WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.720 You know, there is something just incredibly 00:00:02.720 --> 00:00:05.019 visceral about a line drawn in the sand. Don't 00:00:05.019 --> 00:00:06.660 walk so slowly. Like imagine you're standing 00:00:06.660 --> 00:00:08.560 on a beach right and someone walks right up to 00:00:08.560 --> 00:00:11.160 you, takes a stick, drags it through the dirt 00:00:11.160 --> 00:00:13.599 right at your feet, steps back and says cross 00:00:13.599 --> 00:00:16.329 it or stay there. Right. It forces your hand 00:00:16.329 --> 00:00:18.750 completely. Exactly. You can't just be a bystander 00:00:18.750 --> 00:00:22.109 anymore. Just standing still is no longer just 00:00:22.109 --> 00:00:25.230 standing still. It suddenly becomes this active, 00:00:25.489 --> 00:00:28.129 heavily weighted decision. It really is the ultimate 00:00:28.129 --> 00:00:30.250 force choice. I mean, the moment that line is 00:00:30.250 --> 00:00:34.090 drawn, the entire universe of possibilities just 00:00:34.090 --> 00:00:37.429 collapses into two incredibly rigid boxes. Yes. 00:00:37.729 --> 00:00:40.939 And today, We are deconstructing that exact feeling 00:00:40.939 --> 00:00:43.859 for you. We are taking a deep dive into one of 00:00:43.859 --> 00:00:47.479 the most famous and frankly polarizing phrases 00:00:47.479 --> 00:00:49.740 in human history. You were either with us or 00:00:49.740 --> 00:00:52.359 against us. That's the one. Today's source material 00:00:52.359 --> 00:00:54.740 is a fascinating Wikipedia article that really 00:00:54.740 --> 00:00:57.079 breaks down this ultimate rhetorical hammer. 00:00:57.100 --> 00:00:59.359 Right. And we'll be tracing its evolution from 00:00:59.359 --> 00:01:02.060 ancient battlefields all the way to modern political 00:01:02.060 --> 00:01:04.900 debates. And even into the pop culture you consume 00:01:04.900 --> 00:01:08.640 every day. The mission here is to uncover the 00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:11.140 psychology of why this specific collection of 00:01:11.140 --> 00:01:14.500 words is so remarkably effective at forcing people 00:01:14.500 --> 00:01:17.439 to choose sides. Because it really is everywhere 00:01:17.439 --> 00:01:19.140 once you start looking for it. Oh, it really 00:01:19.140 --> 00:01:21.180 is. Okay, let's unpack this. What's fascinating 00:01:21.180 --> 00:01:23.480 here is that we often hear this phrase and, you 00:01:23.480 --> 00:01:25.659 know, We just dismiss it as a dramatic movie 00:01:25.659 --> 00:01:28.000 line or maybe some cheap political theater. Right. 00:01:28.180 --> 00:01:30.780 Like something a cartoon villain would say. Exactly. 00:01:31.019 --> 00:01:33.719 But from a linguistic and psychological standpoint, 00:01:34.099 --> 00:01:36.519 it's actually a highly calculated communication 00:01:36.519 --> 00:01:40.900 tool. And it's designed specifically to obliterate 00:01:40.900 --> 00:01:42.700 the middle ground. Obliterate the middle ground. 00:01:42.859 --> 00:01:45.459 I like that. Yeah, in logic, this operates on 00:01:45.459 --> 00:01:48.540 a mechanism known as an informal fallacy, specifically 00:01:48.540 --> 00:01:51.859 a false dilemma. And psychologists actually refer 00:01:51.859 --> 00:01:54.439 to this behavior as splitting. Splitting. OK, 00:01:54.459 --> 00:01:56.459 I want to dig into that psychological aspect 00:01:56.459 --> 00:01:59.060 for a second. Why does our brain fall for the 00:01:59.060 --> 00:02:01.459 false dilemma so easily? I mean, it seems like 00:02:01.459 --> 00:02:03.379 we should be smart enough to see through it, 00:02:03.400 --> 00:02:05.560 right? Well, it really comes down to cognitive 00:02:05.560 --> 00:02:09.960 load. Holding a nuanced gray area opinion requires 00:02:09.960 --> 00:02:12.479 just an immense amount of mental energy. Because 00:02:12.479 --> 00:02:14.719 you have to weigh all the options. Exactly. You 00:02:14.719 --> 00:02:16.319 have to weigh competing variables, you have to 00:02:16.319 --> 00:02:19.159 empathize with different perspectives, and mostly 00:02:19.159 --> 00:02:21.919 you have to tolerate ambiguity. Which our brains 00:02:21.919 --> 00:02:25.360 hate. We despise it. So in times of extreme stress 00:02:25.360 --> 00:02:28.099 or crisis, the human brain looks for a cognitive 00:02:28.099 --> 00:02:32.319 shortcut. Splitting is basically a survival mechanism 00:02:32.319 --> 00:02:35.360 that offloads the mental burden of nuance. Oh 00:02:35.360 --> 00:02:37.840 wow. Right. By splitting the world into absolute 00:02:37.840 --> 00:02:40.580 good and absolute evil or absolute safety and 00:02:40.580 --> 00:02:43.599 absolute danger, the brain actually saves calories. 00:02:43.780 --> 00:02:46.159 That is wild. It's like imagine you're with a 00:02:46.159 --> 00:02:48.300 friend and they ask you either want to eat this 00:02:48.300 --> 00:02:50.120 entire pizza with me right now or you want me 00:02:50.120 --> 00:02:53.240 to starve. Right. It completely ignored the perfectly 00:02:53.240 --> 00:02:55.560 reasonable middle ground of, you know, just having 00:02:55.560 --> 00:02:58.800 a salad or saving a slice for later. Exactly. 00:02:58.919 --> 00:03:01.780 but because your friend artificially spikes the 00:03:01.780 --> 00:03:04.039 stakes and frames it as a survival issue. If 00:03:04.039 --> 00:03:06.360 I panic and just eat the pizza. Exactly. You 00:03:06.360 --> 00:03:09.860 are forced to react to the threat rather than 00:03:09.860 --> 00:03:12.199 actually analyze the premise. It's less about 00:03:12.199 --> 00:03:15.360 logic and more about argumentation. Right. It's 00:03:15.360 --> 00:03:17.599 basically a descriptive statement identifying 00:03:17.599 --> 00:03:20.840 the basic assumption of the speaker and they 00:03:20.840 --> 00:03:23.699 use it to persuade or coerce others when they've 00:03:23.699 --> 00:03:26.780 decided that a position of neutrality simply 00:03:26.780 --> 00:03:29.500 won't be tolerated. Right, so it's a speech act. 00:03:29.740 --> 00:03:32.960 Yes, exactly. The entire mechanism relies on 00:03:32.960 --> 00:03:36.400 this implied consequence. If you don't actively 00:03:36.400 --> 00:03:39.219 join the effort, you are automatically deemed 00:03:39.219 --> 00:03:41.620 an enemy. Which means this isn't really a logical 00:03:41.620 --> 00:03:44.080 argument at all. It's a psychological trap. Precisely. 00:03:44.240 --> 00:03:46.219 And what's crazy is that human beings have been 00:03:46.219 --> 00:03:47.919 falling into this trap for thousands of years. 00:03:48.020 --> 00:03:50.180 Oh, absolutely. This goes way back. Yeah. When 00:03:50.180 --> 00:03:52.240 we look at some of our earliest recorded history, 00:03:52.620 --> 00:03:55.439 we see leaders leveraging this exact cognitive 00:03:55.439 --> 00:03:57.539 shortcut. Like if we look at the book of Joshua, 00:03:57.759 --> 00:04:00.039 chapter five. Right, the Jericho story. Yeah. 00:04:00.680 --> 00:04:02.580 Joshua is standing near Jericho, and he sees 00:04:02.580 --> 00:04:05.419 a man with a drawn sword. And Joshua walks right 00:04:05.419 --> 00:04:08.900 up to him and demands, are you for us or for 00:04:08.900 --> 00:04:11.650 our adversaries? The stakes are immediate. Completely. 00:04:11.949 --> 00:04:14.770 It is literal life and death right out of the 00:04:14.770 --> 00:04:17.350 gate. And we see that same life and death binary 00:04:17.350 --> 00:04:20.050 applied not just to literal battlefields, but 00:04:20.050 --> 00:04:22.790 to civic duty in ancient Greece. Oh, right. The 00:04:22.790 --> 00:04:25.089 Athens stuff. Yeah. Aristotle's Constitution 00:04:25.089 --> 00:04:28.129 of Athens describes this law passed by the statesman 00:04:28.129 --> 00:04:31.290 Solon. So Athens was frequently tearing itself 00:04:31.290 --> 00:04:33.269 apart with internal disputes. People, factions 00:04:33.269 --> 00:04:35.490 and all that. Right. But a lot of citizens were 00:04:35.490 --> 00:04:37.370 just... indifferent. They would just sit back 00:04:37.370 --> 00:04:40.189 and accept whatever the outcome was. So Solon 00:04:40.189 --> 00:04:42.649 passed a law stating that during civil factions, 00:04:43.230 --> 00:04:45.430 anyone who didn't take up arms with either party 00:04:45.430 --> 00:04:47.889 would actually lose their rights as a citizen. 00:04:48.350 --> 00:04:50.610 Wait, you actually lost your citizenship just 00:04:50.610 --> 00:04:52.870 for wanting to stay out of the drama? You cease 00:04:52.870 --> 00:04:55.569 to have any part in the state. That is intense. 00:04:55.889 --> 00:04:58.790 If two political factions are rioting in the 00:04:58.790 --> 00:05:01.350 streets and some guy decides to just lock his 00:05:01.350 --> 00:05:03.970 door, stay in his house, maybe read a scroll. 00:05:04.699 --> 00:05:08.160 he is treated like an enemy of the state. Does 00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:10.860 Solon's extreme measure prove that in times of 00:05:10.860 --> 00:05:14.060 crisis, apathetic neutrality might actually be 00:05:14.060 --> 00:05:16.800 more destructive to a society than taking the 00:05:16.800 --> 00:05:19.439 wrong side? This raises an important question. 00:05:19.860 --> 00:05:22.319 How do societies actually survive existential 00:05:22.319 --> 00:05:26.720 threats? To Solon, and honestly to many ancients, 00:05:27.160 --> 00:05:30.209 neutrality was not a right. What was it? It was 00:05:30.209 --> 00:05:33.490 a dangerous vulnerability. If the state is literally 00:05:33.490 --> 00:05:36.709 tearing itself apart, indifference is a lojury 00:05:36.709 --> 00:05:39.790 a functioning society just cannot afford. Wow. 00:05:40.170 --> 00:05:42.149 The underlying logic is that if you enjoy the 00:05:42.149 --> 00:05:44.129 protections of the city -state during peacetime, 00:05:44.629 --> 00:05:46.589 you owe it your active participation during a 00:05:46.589 --> 00:05:49.220 crisis. So the ancient world viewed the middle 00:05:49.220 --> 00:05:51.459 ground as fundamentally parasitic, essentially. 00:05:51.579 --> 00:05:53.759 In many ways, yes. But then we see a slightly 00:05:53.759 --> 00:05:55.959 different rhetorical maneuvering in ancient Rome. 00:05:56.000 --> 00:05:58.959 Like in 46 BC, Cicero gives an oration before 00:05:58.959 --> 00:06:01.980 Julius Caesar. Ah, yes, the prolegario. Right. 00:06:02.199 --> 00:06:04.740 And Cicero points out this massive distinction 00:06:04.740 --> 00:06:07.120 in how the two sides viewed their civil conflict. 00:06:07.480 --> 00:06:09.879 He says that his faction looked upon all as enemies 00:06:09.879 --> 00:06:12.079 who were not explicitly with them. Which is the 00:06:12.079 --> 00:06:15.000 classic false dilemma. Exactly. But Caesar looked 00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:17.740 upon all as friends who were not actively against 00:06:17.740 --> 00:06:20.079 him. Which is brilliant, really. Yeah. Caesar 00:06:20.079 --> 00:06:22.519 recognized the power of expanding his base by 00:06:22.519 --> 00:06:25.560 simply not alienating the neutral parties. He 00:06:25.560 --> 00:06:28.180 lowered the barrier to entry. Exactly. He made 00:06:28.180 --> 00:06:31.860 it incredibly easy to be on his side. And we 00:06:31.860 --> 00:06:34.800 actually see both sides of this coin in religious 00:06:34.800 --> 00:06:37.079 texts, too. Right, the synoptic gospels. Yes, 00:06:37.079 --> 00:06:40.120 they attribute this dual phrasing to Jesus. In 00:06:40.120 --> 00:06:42.379 Matthew and Luke, the statement is an exclusive 00:06:42.379 --> 00:06:45.699 boundary. Whoever is not with me is against me. 00:06:45.930 --> 00:06:49.350 Very rigid. But conversely, in Luke and Mark, 00:06:49.990 --> 00:06:51.949 the wording functions as this inclusive net. 00:06:52.410 --> 00:06:55.529 Whoever's not against us is for us. That distinction 00:06:55.529 --> 00:06:59.189 is so subtle. but so powerful. And, you know, 00:06:59.250 --> 00:07:01.850 if ancient leaders saw neutrality as the vulnerability, 00:07:02.029 --> 00:07:04.209 the 20th century turned that vulnerability into 00:07:04.209 --> 00:07:06.470 an absolute weapon for mass mobilization. Oh, 00:07:06.470 --> 00:07:08.329 without a doubt. The 20th century really took 00:07:08.329 --> 00:07:10.490 this to the extreme. Yeah. The rhetorical hammer 00:07:10.490 --> 00:07:12.750 was just stripped of any philosophical nuance 00:07:12.750 --> 00:07:15.170 and deployed during these high stakes ideological 00:07:15.170 --> 00:07:18.350 conflicts where the middle ground was completely 00:07:18.350 --> 00:07:21.250 erased. Right. For instance, in 1920, Vladimir 00:07:21.250 --> 00:07:23.490 Lenin spoke to political delegates with absolute 00:07:23.490 --> 00:07:25.509 frankness. He told them that in the struggle 00:07:25.509 --> 00:07:28.100 of the proletariat, every person must choose 00:07:28.100 --> 00:07:30.579 between joining their side or the other side. 00:07:30.759 --> 00:07:33.939 No room for bystanders. None. He warned that 00:07:33.939 --> 00:07:36.699 any attempt to avoid taking sides would end in 00:07:36.699 --> 00:07:39.240 a total fiasco. And it wasn't just the communist 00:07:39.240 --> 00:07:42.259 leaders doing this. No. Over in fascist Italy, 00:07:42.680 --> 00:07:45.100 Benito Mussolini was shouting the exact same 00:07:45.100 --> 00:07:48.839 binary across the country. O cronoi! O controdinoi! 00:07:49.199 --> 00:07:51.639 Literally, you're either with us or against us. 00:07:52.000 --> 00:07:55.139 It's wild how universally effective it is. And 00:07:55.139 --> 00:07:57.300 it wasn't just fascist or communist dictators 00:07:57.300 --> 00:08:00.540 pushing this absolute binary either. George Orwell, 00:08:00.560 --> 00:08:03.120 writing in 1942 in his essay Pacifism in the 00:08:03.120 --> 00:08:05.600 War, makes a really similar point. Right, but 00:08:05.600 --> 00:08:08.040 he targets the psychology of the bystander specifically. 00:08:08.120 --> 00:08:10.220 Yeah, exactly. He argued that if you hamper the 00:08:10.220 --> 00:08:12.699 war effort of one side, you automatically help 00:08:12.699 --> 00:08:15.100 the other. He called the idea of remaining aloof 00:08:15.100 --> 00:08:18.779 a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. 00:08:19.019 --> 00:08:21.980 Which is a very Orwellian way to put it. It really 00:08:21.980 --> 00:08:23.879 is. He was pointing out that the people claiming 00:08:23.879 --> 00:08:26.639 to be neutral were happily eating food, that 00:08:26.639 --> 00:08:29.399 British sailors were risking their lives to transport 00:08:29.399 --> 00:08:31.959 across submarine -infested waters. It's like 00:08:31.959 --> 00:08:34.019 being in a rowboat that's taking on water. If 00:08:34.019 --> 00:08:35.720 you sit there with your arms crossed refusing 00:08:35.720 --> 00:08:39.279 to grab a bucket, you aren't being neutral. You're 00:08:39.279 --> 00:08:41.740 actively consuming the oxygen and the space of 00:08:41.740 --> 00:08:44.440 the people bailing water while actively helping 00:08:44.440 --> 00:08:46.830 the boat sink. That's a great way to visualize 00:08:46.830 --> 00:08:49.029 it. You are benefiting from the struggle while 00:08:49.029 --> 00:08:51.649 claiming this false moral high ground of having 00:08:51.649 --> 00:08:54.629 no part in it. In the context of total war, that 00:08:54.629 --> 00:08:58.070 middle ground truly does vanish. It does. But 00:08:58.070 --> 00:08:59.909 the narrative of the 20th century isn't just 00:08:59.909 --> 00:09:02.690 about forcing the binary. We also see one of 00:09:02.690 --> 00:09:04.809 the most brilliant subversions of it. Oh, the 00:09:04.809 --> 00:09:08.029 Hungarian example. Yes. So. After the crushing 00:09:08.029 --> 00:09:11.190 of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the country 00:09:11.190 --> 00:09:13.330 was just a fractured, traumatized nation. It 00:09:13.330 --> 00:09:16.110 was completely broken. Right. And in 1961, the 00:09:16.110 --> 00:09:19.330 leader, Yanos Kadar, needed to unite the populace. 00:09:19.690 --> 00:09:22.389 But instead of demanding absolute loyalty, he 00:09:22.389 --> 00:09:25.169 inverted the formula entirely. He announced, 00:09:25.549 --> 00:09:28.750 those who are not against us are with us. Here's 00:09:28.750 --> 00:09:31.090 where it gets really interesting. Kadar essentially 00:09:31.090 --> 00:09:33.870 invented this architecture of passive inclusion. 00:09:34.250 --> 00:09:36.830 That's exactly what it was. Because authoritarianism 00:09:36.830 --> 00:09:39.690 usually requires, like, immense active energy. 00:09:40.289 --> 00:09:42.450 Dictators want you marching in parades, cheering 00:09:42.450 --> 00:09:44.669 in the squares, actively informing on your neighbors. 00:09:44.889 --> 00:09:48.389 It's exhausting. Yeah. And Kadar hacked human 00:09:48.389 --> 00:09:51.289 psychology by realizing that an exhausted populist 00:09:51.289 --> 00:09:53.389 just doesn't have the energy for that anymore. 00:09:53.610 --> 00:09:55.889 So by changing the phrasing, he successfully 00:09:55.889 --> 00:09:59.470 transformed a polarizing ultimatum into a really 00:09:59.470 --> 00:10:02.590 wide, non -polarizing net of inclusion. Just 00:10:02.590 --> 00:10:05.039 brilliant. He realized that a fractured nation 00:10:05.039 --> 00:10:08.419 doesn't need more ideological division. It just 00:10:08.419 --> 00:10:11.419 needs passive permission to exist without being 00:10:11.419 --> 00:10:13.620 labeled an enemy. Right. If you simply went to 00:10:13.620 --> 00:10:16.019 work, took care of your family and, you know, 00:10:16.120 --> 00:10:17.940 didn't actively plot against the government, 00:10:18.320 --> 00:10:20.580 Qadar counted you as a supporter. He neutralized 00:10:20.580 --> 00:10:23.220 the rhetorical hammer by making apathy an acceptable 00:10:23.220 --> 00:10:25.659 form of loyalty. He offered them the luxury of 00:10:25.659 --> 00:10:28.299 just being tired. And it worked to heal a deeply 00:10:28.299 --> 00:10:31.480 divided society. But man, when we look at the 00:10:31.480 --> 00:10:34.470 21st century. It becomes incredibly clear that 00:10:34.470 --> 00:10:37.009 modern politics entirely forgot Kadar's lesson 00:10:37.009 --> 00:10:39.029 in nuance. Oh, completely. We went right back 00:10:39.029 --> 00:10:40.789 to the binary. Yeah. And just a quick reminder 00:10:40.789 --> 00:10:43.649 for you listening, as per our usual rules here, 00:10:44.190 --> 00:10:46.389 we are not endorsing any of these viewpoints. 00:10:46.509 --> 00:10:48.809 We are just analyzing how both the political 00:10:48.809 --> 00:10:51.110 left and the political right employ the exact 00:10:51.110 --> 00:10:53.789 same rhetorical structure. Right. Because this 00:10:53.789 --> 00:10:55.950 really isn't a left -wing or right -wing tactic. 00:10:56.220 --> 00:10:58.460 Regardless of where you stand on the political 00:10:58.460 --> 00:11:00.639 spectrum, you will see leaders from your own 00:11:00.639 --> 00:11:03.799 side using this exact same structure to enforce 00:11:03.799 --> 00:11:07.000 purity. So true. The democratization of the false 00:11:07.000 --> 00:11:09.259 dilemma in modern politics usually triggers in 00:11:09.259 --> 00:11:11.759 the wake of a massive crisis, right? Yes. For 00:11:11.759 --> 00:11:15.100 example, on September 13th, 2001, Hillary Clinton 00:11:15.100 --> 00:11:23.009 stated, are going to pay a price. And then just 00:11:23.009 --> 00:11:25.309 a week later, President George W. Bush addressed 00:11:25.309 --> 00:11:27.710 Congress with the exact same binary. He said 00:11:27.710 --> 00:11:30.970 every nation in every region now has a decision 00:11:30.970 --> 00:11:33.610 to make. Either you are with us or you are with 00:11:33.610 --> 00:11:36.830 the terrorists. In the face of a sudden existential 00:11:36.830 --> 00:11:40.009 trauma, the global rhetoric immediately reverted 00:11:40.009 --> 00:11:42.950 to the absolute binary. There was zero room for 00:11:42.950 --> 00:11:45.789 a neutral nation in a global war on terror. But 00:11:45.789 --> 00:11:48.509 what happens next is fascinating because the 00:11:48.509 --> 00:11:51.809 phrase starts creeping into domestic policy and 00:11:51.809 --> 00:11:55.570 the logical leaps become staggering. we really 00:11:55.570 --> 00:11:58.490 start to see the stakes artificially inflated 00:11:58.490 --> 00:12:01.509 to coerce domestic populations. Give us the Canadian 00:12:01.509 --> 00:12:04.870 example. Right. So in 2012, Vic Toews, who was 00:12:04.870 --> 00:12:07.769 the Canadian public safety minister, was defending 00:12:07.769 --> 00:12:09.909 this highly controversial Internet surveillance 00:12:09.909 --> 00:12:13.309 bill. Okay. Citizens and privacy advocates obviously 00:12:13.309 --> 00:12:15.350 had major concerns about the government having 00:12:15.350 --> 00:12:18.370 warrantless access to Internet accounts. And 00:12:18.370 --> 00:12:20.570 his response to the critics was to tell them 00:12:20.570 --> 00:12:23.419 they can either stand with us or with the child 00:12:23.419 --> 00:12:25.600 pornographers. Wait, what? If you care about 00:12:25.600 --> 00:12:28.620 internet privacy, you automatically support horrible 00:12:28.620 --> 00:12:31.360 crimes? That feels like the false dilemma fallacy 00:12:31.360 --> 00:12:34.340 on steroids. It really is. Has the phrase shifted 00:12:34.340 --> 00:12:36.820 from being a tool used against foreign enemies, 00:12:36.899 --> 00:12:39.700 like in Bush's speech, to a weapon used to enforce 00:12:39.700 --> 00:12:42.419 compliance among allies? Absolutely. And the 00:12:42.419 --> 00:12:44.200 internal policing gets even more aggressive. 00:12:44.740 --> 00:12:47.500 In 2016, Sarah Palin used the phrase against 00:12:47.500 --> 00:12:49.600 fellow Republicans who didn't support Donald 00:12:49.600 --> 00:12:52.080 Trump's campaign. She declared, You're either 00:12:52.080 --> 00:12:54.720 with us or you're against us. And she dubbed 00:12:54.720 --> 00:12:58.100 them RITs, Republicans Against Trump. Wow. And 00:12:58.100 --> 00:13:00.379 we see it on the other side, too. Yes. The exact 00:13:00.379 --> 00:13:01.899 same architecture on the other side of the aisle. 00:13:02.399 --> 00:13:05.059 In 2020, Pennsylvania House Representative Jordan 00:13:05.059 --> 00:13:08.259 A. Harris used the binary regarding racial justice. 00:13:08.940 --> 00:13:11.679 He declared, racism is not a gray area for me. 00:13:11.980 --> 00:13:14.860 You are either with us or against us. So the 00:13:14.860 --> 00:13:17.740 tool has shifted entirely. It forces people to 00:13:17.740 --> 00:13:20.320 abandon any nuanced discussion about policy or 00:13:20.320 --> 00:13:22.600 methodology, because if you question the method, 00:13:22.899 --> 00:13:25.059 you are suddenly accused of supporting the enemy. 00:13:25.440 --> 00:13:27.679 Exactly. If we connect this to the bigger picture, 00:13:28.240 --> 00:13:30.519 modern politics has basically adapted this phrase 00:13:30.519 --> 00:13:33.720 into what psychologists call a thought -terminating 00:13:33.720 --> 00:13:36.360 cliché. A thought -terminating cliché. Because 00:13:36.360 --> 00:13:39.080 it stops critical thinking dead in its tracks. 00:13:39.399 --> 00:13:41.929 Precisely. by making the alternative to agreement 00:13:41.929 --> 00:13:44.950 socially or morally radioactive. Like being aligned 00:13:44.950 --> 00:13:48.029 with terrorists or child pornographers or racists. 00:13:48.350 --> 00:13:50.350 Right. The speaker never actually has to defend 00:13:50.350 --> 00:13:52.529 the mechanics of their policy. They just force 00:13:52.529 --> 00:13:55.110 you to flee from the horrible label they've artificially 00:13:55.110 --> 00:13:57.409 attached to the middle ground. It shuts down 00:13:57.409 --> 00:14:00.090 the cognitive faculties of the listener. You 00:14:00.090 --> 00:14:02.309 aren't evaluating the surveillance bill anymore. 00:14:02.690 --> 00:14:04.470 You're desperately trying to prove you aren't 00:14:04.470 --> 00:14:07.769 a monster. Exactly. And because this rhetorical 00:14:07.769 --> 00:14:10.409 tactic is so deeply ingrained in our political 00:14:10.409 --> 00:14:14.070 psychology and so incredibly effective at terminating 00:14:14.070 --> 00:14:17.929 debate, it inevitably bleeds over into the fiction 00:14:17.929 --> 00:14:21.110 and pop culture we consume. Art imitates life. 00:14:21.909 --> 00:14:24.330 And writers use this phrase constantly to signal 00:14:24.330 --> 00:14:26.389 character alignment to the audience. They do. 00:14:27.000 --> 00:14:29.539 Let's look at Joseph Heller's satirical masterpiece, 00:14:29.759 --> 00:14:32.940 Catch -22. Oh, classic. You have these two corrupt, 00:14:33.179 --> 00:14:35.940 self -serving officers, Colonel Corn and Cathcart, 00:14:36.480 --> 00:14:38.820 and they corner the protagonist, Yossarian, and 00:14:38.820 --> 00:14:40.820 tell him, you're either for us or against your 00:14:40.820 --> 00:14:43.080 country. It's as simple as that. Ah, equating 00:14:43.080 --> 00:14:45.639 themselves with the entire nation. Right. Heller 00:14:45.639 --> 00:14:47.919 is capturing the ultimate arrogance of power 00:14:47.919 --> 00:14:50.659 here. It parodies that old mindset of, what's 00:14:50.659 --> 00:14:52.519 good for General Motors is good for the country. 00:14:52.909 --> 00:14:56.370 If you oppose their specific, corrupt methodology, 00:14:57.070 --> 00:14:59.750 you are branded a traitor to the state. And we 00:14:59.750 --> 00:15:02.610 see that exact arrogance of power in space, too. 00:15:02.649 --> 00:15:05.850 We do, indeed. In Star Wars, Revenge of the Sith, 00:15:06.210 --> 00:15:08.549 right as Anakin Skywalker is completely falling 00:15:08.549 --> 00:15:11.169 to the dark side and embracing authoritarianism, 00:15:11.669 --> 00:15:14.309 he yells at Obi -Wan Kenobi, If you are not with 00:15:14.309 --> 00:15:16.970 me, then you are my enemy. Which the source material 00:15:16.970 --> 00:15:20.259 points out is widely interpreted as a direct 00:15:20.259 --> 00:15:23.720 cultural mirror of President Bush's 2001 speech. 00:15:23.980 --> 00:15:26.120 It's so direct. We also see it in the sci -fi 00:15:26.120 --> 00:15:28.500 series Babylon 5. There's a fascist organization 00:15:28.500 --> 00:15:30.700 called the Night Watch that takes over security 00:15:30.700 --> 00:15:33.220 and their leader demands to know where everyone 00:15:33.220 --> 00:15:36.039 stands, asking point blank, are you with us or 00:15:36.039 --> 00:15:39.240 against us? It is an incredibly efficient narrative 00:15:39.240 --> 00:15:42.000 shortcut. I mean, a writer can instantly establish 00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:44.879 the authoritarian, uncompromising nature of a 00:15:44.879 --> 00:15:46.519 character just by having them utter those eight 00:15:46.519 --> 00:15:48.399 words. So what does this all mean? I mean, it 00:15:48.399 --> 00:15:50.379 reveals a bizarre cognitive dissonance in how 00:15:50.379 --> 00:15:53.039 we process information. In Hollywood, this phrase 00:15:53.039 --> 00:15:55.740 is the ultimate supervillain tale. It really 00:15:55.740 --> 00:15:58.720 is the bad guy monologue. Right. The second a 00:15:58.720 --> 00:16:00.740 character drops this line, whether it's Anakin 00:16:00.740 --> 00:16:03.759 on a lava planet or a corrupt colonel or a fascist 00:16:03.759 --> 00:16:06.399 space cop, the audience instantly knows they 00:16:06.399 --> 00:16:09.629 are the bad guy. Yet in real life, Politicians 00:16:09.629 --> 00:16:12.149 use it hoping to sound like the hero. And we 00:16:12.149 --> 00:16:14.970 succumb to the pressure in reality because the 00:16:14.970 --> 00:16:18.570 social stakes feel real to us. Right. But there 00:16:18.570 --> 00:16:21.149 is a way to break the spell. The source text 00:16:21.149 --> 00:16:24.529 gives us one final brilliant example from pop 00:16:24.529 --> 00:16:26.889 culture that shows us how to disarm a thought 00:16:26.889 --> 00:16:29.110 -terminating cliche. And it comes from reality 00:16:29.110 --> 00:16:32.610 TV of all places. Yes, the 20th season of Survivor. 00:16:32.720 --> 00:16:36.019 Heroes versus villains. This is so good. So a 00:16:36.019 --> 00:16:38.580 contestant named Russell Hans tries to use this 00:16:38.580 --> 00:16:41.200 exact phrase as an intimidation tactic against 00:16:41.200 --> 00:16:43.179 his fellow competitors to secure their votes. 00:16:43.700 --> 00:16:45.899 He looks at them and says, you're either with 00:16:45.899 --> 00:16:49.019 me or against me. The classic trap. But a contestant 00:16:49.019 --> 00:16:51.580 named Sandra Diaz Twine doesn't scramble. She 00:16:51.580 --> 00:16:53.659 doesn't try to defend herself or plead her case. 00:16:53.980 --> 00:16:56.600 She just looks at him and bluntly replies, I'm 00:16:56.600 --> 00:16:58.639 against you, Russell. It is the perfect antidote 00:16:58.639 --> 00:17:01.409 to the fallacy. To just shut it down. She completely 00:17:01.409 --> 00:17:03.990 short -circuited the psychological trap. Because 00:17:03.990 --> 00:17:05.990 when you are confronted with a false dilemma 00:17:05.990 --> 00:17:08.490 that is designed entirely to intimidate you, 00:17:08.950 --> 00:17:11.750 the most powerful thing a person can do is simply 00:17:11.750 --> 00:17:15.309 accept the negative label without blinking. Because 00:17:15.309 --> 00:17:18.250 the power of the phrase relies entirely on your 00:17:18.250 --> 00:17:21.589 fear of the against us category. Exactly. By 00:17:21.589 --> 00:17:24.250 casually stepping into that category, she stripped 00:17:24.250 --> 00:17:26.789 the phrase of its power. entirely. She basically 00:17:26.789 --> 00:17:29.009 looked at the line drawn in the sand, stepped 00:17:29.009 --> 00:17:31.509 right over it, and kept walking. She refused 00:17:31.509 --> 00:17:33.750 to let the thought -terminating cliché terminate 00:17:33.750 --> 00:17:36.450 her thought. It just goes to show how much architecture 00:17:36.450 --> 00:17:39.589 is hiding inside a simple eight -word ultimatum. 00:17:39.970 --> 00:17:42.410 We have journeyed all the way from ancient Athens 00:17:42.410 --> 00:17:44.730 to Star Wars. Yeah, it has been a fascinating 00:17:44.730 --> 00:17:46.990 evolution to trace. Thank you so much for listening 00:17:46.990 --> 00:17:49.769 and coming along on this deep dive into the architecture 00:17:49.769 --> 00:17:52.490 of ultimatums. Before we go... I want to leave 00:17:52.490 --> 00:17:54.789 you with a brand new concept to ponder that builds 00:17:54.789 --> 00:17:56.730 on everything we've looked at today. Let's hear 00:17:56.730 --> 00:17:59.569 it. We've seen how powerful this phrase is in 00:17:59.569 --> 00:18:02.349 war and high stakes politics. But what happens 00:18:02.349 --> 00:18:04.809 to a society when this extreme binary thinking 00:18:04.809 --> 00:18:07.769 drips down into our mundane everyday lives? Oh, 00:18:07.769 --> 00:18:09.910 that's interesting. If we start framing everything 00:18:09.910 --> 00:18:12.269 from the cars we drive to the brands we buy to 00:18:12.269 --> 00:18:15.650 the diets we follow as a with us or against us 00:18:15.650 --> 00:18:18.410 moral crusade, does the phrase eventually lose 00:18:18.410 --> 00:18:21.039 its power? Or do we just lose our ability to 00:18:21.039 --> 00:18:22.460 communicate with our neighbors altogether?