Podcasts/Sacred Tension-STReactionaryTrapFINAL

From The Satanic Wiki
Revision as of 08:06, 11 October 2022 by Maintenance script (talk | contribs) (Transcription of Sacred Tension podcast audio.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

STReactionaryTrapFINAL SUMMARY KEYWORDS people, reactionary, left, ideas, social media, lindsay, principles, progressive, happening, helpful, point, persuasion, thinking, push, agree, problem, world, twitter, online, climate change SPEAKERS Stephen Bradford Long, Seth Moskowitz

Stephen Bradford Long 00:00 You're listening to a rock candy podcast this is sacred tension, the podcast about the discipline of asking questions. My name is Steven Bradford long, and we are here on the rock candy Podcast Network. For more shows like this one, go to rock candy recordings.com All right, well in this episode, I am incredibly excited to talk to Seth Moskowitz from persuasion magazine about his article the reactionary trap. I think it's incredibly useful. But before we get to that, I have to thank my patrons. My patrons are my personal lords and saviors. So if you would like to support my crippling content creation addiction, so I don't have to do unspeakable things on the street, then go to patreon.com forward slash Steven Bradford long. For $1 $3 $5 a month you get extra content every single week and you also get access to my patrons only podcast house of heretics where myself a satanist and my co host Timothy McPherson, a former Salvation Army officer turned Christian heretic discuss what's going on in the world. We talk about politics, we talk about religion, we talk about philosophy, we talk about the latest news this week, we talked about the horrible horrible news out of the Supreme Court. So we discuss whatever is going on in the world from our unique sometimes dissonant perspective. So if that is interesting to you, then please become a patron and every little bit helps. This is a one man operation here. I do all of the booking all of the writing, all of the recording all of the editing, it's a lot of work. But I believe in bringing this to the public for free because we need interesting and engaging conversations. I need your help to keep it going for this week. I have to thank the patrons King zombie, a doses start and lunar loon. Thank you so much. I truly could not do this without you. Alright, with all of that finally out of the way, Seth Moskowitz, thank you so much for joining me.

Seth Moskowitz 02:21 I so appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks for having me. I'm very excited to be here.

Stephen Bradford Long 02:25 So tell us some about who you are and what you do.

Seth Moskowitz 02:27 Yeah. So, I'm Seth, I'm an editor at persuasion magazine. And I do some freelance writing as well. persuasions, a substack newsletter that essentially focuses on contemporary politics, from a small l liberal perspective. So we have pieces from the left and from the right, trying to understand current politics, internationally and domestically here in the States, all coming from a small l perspective.

Stephen Bradford Long 02:53 And when you say small l liberal perspective, what do you mean by that?

Seth Moskowitz 02:57 Yeah. So I mean, when you when you say small l liberal, essentially what you're saying is perspective of the politics and of government that takes the first priority of those institutions to be maximizing individual freedom, essentially, a rights based individual system,

Stephen Bradford Long 03:13 right. So it, it focuses, I always like to think of small l liberalism as kind of focusing on the two furthest poles of human identity being the individual and our universal humanity. And so it's like emphasizing the, you know, individual rights, individual freedoms and kind of our our shared humanity as the most important identity that we share together. Would you say that that's like, a good way of thinking about small l liberalism?

Seth Moskowitz 03:45 Yeah, I think that that's a good way. You know, this is actually something that I sometimes have a hard time with, because it's such a loose concept, and a constellation of ideas. That is, you really have to try to tie together because it comes from a long history of philosophical ideas and government institutions. And sometimes it's hard to say like, what, what is a liberal society or what is a liberal? But I think that's a pretty good way to do it. You know, I think on the one side, there's, there's liberals who say that the prior priority should be maximizing individual freedom. And then maybe on the other side would be communitarian to say that the primary goal of society should be to search for the common good. And I think in some ways, those are kind of the poles as I see them.

Stephen Bradford Long 04:28 I'm a big fan of persuasion. I've been reading it since it first started and it is started by Yoshua monk. Is that right? Is he the founder? Yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yasha monk is a fascinating guy. He writes a lot about like totalitarianism. And yeah, so it's, uh, and I've learned a lot from the persuasion community like I've I find it a really engaging and gently gently pushes me to consider press effectives that maybe I haven't previously. So I really, really, really love persuasion. You wrote a fantastic article, I believe it was earlier this year. Was it in January? January 14? Is Yeah, yeah. So So you wrote an article called the reactionary trap. And you, I found this article so helpful for understanding, like the story arcs of so many people online, and some of the intellectual pitfalls that I have noticed myself falling into over the years. And it is such a helpful heuristic for understanding so much so. So at the beginning of this article, you start with a story about a guy named James Lindsay. So tell us who James Lindsay is, and, and what you witnessed on Twitter with James Lindsay,

Seth Moskowitz 05:55 telling you who James Lindsay is, is tough. So I guess it's best to go back. I think it was in 2017, or maybe 2018. Him and a few colleagues, he was a pretty normal, progressive, I think he was he called himself a liberal. And he and a few colleagues worked together to write fake research papers that they ended up submitting to national journals, and the research papers that they wrote that were kind of that that were blatantly fake, were kind of going too far on the social justice agenda. They took things to the extreme. And their goal was to show that these journals and the liberal intellectuals were not serious people, and they weren't taking the work seriously. They kind of swallow anything at all that was in that far left progressive milieu. And that's an interesting project, you know, it's kind of interesting to say, and learn, like how what what will these journals accept? And how far are they willing to go to accept the new progressive dogma that's been floating around. And so that's how he first got his name out there. But then progressively from around 2017, to 2022, he just slowly started getting more radical and strange and the things he was posting until the point where he was radically against anything that was coming from the progressive social justice side of the spectrum. And essentially, he turned it into a troll, like from 2017, when he was somewhat normal liberal, had interesting critiques of, if you can call it workplace or social justice, and then fast forward to 2021 or 2022. And essentially, his whole persona online is making fun of people who are progressive and seriously over exaggerating the harms that wokeness might have to the point where he's saying that there's going to be some kind of civil war, or maybe that people who are woke are trying to commit some kind of a genocide against white women to the point where he's really gone off the rails from a few years ago when he was a relatively interesting person to listen to.

Stephen Bradford Long 07:57 Yeah, you have here, looking through Lindsay's Twitter history is like watching a train coming off its tracks and then later in 2021, he warned that a literal death cold is running the Western world into the ground right now and claimed that critical theory approaches to education are meant to psychologically damage your children, so they can be used in a revolution that will rob us all of our freedoms. He has gone so far as to declare that inclusion COVID policy and justice are Trojan horses for communism. Yeah, so and I had the same experience with James Lindsay where so I read his book cynical theories with Helen pluck rose and by the way, I have interviewed Helen pluck rose. She's super interesting, and I still don't know what I think of the book cynical theories and I don't know entirely, I'm still kind of forming my thoughts on Helen's critiques and, and whatnot, and whether I think they have merit or not, so I'm still figuring that all out. But all that aside, their book is not conspiratorial. So I read cynical theories and found it a critique. I found it a, a good, thoughtful, challenging critique. That doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, but it wasn't flying off the rails. And then I get online, and I'm like, Okay, I'm going to I'm going to hunt down James Lindsay and find him online. And I found his Twitter feed it it was just so absolutely fucking bonkers. You describe this process as being the reactionary trap. What is the reactionary trap?

Seth Moskowitz 09:49 Yeah, so the reaction so it's essentially I think, people traditionally think of reactionaries as always coming from the right. It's a political ideology that people think that only concern lives are susceptible to this way of thinking. Because essentially what a reactionary is, is someone who sees the past in some way as something that we should try to get back to this, they have an attempt in an intense nostalgia for some previous historical area or some social order. And they say, oh, okay, this is what I what I want to go back to. And something that comes along with that oftentimes, is a reflexive opposition to whatever kind of progress is happening today. And so the reactionary trap, I think, is when people who are who see themselves as progressive, or on the left side of the political spectrum, they see themselves as immune to becoming a reactionary. And because of that, they, they are totally oblivious to these ways of thinking that are hallmarks of reactionary where whatever's happening in society, the way that things are changing, maybe are a little bit scary, or are causing them to, to kind of overreact to whatever's happening. And they say, Okay, well, I'm on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm a progressive. So I am in no danger of falling into this reactionary way of thinking,

Stephen Bradford Long 11:13 right? Or they're like I am, I'm so committed to rationality, I'm so committed to you know, I'm such a clear thinker, that there's no way that I'll become reactionary. And then lo and behold, you see this arc on Twitter, you you define being reactionary as two particular things, which is becoming so preoccupied with who or what they are against, that the foundation of their politics is reflexive opposition, rather than first principles or reason, and then to vastly inflating the threat of whatever it is that they oppose driving responses disproportionate to the scale of the harms, they critique. And, you know, this makes me think of so, so much of the language I see on the right about wokeness. And I'm like, I will be the first to admit that there is a lot of dysfunction in leftist spaces. I am a leftist. And I'm gay, the the level of dysfunction that I have witnessed in socialist and LGBTQ spaces online is simply astonishing and staggering. And so I will be the first to admit that there is some extraordinary dysfunction, and backstabbing and fighting and false accusations and all of that stuff within leftist spaces. But then I see people on the right say, this is a threat to civilization. And I'm like, Okay, I'm going to need you to walk me through the steps from A to Z from there's dysfunction on the left that needs to be addressed to this is a threat to Western civilization like that, if that's the kind of catastrophizing that you're referring to something can be a problem without it being an existential threat.

Seth Moskowitz 13:05 Yeah, absolutely. I think if you go on, I don't want to go back to James Lindsay. But sometimes it's helpful, especially because I think he's,

Stephen Bradford Long 13:13 he's such an illustrative example, though. So yeah, go.

Seth Moskowitz 13:17 Especially because, because him and I know that, hey, you said you had Helen on the podcast, I think they're the way that they kind of diverged and split off is so illustrative of the two routes that you can kind of take as a thoughtful, progressive, who's maybe kind of skeptical of a lot of these ideas that are coming from the social justice work arena. So I think it's kind of helpful to go go back to the kind of dichotomy there. But anyways, so if you look at James Lindsay's Twitter feed, I think if you distilled it down maybe to like, the very essence of what was in one of those tweets that was maybe like, I'm concerned about children being taught something about race in schools. I personally would be like, Okay, maybe there's something there that I can agree with. There's I'd also be skeptical maybe of teaching students that their race is important that they should the first one of the first things they should notice about their classmates is what they look like or what the race is, when you see James Lindsay's tweet, the thing he's saying is, they're trying to build an army of children who are going to come destroy the social order we know today for something like that. Where it's like, maybe there's something there. That's kind of true. But he takes it so far and vastly placed the threat to the point where it's just like this is nowhere on the plane of reality. And I think that's like you said those two key tenants were one you lose sight of what you're for and you lose sight of your principles. And to become you become so fearful of what you're against the you inflate the thread, to proportion that's just unrealistic. Those are the things that make reactionary a problem because I think sometimes reactionary put the idea that something in the past was better It isn't always wrong, if sometimes maybe progressive. Today, we'll look back to the 50s and 60s and look at the union representation. So that's something we want to go back to, which I don't think is, is inherently, it's not inherently wrong to look back and say maybe something was better in the past. But it's these two other ideas where you kind of, can become unable to handle any nuance in combination with wanting to go back to something in the past, that makes it a more harmful ideology.

Stephen Bradford Long 15:31 Yeah. And it's, it's the betrayal of reason. Because the past isn't valuable, because it's the past elements in the past are valuable, because they are reasonable to return to. And so the past has nothing to do with it. It has entirely to do with where do our first principles lead us? Where do our principles of, of reason, and compassion and equality lead us? And that might lead us to say, Okay, there's something in the present that's broken, and maybe something we did 50 years ago worked better. So we will go back to that it has nothing to do with, with an idealization of the past itself.

Seth Moskowitz 16:11 Yeah. And I think I think that's helpful, because we have 1000s of years of history to learn from, and like you said, like the thing, we can look back at history and say, Oh, this is actually a pretty good time period, maybe this is something that that was working for them. And you don't inherently say, oh, we need to go back to the past, because it was the past need to look and say, Okay, this is what they were doing the past. Let's look at it with reason with are the principles and the things that we value today and think through and have a discussion of, is this something we want to go back to, rather than just letting your reflexes have some kind of fear, or reflexive opposition to progressive change that's happening today, kind of push you into this mindset where you say, anything that's new, anything that's changing is, is bad. So the alternative is to jump back 20 years or jump back to the way things were before? Do you have

Stephen Bradford Long 17:05 any examples of how this reactionary trap the trap of over inflating the harm? To the degree that people abandon their first principles? Any other examples on the left? Because we all know that the right does this, we all know that, that there are, you know, raging lunatics on the right, who are absolutely fucking terrifying. Any other examples of movements or individuals that you can think of on the left? Who Who are illustrative of this?

Seth Moskowitz 17:37 Yeah, it you're right, it is harder to find examples on the left. But I think one that's pretty illustrative is the anti Growth Movement. I'm not sure if you're familiar, I have never heard of this, what is this? So it's essentially people who are, are so worried about climate change, which obviously, is a valid concern, that they think that we need to shrink the economy and work against human population, we need to shrink the size of human population, we need to eliminate machines and cars, and any sort of technology that is causing climate change to the point where we need to actually start shrinking our economy that rather than having positive GDP, and continuing economic expansion, the way that we're going to solve climate change, is to shrink the GDP back to what it was maybe 20 or 30 years ago. So rather than innovation and trying to create new technologies that will be able to deal with climate change, by eliminating the need for fossil fuels, their responses, we need to actually shrink the number of people who are in existence, and we need to D grow and grow shrink the economy. So that will stop eliminate, it will stop polluting the earth and causing climate change.

Stephen Bradford Long 18:52 When you say first principles, what do you mean by that?

Seth Moskowitz 18:56 So for me first principles, I think, come back come back down to a lot of the ideas that are embedded in in small liberalism. So the idea that our society, the the first goal, and first principles of our society should be focused around making sure that individuals have the freedom to live the lives that they want to. So that's, that's where I come from with my first principles. I think, generally in America, individualism is an important principle that we all have commitment to democracy, freedom of speech, and the value of open inquiry and open discussion, the value valuing humans as individuals, rather than as members of groups, and solely as avatars of their skin color, their sex or their gender. I think all of these are first principles that I am drawn towards, and that I sort of use to build my political philosophy. And I'm not saying that everybody has to share the same ones that I do. But I think that it's important in general to have these sorts of principles that you that you use as a framework for building your Political worldview, rather than just going with your gut instinct, because that oftentimes just isn't the right way to go because humans are at root, we're, we're evolutionary created animals that have instincts that are sometimes not right for contemporary society. And so you have to try to build your worldview from something a little bit deeper.

Stephen Bradford Long 20:23 Yeah, yeah, I'm, I'm right there with you. And when you say, woke, so at the big we've been, we've been throwing around this word woke, which I think has become kind of a trigger word. So you know, some people will hear us say, Whoa, can be like, Oh, my God, these, you know, these white conservative bros, using woke as an insult. And, and they might not be wrong, because the word woke has has become weaponized. So when you use the word woke, what do you mean by that?

Seth Moskowitz 20:54 I 100% agree with you. It's, it's a hard word. Because in some ways, it's descriptive. But I think a lot of times, if you ask somebody to define it, they're going to struggle for words. Yeah. So when I say it, I guess I'm, I'm thinking of something pretty specific. And it's this ideology. On the left, let's become focused to the point of exclusion of any other sort of principles, on the idea of oppression, and of oppressors. So essentially, when I think of people who are woke, they see the world as divided in between oppressors and oppressed. And essentially, on any dimension, you can divide the world into those two camps, and one side is good, and one side is bad, we need to be helping one side and punishing the other. And the one thing that I layer on top of that is that it's a sort of performance. So you need to show other people that you're believing in this ideology, and this worldview. And you it's not something that you can do internally. Because if you have this idea of maybe the world is divided between oppressors and oppressed, and we need to work. Our first our first priority, the most important thing we need to be doing is to be helping the oppressed. And that's, I would say, that's an interesting ideology, I wouldn't say that's wokeness. I think wokeness is when you're putting on a performance to show other people that you're good that you're moral, and that you are on the same team as them.

Stephen Bradford Long 22:19 I can't wait to hear the response to that from from my audience and see what debates emerge about the definition of brokenness. So everyone in my Discord server, please let me know what you think of that I can't wait to see I'm curious,

Seth Moskowitz 22:30 what do you have a definition that you go by?

Stephen Bradford Long 22:33 So for me, I don't know what people mean, when they say the word woke, and yet I find myself using it. I find, I think wokeness is kind of the, the ideological child of thinkers like Kimberly Crenshaw, and Delgado, and Michel Foucault, and so on. And, and I'm not going and I don't dismiss it wholesale. I think that there are some really, there are some really interesting insights there. But neither is it sacrosanct. You know, and this is one of the things that I always want to push back against is just, just because the right is turning something like critical race theory into this absolute monster that is coming for all our children, does not mean that we have to respond by by term by making it infallible, it's like, no, it's just a school of thought there are going to be some good ideas, and they're going to be some bad ideas there. And it's like, we can keep our heads about us and still, rationally parse the schools of thought. And so I, I think I would call myself moderately woke, in that. I think that stuff like intersectionality, within certain context is a really helpful tool. And it might not be a helpful tool in every context, and may be taken in certain directions, it actually works against its own causes, and its own goals. And it's like, this stuff is complicated. And there's no I don't think that there's any school of thought that is 100% true or above criticism. And so that that's kind of how I approach wokeness is, it's just any other I see it as an ideological thing. I see it as being in line with like, being the children being the child of like, Judith Butler, and, and Bell Hooks, and all of those people. It is interesting. Yeah, yeah, go on. Go

Seth Moskowitz 24:41 on. Sorry. I was gonna say, it's interesting, because I think the vast majority of people, I actually think I just I agree with you, actually. But I think the vast majority of the people who we would call woke would have no idea who any of those thinkers.

Stephen Bradford Long 24:54 Yes, I agree. Most, I think most people have generally no idea about the intellectual roots of what they believe, is like as a general. So, you know, I, I'm at the point where I try really hard in my own writing to not use the word woke, because as much as I might wish people would not interpret it as an insult. Human nature is such that that there are certain people in my audience who will see me use the word woke, and just instantly not read any further. And so it's like, I have to choose my battles. And so instead I try to address specific ideas, and maybe not place a label on them, like what is what is the what is the specific idea that I am analyzing, I will just discuss the idea itself or the policy itself, and maybe void the labels. Yeah,

Seth Moskowitz 25:58 I think that's that's the way to go. I guess, when I was writing a piece other day, and I also really try to avoid using that word, one, because it's, as we've shown for the last five minutes, it's so vague to the point of almost being useless in, in using a piece of paper, I get publication where you can't explain what you mean. And so what I what I opted towards was the progressive turn in 2014, or 2015, towards focusing on identity and oppression. And I think that's something that is not derogatory, it's not it's kind of neutral. It's true.

Stephen Bradford Long 26:33 It is a it is a true, it is a true statement. And, you know, I guess my view of it is, there are, let me see if I can contextualize this, I recently read a fantastic illuminating blog post from several years ago by slate star Codex, where he defines what he calls mistake theorists versus conflict theorists. And I don't know if you're familiar with with this, but I found it incredibly helpful, where he described mistake theorists as believing that all of the worst things in the world come as a result of mistakes, and that we all are standing around kind of the the surgery table, the operating table, trying to fix our mutual patient, the state, the society, and some people will have good ideas, some people will have bad ideas, we all have to weigh the evidence, we figure it out together, some people will be wrong, some people will be more wrong, some people will be less wrong. But we all have to do it together. Right. And so it's it's a matter of sharing of evidence and weighing of evidence and hearing the different sides and hear it and so on and so forth. My instinct is hardcore mistake theorist. That is where I think that's my personality. And that tends to be where I live in my work is mistake theory. Conflict Theory is the belief that all of the bad things in life come from a battle between good people and bad people. And between power disparities, which means that conversate that the weighing of evidence and conversation, they could be helpful, but they will ultimately not advance the cause of justice. And so you know, he uses the example of, well, if you're talking to your boss, and trying to negotiate a raise, there's, there's going to be an innate power imbalance there. And if he is trying to throw out, you know, evidence based reasoning for why you shouldn't get a raise, well, he's probably just trying to work against you because of that power dynamic. And so he what he does really brilliantly in this post is he demonstrates how both mistake theory and conflict theory have serious blind spots within specific circumstances. So and I tend to lean towards mistake theory, on average, being the more productive approach to navigating life in the world. But power differentials do exist. And so maybe sometimes conflict theory is necessary. But what he really gets at is the fundamental clash between these two worldviews. And I think that this is part of the fundamental clash on the left, you know, there are there is this fundamental division in the left, I think, between what I would call the liberals and the leftists, between between the people who are mistake theorists and the people who are conflict theorists that we just cannot get along. And I think that it is kind of a fundamental personality difference. And I forget goodness, I forget how I got on this tangent. I was trying to explore something but I, I completely lost track of what I was. Yeah.

Seth Moskowitz 30:03 I think the thing that jumps I think one of the pieces of our political conversation that is really that everything is sort of revolving around is who is allowed to speak? And when are they allowed to speak? And I think the the dichotomy you were going at there, between mistake theorist and conflict theorist is applicable there, because something that I think is fundamental, and that I think you think is fundamental is that we should all be able to put our ideas, our ideas out there, discuss them, if you have a bad idea, you might get pushed to the side, you're, you'll lose other people, you won't win the argument. And I think that's what the mistake theorists would be advocating for is Yeah, would want versus the conflict theorists would say, we know the good ideas, we have the answers. And if you disagree with us, we're not going to have an open discourse. We shouldn't we shouldn't have discussions and let the best ideas win. Because then the bad ideas might be harmful and might hurt some people. We need to shut down the bad ideas, we need to make sure that they're not on Twitter, that they're not on podcasts, that they're not out there because they cause literal harm in the world. And I think that's a serious dividing line between the left. And I think it's something that's actually starting to split the traditional political divides that we have, and that we're familiar with. So I think, when I

Stephen Bradford Long 31:25 agree, any team on the right as well, I mean, that definitely on the right, as well, that that split is happening to Sorry, go

Seth Moskowitz 31:31 on. Yeah, no, I agree. I think it's splintering a lot of the political coalition's that we're familiar with this idea that you need to be able to have discussions and find the answers versus somebody on your team has the answers, and everyone else needs to listen. I think that's something that's going to continue dividing our politics both on the left on the right and creating interesting coalition's between the two.

Stephen Bradford Long 31:53 Yeah, yeah, well, I didn't mean to turn this conversation this into a conversation about wokeness, and the left and so on. But part of the reason why I the left and and what one might call the woke mob, is because that is the point for me at which I am tempted to turn into a reactionary. And I think that in the past, that has been true. And I think part of the reason for that is that anger is an incredibly unreliable emotion. And so if I just follow my anger, my anger is irrational, my anger is not a reliable intellectual force. And I will get angry about different things depending on who I perceive to be my in group and out group and so on. And so if I were to follow my anger, I think that I would follow James Lindsey down the rabbit hole I because at the end of the day, I am still more angry about the people on Twitter who cancelled contra points than I am about whatever you know about climate change, even though I know intellectually, that climate change is a far more horrific challenge that that, you know, many times to whatever power more of a problem than online Kancil culture but anger is irrational anger is not a valid litmus test of what is true. And so if I were to just follow my anger, I think that I would follow James Lindsay. But if I follow rationality, if I follow those first principles that I have to remember, Oh, the Supreme Court just fucking robbed, judo, the Supreme Court just just, you know, who are who are run by, you know, awful theocrats just robbed every person in this country with a womb of their potential autonomy, right? That is a way bigger issue. I don't feel it as much because I, I don't have a womb. And so anger is an unreliable emotion for politics is what I'm saying? Because that makes sense. Am I making any sense? I'm just verbally processing this as, as we're on mic together.

Seth Moskowitz 34:18 It doesn't make sense. I don't I don't know what it is. But for some reason I'm drawn to the culture war mutates us to I don't know what it is about. Maybe it's because they are the issues that get at our identity. They get at the core of what it is to be a man on American they about who can talk and who has to listen. There's something about those issues. That is that pulls you in more than tax policy or health care policy. Yes.

Stephen Bradford Long 34:46 Well, yeah, good. Sorry. Gone, gone. No, I

Seth Moskowitz 34:49 don't know what I think. And I think that's really where in a lot of ways the dividing line and politics is, is coming to be set today. So I think that is me. We also why we're both drawn to it, because it's, it's the sort of thing that if you're progressive on social issues, then you're on the left. Or even if you want lower taxes, or even if even if you are not so concerned about climate change, so maybe that's the reason why I'm so drawn to it, because it does feel like the thing that sort of splitting apart or politics and I sort of feel like, I need to find out which side I'm on, so that I can choose a team. But I don't think that that's the right way to go like it's so it's so tempting to try to join a team to try to join a club so that you can have your people and have answers that are laid out for you. And so going down to James Lindsay route, like you will have your answers definitely won't be the right ones, the good ones, but

Stephen Bradford Long 35:43 they will be they will be emotionally satisfying.

Seth Moskowitz 35:47 Exactly, you will feel some kind of righteous indignation. And I think that's something that's both the social justice people on the left and the James Lindsay is on the right, they both feel this right, righteous indignation, and the sort of revolutionary aesthetic towards the inside of them that they get so and that that's a good feeling to be, I am so right, and I am on the righteous side of this huge civilizational battle. That's something that probably feels good internally. And it's something that is it pulls me in and it seems like it pulls you in. And it's hard to push back. And so this isn't what the actually a civil civilizational fight. There's more important things going on the Supreme Court or like climate change, or people not having health care. And it's easy to get distracted by these, these issues that feel maybe more important, even though they're not.

Stephen Bradford Long 36:39 Yeah, and I've done a lot of introspecting about why it is that it because it has like this, this cocaine like quality to it, where the culture war stuff can be addictive. And trying to understand why is it that my mind can just get so easily hacked. And as I thought about that I come to I've come to two possible reasons why. Which is one a concept that my colleague John Morehead, who does a lot of interfaith work, talks about and he just he he's he taught me the term heretical disgust and heretical Disgust is a it's a term that came out of religious scholarship to describe the phenomenon in which religious people tend to have a greater level of revulsion and disgust towards people who are technically on their same side, but are not quite like them. And so it's the disgust between Protestants and Catholics. Or it's the disgust between conservative Christians and progressive Christians. They're both technically Christians. But we tend to reserve our greatest level of emotional fervor and disgust for people who are like us, but not quite. And I think that that is part of what I'm experiencing where there's this heretical disgust. There's people who are, in my view, heretics, people who call themselves leftists, but are doing leftism wrong. And I think that that gets under our skin more than anything else. And I think it's just a cognitive glitch. And, and so that has been helpful for me. And then I think the other thing is, the real problems in the world feels so much bigger, and unsolvable. It's like, well, fuck, how do I fix climate change? I don't know, it feels impossible. But you know what I can do? I can go after I can. I can. I can criticize, you know, my fellow leftists who I think are doing everything wrong. And I'm not saying that I shouldn't like I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that there. There has to be because a movement that cannot self correct is a movement that's doomed to failure, a movement that is that cannot examine themselves and be self critical is doomed to failure. So we should do that. But sometimes I wonder if I, if I and others do that, because it it because the big problems feel so intractable.

Seth Moskowitz 39:33 Yeah. And I think Well, the problem with with that is, if you end up spending 99% of your time critiquing your own side and criticizing the left in order to what regardless of what your your goal is, if it's to kind of cleanse your own side or to make sure that everyone there agrees with you. But if in the end what you're doing is you're spending 99% of your time attacking people on the left. Pick, are you are you really Still, functionally on the left. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So I think I also feel that instinct. And I think it's just something that is ingrained in us to try to make sure that our tribe is pure and that our tribe agrees with us. But I don't think that's one realistic. It's such a diverse society where you have to make coalitions with people. And in order to actually accomplish anything, you're not going to be able to root out anyone who mildly disagrees with you. But I think it's something that you need to fight against. And another consequence of that is I think that that is actually something that ends up creating the Tim pools, the James Lindsay is the reactionaries is, is that at one point, they were on our side, and then they did one thing that kind of made people who are on this on our side angry, and then they got dogpile, they got attacked, and then they took a second and they would thought, Whoa, is Is this really my my team that is attacking me for maybe one heretical idea if it's on, particularly if it's on an issue of social justice, or race or gender, and they get dogpile for disagreeing with the vast majority of people on their side. And they think, okay, maybe this isn't my team, maybe I need to move towards the rights. I think that kind of idea that we need to push anybody who disagrees with us out of our side, ends up creating the people that we started off this discussion, criticizing the reactionaries who, who were once claimed to be on the progressive side of the spectrum.

Stephen Bradford Long 41:28 Yeah, absolutely. I completely agree with that. And I had a conversation with someone actually, who, I think emphasized this were one of the primary readings within my religious community, which is the Satanic Temple is Steven Pinker's the better angels of our nature, and I was kind of grousing over this because, you know, Steven Pinker, he's fine. But there are other ways in which I think I really disagree with him. And there, there are ways in which and I was kind of grousing about that, like, Oh, I wish he wasn't primary reading for tst. I wish, you know, I, you know, maybe it would be better if it was fiction, and so more mythic and, you know, more interpretive. And my friend was just like, why that just creates the purity spiral that you that you're so obsessed with you? Would you rather have a community where we can only read the right books, and where we can only have, you know, where we can only have primary reading that we 100% agree with? Or would you prefer to have a community where the primary reading people think it's flawed, and they can discuss that? And they can have different perspectives on it? Like, which would you prefer? And I was like, good point.

Seth Moskowitz 42:46 Yeah, I think I think it's something that's like, oftentimes, we see it on the left people who have any heretical ideas are pushed out, but I think it's also something that happens everywhere.

Stephen Bradford Long 42:57 I don't think it's just it's human nature.

Seth Moskowitz 43:00 You see me especially, again, we've spent most of our time critiquing laughs, but if you look at the American, right, the exact same thing is happened to even more dramatic effect with Donald Trump, than their one tenant was supporting the president. And that was Billy saying out loud that you thought that the 2020 election was a fraud. And if you don't agree with that, then you are you're heretical, you were unclean, and you were neat. You were a rhino you need to be pushed out of the Republican Party. So I don't think it's something that's only on the left on the on the right only those who Yeah, it's just it's yeah, it's human nature,

Stephen Bradford Long 43:34 all of us are susceptible and it doesn't matter how smart or how rational we think we are, we are all vulnerable vulnerable to these cognitive glitches and no one is above being wrong. And no one is above you know, falling into these cognitive traps in the in the last few minutes that we have. Do you have time we might end up going a bit over and unless you have that's totally fine. Are you okay with that? Okay, yep, yep, no, because I do want to cover these few points at the end of your piece which I found so helpful these various steps to take to avoid the the reactionary trap and you reached out to all of these different figures so you reached out to like Ezra Klein and Matthew Iglesias and so on to get their perspective on how to resist the reactionary trap. And I think these are so helpful. So the first one you have listed here is do not let the illusions of social media trick you. What do you mean by that?

Seth Moskowitz 44:35 Yeah, when you're on social media, the people that you see talking are the most extreme, most radical people and oftentimes the most angry people are out there. And oftentimes, if you're on the left, you only see the people on the left and when you see someone on the right and maybe infuriates you, and the same thing with people on the right if you have cultivated your the people you follow, to the point where you bear Have you ever see someone on the left, on the one hand, you're getting riled up by all these angry people who are on your own team. And then when you see someone who is on the other team, you have this sort of revulsion and instinctual anger towards them. And so I think when you're using social media, you just need to be aware that the people who are on there are oftentimes the most extreme people, whether you're on the left or on the right, and that the institutions of American politics and of American society don't reflect what you're seeing on social media, particularly in politics, social media slanted towards the left, and our political institutions, including the Senate are oftentimes slanted towards the right. So if you're concerned with the progressive ideology, and what we call wokeness, taking over, you need to take a breath, realize that social media is far more to the left than almost everyone who's out there walking around in real life, and that our political institutions are actually even further lean, tilted further towards the right than everyday society.

Stephen Bradford Long 46:02 Absolutely. Yeah. And that's, that's one of the things that's so hard about social media is to it makes understanding the scale of anything, so hard to figure out it because it's like this, this carnival mirror maze, where trying to figure out the scale of any problem on social media feels impossible.

Seth Moskowitz 46:24 I very much agree. And I think it's illustrative of that is how the people the big issue on the right, the cultural right, and right now is the is the teachers in schools, theoretically, telling students about inappropriate subject matters related to sex and gender. And you see, like one video happening somewhere on Twitter from some random school, and it's something that might be inappropriate. But the way that Chris is some of the activists like Chris Ruffo, and James Lindsay are presenting this is as if all throughout American schools, children are being taught inappropriate things about sex and gender by what they termed them groomers and just have completely twisted this thing that maybe there was one inappropriate video somewhere on the internet, and made it seem like this is on the scale of happening in your local elementary school. So I think that I agree with you getting a sense of scale for if these are problems house, if they are a problem, like how serious are they is extremely difficult with social media.

Stephen Bradford Long 47:32 Yeah, and then lives of tick tock will collect you know, these, the tiny handful of teachers doing something weird. And the whole universe freaks out. And then you know, go yell at teachers at at a town hall meeting or whatever. And it is just not ideal, it is not an ideal situation, because it's totally disproportionate to reality. And yeah, so the only thing that I know to fix that is to just spend less time on social media, like I, I don't know how to fix this illusion, other than to just take everything I see on social media with a grain of salt to be skeptical of everything that I see on social media, and it doesn't matter what it is, be it a video of some police brutality, to some some teachers saying something ridiculous. I mean, I need to be I need to take it seriously, but not credulously. To quote Dan Savage. And get skepticism

Seth Moskowitz 48:46 seems like the best starting point for him essentially any trend or picture whatever you see on social media, just like six skepticisms seems like the right starting point, which is kind of an unfortunate way to view the world. Yeah. Yeah,

Stephen Bradford Long 49:02 I fucking hate it. But you know, I so I have so many friends who I know to be good people who I know to be and everyone listening will know who I'm talking about. It's Lucian grieves, who, when he was in his early 20s said, so he's the founder of the Satanic Temple, by the way. And he, when he was in his early 20s, he said some unfortunate stuff on a podcast about Jews. And yeah, it was fucking gross. In my opinion. It was unacceptable. He's in his 40s now and but the it and he and I know him to be incredibly committed to progressive values and to universality and equality and I know him to in no way, be a prejudiced person and you And yet this thing from 20 years ago, will just keep resurfacing. And and people will build these narratives and these, for lack of a better term lies about Lucien Greaves. And I've just witnessed the way in which the, you know, lies spread so fast on social media, and how delusions spread so fast on social media, and they can seem so convincing where it's like, you hear an audio clip of someone and you're like, oh, okay, there, there it is. He must be a monster. But it's, but it's always more complicated than that. And so I guess watching how some of my friends have, have had just horrible untruths spoken about them online, has really made me skeptical about everything I see on social media.

Seth Moskowitz 50:56 Yeah. And I think, both in that specific circumstance, and in general, like, I don't think this is a problem that's going away one because I don't I don't know how there's a recording from like, I guess, I guess 20 years ago, that makes sense. But now anybody who is any prominent person is going to have videos from when they were stupid, and 15 Oh, my God, yes. Whether it's like just like messing around with friends, or they're on a podcast and said something that's either at the time was unacceptable, or because things are changing so fast, like what's acceptable to say, is changing so fast, that something that was acceptable in 2014, could now get you in big trouble. And I think, like, what's important is to have a sense of perspective about one was what they said acceptable at the time. And if it was, then maybe you need to understand that the progression that's happened since then, and then to if it wasn't acceptable about at a time, you can condemn that person who they were 20 years ago. But if they've changed, and if they've talked about it, and if they've grown, then it doesn't make sense to keep holding this thing over their head, and bringing it up. 20 years later, when you're a whole new person, 20 years down the line, what matters is what you're thinking and saying today or yesterday. Not in 2002 1002 when George George Bush was president,

Stephen Bradford Long 52:15 it's the eternal nightmare for me, because there are there's hundreds of hours of me online, just running my fucking mouth. And I'm like, I have no clue what what I say, I have no clue what I said last year, I have no clue what I said five years ago, like, it's hundreds of hours. And so I'm just waiting for someone on Twitter to just clip something that I don't even remember. And and post it and be like, you see this? He's He's defending something, you know, horrific or whatever. But,

Seth Moskowitz 52:51 yeah, well, if that happens, just, I guess, the only thing you do is if it was wrong, say, Well, that was wrong. I don't believe that now. Yeah. And if you still believe it, you defend it. And I think it sounds like your your supporters are quite understanding of oh, they're very thoughtful. Yeah, yeah. And you're very

Stephen Bradford Long 53:08 humane. And when they and when they do disagree with me, I love my Discord server, because they will, they will sometimes push back. And that's great. That's what a community is for, they will push back on me, but they will always do so in such a thoughtful and compelling way. And I'm in so I'm really, really proud of of the community that has grown up around this podcast. So yeah, that that's great. The second one you have here is learn to recognize and avoid us versus them thinking, What do you mean by

Seth Moskowitz 53:39 that? Yeah, I think that one's pretty key to this, I think, if you if you end up seeing a world divided between good and evil between us versus them, then you end up one, not being able to think through and really critique your own ideas, and think why do I believe the things I do? What are the real rationales behind my political philosophies, and, and ideas. And then on the other hand, you start to see anybody who's on the other political team, as evil or as a danger and any other ideas as the same as inherently something that you need to be on defense from not potentially either learning from or using something to strengthen your own beliefs and your own ideas. So I think there's really nothing good that that can come from this belief that I'm on this team, they're on that team, I'm good, they're evil. I think what you need to be doing is trying to be picking apart the arguments that people come in with and thinking through the ideas that you hold, and the principles that you value. And using the people who you might see on other political team not as not not as something that you need to fight but it's something that you need to learn from, whether it's their ideas that might be good and might be teaching you that you're wrong. Um, or as learning, or something you can learn from to say, Okay, I now I know why my ideas right and their ideas wrong because I've heard their argument, and I'm coming back believing in my ideals even stronger. So I think in general, this idea that they're on one team, I'm on the other end, they need to be fighting them at every step of the way is is no good.

Stephen Bradford Long 55:21 Yeah, yeah. And you know, this kind of hits on something that is a continuous pet peeve of mine. So my day job is I manage a grocery store, in an industrial district in western North Carolina. And having an us versus them mentality that you so often see online, offers absolutely nothing to working class people who by merit of the fact that of their station in life, they, they and I cannot self select our peers. And so I so often feel like the the us versus them, never give an inch, never be around people who disagree with you, there is a class element to that, because it's very convenient for people to say that when they have a cushy desk job, and everyone and they have the privilege to select their ideological peers, people who work at a McDonald's, people who work at a fast food place people who work at in a factory or in a grocery store, they don't have the they can't do that. And so we have to figure out how to get along with each other. If I'm, I'm on the floor with with someone who is a raging Trump conservative. And on the other side is, you know, an anarcho syndicalist being being told online to to not ever engage in conversation with people who are like you. And I do think that that is a common refrain in a lot of different places of This Is War. Well, that, that offers nothing of value to so many working people who don't, we don't get to choose who our peers are. And so I have to figure out how to talk to them, I have to figure out how to share a space with them. If I don't, then I lose my job. And and so I see this, this narrative in certain parts of the left of, you know, to, to share a space is to platform a bigot. And I'm like, tell that to someone who is working, you know, till midnight, every night cleaning floors with someone they might fundamentally disagree with, it offers nothing of value to them. Does that make sense? I it's something that continually drives me crazy.

Seth Moskowitz 57:58 Yeah. I mean, if you adopt that mindset of us versus them, you're going to be completely unable to function out in the real world. Yes, you might be able to be good on Twitter. But if you Yeah, if you go to the grocery store, and you see someone wearing like a Trump t shirt, or a Biden t shirt, and he or you have to work with them or engage with them, you're just gonna be totally unequipped to deal with actually everyday situations. So yeah, I agree with that. It's a problem both ideologically and practically,

Stephen Bradford Long 58:30 the metaphor that I keep using is I don't know if you're familiar with CS Lewis, but he wrote a book called The Great divorce and, and the concept in the great divorce is that there's a bus that goes from hell to heaven. And hell is like this. This a smoky immaterial place, and the ghosts go from hell to heaven. And it's like a whole religious allegory thing. And in heaven, everything is so real and so solid that the blades of grass cut the ghosts feet from hell, it's like they are so immaterial. And heaven is so solid, that the blades of grass that they cannot even walk on the grass because they're so kind of fragile and immaterial. And that's really, I think, a good metaphor for going from the internet to reality. Going from the internet to the world. It's like if if we spend all our time on Twitter, in our political spaces online, that will not equip us for engaging with peers in a work environment.

Seth Moskowitz 59:34 Or, or with families. Yeah, exactly. Yeah,

Stephen Bradford Long 59:38 exactly. And so it's like the blades of grass become so sharp that they cut us and we become so on resilient. Let's see, the the the next item you have here is be skeptical of convenient narratives. What do you mean by that?

Seth Moskowitz 59:53 Yeah, I think this is what we're talking about. One is if you're on one because if you're on social media You're gonna see a lot of things that happen to align with your political ideology. Those could be right, they could be wrong. But if you're going to instinctively just go along with whatever you're See, you're going to end up believing a lot of things that are wrong and are straight up just incorrect. So I think, like we were saying is one when you're on social media, it's better to be skeptical of everything that you see, too, is that if, if you are so deep in your political beliefs, that everything just happens to align so nicely and so perfectly, that there's no complicated questions in the world that everything is kind of my side, my side, good. They're sad that I have the answers, obviously. And they're just not thinking or they're evil. That is, that is just not a true reflection of how the world works. So if you've see yourself falling into these convenient narratives, or thinking about the world in a way that it's easy and not complicated, and that the answers are obvious, then you're missing something, you need to be thinking about this in more detail. The world just isn't that simple. So there's, that's generally what I was thinking of when I when I wrote that is one when you're when you're on social media and talking to people in politics, be skeptical, when you hear something that happens to align with your ideology, because one it could just be conveniently placed in front of you due to the algorithm and it could be incorrect to is it might just mean that you have an overly simplistic worldview and aren't thinking through the issues to the extent that you should be.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:01:27 Yeah, to quote, Cal Newport. And I wrote a blog post about this. I'll, if I remember to, I'll post this in the show notes. Don't be an intellectual groupie. He says, most people online on Twitter are intellectual groupies, and they don't actually seriously engage with the content of said philosopher with Noam Chomsky, or whoever on the right or whatever. Instead, it is intellectual groupie ism, and you're either in or you're out. And and the answer to that is, instead, read the best work for and read the best work against read a book that is the best argument against a point and read the book, that is the best argument for the point and let those clash in your psyche. Let it fuck up your life, let it kind of let it go, let it mess you up, let it and let your roots grow deep as a process. And that's where wisdom comes from, is is letting that clash take place and and it will absolutely fuck up your your it will it will kind of ruin your life online. But it's worth it. And I see that as the antidote to convenient narratives. And then the next one you have is avoid the zeal of the Convert. What does that mean? Yeah, what that

Seth Moskowitz 1:02:45 means. So there's this tendency when people join a new religion or join a new group, that rather than becoming just a traditional member of that group, they become the most fervent believer in it, they become the radical. And so this is what we were talking about with James Lindsay and and other people were talking about on social media is that they were once on the left Dave Rubin, they great executive group. Yeah. Dave Rubin, Tim Poole. All these people who Yeah, were once theoretically progressives are on the left, and then swapped over to the right, sort of sublimated skipped the middle ground and kind of just went straight from progressive to far right reactionary. They fell into this trap, where they became the most fervent believers in their new ideology. And so that's that was my ways of thinking, my thinking in this is that it's good to change your mind. And it's good to think through issues. And if you, it's always good to exchange error for truth. And if you do that, then you should hold on to the truth. But it doesn't mean that you should become the most radical, most extreme, loudest person that you can be just because you think that you've found this new truth that is more representative of the world.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:03:57 Absolutely. And then the final point you have here is take seriously the possibility that you are wrong. I think this is pretty self explanatory. But but explore that for for us.

Seth Moskowitz 1:04:09 Yeah, I think that one if if everybody or if these people who have fallen into the reactionary trap, didn't just sneer at the people who disagreed with them didn't just mark control on social media in Syria took seriously the possibility that their critics had a point. And we're willing to think through those points. And we're willing to question the way that they believe that maybe they'd end up climbing out of the trap. And also just it's good advice for everybody. Just, I definitely don't know everything. And when I say I've changed my politics, pretty radically it sounds like you have to some extent over the past four years. And this idea that you're right, that you have all the answers right now and that in five years, you won't feel differently. It's just an intense amount of hubris and and unrealistic to the point where we all should just be always quiet. shooting, and then asking if maybe we have this one wrong.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:05:04 Yeah, you know, one of the things that I find really helpful is to just think back on my timeline. And think about all the things I once believed, that I now think are wrong. And it is the majority, like I use, I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, I used to believe gay marriage was wrong. I used to just all of these all of these various things from philosophically to politically to, and I've been all over the political map I've been from from right to left over the course of years over the course of figuring out what I believe and the obvious pattern that emerges from that, is that I am, is that my track record is that I am wrong way more often than I am, right. And so the question then becomes, okay, well, what are the underlying principles that are guiding this process and to focus and double down on the underlying first principles? And even those, you know, aren't above reproach, we should examine those first principles. But to think really critically about what are the first principles that guide my beliefs? And that is, and I find that a really helpful process? And to just remember, like, yeah, my track record is that I'm wrong way more than I'm right. Maybe a bit of humility is an order.

Seth Moskowitz 1:06:36 Yeah, me too. I think like, I think back to when I started college in 2013. And then I was pretty far on the left in the social justice area in 2014, and 2015, when that was when the progressive coalition was kind of making that turn, I was fully on board with that. And so yeah, it's it's easy to look to think like, No, I have the answers now. But I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who look back a decade, and will see that their politics were completely different, or that they changed their mind on at least a few things. And if they haven't changed their mind on a few things, that's also somewhat concerning. Yeah. So

Stephen Bradford Long 1:07:14 I'm very worried about anyone who is beating this the exact same drum that they were like five years ago, like that's, that's worrisome.

Seth Moskowitz 1:07:24 Yeah, there's something that's like, there's definitely been new, like, You should have thought about this in a new way, or talk to people who maybe made a good point. And there's something going on, if you're not changing your mind at all. So I think there's a healthy balance between the two, but overall, like, none of us have all the answers and we should be learning from each other and asking questions and pushing each other and pushing ourselves to be seriously taking the possibility that we're wrong as something that that definitely could be happening.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:07:53 Yeah. And talking is a form of thinking, sharing, sharing and community as a form of thinking. And we need each other to do that, that collective thinking we're kind of like ants, we're really fucking stupid on our own. But, but when we work in a community, and and that community has some push and pull and tug and friction, that is how we get to solutions. I'm a genuine believer in that and you know, this just happened a while ago where I people on my Discord will remember this, this was a week or two ago, I shared an article about the DI D dissociative identity disorder craze on Tik Tok, and I posted on posted it on the discord server. And I read and I was like, Oh, this is this is cool. I like this. This is an interesting critique. But then my readers pointed out some not not problems with his analysis of the DI D craze, but some of the other attitudes that the author was slipping in and, and kind of how they weren't solid. And I was like, Oh, you're right. And I'm so glad that I took the risk to share this publicly. Because if I, if I'd kept this article privately to myself, then these flaws in it might not have ever come to the fore for me. And so thinking and public is incredibly scary. It's incredibly hard, especially, you know, in the age of social media, where you're constantly in terror of your life. So each time I hit publish on a blog or podcast, I'm like Jesus Christ. And is this is this the end? Is this it? And it never is because my audience is awesome. But it's necessary because that act of thinking in public, and that push and pull, think talking is a form of thinking talking is how we come to truth, which is why I always beseech my listeners for for grace, to have grace on me if I say something stupid, but to not withhold critical To them, and why I am always willing to extend a certain measure of grace to others if they, if they happen to say something stupid online, because I'm like, maybe they have to say the stupid thing. Maybe they have to say the stupid thing in order to get past it. I think that's just how humanity works. We are a collective species. And we think, in groups, we think together through language, and through words, and writing and friction and response. And if we don't do that, and we if we don't allow the grace for people to say some stupid things, every now and then, like, my audience has the grace for me to say stupid things, then we never learn.

Seth Moskowitz 1:10:41 Yeah, and I think there's like this. People, like, we've even complained about social media and the way that we're all so connected. But on another plane, like you, there's this amazing hive mind out there. And I want I one brain here. And there's millions of people out there who are smarter, and have different ways of looking at problems. And why would I ever want to just like, wall myself off and isolate myself to one brain, when there's like millions and millions of them out there who have completely different, like, life experiences, education's like obviously, that I'm going to be smarter and better at thinking if I'm willing to interact and engage and pull ideas from other people, rather than just relying on one brain. It's the same reason that we we read philosophy and read history is because other people have things to teach us. And just this idea that we have all the answers is going to lead us to some pretty dark places.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:11:39 Absolutely. And you know, most of my guests as much as I shared on Twitter, the vast the vast majority of my guests come from Twitter. And so it has it. Yeah, every everything that you just said, Yes, signing off on it. Great. Do you have so so this has been a great conversation, and I so appreciate you taking the time to hang out. And you seem like a great guy. And you're welcome back anytime.

Seth Moskowitz 1:12:09 Thank you very much. Yeah, I feel like just having having to think through the ideas in person. And having somebody push you in different directions that you've never gone is extremely helpful. So yeah, I'd love to come back. Just one because it helps me think through the issues too, because I enjoyed chatting with you. And three, because I'll have to have to engage with some of your listeners, because it sounds like you've built a really good community here. And I think that's something that's rare and hard to find. So I appreciate I appreciate you inviting me on.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:12:41 Awesome for people who want to find your work. Where can they do that?

Seth Moskowitz 1:12:45 Yeah, so they can follow me on Twitter at SK Moscowitz. Mos COVID. Witz, they can also sign up for persuasion. We're on substack if you just go to Google and type in persuasion, substack you'll find this and then they can also email me if they want. My email is just set Moscowitz zero@gmail.com.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:13:07 Is that the same email address that I reached you out?

Seth Moskowitz 1:13:11 Yes, yeah, you can put it in. I'll put it I'll put it in

Stephen Bradford Long 1:13:14 the show notes. You're taking your life into your own hands doing that but you very brave

Seth Moskowitz 1:13:22 email me if you think I got anything wrong. Or if you think I was shabby on my thinking on anything. I'll be happy to talk and think through it better.

Stephen Bradford Long 1:13:32 Awesome. Yeah. And everyone go Go subscribe to persuasion i It's a it's a really cool platform. And they have all kinds of really interesting thinkers there. All right. Well, that is it for this show. The theme song is wild by eleventy seven. You can find it on Apple Music, Spotify, or wherever you listen to music. The show is written, produced and edited by me Steven Bradford long and it is supported by my patrons@patreon.com forward slash Steven Bradford long as always, Hail Satan. And thanks for listening