Yes you can change people's mind. I can say that this podcast has lead to me significantly changing my mind about a couple of topics. It's also shifted my mind a bit on many more topics.
What would be to point of existing if we can't change our minds about things, it's like say people can't learn.
On the whole concept of offsetting meat consumption in the same way that you offset flying with carbon credits, at its core you’re paying slightly more to reduce the amount of harm. Instead of the roundabout way of paying for an offset and then eating factory farmed meat, why not just pay more to eat free range meat? Seems like unnecessary added overhead and still props up factory farming instead of just funding a more sustainable and ethical market.
Hey hey, Aidan here (one of the interviewers from FarmKind who made the calculator). A few reasons why you'd offset rather than paying more for free range:
(1) It's way cheaper: For example, The Humane League (one of our recommended charities) can spare a chicken from confinement in a battery cage for 85c, which works out to <0.1/egg.
(3) This goes further than free range: Free range eggs and pasture raised beef prevents some % of the suffering, but only a relatively small proportion. Consider that when it comes to egg-laying chickens, all the males are killed on their first day (most commonly by being blended alive). Or that pasture raised beef still experiences things like castration without pain-relief, and traumatic end of life processing. The calculator figures out how much you'd need to donate to offset ALL of the suffering experienced in an animals life
Happy to answer any other questions you have about it!
I have never seen Law Professor Gary L Francione, or animal activist Earthling Ed, NOT win an argument for veganism. I wish you would have one or both of them on your program sometime! Keep up the good work.
The most recent post from my substack blog, ‘Beyond the Faultlines’ explores these issues:
‘De-platforming’ and cancellation are the most visible forms of so-called ‘cancel culture’, but there are subtler ways in which public discourse is constrained when it comes to engaging with contentious issues.
Cancel culture has become one of the defining debates of our time. Critics argue it suppresses open discussion, while defenders claim it is a necessary check on bias and hate speech, whether from the left, the right, or both.
At its most literal, cancel culture refers to the outright silencing of speech or ideas through de-platforming, legal action or sanction, workplace dismissal, or even physical threats. In Australia, such incidents are increasingly common. Some years ago, there were calls to strip Bettina Arndt of her AM. Then came the Israel Folau controversy, and more recently, disputes involving the Sydney Theatre Company, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, and the Venice Biennale, all sparking passionate debate from those who support such ‘cancellations’ and those who see them as a threat to the arts and free discourse.
But while these headline-grabbing examples dominate the conversation, we must become more alert to the softer, more pervasive forms of cancellation that shape how Australians engage with one another. Paradoxically, the term ‘cancel culture’, often used by critics to highlight the loss of nuance in public debate, may obscure the more subtle manifestations of the problem it describes.
I suggest that what we’re witnessing is not a binary state of cancellation or tolerance but a continuum. Across institutions, the media, and personal conversations, there exists a spectrum of responses to controversial views. Often unconscious or unacknowledged, these responses deeply influence and frequently limit meaningful discussion.
The Cancellation Continuum
1. Literal Cancellation:
At the extreme end is the belief that a view is so reprehensible or dangerous that it warrants de-platforming, legal action, dismissal, or other punitive measures. Though increasingly common, many still regard such actions as overreach, except in the most egregious cases.
2. Total Exclusion:
A step down from formal sanctions is the belief that a view is so offensive or ridiculous that it should be excluded from debate altogether, even if no action is taken to punish the speaker.
3. Delegitimisation:
Here, the view is allowed to be heard, perhaps out of principle, but is then mocked, demonised, or dismissed as lacking merit.
4. Marginalisation:
The view is recognised as legitimate enough to be heard, but is swiftly marginalised or rebutted, rather than seriously examined for any insight it might offer.
5. The Socratic Response:
The most open approach is engaging with all perspectives in a genuinely curious, respectful, and intellectually honest search for insight and understanding.
A Commitment to the Socratic
Let me be clear: I am unequivocally committed to the Socratic response. Drawing on the words of the Heterodox Academy, established by psychologist Jonathan Haidt to promote viewpoint diversity in higher education, this approach brings people together “humbled by their incomplete knowledge, curious about what they can learn from others, able to share their own perspectives, and eager to think together with nuance, open minds, respect and goodwill.”
While I believe the Socratic response should be our default, I recognise that sometimes it may be naïve, or even irresponsible, to extend equal legitimacy to all views. Not all opinions deserve the same platform.
Only the most dogged free speech absolutist would insist that a call to expel all Muslims from Australia, for example, merits anything more than response 1 or 2. A proposal to criminalise same-sex relationships might justify response 2 or 3 in the eyes of many.
But on other issues, take opposition to same-sex marriage, for example, I believe a response closer to 5 is warranted. While I support same-sex marriage, I contend that opposing views should be respectfully explored. In practice, however, the public response tends to land around 3 or 4.
My point in outlining this framework is to argue for a greater commitment to the Socratic response wherever possible, and to raise awareness of how frequently we, consciously or not, default to more closed, reactive positions. Far too often, our media and personal conversations fall into categories 2, 3 or 4. This comes at a real cost to open, meaningful discourse.
Each time we encounter a viewpoint, we instinctively assign it a position on this continuum. I urge us to instead pause and reflect: how much of our reaction is shaped by political or social allegiance, or, more often, by unconscious emotion? How frequently do our biases lead us to shut down a conversation that could have deepened understanding?
Engaging in genuine dialogue is intellectually and emotionally demanding. It’s far easier to retreat into tribalism, mock the ‘other side’, and reaffirm our place within a like-minded bubble. But if we’re serious about reducing polarisation and confronting the complex problems our society faces, then the Socratic path, however difficult, is one we must learn to walk.
Dr Michael Liffman is an Adjunct Associate Professor at Swinburne University in Melbourne, Australia.
Yes you can change people's mind. I can say that this podcast has lead to me significantly changing my mind about a couple of topics. It's also shifted my mind a bit on many more topics.
What would be to point of existing if we can't change our minds about things, it's like say people can't learn.
On the whole concept of offsetting meat consumption in the same way that you offset flying with carbon credits, at its core you’re paying slightly more to reduce the amount of harm. Instead of the roundabout way of paying for an offset and then eating factory farmed meat, why not just pay more to eat free range meat? Seems like unnecessary added overhead and still props up factory farming instead of just funding a more sustainable and ethical market.
Hey hey, Aidan here (one of the interviewers from FarmKind who made the calculator). A few reasons why you'd offset rather than paying more for free range:
(1) It's way cheaper: For example, The Humane League (one of our recommended charities) can spare a chicken from confinement in a battery cage for 85c, which works out to <0.1/egg.
(2) Lack of access: 99% of what's for sale at the super-market is factory farmed, meaning that almost no one has access to humanely farmed product (https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8yG0N6HnOy8g/328a32f1-f2de-4a2c-f1d4-e02ffb05c800/w=2871)
(3) This goes further than free range: Free range eggs and pasture raised beef prevents some % of the suffering, but only a relatively small proportion. Consider that when it comes to egg-laying chickens, all the males are killed on their first day (most commonly by being blended alive). Or that pasture raised beef still experiences things like castration without pain-relief, and traumatic end of life processing. The calculator figures out how much you'd need to donate to offset ALL of the suffering experienced in an animals life
Happy to answer any other questions you have about it!
Please advise what JK Rowling has done which is objectively objectionable??
I have never seen Law Professor Gary L Francione, or animal activist Earthling Ed, NOT win an argument for veganism. I wish you would have one or both of them on your program sometime! Keep up the good work.
Love hearing Josh interviewed and getting to hear him describe himself, his work and his ideas to a different audience.
The most recent post from my substack blog, ‘Beyond the Faultlines’ explores these issues:
‘De-platforming’ and cancellation are the most visible forms of so-called ‘cancel culture’, but there are subtler ways in which public discourse is constrained when it comes to engaging with contentious issues.
Cancel culture has become one of the defining debates of our time. Critics argue it suppresses open discussion, while defenders claim it is a necessary check on bias and hate speech, whether from the left, the right, or both.
At its most literal, cancel culture refers to the outright silencing of speech or ideas through de-platforming, legal action or sanction, workplace dismissal, or even physical threats. In Australia, such incidents are increasingly common. Some years ago, there were calls to strip Bettina Arndt of her AM. Then came the Israel Folau controversy, and more recently, disputes involving the Sydney Theatre Company, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, and the Venice Biennale, all sparking passionate debate from those who support such ‘cancellations’ and those who see them as a threat to the arts and free discourse.
But while these headline-grabbing examples dominate the conversation, we must become more alert to the softer, more pervasive forms of cancellation that shape how Australians engage with one another. Paradoxically, the term ‘cancel culture’, often used by critics to highlight the loss of nuance in public debate, may obscure the more subtle manifestations of the problem it describes.
I suggest that what we’re witnessing is not a binary state of cancellation or tolerance but a continuum. Across institutions, the media, and personal conversations, there exists a spectrum of responses to controversial views. Often unconscious or unacknowledged, these responses deeply influence and frequently limit meaningful discussion.
The Cancellation Continuum
1. Literal Cancellation:
At the extreme end is the belief that a view is so reprehensible or dangerous that it warrants de-platforming, legal action, dismissal, or other punitive measures. Though increasingly common, many still regard such actions as overreach, except in the most egregious cases.
2. Total Exclusion:
A step down from formal sanctions is the belief that a view is so offensive or ridiculous that it should be excluded from debate altogether, even if no action is taken to punish the speaker.
3. Delegitimisation:
Here, the view is allowed to be heard, perhaps out of principle, but is then mocked, demonised, or dismissed as lacking merit.
4. Marginalisation:
The view is recognised as legitimate enough to be heard, but is swiftly marginalised or rebutted, rather than seriously examined for any insight it might offer.
5. The Socratic Response:
The most open approach is engaging with all perspectives in a genuinely curious, respectful, and intellectually honest search for insight and understanding.
A Commitment to the Socratic
Let me be clear: I am unequivocally committed to the Socratic response. Drawing on the words of the Heterodox Academy, established by psychologist Jonathan Haidt to promote viewpoint diversity in higher education, this approach brings people together “humbled by their incomplete knowledge, curious about what they can learn from others, able to share their own perspectives, and eager to think together with nuance, open minds, respect and goodwill.”
While I believe the Socratic response should be our default, I recognise that sometimes it may be naïve, or even irresponsible, to extend equal legitimacy to all views. Not all opinions deserve the same platform.
Only the most dogged free speech absolutist would insist that a call to expel all Muslims from Australia, for example, merits anything more than response 1 or 2. A proposal to criminalise same-sex relationships might justify response 2 or 3 in the eyes of many.
But on other issues, take opposition to same-sex marriage, for example, I believe a response closer to 5 is warranted. While I support same-sex marriage, I contend that opposing views should be respectfully explored. In practice, however, the public response tends to land around 3 or 4.
My point in outlining this framework is to argue for a greater commitment to the Socratic response wherever possible, and to raise awareness of how frequently we, consciously or not, default to more closed, reactive positions. Far too often, our media and personal conversations fall into categories 2, 3 or 4. This comes at a real cost to open, meaningful discourse.
Each time we encounter a viewpoint, we instinctively assign it a position on this continuum. I urge us to instead pause and reflect: how much of our reaction is shaped by political or social allegiance, or, more often, by unconscious emotion? How frequently do our biases lead us to shut down a conversation that could have deepened understanding?
Engaging in genuine dialogue is intellectually and emotionally demanding. It’s far easier to retreat into tribalism, mock the ‘other side’, and reaffirm our place within a like-minded bubble. But if we’re serious about reducing polarisation and confronting the complex problems our society faces, then the Socratic path, however difficult, is one we must learn to walk.
Dr Michael Liffman is an Adjunct Associate Professor at Swinburne University in Melbourne, Australia.