Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • 4,4 (152)
  • ОБЩЕСТВО И КУЛЬТУРА
  • ЕЖЕДНЕВНО

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

  1. Quaker Slave Ownership Rate 2X the South (How They Hid It & Birthed Woke)

    -2 Ч

    Quaker Slave Ownership Rate 2X the South (How They Hid It & Birthed Woke)

    Malcolm Collins drops a bombshell: modern “woke” culture didn’t come from the Puritans — it evolved directly from the Hicksite Quaker movement. In this explosive Based Camp episode, we trace how a 17th-century religious group birthed today’s urban monoculture, complete with performative morality, call-out culture, virtue signaling, and a parasitoid mindset that kills its host. We dismantle the sanitized schoolbook version of Quaker history with hard stats: Quakers owned slaves at dramatically higher rates than Southern colonies or Puritans, yet rewrote themselves as the heroes of abolition. We compare them to Calvinist Puritans, explore “justicle” (morality based purely on feelings), the origins of deplatforming, child moral authorities, bureaucratic meeting-house governance, and why this “super virus” spread so effectively through the U.S. education system. If you’ve ever wondered why progressive spaces feel like a mix of endless rules, theatrical protest, and zero accountability for results — this is the deep historical root. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing how what we today call woke evolved out of the Quaker. And a lot of people have posited many potential starts to woke them as a metaphysical framework, as a moral framework, as a collection of behaviors and patterns. And they’re just wrong. They’re just wrong. Like there’s a very clear. Trace of where the movement emerged, specifically from the Hicksite Quaker movement, Uhhuh how it grew, how it used the Quaker foothold was in the Northeastern education system in the United States and the West Coast education system in the United States to indoctrinate a generation and how it killed its original host generations ago. At this point, the Hicksite Quaker tradition is dead. And it we’ve mentioned it. Some of those things is woke as a cultural parasite. [00:01:00] It’s parasitoid it. Does not care about the host surviving it. You know, a parasitoid, if you’re not familiar, is like, have you ever seen one of those worms or insects where you can see like the worms crawling underneath its skin and then it explodes? It’s a parasite that doesn’t, that that goal is to kill you as part of its lifecycle. So, while all of this evil came from the Quaker movement, we still have to mourn what happened to it as well. All right. And I will just be reading from one of our books, I think our best book, the Pragmatist Guide to Crafting Religion. And it’s at the end of the section on how you determine what is true and what isn’t true. Simone Collins: Question though are you going to address what if all hiss. Strong assertions that it was the Puritans and not the Quakers. Malcolm Collins: And to, to say that woke is evolved from Puritanism requires a cartoonish understanding of history. Simone Collins: Oh, gauntlet throne. Should we have a debate with him? Malcolm Collins: Well, no. You need to [00:02:00] believe that Puritan culture was the culture that the urban monoculture framed it as. And one of the things that we’ll be going over is the urban monoculture, which came downstream of Quaker cultural framings simply lied about the cultural sensitivities of the Puritans. The Puritans were example were extremely likely to like they wrote so sexually graphically. That up until the 19 hundreds, Puritan works had to be censored. Puritan, like a lot of the things that people think about puritans are just. Untrue. But if you are talking about which group was famously insanely prudish. It was, it was Simone Collins: the Quakers. Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: They were so prudish this, the quote that often loves is they women would describe everything from their breasts to their, what was it? To their ankles Simone Collins: from basically their neck to their ankles. If there was something wrong, it would be my stomach. It doesn’t matter if it was like their heart palpitations or they had severe, you know, me Malcolm Collins: cramps. They were just uncomfortable mentioning everything here. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: [00:03:00] That’s my stomach, which is sort of antithetical to the way the puritans approached it, which is just say, we look full bodied at the sins of man, and only through overcoming them have we proven mastery by hiding from them. We haven’t proven mastery. Yeah. Simone Collins: Yeah. One of the other patterns of like, pedestal children is these wise sage. Malcolm Collins: Well, we’ll get into all Simone Collins: that moralizer. Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Let’s get started here. Okay. What about the Quakers? Weren’t the Quakers morally ahead of their time and super nice, weren’t they leaders of the abolition movement or something? This is certainly the version of Quakers we learned about in the school system that was dominated by the urban monoculture. So we were shocked upon our review of the actual stats, and maybe more than a little bitter, because we felt misled. Around 42% of Maryland Quakers in early America owned slaves. And this is from Carol kl, 1983. This sample was taken from Maryland wills between 1669 and 1750 among Quaker leaders in [00:04:00] Philadelphia at 70% owned slaves. This sample was taken from the Philadelphia yearly meeting, 1681 to 1705. Even if you go with the lower number, this is, so, that’s 42% of Quakers own slaves. This is higher than the rate of slave ownership of slave ownership of. Any culture or group in the 13 colonies? Simone Collins: Wait, wait. Even more than like, the southern colonies Malcolm Collins: dramatically higher than the southern colonies. Simone Collins: I forgot about this. Malcolm Collins: At the Southern colonies only around 20% to 5% of household owned slaves. Simone Collins: Oh, right. ‘cause it was really a rich person thing there. Yeah, yeah. Malcolm Collins: With Quakers it was 40%. Oh, no. Simone Collins: So Malcolm Collins: the reason I go into this is and, and if, if you have this view that like, if you’re like, wow, this is really different than the version of the Quakers I learned about in school. And the reason is, is because Quakers, if, if it was. Quakerism that the urban monoculture [00:05:00] evolved out of. It would make perfect sense that it would maintain this trait of trying to constantly frame the Quakers as morally decent when they were anything but morally decent. They were the most morally repulsive founding group within the Americas. By, by an order of magnitude because not only did they practice things like slavery at a higher rate but they then acted like they didn’t do it. Which to me, I just have this, I immense a moral respo res, you know, disgust. That if you’re going to do a sin, at least own it. Don’t pretend like you were leading the abolitionists when you were not. Almost all of the leading abolitionists were Calvinists which we’ll go into and puritans more specifically. There, I think there was like one or two Quakers, but we’ll go into this more. So, contrast this with Puritan communities, which wa while less attested, seemed to have a slave ownership rate between 0.5 and 2%. This is from Rowan R 2021 0.5 to 2% versus [00:06:00] 40%. Suffice to say the tale of the whale ship of Essex tells us what happens to Bipoc who put themselves in the same boat as Quakers or any gele of today for that matter, despite the incessant self framing as the quote unquote good. Guys hint, the moment things went bad. The Essex, Quaker sailors ate their bipoc compatriots. First, they claimed their, this uncanny skew was a product of a series of random draws. So just imagine, Simone Collins: oh, no. Oh no. Malcolm Collins: A boat gets lost. It’s a, it’s a Quaker group and they had some Bipo wisdom from various groups. I think some Native American subs were blacks and et cetera. Okay. And they, they frame it to them in the way the urban monoculture always does. It’s just a random draw of the straw. I’m sorry. Simone Collins: Totally fair. 100% fair. Yes. Malcolm Collins: That’s just a hundred percent fair. Four people and they all, oh, that doesn’t sound statistically likely. But by the [00:07:00] time it’s to the last one, you can’t really do anything, can you? Because we are the nice ones. We are the Quakers. No, I, I think this is important to know, right? People go off on, on me always. I rip on when people are like, oh, Malcolm, you dig so hard into Jews. You dig so hard into Catholics. Speaker: Why isn’t anyone attacking him? Speaker 2: It’s freezing out. Speaker: No, I think it’s the sign. Speaker 2: Well, the sign from diehard three was clearly racist, Speaker: obviously. But I think we went too broad. Everybody. I mean, who is that offending Speaker 2: everybody. Speaker: Ah, Malcolm Collins: I always say the OG culture that I have a hate boner for is Quakers. And you really see it in our books. It was the number one culture. I was just from the get go. Like, these guys are evil with the face of goodness. Actually, you know, the AI thing where it’s like the smiley face on like the hug off monster, whatever. Simone Collins: That’s Quakers for you. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: That’s Quakers for me. Right? The but anyway, to continue. [00:08:00] To those who’ve only heard the cartoon version of Quaker history and find our claims shocking. Perhaps you’re thinking maybe the Quakers own slaves at a high rate, but maybe they worked really hard to end slavery. Right? That’s what we’ve heard about Quakers. Sure. Search for famous Quaker abolitionists. And you get names like eliza Hicks, a Quaker who urged boycotts and Benjamin Lay, who theatrically flung blood on people and made a big scene about how opposed he was to slavery. As you read more about such figures, you will find none of these activities actually did anything to end slavery, and none of them did anything other than com

    1 ч. 29 мин.
  2. Girlbosses Aren't Independent; They're State Sponsored

    -1 ДН.

    Girlbosses Aren't Independent; They're State Sponsored

    Simone and Malcolm Collins break down Inez Stepman’s viral essay “The Myth of the Independent Girlboss” from First Things. They argue that the modern “independent woman” ideal isn’t true independence — it’s heavily subsidized by the state through taxpayer-funded programs, policies, and cultural shifts that externalize costs onto society. Topics include: * State-subsidized childcare and education * Student debt (women hold ~2/3 of it) * Lawsuit-driven affirmative action and HR bureaucracy * Child support and alimony as hidden subsidies * The explosion of “email jobs,” DEI, and nonprofit activism * Cheap immigrant labor enabling two-income households * The decline in teaching quality and volunteering turned into paid activism They discuss how the “girlboss” has been replaced by cultural backlash (tradwife leanings on the right, anti-capitalist vibes on the left), why most “successful” girlboss stories in tech are illusory, and what policy changes (many already happening under the current administration) could shift incentives back toward family and real independence. Show Notes The entire concept of the girl boss may have been a lie. In other words, the concept of an independent professional woman who depends on nobody is a farce, and so-called girlbosses are actually state sponsored. This is the proposition of Inez Stepman in her essay The Myth of the Independent Girlboss and it really resonated with people. Inez Stepman’s First Things Essay: The Myth of the Independent Girlboss The Myth of the Independent Girlboss Stepman writes: “The Atlantic published an essay by Helen Lewis declaring the “Death of Millennial Feminism,” while in Slate Jill Filipovic defended the girlboss ideal against what she calls an “absolutely enormous antifeminist backlash within which we are all living.” They both take for granted, however, that the girlboss has declined from her cultural primacy. That may be so, but she’s taken no comparable hammering in the world of public policy.” “Whether the Millennial image of the girlboss, with its shrill first-person confessional style, is fading into cheugy-ness with the inevitable generational pendulum swing, the cornerstone of her appeal, “independence” from men and family, has never been so popular. On Reddit’s infamous r/relationships subreddit, half of all advice given amounts to “leave,” up from 30 percent in 2010 and still climbing. Nearly half of Gen Z choose financial independence over romance when surveyed, and nearly three times as many Americans say having a career they enjoy is more important than getting married or having children. In a 2023 submission to the New York Times’s execrable “Modern Love” series, divorcée Maggie Smith exhorts women “never” to be financially dependent on a man.” She describes how dependence on anyone has come to be seen as an embarrassment, but argues that women’s dependence has just been shifted from men and family to a complex set of government policies and programs. “The image of the working woman, the girlboss, remains the sine qua non of independence. After all, she pays her own bills using money she earned herself, or so it seems. But dig into the details and one learns she is propped up from every angle by laws, taxpayer dollars, and the ability to externalize the costs of her lifestyle onto others. In other words, the girlboss is often as much a dependent as Betty Draper, but her dependence is less honest, laundered through public policy.” Stepman cites: * State-subsidized childcare * State-subsidized universities / student loans * “Higher education is disproportionately attended and staffed by women. It is also funded in large part by the taxpayer, with an output that adds to cultural revolution more than to the wealth of nations.” * “Women hold two-thirds of outstanding student debt, nearly all of which has been financed by the federal government. Unless serious policy changes are made to defuse this debt bomb, the high default rates will ultimately fall on the taxpayer, through whom the government already owns 93 percent of student loans.” * “the wild proliferation of “email jobs” and administrative compliance positions that don’t add to the company bottom line” * Lawsuit-risk-driven affirmative action for women in corporations * “In 1991, reforms to the Civil Rights Act ensured that lawsuits over (often spurious) sexual harassment claims in the workplace became a major cash cow for litigants. Companies responded by bending the knee to the most easily offended, kicking off the era of “political correctness” and spawning an enormous industry that trains employees not to harass one another. These reforms also raised the stakes for employers to prove they were not discriminating on the basis of sex or race in their hiring and promotion practices, pushing them well beyond meritocracy into de facto affirmative action for women and minorities.” * One might also throw child support in there * Was just reading a different article about a divorced mom’s budget * “I’ve been single for about five years now. Divorce has been a game changer for me. I would recommend it! My marriage afforded me a certain amount of privilege, as my husband made a good salary, and our combined income was close to $200,000. But even though I have less money coming in now, and I receive some child support, I feel more independent and confident about my financial position than when I was married. I think some of it was that when your marriage doesn’t feel secure, it can make you feel financially insecure. And leaving my marriage changed those feelings for me. I’m the only one in charge of my money now, and I like it that way.” * Salary: Mental health counselor, $85,000 * Child support: $1,750 (Child support payments are not taxable to the recipient and not deductible by the payer) * Urban-monoculture-driven jobs * “Even more pernicious is the proliferation of Soviet commissar-style jobs, both in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors, that exist primarily to enforce political agendas rather than to produce value. In the U.S., the number of human resources jobs, three-quarters of which are filled by women, has exploded, roughly doubling from 2014 to 2024. It’s unlikely that managing a payroll has become commensurately burdensome in the past ten years; those additional roles exist to enforce diversity laws. The entire DEI complex is a giant subsidy for make-work positions staffed by women and racial minorities.” * The outsourcing of domestic labor made possibly by lax immigration policies * “In major cities such as New York and Los Angeles, up to half the nannies on the books are immigrants, and the real number is likely higher, with many skirting labor laws. The profile of other domestic task-replacers looks similar, with cheap delivery services such as DoorDash and Grubhub, staples for two-income households too harried to cook dinner, incentivizing an enormous black market that rents verified accounts to illegal immigrants.” * From the cited article: “As of December 2024, [DoorDash] said its screening process prevents over 15,000 prospective Dashers from joining the platform/driving due to failing to submit the necessary criteria. Monthly deactivations of inauthentic accounts have more than doubled compared to 2023, with all of that year’s deactivations already being surpassed by July 2024. The company also says it prevents, weekly and on average, about 4,600 attempts by deactivated Dashers who previously violated verification policies from regaining access.” Stepman notes the following adverse effects on society: * Worsening education * “The quality of teaching, traditionally a feminine profession at least until the college level, has collapsed along a timeline that suggests that diverting talented women into higher-paid careers was the cause. Let’s posit for the sake of argument that it’s better for those ambitious and intelligent women to be lawyers instead of shaping the future minds of both sexes in the classroom. Is it better for society as a whole that teaching has been relegated to a low-scoring backup plan, that still remains predominately female?” * The cannibalism of volunteering and philanthropy into paid, professional activism * “Volunteering and philanthropy, on the other hand, once the province of Gilded Age heiresses and women with grown-up children, have been professionalized, through correspondingly multiplying female-staffed NGOs. In short, the feminine impulse toward empathy that used to be predominantly applied to solve problems in one’s community has been transformed into permanent activism as a career. Instead of the Daughters of the American Revolution raising town statues, we have women whose career advancement depends on tearing them down.” She advocates for more work-from-home flexibility, homeschooling, and start-up communities and recommends: * Ending mass immigration that undercuts American workers * No more affirmative action for women or lawsuit paydays for women * No more federal loans for universities and female-dominatd majors and degrees that don’t pay for themselves * No more federal funding for “the female-dominated NGO complex” “But let’s be clear: The status quo is maintained by a network of laws and policies that push women out of the home and into the workforce. Women who would prefer to work part-time or not at all while their children are young—still the substantial majority—must make heavy sacrifices to do so, sacrifices that were unnecessary forty or fifty years ago.” The Critical Response First Things posted the article on X and it got decent traction Cathy Reisenwitz had a good take: “There is no girlboss vs tradwife fight. Both are media inventions. Most women have kids and work, now, and also at every point in recorded history.” Some complained: * @hollowearthterf wr

    51 мин.
  3. Polyamory Enters the LGTBQIA+ Pantheon (This is Good)

    -2 ДН.

    Polyamory Enters the LGTBQIA+ Pantheon (This is Good)

    In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive into one of the most provocative cultural shifts happening today: the growing inclusion of polyamory as a protected sexual identity alongside the LGBT+ framework. They explore: * The historical “slippery slope” arguments from the gay rights movement (and how the left once fiercely rejected them) * Why polyamory is now being mainstreamed in progressive spaces * Biological, psychological, and cultural variance in monogamy vs. polyamory * Striking parallels (and differences) between polyamory and same-sex attraction * Why Malcolm now argues we should treat polyamory similarly to being gay — not as something to celebrate or condemn, but as a neutral biological/psychological variation They also discuss family structure, reproductive fitness, leftist organizations like Black Lives Matter, legal changes in cities like Somerville and Cambridge, historical quotes from Dan Savage and Evan Wolfson, Catholic priests and lesbian nuns, biker culture in gay history, and much more. A raw, nuance-heavy conversation that challenges both progressive orthodoxy and conservative reflexes. Expect tangents on everything from Mormon cuckoldry porn searches to ramp foraging and steak dinners. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we’re gonna be talking about L-G-G-B-D-T-T-T-I-Q-Q-A-A-P-P Which was used by the Canadian Teachers Federation materials as example, wait no Simone Collins: wait. That there wasn’t a joke. Malcolm Collins: No, that’s not a joke. One. That’s a, that’s a real one. Speaker 2: They provided $0 to deal with the ongoing genocide of M-M-I-W-G. Malcolm Collins: I could go through it all, but I think it’s probably more interesting for me to just get to the point of all this, which is the recent and, and increasing inclusion of polyamory as a discriminated sexual identity within the whiter, urban monocultural, or progressive framework. Simone Collins: Okay. That’s interesting. Yeah. That it’s like, I guess, well, it is. Some people frame it as [00:01:00] a sexual orientation, so. I guess then it belongs there. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, well, I, I wanna talk about this, I wanna talk about it from a few angles. One, we are going to talk about it from the perspective of the early days of the gay rights movement. Sorry, not even early days until around 2009, 2000, like 13. So, so up until like more recently the LGBT movement was fervent about the, this slippery slope argument on the right, that if we normalize. Same sex relationship today. We’ll be normalizing polyamorous relationships tomorrow. And they were very aggressive. We’ll go over quotes and stuff. This is not the case. The movement will never turn into this. Simone Collins: Wait, people actually said that. Really? Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, I always talk about, like, I remember when I was in school and I talk about my time in the GSA, the the Gay Straight Alliance. And I remember somebody being shouted out of the room because they suggested [00:02:00] that trans people may want to participate in sports of the gender they identify as. And they were shouted out of the room because people said, that’s a far right slippery slope. Simone Collins: You would ever do Malcolm Collins: that argument. No one would ever do that. No one would ever argue that. You’d have to be crazy to think that. And oh, somebody would only present that as an idea in bad faith. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: So they get shouted outta the room and I was like, Hmm, interesting. Simone Collins: Indeed. Malcolm Collins: So, I wanna go over it from that angle. I wanna go over it from a different angle as well, which is like, why is it culturally happening? Because I think it’s a, a shift in the way we see and think about sexual identities. Hmm. And finally, what I’m going to argue is I fundamentally think it’s a good thing, which is gonna surprise people Simone Collins: to, to support it, to add it, to, Malcolm Collins: to consider being polyamorous. Mm-hmm. The same sort of lifestyle choice as being gay. Simone Collins: Ah, [00:03:00] okay. Malcolm Collins: And I’d actually say that I support it. Pretty much Exactly. As equally as I support being gay. Yeah, okay. Which is sort of like a, I wouldn’t advise it, but you know, if that’s what you’re gonna try, I am not gonna like, look down on you for it. Right. Yeah. So what I mean by this, so people may wonder what I mean by this and why I think it is fundamentally a good thing. And I, and I actually do not think it is logically wrong now that we are identifying it as the same type of thing as being gay. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: There is obviously a variance biological variance in both the desire somebody has for additional partners when they are in a long-term loving relationship. And the jealousy they feel when, you know, partners take other partners or like their, their ability to handle this. Yeah. I, I, I’d go so far as to argue that in some cultures seep people, because, you know, cultures interact with biology. Right. And if you’re in a culture where people take [00:04:00] multiple wives for many generations you are going to develop unique predilections, psychological predilections that people in other cultures are unlikely to have. A great example of this that we go over is cing is really common in the Mormon community and statistically more common in Mormon areas if you look at like porn searches. Wow. So why would this be the case? Well, if you are in a community where multiple. Partners is common, and you as a female get hugely turned off or hugely jealous when you see your partner sleeping with somebody else. You are going to be a more difficult partner. You are going to work less well with your sister wives and you are going to have fewer surviving and successful offspring. Sure. Yeah. Because the sister wives aren’t gonna help them as much. Whereas, and then people can be like, well then why are guys into it? And it’s like, well, you know, evolution didn’t have that long to work in these regions. And so if it makes girls into it, it’s gonna accidentally make some guys into it as well. Right. You know? And so, you know, the, the, the. [00:05:00] The, there’s likely a biological component to this as well, like, I’m just being clear here. It’s the same with same sex attraction, right? Like same sex attraction likely has a, a, a, a biological component and is going to be more common in some cultures and more rewarded by some cultures than others in terms of its reproductive fitness. Interestingly, by normalizing same sex relationships, you make same sex arousal dramatically more genetically unfit. So for example, in the West, historically. Simone Collins: Oh, I get it. Because basically you’re allowing people who experience same sex arousal to like not end up in heterosexual marriages and then not have kids. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Historically in the, in, in Western society, I guess you’d say more broadly same-sex attraction really wasn’t that much a hit to your genes because most same-sex attracted people just got married anyway and had kids anyway, right? It was the normalization [00:06:00] of same-sex attraction that sort of nuked this as a a, a genetic trait that you super, super, super do not wanna have. If, if your goal is passing on as many of your genes to future generations as possible, but to continue here. But as we’ve said in other streams, so, so what I’m pointing out here is there is variance biologically in how much somebody might be compatible with a polyamorous lifestyle, and there is variance both genetically and, and you know, epigenetically and psychologically in terms of events that happened to you as you’re raised that are going to affect same sex attraction, right? So, both of these variances, I think are equally arguable to be outside of an individual’s control. So I don’t think a you know, like what gay people would say historically is, well, I was born this way, right? As, as if the poly person was not. Potentially also to an extent born that way. It might have been less of a clear [00:07:00] gradient in terms of the psychological proclivities and arousal pathways. But they were born that way just as much as a gay person was born this way. Or the gay person will say, well, this is part of my identity. It’s like, well, you chose to make same sex attraction part of your identity. You don’t have to do that. As we’ve pointed out, like in different cultures, like in the Catholic tradition they disproportionately join the priesthood with 25 to 50% of Catholic priesthood. Simone Collins: A huge difference between how you feel and what you make your identity. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. You, that, that, that is, and people are like, what? So they’re forced to go? It’s like, no, they choose it. You are the one who wants to force them to have same sex relationships. Right. The Catholic church is like, well, you can go and do that. It is sinful, but like, we’re not gonna make it illegal. But I, I don’t think in any Catholic majority country is being gay illegal right now. But here is another option of a way to live your life. And I’d be willing to bet on psychological scores. Like if you look at because if you look at while gay men are, are generally psychologically healthier [00:08:00] than like bi people or lesbians. Look at our problem of, of like bisexual people. We need to talk Oh yes. Way off the charts on everything sort of, they are less psychologically healthy than the regular population. I bet if you contrasted same sex attracted people who joined the Catholic church as priests versus who went into same sex relationships. The ones who joined as priests are probably like much happier, have much greater senses of fulfillment and are likely have fewe

    53 мин.
  4. The Year Trans Was Invented (Gender Dysphoria Absent From the Historic Record)

    -3 ДН.

    The Year Trans Was Invented (Gender Dysphoria Absent From the Historic Record)

    In this deep-dive episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins examine the provocative claim that gender dysphoria—the intense, modern experience driving today’s trans movement—has no precedent in recorded human history before the 1920s. They contrast historical examples of cross-dressing, third-gender roles, or gender-nonconforming behavior (two-spirit, hijra, sworn virgins, Elagabalus, etc.) with the core modern trans experience: profound discomfort with one’s birth sex that often leads to demands for medical transition, pronoun changes, and access to single-sex spaces. Malcolm and Simone argue that gender dysphoria resembles culture-bound syndromes like anorexia—intensely felt but socially influenced, disproportionately affecting autistic individuals, emerging around puberty, and exploding via social contagion and media stories. They respond to critics like Short Fat Otaku (Dev), discuss the shift from 1990s liberal “live and let live” assumptions, the role of bad actors, sports/prisons/restrooms, detransition, and why new evidence (Cass Review, WPATH files, UK data) demands updating views. Simone shares her personal experience with anorexia to illustrate how real these feelings feel even when culturally shaped. A data-driven, empathetic, and unflinching conversation on human flourishing, consent, and ideological capture. If you’re interested in history, psychology, culture-bound illnesses, or the trans debate, this episode is essential. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be going deeper down a rabbit hole that I have pulled on in the past, but I was called back to it by an episode I watched of the rapidly declining in viewers short fat Orta. I, I think we now do better than him in terms of, of view count by probably like 20%. That’s insane. Which is pretty exciting because I used to really like him in his videos and he sort of got, he, he actually represents a, a wider phenomenon that I wanted to grab onto on this topic because he, in its recent video, he was critical of leaflets debate performance, whereas almost everyone else says that she won dramatically. I even had this moment where he’s like, I think she lost the trans debate she was having. And I was like, to go to an AI and be like, is it general? What’s the general consensus on who won this debate? And it’s like overwhelmingly leaflet. And it, and then it went through all of the reasons. It was overwhelmingly Lisa. So I was like, okay, just checking on that crazy. Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. Just so yeah. To, to even override your, your bias still. Malcolm Collins: But [00:01:00] he said one thing that really got under my skin at the beginning because a trans person was saying to somebody who was in this debate that was happening on X you know, we were here before you and we will be here after you. And then his response to went viral was like, this is true. And, and he then says, trans people have been reported in human history since, you know, across cultures since the beginning of time. And this is. Factually not true. And I actually don’t even really blame short fat Otaku for not knowing this because this is just, he’s not a historian. Simone Collins: Yeah, Malcolm Collins: yeah. Well, it’s something that’s not widely known and yet is claimed with a lot of confidence by the trans community. And if you don’t double check, because you, you’ll be broadly aware, like if you’re aware of history, you will be aware that throughout human history and a lot of different cultural context where people will take on alternate gender roles where sometimes people cross dress in [00:02:00] history yeah. Where people would act like a man or a female at different points in history. Speaker 2: The Fall of Rome. Joe Rogan had this to say on his podcast Speaker 3: fascinating that the end of empires, they get really concerned with gender and hermaphrodites Speaker 2: the Roman fem boy. Fully grown and willing to take on the role of a common Roman woman. Even the emperor himself donned girly outfits, mascara, and held many chamber parties . The Roman Senate began having debates to determine if quote, being with a fem boy was a totally gay thing. After all, Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And so you take that and you then just are like, yeah, of course. I’ve heard like three or four instances of that happening in history that I can just think of off the top of my. But that’s not what the modern trans movement is. The modern and even the core complaint of the modern trans movement is gender dysphoria. This really, really intense discomfort with your birth, gender [00:03:00] to the extent that you may want to unlive yourself, right? Like, you, you cannot live a mentally healthy life as your birth gender. It is something that is constantly eating at you if you, if you don’t transition this phenomenon literally. Nowhere in history before the year 1920. Speaker: And you may wanna say, well, Malcolm, that’s pretty nitpicky. So you’re saying that there have been alternate gender presentation throughout history, but there’s never been dysphoria recorded in history. , Why does that matter? Right. And it’s like, well,, if it turns out that dysphoria is a modern cultural phenomenon, if dysphoria is not actually part of the human condition, then most trans arguments immediately fall apart. The idea of I can’t be mentally healthy without doing this because of what? Because of the distress I feel when I’m. Displaying my birth gender. If you say, well, that distress is a cultural artifact and would probably better off removing the cultural artifact than,, a, a attempting [00:04:00] to address it through major surgery, that falls apart And if you can say, well, if the people in Historia, , you know, lived as other genders but didn’t feel dysphoria, then why they do it? And it’s like, well, we actually have a very good record. , Most of the time it was either like a woman wanted to live as a. Father in like a church and like a, this is sort of lifestyle. , Or did she wanted to fight in a war and women weren’t allowed to fight in wars during that period. , Or, , she wanted to pursue a gay relationship and women weren’t allowed to pursue gay relationships in that period. , Or. With guys. , It’s often they were cross-dressers. Cross-dressing is something we see recorded throughout history. Even today. To conflate somebody who is a cross-dresser with a trans person is extremely offensive to both the trans community and the community of Crossdressers. They are not the same thing. Wanting to dress up and talk like a woman sometimes is not the same thing as. Being trans. So, , if you say, oh, well in history we have [00:05:00] cross dressers, but no trans people, that’s a significantly different thing That removes most of the motivation for like why we need to gender someone correctly. Gender dysphoria. Why do I need to use that restroom? Gender dysphoria? Why do I need to be on the sports team? Gender dysphoria. But if we’re looking to history and all we have is sometimes I like cross-dressing, then it’s why do I have to play on this girl’s sports team? Because I like cross-dressing. It’s like, oh no, that’s stupid. No, we can’t let you on the sports team just because you like cross-dressing. If gender dysphoria is a cultural artifact, that is the center stone that the entire trans community relies on To demand they, one, be seen as their preferred gender. And two, gain access to safe spaces that would otherwise be referred for people who were born, that gender. , And also just to head this off at the beginning of this. , We do not think that they are faking feeling gender dysphoria or the [00:06:00] severity of the gender dysphoria. They are. They feel, , we suspect with a lot of evidence that we’ve gone over in other episodes that gender dysphoria. Is very similar to other forms of body dysphoria, which are associated with culture bound illnesses. These are psychological conditions that only happen within certain cultures, within certain periods of history, and people are unable to catch unless they are aware of them with the most famous being anorexia. And again, you can see a lot of similarities. Age of onset around puberty, gender distribution. More girls than guys, , key characteristics hits autists more than the general population, , associated with intense body dysmorphia. , And Simone, as somebody who. Went through that, and we’re gonna see this throughout this episode, can really empathize with how real this feels. But if it is a culture bound illness, the way that we need to address it is [00:07:00] entirely different than the way our society is addressing it right now. If we actually care about the people who are suffering from it. Malcolm Collins: and there are two maybe cases but both of them are really bad. We’ll go into them in a bit. Just to briefly touch on them, one is a Jewish rabbi from 600 years ago who wrote a poem poem, wrote poem about like, wouldn’t it have been better to be born a woman? And we’ll go through the poem and everything like this. And just to sort of give, give away the thing there, it’s, that poem is considered within Jewish thought for 600 years up until the year 2000. Not a single scholar. It’s a very famous poem. Thought that it wasn’t satirical. In fact, it was considered almost prototypical or a, an excellent example, often used of Jewish humor from that period. So not a single scholar or rabbi for 600 years thought it was anything other than a joke. Simone Collins: Well, even it wasn’t a joke though. I, I don’t think that that could even [00:08:00] necessarily be seen as gender dys Malcolm Collins: dysphoria. It was a joke. It was written as a joke. It sat down. Simone Collins: No, but even if it wasn’t as, someone could just be like, well, practically, I’

    1 ч. 47 мин.
  5. How A Socialist Became The Least Controversial Figure On The Right (Shoe0nHead)

    -4 ДН.

    How A Socialist Became The Least Controversial Figure On The Right (Shoe0nHead)

    In this Based Camp deep dive, Malcolm and Simone Collins explore one of the most fascinating figures in online culture: Shoe0nHead (June Lapine). Why has a self-described social democrat, Bernie supporter, and pro-union leftist maintained massive popularity and respect in right-wing and anti-woke spaces for over a decade—while most other left-leaning creators from the early skeptic/atheist era lost their audiences? We break down: - Her unique journey from Gamergate-era anti-SJW commentary to Catholic trad wife and mother - Why she never needed to “convert” her audience or pivot dramatically - The vitalistic, entertaining style that keeps her relevant across the political spectrum - The broader split in the old atheist community: truth-seekers vs. resentment-driven dunkers - Why the modern right can embrace ideological diversity (and why the left struggles with it) - Shoe0nHead as proof that the new right is a big-tent movement built on reality and forward momentum rather than purity spirals If you’ve ever wondered why right-leaning creators constantly react to and platform Shoe0nHead (even when she criticizes Trump mildly), this episode explains it. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be pulling a thread that we got to in another video and in this other video we were talking about the. Community of early online skeptics slash atheist, which was like the core of sort of YouTube culture in the earliest days of YouTube. And how the individuals in this community that went right, they first became anti-feminist and anti woke, then went into Gamergate and then became the seedbed that the new right movement grew out of. Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: And then another group of them drifted in another direction. They drifted left and the group that drifted left like they, they were in the early atheist anti theist movement. And then the movement went either at the anti-feminist or anti woke stage. Yeah. They lost their audiences. Notably, we didn’t talk about it in that video, but there is actually one that drifted left [00:01:00] even after that stage. He was there for anti-feminist, he was there for anti woke, and he only drifted left at the trans stuff. This is dev slash short Fighter Taku, who has co off his views are way lower than ours now. If you look at like weekly counts Simone Collins: has he overall drifted left? Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, he has refused to really call out the trans community as a serious problem. And something that needs to be in some way, you know, the, like it legislatively something like that, a addressed. Speaker 3: Inspector, do you know if the killer was a man or a woman? Well, if ca I know that. What else is there? The kitten, Malcolm Collins: And I, I think that that’s part of, he’s also become more proc censorship, like censoring people in his forums and stuff like that. Really? Simone Collins: Wow. That surprises me. It seems so unlike who I thought he was when I first started watching his videos. Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think that’s why he lost a lot of his followership, right? Speaker 8: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for [00:02:00] gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality? Malcolm Collins: Like it does, it does seem very anti what I thought he was right. But we noted one notable unique case in all of this, which was shoe on head. And Shoe on Head was very unique for a number of reasons. The, the biggest being is that she didn’t drift left over time or begin to adopt leftist talking points. She was thoroughly leftist from the beginning and, and quite a bit more leftist than I think a casual viewer may believe. She for example, to go over some of her leftist positions universal Healthcare, she wants, she has strong support of labor unions. She’s a believer in free college. She is a, as well as tuition forgiveness. She’s broadly anti-capitalist and anti-corporate regularly criticizing big businesses, everything like that. And she promotes working class [00:03:00] popularism. She voted for Joe Biden in 2020. She was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. And so yeah, very, very left wing, especially in her economic views. And also in, in her social views to an extent. . Simone Collins: She, she hasn’t talked about it a lot. In, in most of her recent videos, she, she’ll come out critical of Trump, but in no way more than in, in fact, less than many of the conservative. People that I’ll hear on YouTube these days, which is weird. Malcolm Collins: That I would say Simone Collins: is true more Malcolm Collins: recent videos. But if you, if you look at the whole holisticness of her work, she did not lose followers when she was talking about these leftist things. And she even has the name among her fan base of Ka mommy. So, you know, it’s a sweet name I think. But it’s also socially she’s been shown to be quite progressive. She right now is married to a trad C and has a kid, so be aware of that. And she converted to Catholicism over COVID. But before that, she was in a [00:04:00] long-term relationship with armored skeptic where she was public about having a 24 7 BDSM daddy, Dom little girl relationship. Simone Collins: She was not really, Malcolm Collins: yeah. Simone Collins: Whoa. She. Wow, okay. Malcolm Collins: And she still hasn’t condemned kink or anything like that, which is funny because on the social leftist front that would put her with us, where we do not condemn kink at all. We’re like, what? People are aroused by random Simone Collins: things. I know. Dumb, dumb little girl, very Catholic you know, but they work father into everything. I mean, come on. Malcolm Collins: I guess that’s right. Yeah. Simone Collins: See, it’s extremely paternalistic as, as a religion and like organization. I don’t understand why that that particular affiliation wouldn’t be. Quite match. Malcolm Collins: But I mean, she has kind of made joking videos about kink. She made that one a really good one actually, about women getting into like monster effer books.[00:05:00] Oh yeah. She didn’t outright condemn it. It was more the way that we talk about stuff like that where it is like women are ridiculous, that they pretend that men are the, the deviant ones and that they’re little, little Es. But in that other video, what I, what I talked about was why is she still relevant, but none of the other leftists. YouTubers are not relevant is because she didn’t try to change her audience. And she didn’t need to convert her audience. Her audience was never really persuaded by her economic arguments. She was never a pipeline out of the right to anyone. She’s still a mainstream watch figure in the right, and when I say in the right, I mean if, if she did a video and Asma Gold didn’t do a cover of it, I would be very surprised. Leaflet covers a lot of her videos. N Sinor always needs to brag when he gets mentioned in one of her videos, so clearly he’s watching [00:06:00] them. You know, if she mentioned us or birth rates, obviously I would be there. Speaker 4: Do you think it’s possible that Malcolm. Speaker 4: could be watching you right now? Speaker 3: Well, if I was Malcolm. Speaker 3: , I would certainly be watching and possibly tapping for later playback because you know, it’s a big deal to be talked about on Speaker 6: A shoe on head video. Malcolm Collins: and it’s and, and I, and I watch a lot of her videos too, just for even sort of like cultural relevance in the right, we pointed out that Sky Brows regularly has her along all of his alt-right v tubers and everything like that in his videos. And so first I like, I wanna talk on two topics here. One is, its how and why because this came up a lot in the comments of that video. How has Shoe on Head maintained this right wing following and loyalty for an example of another right wing influencer? Ho Math, ho Math did a chart of women he trusts, like online influencers. He trusted. And she came in really high on that [00:07:00] chart above I, I think the majority of like female conservative influencers on the chart, right? Like, that is saying something, right? Note at that what do the characters get at the top of the chart, which I think is fun is Pearl Davis. He is like Pearl Davis sniffed this girl out. This is with the, it was on his episode where he was talking about the the big, the Simone Collins: one who said that she was a virgin when she got married and the pope blessed her marriage and then turns out she was actually sleeping with this other guy while engaged, et cetera. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, and in that episode I realized just as a, a brief tangent here, and I think shoe on head actually sort of fits into this is that of conservative female influencers, because I wasn’t watching N’s version of this, I was watching the leaflet cover of this. Is that in the, in the conservative influencer space, there is a certain type of woman who just like comes up and her front and center thing is. I am ex religious woman, right? Like I am the trad cast, sexy woman, [00:08:00] right? And these are the people I think of when I think of quote unquote Christian influencers. And Leaflet was commenting that, you know, she gets accused of being a quote unquote Christian v YouTuber. Like, how dare you say this, as a Christian v tuber. And I realized how comical it was to consider a figure like leaflet or a figure like shoe on head alongside these quote unquote, like, I guess I’ll call ‘em Christian sea thought influencers. That’s what we’ll call them the Christian thought influencers. Simone Collins: Oh my gosh, that’s such a thing though. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Because neither of them, while both of them is Christian at this point neither of them leads anything with that, right? Like, that’s not their front, that’s not

    1 ч. 13 мин.
  6. OG Atheist Youtube Split: Why Did the Right Thrive While the Left Failed?

    10 АПР.

    OG Atheist Youtube Split: Why Did the Right Thrive While the Left Failed?

    In this episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into a fascinating question from a viewer comment: Why did the early 2000s-2010s online atheist/skeptic community splinter, with many becoming the seed crystal for today’s online right-wing culture—while those who shifted left (Atheism+, socialism, Democrat alignment) largely lost their audiences and relevance? We explore the two major “seed crystals” of modern internet culture: * YouTube skeptic/debater/edge-lord style (truth-seeking, anti-woke evolution, Gamergate → new right) * 4chan’s shocking authenticity and owning-it energy And on the left: Tumblr’s vibe/aesthetic-driven culture (memes, cancel culture, performance over truth). Why did right-leaning creators like Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, The Amazing Atheist, and Armored Skeptic stay relevant, while figures like Laci Green and iDubbbz crashed out? What makes ShoeOnHead the notable exception who kept a right-leaning audience without fully adopting the politics? And how does ContraPoints prove the rule with her theater-kid, BreadTube style? We also touch on: * Vibrant optimism vs. nihilistic pessimism * Truth-seeking vs. aesthetic vibes * Why conservatism now feels like “the new atheism” * Trump’s unique “Christianity,” religious evolution in the community, and more If you lived through the New Atheist era, Gamergate, or the Tumblr-to-mainstream-left pipeline, this one’s for you. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to explore a question that actually came up through a comment on one of my previous videos. So on one of my previous videos, somebody was pointing out, because I pointed out there was this evolution within online culture of the online atheist slash skeptic community, which then transformed into the online anti-feminist community. ‘Cause first it was dunking on Christians, then it was dunking on feminists, then it was dunking on. Woke people and then that transitioned into Gamergate. And then that became the core of what became the new right. Or at least like the online right culture. And he pointed out, he goes, well, hold on. There were also people, in fact, you could argue about half of the people involved was that original atheist community, that original you know, online skeptic community. Yeah. That went in the opposite direction. They went. Into the atheism Plus for anyone who [00:01:00] remembers that, that was like atheism plus socialism or something. And then they became Democrats and they became left-leaning. And, and this is true but one that doesn’t discount the fact that the ones who went to the right ended up forming the seed crystal that became online right-leaning culture. Mm-hmm. But two and more importantly, the key to the mystery that we’re on right now is. Every single one of them except for one. Notable exception, okay. Who went to the left from that original community ended up losing their audience, losing their relevance, and losing their cultural halt, whereas the ones went right, continue to be mainstream figures in the online. Right. Hmm. And the question is, is why? And my by the way, if you’re wondering who’s a notable exception here everybody knows who it is. It’s shoe on head. Yep. But, but, but shoe on head. It’s very [00:02:00] interesting and she sort of gives away part of the story here. Who is Shoe On Head’s? Audience shoe on Head’s. Audience is. A right leaning audience. Yeah, totally. If you watch like for example, we had Leaflet on recently and we’re talking about thing Oh, we were like, oh, something like, oh, shoe want head. Like obviously I know that she watched, she Want Head, we watch Shoe, want Head. You go to Asma Gold. Obviously Asma Gold Watches Shoe Want Head. Knox will talk about Shoe. Want Head. Oh Shoe Want Head Talk about, you know, everybody on the right watches, shoe on Heads. Yeah. So much so that you go to a Sky Brow video and it’s a bunch of conservative online commentators. And then in every single one, it’s shoe on it, right? Simone Collins: Amen. Malcolm Collins: And so what she managed to do was to maintain the audience that was transitioning into right wing political beliefs while not fully adopting them herself. Why, why would, why is she able to do that? Why do I watch you on head? I think it’s because I, I do not [00:03:00] feel that any of her beliefs are performative. Yeah. Like when I, when I watch her. She really believes what she believes about things. Well, Simone Collins: she comes across as based in the way that we understand based rather than the way that people on the left define based, which is like, oh, you’re a white nationalist. Whereas like, I, I see. Based as being unapologetically yourself, she comes across that. Plus she has that unique one, one very dominant element of being progressive these days is like. Non playful pessimism. And unless you, like, even when people are jocular, it’s in a very nihilistic non vivacious way. It’s like, oh, I’m depressed. Ha ha ha. Like that common comedic bit, you know, of like, it’s very clear that this person is clinically depressed and mentally unwell, but they’re laughing and joking. That’s not her way. And, and it, there’s a sort of, it, it only. It almost all universally shows up on the right. That when, when people are like vivacious and optimistic and [00:04:00] joking about stuff that, that’s kind of, that’s right coded, but she is that despite being not a. Republican, for example. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yet, we’ll see, I I, I have a feeling, ‘cause recently she came around and was like, oh, I’m a Catholic now, you know? Simone Collins: Yeah. As of the pandemic, she got God again, Malcolm Collins: I think, or was it very loud about because I didn’t know that until the recent video with Simone and I both were like, did you know that she just yeah. I, I think she might be on a pathway to I’m, I’m just saying very the slowest pipeline you’ve ever seen crash. But, but yo, she’s a mom now, right? So, you know. Yeah. That, that’s after a lot of people change, right? Simone Collins: Yeah. That, that’s also, you know, one point against being progressive, Malcolm Collins: but. The second thought I had is, okay, well maybe the answer to this is very, very easy because it’s not just that this group became the seed crystal that the online right grew out of. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: [00:05:00] Culturally, they, we’re, we’re very, very heavily impactful for what the online right is like today. The online, right today, when you look at the social norms, conventions, styles of videos, everything like that. Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: It clearly comes from the early. YouTube atheist slash edge Lord videos, right? Yeah. Like this culture is represented in it. None of that culture. When these people went to the left, I. Was adopted by the mainstream left. And so I was like, well, maybe the answer is that the left controls elite institutions, right? Mm-hmm. Like universities and stuff like that. And that is where they look in news companies, PR departments. I was like, that’s where they get their cultural talking points. It’s all taught down, whereas the right is bottom up. And that is why the internet didn’t end up influencing leftist culture. Mm-hmm. And then I started thinking a bit more about it and I was like. But that’s not [00:06:00] really true, is it? Because as an online culture watcher of that period the, the Tumblr culture of that period is the modern left. In fact, I’d say that the culture of Tumblr from that period almost completely, it, it eradicated and replaced whatever was there before. It is heavily, heavily, heavily impactful to the point where, you know. We were getting in fights on Tumblr. Like I, I didn’t have a Tumblr account, but like people were right about like, could you, could you be like a gender identify as like a cloud or you know, an attack helicopter or a turtle or a universe. Yeah. Yeah. And at the time today we’re like, oh, that’s like normal, weird lefty stuff. But no, at the time that was like a totally new cultural phenomenon, right? Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Now that’s gotten huge on the left. Right? And so have a, a lot of other cultural phenomenon. The, the you know, sort of fan fiction culture of, of Tumblr of that period. Many of the [00:07:00] ways of talking and joking, like the, the memes styles even cancel culture got its start was in Tumblr. And, and I will note, but that Simone Collins: I thought it came out of gay culture, which wasn’t really heavy on Tumblr, was it? Malcolm Collins: Well, they, they said, the word cancel came from the hashtag Cancel Colbert campaign, which is Simone Collins: hilarious. No, it existed before that, I think. Malcolm Collins: No, it did not really. It did not. You have gotten into this argument with me before on the show, and we looked it up Simone Collins: afterwards so you Malcolm Collins: were wrong. Simone Collins: Yeah, Malcolm Collins: it came from hashtag Cancel Colbert. Speaker: To give Simone Du, it was used in the black community before this, but it meant to like break up with somebody. It did not mean to attempt to de platform somebody cancel. Colbert was the first use of it in that context. Malcolm Collins: That is where it was popularized. And it was popularized by somebody named, I believe Amy Wong, who wanted to cancel Stephen Colbert, who is the most woke, obnoxious person ever for his Chong character. Where he went like, Ching Chong, Bing Bong, or whatever. Oh my Simone Collins: God, I forgot. Yes, yes, [00:08:00] yes. Speaker 2: my beloved character. Ching Chong. Ding dong. I love tea. It’s so good for you. You’re so pretty American. Girl. You come here, you kiss my tea, make all sweet. I no need no sugar when you are around. Come on rickshaw.

    59 мин.
  7. OpenAI Releases a "Plan" for Humans Once We Are No Longer Needed

    9 АПР.

    OpenAI Releases a "Plan" for Humans Once We Are No Longer Needed

    OpenAI just dropped their big “Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age” document — and it’s clear they’re battening down the hatches for AGI/superintelligence. In this Based Camp episode, Simone & Malcolm Collins break down the proposals, call out the performative elements, and discuss what it really means for jobs, society, wealth distribution, and human flourishing in a post-labor world. We cover: - OpenAI’s push for a “people-first” transition (or is it mostly optics?) - Public wealth funds, robot taxes, 4-day workweeks, and expanded safety nets - Why AI agents like our Reality Fabricator could replace entire workforces - The darker implications for demographics, family, and global power - Risk mitigation, liability, bio/cyber threats, and why meme-layer solutions might matter more than anyone admits Is this genuine preparation for superintelligence, clever self-preservation by OpenAI, or both? We give our unfiltered take. Watch until the end for Malcolm’s super-villain island/Charter City vision and what we’d actually build in a post-AI world. OpenAI’s Document: Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age Show Notes In April, OpenAI released a new document: Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First, which is their crack at launching an early, public conversation about how democratic societies should handle the onset of AGI They intend to support this agenda through feedback channels, fellowships, research grants, and convenings (e.g., its Washington, DC workshop). * “OpenAI is: (1) welcoming and organizing feedback through newindustrialpolicy@openai.com; (2) establishing a pilot program of fellowships and focused research grants of up to $100,000 and up to $1 million in API credits for work that builds on these and related policy ideas; and (3) convening discussions at our new OpenAI Workshop opening in May in Washington, DC.” * There is no actual information about this workshop out there * Maybe an indication of their not being serious? They propose AI governance and industrial policy They imply their proposals will help keep people at the center despite a transition to superintelligence They put forward an initial portfolio of policy ideas in two areas: “building an open economy” and “building a resilient society,” What they say they’re optimizing for: * Broadly sharing prosperity * Mitigating risks * Democratizing access and agency Their case for new industrial policy Society has navigated major technological transitions before, but not without real disruption and dislocation along the way. While those transitions ultimately created more prosperity, they required proactive political choices to ensure that growth translated into broader opportunity and greater security. For example, following the transition to the Industrial Age, the Progressive Era and the New Deal helped modernize the social contract for a world reshaped by electricity, the combustion engine, and mass production. They did so by building new public institutions, protections, and expectations about what a fair economy should provide, including labor protections, safety standards, social safety nets, and expanded access to education. “The transition to superintelligence will require an even more ambitious form of industrial policy” they write. Open Economy Proposals They acknowledge that the AI boom can severely concentrate wealth They argue for industrial policy that will” * “Give workers a voice in the AI transition to make work better and safer, including a formal way to collaborate with management to make sure AI improves job quality, enhances safety, and respects labor rights.” * “Help workers turn domain expertise into new companies by using AI to handle the overhead that usually blocks entrepreneurship (e.g., accounting, marketing, procurement).” * “Treat access to AI as foundational for participation in the modern economy, similar to mass efforts to increase global literacy, or to make sure that electricity and the internet reach remote parts of the globe.” * “rebalance the tax base by increasing reliance on capital-based revenues—such as higher taxes on capital gains at the top, corporate income, or targeted measures on sustained AI-driven returns—and by exploring new approaches such as taxes related to automated labor” * This is because they acknowledge income-based jobs are going to vaporize * “These reforms should be paired with wage-linked incentives that encourage firms to retain, retrain, and invest in workers, similar to existing R&D-style credits.” * Create a Public Wealth Fund that provides every citizen—including those not invested in financial markets—with a stake in AI-driven economic growth. * Smart move on behalf of AI companies if the financial welbeing of ALL citizens is dependent on their success * Would be kind of a massive win; if everyone owns you, you own everyone. * “Establish new public-private partnership models to finance and accelerate the expansion of energy infrastructure required to power AI.” * No brainer * “Convert efficiency gains from AI into durable improvements in workers’ benefits when routine workload declines and operating costs fall, including incentivizing companies to increase retirement matches or contributions, cover a larger share of healthcare costs, and subsidize child and eldercare. Incentivize employers and unions to run time-bound 32-hour/four-day workweek pilots with no loss in pay that hold output and service levels constant, then convert reclaimed hours into a permanent shorter week, bankable paid time off, or both. Where helpful, firms could also offer predictable “benefits bonuses” tied to measured productivity improvements so the efficiency dividend shows up both as long-term financial security and as time back for workers.” * This makes me worried * “Make sure the existing safety net works reliably, quickly, and at scale, because if the transition to superintelligence is going to benefit everyone, the systems designed to provide economic and health security need to deliver without delay or gaps. That starts with unemployment insurance, SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare that are not just in place but fully functional, accessible, and responsive to the realities people will face during the transition.” * THEY WON’T WORK AT SCALE AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY THINK IS GOING TO FIX THIS * This implies they expect a huge surge in unemployment, right? * They propose a metrics-driven, dynamic “package of temporary, [and] expanded safety nets (e.g., expanded or more flexible unemployment benefits, fast cash assistance, wage insurance, training vouchers)” * “Over time, build benefit systems that are not tied to a single employer by expanding access to healthcare, retirement savings, and skills training through portable accounts that follow individuals across jobs, industries, education programs, and entrepreneurial ventures.” * This makes sense * It’s stupid that employers are responsible for this (though I get how and why that happened) * “Expand opportunities in the care and connection economy—childcare, eldercare, education, healthcare, and community services—as pathways for workers displaced by AI.” * More atomization * THOUGH IN FAIRNESS TO THEM, THEY CONTINUE: “These initiatives could be complemented with a family benefit that recognizes caregiving as economically valuable work and supports evolving work patterns. This benefit could help cover childcare, education, and healthcare while remaining compatible with part-time work, retraining, or entrepreneurship” * “Build a distributed network of AI-enabled laboratories to dramatically expand the capacity to test and validate AI-generated hypotheses at scale.” * YES Resilient Society Proposals This is their diplomatic way of saying: “Risk Mitigation Proposals” “This is not a new challenge. When transformative technologies have reshaped society in the past, they have introduced new risks alongside new benefits, and new systems were built to manage them as they scaled. As electricity spread, societies built safety standards and regulatory institutions. As automobiles transformed mobility, safety systems reduced risk while preserving freedom of movement. In aviation, continuous monitoring and coordinated response systems made flying one of the safest forms of transportation. In food and medicine, testing and post-market surveillance helped ensure safety in everyday use. In each case, resilience was not automatic—it was built with the luxury of time.” They propose that governments: * “Research and develop tools that protect models, detect risks, and prevent misuse across high-consequence domains, including cyber and biological risks as well as other pathways to large-scale harm.” * “for example, rapid identification and production of medical countermeasures in the event of an outbreak and expanded strategic stockpiles to prepare for future risks” * YES PLEASE * “Research and develop systems that help people trust and verify AI systems, the content they produce, and the actions they take—especially as these systems take on more real-world responsibilities” * “This work could also include developing and testing governance frameworks that clarify responsibility within organizations, including how accountability could be assigned to specific roles and how delegation, monitoring, and escalation processes could function as systems become more capable.” * I am genuinely interested to see how liability + AI evolve * This could be uncharitably interpreted as OpenAI hoping to evade liability by making sure the people who misuse it are held liable, but I think that’s fair. * Strengthen institutions such as the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) to develop auditing standards for frontier AI risks in coordination with national security agencies.

    1 ч. 12 мин.
  8. VTubers Have Transformed The Right Forever (The Nerdification of The Right)

    8 АПР.

    VTubers Have Transformed The Right Forever (The Nerdification of The Right)

    In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins explore a viral Asmongold take: VTubing as a “hack” that lets women (and others) influence online discourse without traditional appearance-based barriers. They dive into how anime avatars and VTubers have transformed the online right—opening doors for older, intellectually mature women, introducing female perspectives, and boosting the post-GamerGate “nerd right” faction. Topics include the evolution of the online right from edgy atheists to the modern conservative scene, why traditional female influencers were often young and impressionable, the rise of conservative VTubers like Kirsche, Leaflit, Rev Says Desu, and more, plus the cultural shifts around age, attractiveness, parasocial relationships, and factional dynamics within the right (deontologists vs. consequentialists, anti-nerd sentiments, etc.). They also touch on Anna Valens drama, anime’s role in conservatism, censorship, coalition-building, and why this VTuber phenomenon strengthens the right’s adaptability and intellectual depth. A fun, wide-ranging conversation on how technology is reshaping ideology and influence. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to hear with you today. Today we’re gonna be talking about an interesting phenomenon that came from a viral moment that Asma Gold got himself into. Oh, what? ASG Gold was I think, reacting to a tweet. And the tweet said something like, there is no point to male v tubers and Asma Gold said this is true. And then he went further, which is to say the key benefit of VT tubing for women is he said it’s like this crazy hack that they found out where you can be a hot woman without having to be a hot woman. And then he said the thing that was controversial, but many female vt tubers have reacted to this and been like, but this isn’t controversial, it’s just true. Oh no. Which he said is, if you look at not hot female influencers. The vast majority of them are v tubers to, to the extent that almost all of them are v tubers. Right. Speaker 6: To be clear, I am not saying that V tubers are predominantly unattractive. I actually do not think that this is the case. I think that they’re [00:01:00] well more attractive than the average person. , like the real people are more attractive than the average person. But we lived in an era where, women who were. Let’s say top 25%, but not top 10% of attractiveness were frozen out of being able to start to rise as intellectual influencers. , And this doesn’t just have to do with genetics. It was also really any woman who is over the age of 25 was frozen out of being able to rise as an intellectual influencer because men think younger women are attractive, generally speaking. , And. It’s worse than all of that because even if a woman is in the top 5% of attractiveness, but she is shy or she is insecure and doesn’t want people criticizing her looks because, , that is a normal thing for conservatives to do to immediately go after a woman’s looks if they don’t like her ideas. , She would not attempt to rise and v tubers as a concept, allowing this completely transformed that. Simone Collins: How would you know, aren’t most [00:02:00] v tubers good at concealing their identity? Malcolm Collins: Hmm, there’s the leaks all the time. Simone Collins: Can you put like images on screens of like the person next to their V YouTuber persona or just gimme their names so I can do it and then give it to you? Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no, no. We’re not gonna do that. And the reason I’m not gonna do that is because the leaks are typically unintentional and that’s mean. Simone Collins: Oh, okay. I just Malcolm Collins: like, like Simone Collins: by, I mean, are you saying like non Instagram filter ugly or do you mean like. Malcolm Collins: Well, this is, this is where we’re getting to the point, the point I wanted to, to talk Simone Collins: about and mean, do they look like me? Because, you know, there’s like thought hot and then Malcolm Collins: but the point I was going to make was that. This phenomenon that he is pointing out has actually completely changed the online conversation in the internet, right? It has changed the tone of it. It has changed the factions that are ideologically winning within it. And I really want to go into how this happened. Like, like how things are changing [00:03:00] because of V tubers. And it, and it comes fundamentally down Tomic golds. Observation. So to not extract too much. If you go back and we go to the preview tubing days of the online, right? So we’ve gotta first talk about a bit about the online, right? We have one history on how the online right. Evolved from edgy atheist, which is weird, but it did it, it originally started as the skeptic community, if you go back to like, when I was a kid, right? And some. Online YouTubers, like literally you see their career evolve through each of these phases of the online run. Back then it was not right-leaning at all. No, no. These people got tired of dunking on Christians because really there weren’t that much of them. And the arguments, you know, they weren’t as fun, like the gotcha were It gets old, it gets, yeah. It was much more fun to dunk on feminists. Right. And then dunking on feminist turned into Dunking on wokeness which then sorted its way into the, the gamer gate and all of that, and then the [00:04:00] mainstream online. Right, right now. Right. And, and we point out that this, this is what makes up the new Right. Ideologically this group is obviously going to crash with the legacy, right. Because this is a community that has you know, like. Most of our crusades as the movement was being radicalized into a right wing movement, were about stuff like des censoring sexy female video game characters and stuff like that, right? Like arguing against bad faith, against too much violence online and stuff like that, which really is completely the. Opposite perspective of a lot of the Legacy riot, which was like, we need to ban rap music. It’s too violent and ban GTA and and so, oh my gosh. Yeah. And this is where part of the rights inversion came from. But during this period, you did not have that mini female influencers within this movement with the probably biggest [00:05:00] female influencer in this movement being. A socialist. And here I’m speaking of course, of shoe on head where she is often lumped in as part of this larger ideological movement by her detractors when she is just solidly leftist, like, and, and, and really like tries to remind people like. Look, I know I said this Trump policy was reasonable. I’m still a socialist. I’m just trying to be sane here. People like I don’t, Simone Collins: and a Catholic socialist too. She, she made it very clear she was a practicing Catholic again recently. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. She, yeah, she did say she’s a practicing Catholic. So Catholic and socialist. Can you get more leftist? Sorry. I know, I just hang, heard a lot. I’m joking. Joking. For people who don’t know, traditionally the Democratic party was seen as the Catholic party. Mm-hmm. Like historical, Simone Collins: I’m, come on Kennedy, our first Catholic president. Malcolm Collins: Well, Joe Biden Simone Collins: Biden Catholic. Yeah, totally. Malcolm Collins: And, and not just that, but if you look at voting lines, [00:06:00] historically, they were really tied to the percent Catholic a district was. Even today, if you look at US states and districts by percent Catholic now this isn’t to say that Catholics overwhelmingly vote Democrat anymore. I think in the last election was the first election where they voted conservative. Overwhelmingly interesting. Well not overwhelmingly by, by a small margin, but yeah. But she continue here. I, Simone Collins: yes. Malcolm Collins: Don’t, don’t wanna get on too much of a but the few influencers we did have in the Wright who were women had the number one hallmark of beauty which a lot of people are like I I, this reminds me of a time I went with Simone. She doesn’t believe me because I’m like, Simone, you’re actually extremely attractive for your age. And many of the times when you think someone is more attractive than you they are just younger. And the night where I think I really broke you on this is we were at a club and you had to have an ex on your hand if you were under drinking age. Yeah. And I was like, look around the club and find anyone you [00:07:00] think is more attractive than you. And then check if they have an ex on their hand. Yeah. And so you’d, you’d look around and every single time they had an ex on their hand, like they weren’t just a little bit younger than you they were significantly, significantly under younger than you. Simone Collins: Yeah. There was also that time we were sharing a table at a dinner, like at a restaurant, and there were three people sitting right next to us. And I thought that they were a group of friends and like just two less attractive ones, and then one attractive woman. Yeah, and it just turned out that it was parents and their teenage daughter, and I thought she was like 25. But no. Yeah, Malcolm Collins: gen Z looks old today Simone Collins: too. Yeah, she was like 16 years old and I thought she was like. God. Malcolm Collins: And you know, you as a girl saying this, imagine I as a guy said this about a girl. I saw a girl didn’t realize she was 16 and thought she was hot. No, and it’s actually, this is, guys get in trouble for like the dumbest stuff. You can’t tell somebody’s age. You really just by looking at them, Simone Collins: I guess some, some people kind of can, there’s there’s a not to, okay, we’re gonna get right [00:08:00] back on track after this. But there’s this reality TV show that I think Netflix recently produced where people date, but they’re not allowed to say how.

    1 ч.
См. все (761)

4,4
из 5
Оценок: 152

Об этом подкасте

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

Информация

  • Автор
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Годы выхода
    2023 - 2026
  • Выпуски
    761
  • Ограничения
    С ненормативной лексикой
  • Авторские права
    © Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Сайт подкаста
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Вам может также понравиться