Latest / The Joe Rogan Recap / Matt Walsh (2024) - Am I racist?

Transcript

Matt Walsh (2024) - Am I racist? · The Joe Rogan Recap

0:00
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Great to be diving in.
0:03
So You've Said is a really interesting one this time Joe
0:05
Rogan experience hashtag 22O four with Matt Walsh.
0:09
It's quite the conversation. Oh yeah, it covers a lot of
0:12
ground. And like always on the deep
0:14
dive, our job here is to kind of pull out the main threads, the
0:18
key insights, give you the highlights without the, you
0:21
know, the full runtime. Exactly, give you a shortcut to
0:24
the core ideas they kicked around.
0:26
So let's jump in. Where did they start?
0:27
What was the first big theme? They kicked off looking at how
0:33
some people seem to view everything through one
0:36
particular filter. They called it a left wing
0:38
racial ideology. The idea being that for some
0:42
folks, race is the main way, maybe the only way, they
0:46
interpret events. OK, like a primary lens.
0:49
Did they give an example? They did.
0:51
They brought up that story Michelle Obama told about
0:54
someone cutting her in line in an ice cream place.
0:56
I remember that anecdote. Right.
0:58
And the interpretation presented was, well, that happened because
1:00
she's black. That was the explanation.
1:02
But the counterpoint came up pretty quickly, didn't it?
1:05
Immediately the pushback was well, hang on, couldn't it just
1:09
be that the person cutting in line was just rude?
1:11
Yeah, just garden variety. Inconsiderate behavior happens
1:15
to everyone, regardless of race. Exactly.
1:17
And that kind of highlighted this issue with using just one
1:20
lens. Yeah, if race is always the
1:22
default explanation. You might miss other simpler
1:26
reasons. You might, and it also creates
1:28
this difficulty in questioning it.
1:30
They mentioned if you asked, Are you sure that was about race?
1:33
You risk getting shut down. Yeah, you could immediately be
1:36
labeled a racist apologist was the phrase used, Which, you
1:39
know, doesn't exactly encourage open discussion.
1:41
No, it kind of puts a wall up so that initial interpretation
1:44
becomes almost sacred ground. Pretty much.
1:47
And that led them into the next complex bit, intent versus
1:50
offense. Yes.
1:52
Who gets to decide what someone meant by what they did or said?
1:55
Right. The idea discussed was this
1:58
power dynamic where the person who feels offended gets to
2:01
dictate the other person's intention.
2:03
Which feels problematic sometimes.
2:06
Well, the counter argument they presented is pretty strong.
2:09
Shouldn't individuals have the authority over their own
2:11
intentions if I say I didn't mean it that way?
2:15
Should that count for something? Exactly.
2:17
Should it just be dismissed out of hand?
2:18
It forces you to really dig into what something like racism
2:22
actually is, fundamentally. And the perspective offered in
2:25
the discussion was that at its heart, racism is about a thought
2:29
process. It's about hate or a genuine
2:32
belief in the inferiority of another race.
2:35
So it's internal what's going on inside someone's head.
2:38
That was the argument, and it's a crucial distinction, they
2:41
argued, because holding stereotypes.
2:43
Which can be bad, obviously. For sure harmful stereotypes or
2:47
even saying things that might seem discriminatory on the
2:49
surface. Yeah, that doesn't automatically
2:51
mean the person holds that deep seated hate or belief in
2:55
inferiority. They used an analogy, right?
2:57
Yeah, like thinking Asians are bad drivers, which is a damaging
3:00
stereotype, versus actually hating Asian people.
3:03
Or the frat boys are annoying example versus hating all men.
3:06
Precisely. They're generalizations may be
3:09
unfair, maybe not based in reality, but they aren't
3:12
necessarily the same as believing a whole group is
3:15
lesser. It makes you parse the
3:17
difference between bias and like core racist belief.
3:21
Interesting distinction. Then the conversation shifted,
3:24
didn't it, to timing. Yeah, they talked about a
3:26
perceived change around 2012, an observation that discussions and
3:32
focus on racial bias really seem to ramp up significantly then.
3:36
That time frame does line up with some major event for sure.
3:39
Black Lives Matter started in 2013, right?
3:42
Largely prompted by the Trayvon Martin case the year before that
3:46
definitely brought racial issues to the forefront nationally.
3:48
And they contrasted that with the feeling some had about the
3:51
period before that. Right.
3:52
The perspective offered was that maybe in the 90s, for instance,
3:55
things seemed well, maybe not perfect, but generally moving in
3:59
a positive direction regarding race relations, a sense of
4:02
progress. Which then brought up this kind
4:03
of paradoxical idea about Barack Obama's election.
4:06
Yeah, this is interesting. The argument went something like
4:08
this. Obama's election was huge,
4:10
obviously symbolic, historic. But maybe for some people, it
4:14
inadvertently fueled this later focus because it was seen as
4:18
proof that systemic racism was basically over.
4:22
So the logic being, if a black man can be president, the system
4:26
can't be fundamentally racist anymore.
4:29
Kind of so then when racial issues did keep coming up after
4:32
that, perhaps the reaction was stronger, maybe more confusion
4:36
or anger because it conflicted with that narrative of we've
4:40
overcome. That's a complex take, and this
4:43
is where that term race hustlers came into play.
4:45
It did, yeah. A very charged term used to
4:48
describe people perceived as constantly claiming everyone's
4:50
racist. Sometimes the argument went
4:53
without real evidence. And they contrasted that
4:55
viewpoint with experiences outside the usual discourse.
4:59
Exactly. They mentioned talking to like,
5:01
bikers down South and people in poor black communities in New
5:04
Orleans. And reportedly, these groups
5:06
didn't primarily see the world through a lens of systemic
5:09
racism. Many weren't even familiar with
5:10
the term. Their focus was certainly on
5:12
more immediate, practical problems.
5:15
Which leads to the argument that constantly looking for racism
5:18
everywhere. Can actually be an insult to
5:21
real racism, was the phrase. It can minimize the experiences
5:24
of people facing genuine hardcore discrimination.
5:26
And potentially create more division.
5:29
That was the suggestion that it could breed resentment if people
5:32
feel constantly accused or suspected based on their race,
5:35
pushing everyone further apart. From there the analogy got
5:38
pretty striking, comparing anti racism to.
5:43
Yeah, that was a turn likening the modern anti racist movement
5:47
or parts of it to a religious thing or a kind of tribe with
5:51
its own mantras. What were the suggested
5:53
motivations behind that? A mix really.
5:56
Genuine belief within certain social circles, absolutely, but
5:59
also cynicism about potential financial incentives for what
6:03
they called grifters exploiting the movement.
6:05
And they touched on white guilt. And some of the more extreme
6:09
behaviors linked to it. The example given was those Race
6:12
to Dinner events. Where white people pay black
6:15
people to critique them for being racist.
6:18
Potentially, yeah. That was the description
6:20
highlighting this intense fear of being called racist in
6:23
today's world, and how that fear can be well manipulated.
6:26
It's a powerful social pressure. No doubt.
6:29
Then they shifted focus again, this time to kids.
6:32
How is this affecting children? The big concern raised there
6:36
talk about introducing anti racism concepts in schools
6:39
really young like 6 years old and this shift from it's good to
6:43
not be racist to you must be actively anti racist.
6:47
The argument being that kids that young.
6:50
Often just don't think in racial categories right?
6:52
They just want to play with kids who are nice to them.
6:54
Skin color isn't usually the primary factor.
6:57
So the worry is creating complexes or anxieties.
7:00
Yeah, that forcing these complex, often heavy ideas on
7:03
them so early could cause confusion, maybe even division
7:07
where none existed. There was an anecdote.
7:10
One of the speakers mentioned his young daughter just asking
7:12
about skin color, a simple question.
7:14
Natural curiosity. Totally, but the point was in an
7:17
overly charged anti racist environment even that innocent
7:21
question could potentially be mishandled leading to shame or
7:24
confusion. Which inevitably led the
7:27
conversation to social media's role in all.
7:29
This, of course, the argument came up that social media let's
7:34
really mean shitty people quote UN quote, express that
7:38
negativity, but cloak it in virtue.
7:40
Like a righteous justification for being nasty online.
7:43
Something like that, and they push back hard on the idea that
7:47
Twitter isn't real life. Because it is real people
7:50
interacting. Absolutely.
7:51
It's real communication with real consequences.
7:54
They talked about the lack of accountability online.
7:55
Maybe making people less empathetic, almost sociopathic
8:00
was a term used. And the anxiety, it breeds all
8:03
that conflict. Definitely constant exposure to
8:06
negativity, arguments, plus how it fuels polarization.
8:10
People finding and accepting stuff that just confirms their
8:13
existing worldview. Seeing everything is a moral
8:16
battle. They even talked about their own
8:17
struggles with it. Right.
8:18
Balancing using it for work versus wanting to get away from
8:21
it. Yeah, that sort of love hate
8:23
relationship many people have, joking about needing it for gold
8:26
Nuggets, for creative work, as a reason for endless scrolling.
8:30
But also acknowledging that addictive feedback loop.
8:33
Oh yeah, the likes, the reposts, the comments, getting trapped in
8:37
that weird ecosystem as they put it.
8:39
And they mentioned something darker too, about the kind of
8:41
content showing up now. They did this trend of really
8:44
graphic violence, even things described as basically snuff
8:47
films, becoming more common on social media platforms.
8:51
That's disturbing the potential for desensitization or even
8:54
trauma. Right, and it tied into why one
8:57
of them mentioned deliberately not looking at what people say
9:00
about them online anymore. Just a self preservation.
9:04
OK, wow. Then a hard left turn right.
9:07
Suddenly we're talking about the moon landing.
9:10
Huge pivot. Yeah, straight into conspiracy
9:13
theories. Specifically skepticism about
9:15
whether the moon landing actually happened.
9:17
And one of the hosts used to believe it, but now doesn't.
9:19
Exactly. That shift in perspective really
9:22
fueled the discussion. They laid out the standard
9:23
argument for it first, you know. The scale of the conspiracy
9:26
needed keeping thousands quiet, rival nations not spilling the
9:31
beans. All of that.
9:33
But then the skepticism kicked in hard.
9:35
Questions like, could they really get through the Van Allen
9:39
radiation built safely back then?
9:41
That intense radiation surrounding Earth.
9:43
Right, and why haven't humans done deep space travel like that
9:46
since Apollo? Plus the tech in 69 was pretty
9:50
basic comparatively filming A projection screen for the
9:54
broadcast. And the lost tapes, The lost
9:56
rocket blueprints. Yeah, the missing original
9:58
footage, the Saturn VTech seemingly vanishing, that all
10:01
fuels the doubt. What about the counter evidence?
10:04
Moon rocks? Reflectors.
10:06
They mentioned those moon rocks, yes, though there was a funniest
10:09
side about a supposedly fake moon rock turning out to be
10:12
petrified wood. And the lunar reflectors?
10:15
Yeah, they're up there, but the skeptic pointed out the Soviets
10:18
put reflectors up too, and the moon reflects light naturally
10:21
anyway, so not definitive proof of landing for the skeptic.
10:25
And images from other space agencies like India's.
10:28
Mentioned yeah, yeah, images supposedly showing the landing
10:30
sites, but again, the skepticism remained about whether those
10:32
images are conclusive proof. They brought up a documentary.
10:35
A funny thing happened on the way to the moon.
10:38
It apparently uses AI analysis to suggest some photos were
10:41
doctored. Oh wow.
10:43
And claims the Apollo 11 press conference looked like a hostage
10:46
video, everyone looking uncomfortable.
10:49
The argument was even floated that faking it if deep space
10:52
travel was impossible then was maybe an even bigger
10:55
achievement. What specific evidence did the
10:58
skeptic point to in the photos or videos?
11:00
Things like shadows going in different directions, suggesting
11:03
multiple light sources, not just the sun, a video clip that
11:06
seemed to show Earth filmed through a round window, looking
11:10
like it was shot in low Earth orbit, not deep space.
11:13
And of course, the famous wiggling flag.
11:16
In a vacuum, yeah, no air. So why would it flat?
11:20
Right now, the standard explanations were mentioned, the
11:22
pole was telescoping vibrations, the astronaut moving in, but.
11:25
The skeptic wasn't buying it. Found it weird, like if you're
11:28
faking this huge thing, why leave in such obvious looking
11:31
mistakes? Unless those mistakes are just
11:33
artifacts of the old tech or maybe training footage got mixed
11:37
in. Those possibilities were
11:38
floated, too. And then there was the Elon Musk
11:41
angle. If anyone would call it.
11:44
Out right, he knows rockets, he doesn't always toe the official
11:46
line. So if he thought it was fake,
11:48
wouldn't he have said something? But the counter was maybe he has
11:51
reasons not to NASA contracts. Exactly.
11:55
Strategic silence, perhaps? So the whole moon landing
11:58
segment ended acknowledging, Look, there's a ton of evidence
12:01
for it. But the skepticism persists,
12:03
fueled by a general distrust of institutions.
12:06
Precisely. It's a fascinating case study in
12:09
belief in doubt. OK, back to earth.
12:10
Then the conversation shifted again towards politics and media
12:14
bias. Focused a lot on the perceived
12:18
desperation to stop Donald Trump and how his supporters are often
12:21
characterized. Contrasting today's climate with
12:23
the past. Yeah, suggesting things used to
12:26
be more civil, using the Romney versus Obama debates as an
12:28
example, compared to, say, some recent congressional hearings,
12:32
which got really personal and disrespectful.
12:34
I mentioned that leaked Google video.
12:36
Right. The internal meeting after Trump
12:37
won in 2016, showing executives clearly upset it, raised
12:42
questions about potential bias in search results or platform
12:45
operations. So Google denied that right.
12:48
Google's official stance is no political bias in their
12:51
products. Yeah.
12:52
And there was a point about Trump's actual power, even as
12:55
president. Yeah, that despite all the
12:57
opposition, a lot of his policies hit bureaucratic walls.
13:01
The deep state idea, basically, and how easily things were
13:05
reversed once he left office. The idea of him weaponizing the
13:09
judicial system came up to. It did, but with the immediate
13:12
counter argument that, well, isn't that what his opponents
13:15
are doing to him right now? With all the legal cases, right,
13:17
including the conviction? Right, being a convicted felon.
13:21
But they dug into that, pointing out the argument that the
13:23
underlying charge was potentially just a misdemeanor.
13:26
Maybe pass the statute of limitations Details the public
13:29
might not grasp. And the possibility of more
13:31
legal trouble if he doesn't win. Yeah, that was discussed.
13:34
And whether the opposition would actually prefer him jailed or
13:37
just gone from politics. A thirst for vengeance as they
13:42
put. It that phrase was used, Yeah.
13:44
And the political risks of actually trying to imprison a
13:47
former president. What about Trump himself?
13:50
His potential second term? They discussed his comments
13:54
about learning lessons, being maybe more forceful this time,
13:57
having nothing to lose. But also that feeling president
14:01
sometimes have of not actually being that powerful.
14:04
Yeah, the limits of the office, dealing with internal
14:07
opposition, making the right personnel choices, that's
14:11
crucial. The Drain the Swamp slogan
14:13
wasn't hurt as much lately, they noted.
14:15
Right. Tackling the bureaucracy remains
14:17
a huge challenge. And then they touched briefly on
14:19
propaganda spin. Using Kamala Harris as a recent
14:22
example. And even some lighter conspiracy
14:24
stuff like politicians getting secret messages through
14:27
earpieces or earrings during debates.
14:30
Didn't the company involved make a joke about that?
14:32
Yeah, they had a pretty funny response and a quick mention of
14:35
a theory about Trump's ear getting injured at a rally.
14:38
Just odd tangents. So winding down the conversation
14:41
sort of came back to broader themes, human thinking, social
14:45
media again. Yeah, reflecting on the weird
14:47
nuances of human thinking and how social media seems to
14:50
amplify both brilliance and, whoa, foolishness.
14:54
Creating echo chambers. Cutting.
14:56
People off from different views. And maybe from the natural world
14:59
too, creating anxiety. While it could offer to diverse
15:03
perspectives, it often doesn't work out that way.
15:05
They mentioned limiting their own kids stream time.
15:08
Briefly, yeah. Concerns about addiction.
15:10
Potential harms of smartphones and social media for young
15:13
minds. And this tied into the Am Isis
15:15
film as an example of these ideological bubbles.
15:18
Exactly describing interactions filmed within these groups as
15:22
revealing just how disconnected from mainstream thought some of
15:25
these bubbles can be, but also how genuinely held the beliefs
15:28
are within them there. Are some pretty wild anecdotes
15:31
from it. Oh yeah.
15:32
Things like white grief support groups.
15:34
A specific cry room for white people's tears.
15:36
Wow, the presence of a professional cuddler in one
15:40
group. People expressing disgust at
15:42
being white even attempts to get participants to literally self
15:46
flagellate. Apparently so.
15:48
And a scene about berating the racist uncle as a sort of
15:52
therapeutic exercise. Just very intense, specific
15:55
ideologies at play. And they mentioned interviewing
15:58
Robin D'Angelo for. It they did and her reaction
16:00
afterwards, deleting her Twitter and the Co host's slightly
16:04
awkward recollection of feeling like he was mansplaining to her
16:07
during the interview. So quite a journey in that
16:09
conversation. Absolutely.
16:10
OK, so wrapping up this deep dive into Rogan and Walsh, we've
16:14
covered a huge amount from specific lenses on race to
16:18
intent to social media's impact, moon landing doubts, political
16:23
clashes. It was wide-ranging.
16:25
It really was. It touched on so many aspects of
16:27
how we see things, how we talk to each other now, how beliefs
16:31
form and get reinforced or challenged.
16:33
What stood out to you most from digging into all this, and what
16:35
might it tell us about the world we're navigating?
16:37
Maybe it's just how powerful perspective is, or how hard it
16:40
is to find common ground truth in this digital age.
16:43
Or maybe how much we crave belonging to a group, A tribe,
16:47
even if the beliefs seem strange from the outside.
16:50
Lots to chew on. Definitely something to
16:52
consider. And you mentioned the M Isis
16:54
film. Where can people find that if
16:55
they're interested? Yeah, it's available on
16:57
dailywire.com and they mentioned it's also in theaters.
17:00
Amicis.com is the site for them. All right.
17:03
Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.