ator on world events, has introduced a new word into our vocabulary: the retardosphere. All right I'm just going to read you what he said because it's kind of funny the way he puts it. So Constantine Kisin says the woke left-wing sphere was created by sensible people on the left being silent when they should have said something. The right-wing sphere is being formed in exactly the same way. And he says stop sending me DMs about how much you agree with me about the woke right. Strap on a pair and say something. So that's a little bit different than the point he's going to make next. Unless you want to be on the side that thinks evolution is quote just a theory, i.e. doesn't understand what a theory is in science, sees America as the bad guy in every war and wants to stop women voting. So that would be his description of the right-wing retardosphere: people who think evolution is just a theory meaning in their view of it is not real, and sees America as the bad guy in every war and wants to stop women from voting. And then Constantine says I am not right-wing but the last thing I want is for the left and right to go full retard at the same time. And then he says truth is king, in all caps.

Well may I take a moment to defend the retardosphere? Would you like that? Are there any members of the sphere here? Is there anybody here who would identify with not fully accepting evolution, seeing America as the bad guy in at least the recent wars, and thinks that women should stop voting? Is anybody in that category here? Any one of those? All right a lot of people are saying yes.

All right here's my take on it and I think Constantine is pretty far off on his frame for this. I like his general thinking. You know his general thinking is I don't want to be associated with crazy people. That's good. Or irrational people. So I like the basic thrust of it but here's what I think he might be missing because as he says he's not right-wing so there's some things that if you spend more time in that sphere you get a little nuance on these things. So I'm going to give a little nuance that may not be obvious to the casual traveler.

Okay number one, the part about evolution being just a theory. Yes it is embarrassing when somebody says they don't believe in evolution because it's quote just a theory. If I can educate you on one thing it's that people who understand science will think you're an idiot if you say something's not proven because it's just a theory. Because in the scientific realm theory means it is proven. Hypothesis means it's not proven. Theory means there's so much evidence for it you might as well just call it a fact. But because science doesn't like to commit itself knowing that sometimes even a fact or something they thought was absolutely true can sometimes be overturned, so they do keep it a little bit weak just because you never know what a fact is for sure. But it is not true that theory means they're not quite sure about it. They're very very sure about it and that's what the word theory means in their domain. So get that part right. Just know that in common language theory means unproven but in scientific language it means very very much proven. Does everybody know that now? Again it doesn't mean they're right. I'm just telling you what the words mean in their domains. You know we'll talk about who's right separately. Okay so get that right because you will sound like a bad debater if you get that word usage wrong. That's a real red flag for somebody who's going to mock you for not understanding science.

However it is a very common misunderstanding and I don't think that anybody disbelieves the theory of evolution because the word theory is used. Would you agree with that? There's nobody who disbelieves it simply because they use the word theory. So for Constantine to point that out as something he wants to mock I don't really think that's something anybody actually believes. I think they disbelieve evolution for a reason that I'll talk about. Could be a right reason, could be a bad reason. I'm not saying it's a good or bad reason but I'm saying it has nothing to do with the word. So if you think that anybody has this belief because they didn't know how to use this word correctly in the domain of science that's a complete misdirection. It's just really they're using the word wrong. Has nothing to do with their actual opinion of the topic. It's just the word. So I would say that that's not a fair statement.

But I think the larger point, if I could read between the lines — I'm not a mind reader but I think what he means is more the general idea that evolution is proven according to science and that if you say you're not buying it you're being sort of anti-science in a way. So that seems to be Constantine's point. But I would like to offer the following counterpoints.

Number one, when Tucker Carlson, who really got this whole conversation going, when Tucker Carlson says he doesn't believe in evolution because he believes that God made us, do you think that Tucker regards that as a scientific fact that God made us? I think what maybe Constantine is missing is that this is what I'd call a lifestyle belief. A lifestyle belief. It's not in the domain of what's true or false. It's a choice based on faith. The reason there's a word faith is because it's very distinct from I looked at the facts and science guided me. So to me when I see Tucker say that he has a belief that God made us, to me that's a lifestyle choice to have that worldview. I don't think that's the same as not thinking evolution is real. To me those are different concepts. So I think you have to understand that some people make a choice to accept an entire let's say philosophy because following the philosophy has worldly benefits. Meaning it helps you today and maybe helps you go to heaven if you think that's part of the plan. So when I look at Christians, let's say the Tucker types who believe that God created the earth, I say to myself well I don't know if you've got the mechanism right but I'm not so lacking in humility that I think I know the answer. So I think there's a little lack of humility when you say I know the answer of how we all got here and you got it wrong. So that bothers me a little bit. But I think you have to understand that religious faith is not trying to compete with science. It's more like if I buy this entire package I can see that it works while I'm alive. It might even work after I'm dead if I go to heaven. So it's really just a choice about what works and I don't think you should fact check it. I'm not going to fact check the Muslims. Right? I mean I used to think that was something I could do. It's like huh I'm not so sure that Muhammad went to heaven on a flying horse. Don't bother. It's not a scientific discussion. It is a lifestyle choice to accept a worldview which has a certain set of advantages right here on Earth. So I feel that that has to be said.

Then there's a question: is America the bad guy in every war? Well I think the word every is a little bit hyperbole but I do believe that America is the bad guy in recent wars. Is there anything wrong with that opinion? It does seem to me that our recent wars are driven by energy and the military industrial complex and stuff like that. You know the Atlantic Council, whatever. I don't think we have any kind of a democracy where we're going to save the world for freedom. We don't care about anybody else's freedom. We could give a — oh I almost did it. I'm not going to curse. We don't care about the freedom in other countries. We will work with their dictator just fine. Do you think we have a problem with the kingship of the royal family in Jordan? No, the royal family in Jordan are awesome and we seem to like them and get along just fine. No we don't need them to be a democracy as long as they're on our team. Well that's fine. So no I do think that America is the bad guy but I'll give a little bit of nuance on that as well. I'm not sure being the bad guy is the worst thing it could be. It could be that being a good guy is the worst thing you can do because being a good guy makes you weak and probably get destroyed by somebody who's more of a bad guy. I feel like in the real world when you get outside of the philosophical the baddest player tends to be in charge and you're probably better off being on the same team roughly speaking as the baddest player in the game. So I think America is usually the baddest of the bad but being on the team of the bad guys when they're winning it might be your best bet for survival. So I think you can be on the bad team and also say it's good for you. So I think that's fair to say. But no America is not always the good guy and everything we say about why we do what we do is all BS. Would you agree? The reasons we give like oh we're going to save your democracy, oh we got to make sure those dominoes don't fall, all the communists are going to come and get you, none of that's real. That's completely made up. It's always about money and energy and military and you know and all that. But as I say again keeping our economy strong by raping other countries seems to be a good business model and it does keep us safer. So it's a complicated world.

And how about this one: the sphere wants to stop women from voting. How serious do you think that is? Now I see that a lot. It's like a common thing. But it has a lot to do with the Democrats being largely a party of women and a lot of the batshit crazy things seem to be driven by women. But I don't think anybody's serious about that. I mean not when I say not anybody. There are a few people who act like they're serious about it. I don't think so. I don't think they're super serious about it. So I think Constantine may, you know as he says he's not right-wing, so he may see these things as a little more serious than they are. A little more serious. But more to the point if when you say truth is king in all capitals there's sort of a suggestion th