roversy? So in the Wall Street Journal, there's an editorial by somebody named Dominic Green, and he's talking about the MAGA right's anti-semitism problem. You ready for this? So if you've been watching the news, you know that there's sort of a controversy or somebody's trying to make it into one. It's sort of a wannabe controversy, meaning that people keep talking about it like they want to make it something, but it's not performing. It's not doing what they hope it will do, which would drive MAGA apart.

Now, I think what has been underestimated by the left is that the so-called woke right and the MAGA right and the Republicans and the conservatives are much better at having a lively disagreement and then just voting in the right way when the election comes. So I'm not sure that this could ever work because the nature of how the conservative, let's say the right side of the world, that the nature of how we work, because I'm going to put myself in the "we" for this conversation, is it's just a whole bunch of people who understand free speech. If you could say there's one thing that binds us together on the right is free speech.

So you can't be that free speech and then also buy into there's some kind of thing driving the party apart. It sort of just doesn't work. But they're trying because it would work on the left. So I think the left is using an approach that they're sure would work on the left, which is dividing people by type because that works on their side. But on the right, you can tell me you shouldn't platform the worst person in the world, and I'll say, why do you hate free speech, right? You can talk about platforming all day long, and I'm just going to turn it into free speech. It's free speech. Why don't you want to hear what the other side has to say? Why wouldn't you hear what somebody who disagrees with you and you hate them and you wish they would go away? Why wouldn't you know what they have to say? Wouldn't you be better off if you knew? Wouldn't it be better off if they were exposed to you? Yeah.

Here's an argument I haven't used for a while, but I like to try it out. If hypothetically I had the worst person in the world on my podcast and I interviewed them for an hour, what is the most likely outcome of that? That they would turn me into a slightly worse person. Is that what would happen? Would they turn you into a slightly worse person? Or having watched me for 10 years, as some of you are, is it more likely that I would persuade them to be a better person and that if I'm half of the podcast, the people watching would say, "Okay, you know, I like what the cartoonist said." Who is likely to persuade their audience in a positive direction more likely than me, even if I'm talking to the worst person in the world?

So there's a little bit of nuance on this stuff, right? So the people on the right understand that I could bring value to a conversation with somebody who shouldn't be platformed at all according to the left, right? But the right understands that we can fight all day, but as long as we agree on free speech, boom, President Trump and it works out for us.

But back to this. So Dominic Green, he looks like he would be happy if MAGA was more unhappy with each other. So he talked about Tucker Carlson. This is Wall Street Journal editorial. Oh, actually this is a perfect example. The Wall Street Journal sort of leans right a little bit, right? But they platformed this guy. They platformed him. And I don't think necessarily the editorial people agree with everything he says, but they platformed him. That's how it works on the right. CNN's doing a good job of platforming people they disagree with, too. So there's a little bit on both sides.

Anyway, here's what he says. Dominic Green that Carlson's hosting of Nick Fuentes, of course you knew I was going to go there, on his podcast was a watershed in the campaign to make racism cool again. All right. Well, he's going to have to defend that, right? So the claim is that having Nick on is making racism cool again. Whereas people on the right might say, "You mean free speech? Where we listen to him and we disagree with him? Is that your problem?" That's the problem.

Now Nick is a special case because he's extra good at media stuff. So he would be persuasive and is. So he's a little more dangerous if you're worried about that point of view becoming dominant and that would be a reasonable thing to worry about. But here's how he characterizes this is how Dominic Green characterizes Tucker. See if you think he's characterized Tucker correctly in his opinion. He said that Carlson has come a long way since the bow-tied folly of his neoconservative youth. Okay. So that's just an insult. Bow-tied folly of his neoconservative youth. All right. No specifics there. That's just I think I'll insult him after leaving Fox News. Blah blah blah. He went over the edge. Okay. That's your opinion that there's no evidence of that that he's using to do that.

He donned a plaid shirt of the people, rediscovered Christianity. He didn't really rediscover Christianity. That's crazy. What are you watching? He may have updated some of his views, but he was super Christian the whole time. He cashed in on his legacy status as a ringmaster. You mean he had a job? Yeah, we're all cashing in. It