- The piece is a debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny, representing the right and left of American politics
- They discuss their political philosophies, with Shapiro advocating for a subsidiary view of government and the preservation of key liberties, while Destiny emphasizes the government's role in providing assistance to those in need
- They also debate the impact of funding and technology in education, with Shapiro prioritizing two-parent family households and community support over technology and funding in improving schooling outcomes

- The conversation revolves around the idea that the fundamental problem in education is not lack of availability to technology or funding, but rather family structure and values at home.
- The debate also touches on the impact of factors like air conditioning and access to food on educational outcomes, but questions the effectiveness of these interventions in addressing the larger societal issues.
- The discussion delves into the relationship between education, marriage, and economic stability, with a focus on the potential impact of stable families on societal well-being and productivity.

- The speaker discusses the importance of stable families in producing stable children and addresses the focus on government solutions to societal problems
- They compare the performance of Trump and Biden in foreign policy, economic policy, and rhetoric
- They argue that Trump is more divisive than Biden, while the other party disagrees and highlights Trump's divisive actions and statements

- The speaker discusses Project 2025 and the divisive nature of Trump's presidency
- They compare Trump and Biden's economic policies and foreign policy decisions
- They debate the divisiveness of Trump and Biden's rhetoric and legislative accomplishments
- The discussion also touches on tax cuts and government spending
- The speaker expresses a liberal viewpoint on foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel, Palestine, and Ukraine-Russia relations.

- The discussion covers the differences in approach to government spending and taxation between Republicans and Democrats
- The conversation also touches on foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East
- The impact of past presidential administrations on the Middle East is also discussed, including the Iraq invasion and Iran's role in the region

- The discussion revolves around the need for normalizing relationships with Iran and the impact of the Iraq war on Iran's power
- There is disagreement on the effectiveness of sanctions and containment versus engaging in peace talks with Iran
- The conversation also touches on the current conflict in Gaza and the approach Israel should take in dealing with it
- The speakers emphasize the need to consider the Middle East's unique dynamics and not evaluate situations from an American perspective

- The conflict between Israel and Palestine involves multiple other parties such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran
- Minimizing civilian casualties is important, but Israel may not be as concerned about international opinion
- Arab states are becoming less concerned with the Palestinian issue, leading to bilateral peace treaties and multilateral agreements
- Both Israel and Palestine believe that continuing the conflict is beneficial for them, but one side is delusional
- The Palestinian refugee problem needs to be addressed, and Iran needs to be brought to the negotiation table
- The leadership for Palestinians has spent every day since 67 promoting the idea that Israel will not exist
- Israel wants to continue expanding settlements in the West Bank until there is a peace partner
- The peace process was a sham, and there is a disconnect between the United States and the Israeli government

Debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny on political philosophies
- Shapiro advocates for subsidiary government and family values in education
- Discussion on Trump and Biden's foreign policy, economic policy, and rhetoric
- Disagreement on the effectiveness of sanctions and peace talks with Iran
- Debate on Israel-Palestine conflict and the need to address Palestinian refugee problem

- The piece discusses the reluctance of Israel to make concessions to the Palestinian Authority due to Fatah's support for families of terrorists.
- It also addresses the lack of attention to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, with a focus on security and economic development in Israel.
- The discussion also touches on Biden's handling of the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing the need for clear goals and a potential off-ramp for the conflict.

- The speaker discusses the US support for Ukraine in their fight against Russia, emphasizing the need for an off ramp and not fighting forever.
- They also talk about the debate over a $105 billion bill, including $60 billion for Ukraine, and the political implications of including border funding in the bill.
- The conversation shifts to the January 6th insurrection, with one speaker believing Trump incited it and the other arguing that legal standards for incitement and insurrection were not met.

- The discussion revolves around the legal assessment of Donald Trump's actions regarding the election fraud claims.
- The conversation covers the mens rea standard and the intent required for criminal charges.
- The conversation also delves into the legal charges against Trump and the potential implications for future elections.

- The speaker discusses Trump's threat to the Republican Party and the possibility of him running as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination
- There is a debate about whether Trump would try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power if he wins
- The discussion also touches on Trump's use of executive power and the potential impact on policy
- There is skepticism about Trump's eligibility for a third term and the influence of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at universities

- The speaker discusses the influence of DEI programs at universities and the threat of identity politics and wokeism in our culture.
- They define wokeism as rooted in postmodernism and critical race theory, leading to a victim-victimizer narrative and a lack of individual responsibility.
- The speaker criticizes the equity aspect of DEI, arguing that it leads to discrimination based on race and destroys the notion of meritocracy.
- They also discuss the firing of the president of Harvard and the impact of conservatives' reluctancy to engage in higher education.
- The speaker acknowledges some positive aspects of wokeism, such as increased representation, but criticizes its extreme academic interpretations.

- The speaker discusses the divide in universities between STEM fields and liberal arts
- He criticizes the liberal arts field for promoting ideological conformity
- He argues that the educational system is a scam and a waste of time and money
- He believes that institutions need to be examined on a case-by-case basis for their salvageability
- He advocates for conservatives and liberals to attend school together to interact and understand each other better
- He emphasizes the importance of providing more information to change people's perspectives on certain issues.

- Israel's reluctance to make concessions to the Palestinian Authority due to Fatah's support for families of terrorists
- Lack of attention to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, focusing on security and economic development in Israel
- Biden's handling of the Ukraine conflict and the need for clear goals and a potential off-ramp
- US support for Ukraine in their fight against Russia and the debate over a $105 billion bill, including $60 billion for Ukraine
- Debate over Trump's role in the January 6th insurrection and the legal assessment of his actions regarding election fraud claims
- Criticism of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at universities, and the impact of wokeism on culture
- Criticism of the liberal arts field for promoting ideological conformity and the belief that the educational system is a scam and a waste of time and money
- Advocacy for conservatives and liberals to attend school together to interact and understand each other better and the importance of providing more information to change people's perspectives on certain issues.

- The video discusses the importance of mixing and engaging with people of different beliefs and backgrounds
- The conversation touches on the significance of marriage and raising children in society
- The debate also covers topics such as pornography, OnlyFans, rap music, and arriving at the truth through unbiased mental practices and reading from multiple sources

- The speaker appreciates Ben Shapiro's adherence to fact-based arguments
- They also appreciate Destin's process of learning and thinking in real time
- The debate between Ben Shapiro and destiny was honored and the audience is encouraged to support the podcast's sponsors
- The podcast ends with a quote from Aristotle about the basis of a democratic state being liberty

The video emphasizes the importance of engaging with people of different beliefs and backgrounds. It discusses marriage, raising children, pornography, OnlyFans, and rap music. The speaker appreciates Ben Shapiro's fact-based arguments and Destin's real-time learning process. The debate between Ben Shapiro and destiny is honored, and the podcast ends with a quote from Aristotle about the basis of a democratic state being liberty."""

Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator, host of The Ben Shapiro Show, co-founder of The Daily Wire, and author of The Authoritarian Moment and other books. Steven Bonnell, aka Destiny, is a liberal political commentator and a live streamer on YouTube.

Thank you for listening ❤ Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- AG1: https://drinkag1.com/lex to get 1 month supply of fish oil
- Policygenius: https://policygenius.com/lex
- ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod to get 3 months free
- InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off

TRANSCRIPT:
https://lexfridman.com/ben-shapiro-destiny-debate-transcript

EPISODE LINKS:
Ben's X: https://twitter.com/benshapiro
Ben's Instagram: https://instagram.com/officialbenshapiro
Ben's YouTube: https://youtube.com/@BenShapiro
Daily Wire: https://dailywire.com
Destiny's YouTube: https://youtube.com/destiny
Destiny's X: https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal
Destiny's Subreddit: https://reddit.com/r/Destiny
Destiny's Website: https://destiny.gg
Destiny's Instragram: https://instagram.com/destiny

PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
1:36 - Liberalism vs Conservatism
6:49 - Education
23:06 - Trump vs Biden
43:31 - Foreign policy
56:28 - Israel-Palestine
1:11:25 - Russia-Ukraine
1:23:04 - January 6
1:39:03 - Abuse of power
1:49:01 - Wokeism
1:55:42 - Institutional capture
2:09:36 - Monogamy vs open relationships
2:14:29 - Rapid fire questions

SOCIAL:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

There has to be some diplomatic bilateral communication there.

No, what has to happen is the containment of Iran.

Communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century and the 20th century.

Do you think that today Donald Trump knows that he lost the election?

I don't understand if there's like brain breaking happening or what's going on.

I don't know what world we can ever live in where we say that Trump is less divisive for the country than Biden.

Joe Biden literally used the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration to try to cram down Vax mandates on 80 million Americans.

What about supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?

you're right about new ultra microscopic.

Or what about the 7000 letter thing that's from part of

The following is a debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny.

Each arguably representing the right and the left of American politics, respectively.

They are 2 of the most influential and skilled political debaters in the world.

This debate has been a long time coming, for many years.

It's about 2.5 hours, and we could have easily gone for many more, and I'm sure we will.

To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

And now, dear friends, here's Ben Shapiro and destiny.

Ben, you're a conservative, Destiny, you're a liberal.

Can you each describe what key values underpin your philosophy on politics?

And maybe life in the context of this left to right political spectrum.

Yeah, so I think that we have a huge country full of a lot of people, a lot of individual talents, capabilities, and I think that the goal of government, broadly speaking, should be to try to ensure that everybody's able to achieve as much as possible.

So on a liberal level, that usually means some people might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to things like education.

They might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to providing certain necessities like housing or food or clothing.

But broadly speaking, I mean, I'm still a liberal, not a communist or a socialist.

I don't believe in the total command economy, total communist takeover of all of the economy.

But I think that broadly speaking, the government should kind of kick in and help people when they need it.

And that government can and should be big.

I noticed that when liberals talk about government, especially taxes, it seems like they talk about it for taxes sake or bigness sake.

So people talk about taxes sometimes as like a punishment, like tax the rich.

I think taxing the rich is fine insofar as it funds the programs that we want to fund, but Democrats have a really big problem demonizing success or wealth, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

I don't think it's a bad thing to be wealthy, to be a billionaire or whatever, as long as we're funding what we need

Ben, what do you think it means to be a conservative?

What's the philosophy that underlies your political view?

So first of all, I'm glad that, Destiny, you're already coming out as a Republican.

I mean, we hold a lot in common in terms of, you know, the basic idea that people ought to have as much opportunity as possible and also insofar as the government should do the minimum amount necessary to interfere in people's lives in order to pursue certain functions particularly at the local level.

So a lot of governmental discussions on a pragmatic level end up being discussions about where government ought to be involved but also at what level government ought to be involved.

And I have an incredibly subsidiary view of government.

I think that local governments, because you have higher levels of homogeneity and consent, are capable of doing more things.

And as you abstract up the chain, it becomes more and more impractical and more and more divisive to do more things.

In my view, government is basically there to preserve certain key liberties.

Those key liberties pre-exist the government, insofar as they are more important than what priorities the government has.

The job of government is to maintain, for example, national defense, protection of property rights, protection of religious freedom.

These are the key focuses of government as generally expressed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

And I agree with the general philosophy of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Now, that doesn't mean, by the way, that you can't do more on a governmental level, again, as you get closer to the ground, which, by the way, is also embedded in the Constitution.

People forget the Constitution was originally applied to the federal government, not to local and state government.

But if I were gonna define conservatism, It would actually be a little broader than that, because I think to understand how people interact with government, you have to go to core values.

And so for me, there are a couple of premises.

We have aspects of goodness, and we have aspects of badness.

And what that means is that we have to be careful not to incentivize the bad and that we should incentivize the good.

Human beings do have agency and are capable of making decisions in the vast majority of circumstances.

And it is better for society if we act as though they do.

Second, the basic idea of human nature, there is an idea, in my view, that all human beings have equal value before the law.

I'm a religious person, so I'd say equal value before God.

But I think that's also sort of a key tenet of Western civilization, being non-religious or religious, that every individual has equivalent value in sort of cosmic terms But that does not necessarily mean that every person is equally equipped to do everything equally Well, and so it is not the job of government to rectify Every imbalance of life the quest for cosmic justice is as Thomas Sowell Suggests is something the government is generally incapable of doing, and more often than not botches and makes things worse.

And that tends to materialize in a variety of ways.

The easiest way to sum that up would, the traditional kind of 3 legs of the conservative stool, although now obviously there's a very fragmented conservative movement in the United States, would be a socially conservative view in which family is the chief institution of society, like the little platoons of society, as Edmund Burke suggested, in which free market and property rights are extraordinarily valuable and necessary because every individual has the ability to be creative with their property and to freely alienate that property.

And finally, I tend toward a hawkish foreign policy that suggests that the world is not filled with wonderful people who all agree with us and think like us.

And those people will pursue adversarial interests if we do not protect our own interests.

I'm excited for this conversation because I consider you to be really intelligent.

But I feel like sometimes there are ways that conservatives talk about certain issues that seem to defy logic and reason, I guess.

So, and I'm sure you feel the same way about, well, I feel the same way about progressives, but even some liberals for sure.

Before I ask this question, it's gonna relate to education.

We can agree broadly speaking that statistics are real and that not everybody could do everything.

So for a grounded example, my life was pretty bad.

I got into streaming and I turned my life around and that was really cool, but I can't expect everybody to do what I did, right?

Like everybody being able to join the NBA or to be like a streamer.

Well, of course, everybody has different qualities, sure.

Okay, So I used to be a lot more libertarian when I was 20, 21.

And 1 of the things that dramatically changed kind of my view on government manipulation of things in the, I guess in society, came when it came time to deal with my son and the school that he went to.

And 1 of the things that I noticed was when it came time to send my son to school, I could either do private education or I could do public.

Personally, I did 12 years of Catholic private education.

However, the public schools in Nebraska, depending on where you lived, were very, very, very good.

I bought a house there, I moved there, and then my son was able to go to those schools.

And he's been going through those schools.

And the difference of availability of technology, like these kids are taking home iPads in first grade, they've got huge computer labs and everything.

Do you think that there is some type of, I don't want to say injustice or unfairness, because I'm not even looking at it that way, just pragmatically, that there might be children that are in certain schools, that if they just had better funding or more access to technologies or things available to them, that those kids would become more productive members of society that would like a little bit of a help, that they could actually achieve more and do better for all of society.

So I think that on the list of priorities, when it comes to education, the availability of technology is actually fairly low on the list of priorities.

Sure, the 2 things I've heard are food availability and

I think air conditioning, I think are the 2 biggest ones that I hear about, sure.

Well, I mean, the biggest thing in terms of education itself not just the physical facilities that we're talking about would actually be 2 parent family households, communities that have fathers in them, is actually the number 1, De Siser, according to Roland Fryer and many studies done on this particular topic.

And the idea that money alone, that investment of resources is the top priority in schooling is belied by the fact that LAUSD, which is where I went to school when I was younger, they pour an enormous amount of money into LAUSD.

We're talking about tens of thousands of dollars very often per student, and it does not result in better schooling outcomes.

And so when you say, if we could give every kid an iPad, would you give every kid an iPad?

The question is not, if I had a replicator machine from Star Trek, would I give everybody an enormous amount of stuff?

Every resource is finite, every resource is limited, and you have to prioritize what are the outcomes that you seek in terms of the means with which you are seeking them.

And so, again, I think that the question is, I quibble with the premise of the question, which is that, again, the chief injustice when it comes to education on the list of injustices is lack of availability to technology or that it's a funding problem.

Sure, and I can half agree with you there, but I don't think any amount of changes in the schools will create two-parent households, right?

We can't bring a- I totally agree with you.

So that's why I think that the fundamental educational problem is not, in fact, a schooling problem.

Sure, but then I feel like we're, now I feel like this is kind of the conservative merry-go-round where it's like, what can we do to help with schools?

So 2 of the things that I've seen, I think, that are usually brought up in research is 1 is air conditioning, that children in hotter environments just don't learn as well.

So like kids that are given like a breakfast or a lunch that's provided at school, like increases educational outcomes.

Now I agree that neither of these things might be determinative in like, well, 20% of kids were graduating and now 80% of kids are graduating, or these kids are all going, you know, with their GEDs into the workforce, and now these kids are all suddenly becoming engineers.

But in terms of where we can help, do you think there should be like some minimum threshold, or minimum baseline of like, at the very least, every school should have a non-leaky gym, or every school should have, if children can't afford lunch or breakfast, like some sort of food provided, or every school should have these baseline things.

gonna quibble with the premise of the question because I think that when it comes to, for example, food insecurity, school food programs, Again, you can always pour money into any program and at the margins create change.

I mean, there's no doubt that pouring money onto anything will create change in a marginal way.

The question is how large is the margin and how big is the movement?

Right, so the delta is what I'm looking at.

And so I think that the, You're starting at a second order question, which is, what if we ignore what I would think are the big primary questions of education, namely family structure, value of education at home, how much you have parents who are capable or willing to help with homework.

What are the incentive structures we can set up for a society that actually facilitate that?

How local communities take ownership of their schools is a big 1.

All of these issues we're ignoring in favor of, say, air conditioning or lunch programs.

And so in a vacuum, if you say air conditioning and lunch programs, sounds great in a vacuum.

In terms of prioritization of values and cost structure, Are those the things that I think are going to move the needle in a major way in terms of public policy?

And in fact, I think that many of them end up being disproportionate wastes of money.

I mean, I've talked before, pretty controversially, about the fact that an enormous amount of school lunch programs are thrown out.

Like an enormous amount of that food ends up in the garbage can.

If there is a better way to do it, then I'm perfectly willing to hear about that better way to do it.

But it seems to me that 1 of the big flaws in the way that many people of the left approach government is what if we hit every gnat with a hammer?

And my question is, what if the gnat isn't even the problem?

What if there is a much bigger substructure problem that needs to be solved in order to, if you're shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, sure, you can make the Titanic slightly more balanced because the deck chairs are slightly better oriented.

But the real question is the water that's gaping into the Titanic, right?

But again, I feel like we're on the conservative merry-go-round then of never wanting to address any.

That's not a conservative merry-go-round.

I would say that there is a minimum funding for schools that I think would help children and then we go well the thing That would help them the most is to parent households.

Well two-parent households actually aren't the problem The issue is access to things like birth controls that people don't have children early on and it's like but the issue isn't actually birth control the issue is actually you need a certain amount of money to move out early and to get married and then to have a two-parent household.

So it's actually like economic opportunity.

We can say that and try to fight against however many hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, but people will have sex and people

The vast majority of people in this country with kids used to be married.

The vast majority of people with kids in this country now are not married increasingly.

Something changed, it wasn't human evolution.

But a lot of those things in terms of resting on whether or not people get married have to do with financial decisions.

People are worse off now than they were 50, 60 years ago when the marriage rates were higher.

People are delaying the start of their careers because education's becoming increasingly important.

So, in other words, people are richer now and they have more education now and yet they're having more babies out of wedlock now because they're richer and have more education.

I'm saying that 1 of the biggest indicators for

whether or not somebody's willing to get married is how much money both people are making if they can move out of their household.

People don't tend to want to get married at 22 when they've just finished college, when they don't have the money to move out and they can't afford a house.

Because we have changed the moral status of marriage in the culture, meaning that everyone, poor, rich, and in between, used to get married.

By the way, a huge percentage of marriages in the United States used to be what they would call shotgun marriages, meaning that somebody knocked somebody up and because they did not want the baby to be born outside of a two-parent household, they would then get married.

Do we think that shotgun marriages, though, are a way to bring back equilibrium to education?

Each house deserves a mother and a father.

Because that is the basis for all of this, including education.

Do we think that shotgun marriages are, well, let's say this.

Do we think that that's a reasonable direction that society would ever take?

was the reasonable direction for nearly all of modern history.

I mean, people don't think that's a, in what way is that?

like, oh, well, let's go 100 years back and do things that used to exist before.

The entire left right now is arguing that we regressed social standards by rejecting Roe versus Wade.

The Roe versus Wade is not a social standard.

Number 2, if you read the actual majority opinion on Roe v.

Wade, we can see that socially, we actually never made huge progress on how society viewed abortion.

This has always been an incredibly divisive thing.

Even, that was, I think, part of Alito's writing on it, was that things like gay marriage, for instance, we've kind of moved past, and it's not really as debated anymore, but abortion was never a settled topic, despite Roe v.

The notion that the arc of history constantly moves in 1 direction is belied by nearly all of the 20th century.

with barbarism, communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century and the 20th century.

Well, in terms of like communism being a regression, for instance, I'm not a communist, but like the industrialization of the Soviet Union happened under a communist society.

the murder of tens of millions of people.

A moral regression, which is what we are talking about now.

And you're suggesting that moral regression, I wouldn't term a return to traditional values a moral regression, you would.

But your suggestion is that history only moves in 1 direction.

And I'm suggesting that history does not only move in 1 direction.

It tends to move actually back and forth.

I don't think that all of history moves in 1 direction.

I think in general, we're more peaceful now than we have been in the past.

But I think when we look at the way that people live their lives, I think that we tend to move in a certain direction socially, so when it comes to things like racism or when it comes to things like slavery or women's rights, I think that there are 2 huge things that probably aren't changing in the US and 1 is access to contraception and 1 is women working jobs.

I think that these 2 things are probably huge things that are moving us off of shotgun marriages or getting married very early on And I don't see though Do you think that those 2 things are gonna change first

of all what the data tend to show is that actually?

More highly educated people as you were saying tend to get married more So the idea is that women getting an education somehow throws them off marriage.

It's the opposite Usually those women are not educated,

but those women are getting shotgun marriages.

Yeah, but now you're shifting the topic My topic was how to get more people married and what I haven't seen and then you suggested that higher levels of education are delaying marriage and making it less probable.

And what I'm telling you, because this is what the data suggest, is that actually, as you raise up the educational ladder, people tend to be married more than they are lower down on the educational ladder.

If you're a high school graduate, you're less likely to be married than if you're

I agree with you, but that's because 1 of the biggest precursors to getting married is having like a level of economic stability.

So as people get more educated, they obtain this economic stability, and then they're in a more comfortable position to explore more serious relationships.

I mean, the confound is that people in stable marriages tend to be the children of stable marriages.

And there's only 1 way to break that cycle, which is to create a stable marriage.

And that is something that is in everyone's hands.

Again, this notion that it is somehow an unbreakable, unshatterable barrier to get married and have kids.

I don't understand where this is coming from.

I don't think it's unbreakable or unshatterable.

The initial point was for school, if we can provide a minimum level of educational stuff for children, that'd probably be good.

But when we retreat back to, well, it has to be the families that are fixed first, fixing families is a multivariate problem that has so many to do with.

I am fine within my local community, we all vote, again, I've suggested that there's a difference between local community and

I'm fine with my local community voting for school lunches or air conditioning or whatever it is that we all agree to do because the more local you get, the more homogeneity you get in terms of interest and the more interest you have in your neighbors.

I'm part of a very, very solid community.

We have minimum standards of helping 1 another.

When it comes to the actual problem of education, What I object to in the political sphere, and this happens all the time, is everybody is arguing on top of the iceberg about how we can move the needle 0.5 percentage point, as opposed to the entire iceberg melting beneath them.

And we pretend that That's just sort of the natural consequence of things.

The arc of history suggests that people are never going to get married again.

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Ben Shapiro vs Destiny Debate: Politics, Jan 6, Israel, Ukraine & Wokeism | Lex Fridman Podcast #410