 The reason that people change their behavior is because there's an economic incentive. A couple years ago when you turned to the survivor of parkland mass shooting, you apologized only because advertisers withdrew from your show. Nice try, buddy. I appreciate it. This is what they always do. We're gonna welcome all points of view on the show. You just watched Fox News propagandist Laura Ingram abruptly end an interview with Steve Allman, who's the author of Against Football. And it's because he brought up her disgusting past. Now it's been a little bit since she made that tweet, so if you don't remember, allow me to refresh your memory. This is what she wrote to Parkland survivor David Hogg at the time. And then she was forced to backtrack and apologize after that tweet from her sparked an advertiser boycott. Now the reason why he brought up that tweet is because he was using that to make a really good point about how people's behaviors don't change unless there is a financial incentive to do so. Now we're gonna play more of the clip just so you can kind of see how it got to that point because the entire interview was pretty combative. To be fair, he was very polite, but then she started to really grill him for seemingly no reason. It felt like she was being purposefully obtuse, but we'll get to that. But first I wanna give you some additional context as to why she brought him on the show in the first place. So Steve Allman is one of the individuals who has been leading the call for change systemically at the NFL. And this all comes after DeMar Hamlin's collapse on the field. As CNN explains, Hamlin collapsed shortly after a collision in which a Bengals receiver tried to power past Hamlin who had approached for a tackle with about six minutes remaining in the first quarter of Monday's game. Hamlin still twisted the receiver to the ground and stood up, but within seconds fell and lay motionless. Now after being intubated and sedated, he's since woken up and his neurological functions are seemingly intact, but he still has a really long road to recovery. Now that horrifying incident sparked another conversation about the violence associated with football. In particular, the brain damage that players are dealing with as a result of this sport. A 2017 Boston University study found that 99% of NFL players showed diagnostic signs of CTE, which is a neurodegenerative disease associated with repeated head trauma. And Steve Almond has a robust, more systemic criticism of the sport in general. As NPR explains, Steve Almond's blistering book Against Football, One Fan's Reluctant Manifesto is exactly what it advertises itself to be. An exasperated, frustrated, wide-ranging argument that the time has come to abandon football, particularly but not exclusively the NFL. As a sport built on violence, racism, economic exploitation of poor kids, corrupt deal-making with local governments over stadiums, and the willingness to find it entertaining to watch people suffer brain damage. So his core argument is that systemic changes are desperately needed when it comes to football and specifically the NFL, but those changes aren't going to happen unless there is an economic incentive for this corporation to do that. And he believes that if fans actually chose to boycott the sport or put enough pressure on the sport, then they would be forced to change so that way they don't lose money. Now he tried to explain this to Laura Ingram and she claims that she agrees that they should do more to make the sport safer for players, but then she's just for no reason combative and it seems like she's strawmanning him. At one point you're gonna see that she claims he just wants to ban football, which is not what he's saying, but he has some good rebuttals to her frivolous strawman arguments that she uses and it was absolutely satisfying to watch. My book really focuses on fans because we're the ones who create that incredible economic incentive. We built the football industrial complex. So what do you want? Yeah, but what do you want? What do you want? Because I've seen stampede at soccer games. I've seen major fights at hockey games. I mean, I've even seen fights at cricket competitions, okay? So what do you exactly want? I'm not getting it. Well, I think the NFL could, if they were forced to, if there was an economic incentive, could make the game much safer overnight with things like weight limits so that players aren't bulking themselves up to 320 pounds on natural weights, putting monitors in helmets to try to make sure that people aren't suffering too many concussive or subconcussive events. These are things the NFL could do tomorrow, but they're not gonna do it until there's an economic incentive. The reason they settled that lawsuit is because they had a PR problem. It's like at Fox News, when you have hosts who are allegedly sexually harassing people, Fox News throws money at that to make that PR problem go away. That's what happens with corporations or powerful people. Well, nobody has done more than expose, expose. You know that, I know that. That's a cute little move. But I'm trying to get you to answer a question. Your point is that football should become more safe. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that. But you've come at it by saying, well, hold on, hold on, Steve, hold on. You say fans are in effect perpetuating a culture of violence and racism. How the heck does that work? I mean, you say you're a football fan. Do you see a lot of racism in the stands? I see a lot of happy people. A lot of happy people. Yeah, I'm trying to emphasize that the NFL has the ability to make substantial changes to the game that would make it safer. But they're not gonna do that until there's an economic incentive. You're obviously a brilliant, well-read person. You know that people, large corporations and powerful people only change their behavior when there's an economic incentive. And what I essentially believe is not that any government ban is gonna make football safer and certainly not some mythic woke mob that you mentioned to try to scare your viewers. I think it's gonna happen- I'm not trying to scare the viewers. Football is not about politics. It's not about politics. You're making it about politics. Oh, I think that's your entire economic model. What? Your entire economic model is to scare your viewers. That's your whole gig. I mean, Steve, you really want- And the only way that you change your behavior. Yeah, you want football to be banned. No, I don't. This is what you do. You play this game. Oh, come on. You want football essentially changed into, I don't know what. I don't know if we have a sensor in the helmet. I guess, okay. Propose one, you know. Well, is that technology troubling to you? No, not in the slightest. If you're concerned about the players- Not in the slightest. Why wouldn't you want them to play in a way that was safer? You're not concerned about the players. You don't care about them at all. I think there are ways to make baseball safer. I think there are probably ways to make lacrosse safer. I played three sports. I know a lot about safety and sports. I think everyone can celebrate that. But underneath it all, you seem to have a belief that football has a history based in racism and a celebration of the fans of violence. And what I'm saying to you is, I think, I don't know what kind of fan base you're going to. They don't celebrate violence. They're there to enjoy the game and celebrate the time. I don't think the fans celebrate violence. I agree with you, Laura. I don't think the fans are celebrating the violence. I think they tolerate the violence and they see when somebody like Samar Hamlin is almost killed in front of them or I remember watching Daryl Stingley get paralyzed as an 11-year-old. And I didn't stop watching football and lots of fans don't stop watching football because they enjoy it so much because it's so thrilling. The reason that people change their behavior is because there's an economic incentive. Couple of years ago, when you talked to the survivor of Parkland mass shooting, you apologized only because advertisers withdrew from your show in your head. Nice try, buddy. I appreciate it. She cut him off right when he was making a really important point that I think would have helped her to understand that behavior doesn't actually change. It never changes unless there's an economic incentive to do so. The reason why she apologized to David Hogg after attacking him was because advertisers were fleeing Fox News. They were losing money. And that perfectly demonstrates what needs to happen with the NFL. If they start to lose money, that's exactly when they're going to change their behavior because these corporations, all they care about is one thing, that's money. So he was demonstrating that point, but because he brought up her past gross behavior, she cut him off. Now, I wanna give you some additional context because he brought up the lawsuit with regard to Fox News and how they settled with alleged sexual harassment allegations. But the reason why he brought that up is because earlier in the interview, which you didn't see, he referenced the class action lawsuit filed against the NFL in the early 2010s where thousands of players alleged that the dangers were hidden from them and they ended up settling. So that's why he mentioned the lawsuit. He wanted to demonstrate how these large corporations will throw money at problems in order to make them go away, but that's not actually them fundamentally addressing these systemic issues. And if they don't throw money at problems, sometimes that ends up becoming a bigger issue that can lead to a loss of revenue. So that's why he brought that up. It was perfectly relevant, but she wasn't getting it. So then he brought up an example that hits a little bit more close to home. Fox News and their sexual harassment allegations. That's why Bill O'Reilly was pushed out at Fox News. So she was the one, by the way, if you watch the full interview, she was being overly antagonistic. He was perfectly polite, but as she got more aggressive, he also ramped up the criticisms of Fox News and damn did his criticisms probably sting. So he said that a government ban, which is what she strawmanned him and said that he supports, he said, a government ban isn't going to make football safer or some mythic woke mob that you use to try to scare your viewers. And then she got defensive, which is when he landed the death blow. He said, your entire economic model is to scare your viewers. That's your whole gig. And right there, that's when you can just see it in her eyes. She was looking for the exit point. She was like, I've got to stop this. I've got to get out of this interview because not only am I unsuccessfully pushing back against his core argument, but now he's making me look like a complete fool. And that's why she ultimately ended the interview abruptly. You just want football to be banned. No, Laura, you're not listening to the argument that he's making. It's like she, as a fan of football herself, is experiencing cognitive dissonance when he's also a fan and he's not trying to make it seem as if you're a bad person if you like football, just that maybe if you join together with everyone else and do a boycott or you stop purchasing their products or just put some pressure on the corporation, then they change their behavior because again, there's not going to be a change unless there's an economic incentive to do so. That's his core argument. You can agree with it or disagree with it, but she's not even trying to address the substance of his argument there. He's not saying we should ban football. He's just saying, as a fan, I just can't support this sport, but if you do support this sport and you want to continue watching it, here's some effective things that you can do potentially to make them change, but it's Laura Ingram. So I mean, I don't even know why she brought him on. He's a great guest to have because he's been talking about the systemic issues with the NFL and football more generally speaking for years now. It's just, I don't know why she brought him on to just badger him when the whole fan base, it seems like is having this conversation now following the collapse of DeMar Hamlin. And for good reason, right? I don't think that you should ban football, but I do think that they need to do more things to protect players. And I don't know if the recommendations that he suggested are going to be adequate, but sure, things need to be done to make sure that these players are safe. I think that it's nice that so many Americans, I'm not necessarily a fan of football, but it's nice that there's so many Americans that have this one distraction that just makes them feel good and bring so much joy to their lives. So of course we shouldn't ban that, but we have to acknowledge that there are things in life that sometimes need to be addressed. And this is one of those instances where things need to be done to protect these players because these are human beings. And yes, they're paid handsomely for playing in this game, but they shouldn't have brain injuries for the rest of their lives because of this sport for everyone else's enjoyment. So things need to be done to prevent that. That's the point that he's making, but Laura Ingram didn't want to hear that. So at least we got a really entertaining segment from Fox News as a result of it, but that was not a good look for Laura Ingram. Up yours, up yours, up yours. Son of bitches, bitches, bitches. Whoop, whoop, whoop, whoop, whoop. The dream that I saw my maternal grandmother, she was stroking herself absentmindedly. I let her have her way. Way, way, way. Hey, hey. The genital region was exposed. Hey, hey. I let her have her way.