#381 — Delusions, Right and Left

Stephen Bonnell is recognized for his unique approach to online political discourse, engaging with a range of political figures from conservatives to far-right extremists to prompt diverse dialogue and challenge a variety of ideas.

Bonnell is willing to engage with a wide range of political figures and views, from conservatives to far-right extremists, in order to reach diverse audiences and challenge ideas.

Bonnell, coming from a Cuban background and a conservative household, has been heavily involved in political content since 2016. He's predisposed to being argumentative and disagreeable, thriving in debates across topics like politics, science, and pop culture. Noted by Sam Harris, Bonnell has interacted with a variety of public figures, some of whom others like Harris prefer to avoid, including Nick Fuentes.

Bonnell sees value in platforming different perspectives, even controversial ones, as long as he can provide adequate pushback and not simply promote bad ideas.

Bonnell believes in providing pushback against a broad spectrum of figures and ideas. He stresses the importance of not platforming radical individuals without offering substantial counterarguments, as he refuses to inadvertently promote harmful ideologies.

Bonnell is conscious of the balance between being aggressive in debate versus being more empathetic and gentle in order to maintain dialogues and avoid permanently alienating certain figures or audiences.

The debate approach Bonnell has taken over the past year has been more empathetic, particularly with high-profile figures like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and Candace Owens. He reflects on a conversation with Owens, where even minimal opposition nearly ended the dialogue, so he chose a gentler style to keep it flowing. Despite this, Bonnell feels concerned that being too gentle might inadvertently legitimize the other person's stance.

Bonnell has faced criticism for providing a platform to figures like Candace Owens, whose views have become increasingly extreme, and worries about unintentionally lending credibility to such figures.

Harris brought up Bonnell's conversation with Candace Owens, hinting at the criticism one can face for engaging with such controversial figures. Bonnell expresses his concern that this more empathetic debate style might give the impression that he supports or legitimizes these extreme stances. While acknowledging the challenge of assessing the impact on the audience, he asserts that it could be valuable to debate high-profi ...

Harris and Bonnell provide insights into how the modern media ecosystem, with its online information sources and social media, influences political perceptions and debates through misinformation, framing, and selective narratives.

The modern media ecosystem and its challenges

Harris speaks about intelligent individuals who, influenced by selective media framing, hold skewed views of political figures like Trump. He finds it concerning that these individuals have not fully registered Trump's norm violations, focusing instead on misleading phrases like "Russia collusion hoax". He implies that this indicates a failure in evaluating the validity and context of information.

Critical thinking and selective framing

Many people lack the necessary background knowledge and critical thinking skills to sift through the information that bombards them online effectively. Media outlets and political figures often indulge in selective framing, prioritizing audience retention and viewership over objective reporting.

Bonnell comments on the blurring line between online discourse and reality, highlighting the issue with smartphones and other "magic boxes" that most people do not understand but use daily. This scenario creates a fertile ground for conspiracy theories, as the average person might not have the specialized knowledge to discern credible information.

Political divisions and ideological bubbles

Bonnell discusses how individuals can cater their internet experience to bolster preconceived notions, perpetuating small lies that support broader, more harmful narratives. He likens browsing the internet for information to drug abuse, as people tend to seek information that makes them feel good instead of focusing on truth or practicality, further entrenching political divisions.

Media incentives and the spread of misinformation

The sharability and amplification of conte ...

The political landscape is often marked by events that spur a wide array of interpretations regarding their significance and implications. A prime example of this is how the events of January 6th, 2021, are seen very differently by different political factions.

The events of January 6th, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, have been interpreted very differently by conservatives and liberals.

Stephen Bonnell discusses the timelines at the Capitol on January 6th and how Donald Trump’s tweets about staying peaceful came well after the breach, contrasting with attempts by conservatives to downplay the severity of the event. Bonnell and Sam Harris emphasize that the portrayal of the rioters shifted from "patriots" to claims of them being Antifa after the shooting of Ashli Babbitt and the arrival of the National Guard, displaying a changing rhetoric among those involved.

Many conservatives have downplayed the severity of the events, dismissing it as a relatively benign protest or even suggesting it was a false flag operation.

Conservatives have referred to the aggressive mob as "protesters" or suggested that the event was a false flag, even employing revolutionary language during the attacks, a fact highlighted by Bonnell when he discusses the use of terms like "patriots."

In contrast, Bonnell and others see the events as a clear and dangerous violation of democratic norms, with the potential for much more serious consequences had certain key figures acted differently.

Bonnell implies that the events resembled an attempted revolution and discusses the potential dangers posed to democratic norms. He puts a finer point on the issue by stressing what could have happened if individuals like Vice President Mike Pence had acted differently, suggesting that the peaceful transfer of power was in jeopardy.

The ongoing debates around the 2020 presidential election and allegations of voter fraud highlight the deep divisions in how people interpret the same set of facts.

The aftermath of the 2020 presidential election continues to illustrate how profoundly divided interpretations of events can be within the United States.

Conservatives have embraced the narrative of a "stolen" election, despite a lack of credible evidence, while liberals view these claims as baseless and damaging to democratic institutions.

The false narrative of a "stolen" election is prevalent among conservatives, bolstered by President Trump’s refusal to ...

The US experiences deepening political and cultural divisions due in part to the rise of Trumpism, with increasing challenges to democratic practices and a growing chasm between conservative and liberal attitudes.

The rise of Trumpism and the associated populist, nationalist, and often anti-democratic tendencies within the Republican Party have exacerbated existing political and cultural divides.

Harris describes Trump's political success as astonishing, given his apparent lack of traditional political qualities and fraudulent persona. The cult of personality around Trump has significantly deepened political and cultural divides within the country.

Conservatives have become increasingly willing to embrace controversial or unethical tactics and rhetoric in pursuit of their political goals, sometimes at the expense of democratic norms and institutions.

Bonnell points out that Trump's influence has led to a situation where conservative media, and, by extension, conservatives themselves, engage in controversial or arguably unethical reporting tactics to support Trump. He references the loyalty Trump demands and the penalties imposed on figures like George Kemp and Brad Raffensperger for not supporting attempts to overturn election results in Georgia. This suggests that there's a strategy by some conservatives that might be at odds with democratic norms.

Liberals, in turn, have become more resolute in their opposition to Trumpism, leading to a hardening of political positions on both sides and a growing sense of mutual distrust and hostility.

Harris comments on Trump's popularity despite his clear lack of political competence. It indicates a trend where supporters might prize fame and entertainment value over substantive qualifications, willing to overlook or embrace unethical behaviors to further their political agenda. He also mentions the tension between those strongly averse to Trump's behaviors and those who support him due to his stance against “wokeism” and criticism of perceived problems in Washington. This amplifies the difficulty in finding common political ground.

Moreover, Harris describes a demographic that ignores Trump's norm violations, highlighting mistrust in mainstream reporting and a preference for alternative narratives that confirm their own beliefs.

The differing worldviews and information diets of conservatives and liberals have made it increasingly difficult to find common ground and reach bipartis ...