Three years ago, I registered a complaint about the evangelical debates over “winsomeness.” Specifically, I said that these debates almost all treat interpersonal dynamics as Internet things.
My goal in life is to be as good a critical question-asker as Ross. There's rarely any "gotcha" moments; just a serious concern for understanding clearly what other people think and how those ideas touch reality.
I think you’re on to something that a critique of winsomeness stems from the digitization of our lives. And sure it’s not a good thing if your winsomeness is for show or an act, but I think for a lot of people I see who care about this sort of thing, they’re looking to take seriously growing in the fruit of the Spirit.
I don't listen to Douthat because I don't trust him.
I don't listen to podcasts because I think they're a waste of time (I can read much faster).
But after your article here, I might have to give Douthat's podcast a few tries.
I really liked the Thiel clip you embedded. When it takes you 30 seconds of uhmms to start your answer to the question of "Should the human race survive?"... and you start with "Yes, but"... you're dangerous. That would not have come through on the transcript.
I do have a disagreement though.
"When people want the company of others, when they desire things like conversation, friendship, and cooperation, they don’t immediately frisk the people in their lives for the wrong political views."
Do you really not do this? I ask because nearly everyone does. I doubt you would be friends with David Duke or Nick Fuentes. I've lost friends who went so far Left they became insufferable to spend time with. Setting viewpoint boundaries for your social relationships is a key part of maintaining stability in any society. What makes our time different is that we're convinced so many of our fellow citizens fall outside of those boundaries.
"they don’t immediately frisk the people in their lives for the wrong political views"
I think the word "immediately" is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence--also, I'd argue that guys like Nick Fuentes, David Duke, and your insufferable lefty friends aren't bad people because of their politics, but because of their attitudes that are upstream from their politics.
To put it another way, I could be friends with someone who voted for Kamala Harris/Donald Trump because they thought the alternative would destroy the country. I could not be friends with someone who voted for Harris because they want to have consequence-free sex and want to be able to abort any accidental children, and I could not be friends with someone who voted for Trump because they want him to deport all the immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
I can’t fathom a person who considered their TDS to be more important than the insanity that was everything 2020 onward. The guy sends mean tweets, you’re going to destroy the country because they upsets you.
If you really think that the only reason someone might object to Trump is "mean tweets" you might want to rethink things. I did not vote for Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020, or Harris in 2024 (or anyone to those people's left), and I can think of a lot of his decisions that someone might think boded ill for America if he were to become president again.
Yeah, it’s hard to come up with anything Trump has done that is that bad. Nothing remotely on the level of Covid, the great awokening, or bidens inflation.
If you think mean tweets are the equiviliant being forced to mask toddlers for two years, i just don’t know what planet your on. You can log of led twitter if you don’t like trump. I couldn’t log off my state being locked down.
Tremendous! Super-helpful. How in the world are we going to expose bad ideas if we don't engage with those promoting them? I fully trust that King Jesus is returning and there won't be the smallest grain of a bad idea in His Coming Kingdom. Christ was not remotely intimidated by the rotten ideas emanating from Hell nor of their author. Satan has "no hold" (John 14:30) over him. Of all people we should be the least intimidated of confronting hellish ideas. I hope Douthat does invite Nick Fuentes to his podcast! We would get a very clear idea of who Fuentes's real father is.
"Ross isn’t trying to embarrass Thiel. But he’s not trying to let him hide behind jargon, either. This is an amazing moment because listeners can hear and see Thiel struggling to decide whether he can fully endorse the survival of the human race."
He asked Thiel a lot of questions - Do they believe what they are saying? Are they hyping the technology? Are they trying to raise money? Is it hype? Is it delusion? Is it something you worry about? Should the human race survive? Then Theil had to first think about what he thought about the description Ross gave about his peers. How accurate was it? If it was, which of the questions would he answer first? What is the best way to answer all of these questions? So, how do you answer this question thoughtfully? Um... Then Ross him attacked him for not answering his last question immediately! Trying to make him look like a fool.
I'm not a fan of Thiel, but Ross was being the opposite of winsome. What an strange clip choice to use. It's completely at odds with your thesis.
Samuel, solid synopsis and insights. One note I would make about the instance with Thiel is that Ross asked an extended question, paused, then laid out options, paused, and then asked about the survival of the human race. As someone trying to parse Douthat's question and Thiel being quite the stutterer, I don't necessarily see the pause as so much an unveiling as it was Thiel gathering thoughts for multiple questions asked simultaneously. Nonetheless, Thiel is all in on Transhumanism, but is definitely a more sophisticated interlocutor than Wilson. With Wilson, we genuinely get a model for these types of discussions. Thanks for sharing.
Totally brilliant! I am a British fan of Douthat's NYT column and do sometimes listen to his podcast. My problem is that in the UK there are so many great culture-war free podcasts that I could spend too much time listening to them, but that is a nice problem for someone British! Douthat is an example for all of us.
This is a lot closer to what it used to mean to have “debates” or meaningful investigative interviews.
The abandonment of civility and communication customs, what’s here called “winsomeness” is cause by removing the element of violence. I’ve noticed that I communicate very differently from my peers who (fortunately) did not grow up with violent authority figures. The possibility of violence underscores all of our communication norms.
That Thiel clip really stopped me too. When you need a long string of ‘uhmms’ just to approach the question ‘Should the human race survive?’ and your first instinct is basically ‘yes… but’ you’ve already revealed where your theology is bending. That hesitation says more than any transcript ever could.
That method of questioning you describe appears to be a version of Socratic dialogue/questioning. As far as I know, law schools and some philosophy courses were the last major settings for that in American society, but it is greatly diminished in the law schools and I’m not sure whether it still exists in philosophy or not. A shame.
a family showed up to my door at halloween trick or treating, kids and all, all dressed as ICE agents.
because this was real life, i gave them a candy, i tried to be as polite as possible, and as they were leaving i flashed the parents a look like “really??”
on the internet i probably would have been a lot more confrontational
My goal in life is to be as good a critical question-asker as Ross. There's rarely any "gotcha" moments; just a serious concern for understanding clearly what other people think and how those ideas touch reality.
I think you’re on to something that a critique of winsomeness stems from the digitization of our lives. And sure it’s not a good thing if your winsomeness is for show or an act, but I think for a lot of people I see who care about this sort of thing, they’re looking to take seriously growing in the fruit of the Spirit.
Good post, I've recently listened to the Wilson and Feminization debates you mention and came away quite impressed with Ross as well.
It's always a pleasure to listen to someone who is articulate and insightful.
I loved listening to Ross on The Argument and I'm grateful he is podcasting again!
I don't listen to Douthat because I don't trust him.
I don't listen to podcasts because I think they're a waste of time (I can read much faster).
But after your article here, I might have to give Douthat's podcast a few tries.
I really liked the Thiel clip you embedded. When it takes you 30 seconds of uhmms to start your answer to the question of "Should the human race survive?"... and you start with "Yes, but"... you're dangerous. That would not have come through on the transcript.
I do have a disagreement though.
"When people want the company of others, when they desire things like conversation, friendship, and cooperation, they don’t immediately frisk the people in their lives for the wrong political views."
Do you really not do this? I ask because nearly everyone does. I doubt you would be friends with David Duke or Nick Fuentes. I've lost friends who went so far Left they became insufferable to spend time with. Setting viewpoint boundaries for your social relationships is a key part of maintaining stability in any society. What makes our time different is that we're convinced so many of our fellow citizens fall outside of those boundaries.
"they don’t immediately frisk the people in their lives for the wrong political views"
I think the word "immediately" is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence--also, I'd argue that guys like Nick Fuentes, David Duke, and your insufferable lefty friends aren't bad people because of their politics, but because of their attitudes that are upstream from their politics.
To put it another way, I could be friends with someone who voted for Kamala Harris/Donald Trump because they thought the alternative would destroy the country. I could not be friends with someone who voted for Harris because they want to have consequence-free sex and want to be able to abort any accidental children, and I could not be friends with someone who voted for Trump because they want him to deport all the immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
I can’t fathom a person who considered their TDS to be more important than the insanity that was everything 2020 onward. The guy sends mean tweets, you’re going to destroy the country because they upsets you.
If you really think that the only reason someone might object to Trump is "mean tweets" you might want to rethink things. I did not vote for Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020, or Harris in 2024 (or anyone to those people's left), and I can think of a lot of his decisions that someone might think boded ill for America if he were to become president again.
Yeah, it’s hard to come up with anything Trump has done that is that bad. Nothing remotely on the level of Covid, the great awokening, or bidens inflation.
If you think mean tweets are the equiviliant being forced to mask toddlers for two years, i just don’t know what planet your on. You can log of led twitter if you don’t like trump. I couldn’t log off my state being locked down.
Duly noted, you're typing from an alternate timeline.
No one was ever talking about deporting all immigrants…
Speak for yourself. Defiantly wanted tens of millions of deportations.
There are tens of millions of illegal immigrants, not counting fraudulent H1Bs.
Before 2020 I didn’t consider people’s political views at all.
After 2020 I simply can’t be friends with a democrat.
Tremendous! Super-helpful. How in the world are we going to expose bad ideas if we don't engage with those promoting them? I fully trust that King Jesus is returning and there won't be the smallest grain of a bad idea in His Coming Kingdom. Christ was not remotely intimidated by the rotten ideas emanating from Hell nor of their author. Satan has "no hold" (John 14:30) over him. Of all people we should be the least intimidated of confronting hellish ideas. I hope Douthat does invite Nick Fuentes to his podcast! We would get a very clear idea of who Fuentes's real father is.
Excited to listen to this. Thanks for the recommendation, Samuel.
"Ross isn’t trying to embarrass Thiel. But he’s not trying to let him hide behind jargon, either. This is an amazing moment because listeners can hear and see Thiel struggling to decide whether he can fully endorse the survival of the human race."
He asked Thiel a lot of questions - Do they believe what they are saying? Are they hyping the technology? Are they trying to raise money? Is it hype? Is it delusion? Is it something you worry about? Should the human race survive? Then Theil had to first think about what he thought about the description Ross gave about his peers. How accurate was it? If it was, which of the questions would he answer first? What is the best way to answer all of these questions? So, how do you answer this question thoughtfully? Um... Then Ross him attacked him for not answering his last question immediately! Trying to make him look like a fool.
I'm not a fan of Thiel, but Ross was being the opposite of winsome. What an strange clip choice to use. It's completely at odds with your thesis.
I am a die hard Ezra fan, but there’s a serious contention that Douthat might overtake him as nyts best podcast
Samuel, solid synopsis and insights. One note I would make about the instance with Thiel is that Ross asked an extended question, paused, then laid out options, paused, and then asked about the survival of the human race. As someone trying to parse Douthat's question and Thiel being quite the stutterer, I don't necessarily see the pause as so much an unveiling as it was Thiel gathering thoughts for multiple questions asked simultaneously. Nonetheless, Thiel is all in on Transhumanism, but is definitely a more sophisticated interlocutor than Wilson. With Wilson, we genuinely get a model for these types of discussions. Thanks for sharing.
Totally brilliant! I am a British fan of Douthat's NYT column and do sometimes listen to his podcast. My problem is that in the UK there are so many great culture-war free podcasts that I could spend too much time listening to them, but that is a nice problem for someone British! Douthat is an example for all of us.
Thank you for this insightful look to
Douthat’s podcast. It is now in my playlist.
This is a lot closer to what it used to mean to have “debates” or meaningful investigative interviews.
The abandonment of civility and communication customs, what’s here called “winsomeness” is cause by removing the element of violence. I’ve noticed that I communicate very differently from my peers who (fortunately) did not grow up with violent authority figures. The possibility of violence underscores all of our communication norms.
That Thiel clip really stopped me too. When you need a long string of ‘uhmms’ just to approach the question ‘Should the human race survive?’ and your first instinct is basically ‘yes… but’ you’ve already revealed where your theology is bending. That hesitation says more than any transcript ever could.
That method of questioning you describe appears to be a version of Socratic dialogue/questioning. As far as I know, law schools and some philosophy courses were the last major settings for that in American society, but it is greatly diminished in the law schools and I’m not sure whether it still exists in philosophy or not. A shame.
a family showed up to my door at halloween trick or treating, kids and all, all dressed as ICE agents.
because this was real life, i gave them a candy, i tried to be as polite as possible, and as they were leaving i flashed the parents a look like “really??”
on the internet i probably would have been a lot more confrontational