Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Good morning, Roca Nation. Here are today’s four need-to-know stories:
Texas filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, alleging they concealed potential links between Tylenol use during pregnancy and autism in children
OpenAI finalized a restructuring that converted the company into a public benefit corporation and granted Microsoft a 27% ownership stake valued at roughly $135B
Trump Media announced a cryptocurrency-based prediction market platform
Bill Gates urged people to stop warning that climate change would destroy humanity, a departure from his past advocacy (free)
By Max Frost
We’ve made today’s story free for all readers, given the importance of the topic. We created Roca out of a passion for free speech and debate. Today, that’s under attack from both sides.
People on the two ends of the political spectrum disagree on a lot. They view each other as either fascists or Antifa; consider deportations either a necessity or an evil; or see Trump as a generational leader or threat.
Yet there is one thing they can agree on: No more debate.
This weekend, The Economist’s top editors released an interview with Steve Bannon, the influential pro-Trump commentator who helped mastermind the MAGA movement. In it, Bannon says the time for conversation is over.
“It’s no longer about debate,” he said, referencing those who oppose Trump’s agenda. “You’re not going to reason with these people. You think you’re going to rationally sit there and go, ‘Oh there’s a great concentration of wealth…and can we have some more?’”
Bannon continued: “Did you see what happened in the tax increase in this bill? It got shut off to the side. They’re not interested in having a debate!”
Then, a day later, Zeteo – the left-wing outlet run by pro-Palestine commentator Mehdi Hasan – published an article by Sarah Stein Lubrano, an academic, entitled, “You Don’t Argue With Extremists. You Organize Against Them.”
The writer proceeded to make the same argument as Bannon, but in reverse:
“Studies show debate doesn’t work as a tool of persuasion, and we can’t use it to affect political change in that way. Organizing and action can,” she wrote.
She claims that debate is not just ineffective, but actively harmful: “The structure surrounding debate serves a legitimizing function. The rules and procedures make it appear that what happens thereafter must be fair, even if that is far from the case. If there was a debate and one person was made to seem a fool, they must really be a fool.”
We decided to make today’s deep-dive free for all readers, because we at Roca are firm believers in debate. If you are too – and believe in supporting non-partisan independent media – please consider becoming a premium member. Premium members are the backbone of our business.
To Bannon, debate can’t be tolerated because there is no time.
In his interview with The Economist, he said that the world is currently in 1939: The “kinetic part” of World War III is underway in Ukraine and the Middle East; governments are out of money; AI is threatening mass unemployment; and aggressive leftwing ideologies are on the march.
“This is my whole problem with the concept of liberal debate,” he said. “We’re in a revolutionary time, technologically, geopolitically, financially.”
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Lubrano, on the other hand, says this is exactly why there shouldn’t be debate: Because of the threat posed by “fascists” like Trump and Bannon, and the inability of debate to stop them.
She writes:
In 2019, researchers compiled data on the voting intentions of people before and after watching televised debates, from the famous Kennedy vs Nixon debate onwards. They looked at 56 debates in 22 elections from around the world between the years of 1952 and 2016. The data included responses from nearly 100,000 people and examined whether it made people switch candidates or impacted the decisions of undecided voters. They found no evidence for either…
This might be surprising to hear. As I write in my newest book, the “West” is steeped in debate culture, where debate is prized as part of how everything works – school, the news, parliaments, and social media. It’s even worked into the algorithm that structures what we see on the internet. My Instagram reels never do so well as when people fight furiously in the comments.
It makes sense that debates do not change minds once one considers psychology. Psychological research shows political beliefs are not very alterable through argument, evidence, or information – especially compared to other beliefs.
Here’s her solution:
We can help people encounter ‘gateway actions’ like asking them if they have clothes to donate to migrants or encouraging them to start with composting. These actions have the potential to change minds. They appear to help people get more and more invested in social movements and ideas over time…
But, there’s a catch:
Realistically, none of this will be possible with the hardcore fascists, nor is that the best use of our time.
Embedded in this line of thinking is an arrogance: That I am right, they are wrong, and if I can’t persuade them, the problem is them. But this is a recipe for bad ideas: Debate is what forces people to sharpen their arguments. By trying to opt out of it, both Bannon and Lubrano seek to exempt their ideas from pressure and scrutiny.
I think, therefore it is.
Bannon and Labruno both say they want to save American democracy. In the process, they risk throwing it out.
Editor’s Note
If you enjoyed this article and are concerned about both parties’ attacks on free speech and debate, please consider becoming a premium member. These concerns are a major reason why we started Roca, and we only exist today because of our members. If you support our mission, please subscribe.
For months, we’ve floated doing a debate series where we feature articles from readers with opposing viewpoints. Would you all like that? Would you be interested in writing or reading? Please let us know. If you all want that, we’d love to do it. Let us know by replying here.
Thanks for the replies to yesterday’s story on Zohran Mamdani’s father. Sharing a couple of emails below.
BB from Brooklyn wrote:
I am confused as to why anti-colonizers come to the world’s most prosperous “colony” at all. It seems completely contrary to their beliefs and hypocritical. Is the goal only to dismantle or to create their own “colony” of likeminded radicals? It really sounds like both Mamdanis hate this country and everything they believe it stands for.
Either way, the prospect of Zohran running NYC is terrifying to me. I am an observant Jewish convert living in Brooklyn. I have been a lifelong liberal and democrat, would generally fall right into his category of supporters, but can no longer align my own beliefs with this ilk. I am scared for my husband who wears a kippah. I am scared for my daughters who will grow up in a Jewish community. All this anti-Israel, anti-Jewish rhetoric from someone about to govern the second largest population of Jews outside of Israel…if you’re going to move to America to hate on it then maybe you shouldn’t be here?
And Tim from Columbus, OH said:
Great deep dive into those writings. I'm sure there's more. As a student of history, and former teacher of, he probably makes a good point on colonialism, etc. However, this quote: “We need to recognize the suicide bomber, first and foremost, as a category of soldier… Suicide bombing needs to be understood as a feature of modern political violence rather than stigmatized as a mark of barbarism.” is so wrong on so many levels. A "soldier" is not to be killing unarmed innocent civilians....women, children, etc. And this guy is an academic? Not when you got a quote like that you aren't. Not in my book.
And if you’re looking for more reading, check out our latest below:
That’s all, thanks for reading.
—Max and Max
