WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:04.759 Welcome to the nonprofits. The culture wars sometimes make for strange bedfellows, as 2 00:00:04.799 --> 00:00:07.799 we will see in our next story this week. This is an op ed 3 00:00:07.839 --> 00:00:13.119 that discusses comedian Bill Maher's shift from critiquing religion in the nineties and the two 4 00:00:13.119 --> 00:00:19.079 thousands, notably through his film Religious, to focusing on opposing wokeism in recent 5 00:00:19.199 --> 00:00:24.320 years. The author, Bishop Robert Baron of Rochester, Minnesota, initially irritated 6 00:00:24.359 --> 00:00:29.679 by mars simplistic take on religion, finds unexpected alignment with mars recent criticism of 7 00:00:29.719 --> 00:00:34.159 woke culture. He notes mars defense of free speech and civil discourse, contrasting 8 00:00:34.159 --> 00:00:38.520 it with what he says is quote divisive nature of wokeism and cancel culture. 9 00:00:38.719 --> 00:00:44.159 Despite their differences, the author appreciates Mar's efforts to promote respectful dialogue and challenge 10 00:00:44.159 --> 00:00:48.840 contemporary societal issues. Is the enemy of my enemy, my friend. This 11 00:00:48.960 --> 00:00:52.960 story is from CNN by Bishop Robert Baron. I don't know why do I 12 00:00:53.000 --> 00:00:56.880 always want to say Robert barn there by Bishop Robert Baron, And this was 13 00:00:56.920 --> 00:01:00.640 published on May twenty eighth, twenty twenty four. And you know they say 14 00:01:00.679 --> 00:01:06.439 the the only constant was his Heraclitus I think the only constant in life is 15 00:01:06.599 --> 00:01:10.239 change. And so I used to be a big Bill Maher fan, but 16 00:01:10.359 --> 00:01:11.400 I, you know, he just I don't know, I don't know. 17 00:01:11.439 --> 00:01:15.840 He veered off the tracks at some point. It's it's, uh, you 18 00:01:15.879 --> 00:01:18.719 know, he used to be kind of witty and clever, but now it's 19 00:01:18.760 --> 00:01:22.439 all comes across as like, at least in my opinion, as whining and 20 00:01:22.480 --> 00:01:26.239 complaining. Cindy, let's go to you first. What do you think of 21 00:01:26.280 --> 00:01:32.120 the bishop's new romance with Bill Maher. So? I don't really know a 22 00:01:32.159 --> 00:01:38.040 lot about about Bill Maher. I never never watched him. I didn't see 23 00:01:38.120 --> 00:01:42.359 him on TV, obviously because I didn't grow up in the in the US. 24 00:01:42.599 --> 00:01:49.120 But this, this entire article was, uh, it sounded very childish 25 00:01:49.200 --> 00:01:55.000 to me. Uh and and kind of pathetic because I saw an old man 26 00:01:55.439 --> 00:02:00.560 just being happy that another old man agreed with him. And then that's basically 27 00:02:00.640 --> 00:02:07.159 the article. And obviously that work is bad, which is something we can 28 00:02:07.199 --> 00:02:14.319 hear very often lately. But the Bishop he contradicted himself a lot in this 29 00:02:14.960 --> 00:02:23.159 article. He complains about people using bad arguments, but the only evidence he 30 00:02:23.280 --> 00:02:28.680 gives about why the woke movement is bad is, and I quote, perhaps 31 00:02:28.759 --> 00:02:35.599 the most signaling feature of the recent fiasco surrounded Kansas City Chiefs Kicker but Ker's 32 00:02:35.800 --> 00:02:43.120 commencement address at Benedictine College was a post on Twitter by a social media manager 33 00:02:43.360 --> 00:02:50.639 for the Kansas City specifying the suburbs where Butker lives. So, doxing is 34 00:02:50.719 --> 00:02:57.599 bad regardless of who does it, but having one person doing that and extending 35 00:02:57.680 --> 00:03:04.800 this to the entire UH woke movement, that that's kind of stupid, especially 36 00:03:04.840 --> 00:03:10.360 when his side basically is doing that all the time. There. They've been 37 00:03:10.360 --> 00:03:20.080 doing this for uh the jurors on on Term's latest convictions, they've been doing 38 00:03:20.159 --> 00:03:25.840 it for years as as a as a tool of restribution and and to scare 39 00:03:25.879 --> 00:03:34.719 people. And now he's just complaining because someone just said the suburb where a 40 00:03:34.800 --> 00:03:39.840 guy lives. Do you think that the bishop and Bill Maher are like finding 41 00:03:39.919 --> 00:03:45.080 some serious grounds for like brotherhood here. Do you think that this is a 42 00:03:45.120 --> 00:03:47.800 real connection or do you think it's something else? No, I think it's 43 00:03:47.960 --> 00:03:55.599 just I don't think Bill Maher will uh now appreciate this priest. I don't 44 00:03:55.599 --> 00:04:01.840 think uh the priest wrote this because he wanted to start the Romans with UH 45 00:04:02.080 --> 00:04:05.840 I don't think he's trying to woo Bill Maher into his camp. He's too 46 00:04:05.919 --> 00:04:14.560 old. Yeah, I just think he was just giddy when he discovered that 47 00:04:14.879 --> 00:04:19.040 his nemesis was citing in his camp, and so he's just lating that. 48 00:04:19.240 --> 00:04:23.160 That's all. That's okay, that's what I say. It's it's all right. 49 00:04:23.480 --> 00:04:26.480 It's particularly childish to me. Jason. Let's jump over to you. 50 00:04:26.600 --> 00:04:29.040 Now you're an atheist. Well, we're all atheists, of course, but 51 00:04:29.920 --> 00:04:33.639 how did this op ed color your opinion of the bishop or or men of 52 00:04:33.639 --> 00:04:38.319 his position. Look, I'm more or less can just only echo with Cindy 53 00:04:38.399 --> 00:04:41.000 saying I totally agree. It's like, hey, look at this guy. 54 00:04:41.279 --> 00:04:44.120 He grews me. I'm a man, he's a man. It's man's world. 55 00:04:44.839 --> 00:04:46.680 I just I can't. I can't fucking do it with this guy. 56 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:51.600 You know, whole article is like this like false pluralism thing that's like built 57 00:04:51.639 --> 00:04:57.800 on this like baby Boomer found the foundation rhetoric thing. He got this whole 58 00:04:57.800 --> 00:05:00.879 male fragility thing kind of mixed in there. Then there's like this fear of 59 00:05:00.879 --> 00:05:04.519 being held accountable for their sins. You know. Having watched enough Bill Maher, 60 00:05:04.639 --> 00:05:09.199 I've always seen his approach is highly problematic. It's kind of that same 61 00:05:09.480 --> 00:05:15.160 arrogant, I'm educated, privileged approach and delivery that's typical of like male talking 62 00:05:15.160 --> 00:05:18.879 heads of that you know era demographic slash demographic. You see the same delivery 63 00:05:18.879 --> 00:05:23.879 from guys like Carlin and Dawkins, you know, and those guys are I 64 00:05:23.879 --> 00:05:26.600 mean, they did some, but they're problematic, right, you know. 65 00:05:26.720 --> 00:05:30.560 So, so this vicious opinion of a guy like Bill Maher honestly means about 66 00:05:30.560 --> 00:05:34.040 as much to me as some random guy's opinion about another guy's opinion about shit 67 00:05:34.160 --> 00:05:39.160 that isn't relative to their life, because they're privileged enough to not have to 68 00:05:39.160 --> 00:05:43.439 give a fuck about those things, like I don't care. It's in a 69 00:05:43.480 --> 00:05:47.160 sense they get to minimize people's experiences, label them as over emotional, who 70 00:05:47.720 --> 00:05:50.920 blah blah blah. The whole thing is just like, well, they're woke 71 00:05:50.959 --> 00:05:55.560 and well, and to me, woke is like a dog whistle term for 72 00:05:55.800 --> 00:06:01.120 like social justice, equal opportunity, queer rye, civil rights. These are 73 00:06:01.160 --> 00:06:04.279 the same guys that are like, I'm colorblind, you know. It's it's 74 00:06:04.360 --> 00:06:09.319 this whole thing that I saw all He'll smile when I said that you'll know 75 00:06:09.360 --> 00:06:12.600 what I'm saying when I say that it's it's gross. I don't know, 76 00:06:12.600 --> 00:06:15.319 it's just all you know. Zacho with Sindy was saying, Man, so 77 00:06:15.399 --> 00:06:19.480 let's go to Kara next. Here, Kara Jason was talking about these different 78 00:06:19.480 --> 00:06:25.720 interpretations of woke. In the article, Baron said, quote the classical liberalism 79 00:06:25.800 --> 00:06:30.360 espoused by everyone from former Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy to Martin 80 00:06:30.439 --> 00:06:34.120 Luther King Junior called for the fixing of our social problems through reason and political 81 00:06:34.160 --> 00:06:41.040 action, whereas many on today's Wolcus left embraced the rhetoric of victimization and complaint. 82 00:06:41.160 --> 00:06:44.639 Do you think that was a fair assessment or what is your take on 83 00:06:44.680 --> 00:06:48.160 the way that he's presenting woke in this in this circumstances here? No, 84 00:06:48.399 --> 00:06:54.040 I don't think that's a fair or accurate assessment. I think it's really interesting 85 00:06:54.480 --> 00:07:00.000 that he chose to mention people like Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Junior as 86 00:07:00.079 --> 00:07:03.519 under examples, because I'm pretty sure we can all agree that both of them 87 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:11.000 had some things to say that were complaints about people being victimized by an unjust 88 00:07:11.040 --> 00:07:15.120 social and political system. I'm pretty sure that was kind of their whole thing 89 00:07:15.240 --> 00:07:20.319 they were talking about, And in fact, Jefferson specifically wrote about this, 90 00:07:21.120 --> 00:07:26.600 and he said that people, by which he apparently meant property white men, 91 00:07:27.360 --> 00:07:31.160 had the right to even rebel against a government that they felt was not affording 92 00:07:31.160 --> 00:07:34.600 them the rights that they should have, and was indeed a leading figure in 93 00:07:34.639 --> 00:07:39.800 a revolution. And I'm not advocating for that. Certainly, that seems to 94 00:07:39.839 --> 00:07:42.959 be the kind of thing that people who are on the opposite end of the 95 00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:46.800 woke spectrum are talking about doing these days. But I think that if you're 96 00:07:46.800 --> 00:07:53.319 going to be throwing around the term wokeism as if there's some disturbing, new 97 00:07:53.519 --> 00:07:58.800 radical way to complain about victimization and stir up trouble, we should really be 98 00:07:58.839 --> 00:08:03.319 thoughtful about the compare sins that we're making, because that one didn't make sense. 99 00:08:03.040 --> 00:08:07.639 And I think in addition to that, yes, it is true what 100 00:08:07.680 --> 00:08:11.600 you said about woke having different meanings to different people. There's sort of the 101 00:08:11.680 --> 00:08:18.120 general meaning of woke referring to kind of being aware of and fighting against systemic 102 00:08:18.160 --> 00:08:24.199 injustice, and then there's the more pejorative usage of it that is being employed 103 00:08:24.199 --> 00:08:28.680 here in this article. That's sort of the suggestion that, well, these 104 00:08:28.759 --> 00:08:35.639 ideas are extreme and unreasonable and comically outrageous. And that's obviously the way he's 105 00:08:35.720 --> 00:08:39.279 describing it here, but the way he writes about it, he kind of 106 00:08:39.320 --> 00:08:46.039 just boils down wokeism to basically saying, well, it's violent and anti democratic 107 00:08:46.120 --> 00:08:52.159 and it's attacking people who deserve to be in power, rather than having reasons 108 00:08:52.200 --> 00:08:56.799 debate and discourse, you know, amongst sensible people, and kind of sets 109 00:08:56.879 --> 00:09:01.960 up this dichotomy where he's saying, the woke people are not reasonable, they're 110 00:09:03.200 --> 00:09:09.080 violent and outrageous and absurd, as compared to this list of powerful, wealthy 111 00:09:09.120 --> 00:09:13.240 white men who he's describing as very reasonable and intellectual, and why can't we 112 00:09:13.320 --> 00:09:18.000 just go back to having discourse like that. And it's kind of hard for 113 00:09:18.039 --> 00:09:22.840 me to hear that and not think that he means, well, I just 114 00:09:22.919 --> 00:09:28.159 want to hear from powerful, wealthy white men such as myself. And he 115 00:09:28.320 --> 00:09:33.639 kind of slips back and forth in between criticizing wokeism for any real reason that 116 00:09:33.720 --> 00:09:39.080 has to do with what people are actually doing, and instead criticizing it as 117 00:09:39.159 --> 00:09:43.440 oh, well, wokeism is just a stand in in his mind for you 118 00:09:43.480 --> 00:09:48.519 know, not having rational debate. Well, that's not true. It sounds 119 00:09:48.559 --> 00:09:54.279 like what he's saying is people are criticizing people like me, and I don't 120 00:09:54.399 --> 00:09:58.240 like that and I want them to stop. And that sounds very hypocritical to 121 00:09:58.320 --> 00:10:03.000 me, when his criticism of the woke people is that they're trying to silence 122 00:10:03.440 --> 00:10:09.440 other voices that dissent, when really the whole point of the concept of being 123 00:10:09.480 --> 00:10:13.360 woke is recognizing that some people have been cut out of the conversation historically and 124 00:10:13.440 --> 00:10:16.480 are not being allowed to speak, and we do want to hear other voices, 125 00:10:16.960 --> 00:10:22.120 and we're hearing this kind of response from this person saying no, no, 126 00:10:22.240 --> 00:10:24.519 I want my voice and voices like mine to be the ones we hear. 127 00:10:26.159 --> 00:10:28.559 We can't hear from these other people. They're not part of rational debate, 128 00:10:30.159 --> 00:10:35.399 and that is just completely hypocritical in my view. So you said you 129 00:10:35.399 --> 00:10:39.600 said a lot about wokeism there, and about woke and about different definitions of 130 00:10:39.639 --> 00:10:43.919 the term, and and you know, we can see that. I mean, 131 00:10:43.919 --> 00:10:45.919 to me, it seems like the liberal view of what it means to 132 00:10:45.919 --> 00:10:50.720 be woke is different than the way uh conservatives will characterize what they call wokeism, 133 00:10:50.799 --> 00:10:54.200 right, And so let's start with Cindy with this question here. Do 134 00:10:54.240 --> 00:10:58.240 you think that now I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, do you think 135 00:10:58.279 --> 00:11:01.279 there's in Do you think that what they're saying holds water at all? Do 136 00:11:01.279 --> 00:11:05.960 you think that there are people on the left, either individuals or groups of 137 00:11:05.960 --> 00:11:09.279 people that that take things too far? Do you think that that there's anything 138 00:11:09.360 --> 00:11:13.840 there there right? Is there? Or do you think it's just fear mongering 139 00:11:13.879 --> 00:11:18.360 and boogeyman? I mean, do you think that there is any legitimate claim 140 00:11:18.639 --> 00:11:24.799 against quote unquote wokeism like we're hearing Bishop Barron here. I think we could 141 00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:37.600 point out some some instances where social awareness uh silenced in a way uh, 142 00:11:37.000 --> 00:11:45.480 some the express the expression of some some speech like UH. For example, 143 00:11:45.759 --> 00:11:50.080 a couple of years ago, there was a play UH that was supposed to 144 00:11:50.080 --> 00:11:56.120 to be UH happening in in in Canada, and it was about how the 145 00:11:56.279 --> 00:12:03.759 natives have been treated uh in this country and the the the idea that there 146 00:12:03.879 --> 00:12:09.720 was no natives in the actors. UH. That raised some complaints and because 147 00:12:09.759 --> 00:12:13.639 of that, the play was canceled. And I thought at the time, 148 00:12:13.679 --> 00:12:18.679 and I still think that it was a shame that even though there was no 149 00:12:18.919 --> 00:12:22.440 natives in among the actors. Well, I think it was still better to 150 00:12:22.600 --> 00:12:31.200 have this display seen and heard by a lot of people rather than the opposite. 151 00:12:31.440 --> 00:12:37.759 So I think that there are a few examples like this, but because 152 00:12:37.840 --> 00:12:43.320 there there are extreme people on on every side. And but I think what 153 00:12:43.320 --> 00:12:52.200 what they what they complain about is is based on projection because they they they 154 00:12:52.320 --> 00:12:58.960 see in in in what they're suffering a lot of what they've been imposing on 155 00:12:58.159 --> 00:13:03.279 other people, and they don't like it, so they tried not to change 156 00:13:03.320 --> 00:13:07.679 it, and so we see it a lot. Do you think it's so 157 00:13:07.720 --> 00:13:11.080 when they cry wokeism, do you think they're actually telling us a little bit 158 00:13:11.120 --> 00:13:15.759 about what's going on in their own minds. Okay, all right, let's 159 00:13:15.840 --> 00:13:18.759 jump over to Jason before we do. Jason, you had to bring you 160 00:13:18.799 --> 00:13:22.759 had to drag George Carlin into this, and and you know, the night 161 00:13:22.799 --> 00:13:26.120 wouldn't be complete if there wasn't something that we could disagree on. So maybe 162 00:13:26.120 --> 00:13:28.600 we can draw the line in the sand here. I'll just you know, 163 00:13:28.639 --> 00:13:33.799 I was I've been a Carlon fan for most of my life. But you 164 00:13:33.799 --> 00:13:35.879 know, that's a little rabbit hole. We don't need to go on I 165 00:13:35.919 --> 00:13:39.039 just want to stay for the record, I disagree with your take on George 166 00:13:39.080 --> 00:13:43.159 Carlin. Maybe we can bring it up some other time, But Jason, 167 00:13:43.200 --> 00:13:45.720 I did want to ask you, so, building on what Cindy was saying, 168 00:13:46.159 --> 00:13:50.960 do you think that the so we we've talked about on the nonprofits before, 169 00:13:52.039 --> 00:14:00.559 how conservatism, especially extreme conservatism, is tied to authoritarianism and you're monitoring 170 00:14:00.600 --> 00:14:05.799 and that kind of thing. Do you think that the existence of that extreme 171 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:13.919 far right position demands an aggressive far left response to that. I don't know 172 00:14:13.960 --> 00:14:18.960 if I can actually give an honest answer here what I think it really calls 173 00:14:18.039 --> 00:14:24.159 for, but yes, I do think it needs, uh, probably more 174 00:14:24.159 --> 00:14:28.279 extreme answer than maybe what you're hinting at so. So the so the are 175 00:14:28.279 --> 00:14:31.000 you saying that the response to a hard punch is going to be a harder 176 00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:35.840 punch on the other side, or of course, I mean, what am 177 00:14:35.879 --> 00:14:37.919 I going to do to sit there and get beaten? Well, I don't 178 00:14:37.919 --> 00:14:41.639 know. I mean one of one of the themes of this article was, 179 00:14:41.399 --> 00:14:45.799 or at least one of the the way that they're presenting it. One of 180 00:14:45.799 --> 00:14:50.759 the proposed themes is that this idea of coming together and you know that that 181 00:14:50.519 --> 00:14:56.600 idea is as an atheist activist, that's something that personally is is important to 182 00:14:56.639 --> 00:15:01.519 me, is that the idea of of forming, of reaching out to engage 183 00:15:01.559 --> 00:15:07.879 in communication with people who disagree with me. Our own fellow nonprofit secularity, 184 00:15:09.519 --> 00:15:13.879 I know in his own state he's involved with an organization that specifically pairs up 185 00:15:15.279 --> 00:15:18.080 believers and non believers and involves them in conversations. So do you think that 186 00:15:20.039 --> 00:15:22.159 this kind of thing can happen? Do you think that that kind of thing 187 00:15:22.480 --> 00:15:26.559 is important? Do you think that that? And also do you think that 188 00:15:26.639 --> 00:15:33.279 this article addresses that even though it claims to address that idea of finding common 189 00:15:33.320 --> 00:15:35.320 ground? But do you think it really does? And do you think that's 190 00:15:35.320 --> 00:15:39.279 important? He threw a couple things of me, so of course this article 191 00:15:39.360 --> 00:15:43.440 does not. Because this article is just old men bitching about being told to 192 00:15:43.440 --> 00:15:46.080 shut the fuck up. That's all really is. I want to say this 193 00:15:46.120 --> 00:15:50.039 thing and they're telling me not to say this thing. Yeah, shut the 194 00:15:50.080 --> 00:15:52.320 fuck up, Like, seriously, shut the fuck you. Don't say that 195 00:15:52.360 --> 00:15:54.559 fucking thing anymore. Don't act that way. This is stupid. You're able 196 00:15:54.559 --> 00:15:58.360 to say it because you're privileged. Nobody challenges you. If a woman was 197 00:15:58.399 --> 00:16:02.080 acting this way, or if a fin person was acting this way, they'd 198 00:16:02.120 --> 00:16:04.600 be labeled borderline. But if you're acting this way, it's considered normal because 199 00:16:04.600 --> 00:16:10.480 you have the privilege of being hyper emotional and fucking angry and acting like an 200 00:16:10.519 --> 00:16:12.840 asshole and nobody calls you out for it. So now you're being called out 201 00:16:12.879 --> 00:16:15.240 for being a fuckhead, and now they're just crying about it. Is the 202 00:16:17.000 --> 00:16:22.679 solidarity was fucking solidarity of Yeah, of course we need solidarity, But solidarity 203 00:16:22.679 --> 00:16:25.360 over being a piece of shit that's whinding about being told to shut the fuck 204 00:16:25.440 --> 00:16:29.279 up doesn't really to me, doesn't really mean anything. So think, oh, 205 00:16:29.320 --> 00:16:33.720 we need to stand together, is no just shut literally shut the fuck 206 00:16:33.799 --> 00:16:36.600 up? You know? So yeah, I mean, and you mentioned, 207 00:16:36.639 --> 00:16:40.519 like, you know, we had the idea of atheists coming together changing things, 208 00:16:40.639 --> 00:16:42.960 or not even atheists, more left leaning, more progressive people whatever you 209 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:47.279 want to call the people who aren't crying about this stuff. Yeah, this 210 00:16:48.759 --> 00:16:52.080 in order. So would you say that that it's a worthy goal and that 211 00:16:52.120 --> 00:16:53.799 they're just doing it wrong, or do you think that it's not a worthy 212 00:16:53.840 --> 00:16:56.639 goal? Clarify where you're at. What was what a worthy goal? The 213 00:16:56.679 --> 00:17:00.759 idea, the idea of coming together. Right. You were pointing out that 214 00:17:00.159 --> 00:17:07.359 in this article it has like a veneer of finding common ground and coming together, 215 00:17:07.400 --> 00:17:10.799 when really it's just a couple of guys whining about being you know, 216 00:17:11.039 --> 00:17:12.599 oh yeah, okay, sorry giving them Well, of course it's important for 217 00:17:12.599 --> 00:17:15.400 people to like be together. I mean, my own personal example I give 218 00:17:15.440 --> 00:17:19.559 a lot is like the guys that I train with are primarily religious. Tomorrow 219 00:17:19.599 --> 00:17:22.839 morning, I'm gonna do a boxing private with a Muslim guy after Trump finished 220 00:17:22.839 --> 00:17:26.880 sparring a Jewish guy, right, who are both very active in their beliefs 221 00:17:26.160 --> 00:17:30.640 and in their faiths and their their respective places of worship and you know community. 222 00:17:30.759 --> 00:17:33.319 So yeah, these are my friends. But like, if I couldn't 223 00:17:33.319 --> 00:17:37.319 have conversations with them about this shit and then be able to hit to at 224 00:17:37.400 --> 00:17:41.000 least one of them in the face, I probably wouldn't be good with it. 225 00:17:41.079 --> 00:17:45.480 You know. I just think that human contact is great. You hold 226 00:17:45.480 --> 00:17:48.319 each other responsible and accountable. Right, People have to be responsible for how 227 00:17:48.319 --> 00:17:52.160 they treat you when they're looking at you face to face, right, you 228 00:17:52.200 --> 00:17:55.559 know, so I think communion with people in general is important. I'm a 229 00:17:55.759 --> 00:17:57.559 that's the thing. I'm I'm a pluralist. You know, I don't give 230 00:17:57.559 --> 00:18:00.680 a fuck what you believe as long as you're not try to harm me in 231 00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:03.920 my own but you know me, whatever, I don't really care. So 232 00:18:04.559 --> 00:18:08.319 I would also that I would even take it a step further and say that 233 00:18:08.440 --> 00:18:14.000 and say that holding somebody accountable for the for for the words that they say 234 00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:17.240 and for the things that they do, and calling their calling their bullshit out, 235 00:18:17.440 --> 00:18:19.200 I think that's part of respecting them as a human being, and it's 236 00:18:19.200 --> 00:18:22.480 something that I would expect as well. If you know, if I'm if 237 00:18:22.519 --> 00:18:25.680 I'm doing something wrong, I would expect somebody to call me out on that. 238 00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:29.079 Kara, I want to give you the the last word on here. 239 00:18:29.119 --> 00:18:34.079 I wanted to ask you, do you think that this that this article offers 240 00:18:34.160 --> 00:18:37.079 a glimmer of hope for the future. Do you think that there's room for 241 00:18:37.160 --> 00:18:44.680 optimism within the context of of this article. I'm not sure that the article 242 00:18:45.359 --> 00:18:49.440 gave me any optimism. I I mean, I guess in the sense of, 243 00:18:51.240 --> 00:18:57.119 are you suggesting because this person who previously did not agree with the things 244 00:18:57.200 --> 00:19:02.200 that Bill Maher was saying and later decided they were friends, is that is 245 00:19:02.240 --> 00:19:06.680 that the part that would engineer I'm just wondering if there's another if there's another 246 00:19:06.759 --> 00:19:10.559 take, if there if there's a silver lining to this great cloud we've been 247 00:19:10.559 --> 00:19:15.319 talking about. Yeah, I think that it is doing a poor job of 248 00:19:15.440 --> 00:19:18.119 talking about an issue that we are dealing with. You know, we've touched 249 00:19:18.160 --> 00:19:22.160 on, you know, kind of political polarization going on in all of our 250 00:19:22.200 --> 00:19:26.240 answers, and I agree that that is an issue, and we've touched on 251 00:19:26.279 --> 00:19:30.440 you know, when people are using means to get their point across that are 252 00:19:30.559 --> 00:19:33.880 hurting people, like doxing or something like that. That's not a good thing 253 00:19:33.920 --> 00:19:37.720 to do, regardless of which side of an argument you're on. But it 254 00:19:37.799 --> 00:19:44.440 is completely outrageous to suggest that one side is doing that and the other side 255 00:19:44.519 --> 00:19:48.920 isn't. This is an article that's written by a man who holds a leadership 256 00:19:48.960 --> 00:19:52.799 position and one of the most wealthy and powerful organizations arguably in the world, 257 00:19:53.319 --> 00:19:59.720 writing an opinion essay that is published in CNN and widely disseminated. He has 258 00:20:00.160 --> 00:20:06.079 blogs and podcasts and he is not silenced. He is loud and everyone can 259 00:20:06.160 --> 00:20:11.920 hear his opinions. And he is talking about opinions, uh from the perspective 260 00:20:11.079 --> 00:20:17.240 of an organization and giving examples that are about people on his side, if 261 00:20:17.279 --> 00:20:19.480 you want to call it sides silencing others. You know, the one example 262 00:20:19.519 --> 00:20:25.079 he gave in the article was about you know, Harrison Butker telling women at 263 00:20:25.079 --> 00:20:27.599 a commencement that their place is in the home and get out of the workforce 264 00:20:27.680 --> 00:20:30.359 basically. And I know there's a lot of people that have perspectives on that, 265 00:20:30.559 --> 00:20:36.119 but that's the speech he's defending. Uh. And And the fact of 266 00:20:36.119 --> 00:20:41.200 the matter is he is defending his ability to be able to tell other people 267 00:20:41.240 --> 00:20:45.640 to shut up and then turning around and saying, but it's not fair if 268 00:20:45.720 --> 00:20:48.319 people come back and say, hey, wait a minute, we disagree with 269 00:20:48.359 --> 00:20:51.799 you, and here's why, and we would like for you, in facts, 270 00:20:51.799 --> 00:20:55.599 to shut up and listen. He doesn't love that. And yes, 271 00:20:55.680 --> 00:21:00.079 I agree that, you know, political polarization and making everything and end of 272 00:21:00.160 --> 00:21:03.079 the world. Oh my goodness, if you said this or you think this, 273 00:21:03.160 --> 00:21:06.440 we can never talk again. Yeah. I do think that that's not 274 00:21:06.559 --> 00:21:11.480 great. We do need more civil discourse. But the problem here is not 275 00:21:11.640 --> 00:21:15.240 wokeism. The problem is not you know, identifying discrimination and working to remedy 276 00:21:15.279 --> 00:21:19.839 it. The problem here is absurd hypocrisy. Right, I lied, I 277 00:21:19.839 --> 00:21:23.160 want to go to Cindy real quick before we wrap this one up. Cindy, 278 00:21:23.200 --> 00:21:26.960 will you give this bishop any advice if he wants, if he wants 279 00:21:27.000 --> 00:21:32.000 to present this as a way of people coming together, and and I think 280 00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:34.400 we all kind of agree that he's really not doing a very good job of 281 00:21:34.440 --> 00:21:40.640 it. What would what advice would you give to Bishop Baron on better ways 282 00:21:40.759 --> 00:21:45.279 to make connections with different people. I would tell him to forget what he 283 00:21:45.400 --> 00:21:52.920 thinks he knows about the woke movement and actually talk and listen people who identify 284 00:21:53.400 --> 00:22:00.200 as this in this movement, and then have a real conversation with some one 285 00:22:00.400 --> 00:22:04.920 and and and go from there. Because the thing is when when you put 286 00:22:04.960 --> 00:22:08.640 everyone in the basket and say that the basket is written, then you never 287 00:22:08.680 --> 00:22:14.200 talk with anyone inside. So and that that's what they all do, and 288 00:22:14.200 --> 00:22:18.079 and sometimes we are guilty of that too, when we talk about the Magap 289 00:22:18.119 --> 00:22:23.359 movement, for example. But if you can't if you can't speak to the 290 00:22:23.400 --> 00:22:29.119 people, you cannot change their mind. And if you want them to change 291 00:22:29.160 --> 00:22:32.079 you, you, they have to listen to you first. So that's what 292 00:22:32.119 --> 00:22:34.119 I would tell him. Listen. You put that perfectly. I think that 293 00:22:34.160 --> 00:22:37.599 puts a perfect ball. At the end of this is this discussion, so 294 00:22:37.839 --> 00:22:41.559 we'll stop here. I want to thank all of you for watching and listening