Welcome to the nonprofits. Our second segment this week takes us to Florida again. In Florida's District thirty eight state House race, Democrats Sarah Henry is challenging Republican incumbent David Smith in a rematch that's drawing attention for Smith's negative campaign tactics. Henry, a former communications associate for the American Humanist Association, has previously defended church state separation on issues like Christian symbols in public land and state sponsored prayer
in schools. Smith's campaign attacks Henry by misrepresenting these stances, portraying her as anti Christian and labeling her as a radical atheist who hates Christians. In the real world, Henry's platform centers on affordable housing, reproductive rights, public education, gun safety,
and environmental protections. Smith's ads have raised eyebrows for focusing on Henry's beliefs rather than her policies, prompting criticism about the ethics of intentionally using religious bias in political attacks. Henry continues to counter these claims by emphasizing her ideas, which appeal to a broad based of Floridians regardless of religious background. The story is from The Friendly Atheist by him and Metta on October sixteenth, twenty twenty four. And
so I want to take this first to Kelly. Kelly Smith claims that Henry's beliefs or lack thereof, and her association with the American Humanis Humanist Association disqualifies her from office. Do his claims hold water? He says, knowing exactly what Kelly's going to say.
You know what, First off, let's let's define humanism, right, And I've got it written down here because I'm dumb and I wouldn't have remembered it. Humanist beliefs strust the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. Holy shit, Wow, what a crazy radical idea that is the radically Would you want that in our politics?
Holy correct?
We got to keep that out of here. I want to say, this guy has like the mentality of an NPC, but it's more like he has the mentality of a whole in the ground and not a frustrating dog one. Even Yeah, I just don't get it. I why, like I said, why are those values that would not fit right into politics?
Exactly.
I have no idea why.
Yeah, so Steven, let's take it. Let's take it over to you. Then, Mudslinging has been a common political tactic as long as there's been politics, right, So what do you affect do you think this tactic will have in this case?
And what could we do to mitigate those effects?
Like?
It just it's so it's so gross. I don't know, like maybe maybe I just have my head in the stand, but I just I personally don't get exposed to this
type of vitol vitriol in political advertising in anywhere. I don't know if that's just because Canadians are less prone to such, but this just seems like the perfect way to disenfranchise people from the whole process because nobody wants that kind of toxic nobody, no healthy person wants that kind of talxity in their sphere, within their identity, within
their political identity. Right, So you know, it means that we're going to, you know, keep intelligent people away, We're going to keep stupid people in rage, and I'm going to keep empowered people in charge. That's all that this kind of garbage accomplishes, really and just makes the whole discourse the whole dialogue watered down from what exactly should be focused on them. It should be looking at public policy.
Now it's just flinging crap about what this person is or isn't and trying to, you know, gin up some fear about what it could possibly mean, using buzzwords that people think that they understand.
I think you do about it.
I don't know, right, like building these these evil straw man stereotype atheists that are out to get all Christians that you know the guy's talking about. So, yeah, exactly, I totally agree with what Stephen just said.
Well, it seems like that's kind of the low hanging psychological fruit, right. I mean, people react like there's knee jerk reaction if you say certain words, and so hey, I'll just say those words and and uh, you know that'll make everything happen, right, Uh, let's over to to sorry, go ahead say that again, Stephen, Just.
That there are people whose brains are wired to respond that way. If you are motivated by fear, and then hope that is triggered in my brain. Okay, I gotta I got to do something now, And like that's that's a part of our society as well, we can't just say well, sorry, no, stupid people allowed to get stupid people don't get to vote. But what it's complex, complex.
Yeah, I want to I want to jump to Damien real quick here. Damien, we've been kind of hinting that maybe this type of thing should be restricted in some way, although you know, once you get down to the nuts and bolts, it might be a little tricky. Could you add anything about mud slinging as a tactic in general, and about harm from such a tactic and how could it be mitigated?
Mud Slinging is a tactic is as old as politics itself. Is the uh yeah is mob's aviation And look, American politics will do American politics things. And in a deep red state like Florida, it's almost a feature, not a bug, that someone will use the battleground of religion to push why they should be voted in and not the other person.
In terms of mudslinging, unfortunately, unless you want to literally control what everybody says, you know, sentence by sentence, word by word, then yeah, I don't think you are ever going to stop a mudsling But I think the best way to stop mudslinging is by a stop rewarding it, and to educate the public to be more literate with how politics works, because for the vast majority of people, they don't understand exactly how politics works, the nature of parliament,
the voting system, things like that. Whereas for us who are a bit more politically is stue to understand these things and actually who actually have an active interest, Yeah, we see this and go oh, he's just you know, he's just throwing mud to the wall and seeing what sticks. Whereas to the average person who is you know, only slightly politically engaged, you know that they will see, you know that the flyer in the letterbox and go oh, this person says, you know, children are doing witchcraft or
stuff like that. So I think that the way we stop mudslinging is one to stop rewarding it and to teach people to be more engaged in civil politics.
So knowledge is power kind of a thing.
Yeah indeed. And so look, look, if you see the mud slinging that David Smith and his ilk are doing and you like what he says, okay, you have the freedom to vote for him because you like his policies, right, But I think the other way to stop it is to enact an authoritarian regime that literally dictates what you can and can't say, like you have to have your messages approved by some higher power, in which case it becomes that's almost you know, I wouldn't want to say
fascists as a as a trophe would, but you know, when when the government controls what you can and can't say, I think that enters a very dangerous territory.
Yeah, yeah, definitely I would agree with that.
That's it's it's definitely something that it's easier said than done. If we say we want this to be restricted or regulated some way, that's one thing, but then you know, when the rubber meets the road, it's a different thing. And so it might be it would be hard to do that without stamping on other rights that we would value and and hold as something worthy. Kelly, I want
to go over to you for a second. Steven mentioned that just some people just think that way, right, and so it's a it's a question of human psychology here, and so would you would you say that people that use these types of smear tact we know that they work.
We know that these types of negative ads are effective in drawing voters, and so do you think that they're just hitting low the belt or do you think that they're being very savvy politicians or savvy uh candidates here in utilizing I was going to say manipulating, but you could you could take this interpret this.
I interpret this in two different ways.
Either you could view it as manipulating or you could view it as interpreting or even catering to the human psyche. What's your what's your take on that is this? Is this just bad politics or is it good psychology?
It's you know, it's both. Actually, if you think about it, it's good politics and good psychology, right because it's working, so it's good politics. It's a it's a shit backing up shitty ideals, but it's working, so for for politics, it's good. It's so funny that you would just ask me this too, because Steven had mentioned that some people
are kind of wired that way. And I was just having a conversation this morning about a sociologist from Canada, Manitoba, actually Bob Altmeyer, and he did a lot of studies and authoritarian mindsets and his work was fascinating, you know, and I couldn't remember if he was from Manitoba or Alberta to be honest with you, so he would and look him up, and sadly I found out he passed away last February. But I mean, he did some really, really amazing work on authoritarian mindsets and he found that
there were actually two groups of people. And that's why I said, you can go ahead and say exploit, because that's what one of the groups of people do. They're the authorities, and they exploit the people who need to have an authority figure over them. They really cannot function in a society without being told what to do, and there are people who will come along and exploit that.
And that's why people like this guy right here is so popular with his voters is because he's got a whole bunch of people who have an authoritarian mindset that need to be told what to do, and he's coming along being the big bully and it's working. It's great politics and it's great psychology.
Fair enough, fair enough, Steven, I want to We've been talking about the handed it and about the victim candidate as well, But what's the media's responsibility in this.
The media is providing the platform, is uh.
The media is the is the tool that's being used to enact these types of ads and attacks and so forth. What's their responsibility and in uh, in making sure information is presented accurately and in context and so forth.
Yeah, Like it's it's uh, it's it's a bit of a hot potato, right. I know. One ruling that recently past here in Canada that hasn't been popular is now a social media sites such as Facebook, you are not allowed to post links to news articles in and disseminate those through your Facebook feed. And that's you know, met with you know, reactions from both sides saying, well why
why why is it being censored this way? But at the same time, it's like it's it's at least one way that social media is being held accountable for for the potential for spreading misinformation? Uh?
Yeah?
Should should media companies be held responsible for the messaging that they are putting out there? Like if they're a megaphone, do you sue the megaphone company for the messages that are being blasted out through that megaphone? I don't. I don't think it's going to be that simple, especially knowing that they media companies are run by humans, and they are run by humans who want to be rich. Like, no matter which way you slice it, there's going to be people who can benefit and people who can be
you know, negatively impacted by these kinds of actions. And so it's it's going to come down to money. Media, isn't it's a free enterprise. It's no, it's not the easy solution.
Right right, Damien, I want you to to build on what Stephen was just saying. So Stephen was suggesting that you know, that's that's that's just the way it is. You know that that's you know, we're just gonna it's gonna it's a difficult it's a hot potato, he said. And so we need to be careful when it comes to regulating or restricting free press, which is part of
our First Amendment along with the freedom of religion. And so, but do you think that we as a as a community, as as consumers should expect media to maybe police themselves rather than being you know, having restrictions infringed from without from the government.
Would that be?
So?
Could that there was a day when when news organizations would strive to have integrity and have a solid reputation for for bringing the truth and for and for helping
people and for educating the public. Do you think that those days are lost or do you think that they would be welcomed back, if, if, if, even if there was somebody trying it, which there probably is, but obviously they're not very well known or not not one of the biggies, right, and so do you think that maybe some self regulation is an expect that's realistic?
Well, look in the establishment media already, like with TV, radio and print, there are already codes of conduct that the that the media companies have to abide by as well. So and given the fact that social media sites are essentially another form of media, I don't see the problem too much of a problem with with them having to
add disia policies. I think one of the biggest problems though, is is when you have jurisdictions that make laws on what a multinational, multinational social media site can and can't do. So Stephen was saying that in Canada, you know, there's certain laws that Facebook have to apply by there. We are also talking about the same thing down here in Australia as well, not just on a federal level, but
on a state level as well. So I think one of the biggest challenges you have is that how do you how does a government stop a person in the dung hole Wisconsin from you know, violating you know, from violating a policy that's enacted by a Canadian government about a company that's based in California. You know, you have all these different or all these different things. So I think we have to I don't think the solution is
shutting down voices. I think the better solution is a plurality of voices as well, so people have the ability to weigh up. You know, what is a source saying where are they getting the information from? You know, is there a financial benefit to this person posting this political story? Is there a political bias? You know, things like that. I think the better education is not to restrict speech,
but to open it up. But teach people how to be how to judge nw ones, how to discern, how to see where, how to balance sources, how teaching people how to be critical is how I think that we should go about it.
Sorry, go ahead, Kelley.
I'd like to say. The problem they see with that, that is the George Caylin dilemma. Right, that have common senses, the average intelligence isn't very smart and half the people are dumber than that, So you're never going to be able to teach half the people that how to find
how to tell if it's a good source. Plus, we're going to have this certain population and we were just talking about that, Robert Oldmeyers studied that aren't even going to bother the Look, they're just going to take the authority figure's word for it and say, yeah, he's right, because you know, he told me he was and he's you know.
Yeah, yeah, But I suppose a lot you're always going to have that problem in society. Like even if you were in a society like let's say Harvard or you know, Oxford or you know, somewhere where there's like a world class educational institution, and even inside those educational institutions you have people with downright crazy silly ideas as well.
So right, right, yeah, Well, I'm just curious, like when I hear plurality, maybe there needs to be you know, the right wing fear mongering. Maybe there needs to be you know, the essal you know, like let's look at this critical and maybe there needs be like left wing fear mongering that you know that those people as well. Yeah, maybe, right, I'm not. It doesn't seem to me that it's as as thick, as heavy, as hard.
No it's not. It's not anywhere near as popular, but it's definitely out there.
And that's the idea of the Overton window, right that you know, when you have two positions that you know, you'll kind you want to uh, you'll end up in the middle somewhere, ye, Right. If we have political figures who are like, hey, if I stretch this far enough, that means that the middle will move in accordance. And so maybe is the response then to like, okay, let's get really extreme and talk about these uh, you know extreme, these blood cult extremists who want to you know, enforce
their religion. Well, will that have the opposite effect? Will that garner them more boats?
I don't know, right right, Yeah, I mean I think that we I can. I can hear what you're saying, and I agree we definitely need to uh present the critical mind, the the the thoughtful mind, the reasonable mind. As a math teacher, I can say that I know full well that human nature is to be lazy thinkers. I say that all the time. Don't be a lazy thinker.
Think hard thing, you know, think difficult things, and so Steven think harder and and so we want to we want to make sure that we want to encourage people to not shy away from from the difficult tasks of Well, I suppose that's wasn't that JFK Right. We're not doing this because it's easy. We're doing it because it's difficult.
And and that's kind of the same thing too. If we want to, uh, if we want to have if we want to have that integrity, if as a nation, not just as a as a media outlet, but if we want to have that integrity and that uh, that respect, we need to show that we're willing to put in the time and and to put and to make the effort to to understand the situation we're in.
We have this, uh, at least for now.
We have this democratic system in the United States where people get to express their votes and to participate in the government.
And so I think, you.
Know, at least part of the reasoning behind things like public education and that kind of thing is we want an educated population. And so it's easy to see that we all want to kind of push things in this direction where people aren't afraid to do the to do the thinking to consider different positions in different directions. Is that something that's possible. Maybe that can be kind of
our closing question here. We'll start with Kelly first, Do you think that Do you think we're just wasting our time trying to encourage people to think critically and to be to.
Utilize reason and that kind of thing.
Do you think we're wasting our time and that people are just going to default to the easiest route no matter what.
I had that That to me is a two part question, right, yes and no. I think again, I think there's a certain population that we could talk to until we're blue in the face and are never going to freaking get it right. But I think there is also a growing population of people that are that can here and they
are listening, and they are educating themselves. And if you don't know how to educate yourself, if you've never done it before, great way to start is pick up a hobby, start to start educating yourself about something that you like a lot, and that'll teach you how to educate yourself, and then you can start getting into the other some of the other things that you should be learning about.
So damn straight and coming from a self made scientist too, Kelly, that's that's that's a well taken that's a point well taken there. I want to jump over to Steven. Do you think Kelly's on point there? Do you think this is a something that can be done as somebody who spends a lot of time trying to communicate with people, trying to present ideas in such a way that so that others can understand them clearly? Do you think we're
wasting our time with this? Do you think people are gonna Like earlier tonight Damien said Americans are going to American or I can't remember exactly how you said it, but are we kind of stuck in this rutter?
Or can we? Is this a winnable fight here?
Like, I don't. I don't think it's necessarily the end result, the outcome that matters most. It's the journey, right, Like, if somebody needs to be doing this in order for humans to survive for as thrive for as long as possible, we need to be doing that hard work. So yeah, like even if we don't, if even if it isn't a battle to be won, it's what we accomplish along
the way that that matters. So hitting yeah, like, yeah, even if we don't get every person thinking the way that they should be, if we don't do the work that we're supposed to, then what chance is there that we're going to get anybody to do something. It's not the outcome that matters, but it's out what we're doing along the way.
All right, Damien, I'll give you the last word. You've heard what Kelly and Stephen have to say about that. What what are your thoughts? Is this a is this a worthy battle? Or is this a lost battle?
Already?
Well, look, human history has been is carried on the backs of those who see the need for change and are willing to do something about it. However, I don't think like this problem has been going on for you know, millennia, as long as there have been societies of people who believe things you have. Yeah, you'll always have a certain section of the population that will believe extreme things, be on the left or the right, and you do have some smart people who believe some crazy things in general
as well. So I think that the best way is to get your voice out there and try clearly explain your position, but also be willing to listen to other people's positions in case you get something wrong.
I think that's a great way to end the segment. Get your voice out there be heard. But I also be willing to listen.