The One Where We Test The Limits of Objectivity and Censorship

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Unlearn16: Class is in Session

Episode: The One Where We Test The Limits of Objectivity and Censorship
Date: April 7, 2026
Host: Unlearn16
Guest: Dustin Pace (@Non Toxic Masculinity)

---

Overview

This episode explores the complex connections between objectivity, censorship, and the cultural forces that shape information today. Host Unlearn16 and guest Dustin—a teacher, literature enthusiast, and anti-censorship activist—dive deep into the nuances of bias, freedom of speech, book bans, and the ways both technology and social systems amplify misinformation and public fear. Drawing from personal experience, educational practice, and literary analysis, the conversation challenges listeners to reconsider what constitutes harmful material and to reflect on whose interests are served by restricting access to information.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Dustin’s Background: Foundations for Perspective

• Dustin’s personal journey spans a religious upbringing in Alberta, homeschooling due to parental fear of public education, and eventual immersion in postsecondary education (bachelor’s and master’s in English literature) in Montana and Idaho.
• His life experience—especially exposure to evangelicalism, "manosphere" gym cultures, postcolonial and feminist literature—informs his approach (04:00–05:20).
  • “I guess it wasn't that much of a surprise, but to see it become so mainstream since 2016… that last 10 years, since Trump was elected the first time.” (04:44, Dustin)

2. The Roots of Censorship: Misinformation, Bias, and Control

• Early family decisions to homeschool Dustin were rooted in fears of public education, evolution, and the AIDS discourse of the 1990s (10:30–12:00).
• The Alberta case of James Keegstra (teacher/Holocaust denier) sparks a deeper debate on the limits of free speech (14:23–16:03).
  • “It's messy because that's where interesting is… Am I right by saying that you're more of a free speech absolutionist?” (15:00, Unlearn16)
  • “Anything up to hate speech is what should be protected… It's okay to not tolerate intolerance, just like we don't tolerate crime.” (16:03, Dustin)

3. The Objectivity Fallacy and the Echo Chamber Problem

• Both hosts challenge the notion of total objectivity, expressing frustration with claims of neutrality (24:51).
  • “If I hear somebody say they're objective one more time, I'm going to be like…” (24:51, Unlearn16)
• They critique the "both sides" argument, citing Isaac Asimov’s warning about equating ignorance with knowledge (26:06–26:50).
  • “There's a cult of ignorance in the United States… that your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge.” (26:06, Dustin quoting Asimov)

4. Algorithms, Conspiracy, and Manufactured Crisis

• They note that algorithms and online echo chambers push users toward extremism and misinformation (19:46–21:05).
• The rise of disbelief in foundational truths—accelerated by AI, online conspiracy groups, and curated digital identities—creates a reality largely shaped by personal bias and confirmation (23:17–24:47).
• The conversation touches on how "rage engagement" and sensationalism have always driven media, with digital tools now magnifying this tendency (31:25–33:53).

5. Book Bans, "Age Appropriateness," and Real-World Dangers

• Alberta’s recent book bans are discussed as an example of manufactured crisis: “not a ban, just a limitation”—particularly targeting LGBTQ+ themed literature under the pretext of age appropriateness (34:24–36:33).
  • “Nobody is out here trying to groom children. Which is the accusation that we get all the time.” (36:28, Dustin)
• Selectively targeted books often become scapegoats for complex social fears, while children’s actual exposure to dangerous material via the Internet is overlooked.
  • “Kids don’t go near [the library]... They’re on their cell phones looking up God knows what.” (45:52, Unlearn16)
• The technique of cherry-picking content (e.g., pages from graphic novels) to provoke outrage is criticized as disingenuous (37:26–38:23).

6. Violence vs. Sexuality in Censorship

• The hosts highlight the cultural paradox where graphic violence is more acceptable in media than sexuality or nudity (42:19–43:28).
  • “[You] could see all out horror movies on tv, but you won't see a sex scene.” (42:52, Unlearn16)
• They discuss the banning of major works like Toni Morrison’s Beloved for honest depictions of abuse, noting the harm in sanitizing historical truth (44:04–45:05).

7. Manufactured Boogeymen and Political Opportunism

• Book bans are framed as a way for politicians to “slay the dragon” and give parents a sense of control in a frightening, complex world (47:58–51:18).
  • “It’s like an illusion of control… We don’t ban the things we love. Her examples were guns and phones…” (48:17, Dustin referencing Ann Patchett)
• The real danger for youth lies not in library books but in unregulated digital spaces (49:17–51:18).

8. The Fundamental Threat: Erosion of Rights and Charter Protections

• Both see Alberta’s current climate as part of a broader, global trend where special interests threaten universal human rights—especially for LGBTQ+ people—often using loopholes or constitutional exceptions (52:46–54:58).
  • “Everything is up for debate except for human rights. Human rights aren't a debate. There's no neutrality there.” (53:53, Unlearn16)
• The continued use of LGBTQ+ (especially trans) people as cultural scapegoats is called out as dangerous and disingenuous (54:58–56:54).
• Respectful, real-life dialogue is presented as a countermeasure to digital division and demonization (58:42–59:44).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On freedom and boundaries:
  • “It’s okay to not tolerate intolerance, just like we don’t tolerate crime.” (16:03, Dustin)
• On false objectivity:
  • “This idea that somebody is objective, that there's a clear truth in this world, is a wild fallacy.” (24:51, Unlearn16)
• On banning literature:
  • “If it was just the content, we would get rid of the Internet, because, like, we have a much bigger problem, guys.” (49:17, Unlearn16)
• On creating social panic:
  • “You create a boogeyman you can slay. It's like, don't worry, I got this dragon, elect me…” (51:19, Unlearn16)
• On real-world learning:
  • “Most people aren't going to say what they say in their comment section to somebody's face... If we actually have conversations in person like you say… then we're more apt to understand and have that empathy.” (58:42, Dustin)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:25–09:16: Dustin’s upbringing, education, and transition from evangelical circles to critical literary studies
• 10:14–13:32: Early encounters with censorship through homeschooling
• 14:23–19:06: The James Keegstra case and the complexities of free speech in education
• 21:05–24:47: The danger of algorithmic manipulation and false realities
• 26:06–26:50: Asimov’s “cult of ignorance” and the critique of false equivalence
• 34:24–39:36: Alberta’s contemporary book bans, age appropriateness, and the reality of what students actually access
• 42:19–45:05: Violence vs. sexuality in censorship norms and the impact of sanitizing history (e.g., Beloved)
• 47:58–51:18: Manufactured moral crises around literature as distractions from genuine digital threats
• 52:46–56:54: Human rights, Charter challenges, and the scapegoating of LGBTQ+ communities
• 61:15–63:14: Dustin’s top five banned books and recommendations

---

Dustin’s Top Five Banned Books (Recommendations)

1. The Bluest Eye – Toni Morrison
2. Fahrenheit 451 – Ray Bradbury
3. Perks of Being a Wallflower – Stephen Chbosky
4. Persepolis – Marjane Satrapi
5. The Handmaid’s Tale – Margaret Atwood
   • “[Handmaid’s Tale]... solidified a lot of my views on gender relations, on feminism… she didn’t invent anything for that book. These are all people have done historically.” (63:01, Dustin)

---

Conclusion and Takeaways

This episode is a frank, funny, and richly layered exploration of the political and cultural lines that define what gets censored, what gets taught, and how society must grapple with the growing complexity of legitimacy in an age of manufactured outrage and digital misinformation. Both host and guest advocate for dialogue, empathy, and intellectual honesty—the willingness to “get messy”—and for never sacrificing human rights at the altar of cultural panic or control.

---

Find Dustin online:
@Non Toxic Masculinity on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, and Threads (63:22).

---

Transcript

[A]

Classes in session. Hey, everybody, and welcome to Unlearn 16. Class is in session, guys. Today we are going to be talking to Dustin. Dustin has an incredible channel that focuses on censorship, focuses on books. I, I think your. Your bio said books. Did it say lifting weights?

[B]

Yeah, it's basically, it's my shirt here,

[A]

there, Read books, lift weights, fight fascists. I mean, that's a pretty wildly perfect. And particularly, I feel like we should work out. I feel like I should have lifted before I came on here. But. But Dustin really talks about censorship. He really talks about control of information. He talks about the way in which culture is being shaped or trying to be shaped by virtue of censorship and how that's happening. And I thought he and I would sit down today and try to get at the roots of bias, neutrality, censorship, how all those things form together, because people like to throw those words around, I think in a lot of conditions, in order to control information, in order to limit information. And I think it's incredibly important that we, I don't know, draw some foundational lines rather than some ideological ones. Like if what kinds of things are. Okay, what kinds. Where are our lines of censorship? Do. Should we have any. All of those kinds of things. So before we get carried away, and I do like to ramble, Dustin, would you like to just introduce yourself, Let you know my audience, know who you are and what you do outside the shirt and the lifting.

[B]

The shirt and the lifting?

[A]

Well, yes.

[B]

Yeah. You know, it's interesting. Starting with the shirt, I guess, is. It took me 42 years to come up with. I guess it's three short sentences, but it kind of encapsulates where I'm at in my life and kind of the culmination, I guess, of my life's work. So a little bit about me. I actually was born and raised in Alberta, Canada. I went to school in Alberta public schools, except for a couple years. I was homeschooled early on, and maybe we'll get to that a little bit. I grew up kind of in a pretty high controlled religious environment, and this is before homeschooling was even a thing. And I think that informs, you know, a lot of where I'm coming from. I. After graduating from Cochrane High School, I actually spent some time at an evangelical mission camp called Youth with a Mission. Did a couple months in Malaysia doing that. Oh, wow. Then eventually went to school in Montana, of all places, the University of Montana. I got a bachelor's degree in English teaching and then a master's there in literature. And from there I Made my way south to Salmon, Idaho, which is a town of about 3,500 people, very remote. The nearest Walmart is two and a half hours away in any direction, near a city.

[A]

Silver lining, Dustin.

[B]

Yeah, right, exactly. And I've been. I've been teaching here for the last 15 years.

[A]

Teaching where?

[B]

In Salmon, Idaho? Yeah, and teaching English and actually directing our drama program. We put on a musical every year and I'm the director of that, so that's where I come from. And.

[A]

Amazing.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And how did this become your thing since you're. I mean, obviously you're an English teacher, but.

[B]

Yeah, so it is interesting. The gym wasn't a big part of my Life until about 2017. I think I kind of put on some weight, got, you know, a little overweight and wanted to change things up and started. Didn't really know what I was doing, just knew I had to get more active, kind of, you know, eat less and move more. And then I got quite into lifting eventually, and, you know, my body responded pretty well. I've always kind of just been naturally muscular. And so I did a couple bodybuilding shows and. And it exposed me, though, to the manosphere, I guess, you know, of gym culture. There's a real red pill, kind of toxic masculinity pipeline in there. And that, you know, that part kind of horrified me. And so the combination, I guess, of like, you know, having a background in. In postcolonial and feminist literature and then, you know, ex witnessing this sort of gym culture, it. I was just kind of shocked and horrified. Like, the state of. Of masculinity and manhood and, and growing up in evangelical Christianity, like, I guess it wasn't that much of a surprise, but to see it become so mainstream since 2016 and, you know, that last 10 years of, you know, in the United States, since Trump was elected the first time.

[A]

Wait, how? I'm trying to understand the jump from evangelical homeschooled. You're in Alberta, you move to Montana. It's not like you're moving to super liberal places. You know what I mean? You didn't say you moved to California or New York City. You moved from, like, Alberta to Montana to a tiny town in Idaho, and somehow you worked in the words, like post colonial feminist literature. How did. Did you pick up some organized. How did the hell did that happen?

[B]

Yeah, you know, and that's, I think part of why I have the platform that I do is just that I've always been quite aware of not only the injustices in society and in the World. But my privilege, like I have been privileged, you know, as a straight white male my whole life and especially as an immigrant, a white, you know, Canadian immigrant to this, to the United States. I went to get my Social Security card, and this is in Helena, Montana. The, the guy who was working there and he was, you know, quitting. So I, he maybe didn't care as much either, but he told me verbatim, like, the only difference between Canada and the United States is an invisible line in the ground. And I had my Social Security card the next day, which is like, unheard of.

[A]

That's wild. Yeah.

[B]

And so I think just being kind of a naturally pretty empathetic person and a, you know, both a thinker and a feeler, I, I was just aware of the injustices and never felt or sat right with me. And this further solidified when I was, you know, went to college and university and, and was drawn to English and literature, largely because of the exposure to, you know, other people's perspectives, other people's lives and, you know, the way that you can learn and understand about other people. And certainly it expanded my worldview and the, the feminist part, I don't know. I mean, even from a young age, you know, people. I never fit the mold of how I looked, I guess, or like, you know, what people expected of me and.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And sports and, and you know, I played hockey. Everybody played hockey. Right. But like.

[A]

Sure,

[B]

yeah. By high school I was, you know, into musicals and. And you know, that was not really accepted.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

Yeah. Right. Like, you know, we get all the, the slurs and everything directed at you, but, you know, sure. I was like you. It didn't make any sense to me. And so a lot of my friends have, have been, you know, women and, and gay men too. So like, I don't know, maybe it's just who I feel more. More comfortable. Comfortable around, you know.

[A]

And so you went to Montana for college. Why shift from Alberta? Like, what made you. Made that. Make that move?

[B]

Yeah, So I was living there already. So the, the ywam. The. The mission trip was based out of. Of Montana. And then I, I stayed down and was working and living down in Montana and then it just was convenient at the time.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

And yeah, but it does provide, I think, kind of a unique perspective having, you know, that, that background and then, you know, post secondary here and teaching here and then, you know, to bring it full circle and watch what's happening in Alberta right now and how they're just following all the worst parts of what's happening. In the States right now.

[A]

Yeah. So. So you English teachers, so you're drawn into this, which makes perfect sense about your platform. So you're drawn into this manosphere. You're drawn into sort of the construction or manipulation of what truth is and what people should be focusing on and things like that. And then you're drawing in literature with that. Now, do you instantaneously start to tie censorship and this kind of cultural control together? Because that's a lot of what you focus on in your channel.

[B]

Yeah, I do. And I think that, again, with my background and, you know, part of the reason I was pulled out of school for grades three and four was just this sort of fear of. Of public education and knowledge.

[A]

And in grade three and four, what were they afraid of? What, you're. How old are you? Sorry, 40.

[B]

How old am I right now? 42.

[A]

42. So you would have gone to school in the 90s. You would have been in elementary school in the 90s?

[B]

Yep. Yeah. Elementary school.

[A]

What were the hearing in grade? Because now I could like, you know, now it's like all these buzzwords. I'm just curious what the buzzwords would have been in the early 90s, right?

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And, you know, it was largely, I think, just fear of, you know, even things like evolution and, you know, science and.

[A]

Oh, sure, sure. Yeah. I guess the early 90s, too, would have been. It would have been the AIDS epidemic. Right. So, yeah, we were coming conversations about HIV and AIDS when I was in high school, you would have still been in elementary, but that was like, top of every. You went into math class, you talked about hiv, it didn't matter where you were because it was so scary and it was so not understood at the time. It felt like it was a part and parcel of everything.

[B]

Right. Yeah. And then couple that with, you know, sort of fundamental fundamentalist Christian view that, you know, they deserve it kind of thing. And I remember coming home with like, an eight.

[A]

Yeah. That was a government view, by the way.

[B]

Oh, yeah.

[A]

Like they deserved. It wasn't the fundamental. The Christian fundamentalists are over here. But like, we had a government in the late 80s, early 90s that virtually said the same thing. It's why any research was pushed so incredibly late, you know.

[B]

Right, yeah. That whole rise of the new right with, you know, Margaret Thatcher and Reagan

[A]

and Reagan and Mulroney. Yeah, absolutely.

[B]

Yeah. And I mean, that's when Atwood wrote the Handmaid's Tale was under that environment. And, you know, to see it come even further, you know, wild, isn't it coming true. It's truly frightening. Yes.

[A]

So you. You get pulled out in grade three and four. What. What put you back in?

[B]

You know, I think that I felt that I was kind of missing something. I wanted to go back. I also was the kid with, like, big glasses and. And, you know, was. Was picked on and. And teased. So, I mean, that might have contributed a little bit to. To why they wanted to pull me out, but. And then I. I think I just wanted to be kind of normal and like, homeschooling back then, it was super fringe. And, you know, we would go to some of these events, homeschool events, and, you know, a lot of the kids lived up to the stereotype of. Of homeschoolers now. Like.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

You know.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, but very much. It was. It was, you know, under, like, a religious curriculum. And so, I mean.

[A]

Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

[B]

Oh, I was just gonna say that definitely informs, I think, some of my. My aversion to censorship and to, you know, that kids are capable and should be exposed to multiple viewpoints.

[A]

That was around the same time. And I'm trying to remember the exact year, but that. That would have been the James Keekstra era in Alberta. Do you know what I'm speaking about?

[B]

James Keekstra.

[A]

He was from Alberta. Let me just. I'll just look up real quick. I want to say the 90s, but up above, he ended up. But I'm trying to remember what time this particularly took place in. He was a teacher. Oh, in the. In the 80s. Okay. In the mid-80s. So a bit before. Okay.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

He was in Alberta teaching that the Holocaust never happened.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

But he was a history teacher. And the demographic and the population of that part of Alberta at the time and obviously negating any access to the Internet or anything else that your teachers. Right. He never. He what? He was a denier in the sense that the numbers were. He would say the numbers were exaggerated, and he brought in all these books. Right. And then finally, when he was. When somebody outside of that community or somebody with a little bit more. More knowledge caught him, they ended up saying, you can't. You can't be spewing this kind of hate. Took it all the way to the Supreme Court, and he lost his job. But this is interesting, right, because this kind of goes right down, what we're. We're going to be talking about, because I think you and I tend to be more free speech absolutionists in a lot of ways. In a. I don't like censorship. Censorship's bad. But Then you have this gentleman saying that I am, I am imploring, I am utilizing my free speech to then command a room full of grade 10 history students and lie to them. Now, there's a whole bunch of people on the Internet right now that would agree with him. Right. But lie to him about the nature and about the conditions of the Holocaust. Then it gets messy. And I like messy because that's where interesting is. Right. Because then it does get messy. Am I right by saying that you're more of a free. Like, would you push it to the extreme? What would be your line of free speech, Freedom of expression in Canada, free speech in the United States?

[B]

Yeah, I think hate speech, you know, anything up, up to hate, you know, hate speech is what should be protected. But there is. And I, I guess it's, you know, Popper's paradox that, you know, ultimate tolerance, complete tolerance will lead to intolerance. Right. It's okay to not tolerate intolerance, just like we don't tolerate, you know, crime. And so, you know, I think up to. Up to, to hate speech, then, yeah, it should be.

[A]

And how would you define hate speech? I know how the law does. But you're in the US now, and Canada has hate speech legislation. But obviously provinces can now, terrifyingly enough, and I'm just waiting for this to happen, start utilizing the notwithstanding clause in order to get around hate speech laws. So then anybody who's listening, who's. Who doesn't understand the disaster that is Canadian and our Canadian Constitution, we have a charter of rights and freedoms very, very similar to the American Bill of Rights. We have freedoms designated in there. However, there was a clause placed in, called the notwithstanding clause that stipulated that every province could opt out of the charter, Charter if they voted on it. And so they would say they are opting out of that piece of the Charter, not, you know, we're opting out notwithstanding the charter, we're going to get around it here. So Danielle Smith has actually used it quite a few times already in order to push cultural and I would say religious opinions within her province. I think it's a failure of our Constitution, to be perfectly honest. And it's wildly, it should be wildly inaccessible for those kinds of reasons. But what would be your line? So James Keekstra, standing in front of a classroom of kids, let's say he doesn't ever propagate hate, like propagate violence. He doesn't ever. He just simply says, listen, kids, and he's very careful with his words. The numbers have been skewed the numbers have been greatly exaggerated. Here are my resources to, you know, sort of support that. What, what would be your line there?

[B]

Yeah, so I think that is problematic on two levels. One, of course it's disinformation, you know, misinformation.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

Which doesn't necessarily negate, I guess, free speech. We have people propagating misinformation left, right and center on the Internet. But he's a professional and he's in a classroom and he is responsible for the education government.

[A]

I think that's the bottom line too.

[B]

Right. And so as a teacher that is, you know, reprehensible. Like to teach false history, you know, patently false in that particular example, of course is heinous.

[A]

It's so clear too. It's, it's crystal clear where the line is. But I constantly think about that example now, given where we are in the world. Given, given every time I go onto a platform like X or you know, and, and I'll say something and, and people will draw upon zero actual information. You know what I mean? Like zero actual. They'll, they'll deny the 95% of scientists. Wrong. They're just wrong. And this, this is what's true because this is what you know, is being hidden by the government or, or whatever.

[B]

Yeah. Really is a big part of the problem that we're in. The conspiracy theorist. And actually it's interesting, I just started a book on, on this in Evangelical spaces and I certainly grew up with a lot of that actually. My, my grandparents were holocaust deniers by the end of their life. So otherwise reasonable like people and good hearted people. But you know, it's wow, it's crazy. And, and the algorithms also push that. Like they've done studies on YouTube that if you just keep watching YouTube you'll end up down these rabbit holes of, of crazy conspiracies. And one thing that the Internet has done though is allowed people to congregate in with other people who have these same ideas and confirmation bias. Right. And also the idea that because other people believe it, it gives some sort of validity to these crazy theories. And so obviously right now with Artemis too, and you know, we're back in space and you look at some of the comments and you're like, yeah, there's, there's no intelligent life on earth. What is this?

[A]

Just keep going by, guys, don't stop here. Yeah, I think, yeah, I think it's, it's fascinating. I mean Neil DeGrasse Tyson said and it, and it is just becoming more true by the minute. He says the better AI gets, the Internet will be useless, right? It will, it will create the Internet to be useless because you will never be able to believe what you heard, what you saw, what you read, because it can all be manufactured. And that's terrifying. And what that that's doing is, it's like throwing us back a little bit in time and really relying on actual historical text or novels or pieces of literature as being necessary touchstones to say, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. This, like, let's just talk about this for a second.

[B]

Right, yeah, for sure. And even in the, you know, the classroom, we're almost going to have to go back to just handwritten assignments, you know, to make sure they're doing it, get people actually thinking and writing and not relying just on the technology. But yeah, it is interesting and especially with text too, like paper hard copies like these are going to become more and more valuable, I think. Like, I'm, you know, I've gone back to just like hard copies of everything because, you know, you, it's so easy to manipulate and change texts online too. So. Yeah, I, I think you're right. And it's interesting to put this in, in conversation with like postcolonial theory and like Baudrillard and the idea that, you know, of the simulacrum and that we're like what is real and what is, is a simulation. But, you know, our virtual real world is almost like a simulation that we're, we're living in and we're choosing it. Yes. Oh, absolutely.

[A]

We've chosen it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We would rather be living in that sort of constructed world and, and then you start seeing it. We'd rather be living in that world, obviously, physically, because we have, we can have these representations of ourselves and we can kind of create and, and curate exactly what we would want that to look like. But then intellectually we can start to include and disclude information on the basis of what I want to believe, not what is true. So the idea of confirmation bias, I can very much easily go on the Internet and find anything to prove what I already think. And I think people on the whole like that, and I, and I'll admit that freely. I think every single person likes to think what they already believe is the closest to truth and, and they feel a sense of, you know, self awareness and, and almost a superiority about, oh, well, what I believe is true. And there it is there and there it is there. And I'm just gonna, you know, build it here. I think the only people or the few People that are coming up with a real perception of what's going on in the world have to be thrown so far out of their comfort zone and usually not by their own choice. That's the only way you see anything else.

[B]

Yeah, for sure. And I'll be the first to admit I'm guilty of it. We're all guilty of it.

[A]

We all are. I'm so tired of people saying they're not. Oh, I'm objective. If I hear somebody say they're objective one more time, I'm going to be like. And we're going to speak about this too. This idea that somebody is objective, that there's a clear truth in this world, is a wild fallacy. But sorry to continue. Go ahead.

[B]

No, it absolutely is. And like you say, though, that the. Our echo chambers are curated obviously for us that way, and then we seek it out. So it's just. We've always been that way, but the Internet makes it easy and actually thrives off of that tendency, which is. I think we're seeing some dangerous consequences obviously of that right now. And this notion that all sides should be given equal time, which I think is where we're headed here. Or that they're equally valid.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

They absolutely.

[A]

Give me, give me your. Give me your opinion about that. I think that's a great place to start.

[B]

So, yeah, there's a. An essay by Isaac Asimov that I keep coming back to is from 1980, and there's a quote in that where he says there's a cult of ignorance in the United States and there always has been that your. And it's the idea that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. And I think that that is where we are right now and where people have been conditioned maybe to think that their lack of knowledge is just as good as somebody else's knowledge. Right.

[A]

I think there's this also, you know, it's, it's, it's as though pieces of the truth can sometimes end up being the whole story. So has, you know, take government misinformation, right. Or. Or media misinformation. And are those elements true? Yes. Has the government hidden stuff? Sure. Has the media fashioned and manipulated stuff? Absolutely. But what that allows us, once we just admit that even if it's a percentage, whatever that percentage happens to be, as soon as we don't like the information, we go full send. Right. It's like, oh, well, the media's always lying and the government's never. And the CDC is just trying to trick us. And, and the media is just trying to liberalize us. And all of these things are true, Right. It's like there is the, the more that we engage and the more that people assume when they can find, I don't want to say knowledge when they can find information on the Internet, the more valid or the more incapable everybody has of, of agreeing to any sort of possible middle ground, possible foundational truth.

[B]

Right? Yeah. And like you say, all the, all this stuff is true and it does happen. And even with, like the AI example of, you know, well, I can't believe anything. I don't know it's real. So I'm going to believe nothing.

[A]

Nothing.

[B]

Now.

[A]

That's it. Right? I don't. I got a call today. I got a. I don't know if it was a call. Yeah, a call message from my bank. You know, you're. They've tried to, you've tried to log in and you're going to get. Please hit this button. And I'm like, first of all, my mom would hit the button. Second of all, I don't believe any text message or phone call I ever get from my bank now. Never. I don't pick it up, I don't answer it, I don't respond to it. My bank has called me. I will then get up and I will go to my bank and I'll say, did, is there a problem? And they'll say, yeah, why didn't you. I said, I'll tell you why. Because the bank numbers get cloned. People call and ask you, you know, and I'm not having any of the conversation whatsoever. But what's fascinating about that is, is it's forcing us back into public space, which I kind of like. Right. It's forcing us off the computer, it's forcing us out of the Internet, off of our phones. Because if none of this is real, the only thing I know that is real, that I experience, that has legitimacy, is in real time with real people. So we are going to, I think, be doing that more often, which is why, by the way, going back to whatever's going on in Alberta, which I, I think I'm going to ask you what you think, why you think this is happening and, and what it's what it's gearing up toward. But I think it's. It's taking advantage. I tend not to be as conspiratorial as a lot of people because I, I look at it more just like I look at advertising, just as I look at, at the algorithm, people tend to look at it like it's a controlling mechanism. And I tend to look at it as a function of one of two things. Somebody is getting and wants to keep power or somebody is getting and wants to make more money.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

And those are the two drivers. You might think somebody, there's a group of people sitting in a back room rubbing their hands together, trying to control all of our minds. I, I, I, I tend not to be in that camp. I tend just to think once people get power or the way they can see themselves collecting power, then they start pulling on these tethers, which I think is what's going on in Alberta right now.

[B]

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. And every year I teach 1984 and obviously there's many, many parallels with everything that's going on in the world. But what we see and the example that I give them with, you know, our online data particularly is like, yeah, the government, you know, they, they could have that if they wanted to, but for the most part they're not. Your information's not that valuable to them. But you know who it is valuable to, is valuable to? All of these companies that are showing you targeted ads.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

You know, yeah. And they have the money and the power. So. Yeah.

[A]

I also sometimes, you know, have you seen on, oh, you're, you're not on Twitter because you're a smart guy. But recently I had a, I had a day where I was like ins, I, I posted something and then it was just all this vitriol and the next day I was in a horrible mood and I couldn't figure out why. I'm like, oh, I know why, because I spent too much time. Anyways, there was a diagram, like a, like a percentage diagram about who gets pushed out, what content gets pushed out. Right. And everybody on this is basically saying, oh, look, well, Elon Musk is obviously putting, pushing a right wing agenda on here. Like that's his goal. And as much as I like to blame Elon for a lot, I see what they're doing and the algorithm as more of a function, unfortunately of humanity, which is we are much more likely to engage in rage and anger and vitriol than we are to engage in ideas of puppies, rainbows and, you know, newborn babies. We just are. So if that is true of our human nature, the reason why that content is getting pushed out, it's not because Elon sitting in the back room now, he is pushing his content out because I do think he likes to be liked, but it's not because he's not. It's because this is the kind of content and the way that they curate their content. It is no different, I don't think, then the old, you know, the old yellow journalism, if it bleeds, it leads. Because that's what people want to see. They want the violence, they want the vitriol. Bring it on it. Engage. Even if you're, when you're fighting, you're the most engaged. Right? Yeah, that's. Yeah, that's not the algorithm. That's us.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. And I mean, look at, look at, you know, old newspaper headlines. They're not that different. It's, you know, nuanced discussion, doesn't sell.

[A]

That's right. That's exactly right. You know, even when people are saying, well, back in the day, news reports were better. Maybe, maybe. But it was always, you know, war and violence always led the headlines because it captured your attention. Everybody wanted to see what happened at the end of the car accident. Nobody really cared about the guy rescuing the kitten from the tree. And, and that's, that's on us. That's on.

[B]

Yeah, we've always been into sensationalism for sure. Even, you know, old travel writing and, you know, all this sort of crazy narratives that would come back about, you know, during the start of colonialism and all these exaggerated stories about cannibals and everything like that. People eat that kind of stuff up.

[A]

No pun intended.

[B]

Yeah, well, yeah, with all the Epstein files right now, it's import taste.

[A]

Another one. Yeah. So if you're, if you're looking about what's going on in Alberta right now, and let's say the books, let's talk about that for a second. Let's, let's talk about. Because that side is going to argue it's not a ban, it's a limitation to age appropriate. And I think you and I can be very honest about. Okay, what is age appropriate? Everybody wants age appropriate material going to the right level of kids. Nobody's sitting down a bunch of kids to, you know, in grade five and having them read like Slaughterhouse five, it's just not happening. It doesn't make sense.

[B]

Yeah. Nor do the kids want to check that off the shelf.

[A]

That's right. But I mean, a lot of the books that have been deemed not age appropriate, it's always been due. From what I, what I've seen anyways, I could be wrong. It's always been this connection to the gay or the trans community in some way, shape or form. Having said that, I also don't have these books. Right. And they're, they've all said, well, there's, there's graphic. If it's a graphic novel, there's graphic sexual images in it. So where do we put that? Because I think a rational person goes, cool, that's not like, I don't know how graphic an anime gets, but like that makes sense. It doesn't go to young kids. But my question is, has always been, was it ever.

[B]

Right, exactly. And no, I think what's going on here is, I mean, it's a complicated part of a larger culture war, obviously. But the. On one hand you've got, you know, trained teachers and librarians who know what is developmentally appropriate. Nobody is out here trying to groom children. Which is the.

[A]

God, I hate that the most accusation

[B]

that we get all the time.

[A]

20, 26.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. And there are. The graphic novel component is interesting and it's sort of a newer development, it seems. You know, there have been a lot more graphic novels published in, you know, I would say the last 20 years, especially the last 10 years. And it's become a really popular form of literature. But you people have always cherry picked passages out of books. Like, you know, Catcher in the Rye, notoriously always has the one dog eared page about, you know, the word in the bathroom. I don't know if I can curse on the podcast, but the.

[A]

I'll censor that later.

[B]

Okay. Yeah, so. Or dropping the F bomb in the, in the bathroom.

[A]

I'm just joking.

[B]

And so people would always show that. Or Slaughterhouse 5 is a great example too. There's a couple passages in that and you know, it would, would get targeted. Right. But you know, you even have to put through the effort to like read that a picture. What my understanding what happened in Alberta is they would, they took these pages out of these four graphic novels and showing, you know, a sex scene, labeling it porn. Right. I would argue otherwise. Um, and you know, they send them out like, do you want this in your schools? Right. Which is a terribly disingenuous way to put out information, creating a crisis that really doesn't exist. Not stating, you know, what students have this available to them, what level of students.

[A]

Yeah, nobody talked about. They. It was almost like, oh, if this book is in the library, obviously all the grade twos are reading it.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And this is a huge problem. We're going to create legislation. Meanwhile, you already had librarians and teachers that were already in the mix. I don't work in an elementary school, so I always found it interesting. Now, elementary is one thing. Right. I guess dividing that Line that, you know, there's always been fights about, when do you start sexual education? Right. When do you, when do you have that discussion? Like, do you have it for us? I don't know. For us it was like grade 7 and 8. I don't remember having it any younger.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But girls, now, a lot of young girls are getting their periods in grade five.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So, yeah. Are we not going to have the discord? That's, that's reality. That's true. That's a, that's. And they all love to talk about biology. So that's a biological fact. Are we not going to then reflect biology and start teaching a biological, biological reality for quite a few young girls at a lower age because of reality.

[B]

Yeah. Really? And for, I mean, I can only imagine, right. You know, I'm not a woman and I haven't had to go through that, but I can imagine that it would be just a whole scary thing to have to encounter. Right. Like, I mean, it's totally life changing. What is? You know, and I've read enough to like, like, I, I, I feel so, you know, bad that anyone would have to go through this without any information, without any reference. But there is a case happening right now in Rutherford, Tennessee that I've been covering and you know, on their books that they wanted to move to the adult section. Right. Which is so over 18.

[A]

What does that mean?

[B]

Yeah, the restricted section and. Yeah, to the adult section. Okay. With, with parental appro, you know, approval. Yeah. It reminds me of, you know, Blockbuster back in the day. Right. The little back room with, with the adult films.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

But you know what they're doing with that and one of the books was, you know, welcome to your period. And like, it's absolutely like, what, what's that?

[A]

That book was banned until they were 18.

[B]

Well, yeah. Or at least without parental consent.

[A]

To imagine. My mind goes to Carrie. Right. Like my, that's how old I am. Those who don't know, like, one of the best, craziest horror movies is, again, it actually hilariously does involve some religious extremism. Carrie's mom is very, very controlling. Never talks about anything. Actually says, when she talks about a period, I don't even know how she describes it. She says that's when, you know, the devil is it like, it's just terrifying. Carrie gets her period, she thinks she's done. If you don't know what it is, you would. I would rush myself to emergency. Like, it would be like, what is happening? And you're not aware of what's going on because your parents have decided this isn't important. Biological truths that you should know. And. And some of the other books. And I often think about this too. You know, when we were kids, you'd see, I don't know, Die Hard on tv. Remember when, like, the. Those movies would come on, it would be like, oh, cool on channel seven or whatever, like Die Hards on. And. And they'd beep out the F word. Do you remember that? It was saying he would say, fudge.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And then in the next scene, you'd see him kill a guy with an ice pick right into the eye socket. And in reviewing that, I'm a little curious on our censorship. It. We think the F word is more insidious and damaging than levels of violence. And then that doesn't even account. Right. Any sort of nudity of any kind. Nudity was always way worse than violence. You can see all out horror movies on tv, but you won't see a sex scene.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, that. I mean, that is something that has always stood out to me. Like, you're saying, especially from that era of how normalized violence is and how culturally accepted it is versus any. Any sort of nudity or, like, you know, the human body. Not that we should be, like, showing gratuitous.

[A]

Sure, yeah. Yeah. I think anybody.

[B]

The. I think that's where it comes into with literature, though, also, is that, you know, oftentimes it's always sexual content.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Yeah. It reflects reality, and it's not there just to be gratuitous. Right. Um, and many of these texts are not even, like, erotic in a lot of their sex scenes or nudity. They're. They're actually quite the opposite. Reflecting. Yeah, Oftentimes it is.

[A]

So. Yeah. So, like, one of my favorite band books is probably Beloved by Tony Morrison, which. I've only read it a couple times. Not because it's not an incredible book, just because it's so horrific.

[B]

Like, it wrecks you.

[A]

It wrecks you. You can't, you know, you can't watch. You can't read that too many times. But I know that the reason why that was taken off the shelf was because of the rape scene.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What? You couldn't have a bigger truth, an actual truth of history, historical fact, and a reflection of that time than that scene. And for people to be like, oh, no. But we're gonna ban this for kids, you know, for teenagers again, I also think it's funny. We think teenagers are reading as copiously as.

[B]

Oh, yes. Yeah. As we would like Them to. And like you say you're, I mean you're doing a disservice to make the bad less bad than it was. You're, you know, it's reprehensible in my opinion. Like if you make the racism less racist, if you make the abuse less abusive, like yeah. To, to history and I.

[A]

And so when I think about all of this, different forms of censorship because nobody's, everybody's going to say it's not a book ban, it's. We've just, we've just made it age appropriate or it's not a book ban, we've just taken off the, the book list. So it's not going to be taught this year. You can still get it wherever you want to get it. It's not a book. But so they, they have all these get around basically saying we're banning the book because they know that that's just not, not necessarily something they can get away with. I would like to ask all governments what do they think of the Internet?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And my question, because I know kids, I don't have grade sevens going into. We have a huge library in my school. All these books. Kids don't go near it.

[B]

Yeah. Oh yeah.

[A]

I'll tell you where they are. They're on their cell phones looking up God knows what.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So when we say that we are trying to control what kids read because we think somehow it's informing them, it's educating them, it's taking away parental. Right. I have some bad news for these people.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Number one, they're not reading, which is a problem in of itself. Number two, every horrible thing you could imagine that's not in these stupid books that you keep ban is on the Internet.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

With like real life danger. Real life, you know, Snapchat pretending to be somebody else danger. And some parents think that like focusing. And this is my real, I think this is my real fixation for what's going on in Alberta right now because they need to focus on something. Have you ever. It's like when people get scared, they need you to point to if I'm afraid of something. As a parent, I can't imagine. I'm not a parent. If I was a parent, I'd be scared of everything. I have a cat. I don't like it. They get sick. It's not enjoyable. My mom's dog, I get it. Kids would be oh so much worse. So I get that fear factor. I get wanting to be able to control the environment and that fear is so easy to manipulate. So in A world like we have today where anybody can get on the Internet and it's just a free for all and it's a disaster. It can be a disaster no matter if your kid has a cell phone or not. In that world, it seems almost rational that an individual would say parents are afraid. They're rationally afraid. What can I do? What can I manufacture? What boogeyman can I kill so that they feel okay? And here is the disservice, right? It's that book talking about being gay when you're in grade seven. That's the book? Yes, that's the book. Don't worry, guys. I've taken that book off the shelves. Everything's going to be okay. Now, parents, you're okay. You have complete control over your own kids. They're not being influenced by anything else anymore. They're not seeing things you, you don't want them to see. That that's it exactly.

[B]

It's like an illusion of control. And Patchett had a speech here just the other day where she talked about book bans. And I think she put it very well in that we don't ban the things that we love. And so her examples were guns and phones and, you know, two things that we really should be focusing on. And we are instead focused on the books. Because a lot of people don't, the ones who want to ban the books, they don't care about the books. They don't read. They don't, they don't want to read. They don't necessarily want their kids to read. And so I do think it is a testament to literature as well. And this is something I tell my students. I've always taught banned books units. Before it was controversial just because it was something I've always been passionate about. But now it's become like a day to day reality. But that it's not. If it was just the content, like, we would get rid of the Internet

[A]

because, like, we have a much bigger problem, guys.

[B]

Yeah. Oh yeah.

[A]

And a much bigger problem.

[B]

Most kids have unlimited and unregulated access to all kinds, like all kinds of stuff on the Internet. And horrible. There's horrible, horrible stuff that they're accessing.

[A]

And people like real life, people like forget ideas, right? Get images, real life, predatorial people that you don't know about because you're pretending that problem doesn't exist. Oh, there's lots of, lots of parents like, well, my kid doesn't have a phone. Are they ever around the Internet?

[B]

Mm.

[A]

Like what, you think it's fine, don't give them a phone. I mean, I can get on board with that when they're young. However, this notion that we shouldn't teach and we shouldn't discuss and we shouldn't put these things on the table that are really there to potentially harm, control, manipulate your kids, and we're not going to do any of it. I joke with my students all the time. They're like, you know, they'll talk about banned books or they'll talk about phones or whatever. I said, I'll tell you what, I want to destroy Snapchat. Oh, yeah, well, the fact that those messages disappear is wild. And. And I'll. I'll tell that to my students all the time. And then I'll, you know, I rat them out. Because kids are brilliant, by the way. Unfortunately.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

They have folders upon subfolders. Upon subfolders. So if I. Somebody was to hand me their phone and their parents, like, I want all their stuff gone. Right.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I wasn't finding anything. I'd have to be in the CIA to find out where their photos were. Not that I want to look through. I don't want any part of it. But, like, again, parents will be like, oh, no, I went through. They don't have Snapchat. I'm like, yes, they do. You. You just can't find it. Because they're that good. They're that smart with it.

[B]

Oh, yeah, they're brilliant.

[A]

Worried about. We're worried about a graphic novel over here. Yeah, I just. And I. I just feel as though it's a. You create a boogeyman you can slay. It's like, don't worry, I got this. Dragon elect me. This is it. This is what's attacked. When in actuality, it's. It's way more insidious. It's way more pervasive. It needs to be talked about on. On the whole. It needs to be a part of every single class, to be honest with you. You. This idea of. Of access, this idea of the dangers that teenagers will put themselves in because they have no frontal freaking lobe.

[B]

Oh, yeah, yeah, exactly. They're not thinking about the future. Yep. It's just, what. What do I want to do right now?

[A]

Nor did we.

[B]

Yeah, right. Oh, exactly.

[A]

And the terrifying part about our childhood is nobody knew where we were. We were stupid.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah, right.

[A]

It's like, oh, I'm staying at my friend's house. My friend said she's staying at my house, and all of a sudden we're walking to a party in the woods. What Kind of insane person if you survive your childhood and everybody's like, oh, today so much date more dangerous. I'm like, no, I don't think so. At least you have your kid on low, Jack.

[B]

Yeah. It's wild to think about. At least the stuff we didn't or we did wasn't on video either.

[A]

Well, it's just not permanent. But it all happened. It was.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

What do you think is the number one problem facing Alberta today then?

[B]

This the number one problem? Yeah, I think the, the threat to human rights, like the way that we are giving power to special interest groups to put their agenda and impose their agenda on, onto others. And that's what we've seen happen in the United States. And it's what I see, I think happening in Alberta as well and undermining the charter of rights and freedoms with the. Notwithstanding.

[A]

That's my bigger problem. Yeah, I think there's lots of interest groups for lots of things and some interest groups I agree with. In some interest groups. I don't, Yeah, I don't mind more ideas on the table. I, what I mind is the negation of ideas and the only ideas that I, and I, I say this often, everything is up for debate except for human rights.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Human rights aren't a debate. There's no neutrality there. There's no gray area. Fundamental human rights of every person in, in this country should be the basis of every discussion. Anything that then tries to take that away, that's no longer the best idea. That's no longer a good idea. And if you're going to argue that a human right should be taken away or a freedom, let's say, because a human rights a bit different. If I'm going to say a freedom should be taken away, you better have a damn good reason how that is impacting the greater society. You know, people will be like, oh well, they make you wear a seatbelt in the car. Yeah, they do. So stupid. So that your body doesn't go flying outside of the car. And the damage you do, not just to yourself but everybody else, doesn't get to be a byproduct of you choosing to do something dangerous. But I think those are the conversations that need to be had because like I said, I think there's a lot of, there's a lot of creating the boogeyman.

[B]

Right. Yeah. And I think the notion that there was some sort of idyllic past. Right. You know, we, we need to return to. But that, you know, basically, you know, the subtext is that like let's make bigotry and racism and all the, the prejudice is okay and acceptable again. Right. And that's really what, what they want. And so, you know, I think that is obviously a dangerous path to go down. And we're supposed to have laws in place to make sure that they can't do that. And when those start to be undermined, then it becomes a real problem. I do think that the way that they are using the LGBTQ+ community and particularly the trans community at the moment is very frightening. And it's happening here, obviously it's happening up there. And they found something, I think that scares people. And they are in the process it does hurting, you know, real, real people, you know, trans kids, trans people, but also creating a crisis that, that doesn't exist in order to, you know, undermine trust in public education as well. And I don't know if, I mean, I know that they've got the whole like litter box thing in the bathrooms, which is laughable. Nowhere is doing that. But people sure believe that.

[A]

Sure. It's just. Right.

[B]

An extension of that too. Yeah.

[A]

And it's, and it's, it's typical. If I'm going to create a boogeyman, I want it to be a very small fraction of the population so that most people don't know. And if they don't know, I can make up, I can create, I can curate the boogeyman to be as big and as horrific and as destructive as I possibly can. Because how many people have somebody in their world, in their ecosystem that is trans that they can talk to about these things? Not very many. So it's really easy to say it's them. They're the problem. Don't worry as soon as I handle them. And there's been a couple other places in our history where that's been the go to. Right. What is a small population that we can point to and, and how many people really have interactions and real knowledge and I can manufacture everything. And you would hope that in this day and age where you. A computer in front of you, oh, we had a window of intelligence and then it's been obliterated. You would hope that this gives you cause to be able to fact check and be able to look into things in a real way. But because like what you just, we've said before, there's this creation of false realities and echo chambers and self serving re indoctrination camps that we all jump into and this isn't helping us anymore. So I think the only thing actually that's helped that would help is in person ready to have the conversation, ready to be in person ready to actually explain and describe and communicate ideas externally to this. Yeah, right.

[B]

Yeah, for sure. And I mean, if you like, we have a lot more in common with any given person, then we have differences. Right, sure. And most people aren't going to say what they say in their comment section to somebody's face. So having that, that, that sort of anonymity behind the screen and also the distance of. Between people that it's not like we're engaging with an actual human on the other end, if we actually have conversations. Yeah, that's true. In person, like you say, and get out from behind the screens, then we're more apt to understand and have that empathy. And certainly if we actually have a conversation with somebody, say, who's trans and get to know that person, you're much less likely to be prejudiced.

[A]

Negate. Yes. And you're much less likely to easily negate everything that they. They are. And it's much less likely to create them as the villain or as the, you know, as the, the dragon that needs to be slain. And I, and I really do see this and it's going to have, and it is having horrific results as creating a pretend enemy because the world is a scary place and there are lots of things to be very, very worried about. And there's. We have way more knowledge than we ever had before and we're inundated with way more true, like, way more horrible things that are going on in the world than we ever have been before. And for somebody to stand over here and say, don't worry, I'll take these books away and everything's going to be just fine. And I don't even, I don't even know if I, if I'm having to criminalize, like, the people that want to believe that. I get that. I get wanting to believe that. It's just that thing. I get it. I really do. Because it's the same kind of people who want to believe that I can lower taxes and give you the same social services. It just feels so much better. Right, right. So going down that, you know, going down that road now before. Thank you so much. First of all, this is an amazing conversation, and I don't want to take up all your, your entire evening. Can you give me your top five censored books? I just want your top five band books. What would you say? Go read them right now.

[B]

Okay. Top five. Off the top of my head.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I'm going to go with the Bluest Eye. Another Toni Morrison.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Gotta say Fahrenheit 451. Just because the irony is. Is too much.

[A]

It is thick right now. Yeah.

[B]

Perks of being a wallflower.

[A]

Oh, another great. What was that banned for?

[B]

Oh, it keeps showing up. Just because.

[A]

Sex scenes.

[B]

Yeah. A gay character, right? Of all things. Yeah, sure. And then how many is that? Three.

[A]

Three.

[B]

Okay, so then the last two. Gotta throw probably a graphic novel in there. Persepolis. And for number one, I will go with the Handmaid's Tale. Not just because we're living it, but also because it's probably the most influential book or one of the most influential books in my life. I read it for the first time in college. Not as part of a class, just picked it up off the shelf. And I always liked dystopian fiction, but so much of the space has always been male dominated white men, especially up until recently, and particularly Atwood with that book. But it just sort of solidified a lot of my views on gender relations, on feminism. And I especially appreciate that she didn't invent anything for that book. These are all people have done historically. Right. And we can do it again. And you know, I'm afraid that we are. In a lot of ways that is true.

[A]

Well, Dustin, thank you so much. Can you let everybody know where they can find you on what platforms? Under what? Under what?

[B]

Yeah, so my platform is non toxic masculinity. Dustin Pace is my name. You put in any combination of that, you should come up with it. I'm on Instagram, tick tock, YouTube, Facebook and threads.

[A]

Fantastic. Sir, thank you so much for the conversation. I truly appreciate it and thank you so much for all the work you do.

[B]

Yes, thank you and likewise, it's great to get to talk to you.

[A]

Fantastic. Thank you guys everybody. Have a great week and I will see you next time. Same bat time, same bat. Channel dismissed.