WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.440 --> 00:00:04.480 Hello everybody, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends. 2 00:00:05.679 --> 00:00:10.000 I have to admit that this episode you're about to 3 00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:12.839 listen to was not something I expected to turn into 4 00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:17.399 an episode for some time. I mean, it's a relatively 5 00:00:17.399 --> 00:00:22.960 evergreen subject, but unfortunately world events I think I said 6 00:00:22.960 --> 00:00:26.320 this in the last episode, do not conform to a 7 00:00:26.359 --> 00:00:32.600 podcast release schedule, and given the ongoing conversations about political 8 00:00:32.679 --> 00:00:36.240 violence and their causes that have been going on since 9 00:00:36.240 --> 00:00:39.799 the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September tenth, twenty twenty five, 10 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:44.880 most pointedly in the conversation I had with Danielli, Bellelli 11 00:00:45.039 --> 00:00:49.520 and Christaps Andredesen's on the last episode, in which I 12 00:00:49.560 --> 00:00:51.600 actually had to stop and think, like, what are we 13 00:00:51.679 --> 00:00:56.119 talking about here? When it comes to threatening language. I 14 00:00:56.200 --> 00:00:59.920 figured that an adaptation of an essay I wrote over 15 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:02.079 there Were a year ago in the wake of the 16 00:01:02.079 --> 00:01:05.959 attempted assassination on President Trump, then candidate Trump, that I 17 00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:11.640 called the Vital Truth about rhetoric and violence. I still 18 00:01:11.680 --> 00:01:17.000 am considering what Danielle particularly said when we were having 19 00:01:17.040 --> 00:01:20.560 this conversation and how I started to think about things 20 00:01:20.599 --> 00:01:25.959 in terms of existential framing as potentially being something threatening, 21 00:01:26.879 --> 00:01:32.239 though I still think even if the evidence does not exist, 22 00:01:32.799 --> 00:01:36.359 one could make an argument against it on the basis 23 00:01:36.400 --> 00:01:41.400 of law or principle. But I still don't think I've 24 00:01:41.439 --> 00:01:42.079 moved on that. 25 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:43.239 Again. 26 00:01:43.280 --> 00:01:45.879 I'm willing to concede that there could be some kind 27 00:01:45.920 --> 00:01:51.239 of psychological evidence out there suggesting that existentially framed language, 28 00:01:51.319 --> 00:01:57.840 especially persistently delivered and consumed, does constitute an influencing force. 29 00:01:59.519 --> 00:02:03.480 But I just don't know. Maybe there's something out there, 30 00:02:04.480 --> 00:02:07.120 maybe there's some studies being conducted. I don't know. I 31 00:02:07.159 --> 00:02:12.520 hope so I would like to know. But regardless, I 32 00:02:12.599 --> 00:02:16.560 still find myself unmoved at the idea. As to be fair, 33 00:02:16.639 --> 00:02:22.759 Daniellie also feels about the idea of restricting our freedom 34 00:02:22.759 --> 00:02:25.000 of speech that we have in this country. Obviously, there's 35 00:02:25.039 --> 00:02:27.879 a lot of controversy about that right now, based on 36 00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:32.879 people losing their jobs and suspensions of various public figures. 37 00:02:33.319 --> 00:02:37.919 But regardless, I do find myself still unmoved at the 38 00:02:37.960 --> 00:02:42.840 prospect of restricting speech even if the evidence psychological evidence changes. 39 00:02:43.360 --> 00:02:46.120 And that's essentially what I got into with this essay 40 00:02:46.120 --> 00:02:47.520 that I wrote over a year ago, and what I'm 41 00:02:47.560 --> 00:02:50.360 about to get into with this podcast adaptation of it, 42 00:02:51.319 --> 00:02:54.319 so I hope that you guys enjoy this. I want 43 00:02:54.360 --> 00:02:58.280 to thank everybody who supports this show over on Patreon 44 00:02:58.319 --> 00:03:04.159 and substack, particularly supporters like my excellent executive producer level 45 00:03:04.199 --> 00:03:07.560 patrons John Andre Saither and Mike Maylebin, longtime supporters of 46 00:03:07.599 --> 00:03:10.400 this show. Love having you guys here listening to me 47 00:03:11.360 --> 00:03:15.039 ramble on about such things, even when it interrupts the 48 00:03:15.080 --> 00:03:17.240 flow of history. Though, to be fair, guys, there is 49 00:03:17.240 --> 00:03:20.159 some history in this episode. It's it's a very strange 50 00:03:20.639 --> 00:03:24.759 combination of some of my passions, but it does involve history, 51 00:03:24.879 --> 00:03:29.879 specifically legal history. So if you want to support this show, 52 00:03:29.919 --> 00:03:32.800 if you like what you have been listening to or 53 00:03:32.840 --> 00:03:36.919 what you listen to here, please consider supporting History Impossible 54 00:03:37.159 --> 00:03:40.840 at Patreon dot com, slash History Impossible or Historympossible dot 55 00:03:40.840 --> 00:03:43.479 substat dot com. It doesn't cost you much to be 56 00:03:43.520 --> 00:03:45.719 a supporter and get all the benefits of having ad 57 00:03:45.759 --> 00:03:48.639 free versions of this show, as well as early releases 58 00:03:48.680 --> 00:03:52.520 in a lot of cases and exclusive content such as 59 00:03:52.560 --> 00:03:55.639 the pop Quiz sub series and things of that nature. 60 00:03:56.000 --> 00:03:58.879 And if you can't, you know, find the cash to 61 00:03:58.919 --> 00:04:01.479 support the show right now, that's fine. Just to make 62 00:04:01.520 --> 00:04:03.840 sure to spread the word about this show on social media. 63 00:04:04.360 --> 00:04:08.479 Follow me on social media of course, x, Instagram, Facebook, 64 00:04:08.520 --> 00:04:11.360 all the normal places. But spread the word about this 65 00:04:11.439 --> 00:04:14.159 show to your friends who maybe would be interested in 66 00:04:14.159 --> 00:04:16.199 these kinds of things. This episode is a little bit 67 00:04:16.240 --> 00:04:19.040 different than what I usually do, so maybe it'll be 68 00:04:19.040 --> 00:04:22.279 a little more relevant, especially in this ongoing conversation we've 69 00:04:22.319 --> 00:04:25.759 been having about the nature of free speech and rhetoric 70 00:04:25.800 --> 00:04:30.600 and so forth. So with all that said, let's get 71 00:04:30.639 --> 00:04:35.600 into some I guess it would be impossible psychology, impossible 72 00:04:36.079 --> 00:04:39.720 legal precedent, and as always impossible history. 73 00:04:40.399 --> 00:04:41.879 I'll let me to tell you what you would have 74 00:04:41.879 --> 00:04:44.920 seen and heard. If we're not being pleasant listening, if 75 00:04:44.920 --> 00:04:46.839 you're at lunch, or if you have no appetite, now 76 00:04:46.879 --> 00:04:48.399 it is a good time to switch off the radio. 77 00:04:54.240 --> 00:04:57.600 An ancestor mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, 78 00:04:57.800 --> 00:04:59.879 whatever remains, however. 79 00:05:01.759 --> 00:05:05.439 Elevation rustle banjie irongto it you genera. 80 00:05:07.560 --> 00:05:08.600 I need to spy. 81 00:05:10.439 --> 00:05:13.240 I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace 82 00:05:13.600 --> 00:05:14.160 is insight. 83 00:05:14.759 --> 00:05:16.480 I don't see any laughing dream. 84 00:05:16.600 --> 00:05:18.560 I feel a laugh in the night wore. 85 00:05:22.720 --> 00:05:26.600 On if we hear for issue to kill, if we 86 00:05:26.680 --> 00:05:27.800 care for sued to guill. 87 00:05:29.360 --> 00:05:31.959 Some say the world will end in fire, some say 88 00:05:31.959 --> 00:05:32.240 a night. 89 00:05:32.920 --> 00:05:34.680 From what I've tasted of desire. 90 00:05:34.759 --> 00:05:37.600 I hold with those of favor fire, But if it 91 00:05:37.680 --> 00:05:40.600 had to perish twice, I think I know enough of 92 00:05:40.839 --> 00:05:44.319 hate to say that the destruction ice is also great, 93 00:05:44.399 --> 00:05:45.399 and look sufficed. 94 00:05:52.240 --> 00:05:54.279 This is history or hustle. 95 00:05:59.199 --> 00:06:01.800 The tongue has new bones, but is strong enough to 96 00:06:01.879 --> 00:06:06.800 break a heart. So be careful with your words. Unknown. 97 00:06:10.199 --> 00:06:12.920 My opinion is enough for me, and I claim the 98 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:16.920 right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, 99 00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:21.800 any place, anytime, And anyone who disagrees with this can 100 00:06:21.839 --> 00:06:25.000 pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass. 101 00:06:26.319 --> 00:06:35.680 Christopher Hitchens. Something really surprised me when I started formally 102 00:06:36.040 --> 00:06:39.720 studying history in graduate school just over two years ago 103 00:06:40.680 --> 00:06:45.639 that the idea of correlation not equaling causation was not 104 00:06:46.120 --> 00:06:49.959 some kind of dictum. There were a lot of people 105 00:06:50.160 --> 00:06:54.759 who seemed to just see correlations as evidence of their 106 00:06:54.920 --> 00:07:00.160 arguments or sufficient evidence of their arguments. And honestly, if 107 00:07:00.199 --> 00:07:03.959 you're making a civilizational claim, it's kind of hard to 108 00:07:04.040 --> 00:07:07.160 prove or disprove something like that. But if you're trying 109 00:07:07.199 --> 00:07:11.680 to make a claim about why American slavery, for example, 110 00:07:12.000 --> 00:07:17.120 became so particularly brutal later as it went along, and 111 00:07:17.240 --> 00:07:19.959 are trying to make it more of an argument about 112 00:07:20.000 --> 00:07:23.800 the essence of the human soul rather than incentives at work, 113 00:07:24.879 --> 00:07:27.759 you're just going to start to lose me. But when 114 00:07:27.800 --> 00:07:30.439 you start to lose me, I start to lose the 115 00:07:30.519 --> 00:07:32.959 rest of the class when I start pointing that out. 116 00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:36.120 So I have to admit I was a little surprised 117 00:07:36.240 --> 00:07:40.000 when that particular argument did come up in the first semester, actually, 118 00:07:41.800 --> 00:07:45.160 but I thought about it, and to be fair, when 119 00:07:45.240 --> 00:07:49.879 examining history, it is next to impossible or just perhaps 120 00:07:50.279 --> 00:07:54.680 very difficult to dig out causal links from the past, 121 00:07:55.600 --> 00:08:00.639 especially the further back in time you travel. Journalism is 122 00:08:00.680 --> 00:08:04.079 the first draft of history and manages to get this 123 00:08:04.360 --> 00:08:09.040 wrong so often as it does often get wrong. What 124 00:08:09.199 --> 00:08:13.920 does that say about history? With the time passing and 125 00:08:14.120 --> 00:08:18.279 the biases of people long removed from the moment being 126 00:08:18.399 --> 00:08:22.079 studied needing to be taken into consideration. I mean, the 127 00:08:22.199 --> 00:08:25.680 layers of difficulty start to become pretty apparent when you 128 00:08:25.759 --> 00:08:30.720 start thinking about it. But regardless, this was still a 129 00:08:30.759 --> 00:08:34.879 bit of a surprise for me, having a background academically 130 00:08:34.919 --> 00:08:39.840 speaking in psychology, particularly research based psychology in which the 131 00:08:40.039 --> 00:08:43.759 drum of correlation does not equal causation. Was banged upon 132 00:08:44.559 --> 00:08:48.759 in every single class that I took. In fact, in 133 00:08:48.919 --> 00:08:52.159 the history of psychology course that I took, the main 134 00:08:52.240 --> 00:08:56.440 takeaway was that psychology, particularly in its infancy as a field, 135 00:08:57.080 --> 00:09:00.639 had a major causal fallacy problem. I mean, all you 136 00:09:00.679 --> 00:09:03.720 have to do is just look at very famous cases, 137 00:09:03.840 --> 00:09:06.320 like a lot of the claims made by Sigmund Freud, 138 00:09:07.159 --> 00:09:11.639 but also the much more contemporary ones like the claims 139 00:09:11.720 --> 00:09:15.120 made about the Stanford prison experiment that people still love 140 00:09:15.200 --> 00:09:18.519 to cite because it's a great story, but whose veracity 141 00:09:18.600 --> 00:09:20.919 does not really hold up under much scrutiny. In fact, 142 00:09:21.720 --> 00:09:25.519 that study, which may be worth examining in detail one 143 00:09:25.600 --> 00:09:29.559 day on history Impossible, is a much better lesson on 144 00:09:29.799 --> 00:09:34.440 experimental design and what that can actually do to findings 145 00:09:34.480 --> 00:09:37.960 and to the people conducting the experiments in ways that 146 00:09:38.200 --> 00:09:41.320 can't really be appreciated until after the fact. This is 147 00:09:41.440 --> 00:09:46.159 especially clear with relentless self promoters and people who really 148 00:09:46.279 --> 00:09:49.840 just want to make the big, common sense sounding statements. 149 00:09:49.919 --> 00:09:52.840 Be quote unquote proven true, as is the case with 150 00:09:52.879 --> 00:09:56.480 the Stanford prison experiments. Mayestro, I'll call him Philip Zimbardo, 151 00:09:56.559 --> 00:09:59.480 who if you look him up, totally not ghoulish looking 152 00:09:59.519 --> 00:10:06.279 at all. Now, regardless, these days, psychologists and psychological researchers, 153 00:10:06.919 --> 00:10:09.519 at least it was worth their salt of course, are 154 00:10:09.639 --> 00:10:13.159 actually quite careful to explain what the evidence in their 155 00:10:13.240 --> 00:10:19.320 experiments suggest and therefore where future research can go from here, 156 00:10:19.799 --> 00:10:26.200 essentially either to refute or replicate the results. In other words, 157 00:10:26.759 --> 00:10:30.320 a good honest study has to have a good and 158 00:10:30.480 --> 00:10:35.399 thorough and honest conclusion section, one that admits faults and 159 00:10:35.519 --> 00:10:38.320 suggests future courses of action. It's that simple. 160 00:10:41.480 --> 00:10:41.639 Now. 161 00:10:41.879 --> 00:10:46.320 I bring all that up because well, it's related to 162 00:10:46.960 --> 00:10:49.879 what has been going on in the news for the 163 00:10:50.000 --> 00:10:52.360 last couple of weeks as of this recording. But really 164 00:10:53.720 --> 00:10:55.600 what's been going on in the news for the past 165 00:10:55.960 --> 00:11:00.639 several years. What my friends Danielle Blelli and christap Andresens 166 00:11:00.679 --> 00:11:03.279 and I discussed in the last episode of History Impossible, 167 00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:08.840 the rise in political violence. The attempted assassination of Donald 168 00:11:08.879 --> 00:11:12.480 Trump in July of twenty twenty four was what originally 169 00:11:12.559 --> 00:11:15.440 inspired the essay on which this episode is based. But 170 00:11:15.639 --> 00:11:20.399 obviously the recent assassination of conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, to 171 00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:24.480 say nothing of other assassinations and attempted assassinations around the 172 00:11:24.519 --> 00:11:28.519 country and just that have really rocked the nation's core, 173 00:11:29.399 --> 00:11:31.600 like political core in a lot of ways, including the 174 00:11:32.080 --> 00:11:37.240 assassinations of the Minnesota congress people to the attempted kidnapping 175 00:11:37.360 --> 00:11:41.320 or assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I mean, the list 176 00:11:41.440 --> 00:11:44.320 goes on. I spoke about this list, I gave a 177 00:11:44.639 --> 00:11:47.759 I quoted from a summary in the previous episode when 178 00:11:47.799 --> 00:11:50.080 I was talking to Christaps and Danielle. The point is, 179 00:11:50.799 --> 00:11:54.559 political violence is on the rise, and what do we 180 00:11:54.639 --> 00:11:58.840 always see. What has been always said in the wake 181 00:11:59.039 --> 00:12:03.480 of these acts of violence, successful or otherwise in terms 182 00:12:03.519 --> 00:12:08.720 of lethality, is always at least the implication that the 183 00:12:08.840 --> 00:12:13.480 way people talk, what they say, their rhetoric in other words, 184 00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:19.559 is causing this violent behavior, this violent outburst. Put most simply, 185 00:12:20.679 --> 00:12:23.440 this situation that we've all just seen, that we're all 186 00:12:23.519 --> 00:12:27.200 talking about, that we've just heard only happened because of 187 00:12:27.279 --> 00:12:31.720 the rhetoric that people on the other side quote unquote 188 00:12:32.120 --> 00:12:34.960 have been using for the past ten years or so. 189 00:12:36.960 --> 00:12:40.840 In other words, what did you expect they say what 190 00:12:40.960 --> 00:12:44.679 they mean and they mean what they say now, to 191 00:12:44.759 --> 00:12:46.879 be clear, and I think I've been pretty clear about 192 00:12:46.919 --> 00:12:52.639 this in various places. I do believe that the depictions 193 00:12:52.759 --> 00:12:56.559 of President Trump, both when he was in power, when 194 00:12:56.600 --> 00:12:58.559 he was out of power, now when he's back in power, 195 00:12:59.120 --> 00:13:03.240 have been, to put mildly, pretty hysterical over the last 196 00:13:03.279 --> 00:13:08.200 ten years or so. Invocations of fascism and especially Nazism 197 00:13:08.279 --> 00:13:11.240 being applied to him have just never made that much 198 00:13:11.320 --> 00:13:14.440 sense to me, even with what has been revealed about 199 00:13:14.480 --> 00:13:18.320 his attempts to overturn the twenty twenty election. That is 200 00:13:18.360 --> 00:13:22.679 obviously a very anti democratic impulse. But the way I've 201 00:13:22.720 --> 00:13:27.720 always seen it, actual fascists don't just disrespect democracy or 202 00:13:27.840 --> 00:13:33.519 dislike democracy. They don't just disrespect the democratic process. They 203 00:13:33.759 --> 00:13:35.919 just tend to not want to have a democratic process 204 00:13:35.960 --> 00:13:39.919 at all. Whether or not that's true or applies to 205 00:13:40.080 --> 00:13:43.519 our president is kind of irrelevant. That doesn't seem to 206 00:13:43.600 --> 00:13:46.399 really be the mo of what's going on here. There's 207 00:13:46.399 --> 00:13:49.080 a lot of other stuff going on. I've already made 208 00:13:49.080 --> 00:13:52.320 the comparisons to the late nineteenth century form of progressivism, 209 00:13:52.919 --> 00:13:54.440 which I don't know how wealthoers are going to hold 210 00:13:54.519 --> 00:13:57.480 up long term, but there's still a comparisons that should 211 00:13:57.480 --> 00:14:00.440 be well taken, at least in my opinion. Honestly, a 212 00:14:00.480 --> 00:14:02.879 lot of what we've been seeing has been more resembling 213 00:14:03.120 --> 00:14:07.200 you know, Chevista regimes, so to speak, down in South America, 214 00:14:07.440 --> 00:14:11.240 or you know, jew chaism in North Korea. Obviously not good. 215 00:14:11.279 --> 00:14:14.840 But I'm just saying, comparisons to fascism, just on a 216 00:14:14.919 --> 00:14:17.399 technical level, just have never made sense to me, to 217 00:14:17.480 --> 00:14:20.279 say nothing of how Nazism makes it little sense either, 218 00:14:20.720 --> 00:14:24.799 given how aggressively friendly his administration has been towards the 219 00:14:24.879 --> 00:14:28.840 only Jewish state in the world, regardless, to imply that 220 00:14:29.559 --> 00:14:32.480 the president is so sinister that we'd soon see millions 221 00:14:32.519 --> 00:14:35.399 of our own countrymen, not to mention the countrymen of 222 00:14:35.440 --> 00:14:37.960 our neighbors who we'd be bound to invade in this 223 00:14:38.600 --> 00:14:42.559 strained analogy, seeing them all herded into cattle cars to 224 00:14:42.639 --> 00:14:45.759 be shipped to industrial gas chambers to be killed on 225 00:14:45.879 --> 00:14:50.159 mass I don't know. I have never much liked Donald 226 00:14:50.200 --> 00:14:54.840 Trump as the president, but that seems pretty damn insulting 227 00:14:55.000 --> 00:14:57.799 to not just him. I don't really care about his feelings, 228 00:14:57.840 --> 00:15:00.600 but it is insulting and other peace people who work 229 00:15:00.679 --> 00:15:03.639 with him, who probably just want to keep their jobs. 230 00:15:04.759 --> 00:15:07.840 But it's even more insulting to the millions upon millions 231 00:15:08.200 --> 00:15:12.240 of actual victims to the Third Reich military machine. That's 232 00:15:12.320 --> 00:15:14.519 just sort of the way I see it. Can make 233 00:15:14.759 --> 00:15:18.320 very very pointed criticisms about the current administration in the 234 00:15:18.480 --> 00:15:22.720 United States, especially these days, with their crackdowns on free speech, 235 00:15:23.679 --> 00:15:27.559 without just jumping the gun and comparing it to a 236 00:15:28.240 --> 00:15:32.039 regime that literally existed for the sole purpose of committing genocide. 237 00:15:32.799 --> 00:15:35.600 And yes, that is again how I tend to characterize 238 00:15:35.639 --> 00:15:39.480 the Third Reich, Another discussion for another time. I'm just 239 00:15:39.559 --> 00:15:41.960 trying to make it clear where I'm coming from with this, 240 00:15:43.799 --> 00:15:47.720 but I also want to be fair. I don't think 241 00:15:48.360 --> 00:15:53.200 that the growing hysteria that we've seen in the Maga camp, 242 00:15:53.960 --> 00:15:55.679 the populace camp, whatever you want to call it, the 243 00:15:55.799 --> 00:16:00.519 new right, the online right, is particularly salient either. It 244 00:16:00.639 --> 00:16:04.600 all starts to feel a little unhinged no matter which 245 00:16:04.639 --> 00:16:07.480 direction you're looking at, and it's all based on the 246 00:16:07.519 --> 00:16:13.039 same thing, the application of language and rhetoric and implying 247 00:16:13.279 --> 00:16:18.759 or impugning sinister motivations behind those things, and even more importantly, 248 00:16:19.639 --> 00:16:25.240 creating a causal line from that rhetoric to eventual hypothetical 249 00:16:25.360 --> 00:16:31.919 evil behavior, but also sometimes actually real evil behavior. The 250 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:36.320 point is, if we try to limit the insane or 251 00:16:36.360 --> 00:16:40.799 even just factually incorrect speech or rhetoric that we're hearing 252 00:16:41.639 --> 00:16:45.679 because there's a risk that some crazed person might respond 253 00:16:45.759 --> 00:16:49.039 to such speech, we're essentially trying to kill flies with 254 00:16:49.080 --> 00:16:53.120 sledgehammers or creative explosives if we really want to run 255 00:16:53.159 --> 00:16:58.240 with this analogy. And yet people will still try to 256 00:16:58.440 --> 00:17:01.440 kill those flies with sledgehammers and so forth, and it's 257 00:17:01.480 --> 00:17:05.039 hard to blame them. While there was no shortage of 258 00:17:05.160 --> 00:17:08.680 unhinged imagery and rhetoric directed at George W. Bush and 259 00:17:08.799 --> 00:17:12.759 Barack Obama from twenty one to twenty sixteen, I remember 260 00:17:12.799 --> 00:17:15.720 seeing all those signs of their faces with a Hitler 261 00:17:15.839 --> 00:17:17.960 mustache on them. I'm sure some of you, at least 262 00:17:17.960 --> 00:17:22.680 old enough, do remember that too. I do think, in fact, 263 00:17:22.680 --> 00:17:25.880 they've made this clear. Having just done a conversation with 264 00:17:26.079 --> 00:17:29.119 two of my podcasting comrades about it, I think it's 265 00:17:29.160 --> 00:17:33.119 fair to say that the persistence, intensity, source, and scope 266 00:17:33.680 --> 00:17:37.839 of the inflammatory rhetoric that exists here in this country 267 00:17:37.880 --> 00:17:40.680 of the United States has since increased in that time. 268 00:17:40.759 --> 00:17:45.599 That's passed. But the problem is that we're just operating 269 00:17:45.640 --> 00:17:49.519 on common sense here based on a perceived pattern. That's 270 00:17:49.559 --> 00:17:53.839 not really an examination of the evidence. I want to 271 00:17:53.880 --> 00:17:57.359 approach a different question, a real question, both as a 272 00:17:57.720 --> 00:18:02.200 budding historian will say, and as someone with a moderate 273 00:18:02.279 --> 00:18:07.920 background in research based psychology. Therefore, that core question is this, 274 00:18:09.440 --> 00:18:15.160 did violent existentially framed rhetoric cause all of this political 275 00:18:15.279 --> 00:18:19.400 violence to be unleashed upon the United States? Could we 276 00:18:19.599 --> 00:18:22.119 argue even that that's what it has caused in the 277 00:18:22.200 --> 00:18:26.640 past when it's happened leading to presidents almost being assassinated 278 00:18:26.839 --> 00:18:31.160 like Donald Trump, to actually being assassinated like say President Garfield, 279 00:18:31.880 --> 00:18:37.119 or for pundits to be assassinated like Charlie Kirk. Can 280 00:18:37.200 --> 00:18:44.359 we say that speech caused violence and thus possibly give 281 00:18:44.440 --> 00:18:48.519 credits to the idea that speech is violence. 282 00:18:53.839 --> 00:18:58.480 Starting to reach through. 283 00:19:00.559 --> 00:19:02.319 And it feels like we're living in. 284 00:19:02.400 --> 00:19:08.759 That split seconds of us gone and time is slowing 285 00:19:08.880 --> 00:19:12.079 down and if we only had a little more time, 286 00:19:13.119 --> 00:19:14.160 and this time. 287 00:19:14.799 --> 00:19:15.599 That's all there is. 288 00:19:19.400 --> 00:19:20.519 Do you remember that time? 289 00:19:20.720 --> 00:19:24.960 Wait all the times, wait and shut up. 290 00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:26.720 We're going to. 291 00:19:28.400 --> 00:19:28.640 I know. 292 00:19:31.640 --> 00:19:35.640 And I know you remember how we had justified at 293 00:19:35.680 --> 00:19:37.240 all and we. 294 00:19:37.240 --> 00:19:41.559 Knew better in our hearts, we knew betters, and we 295 00:19:41.680 --> 00:19:45.839 told ourselves it didn't we chose to continue. I remember 296 00:19:45.920 --> 00:19:51.960 that manners anymore, and the twilight, and soon it will 297 00:19:52.000 --> 00:19:57.559 be all sudden down, and we're going back together as warms. 298 00:19:57.160 --> 00:19:59.039 Away, if we will. 299 00:20:28.640 --> 00:20:32.880 The question of whether or not violent rhetoric causes an 300 00:20:32.880 --> 00:20:37.759 attempted assassination is part of a broader question of whether 301 00:20:37.839 --> 00:20:42.599 or not rhetoric or speech causes violence in general. That 302 00:20:42.720 --> 00:20:46.359 has been made clear enough already by me here. But 303 00:20:46.559 --> 00:20:50.200 that is a very long held debate in various fields, 304 00:20:50.799 --> 00:20:56.559 including political science and history, but also psychology. And if 305 00:20:56.640 --> 00:21:02.599 we focus on the psychological dominion of that question, we 306 00:21:02.680 --> 00:21:06.839 can broaden it even further. And I believe we should 307 00:21:07.480 --> 00:21:11.240 to look at the question of whether or not rhetoric 308 00:21:11.400 --> 00:21:16.920 causes behavior to occur positive or negative at all. It's 309 00:21:16.960 --> 00:21:21.440 a pretty simple question, does action follow speech? That seems 310 00:21:21.480 --> 00:21:23.640 to be the sort of general way of framing it 311 00:21:23.920 --> 00:21:26.640 how most people do, at least, And it is a 312 00:21:26.680 --> 00:21:32.400 simple question and seemingly one with a simple answer. Now, 313 00:21:32.440 --> 00:21:36.279 I would wager that most people, using what they believe 314 00:21:36.400 --> 00:21:40.880 is common sense, would say yes. But what I would 315 00:21:40.920 --> 00:21:45.680 also wager is that saying yes would correspond almost perfectly 316 00:21:46.559 --> 00:21:52.079 with their political beliefs. They believe that positive rhetoric, say, 317 00:21:52.160 --> 00:21:56.960 for example, Greta Tundberg's impassion speech in twenty nineteen regarding 318 00:21:57.039 --> 00:22:01.759 the existential threat of climate change, causes people to behave well. 319 00:22:03.359 --> 00:22:07.759 They also believe that negative rhetoric, say Trump's speech on 320 00:22:07.920 --> 00:22:12.519 January sixth, twenty twenty one, causes people to behave badly. 321 00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:17.640 In other words, people will attribute the positive or negative 322 00:22:17.680 --> 00:22:20.720 effects of rhetoric based on what they believe is right 323 00:22:20.799 --> 00:22:26.759 and wrong. Pretty straightforward. To further flesh out this example, though, 324 00:22:27.400 --> 00:22:31.279 someone who believed that Greta Tunberg's twenty nineteen speech was 325 00:22:31.359 --> 00:22:35.680 inspiring and helped make people more animated about the threat 326 00:22:35.720 --> 00:22:39.720 of climate change would be unlikely to believe that her 327 00:22:39.759 --> 00:22:43.880 rhetoric caused the more unhinged climate activist behavior of the 328 00:22:43.960 --> 00:22:46.960 past five years that we've been seeing, like the defacing 329 00:22:47.039 --> 00:22:50.599 of priceless art with tomato soup and the spray painting 330 00:22:51.119 --> 00:22:57.000 of archaeological sites like Stonehenge. And conversely, someone who believed 331 00:22:57.000 --> 00:23:00.720 that Donald Trump's speech on January sixth, twenty one directly 332 00:23:00.799 --> 00:23:04.960 inspired the riot at the Capitol that day would be 333 00:23:05.200 --> 00:23:09.400 unlikely to believe that his later calls for peaceful dispersal 334 00:23:09.720 --> 00:23:12.799 and for protesters to go home had any effect on 335 00:23:12.960 --> 00:23:17.799 anyone's behavior whatsoever. Whether or not anyone in these hypothetical 336 00:23:17.880 --> 00:23:21.599 scenarios has a point doesn't really matter to the broader 337 00:23:21.720 --> 00:23:25.119 point that this is a form of what's known as 338 00:23:25.160 --> 00:23:31.039 attribution bias, specifically fundamental attribution error, and this bias more 339 00:23:31.200 --> 00:23:38.680 likely informs our moral judgments rather than rational situational considerations. However, 340 00:23:38.799 --> 00:23:42.000 as suggested, this does not put to bed the claim 341 00:23:42.160 --> 00:23:46.799 that rhetoric causes violent behavior. According to an article published 342 00:23:46.839 --> 00:23:50.279 by the Brookings Institute only three months after the January sixth, 343 00:23:50.359 --> 00:23:54.279 twenty twenty one riot, quote, a range of research suggests 344 00:23:54.440 --> 00:23:58.279 the incendiary rhetoric of political leaders can make political violence 345 00:23:58.359 --> 00:24:02.920 more likely, gives violence direction, complicates the law enforcement response, 346 00:24:03.200 --> 00:24:08.079 and increases fear in vulnerable communities unquote. Now here's the 347 00:24:08.160 --> 00:24:12.359 thing about these claims. The Brookings Institute does indeed cite 348 00:24:12.519 --> 00:24:17.240 several papers and self described experts which suggests that rhetoric 349 00:24:17.440 --> 00:24:21.680 emboldens people in quotes there to express what they define 350 00:24:21.680 --> 00:24:25.400 as hateful attitudes. But if you actually look at the 351 00:24:25.480 --> 00:24:29.960 data they provided, there's nothing in there that suggests anything 352 00:24:30.079 --> 00:24:34.839 more significant than that kind of correlation. In other words, 353 00:24:35.400 --> 00:24:39.279 any evidence which shows that changes in behavior was caused 354 00:24:39.680 --> 00:24:44.839 by inflammatory rhetoric is at best circumstantial. In fact, the 355 00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:48.400 article even acknowledges at the top of its fourth paragraph 356 00:24:49.039 --> 00:24:53.160 that quote, there is no direct line between violent rhetoric 357 00:24:53.400 --> 00:24:56.400 and political violence if the speakers are careful not to 358 00:24:56.559 --> 00:25:00.960 name specific targets and means unquote, which I don't know. 359 00:25:01.160 --> 00:25:04.240 That feels like the best example of an awkward mumble 360 00:25:04.480 --> 00:25:08.319 in article form, if there ever was one. It also 361 00:25:08.480 --> 00:25:12.160 seems to be pretty well in line with the free 362 00:25:12.200 --> 00:25:16.000 speech standards that we have in the United States, at 363 00:25:16.119 --> 00:25:19.079 least legally speaking. We'll come back to that later in 364 00:25:19.200 --> 00:25:23.440 this episode, but I just think it's worth mentioning that now. 365 00:25:23.480 --> 00:25:25.720 The key part of that statement that there is no 366 00:25:25.839 --> 00:25:29.279 direct line between rhetoric and violence. As long as no 367 00:25:29.359 --> 00:25:32.640 specific target and means are labeled, the direct line cannot 368 00:25:32.640 --> 00:25:35.039 be established. That is a key part of this puzzle. 369 00:25:35.880 --> 00:25:38.960 The point is, despite making a sneakily worded claim that 370 00:25:39.079 --> 00:25:44.400 rhetoric connects to violent behavior, the article's author, Daniel L. Byman, 371 00:25:45.240 --> 00:25:48.839 is unable to make the case that rhetoric causes behavior, 372 00:25:49.359 --> 00:25:53.759 despite the implication of causality being created by letting connects 373 00:25:54.200 --> 00:25:58.640 do so much heavy lifting. A much better and in 374 00:25:58.759 --> 00:26:01.359 my opinion, honest account of the facts that we have 375 00:26:01.519 --> 00:26:04.799 available comes from an article on Live Science written way 376 00:26:04.960 --> 00:26:08.079 back in January of twenty eleven, in the aftermath of 377 00:26:08.079 --> 00:26:12.160 another story to which we'll return. The author, Stephanie Poppus, 378 00:26:12.240 --> 00:26:15.799 explains that psychologists make it very clear that quote the 379 00:26:15.920 --> 00:26:18.880 answer isn't as simple as yes or no quote, and 380 00:26:18.960 --> 00:26:22.279 that while quote violent rhetoric can make people more comfortable 381 00:26:22.359 --> 00:26:26.440 with the idea of violence, it's almost impossible to pin 382 00:26:26.599 --> 00:26:29.279 down the larger causes of one specific incident. 383 00:26:29.799 --> 00:26:30.079 Quote. 384 00:26:31.279 --> 00:26:33.839 Now, this might seem like a cop out to some 385 00:26:33.960 --> 00:26:36.880 of you listening when it comes to explaining the causes 386 00:26:36.920 --> 00:26:41.279 of something seemingly straightforward, but it's very important for us 387 00:26:41.319 --> 00:26:44.799 to remember that just because something seems like common sense 388 00:26:45.440 --> 00:26:49.119 does not mean that it is therefore true. For example, 389 00:26:49.240 --> 00:26:51.960 while it is clear from research cited by Papus in 390 00:26:52.079 --> 00:26:55.119 her article that quote people with acute mental disorders like 391 00:26:55.160 --> 00:26:58.480 schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are two to three times more 392 00:26:58.640 --> 00:27:01.960 likely to commit violent crime times not just homicide, than 393 00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:05.720 people without mental illness unquote. It is also clear that 394 00:27:05.920 --> 00:27:09.920 other factors play a part, including substance abuse, which correlates 395 00:27:09.960 --> 00:27:13.079 with violent behavior at rates eight to ten times greater 396 00:27:13.559 --> 00:27:17.359 than that of the population. Now, these factors matter for 397 00:27:17.440 --> 00:27:21.119 our purposes because they are completely independent of the presence 398 00:27:21.200 --> 00:27:24.519 of violent rhetoric, and yet they act as risk factors 399 00:27:24.559 --> 00:27:29.240 for violent behavior, significant ones at that While it might 400 00:27:29.359 --> 00:27:33.319 not seem unreasonable to quote unquote toned down violent rhetoric 401 00:27:33.359 --> 00:27:35.200