AMA: Peter Thiel, Chris Rufo and the D.S.A.

Summary

The Ezra Klein Show – AMA: Peter Thiel, Chris Rufo and the D.S.A.

Date: August 7, 2026
Host: Ezra Klein (New York Times Opinion)
Guest Host/Producer: Claire Gordon

---

Episode Overview

In this Ask Me Anything episode, Ezra Klein and executive producer Claire Gordon field listener questions on contentious recent topics: reactions to Ezra’s interview with Chris Rufo, his participation in Peter Thiel’s so-called “secret society,” the evolution of “woke” politics, and tensions within the Democratic Party and the DSA. Interwoven are candid reflections on music, media, identity, and transparency in political conversation.

---

Ezra Klein’s Relationship with Music

[01:30 – 07:27]

• Musicianship and Music’s Place in His Life

  • Ezra admits feeling insecure about his singing voice but recently took a singing lesson and found he could “find a tune or a note.”

    “I was just wrong about that about myself, which was a cool thing to learn.” [02:17 – Ezra]

  • Played flute as a kid, tried to learn guitar as an adult but didn’t pursue it extensively.
  • Intentionally chooses not to learn how to make electronic music, preferring to be an appreciator, not a creator. He needs domains in life where he is just an "experiencer."

• Why Electronic Music

  • Finds solace and stimulation in electronic music; specific mention of “wingdings” album by artist Four Tet (who releases under an unsearchable symbol alias).
  • Music is a space for emotional complexity, not necessarily happiness.
  • He enjoys music that helps him process or hold “contradictory emotions”—akin to the emotional complexity needed in his journalistic work.
  • Frequently referenced artists: Four Tet, Olafur Arnalds.

  “There’s a lot of art that what you want to do is just allow yourself to feel differently and not try to pin the different feeling like a butterfly to a board. ... It makes me feel things I don’t feel elsewhere.” [04:53 – Ezra]

---

The Chris Rufo Episode and the Nature of Feedback

[07:27 – 21:50]

Feedback and Interpretation

• Bifurcated Response

  • Listener Jason notes Rufo’s differing interpretation of their interview and plays clips to explore whether Ezra’s remarks re: rapid demographic change get misrepresented as an endorsement of "Great Replacement" theory.

• Ezra’s Clarification

  • Klein forcefully rejects conflation of concern over demographic change with white nationalism.
  • He details a longstanding engagement in his writing and first book ("Why We're Polarized") about how race and demographic change fuel political conflict.

  “I do not believe, and I just... cannot say this more flatly, that it is a normal, constant and legitimate dimension of politics in a nation for people to have views on who lives in the community and how it's changing. I think Great Replacement Theory is a white nationalist theory.” [10:29 – Ezra]

• On Engaging Afterward

  • Ezra rarely contacts guests after contentious interviews, noting Rufo’s self-admitted propagandist style.
  • He sets a boundary between sincere argument and post-hoc propagandistic reframing.

Pushing Back on Guests

• Balancing Act

  • Ezra explains his choice to sometimes let controversial claims go unchallenged in real time, aiming to structure episodes that let guests’ views be clearly heard and tested when possible.

  “I'm having people on so you can hear what they think and you can come to your own judgments. ... I'm trying to create something here where you can have contested interpretations.” [18:37 – Ezra]

  • He cites the show’s goal as a space for thought, not pure persuasion or constant instant fact-checking.

---

“Wokeness,” Self-Reflection, and Changing Views

[23:34 – 33:57]

Listener Question: Has Ezra Changed His Views on Wokeness?

• Notable Past Positions

  • Referenced: Vox article on affirmative consent ("Yes Means Yes"), public disputes with Sam Harris.
  • Klein disputes the idea he’s moved significantly but reflects that some things warranted more caution.

• Cultural Power and Free Speech

  • Admits he underestimated the illiberal spillover from social/cultural enforcement (e.g., consequences for speech on platforms like Twitter).

  “...the way that power is being deployed on platforms and…colleges, that it was fundamentally illiberal… the spillover effect was very real.” [26:48 – Ezra]

• Online Radicalization

  • Recognizes that the social media environment amplified and radicalized excesses—both on left and right.
  • Still believes structural inequalities and systemic injustices are real, but changing structures proved difficult and often failed.

• Emphasis versus Belief

  • Ezra’s emphases have shifted to reflect political context—today's focus is more on building persuasive majorities than “position-taking” online.

  “If you have a politics over an extended period of time that is not learning things about the world, something is wrong with it.” [30:45 – Ezra]

On Affirmative Consent and Cultural Shifts

• Reflects on anxiety and complexity brought about by consent laws; there have been positive shifts (e.g., reporting of sexual assault), but the problems they addressed were severe and the solutions not perfect.

---

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Populism

[37:21 – 46:56]

Populism and DSA’s Political Role

• Is DSA Left Populist Like MAGA?

  • Ezra: “Populism” is more complicated—DSA’s demographic core is highly educated, downwardly mobile progressives rather than the working-class.
  • Economic populism + cultural moderation is generally most successful electorally.

  “There’s been a lot of people noting that the DSA sweet spot is downwardly mobile highly educated voters.” [39:47 – Ezra]

DSA Platform vs. DSA in Power

• Disconnect Between Rhetoric and Governance

  • DSA's national platform is radical (open borders, defund police, etc.), but members like Mamdani govern pragmatically, similar to mainstream liberals.
  • Klein points out that coalitional governing always moderates extremes, regardless of ideology.

• Implications for Broader Democratic Party

  • DSA’s platform likely won’t drag down Democrats nationally, except perhaps if high-profile DSA officials force votes or take attention-grabbing stances (e.g., Mamdani calling to arrest Netanyahu).

---

The “Dialogue” Group and Peter Thiel

[48:43 – 59:38]

Rumor Clarification: Is Ezra Part of a Thiel-Linked Secret Society?

• Rumor Origin

  • Leaked “membership rolls” from Bluesky claimed Klein, Thiel and dozens of others were in a secret society called “Dialogue.”
  • Wired reported credulously on it.

• Ezra’s Experience

  • Dialogue is a conventional conference (unconference format, not secret), not a society, with ideologically diverse invitees.
  • Attended twice; never saw Thiel there or involved.

  “Dialogue is a pretty banal conference. It is not secret. Just like flatly, it’s not secret. ... I went twice.” [49:13 – Ezra]

  • Main takeaway: There is no “secret elite collusion”—these spaces are often fractious and ideologically diverse.

• Broader Point on Elite Networks

  • Klein distinguishes healthy cross-ideological dialogue from Jeffrey Epstein-type transactional networks.
  • Trusts in facilitating conversations across divides as healthy, not insidious.

  “I try to have conversations with many different kinds of people across industries, across ideologies, in a way that is simultaneously honest and, like, fundamentally gracious. I believe that is not just not a bad thing. I believe it is a democratic habit that should be cultivated.” [54:35 – Ezra]

  • Dismisses conspiratorial thinking about elites as oversimplifications.

---

Quick Hits: Musical Recommendations

[59:38 – 60:31]

• Four Tet’s unpronounceable “wingdings” album.
• “Mas Amable” by DJ Python.
• “Reckoning” – John Hopkins & Imogen Heap.

“John Hopkins, like his stuff is really, really cool but coming together was I was very excited when I saw it and I have listened to it a lot since it came out.” [60:22 – Ezra]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Letting Listeners Think for Themselves:

  “I try to keep the episodes from becoming so legible that there is not room for independent thought… I try to leave room for…different values and different interpretations.” [18:37 – Ezra]

• On Propaganda vs. Debate:

  “A major thread of my interview with Chris Rufo is that Rufo is a propagandist…” [10:29 – Ezra]

• On Shifting Understandings:

  “Using illiberalism to create something more liberal, even if the illiberalism is not coming from the state, is, you are imperiling more than you realize you’re imperiling.” [29:05 – Ezra]

• On Conspiracy and Dialogue:

  “People are mostly doing in private what they're doing in public. ... Technocratic liberals, managerial, professional class liberals, they can sometimes make the world too complicated to understand. Conspiratorial populism makes it too simple to understand.” [56:50 – Ezra]

• On Peter Thiel:

  “I find Peter Thiel’s functionally, his entire agenda reprehensible. ... his whole agenda is functionally the opposite of mine. But I will absolutely talk to Peter.” [57:41 – Ezra]

---

Key Timestamps

• 01:30 – Ezra’s relationship to music, creativity, and emotional processing.
• 07:27 – Segue to feedback/discussion on the Chris Rufo episode.
• 10:29 – Ezra’s stance on demographic change, white nationalism, and misrepresentation.
• 17:43 – Pushing back on guests versus letting them speak.
• 23:34 – Revisiting “woke” controversies and self-reflection over past positions.
• 37:21 – DSA, populism, and the reality of left politics in electoral coalitions.
• 48:43 – The truth behind Peter Thiel’s “secret society” and Ezra’s thoughts on elite networks.
• 59:46 – Quickfire musical recommendations.

---

This wide-ranging episode is rich with candid reflection and tough questions, offering clarity on recent controversies and nuanced thinking about political life at the intersection of media, power, and authenticity. Ezra Klein’s tone is thoughtful, self-critical, and open, inviting listeners to make up their own minds.

Transcript

[A]

Some see borders.

[B]

You see possibilities.

[A]

At hsbc, so do we. If today is the day you put your plan into action, we're here. Whether you're navigating markets from Seattle to Singapore, London to New York, HSBC brings

[B]

strategic insights and a global perspective to give you an edge wherever you go. Hsbc, we're here. Welcome to one of our Ask Me Anything episodes. I am here joined by our fantastic executive producer, Claire Gordon, who has sharpened all of your questions into like darts she will throw at me for some minute answer. But we appreciate everything you all sent in. We have tried to look at the questions to see which ones were the most common, which seemed to have the most interest. And we're going to get started. Claire, welcome to the other side of the show.

[A]

Thank you. Thank you for having me. It's uncomfortable to be here. We will be getting to the question question on everyone's mind, which is the secret society you're a member of. Dialogue.

[B]

When have I spoken to Peter Thiel and what did we say exactly?

[A]

But first, this is from Scott K. Who's noticed that you seem to have a very intense relationship with electronic music, as we all have. Quote, is musicianship something you've ever been drawn to? You are clearly not a passive listener. What does music do to your craft? And why do you think you feel so at home in such a specific genre of music?

[B]

Mm. Musicianship is not something I've been heavily drawn to, but I did, for the first time ever recently take a singing lesson.

[A]

Really?

[B]

And it was such a beautiful experience because I've never felt I can sing at all. And the fact that I make my living apart now in my voice is surprising because it was always the way I speak and how I sound has always been like a point of real insecurity for me when I was growing up particularly.

[A]

What about it?

[B]

A lot about it. Without letting people into my private insecurities. But it's really amazing to take a singing lesson. And I'd always thought I could not ever find a tune or a note and it turned out I could. I was just wrong about that about myself, which was a cool thing to learn. I played the flute a bit when I was young, but, you know, as a kid I tried to learn the guitar when I lived in D.C. as an adult and I loved doing that. I loved it. I should really pick it back up,

[A]

like pulling it out at parties, playing

[B]

Crash into me for women. No, I did not play in front of other people. But the guy who's teaching me just hungover too Often to come. And so it kind of like just filtered out. I'd like to learn something. I wouldn't try to learn how to do electronic music. This show in particular can colonize, like, everything I love. You know, I can read a great novel and then it's like, well, we should have the novelist on the show. And I think it's good to be an appreciator of some things and not try to make them another thing you are learning how to do. I have in my life, like, an excess of energy that is oriented towards productivity, accomplishment, doing, being angry at myself for not doing things well enough or not doing enough of them. And so having spaces where I am an experiencer, not a creator, is important for me. I don't really know how to answer why I feel at home in just is the music. I mean, I've been listening to. Oh, my God, it's so good. But it's so. Such an even hard album to tell people how to find. So Fortet, who's an amazing producer, has an alias that is entirely composed out of wingdings. Like, I recognize how this sounds. So he's got this new album out, but both the artist on the album and every song on the album cannot be pronounced or even searched. But you can find it on platforms by searching for Tet.

[A]

But it means 9, 11 was an inside job.

[B]

It means Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel and a secret society. And I just love the album. I've actually had two experiences like this on the show. One with Jeff Tweedy of Wilco, another with Brian Eno talking to them about, individually, a song they had done for Tweety. Impossible Germany. I think it's called Impossible Germany. Unlikely Japan. And for, you know, come on with Fred again to a place that's only our. And learning that the incredibly, like, intense experience I had with that music was totally different than the way they understood that music. And I find that really beautiful. And so whatever my experience is with music I like here, it's just mine. It's not, I think, legible. Other people don't have the same one. But why these songs do this set of things to me, the ones that I like, which is not all of them. I mean, there's a lot of. There's both a lot of bad electronic music, but also a lot of electronic music that just doesn't do it for me. But I think it is a thing best left illegible, even to the self. There's a lot of art that what you want to do is just allow yourself to feel differently and not try to pin the different feeling like a butterfly to a board. But, yeah, I feel at home in this music because it makes me feel things I don't feel elsewhere.

[A]

Happy.

[B]

No, often not. I don't actually go for that much music that primarily makes me feel happy. In some ways, I think I use the music to feel things I have more trouble feeling. A lot of the music I like is a little bit discordant and difficult for me. You know, other people can experience it how they experience it.

[A]

I notice when you took out your headphones or I actually hear it blasting from your laptop, I'm like, that's a choice.

[B]

That's a.

[A]

That's a choice of vibe for your Tuesday afternoon.

[B]

And I think the music holding very contrasting emotions actually is important for me because the work I do often has to hold very contrasting emotions. There can be beauty and fear and anxiety and hope and all these things at the same time. And so a lot of the music I go for, I mean, some of it I just use to calm down my nervous system. I love Olafur Arnold's work, and most of it, for me, is very soothing. There's a lot of music I do listen to that's soothing. My wife is always like, that's really sad. Really? Like, I don't find it sad. I find it, like, sometimes a little bit melancholy, but in a way I enjoy, and then oftentimes really, really calming and really beautiful. But then a lot of the music is actually helping me hold things that are hard to feel at the same time so that I can infuse the work I'm doing with the kind of contradictory emotions that it sometimes needs to have.

[A]

Whoa. Let's talk about the feedback to the Chris Rufo episode. Which of our recent episodes got the most questions? The most comments?

[B]

Bifurcated feedback.

[A]

Bifurcated feedback. So this question is from Jason, and it requires a little bit of setup. I listened to your recent episode with Chris Ruffo. Then, out of curiosity, I went and listened to a few episodes of his podcast, Rufo and Lomez. In one of the episodes, Rufo reflected on his conversation with you. I found his interpretation of the conversation wildly different from mine. So I'm gonna play two clips here. And so the first clip, this is from our episode with Chris Rufo. And you describe Tucker Carlson as a white nationalist. Rufa then asked you to define white nationalism, and this is what you said.

[B]

In some versions, Jews are included in that white race. Sure. In some versions, they're not included in that White race. In some versions. We are talking about something I would describe primarily as a kind of nationalism. Right. The, you know, if you have too much of a country not sharing a common heritage, you lose solidarity. In some cases we're talking about something much darker than that. Right. There are people who just don't like the way their community is changing and there's the kkk. Right. Everything exists on a spectrum. But would you say someone who is like for example, hesitant about rapid large scale demographic change is just a kind of 1% white nationalist? Yeah, because that would be like the majority of the country. Yes. I don't think it is a problem or unfair or even wrong to worry about large scale, rapid demographic change.

[A]

And then here's Rufo's response.

[B]

A couple years ago you would not hear a prominent New York Times voice saying that it is totally legitimate, reasonable and understandable to be concerned about large scale, rapid demographic change. I mean, you know, that was a right wing talking point for many years and the left wing criticism was that was the great replacement theory. That was white nationalism. That was KKK style white supremacy. And so is this a concession? Is this going to be the left's kind of moderate lefts or the establishment lefts new position moving forward?

[A]

I'll also add that that episode of Rufo and Lomaz was called Ezra Klein Admits the New York Times was Wrong on Woke and the first two chapters on YouTube were called Ezra Klein's Great Replacement Moment. And what Ezra now admits was once branded white nationalism. So with all that set up, Jason's question is it seemed that Rufo and Lomas equated your statement with a full endorsement of the Great Replacement theory. To me this is a ridiculous misinterpretation of your point. When you have guests with broad platforms like Rufo, do you engage with them after an interview? And if so, how at all do you respond if you feel that someone is misrepresenting your position?

[B]

I don't for the most part. I'll say a couple things here. One is that a major thread of my interview with Chris Ruffo is that Rufo is a propagandist. We begin with his discussion of agitprop and then a lot of the conversation is me unspooling with him. The way he does that and the consequences I think it has and the way it often misrepresents and then worsens reality and has worsened the political party that he's part of. But I'm not then going to sit here and be surprised that a person who is a proud propagandist. Maybe the way he responds to that interview is by focusing on the parts he thinks he can turn into propaganda. I did find that particular take, which I actually saw from other people too, very surprising. I have for many, many, many years. And in fact, it's part of my first book, why We're Polarized. Not just believed, but talked a lot about how the immigration issue gets sanitized as about economics, but it is actually about people's discomfort with demographic change. I wrote a big piece for Vox called White Threat in a Browning America. I think I've been very attentive for a long time to the fact that it is very politically destabilizing for the nature of a place for who lives in it to change fairly rapidly. And it has changed on a kind of generational level fairly rapidly. So in the 1970s, 4% ish, 4.5% of America was foreign born. Now it's around 15%. So it's one from sort of a low to either it is or it is near a high. I have written a lot over the years about how that is a major driver of what Donald Trump is. I do not believe, and I just, like, I cannot say this more flatly, that it is a normal, constant and legitimate dimension of politics in a nation for people to have views on who lives in the community and how it's changing. I think Great Replacement Theory is a white nationalist theory. The thing that I'm critiquing Rufo for in that section is his footseeing with Tucker Carlson at the time, when Tucker Carlson is offering all these theories and then later on being shocked that Tucker Carlson has gone as far as he has. So I'm saying this was all happening and you seem perfectly happy with the trend that it was on. And now you're like, oh my God, like, how did we end up with this conspiratorial racialist. Right? And I'm saying it was right there in front of you.

[A]

To follow up on that, I disagreed with Jason in his question of saying that Rufo was suggesting that you were fully endorsing the Great Replacement Theory. He's saying that what you said you believe is what people on the right like him have been saying for years, and they have been branded white nationalists for it.

[B]

It's hard for me to know, like, which position Rufo was trying to ascribe to me or even to the broader left here. But I guess, like, the only thing I can say is I think you can have normal concerns and it's just A normal part of politics that people notice and have views on when their communities change. I think you can do that without it being understood as white nationalism. I think if you brand that white nationalism or any kind of, you know, racialist view, then you have basically taken a huge amount of contestation in every nation we know of and tried to make it, you know, politically unsayable. I have personally never done that and have never believed that's like a usable way to think about politics. Of course, you can then take that and turn it into a white nationalist version. And the white nationalist version is there are white people. They are the true builders and inheritors of our society. The people coming in are genetically or culturally inferior. And that it is a threat to the fundamental success of our society to have it not dominated by a certain percentage of ethnically, you know, Northern European or something, descendants. That, to me, is white nationalism. I think it is very important to be able to delineate these things. I think it's important for the left. I think it's important for the right. If the right can't see the difference that I'm talking about, then of course it's not able to police white nationalism because it wants to say there's no difference in anything, which means you cannot, like, see the thing you're trying to look for.

[A]

The point that you said about it's reasonable to be worried about large scale, rapid demographic change. And you've said that several times before in the past, going back years. Why do you think Rufo expressed surprise at you saying it?

[B]

I mean, I don't want to speculate on why Rufo is pretending to be surprised about. I think on that one, he, again, I don't want to interpret him for him. I really try not to argue with guests after they've left the room. I actually don't even think my views on immigration are that different than they've ever been. The Democratic Party has definitely moved on immigration. It shot really Far left in 2020 with Julian Castro pushing the primary field to raise their hands, or the debate moderators pushing them to raise their hands around Julio Castro's argument that illegal immigration should be decriminalized, that the movement across the border should be decriminalized. And I think even many of the people on that stage would agree with the way I am talking about immigration. But at that point, they were not willing to stand up to parts of their party that were one very, very appropriately angry at the cruelty Trump showed towards immigrants, but also were trying to make an argument that pretty normal Views on immigration that most Americans held were, on some level, racist. I just think that happened before. Right. And I don't think it's about. I don't think that the concession there actually had to do with whether or not it's legitimate to worry about or have feelings about change inside of community. I think the concession there from the left, which in general was a mistake it was making in 2020, and we certainly did episodes on this, like, you know, going into the next election, is that order is very, very important to people. And if what they feel is that when you are in power, the world is disordered, that prices are out of control, that all of a sudden there are migrants everywhere, on the subways in New York selling candy and putting aside how much immigration there is, is it orderly? Is the border controlled?

[A]

So, Jason, in that question, he was defending you against immigration. He thought was Rufo twisting what you said? We did get some feedback that was critical of you and Rufo and specifically people feeling like you didn't push back enough. This is Matthew W. How do you decide, especially in the moment, when to push back on a guest versus let a claim go?

[B]

I come into episodes typically with a broad structure I want to be able to tease out, and I try to let people talk. I'm having people on so you can hear what they think and you can come to your own judgments. Again, I push back on people when I think it serves the episode. When I think you don't know what they think yet. When I think what they think is not clear. When I think what they think has not been tested. But if it begins to fail some set of that tests, and sometimes I can't test it in the moment because I'm trying to go somewhere else. And that's going to take us down a path for 25 minutes, and we don't have that 25 minutes.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, the episode was already two hours. And if people didn't listen to it or didn't make it to the end, I would recommend making it to the end because it's very revealing.

[B]

We were saying at the beginning we got very bifurcated feedback on Rufo. And from my perspective, there was feedback that really saw what the structure of that episode was and the way things were playing against each other and people who. Their interpretation of it was different from mine. But that's also, I think, okay, like, I try to keep the episodes from becoming so legible that there is not room for independent thought. I have a lot of faith and trust in the audience and even Where I understand there's going to be, like, a contested interpretation of something. I'm trying to create something here where you can have contested interpretations of it. Because supposed to be a space for you to think in, not for me to tell you what to think. I write columns, I write books. I occasionally do essays on the show. When I want to tell you what to think or try to persuade you of what I think, I do that I don't want this show to be, that I think that there is a tremendous amount of very didactic work out there. And I think Twitter and social media in general has made it much worse, where it's like, people. They've gotten used to every time something is bad or somebody coming and telling them. And just to be clear, what you just heard is bad. And you should be a bit like, I don't think that makes people smarter, richer. And also, one thing I try to leave room for is that people legitimately come to things with different values and different interpretations, and they should be able to see different things in the same episode. I think that episode is really good. And I think that if you follow it through its entire arc around corruption, around what is turning the right into this racialist right that he seems concerned about on his own show, I think there is both, like, an argument being made there and a thing being revealed there that, to me, worked really well. But I'm not gonna tell you if it worked for you. Right. If you don't like the episode, you don't like the episode. You know, Tyler Cowen has a line. I don't know if he still says it before his episodes, but he often says before them, this is a conversation I want to have with this person, not necessarily the conversation you want me to have with this person. And I think there's a truth to that. There are episodes that, from my perspective, go totally off the rails, or they end up as something totally different than what I thought they were gonna be. That's not the case for that one. So, again, I don't want to break my own rules here and go, like, point by point and tell you what I think you should think of it. But I can tell you that. If you're not a subscriber to the New York Times, we have some news for you. You can now explore the Times for free without any paywalls at all during your first month in the New York Times app.

[A]

This podcast is supported by Nerdtech, ODT Remedipant. We know you didn't ask for an interruption, but migraine doesn't wait for the right moment to interrupt either, either. It just barges in, takes your time and throws everything off. So when migraine takes your time, take Nirtech. It's for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. In adults. Nurtech can provide pain relief in two hours, which can last up to two days. Ask your healthcare provider if Nirtech is right for you, because your time is for you, not migraine. Don't take if allergic to Nyrtec odt. Allergic reactions can occur even days after use. Get help right away for trouble breathing, rash, swelling of face, mouth, tongue or throat, high blood pressure and Raynaud's syndrome can occur. Get help for high blood pressure, numbness, coolness, pain or color changes in fingers and toes. Common side effect is nausea. For full prescribing information, call 1-833-4-NERTECH or visit nertec.com all right, back to your podcast Gun injuries are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States. Some people avoid talking about gun violence because they don't think they can make a difference. But every conversation matters. When it comes to gun violence, we agree on more than we think, and having productive conversations about gun violence can help protect children and teens. Learn how to have the conversation at agreetoagree.org, brought to you by the Ad

[B]

Council on the under $3 menu at McDonald's, a McChicken is $2, because when you're craving a McChicken, you deserve a McChicken. And now that McChicken is just $2 limited time only, prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher for delivery.

[A]

This is from Kevin T. I am a listener going back well into the Vox days. I love your show because while you were definitely to the left of me on some things, I think you're a solid guy. You operate in good faith. You're not a bullshitter. I'm wondering if, over the years you've come to see any of your more woke positions as mistaken, eg. Your infamous Vox article from the MeToo era where you suggested that it might not be so ultimately bad if some men were falsely accused of things if it led to progress. Parentheses. Feel free to quibble with this interpretation if you like. I'm sure you will. Or your conflict with Sam Harris, who I am closer to ideologically in this space, in particular identitarianism, wokeness, or whatever you want to call it. Are there any positions you've changed your mind on in in the last five to 10 years?

[B]

I would quibble with that description, there's a. That's a piece about affirmative consent rules in colleges. And I would probably quibble with that view of it. Like, it's not that I think it's good for people to be falsely accused of things, I guess, like, to the broad question being asked here, I often see people ascribing a lot of movement to me on all this. And I actually, yeah, this has become

[A]

a thing that people are saying about you.

[B]

I get it. But I. My positions to me haven't changed that much. I think probably what gets emphasized has a little bit. But here's what I would say. I think that if I could go back, there's probably two things that I was less alert to than I am now. One is that an argument you would often hear people make and that I probably made somewhat, had to do with, well, there's no First Amendment right to amplification on Twitter or Facebook or something like that. Right. That if it's not something that is affecting, like the actual legal system or government policy, you don't need to worry about it all that much.

[A]

Like the mob yelling you at Twitter or being shadow banned because you said something that was like hate speech.

[B]

And I think cultural power like that is. I didn't think it was totally unmeaningful at the time. I mean, one thing you'll see in my tenure at vox, we never fired anybody for speech. Never happened.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I wrote pieces in that era about the difference between, in my view, cancel culture, which I always thought was a poorly defined thing, and cancel behavior, which I thought was very real, which is people acting in a way that was going to lead to people losing their jobs. Now they only lost their jobs when it combined with power. And something that I tried to be alert to then and I still believe now, is that a lot of things where people were saying what they cared about was free speech, what they cared about was power and losing power. And I think the Trump administration has proven me 100% right on that. 100%. That Donald Trump and all these people came in saying they were going to restore free speech, and they did nothing of the kind. In fact, they've used state power more aggressively than Democrats ever did to chill speech, to punish people, for speech, to scare people, to deport people. So one thing that I just got into a lot of fights about, and it put me, like, in the way people categorize my opinions, like very much on the woke side. So it's like there is a big fight over power here and there's A

[A]

real threat to free speech here.

[B]

But I do think that the people who are arguing that the way that power is being deployed on platforms and you know, in spaces like colleges, that it was fundamentally illiberal and that it wasn't going to be contained there, it actually was going to leak into society. They had more of a point than I thought then, right? This is a point John Haidt made and we had a debate about it back in the Vox days and you know, there's all these debates about college campuses and a lot of my views, like, who cares? Like, I just don't want to hear that much about what happens at Yale and the view of height and some other people was, it's not going to stay at Yale, like you're training the next generation of, you know, staffers and leaders and like this is going to come out of there. I think one, that was basically true, right? That the spillover effect was very real. And two, that it also, the application of cultural power caused such backlash that it arguably more than wiped out the gains. The number of people who I've seen who I think were truly radicalized by just stuff that happened to them on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram, on places like that. In part because I always looked at those places as kind of cesspools, to just be blunt. I think I was like just less concerned about what was happening there. But I always want to say this because I think this other side of it is important. The reason I was sympathetic to what gets called wokeness, I actually still believe all that. I believe systemic racism is very real. I believe that our society is fundamentally unequal in very, very, very deep ways. I believe that we often have very difficult trade offs between who gets justice and that as those, as the power moves, right? I mean, the sort of piece about affirmative consent was trying to grapple with something that I still find is very hard to grapple with, which is the equilibrium that existed, you know, that people were trying to alter in affirmative consent laws wasn't an equilibrium where there were no harms. It was one where there was rampant sexual assault that went unpunished. And many, many, many women I know have been sexually assaulted and traumatized by it and harmed by it in spaces where there was not really a recourse. Did affirmative consent laws find like a great equilibrium? They didn't. So I think you could say, like, it's a hard problem, but I don't want to just say no, this was all wrong. One of the things happening when you begin to sort of unearth the way we have settled into unjust structures in society is you don't always know how to change those structures in a way that will work. And I think a lot of things failed. I think a lot of things failed, but the things people were trying to change were very real. I mean, the level of just overwhelming workplace and social harassment that, you know, primarily women faced and face. Right. It's not gone. Was real. I think racism remains a problem we don't really know how to deal with. I think that I actually have, like, mostly the same views on what it is we're trying to fix in society. But I think I take more seriously the people who said that using illiberalism to create something more liberal, even if the illiberalism is not coming from the state, is you are. You are imperiling more than you realize you're imperiling.

[A]

I mean, I also think it's an emphasis thing that in 2014, as we're like ratcheting up into this big moment, but it's also a moment of progressive tailwinds and you're weighing in all the time on talking about the finer points of these issues. The political moment right now is not that.

[B]

Yeah. Although I guess maybe the one thing I would say is that as I understand my own work over time, I understand myself as trying to figure out how to make progress on things that have remained pretty consistent. And if an approach fails, and I think a lot of those approaches failed, and they particularly failed politically, I think it'd be crazy not to try to ask, well, why did this fail and what do we learn from it? And the thing you maybe hear me saying a lot about, how do Democrats win in Iowa and Ohio and Nebraska and South Dakota and North Dakota and Arkansas and these places they used to win and thinking, okay, like, what kind of a tent do you need to do that? What kind of a party brand do you need to do that? To me, I'm trying to make progress on the same issues. I think one of the very, very bad habits people pick up learning their politics in online discourse, online, algorithmically structured discourse holes is they begin to equate political change with political position taking. And that your commitment to something is defined by how stridently you express your opposition to the thing you don't like, not how effectively you build power to fix it. And I understood again, what we call wokeness as a. An effort to build power to fix something. And it went in directions and even at the time, like, I was not on board of. But I think you can't look around without saying that you were trying to do persuasion and the persuasion failed and now things are quite a bit worse than they were even I think then. And so you have to ask, okay, like what failed and what have you learned? I think if you have a politics over an extended period of time that is not learning things about the world, something is wrong with it. You should be changing your emphasis, but you should also be changing your approach. And I guess the only other thing I'll say, and this is a very consistent theme for me back then too, I just think a lot of what went wrong then and what is going wrong now has to do with these fights taking place and fundamentally deranging spaces, spaces that have only become more deranged after Elon Musk bought Twitter, become more deranged as they've all become much more algorithmic and less focused on your friends and the people you follow. And I think if you go back to my work then, if you go to it now, I have an extremely clear through line of just somebody who has been very, very, very concerned that if that attention is the fundamental capacity we bring to politics, what we pay attention to shapes what we see, it shapes how we act, it shapes what we believe about other people. And if the way we pay attention, like the space, it mediates our attention, deranges it, focuses it on the wrong things in the wrong ways, then our politics is not going to be good. And the reason I think both there were pretty bad excesses in a political movement I fundamentally agreed with and now there are really bad excesses in a political movement I fundamentally disagree with. I think the fact that both are sort of were taking place primarily first and foremost on then Twitter now X is inseparable from what has gone wrong.

[A]

Just so we don't end on an entirely down note about how Woke went, I went back and read your yes means yes. This is your affirmative consent article in Vox. Yes means yes is a terrible law and I completely support it is the article. I thought there wasn't anything that jumped out at me. But what you said about false accusations.

[B]

What did I I have not read this piece. I didn't even know we were going to talk about this. I've not read this pie like in many, many, many, many, many years.

[A]

Also, I don't think affirmative consent law makes false accusations more likely or more likely to lead to guys being like railroaded. But there was something that did jump out at me as feeling like actually quite radical in what you said in that article.

[B]

Well, can you say What I said. Because I would like to know what I said.

[A]

What you said, which is the thrust of your argument, is for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended every. And men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

[B]

I definitely don't remember myself as writing that false accusations are not a big deal. I mean, that's what I remember people being mad about, that cold spike of fear line. And I'm not sure I think I phrased that a little bit more vividly than I would. And it's not that I want anybody to feel fear when beginning a sex.

[A]

There has been a cultural shift to a lot of anxiety around consent. I recently saw Obsession, the blockbuster horror movie by this Gen Z director that is all about, at least my interpretation, turning that anxiety into supernatural horror. And there's also very little data about how sexual assault on college campuses has actually shifted in the years since. But there is one study of 10 universities like Harvard, Yale, that does show that self reporting sexual assault has gone down significantly. But, like, what you argued for here, it kind of happened and it maybe worked.

[B]

Maybe. I mean, I'm not sure the affirmative consent laws were a good idea. I don't. I don't know.

[A]

I don't know what a. How much difference they.

[B]

Yeah, I don't know how much difference they made. So I think, like, what you could say about this was that I'm not sure what to think about what colleges should do. And I thought they were worth trying. And, you know, amidst this debate, I made an argument for it. And that argument was very informed by things people near me had gone through, to just be very blunt about it. And I still believe that the difficult thing here is that, I mean, sex itself is like a very complicated interaction between human beings and a very vulnerable and a very intimate one. I think what I'd say after writing that piece in the years that followed amidst MeToo and everything else is like, it all became much more sort of widespread and seen, is that I do think the way this got seen and treated really changed. I think a lot of those changes were for the better. Also a lot of stories where ambiguous interactions, you know, got interpreted as like, the worst form of interaction. And I don't, like, you need a way to protect against that too. And like, I'll just. I don't have an answer to all this.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I don't know how to fix the, like, constant reality of sexual assault. And also the reality that if you like, yeah, I don't know how to fix the mix of the constant reality of sexual assault and like the ambiguous way in which two people might understand the same thing happening. I think it's really hard.

[A]

This is a question from Javan S. With the Democratic Party now splitting into center Dems and dsa, is DSA just now becoming hip to anti establishment politics in a way that MAGA did a decade ago? Are both movements just different flavors of populism where populism is the real current of politics dressed up in different outfits?

[B]

I wouldn't focus this question on the DSA because a lot of the candidates we are talking about in this populist moment are not, to my knowledge, DSA candidates. Graham Platner's out of the race, but he was not a DSA candidate. Abdul El Sayed, to my knowledge, is not a DSA candidate. I mean, there are some populists running who are DSA affiliated, some who aren't. Populism classically is a political perspective that is more about seeing a small group of elites hoarding power and believing that in order to have a better society, better politics, you need to break the power they hoard. And so you can have, you know, your right wing variants. Your left wing variants. I think it's sort of fairly widely believed that the most electable form of candidate you can run right now is economically populist and culturally moderate. Right. That's sort of the Dan Osborne formula in Nebraska. And Dan Osborne is a candidate who really did wildly overperform in a red strait. Now, he also ran as an independent, but that meant he wasn't dragged down by the Democratic Party's baggage.

[A]

Graham Platner wasn't culturally moderate.

[B]

I'm not sure he was the most kind of electable form of candidate you could run. So this is what I mean. Right. I think the problem with seeing all this is populism is that it's more than that too. I don't think populism necessarily has a lot to say about Israel, Gaza. You can have populists who end up on both sides of that issue. And in fact you do in current American politics. And I think at some deeper level, populism is about listening to whatever group you are saying it is. That is the mass. Right, whatever group you believe represents the real people. For the right, populism tends to be a more native born for the phenomena. Right. They're like the real Americans and then the kind of fake elites on the left. It's often more economic But a lot of these candidates have a bunch of other positions that are a kind of linked and more elite set of ideas right on climate on other things that put them pretty out of step with working class voters. And it's why when you look at who they went over a Graham Platner was not over performing with working class voters. Abdullah Sayed is not overperforming with non college voters in Michigan. Like his electorate doesn't look like that. There's been a lot of people noting that the DSA sweet spot is downwardly mobile highly educated voters. So I think we're going to see a lot of people making the argument again like real populism has not been tried because what the DSA is is leftism and that's something different.

[A]

Sarah V wrote in with the question I'm a registered Democrat and I've been doing a deep dive into the DSA website I and what Democratic socialists believe. I consider myself a progressive but more Bernie Sanders type. What is your understanding of the clear disconnect between what is on that website? No more jails, defund police, open borders and what Mamdani and others actually do when they are in office. I've been really enjoying watching Mamdani govern since he took office. It feels like a good path so far, but it definitely doesn't reflect the tenants of that organization of which he's a member of.

[B]

I find it hard to know how seriously to take the DSA website or platform without getting into incredibly tedious detail. That has become a constant topic in our slack trying to say who speaks for the DSA and who is speaking. When you look at what the national DSA says or what a local chapter says, it's a very unusually structured organization. I do think it is valuable to look at what somebody like Mamdani does in in power right? We we've had a number of members of Congress who are DSA associated or you know people in state Senates and assembly and when you're in power you are working coalitionally to pass legislation or executive orders or regulations whatever it might be through a system that does not have entire agreement with you. I don't know what Zoran Mamdani or anybody else would do if they had king like power. But I would say Mamdani in terms of if you knew nothing about what he has said or what he believes, if you just saw what he has done governing this would not look very different if another liberal candidate in that primary had won. Yes they have added a tax on pricey second homes and I think, and I know he would like to add more taxes on the rich than that. He's also being very, very, very careful and doing a lot of both private and semi public outreach to people who run investment banks, to the business elite of New York City because he actually does not want to like infuriate them and run them out of the city. If you begin to dry up the tax revenues, the rest of his agenda falls apart immediately. I don't see the Mamdani era as reflecting an incredibly sharp break from say de Blasio. And you can I think say that sometimes of Bernie Sanders too. And that's not a hit on them. I think one of the valuable things about more leftist figures getting into powers of getting into offices where they have executive authority or legislative authority is you actually see the give and take between ideology and power. The one thing that I sometimes find frustrating is that people on the left don't recognize that that is happening everywhere else too. So liberals, you know, often want more ambitious and sweeping changes then they are able to get one in power too. But there's a tendency to look at what say an Obama is able to get done dealing with a Senate riven by the filibuster and say that's all Obama ism was or intended to be, which it isn't. There is a lot that if Barack Obama were king, he would have done that he was not able to do. And you know, with Mamdani, it's very similar with Bernie Sanders. We had Faz Shakir, Bernie's former campaign manager on the show and he said on the show look, we knew that if we got into power we weren't going to be able to pass Medicare for all. There's a high degree of pragmatism there. So while he's pushing let's take Medicare for all, then he gets into Congress and can we at least lower the age from 65 to 60? Can we talk about Medicare expansion so that it covers home care, dental, hearing and vision? Even if you can't all move with me to Medicare for All, that actually is how President Bernie Sanders would have governed. We would have, you know, expanded Medicare, expanded what it covers, dropped down the age range. And so there is this constant compromise when you're governing. I think it is healthy to watch that playing out. How much to take the DSA as a signal of where these candidates even want to go that I'm less sure footed on.

[A]

What do you think of the critique that just this platform on their website is really politically damaging for other Democrats? It's going to be weaponized by Republicans. And if it's not actually meaningful for how DSA electeds govern, then what is the point?

[B]

I think you would have to ask a member of the DSA that. I don't know to what degree Democrats broadly are going to be forced to answer for what the DSA believes. My suspicion is not that aggressively because I do think people understand the DSA is a distinctive thing. And so the idea that in North Carolina they're going to run a bunch of ads against Roy Cooper saying he believes in what, like the DSA website. I don't think anybody buys that. I don't think it really works. Now they will matter what DSA candidates do when they come into Congress. So if you have, you know, some of these newer members of, of of of Congress who are DSA affiliated putting forward a lot of bills to abolish police or abolish prisons then and demanding Democrats vote on them, then you're going to start to see more effort to define the party by what its kind of high attention left flank is doing. Mamdani coming out and giving that sort of direct to camera address on how he would like to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu and calls on the federal government to do that. It is clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this warrant. The federal government, however, does and I call on them to join the ICC and execute this warrant. And I want to be equally clear, Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in New York City nor is any other war criminal at large. That is going to be an issue that the Republican Party will try to weaponize against voters who are maybe cross pressured and are maybe even critical of Israel, but do not want to go where Mamdani and the DSA want to go on Israel. Mamdani being a central figure in the Democratic Party and making that statement, that is something other Democrats are going to have to deal with. The DSA having stuff on its website. I'm just skeptical that's going to become a major political issue.

[A]

This podcast is supported by Ollie, your wellness partner for all things back to school. When the schedules get fuller and the alarm seems to go off sooner, Ollie Sleep helps you fall asleep, stay asleep and wake up feeling refreshed because kids aren't the only ones chasing big dreams this year. Head back to class with the One Gummy supplement brand and stock up on ollie.com today. That's o l l y.com these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

[B]

Every day your business is late to AI, you fall two days behind, and the competition isn't slowing down. That's why there's NetSuite Next. NetSuite Next puts AI into everything you do. It surfaces custom insights, automatically deploys AI agents to handle routine work, and lets you ask questions conversationally, just like talking to a colleague. AI isn't coming. It's here. And your business needs to be too. If your revenues are seven figures or more, try NetSuite next free at NetSuite AI NYT.

[A]

You know those tiny back to school emergencies that somehow become your problem? That's why I love Uber Eats. You can order school supplies, snacks and lunchbox essentials for $5 or less. So when your kid casually drops I don't like peanut butter anymore or I need five green highlighters for a project due tomorrow, Uber Eats has you covered. Get everything you need for back to school today from your favorite brands like Aldi and Staples on Uber Eats. Order now ends 97. $5 or less before taxes and fees. Select items only. Availability varies. See app for details. So we got a bunch of questions that were all the same question. So this one is Amy T. Is this true that you are part of the dialogue group sponsored by Peter Thiel?

[B]

Okay, dialogue. Let me start here. What happens is that as best I understand it, some hacker goes on Blue sky and is like, I got the membership roles of Peter Thiel's secret society and includes all these people, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman and Joseph Gordon Levitt and Josh Brolin and me and Julian Castro and Cory Booker and like just like tons of people with very, very different roles in the world, different politics.

[A]

Cool hang.

[B]

Cool hang, right? And then like this gets picked up like pretty credulously by Wired. This was surprising to live through. Dialogue is a pretty banal conference. It is not secret. Just like flatly, it's not secret. Nobody ever asked me to keep my presence there secret. I went twice. I think now I'd have to remember the dates, but I think it was 2018 and 2022 or something like that. It was like one pre pandemic, one kind of post pandemic.

[A]

Then why did you never speak about it?

[B]

Because why would I have spoken about it? I mean, I don't speak about most conferences I go to. It is off the record in the way most conferences are. I mean, you can quote somebody if they let you. But so, okay, so dialogue, it's a conference, sort of like an unconference style. I went because at that time I was trying to do more coverage of tech.

[A]

What is unconference style?

[B]

Oh, sorry, unconference style. There aren't panels like people kind of self organize. You like write up on a board, like I would like to have a session on being a working parent or better sleep hygiene or are there any real uses of crypto or whatever it might be so you don't go and sit there and listen to people talk at you.

[A]

This is like a genre and it's a genre of conference. You are deep in conference world, my friends.

[B]

I have done a lot of conferences. That is part of my job to go places and meet people and like listen to them and see if they'd be one day good guests on my show. And like that is like as you know, like part of what I do. But Dialogue was a conference. The one I went to, the first one was for like people under 40, I think it was. And so it was sort of like young, more up and coming people. Like my favorite person I met there was an kind of lefty anarchist. It wasn't like any of those bold faced names who I then was told I was in a secret society with. Like there was no Elon Musk. I've never heard of him as involved with it or Reid Hoffman or any of those people. I went again a couple years later and just found it like the second one I went to kind of like lame and it was reflecting the curdling anger of the tech right in that era. And I just found the energy pretty unpleasant. And I didn't go back by the time I went. My understanding is Peter Thiel is not involved. He was one of the multiple co founders of Dialogue. I never saw him at it or heard from him in respect to it. I do want to say because I think people could get the wrong idea. I'm not saying I think there would be a problem if Peter Thiel was still involved. I've invited Peter Thiel on this show. He has not come on. I have had reporting meetings with Peter Thiel. That is my job. I do not see Peter Thiel or anybody in our society is somebody I cannot or should not talk to. So Dialogue, when I went, no, Peter Thiel, not a society. It was like a conference you went to, also not a secret. And so then to like continuously see this thing that you know is being believed by people that I'm in the secret society with Peter Thiel. And like what would that. Without anybody even being clear of like what that would mean, like, what would it mean for Julian Castro, who, again, he came up earlier in our conversation, like, really pushed a Democratic Party left on immigration. And Peter Thiel was supporting Donald. Like, why would you think those two people are doing the same thing? Which is to say that there is a way of looking at the world that I was really surprised how many people seem to buy into this. And then I was particularly surprised to have it be around this conference dialogue. Because what I will say in dialogue's favor, actually, is that it was a conference that invited a wide variety of people from a very wide variety of industries and ideologies to do what it said on the tin, to, like, go to a place and be in dialogue with each other for the weekend and. Or for a couple days or whenever it was held. And it did an okay job at that. Like, in conferences I've gone to, it's not the best, it's definitely not the worst. And its fundamental nature was fractious. In part, its fractiousness is why I didn't really want to go back, because I just found some of the conversations very unpleasant. There's, like, a big focus in that second one. I was at about your most unpopular opinion, and it just felt very performative to me.

[A]

I think the thing that bothers a lot of people about this or that it taps into on some level is this feeling of elites, who people understand as having radically different politics and being from radically different worlds, just like, all hanging out in a chummy way, and it feeling like then they're on the receiving end of this performance when actually elites are all hanging out and have this kind of class solidarity with each other. And it was a thing that, like in the episode with Anand Giridartos on Jeffrey Epstein and what it revealed about elite networks, he was kind of saying this and that. There was a kernel of truth to it about how elite networks work.

[B]

Even if these people were on cable, you're sitting at home, you're watching cable at the end of the day, and you're seeing these two talking heads fight. But that's for you. That's the spectacle for you at home to keep you entertained. What they're actually doing is revealed in these files, which is hanging out, breaking bread, colluding, sharing information, giving each other tips on deals, giving each other PR advice, making introductions to each other.

[A]

That's the thing. I think this is.

[B]

I don't really buy this, to be honest. I mean, or let me put it this way. If somebody wants to make this critique of, like, functionally all conferences that they collect people from, like, within an industry or across industries and put them together. And you think that's bad, that's fine, right? Like, that's a totally legitimate view to hold about the world. I don't think that is bad. I do that work here in public. I try to have conversations with many different kinds of people across industries, across ideologies, in a way that is simultaneously honest and, like, fundamentally gracious. I believe that is not just not a bad thing. I believe it is a democratic habit that should be cultivated. I think civic friendship, even across real difference, is more than beautiful. It is necessary. And it's not that I think dialogue was doing something, like, amazing for the world. But you are definitely not going to get me to sit here and say that. The problem is that there might be a space where, I don't know, Ted Cruz and Joseph Gordon Levitt and somebody who works on cybersecurity risk at Microsoft might have a conversation with each other. I think that's helpful. Like, I think that's good. Epstein. The problem was it was a transactional network built around protecting a pedophile. The output of the network is the problem. And my critique of people who are in the Epstein files late, by the time that they had to know what he was doing, or at least had information that they had to reject about what he had done, is that they were protecting a pedophile. It is not that there is some world in which Noam Chomsky and Steve Bannon might have dinner. Like, that seems interesting on some level to me, or Peter Keel, Noam Chomsky, whoever it might have been. I think people should talk to people they don't agree with. But if your belief is that these people should not get to know each other, then I just don't agree. The reason dialogue became, or this thing became what it is, is because it was called, like, a secret society. And so, like, spin was put on the ball to suggest that, oh, in public, Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are pursuing different agendas. In private, they're dressing up in robes and sacrificing a goat and trying to do the same thing. And that's not true. It's just not true. Technocratic liberals, managerial, professional class liberals, they can sometimes make the world too complicated to understand. Conspiratorial populism makes it too simple to understand. That is not how the world works. People are mostly doing in private what they're doing in public. There would not be safety among a bunch of people who disagree that much to, like Coordinate or like, say what's really on their minds or anything. Like, I can even get Peter Thiel to come on the show and I kind of understand why he doesn't want to come on the show.

[A]

Say one thing that you disagree with

[B]

Peter Thiel about, that democracy and freedom and capitalism are incompatible. That Donald Trump should be president, that Palantir should exist in the way that it currently does. Like, I find Peter Thiel's functionally, his entire agenda reprehensible.

[A]

Gawker was a cool website.

[B]

Gawken was a cool website. That Blake Masters should be a senator. That J.D. vance is a good political actor. Greta Thunberg is a correct model to think about the Antichrist. I disagree with Peter too. His whole agenda is functionally the opposite of mine. But I will absolutely talk to Peter. And so the dialogue thing, the main thing it did for me, I mean, there's also the reality I can't go and knock on the doors of everybody who believe something untrue now and correct the belief. Then a few days ago on the Internet, I was accused of being a Chinese communist agent or spy or something. The kind of constant cycle now of bullshit that you have no real way to correct is a challenging thing I find to deal with. But I think it reflects something pretty negative. I don't think it said anything good about the way people, a lot of people are absorbing information about the world at the moment.

[A]

I think it would also violate the New York Times, like employee handbook.

[B]

Yeah, it would be. I think I'm not supposed to be in a secret of society. In a secret society. But what even is a secret society? Like, what makes it a society? What makes it a secret? I find to be an intellectually interesting question. But I don't know.

[A]

I mean, there needs to be an initiation ritual.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

You can't tell people you're in it. And I think besides that, you can do whatever.

[B]

Anyway, I'm not in any of those. I can say right now, to my knowledge, I'm not in any secret societies.

[A]

And you have to stay on an email distro for the rest of your life.

[B]

Yeah, sure.

[A]

Last question. So what are three musicians or songs or albums that you would recommend to the audience?

[B]

Ooh, so the fortet wingding album you should go find. And then maybe I got really into and I find this, like, very hypnotic. This particular album, Mass Amable, I think it's called Mass Amable by DJ Python. Really cool, very strange music. And then maybe to offer a song rather than a whole album, there's a John Hopkins Imogen Heap collaboration that just came out called Reckoning. Both of them are amazing on their own. Like Imogen Heap, longtime one of my favorite artists. John Hopkins, like his stuff is really, really cool but coming together was I was very excited when I saw it and I have listened to it a lot since it came out.

[A]

Like you and Chris Rufo,

[B]

Claire Gordon, thank you very much.

[A]

Thank you Ezra. This podcast is supported by Ollie, your wellness partner for all things back to school. Ollie supports moms with a lineup of expertly formulated women's wellness products like a multivitamin with essential vitamins and minerals to help keep her doing it all. Ish. Head back to class with the number one gummy supplement brand and stock up on Ollie. Com today. That's O L L Y Com. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.