John (2:13)

Yeah, no, well, great. Positive feelings is what is always preferred. I want to just kind of see your initial reaction with Piers and then I have kind of some questions for you because you, I think maybe of all the participants in this one, you maybe came in the hottest in kind of a unique way.

Tyler (2:31)

You talk about how you're a liberal who respects free speech. And on that page you say the Republican party, and I quote, is ferociously free speech. Yet Donald Trump, two months ago Signed an executive order Trump banning the burning of the American flag. So how does that work?

Piers Morgan (2:45)

I don't agree with him.

Tyler (2:46)

Yeah, but then how are they ferociously free speech? I don't agree with him, but. No, on your book, on page 81 you said they're ferocious.

Piers Morgan (2:51)

I would say in the last few years the Republicans have been more pro free speech than the woke left. That doesn't mean occasionally, as we saw with the Jimmy Kimmel thing. It doesn't mean that occasionally they don't do stuff which I think is hypocritical because actually it's not supporting free speech.

Tyler (3:05)

So I agree with you. So what executive order did the Democrats pull whole where they are banning anything to the regard of burning the American flag? I don't think it happens.

Piers Morgan (3:14)

I'm talking about. Well, I don't agree with it. So what do you want to say?

Tyler (3:17)

But your book sets are frozen free speech. It's a contradiction.

Piers Morgan (3:20)

They are. They have.

Tyler (3:20)

Should we just turn or tear page 81 out of your book then?

Piers Morgan (3:24)

No, no, no. You could be frozenly free speech and still occasionally do things.

John (3:28)

How did you memorize Pierce's book prior to debating him?

Tyler (3:34)

As I told you, I'm just a really big celebrity apprentice fan, so it kind of comes naturally. But no, like I read his book on the plane. So like, you know, and when I read, I basically like, you know, on pages I find interesting, whether it's like, you know, Piers Morgan or David Hume who I put on the same level. Obviously I'll make like notes on the page. So I was going through his book and you know, there's particular parts of him more interesting, especially when you talk about free speech. I'd make little notes of like what I would like bring up and. And then I kept going back to them. The numbers just kind of stuck with me. I don't know. Yeah, it just happened.

John (4:12)

Piers asked it in his own way. I think he. I can't remember how he said it. We'll see in a sec. But are you gifted with any sort of neuro divergence that allows you better than average recall other?

Tyler (4:25)

I call it neuro excellence. But you know, I don't know. Like, I think it's just like, you know, I'm. It's just something that I've been good at when I. Since I've been young, when I really enjoy something. I just have that natural like good recall ability. But that's all I think it is. I don't think it's anything too special. No, no official diagnosis yet. Maybe there'll be another surrounded for that. That someone could diagnose me. But yeah.

John (4:51)

Yeah. Tyler versus 20 medical.

Tyler (4:57)

20 medical professionals. Yeah. I might leave sadder in that episode.

John (5:01)

No positive feelings there. Okay, so let's watch the rest of the exchange because I do think. Well, first of all, I just wanted to say I was a little jealous because, like, if I ever was debating somebody who I did have, you know, like, a really important point to bring up to, I would hope that I could come in as confidently and as prepared and equipped with real, you know, like, material references, like you did with Piers. And it clearly kind of put him on his heels a little bit. I think it was maybe of the whole episode. It was where I saw him in a uniquely vulnerable position. So let's watch a little bit more of that.

Tyler (5:41)

Awesome. Yeah, I like the book. What can I say?

Piers Morgan (5:43)

Are you like one of those weird little mentalists who just remembers every single word that we played?

Tyler (5:47)

I'm just a massive Celebrity Apprentice fan, so I need no idea, really. Oh, you killed Trace Adkins in the end. I really appreciate that.

Piers Morgan (5:52)

I actually bumped into him in Beverly Hills recently, but.

Tyler (5:54)

So on page 245, you talk about how you are against. If you were king for a day, you would ban anybody who participates in cancel culture online.

Piers Morgan (6:03)

Yes.

Tyler (6:03)

And you would call him out. However, Michael Knowles, a guest you have on all the time, has recently said that he wants to ostracize certain people from society, that when they say negative things. He was on this show and said if you wave the pride flag, you should be in jail for that. That is against the first amendment and that it's absolutely cancel cultural.

Piers Morgan (6:22)

I don't agree with that.

Tyler (6:22)

You never call him out on the show. You've never done it. You have him on the show all.

Piers Morgan (6:26)

The next time he's on, I will call him.

Tyler (6:29)

You promised.

Piers Morgan (6:29)

You have a bet.

Tyler (6:30)

So, like, right now, though, it just.

Piers Morgan (6:32)

Seems to me anyone who watches my show will know I call out everybody.

Tyler (6:35)

No, you don't. You never call Michael Mulles. He's done it multiple times.

Piers Morgan (6:38)

You've just pointed that out to me.

Tyler (6:39)

So we'll call him out on it. It just sounds like you're not.

Piers Morgan (6:41)

Michael, if you're watching, I'm going to ask you about that. You better have your.

Tyler (6:45)

Okay, so then other than. So what has the left has done?

Piers Morgan (6:47)

I'm not idealizing left or right.

Tyler (6:50)

What has the left. What has the left done in the past 10 years that it's been worse than trying to ban the burning of the American flag.

Piers Morgan (6:56)

Well, what's the woke left done pretty. They tried to ban everybody and everything.

Tyler (6:59)

Really? They tried to make it illegal. Name one example. That's just a flag, so. Yeah, but what legislation do they put forward before we.

John (7:08)

Well, yeah, I guess I'm just curious. Where's your mind at reliving it, Seeing it just there?

Tyler (7:14)

I think that's like as good as it could have gone for me in terms of that debate and in terms of Piers, because I like Piers Morgan, I like Pierce. I don't have anything against him other than some of his positions. And I do think he has a unique platform where he does seem to bring in guests from all over the political aisle. And I think Michael Knowles is somebody who needs to be questioned on his values and free speech. Right. So to get that concession out of him that at least he's going to ask about it. And at least now there's like a video of him saying, hey, I will ask you about this or whether he does it or not. He hasn't done it yet, but if he does do it, I think that's really good. I think that's the most of a concession you can get out of someone in that kind of environment.

John (7:56)

Yeah, I really like when he addresses the camera. To your knowledge, has. Has he gone any further to, you know, to challenge Michael on his stance?

Tyler (8:08)

No, he has not. And truthfully, and like, this is like, no knock on Pierce. I just don't know if Pierce is equipped to like, kind of be able to like, sift through the question. Because if you ask Michael Knowles this, this is what he's going to say. So if he says this, in the end, you can point back to this video. Michael Knowles will say something like, well, I'm not a free speech absolutist. I think there should absolutely be limits. Well, no one's a free speech absolutist. Most people have limits on it. What's the important distinction here is that Michael Knowles idea of free speech is against the first Amendment. It's anti constitutional and it's anti American. And that's like the more force I'd want Pierce to bring to him that I am not holding my breath for.

John (8:47)

And I hear what you're saying. You know, probably the most notorious thing Michael Knowles has said is transgenderism should be eradicated from society. Or, you know, something very close to that he said at a very public event. Yeah, I completely hear what you're saying. That seems like a very obvious overstep and over policing of the idea of Free expression that we would see defended in the Constitution. In your conversations with Pierce, did you ever get to a point where, and remind me if I missed it, where you kind of made some concessions on where there was over policing on the left, either on a legislative level or otherwise.

Tyler (9:32)

So, yeah, I'm not sure there's much evidence for anything on a legislative from the left. And that's kind of one of my bigger points, is that, you know, the left is certainly pernicious in cancel culture, but it's not at the level of the right level. Yeah. If this video were done 10 years ago, like in 2015, I would agree with Pierce that the left was actually worse on free speech back then. I'm a, like, I am a huge believer. And the left did take cancel culture too far. There were times where I thought, yeah, like, this is crazy, and something that people say on the left a lot and that you would kind of hear. Right. You know, if you're in a political science classroom, you'd hear the smartest student in the class say, well, you know, freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. Well, yeah, no, duh. No one believes this. But the fact that these, like, social media companies and, like, we're so connected now globally, they do have power for people to lose their jobs over this stuff. There is this power to actually, you say something people don't like, and they can force you out of particular areas of life, and that is dangerous. The First Amendment was to protect the government from doing that to you. And essentially corporations and public opinion can have very akin powers to the government as well. And I think it's important that we fight against that stuff. However, this conversation did not happen in 2015, it happened in 2025. So I'm just more concerned to focus on the more immediate threat. And, you know, if Pierce brings up examples to me of, like, cancel culture that's gone on the left, I think in most cases I'm just going to concede that. Yeah, like, the left shouldn't be doing that too. And I will call them out on it. But, like, let's focus on what I believe is the dire problem.

John (11:18)

Yeah, well, let's talk about the dire problem in just a minute. But, you know, just to kind of pull up some examples I could think of. So in the US I think probably the finger of blame would go towards Covid and the suppression of speech on social platforms, I think. I don't know if it was Zuckerberg, but there's the Twitter files, basically, these anecdotes and Corroborated stories that the government pressured social media platforms to suppress any information around or a lot of information around vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. And I think the justification at the time was this is a dire public health concern. And I think looking back, I would find it pretty clear that that overstep happened. Do you agree or is there any light between us there?

Tyler (12:14)

Yeah, so I would probably actually mostly agree, but I think the facts in the case are important. Right. So specifically with Zuckerberg was the only one who's come in and said, look, we got pressure from the federal government to do this. However, this was actually struck down at the Supreme Court from six to three because they did not have standing. They're not able to provide proof that the government applying pressure did change or did not change any policy, which is something that you would need. Now, I agree that too much pressure from the federal government can override the First Amendment, and the courts recognize this. However, there just has been a lack of evidence that this happened and it did affect any sort of their policies.

John (13:00)

But it actually forced their hands.

Tyler (13:02)

Yeah. As per the Supreme Court. Now, of course, just the idea of doing that also makes me uncomfortable, and I rather the government not be doing that. But if that's the most we have on what the left did. Right. They put some pressure on Mark Zuckerberg and he had the final say if he wanted to do it or not. Versus, as I said, Donald Trump burning the American flag. J.D. vance, trying to get Florida prosecutors to go after political streamers like that or political commentators like that, to me, is like the actual, like, really big issue here. Like, these are two totally different in.

John (13:41)

The most recent examples, which is coming from the Trump administration.

Tyler (13:45)

Yeah, exactly.

John (13:46)

But I actually think somebody was arrested in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Tyler (13:53)

Yeah. For like, some meme.

John (13:55)

Yeah.

Tyler (13:55)

Yeah. So, like, again, like, it's just. It's really hard for me to take, like, the comparison seriously if we're going to be, like, ignoring all these things. If we weren't ignoring all these things on the right, I would kind of be with them. Like, yeah, you know what? The government shouldn't be applying pressure on people at all. But again, like, these are just two very different situations. Both are bad. Just one's obviously much worse.

John (14:20)

And which. No, I totally see what you're saying, and I love all the added context. Do you think, you know, obviously you're saying that the right and the Trump administration is overplaying their hand on enforcing their idea of appropriate speech or just, you know, infringing upon free speech rights, do you anticipate consequences for them politically and in upcoming elections? Do you think that that's really hurting them, their political capital right now?

Tyler (14:57)

Honestly, no, I don't think it is. I think most people don't like free speech. I believe that for a long time it seems like whenever the shoe's on the other foot, they're canceling or they're endorsing any form of cancellation from their side and even, like, the slight nudges from the government. So I truly think that it doesn't bother people. I think that they'll just justify that it's okay. And this is kind of why it's enriched in the Constitution, because no matter how unpopular the speech is, you want that protection. So I do not anticipate direct consequences for that sort of behavior. I think you're probably going to see more consequences for, like, you know, maybe how ICE conducts themselves or how the economy is going to turn out after, you know, this whole tariff war. I think that's going to be more pressing, unfortunately for me. But, yeah, I don't think free speech will have that big of an impact as people think.

John (15:53)

Yeah. Since you're so, you know, well informed on this issue, I'm really curious what you think about in terms of, like, content moderation and maybe who has gotten it right. Because, you know, something really interesting that's happened is like, you know, Elon Bottom Twitter, now it's X. And that has become a platform that's, you know, somewhat infamously known for very loose moderation. And then, you know, there was the instance where Trump was removed from Twitter, you know, and now he. It's been reinstated, but he went on to make Truth Social. And now, you know, he screenshots his post on Truth Social on X. You know, it's had some. The way that previous administrations tried to enforce it and the way that billionaires like Elon Musk have reacted to that has had some real consequences in our information landscape. But I'm just curious, who do you think's got it right or the closest to what is healthy free speech enforcement in a moderation standpoint?

Tyler (17:00)

Oh, that's a really difficult question. I actually think YouTube gets it pretty well right now, like, in terms of, like, a source. I see, like, YouTube will now, like.

John (17:12)

This video's going on YouTube.

Tyler (17:13)

Yeah, this is YouTube. I know there's issues with monetization and stuff like that, but I'm not as concerned with monetization as I am. Just like, are you allowed to say it like Elon Musk, to me, like, does seem like a true hypocrite when it comes to free speech. Like, yeah, like, he was like banning like people who were kind of like Stephen King when he was kind of mean to him. Like, that's not good. But Yeah, I think YouTube has it pretty well. What's important to me with it is just that we should be allowed to make these arguments, but we should also be aware of where the arguments are coming from. So where I'll give Elon Musk some praise. I do love that factor where you could see from, like, where in the world is this person tweeting from? And I think that kind of more has to do with an issue of like, anonymity where when you're kind of like this blank face can be a bit more pernicious. But yeah, in terms of like, who I think is doing content the best, it's probably YouTube. But I don't have like that strong of an opinion on it, like, mostly. But what I do think with it though, is that I would like to see in the future there be some regulation from the government of what sort of allowances these social media companies have to give to the citizens in order to have their speech heard. I do think that our ways of communicating, our ways of getting news is so reliant on social media now. So when you are banning people and stuff like this, I do think that you're essentially banning, like, areas of the town square. And I do think that the government needs to something to do about that, but I don't. I'm not gonna hold my breath for it.

John (18:56)

Mm. Are there any limitations to who you would, you know, so you've been in surrounded more than once. Is there any limitation to who you would go toe to toe with in the center, you know, as far as, like, where they're coming from? Any points of view where you just, You. You would refuse to entertain it.

Tyler (19:16)

Yeah. I'm actually really glad you asked this question because I hate, I hate when people say you can't argue against fascism. You're not going to argue someone out of fascism. I think that, like, this is actually just some laziness from a lot of people. When you get into topics of fascism or like, you know, extreme misinformation, like conspiracy theories, what it just takes is it takes like a lot of research and it takes a lot of like, sometimes like deep philosophical thinking. Fascism is ultimately like a philosophical idea and. And you need to be able to argue why a democratic system with laws that are not applied arbitrarily is superior to fascism on a moral level. That sometimes is a conversation that needs to be had. And I think people just don't like to think that deeply about it or challenge their own beliefs on that. So they don't know how to dismantle it. When you get someone to say, we saw with Mehdi Hasan, the guy said, oh, I'm a fascist. And he's like, well, I don't argue against fascism. To me, it's like, well, what did you think you were doing?

Piers Morgan (20:24)

Right?

Tyler (20:24)

You're arguing against people who were on the far right. You need to be prepared to tackle those ideas. And in terms of conspiracy theories. Well, it's true. If someone came on here right now and they were a flat earther, they would kick my ass in a debate. The reason is, is because they know all the arguments and they know all the facts that help their idea.

Jenny (20:45)

All.

Tyler (20:46)

Or I really just know. Now I know, like, well, you know, there are curves eventually. And the scientists say this, but I would have to do serious research before I did that. But to me, that's my responsibility. If I signed it up for. If I signed up for surrounded on a particular conspiracy theory, you better believe I would be researching the hell out of that topic.

John (21:07)

You would have all the pages earmarked?

Tyler (21:09)

Yeah, I'd have the pages memorized. If I. Yeah, if I had to debate someone like Nick Fuentes or somebody more on the far right, I would really know, okay, where can I show logical flaws and moral flaws within fascism against a democratic system? So I do think that people like to kind of go into these conversations with like, well, these are like, this is like the Overton window of what I'm willing to think about. When it's too far outside of that, I just kind of turn my brain off and say, well, you're obviously wrong. My background is in philosophy. We were taught explicitly to not do that. So I don't know if there's anyone that I would not talk to on surrounded now, maybe out of just pure interest, I'm not that interested if the earth is flat or round. It's just not something that I'd be motivated to do. But definitely in terms of politically, there's no group or person that I would shy away from. And there's some people I really want to debate too. So. Yeah, I don't think I would.

John (22:12)

No. Yeah. I mean, I like that you bring up Nick Fuentes because I. Not. Not suggesting at all that Jubilee is planning on hosting him in the center. But, you know, there. There Is this sort of moment right now where some people are bringing him on, you know, like Tucker Carlson, and they're having this kind of, like, pretty. I think Steven Crowder just interviewed him maybe yesterday.

Tyler (22:34)

Yeah, I watched that actually.

Piers Morgan (22:35)

Yeah.

John (22:36)

Yeah. And obviously these, these are much more softball, like interviews. But now it's kind of raising this question of like, well, should we entertain the idea of having serious debate? And then, you know, now we're seeing the right. Go through this kind of, you know, don't platform these people, you know, don't take them seriously, don't fuel their fires. But as we've kind of seen in recent history, that doesn't. That probably won't work and in a lot of ways just gives even more power to. To the person who you're avoiding.

Tyler (23:11)

Yeah, I completely agree. And I know this said a lot. Like, sometimes when I go online, my YouTube, there will be a bunch of video recommendations of like, why Surrounded is bad for democracy. Right. Like, you know, then some guy will give his video essay on why he doesn't like it. And to me, the arguments always come down to we're just too lazy to look it up. Like, we're too lazy to actually engage in the argument. That, to me, is your own responsibility. If you're listening to somebody and you can't refute what they said, that's always encouraged me to look it up and want to argue against them. That's just something that I believe in. And I think it's quite pernicious that people can't do that. I totally agree with you too. The interviews can't be softball, and I don't think that's what Surrounded is. Right. I came in very hot with Piers Morgan, and Piers Morgan is somebody I like, and I do believe it's fundamentally more of a classical liberal. I just think that he likes the Trump administration way too much. But I will come in super hot. I argued against Ben Shapiro the last time and I came in very hot on January 6th with him. And I think that as long as you take that attitude and that combative attitude, it is okay to platform these people. There is nothing wrong with that.

John (24:30)

Refresh my memory on where did you and ben land with January 6th? If I can, I'll pull that clip in to here as well.

Tyler (24:37)

Yeah. So before I do any debate with these people, I always think, what's the million dollar question? Like, what's the question that they will have to answer in a very narrow way that's really hard to escape. Mine with Piers Morgan was name one piece of legislation that the Democrats have passed in the past 10 years that even amounts to that. It's a really hard question to grapple with. Mine with Ben Shapiro was, why did Donald TRUMP Wait three hours, tell the January 6th rioters to go home if he didn't want it to happen? And Ben's answer was, I don't know. Literally, that's what he says, I don't know. And to me, that's almost like a concession of he knows that he wasn't committing to the peaceful transfer of power. So I was really glad I was able to push Ben on that. And that's kind of where we came from, where Ben said, Look, January 6th is bad, but I hope Trump doesn't do it again, and I hope he doesn't hurt democracy more. Where my argument ultimately was like, I think he will. And I said, the Republican Party is being ripped away from Ben, much to his chagrin. And I think with recent moments, I think my intuitions are coming to light.

John (25:48)

If we were to just look past all the criticisms of Donald Trump and just say, yeah, that's a difference of opinion. I do think January 6th probably stands out as the unique bridge too far moment where his character was kind of on display and maybe sort of the fruits of his style of politics was on display in a way that is very hard to defend. And I think you're right. You know, the same way you say Pierce is kind of a classic liberal, I also think Ben Shapiro really, in his heart of hearts, is somebody who has very traditional American values. And I agree, sort of tried to thread the needle with the MAGA coalition as best as he can. So, yeah, I like how you, how you look for that kind of million dollar question. I think it's a great skill. And maybe my takeaway from you is like, platforming is not the problem. It's just platforming responsibly or prepared platforming is the way to do it.

Tyler (26:48)

Yeah, I completely agree. Like, we. I knew I was debating somebody like, on that day, Like, I knew for weeks that I was going to be debating a broadcaster and I was a woke liberal. So of course I'm going to read up on the issues. But I'm more so glad that, like, you touched on specifically that you believe Ben Shapiro believes in kind of like more conservative, but nonetheless American values. And I think it's important for the left and the liberal side. I don't know where you stand politically, but we have to be able to differentiate between the characters on the right. I think Ben Shapiro does care about America. I don't think Michael Knowles does and I don't think Matt Walsh does. I think those two are bad actors who do not respect the constitution and do not respect democracy. Piers Morgan, I think does really want free speech. He's just confused. I get very sick and tired of people throwing around the term, oh, he's a grifter, he's grifting, he's just doing it for the money. I mean simple psychology will explain that people like kind of tie into beliefs in really non pernicious ways. If all your friends are on the right and giving you the thumbs up when you speak highly of Donald Trump, your brain will naturally just kind of trick yourself to believe that stuff. You're not actually just trying to lie for money or for power and stuff like that. It's a very natural, it's group think. It's a very natural human idea. Like when we hang out with our friend groups, we are saying things that will give us like validation with them unconsciously. We're not doing it on purpose. So I think like I would like to see the term grifter be kind of wiped away for 2026 and let's just focus on what they're saying. We'll dismantle their arguments and then I think that will be more fruitful.

John (28:37)

Well, I love it and I really agree with a lot of what you're saying and Tyler, I will, you know, casting team. This is my endorsement. Put Tyler in as many episodes as you can because you know that heat, that friction is, is so valuable.

Tyler (28:53)

I really appreciate that. And I think I, I was civil too though. Like I'm a, you know, I'm a nice guy. It's good. Yeah, exactly. I mean that's what I think surrounded should be. I mean obviously I don't have any claim in it but I, I appreciate that and I appreciate free speech and I appreciate you, John.

John (29:11)

I appreciate you, Tyler.

Tyler (29:13)

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

Sponsor/Announcer (29:14)

This episode is brought to you by Greenlight. Get this. Adults with financial literacy skills have 82% more wealth than those who don't. From swimming lessons to piano classes, us parents invest in so many things to enrich our kids lives. But are we investing in their future financial success? With Greenlight you can teach your kids financial literacy skills like earning, saving and investing. And this investment costs less than that. After school treat start prioritizing their financial education and future. Today with a risk free trial@greenlight.com Spotify greenlight.com Spotify meet the computer you can talk to with copilot on Windows working, Creating and collaborating is as easy as talking. Got writer's block? Share your screen with Copilot Vision to help spark inspiration and use Copilot voice to have a conversation and brainstorm ideas. Or maybe you need some tech help with Copilot Vision. Copilot sees what you see. Let Copilot talk you through step by step guidance so you can master new apps, games and skills faster. Try now@windows.com copilot hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

John (30:16)

You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Jenny (30:35)

Of $45 for a three month plan.

Sponsor/Announcer (30:36)

Equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only.

Jenny (30:40)

Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy. Taxes and fees extra.

John (30:43)

See mintmobile.com Jenny welcome back to the Jubileeverse. Welcome to the Surrounded follow up.

Jenny (30:50)

Thank you for having me, John.

John (30:52)

Of course. And also thanks for being in Surrounded. Jumping into the arena with Piers. He obviously is a formidable debate opponent. What's it been like just sort of seeing the video and the interaction between the two of you out in the wild?

Jenny (31:12)

It's very interesting. A little surreal. It's always a little weird to see myself on camera. Yeah. And also, you know, it's one of those things where I never really thought I would meet someone like Piers in real life. So it's very interesting to be able to share a space with him and have some dialogue. It was very interesting in terms of debate. I think that he has some very interesting debate tactics that I hope that I came across well encountering. But it was definitely a challenge to navigate for sure.

John (31:44)

Yeah. Well, you have. So you've been in Surrounded before. You know you've debated. Candace, you do seem quite calm in those interactions. Is that something you take pride in or are you known as like somebody who can handle high pressure situations?

Jenny (32:00)

I definitely take pride in that. I try to consider myself. I see a lot of my opponents or not opponents. My colleagues approach debate in different ways. Some are very aggressive. Some are very like out to own somebody. I think my approach is a little different. Some people maybe think I'm a little too mild mannered, but I try to think of myself as like an Empathizer. I want to come into the conversation with, trying to understand where they're coming from and then either trying to figure out how to break that down or try and get them to understand my point of view. I try to think of it more beyond just the person in front of me because I believe that maybe they are really set in their ways and maybe I won't be able to change their mind. I try to think about other people who share this person's views and what I can say to maybe make it make sense to them and get them to maybe understand a little bit more of the other side or a different opinion.

John (32:58)

And did you feel like you got anywhere with Piers?

Jenny (33:01)

I'm gonna be honest, it was a little tough. Piers has a very interesting debate tactic of when he senses that you're going to go into a certain point, he doesn't want you to reach that point, so he'll instead shoehorn his own, like, opinion or a redirecting question.

John (33:20)

He was trying to steer you towards life. Limitless self identity. Let's refresh and then we can react.

Piers Morgan (33:27)

I said, do you believe in limitless self identity? And the wokie of the two guests said, I do, and you have to respect what people want. And she said, yes. I went, okay, in that case, I. On International Women's Day, Piers Morgan, am now identifying as a black lesbian. And the black panelist burst out laughing because she knew what I was doing, which is taking this argument to its logical conclusion, which is once you make it limitless, society just collapses because anyone can say that they're anything they want.

Tyler (33:57)

If I may interject, you would say.

Piers Morgan (33:59)

To me, if I said to you, I'm a black lesbian, what would you say?

Jenny (34:01)

I would say that you're conflating this idea of limitless, like, whatever, gender expression, self identity. I already said I don't agree with that.

Piers Morgan (34:09)

But you didn't say where the limit is.

Jenny (34:11)

Right. So for me personally, and what I believe is that there are scientific things that we can agree to, like biological sex. Right. But gender expression is a cultural, societal.

Piers Morgan (34:19)

But where is the limit to what you can identify?

Jenny (34:21)

So you can't identify as another race because that's just genetically not correct. Right, Right. So.

Piers Morgan (34:25)

So there are limits to this.

Jenny (34:26)

Yeah, I do.

Piers Morgan (34:27)

I'm really curious where the woke limit is on self identity.

Jenny (34:30)

Gender is a social construct. A social construct means we made it up, right? Yes, exactly. So therefore, you can have whatever identity that you want because you've decided to create that.

Piers Morgan (34:42)

Yes, but my point, the point of My.

Jenny (34:44)

But why is that a problem?

Piers Morgan (34:45)

No, here's the problem. It's got so out of control.

John (34:50)

What are you thinking? Feeling just reliving it.

Jenny (34:54)

Yeah. I think it was very difficult to try and get around Piers's like, constant interrupting questions because I think that I do want to address them. But at the beginning of that, I said there are two points that I wanted to make and I don't even think I got through to the second one before that happened.

John (35:10)

Do you remember the two points?

Jenny (35:12)

Yes. The first point was that when somebody presents their pro. Well, firstly, pronouns or gender expression, all of that is a social construct, right? This is something that we as a society, an English society, has decided to create in ways to express ourselves. And so the things that what I was saying and he was conflating this idea to. I know I said race, but what I really meant was ethnicity, because race to a degree is also another social construct. What I intended was that ethnicity is like something that is biologically determined, right? And nobody is denying biological sex. Nobody's saying that, like, male and female determinations don't exist. But how we decide to express ourselves in society, to feel true to ourselves, that is construct, that is a creation. Just like things that are deemed feminine are feminine because society deemed it feminine, right? Dresses are feminine because women of this society or people of this society have decided that that's what is womanly. But if we look at Scottish culture, they wear kilts. That doesn't make them any more or less masculine, right? And in Asian culture, a lot of men have like flowing robes that are basically dresses or skirts. That's not any more feminine or masculine. It's a cultural context. The second point that I wanted to touch on was the way that somebody presents themselves to you. That's just basic respect, right? The way that I introduce myself as Jenny and you introduce yourself as John. Piers likes to take it super far and pick a really extreme example. Be like, well, what if I want to be called Pierce Baby or something like that? And I'm like, well, if that really is how you want to be presented and you give people your name like that, then yeah, people should respect it. As silly as you're trying to make that sound. Just like how I introduced myself as Jenny today, even though my full name is Jennifer, right? So it really is preference and pronouns. At the end of the day, when you're addressing somebody, it's kind of ridiculous because I wouldn't call you he, him. I'd call you John, I'd refer to you as you. Right. And so I think it's just a very silly discussion to be having, and it does no harm to people. Really.

John (37:27)

Mm. No. Yeah. I mean, if I were to steel man, where I think Piers is coming from. I mean, first off, I mean, I think I mostly agree with you. And when the pronoun sort of topic entered sort of the public discussion years ago and became sort of a point of contention, I held a very similar position as you, which was just like, we're talking about just basic common decency and respect. And I think what I'm hearing from you is kind of like a good faith assumption that the request is coming from a sincere place. And so, you know, we're honoring people's requests for alternative pronouns when those requests are sincere. I think what Piers is sort of pointing out as a concern and sort of maybe people on that side of the camp is the fear of societal abuse, but also sort of, I think, disorder.

Jenny (38:29)

I think we're making it out to be so much more than it really is. And at the end of the day, it's really just about respecting how someone feels and also using pronouns to. To actually pick this up at my current workplace, which is they had this really amazing discussion saying, sharing your pronouns, even though you're a cisgender or CIS normative person, it helps that other person whose pronouns may be a little different feel a little less like in the spotlight. It's to help them blend in with society. Because if I just put she her in my title, and everybody's got pronouns, and we don't pay attention to, like, somebody that has, like, zim or zer or whatever pronoun is out there, Right? And it makes it a little less of, like, putting them on the spot and having to make them answer for it or having them stand out. Because really, at the end of the day, I think everybody just seeks belonging. I think a lot of people do seek uniqueness, and that's a different conversation to be had. But I think if it makes one less person or one person feel a little less alone in the world and it does no harm to. To somebody else, like, it really does no harm to anyone that I know to call someone else a different pronoun, then why is that a problem? New words get created every day. Slang, any kind of old words are discovered all the time. And again, back to the point that I made during the debate is that plenty and plenty of languages that exist today don't even use pronouns, and you can. Can still know who you're talking to. So I think that it's just not really that important to be, like, policing people on whether you should or shouldn't say them.

John (40:04)

Anything you would want to say directly to peers. Just assuming he's watching this and would listen.

Jenny (40:10)

Piers, it was a pleasure being able to have a discussion with you. I wish that you would let more people have a chance to. To speak. I know that's your. Your M.O. your tactic. That's great, works for you. But I'm a lot more interested in having a discussion rather than trying to own somebody in a debate. And I hope that the spirit of that discussion continues with any future discussions that you have with people, any other debates that you may have in the future, because I think that it's so much more important that we are able to open our minds and learn from each other rather than try and prove each other wrong, pin each other in a corner. I think that discussion really unites us all. And I find these conversations to be really important to be having with everybody and for people listening at home as well, to glean from what they will.

Sponsor/Announcer (40:59)

I'm here at Capella University. Learning online doesn't mean learning alone. You'll get support from people who care about your success, like your enrollment specialist who gets to know you and the goals you'd like to achieve. You'll also get a designated academic coach who's with you throughout your entire program. Plus, career coaches are available to help you navigate your professional goals. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella.

John (41:29)

Edu here with Nick. Welcome to the surrounded follow up. How are you doing, Nick?

Nick (41:34)

I'm doing great. Thanks so much for having me, John. Really great to be here with you.

John (41:38)

Yeah, likewise. And you had some sparring with Piers. You were a formidable foe for him. What does it feel like, you know, seeing you guys go head to head and he. He called you back, you know, so he. He liked what you were giving him.

Nick (41:53)

Yeah. It's funny. I was. I was torn coming out of it. It's so hard to tell in the moment, you know, how you're doing. I thought so many people gave such good arguments in the moment. It felt very validating to be chosen to come back by Pierce. He's somebody I grown up watching, you know, on all the various different channels and shows he's had over the years. So it was a surreal experience to go toe to toe with somebody who's had so many countless hours of debates over the years. But I thought that there were several people who did just as well. If not better than me. So coming out of it afterwards, I was like, ah, did he pick me? Because I. I didn't know what I was talking about or something. But I. I think I did okay. And I got my main point across, which was just the way that I think some of the issues that go into the WOKE agenda tend to crowd out what I consider to be some of the more important issues. And obviously, me and Pierce had some disagreements about that.

John (42:43)

Yeah, no, and I thought your prompt was really interesting, and I want to get to that. But before we do that, his initial prompt that you debated him on was. I think it was. It was something to the likes of, you know, wokeism is fascistic or. Yes, woke politics are fascist.

Piers Morgan (43:03)

Yes.

John (43:04)

And you kind of came in hot with some disagreement, and it kind of steered towards Covid territory. What were your takeaways from that initial interaction?

Nick (43:12)

So I thought, you know, I think he was actually correct to bring in Covid because of the argument that I was making, which is essentially that Wokeism is not fascistic because fascism uses state power to coerce the positions it has. And I was thinking mainly about, like, you know, people using certain slurs and things like that and getting called out for it. It's. To me, it's not fascistic to say you shouldn't say words that demean other people. You should treat people the way you want to be treated. I don't think that that's. You know, I don't think that it's like a huge burden on me to just avoid hurting people if I can help it or if I'm aware that it's going to hurt people. But then, because I had. I had tied it directly to this idea that it's not fascistic if there's no state power. And he said, well, what about the fact that the state was imposing its view around Covid and isn't that fascistic? And again, I go back to what is kind of the relative burden that it placed on me when it comes to vaccines and masks. He was taking the standard of, if you ever get sick, if you ever transmit the disease, if it is not 100% effective in all cases, then it's not worth doing at all. Whereas to me, it was like, this is a low risk, low kind of demand on me way of being considerate of other people. So I didn't consider that to be fascistic necessarily. A lot of it seems to be that people feel that, you know, there's a difference between being criticized of something and actually facing political persecution or repression. And a lot of people just got criticized, whether it's for saying that they were against vaccines or masks or for saying that they were against things like Black Lives Matter, against trans rights or whatever the issue might be. But criticism is not repression. And that was really my, my basic point that I was trying to make with Pierce.

John (45:07)

Yeah, I mean, when we rewind to Covid and I, I actually kind of did a little bit of COVID history with someone earlier when I was talking to Tyler. I do think, I think I agree with you. That's probably the right place to look because that's probably the closest example in recent history where that argument could be made. I think actually probably the best place to point would be schools and local government's decisions to close schools, which in hindsight it seemed to be probably actually not the best decision for the students. I know teachers health at the time, and I remember hearing this on the radio endlessly. You know, there was a lot of concern about educators health, and that was, you know, a part of the resistance to reopening schools in person. I look back on that now and I think you could probably make an argument that those governments were making a very consequential decision that had some negative outcomes for a lot of kids because they were missing school and sort of they're kind of like now the COVID generation. I guess I could see how that fascistic argument could be made there. But then I also hear what you're saying where it's like wokeness has been primarily enforced on more of a cultural, peer to peer level, cancel culture. And I wouldn't say that there was kind of this, this era of the Biden administration, you know, busting down doors. What do you think of the arguments made, though, for, you know, some of the people being arrested for their social media posts over, over in Europe and think places outside of the U.S. yeah.

Nick (46:51)

I mean, that's crazy to me. And that's part of this discussion too, right? Is we're really having that discussion about wokeness and fascism, or I was in the context of the United States. We obviously have a very strong standard of free speech in this country that frankly goes way further than a lot of other countries do, including the U.K. you know, as we become aware that certain phrases or certain ways or certain stereotypes are harmful. If you're aware of that and you continue to do it and you get called out on it, that is kind of what it is. I would hope people choose to be kind. That's what being woke is to me.

John (47:29)

Yeah, no, I hear you and I carried a very similar definition or interpretation of some of those kind of social trends and social movements that were happening that began maybe a decade ago. And I will say though to Steel man Pierce a little bit, in hindsight, there was a moral panic element to kind of what originated as woke politics or wokeness, where it was like it was sort of a, you know, seen as like a serious term, not a slur. And how it kind of turned into cultural attitudes and cultural policing. And while fascistic might not be the right word, I think the reason Pierce's arguments, or, you know, someone like Piers maybe is resonating a lot is I do think that that pressure was felt, you know, by a lot of people. There's. And you kind of hear this argument being made now that the left became a little too policing in all arenas. And we can point out like the distinction that yeah, maybe that wasn't happening in a state top down fashion that much, but in terms of sexual politics, in terms of self identity, in terms of how to talk about race, it became the party or the left became kind of the part of the spectrum associated with like a lot of finger wagging. And so fascist is like maybe not the right term, but I do think there's a validity and the reason it resonates is because of that feeling that a lot of people had. And do you think there's been enough acknowledgment of that on the left or do you feel like that's been blown out of proportion?

Tyler (49:29)

So.

Nick (49:31)

I can see both sides of this one. I tend to think, and this is just me, the Internet has tended to give voice to people who did not traditionally have a voice in society or whose voices were just generally not heard by mainstream people like Piers Morgan. You know, if somebody didn't write a letter to the station, you weren't necessarily going to hear these conversations of what people might have been thinking at home. At the same time, the people that are the most inclined, in my view to engage in Internet kind of bird dogging campaigns or just people who are the most inclined to talk online in general are the people who are the are are more, more likely to feel alienated in, in the real world, for lack of a better term. And so you have all these marginalized communities who kind of find each other online, who boost each other's voices online, and who are saying things they probably would have been saying in person anyway, but nobody, they didn't have a way of organizing and of like amplifying their voices before the Internet. And so we're just noticing this stuff more.

John (50:43)

I think a lot of people would agree with you there. Okay, so I want to pull in a clip from the second encounter you had with Piers when he called you back. And this is around the debate. And your argument that woke politics is a distraction from the more material but less savvy, less exciting issues that make a big difference. So let's watch it and then we can talk more.

Piers Morgan (51:10)

So you have your fixed set of things that you care. Respect that. Right. A lot of people will.

Nick (51:15)

But again, Pierce, everybody cares about this thing, but they don't work people up as much, and so it doesn't get as much air.

Piers Morgan (51:22)

Of course they do.

Nick (51:23)

No, we. We all know that if this was a discussion about the minutiae of health care policy, it would not get as many viewers as an hour long conversation about trans athletes. Come on. We know this.

Piers Morgan (51:32)

You don't think the issues, for example, like the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, get people angry and passionate?

Nick (51:38)

If it bleeds, it leads. Of course that matters. Of course. You don't think war and peace is incredibly important.

Piers Morgan (51:43)

You don't think the issue of globalization and. And the impact on people's jobs and lives has not been the subject of a lot of passionate, angry, animated.

Nick (51:50)

I think it gets far less airtime than it deserves. Because what we see is that whether you're on the right populist side or the left populist side, they've all got their fingers squarely aimed at the puppet masters pulling the strings behind our whole system. But it's the people in the middle. And this is what I wish people would really understand at home. It is not the left that pushed woke politics or identity politics. It was neoliberals who wanted to have the current system maintain the status quo, but give people who hadn't had a stake in that system more representation within it. What matters for most people is whether they have a job that actually is able to pay the rent. I would say they can have a hope of owning a home that they can marry who they like to. That stuff matters.

Piers Morgan (52:29)

It only matters if the black trans leader of a company has only got that job because they're black and trans and not on ability. Because then you move into a country and society which prides itself on mediocrity over meritocracy. I believe in opportunity for all at the bottom rung, but once that ladder starts, I believe only people should get to the top.

Nick (52:51)

The people getting tens of millions of stock options are not my priority. It's the person Making minimum wage, that's my priority.

John (52:57)

What are your initial thoughts? Just, you know, seeing you guys go head to head.

Nick (53:02)

I think that he kind of proved my point because he kept trying to go back to talking about woke politics and saying like, why that is actually really important. My, my thought is, and I've seen this for at least the last 20 years, you know, they used to be called wedge issues. I guess they're still called wedge issues, but they find these things that can drive a, a, find a values gap between different groups in the population that might have 90% of their interests overlap, but there's this one issue they disagree on and it clouds out everything else. And I think it's interesting that he kind of proved my point in the claim because he kept trying to pivot back to why actually this is really important. And who am I to say that it's not? And I guess what I, what I was thinking then and I still think now is I wasn't saying that these issues are not important. People shouldn't care about them at all, but they should not dominate our public discourse in the way that they do.

John (54:09)

Yeah. And I, that is, I think an interesting paradox because, you know, you could say that we live in a very attention driven world and you could say that, you know, Donald Trump is, is the most attention friendly political figure we've seen in a long time. And so when attention is what drives the machine, how do you move forward, achieving kind of material change in a political way when just through the nature of kind of virality and attention, a lot of the oxygen, a lot of the content will be exploring these wedge issues or these woke issues, what is the path, what's a political path to success there? If you're saying, hey, yes, these things matter, but these things matter more. But also these things just aren't exciting, they aren't sexy, they aren't divisive enough, you know, you know, what do you do?

Nick (55:26)

It's, it's a little bit of a boring answer, but political leadership and message discipline I think are really important. We saw this with Obama when he first came into the presidency.

Piers Morgan (55:35)

Right.

Nick (55:36)

Economy's falling apart, we need a stimulus, we need a million different things. And he chose to focus on health care for better or worse. And that, that was something that helped millions of people, myself included, because I was able to stay on my parents health insurance and all that other good stuff. So I think it's about political leaders understanding that they, they can get pulled in all kinds of different directions and they can choose to respond to whatever the issue of the day is, or kind of like what Bernie Sanders has done for years. Kind of like what you've seen Mamdani do. What you see more and more Democrats do, pick the issue we're focusing on now and anything that gets thrown at you, find a way to pivot it back to the issue that we're actually trying to address right now. And I know that's frustrating because the counterargument to that is, well, Democrats are constantly, and I'm guilty of doing this right now saying we have to sequence things and we have to go one at a time and why can't we do many things at once? And I wish that we could. I think we should be able to. But practically speaking, I find that it's more effective if we focus our attention on what's the highest impact thing we can do, what's the next highest thing, move down the list and do it sequentially like that.

Tyler (56:57)

I know that that is not the.

Nick (56:58)

Most popular approach these days.

John (57:02)

Yeah, well, I hear what you're saying about like affordability and we are seeing that, you know, that's a, that's a resonant issue and I'm sure it will continue to be as the next, you know, election approaches and we kind of ramp up to that still early. But, you know, this is the US and it's always just around the corner. Something, though, I'm curious what you think about is do you think Democrats were just too timid and cowardly when it came to some of the, these wedge issues and just sort of planting a flag in a sort of middle of the road stance on some of them? You know, we kind of see someone like Pete Buttigieg now pushing back on elements of transgender politics in sports and saying, yes, there's more nuance there than I initially acknowledged. Bernie Sanders talks about the border in a way that you wouldn't have heard a Democrat talk about four years ago or a few years ago. It felt to me like there were kind of just these low hanging fruit opportunities to just take a pretty general stance in the middle. But there was a fear I sense on the left that you were going to really piss some people off. Do you think I'm over reading into that?

Nick (58:35)

I can see why you feel that way, but I think I read it a little bit differently. Yeah, I think that Democrats are falling into a trap right now where they think, you know, folks like people to judge. Gavin Newsom, you saw him moderating on the transports issue as well. They read our defeat last year as being rooted in. We became disconnected from the American people on these cultural issues. My diagnosis of the last election is that 2024 was all about inflation and cost of living. And Trump addressed that directly. And for the Democrats particular, Kamala Harris, inflation was this awkward. Inflation happened under a Democratic administration. And so to acknowledge the cost of living crisis would have been to acknowledge that this inflation was a feature of this Democratic administration that had just lasted for the last four years. And it would have required a more fundamental and harder analysis of what to do about restructuring the economy. And again, our relationship with, frankly, our donors. And like, what, how much power do we want to give workers? How do we actually reorganize the economy in a way that benefits working people? It is easier. As weird as this sounds, it is easier to say to me, we lost because of the transports issue. And let's just go to where we think the center voter is on that, because if we start talking about, like, the decline in private unionization rates and what can we do to boost union membership, that's going to piss off our donors and it's going to break our coalition. And it's just easier to lean into the culture war stuff than it is to really do a hard reflection on what we can do about the economic issues that really dominated the last election.

John (60:29)

I hear what you're saying. I can't help but wonder, though, if there's a contradiction there, because attentionally, if the average American is, their attention is on the wedge issues because of the way our media ecosystem works, should we not assume that they are voting based on those wedge issues as well? Even though, yes, the issues that might make the most material difference to their lives are kind of being neglected or not getting as much time at the mic. But is the voter truly aware of that, or are they truly voting more on these cultural issues?

Nick (61:06)

I think it depends how you measure. How much do people care? Right. If you go by the volume of online engagement around these issues, obviously you would see that culture war. You would, you'd be led to believe that culture war issues are the most important thing. But when, when exit pollsters ask people, what actually brought you to the ballot today? Why did you pull the lever you did? The issues that rise to the top are overwhelmingly the more boring pocketbook issues. You know, for lack of a better term, somebody might sit at the kitchen table and talk about their concern with trans athletes, but what they actually care about is the price of eggs. Like, it might make for good Thanksgiving fighting to talk about, like, you know, gun control or abortion rights. But ultimately what people care about is am I better off now than I was four years ago.

John (61:59)

Well Nick, thank you so much. Great talking to you. I hope to see you again.

Nick (62:03)

Thank you so much John. Hope to see you soon.

John (62:05)

Hoping to see you in there again and thanks for for your extra time today.

Jenny (62:09)

Yeah, thank you so much for having me. I hope you have a great rest of your day.

John (62:12)

Looking forward to the next time. Take care Tyler.

Tyler (62:14)

Okay. Thank you so much.

John (62:15)

If you want to see more follow up episodes of Surrounded, be sure to like leave us a positive review. Comment if you're watching the video on YouTube you can subscribe to Tubli, Jubilee's second channel. You can also subscribe to Jubilee to see full Surrounded episodes. But however you want to support us, just thank you so much for listening. Remember, you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open until next time.