 it's going to take some time and we're going to pick apart small little things that we want to address. And one of the first things that they really made great progress on was get out of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, the notion that homosexuality is a disease. And they spent time in that one thing, even though there's a lot of homophobia, that one thing was gaining them traction to reach the point 10 years later. What's up everybody and welcome to the show today. We drop great content each and every week and we want to make sure that you guys get notified and in order to do that, you're going to have to smash that subscribe button and hit that notification bell. And if you've gotten a lot of value out of this, make sure you give us a like and share our videos with your friends. So excited to have you. Todd, welcome to the show. So good to be here. Now your latest book, The Art of Insubordination, How to Descent and Defy Effectively is coming out. And we'd love to just start with your definition of the art of insubordination. What is it? Well, the key piece is the principled part of insubordination. So what we're talking about is principled rebels who realize there are norms, there are rules, there are authority figures that are dysfunctional. They're not working for people. They're not working for other people. And they basically decided is that to create a more constructive live for themselves or other people, they're going to rebel, they're going to dissent in some way. And they're doing it not because they don't care, because they care so much about the group. And with this, obviously, we've seen a lot of rebellion of modern media institutions. And there's been a big backlash against even rebelling and getting people back in line. So in today's current state of affairs, how do you feel rebellion is viewed? You know, I've been thinking about writing an article. Well, this puts us in this dilemma of where has our public space gone? Right? If there is no public square, then there is no marketplace of ideas. And then everyone, there's going to be a certain group that is going to feel oppressed that, well, we can't we can't even display our ideas for everyone to choose, because we don't have access to that public space. And that public space has many different components to it. One of those components is comedians. And you brought it up in the book as well, where part of that public space is to be able to pick fun of whoever at the top to punch up, so to speak. And everyone is dealing with cancel culture. I mean, we have Joe Rogan, who's probably one of the most world famous renowned comedians due to the size of his show and what he's doing. And he's getting slammed left and right. And he's trying from what it seems to me as to continue this old idea of the marketplace, bringing in people's voices who he feels are not being heard, and then paying a price for that with, as AJ was saying, this this coercion that is going on. Yeah, there's a lot to unpack in there, Johnny. So I want to bookmark the notion of the public square, because there's an interesting element where we have social media, which led to the Arab Springs, where you have people in Tunisia and Libya that are able to fight a totalitarian government, and they just own a shoe store and a candy store. And so you have this democratization of you don't have to wait for someone to give you the podium. You don't need Atlantic records to say we're going to sign you. You don't need Penguin books to say you can now write a book. You could just pop online and anybody can speak. Now the problem is, is the filters. And the problem is, is the loudest, most aggressive, most morally outraged person who tends to be unhinged gets the most attention on this platform. And that's problematic. We drop great content each and every week. And we want to make sure that you guys get notified. And in order to do that, you're going to have to smash that subscribe button and hit that notification bell. And if you've gotten a lot of value out of this, make sure you give us a like and share our videos with your friends. We can also look at Arab Spring as an example where it was more of a public square to Johnny's point. We did not have these large companies who own this virtual public square making decisions on who could speak about what. Even when the governments in those countries were trying to censor this speech, this message of freedom, democracy, and all of the issues that totalitarianism bring to the forefront of its citizens. That platform of Twitter was available to everyone. If you had a VPN, if you were blocked in your country, you could still access it somewhere on the internet. And now what we're seeing along with this coercion, as Johnny was talking about, is this cancellation of, well, these voices, these insubordinate voices are no longer within reason of the public square. We need to censor them. We need to move them out of the conversation. And I was just in Vegas with Johnny. And, you know, we always sort of compare notes on where we're getting our information and news. And right now, as we're recording this, we're in the middle of a war with Ukraine and Russia. And mass disinformation is going on. Both sides are using the public square to poison the well with propaganda. And I was just asking Johnny, like, what are some of the ways that you're tuning into the news? How are you getting the news? And, you know, he's like, oh, well, I'm on this platform, Odyssey. Well, why are you on Odyssey? Oh, because a lot of the people that I was following are no longer on some of these other platforms. So what we've seen, you know, we've seen the power of social media to drive insubordination, to regime change, to new governments, to revolutions. And now it seems like we're almost moving in the opposite direction where these companies are now saying, well, this is within the public square. This is an acceptable insubordinate voice. And oh, by the way, some of these scientists you're talking about, some of these views you have around coronavirus or around the war that's breaking out. Well, that's not acceptable for our platform anymore. We don't view that as acceptable in subordination. Go elsewhere and burying those voices. But those voices, I would assume, take your position that they're principled and they're in subordination. They're standing for what they view as freedom and what they view as the right to free speech. So nobody who speaks against the mainstream popular sentiments thinks they're unprincipled? And so you have to get into the mechanics of what makes a principle. I mean, there are two core components you have to think of. One is, is it authentic? Are you engaging in this behavior because they're your core values? Or are you basically signaling that you are a member of a particular group or tribe and trying to win likes and make sure you gain status within that group? So we're seeing a lot of people engage in disingenuous behavior because they don't want to lose status and power in their group. The second part is, is it constructive? Are you trying to design some sort of movement that closes the gap between the present world we have now and some utopian vision of how the world is going to be? Or are you just trying to create friction and noise? And it's because very easy to knock over someone's Lego block kit. It's very difficult to take the farmer Lego block kit and the moon Lego block kit and mix them together and innovate and create something. I mean, one of the things, you know, what I hear you guys talk about the public square that's challenging is that there's no concentrated consistent message in a lot of these social movements that are happening. And we know from research over the past 60 years is that the number one predictor that a minority voice, and that could be demographic that you're a marginalized group that could be status that could be you don't have the numbers for minority influence to make an impact, you have to be consistent in your message. So when you mentioned about, you know, the COVID-19 and mask mandates, we all recognize the inconsistency in the message. So as soon as epidemiologists went out and they said, you know what, the racial reckoning and focusing on hundreds of years of being marginalized is so important that it's okay that they didn't wear a mask when they were protesting. Most of society, while we didn't say it publicly, we said to ourselves, hmm, I don't think science works that way in terms of virus transmission changes differently, if you're protesting for a cause you approve of versus a cause you don't approve of. So that mixed messaging was the start, that inconsistency of an open a hole for people to start asking questions about what are the scientists conflicts of interest, psychological and financial, and what ideas are being suppressed about this. And it's not that I'm a conspiracy theorist. This is what I believe is there can be dangerous ideas like Nazism, but there are no dangerous questions if you're coming from a place of curiosity. And this is where the Joe Rogan issue that you were mentioning and talking about, you know, what the science says about in terms of mask mandates is there's a lot of questions people are asking. They were being suppressed, told to conceal and hide them and ignore them. And when you do that people actually their defenses and threat threat is raised and all you're doing is raising detractors towards a cause. And just to comment on that, I would say that mixed messaging at the beginning of COVID was the first time that regular mainstream people had saw a mismatch in certain messaging. I would say that people let a right of center had already been experiencing that online and have been discussing this and trying to bring attention to it. And because they were right of center, it was all those guys are always complaining. But when this was discussed and now it is in plain view for everybody to see, which rattled a lot of people of we have a problem here.