Alex Hinton is a distinguished professor of anthropology and director of the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights at Rutgers University. He attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to gain insights into the minds and hearts of a politically diverse population. In this episode, Hinton talks about the importance of understanding diverse perspectives, the power of open-minded conversations, and the challenges of bridging political divides in today’s polarized society. He shares his firsthand experience of attending CPAC, which challenges listeners’ assumptions and expands their horizons, inspiring them to engage in more meaningful conversations with those who hold different views.
Alex Hinton discussed his research on extremism and his trip to CPAC in search of common ground. He noted that both sides have a tendency to present an apocalyptic view, claiming that if their side loses, the U.S. will either become a socialist country like China or an authoritarian state. Hinton suggested that this fear-mongering has been a major issue for some time in the U.S., with people on the left and right calling each other fascists.
The conversation discussed how people on the right, particularly the far right, are aware of being labeled as racist. The speaker then discussed her background as an anthropologist, studying the Cambodian Rouge genocide. Her goal was to understand how people come to participate in a project of mass violence. The principle she follows is cultural relativism, which is to suspend judgement and recognize the person as a human being, despite any horrible things they may have done.
In this conversation, the speaker discusses their work on extremism and how they applied the same principles to the context of the Trump years, which saw events like Charlottesville and the Capitol insurrection. The speaker also talks about their book, It Can Happen Here, which is set in a classroom context with a narrative flow and encourages critical thinking. The speaker reflects on the negative effects of demonizing professors for teaching critical race theory, and explains their pedagogy of teaching both sides in order to promote understanding and critical thinking. Finally, the speaker mentions their experience at CPAC and how they found that there was truth to the headlines, but also complexity and exaggeration.
00:00:00 Heading: Exploring the Power of Open-Minded Conversations at CPAC with Anthropologist Alex Hinton +
00:04:00 Conversation with Alex Hinton on Extremism and CPAC +
00:05:00 Exploring the Dynamics of Right-Wing Ideology and Mass Violence: An Anthropological Perspective +
00:07:00 Interview with Dr. John G. Horgan on His Research on Extremism and Critical Thinking +
00:10:00 Heading: Analysis of Nuance at CPAC Conference +
00:13:00 Exploring the Complexities of Diversity and Categorization +
00:14:00 Conversation on Developing a Moral Compass +
00:16:00 Conversation on Mindfulness, Grace, and Self-Awareness +
00:20:00 Exploring Conviction, Vanquishing, and the Need for Reflection in the Public Sphere +
00:23:00 Analysis of Political Discourse at CPAC: Emotional Language and Fear of Losing +
00:24:00 Analysis of CPAC 2021: Examining the Recurring Themes and Messages +
00:26:00 Analysis of SeaTech Conference: Examining the Intersection of Critical Race Theory, Black Lives Matter, Diversity, Transgenderism, and the Super Deep State +
00:29:00 Exploring the Impact of Political Polarization on Society +
00:31:00 “Exploring the Impact of Anti-Science and Lack of Trust on Critical Thinking” +
00:32:00 Conversation on Deep State Actors and Political Manipulation +
00:35:00 Heading: Alex Hinton Discusses the Need for Unconventional Conversations and Understanding Different Perspectives +
00:36:00 Conversation with Alex Hinton on CPAC and Political Discourse +
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors and omissions.
Welcome to Outrage Overload. A science podcast about outrage and lowering the temperature. This is a bonus episode about observing CPAC
[00:01:00] : David: The Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, started in the 1970s to unify and enforce G O P ideology. It remained a fairly small affair for its first 25 years of existence. As conservative media grew in popularity, c Ppac evolved into more of a live conservative entertainment experience.
: It is perhaps best known for hosting controversial figures and delivering controversial sound bites, and dare I say, outrage. And journalists eat it up, serving up the most outrageous moments to their mostly liberal audiences. Anthropologists dedicate their career to studying human behavior, social structures, and cultural dynamics.
: They believe that to truly understand a society one must immerse themselves in its various contexts and ideologies. And that’s exactly what our guest on this episode set out to do at cpac. The largest gathering of conservative activists in the United States. Hi,
: Alex Hinton: uh, I’m Alex Sinton. I’m a distinguished professor of anthropology at Rutgers University.
: Uh, we’re also direct the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, and I’m also the UNESCO Chair in Genocide Prevention. But
[00:02:00] : David: attending C P A C wasn’t just about academic curiosity. For Hinton, it was a personal journey to gain insights into the minds and hearts of a politically diverse population.
: He wanted to listen, learn, and engage in conversations that might change his and our preconceptions. Join me as we unravel the untold stories and hidden complexities behind cpac. As seen through the eyes of an anthropologist. We’ll explore the power of open-minded conversations, the importance of understanding diverse perspectives, and the challenges of bridging political divides in today’s polarized society.
[00:03:00] : Hinton’s firsthand account of attending C P A C will challenge your assumptions, expand your horizons, and perhaps inspire you to engage in more meaningful conversations with those who hold different views. Stay tuned for an episode that promises to push boundaries and uncover new insights. With that, let’s jump right in to our conversation with the anthropologist who dared to step into the heart of c p A.
: So I first discovered. You and your, some of your research through an, uh, piece on, uh, a trip that you made to cpac and it seems like you went to cpac sort of looking for some hope and common ground. And in some ways that doesn’t sound like the great place to start. But on the other hand, CPAC is also represents a significant portion of sort of Americans, and it would be nice to know.
: Kind of where, where they stand and, and, and where folks are. You know, and I, I, I think a big tie in to the podcast is that, you know, sort of both sides kind of represent or present this idea of kind of an apocalyptic view to their, to their side to try to say the, if their side loses, you know, this.
[00:04:00] : Apocalypse is going to happen. And the Wright sort of does it quoting from your article by, it just says it’s, um, turning the US into a socialist country like China. And the left sort of does it by saying, democracy’s coming to an end and we’ll become an authoritarian state if the other side wins. So both sides sort of do that.
: And now I was kind of gonna start there and sort of with your broader expertise, you know, not only what you just saw at C Ppac, but like kind of at C P A C, but related to kind of your work with extremism. I’ll just kinda leave that open-ended for a, for a comment.
: Alex Hinton: Yeah. Yeah. No thanks. I think that’s a, a good point.
: One thing, you know, inciting these issues for a while, uh, in the US context, uh, is that, you know, as you just said, uh, people on the left and the right call each other fascists both say we’re, you know, sort of ending up with authoritarian rule. Uh, and I think maybe people on the left don’t realize that as much as I think people on the right do, people on the right, uh, and again, tending to be the far right.
[00:05:00] : Are very aware of being, you know, dubbed to racist, for example, and people, you know, so at CPAC for example, people would bring this up and say in fact they’re racist. Uh, you know, for sort of promoting vocalism, uh, d ei critical race theory. So these terms get bandied about. Uh, and often there’s not awareness of sort of the perspective, uh, from which other groups come into this.
: But actually, you know, there’s a little bit of. Background. Um, and this is not at all to equate the research I was doing at CPAC with what I’ve studied before, but there’s a link in terms of what you’re talking about. Um, so I’m an anthropologist, uh, and you know, as some of your listeners may know, anthropologists go into the field.
: My field site is Cambodia. Uh, and for different reasons. When I went there, uh, I ended up studying the Cam Rouge genocide, which took place from 1975 to 1979. Um, you know, used to be, everybody is familiar with this Paul Pot. Uh, he’s always in the top 10 most evil people in the world. Uh, you know, but now new generations, uh, you know, they’re new evils.
[00:06:00] : They don’t know it as much. Um, but as part of that research, my goal was to understand, trying to understand how people come to participate in a project of mass violence. You know, principle of anthropology is called, you know, it’s cultural relativism, methodological relativism. That doesn’t mean that everything’s relative.
: What it means is you suspend what you’re thinking and your judgements. In the sort of sphere of dialogue that you have with someone, you recognize that person as a human being, even if they’ve tortured other people and done horrible things. So I’ve interviewed a lot of perpetrators, lots of victims, but this is sort of the method that I have.
: Uh, so I’ve tried to take this, you know, my work on extremism. Uh, genocide, but also this sort of principle and apply it in the us uh, in the context of, uh, all the ult of the Trump years at the time, uh, when suddenly we had Charlottesville, uh, and there suddenly, as you were talking about, there were a lot of, uh, fireworks, so to speak.
[00:07:00] : And so what I wanted to do, and again, I’m not trying to say. Far right extremists are Gen O caires. I’m not saying that, but what I’m saying is I took the same principle and I wanted to understand what motivated people to participate, for example, in Charlottesville or the capital insurrection. And that’s been part of the project, uh, that I’ve been doing.
: You know, I might just add, you know, I also, in this book, it can happen here. I talk about what it was like to teach, it’s sort of centered in the classroom. It’s not a traditional academic book. It’s written in a first person style, uh, with a narrative flow, uh, during the, you know, much of the Trump administration.
: But it’s also, you know, in, in a classroom context, trying to get people to be able to think through different sides, understand, uh, different perspectives. Uh, you know, it’s one thing that makes me really sad about all of the talk of critical race theory and, you know, the demonization of professors, uh, which was taking place unfortunately by some people at cpac.
[00:08:00] : Um, you know, not everyone, but there are many people. You know, what they’re doing is they’re promoting critical thinking. And at the heart of that is getting to see two different sides. You know, so my classes, I have my own distinct pedagogy, I say to the students, and the first day is, I, I don’t, you know, I don’t wanna know anyone’s opinion about anything.
: You don’t wanna know my opinion about anything. But what we want to do on different issues is understand both sides. So I’ve taught, uh, for example, the 1619 project, but if I do that, I’ve paired it with, for example, the Pompeo Commission on Human Rights. The 1776 report isn’t so good, but the Pompeo Commission, uh, was much better, uh, about this.
: It’s more nuanced. You know, so that’s just an example of the sorts of pairings and, you know, students get the information. You talk about it, you look at the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and then students make their own conclusions. Uh, you know, critical thinking is a politically neutral tool that’s ultimately used by left, right, and center.
: Uh, for better or for worse. Anyway, so that’s sort of the sphere by which I approached cpac. Um, you know, I went there both because, you know, I’m studying, you know, extremism, politics, um, but I also had heard about CPAC for a very long time and I wanted to understand what actually took place there, what people were saying.
[00:09:00] : Uh, you know, was it the sort of headlines that I read in the newspaper? And I found there was some truth to the newspaper headlines. There’s also exaggeration, uh, there’s also much more complexity, uh, you know, on the ground level. Um, so it was a very, you know, I, I would go again, maybe if, let me back, I’ll, I’ll go another time because I’m, you know, also curious over time how things might change as well.
: Yeah. So
: David: you’re, you’ve found some nuance there. I mean, I mean, people often talk about, or, or we all do it, we all kind of bucket people, you know, into groups and sort of say, well, if one Trump supporter would attack the capitol, then they all would, you know what I mean? And that’s definitely not true, right?
: I mean, there’s many kinds of Trump supporters and not all of them are prepared to, to do violence. And, and you’re, you’re saying you saw some nuance, even though CPAC is sort of like, if you’re gonna go there, you probably already know I’m kind of. Far down the extreme list, but you, you’re saying you saw some nuance there.
: Yeah. Well, I mean,
[00:10:00] : Alex Hinton: so C P A C is set up in an interesting way. It’s, you know, so the first day, uh, I think was Wednesday. They had an activist training, which was sort of grassroots activist. I went to that to listen and see what was being said. There was a little bit of dialogue. Between the audience and the people presenting.
: So there are questions, but the rest of CPAC was sort of one, one way flow of information. People would come up, speak from 10 to 20 minutes. Uh, you know, it’s very often are very articulate people, people who are used to speaking in public, delivering messages. Often they’re saying the same thing that, you know, they’ve written about stuff before.
: You’re talking about their latest book, what have you. So it’s very choreographed might be the way to talk about it and everybody’s keeping on time. But what was lacking. Were two things. One is any kind of interaction back from the audience to the floor. That’s, that was, you had none of that. Um, there were some breakout sessions where maybe you could do that a little bit more, but by and large it was a one-way flow of information.
[00:11:00] : Maybe that’s to be expected. Uh, and that’s sort of, uh, an event. Um, but the other thing that, again, not that I necessarily expected it, but I hope that there might be, uh, Excuse me, more, uh, sort of dialogue on the stage. Instead, people just sort of agreed with what everybody else was saying and they all had somewhat reductive messages.
: Uh, and you know, I understand why they were doing it. They’re trying to fire up the base. And people, some people responded, but, you know, I would, you know, anthropologists, I would, when things were said, I would look around at the crowd and, you know, not, people would not always flap. There were certainly some people who were always cheering, clapping, so we can’t just say, for example, there was an enormous, much more than I ever expected, uh, focus on transgender, uh, and sort of issues concerning the queer community, but especially transgender.
[00:12:00] : And so when these things were saying, there were critiques of, uh, for example, gay marriage, uh, that were made, you know, with the religious emphasis there, some people would say, you know, God created men and women and. You know, it’s natural that men and women get married. Not, not a lot of speakers, but some people would say that.
: So I would look around and you’d see some people clap. Other people wouldn’t be clapping because, you know, the audience is more diverse. Uh, so when people, you know, refer to the audience, it’s important to realize there’s variation there. You know, there’s diversity. People have different views even within the CPAC crowd justice, people in all communities do.
: And what’s really, you touched on this, you know, the worst thing. Is that we think in terms of categories, it’s the way the human mind COEs, uh, you know, there’s a philosopher, ironically, uh, he’s someone who is demonized by a far-right extremist as part of a cultural Marxist, uh, which was a group of, uh, A label that was put on a number of Jewish immigrants to the us.
[00:13:00] : Uh, this guy’s a donno. Uh, there were others as well. Uh, but part of, you know, what he talked about was the need to avoid categorization. And he saw that sonification was the term sort of philosophy of the shoes. That’s the way we think we thingify people because it’s impossible to hold complexity. And that’s the hardest thing.
: So you always have to push back against it. You know, just one other sort of point in my book, it can happen here, for example, um, you know, I read everyone’s using the word racist to talk about, for example, people at Charlottesville. And you know, that may speak, that certainly speaks to a certain. Truth that’s there.
: But what it does is it also e centralizes people, it individualizes what’s going on and it erases large complexities such as the longer histories that lead to the moment, the different groups, the diversity of groups. So again, you know, sort of going back to teaching, this is always the struggle of those two push people to not reify, to not signify the question that people are saying is like, how do we get to this point?
[00:14:00] : And people say, we’ve lost our moral compass. And so, you know, when I was there I started thinking about, you know, what is a moral compass? What exactly does that mean? People use that term all the time, you know, it links very much to the focus of your program, right. About outrage. Well, what is it? And sort of what, you know, the way I I framed it is, you know, to have a moral compass, first of all, you have to be able to look back.
: You have to understand histories. You have to understand how you got to the place where you’re standing at the moment. The second thing you have to be able to do is you need to be able to look around and understand the context. Where are you? How did you get into this place? What’s around you? The other thing is you have to look, you know, so you look around.
[00:15:00] : You need to be able to, to look at someone else and try and understand their perspective. Even if that perspective diverges greatly from your own. You need to be able to sort of look down at the ground of your own belief, and you have to be ready to sort of question. And to think hard about your assumptions and those things that may, you know, that may drive your action.
: And all of that sort of prepares you to look ahead, to look to the future and to plot your force forward. But unfortunately, people tend not to do that. They’re kind of walking. Uh, you know, with the moral compass that’s, uh, let’s just put it this way, that it’s, it doesn’t have a lot of depth. Uh, and again, you know, in terms of outrage overload, you know, it would do well if everybody paused and really took a deep look at that moral compass.
: Uh, you know that I’m talking about.
: David: Yeah. And that, that, um, sort of mindfulness, uh, you know, kind of where, where am I really, and what do I really care about, are really hard questions. Right? I mean, and a lot of times we’d rather just kind of keep that simple and, and not ask ourselves those deep questions because, you know, they’re hard.
: They’re hard. Everything that’s hard is hard and we don’t wanna do the hard stuff.
[00:16:00] : Alex Hinton: Yeah. You mentioned mindfulness. What was interesting about Chatauqua, you know, people now know about Chatauqua because of salmon Rashti who was attacked on the stage there. It’s a remarkable place, but they have a thematic, and as I mentioned, the thematic was grace, but they actually had, uh, you know, different speakers on the topic of, of grace from different perspectives.
: And one of those was actually a Buddhist monk who came and spoke. And so in terms of mindfulness, it was sort of his perspective about what is grace and, you know, speaking to these things of trying to understand other perspectives, not being overly invested in the self. Because of course, the doctrine of non-self, uh, but yeah, mindfulness is, you’re absolutely right, is critical.
: David: Yeah. And, and it’s kind of, there’s also kind of a self-awareness kind of overlap with the, you know, and I, I, you know, it ki you one thing about your, your CPAC reading your c a page, it reminded me of something I do on kind of a different scale where I do these, what I call these men on the street interviews, where I, uh, just, you know, sort of find people that are willing to come on.
[00:17:00] : So it’s self-selected. So it’s a little bit biased probably, but I, I speak to people across. Political spectrums and, and, and generational spectrums and otherwise, and I, and I don’t try to push back. I kind of have a can set of questions I walk through, which are as neutral as they can be. And um, you know, it is super informing for me.
: But one of the big takeaways I get, and I think it also applies to some of the other stuff you’re talking about, sort of about in the racial justice world, Is that, you know, nobody sees themself as extreme. Even if, you know, probably most objective observers would probably call that person extreme, but they kind of see themselves as the baseline and everybody else is somehow, somewhere else.
: They’re, they’re more extreme or they’re, they’re the extreme ones. And um, and I kind of noticed the same thing you mentioned about like Charlottesville and racism thing. It’s kind of like racism. A little is a little like, bit like that. And that nobody thinks they’re racist. I mean, even the guy, you know, screaming the n word does not want to categorize himself as racist.
[00:18:00] : Right. And won’t, won’t say that. Um, so it’s, there’s some overlap there with, with the extremism stuff too, where people are on these extremes and, and don’t even kind of, Aren’t, aren’t aware of it because they see themselves as, as I’m the baseline, I’m the center. And I think that complicates things a lot because when they do run into people, when all of us run into people with these other worldviews, we all think we’re the center.
: And then, but then we, as soon as we say something, we say, well, that person’s insane. Right? No matter which kind of end you’re coming from. And, and I think that just, um, causes these conversations to fall apart. Um, so I don’t know. I, I don’t, I guess that was just kind of a comment. I don’t even know if I have a question there
: Alex Hinton: and I.
: Absolutely right. And the other part of it is that people think they’re right. You know, so it’s that I’m, I’m correct, you know, because the truth is, it’s disconcerting, it’s destabilizing. It makes you uneasy to actually have your own beliefs question, to have to question yourself, to interrogate why you think this way.
[00:19:00] : It’s comfortable to be certain about things. I have another book, uh, Manor Monster, that’s about a person around a torture and interrogation center. Uh, under, you know, during the Command Rouge period, uh, he was put on trial. Uh, and the book centers on that. But a lot of that book, uh, is centered on this notion of conviction, right?
: That conviction drives and propels people forward. And the word actually outta logically is about vanquishing. And so again, it goes back to, you know, Larger things about how do you prevent genocide? Uh, perspective. A lot of it is a willingness to not, to be able to question yourself, to understand that qualities that we project onto others are qualities that we also have to some degree, uh, to be able to recognize the humanity of other people.
: Um, you know, there’s a certain point at which, you know, after having, for example, with that, Moral compass that I talked about. You haven’t gone through those different steps. You make your, you know, you can make your judgment, uh, an informed judgment at that point about what’s right or wrong. That’s not, you’re not morally relative, but most people just don’t go into that.
[00:20:00] : And so you get people who, like this guy, Dwight, the head of this, uh, he said, you know, we need belief. So he, first he had ideology, then he became an evangelical Christian, and he said he had belief in God and he didn’t wanna, you know, he was uneasy. Not having that certainty. And I understand why, right?
: It’s destabilizing. People aren’t comfortable with it. But uh, to really listen to people, to hear other people, you have to be willing to be somewhat destabilized in that sense. You have to be able to question yourself as you listen to others. Cuz you know what, sometimes other people are right and you’re wrong, or at least you’re partly wrong and you need to think through what they’re saying.
[00:21:00] : This was actually, there’s another philosoph for political theorist, Hannah Rent. And her notion of thinking, uh, you know, I don’t want to go into all the nuances, but basically, The idea of Socrates. Socrates would go and would, you know, have this question dialogue, this Socratic method. And she said that all of us on our own, she called it the one, need to have an internal dialogue in our minds to think about issues.
: And then we bring our informed opinions or judgments, they might be called right opinions, sound like they’re more random to the public sphere, where we meet other people and have dialogue. And that point when you’re having dialogue with others, then you know, you go back and you think more. And the problem is, you know, especially I know some of the topics that you’ve covered, uh, in your other shows, uh, with the internet, social media, everything’s moving so fast.
[00:22:00] : People don’t reflect deeply on many things they need to think long and hard about. Now, often wonder, you know, Henry Rent died a while back, 20. 30 years ago, uh, you know, what would she have thought, um, that solved this? And now we have AI entering and, uh, entering into things. Uh, so sort of to loop back to teaching, you know, this for me is what I try and do in the classroom now, is really try and get people to think, to do, learn how to do that two and one, to consider both sides of an issue before they enter into the public sphere and engage in dialogue with other people.
: Uh, and I encourage them to break out of their bubbles. Uh, you know, so for example, at Rutgers, uh, where I teach. Everyone can get a free subscription to the Wall Street Journal and to the New York Times. And so I say you should be looking at different news sources. Those are two, just cuz they’re freed from the university.
: Uh, but people shouldn’t just be reading the New York Times, like most people, uh, many people do in the Northeast. You know, you need to read another perspective, the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, which is different from the news section. Uh, you know, we’ve gotta get a variety of different perspectives to think through issues.
: Yeah, I
: David: mean there’s a lot of stuff I could talk about forever there, but I’m gonna jump to another place cause I want to kind of get it in. Um, and it kind of ties into what you were just saying, you know, we often talk about this kind of post-truth, you know, America and sort of how objective facts aren’t parti are, aren’t, are becoming less influential and sort of, And in terms of shaping public opinion as opposed to sort of emotion.
[00:23:00] : And one thing about, you know, what we saw at, at, in what we saw, what, what you reported about CPAC is, you know, just lots and lots of this, uh, emotional language, you know, American Marxism and. You know, and then these other, you know, kind of the quiet part out loud, black Lives Matter, anti Antifa, cop hating groomers, pedophiles, anti, you know, anti-American socialist stuff.
: And the, the, those messages really do hit home, you know, with a lot of people. And, you know, despite the fact that as you note, you know, both sides kind of are interest in inflation and fentanyl and crime. You know, research shows we just aren’t making our decisions based on issues much anymore. It’s mostly about identity and, and it’s about the fear of losing as much as anything else or actually as the main thing.
: And this, these appeals to emotion really work, you know, and we’ll sort of get to the point where we’ll do almost anything, you know, to avoid that losing, cuz that losing fills so bad. So, so sort of a, you know, with your perspective again, and the sort of expertise, I mean, what, what’s your takeaway about that?
[00:24:00] : Alex Hinton: Yeah, I mean, yeah, I think one, one thing is, you know, we need to have conversations with other people who have different opinions, you know, different from our opinions, but we also need to find out what their opinions are. Cuz often we just assume what their beliefs are as part of it. But we’re all in this, the sort of systemic context.
: In which messages, right, that are organized. They’re su systemic, they’re consistent. So in, you know, the article you’re referring to from the conversation, you know, I was there, I noticed that there were a number of different themes that were recurring, uh, and what was being said, and people were hitting on those over and over again.
[00:25:00] : Um, you know, there’s sort of six different pockets that I focused on. There were others as well. Uh, you know, so China or, uh, you know, communist China. There’s a slight difference, but they were used somewhat interchangeably. It was one of those border criminals was another one. And that could range from the drug cartels, uh, to, uh, quote unquote illegal aliens.
: Uh, which was a term I actually thought. There’s gonna be much more focus on the border. I was a little surprised that there was less. Uh, and I’m curious to see, you know, the next cpac if that’s, uh, changed, especially women as I assume will probably happen, uh, Trump gets the nomination. So tho those were two and then there were sort of internal ones and you mentioned quote unquote American Marxism woke was a non-stop focus.
: Uh, and there’s another one of these words that you know is sort of manii about is use sort of the way the word political correctness. Has been used and the two are very intertwined. Uh, but within that there were, you know, this bucket of critical race theory, black Lives Matter. We got dropped in there.
[00:26:00] : Diversity, uh, d e i, uh, things transgenderism. And then there was the deep. I think we have to say the super, super deep state, deep state doesn’t really get it anymore. It’s like super, super deep state, which is this collusion between the tech industry, business leaders, big pharma, uh, and as well as typical bureaucrats.
: Uh, federal law enforcement. Uh, there was one session on the Biden Crime family, uh, you know, so they’re sort of implicated. All these things are sort of loose and amorphous. Uh, and then it sort of links back to American Marxism. But these were, you know, sort of things. That’s part of what I wanted to do was identify.
: The sort of different demons of SeaTech that were there, even as, you know, that were being talked about cuz we need to be aware of those. And so that’s, you know, as you just noted, uh, part of my takeaway, uh, I think the transgenderism attack was much stronger than I ever expected. Uh, and it shows that the election so far, this may change.
[00:27:00] : Uh, you know, the culture wars are playing out to an even greater extent versus the sort of border issues that we’ve had in the past, but I’m, I’m gonna give a little prediction that that’s gonna shift, uh, once, uh, Trump, assuming he gets the nomination, I think that may switch when he gave his talk. Um, it was fairly bleak, so I might say apocalyptic.
: Uh, I’m sure many people have heard about it. He talked right at the beginning about the sinister forces, which were all these different demons that I talked about. But what I did notice is he only mentioned transgender once. If I re, if I recall correctly, the, in the entire, uh, speech, which went on for a really long time, uh, you know, the first time I’ve heard an entire Trump.
: Speech from start to finish. And it shows that they’re at the moment, and he also may change and enter much more into the culture wards, especially when he’s, uh, going up against DeSantis who’s really, that’s, uh, DeSantis bread and butter at this point. Um, there’s a little bit of a, you know, a tension and I’m curious to see how this is gonna play out, uh, in the coming months.
[00:28:00] : But if the indication of all the speakers, if that was an indication, transgender, uh, and sort of vocalism quote unquote more broadly is gonna be a big issue as we’re seeing almost daily in the news now. So,
: David: um, you’re saying the transgender stuff might be more in the primaries and then maybe it will shift more back to immigration?
: Um, in the general, yeah.
: Alex Hinton: Well, you know, Trump, historically, I don’t have any, I haven’t. Gone and researched this. This is impressionistic, uh, you know, issues of transgender issues are what they were calling quote unquote transgenderism. And one speaker actually called for transgenderism to be eradicated, which was a little alarming.
: That got a lot of headlines. It’s not really something that I recall Trump focusing on all that much. So I think this is something that as the primary season goes on, either. Trump is gonna start talking more about this, or we’re gonna get a lot more talk about the sort of threatening, you know, border threats, um, that are taking place.
[00:29:00] : And China’s always there, there were, you know, China virus, uh, things being said. And in addition, uh, you know, we have the sort of origin, uh, you know, of Coronavirus and people, because of the study had just come out, you know, or there were a couple of announcements that it, you know, maybe it did come from a lab, so everybody was saying, well, we’re right, we’re vindicated, you know, but.
: It’s a sort of loop back around to the very beginning. You know, look, people on the right and left care about fentanyl. Everyone’s upset about fentanyl. People on the right and left are worried about national security. People on the right and left want borders, right? It’s not sustainable to have hundreds of thousand people coming across the border every month.
: People care about the same issues. It just gets. Leaders take it, they soup it up, they inflect it, and then they turn people against each other. And then if you turn on the news like I do, And I start off my day actually, I, I go and I look and I say, what? It’s cnn, msnbc, and Fox. What are they saying? You know, at the same time about the same issues.
[00:30:00] : And they’re often completely different realities and they’re taking the same issues and they’re spinning ’em in completely different ways. So, so we really need to have the hard thinking that needs to go on. And it’s really hard when information, uh, you know, information overload is with us. Outrage overload.
: You know, that’s a big problem. But you know what, so what can we all do? We can have a conversation. Uh, what I can do in the classroom is talk to students and work on them about the sort of how you think critically you’re running this program. I mean, we all can do our part. Someone can go have coffee with someone else, but in the end, you know, it’s all of us on the ground, uh, that need to do our part to slow things down.
: To recognize the humanity of others and to have, uh, you know, what might be a difficult conversation that we might be a little bit uneasy having. Yeah. And it’s, it’s,
: David: I think it, these trigger words and these emotional words are hard because it sort of sends us off that path, right? We, we, we, we revert back to sort of a different, different way of looking at the world, you know?
[00:31:00] : And so much of it is, we talked in the very beginning about sort of trust, you know, and even people using anti-science or scientists or even academia and, you know, and I even, you know, I get, I hear that as well. I’ve heard a lot of people say, You know, not a lot, but I’ve heard some people say, you know, even the fact that I’m talking to scientists, sort of, they discount because, well, scientists are, I guess a little bit like the deep, deep state you’re talking about, right?
: They’re somehow part of that too. And there’s this trust issue that scares the heck outta me that we can’t, you know? And I think that was a huge factor with Covid and it just spuns so quickly that you know, nobody wanted to trust anybody and people, and I’ve seen people sort of. I don’t know, just destroy the whole term.
: You use critical thinking several times a day for a lot of people, you know, critical thinking basically just means, well, I just reject anything I see. You know? Oh, that’s not actually critical thinking, but they sort of think it is.
: Alex Hinton: Yeah. You know? And you mentioned the T on science. Uh, you know, one thing I was a little surprised by, um, you know, cause I have a slightly different bubble in which I’m immersed.
[00:32:00] : But, uh, you know, I knew about the attacks on Fauci, but the attacks on fauci were relentless. Nonstop. And he was a demonn. So within then they had a, you know, in this article I actually had a section on the deep state, but all these, when you write these articles that are space limits and lots gets, you know, gets cut out and the people, I said, why didn’t you talk about this?
: Well, you know, the reason space length for, you know, anyways. But I had a section on the deep state and Fauci was part of that deep state. So he was, again, the sort of uncontrolled deep state actors who are doing these, uh, demonic things. So he was there. But you know, look, in the end also, I think when we have conversations with people who have different political views, you know, a lot of listening needs to take place.
: But I think you need, all of us need to go in n we can’t go in thinking that we’re gonna transform someone. We’re suddenly gonna get them to change their mind. You know, when I think about it, I want to hear and learn from other people, see how they think differently. Uh, you know, I’m, I’m, you know, wanna talk to people, uh, who supported and still support Trump.
[00:33:00] : I wanna understand how they think that way, but then, you know, for me and sort of interrogating it, you know, I want, how do they get their information? So, as opposed to just saying, I’m going to try and change the person’s mind and get him, uh, or her to vote for DeSantis or, you know, someone else, my, you know, where’s the information and to have a conversation and maybe talk to that person.
: Well, where’d you hear that? And I think those little moves that aren’t at the sort of direct point of contention or where you actually make the most progress. Because of people start thinking, well, where, where did I get my information? Well, you know, I talked to people at the coffee shop with my buddies and they were joking about it.
: Like, oh, well, do you listen to any news sources? Which ones? No, I just talked to my buddies at the, at the coffee shop. It’s actually a conversation I had with someone and, you know, so I, and I’m not gonna judge a person for that, but, uh, point that out and just sort of have a, a conversation where you bring that up.
[00:34:00] : Hopefully that person will look for better sources of information. Uh, you know, and sometimes they’ll say, you know, people, politicians on the left are manipulating us. And I say, well, yeah, that’s true. And so are politicians on the right. They’re all manipulating us, you know, so absolutely we agree on that.
: But the point is, you know, it’s not just one side, it’s both sides.
: David: Yeah. Well, you know, and I, I have a line of questioning in my man on the street interviews that goes along that line. Like I ask about a hot button topic and then sort of how do you find out about it and how do you stay up to date about it?
: And one thing I has sort of surprised me is, is people are, Really feel really strongly about a thing they maybe just re barely recently learned about. And, um, you know, and maybe learn, like you say, from an sort of an unconventional source. And, um, yeah, it’s that, that kind of surprise surprises me. Yeah.
: Alex Hinton: and what you’re doing is what needs to be done. Right to have conversations, people who are gonna pre present perspectives that you may not, well you ob none of us understand what someone’s gonna say. We see someone, let’s say they’re dressed up as they were at CPAC with, uh, you know, sequin Trump shirts, uh, different things, right?
[00:35:00] : Everyone just assumes they’re a certain type of person to go back to that language of thing. Ation people are much more complicated. Uh, and the conversations that you’re having are exactly the sorts of ones that people need to be having. People, you know, after I, I did the, uh, I was at cpac. I, you know, people would say things like, oh, you survived cpac.
: People would say, did you feel you were in danger? You know, but that just, and I don’t wanna put down the people who made comments like that, but it goes to show what people think that, you know, I would go there and there would be these, these sort of almost evil people who wanted to attack me. Um, and it wasn’t just like regular people that, like my, my relatives who, like everyone’s relatives for the most part come from different, uh, uh, you know, places in the country have different political beliefs.
[00:36:00] : Uh, often they diverge our own and, you know, have a conversation. So I never understand why people won’t talk to family members about politics. I mean, I understand if you do that and you’re just judgmental, you know, that’s gonna be bad. But to just have a conversation, listen, you know, we can all learn, we can benefit by having family members who have different perspectives.
: We can learn from perspectives. Um, but yeah, so that I was a little surprised that people thought my life would be in danger going to cpac. Yeah. O obviously was not the case.
: David: Yeah. Well that’s good to hear. That’s good to know. Well, I know, uh, you know, we’ve been running a little long, so I really appreciate, uh, your time and, and, um, it’s been really fascinating for me and, and I, I really appreciate all the, your insights.
: Yeah, it
: Alex Hinton: has been terrific. And thank you for all the work you’re doing, uh, and those, I’m gonna look for those conversations on the street.
: David: Awesome. Thank you so much. All right, well take care. I’ll let you
: Alex Hinton: go. Yeah, you too. Okay. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.
[00:37:00] : David: That is it for this episode of the Outrage Overload Podcast. For links to everything we talked about on this episode, visit outrage overload.net. You can follow me on Twitter at Mr Blog. You can follow this show on Twitter or Instagram at outrage overload. We have the Facebook page slash outrage overload. : And a Facebook group. You like the show. Tell your friends about it. Maybe think about giving us a review on Apple or your favorite podcast player, and check back in a couple of weeks for a brand new episode.