Jeremy Boreing

The destruction of masculinity as a positive force in the world, I think it's atrocious and has been horrific for our societies.

And on many other things, and that's not something that even right-wing people or left-wing people have to agree.

It's kind of a majority opinion.

It's a majority opinion.

And lots of other things we could talk about.

My issue, I suppose, is more about whether being angry about stuff becomes a productive force or whether it remains a destructive force.

Because if you don't convert anger into solutions that are forward-looking, then all you're doing is stirring people up for, and you talk about candors being self-aggrandizing.

Well, as you said, there's an incentive structure in the media game.

You know, I always tell this story and we joke about this.

So when Francis and I first started trigonometry, had a girlfriend, a very smart woman,

And whenever we used to complain about the state of the world or, look, this thing happened or that thing happened, she'd always say to us, look, whatever is bad for the world is good for trigonometry, right?

And in the media game, ultimately, that is unfortunately true.

And so stirring people up to be angry while offering no practical solutions is a perfectly good game plan if what you're trying to do is make money, build a platform, make a bigger audience for yourself, et cetera.

Is there a constructive vision behind all of this, or is it more of just a destructive force at this point?

Again, I just wouldn't conflate the two categories.

The grift industrial complex and the people who belong to that category probably don't care about the political outcome.

As you say, whatever is bad for the world is good for the bottom line.

Whatever is bad for the world is good for the subscriber count.

Whatever is bad for the world is good for my engagement.

The people engaged in the political project that I suggested, they do have a constructive vision.