 This brings us to another anti-concept, Rand mentioned by the way, which is polarization, which he viewed as an anti-concept. And you might think a lot of the way people will comment on this now is the country's become too polarized, or Russia's trying to polarize us as they've tried to polarize. But that's something Rand viewed as an anti-concept when used in this kind of context, because polarizing means people are on opposite sides and they don't want to, they won't mix and they won't agree with each other and so forth. And you get people like Ezra Klein, the leftist Vox chief, I think that's a new book out on political polarization and so forth. But what do we mean by polarization? If people were retreating to their corners and being really divisive in their rhetoric or whatever around fundamental issues, where it was like, are we going to have more or less socialism in America? And that's really what it was about. And it was clearly about the issue and they were ideological and consistent. That would be a very different phenomenon than in fact, are you pro or anti-Trump or pro or anti-BLM, the protests or whatever, which is what we're getting now. So what we're getting now is an increased factionalism, but without ideological difference. Yes. And to polarize packages, those two together. Yes, the principled opposition versus the fractional tribalistic opposition. So let's get into some of the, some specific package deals that affect both left and right. Not surprising that many of the terms that they use turn out to be package deal. Let's do one that's kind of, I get accused of all the time. So it's personal on a regular basis. Trump derangement syndrome. Is this a real thing? No, I didn't. So I wouldn't regard this as a, you can call it a package deal between someone who's just has an irrational animus against this particular president for some reason and people who have thoughtful critiques of him. But it's, I think it's an anti-concept. I think it's designed when you think about why people are accused of it and when they're accused of it. It's as an excuse not to engage with an argument, which may be a good or a bad argument, but it's an excuse not to engage with a position and particularly because someone feels it or emotes it or expresses it strongly and passionately. But if that's a reason not to engage with a position or to dismiss a position, that's an excuse for not considering anything you don't already like. That's a really dangerous thing and it destroys your way of thinking. So I think to use that concept ever is like shooting a bullet through your head in terms of your own ability to think about the issue. It's really, really destructive. And it would be the same if you had an Obama derangement syndrome or any of these other things. And it's not, it's of a species, of a type of anti-concept that we find that psychologizes opinions. So there were all these articles out at one point. Support for people like Trump comes from having an authoritarian mindset and you can tell in how they parent their kids and these three psychological factors. So you're not saying like, this guy likes Donald Trump, why? What's his argument? What's his view? What's he concerned about? You're saying, no, he's in fact crazy, this species of crazy and that's why he's voting that way. And therefore you can dismiss him and not try to think about, does he feel screwed by this policy? And is he right or wrong to feel screwed by it? Is he upset at being called a racist all the time? And is he justified in being upset? Or maybe he is kind of racist and should think about it. But we're not thinking about what he thinks and why. We're treating him as somebody to psychopathologize. And TDS is an example of that. You get a ton of these on the left, incidentally. Homophobic, Islamophobic, phobic, all these phobic terms. Sometimes there's actually a thing there that we need a concept for, for bigoted against this or that group. But the phobic term, it might have started like we use philic and phobic in chemistry, not to mean anything about somebody, this water is hydro, this element's hydrophilic or hydrophobic, it just means it's for or against. But the way it sounds when people use it is, you're homophobic, you're afraid of gay people. Maybe he's not afraid of gay people. Maybe he just doesn't like them. Or he thinks they're bad. Maybe he's wrong. I think people who have issues with gay people generally are wrong. But it's why phobia. And even if the guy is scared, like it really comes deep down from, maybe he thinks he might be gay and he's uncomfortable with that. That's not the thing that we wanna focus on if we're thinking like, should gay people be allowed to marry or shop in this place? Or what should the laws be? Someone's psychology is not the issue. It's like, what's his view about what's right about homosexuality? And why treat it as a psychological issue? Likewise, Muslims, immigrants, any of these other things. Muslims is particularly interesting where there's some reason to fear. That is that it's not completely random that people are worried about Muslims. And by psychologizing it dismisses. Dismisses any legitimate concern they have or any argument they have or any concern they have. And it's the same thing done with psychologizing animosity towards the president or with psychologizing treating it as a condition thinking this president is bad. And if you write it interesting because with Trump, they do it primarily to intellectuals. So Jonah Goldberg is TDS, even though he's written pages and pages and pages of arguments why he doesn't like the president or Andrew Sullivan or me, right? You can give hours and hours and the more you make the argument, the more you try to make a reasoned argument against him, the more you're accused of, you know, TDS. Well, I think TDS, if you're gonna call something an anti-concept in particular, you should be able to specify what important concepts is it actually targeting and trying to get out of discussion. And I think for TDS, there are three. Reality, rationality and morality. It's to not think about those. Those are the, if someone's create is an impassioned argument against Trump. The reason why is they think what he's doing is immoral. And when you accuse them of TDS, you're saying morality doesn't matter here. We don't think about morality. If you're someone who's concerned about morality, you're someone who isn't really, you're suffering from a psychological defect. If you're concerned that what he's saying is false and he's a liar, then that's just that. Now, you might think Trump's morally right about this or he's morally wrong about it, but it's not as important as Iran thinks or as I think. But then the issue isn't that someone has TDS, it's that, you know, well, really a bigger moral issue is that Trump's, you know, two parts per million better for gas companies than Biden would be, therefore Trump's better, even though he's worse on this other issue. Or he's not really worse on this other issue, whatever it is. But that's actually addressing the issue. And every time this is used in an argument, orange man, bad's another example of this, it's an attempt to get rid of moral considerations or considerations of truth and false or rationale and irrationality. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, women's or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broods. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least a hundred. I figure at least a hundred of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to a hundred. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes, but if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share, and you can support the show at yourunbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support, there you go. Easy, do one, all of those, please.