Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofits. Our second segment this week takes
Speaker 1: us to Florida again. In Florida's District thirty eight state
Speaker 1: House race, Democrats Sarah Henry is challenging Republican incumbent David
Speaker 1: Smith in a rematch that's drawing attention for Smith's negative
Speaker 1: campaign tactics. Henry, a former communications associate for the American
Speaker 1: Humanist Association, has previously defended church state separation on issues
Speaker 1: like Christian symbols in public land and state sponsored prayer
Speaker 1: in schools. Smith's campaign attacks Henry by misrepresenting these stances,
Speaker 1: portraying her as anti Christian and labeling her as a
Speaker 1: radical atheist who hates Christians. In the real world, Henry's
Speaker 1: platform centers on affordable housing, reproductive rights, public education, gun safety,
Speaker 1: and environmental protections. Smith's ads have raised eyebrows for focusing
Speaker 1: on Henry's beliefs rather than her policies, prompting criticism about
Speaker 1: the ethics of intentionally using religious bias in political attacks.
Speaker 1: Henry continues to counter these claims by emphasizing her ideas,
Speaker 1: which appeal to a broad based of Floridians regardless of
Speaker 1: religious background. The story is from The Friendly Atheist by
Speaker 1: him and Metta on October sixteenth, twenty twenty four. And
Speaker 1: so I want to take this first to Kelly. Kelly
Speaker 1: Smith claims that Henry's beliefs or lack thereof, and her
Speaker 1: association with the American Humanis Humanist Association disqualifies her from office.
Speaker 1: Do his claims hold water? He says, knowing exactly what
Speaker 1: Kelly's going to say.
Speaker 2: You know what, First off, let's let's define humanism, right,
Speaker 2: And I've got it written down here because I'm dumb
Speaker 2: and I wouldn't have remembered it. Humanist beliefs strust the
Speaker 2: potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs,
Speaker 2: and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. Holy shit, Wow,
Speaker 2: what a crazy radical idea that is the radically Would
Speaker 2: you want that in our politics?
Speaker 3: Holy correct?
Speaker 2: We got to keep that out of here. I want
Speaker 2: to say, this guy has like the mentality of an NPC,
Speaker 2: but it's more like he has the mentality of a
Speaker 2: whole in the ground and not a frustrating dog one.
Speaker 2: Even Yeah, I just don't get it. I why, like
Speaker 2: I said, why are those values that would not fit
Speaker 2: right into politics?
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 2: I have no idea why.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Steven, let's take it. Let's take it over
Speaker 1: to you. Then, Mudslinging has been a common political tactic
Speaker 1: as long as there's been politics, right, So what do
Speaker 1: you affect do you think this tactic will have in
Speaker 1: this case?
Speaker 4: And what could we do to mitigate those effects?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 5: It just it's so it's so gross. I don't know,
Speaker 5: like maybe maybe I just have my head in the stand,
Speaker 5: but I just I personally don't get exposed to this
Speaker 5: type of vitol vitriol in political advertising in anywhere. I
Speaker 5: don't know if that's just because Canadians are less prone
Speaker 5: to such, but this just seems like the perfect way
Speaker 5: to disenfranchise people from the whole process because nobody wants
Speaker 5: that kind of toxic nobody, no healthy person wants that
Speaker 5: kind of talxity in their sphere, within their identity, within
Speaker 5: their political identity. Right, So you know, it means that
Speaker 5: we're going to, you know, keep intelligent people away, We're
Speaker 5: going to keep stupid people in rage, and I'm going
Speaker 5: to keep empowered people in charge. That's all that this
Speaker 5: kind of garbage accomplishes, really and just makes the whole
Speaker 5: discourse the whole dialogue watered down from what exactly should
Speaker 5: be focused on them. It should be looking at public policy.
Speaker 5: Now it's just flinging crap about what this person is
Speaker 5: or isn't and trying to, you know, gin up some
Speaker 5: fear about what it could possibly mean, using buzzwords that
Speaker 5: people think that they understand.
Speaker 4: I think you do about it.
Speaker 2: I don't know, right, like building these these evil straw
Speaker 2: man stereotype atheists that are out to get all Christians
Speaker 2: that you know the guy's talking about. So, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 2: I totally agree with what Stephen just said.
Speaker 1: Well, it seems like that's kind of the low hanging
Speaker 1: psychological fruit, right. I mean, people react like there's knee
Speaker 1: jerk reaction if you say certain words, and so hey,
Speaker 1: I'll just say those words and and uh, you know
Speaker 1: that'll make everything happen, right, Uh, let's over to to sorry,
Speaker 1: go ahead say that again, Stephen, Just.
Speaker 5: That there are people whose brains are wired to respond
Speaker 5: that way. If you are motivated by fear, and then
Speaker 5: hope that is triggered in my brain. Okay, I gotta
Speaker 5: I got to do something now, And like that's that's
Speaker 5: a part of our society as well, we can't just
Speaker 5: say well, sorry, no, stupid people allowed to get stupid
Speaker 5: people don't get to vote. But what it's complex, complex.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to I want to jump to Damien
Speaker 1: real quick here. Damien, we've been kind of hinting that
Speaker 1: maybe this type of thing should be restricted in some way,
Speaker 1: although you know, once you get down to the nuts
Speaker 1: and bolts, it might be a little tricky. Could you
Speaker 1: add anything about mud slinging as a tactic in general,
Speaker 1: and about harm from such a tactic and how could
Speaker 1: it be mitigated?
Speaker 3: Mud Slinging is a tactic is as old as politics itself.
Speaker 3: Is the uh yeah is mob's aviation And look, American
Speaker 3: politics will do American politics things. And in a deep
Speaker 3: red state like Florida, it's almost a feature, not a bug,
Speaker 3: that someone will use the battleground of religion to push
Speaker 3: why they should be voted in and not the other person.
Speaker 3: In terms of mudslinging, unfortunately, unless you want to literally
Speaker 3: control what everybody says, you know, sentence by sentence, word
Speaker 3: by word, then yeah, I don't think you are ever
Speaker 3: going to stop a mudsling But I think the best
Speaker 3: way to stop mudslinging is by a stop rewarding it,
Speaker 3: and to educate the public to be more literate with
Speaker 3: how politics works, because for the vast majority of people,
Speaker 3: they don't understand exactly how politics works, the nature of parliament,
Speaker 3: the voting system, things like that. Whereas for us who
Speaker 3: are a bit more politically is stue to understand these
Speaker 3: things and actually who actually have an active interest, Yeah,
Speaker 3: we see this and go oh, he's just you know,
Speaker 3: he's just throwing mud to the wall and seeing what sticks.
Speaker 3: Whereas to the average person who is you know, only
Speaker 3: slightly politically engaged, you know that they will see, you
Speaker 3: know that the flyer in the letterbox and go oh,
Speaker 3: this person says, you know, children are doing witchcraft or
Speaker 3: stuff like that. So I think that the way we
Speaker 3: stop mudslinging is one to stop rewarding it and to
Speaker 3: teach people to be more engaged in civil politics.
Speaker 4: So knowledge is power kind of a thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah indeed. And so look, look, if you see the
Speaker 3: mud slinging that David Smith and his ilk are doing
Speaker 3: and you like what he says, okay, you have the
Speaker 3: freedom to vote for him because you like his policies, right,
Speaker 3: But I think the other way to stop it is
Speaker 3: to enact an authoritarian regime that literally dictates what you
Speaker 3: can and can't say, like you have to have your
Speaker 3: messages approved by some higher power, in which case it
Speaker 3: becomes that's almost you know, I wouldn't want to say
Speaker 3: fascists as a as a trophe would, but you know,
Speaker 3: when when the government controls what you can and can't say,
Speaker 3: I think that enters a very dangerous territory.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, definitely I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: That's it's it's definitely something that it's easier said than done.
Speaker 1: If we say we want this to be restricted or
Speaker 1: regulated some way, that's one thing, but then you know,
Speaker 1: when the rubber meets the road, it's a different thing.
Speaker 1: And so it might be it would be hard to
Speaker 1: do that without stamping on other rights that we would
Speaker 1: value and and hold as something worthy. Kelly, I want
Speaker 1: to go over to you for a second. Steven mentioned
Speaker 1: that just some people just think that way, right, and
Speaker 1: so it's a it's a question of human psychology here,
Speaker 1: and so would you would you say that people that
Speaker 1: use these types of smear tact we know that they work.
Speaker 1: We know that these types of negative ads are effective
Speaker 1: in drawing voters, and so do you think that they're
Speaker 1: just hitting low the belt or do you think that
Speaker 1: they're being very savvy politicians or savvy uh candidates here
Speaker 1: in utilizing I was going to say manipulating, but you
Speaker 1: could you could take this interpret this.
Speaker 4: I interpret this in two different ways.
Speaker 1: Either you could view it as manipulating or you could
Speaker 1: view it as interpreting or even catering to the human psyche.
Speaker 1: What's your what's your take on that is this? Is
Speaker 1: this just bad politics or is it good psychology?
Speaker 2: It's you know, it's both. Actually, if you think about it,
Speaker 2: it's good politics and good psychology, right because it's working,
Speaker 2: so it's good politics. It's a it's a shit backing
Speaker 2: up shitty ideals, but it's working, so for for politics,
Speaker 2: it's good. It's so funny that you would just ask
Speaker 2: me this too, because Steven had mentioned that some people
Speaker 2: are kind of wired that way. And I was just
Speaker 2: having a conversation this morning about a sociologist from Canada, Manitoba,
Speaker 2: actually Bob Altmeyer, and he did a lot of studies
Speaker 2: and authoritarian mindsets and his work was fascinating, you know,
Speaker 2: and I couldn't remember if he was from Manitoba or
Speaker 2: Alberta to be honest with you, so he would and
Speaker 2: look him up, and sadly I found out he passed
Speaker 2: away last February. But I mean, he did some really,
Speaker 2: really amazing work on authoritarian mindsets and he found that
Speaker 2: there were actually two groups of people. And that's why
Speaker 2: I said, you can go ahead and say exploit, because
Speaker 2: that's what one of the groups of people do. They're
Speaker 2: the authorities, and they exploit the people who need to
Speaker 2: have an authority figure over them. They really cannot function
Speaker 2: in a society without being told what to do, and
Speaker 2: there are people who will come along and exploit that.
Speaker 2: And that's why people like this guy right here is
Speaker 2: so popular with his voters is because he's got a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of people who have an authoritarian mindset that
Speaker 2: need to be told what to do, and he's coming
Speaker 2: along being the big bully and it's working. It's great
Speaker 2: politics and it's great psychology.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, fair enough, Steven, I want to We've been
Speaker 1: talking about the handed it and about the victim candidate
Speaker 1: as well, But what's the media's responsibility in this.
Speaker 4: The media is providing the platform, is uh.
Speaker 1: The media is the is the tool that's being used
Speaker 1: to enact these types of ads and attacks and so forth.
Speaker 1: What's their responsibility and in uh, in making sure information
Speaker 1: is presented accurately and in context and so forth.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Like it's it's uh, it's it's a bit of
Speaker 5: a hot potato, right. I know. One ruling that recently
Speaker 5: past here in Canada that hasn't been popular is now
Speaker 5: a social media sites such as Facebook, you are not
Speaker 5: allowed to post links to news articles in and disseminate
Speaker 5: those through your Facebook feed. And that's you know, met
Speaker 5: with you know, reactions from both sides saying, well why
Speaker 5: why why is it being censored this way? But at
Speaker 5: the same time, it's like it's it's at least one
Speaker 5: way that social media is being held accountable for for
Speaker 5: the potential for spreading misinformation? Uh?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Should should media companies be held responsible for the messaging
Speaker 5: that they are putting out there? Like if they're a megaphone,
Speaker 5: do you sue the megaphone company for the messages that
Speaker 5: are being blasted out through that megaphone? I don't. I
Speaker 5: don't think it's going to be that simple, especially knowing
Speaker 5: that they media companies are run by humans, and they
Speaker 5: are run by humans who want to be rich. Like,
Speaker 5: no matter which way you slice it, there's going to
Speaker 5: be people who can benefit and people who can be
Speaker 5: you know, negatively impacted by these kinds of actions. And
Speaker 5: so it's it's going to come down to money. Media,
Speaker 5: isn't it's a free enterprise. It's no, it's not the
Speaker 5: easy solution.
Speaker 1: Right right, Damien, I want you to to build on
Speaker 1: what Stephen was just saying. So Stephen was suggesting that
Speaker 1: you know, that's that's that's just the way it is.
Speaker 1: You know that that's you know, we're just gonna it's
Speaker 1: gonna it's a difficult it's a hot potato, he said.
Speaker 1: And so we need to be careful when it comes
Speaker 1: to regulating or restricting free press, which is part of
Speaker 1: our First Amendment along with the freedom of religion. And so,
Speaker 1: but do you think that we as a as a community,
Speaker 1: as as consumers should expect media to maybe police themselves
Speaker 1: rather than being you know, having restrictions infringed from without
Speaker 1: from the government.
Speaker 4: Would that be?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 1: Could that there was a day when when news organizations
Speaker 1: would strive to have integrity and have a solid reputation
Speaker 1: for for bringing the truth and for and for helping
Speaker 1: people and for educating the public. Do you think that
Speaker 1: those days are lost or do you think that they
Speaker 1: would be welcomed back, if, if, if, even if there
Speaker 1: was somebody trying it, which there probably is, but obviously
Speaker 1: they're not very well known or not not one of
Speaker 1: the biggies, right, and so do you think that maybe
Speaker 1: some self regulation is an expect that's realistic?
Speaker 3: Well, look in the establishment media already, like with TV,
Speaker 3: radio and print, there are already codes of conduct that
Speaker 3: the that the media companies have to abide by as well.
Speaker 3: So and given the fact that social media sites are
Speaker 3: essentially another form of media, I don't see the problem
Speaker 3: too much of a problem with with them having to
Speaker 3: add disia policies. I think one of the biggest problems though,
Speaker 3: is is when you have jurisdictions that make laws on
Speaker 3: what a multinational, multinational social media site can and can't do.
Speaker 3: So Stephen was saying that in Canada, you know, there's
Speaker 3: certain laws that Facebook have to apply by there. We
Speaker 3: are also talking about the same thing down here in
Speaker 3: Australia as well, not just on a federal level, but
Speaker 3: on a state level as well. So I think one
Speaker 3: of the biggest challenges you have is that how do
Speaker 3: you how does a government stop a person in the
Speaker 3: dung hole Wisconsin from you know, violating you know, from
Speaker 3: violating a policy that's enacted by a Canadian government about
Speaker 3: a company that's based in California. You know, you have
Speaker 3: all these different or all these different things. So I
Speaker 3: think we have to I don't think the solution is
Speaker 3: shutting down voices. I think the better solution is a
Speaker 3: plurality of voices as well, so people have the ability
Speaker 3: to weigh up. You know, what is a source saying
Speaker 3: where are they getting the information from? You know, is
Speaker 3: there a financial benefit to this person posting this political story?
Speaker 3: Is there a political bias? You know, things like that.
Speaker 3: I think the better education is not to restrict speech,
Speaker 3: but to open it up. But teach people how to
Speaker 3: be how to judge nw ones, how to discern, how
Speaker 3: to see where, how to balance sources, how teaching people
Speaker 3: how to be critical is how I think that we
Speaker 3: should go about it.
Speaker 4: Sorry, go ahead, Kelley.
Speaker 2: I'd like to say. The problem they see with that,
Speaker 2: that is the George Caylin dilemma. Right, that have common senses,
Speaker 2: the average intelligence isn't very smart and half the people
Speaker 2: are dumber than that, So you're never going to be
Speaker 2: able to teach half the people that how to find
Speaker 2: how to tell if it's a good source. Plus, we're
Speaker 2: going to have this certain population and we were just
Speaker 2: talking about that, Robert Oldmeyers studied that aren't even going
Speaker 2: to bother the Look, they're just going to take the
Speaker 2: authority figure's word for it and say, yeah, he's right,
Speaker 2: because you know, he told me he was and he's
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, But I suppose a lot you're always going
Speaker 3: to have that problem in society. Like even if you
Speaker 3: were in a society like let's say Harvard or you know,
Speaker 3: Oxford or you know, somewhere where there's like a world
Speaker 3: class educational institution, and even inside those educational institutions you
Speaker 3: have people with downright crazy silly ideas as well.
Speaker 5: So right, right, yeah, Well, I'm just curious, like when
Speaker 5: I hear plurality, maybe there needs to be you know,
Speaker 5: the right wing fear mongering. Maybe there needs to be
Speaker 5: you know, the essal you know, like let's look at
Speaker 5: this critical and maybe there needs be like left wing
Speaker 5: fear mongering that you know that those people as well. Yeah, maybe, right,
Speaker 5: I'm not. It doesn't seem to me that it's as
Speaker 5: as thick, as heavy, as hard.
Speaker 2: No it's not. It's not anywhere near as popular, but
Speaker 2: it's definitely out there.
Speaker 5: And that's the idea of the Overton window, right that
Speaker 5: you know, when you have two positions that you know,
Speaker 5: you'll kind you want to uh, you'll end up in
Speaker 5: the middle somewhere, ye, Right. If we have political figures
Speaker 5: who are like, hey, if I stretch this far enough,
Speaker 5: that means that the middle will move in accordance. And
Speaker 5: so maybe is the response then to like, okay, let's
Speaker 5: get really extreme and talk about these uh, you know extreme,
Speaker 5: these blood cult extremists who want to you know, enforce
Speaker 5: their religion. Well, will that have the opposite effect? Will
Speaker 5: that garner them more boats?
Speaker 1: I don't know, right right, Yeah, I mean I think
Speaker 1: that we I can. I can hear what you're saying,
Speaker 1: and I agree we definitely need to uh present the
Speaker 1: critical mind, the the the thoughtful mind, the reasonable mind.
Speaker 1: As a math teacher, I can say that I know
Speaker 1: full well that human nature is to be lazy thinkers.
Speaker 1: I say that all the time. Don't be a lazy thinker.
Speaker 1: Think hard thing, you know, think difficult things, and so
Speaker 1: Steven think harder and and so we want to we
Speaker 1: want to make sure that we want to encourage people
Speaker 1: to not shy away from from the difficult tasks of Well,
Speaker 1: I suppose that's wasn't that JFK Right. We're not doing
Speaker 1: this because it's easy. We're doing it because it's difficult.
Speaker 1: And and that's kind of the same thing too. If
Speaker 1: we want to, uh, if we want to have if
Speaker 1: we want to have that integrity, if as a nation,
Speaker 1: not just as a as a media outlet, but if
Speaker 1: we want to have that integrity and that uh, that respect,
Speaker 1: we need to show that we're willing to put in
Speaker 1: the time and and to put and to make the
Speaker 1: effort to to understand the situation we're in.
Speaker 4: We have this, uh, at least for now.
Speaker 1: We have this democratic system in the United States where
Speaker 1: people get to express their votes and to participate in
Speaker 1: the government.
Speaker 4: And so I think, you.
Speaker 1: Know, at least part of the reasoning behind things like
Speaker 1: public education and that kind of thing is we want
Speaker 1: an educated population. And so it's easy to see that
Speaker 1: we all want to kind of push things in this
Speaker 1: direction where people aren't afraid to do the to do
Speaker 1: the thinking to consider different positions in different directions. Is
Speaker 1: that something that's possible. Maybe that can be kind of
Speaker 1: our closing question here. We'll start with Kelly first, Do
Speaker 1: you think that Do you think we're just wasting our
Speaker 1: time trying to encourage people to think critically and to
Speaker 1: be to.
Speaker 4: Utilize reason and that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Do you think we're wasting our time and that people
Speaker 1: are just going to default to the easiest route no
Speaker 1: matter what.
Speaker 2: I had that That to me is a two part question, right,
Speaker 2: yes and no. I think again, I think there's a
Speaker 2: certain population that we could talk to until we're blue
Speaker 2: in the face and are never going to freaking get
Speaker 2: it right. But I think there is also a growing
Speaker 2: population of people that are that can here and they
Speaker 2: are listening, and they are educating themselves. And if you
Speaker 2: don't know how to educate yourself, if you've never done
Speaker 2: it before, great way to start is pick up a hobby,
Speaker 2: start to start educating yourself about something that you like
Speaker 2: a lot, and that'll teach you how to educate yourself,
Speaker 2: and then you can start getting into the other some
Speaker 2: of the other things that you should be learning about.
Speaker 1: So damn straight and coming from a self made scientist too, Kelly,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's a well taken that's a point well
Speaker 1: taken there. I want to jump over to Steven. Do
Speaker 1: you think Kelly's on point there? Do you think this
Speaker 1: is a something that can be done as somebody who
Speaker 1: spends a lot of time trying to communicate with people,
Speaker 1: trying to present ideas in such a way that so
Speaker 1: that others can understand them clearly? Do you think we're
Speaker 1: wasting our time with this? Do you think people are
Speaker 1: gonna Like earlier tonight Damien said Americans are going to
Speaker 1: American or I can't remember exactly how you said it,
Speaker 1: but are we kind of stuck in this rutter?
Speaker 4: Or can we? Is this a winnable fight here?
Speaker 5: Like, I don't. I don't think it's necessarily the end result,
Speaker 5: the outcome that matters most. It's the journey, right, Like,
Speaker 5: if somebody needs to be doing this in order for
Speaker 5: humans to survive for as thrive for as long as possible,
Speaker 5: we need to be doing that hard work. So yeah,
Speaker 5: like even if we don't, if even if it isn't
Speaker 5: a battle to be won, it's what we accomplish along
Speaker 5: the way that that matters. So hitting yeah, like, yeah,
Speaker 5: even if we don't get every person thinking the way
Speaker 5: that they should be, if we don't do the work
Speaker 5: that we're supposed to, then what chance is there that
Speaker 5: we're going to get anybody to do something. It's not
Speaker 5: the outcome that matters, but it's out what we're doing
Speaker 5: along the way.
Speaker 1: All right, Damien, I'll give you the last word. You've
Speaker 1: heard what Kelly and Stephen have to say about that.
Speaker 1: What what are your thoughts? Is this a is this
Speaker 1: a worthy battle? Or is this a lost battle?
Speaker 4: Already?
Speaker 3: Well, look, human history has been is carried on the
Speaker 3: backs of those who see the need for change and
Speaker 3: are willing to do something about it. However, I don't
Speaker 3: think like this problem has been going on for you know, millennia,
Speaker 3: as long as there have been societies of people who
Speaker 3: believe things you have. Yeah, you'll always have a certain
Speaker 3: section of the population that will believe extreme things, be
Speaker 3: on the left or the right, and you do have
Speaker 3: some smart people who believe some crazy things in general
Speaker 3: as well. So I think that the best way is
Speaker 3: to get your voice out there and try clearly explain
Speaker 3: your position, but also be willing to listen to other
Speaker 3: people's positions in case you get something wrong.
Speaker 1: I think that's a great way to end the segment.
Speaker 1: Get your voice out there be heard. But I also
Speaker 1: be willing to listen.