第 337 期·中文精讀

Destiny:政治、言論自由、爭議、性、戰爭與感情關係

Destiny: Politics, Free Speech, Controversy, Sex, War, and Relationships

主播 Destiny 談自己的政治立場、言論自由的邊界,以及爭議話題與私人關係。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

一個美國主播,讀高中時給校刊寫文章,替伊拉克戰爭辯護,替小布什擋批評。十幾年後,他成了左翼陣營裡最能打的辯手之一,被人叫作“左派的 Ben Shapiro”。這兩件事中間,隔著一份地毯清潔工的工作。

他叫 Steven Bonell,網名 Destiny。Lex Fridman 播客第 337 期請他當嘉賓,錄製時間是 2022 年 11 月,俄烏戰爭打了大半年。節目最後,主播 Molina Gorinson 也加入進來聊了一段。

Lex 在開場白裡列了三個邀請理由。第一,他剛跟 Ben Shapiro 錄完一期,很多人說 Destiny 是左派版的 Ben,觀點針鋒相對,辯論功力同級。第二,Destiny 的立場很彆扭:支援建制、支援制度、支援拜登,同時支援資本主義、支援言論自由,屬於進步派裡不合群的那一類。第三,他從遊戲直播的蠻荒年代就在場,一路看著這個社群長成今天的樣子。

第三個理由,Lex 專門辯護了一段。他說主流圈子看不上游戲直播,可能嫌這個群體年紀偏小,也可能嫌說話方式太糙。但他認為這群人值得被認真對待,也該被尊重:幾百萬年輕人在直播間裡追問世界到底怎麼了,追問的常常是那些最有爭議的話題。

語言比我喜歡的更粗魯,幽默比我喜歡的更刻薄。但我,Lex 老爺子,穿上雨靴走進了網路話語這片美麗又混亂的泥潭,目前還活著,而且心裡的愛比進去之前更多。(Lex Fridman)

Lex 還去 Destiny 的 subreddit 徵集問題,結果出乎他意料:高票問題的質量高得離譜,全是成年人。他自己都感慨,那個社群里居然沒人提亂倫。

“辯論腦”:把對話當成一個待最佳化的系統

Lex 說他完整看了 Destiny 採訪 Ye(Kanye West)那期,看得很仔細。他好奇的是,Destiny 在那樣的對話裡,有多少是算好的,多少是臨場的。

答案是沒有。Destiny 提了一個詞,叫“辯論腦”,指一個人在對話裡不斷思考元問題:這場對話該往哪走,這句話該怎麼接,哪種回應能讓對方走進死角。

他說這種能力練得越多,人和人之間真實的連線就越少。因為你不再坐在那兒聽對方說話,你在計算下一句該說什麼。

他自己用的方法相反,是把腦子塞進對方的腦袋裡,想那個人眼裡的世界長什麼樣,那個人此刻是什麼感受,然後從這個位置開口。

這套做法他用了好幾年,現在在調整。Rogan 那幫人批評他不夠強硬,他學著在必要的時候踩一腳剎車,從關心出發去打斷:等一下,你剛才那句話,我不認為它代表真實的你。或者更進一步,如果那確實代表現在的你,我能看見一個更好的方向,我指給你看。

四五年前他的風格完全是另一套,攻擊、攻擊、再攻擊。現在他願意讓對方把故事講完。老觀眾不適應,抱怨說這傢伙講了五六句錯話,你怎麼只指出兩句。

他提到一個常被忽略的細節:你在跟一個人說話,同時也在跟他的觀眾說話。直播場景裡,這個觀眾可能是幾千上萬人。一旦你顯得好鬥,對方腦裡的防禦開關就開啟了,說服這件事當場結束,剩下的全是打架。

這條規律在生活裡幾乎處處成立。人一旦覺得被攻擊,處理資訊的方式就從“這句話有道理嗎”切換成“我該怎麼守住立場”,你後面說的每個字都會被當成彈藥。所以控制姿態,是為了讓道理還能被聽見,不是為了客氣。

他按三段論思考,多數人按故事思考

Destiny 說自己腦子裡跑的是三段論。前提 A 成立,前提 B 成立,結論自然成立。只要雙方的推理都有效,都沒發瘋,最後一定會走到同一個地方。

我喜歡用三段論的方式思考,前提 A 沒問題,前提 B 沒問題,然後是結論,只要我們的推理都有效,我們沒瘋,我們最後會在所有事情上達成一致。(Destiny)

麻煩在於多數人不這麼運轉。

大多數人腦子裡跑的是一整套敘事。敘事裡,單個事實不重要,因為人會自動挑選對故事有利的細節,把不利的扔掉。你在敘事的世界裡講三段論,就像在菜市場裡講微積分,邏輯再幹淨也沒人接。

Destiny 說自己有時會覺得煩,解決辦法是把兩種思維都放到桌上:先用對方的故事理解他為什麼站在這兒,再用推理把關鍵節點一個一個釘住。

他唯一一次近乎失態,栽在“資料和解釋哪個才算數”上

Lex 提到一場他前一晚剛看的辯論,主題是系統性種族主義。他描述 Destiny 在那場對話裡明顯暴躁,一遍又一遍想把一二三擺清楚,每次快擺成的時候就塌了。

對手是一位行為經濟學家,立場是:光有資料不夠,資料必須放到語境裡,從頭到尾放在完整的人類敘事裡做解釋,才構成有意義的結論。於是整場對話在“什麼時候該用資料、什麼時候不該用”之間來回拉扯。

Destiny 那邊想要的是一個可以釘死的框架,對手那邊堅持框架本身要帶上解釋層。兩邊都在用正確的方法,只是方法不相容。

Lex 提到 Sam Harris 有類似卡點:如果我們在術語上達不成一致,往下就沒法走了。而 Lex 自己的立場更接近維特根斯坦:卡在任何一個點上,進度就沒了。對話的一部分必須是兩個人一起跳一支好舞,而不是把通往真理的路徑當成一條不能偏移的鐵軌。

Destiny 的回應給出了一個判斷標準:關鍵不在於要不要退讓,而在於分辨哪個卡點重要,哪個不重要。

他舉了個具體的例子。假設在聊猶太人在媒體中的代表性,對方順口說一句“猶太人嘛,總歸更幫自己人”,這句可以放過去,接著聊。但如果對方隨口丟出“所以我才說大屠殺的數字是從十萬吹到六百萬的”,這裡必須停。

如果對方真的相信這個大屠殺數字是被誇大的事實,那麼後面整場對話都會被這個信念塑造。這就不是語言遊戲了,這裡必須停下來。(Destiny)

判斷標準是這條:這個說法會不會汙染後面全部推理。會汙染的,必須當場處理;不會汙染的,忍過去。

他還補了一句操作層面的經驗:這些卡點必須不牽扯你自己的自尊。大屠殺否認之所以讓很多人當場爆炸,是因為它踩到了個人情緒,一踩到情緒,你就從辯論者變成了當事人,判斷力立刻下線。

Lex 觀察到一件事:對話能力越強的人,越容易變成術語警察,對“begs the question”這類用法特別較真。Destiny 說自己一般直接放過去,因為在直播場景下,較真這個的成本遠大於收益。

從拉什·林堡到 Ron Paul,再到地毯清潔工

Lex 說他聽到一個說法,Destiny 的政治立場走過一條長路:少年時是保守派,後來變自由意志主義者,再變成左翼社會正義戰士,中間摸過社會主義,現在是社會民主派自由主義者,同時他也自稱過極左。

Destiny 把這條路的起點歸到家庭。父親來自肯塔基,母親是古巴移民。古巴裔在美國出了名地偏保守,有歷史原因也有別的原因。他從小在很共和黨的環境里長大,收音機裡放著 Rush Limbaugh、Glenn Beck、Michael Savage、Billy Cunningham,稍晚還有 Sean Hannity。

高中時他給校刊寫過文章,替伊拉克戰爭辯護,替小布什擋批評。

進了高中後期和大學,他經歷了一段“銳利”的自由意志主義時期。讀安·蘭德(Ayn Rand),讀到一個結論:人生除了階級和錢什麼都不是,這才是所有問題的答案。這個階段有個典型特徵,就是把複雜世界壓縮成一條極簡公式,公式看著鋒利,解釋力其實有限。

然後是大學裡的 Ron Paul 時期,狂熱粉絲級別。

接著生活開始動手。他形容那是自己人生的最低點,工作、財務、生活全部處於崩壞狀態,一堆蠢事接連發生。他反而說,那大概是自己最保守的時期。

這裡有個細微的心理機制值得停一下。窮的時候,人更容易相信自己能靠努力爬出來。因為如果不信這個,當下的苦就沒法解釋。他從小被灌輸的就是這一套:沒錢就幹活,幹活,再幹活。這套信念在順境裡是動力,在逆境裡會變成對失敗者的苛責,包括對自己的苛責。

轉機來自直播。他自己說這是極其幸運的一次機會,所有條件剛好在那個時間點對齊。

真正讓立場轉向的,不是理論,是孩子。孩子長到四五歲、五六歲的時候,他看著孩子的生活和自己童年完全不是一個量級,而這個差別跟他孩子本人的努力毫無關係,只跟他自己能提供的經濟條件有關。

當我看到我孩子的生活僅僅因為我提供的經濟機會就和他完全不一樣,而且這跟他自己的 Merit 一點關係都沒有的時候,這開始從根本上改變了我看世界的方式。(Destiny)

這句話值得多想一層。一個人從保守轉向左翼,常見路徑是讀了某本書,或者被某件事激怒。Destiny 的路徑是成為了利益結構的受益者,然後從受益者的位置上看見了結構本身。

這個順序很有意思。通常人們以為立場跟著處境走,是窮的時候偏左、富的時候偏右。他恰好是反過來:窮的時候信個人奮鬥,有餘力之後反而看見了運氣的分量。

Lex 追問最低點,問地毯清潔工那份工作到底哪裡最低。Destiny 說就是地毯清潔,那時候他正摸著直播的門檻。

他講了一句自評:我整個人生就是一連串的幸運突破。

他討厭《天際》,因為主角不會說話

話題拐到遊戲上。Lex 說 Destiny 講過自己小時候讀了很多字,因為那個年代的遊戲沒有配音,全靠文字。Destiny 補了具體品類:JRPG,《最終幻想》系列,SFC、世嘉、PlayStation 上那些。

Lex 順勢拋了個問題:他剛跟 Todd Howard 聊過,《上古卷軸》和《輻射》的製作人,Destiny 怎麼看《天際》。

答案是:完全不喜歡。

理由非常清楚,而且跟他的政治思維是同一種結構。他喜歡角色,喜歡圍繞角色的、有張力的敘事,喜歡看角色成長和變化,像看一部電影。《最終幻想》那種遊戲裡,角色一開始滿身戾氣獨來獨往,後來建立關係、建立友誼,意識到生活的意義不止於自己,這就是成長。

開放世界的問題在於,主角是一塊空白板,不說話,設計出來是給你投射用的。沒有一個被精心編排的、線性的人物弧線。

我不認為哪種更好或更壞,我只是傾向於聽一個圍繞一組角色、讓他們隨遊戲一起成長變化的好故事。(Destiny)

Lex 反過來講了自己的偏愛:走出城鎮,外面是大自然,世界的可能性鋪在眼前,想幹什麼幹什麼,那種被整個世界淹沒的沉浸感很強。

兩個人在同一件事上給出了兩種審美取向,但沒有誰說服誰。這段對話其實是個不錯的樣本:偏好分歧不需要被解決,只需要被解釋清楚。解釋清楚之後,雙方都拿到了新資訊,也都保住了體面。

Destiny 把遊戲經歷和他後來的能力做了連線。文字遊戲讓他打字極快,至今還是極快。讀得多,為了算數值學了點奇怪的數學,還練出了蒐集資訊、搞清機制、識別模式的能力。這些加上閱讀量,讓他在學校裡混得比實際水平好:成績挺爛,但全在榮譽班和 AP 課程裡,進大學帶了一堆先修學分。他的說法是,上課基本在睡覺,腦子是遊戲給養起來的。

他用記事本,七個標籤頁,和一張地圖

Lex 對他的筆記系統很好奇,因為他發現 Destiny 直播時一直在打字,而且思維組織能力極強。

工具層面樸素到有點好笑:Windows 自帶的記事本(Notepad),連 Notepad++ 都不用。

用法取決於對話型別。遇到那種思路縝密、發言冗長的人,他會開始記要點,一條一條列。因為這類人說話有個特點:一口氣丟擲七八個論點,等你要回應的時候,他會立刻打斷你去爭某一點。這時候把要點全記下來的作用是:先把賬本攤開,你說過這八件事,我一件一件回,我全寫下來了,你要逐條來我們逐條來。

記的內容很短,每個點幾個詞。他的解釋是,政治辯論裡真正全新的對話極少,大部分是在舊地面上重走。比如墮胎辯論,對方會說某個關於可存活性的立場,再說某個關於胎兒與人的界限的立場,他就記下這兩個點,回過頭來像拿著提示卡一樣,保證自己別跑偏,別回應一個對方沒說過的觀點。

他把政治話語比作一棵樹,你在樹上走,筆記是防止你掉進旁邊岔路的護欄。

研究階段的方法更值得學。遇到完全陌生的新領域,他會在直播裡現場研究,自己覺得無聊,觀眾居然愛看。流程是:開啟一個維基百科條目,讀,碰到不認識的詞,再開一個條目,讀,再碰到,再開。常常同時開著七個標籤頁。就這樣讀一兩個小時,有時三四個小時。

觀眾會問,你真記得住嗎。他的回答是記不住多少,但沒關係。

只要你見過一次,第二天、第三天你在別處再讀到相關的內容,你會覺得“這個東西我在那邊見過”。等到第三次碰到,事情就開始連起來了:哦,原來這些人信這個是因為那個,原來這件事發生在那裡是因為之前那裡出了事。(Destiny)

這套方法的核心不是記憶,是重複暴露。第一次看不成體系,第二次開始有印象,第三次自動成形。很多人讀資料時要求自己一遍讀懂記住,達不到就覺得自己不行,白白放棄了本該發生的第三次。

他還給了一個很實用的小技巧:讀新聞時,只要出現地名,就去地圖上看一眼。他的說法是,太多歷史其實寫在地圖上,地理關係一清楚,事情的因果就順了。為什麼這兩個國家互相看不順眼,為什麼這條河這麼重要,為什麼這個港口誰都想拿,光看地圖就能懂一半。

如果是為某個具體議題做研究,比如疫苗、比如俄烏衝突,他會另開一個 Google Doc,寫大綱,把各個子議題的粗略要點鋪開,先把思路組織起來。

美國在俄烏戰爭裡該負什麼責任

Lex 把話題拉到俄烏。他一次丟擲四個問題:美國在這場戰爭裡扮演什麼角色,本來能不能避免戰爭,有沒有把普京逼到牆角,能不能推動降級走向和平協議,以及反過來,如果局勢升級到戰術核武器,責任算誰的。

Destiny 先做了一個區分,這個區分在道德哲學裡很常見,但在公共討論裡經常被混掉:你可以對某件壞事的發生有貢獻,但你不承擔主要責任。

他給的類比是:一位女性深夜外出,喝得有點多,然後出了事。她本可以採取一些降低風險的步驟,但發生了什麼是施害者的責任,因為最終做出選擇的那個行動者才是責任主體。

總有一個選擇者在某個時刻選擇去做錯的事、去做惡。(Destiny)

把這個框架套到俄烏上,他的判斷是:他不接受任何“美國促成了俄羅斯的立場或行動”的論證,包括一些政治學者提出的版本,他認為完全說服不了人。

他承認美國內部對“我們的角色應該是什麼”根本沒有共識。一邊是正在壯大的民粹主義,極左和極右都有,這類立場傾向孤立主義:美國管好自己,別去告訴別人該怎麼做,別當世界警察。另一邊是中左中右的建制立場,加上歐洲很多國家的期待:美國是街區裡那個大孩子,大家在烏克蘭這種事上看著美國拿主意。

他自己的立場落在後一邊:美國有責任保障歐洲的相對自由、繁榮與穩定,捍衛烏克蘭的主權和邊界是這件事的一部分。

針對最常見的反駁,也就是北約東擴刺激了俄羅斯,他給了一串反例。波羅的海國家加入了北約,俄羅斯沒動手。克里米亞被吞併,時間點對應的是 2014 年烏克蘭革命。邊境上的入侵,對應的是烏克蘭在東南部和頓巴斯那場內戰裡佔了上風、俄羅斯變得更加激進。沒有任何一個北約國家在威脅俄羅斯或者入侵俄羅斯。

這套反駁的力量在於它不靠動機推測,靠時間順序。歸因問題最怕的就是把時間線打亂,一旦按時間排開,很多“誰逼誰”的敘事會失去支撐。

核威懾有一半是說出來的話

Lex 問核威脅。Destiny 的回答分兩層。

第一層是可能性:這個可能性一直存在,不管局勢怎麼走。責任在俄羅斯,因為不能成立這樣一條規則:有核武器的國家就可以入侵別國、佔別人的土地,理由是任何理由。

第二層是長遠後果,這一層更少被討論。如果這條規則成立,世界只剩兩條路:每個國家都自己搞核武器,因為不搞就會被俄羅斯這類國家欺負;或者每個國家都加入北約。而一旦所有國家都加入北約,就回到了起點,又有人會說,你看這麼多國家加入北約,這是對俄羅斯的挑釁。你怎麼辦。

他順帶把這個問題推到一個更尖銳的位置:有核武器的國家,是不是可以對無核國家做任何事?這個問題沒有好答案,但它是當前國際秩序裡一個真實存在的裂縫。

Lex 追問,如果俄羅斯真的用了戰術核武器,美國能做什麼。Destiny 說選項有一整套,沒有一個是好的。他特別強調這個時刻的微妙之處:拜登和其他公眾人物說的話,會顯著影響這場博弈的結果,因為相互確保摧毀有一部分是文字遊戲。

他舉了進化生物學裡的“針鋒相對”(tit for tat)策略做類比。生物界有大量這類機制:你對我做壞事,我就對你做壞事。然後演化出更復雜的版本,比如你可以犯錯一次,第二次我才還手;比如“針鋒相對再加一報”,你退一步我也退一步。各種變體在長期博弈裡各自尋找最優解。

他認為美國在開戰初期的做法符合這類策略的最優解之一:拜登把介入的邊界講得非常清楚,不會有禁飛區,不會有美軍地面部隊進入烏克蘭,但會給大筆資金、大量武器、大量情報。邊界劃死,援助開到最大。

他在把美國介入的限度講清楚這件事上做得不錯,同時在我們能幫的方式上儘量開啟。(Destiny)

至於戰術核武器一旦落地的回應,他的判斷是那會是俄羅斯黑海艦隊這類力量的毀滅,但再往上繼續升級,就是一個沒人想待的世界。

跟普京坐下來談,先談人再談條件

Lex 把話題引向更難的一層:如果真跟普京或者澤連斯基坐下來談三個小時,正確的談法是什麼。

Destiny 先承認了一個限制:國家領導人在那種對話裡承載的東西太多,不只是他個人。

他認為最有意思的切入點是搞清楚普京在這件事裡真正的利益到底是什麼,他的買入點在哪,是什麼力量把他留在這個位置上。澤連斯基那邊相對簡單,因為他在防守,守的是自己的國家和人民。

普京這邊他聽過太多版本。杜金(Dugin)寫的東西,東西方對立,西方自由主義崩塌,那些被他們批評的“怪異的 LGBT 議題”;也有恢復前蘇聯式版圖的慾望;還有普京自己那句名言,蘇聯解體是 20 世紀最大的地緣政治災難。他坦率承認:普京到底要什麼,我不知道答案。很多人寫這件事,但我不知道。

Lex 順著這個說了一段方法。他說跟領導人對話,一部分必須是關於人的心理的。不是元對話,是真的去理解這個人感受到什麼、害怕什麼、作為一個人是什麼樣:作為一家之主,作為一個為國家驕傲的人,作為一個有自尊的人,作為一個被權力影響甚至腐蝕的人。所有人都有可能被腐蝕,大機率也會。

Lex 的說法是,這層理解給後面的答案提供語境。你問他在戰爭裡要什麼,給出的必然是政治答案,政治家和語言的關係是一場他們極其擅長的遊戲。更深的真相藏在說出這些話的那個人身上。

這套方法 Destiny 在自己的場子裡用過。他提到兩個爭議極大的右翼人物,Lauren Southern 和 Nick Fuentes。這類對話開局往往完全不是政治的。

很明顯我們信的東西天差地別,但信念不會憑空出現,所以你是怎麼會走到今天這個位置的?(Destiny)

這是典型的從人切入,不從觀點切入。

他放棄了“去激進化”這個目標

Lex 問他,跟這些人對話,有什麼後悔的,有什麼自豪的。

自豪的部分是他能不帶評判地嘗試理解一個人。他說很多人願意跟他講很多事,因為知道他不會因為一個政治不正確的觀察、一句對別人的評判、一種讓人羞於承認的感受就撲上去咬人。這個能力延伸出去,讓他能聽到非常多不同人的視角,也因此能理解很多不同的視角。

後悔的部分基本都在技術層面:某次沒頂住,某個事實不知道。方向上的判斷,他說近半年是滿意的。

Lex 追問目標:是想把那些人的觀眾從激進化裡拉出來嗎。

Destiny 的回答是一次目標降級。以前他的目標是去激進化,現在他希望這只是副產品。真正的目標是跟一個人聊,讓人看見他信這個是因為這些原因。而如果要改變一個人的信念,必須處理支撐信念的那些底層理由。

只說“那個信念是壞的”遠遠不夠。因為對他來說,那個信念底下掛著一大堆對他而言真實成立的東西。你得先把底下那些東西一個個處理掉,才可能動到最上面那個信念。(Destiny)

他描述自己的實際做法:你為什麼對這個、那個有這種感受?好,我理解,也許解決那個問題有更好的辦法,比如這樣,或者那樣,而不是你現在選的這個。

Lex 接著問最難的一層:到底要共情到什麼程度,又要推回到什麼程度。

Destiny 的答案是一邊倒:幾乎總是他儘可能鑽進對方的泡泡裡,他必須活在那個世界觀裡、呼吸那個世界觀,甚至能用那個世界觀的語言說話,才可能在裡面走動。錄音在這裡斷掉了,後面原本應該還有他對“自己的世界觀該怎麼自處”的展開。

這半句話恰好是最值得琢磨的地方。進去容易,出來難。一個人長期練習站在對方立場說話,最大的風險不是被對方說服,是慢慢分不清哪一套是自己的。而他的解法寫在前面那段裡:卡點的取捨標準,是看這個說法會不會汙染後面全部推理。這條標準對自己也成立。

回到那個最實用的東西

整場對話裡,真正能帶走的不是那些政治結論,是幾套可以立刻用起來的方法。它們分散在不同話題裡,湊起來卻是一套完整的東西:怎麼讀資料,怎麼記筆記,怎麼判斷一場爭論該不該繼續,怎麼讓道理真的被聽見。

  • 讀陌生領域時別要求自己一遍記住。開七個標籤頁讀下去,同一個概念在第三處出現時自然會連成網。把“記不住”從失敗改成正常流程。
  • 讀到任何地名,去看地圖。地理是歷史的底稿,很多因果看一眼地形就能理順,比讀十篇分析更快。
  • 對話裡挑幾個關鍵詞記在手邊,尤其對方一口氣拋多個論點時。不是為了反擊,是為了別回應他沒說過的觀點。
  • 判斷一個爭論要不要糾纏,問一句:這個分歧會不會汙染後面全部推理。會,就停下來處理;不會,就放過去往前走。
  • 卡點必須跟自己自尊無關。一旦你在這個點上被戳到情緒,你已經不是辯論者,是當事人,判斷力當場下線。
  • 要改變一個人的看法,先把他信念底下掛著的那些“對他而言真實成立的東西”一條條處理掉。直接宣佈結論是壞的,只會讓對方把門關得更緊。
  • 跟立場完全相反的人對話,開口先問“你怎麼走到這兒的”,別從觀點切入。信念不會憑空出現,路徑裡藏著真正能對話的入口。
  • 跟人對話時記住還有第三個人在場:對方的觀眾。你一旦顯得好鬥,說服就在那一刻結束,剩下的全是打架。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
Lex Fridman Podcast #337 – Destiny: Politics, Free Speech, Controversy, Sex, War, and Relationships Machine transcription by Qwen3-ASR 0.6B (MLX, local, Apache-2.0). May contain recognition errors. The following is a conversation with Stephen Benel, also known online as Destiny. He is a video game streamer and political commentator, one of the early pioneers of both live streaming in general and live streamed political debate and discourse. Politically, he is a progressive, identifying as either left or far left depending on your perspective. There are many reasons I wanted to talk to Stephen. First, I just talked to Ben Shapiro, and many people have told me that Stephen is the Ben Shapiro of the left in terms of political perspective and exceptional debate skills. Second reason is he skillfully defends some nuanced non standard views. At the same time, being pro establishment, pro institutions, and pro Biden, while also being pro capitalism and pro free speech. Third reason is he has been there at the beginning and throughout the meteoric rise of the video game live streaming community. In some mainstream circles, this community is not taken seriously, perhaps because of its demographic distribution skewing young or perhaps because of the sometimes harsh style of communication. But I think this community should be taken seriously and shown respect. Millions of young minds tune into live streams like Destinies to question and to try to understand what is going on with the world, often exploring challenging even controversial ideas. The language is sometimes harsher and the humor sometimes meaner than I would prefer, but I, Grandpa Lex, put on my rain boots and went into the beautiful chaotic muck of online discourse and have so far survived to tell the tale with a smile and even more love in my heart than before. On top of all this, we were lucky to have Molina Gorinson, a popular streamer and world traveler, join us at the end of the conversation. You can check out her channel on Twitch TV slash Molina and you can check out Stephen's channel on YouTube dot com slash Destiny. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got True Classic T's for shirts, Athleta Greens for nutrition, MasterClass for learning and Blinkist for non fiction. Choose wisely, my friends. And now onto the full ad reads. As always, there is no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by a thing that I am currently wearing as I am doing this very ad read. It's called True Classic T's, high quality soft slim fitted T shirts for men. They're definitely slim fitted currently because I just ate a lot and I drank two cappuccinos, Venti cappuccino from Starbucks. Because I didn't sleep much last night and I had a lot to get done today, and so I was feeling really good. I am still feeling really good and I am celebrating that by even more caffeine. So they're definitely slim fitted, extra slim fit. I wear large and they feel good, they look good. I mean, there is nothing better in this world than a great fitting, comfortable, sexy T shirt. Okay, there might be a couple of other things, but a T shirt is pretty nice. And so I wear a suit in tie when I am trying to do a thing that I want to take super seriously. Sometimes I wear a dress shirt when it's more relaxed, but still I am taking pretty seriously. And the go to is a T shirt, T shirt and jeans. My favorite T shirt is the ones that go with black. It's called True Classic T's. Like I said, go to trueclassic dot com and enter code Lex to get twenty five percent off. Free shipping included on purchases over one hundred bucks, one hundred percent risk free guarantee with a thirty day return policy. True Classic. When you look good, you feel good. I had to read that. They don't tell me to read that, but that's what it says on their website. So when you look good, you feel good. This show is brought to you by Athleta Greens, and it's AG One drink that I drink twice a day. It takes care of all my nutritional needs for all the crazy fasting, keto diet, carnivore diet, whatever diet I do. If I am traveling, if I am stressed, if I am sleep deprived, all the chaos that's going on in life. By the way, I am not complaining. Chaos in life is beautiful, but I try to do anything I can that's easy to do to take care of my body. I do try to get sleep. I do try to make sure I have a bed that I am super comfortable with. I try to make sure I get enough electrolytes, enough vitamins. The vitamin part is taken care of by Athleta Greens. Plus, it's delicious. I mean, there is a zen aspect of just slowing down life and enjoying a nice drink of Athleta Greens. It just puts me back to a place where all the stress of life disappears. And I return to a place of calm. Anyway, they'll give you one month supply fish oil when you sign up at athletagreens dot com slash Lex. These reads are getting increasingly more ridiculous, and I love it. This show is also brought to you by MasterClass. One hundred and eighty dollars a year gets you an all access pass to watch courses from the best people in the world at the coolest stuff in the world. So we got Chris Hatfield. I mean the list is ridiculous. I hope to talk to a bunch of them on the podcast, but I'll never be able to have such a dense and sexy presentation of their insights on a podcast as MasterClass achieves in these classes. I mean it's just not comparable. A podcast is a fun chat. This is an intense, also fun. Educational experience. So Chris Hatfield, Neil deGrasse Tyson, will write, Carl Santana, Gary Casparov, Daniel Negrono, Neil Gaiman, Martin Scorsese, Tony Hawk, Jane. It just goes on and on. It never stops. It's really really really worth it. I recommend it. Check it out, get unlimited access to every MasterClass and get fifteen percent off an annual membership at masterclass dot com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by Blinkist, my favorite app for learning new things. They take key ideas from thousands of non fiction books and condense them down into fifteen minutes that you can read or listen to. And sometimes the new things I learn are from books I've already read, sometimes multiple times. The insights they pull out. Really take a fresh perspective, not not in all cases, but in many cases a fresh perspective on books I've already read. Obviously, if I haven't read the book, this is a great way to pick which non fiction books you should read. Or if you are never going to get a chance to read those books, it's a nice way to get caught up in case it's brought up in conversation and you are not completely lost out at sea. Like a lonely sailor wishing he could be home with family, this is your way. This is the way to return back to family. Come along with me, dear sailor. You can claim a special offer for savings at blinkist dot com slash Lex. This is the Lex Freedom Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here is Destiny. I don't know if you watched me watching your yay interview. Yeah, thank you so much for. I am so curious when you are navigating a conversation like that. Are you how intentional is the thought process between like building rapport and pushing and and giving a little and letting like zero zero intention. I was watching and thank you so much. I was very kind for you to review that conversation. It meant a lot that you were complimenting parts on the technical aspects of the conversation. But no zero and I am actually deliberately. Trying to avoid, I think you've called the debate brain, which is just another flavor of thinking about. Like the meta conversation, trying to optimize how should this conversation go because I feel like the more you do that, the better you get at that. The less human connection you have, like the less genuinely you are actually sitting there in the moment and listening to the person. You are more like calculating what's the right thing to say versus like feeling what is. What is that person feeling right now? What are they thinking? That's what I am trying to do is like putting myself. In their mind and thinking, what does the world look like to them? What does the world feel like to them? And so from that, I truly try to listen. Now I am also learning, especially because Rogan and others have been giving me shit for not pushing back. It's good sometimes to say from a place of care for the other human being to say stop. What did you just say? I don't think that represents who you are and what you really mean, or maybe. If it does at that time, represents who they are. I could see a better a better world if they grow into a different direction. Try to point that direction out to them. It's a really complicated dance between letting somebody share their full story versus letting somebody like essentially I guess like proselytize your audience and it's like okay hold on let's take a minute here but yeah I used to be four or five years ago it was attack attack attack attack attack whatever you said and now I am leaning way more towards the like okay well tell me how you feel about everything and then we'll go from there so a lot of people like my new approach some older fans will watch and they're like why are you letting this guy just ramble on you know he said like five or six wrong things and you are only going to call him out on two of them and it's like it's different styles of conversation but yeah do you do a lot of research beforehand too depending on the conversation yeah so if we're going to talk like vaccines and stuff yeah that's a ton of reading and stuff that I never thought I'd know going into it if it's a more personal like political philosophy conversation there is not as much you can prepare for just it truly depends on the conversation how much are you actually listening to the other person I am always listening you have to listen because as soon as you stop listening the quality of everything falls apart the connection disappears the quality of the conversation disappears but my natural inclination is to just be way more aggressive than normal so I have to constantly remind myself I guess you would call it a meta conversation but I like okay he's probably saying this because of that or we'll let him go here and then we'll stop later but um yeah because my my preferred style of conversation is like I am going to talk and the second I say something you disagree with then let's iron it out right I got like I think in like syllogisms like okay here is premise A good okay premise B okay and then conclusion and then as long as we're both deductively sound we're not crazy no psychosis then we're going to agree on everything whereas other people like to most people think in stories like narratives like a whole there is a whole like narrative and the individual facts don't matter as much because they'll pick and choose what they want and it's really hard because everybody thinks narratives have to function in that world but it's frustrating for me sometimes well I've seen you had a lot of excellent debates one of them I just recently last night watched is a on systemic racism and it's the first time I've seen you completely lose your shit oh shoot who was out against I am not sure exactly but you were just very frustrated and sorry not lose your shit but you were frustrated constantly because of the thing let's lay out one two three and every time you try to lay it out it would falter I think it had to do with sort of can you use data to make an argument or do you need to use a study that does an interpretation of that data and then there is like this tension between I think this is a behavioral economist that you were talking to and the point is you do this kind of nice layout that the whole point of behavioral economics it says there is more to it than just the data you have to give a context and like do the rich rigorous interpretation in the context of the full human story and then there was like a dance back and forth sometimes use data sometimes not and you were getting really frustrated and shutting down and so that felt like a failure mode I've seen Sam Harris have similar sticking points like if we can't agree on the terminology we can't go on to me I feel like I am sort of the the Wittgenstein perspective is like I think if you get stuck on any one thing you are just not going to make progress you have to part of the conversation has to be about doing a good dance together versus being dogmatically stuck on the path to truth I think the true challenge is identifying what of those sticking points are important versus what is not important it's like if I am having an argument with somebody about like Jewish representation in media they might it might be like a big conversation and they might say a couple things like I think Jewish people you know they tend to help their own or whatever and saying okay but like for the purpose of the conversation we can keep moving but if they casually drop like you know yeah and I think that's why the Holocaust numbers were blown up from like one hundred thousand to six million and that's what and it's like okay well hold on wait wait if you think this we have to stop here because this is going to be it's not just a language game in this part if you really believe this fact then the whole rest of the conversation is going to be informed by that belief you know and it has to be something that doesn't bother you personally you have to step outside your own ego so Holocaust denial is somebody that would bother a lot of people and there are some things just just observing you I feel like when you get really good at conversation you can become a stickler to you might have your favorite terms that really bothers you people don't agree on those terms begs the question you mean raising the question yeah I usually just want if people say stuff I just let it slide yeah because you can't because if you fight when you are having a conversation with somebody and you are talking to their audience at the same time because that's really what's happening you never want to come off as combative or over aggressive because it puts people in like there is there is like a trigger in your brain and this is true of relationships of friendships of persuasive rhetoric or whatever there is a trigger in the brain and as soon as that defensive trigger gets like flipped on everything is over you've lost the ability to persuade because everything becomes a fight at that point yeah well I wanted to talk to you because I heard somewhere that you were referred to as the Ben Shapiro of the left and since I am talking with Ben as well I wanted to sort of complete spiritually this Platonic political philosophy puzzle in my head you are a progressive but a progressive with many non standard progressive views and you had a heck of a fascinating journey through all of that and like I said I think you argue with passion sometimes with excessive amounts of passion but it's a really polite way of saying that almost always with good faith and with rigor with seriousness I asked on your subreddit which is an excellent subreddit shout out to the Destiny subreddit so much at least for that particular post what I really loved is when I asked for questions for you there were like holy shit there is adults in the room let's all behave like nobody say incest I was like what what what's going on here but actually the the the questions that rose to the top were really good so somebody said that Destiny was speaking of your journey was a conservative in his early teens then he became a libertarian then he became a left wing social justice warrior then he flirted with socialism and now he is a social democrat liberal I've also heard you refer to yourself as a far left person so to the degree there is truth to that journey can you take me through your evolution through the landscape of political ideologies that you went through so my dad comes from Kentucky and my mom is a Cuban immigrant Cubans are notorious for being very conservative in the United States for historical reasons and for other reasons but my upbringing was a very Republican one I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh Glenn Beck Michael Savage on the radio Billy Cunningham I think Sean Hannity a little bit later on like that was like my whole upbringing politically I remember I was writing I had written like articles for the school journal like in favor of defending the war in Iraq and you know defending Bush from all the criticism etc so that was my upbringing I think once I hit high school college I had my edgy like libertarian s high school phase of like reading Eintrand of figuring out that like oh my god nothing in life matters except for class and money that's actually the answer to everything and I got to college I became a Ron Paul fan very big Ron Paul fan and then from there I kind of work do life life happens at the kind of the lowest point of my life in terms of where I am working financially everything is like kind of in ruin in my life there is a whole bunch of dumb stuff that's happened it's probably my most conservative point I don't know what it is about like being poor and thinking like you can work your way out of it you can do whatever it's just my upbringing is always just like if you are not if you are not if you are not having financial success just work work work work work and then I got into streaming very very lucky break everything just lined up at the right time and then as I've progressed through streaming I would say through the years I've gradually fallen more and more to the left especially once my kid turned four five six years old and I started to see like how much different his life was just because of the financial opportunities that I was able to provide for him through no merit of his own and that started to radically change how I viewed the world in a lot of ways so actually let's like linger on that yeah low point you worked at McDonald's you worked at a casino you did carpet cleaning what was the the lowest point definitely the carpet cleaning really absolutely why why was it the lowest point that's when you were just flirting with starting streaming my whole life has been a series of lucky breaks really truly I grew up playing a lot of video games but back in my day our day you had to read there was a lot of text on the screen back in my day we used to play they didn't all talk yeah because nowadays everything's voice acted but back then you had to read a lot I was a really good reader and a really good vocabulary yeah I heard you actually say that what games are we talking about what what do you mean there is reading you are talking about like RPG yeah JRPG so like Final Fantasy games Fantasy stars like all of these like any any RPG that would have been on the SNES Sega PlayStation these are the things I pause on that okay I just talked to Todd Howard who's of the Elder Scrolls fame and the Fallout fame and Beyond what's your thoughts on Elder Scrolls why Skyrim the greatest RPG of all time man I really don't like Skyrim or Fallout you don't love it games oh really no not at all why do you hate Skyrim yeah so I really like characters and like compelling stories and narratives around those characters and I like to see them kind of like grow and change kind of like a movie or a story so in your like Final Fantasy games you've got characters there a lot of like like classical tropes of like a character starts off kind of like edgy angsty all on their own they develop relationships friendships they realize that the life is more about themselves and they do that and I like that that growth that's kind of what you see in all of those old role playing games I didn't like the open world ones as much because your main character is just like a blank slate never talks it's for you to like project onto but there is not the same like linear narrative of like growth for the character that's fascinating there is an actual story arc to the character that's more crafted in a beautiful way by the designers of the game yeah I don't think one is better or worse it's just I tend towards like I want to hear a compelling story around like a set of characters that like grow and change with the game oh that's beautifully put then yeah I I just really loved being able to leave the town you go outside the town and you look outside its nature and the world of possibilities is before you you can do whatever the fuck you want I mean that immensity of just being lost in the world it was really immersive for me but yeah you are right. Whatever attracts you about the world, so you were just starting to play video games, you go out play the video games that's one of your lucky breaks. There's just like a lot of random skills you pick up depending on the type of game you play. I played a lot of text based games on the computer, so I was a very fast typer. I'm still a very fast typer. Read a lot, you know, learned weird kind of math stuff for some of the calculations, some of the games. I think I'm pretty good at getting information, figuring stuff out, learning patterns all of that. And then that plus the reading and everything for the games meant that I I don't want to say I excelled in school because my grades were pretty bad, but I was in like all honors all AP classes or whatever. A lot of dual enrollment, a lot of AP credit going into college, so I did pretty well in school, probably better than I should have, but it was because I had the game stuff that was like really powering a lot of my brain there while I was trying to sleep through class. Yeah. So you're you're able to soak in information, integrate it, quickly take notes. Generally, I think I'm pretty good at that. Yeah. What what you do this a lot when you stream, you're typing stuff. Is there a system in that note taking? And what note what do you use for note taking? Does it matter? I use a notepad. Like notepad the original C notepad. Yep, notepad. Ex not the plus plus not. Is there genius to the madness behind that or you just don't give a shit? No, I mean like it it's going to depend on the style of conversation. If I'm with somebody that is very meticulously organize their thoughts and they're a fine better word here for rambler you can edit that in better word for rambler. Yeah, somebody that talks a lot and a lot. I'll start like taking notes bullet points like this this this this this this because there's a style of conversation where I say seven or eight different things and then when you go to respond to everything I said I cut you off immediately and we argue that point. But if somebody's going to do that, you just like hold on. You just said these eight things. I'm going to respond to every single one. I've written them all down and then you can go if you want to go point by point we can. But you just said all this and I wrote it down so we're going to go. So what are you actually writing down like a couple words per point they left. Honestly, like there are very few unique conversations in politics. Like a lot of them are kind of retreading old ground. So if we're having a debate on abortion, somebody might say like, "Oh well I believe this thing about viability and I believe this thing about you know when they're a fetus versus a human and I'll just write down like those points so that when I go to respond I kind of have like a like note cards like a guiding thing there to keep me centered on my response. Political discourse is a kind of tree you're walking down. I got it and you're like taking just to keep my focus guided so I'm not like running off on a weird tangent or responding something I didn't say or something. Yeah. What about like doing research? It just is there a system to your note taking because mentally you seem to be one of the most organized people I've listened to. So is there is it in your mind or is there a system that's on paper? A little of both. I feel like the human mind is a beautiful thing. If you have interest in an area, so like what I'll tell people is let's say there's like a totally new topic that I'm researching I don't know anything and I'll do a couple of these on stream I think they're boring but people watch it. I might open a Wikipedia article and I'll read and I hit something I don't know and then I open the next Wikipedia article and I'll read into and then I might have like seven tabs open and I'll read and I'll read and I'll read. Um and I'll read a ton of stuff maybe for hour two three four hours of stuff and then by the end you know someone in chat will ask me like do you even remember like this particular thing and I'll say not really no not too much but what happens is as long as you've seen it once what will happen is like the next day the day after it will read something else and be like oh I remember that thing from this thing I remember like vaguely that and then if you see it like a third time you're like oh this makes sense because especially when it comes to oh here's like a little trick on stuff if you ever reading any news and there's a place that pops up always look at it on a map because so much of history is like on a map it's so important to like know the geography it makes things make so much more sense. Um but yeah once I once I start to see stuff over and over again just because I've like read it a few times stuff will start to kind of connect in my mind and like oh yeah well this makes sense of course these people believe this because of this or of course like this happened here it's because you know that happened there. Um so yeah it's it's a lot of that if there's like a topic that I'm doing specific research for um so like vaccine related stuff is a big one the Ukrainian Russian conflict is a big one that I'll break out a note um I'll probably get like a Google Doc and I'll just start like writing like an outline of kind of the rough points of everything just to organize my thoughts around different topics yeah. We're just going to go tangent upon tangent upon tangent we'll return to the low point of your life at some point always returning from the philosophy to the psychology so you did the Ukraine topic. One question is, what role does the US play in this war? Could they have done something to avoid the war? Did they have a role to play in forcing Vladimir Putin's hand? Do they have a role to play in de escalating the war towards a peace agreement? And the opposite if it does escalate towards something like the use of a tactical nuclear weapon are they to blame or are we to blame? Oh man, somebody sent me an email a while ago with great words. Um, there's a specific way to navigate a conversation where you can kind of like contribute to a negative event but you're not really the one responsible for it. Um, like the classic example is a woman goes out late at night gets a little bit too drunk and then something happens and it's like while there might have been steps you could have taken to mitigate the risk it's not her fault of what happened because the responsibility rests on the on the agent making the choice right there's a chooser at some point that is choosing to do wrong or evil. I don't believe in any of the arguments that say the United States has contributed to Russia's position on Ukraine or the actions that they've taken on Ukraine. There are several arguments that some people some even political scholars are are are putting out there to say that the United States is to blame but I find them completely unconvincing. I think that when you ask the question of like what is the United States role or what is our role been, I think it's really important for us. I don't think we even agree as a country on what our role should be which I think is a hard one because you've got this kind of there's this growing populist movement in the United States it might be the far left and the far right. I think populists tend to have this kind of isolationist view of the world where the United States should just be our own thing we shouldn't be telling anybody what to do we shouldn't be the world police and then kind of more in these like center left center right positions and then across a lot of Europe you've got well okay the United States is kind of like the big kid on the block like we're looking to them for guidance and leadership on situations like what's going on in Ukraine. So insofar as the original question is like what what is like the United States responsibility I think we have a responsibility to ensure the relative like freedom prosperity and stability across Europe. I think that defending Ukraine's sovereignty and right to their borders is a part of that and I don't believe that prior to the invasion in 2022. I don't think the United States was contributing to Russia invading that country. I know there are arguments given that like the expansion of NATO you know has has something that's been threatening to Russia but the Baltics joined and Russia didn't do anything about it. The invasion of Crimea was very clearly a response to the revolution of 2014. The invasion on the borders is clearly a response to Ukraine winning that civil war in the southeast and the Donbas and Russia becoming more aggressive. I don't think that you can blame any of that on on NATO expansion. There's no NATO countries that are threatening Russia or invading Russia. Do you think there is a nuclear threat? Do you think about this? Do you worry about this that there is a threat of a tactical nuclear weapon being dropped? I think that possibility exists either way and I think the responsibility for that is on Russia because it it just can't be the case that if you have nukes you're allowed to invade countries and take their land because of anything I think that that down the road also increases increases the potential for nuclear problems in the future right because at that point either every single country has to acquire their own nuclear weapons because if you don't Russia is going to mess with you or every single country has to join NATO and now what we're back at square zero ground zero square one where people like oh well look all these countries joining NATO is aggressive towards Russia like what are you going to do? Yeah you've mentioned that there's a complicated calculus going on with the countries that have they have nuclear weapons and what's our responsibility. Are you allowed to do anything you want to countries that don't have nuclear weapons? That's a really tricky discussion for sure because what is US supposed to do if Russia drops a tactical nuclear weapon? There's a set of options, none of which are good, and it's such a tricky moment right now because the things that Biden and other public figures say I feel like has a significant impact on the way this game turns out because I think mutually assured destruction is partially a game of. Words. Yeah, I mean I believe in the power of conversation of leaders talking to each other. I feel like you have to have a balance between threat and compromise and like empathy for the needs the geopolitical the economic needs of a nation but also sort of respect. And represent your own interests, so it's a tricky one. Like how do you play the how do you play the hand? Reminds me of I don't know if you've ever heard in like evolutionary psychology evolutionary biology there are things called tit for tat strategies. It kind of reminds me of that where it's like if like there there are a whole bunch of these little biological mechanisms where creatures will develop like socializing like tit for tat. If you do something bad to me I'm going to do something bad for you and then more complicated schemes will come out where it'll be like tit tit for tat or it's like you can make one mistake and then I'm going to get you if you do a second one or it could be tit tit tit for tat or there could be tit for tat tat for tat. There's like all these like back and forth where creatures kind of optimize themselves and um yeah I think something the United States did really well in terms of that kind of conversational strategy and I approved of this in the beginning was Biden was very clear about setting out like the exact level of US involvement for the war. We're not going to do a no fly zone. There's not going to be US troops in the ground in Ukraine but we are going to send a whole bunch of money and a whole bunch of arms and a whole bunch of intel to them and I thought he did a good job at laying out like the limitation of the US involvement while opening as much as we could in the ways that we could help. But the yeah that looming threat of some sort of tactical nuclear weapon I think on the table right now is like it's going to be the annihilation of like Russian sea forces and everything but you know what happens if it continues to escalate that's like a world that nobody wants to nobody wants to be in yeah. So we talked about difficult conversations and again thank you so much for reviewing the yay conversation. Let me ask you about Putin. Speaking of difficult conversations, so if you sit down if I sit down with somebody like Vladimir Putin or Vladimir Zelensky, what's the right way to have that conversation? We can talk about that one or we could talk about somebody more well understood through history like something like Stalin or Hitler. Somebody like that maybe that's an easier example to illustrate how to handle extremely difficult conversations. Yeah I mean I can have a really difficult conversation between like two people leaders of countries though there are so much that you are representing in that conversation. I guess the thing that would be interesting to me would be like what is Vladimir Putin's interest like what is the genuine interest that he has in the conflict because I think finding out like what is your buy in or what is your like what is the driving force keeping you here is probably the most important thing. I think for Zelensky I think it's it's quite a bit more simpler because he's he's on the defense so it's defending his country and his people. Um for Putin I've heard all sorts of things you know Dugan has his writings on you know like the East versus the West the collapse of the West in the face of like all of the liberalism and the weird LGBT stuff that they criticize. You've got the desire to like return to this like former Soviet Union esque thing. You've got Putin's quotes that collapse the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical disaster you know 20th century and I guess figuring out like what is Putin after I'm not actually sure I don't know the answer to that question I know a lot of people write about it but yeah well there's a lot of answers to that question there's a lot of answers that he can give to that question so say I sit down with him for three hours and talk about it. I think this is a really interesting distinction because you do do difficult conversations in the space of ideas, but also in your stream you have I mean there's a bunch of drama going on there's there's a human psychology laid out in its full richness before you. So to me with leaders I think a part of the conversation has to be about the human psychology. Sure, not like a meta conversation but like really understand what they feel what they fear who they are as a human being like as a family man as a as a person proud of their country as a person with an ego as a person who's been affected if not corrupted by powers. All of us can be and likely are so all of that that gives context to then the answers about what do you want in this war because the answers about what you want in this war will be political answers. It's a it's like a game that's being played again with words and politicians they're incredibly good at playing that game. I think the deeper truth comes from understanding the human being from which those words come and I think that's what you do I don't know if you do those kinds of conversations where I've never talked to any country leaders so no not not not a country leader but say a controversial figure somebody that represents a certain idea. Don't just talk in the space of ideas or challenge the ideas but understand who is this person how did you come to those ideas. Oh yeah when I've had there have been a couple of very controversial right leaning figures so the two obviously the my streams familiar Lawrence Southern and Nick Fuentes and those types of conversations initially aren't very political at all yeah it's more like like obviously we believe in very very very different things but like beliefs don't happen accidentally so how did you get to where you are. Those are way more personal conversations that's true. Is there things you regret about those conversations where you failed? Is there things you're proud of where you succeeded? For things that I'm proud of I feel like I feel like I'm really good at attempting to understand people without judgment that I think a lot of people feel like they can have conversations with me where they can share a lot and I'm not going to jump down their throat for them having a politically incorrect observation or for them being judgmental of somebody else or having like a feeling that's maybe not something they should have something they're embarrassed about. So I think I do a really good job at that and then by extension of that I've got the ability to hear perspectives from so many different people that I think I can understand a lot of different perspectives. Um for failures of mine I mean it's always going to be on stream it'll be like I didn't push back hard enough or I didn't know like a certain fact for a conversation. These are usually the they're going to be on these like very technical grounds generally I'm pretty happy with like the direction my conversations have gone recently especially over like the past six months. So your goal is to. Deradicalize the audience of those folks, so that used to be my goal. My goal was deradicalization. Now I'm kind of hoping that that's just the byproduct. So the goal I think is to talk to somebody and to show they believe this because of these reasons and if you want to change people's beliefs we have to talk about the underlying reasons for why they think the things they think. It's not enough to just say like that belief is bad because it's like while they believe it for a whole bunch of things that are true and real to them at least so you have to address all the underlying things that they believe before you can change the underlying belief. So if I'm having a conversation with somebody it'll be like okay why do you feel this about that that and that okay I understand that maybe like a better way to solve that would be like this or that instead of this thing. So to what degree do you have to empathize with the person's worldview versus pushback? That's that's always the hard one when I'm talking to other people it's almost always me stepping as much inside their bubble as I can I have to like live and breathe their worldview and be able to speak their worldview in order to like navigate their thoughts because my worldview is um I don't I don't even I'm not even using as an insult I don't know if I

本集資源與出處