Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Claire’s great. I don’t agree with everything she says about elements of her positions, but I wouldn’t expect to, however I listen first, then think before deciding for myself. I read many Quillette articles to both inform myself of the authors view about topics I know little of and if my interest is stimulated then follow up with reading more widely, and also to challenge myself because the articles are well reasoned. Great interview Coleman.
A refreshing and intellectually stimulating conversation. Really enjoy Claire's POV and vibe. Appreciate her intellectual gravitas and feminine delivery. We need more Claire's in the media.
What frustrated her about the lock downs was the tasteless response from people who questioned the policies rather than the massive disastrous economic and health consequences of the corrupt policies. Sad.
I live in Western Australia. Our economy is booming and we had consistently low numbers of covid and very few lockdowns until March this year when the borders opened. Now no more lockdowns and we love normally as Claire said.
@@DingDong-fq2mo Western Australia is also the fourth most populous state by ranking in Australia but is the largest state land wise in the country. Mass lockdowns being the cause of the two metrics you mentioned with the metrics I mentioned contradict the theory that lockdowns helped stop the spread of COVID.
@@simononeill941 when you're a pretty well isolated island it makes it alot easier to control who and what comes in. Australians overall are seemingly quite obedient so that doesn't hurt.
I think Coleman may have gotten the Moderna and Pfizer products mixed up concerning their distribution in Europe. It's Moderna's product that's not recommended for men under 30 where I am.
Claire's free market argument makes zero sense, considering the client was in many countries the state basically trying to coerce people into receiving the product. It would be a fairer argument if the state hadn't acted the way it did in many countries and people had been truly free to make their own decisions. That's all still minus proper informed consent. I don't think the gravity of the loss of trust in healthcare institutions or the wider system is being perceived properly in this conversation. The loss of trust will cause more trouble down the line. It's deserved, which is even worse.
I agree that Claire lacked nuance on this issue. AFAICT, what happened in the US was that Federal agencies bungled responses to the pandemic, especially the Food And Drug Administration, which tried to stop private companies from producing COVID tests in favor of their own. Then, the FDA's test failed spectacularly. OTOH, the Federal government subsidized private companies to produce vaccines, which occurred much more quickly than most predicted. None of the responses to the pandemic should be characterized as purely free market. In my opinion, most of the actions taken by government agencies caused more harm than good, but Operation Warp Speed did more good than harm.
Yes I was enjoying the costume changes also. Too many of these sophicaticated and knowledgeble pundits on youtube have forgotten the fun of costume changes! ( I liked Claire's outfit a lot too) (But I'm a clothes lover, so may be biassed) I also of course have thoughts on all the fascinating things discussed, but I won't go into depth, just say that it was a great conversation with plenty to mull over :) Probably the bit that was the most 'new' to me were Cklair's ytakes in the rise of substack and also the discussion about the split in the IDW, I would agree mostly with this, although I stil think Bret Weinsten has a huge amount of great value to add to the whole developing'conversation' we seem to be happened ( And I also think he was right at Harris had a touch of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' on or around the 6th January 2021) Basically I think that Bret should continue to discuss and to preovide a forum for discussing the vaccine efficacy, lab leak stuff, and so on that he has been discussing, but do so less orten, to make room for other topics, and also and with a lower-level of comitted belief himself (probably this would not align with his temperamnt though) . It's good to be talking about these possiblities, and they can be followed in more depth as more evidence arrives (ie, the possibility that the lab leak idea was true got stronger with time rather than weaker, others have gotten weaker imo)). But they (including Heather and a few others here) are, overall, imo too focussedon on the idea of things being vaguely conspiratorial in nature that could be better explained in other ways. To give a solid example of what I mean by things 'better explained in other ways", I'll discuss my own take on the repression of the lab-leak hypothesis during first year or so of Covid. My thinking on it is that this is more related to group-think and panic than to conspiracy, which would require a more conscious intent and an some sort of end-goal for the conspirators. I think that this was the kind of particularly group think which could easily arise in a population living under a fear of a dangerous problem which has arisen suddenly and 'without warning' (quotemarks for obvious reasons, with apologies to all the scientists whole warned us!) So ...my own explanation is that repression of the lab leak hypothesis was indeed partially carried out bye 'people who were in the government', it was not an orchestrated conspiracy. It was not so much a directed plan by the government to repress a particular idea or set of facts, but mroe a symptom of a general population having difficulty coping with a sudden terrile change in their wolrd, and casting around to try to form sensible narratives about this. Indiciduals were doing it, and whole societies were doing it. Anything whoch threatened whatever narratives had already been formed would involve reprocessing the narratives at a time when society (and individuals() had vbery little processing poer, it was all being takne by trying to cope at all. So even if there were actual groups in government, media, and so on trying to suppress the idea, I think that they were driven by temporary panic rather than an orchestrated end-goal. And for something to be defined as a consiracy, I think it requires bothe greater orchastration and also a=some sort of deliberate and conscious end-goal for the conspirators. My evidence for this is that later, when things had simmered down a bit, this panic went away and hypothesis was then allowed to spread and to be discussed and tested. If thre was a rtre conspiracy I think this would have taken much longer to happen. caveat: Of course, this is basically just my own vague speculation and I have not looked into any of it in any depth :) I am mainly trying to explore further the difference in thinking-style which I think is evidenced by the Weinstein with my own style, which I think is roughly shred by Colman and Claire. Brett is hugely smart and knowledgeable, and has a keen eye for all the little gaps and contridictions in the cuurent crop of mainstream explanations and narratives (wokness on the left, nationalist paranoia on the right - that kind of thing). But Bret[s style leans towards explaining these thing in a conspiratorial style. and this causes him to focus far too much time and effort on explaining certain aspects of current social reality in conspiratiorials terms. Whereas I, Colemand, and Highes (and many others of course) would look at it in terms of material forces (ie economic or technological changes) colliding with human psychology and sociology, without the results necessitating any particular ste of conpiratoriaal actors, ( I am also quite sure that the above material and psychological forces have led the US governemnt and many others to have all sorts of secrets wheich they keep fro the population, but i my definitioni of conspiracies this is distinct for the kinds of things I think Bret would find 'conspiratorial'. It's the run of the mill stuff that corrupt governments do, sometimes with good intent, sometimes not) Wow this got SO long. Apologies for nay typos, I have to do other stuff now!
I didn't follow the controversy about Australian COVID policies closely. I appreciate Claire's attempt to explain that policies varied throughout the country, especially since that applies to the US at least as much as Australia. For example, she correctly points out how much abortion policy varies in the US. COVID policies have been extremely politicized in the US in ways that few could have predicted. I am curious what Claire meant by "we don't wear masks any more except on public transport," since a bunch of people walked behind her in this video, all wearing masks. Perhaps she meant there's there's no government mandate to wear masks except on public transport?
Good conversation, thank you both. There are a number of areas where Claire’s take would be at odds with my own - but I see nothing dark or subversive in any of her positions - or her presentation of them. Strange how some people just unconsciously attract negativity as they move thru life.
Claire's perspective WRT the different attitudes between Australia and the US about gun control is very informative. Just as Claire hesitates to comment on correct policies in the US, I won't do so about Australia. Both Claire and Coleman clearly have thought deeply about the issue. Unfortunately, neither appreciates that the right to have and use weapons is fundamentally about self-defense rather than any particular technology. Individual people have the right defend themselves against criminals and tyrannical government agents. Should the freedom to defend human life have lower priority than the freedom to express unpopular ideas? Coleman makes the mistake of assuming that "the government" would be unified when opposed by armed citizens and Claire makes the mistake of thinking that any 2nd amendment supporters advocate private ownership of nuclear weapons.
Good stuff. I think the bill of rights (and the declaration of independence) is basically the set of beliefs that the US has unified around. We don't want to exclude religion or cultures so we can't unify around those. The bill of rights is basically the bedrock of what makes America, America. I also think she is right about our distrust of government. It is true Europe and other countries may not have that distrust. But then again that is why I think Europe and other countries have had so many dictatorships and the US has not.
Claire can’t understand why economic lockdowns aren’t regarded as “the free market doing its job.” She’s astoundingly imperceptive. Thousands of businesses disappeared and she’s touting the free market at work?!
Disagree on Coleman’s take that gun owners have no chance against the power of the US government/military … clearly the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq prove that an armed populace can in fact impede even the greatest military on earth
That…makes no sense to me. If the government wanted to go all fascist they could fly drones with biological weapons. They could do any number of things without ever having to even send out human soldiers.
A fairer take on Australia would've included a general overview of what types of measures were implemented throughout the states and territories, case by case and next to each other, all of this right next to a list of the things that were done at a higher level. There have been restrictions concerning, e.g., travel for the unvaccinated. Were these measures justified? What about the use of technology and surveillance? Doesn't that bother Claire at all? For what kinds of reasons didn't things get worse than they did?
Tim knew he was being hyperbolic from the start by calling the Australian camps - concentration camps; he knew and then he endlessly stretched the limits of the definition in order to claim he was being perfectly reasonable, all while knowing the connotation with WWII, and genocide, which is obviously why he used the term in the first place. The more accurate term was always: internment camp. On the other hand, Claire didn't seem to care much about personal freedoms, the right to skepticism and the clear failures of her government and the international scientific community, downplaying the quite unreasonably authoritarian bent that most of Australia had during covi. The inability to course correct with covi after seeing who the virus targeted was a total and complete failing by our elites, who intentionally instilled fear upon the populace for effect and then doubled down in order to cover their ass, doing far more harm than good, to the entire world.
Coleman's conversation with Eric Weinstein was odd and I don't how I would have taken it if I were in Coleman's position. It sounds to me that Eric was at least partly joking. It's also important to distinguish between conspiracies that exist and those that do not. Eric said he was part of several conspiracies, in which case he'd know that they exist. I would be curious about the nature of those conspiracies and unless it was all a joke, it seems malicious for Eric to bring up the subject while not being willing to give any specifics. BTW, AFAIK, Eric coined the phrase "Intellectual Dark Web." The phrase "conspiracy theory" usually refers to claims about conspiracies that are not widely accepted. Sometimes such theories turn out to be true, but often they are fantasy. AFAICT, personality plays a big role in how likely one is to believe a conspiracy theory regardless of whether it's likely to be true, similarly to how likely one is to be pro- or anti-establishment. Claire is right to emphasize the importance of considering each issue carefully. We all have biases.
I submitted an article to Quillette several years ago critiquing a white privilege conference I attended, and they flat out told me the reason they weren't going to publish it was that I mentioned how I was a leftist in the piece, and that the audience wouldn't like that. Here's what the editor told me: "I think our readership may be unsympathetic to the throat-clearing introduction which feels a bit as if you are giving yourself permission to be critical in what follows." They may have changed over the years, but that bias has always stuck with me. And here's the intro Quillette had a problem with publishing: "I believe white privilege exists-even, to an extent, for Jews like myself-and applaud forums where folks can have the nuanced and often uncomfortable discussions so often lacking in today’s political climate. As a long-term equal rights advocate, the vast majority of my political views put me far left of liberal. However, after a decade and a half participating in (and sometimes instigating) one botched campaign after another, I have retired from activism to focus on my writing. My favorite topic? Why activist movements fail." The happy ending is I ended up selling it to the 2nd publication I pitched.
Curious what Coleman thinks about Sam Harris’ comment on Triggernometry where he says corpses of children in Biden’s basement were more preferable to him than a second trump presidency.
I'm interested in learning more about what Coleman means by not "believing" in conspiracies. I mean every national government in the world must be involved in at least a few conspiracies so I assume he doesn't mean he doesn't believe that ANY conspiracies exist.
The first approach to a conspiracy theory has to be skepticism. Simple corruption exists and exists everywhere, but as the complexity of a conspitracy theory grows the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorists increases massively.
You don't have to assume he doesn't believe in ANY conspiracies. You can just listen to what he says, which is that he tends not to believe in them unless there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting them.
@@johnj5221 What point are you trying to make other than undermining me based on false assumptions? I'm not from the US and I was skeptical of the WMD claims.
Interesting conversation, with interesting information. However the comment about supposed irony of comments by american conservatives about australian covid border policies seemed like a cheap shot, and removed from reality. Even the most conservative views on immigration and border control have nothing to do with CITIZENS who are coming in, and definitely don't go for requiring people to get permission to leave the country (as the parents of a friend had to, to be able to come to his wedding, and they had to create some excuse).
Love to see level-headed independent thinkers come to reasonable conclusions. With regard to the US Constitution, I think it would be a good thing if all Americans regard it as a sacred text. US society is so pluralistic and diverse that there needs to be one clearly defined thing that everyone reverences that serves to unite the people as one nation. However, there should be more emphasize on how the US Constitution itself provides a mechanism for amendment and how indeed it has been amended for the better over US history.
Great comment. (Note that I’m an outsider and have visited the US only once.) There seem to be at least two big schools of thought regarding the US constitution, one is the original-meaning-interpretation (usually more from conservatives), the other is the adapted-meaning-interpretation (more from Democrats). I wish that the Democrats would understand that their criticism of the constitution as an old and outdated text is quite in line with the more conservative, literal interpretation: Sure, the constitution is old and often outdated, WHICH IS WHY the founding fathers made it amendable! Eg. I’m personally in favour of wide abortion rights (if you disagree, hear me out for the sake of this argument), but if I was an American, I would still support the recent SCOTUS decision and criticise the states or federal government for not making laws or a constitutional amendment sooner. Furthermore, the less Democrats would read into the constitution, the more they could push forward progressive legislation in the left-leaning states. That’s the idea behind the US: People in each state get what they want in that state, and the federation is only supposed to deal with things that it is needed for (expensive projects, projects that must be done at scale, foreign policy, etc.). What do you think?
A mixture of views is important bit we often see blind follpwing of heterodox views purely because they are heterodox and sometimes purely because they are peddled by intellectual influencers.
Or read the ivmmeta meta-analysis on Ivermectin studies. It's abundantly clear that the suppression of this drug inadvertently led to millions of preventable deaths. There's now data from Africa showing that the countries using ivermectin had a 13x lower death rate than those that didn't. Stop saying it's a conspiracy if you haven't even bothered to look at the evidence.
the podcast was pretty much garbage. Nothing new or insightful discussed, no disagreements, no probing question. Not a good effort on the part of either individual. It's also becoming more and more clear that Coleman Hughes is not really redpilled. He decided to speak out against the BLM narrative and got embraced for it, but he's been pretty consistently leftist on every other issue that I've seen. I think he's in the camp with Sam Harris - a temporary ally on the issue of wokeness, but otherwise part of the problem and not the solution.
Claire and her COVID authoritarianism, strawmanning of COVID skepticism, and related trolling are a case study in how cognitive dissonance inevitably leads to amazing hypocrisy.
I don't think anything could pierce the narrative Claire has fabricated for herself about everything that's gone down. She's too smart not to find a way to rationalize things into a form where her counter-critics' grievances are treated as essentially baseless. It's a tragedy. It all comes down to how you treat people, whether they are wrong about something or not.
I didn’t take issue with her pro-vaccine stance at all. It was the way in which she addressed vaccine skepticism that gave me the impression that quillette would not be a source of open-minded discussion on that topic but rather a curated collection of the opinions of claire. To me, her article about vaccine skeptics came off as an emotionally-charged, intellectually lazy rant that failed to touch on any of relevant points that skeptics have made.
Effective free market. The jab has been totally awesome. Safe and effective? Proved to be neither. Excess deaths no big deal. Adverse effects ignored. How can you both completely avoid the facts?
I’m someone who, right out of the gate when it started, loved Quillette, but after observing Claire on Twitter for years now I really don’t like her at all. She’s pretentious AF and super vain. I should note, I’m not skeptical of vaccines at all, my dislike if Claire has nothing to do with her public tussles with the Weinstein’s or other IDW doofuses.
Used to like Clair, but I cannot take her seriously as an intellectual after seeing her self destruct over the few years. Anyone who wants evidence, look at her interaction with Konstantin kisin's megathread and her inaccurate framing of James lindsay which she doubled down when others exposed for what it was
Would you mind throwing in the links to those discussions. I value much of what Claire is doing and has done through Quillette. Have not followed much of the brouhaha, but I am a bit aghast that she witnesses many of the crazy trends that tear at society's pillars, focuses on many of them, but at the same time is dismissive/cavalier about the reverence for the bulwark legacy and relatively immutable character of the US constitution and its ability to maintain core values through the tumult.
The interaction with James Lindsay is now impossible to find as he's been banned from Twitter, and she may now have deleted her tweets. She claimed that James had said some completely false, users quickly pointed out that she had misquoted him, and his original quote had been accurate, rather than apologising for her error, she went down a, "well still he shouldn't be saying it..." line
@@daniel_joseph thanks for looking. James is doing great work. He upsets people who don't have the patience or inclination to really understand and wrestle with the philosophical underpinnings of bad ideas. He traces their fundamental assumptions and origins and the commonalities that bind some of these seemingly distinct but equally toxic movements. It is really eye-opening to understand the similarities and culturally /philosophically common threads in many of the "movements" that are deluding and manipulating us and that threaten our core values, history, and institutions.
Coleman, you completely missed Eric's point about conspiracy theories. You're obviously a deep thinker so maybe give some more thought to what he said.
I like Claire a lot. I didn’t like her intolerance of people questioning the COVID19 policies. But I shared her frustration at the many of the hysterical American conservative reactions to the Australian policies. The fools screaming about concentration camps etc Although the way Claire was so intolerant of all scepticism, only fueled the crazies at the time. In hindsight, many of the people who questioned the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines have been partially vindicated. They clearly aren’t that effective and they are not that safe. But ultimately Claire is a good egg 🤗
I DO TRUST WHAT SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED and DISPROVEN. My understanding is that no vac, not even the famous polio vac, was 100% safe. People took it because of legitimate fear of the consequences of catching polio. Everything from FDR in leg braces to pictures of life in an "iron lung" machine, unable to go anywhere. S-Cv2 is most of the time nowhere near as dangerous as polio or certainly not as dangerous as the so-called Spanish flu virus, where people or families were healthy at breakfast and dead by dinner time. But S-Cv2 _is_ that bad for a small minority of people, seemingly randomly selected, except for the factors of age with the mortality curve rising sharply over 50 over 60 over 70 etc, AND comorbidities such as weight or diabetes. I am fat. I am now 62. When I learned about inflammation and cytokines, from qualified physicians having discussions on TH-cam, I increased vitamin d and increased zinc, prior to any vac existing. That's not to stop the virus, it's to prevent or mitigate the body from going into immunity overload like a temporary autoimmune explosion response to the virus, once the virus is discovered by the immune system after about 6 days. There's also the symptoms of long covid that people describe, heart muscle damage, kidney damage, long gluey blood clots, brain damage (first noted with loss of smell). I can't work in IT administration with a mushy brain. I saw some videos detailing how that cytokine storm works, using a whiteboard. Comments included praise from medical students and medical professionals for the grad student OP helping to explain and clarify those immune system processes. This helped me expand my risk levels, like going to work and going out to eat at restaurants that were still open. Friday night Thai red curry. I TRUST WHAT SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED and DISPROVEN. I also know that public health officials exaggerated the risks, distorted the risks as being the same for children as for the elderly, that America (other Western nations?) deprived elderly in poor countries of the vac in order to give it to American children who didn't need it and whose parents often didn't want it, made exaggerated claims about the efficacy of the vac, did not admit to potential risks (it makes sense that a bad "cytokine storm" reaction to the vac would be all the more magnified by the live virus infection), made exaggerated claims about mask protections, overhyped dangers, overhyped isolation, reported the death rate without clarifying that most deaths were people already near or beyond the average human lifespan, while fewer deaths were people in their prime, and created other biased inaccurate views and mandates which GENUINE SCIENCE, when used correctly, is designed to eliminate. That's how science works: here is a hypothesis, and invite everyone to prove it wrong, or conversely prove the disputers wrong, by finding legitimate flaws in testing results. With something like human health, with innumerable variables, this is not like stressing a metal in an engineering lab, it is doing large population surveys and compiling results. I remember a group of non-pale doctors found a possible genetic link between people of African ancestry and poor cvd outcomes. Science would investigate that and confirm that or refute that. Instead, the political correctness police called it racism and called for the researchers to be fired, even if their findings would save lives, because of cultural social justice taboos and the requirement that all large statistical differences in outcomes MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO SYSTEMIC RACISM, and nothing else. At the same time, I heard it reported officially that melanated people were resistant to mitigation rules, such as Black Lives Matter in New York City threatening riots over enforcement as well as by unofficial non-experts reporting seeing huge crowds hanging out in front of stores and basketball courts in Washington DC after schools have been closed for purposes of lock down. Were the police going to force people to break up peaceful gatherings in that hood and lock themselves indoors? Hell naw.
"Many people questioning the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines have been partially vindicated. They clearly aren't that effective and aren't that safe." I'd have to dispute much of that. The timeline matters. Firstly, we have to be honest and admit that these people were going nuts over the vaccines even in late 2020 / early 2021 when the ancestral covid strain was still circulating and *before* any variants emerged (and before anyone knew they would - not the CDC, not the WHO, not the FDA, not Fauci - no one). At that time, against the ancestral strain, the vaccines were 95% effective against infection and even more effective against severe illness. Also true at the time was that basically every expert assumed covid would behave like most viruses (polio, smallpox, etc.) in that getting the vaccine would confer lifetime immunity. They didn't know covid would mutate. And the vaccine was 95% effective. And the anti-vax people were STILL totally against the shots and were deranged by conspiracy thinking about them *even then,* before it made any sense to be that way. That actually matters because it shows that these people weren't reacting rationally to the totality of the available evidence, but were captured by a sort of conspiratorial anti-establishment ethos from the start. They were against the vaccines apriori, basically, due to their mistrust of institutions, government, big pharma, etc. None of the facts on the ground about how safe or effective the vaccines were mattered to these people because they were deranged by conspiracy thinking from the start. They were against them even when the evidence said they were incredibly effective and would likely confer lifetime immunity. It just so happens that covid started mutating wildly, spawning new variants with the ability to evade immunity. This was a curveball no one expected (least of all the anti-vax people). Now, yes, due to the pace of covid's rapid mutations, the vaccine has become far less effective over time. It may have been 95% effective against infection with the ancestral strain when that was the only strain circulating (and remember, the anti-vax people were deranged over the vaccine even then, a point I'll keep driving home because it shows their concerns were ALWAYS rooted in conspiracy thinking and never on the evidence / scientific concensus at any given time), but it's 8% effective against infection against BA5. Even so, it's important to note that the vaccines are still very effective (even now) against severe illness and death. They're still a monumental success which have saved tens of millions of lives worldwide, but it's true they aren't effective against infection anymore with the new variants. With all that being said, the people questioning the effectiveness of the vaccines in 2020 have not been vindicated in the least. Their resistance to the vaccine made no sense and wasn't based on any evidence at the time. They were against it even when it was 95% effective and when no one knew covid would mutate. And now that it has mutated, the vaccines are STILL extremely effective against severe illness and death. So it doesn't really make sense to be against them even now. But it really, REALLY didn't make sense to be against them in 2020 when they were 95% effective and no one knew that would ever change. The truth is that if covid had never mutated and vaccination did confer 95% lifetime immunity against infection like originally thought, the anti-vax people would be behaving *exactly* like they're behaving today. They'd still be entirely against it. How do I know that? Once again, because they *were* against it when that was still the case. Their being against it wasn't contingent on the vaccine becoming less effective. It wasn't contingent on any evidence. We know this for a fact because they were vehemently against it back when it was 95% effective and every expert thought it would give lifetime immunity. Just because it ended up mutating unpredictably doesn't vindicate the antivax people because they were against it from the start, before they or anyone else knew that would happen, and when the vaccines were still some of the most effective ever created, because their resistance to the vaccines were always rooted entirely in anti-establishment conspiracy thinking. It's a matter of luck that covid ended up mutating so rapidly and making the vaccines less effective, but that certainly isn't why the anti-vax people were against it and it doesn't vindicate them at all.
Eric Weinstein is more intellectually formidable than both Coleman and Claire combined in educational achievements and IQ level. But he doesn’t seem as concerned with the ‘truth’ as Coleman is despite his impressive IQ and education. One shouldn’t forget that he has a PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard which is about a rigorous a discipline you can find from a university that is constantly ranked as the best in the world
Doing great until that simplistic gun-control discussion, echoing Biden's infamous statement. As if the only (or even most likely) conflict scenario were "the (sic) government waking up with evil intent and wanted to massacre all of us", and the only model were the individual with individual firearms standing against the full US military. Claire's extolling of government services reminds one of the how parasites operate: they have strategies to avoid detection, attention, and removal, e.g. anesthetization. The practical (not principled) question would be whether a government is providing value for money, or whether it is parasitic. Many atheists revere the US Constitution not for being written by the hand of God, but for being based on Enlightenment principles, e.g. natural rights. You'd think that Quillette would appreciate this. I'm sorry that this interview ended on such a sour note.
Seems that’s the main argument for owning guns in the US lol. Hey if that’s what people need to tell themselves to not feel so tiny and insignificant against the government, let them. It’s pretty sad though.
@@bettinabarr9107 Guns get used against governments rarely, but then it's real important, like in Ukraine now (currently against invading/occupying governments). Most often guns get used as deterrents (e.g. burglary becomes a much riskier job). But fairly often they used defensively. Defensive gun uses (DGUs) are hard, but not impossible, to measure.
@@simplulo I just find the idea of using guns against the U.S. government (that has drones equipped with biological weapons at their disposal) laughable. The only time I’d find that plausible is if it was all out civil war and the military had splintered or we were being invaded by a foreign power. Against burglary, gang violence, etc, that I definitely buy.
@@bettinabarr9107 There are scenarios of asymmetric warfare, and scenarios where it is not "the US Government" in all its full power. To understand it requires a lot more creative thought and investigation. If you ban guns because you can't imagine needing them, you won't be able to get them back when the unforeseen need arises.
@@simplulo I’m not in favor of banning guns bc it likely wouldn’t solve much, though I think the almost religious fetishization of the guns in the US is pretty ridiculous.
Fantastic discussion with two eminently reasonable and insightful people. Just want to mention you mixed up Pfizer and Moderna in your myocarditis discussion.
@@D97Music Moderna and Pfizer were only mentioned once in the podcast. As I said above, both had a signal that they caused myocarditis in the pharma study data. Yes, the Moderna signal was greater but both signalled problems. See Vinay Prasad's recent discussion about the Thailand study and how serious ignoring this was. Many young adults have been permanently harmed or worse, by the CDC choosing to ignore the signals and approving the vax for that age group. 51:12 Coleman "...and zdog md and these other sort of independent content creators to learn that several european countries were no longer recommending pfizer to men under 30 because the uh you know the the myocarditis myocarditis rates were sort of just high enough to be an outside concern and you you it would probably make more sense to recommend moderna in that case so and and what's more i think you have we have a CDC our central health authority center for disease control which seemed from my perspective to just not want to give any caveat or budge an inch to give even a small win to the anti-vaxxers so for example there's a new york times article where a spokesperson for the cdc i think this was a few months ago admitted that they withheld data on the efficacy of the booster for young people strategically because the data didn't look good enough right ..." These two are clueless about science. They are definitely NOT scientists. Previously they admitted they simply trusted the science. Scientists would be allowed to challenge anyone who calls it; "The Science". When said like that they are cult members in a religion. 35:41 Claire "...another good example i mean i question some of the proposed solutions to climate change like i'm a but i don't question the fact that climate change is happening um i trust the science you know so it's...". Meanwhile, 'Over 1000 Scientists and Professionals Sign Formal Declaration: “There is No Climate Emergency”'
I can’t think of ANYONE loosely regarded as IDW-inclined - other than perhaps Eric Weinstein - who goes anywhere near far-right conspiracy acceptance. Where do people get this stuff from? If anything, there is a more discernible moderate-left (traditional liberal) sympathy amongst the majority of those so-grouped.
@@benp4877 And a whole f**kin menagerie of sexual misfits - but Bret still seems as freakily leftie as ever. Like they’re all somehow the exception that proves some Marxian rule.
oh god it was good until you mentioned Vinay Prasad and "z-dog". Vinay is an especially dishonest obsessed hack. But I guess in an episode that triggers Weinstein and Tim Pool fans you have to do a bit of both-siding. Watch out for audience capture indeed, Coleman! You ARE generally impressive, endorsing Biden, etc, knowing full well your audience would have been bigger if you went like Tim Pool or other hacks. Thankful for you in general, Sam Harris and Claire Lehmann, Cathy Young and a few more anti-wokes that are reasonable at the same time.
Sam Harris has to removed from that list. I’m sorry man, but once you start endorsing state sanctioned censorship, you are no longer “reasonable”. An interesting thinker maybe, but reason has left the building
![Is Matt Taibbi a Right-Winger? [S3 Ep.4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-bqyk7fJWtM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Is Matt Taibbi a Right-Winger? [S3 Ep.4]](/img/tr.png)
![The Case for Overpopulation with Matthew Yglesias [S3 Ep.8]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J9HoPbXMvsw/mqdefault.jpg)
Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Claire’s great. I don’t agree with everything she says about elements of her positions, but I wouldn’t expect to, however I listen first, then think before deciding for myself. I read many Quillette articles to both inform myself of the authors view about topics I know little of and if my interest is stimulated then follow up with reading more widely, and also to challenge myself because the articles are well reasoned. Great interview Coleman.
Wow it's good to know you don't agree with everything she says you're such a good person
@@dogperson432 🤣
Thank you!
First podcast by anyone I've ever watched through to the end. Interesting conversation.
A refreshing and intellectually stimulating conversation. Really enjoy Claire's POV and vibe. Appreciate her intellectual gravitas and feminine delivery. We need more Claire's in the media.
Agreed
What frustrated her about the lock downs was the tasteless response from people who questioned the policies rather than the massive disastrous economic and health consequences of the corrupt policies. Sad.
I live in Western Australia. Our economy is booming and we had consistently low numbers of covid and very few lockdowns until March this year when the borders opened. Now no more lockdowns and we love normally as Claire said.
Far less disastrous in Australia than they were in the US, by any measure.
Predictable, but sad.
@@DingDong-fq2mo Western Australia is also the fourth most populous state by ranking in Australia but is the largest state land wise in the country. Mass lockdowns being the cause of the two metrics you mentioned with the metrics I mentioned contradict the theory that lockdowns helped stop the spread of COVID.
@@simononeill941 when you're a pretty well isolated island it makes it alot easier to control who and what comes in. Australians overall are seemingly quite obedient so that doesn't hurt.
I think Coleman may have gotten the Moderna and Pfizer products mixed up concerning their distribution in Europe. It's Moderna's product that's not recommended for men under 30 where I am.
I love it when people say that 2015 was a long time ago. Ah, to be young again and also a robot.
Claire's free market argument makes zero sense, considering the client was in many countries the state basically trying to coerce people into receiving the product. It would be a fairer argument if the state hadn't acted the way it did in many countries and people had been truly free to make their own decisions. That's all still minus proper informed consent. I don't think the gravity of the loss of trust in healthcare institutions or the wider system is being perceived properly in this conversation. The loss of trust will cause more trouble down the line. It's deserved, which is even worse.
I agree that Claire lacked nuance on this issue. AFAICT, what happened in the US was that Federal agencies bungled responses to the pandemic, especially the Food And Drug Administration, which tried to stop private companies from producing COVID tests in favor of their own. Then, the FDA's test failed spectacularly.
OTOH, the Federal government subsidized private companies to produce vaccines, which occurred much more quickly than most predicted. None of the responses to the pandemic should be characterized as purely free market. In my opinion, most of the actions taken by government agencies caused more harm than good, but Operation Warp Speed did more good than harm.
Claire looks like she's describing the dimensions of her favorite internment camp.
or How to wear 4 outfits in 2 minutes (burgundy hoodie, red tank top, dark grey t-shirt, light-bluish adidas shirt)! ;)
Yes I was enjoying the costume changes also. Too many of these sophicaticated and knowledgeble pundits on youtube have forgotten the fun of costume changes! ( I liked Claire's outfit a lot too) (But I'm a clothes lover, so may be biassed) I also of course have thoughts on all the fascinating things discussed, but I won't go into depth, just say that it was a great conversation with plenty to mull over :) Probably the bit that was the most 'new' to me were Cklair's ytakes in the rise of substack and also the discussion about the split in the IDW, I would agree mostly with this, although I stil think Bret Weinsten has a huge amount of great value to add to the whole developing'conversation' we seem to be happened ( And I also think he was right at Harris had a touch of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' on or around the 6th January 2021)
Basically I think that Bret should continue to discuss and to preovide a forum for discussing the vaccine efficacy, lab leak stuff, and so on that he has been discussing, but do so less orten, to make room for other topics, and also and with a lower-level of comitted belief himself (probably this would not align with his temperamnt though) .
It's good to be talking about these possiblities, and they can be followed in more depth as more evidence arrives (ie, the possibility that the lab leak idea was true got stronger with time rather than weaker, others have gotten weaker imo)).
But they (including Heather and a few others here) are, overall, imo too focussedon on the idea of things being vaguely conspiratorial in nature that could be better explained in other ways.
To give a solid example of what I mean by things 'better explained in other ways", I'll discuss my own take on the repression of the lab-leak hypothesis during first year or so of Covid.
My thinking on it is that this is more related to group-think and panic than to conspiracy, which would require a more conscious intent and an some sort of end-goal for the conspirators. I think that this was the kind of particularly group think which could easily arise in a population living under a fear of a dangerous problem which has arisen suddenly and 'without warning' (quotemarks for obvious reasons, with apologies to all the scientists whole warned us!)
So ...my own explanation is that repression of the lab leak hypothesis was indeed partially carried out bye 'people who were in the government', it was not an orchestrated conspiracy.
It was not so much a directed plan by the government to repress a particular idea or set of facts, but mroe a symptom of a general population having difficulty coping with a sudden terrile change in their wolrd, and casting around to try to form sensible narratives about this. Indiciduals were doing it, and whole societies were doing it. Anything whoch threatened whatever narratives had already been formed would involve reprocessing the narratives at a time when society (and individuals() had vbery little processing poer, it was all being takne by trying to cope at all.
So even if there were actual groups in government, media, and so on trying to suppress the idea, I think that they were driven by temporary panic rather than an orchestrated end-goal. And for something to be defined as a consiracy, I think it requires bothe greater orchastration and also a=some sort of deliberate and conscious end-goal for the conspirators.
My evidence for this is that later, when things had simmered down a bit, this panic went away and hypothesis was then allowed to spread and to be discussed and tested. If thre was a rtre conspiracy I think this would have taken much longer to happen.
caveat: Of course, this is basically just my own vague speculation and I have not looked into any of it in any depth :)
I am mainly trying to explore further the difference in thinking-style which I think is evidenced by the Weinstein with my own style, which I think is roughly shred by Colman and Claire. Brett is hugely smart and knowledgeable, and has a keen eye for all the little gaps and contridictions in the cuurent crop of mainstream explanations and narratives (wokness on the left, nationalist paranoia on the right - that kind of thing). But Bret[s style leans towards explaining these thing in a conspiratorial style. and this causes him to focus far too much time and effort on explaining certain aspects of current social reality in conspiratiorials terms. Whereas I, Colemand, and Highes (and many others of course) would look at it in terms of material forces (ie economic or technological changes) colliding with human psychology and sociology, without the results necessitating any particular ste of conpiratoriaal actors, ( I am also quite sure that the above material and psychological forces have led the US governemnt and many others to have all sorts of secrets wheich they keep fro the population, but i my definitioni of conspiracies this is distinct for the kinds of things I think Bret would find 'conspiratorial'. It's the run of the mill stuff that corrupt governments do, sometimes with good intent, sometimes not)
Wow this got SO long. Apologies for nay typos, I have to do other stuff now!
I didn't follow the controversy about Australian COVID policies closely. I appreciate Claire's attempt to explain that policies varied throughout the country, especially since that applies to the US at least as much as Australia. For example, she correctly points out how much abortion policy varies in the US. COVID policies have been extremely politicized in the US in ways that few could have predicted.
I am curious what Claire meant by "we don't wear masks any more except on public transport," since a bunch of people walked behind her in this video, all wearing masks. Perhaps she meant there's there's no government mandate to wear masks except on public transport?
Good conversation, thank you both. There are a number of areas where Claire’s take would be at odds with my own - but I see nothing dark or subversive in any of her positions - or her presentation of them.
Strange how some people just unconsciously attract negativity as they move thru life.
Claire's perspective WRT the different attitudes between Australia and the US about gun control is very informative. Just as Claire hesitates to comment on correct policies in the US, I won't do so about Australia. Both Claire and Coleman clearly have thought deeply about the issue.
Unfortunately, neither appreciates that the right to have and use weapons is fundamentally about self-defense rather than any particular technology. Individual people have the right defend themselves against criminals and tyrannical government agents. Should the freedom to defend human life have lower priority than the freedom to express unpopular ideas?
Coleman makes the mistake of assuming that "the government" would be unified when opposed by armed citizens and Claire makes the mistake of thinking that any 2nd amendment supporters advocate private ownership of nuclear weapons.
Necessary follow up: why would the armed forces be necessary to help people “relocate to camps”?
Good stuff. I think the bill of rights (and the declaration of independence) is basically the set of beliefs that the US has unified around. We don't want to exclude religion or cultures so we can't unify around those. The bill of rights is basically the bedrock of what makes America, America. I also think she is right about our distrust of government. It is true Europe and other countries may not have that distrust. But then again that is why I think Europe and other countries have had so many dictatorships and the US has not.
Claire can’t understand why economic lockdowns aren’t regarded as “the free market doing its job.” She’s astoundingly imperceptive. Thousands of businesses disappeared and she’s touting the free market at work?!
Didn't she say the vaccines were the free market doing its job? Not lockdowns obviously, that's an inherently political decision.
When she said that she was talking about the vax. Not lockdowns.
Only thing she's really good at is publishing articles defending phrenology
She’s saying that free markets did a good job of quickly developing vaccines. 59:54
@@matthewcarr1992 Did she measure someone's skull to determine if they were likely doing a good job? lol
Disagree on Coleman’s take that gun owners have no chance against the power of the US government/military … clearly the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq prove that an armed populace can in fact impede even the greatest military on earth
That…makes no sense to me. If the government wanted to go all fascist they could fly drones with biological weapons. They could do any number of things without ever having to even send out human soldiers.
revealing points of view. thanks.
Great chat Coleman
This woman seems very rational and balanced.
Just like yourself.
A fairer take on Australia would've included a general overview of what types of measures were implemented throughout the states and territories, case by case and next to each other, all of this right next to a list of the things that were done at a higher level. There have been restrictions concerning, e.g., travel for the unvaccinated. Were these measures justified? What about the use of technology and surveillance? Doesn't that bother Claire at all? For what kinds of reasons didn't things get worse than they did?
Claire and Sam Harris should get together and form a support group for supposedly smart people gone soft.
If you followed her twitter last year you'd be forgiven for thinking that Pfizer sent A LOT of, err,..."Support" her way in recent times.
Tim knew he was being hyperbolic from the start by calling the Australian camps - concentration camps; he knew and then he endlessly stretched the limits of the definition in order to claim he was being perfectly reasonable, all while knowing the connotation with WWII, and genocide, which is obviously why he used the term in the first place. The more accurate term was always: internment camp.
On the other hand, Claire didn't seem to care much about personal freedoms, the right to skepticism and the clear failures of her government and the international scientific community, downplaying the quite unreasonably authoritarian bent that most of Australia had during covi.
The inability to course correct with covi after seeing who the virus targeted was a total and complete failing by our elites, who intentionally instilled fear upon the populace for effect and then doubled down in order to cover their ass, doing far more harm than good, to the entire world.
Coleman's conversation with Eric Weinstein was odd and I don't how I would have taken it if I were in Coleman's position. It sounds to me that Eric was at least partly joking. It's also important to distinguish between conspiracies that exist and those that do not. Eric said he was part of several conspiracies, in which case he'd know that they exist. I would be curious about the nature of those conspiracies and unless it was all a joke, it seems malicious for Eric to bring up the subject while not being willing to give any specifics. BTW, AFAIK, Eric coined the phrase "Intellectual Dark Web."
The phrase "conspiracy theory" usually refers to claims about conspiracies that are not widely accepted. Sometimes such theories turn out to be true, but often they are fantasy. AFAICT, personality plays a big role in how likely one is to believe a conspiracy theory regardless of whether it's likely to be true, similarly to how likely one is to be pro- or anti-establishment. Claire is right to emphasize the importance of considering each issue carefully. We all have biases.
I submitted an article to Quillette several years ago critiquing a white privilege conference I attended, and they flat out told me the reason they weren't going to publish it was that I mentioned how I was a leftist in the piece, and that the audience wouldn't like that.
Here's what the editor told me: "I think our readership may be unsympathetic to the throat-clearing introduction which feels a bit as if you are giving yourself permission to be critical in what follows."
They may have changed over the years, but that bias has always stuck with me.
And here's the intro Quillette had a problem with publishing: "I believe white privilege exists-even, to an extent, for Jews like myself-and applaud forums where folks can have the nuanced and often uncomfortable discussions so often lacking in today’s political climate. As a long-term equal rights advocate, the vast majority of my political views put me far left of liberal. However, after a decade and a half participating in (and sometimes instigating) one botched campaign after another, I have retired from activism to focus on my writing. My favorite topic? Why activist movements fail."
The happy ending is I ended up selling it to the 2nd publication I pitched.
What was the second publication? Curious to see it!
Curious what Coleman thinks about Sam Harris’ comment on Triggernometry where he says corpses of children in Biden’s basement were more preferable to him than a second trump presidency.
I’m sure his thoughts will disappoint you. He will probably choose a milquetoast position to avoid the issue all together.
I'm interested in learning more about what Coleman means by not "believing" in conspiracies. I mean every national government in the world must be involved in at least a few conspiracies so I assume he doesn't mean he doesn't believe that ANY conspiracies exist.
The first approach to a conspiracy theory has to be skepticism. Simple corruption exists and exists everywhere, but as the complexity of a conspitracy theory grows the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorists increases massively.
I’m an anti conspiracy theory person. Not that I think they don’t exist, I feel it’s a colossal waste of my time to give them any thought.
You don't have to assume he doesn't believe in ANY conspiracies. You can just listen to what he says, which is that he tends not to believe in them unless there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting them.
@@johnj5221 What point are you trying to make other than undermining me based on false assumptions? I'm not from the US and I was skeptical of the WMD claims.
I wonder who funds Quillete? Has anyone asked Claire?
Interesting conversation, with interesting information. However the comment about supposed irony of comments by american conservatives about australian covid border policies seemed like a cheap shot, and removed from reality. Even the most conservative views on immigration and border control have nothing to do with CITIZENS who are coming in, and definitely don't go for requiring people to get permission to leave the country (as the parents of a friend had to, to be able to come to his wedding, and they had to create some excuse).
Also, Coleman, what do you think now about the va xx ineffectiveness in preventing contraction and spread of C?
Love to see level-headed independent thinkers come to reasonable conclusions. With regard to the US Constitution, I think it would be a good thing if all Americans regard it as a sacred text. US society is so pluralistic and diverse that there needs to be one clearly defined thing that everyone reverences that serves to unite the people as one nation. However, there should be more emphasize on how the US Constitution itself provides a mechanism for amendment and how indeed it has been amended for the better over US history.
Great comment. (Note that I’m an outsider and have visited the US only once.) There seem to be at least two big schools of thought regarding the US constitution, one is the original-meaning-interpretation (usually more from conservatives), the other is the adapted-meaning-interpretation (more from Democrats). I wish that the Democrats would understand that their criticism of the constitution as an old and outdated text is quite in line with the more conservative, literal interpretation: Sure, the constitution is old and often outdated, WHICH IS WHY the founding fathers made it amendable!
Eg. I’m personally in favour of wide abortion rights (if you disagree, hear me out for the sake of this argument), but if I was an American, I would still support the recent SCOTUS decision and criticise the states or federal government for not making laws or a constitutional amendment sooner.
Furthermore, the less Democrats would read into the constitution, the more they could push forward progressive legislation in the left-leaning states. That’s the idea behind the US: People in each state get what they want in that state, and the federation is only supposed to deal with things that it is needed for (expensive projects, projects that must be done at scale, foreign policy, etc.).
What do you think?
Unfortunately, pluralism is a bug, not a feature. The idea even a modest consensus may be reached at this point is a fantasy.
I like people who are anti-lockdown, anti-woke, AND anti-Putin. It’s a marker of thinking.
Generally, I do find that thinking like me is a marker of thinking.
A mixture of views is important bit we often see blind follpwing of heterodox views purely because they are heterodox and sometimes purely because they are peddled by intellectual influencers.
@@frankharvey88 lol :)
@@frankharvey88 i like people who think like me. But I also like people who have a mixture of views, people who don’t fit in any tribe.
how much better could that be if Ms Lehmann invest in a decent quality microphone
Reach out to Brett and ask for sources. It's not a conspiracy if there's evidence.
Or read the ivmmeta meta-analysis on Ivermectin studies. It's abundantly clear that the suppression of this drug inadvertently led to millions of preventable deaths. There's now data from Africa showing that the countries using ivermectin had a 13x lower death rate than those that didn't. Stop saying it's a conspiracy if you haven't even bothered to look at the evidence.
"Went into conspiracy land". Yeah, that's a great steel man argument there, Coleman. Do I even need to bother watching the rest?
Awwwwwwwww 😢😢
Given your perspective, it seems strange you even made it that far.
Coleman is Sam Harris Lite™
Lol. It won't matter how much of it you watch mate. You already know all the answers 😂
the podcast was pretty much garbage. Nothing new or insightful discussed, no disagreements, no probing question. Not a good effort on the part of either individual.
It's also becoming more and more clear that Coleman Hughes is not really redpilled. He decided to speak out against the BLM narrative and got embraced for it, but he's been pretty consistently leftist on every other issue that I've seen. I think he's in the camp with Sam Harris - a temporary ally on the issue of wokeness, but otherwise part of the problem and not the solution.
Timestamps would be absolutely great, thank you! Otherwise will not listen as I have already watched clips from this video here and there.
Claire and her COVID authoritarianism, strawmanning of COVID skepticism, and related trolling are a case study in how cognitive dissonance inevitably leads to amazing hypocrisy.
I would like to know more about your opinion
This.
Pfizer have very deep pockets. They could afford to buy the voices of a thousand Lehmanns and they'd probably see it as a worthwhile investment.
Yep and Coleman just sitting there accepting. He's truly just a cheap Sam Harris
@@synthesizerneil Coleman is a young man. He just has to get over his being enamored with Sam. Give him 5 years.
Too bad the sound on Claire's side is shit. I love Quillette.
I don't think anything could pierce the narrative Claire has fabricated for herself about everything that's gone down. She's too smart not to find a way to rationalize things into a form where her counter-critics' grievances are treated as essentially baseless. It's a tragedy. It all comes down to how you treat people, whether they are wrong about something or not.
I didn’t take issue with her pro-vaccine stance at all. It was the way in which she addressed vaccine skepticism that gave me the impression that quillette would not be a source of open-minded discussion on that topic but rather a curated collection of the opinions of claire. To me, her article about vaccine skeptics came off as an emotionally-charged, intellectually lazy rant that failed to touch on any of relevant points that skeptics have made.
Anyone else wondering who all of those random Asian kids wondering through the office at 26:20 are?
Effective free market. The jab has been totally awesome. Safe and effective? Proved to be neither. Excess deaths no big deal. Adverse effects ignored. How can you both completely avoid the facts?
Claire isn't part of the IDW. You have to be intellectual to be in the IDW.
Claire is just an entrepreneur.
I remember back in the day when Claire had some good takes...then it went downhill. Some people should stay off Twitter (i.e., Claire and Sam Harris).
There is no such thing as conspiracies. There is truth, there is lies, and there is not enough information. That’s it!
I’m someone who, right out of the gate when it started, loved Quillette, but after observing Claire on Twitter for years now I really don’t like her at all. She’s pretentious AF and super vain.
I should note, I’m not skeptical of vaccines at all, my dislike if Claire has nothing to do with her public tussles with the Weinstein’s or other IDW doofuses.
She certainly comes across as highly insecure and brittle. The more you try to hide it the more obvious it becomes.
Used to like Clair, but I cannot take her seriously as an intellectual after seeing her self destruct over the few years. Anyone who wants evidence, look at her interaction with Konstantin kisin's megathread and her inaccurate framing of James lindsay which she doubled down when others exposed for what it was
Would you mind throwing in the links to those discussions. I value much of what Claire is doing and has done through Quillette. Have not followed much of the brouhaha, but I am a bit aghast that she witnesses many of the crazy trends that tear at society's pillars, focuses on many of them, but at the same time is dismissive/cavalier about the reverence for the bulwark legacy and relatively immutable character of the US constitution and its ability to maintain core values through the tumult.
@@lyonsailing7520 I wil certainly try but I don't know if YT blocks external links, here goes...
The interaction with James Lindsay is now impossible to find as he's been banned from Twitter, and she may now have deleted her tweets. She claimed that James had said some completely false, users quickly pointed out that she had misquoted him, and his original quote had been accurate, rather than apologising for her error, she went down a, "well still he shouldn't be saying it..." line
@@daniel_joseph thanks for looking. James is doing great work. He upsets people who don't have the patience or inclination to really understand and wrestle with the philosophical underpinnings of bad ideas. He traces their fundamental assumptions and origins and the commonalities that bind some of these seemingly distinct but equally toxic movements. It is really eye-opening to understand the similarities and culturally /philosophically common threads in many of the "movements" that are deluding and manipulating us and that threaten our core values, history, and institutions.
Coleman, you completely missed Eric's point about conspiracy theories. You're obviously a deep thinker so maybe give some more thought to what he said.
Why are people walking in the back?
Those who don’t agree with me = conspiracy theorist. And “I just follow the science”. A lot of original thinking here.
she was in the IDW since when?
Claire was tested and she failed.
How ?
Tested for what?
False
I like Claire a lot. I didn’t like her intolerance of people questioning the COVID19 policies. But I shared her frustration at the many of the hysterical American conservative reactions to the Australian policies. The fools screaming about concentration camps etc
Although the way Claire was so intolerant of all scepticism, only fueled the crazies at the time.
In hindsight, many of the people who questioned the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines have been partially vindicated. They clearly aren’t that effective and they are not that safe.
But ultimately Claire is a good egg 🤗
I DO TRUST WHAT SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED and DISPROVEN.
My understanding is that no vac, not even the famous polio vac, was 100% safe. People took it because of legitimate fear of the consequences of catching polio. Everything from FDR in leg braces to pictures of life in an "iron lung" machine, unable to go anywhere.
S-Cv2 is most of the time nowhere near as dangerous as polio or certainly not as dangerous as the so-called Spanish flu virus, where people or families were healthy at breakfast and dead by dinner time.
But S-Cv2 _is_ that bad for a small minority of people, seemingly randomly selected, except for the factors of age with the mortality curve rising sharply over 50 over 60 over 70 etc, AND comorbidities such as weight or diabetes.
I am fat. I am now 62. When I learned about inflammation and cytokines, from qualified physicians having discussions on TH-cam, I increased vitamin d and increased zinc, prior to any vac existing.
That's not to stop the virus, it's to prevent or mitigate the body from going into immunity overload like a temporary autoimmune explosion response to the virus, once the virus is discovered by the immune system after about 6 days.
There's also the symptoms of long covid that people describe, heart muscle damage, kidney damage, long gluey blood clots, brain damage (first noted with loss of smell). I can't work in IT administration with a mushy brain.
I saw some videos detailing how that cytokine storm works, using a whiteboard. Comments included praise from medical students and medical professionals for the grad student OP helping to explain and clarify those immune system processes.
This helped me expand my risk levels, like going to work and going out to eat at restaurants that were still open. Friday night Thai red curry.
I TRUST WHAT SCIENCE HAS DISCOVERED and DISPROVEN.
I also know that public health officials exaggerated the risks, distorted the risks as being the same for children as for the elderly, that America (other Western nations?) deprived elderly in poor countries of the vac in order to give it to American children who didn't need it and whose parents often didn't want it, made exaggerated claims about the efficacy of the vac, did not admit to potential risks (it makes sense that a bad "cytokine storm" reaction to the vac would be all the more magnified by the live virus infection), made exaggerated claims about mask protections, overhyped dangers, overhyped isolation, reported the death rate without clarifying that most deaths were people already near or beyond the average human lifespan, while fewer deaths were people in their prime, and created other biased inaccurate views and mandates which GENUINE SCIENCE, when used correctly, is designed to eliminate.
That's how science works: here is a hypothesis, and invite everyone to prove it wrong, or conversely prove the disputers wrong, by finding legitimate flaws in testing results.
With something like human health, with innumerable variables, this is not like stressing a metal in an engineering lab, it is doing large population surveys and compiling results.
I remember a group of non-pale doctors found a possible genetic link between people of African ancestry and poor cvd outcomes. Science would investigate that and confirm that or refute that. Instead, the political correctness police called it racism and called for the researchers to be fired, even if their findings would save lives, because of cultural social justice taboos and the requirement that all large statistical differences in outcomes MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO SYSTEMIC RACISM, and nothing else.
At the same time, I heard it reported officially that melanated people were resistant to mitigation rules, such as Black Lives Matter in New York City threatening riots over enforcement
as well as by unofficial non-experts reporting seeing huge crowds hanging out in front of stores and basketball courts in Washington DC after schools have been closed for purposes of lock down. Were the police going to force people to break up peaceful gatherings in that hood and lock themselves indoors? Hell naw.
"Many people questioning the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines have been partially vindicated. They clearly aren't that effective and aren't that safe." I'd have to dispute much of that.
The timeline matters. Firstly, we have to be honest and admit that these people were going nuts over the vaccines even in late 2020 / early 2021 when the ancestral covid strain was still circulating and *before* any variants emerged (and before anyone knew they would - not the CDC, not the WHO, not the FDA, not Fauci - no one). At that time, against the ancestral strain, the vaccines were 95% effective against infection and even more effective against severe illness.
Also true at the time was that basically every expert assumed covid would behave like most viruses (polio, smallpox, etc.) in that getting the vaccine would confer lifetime immunity. They didn't know covid would mutate. And the vaccine was 95% effective. And the anti-vax people were STILL totally against the shots and were deranged by conspiracy thinking about them *even then,* before it made any sense to be that way.
That actually matters because it shows that these people weren't reacting rationally to the totality of the available evidence, but were captured by a sort of conspiratorial anti-establishment ethos from the start. They were against the vaccines apriori, basically, due to their mistrust of institutions, government, big pharma, etc. None of the facts on the ground about how safe or effective the vaccines were mattered to these people because they were deranged by conspiracy thinking from the start. They were against them even when the evidence said they were incredibly effective and would likely confer lifetime immunity.
It just so happens that covid started mutating wildly, spawning new variants with the ability to evade immunity. This was a curveball no one expected (least of all the anti-vax people).
Now, yes, due to the pace of covid's rapid mutations, the vaccine has become far less effective over time. It may have been 95% effective against infection with the ancestral strain when that was the only strain circulating (and remember, the anti-vax people were deranged over the vaccine even then, a point I'll keep driving home because it shows their concerns were ALWAYS rooted in conspiracy thinking and never on the evidence / scientific concensus at any given time), but it's 8% effective against infection against BA5. Even so, it's important to note that the vaccines are still very effective (even now) against severe illness and death. They're still a monumental success which have saved tens of millions of lives worldwide, but it's true they aren't effective against infection anymore with the new variants.
With all that being said, the people questioning the effectiveness of the vaccines in 2020 have not been vindicated in the least. Their resistance to the vaccine made no sense and wasn't based on any evidence at the time. They were against it even when it was 95% effective and when no one knew covid would mutate. And now that it has mutated, the vaccines are STILL extremely effective against severe illness and death. So it doesn't really make sense to be against them even now. But it really, REALLY didn't make sense to be against them in 2020 when they were 95% effective and no one knew that would ever change.
The truth is that if covid had never mutated and vaccination did confer 95% lifetime immunity against infection like originally thought, the anti-vax people would be behaving *exactly* like they're behaving today. They'd still be entirely against it. How do I know that? Once again, because they *were* against it when that was still the case. Their being against it wasn't contingent on the vaccine becoming less effective. It wasn't contingent on any evidence. We know this for a fact because they were vehemently against it back when it was 95% effective and every expert thought it would give lifetime immunity. Just because it ended up mutating unpredictably doesn't vindicate the antivax people because they were against it from the start, before they or anyone else knew that would happen, and when the vaccines were still some of the most effective ever created, because their resistance to the vaccines were always rooted entirely in anti-establishment conspiracy thinking. It's a matter of luck that covid ended up mutating so rapidly and making the vaccines less effective, but that certainly isn't why the anti-vax people were against it and it doesn't vindicate them at all.
All the conspiracy nut jobs in the comments mad @ Claire for not agreeing with them 🤣
It doesn't matter who she disagrees with or doesn't. What matters is what kind of direction things take past that point.
The army "helping" to relocate people? Irrespective of their will? And that's totally fine?
Claire should be shunned from polite discourse the way Richard Spencer is for her authoritarian positions on vaccines and lockdowns.
Did you listen to the fucking episode?
As in quietly cancelled?
@@bettinabarr9107 Yeah, this person clearly struggles with viewing comprehension.
I think she already has been.
Eric Weinstein is more intellectually formidable than both Coleman and Claire combined in educational achievements and IQ level. But he doesn’t seem as concerned with the ‘truth’ as Coleman is despite his impressive IQ and education. One shouldn’t forget that he has a PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard which is about a rigorous a discipline you can find from a university that is constantly ranked as the best in the world
If you want to talk about documented conspiracy theories have Whitney Webb on. She goes deep and brings receipts.
Everything I disagree with is authoritarianism. 😢😭
Doing great until that simplistic gun-control discussion, echoing Biden's infamous statement. As if the only (or even most likely) conflict scenario were "the (sic) government waking up with evil intent and wanted to massacre all of us", and the only model were the individual with individual firearms standing against the full US military. Claire's extolling of government services reminds one of the how parasites operate: they have strategies to avoid detection, attention, and removal, e.g. anesthetization. The practical (not principled) question would be whether a government is providing value for money, or whether it is parasitic.
Many atheists revere the US Constitution not for being written by the hand of God, but for being based on Enlightenment principles, e.g. natural rights. You'd think that Quillette would appreciate this. I'm sorry that this interview ended on such a sour note.
Seems that’s the main argument for owning guns in the US lol. Hey if that’s what people need to tell themselves to not feel so tiny and insignificant against the government, let them. It’s pretty sad though.
@@bettinabarr9107 Guns get used against governments rarely, but then it's real important, like in Ukraine now (currently against invading/occupying governments). Most often guns get used as deterrents (e.g. burglary becomes a much riskier job). But fairly often they used defensively. Defensive gun uses (DGUs) are hard, but not impossible, to measure.
@@simplulo I just find the idea of using guns against the U.S. government (that has drones equipped with biological weapons at their disposal) laughable. The only time I’d find that plausible is if it was all out civil war and the military had splintered or we were being invaded by a foreign power.
Against burglary, gang violence, etc, that I definitely buy.
@@bettinabarr9107 There are scenarios of asymmetric warfare, and scenarios where it is not "the US Government" in all its full power. To understand it requires a lot more creative thought and investigation. If you ban guns because you can't imagine needing them, you won't be able to get them back when the unforeseen need arises.
@@simplulo I’m not in favor of banning guns bc it likely wouldn’t solve much, though I think the almost religious fetishization of the guns in the US is pretty ridiculous.
Claire has been very judgemental and arrogant and blocks alternative ideas..
Fantastic discussion with two eminently reasonable and insightful people. Just want to mention you mixed up Pfizer and Moderna in your myocarditis discussion.
Why? Both cause myocarditis.
@@ricknash3055 why? Because I'm correct and that's easily verifiable.
@@D97Music
Pfizer's and Moderna's trial serious AESIs data show they both have registered myocarditis and pericarditis.
And that's not what I was referring to. I don't think you saw the relevant part of the podcast.
@@D97Music
Moderna and Pfizer were only mentioned once in the podcast. As I said above, both had a signal that they caused myocarditis in the pharma study data. Yes, the Moderna signal was greater but both signalled problems. See Vinay Prasad's recent discussion about the Thailand study and how serious ignoring this was. Many young adults have been permanently harmed or worse, by the CDC choosing to ignore the signals and approving the vax for that age group.
51:12
Coleman
"...and zdog md and these other sort of independent content creators to learn that several european countries were no longer recommending pfizer to men under 30 because the uh you know the the myocarditis myocarditis rates were sort of just high enough to be an outside concern and you you it would probably make more sense to recommend moderna in that case so and and what's more i think you have we have a CDC our central health authority center for disease control which seemed from my perspective to just not want to give any caveat or budge an inch to give even a small win to the anti-vaxxers so for example there's a new york times article where a spokesperson for the cdc i think this was a few months ago admitted that they withheld data on the efficacy of the booster for young people strategically because the data didn't look good enough right ..."
These two are clueless about science. They are definitely NOT scientists. Previously they admitted they simply trusted the science. Scientists would be allowed to challenge anyone who calls it; "The Science". When said like that they are cult members in a religion.
35:41
Claire
"...another good example i mean i question some of the proposed solutions to climate change like i'm a but i don't question the fact that climate change is happening um i trust the science you know so it's...". Meanwhile, 'Over 1000 Scientists and Professionals Sign Formal Declaration: “There is No Climate Emergency”'
Claire shares the honour of being a part of the IDW that has not gone down into far-right, conspiratorial thinking.
I can’t think of ANYONE loosely regarded as IDW-inclined - other than perhaps Eric Weinstein - who goes anywhere near far-right conspiracy acceptance.
Where do people get this stuff from? If anything, there is a more discernible moderate-left (traditional liberal) sympathy amongst the majority of those so-grouped.
@@mikegray8776 uh, try Eric’s brother, for starters. The crazy purple hairs & BLM kids at Evergreen broke his brain.
@@benp4877 And a whole f**kin menagerie of sexual misfits - but Bret still seems as freakily leftie as ever.
Like they’re all somehow the exception that proves some Marxian rule.
Far-right 🤣🤣🤣...maybe its the alt-right or hard-right
oh god it was good until you mentioned Vinay Prasad and "z-dog". Vinay is an especially dishonest obsessed hack. But I guess in an episode that triggers Weinstein and Tim Pool fans you have to do a bit of both-siding. Watch out for audience capture indeed, Coleman! You ARE generally impressive, endorsing Biden, etc, knowing full well your audience would have been bigger if you went like Tim Pool or other hacks.
Thankful for you in general, Sam Harris and Claire Lehmann, Cathy Young and a few more anti-wokes that are reasonable at the same time.
Exactly
That's quite the character assasination of Vinay. I'm guessing his credentials and expertise around the topic are significantly better than yours?
Sam Harris has to removed from that list. I’m sorry man, but once you start endorsing state sanctioned censorship, you are no longer “reasonable”. An interesting thinker maybe, but reason has left the building
@@MrJpmoneypants he didn't in the case you think he did. And state sanctioned censorship in general is totally reasonable.
@@guitarsandbongos 🤣🤣🤣
I used to like Claire. Her behaviour over the pandemic was truly deplorable. Haven’t read Quiellete since.