 What’s in it for me?

Find out how a professional talk show host takes down

misguided opinions.
 The treatment of Islam in the press has led people to embrace dangerous ideas that
threaten human rights.
 Many Brexit supporters were seemingly fooled by a deceitful Leave campaign that
went largely unchallenged.
 When people oppose homosexuality on moral or religious grounds, their argument
doesn’t bear scrutiny.
 The phrase “political correctness” has become politicized and used to incite anger
over non-issues.
 In conversations about feminism, people have revealed a desire to return to troubling
traditions.
 Arguments about a “nanny state” are often a cover for feelings of selfishness and
superiority.
 Trump reveals just how effective it can be to provide people with scapegoats and get
them to shut off their brains.
 Final summary

What’s in it for me? Find out how a

professional talk show host takes down
misguided opinions.
James O’Brien’s radio phone-in has over a million listeners. Over the past 14 years, he’s been
in a unique position to hear from a wide variety of British citizens and listen to their
concerns. One thing he’s come to realize is that many people these days are taking what they
read online for granted. They’re not questioning or challenging the opinions they’re exposed
to.

In talking to a wide variety of callers, O’Brien has gained a great deal of experience in getting
people to look at the bigger picture. In fact, many of his conversations have gone on to
become viral sensations thanks to O’Brien’s ability to tear apart a flimsy argument.

For many of today’s most pressing issues, from immigration and Brexit to feminism and
Trump, O’Brien has a few memorable callers. Each of these conversations perfectly reflects
the ongoing problem of unchallenged opinions. The conversations also show just how easily
badly formed opinions fall apart once someone begins to challenge them with logic, reason,
and facts. In these blinks, we’ll analyze some of O’Brien’s conversations and discover how to
uncover the truth behind the news.
In these blinks, you’ll also find out

 how pro-Leave arguments can quickly fall apart;

 how arguments against political correctness can be a reaction to a false rumor; and
 how examples of a “nanny state” are often worthy fights against corporate greed.

The treatment of Islam in the press has led

people to embrace dangerous ideas that
threaten human rights.
When the author was growing up in Britain in the 1970s and 80s, there were extreme tensions
brought on by IRA bombings. At the time, his father was a reporter, and because of the
apostrophe in his last name, he received letters accusing him of supporting the Irish militants
and “having the blood of murdered children on his hands.”

Unfortunately, the kind of logic this demonstrates hasn’t diminished over time. Only now,
rather than every Irish person being looked at as a potential terrorist, it’s every Muslim. In
fact, thanks to online comment boards and social media platforms like Twitter, it would
appear that the willingness for broad generalizations has only increased.

But perhaps even more disconcerting is that news and media outlets like the Sun, the Daily
Mirror, Fox News, Breitbart, and even the Daily Telegraph, have used fear-mongering tactics
to grab readers’ attention, stoking tensions even further. The Sun, which is the best-selling
newspaper in the UK, ran commentary under the headline, “If We Want Peace… We Need
Less Islam.”

As the host of a radio call-in show, the author has spoken with people who’ve clearly been
influenced to categorize all Muslims as being somehow guilty of terrorist acts.

One such caller was Richard, from the town of Marlowe, who felt that Muslim people owed
an apology for the attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo. After all, those responsible
for the attack claimed to be acting in the name of Islam. The author spoke with Richard for
some time about how it was far from reasonable to ask someone who had nothing to do with
the attack to apologize because a person claiming responsibility invoked the word “Islam.”
To make his point, O’Brien raised a scenario where someone committed an act of terrorism in
the name of Richards everywhere. Surely, Richard the caller wouldn’t feel the need to
apologize, right?

Unfortunately, in the years that followed, people continued to call with similar views to
Richard. One caller by the name of Martin suggested that Muslims as a group need to be
better at “weeding out their own bad apples.” Indeed, it seems the fact that even though there
are multiple, very distinct and different branches of Islam, such as Sunni and Shia, too many
still stick to the popular idea that all Muslims are the same.

Many Brexit supporters were seemingly

fooled by a deceitful Leave campaign that
went largely unchallenged.
These days, it’s all too easy for an idea to enter the mainstream without being properly
scrutinized. So, one of the things the author tries to do on his radio show is to challenge the
opinions that are being lazily retweeted and shared on social media.

Often, he simply asks the callers to defend and support their positions with details and facts.
This was certainly the case with callers who accepted the reasons pro-Leave spokespeople
gave for wanting to break from the EU. One of the more popular reasons was that Britain was
being forced to obey unfair or somehow hurtful EU laws.

Caller Andy, from Nottingham, voted to leave under the belief that Britain would benefit
from “independence and so we could control our own laws.” As he does when any caller
brings up “laws,” the author asked Andy to name one law that he was eager not to be forced
into obeying.

After some back and forth, Andy admitted he couldn’t name one law, shifting his position to
immigration, which is what many conversations about Brexit ultimately end up focusing on.
This is because the pro-Leave faction, which has the support of right-wing news outlets like
the Daily Mail, has regularly suggested that immigration has somehow been harming the
economy, driving down wages or otherwise affecting the daily lives of the average British
citizen.

The facts, however, are that the only evidence of wage compression related to immigration is
strictly a small one in the unskilled labor market. This wouldn’t affect Andy, who’d recently
started his own business. So in the call Andy admitted that it was seeing “mobs of
immigrants” in the city center who were “not willing to integrate” that was really bothering
him. The author then asked how leaving the EU was going to change anything about the
supposed mob of immigrants who were already living in Nottingham.

Andy then back-peddled a bit, clarifying that it was not a matter of race, and that he didn’t
like mobs of “Englishmen” in the middle of town either. By the end of the conversation both
Andy and the author were laughing since he seemingly voted Leave because he doesn’t like
mobs of people or following laws he doesn’t know anything about.
But what isn’t funny is that Britain’s decision to leave is already hurting small businesses like
Andy’s. And while the pro-Leave faction claims that the initial economic downturn will be
short-lived, this is another statement that requires a lot of unquestioning faith to believe in.

When people oppose homosexuality on moral

or religious grounds, their argument doesn’t
bear scrutiny.
Unlike other issues that become topics of public debate, no one is making the claim that
homosexuality is taking away jobs or eating up public tax money. Indeed, the argument
against homosexuality often comes from a moral standpoint, though the origin of that
morality is usually dubious when questioned.

Take for instance, the persistent belief that homosexuality is a personal lifestyle choice,
which, it bears pointing out, is a belief that has so far only been voiced by male callers on the
author’s show. Whenever this line of argument comes up, the author has a standard reply:
“So when did you choose to be straight?” This often cuts right to the absurdity of the
argument since it implies that everyone is equally attracted to all sexes and makes a decision.
The caller may then get flustered and bring up religion.

Caller David suggested that the Bible, both the Old and New Testament, is unambiguous in
telling us that homosexuality is a sin. When it comes to the New Testament, the author likes
to point out the difference between the Gospels, and what Jesus is quoted as having said, and
what someone like Saint Paul, who never met Jesus, said. It’s accurate to say that Jesus was
never quoted as saying anything about homosexuality. That means more than a letter that
Paul wrote about his personal concerns, which has been open to a lot of different
interpretations over the years.

One of the most frequently cited passages of the Bible concerning homosexuality is in the
Old Testament: Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22, which reads, “You shall not lie with a male as
with a woman; It is an abomination.” If someone brings this up, you can then remind them of
the fact that chapter 11, verses 10 to 12, also state that it is an abomination to eat anything
from the sea that does not have “fins and scales.”

If that’s not enough to convince someone that certain parts of the Bible might be outdated,
you can remind them that Leviticus chapter 19, verse 19, also considers wearing “garments
made of two different kinds of thread” to be an “abomination.” And working on the Sabbath?
That’s considered bad enough to be stoned to death.
The phrase “political correctness” has become
politicized and used to incite anger over non-
issues.
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four envisages a future dystopia that continues to impress
with its insights into modern society. One such detail is what the book calls “Two Minutes
Hate,” in which the people are prodded into a daily ritual of getting angry about abstract and
unclear matters. It doesn’t matter what the subject is – just that people feel enraged. In fact,
the point is that people can easily redirect that rage anywhere.

This anger is exactly what the tabloid newspapers in Britain excel at. Every day, they give
people some vague and often nonsensical reason to be angry. Often, these excuses to get
enraged are framed as an example of “political correctness gone mad!”

A classic example of this is the legacy of Winterval. Winterval is a harmless bit of news that
has persisted for years thanks to right-wingers who want everyone to believe British
traditions are being corrupted by cultural invaders. The common misconception is that the
word Winterval was introduced to replace Christmas. As caller Andrew from Erith
complained, “You can’t celebrate [Christmas] in case it offends other people… You have to
call it Winterval now.”

But if Andrew had actually questioned this idea rather than accepting it at face value, he’d
have found out that Winterval was an idea invented by Mike Chubb, a city planner in
Birmingham. All Chubb wanted to do was find a way to make the end-of-year festivities in
the city last longer. By calling it Winterval, which is short for winter festival, Chubb believed
he’d found a way for the city to have a three-month celebration. The goal behind this lengthy
festival was to cut costs by only having to put up one set of decorations for multiple holidays.
Included in these holidays was, of course, Christmas.

Nobody was trying to rename Christmas or suggest that celebrating Christmas in Britain was
going to offend anyone. It was only a matter of one person trying to save a few pounds by
putting together a festival for all celebrations taking place from October to December.

Nevertheless, outlets like the Daily Mail saw it as an opportunity to frame it as another
example of political correctness gone mad, and it’s not the only time they’ve done it. Similar
misrepresentations of the facts have surrounded allegations of the Union Jack flag being
taken down from public buildings in order to appease Muslims. But if anyone were to
question this rumor, they’d find out that, as with Winterval, it’s simply not true.
In conversations about feminism, people have
revealed a desire to return to troubling
traditions.
When people complain about immigration and political correctness, they often say they’re
worried about the erosion of traditional values. But the truth is, many traditions aren’t
necessarily worth holding on to.

Consider the troubling fact that in 1984 UK courts wouldn’t consider it rape if a married man
forced his wife to have sex. And it was only in 1975, with the passing of the Sex
Discrimination Act, that husbands and fathers were no longer asked to step in as guarantors
when women sought money loans.

Clearly, you don’t have to look far into Britain’s past to find social values that are better left
in the dustbin of history. Yet, whenever the issue of feminism pops up on the author’s radio
show, it’s astonishing how easily people judge equality of the sexes as an attack on “men’s
rights.” And when this argument comes up, it can only be seen as a desire to turn back the
cultural clock to a time when women had little say in decisions about sex, safety, and
objectification.

One of the more disturbing examples of this kind of thinking followed the 2018 incident
where 25-year-old Alek Minassian killed ten people in Toronto and used his status as an
incel – or “involuntarily celibate” – as the reason for his rampage. In the wake of this tragedy
came the opinions of Canadian psychology professor and internet phenomenon Jordan
Peterson. Peterson advocated for what he called “enforced monogamy.” In his view, some
form of “sexual redistribution” needs to occur because if women are free to choose their
sexual partners they will invariably choose men of “high status,” leaving men like Minassian
to feel angry at God and act out with violence.

Peterson has a lucrative YouTube channel that earns him a reported $80,000 a day. His books
have sold over a million copies. So while you may find the idea of “sexual redistribution”
hard to take seriously, it’s difficult to say that others haven’t been listening. In fact,
Peterson’s gained a sort of hero status among the alt-right movement, as well as those
worried about “men’s rights.”

But even intelligent people can wring their hands about feminism and worry that men will
soon be unable to say anything in the workplace without being called a pig. But once again,
this is an unrealistic and exaggerated concern. To these people, you can remind them that,
historically speaking, the real concern is that rampant sexism has always been a sure sign of
growing fascism in society.
Arguments about a “nanny state” are often a
cover for feelings of selfishness and
superiority.
Like the dangers of Islam, immigration, political correctness, and feminism, you’ve probably
heard libertarians complain about “nanny states.” This is the term often invoked whenever a
nation’s tax money gets put to use in order to protect us from ourselves.

More specifically, arguments about this topic arise because certain advocates or politicians
have taken steps to try to protect us from rampant capitalism, where there’s no limit to what
corporations can do in the name of profit.

Take caller Henry who phoned in to complain about a proposed sugar tax that would require
people to pay a little more for sodas and sugary fruit-flavored drinks, which can contribute to
obesity and diabetes. Henry believed that the sugar tax was unfair since he likes to drink the
occasional soda and why should he have to pay more just because other people are, in his
opinion, “too stupid” to understand that too much sugar is bad.

This kind of elitism is common around the topic of nanny states. There have always been
people who like to think that things like being born with more money or access to education
makes them more entitled and somehow better than others who don’t have such advantages.
And it’s worth pointing out that phrases such as “nanny state” are essentially a way to cloak a
spirit of selfishness. These people simply don’t want to see money from their taxes going to
the less fortunate.

But at the heart of this issue is a misunderstanding that we’re somehow not being
manipulated by corporations with millions of pounds at their disposal. Corporations like fast
food franchises with powerful advertising campaigns that shamelessly target kids. Or
gambling machines which have been expertly designed to be addictive and separate people
from their money.

The author made this point when caller Gary complained about celebrity chef Jamie Oliver’s
efforts to improve school lunches. As far as Gary was concerned, Oliver should mind his own
business and not try to tell him what his kids should be eating. The author had to remind him
that both schools and fast food corporations care more about money than his kids’ health, so
maybe having one guy from a TV cooking show advocating for better meals for kids isn’t
such a bad thing.
Trump reveals just how effective it can be to
provide people with scapegoats and get them
to shut off their brains.
If there’s one thing that the political rise of Donald Trump has taught us, it’s that politicians
can go far by telling people what they want to hear. In this case, it’s appealing to a sense of
entitlement and offering people a scapegoat for their anger. In particular, Trump appeals to
the white people who carry the notion that they are of a higher status, and he uses very simple
slogans and catchphrases like “Lock Her Up” and “Fake News,” that allow those people to
turn off their brains.

From early on, Trump excelled in blurring the line between lies, truths and alternative
realities. This is essentially what Trump does when he uses the term “fake news” to describe
facts. At the same time, he puts out lies, like having the turnout for his swearing-in be
described as “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration.”

The author was able to track just how quickly Trump’s ideas were able to gain traction in
Britain on his radio show. It wasn’t long before his callers were using the “fake news” tactic
to try to win arguments.

For example, in July 2018, Trump was scheduled to visit London. Many were angry that
protesters were allowed to fly a balloon in the form of Trump as a big orange baby wearing a
diaper on the day of his arrival.

Caller Jack phoned in to voice his disapproval and to suggest that Trump, in his standing as a
US president, deserves nothing but respect. Jack used an analogy, asking that Trump should
be looked at like a step-father and that you wouldn’t disrespect your step-father if he were
coming over for a visit, would you? The author elaborated on this hypothetical scenario by
asking whether this was the same step-father that publicly mocked a disabled journalist as
well as the Gold Star family of a fallen US soldier. To which Jack replied with multiple cries
of “Fake news!”

But anyone can take a quick look at official records to see that Trump did indeed mock these
people publicly because they didn’t agree with his policies. Trump’s past behavior also
includes the very real time he once bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.” So, if this
were indeed the author’s step-father, then it’s unlikely that he would have let him in his house
– or even have invited him over in the first place.

Final summary
The key message in these blinks:

These days, thanks to the abundant use of social media platforms and comment boards
cloaked in anonymity, many people are getting away with providing unchallenged
opinions. This even extends to politicians and the people behind such developments as
Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Many of the right-wing talking points, like
anti-Islam positions, panic over immigration, and political correctness, do not stand up
under scrutiny. On his radio talk show, James O’Brien has spoken with many people
who have latched on to right-wing talking points, and found that they soon fall apart
once you challenge these ideas with facts and simply let their proposals play out to their
logical, misguided ends.

What to read next: Talking to Strangers, by Malcolm Gladwell

How to Be Right shows how wrong-headed arguments can fall apart under scrutiny, but talk
radio isn’t exactly the same as being face-to-face with someone who has a very different
opinion than you. How do you bridge gaps, empathize and communicate with people who see
the world in a completely different way?

For the answer to a very relevant question like this, we recommend our blinks to Talking to
Strangers. It is a powerful exploration of how we misjudge and misunderstand other people,
sometimes with terrible consequences, making a powerful case for more tolerance and
patience in our dealings with others.