciate how transparent and vulnerable you were at the beginning of the podcast talking about your own struggles. And you had said that cognitive behavioral therapy really helped you. Can you share some thoughts on your struggles with your own anxiety and depression and any advice you might

have for young people who are facing their own challenges? Sure and that's you know and it's tough because like you know everyone struggles kind of differently and I really understand people's kind of concern about well well, one, of course, the expense of getting a therapist, but also the fear that given that therapy has to some degree become politicized, that they don't want to end up with someone with a therapist who's going to judge them, you know, for in some cases just for being a male or for having non-conforming political views. So I get all of that. But I did hear from one friend about their kid who basically said he didn't need

therapy because he watches a lot of podcasts. He's on YouTube a lot getting advice and it's just not the same thing. Yeah, that's not the facts Yeah, so there's people out there like Camilo or Tez or tease. Sorry Who is trying to put together a political? Therapists, you know who or ones who won't judge you, you know who won't let their political opinion interfere with their therapy Which is amazing that you have to do that, but you do, unfortunately. Looking for people who are recommended that way for CBT, there's also some approaches to CBT that actually lend themselves fairly well to even apps,

which I don't think it's sufficient, but it can help. But here's the thing, it may be simple, but it's not easy. Because you have to do it several times a day, you have to actually do it when those self hating voices come up in your head, those catastrophizing voices. Otherwise, your brain will never get in the habit of talking back to those. And you have to do it. Every time they come up, and you have to do it for pretty, like I would say probably,

you're not really going to see much change for the first six months even. But I remember about nine months in suddenly being like, wait a second, all these things that used to pop up in my head, they don't sound convincing anymore. And it was really dramatic after that. So I definitely believe looking into CBT, I think that, you know, one thing that I do a lot when I'm having a hard time is I go reread Seneca's letters to a young man. I find they're really approachable. Meditation is very helpful to people.

But don't forget things like things, exercise is really key. And if you're in it, there is something, my favorite book is Upward Spiral by Alex Korb. How do you recommend, I have like a whole thing, I have a whole like a sub stack on this very issue because since I get asked it so much and I get kind of all of my advice. And what's that sub stack called or what's that post call? Well, I don't remember what the post is called, but my sub stack is the eternally radical idea.

But also, you know, talk to people about it, talk to friends. When you're in a really bad way, there's a sense that nobody's gonna want to hear your whining about it, but that's just not true in most cases, because, you know, as hard as it may be to believe sometimes when you're really deep down and dark, there are people out there who love you. Greg Lukianoff is a free speech advocate, First Amendment attorney, and president of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, which has probably had more impact on my parenting than any book

I have read, and also The Cancelling of the American Mind. His latest book, War on Words, 10 Arguments Against Free Speech and Why They Fail, is out next week. He joins us from Maine. Greg, I wanted to meet you and speak to you for a couple of years because one of my role models, Jonathan Haidt, whenever he talks about you, he speaks about you in such reverence and with such respect. So I was really excited to have this conversation. Very much appreciate your time.

Also very much appreciate what you said at the end about cognitive behavioral therapy. And the takeaway I have and that I hope people take away from this podcast is when you're really down and you think everyone's sick of you and sick of hearing from you and doesn't have time for you, that that's just not true. So anyways, thank you for sharing that Greg. My father passed away last week and it's been a rough few days for me as it is for anybody

who loses a parent. Our species, our competitive advantage is that, is our brain. It's so big that we're expelled from the human body prematurely and our brain is exactly the wrong size. It's big enough to ask very complicated questions but not big enough to answer them. And death is something our brain still hasn't come to grips with. And that is, especially with a parent, this is someone who is your first protector and then when you lose that person the idea that all of a sudden that

protector isn't around is devastating. It's a mirror. You see a lot of yourself in this person and you immediately think about all the different things in your life that developed good and bad with this person. And you have to deal with those and come to attempt to come to grips with them, which sometimes can be painful. Our brains are used to continuity and patterns. We're used to having that person in our life

and we assume they're gonna be around forever and it's impossible to believe they're not gonna be around forever. So the finality of death is just very shocking and very difficult to wrap your head around. The biggest or most profound moments in my life have involved birth and death. The death of my mother, my mother passed away

when I was 39 after what was a pretty ugly battle with a smoking related illness, specifically cancer, breast cancer twice and then it metastasized in her stomach. And it was just the finality and the harshness of it and the brutality of the way she died kind of really, these things change you. They really, I think for most people,

you're sort of never the same. I was much lighter and funnier before that happened. And I think something kind of died in me. But at the same time, I developed a wonderful sense of the finite nature of life. And then when my kids were born, that changed everything for me. I became much more responsible, much more anxious,

but started for the first time in my life thinking about other people, which was an enormous unlock, and I'll come back to that. And then the death of my father is a different sort of feeling, not nearly as close to my father as it was to my mother. So my dad, George Thomas Galloway, was born in 1930 in Sydney, Australia to a woman who was a domestic servant for a wealthy family.

He was born out of wedlock. And the deal was that the family found out my grandmother was pregnant and they had a daughter who did not have any children of her own and was in her thirties, which was considered a, you know, a tragedy. And they agreed to adopt her child, her unborn baby, and would give her enough money. But the considered a, you know, a tragedy. And they agreed to adopt her child, her unborn baby, and we'd give her enough

money, but the deal was she had to leave. And I think they even gave her some money, uh, cause they didn't want the biological mother around and my, my grandmother agreed. And then, uh, my grandmother gave birth to my father in Sydney, Australia. And I don't know the full story, but convinced her boyfriend or the father of the child, which is obviously very upset to meet her at the docks. And they got on a ship for, for Scotland. I can't even imagine what the ship route was like from Sydney to Glasgow. And so my father was jokingly said, I could have been a McVicar.

It was the McVicar family that built like battleships or something. And he says that he's pissed off. He would have much rather stay in, in Sydney, Australia, and been the son of a rich family. Anyways, raised in depression era Scotland and World War II Scotland. He says his first memory is watching the Clydesbank raid. I think it's called where Henkel Henkels and Messerschmitts drop bombs on, uh, munitions factories or shipbuilding factories just outside, I believe, of Glasgow.

And he jokes that they were obviously very patriotic. He was nine when the war broke out, 15 when it ended, and that anyone with an accent in Glasgow, him and his 10-year-old buddies would follow around and take notes on them because they assumed they were spies. And then after the war ended, he was 15, but at the age of 17, he lied about his age and went to a recruitment office and wanted to be a pilot for the IRF.

And the recruiter said, you're too tall to be a pilot. So he went across the street or somewhere to where they were recruiting for the Royal Navy and joined the Navy at a very young age. And before he knew it was on, I believe it was an aircraft carrier and my father could repair, they do an assessment, a skills assessment test. And he disclosed that he could repair things. He repaired motorcycles and that he was a good swimmer. And so the next day he was no joke in a helicopter, in a wetsuit, in the North Atlantic practicing

what he found out later was pilot rescue. They kind of informed him what he was going to doetsuit, in the North Atlantic, practicing what he found out later was pilot rescue. They kind of informed him what he was gonna do while he was in the helicopter in a poorly fashioned wetsuit. And they said, okay, this is the deal. You're gonna jump out into the water. We're gonna throw out 150 pound dummy, not in that order.

Then we're gonna lower a basket. And your job is to get this 150 pound dummy into a basket as if it was a pilot in the North Atlantic. Oh and by the way even with your wetsuit in about 14 minutes you're gonna die of exposure so there's some motivation. So my dad jumps into the North Atlantic when it was dark out and tries to get this dummy into this basket and then he said the scariest moment was he got the dummy into the basket, most exhausting thing he's ever done. They pull it up and he said the current started taking him away from the helicopter and he was worried

they were no longer even gonna be able to see him and get him out. And they drop a winch, he connects it and they pull him up. His first week, he got his pay, he put it in a locker at the foot of his cot and the entire locker was stolen. I guess this was sort of something that the freshmen recruits were stupid and would put money in their locker thinking it would be secure. So there was a service where he could send money home.

So he would send all of his money from the Navy, all of his pay home to his mother. And after two years, he calculated he had enough money to get to America and he came home to find out that his mother had spent his money on whiskey and cigarettes. And in her defense, she claimed that, what did you expect me to do? I was bored. So my father has always had a very unhealthy relationship

with money. I mean, it really scarred him growing up in depression in Scotland and I think acts like that. But he did get some money together and got to America and led what could arguably called the American dream. My favorite story about him first arriving in America was he and my mom met in Canada. They got pregnant. They hated the weather. They bought a newspaper. And there was an article saying that the nicest weather in North America was in San Diego. So they loaded up my seven month, seven month pregnant mom into an Austin mini

Metro and drove from Toronto to San Diego. My dad's first job interview was to be a salesman for a candle company. And the head of HR there said, you've got to stay here. She asked him how long you'd been in the country. And he said, just two weeks. And she said, that's incredible. She said, just wait right here. And she went and got her boss and said, you need to meet this guy, Tom Galloway.

He's only been in the country for two weeks from Scotland and he can already speak the language. I love that. Anyways, my dad was aggressive, smart and charming and, um, got jobs. And, uh, at his peak, we had a home in Laguna Niguel. I was thriving and they were living what could best be described as an upper middle-class home. And unfortunately, my dad was not a high character person.

Married and divorced four times. A handsome man with a strong jaw and a Glaswegian accent in 70s California did not only think with his dick, he could listen to it. And my dad rifled through four marriages and four divorces, including his last one, where he decided to leave his fourth wife when she had late stage Parkinson's.

So he was never able to really connect with people or ever really develop a sense outside of kind of the survival instinct of investing in other people and other people's, in relationships with other people. He was broken that way, and there's just no, not acknowledging that. However, what has helped me or some of the learnings here is that what has helped me process this is I love that Dr. Sue's saying don't cry because it's over, laugh or smile because it happened. I'm thinking about all the things I'm grateful for, um, being the son of, uh,

George Galloway, uh, on very basic things. I'm thinking about all the things I'm grateful for being the son of George Galloway on very basic things. I am tall. I have broad shoulders. I have a good voice and I have made an exceptional living communicating. None of those things are my fault. I got all of those things from my father and just because maybe he didn't purposely work to give me those things, there's no reason I can't be grateful for them. I think the ultimate test of evolution in the most basic box you need to check as a man is the following and that is are you a better father to your son than your father was to you? And my dad checked that box in indelible ink. His father, I found out later in life, used to physically abuse

him. I can't even imagine what that would be like. The person you're supposed to trust most in the world, the person you're supposed to protect you, physically abuses you. And he never did that for me. And he did try. After my mom and dad got divorced, he would try and meet me in places and take me to museums. And there's a lot for me to be grateful for. What has helped me in terms of my relationship with my father that was been one of the biggest unlocks in my life hands down was I really struggled with my relationship with my father, because every time I thought I was being

a good son and I would remember back to the fact that he kind of left me and my mom and wasn't very kind to us, was I would get resentful and angry and kind of cut him out of my life for small periods of time. And then an enormous unlock and my biggest piece of advice if you've made it this far is I decided, okay, what kind of son do I want to be? Don't think about the relationship as a transaction and what he owes you or what you owe him or base my behavior on what he did or did not do for me. But just simply put, what kind of son do I want to be?

And the reality is I wanted to be a loving, generous son and I wanted to have a great relationship with my dad. And I had all of the qualities and resources to do that. And from that moment on, I put away the scorecard, I put away the bullshit and I was a great son. And it was not only wonderful for him, it was wonderful for me.

I've loved these last 20 years of just having a great relationship with my father. He's charming, he's funny, he does love me. And it's just been a huge lesson for me in life. You know, not is my partner as good to my parents or is nice and generous to me based on how I should behave around her, but what kind of partner do I wanna be?

What kind of business person do I wanna be? What kind of employer do I wanna be? I used to look at every employee as are they adding as much value as I'm paying them? And if they're not, I'm gonna fire them. Now I think how can I be just an amazing employer? How can I be an amazing friend? How can I be, what kind of investor do I want to be known as?

And then live to that standard and put away the scorecard. Don't base your behavior on what you did or didn't get from that person, but on the person you want to be. And that's just been such an enormous unlock for me. So as I sit here and I think about my dad and I try to process his death, you know, I think this guy lived the American dream. He came to America. The biggest gift he gave me was that he took

this enormous risk and got to America. And so much of my success, so much of the ability to have a wonderful family is based on something that was not my fault, specifically my dad having the courage and taking the risk to get to America, and I'm very appreciative of that. George Thomas Galloway was 95 when he died. He was very much a man. He was a protector. He wanted to protect his country. He was a provider. He provided for two families. his country. He was a provider. He provided for two families and he was a procreator. He had two kids and four grandkids.

His son and his daughter will miss him terribly. This episode is produced by Jennifer Sanchez. Our assistant producer is Laura Janer. Jouberos is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Prop G pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network.