Andrew Doyle - Free Speech And Why It Matters | Modern Wisdom Podcast #283

1. 0:00 – 0:14

   Intro

   1. ADAndrew Doyle0:00

      It is the foundation of all of our freedoms. There can be no other freedoms. Any progress that has ever been made in terms of the advancement of personal liberty and, and social liberty has come through the exercise of free speech.

2. 0:14 – 7:49

   Why Free Speech Matters

   1. ADAndrew Doyle0:14

      (wind blows)

   2. CWChris Williamson0:14

      What is free speech? Is it the same as being able to say anything without repercussions?

   3. ADAndrew Doyle0:20

      Oh, it depends what you mean by repercussions. So, uh, if by repercussions you mean that the state can arrest you, uh, and lock you up or fine you, or you can be, uh, harassed, threatened, intimidated, uh, pushed out of your job, then no, those are not acceptable repercussions in a liberal society. But if you mean by repercussions criticism, ridicule, uh, that kind of thing, in other words, more speech in response to your speech, even protest in response to your speech, then, uh, y- of course you have absolutely no right. Because when people protest against your form of speech, th- they're exercising their own free speech. That is absolutely fine as well, yeah. I think it's qu- actually quite simple at this point, but this is a point that is missed all the time. It's really straightforward. Uh, in a, in a, in a, in a liberal system, liberal society, and this is something that, that has been completely overlooked, anyone should be able to say whatever they want, uh, and then people are able to say what they want in turn in response. And that's how, that's how it should work. So when you hear, um, particularly writers for The Guardian talking about how the thing is when people talk about free speech what they really mean is they want consequence free speech, for a start, no one has ever said that. I mean, literally no one has ever said that. So this is an incredible ... It's not even so much of a straw man. It's too insubstantial even to be made of straw. There's literally nobody-

   4. CWChris Williamson1:32

      (laughs)

   5. ADAndrew Doyle1:32

      ... who comes close to saying that.

   6. CWChris Williamson1:33

      It's the invisible man, yeah. (laughs)

   7. ADAndrew Doyle1:35

      It's, it's the invisible man. Like, no one, no one has ever said that. (laughs)

   8. CWChris Williamson1:39

      (laughs)

   9. ADAndrew Doyle1:39

      That they want the right to say whatever they want without someone criticizing them back. No one's ever said that. And if they have, then they're deranged and they're, they're, it, we're talking about a fringe group of people. So that has to be put to rest, that, that, that overt lie. Um, so no, free, free speech is the right to say whatever you want and for people to say whatever they want back to you.

   10. CWChris Williamson1:57

       Why does it matter?

   11. ADAndrew Doyle1:59

       Because it is the bedrock of a liberal democracy. It is the, it is the, it is the, the foundation of all of our freedoms. There can be no other freedoms. Any, any progress that has ever been made in terms of the advancement of personal liberty and, and social liberty has come through the exercise of free speech, of saying what you want, expressing your thoughts. It is the root to personal autonomy. If you can't, uh, express what you, what you feel about something, then you cannot develop. We cannot innovate without free speech. There can be no innovation. There has never been innovation without, without the freedom to say what you want and particularly to say controversial things. That's how innovation happens. You can't reason without speech, because, uh, the very act of reason is typically a collaborative effort. The, the, the way that we evolve and learn is through, uh, uh, discussion with other people and expressing ideas and getting it wrong and making mistakes, and all of that is part of it. Um, so it, it is the linchpin of absolutely everything that we value if we value freedom. And that's why it is, it is alarming to me that people are so cavalier about it. I mean, you hear a lot of people online when they want ... Free speech skeptics, I call them, you know, when they, when they call it freeze peach, you know, that really original pun, and they sometimes have an image of a peach frozen in an ice cube. They say, "Oh, look at you with your freeze peach." For a start, it's the most unimaginative ... And I mean, th- you know, they should be banned just for criminal unoriginality, right? But they, they, they say this stuff. Um, but to be so cavalier about such a foundational principle is actually pretty damn disturbing. It's like they don't care and they don't realize that they're, they are themselves dependent on, on the r- on their right to free speech in order to, to behave like dickheads. They, they need to have that right too. Um, so, you know, it's, people shouldn't-

   12. CWChris Williamson3:42

       Doesn't f-

   13. ADAndrew Doyle3:42

       ... be so cavalier about it.

   14. CWChris Williamson3:43

       Doesn't free speech allow those dickheads to cause harm and offense though? And other dickheads as well?

   15. ADAndrew Doyle3:48

       Yeah, that's the point. They can. I'm not, I'm not here suggesting ... Again, this would be the interpretation when they ... Oh, you've just mocked people who use the phrase freeze peach, uh, and therefore you're trying to shut them down, aren't you? You're trying to silence them. You're trying to censor them. No. Criticism is not the same as censorship. I, I often think that people who, who mistake the two must be doing so willfully. They have to be. I mean, how else could they ... You know, everyone knows this. Um, so I often get that as well, like if I've, when I've mocked things in the past, um, uh, people have said to me, "Well, why are you having a go at that? I thought you c- I thought you cared about free speech." I always get this all the time. It's like, "Yeah. I'm, I'm exercising my free speech to criticize what they said." That's kind of how it works. And they can do it back to me. That's fine. It's okay. The, I, I think one of the reasons I wrote the book is fundamentally there are so many misconceptions around, around free speech that, uh, so many basic misconceptions, you know, that, that really people should have learnt about a long time ago. And, and you're always having to fend them off. And I, I'd just like to put those things to rest. And I think, I think people need to have a, a, a, a, a sort of more sensible conception of what is meant by, by the concept of free speech. And so most of the arguments around this topic are dealing with straw men and they're, they're dealing with misconceptions. And so if you can just get beyond all that detritus, then we can have a discussion about the actual issues, because there are some very difficult issues surrounding the topic. But we're not gonna get anywhere if people don't know what free speech means.

   16. CWChris Williamson5:15

       So I-

   17. ADAndrew Doyle5:15

       And so that's one of the reasons I wanted to.

   18. CWChris Williamson5:17

       I, I learned about ethics and metaethics from a buddy who's at, uh, Oxford Uni, and I'd never learned this before. And what he told me was that if you have two people trying to debate ethics who disagree on metaethics, the ethical discussion actually breaks down because the underlying principles that they're coming to the table holding don't support any sort of discussion on top of that. And it seems like you're trying to sort of do this here. Like, look, this is the battleground that we're supposedly playing on.

   19. ADAndrew Doyle5:45

       Yeah. Yeah.

   20. CWChris Williamson5:45

       We can now have a conversation, any kind of, either productive or unproductive, but at least we can have a conversation because we know the rules of the game.

   21. ADAndrew Doyle5:52

       It's exactly right. And actually I've been wrestling with this issue for a while now, is, is how do you argue against those who are incapable of argument?This is really hard because I'm all for, I think we need more discussion, not less. I think we need, we need, I think one of the major problems that I think I've said it to you before, one of the major problems that we face at the moment is people aren't talking to each other, people from opposing political ideas. And they're not, they're not sitting down and talking to each other. So I'm all for doing that, and I will always do that. But if someone comes into the room and wants to talk, but they're not going to use, play by the rules, right? In other words, they're going to just throw insults. In other words, they're going to start guessing what they think you believe, right? Which is something they always do. Uh, they're going to misrepresent your perspective. In other words, they're just arguing with a version of themselves that they've created. Uh, if they're going to do that, then that's, that's bad faith. You can't, you can't actually argue with someone like that. And I think, I think it's really important when it comes to argument, uh, that yes, you make an effort, you may go out of your way to talk to people who disagree with you, but if they are unwilling or incapable of argumentation, then don't bother and block them. I, I seriously mean, I think, I think... And you might say, "Well, you're creating an echo chamber." Well, look, someone comes in and says, "There are 32 letters in the alphabet. Let's debate." Well, I'm not going to debate that person because, you know, it's clearly not the case. And if they absolutely r- refuse to accept the basic premise, you can't go, you just can't go any further than that. I had this the other day where someone on Twitter was on at me saying, um, "Nobody..." Oh, he was saying, "Everyone in this country just accepts that, uh, or, or just uses they all the time as a singular pronoun," right? We'd already passed the point of, you know, where you do it if you don't know this, the gender of the person. Uh, and that's something that's a colloquial form of the term they. But the idea that vast majority of people do not understand they as a plural pronoun is simply not true. And the only way you would think that that is the case is if you don't know people or if you're being willfully obtuse in order to, to, to win the argument. So therefore, I'm not going to debate that person. You have to accept certain premises in order to, to move on.

3. 7:49 – 14:05

   Is Free Speech a Partisan Issue?

   1. ADAndrew Doyle7:49

   2. CWChris Williamson7:49

      Why is it...

   3. ADAndrew Doyle7:49

      And one of them is, is just knowing how to argue.

   4. CWChris Williamson7:51

      Why is it mostly people on the right who seem to be promoting freedom of speech? Like, we rarely hear the left complain about lacking free speech.

   5. ADAndrew Doyle8:01

      Well, uh, the opposite was true when I was a child. So, uh, this is, this is something that I think shows us that it's not a partisan issue. You know, when, when I was a kid, there used to be... I mean, you're too young, but there were things like, uh, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, I think, tried to... had a campaign to try and ban David Cronenberg's film, Crash. Uh, there were, um, all sorts of campaigns every now and then, whenever there was... I mean, it, going back even before my time, there were campaigns against things like The Last Temptation of Christ, the Scorsese film, or, or Last Tango in Paris. Um, so there's always these sort of censorious kind of campaigns going on and saying that we should ban artistic expression of one form or another. But it was always coming from the right when I was a kid. It was always... I mean, you just associate... I mean, then if you think of Mary Whitehouse, who was the famous campaigner who did the Clean Up TV Campaign back in the, uh, the '60s and '70s, and then the Video Nasties Campaign in the '80s. You know, in the '80s, they banned films like Driller Killer and, um, Evil Dead was banned, you know, the Sam Raimi film. Uh, that was, that was banned by the, uh, by the Video Nasties, uh, Scandal. Uh, and all of this was coming from the right. This was just the way that... because, because conservatives traditionally have a, a sort of, I suppose, a kind of old-fashioned view of, of decorum and that kind of thing. And they, and they... and, but they all bought into this myth, uh, which was very much Mary Whitehouse's thing, that, uh, popular entertainment has the capacity to corrupt the masses. And it was a, it was a kind of very snobbish idea that basically suggested that poor people were like robots who just do what they... you know, they just see stuff and they react, okay? Um, that exact philosophy and idea is now predominantly expressed by those on the left. It's a weird shift. It's difficult to, to determine when exactly it happened. But you'll notice they're all, all calls for sort of artistic censorship or criticism, which is saying, "Well, why hasn't this film, uh, got more diversity or representation?" Or, "Why, why is, why is this film sending a negative message about women or a negative message about, about gay people?" Or whatever it might be. When of course, the role of art, it has absolutely nothing to do with messages or morality, uh, necessarily. Not, not that art can't have a moral message if it wants to, but, uh, it always puts me off when it does. I find it quite rebarbative as a, as a, as a form. But, you know, um, this is now coming always from The Guardian, always from The New Statesman, but always from the leftist publication. This is just where it is now. Um, this very haughty, puritanical approach, uh, these, this pearl clutching would be the, the phrase. It's a very good phrase, isn't it? Because you really imagine people going... (gasps) You know, very camp, very kind of, "Oh, this person said this rude, disgusting thing." Um, it's just shifted and it'll no doubt shift back again, you know? Uh, every now and then you get it from the right, even now. You do. You get it from, when, when, when certain, uh, creative people do something that is considered offensive and, and you'll get that. And that will always happen. It's just, it's just a strange phenomenon that at the moment, uh, the, the ones who would seek to shut down forms of expression tend to be on the left. And of course, that is largely down to the new social justice movement, which mistrusts, at its heart, mistrusts speech and sees speech as violence and conflates the two things. Uh, and pretty much everyone within that camp, I mean, there are, there are disagreements along the way, but pretty much everyone is of the view that language has the capacity to normalize behavior and, and that people do follow these mechanical cues from... these mechanical linguistic cues. Um, and ultimately that's down to a mistrust of humanity and particularly a mistrust of working class people. That's what you'll find, which is why they often go after working class comics, uh, because it's the audiences that are dangerous. They won't go after middle class comic, uh, talking about various things because, you know, they're better educated audience, they understand what they're doing. You know, it's... there is a deep snobbish-

   6. CWChris Williamson11:39

      Very patronizing, isn't it?

   7. ADAndrew Doyle11:40

      ... at the heart of it.

   8. CWChris Williamson11:40

      This sort of odd...

   9. ADAndrew Doyle11:41

      Incredible.

   10. CWChris Williamson11:42

       ... paternalistic, like kind of overbearing, like nanny, like neo-nanny state in a really bizarre way.

   11. ADAndrew Doyle11:52

       There was an article, uh, when The Dapper Laughs... Do you remember The Dapper Laughs controversy?

   12. CWChris Williamson11:56

       For me, yeah. Is he still around?

   13. ADAndrew Doyle11:59

       I have absolutely no idea, but they succeeded in having his TV show booted off, uh, I think it was ITV2.

   14. CWChris Williamson12:04

       Okay.

   15. ADAndrew Doyle12:04

       Um, and there was a really alarmist-... ludicrous article online talking about how his show was a rapist's almanac, they used-

   16. CWChris Williamson12:12

       (laughs)

   17. ADAndrew Doyle12:12

       ... I don't think they used that word right, correctly. Um, uh, but it was absolutely insane and, um, actually the whole article was hilarious because he'd obviously gone through his thesaurus and just tried to sound as learned as possible, but actually by doing so, came across as incredibly unlettered. Um, but, but when he, um, wrote this article and it, and people... But it wasn't just that he wrote the... I mean, you can have some maniacs writing articles about this sort of stuff, but so many people bought into it and even comedians I know signed this open letter saying, "We should have this banned." It was a, it was a weird moment. Although, I have to say, some of those who I know who did that now, uh, regret it. Um, but of course, n- the ide- it was really because Dapper Laughs' audience were working class. And this idea that, that they would watch him picking up girls and being, being a cheeky lad or whatever. I mean, look, it's not to my taste. I don't, I don't even know what it was, re- I watched a bit of it and I thought, "It's not for me." You know, but, but I don't think for a second that some, uh, working class guys are gonna watch it and think, "All right. I've got permission now to go out and commit some sexual assault." Incredible, incredible. This, this... It is just patronizing, isn't it? It is just a fear of, of, of people who aren't like you. It's, it's... Because believe it or not, it doesn't matter what class you come from, everyone knows the difference between a joke and real life. And even if it were an outright instruction to behave badly, people don't, people do have agency. They do make decisions, you know? They, they, they don't just do things because someone tells them. But this is the belief that you can't w- actually we can't get over because it's so ingrained now. It's everywhere. You know, it comes down to even in, in parliament when Boris Johnson was using the metaphor of the Surrender Bill and you had all these Labor MPs saying that your language is normalizing violence. People are gonna hear you using military metaphors. Well, politic- political language is full of military metaphors. Conflict, we, we go on to fight, we need strength, all of this sort of stuff. But it's interpreted as incitement, right? Well, again, this is based on a very patronizing view of, of humanity. It's not true.

4. 14:05 – 18:29

   Confusing World of Gender

   1. ADAndrew Doyle14:05

   2. CWChris Williamson14:05

      Did you see Miley Cyrus drop herself in it with her preference remarks showing underlying transphobia?

   3. ADAndrew Doyle14:13

      I didn't. Why don't you fill me in on that one? I'm not up on my Mi- Miley Cyrus gossip.

   4. CWChris Williamson14:17

      Well, let me tell you. This is in out.com, by Mei Rude. I'm not sure if that's her real name.

   5. ADAndrew Doyle14:23

      So this is, this is the gay press?

   6. CWChris Williamson14:26

      Is out.com the gay press?

   7. ADAndrew Doyle14:28

      You've already made it... Y- It, well, well it sounds a bit gay.

   8. CWChris Williamson14:30

      (laughs) That's a... Only you can say that.

   9. ADAndrew Doyle14:32

      Yeah.

   10. CWChris Williamson14:33

       Uh, "Miley Cyrus is making waves with new comments about her sexuality. In a new interview, she not only says that she prefers women to men, but also attempts to explain why. 'Girls are way hotter, we know this,' the 28-year-old bisexual said in an interview with Sirius XM's Barstool Radio. 'Everyone I think can agree that from ancient times, dicks make wonderful sculptures. Other than that, I'm not as interested. I like dicks as p- art pieces and sculptural. I love the shape. I think it looks really good on a table.'" The singer continued, 'It's good if I can just get it in and go away because I don't want it eyeing me up. That's how I truly feel. I really feel good about saying that.' She dug in even deeper, adding, 'Everyone knows that tits are prettier than balls. That's w- what ended up making female relationships make more sense to me.'" And then this cuts back to Mei Rude. "'I wish that I could say this news makes me excited and proud to be a woman and a lesbian, but Cyrus's quote is littered with transphobia. This kind of gender essentialism was left behind by most of the queer community years ago. Genitals do not equal gender and Miley should know this.' And then it just keeps on going, "In an age where TERFs are more vocal than ever. People like Miley believe that genitals determine gender. Trans women and girls are often considered to be in public spaces. Trans women should be kicked..." blah, blah, blah. "This isn't the first time she's gotten in hot water. She seemed to imply that being gay is a choice. I don't think that Miley meant to traffic in TERF talking points, but the fact is she did and should know better. The stakes are too high for someone with as big of a spotlight on her as accidentally spreading this sort of rhetoric. Miley, I love you, but I'm going to need you to make this right." And I'm sure that Miley Cyrus really took that to heart."

   11. ADAndrew Doyle16:07

       Oh, I'm sure. The incredible entitlement of that kind of article is, is insufferable, isn't it? And it's, um, uh, not only actually did I read that, I, I tweeted about it. So when I said I hadn't heard of it, it's 'cause I, it's 'cause I read this stuff every day that, that, uh, it's-

   12. CWChris Williamson16:21

       It could've been anyone talking about anything.

   13. ADAndrew Doyle16:24

       It could've been anyone. I mean, the, the idea that if you find breasts more attractive than a scrotum, uh, that is a, a TERF viewpoint. Uh, uh, tr- uh, you know, that phrase is just ludicrous anyway. TERF. Um, a, uh, that it is in some way transphobic. Uh, you, you see this all the time. Genital, genital preferences are, are transphobic. No, they're not. They're obviously not, but I shouldn't have to say it. It's obviously not the case, uh, that, that is true.

   14. CWChris Williamson16:48

       (laughs)

   15. ADAndrew Doyle16:48

       I mean, and, and also the idea... L- listen to what she said in the article, "The queer community left this behind years ago." Most gay people have genital preferences. Sorry to break this to you. The vast major- you've clearly never been on a cruising ground. I tell you what, because it, it is very, very much about the genitals. And don't you tell me-

   16. CWChris Williamson17:05

       (laughs)

   17. ADAndrew Doyle17:05

       ... that suddenly people are blind, they're blind to what, what is in the, what is in the underwear department. They don't care. Uh, are you kidding?

   18. CWChris Williamson17:12

       (laughs)

   19. ADAndrew Doyle17:12

       Go on Grindr.

   20. CWChris Williamson17:13

       That's all, that's all they care about.

   21. ADAndrew Doyle17:15

       Pretty much.

   22. CWChris Williamson17:16

       Yeah. I mean, the, um...

   23. ADAndrew Doyle17:18

       (laughs)

   24. CWChris Williamson17:18

       The funny, the funny thing that I saw there was it was like the, we talk about grievance hierarchies, right? It was like the hierarchy of different things that she'd done. So I kind of had it in my head, I could imagine this kind of like quite haughty, um, foreman working, like looking over a building site and he's like looking and he goes, uh, "Feminism, women. Yeah. Check. Lesbian, yeah, women. Check. Oh, we're looking good here, mate. Oh. Oh, you haven't-"

   25. ADAndrew Doyle17:43

       Yeah.

   26. CWChris Williamson17:43

       "... you haven't quite got it right. You didn't quite get it right on the transphobia, did you? I'm gonna have to... I'll give you, I'll give you a B minus and, uh, you can hand this in at reception and we'll see if we can get you back next week." Do you know what I mean? You're like...

   27. ADAndrew Doyle17:54

       It's, it's-

   28. CWChris Williamson17:54

       Is that some sort of calling card?

   29. ADAndrew Doyle17:55

       I mean, for one, for one thing, like it's such a shame we even have to discuss... Like the article sounds banal, doesn't it? It sounds s- why do I care what, (laughs) what Mi- Miley Cyrus thinks about tits? I don't care about that. It's so, it's really not interesting. I've, I've, I can pretty much guarantee I've got no interest in anything she's got to say. But that is, that really, uh, that really takes a bit. So why am I even having to talk about this? Well, it's because journalists, uh, are picking through, sifting through everything that people say and trying to find some way to turn it into an, an offensive comment. How boring. What a boring...... existence this person must have and, you know-

   30. CWChris Williamson18:28

       Did

5. 18:29 – 28:36

   The Times’ Hit Piece on Jordan Peterson

   1. CWChris Williamson18:29

      you see Jordan Peterson's interview with Decca Aitkenhead from The Times and then the-

   2. ADAndrew Doyle18:33

      Yeah. Yeah.

   3. CWChris Williamson18:33

      ... subsequent write up?

   4. ADAndrew Doyle18:35

      Yeah.

   5. CWChris Williamson18:35

      What were your thoughts on that?

   6. ADAndrew Doyle18:36

      Yeah. I didn't see it all, to be fair. I saw, I saw Michaela's, um, re- response to it and, um, I mean, it was quite o- I mean, uh, but, but the, the snapshots I heard, because I heard some of the recording, and I could tell that this was a hit piece even, even before reading the, the final... I could tell that the, the, there was, there was something about the smugness of the tone and the kind of combative nature of the interview that you knew that this person had already decided in advance what they thought about this situation, they were going to say what they thought about it. And then having read, uh, what, what, what actually happened, um, yeah, I mean, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a hit piece. That's what it is. It's, it's someone who is not coming in good faith. And I think it's, it's the wrong way to go about an interview. If you're going... if you're, if you're serious about being an interviewer, you need to sort of to coax out some truths about that person or, or get, or get them to reveal some things about themselves, not use it as an opportunity to smear someone. And particularly with someone like Jordan Peterson, who, let's face it, has probably been mischaracterized more than anyone else except for perhaps J.K. Rowling. Uh, the two of them are, are right up there as people who've, who... You know, when you see the level of vitriol against him and the accusations that are thrown against him, you know, particularly with Jordan Peterson, who is someone who isn't even really that political, um, all of this stuff is weird because you read it, it bears no resemblance to reality. And this is what I'm talking about when they say about arguing with people who are capable of argumentation. Someone who is willing to just completely mischaracterize and not provide evidence for their mischaracterizations, you can't talk to that person. It's like talking to a madman. There's no point in debating someone who's, who's, who's literally i- i- in, in living in their own reverie, their own vision of what the world, they would like the world to be. And that's unfortunately where you are with someone like that. I've been in discussions with people online about J.K. Rowling talking about all the transphobic things she said. Whenever I've said, "Can you quote me something transphobic she said?" They never can.

   7. CWChris Williamson20:30

      Well, I mean, look at-

   8. ADAndrew Doyle20:30

      And the fact that they never can-

   9. CWChris Williamson20:31

      ... look, look at Jordan Peterson, same thing. You c-

   10. ADAndrew Doyle20:34

       Same thing, right, exactly, same thing.

   11. CWChris Williamson20:35

       Precisely the same thing.

   12. ADAndrew Doyle20:36

       Um, you... Well, in, in a sense, it's worse because, uh, you have, you have most of his old lectures are online, so you have a, uh, uh, a verifiable record of a man whose opposition to tyranny in all its forms, including Nazism, uh, could not be better documented. So the idea that then you can then say, "Oh, he's supportive of Nazis," it's, it's, it's so... it's not even something you can debate because it is just so fundamentally the opposite of the truth. There's no point in getting involved in that, you know? So it is infuriating, but that's the point at which you have to say, "No, right, I'm stepping back from this conversation. This isn't someone..." This... The, the, the problem is that so many of these people who are, who are living in this hallucin- hallucination, uh, uh, of, of, of a society, of a world, are pretty prominent commentators, uh, and interviewers for various major newspapers. So it's, it's, it, it's, it's frustrating because you have to... I suppose what I'm saying, in short, is the adults just need to start talking to each other and let the kids, you know, have their little tantrums and let them get on with it, but the adults need to talk to each other.

   13. CWChris Williamson21:43

       I mean, you think with someone like Decca Aitkenhead who's like lead invest- interview reporter or whatever for The Times, you'd think that she would have been one of the adults. Uh-

   14. ADAndrew Doyle21:53

       I don't know much... I... To be fair, I don't know much about her, but I think I'm perfectly prepared to concede, because of my lack of knowledge of her work, that she is actually a v- a very sensible, intelligent journalist. And on this occasion, she allowed her passion to overwhelm her reason. Uh, I mean, that is a conflict that, that lives in the heart of all of us. Um, and w- and we're all likely to, to fall prey to it if, if we have a, a particular bugbear about something or if we are, uh, if we have... I mean, all of us at any given time have false, false perceptions of the world. The, the key is never to lose sight of your, of your objectivity. And I think... Uh, but it, but, but it is undoubted, undoubtedly the case that in that particular interview, uh, she didn't behave in a professional way and let herself down, and the result was a, a poor piece of journalism.

   15. CWChris Williamson22:37

       Well, I mean, it is the interesting thing there, talking about freedom of speech, not that she is permitted to write that swath of unrepresentative, maligned, um, very preconceived ideas about a man who 15 minutes into the interview has to take a break to go and cry. And-

   16. ADAndrew Doyle22:59

       Yeah.

   17. CWChris Williamson22:59

       ... 15 minutes in, breaks down talking about how other people have been positively affected by his work. And the only reason that we're even given any notion of that is that Michaela had the foresight to actually record the call so that they can then put it up to, for see... Do you know what I mean? Like-

   18. ADAndrew Doyle23:16

       Yeah. Didn't she say something in the interview about how he's not in touch with his emotions or he doesn't have any emotion? There was something in there relating to... It was, it was, yeah, it was, it was obviously... Well, that's the thing about Peterson in particular as well. He's, he's obviously not a confrontational, combative person.

   19. CWChris Williamson23:32

       No.

   20. ADAndrew Doyle23:33

       Right? He, he really isn't. And this, this, um, view of him as someone who's, who's in it for the fight and gets s- gets off on, on the fight is, is, is, is palpably not true.

   21. CWChris Williamson23:42

       Yeah. I mean-

   22. ADAndrew Doyle23:43

       Everyone I know who knows him knows it's not true.

   23. CWChris Williamson23:45

       L- look at what he's saying during the very, very first s- he breaks the fourth wall. He obviously thinks, at least stepping in, that this Decca lady is on side in one form or another. And I'm gonna guess that having been through the sort of hell of all of the rehab and the trips around the world and all that stuff that he's had to do, they'll have filtered this very, very, very carefully to think, "Right, are we going to be okay? Is this the sort of thing that dad's up to? It's obviously gonna be worthwhile. It's The Times. It's reputable, it's blah, blah, blah. He's got the new book coming out." And he breaks the fourth wall early on in that and says, um, "I've... Every time that I have one of these combative interviews, um, I have to take a rest afterwards almost. I feel sort of physically drained once it happens." So he's-

   24. ADAndrew Doyle24:29

       Yeah.

   25. CWChris Williamson24:29

       ... saying to her, "Look, like, I know that you're sort of not a part of that." And then slowly over time, obviously, that...... hope just gets chipped away. Yeah, man, I mean, like Miquela's a good mate, and, uh, I really-

   26. ADAndrew Doyle24:40

       Uh.

   27. CWChris Williamson24:40

       ... feel like that family just ... Like, if anyone's had enough, like really-

   28. ADAndrew Doyle24:45

       I know.

   29. CWChris Williamson24:46

       ... after the last year.

   30. ADAndrew Doyle24:47

       The, the, the problem is, the, that because so much of, of ... I hate thinking in terms of sides, but I think, I, I just see so much evidence of, of those who are, you know, completely enamored of this social justice ideology, they're very quick to dehumanize people. They're very quick to demonize. I mean, th- they, to the extent that they don't care if people die, and will gloat if someone dies who doesn't agree with them. And that, that, that to me is an inhuman way that ... You've lost your humanity wh- as soon as you start doing that. You're not really a human being in any serious sense, in terms of your, uh, emotional capacity. You're, you're like ... you've, you've made yourself, you've made yourself ironically into the, the, the, a sort of, a version of the person you're projecting, um, onto these other people. And, and that is very sad. And I think the, the sheer cruelty of someone who, who can see someone who's obviously been through serious medical problems, and yet you want to kick them when they're down, is, uh, uh, it is actually unfathomable to me. I don't... I, I-
6. 28:36 – 34:12

   Does Cancel Culture Exist?

   1. ADAndrew Doyle28:36

      It can't go on forever.

   2. CWChris Williamson28:38

      Does cancel culture exist?

   3. ADAndrew Doyle28:41

      It's, it's incredible to me that anyone would deny that it exists when the evidence is so overwhelming for it. Um, I've, I've been in conversations with people about this online and there's a couple of threads online which have hundreds and hundreds of examples of, of people who've lost their jobs, uh, out of, um, for something they've said at work or something that's, uh, you know. Of course it exists. I mean, quite obviously. I think you, you know, the, the main complaint of saying, "Well, no one's been canceled," again that's someone taking a metaphor literally. No one's saying that anyone is literally being canceled. Cancel culture is a shorthand metaphor for a, a form, a method whereby when you hear something that offends you or upsets you, typically something quite innocuous or relatively inconsequential. In other words, part of cancel culture is an overreaction, right? So, uh, so you go in all guns blazing and you don't stop until that person has lost everything; their livelihood, their job, their reputation. Absolutely it's all got to go because there can be no redemption, there can be no forgiveness. And this happens again and again. And the examples of it are so numerous that it is impossible to deny with a straight face that it doesn't exist, and yet people do. You know, it's for the, it's the same reason, I mean, you know, people ... I hate to say it again, but w- write- writers for The Guardian will continually say, "Cancel culture doesn't exist," because they are its chief practitioners. You know, remember this is a publication that when Suzanne Moore wrote that article, which they all disliked, most of the staff wrote a letter of complaint to try and get her booted out. And then it's the same people who will say that cancel culture doesn't exist. Well, it's not ... Well, this is hardly surprising, because the culture war is largely engineered and motored by people like the people who work at The Guardian. It's their culture war. This is the identitarian left's culture war. But they are the same people who will say the culture war is a right-wing myth. But they're the, they're the antagonists. It's, it's nuts. You know, so-

   4. CWChris Williamson30:20

      But J.K. Rowling said a load of stuff. She hasn't been canceled. Why has she not been canceled?

   5. ADAndrew Doyle30:25

      Well, you know the answer to that, Chris. Let's (laughs) she's a billionaire and, uh, as we all know, cancel culture overwhelmingly affects poorer people.... and this is the other major myth about it. You know, if you're a celebrity, put someone in the public eye who is financially secure, uh, it's very difficult to cancel. You know, you can't cancel J.K. Rowling. She's the richest, richest author in the world. You can, however, cancel Gillian Philip, who's the Scottish author who tweeted in support of J.K. Rowling. So she lost her publisher and she lost her agent. That can happen, uh, because she's, she's expendable. You can't... No publisher in their right mind would get rid of J.K. Rowling. So no, she cannot be canceled, but that does not justify the, uh, the venomous, misogynistic abuse she gets on a daily basis. I mean, that's still, on a human level, just morally unforgivable. However, she, she isn't subject to cancel culture. I will accept, I will accept that. And, um, the ones who are subject to cancel culture are normally people who don't have the means to stick up for themselves, who don't have the financial resources to do so, who are intimidated because they go into work and suddenly they're facing a tribunal because someone overheard something they said and, and, and misinterpreted, misinterpreted it. This isn't about someone who's gone into work and started shouting about faggots and poofs and, and how they should all be killed and stuff. That's the way it's portrayed. No, it's someone who made a joke that someone's misinterpreted as being homophobic because it hurt their feelings, and so they went and they... You know, it's a different thing. And it may not even have been about gay people at all. Right? It's... The, the key aspects of cancel culture is that the slight is actually often very small, right? And also, it's, it's possible... I mean, there's, um... A lot of people now are talking about how we should, we should not have call-out culture, we should have call-in culture. And actually, it sounds a bit tacky, but there's something in that. And so far as if you're in, uh, the workplace and someone says something that upsets you or offends you, you call in, you go over to them and say, "Look, what you said bothered me a bit. Can we have a talk about it?" And you, and you resolve your things that way. Calling out would be screenshot the email, put it online, let everyone know that this person is evil and should be fired and hounded. And that's quite a good distinction to make because that's what we used to do. I mean, I, I've had disputes at work. You know, I used to be a teacher, I used to work in a call center, I've had disputes with people, uh, and I've took them to one side and said, "Can we discuss this?" And sometimes, (audio skips) , I've been right and sometimes I've been wrong. But you get... You reach a resolution because we're human beings and we can deal with conflict, and there's no such thing as a human relationship that doesn't... that is devoid of conflict. Um, but if, if my initial reaction was always, "I want to see that person fall. I want to publicly shame that person. I want them to suffer," that's not, that's not justice, that's revenge. And I think that that's what, that's what is at the heart of this. And then what we mean by cancel culture is this general propensity to seek vengeance for a perceived slight that may or may not have been a slight in the first place. It may have been just you... the way that you perceived it. That's what cancel culture is, and it happens all the time. So we need to, again, go back to what I said, start from scratch. The idea, things we shouldn't accept, uh, that the culture war is a right-wing myth, uh, that cancel culture does not exist, uh, that anyone is calling for, uh, free speech without any kind of consequences or criticism. None of those things are at all true, and yet they are stated as though they are true. And this comes back to a, a very important problem that we face, and they gave us a word for it, didn't they? The word is gaslighting. That so many people on the identitarian left love to gaslight. They would love... They will happily say to you, "This is a thing that is happening," when it is not happening. Or, "This is a thing that's not happening," when it plainly is happening. They would just deny observable, observable reality, uh, and they will keep denying ob- observable reality so that you start to doubt your own sanity. That's what gaslighting means. It comes from the film Gaslight, you know, where the guy's constantly lowering the lights and his wife's saying, "Why is it getting so dim in here?" And he's saying, "It's not, it's just you." You know? (laughs) So that's what they, that's what they do. And yet again, they accuse others of gaslighting because

7. 34:12 – 39:45

   Criminalising Critical Thinking

   1. ADAndrew Doyle34:12

      that's what they do.

   2. CWChris Williamson34:13

      How far do you think we are from thoughts being a crime? Like, is there a significant philosophical or symbolic difference between thinking a thing in your head and making the noises of that thing with your mouth?

   3. ADAndrew Doyle34:26

      Well, everyone should... uh, has a responsibility to think carefully about the things they say, and they, they should choose their words with care.

   4. CWChris Williamson34:31

      But do we have to think carefully about the things we think?

   5. ADAndrew Doyle34:34

      No, you can't. Uh, nobody can afford to express their every unfiltered view. That's why we have a... we have a filter. (laughs) You know? We... I mean, how could that be the... Our minds are very complex things. We, we, we are continually wrestling with difficult ideas, and everyone has thoughts that they would not express. Um, but that's the, that's the point of socialization. That's why children sometimes say the most awful things. (laughs) You know? Because they just-

   6. CWChris Williamson35:02

      Hilarious things. Yeah.

   7. ADAndrew Doyle35:03

      They just come out with it, and they say sometimes really offensive and upsetting things because they don't have that filter and they don't have that sense of social responsibility. And that's something that we learn when we socialize. Um, the idea of criminalizing someone's thoughts... I mean, of course it's, uh, horrific and it's the stuff of dystopia. That's why dystopian writers such as Philip K. Dick always wrote about that kind of thing. Whether it's actually happening, is that your question, whether... how far are we from it actually happening?

   8. CWChris Williamson35:25

      Mm-hmm. Yeah. Just that... So the interesting thing that I've found is that certain groups of people would sooner have a lying ally than a truthful opponent.

   9. ADAndrew Doyle35:35

      Yeah. Yeah.

   10. CWChris Williamson35:35

       So they would rather someone make the mouth noises that they don't believe and essentially be unreli-... Like, they don't know what that person's gonna do. They're evidently not being themselves. Or even if they don't, they're perhaps making themselves willfully ignorant of their deception-

   11. ADAndrew Doyle35:49

       Yeah. Yeah.

   12. CWChris Williamson35:50

       ... rather than someone who maybe isn't an actual opponent, maybe they're just slightly adjacent to them or maybe they're not fully on board, but is being wholly themselves and is being completely truthful. And that, to me, I find that fascinating how someone is-

   13. ADAndrew Doyle36:03

       But I think-

   14. CWChris Williamson36:04

       ... prepared to take deception as long as it's deception on my side.

   15. ADAndrew Doyle36:08

       Uh, uh... Oh, well, I think, though, the view that deception is preferable to the truth... I mean, there's this thing that they call preference falsification is when you, you say what you think is the, uh, the, the most popular view, not what you actually think, the thing that you're meant to say. Th- th- that's the phrase. It was, it was coined by an economist and I, I'm, I'm g- gutted I can't remember his name, but you can look it up. Preference falsification. It's very important, um, because I remember talking to someone who'd been on Question Time and they... Or wait, or... no, I'm misremembering. Someone who knew someone who'd been on a Question Time panel, and they said that they'd had this discussion with all the politicians and the journalists, and then afterwards in the green room... they'd all sort of said, "Did you really think that?" "No, I don't think that." And they all agreed that they actually thought the opposite. Um, but they knew that they had to give the, the, that to say the right thing. Now-

   16. CWChris Williamson36:52

       Very performative sort of con- conversation. Yeah.

   17. ADAndrew Doyle36:55

       Well, that, that, that's a, a fairly standard thing in politics. I mean, you know, po- politicians are always having to, to, to toe a certain party line. The, the, the problem is that now, like you say, um, we're, there are all things that we're expected to say even if we don't believe them. And I would urge everyone never to say something you don't believe. I think s- I think, uh, it's self-destructive to speak knowing falsehoods. It, it is, is really self-destructive. Not only that, it means you don't know anyone. People don't know each other. I would rather know what people actually think. But I think the reason why particularly the social justice Left would rather they lived in a world of liars, firstly, I think it's because a lot of them are liars themselves and they, they are willing to be colluding in these kinds-

   18. CWChris Williamson37:31

       Feel like they're in good company.

   19. ADAndrew Doyle37:32

       Well, I guess it's just a kind of sense of th- the means always justify the ends. I think that's really what, what it, what it's about. Um, but also I think additionally to that, it's about this idea that their, it's about their belief that language creates reality. It's that postmodern belief or that, that everything that happens in the world is down to the words that are expressed. Um, and as a result of that, if you have opinions that are, uh, shall we say objectionable, uh, and those opinions are articulated, then they're out, they've escaped like a, like a poison f- from a lab. You know, they're, they're like a, like a, like a virus. And therefore what happens is that changes society and poisons and infects society. And I think they genuinely believe that. Uh, as opposed to the truth of it, which is the opposite of that, which is that if you hear objectionable ideas out loud, you are able to engage with them and explain why they are wrong or expose the people who are expressing it, all the other things that, which is how progress works. It's why we got over slavery in the 19th century through discussion and debate and people wrangling with these then very difficult issues, but issues now that everyone, there's a, a complete consensus on, right? You don't reach that consensus without discussion. When, when I hear of, um, people attempting to criminalize, particularly with the trans debate, tran- at- attempting to criminalize the language that people use, misgendering, that kind of thing, or compelling speech as Canada is now doing, when I hear that, I think, "You have learned nothing from civil rights movements. You've learned nothing." The g- the, the gay rights movement never did this. They never suggested we should criminalize people who, who, who used words about gay people in a certain way or didn't accept, uh, gay equality. We never had that. We had debate, protest, and we had, uh, we even had ridicule and we had discussion and, and, and persuasion. Above all, we had persuasion. Uh, and it worked. Now y- you won't find many people who are against equal rights for gay people, but, uh, the, the, the ones, the residual elements, uh, tend to be very religious, uh, in fact. So again, you reach a, you reach... Progress is achieved through open discussion, and, uh, progress is stymied, uh, when people misrepresent their own thoughts, uh, for fear of, uh, the, the tyranny of the collective, of the, of, of, um, the ty- the, the, the, you know, this, this, what you'd call peer pressure.

8. 39:45 – 48:58

   The ‘N-Word’ & Free Speech

   1. ADAndrew Doyle39:45

   2. CWChris Williamson39:45

      Where does the N-word fit into free speech? Recently we've had this 67-year-old New York Times writer Donald McNeil re- fired for referring to the N-word. Isn't it weird that if he was a rapper and he'd said that, he would've been fine?

   3. ADAndrew Doyle39:59

      Was, was the context of that that he was quoting? I believe there was a recent example of someone quoting-

   4. CWChris Williamson40:03

      He was referring to s- referring to-

   5. ADAndrew Doyle40:04

      Right.

   6. CWChris Williamson40:04

      ... something else. Yeah. So I guess he's one-

   7. ADAndrew Doyle40:06

      Well, look-

   8. CWChris Williamson40:07

      ... one level removed from saying it.

   9. ADAndrew Doyle40:09

      Yeah. Well, I think the, the, the truth is, and we all acknowledge that when I say that words and violence are two different things, I'm not saying that words don't have power or indeed that words don't have baggage. And, uh, when you have a word that is so d- uh, associated with, uh, the evils of, of, of slavery and, uh, certainly a word that is favored by racists, uh, there's no getting around that. Um, th- then obviously, this is what I say about w- you know, people should think before they speak because they should think not just about what they're saying, but the, but, but i- but how it, how it is received. That's why clarity is always important. Um, so th- uh, having acknowledged that, then you have to talk about the intention of why the word is being uttered. If you're quoting from a text, if you're teaching Of Mice and Men by Steinbeck in which the word occ- occurs frequently, if you're teaching Huckleberry Finn, although of course a lot of people aren't now because they, they say it's a racist book because it contains the word, well, context is absolutely everything. Um, you couldn't... The, the book, and let's take Mark Twain.

   10. CWChris Williamson41:06

       Mm-hmm.

   11. ADAndrew Doyle41:06

       Let's take Huckleberry Finn, right? The book wouldn't work if that word was not there because the work is a satire against... It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a book which is pro-racial equality. It is against those people, those hypocrites. Because you'll notice that the hypocrites in that novel are the adults who believe that they are Christian and good and righteous, and yet they endorse slavery. And it takes a child to see through the evil of slavery. Right? That's the point. And, and that doesn't work if you sanitize the reality of what life was like for someone like Jim, for a character like Jim, right? It doesn't work. So to say that the book is racist simply because of the presence of a, of a word that many people find offensive is to completely divorce, uh, a misi- firstly, it's a complete misinterpretation of what the text is about, but it's also to empower a certain word with this, uh, undue weight and say that the word in of itself is an evil word. Well, that's, that's almost talismanic. That's almost, that's almo- that almost invested with a kind of significance. Words are all about intent because they're, they're, they're how we express our ideas about the world. That, that isn't s- uh, I think we should be very wary, uh, of an overreaction. However, having said that, and, and for all my urging people to, to speak with care and to not go out of their way to hurt other people's feelings, if, if you've decided that you want to use the word for whatever reason, that's up to you. It is not for me. If I heard that someone, someone using that word or any kind of racial slur authentically from a place of racial hatred, then I would know that's not the sort of person I want to associate with. And I will remove myself from that situation pretty quickly or I will say something. You know, if I feel like, and if I feel I'm not gonna get beaten to a pulp, I would probably say something to that person. I would complain. Um-... but if it's someone in a classroom quoting a poem, (laughs) uh, didn't it happen when someone was quoting James Baldwin, uh, and I think that was great.

   12. CWChris Williamson42:56

       The best, the best example I've heard was a teacher teaching Chinese to Americans, and there is a word in Chinese that sounds like the N-word.

   13. ADAndrew Doyle43:07

       Right. Oh, what-

   14. CWChris Williamson43:07

       And he's trying, he's trying to teach them it. Phonetically, it sounds like that. I think it's maybe like C-G or two Cs instead. Um, but-

   15. ADAndrew Doyle43:17

       Right.

   16. CWChris Williamson43:17

       ... it's, it's close enough.

   17. ADAndrew Doyle43:19

       Okay.

   18. CWChris Williamson43:20

       Um, also, I mean, even just the fact... Like, I, I get it, that, that word is loaded with baggage. And I have nightmares about accidentally saying it sometimes on a live stream or something. Not that I... It's a word that I don't think, I can't remember using because I'm so terrified that if it gets into my lexicon somehow, that it might just-

   19. ADAndrew Doyle43:37

       Right. I see.

   20. CWChris Williamson43:37

       ... sneak out at a really inopportune time.

   21. ADAndrew Doyle43:39

       You're not a rap fan. You're not a fan of rap.

   22. CWChris Williamson43:41

       Well, wh- no, that's the thing. That's the other, uh, really fascinating thing, that if you're a rapper of any, any racial descent, you can say it. If you're a rapper, you're allowed to say that word as many times as you want. If you're Cardi B, it can be the majority of one of your songs.

   23. ADAndrew Doyle43:58

       Yeah, but again, there's context to that. There's context to the, the, the genre.

   24. CWChris Williamson44:02

       But there was no context to Donald McNeil referring to it on a bus.

   25. ADAndrew Doyle44:06

       Right. But that's my, that's my point. It's al- it's always got to be about, it's always got to be about context. Um, but this is why I say the, the bottom line should be anyone should be able to, to say what they choose to say. That's it. And if they say something that's offensive and, and even horrible, then, then you, you, then we have a decision to either criticize them back or to remove ourself from that situation. That, that's the way it's gotta be. You know? Um...

   26. CWChris Williamson44:30

       I mean, Donald, Donald McNeil was allowed to say it. It wasn't like someone-

   27. ADAndrew Doyle44:33

       He was allow-

   28. CWChris Williamson44:33

       ... someone came in with a big set of jaw clamps or something and was like, "Nope, you're not allowed to finish the second syllable of that word." Um...

   29. ADAndrew Doyle44:40

       Yeah. But what we shouldn't stand for is, is then this, this decision that he's a racist. Could be... Because al- although I'm not familiar with the case, from what you've described, it's someone quoting, he's clearly not a racist. In fact, it, it was probably an anti-racist point. They often is in these cases.

   30. CWChris Williamson44:53

       I'm not sure. So there's some, there's some accusations of other things that he said on the trip and if they're true, that kind of reframes this. But it doesn't really seem like there's as much evidence and then you think, well, it kind of feels like that's being thrown in after the fact.
9. 48:58 – 53:08

   How Will Future Humanity See Us?

   1. ADAndrew Doyle48:58

      it blows my mind.

   2. CWChris Williamson48:59

      You've got this quote in the book that I really liked. It says, "History did not look fondly on the hubris of those who appoint themselves as arbiters of permissible speech and thought. Their authority is only ever contingent on the wisdom of their time." What do you reckon that future humans are gonna look back on this time and think?

   3. ADAndrew Doyle49:16

      It will be a fascinating. Well, I think, I have absolutely no doubt that this, this will be a weird, uh, blip in human history. Right? I mean, I, I feel like, I mean, I'm living it, and I'm also very aware that, of course, we'd never know, uh, how future generations will perceive. Uh, but my God, it feels weird enough being in it.

   4. CWChris Williamson49:35

      (laughs)

   5. ADAndrew Doyle49:35

      You know? It, it-

   6. CWChris Williamson49:36

      Yeah. (laughs) With all of the context-

   7. ADAndrew Doyle49:38

      It feels like-

   8. CWChris Williamson49:38

      ... and all of the upbringing, and all of the understanding.

   9. ADAndrew Doyle49:42

      Well, you know, you read the article today about how peop- men need to stop wearing ties because it's a phallic symbol of white supremacy, and you just think, "Well ..." Uh, you know, uh, uh, that's become normal to me now. I see that sort of thing every day. It shouldn't, by the way. That should always be a, like, "What the hell is this?" kind of moment. "Who's reading this rubbish?" Mainstream newspapers. The Guardian again. Um, and you, we're living it. It's everywhere. Um, I think ultimately in 100 years time or so, people will look, they will, they will see it as a, a pocket of hysteria. This was a moment of hysteria that, that people lived through, uh, where everyone just started denying reality. Everyone just started saying, the ACLU started putting posts out saying, "There is no advantage whatsoever to being born biologically male when it comes to sport. That just simply doesn't exist."

   10. CWChris Williamson50:29

       (laughs)

   11. ADAndrew Doyle50:29

       Just statements of untruth, and they call them facts. Do you notice that? I don't know if you saw that thread.

   12. CWChris Williamson50:34

       No.

   13. ADAndrew Doyle50:34

       They call them facts. Oh, the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, which has basically become a, uh, a- an identitarian activist group now, put out a list of facts debunked, with "debunking the myths." Uh, and one of the myths they debunk was the idea that, um, uh, there is any biological difference between men and women whatsoever. That's a myth that they're just debunking via Twitter. So, well done. Um, but you see, and I think historians will look at that and say, "Okay, so there were all these people saying observable falsehoods, and stating them with such self-assurance as though they were fact." Well, religious zealots, in other words. Um, and, um, and this was, not only did this happen, but governments, and businesses, and corporations, and HR departments, and the police, and to- schools, and teachers, and universities echoed these same falsehoods. And everyone colluded and pretended that they were real, except for the majority of people who were standing there saying, "What? What's going on? None of this is real. Why, why are you creating this fantasy land that we have to occupy?" But that's what happened. But the powerful people sustained the illusion for this length of time until suddenly a thing called democracy won out. (laughs)

   14. CWChris Williamson51:46

       Until the Doyle, until the Doyle party finally took over and rose, rose to prominence bearing-

   15. ADAndrew Doyle51:51

       You've got to be kidding.

   16. CWChris Williamson51:52

       ... bearing their pitchforks and their rocket grenade launchers.

   17. ADAndrew Doyle51:56

       Idea that I would ever go into politics. I, I, I've had a number of people suggest it to me. I, I, never. No, no, no. Not at all.

   18. CWChris Williamson52:03

       Well, everyone-

   19. ADAndrew Doyle52:04

       Why don't you start one?

   20. CWChris Williamson52:05

       No.

   21. ADAndrew Doyle52:05

       The Chris Williams party.

   22. CWChris Williamson52:06

       Mate, I've, I've done far too many party drugs to be able to ever be ... In fact, actually, that might be what gets me in. Maybe that's, maybe that is my route in. Maybe-

   23. ADAndrew Doyle52:14

       It's allowed. I think it's allowed these days, isn't it? Because mo- most of the major politicians have admitted to, uh, some sort of drug use over the past-

   24. CWChris Williamson52:20

       Fair enough. That might be it.

   25. ADAndrew Doyle52:21

       So, I think ... Hey, I mean, I, I couldn't do it 'cause I was a standup comedian. Still am. I, notice I used past tense there.

   26. CWChris Williamson52:26

       (laughs)

   27. ADAndrew Doyle52:26

       It's 'cause I've been locked down. I'm, I'm, sorry. Uh-

   28. CWChris Williamson52:28

       (laughs) In pre-COVID, I used to be a standup comedian.

   29. ADAndrew Doyle52:32

       But, but you ... Well, there are no standup comedians at the moment, are there? But if you, um, if, you know, you could go through my old sets and take a quote out of context. You could do that with any comedian, you know? It, it, and you know what politicians, they get such scrutiny over absolutely everything they've ever said. But that's not re- the real reason I wouldn't do it. The real reason I wouldn't do it is 'cause I, I couldn't do the lying thing. I couldn't ... You know, if you're par- a member of a party, you have to follow the party line on certain issues. And I couldn't be in that position of not saying what I thought. I can't do that.

   30. CWChris Williamson52:59

       I'm a, I'm a terrible liar. Like, absolutely awful. And many of my ex-girlfriends will attest to that as well.
10. 53:08 – 1:00:56

    Trump & Social Media Censorship

    1. CWChris Williamson53:08

       what are your thoughts on Trump being removed from Twitter? Like, is that a freedom of speech issue?

    2. ADAndrew Doyle53:13

       So, the, uh, the question of big tech censorship, I suppose, is, um, well, firstly, we have to bring the argument up to date. So when you talk about how a lot of people say censorship is just the, the prerogative of the state, it's something the state does, that's, uh, uh, an argument that's completely out of date, about 20 years out of date. Uh, the big tech companies operate as oligopoly. They, they have, um, they dominate the predominant mean- the predominant public forum, the dom- predominant means of communication. They have more collective power than any nation state, but they have none of the democratic accountability that comes with it. Um, s- we have to accept that they are in a unique position. If you're going to say to me, um, that it is, it is fine for them t- to determine the parameters of acceptable speech, uh, on, when they ... not only do they own all of the major platforms for speech, they will shut down any competition in its nascent form, as we saw with Parler. You know, so, so they'll say, "Go and, go and set up your own platform." Someone does, they shut it down. Right? So this is not ... You know, this is the reason why we have anti-trust laws. We have it for a reason. We, we, you know, when, when certain, uh, uh, small groups of companies dominate a market, there are measures put in place to address that. I don't see why it should be any different, um, with big tech. I think the, um, when it comes to Donald Trump specifically, it is, it terrifies me actually, that, that, uh, these un- unelected billionaires can, uh, decide whether we get to hear from an elected president. Uh, the leader of the free world. That's a terrifying thing. The last people that should be cheering on the power of multi-billion dollar corporations is anyone who is authentically on the left, because to be on the left means that you don't support those people, by the way. Sorry, this is sort of leftism 101. Read a book about this stuff. It's not difficult. You know, it's ins- it's absolutely nuts.... that this would be the case. Uh, the, uh, no leftist thinker going back beyond 20, because leftism has become dominated by identity politics now. None of these people are really left wing. But, but go back, you know, even, not even that long ago, and people would have laughed out loud. You went to a socialist meeting back in the '80s and said, "Yeah, we need Google to..." I know Google didn't exist, but the equivalent of Google to, to stand up for our, to, to look after us. (laughs) Basically to be our parent. Um-

    3. CWChris Williamson55:29

       Do you think, do you think that he would've been removed-

    4. ADAndrew Doyle55:31

       No way.

    5. CWChris Williamson55:31

       ... if he was still gonna be president for four years?

    6. ADAndrew Doyle55:34

       Well, I always thought they were gonna actually wait until he was out, and I knew they were gonna nuke his account, but I thought they were gonna do it, like, the day after he was out. I think that it just goes to show how brazen they're becoming. I mean, they, they, they now believe that they h- they are more powerful than the president. They believe they're more powerful than, than politicians. Now look, the, the, it's a straightforward thing, and you'll always hear the, "Oh, well, it's a private company. They can do what they want," argument. Okay, well, you know, that, while that is, uh, technically true, they absolutely can, I suppose they could also decide to not allow gay people on their platform if they want. I think they should face robust criticism if they decide to do that, and similarly, they should face, face robust criticism when they are editorializing on completely partisan lines. Let's face it, that's exactly what they are doing. So they, they do need to face, uh, not just criticism. There needs to be, um, more than that, and I think the way you do it is they, frankly, because they are now behaving like publishers, they should not have legal protections. That's all it is. They, if they're, if they're gonna be publishers, then they're like every other publisher, like every other media outlet or newspaper, they are responsible for the words that appear on their platform, end of story. Because every time Twitter gets sued for a libelous thing that's there, they say, "Well, we're not a publisher. We're a platform. We're not responsible for what we put out." Well, just, just change that. Change the rules. Change Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And the way you could change it, because obviously, you know, that act was set up because of the proliferation of comment sections on news sites. It can't, it's, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to be responsible for everything they fail to remove in a comment section. That's really unreasonable, right? So you need to have those protections. So why not just change that law, uh, so that they're not, that they're responsible, so that it doesn't count for illegal content, say. So in other words, uh, they can't be held responsible for, or libelous, libelous or illegal content. Uh, rather than giving them license, as it currently does, the way it's phrased, they have the license to remove anything that just, they just d- disagree with. That, or offends them, right? No, I think as soon as you're d- removing content because you politically disagree or because it offends your personal sensibilities, as happens all the time on Facebook and Twitter, then you are most definitely a publisher. You're editorializing, end of story. So I think that's the point at which we need to have some protec- some changes to the law, you know? So by all means, if Twitter wants to say, "Look, we're a private company, we're opposed to free speech, and we will only allow these opinions. You can't have these other opinions." Which is effectively what it does anyway now, you know? For instance, gender critical feminists are routinely booted off, um, because, because Twitter just doesn't agree with them, right? Well, if you want that kind of a platform, then say what you are. Just say what you are and be h- honest and open about it. Don't pretend that you're for free speech, which they're not.

    7. CWChris Williamson58:14

       Do you reckon, do you reckon Trump will run in 2024?

    8. ADAndrew Doyle58:17

       I mean, I hate predicting the future, because I always get it wrong. Like, I think when-

    9. CWChris Williamson58:20

       No, you always get it right, mate. Every time, the only, the only thing-

    10. ADAndrew Doyle58:23

        Nah, okay.

    11. CWChris Williamson58:23

        ... that you've ever predicted on this show that you got wrong, I think, was ... Oh, no, you actually, you pred- you pre- you said that Biden was gonna win as well. Yeah, so you did get that one-

    12. ADAndrew Doyle58:31

        No, but I, I, I think, no, I, I'm happy to predict, but I'm no Mothershippton. I'm, I'm, I don't think I'm gonna be right.

    13. CWChris Williamson58:37

        Cassandra over here.

    14. ADAndrew Doyle58:39

        Look, I think no. I, I wouldn't have thought so. I wouldn't have thought so. No. I, I mean, I could elaborate on that, but I just, I just don't, I don't, I don't think he's got the necessary support now, uh, within the Republican Party, so I just don't think he would get the nomination. But who knows? Who knows?

    15. CWChris Williamson58:55

        My inclination, as two Englishmen talking about American politics, which this channel-

    16. ADAndrew Doyle59:00

        Mm-hmm.

    17. CWChris Williamson59:00

        ... gets, gets, uh, criticized for an absolute lot.

    18. ADAndrew Doyle59:02

        Yeah, I think, I think some American politicians get really annoyed by this, don't they?

    19. CWChris Williamson59:04

        Yeah, they hate it. I mean, I, I put a video up with Carl Benjamin, uh, the YouTuber formerly known as Sargon of Akkad the other day talking about, uh, AOC, and someone commented-

    20. ADAndrew Doyle59:14

        Right.

    21. CWChris Williamson59:14

        ... someone commented and said, "Why are you two Brits always talking about American politics?" And I was like, "Well, it's because it's far more interesting than ours. Like, the closest thing that we have to AOC is Diane Abbott."

    22. ADAndrew Doyle59:23

        I mean, you're, you're very close to the whole stay-in-your-lane argument there, aren't you? It's as though we're not allowed to take any interest in world politics. That's, that's ridiculous. And what's the harm, you know? And m- maybe we get it wrong. That's all right. Maybe we, you know, maybe we get it completely wrong, but so what?

    23. CWChris Williamson59:37

        Can't vote for, can't vote for it in any case. The, um-

    24. ADAndrew Doyle59:38

        Doesn't matter.

    25. CWChris Williamson59:39

        ... my, my favorite, my favorite thing that I've heard around this social media freedom of speech thing is freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach. It's like because it rhymes, somehow it's got-

    26. ADAndrew Doyle59:50

        It's true. Yeah.

    27. CWChris Williamson59:50

        ... it's, yeah, some- somehow it's got more veracity to it.

    28. ADAndrew Doyle59:53

        Yeah, it's either rhyming or repeating. Repetition is the other one. Have you seen the, the UN Women, the UN Women account keeps putting out these tweets that are just the, what was the one they did the other day? "There is, there is no wrong way to be a woman. There is no wrong way to be a woman." There were eight times. It's like, well, I wasn't convinced by the third time.

    29. CWChris Williamson1:00:09

        (laughs)

    30. ADAndrew Doyle1:00:09

        By the fifth, I, I was being persuaded, and then by the eighth, I'm like, "Oh yeah, man. You've nailed it." You know, if persuasive rhetorical documents from the history, all they were were just repeating the same sentence over and over again until they wore you down into submission, I mean, that's Jack Nicholson in The Shining. That's not a serious argument. That's, uh, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. You know, it's, it's insane. And it's what insane people do.
11. 1:00:56 – 1:03:16

    University Deplatforming

    1. CWChris Williamson1:00:56

       me and you. It's not an issue at the moment because no one can leave the house, but why shouldn't people protest against speakers that they don't like?

    2. ADAndrew Doyle1:01:06

       Uh, they should. I don't have a problem with that. Um-

    3. CWChris Williamson1:01:09

       Why shouldn't they petition to get them removed from the university or the campus or the wherever?

    4. ADAndrew Doyle1:01:16

       The, the, the pro- the, the problem I haven't... I haven't got a problem with protest at all. I think, I think protest is a sign of a healthy democracy and you should be able to protest whatever you like. My problem is people capitulating to protests that are clearly asinine. Right? So, if s- if, if, if I, for instance, say, "I don't want this speaker on campus because he eats meat and I'm a vegetarian, and it will therefore normalize the killing of pigs." Right? If I say something as ludicrous as that, I would expect the university authorities to say, "Okay. You're, you're free to have that opinion, but shut up now because we're not gonna listen to you. We're not interested. Uh, but, you know, go and have your protest, whatever." Um, but it's the demat- it's, it's the, it's the threats. It's when protests, uh, literally prevent people from speaking, as in they sound fire alarms or they prevent the event going ahead, or they threaten, and so therefore the costs of security become prohibitive. These are, these are... That's where you are preventing someone else from speaking, and that's the distinction. I don't have a problem with anyone protesting, at all. Uh-

    5. CWChris Williamson1:02:13

       I think the, I think the sort of protests I had in mind was when... Was it Steve Bannon went to Oxford to speak and there was essentially, like, a human wall of people in front of the entrance that stopped-

    6. ADAndrew Doyle1:02:24

       Like I sa- like, like I said, the distinction is clear. Uh, peaceful protest, I'm all for. Any form of protest that turns violent, I oppose, no matter who is doing it and for what reason, and any, uh, measures that prevent other people from making their own informed choice. Right? So if you, if you... In other words, 'cause what you're doing is if you for- form a wall to prevent people actually... to v- prevent the event taking place, you are acting in loco parentis. You are deciding on behalf of your peers what they can and cannot hear. That's not for you to do.

    7. CWChris Williamson1:02:53

       What's loco parentis mean?

    8. ADAndrew Doyle1:02:54

       And so I oppose that. In loco parentis, in place of a parent. It's a poncy way of saying that. Um, but (laughs) it's, um... But basically, you know, that's what I op- that, I think, is a th- That's when you are threatening free speech. You are th- You know, and, and that's when you are acting like an authoritarian because what you're saying is, "My particular view of the world is the only one that matters." And that's the opposite of, of

12. 1:03:16 – 1:06:19

    Lived Experience & Truth

    1. ADAndrew Doyle1:03:16

       a, of a liberal democracy and what it stands for.

    2. CWChris Williamson1:03:18

       I've got my favorite passage from the book, uh, and I'm gonna read it out here. "In an age when lived experience is often valued more than objective truth, the core tenets of liberalism, due process and free speech are bound to be at risk. Lived experience is what we used to call anecdotal evidence, a fallacious form of reasoning that has misled many into believing that ours is an essentially oppressive society, overrun by fascists and undergirded by white supremacy. Needless to say, those who, whose 'lived experience' tell them that this worldview bears little resemblance to reality are quickly discounted. It would seem that 'lived experience' only matters if it is of the approved sort." Good, good words, Andrew.

    3. ADAndrew Doyle1:04:00

       Oh, thank you. Thank you, Chris (laughs) . Because that is something that troubles me and it's something that I've already gone into with you before about, about, uh, uh, you know. Firstly, the inherent contradictions of the movement. So if you're going to say that objective truth doesn't matter and all that matters is people's lived experience and perception, in other words, um, then you're gonna have to take on board everyone's perception, aren't you? Or what you're really doing is you're saying that, uh, "No. What I meant was, people wh- whose perception agrees with mine." And then it's a different thing, isn't it? So there's the, the inherent contradiction within it, but also the idea that we can just discount objective truth. Well, the, you know... It's, it's a- it's, it's, it's so opposed to basic enlightenment values of reason and scientific inquiry. It's, it's, it's absolutely nuts. I mean, yeah, there are people who will say that homeopathy objectively works because I had some of that course and I got better. But you see, that... We don't make these sweeping statements on the basis of that, do we? Because that's not a sufficient study that it worked for you. Right? That's not, that's not, that's not sufficient, is it? Um, what was the Derren Brown show where he, he did the, uh, the horse racing, The System? Have you seen that one?

    4. CWChris Williamson1:05:05

       No.

    5. ADAndrew Doyle1:05:05

       Th- You, you should watch it. So it's an hour-long show called The System where he basically... uh, uh, he shows you, uh, this process by which he, he, he picks a member of the public and he feeds them the information of which horse is gonna win a race. And he does it five or six times, and it works every time. Impossible, right? And then he shows you how he did it, and I won't tell you how he did it, but it's a similar th- it's a similar thing. Because all we're seeing is her experience of winning every time, and we're not seeing what's actually happening, which is a much bigger picture that you might even be able to guess from what I've just said. Um, because we cannot... Honestly, watch it. It's great. Um, we cannot, we cannot base our perception... our conclusions about reality on our experience of reality. Okay? Because if we do that, chaos reigns, as the fox said in Antichrist. You know? We, we... Sorry, that's a bit of a niche reference. I just love that film. You've seen the film Antichrist?

    6. CWChris Williamson1:05:56

       Yeah.

    7. ADAndrew Doyle1:05:56

       Is it, is it the last one? Do you remember? You know the bit where the fox speaks (laughs) and says, "Chaos reigns." It's so chilling. I love it. Anyway, um, where was I? Sorry, I'm getting confused by foxes.

    8. CWChris Williamson1:06:05

       No, you just... Uh, I love every time that you're on, for some reason, we seem to have like really apocalyptic references. I think I first ever introduced you as, like, Twitter cracking and crumbling beneath your feet as you... as we-

    9. ADAndrew Doyle1:06:16

       (laughs)

    10. CWChris Williamson1:06:16

        ... as we started the episode. It's always so apocalyptic.

13. 1:06:19 – 1:13:20

    Free Speech Under Biden

    1. CWChris Williamson1:06:19

    2. ADAndrew Doyle1:06:19

       Oh, well.

    3. CWChris Williamson1:06:19

       Under, um-

    4. ADAndrew Doyle1:06:20

       I'm drawn to it.

    5. CWChris Williamson1:06:21

       Under a Biden administration, do you think-

    6. ADAndrew Doyle1:06:24

       Mm-hmm.

    7. CWChris Williamson1:06:25

       ... that it's better or worse for free speech? What are your predictions there? Or what's your, what's your sense? I know that you don't like making predictions.

    8. ADAndrew Doyle1:06:33

       I think it's worse. I think it is worse. So this is the... uh, I mean, Trump had his blind spots on free speech, which we should never be for- He was not very good on press freedom, for instance. I think if he, if he could have had his way, he would have, uh, quite, been quite happy to shut down his critics and muzzle his critics. I don't think there can be any doubt about that. I think the risk with Biden is that he... You know, I mean, I remember having a lot of discussions before the election, and a lot of people who were voting Biden were sort of saying what, you know, these fears that he's going to be a woke person. He was voted b- in because he's the non-woke candidate, right? That's why we don't have, we don't have Elizabeth Warren.... in the White House, 'cause, 'cause wokeness doesn't win votes, let's face it. You know, uh, this is why Kamala Harris had to drop out of the primary so early, because she, she w- just wasn't popular. Um, and so, you know, all... And then, and then a lot of people would say to me, you know, well, th- that, that it's a f- it's a false fear, but then within two days, a number of the executive orders are specifically woke executive orders, and you think, "Oh, hang on a minute. This is a bad thing." W- Wokeness and, and the opposition to freedom of speech go hand-in-hand. Uh, uh, they just do, because, because as I've said of this belief in, uh, the, uh, power of language to, to form reality, and that's really what it's about. Uh, so I don't think... Firstly, also, I don't think Biden and his administration have any appetite to address the problems of big tech censorship, uh, because big tech is on their side. At the moment, you know, th- uh, it's very myopic, because if, if you go into the f- you know, they should be thinking long-term here. Um, they don't want to set these kind of precedents. So there's that. Uh, there's also a movement, as you know, in America, to have the, the, the First Amendment changed, amend the amendment so that, um, hate speech is not protected speech. Uh, but of course hate speech as a formulation is just, as I say in the book, a k- it's a kind of fudge, uh, for, to, to, to deal with, uh, or to suggest that speech that you don't like is not subject to constitutional protection. That's all that that is. So, um, which is why I argue in the book, was to be, one of the, the arguments that I imagine is gonna get me into a bit of trouble, is that I think all hate speech laws ought to be repealed and that there is no place for hate speech laws on any statute books in a liberal democracy. Um, and I think, uh, under Biden and his administration, the problem of hate speech is going to get worse, as it seems to be in this country a little bit. You've got the Law Commission pushening, pushing now for, for further hate speech regulation, when what they should be doing is dialing existing legislation back, and they're going the other way. The SNP, of course, in Scotland, under Humza Yousaf, the Justice Secretary, who as far as I can see is a kind of maniac, who thinks that you should, um, uh, prosecute people in their own homes for things that they say. I mean, this is properly authoritarian stuff. Like even a lot of people on the left are like, "Oh, hang on a minute. This is too much." You know? This is, uh, it's, it's, it's scary stuff. And, um, w- the, the problem is we need to... I was talking to a politician about this th- the other day. We need to find a way for politicians to be brave enough just to stand up and say... 'Cause it sounds like you're saying, "I want everyone to be able to be hateful. I want everyone to say hateful things." And you're not saying that. You're talking about a much bigger picture about free speech, and about the fact that the state has no place, uh, deciding what its citizens can and cannot say, because that way tyranny lies. So it's gonna take a brave politician. It al- it always, it always takes a degree of courage to defend free speech, because what you're doing is you're defending the rights of unpleasant people to say unpleasant things as, as a corollary of what you're doing, inevitably, because speech that isn't controversial doesn't require protection. So it's difficult. Um, and that's why I emphasize in the book that if you're defending someone who's saying something that's utterly reprehensible, you should also make the point, just strategically, just make the point, that you don't agree with what they're saying and you find it reprehensible. Be clear, because otherwise people will use it against you. They'll do it anyway, by the way. You know, I mean, like it doesn't matter what you say, because people will just put words into your mouth. That seems to be the norm now. People will just decide what you secretly think, you know? You saw this the other... God, Owen Jones tweeted the other day that he was saying that, um, the reason why GB News is so popular can be explained, because everyone who supports it has this fear of, of, uh, is a reactionary who has a fear of progress. So what you've done is you've de- decided what's going on in the minds of all these millions of people about a program that doesn't even exist yet, but you've also just decided what it's about. It's this insane degree of entitlement. I think it's, I think it's demented. The, I mean, the idea that you, you, you think you know what's going on in anyone's heads is, is, is, is, you know, on the face of it, absurd. But to just casually diagnose millions of people with your cod psychology over Twitter-

Episode duration: 1:14:41