TRIGGERnometry - Will Young People Rebel Against Wokeness? with Inaya Folarin Iman

Episode Date: February 17, 2021

Inaya Folarin Iman is the Director of Free Speech Champions. The Free Speech Champions launch event is on February 18th 2021 at 7.30-9pm (online event).  Sign up here: https://freespeechchampions.com/event/launch-event-free-speech-champions/ Join our exclusive community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/  OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Paypal: https://bit.ly/2Tnz8yq https://www.subscribestar.com/triggernometry https://www.patreon.com/triggerpod Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/sign-up/ Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Netflix's remarkably bright creatures. What if a Pacific octopus held the key to a mystery that could heal your heart? Well, that's Tova's reality. An elderly widow working at an aquarium. Tova forms an unlikely friendship with the cramudgeonly Marcellus, whose remarkable intelligence leads her to a life-changing discovery. Watch remarkably bright creatures with your remarkable moms this Mother's Day weekend, only on Netflix May 8th.

Hello and welcome to Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster. I'm Constantine Kishin. And this is a show for you if you want honest conversations with fascinating people. We have a brilliant guest today in our socially distanced studio as you're about to see. She's the director of the Aquana Project and I, Fala. And Iman, welcome back to Trigonometry. Thank you for having me again.

Yeah, it's good to have you back. It's been nearly a year. I introduced as a director of the Aquana Project, which didn't exist the last time we interviewed you. What has been going on with you in the last year? Yeah, no, it's been a really, really crazy year, obviously. A lot of people first really heard of me significantly when I kind of intervened to an extent in the kind of identity politics debate that was going on kind of early last year. And then August I kind of launched an organization called the Equino Project,

slightly in response to the kind of Black Lives Matter protest, but kind of a broader desire to kind of hopefully move the conversation forward in regards to kind of identity politics and things like that. So we had our first event, which was attended and guest speakers like Trevor Phillips and Catherine Berbill Singh and Aisha. Akambi has also been on this show and it was really fantastic. And since then we've been kind of going into schools and speaking to people about how we can respond to many of these really important issues about kind of colonialism and history and race

and identity, but from a more kind of humanist, universalist perspective that's not kind of driven ideologically solely from a kind of narrow lens of identity politics and kind of race consciousness and that's deeply kind of politicized narrative of race. So that's really where it's been at. And hopefully lots of new exciting projects on freedom of speech and a lot of these important conversations. You definitely move the conversation forward. When we had you, Aisha and Zubi in short succession, we then got kicked out of our last studio. So things are moving in the right direction.

Thank you for your help. No, I think it has been really positive. I think, you know, in the beginning of the conversation, I think a lot of people were thinking where is it going to go. but what we've really seen is so many people from a genuine diversity of backgrounds, ethnic minorities in particular, that are saying that a lot of this conversation doesn't represent them. And actually, just like any group of people, regardless of your background, there's real ideological and political diversity.

And that fundamentally needs to be heard if we are to kind of really delve into these questions. So I think it's not been as bad, hopefully, a year later, is move forward. So you think it's actually calmed down a bit now? Or do you not think that we're going to, going to see another eruption? I think it's a really difficult one. I mean, two years ago, I think very few people would have predicted whether that was kind of COVID or even Black Lives Matter.

And I guess the nature of kind of society is the kind of spontaneity that emerges with it. But I think what has happened now, which seems very different to last year, is that there seems to have emerged many different organizations now in response to a lot of these movements. So if something does happen, there's a kind of infrastructure, a social solidarity in place, to be able to respond to it and bring forth the kind of voices that have a different perspective on these issues. So I think that in terms of the kind of knowledge about the kind of complexity of the issue that's moved forward, but there are still so many challenges, I think that, for example, one of the things that have now arisen in regards to this conversation very recently has been

the kind of conversation around kind of big tech censorship. So we still have many significant challenges in order to kind of open the conversation around, many of these complex issues. So there's still much more to be done, I think. And the obvious question, I suppose, would be given that your project deals with schools, we're seeing in America now, particularly, and as we know, whenever they get something, we get it, we used to be five years later, now we get it two weeks later, is critical race theory. Can you explain to people what that is? Yeah, so I think I'm a lot of people over the last year have attempted to make sense of this

kind of theory that has often come to shape the conversation about race. I mean, Helen Pluckpross and James Lindsay are very famous for kind of problematizing the nature of that theory. And it is very complicated, but I think if it's actually what's interesting about it, it's actually quite logically consistent if you accept some of the premises

of it. So obviously, it kind of posits that racism is kind of ever present, embedded in every element of society. And so as Helen Pluckrose mentions, it's not kind of did racism happen in a given interaction. is how did racism manifest itself?

And so, you know, people are split up into the oppressor versus oppressed. Thank you for looking at me. Yes, she focused entirely in you from the moment that she said, how did racism manifest itself? And she just went, fw. I raked it straight out. It's all right. He's used to it.

Yeah, it's all right. It's the voice. I know it's the voice. You've got a delicious shade of gammon there as well, made. So it's perfect. You know, we're just messing. You know what? It's such a pleasure to have a human being back in, like, face to face that we just

enjoy messing around. But you're making an important point, which is this is a system that presume that racism happens whenever people of different races coexist in the same space. Exactly. And, you know, the legitimacy of your voice depends on your positionality, where you stand in relation to dynamics of power and privilege. And each individual is made up of these kind of competing intersections of different interlocking systems of oppression, whether that's your race, your gender, your sexuality.

One of the things I find so challenging about this theory, and it is a theory, it's not fact, is you never become a full human being. And what I mean by that is human beings are never seen in their totality. They're always kind of competing identity categories. And so this makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation. It's not human being to human being. It's not this idea that we all have empathy and that means that we can at least, least if not we've not experienced direct discrimination, we can at least imagine what it might feel like. And that's our human empathy, the thread that unites us all, regardless of our identity category. And so you could never fully transcend that according to this theory, we're always just in this

constant loop of kind of competing power dynamics. And I don't think that's a context for human beings to fully exercise their agency and transcend the kind of identity categories and political abstractions assigned upon them. And so, you know, again, the Equino Project hopes to really re-articulate that universalist perspective of Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass, Bookerty, Washington, and a long tradition that goes a long way. And do you think we're at risk of this being introduced into schools? Because I know there's been, you know, there's been the issue with Eton, you know, and firing that particular teacher. But do you think we're at risk now this being introduced into state schools up and down the country? I think it's already become incredibly

institutionalised. I think, for example, we see it in the corporate world with the whole kind of diversity and inclusion and this kind of seeing people as, you know, constantly a threat to one another that needs to be micromanaged and all of these kind of diversity trainings. There's an entire industry now. And I think understandably, you know, most people, I think, we've come a long way as society, find racism to be abhorrent. And if there's a kind of group of people consistently saying that it's embedded in society and it's, you know, so pervasive. and understandably, you know, people feel that they want to do something about it. And so the challenges now, as I kind of alluded to earlier,

is ensuring that and increasing the kind of platforms for people that have that different perspective. Okay, by all means, put forward the critical race theory perspective. I don't believe it should be censored or removed. But as long as we understand that it is one lens for looking at things, and there are multiple. And I think that's, I think, what, for example, the kind of Kemi-Badenotch statement where she talked about kind of teaching it as one objective truth is really the problem. as long as you're demonstrating it along a wide range of views,

can we then, I think, get closer to the truth. You have to ask the question as well. Like, I'm a former teacher. Everyone can now drink. But when kids are struggling with their literacy, with their numeracy, is this really the thing that we should be using lesson time for? Shouldn't we teach me about geography, history, et cetera, et cetera? Well, absolutely.

I think, I mean, one of the subjects that I'm really interested is the kind of subject to kind of freedom of speech, which is a kind of fundamental basis of democracy. And one of another issue that's been really strong amongst younger generations is a kind of suspicion towards freedom of speech or anytime we think about freedom of speech is often consistently framed in relation to spreading hate or attacks against minorities. And the kind of real kind of virtue and meaning of that has become distorted in the conversation. And that's something that I think is fundamental to young people's cultivation of their own sense of individuality and agency. And so a fixating over race on a gender.

generation that may well be the most open-minded towards different racial groups than previous generations perhaps in history, I think is a really distracting thing. I think there's way, way, way more issues. I mean, particularly in the pandemic that young people are facing right now, I mean, having their kind of educational life decimated is one example. And I don't think that fixating on racism amongst young people is a very productive thing to focus on. Do you think a big part of this is technology? Because one of the things I have been aware of recently is that the power of technology is so great.

And as we record this, this whole GameStop thing is happening, right? Where essentially a bunch of ordinary people have worked out that if you use technology to band together, you can be really powerful. And of course, the powers that be want to shut that down. Do you think a big part of this whole attempt to restrict what people say is that modern technology is so powerful that, you know, one person saying something can turn into a thousand people saying something. And before you know it, half the country believes something that isn't true, let's say, right? Do you think that's a lot of the reasons that there's this fear

about freedom of expression? I think that's a really good question. And I think there's a lot of truth in it. I think we kind of forget that we haven't had social media for a very long time. And actually something so revolutionary, like the ability to insert. instantaneously communicate with the entire world and kind of spread that measure to the world has transformational effects. And I think we are still navigating that territory and kind of figuring out what that means. And I do think it absolutely does have very real consequences. So, you know, as you just alluded to, you can say something that may be false, particularly in a situation of crisis that we're dealing with. And I think people do have legitimate concerns about what the consequences of that might lead to.

But I guess the question is how do we really respond to that? And I think part of our kind of drive to restrict and to stifle is a kind of lack of confidence in our institutions, in our civic society, to be vibrant enough and intellectually rigorous enough and dynamic enough to be able to actually challenge those things. So our instinctive response is to just censor it. But obviously, as we've seen, that doesn't work. I think it's one of the oldest statements, you know, tricks in the book that if you do censor something, it doesn't stop people from. believing it. You know, you can kind of put your head in the sand, you can ignore it, but people still hold those views. And I think that when people are not allowed the space to be able to express them to, you know, allow their idea to really be refined against the views

of other people, then I think, you know, as many people, as I have said, it often moves underground. And I think that that's a much more kind of dangerous situation. And I think that a much more confident civic life will actually want those views to be out there. And for us, to be able to respond to that. And, you know, I think it's really hard at the moment because, again, with the kind of lockdown conditions, we don't really have a public square in the same sense. So, you know, what that means is that the way we can experience people

in a much more multidimensional way, such as, you know, going to the pub or going to a kind of event with lots of people and debating isn't there. So the only domain, really, we have now to really experience even a fraction of another human being is through these kinds of, these channels, these social, media channels. So by removing people, you're essentially unpersoning them. You're saying there's no domain in the public square, in the digital public square that exists for you to actually express yourself. And I think that that can arise much more kind of dangerous consequences. Look, I spend a lot of time telling you what's wrong with the world. So let me tell you about

something that's actually right. Sleep, specifically getting more of it, better quality, the kind where you wake up and feel like a human being rather than someone who's been thrown down a staircase. Most mattresses are just layers of synthetic foam and crossed fingers. You're spending a third of your life on the thing and most people have no idea what's actually in it. Avocado green mattress is different. Their mattresses are certified organic, built from natural materials designed to actually support your body properly rather than just hold you in one position until morning. The craftsmanship is real. These are mass produced objects. Someone has put thought into them. I'll be honest. I'm not the person who thinks carefully about where he sleeps. My dating history will tell you that. I'm the person who's

been on the same mattress for eight years and called it fine. But the older I get, the more I notice that fine isn't actually fine. Your body tells you, if you're going to invest in anything for your home, your bed is the one that pays you back every single night. Avicado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. Go to avocado greenmatress.com slash trigger to check out their mattress and furniture sale. That's avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. Avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. So what did you make of the consequences of the attack on the capital or whatever, whatever happened, right?

The consequences of that where you start with the president of the United States being banned from the platform that he uses. to talk to people. Then Parlor gets its service taken down. Then, as I mentioned, GameStop, you get these people trading, and that gets called hate speech, the forums get shut down and whatever. It seems like...

And my view, isn't that you've got these nefarious people, like sitting there in a smoke-filled room, whatever. It just seems like these kids, really, have got these massive corporations through which we all communicate in their hands. And they're suddenly going, oh, my God, like, I have so much power. And that's probably quite scary to them. And they don't know what to do.

And they've got, you know, Sam Harris came out and thanked Jack Dorsey for banning Donald Trump. So you're going, well, if Sam Harris is telling you to ban stuff, like, how do you hold that line exactly? I think it's incredibly difficult. I think that these are really, really complex questions. And I think that we're in a climate right now where we have kind of narrative warfare. So if a kind of event happens, and I think many people like Douglas Murray have spoken about this, if a kind of event happens, instead of relying on, again, traditional media to kind of tell us close to the impartial truth of the events, we have all of these narratives that emerge. And these narratives are often purely kind of ideological in reading. And so it just becomes a kind of battleground between whose narrative is going to really dominate. And so a lot of these kind of big tech companies essentially have to end up choosing, you know, which narrative. aligns most to many of their values. And a lot of the time they are this kind of corporate liberal values. And many of those people are saying actually, you know, censor disinformation, censor hate speech.

If you don't do this, then you're part of the problem. And I think, I think they genuinely are in a kind of difficult situation. But I do think, you know, I absolutely do believe that they kind of bear a lot of responsibility for, I do think that there are incentive structures, you know, within social media companies that kind of exaggerate the kinds of things that you're exposed to in these kinds of echo chambers. And as I said, when we are in a situation where the kind of digital public square is these social media companies, then I think it makes that situation much more difficult if you are not being exposed to lots of different viewpoints. And so I think they are in a difficult situation. And I'm not sure that I don't know if the answer is going to be in these

social media platforms because ultimately, you know, for example, with Twitter, it is just kind of one tweet that you send. That's not a full experience of a kind of human being. That's not a full ways to kind of understand one another. I think it's unlikely that the social media companies are really now going to be the domain, the current ones at least, Twitter, where we can really have an open climate for different ideas. I think we need new things now. I think that we need to start creating new spaces, new open spaces, where no topics are off limits, where are kind of based off of shared values, not necessarily kind of stale terms of service, and where we can genuinely have conversations with people from different ideological backgrounds in a much more fuller and

richer way, not just in the form of a kind of message or a tweet. And I think that that's where I think that the space is really open now for much more spaces like that in the digital arena. Do we need 3D reality? Yeah, we do. I think that's what you need. Yeah, exactly. I mean, it's a great point that you made, but isn't part of the problem now with lockdown in that these companies have become ever more draconian. If you look at someone like YouTube, they've basically said that if you put any form of content criticizing lockdown or WHO guidelines or policies, you're going to get struck off. I think they're playing, I agree with you. I think it's become absolutely worse. I think we're in a really, really dangerous kind of perilous

situation where there's very few spaces now where if it's not being overtly censored, there's a kind of pernicious culture of kind of self-censorship and where people don't feel comfortable speaking because of fear of the consequences. And that's, you know, what has been spoken about in the past, cancel culture, where this is not a,

this is not an imaginary threat that a lot of people would like to believe. It's a real threat for people like, for example, Nick Buckley, you know, who thankfully was able to get his charity back, that if you do veer away from the orthodoxy, then there is a real and pernicious threat that you could lose your livelihood. And I think that if we're in a situation now where big tech companies that are unaccountable, unelectable, and incredibly opaque in terms of their policies, have the power to remove people's livelihood, then that's a fundamental free speech issue. And I think that we are in a very dangerous situation, absolutely. And do you think we could possibly go along the Poland route, which has effectively said that they're going to find these social media companies? if they take down content, which doesn't contravene Polish law?

I think that that is a possibility. You know, I did look into that, and I think that's a very, I think that we'll have to see how that actually transpires. I think that, again, the challenges is that, and I do think there's definitely a role for the state and a role for a kind of top-down response. But I think that the kind of state intervening in a lot of these issues seems quite problematic and complicated for various reasons,

because freedom of speech not just has to be protected from a kind of legalistic perspective, which is absolutely important, but it also has to be believed in people's hearts. And I think that that's really one of the other challenges I think is also contributing to this current climate, where actually the kind of real embodiment of free speech, the kind of spirit of confronting ideas and challenging them in many spaces still hasn't been fully actualised. And so as much as there could be legal protections, if it's not fully believed in, then we'll still have that, as John Swet Mill describes, the kind of the tyranny of prevailing opinion. That's a really good point because I guess the only way to change this in a long term is to change the culture, which is what you're saying. And I imagine what you're trying to do with their Kriana project to get in there at a younger point and try and explain to the kids what that's all about.

But in the meantime, I mean, I don't have a – I used to – to have quite a libertarian mindset when it came to these big tech things. But I think we've seen now, you know, you talk about these new spaces. Palo tried to create one. Didn't end so well, right? Do you see what I'm saying? So I don't see how that gets fixed without government intervening and whatever else it might be. Well, so this is, you know, another thing that has been something that I've been really working on for the past year now. And I think that I don't think, I do think there's definitely a role for government, but I do think there's got to be a collaborative kind of civil society response. And I think, for example, the stuff that trigonometry are doing are amazing in

terms of facilitating these conversations. But I think civil society also has to play a really significant role in kind of pushing back against this to kind of cultivate this bottom-up response. And so there is a project as well that with the Free Speech Union and the Battle of Ideas charity that myself and a lot of other young people have actually been working on for nearly a year now and it's launching called Free Speech Champions. And I'm really, really excited about this project because it's a kind of nationwide initiative in order to kind of encourage free speech

and very much from the bottom up, focus on kind of younger people. And I think that there are real kind of practical material ways that we can do this. So, for example, one of the things that we're doing is cultivating a group of called free speech champions. The champions themselves are these young people between the kind of ages of 18 to 30

that are really believing free speech from a kind of diverse range of perspectives that go out into kind of schools, universities and these places to kind of spread the message about why it's important and hopefully bringing more young people together. But not just that providing the information, the resources, the kind of everything that's needed to actually really campaign for it. So for example, one of the things that we've done on the website is to have a guide to how to start up a free speech society, how to campaign for free speech on campus. Because I think that when we think about free speech, It's such a big topic, but I do think there's lots of little things that people can do collectively

to really actually start to change the culture. And I think it is a legal question. I think there was a thing in the express recently of Priti Patel perhaps wanting to do something with the hate speech laws. But there has to be something very much from the bottom up and creating those spaces, whether online or in the actual rural public square, where people can, there are no forbidden topics so people can really express themselves. because I think that's a kind of fundamental prerequisite for real human agency,

for really exploring the kind of depth and scope of our humanity because I think without it, you know, social and human progress is incredibly diminished. So there's possibilities out there. And I think a collaborative endeavor with people across the political spectrum, you know, in the form of kind of free speech champions, to really push back against this,

I think could really be the start of something quite significant. Francis, did you know that investing, is one of the best ways to preserve your wealth over the long term. What's wealth? Something you will never find out as long as I have control of the chuginometry accounts. However, if you do have wealth, high commission and clunky products from traditional stockbrokers make it very difficult for people like me to start investing. Good. For everyone else though, free trade has come up with an award-winning app that is currently being used by over 250,000 people, it's FCA approved and FSC-S-Protected. It's a

brilliant. It allows you to trade commission-free. Free Trade has won Best Online Trading Platform at the British Bank Awards two years in a row, 2019 and 2020. They offer no speculative products, no spread betting, no day trading. It's all about preserving and growing your wealth of a long-term, no hidden fees, transparent price and structure. Very simple to use. You can sign up for a general investment account or a Stocks and shares ISO. Or sign up to Free Trade Plus, for more advanced order types and a bigger stock universe. They've also got other new products coming soon. You can get a universe. Go to free trade.io slash trigger, register and fund your account, and you'll get a randomly allocated free share worth between three and 200 pounds.

Could be in a great company like Right Move, Apple, even Gregs. Gregs, sold. When you invest your capital is at risk, the value of your investments can go up as well as down and you may receive back. less than you originally invested. He knew that bit off by heart. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I'm going to say this. Do you not think, yeah, it sounds again my voice. But do you not think that the label free speech has actually been tarnished to the point

that immediately when people hear it, they go, oh, it's just some right-wing bloke with a swastika who just wants to drop M-bombs? Yes, it is really unfortunate. And I think, you know, one of the things about the kind of culture, Wars that has been really frustrating is that a lot of people think, you know, people in the culture wars want to weaponize free speech. But, you know, in my view, I think free speech has been more a victim of the culture wars than a weapon of it. And so I think it has to be reclaimed. You know, I don't think that we should be able to, they should be able to seed linguistic

territory where we're not able to use the language that is widely understood to express concepts that are also widely understood. And I think when we seed that linguistic territory, again, then we're in a much more difficult position to push back against it when we don't actually have the words to really describe it. And so free speech, you know, it's not a dirty word. It's a, is a fundamental bedrock of a kind of free and open democratic society and we should be really confident in articulating that. There's such an obvious point, but the fact that you have to explain it is, it's kind of mind-blowing in a way. No, it absolutely is. And so you're going into school, you've been working

with these kids. So how do they perceive free speech? So they see it as something that should be celebrated or a tool of white oppression or whatever it is? Yeah, so the free speech champions project it launches on the 1st of February. But even before that, I was going into schools and speaking about free speech. And what's been really interesting, and I think there was also some research that was done about it, which was that, you know, when you actually articulate the arguments about free speech, then people are much more compelled by them, just kind of saying, you know, believe in free speech, you know, it's really important.

It's not that convincing because I don't think the kind of substance. of the meaning has really been conceptualised and really grasp. But when you really, you know, explain the fact that, for example, social movements, the world over, free speech has been essential for them to actually challenge the institutions that were kind of subjugating them by articulating their suffering. Or it's necessary for the kind of the challenging of orthodoxies and rigidity. And so there's something incredibly radical about it. Or, you know, Greg Likyodorov talks about free speech as the eternally radical idea

and young people that are often, you know, wanting to both in some senses be conformist but also be perceived as the kind of new radicals. I think that actually when free speech is articulated in a way that it's not, you know, something, you know, dull or boring or inevitable, it's actually something that we have to fight for every single day because in many senses it's against all odds. And so I think going back perhaps to those kind of core foundational principles, and rediscovering, I think, a lot of these kind of heroic stories, the kind of traditions of the past and thinking about what it was about the past that needs to be interrogated, but really re-articulated for the present day

and positioning ourselves in that historical trajectory, I think is really compelling to a lot of young people. And so I think there's a lot of scope for it. Do you think it's also quite fertile ground because, you know, you have the people in their 20s who are Uber woke, very liberal, don't want to upset, don't want to be offensive. And do you think you're going to get a reaction from the generation below who are like, fuck that, I'm going to say what I want, almost as a rebellion?

Oh, I think that I really hope so, because I think now the climate has become so restrictive. There's so many taboos. There's so many, you can't say that, you shouldn't say that, you can't offend these people. I think that's exhausting. I think it's really exhausting to be, I mean, I'm soon not going to be a young person in a couple years, but I mean the young people that have completely grown up on social media, where from a very young age, they're comparing themselves to other people, you know, there's all of these new labels and terms.

I think that there's, I think hopefully a new generation will begin to reject that rigidity as this kind of orthodoxy. It is very much the dominant culture now. And so it's not something new or edgy to be, you know, vulnerable and highly offensive and paternalistic. It is actually something, you know, incredibly conformist and boring. It would be interesting to see what you find when you roll the project out across the country because we do keep hearing this narrative now, the next generation that really not work at all,

which is interesting to me. That sort of makes logical sense that it would be that way. But you kind of need to see it happening, don't you? Yeah, I think it is, you know, the territory of the space of the project right now is like a baby. you know, it's very new and I'm really excited to see where it's going to go. But I really encourage, like, you know, young people that are really interested and curious and open-minded and wanting to explore to kind of join the project and find out more about it because I think that there's a lot of scope.

And I think that I think it is possible that people younger, especially having grown up in perhaps, you know, having come to adulthood or come to maturity in a kind of COVID situation that may well be the most, one of the most, when it comes to liberty that any of us may have ever experienced, that, you know, what are the possibilities that kind of lie beyond this moment and how do we navigate that? And so I think that I think a lot of young people hopefully would be asking those questions that surely this isn't inevitable.

Surely we don't have to accept the premise that human beings must be under such stringent restrictions, whether that's, you know, from an institutional level, but from a kind of cultural and ideas level. inevitably. It's interesting. Well, I mean, the kids obviously are not going to learn any maths. At least they'll learn about free speech right now, weren't they? Have you ever been abroad and felt out of place because you didn't speak the language? No, because I voted Brexit. Brexit means Brexit. I know that sometimes you're abroad, you don't speak the local language. It's very awkward, like France is talking to a woman. So you have to shout. Do you want to learn another language? I don't

for obvious reasons. But if you do, Babel is quite simply one of the first. finest language learning apps in the business. Babel offers a clear and easy to use interface. They have daily 10 to 15 minute lessons that have been proven effective across many studies showing that you can learn up to 14 languages that they offer. So it doesn't matter if you struggle with language. Maybe you find it difficult to pick up or maybe you're just English. Right now Babel is offering our fans six month free on a six month subscription with Babel using our special code, which is, of course, trigger. That's Babel. B-A-B-B-B-E-L.com.com.uk-U-K-S-P-P-L-L and use the promo code trigger.

Look at that spelling. He learned English on Babel. I did. But seriously, go to babel.com.com.com.uk forward slash play. Use our code trigger and enjoy Babel. I'm curious. You mentioned the institutions, and this is something Francis and I have discussed quite a bit. It seems to me like what we're really talking about is different facets of the culture or different fronts perhaps on it. And the organizations that you've been involved with through the Free Speech Union and now the Free Speech Champions Project, they seem to me like institutions that are waging that battle. Do you think the answer here inevitably has to be

institutional? Because so much of this, what you might call woke stuff, has become institutional. in the media, in government, almost everywhere now, in education, of course, that you have to fight fire with fire or you have to fight institutions with other institutions. Yeah, no, I think that's a really good question. I think that a lot of people do think that the institutions have become beyond repair, have become corrupted. But I'm not so sure because I think that ultimately the institutions are fluid in so far as they're made up of people.

And so if the people that encompass or animate those institutions, their views shift or their views become more open, then I think by definition the institutions themselves should. And I think, you know, we've gone through worse things as a society, you know, whether that was, you know, the Cold War or even previously that have really kind of challenged and forced us to question who we are as a society. And so I think I don't lose faith in those institutions because a lot of them have a very long history, whether that is in the media or various cultural establishments. But I do think there is space for new ones and based off of different values that are much more confident in articulating them. And I think that's really one of the elements, people that are confident in standing up for these things and are not afraid and are willing to withstand, unfortunately, sometimes, the assault that happens. And so I think I don't give up on the institutions that exist,

but absolutely new ones that are much more authoritative in their defense of what they believe to be true and their values is absolutely needed. And the Free Speech Union is one of those ones that's making a really positive impact. Well, right. That's what I was going to say. What I mean is I'm not so much for tearing down the BBC or whatever. You know, I'm not obsessed with that. Not judging by your Twitter. No, I've held the line. I've held the line on the BBC. I think they've gone in the wrong direction, but I still think they're important. But something like the Free Speech Union is not an alternative to the BBC. What the Free Speech Union does is it allows people who have spoken their mind in the wrong

places at the wrong time to not have their life destroyed. You know, counterweight, which Helen Pluckrose just launched. You know, we've just had her on the show. Again, things like that where you're creating an avenue for people to be able to express themselves freely and be protected from the consequences of the existing prevailing orthodoxy, you know? I completely agree, and I think that's been one of the reasons why it's been so hard for a lot of people who do disagree with what's going on, but have not necessarily stood up because of the lack of solidarity. And I think that, you know, it's always going to be throughout history and presently a minority of individuals

that kind of rise up to the level of being able to kind of withstand, for example, Toby is one of them. You know, he's experienced, you know, so much. and he's a kind of fighter. But not everyone's like that. And not everyone necessarily should be like that because there's different ways of approaching this conversation. And one of the things, again, with free speech champions is bringing together other young people

that can provide support and solidarity and encourage and really delve into these ideas together in a really deep and kind of profound way. And so when you have those spaces, as you mentioned, like counterweight that creates forms of bonds and solidities with people that are around a kind of common cause, then again, that that gives people more confidence to do things. And so I think it's a process.

I think it's absolutely, I think, you know, last year a lot of people, a lot of us kind of perhaps weren't necessarily as prepared as we could for the challenges that have kind of come about. But now a year later, there's much more of a vibrant kind of civic community that are wanting to do something and to stand up. And isn't this partly just as well a basic fundamental, which is not cowtowing to bullies? Yeah. No, I think so.

think, you know, that when people think that there is no, there's not going to be any consequence or there's not going to be a response, then they are empowered to kind of bully people. And I do think, I think that the word bully is a very good one. And I think, you know, Douglas Moray, I think in an interview, intoorganometry actually mentioned this about related to the gender debate, which is, you know, how people are kind of often, there's something demoralizing about people being compelled to lie and how in some senses that kind of reduces our own kind of sense of our own humanity as we're not able to fully participate in kind of shaping the conversation and the world. And I think that anyone that encourages people to keep quiet, to keep their mouth shut

is doing very destructive things and messing with things. I think they very much shouldn't. Yeah. It's a powerful point. When Douglas talked about it, he was quoting Solzion, and that's what we talked about, that every time you lie, it has an impact on the whole world. No, that. And you know that. You know,

and that's what's so dangerous about it. Exactly. And you feel it. And then you contribute, yeah, to creating a society that is ultimately dishonest because people are not speaking

what they believe to be true. And what would you say to somebody who's like, look, okay, this lie is, this is dishonest what I'm saying, but it's the kind thing to do. If we do that,

we don't hurt someone's feelings. We don't distress them. Which is the counter argument to this? Yeah. So I think that there's two things I'd say. I think that we've moved away from the realm of politeness. You know, this isn't, this isn't, we're not talking about people being nice to each other and polite. I think the overwhelming majority of people in their everyday interactions are polite.

I think what this is is a very, is a stifling and pernicious pressure to not say anything, even if the consequences are even negative. And so I think that that is a different thing. But also, in some sense, you know, there's a price for freedom. And I think that even though I do articulate the kind of positive case for free speech, you know, the phrase, you know, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Because actually, there is something dangerous about freedom. There is something actually quite scary.

I mean, why would you want to hear what somebody else thinks? Because that might fundamentally challenge everything that you believe, or the identity or the narrative about the world that you've come to construct about yourself. There's something incredibly confronting about that. And so I think there is a price. You know, freedom of speech and freedom. isn't always, you know, sitting around tea, hearing, having lovely conversation. Sometimes you will be exposed to the alarming, to the scary, to the intimidating, to the offensive.

But that exposes us to the real reality of our humanity, which is both incredibly evil and incredibly good. And we should want to rise to confront that real reality. But there is indeed a price for that. And just going back, so if I just finish this, with the free speech champions, isn't that a real challenge you're going to face? because a lot of these kids, they're very moddy coddled, they're the most modicoddle generation, they want to be wrapped up in cotton wool, they don't want anything to challenge them.

Isn't that going to be very difficult for your project? I think that I think it could be. But I would say that I'm not so sure how many young people really are like that. I think that there is a kind of minority that dominate the conversation about creating cushions around everything and safe spaces and trigger warnings and no one should be offended. But I do think a substantial kind of amount of young people

are either indifferent or actually very curious. And so are perhaps wasting for or would grab at the opportunity if it was in a way that was done that they believe perhaps reflects their values to kind of really engage with these ideas. So I think I'm not sure I agree with the kind of view of young people that is like that. I think a minority are that often dominate, conversation. But I think given the right space and the right circumstances, I think as any

generation, young people could rise up to the level of actually confronting these challenges and really engaging in these conversations. We have a lot of young people who watch the interviews we do and live streams. That's how you know they've got irresponsible parents. But I was going to ask you, do you think this technology question has been bugging me, and I'm just thinking out loud here, do you think maybe people like us are being a little bit naive because there is so much information now on the web, right, that you are not, no matter how intelligent, how well-educated you are, you're not capable of processing all of the information available, even on one issue.

Whatever issue you take, you cannot physically read every article in The Guardian and every article in the spectator and every article in between about that issue. And so no matter how hard you try to be open-minded and to listen to other points, your natural biases are always going to draw you back into that echo chamber. Do you think maybe we're just like you're very optimistic? I am very naturally optimistic, him not so much, right? It's worked out great for him for last year and a half, really has. Calls himself Foster Darmus now. I've been right. I've been proved right on everything.

He's enjoyed it. And I've not been able to say anything about it. But do you think that people like us who are naturally, you know, fundamentally optimistic about society just massively underestimate how powerful technology is and what a powerful impact it has on our brains, it has on our behavior, it has on everything? So I think a couple of things. So that's why I think it's been really unfortunate seeing the way in which a lot of the mainstream media, so to speak, has actually moved to be much more partisan. or less sticking to that kind of impartiality. Because I do think, I do think as much as I might critique a lot of the things of the legacy media, I think it absolutely has a fundamental role to play.

And I think it's really important to be able to kind of rise above a lot of the kind of conflicting narrative warfares that go on and actually present that information in a way that is as close to the truth or as close to the truth as it reveals itself to them as possible. and I think that if we do have, and if those institutions do actually reconnect with their fundamental basis, which is to actually provide solid, reliable information, then I think that that is a really, really strong thing as a society. But I do think I agree with you in terms of the way that the power of big tech. I absolutely do think that. But I think that the response to that, as I alluded to you earlier, is a robust civil society. And we don't have that.

we just have one element now where everything is digitised in the sense that, you know, with the kind of conditions at the moment where everything we get is through the internet. Everything, all of our communication is through the internet. All of the even school, university, everything is there. And I think that we need to have a counter to that, which is real, which is physical, which is dynamic, which is interactive, which is away from any of those conversations. And so I think that when this is balanced, the kind of civic life, then that kind of works in in a kind of good dynamic motion with technology.

But when it's just only technology, which ultimately is controlled by private corporations, then there's no accountable power. So I think that the building of civil society and the public square again will be a counterweight to that. I was going to ask you something else. That's sort of your job, mate. Yeah, it is.

Good point. I'm going to do my job right now. You were in America covering the election somewhat. what do you think will be the impact of a Biden presidency on all the things that we're talking about here? Yeah, I mean, I was very, what, that was another really interesting thing about going into America due to the kind of,

as I mentioned, the lack of public square because when I was there, it was really hard to know where it was going to go. You know, I had no idea because you had no real feel of what people were thinking because there wasn't much going on at the time. And I think, you know, I had many of the worries on.

a kind of personal perspective that kind of many people described in terms of the kind of rise of kind of institutional capture and the kind of fusion of kind of the political institutions with the already shifting culture of of kind of wokeness in the kind of cultural establishment. And that being institutionalized in politics was something that was really kind of worrying to me. And I've also been, you know, quite, I think Biden's hired a lot of big tech kind of CEOs and things like that. So that's a kind of very close relationship. But ultimately, you know, I think I wish him, I wish him luck.

And I wish that he, I hope that he heeds the cause that a lot of people have said in terms of railing this in. But I'm very worried about it. I mean, we've already heard about, you know, equity and, you know, them prioritising racial groups in the kind of vaccination program. And so if it does continue down that line of, you know, ravid identity politics, then I think the division. that we've already seen will only continue. And on top of that, you know, Biden, as much as he, you know, frames himself and many people frame him as a kind of new, lovely old man face to the darkness we've experienced. You know, he is very deep into the kind of institution, the old kind of political establishment

of America, you know, we're talking, you know, he's been a politician for about 50 years or more, very much part of the military industrial complex. and all of that kind of foreign policy network from decades ago. And so, you know, I worry that the divisions will continue. And I also think I understand a lot of people's concerns about the kind of extreme elements of the Trump supporters. But I think I don't think the response is this kind of ramping up of the kind of domestic terrorism rhetoric,

which is in some senses feels like some of the very same problems which led to the kind of pre-exampleasured, 2016 conditions, which led to the reaction embodied in Trump. And so unless people get serious about really trying to understand the reasons why so many people voted for perhaps a candidate that doesn't fit the kind of traditional conception of a politician, then I think we could be in for a very, a much more negative road. And as, you know, in Britain, as we mentioned earlier, you know, we often experience the blowback of American kind of cultural hegemony.

And so it's in our interest to encourage real meaningful unity, not just unity in its rhetoric, but unity in the sense of taking a broad range of American citizens' concerns genuinely seriously. And you use the words equality and equity. I mean, these are words that are bandied about. I don't think a lot of people would actually know the difference. What is the difference between equality and equity? And why is one positive and one negative?

So I think Jordan Peterson articulates it quite well in the difference between equality of outcome and a quality of opportunity. So equality of opportunity is the kind of liberal idea of equality where you don't differentiate. You know, everybody has the opportunity. So for example, go into, for example, an elite university. And if they get the grades, you know, regardless of your background, then you have an equal opportunity against another person to get in. and we strive towards achieving that. It's more of an ideal than obviously in exact reality. And the quality of outcome, which is essentially equity,

which is that, you know, you take, for example, the proportion of the population by race, and all institutions must fit exactly at the kind of elite level, the top level of those institutions, regardless of how many people from that background apply. In some sense... Let's get some Jews in the primary league. I'm down for that.

Like I'll be the one due statistically. You're not playing for West Ham, mate. Thank you. Thank God. Oftentimes, you know, regardless of if they even have the grades. Yeah. And again, you know, that is the undoing of the very hard fought for kind of a quality of opportunity which was seeing people primarily as individuals, not as members of competing identity categories. And I think that will only kind of ferment the sense of resentment that some feel that there's not fair.

across the board. And so I'm strongly... Well, there's not the desire for fairness. That's what I think that's what we'll put a lot of people off. It's deliberately discriminatory by its very nature. Absolutely. And I think this is a similar thing, you know, again, going back to kind of even free speech, how I think resentment builds when there's double standards. Right. And I think when people feel like, you know, it's not being applied equally, then that's when that division and polarization starts to increase. Because I think I think we all have an instinctive sense of fairness and not just the people that are victims of the unfairness.

I think the people that are exploiting the way that it's unfair are again playing with things that often have a very dark backlash. And so I'm a big believer in a quality of opportunity. I'm not equity as such. I mean, coming back to your previous point as well about Trump and Biden and all of that, I think one of the things people massively underestimate and neither Francis or are big Trump fans by any stretch of the imagination, got a lot of flag for saying so.

But the reality is that the only reason in my view that Biden won was coronavirus. If you take that out of the equation, it's not like people suddenly won. You know what, wokeness is great, right? That didn't happen. No, exactly. So those resentments, not only are they still there, as you say, quite likely to be exacerbated by some of these policies. Absolutely. And I think, you know, even just what we said about double standards, you know, I, you know, what

happened in Capitol Hill, as many people across the political spectrum, which has been quite striking, has actually condemned it. And we didn't actually see that. A lot of the violence in the kind of summer last year wasn't always kind of universally condemned. She's so diplomatic. You put that so gently. It wasn't always, you know, he was never condemned by anyone. Anyway, sorry, carry on. But, you know, people aren't stupid. You know, they see that. Right. And, you know, We're not talking about, you know, someone being rude on Twitter. We're talking about real world violence that led to people dying. You know, that is horrendous.

And if people are not, if there's not a sense that there are, as you said, it's being applied equally and people are, and it's only based off of political lines, your decision to condemn, then I think, you know, I think that that's a recipe for deep, deep, deep division. And so I think, you know, the Democrats have an opportunity here. And I'm not going to wish them negatively. I want the country to do well. But I worry that there's a lot of hubris and a lot of ignoring the real reasons why we've got to this point as a society. So I hope that they really do heed those calls. As everyone, it's been very unexpected, all of the changes that have happened in the last couple of years. So we don't know.

Well, a nice conciliatory message to end the show on. before we ask you our last question, just tell everybody if they're young person or indeed if they're an older person how they can get involved and support the Free Speech Champions project, which are launching. Yes, go to Freespeach Champions.com. If you're a young person, applies to become a free speech champion. If you're anybody, join the Free Speech Network and we want to work collaboratively, you know, across the country and even beyond to really manifest much more open and free inquiry and a

promotion of free speech. So please check the website, Free Speech. poms.com. Fantastic. And we always end with the same question, which is what is the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be? That's a good question. I think one thing we're not talking about is, I think that this is the same one that I actually said last time I was here. But we're still not talking about it. So it's fine. I think the answer, I think the similar one that I said last time is agency. I think the view of human beings, whether that is COVID or or even long time before that, as kind of weak and vulnerable and, you know, unable to deal with

the realities of life is a very different view of the human subject to the heroic stories of before. And I think human beings are capable of much more and great things. And we should champion that. I think that's a really important point, actually, because I don't think it's true to say that human beings aren't weak and vulnerable in certain circumstances, but does it empower you to think of yourself in that way, right? And that is such an important thing because your mindset affects then your reality. Absolutely.

You know, it's a really good point. So we will start talking about it now that you mentioned it twice. In our Father Newman, thank you so much for coming back. Thank you for having me. And thank you for watching. We will see you very soon with another brilliant episode like this one. And they always go out at 7pm UK time. Take care and see you soon, guys.