Hey, Stuff you Should Know has brought to you in part by Blue Apron. They are affordable for less than ten dollars per person per meal. They have a variety of great new recipes each week to choose from. They are super flexible because you can customize those recipes each week based on your preferences. It's easy, and it's guaranteed. Blue Aprons Freshness Guaranteed promises that every ingredient in your delivery arrives ready to cook or they'll make it right. Check out this week's venue to get your first three meals free with free shipping by going to Blue Apron dot com slash stuff. Welcome to Stuff you Should Know from how Stuff Works dot com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark, and there's Charles to Chuck Bryant, and there's Jerry. Everybody's getting along nicely in here. You have a very interesting outfit on thank you. I'm not for saying such a variety of patterns in one torso. Yeah, like that's interesting. I got yours is great. Yeah. I got sort of made fun of in high school for combining patterns and I never did it again in the ninth grade, Like it was yesterday. Yeah, I got a wore like a I think I wore like checkered shorts and a striped shirt. I think you should publicly shame those people buy stuff. But it was like he was not supposed to combine patterns. It's like, well, in fact, I didn't know that. I didn't say that, but and old Chuck would have. I'm suddenly sick and need to go home. I have a wet spot in my pants. It's funny, like I can't see because you have a beard. But I wondered if that was a turtleneck you were wearing for a second and then you moved. I'm like, it's are it's a mock turnlent. Remember that Steve job style? Yeah, I saw that movie. Have you seen that? The one with the Yeah, Nope, it was good. I'm sure that guy's great. He's great. Kate wins boy, she's the ticket. She plays Steve was new ski. Uh that was actually what's his name? Saith the that's I forgot. He was good. Yeah, I mean acting was just great, and it was What was the problem? Then? Why is there a curse on any movie that has to do with Steve? Not a curse? Thing. I think like, there were Academy Award nominations on that movie. Um it was Danny Boyle, which is great. That guy can do like any genre. But um, it was written by Aaron Sorkin, who I had a little problem with. That was the problem. I knew there was some problem with it. And I know everyone thinks he's God's gift of writing, but well, Aeron Sorkin, he's just so wordy, man, that's just so many words. I know. I never was like the perfect retort at the tip of their talm. Yeah, it's like none of his movies speak of reality of the way people really talk, which to me is the mark of a good writer. Right. But you know, it was good. It was a good movie. That aside. I'll check it out sometime then. Yeah, it was very nice. Steve Jobs, and you get over the fact that, uh that's the full title Steve Jobs. You get over the factor at least I did that Fast Spender doesn't look anything like Steve Jobs, because when it came out, I was like, oh, man, like I am I going to get past that. It's Michael Foss Sender. But um, we did it well. That's the mark of a quality actors. He had a job scene Aura about him and that's my movie pick of the week. Nice ding ding ding. Then we need like a jingle now pacifism? Yeah, or are we ready to get started? Let's just let's tear through this one. This is a good one. You like this one? Yeah? This is a request by me. Oh yeah, and it got done. Pretty psyched about it. Yeah. Um So would you before researching this, would you have called yourself a pacifist? Well, I would not have known the specific kind of pacifists. Now I do, but um, I'm a I'm a kind of pacifist for sure, extremely violent past fists. Like you know, I'm well known to have never hit another human or been hit myself. I've never been a fistfight. Yeah, so that's a kind of pacifism. Um. But I'm also like you know, sometimes like I think you kind of have to go to war maybe if you're fighting slavery or hitler. Yeah. There's a lot of a lot of conundra, Yeah, I think that'd be right, um, surrounding pacifism and the decision of whether or not to use violence. Yeah, I mean even Gandhi Forgot's sakes. Before people are like oh, Manne Chuck, I thought you were a chill dude. Gandhi was a chill dude, and he even said, you know, but hey, sometimes you have to to take up arms. Yeah. I think it's good that you characterize Gandhi as a chill dude rather than a pacifist, because he pretty technically was not the pacifist that that most people consider him to be. Your think he was. He actually said it's cited in this article. No, you know, like you should be able to defend yourself. He believed that India should be able to defend itself after it gained independence if someone else was an aggressor against the state. Um he suggested that some of his fellow Indians fight alongside the British in South Africa during the Boer War. Not very pacifist. So his his views and identity and the fact that he's still considered a pacifist kind of reveals that pacifism is actually almost never the staunch version that people think of when they think of pacifism, which is no violence under any circumstances. Yeah, very few people can or want to it. Here to that, I'm not certain that anyone's ever been able to do it in the history of humanity. Yeah, I mean I should add for myself. And I think I've said this before. I never avoided a fight either. It has never happened. Like if someone came and hit me in the face, I'd do my best job to swing back. I've seen a I've seen a bar fight or two on TV. I just do it. Burt Reynolds didn't. Yeah, he he got the job done. Yeah, thinking what uh, throw like a beer picture in a guy's face and he trips over his friend, and then you make a kind of funny laugh and then you throw him out the front window of the bar and I'll play banjo along, but I'll do the score. And in the end, though, you end up slapping backs with the guy you were in a fight with, and you all just have a good laugh about it. That's how it goes, all right. So let's talk pacifism, man, all right? The the uh the word itself, actually, pacificus is what it is derived from. It's old Latin word. Everybody knows Latin super old. But the use of the word pacifist in the way that we use it today is actually fairly news from I think a peace conference in nineteen o six that it was officially coined. And although that concept, this pacifism that we understand it today, Um, it did kind of spring out of this rational humanist peace movement that came as a result of the um just this transformation of people in the nineteenth century. People have been espousing pacifist police for many, many thousands of years. Now. Sure they just didn't call it that. No, called it being a chill dude. Right, should we get in the old way back machine. Let's man, I was hoping you'd say that. All right, it's fired up, and um, it's quite lovely in here, like the music you picked out, Thank you, it is very nice. Um. I thought you were gonna have on like rage against the Machine or something. No, no, because they're a pacifist, are they don't know? I could see them being pacifists. Actually yeah, well I said it as a joke. Then I was like, well, wait a minute, it rang a bell. I really have to think about that. Yeah. Uh, they strike me as a kind of dude that well, I don't even know. I don't know those guys. You don't know reads against the Machine their musicians, No, but I saw Zack and l A he loved in my neighborhood. It's like to see him getting tacos all the time. We shall fight the power, he said, wrong group. Uh so passivism if you want to talk about the O G, or at least the O G that. I'm sure there were pacifists around, but the one that got notoriety at least first one was probably said Hartha, as you point out, the grand founder of Buddhism, who said, you know what, Uh, this this fighting, this warrior stuff is no good for me. And so I'm gonna break with that tradition and um, I'm gonna try and and take the path less traveled. Yeah. And he uh, he was a part of the warrior cast, right. Yeah, So him saying no, I'm not doing this, I'm not fighting was pretty significant, so much so that a religion formed around him, Buddhism. Right, So he's kind of credited as one of the one of the earliest pacifists, at least on record. And um, pretty quickly his his pacifist views spread, and um, there was a king who was Buddhist king in India. His name was Ashoka, great name, by the way, and um, he said, you know what, my kingdom is not going to be involved in any more wars of conquest because I'm a devout Buddhist. Now it's a great way to go. The Greeks followed with their Stoicists. Boy, I could not have said that in the old toothless days. That would presented a lot of problems the Stoicists. They were definitely not down with violence. Of course, Jesus himself was known to be a pretty chill dude. Yeah, he said, turn the other cheek man. Yeah. Famously. In fact, one of his followers, Roman named Maximilian uh Very famously became one of the early Christian martyrs when he said, you know what, I'm not going to serve in your legion. I'm not gonna kill anyone. And they said, fine, we'll kill you. Yeah, he said fine. Which is the irony of all this is, as you'll see you throughout this whole podcast, is all these pacifists over the years, they're like, I don't want to fight, Like, all right, well, we're gonna be violent on you and make your life a living hell. You're like, I just don't want to fight you. Guys would fight anyone else. Just leave me alone. I know it's a. I don't know what it is like this this um, Well, it's it's a duty and an obligation. I think that war ists and we'll talk about war is um, which is the other end of the spectrum. I think that's what they feel like. It is like, no, you have a duty to take up arms against an aggressor against you or your countrymen. Yeah, go kill that guy. Somebody of a higher socioeconomic status commanded you. Yeah, pretty much. So moving long, we'll just jump forward to Renaissance Europe. Yes, just much nicer them, Right, there was this um this thanks to the the blossoming of science, there was a this kind of idea that well there was the foundation of humanism, right, that humans should take care of other humans, and part and parcel to that was kind of picking up on the idea of pacifism, and it really started to take root in uh Europe, in the Western world around that time, during during the Renaissance, thanks in part um to a guy named Erasmus, that's writer who famously said building a city is much better than destroying one. He probably dropped the mic and was like argue with that right there, Like Mike's haven't even been invented yet. Uh. And then, of course, if we jump ahead a little bit more to the early days of what would become the United States. Uh, there were people here called Mennonites and Quakers who came to colonial America too, so they could just sort of be among themselves and beat chill dudes. Then the Revolutionary War broke out and they're like, ah, what do we do now? Yeah, we came here to beat chill dudes, and now everyone expects us to fight for our freedoms. Yeah. And actually Pennsylvania was this. I was watching this short video about pacifism yesterday, I think, and they were talking about Pennsylvania and how like it was the first colony to to um outlaw slavery, and um, there was just a lot because of the influence of the Quakers and the Mennonites, there was a lot of um, well just kind of pacifist ideals. Yeah, and they it thrived, like Philadelphia was the most important city in the colonies at the time. It was in Pennsylvania. Um. But yeah, when the when the Revolutionary War broke out, it was it was tough to be a Quaker pacifist because, um, everybody else is saying Hey, does that mean you're loyal to the king, because if so, we're gonna beat you up. And then the Tories would say, hey, you have to come fight with us. You're obviously loyal to the king. You're not fighting with the uh, the rebels, So come fight with us, and they'd say no. So they were caught between this rock and the hard place, where both sides just treated the friends very um badly. Yeah. In seventeen seven seven one seven seven seven uh, seventeen breakers. Yeah, in seventeen seventy seven, seventeen Quaker leaders were accused of treason and they were exiled to Virginia by the Whigs, and I guess they got there were like, Virginia is not so bad, right, not much of a punishment, but they wanted to be home in Pennsylvania. Oh, tobacco, you can smoke probafully so uh. And then if you know, like you said, if you're a Quaker who stuck to your pacifist ideals, um, you could have been abused or you could have had your property confiscated. It was not good. And apparently they were so committed that when the war broke out, when the revolution broke out, um, they the Quakers who were running the government all quit. They all resigned, and so we can't we can't have anything to do with this. So we're gonna go make oatmeal and fine furnitures exactly. Uh. The Napoleonic Wars in the eighteen hundreds was a very bloody affair. They were a very bloody affair. And so this gave rise to a lot of people saying, hey, like the London Peace Society, maybe maybe we should try and think of a different way to go about resolving our conflicts rather than just like trying to kill more people than the other guys. Yeah. Apparently the War of eighteen twelve was extremely unpopular in the United States, and um, that combined with the Napoleonic Wars uh in Europe, just kind of allowed this mentality to really blossom and on the continent and in the in the States where this this peace movement kind of developed over the nineteenth century and um, things were going dotty. Well, actually it was getting a lot of attraction. People are starting to think like, hey, maybe we can go without war and maybe we can just be peaceful. And then the Civil War happened. They ran headlong into this problem, right, because there there's this immediate problem that was facing the pacifists. There was great, you guys are doing a heck of a job keeping the peace. But part of that piece is there's a group of people over here who are enslaved, living in horrific, brutal conditions, being forced into labor against their will. Um, so what do you say about that? How does that is that peace? Okay? And the path was still grappled with that one today. Yeah. There was a writer name Angelina grim Key well the political activists and very much into peace as an advocate, and she said, oh, yes, war is better than slavery. So I think there were quite a few pacifists that probably said, you know what, sometimes you just have to take up arms and do what's right, right, you know, Yeah, I mean, and it created a big division in the pacifist movements. Um, that American Civil War. Um. And like I said, people are still grappling with it today. But before they could, before the whole thing could sink in, um, pacivism, I think kind of uh, it congealed again because it seems like when World War One finally came, pacivism was was back. It was a thing still hadn't just been blown away by uh Napoleon or um the city of the American Civil War. You know, should we take a break. Let's all right, let's take a break and we'll come back and talk a little bit more about the opposite of pescivism. All right. So you put this thing together and you did a bang up job. This is no this I expanded on a Patrick Kaiger joint. Oh was this from our original article? Oh? Well, at any rate, you and Patrick did a great job. But you guys make a great point that if you want to understand pacifism, you have to understand war. And uh there was this pacifist name and a writer named Arthur Ponson b Yeah, he was a member of parliament, Okay, and he has this great quote from one of his writings about war. War is a monster born of hypocrisy, fed on falsehood, fattened on humbug that really dates it, kept alive by superstition, directed to the death and torture of millions, succeeded in no high purpose, degrading to humanity, endangering civilization, and bringing forth in its travail, hideous brood of strife, conflict in war more war. Pretty down view on war yeah, and I think most people, probably even professional soldiers, would agree with posombes Um assessment. Right, there's no there, there's basically no one out there who's like, no word's good, Ward's great, Let's go to war, right now, Go find somebody to go to war with. People don't think like that, right, Generally, that's not the that's not the mentality. Even even that's not the basis of war is and warism is the idea that um war can be morally justified and there's even some circumstances that could require it. Right. And if you go back to the early Christian Church, the earliest version of it, um there was basically nothing but non violent pacifism. And then the Church started to join forces with the state, the government uh specifically at first and the guys of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire was all about conquest, getting new land, subduing people, and so one of the tasks that fell the theologians, Christian theologians was to figure out a way to justify that, and starting with I believe St. Augustine, they came up with this concept called the just war, and the just war basically says it effectively canceled out the possibility of absolute pascivism, where absolute pacivism is just war and violence are never justified under any circumstances. This was there is such a thing as um a war that is that can be conducted in a certain way, that can be entered into for all the right reasons. And if all these conditions are met, then you have a just war. And technically you're not really breaking any any Christian ideals or morals. Still morally uh, justifiable. And those are the two the two big questions that you just said are uh, simply when is it justified? And once you have justified it, how how do you go about it? Um? And in the in regards to the first one, there are six conditions, and we should point out that in order for it to be a just war, you have to meet all these conditions. Yeah, not some. Yeah it's not like the first couple, but never mind, we got most of two through six. The war must be made on behalf of a just cause is number one. The decision to go to war must be made by proper authorities. It can't be some jackass, right uh. Participants must have a good intention um, rather than revenge or greed that's a big one. Yeah, it takes care of a few wars. What do you mean, just like canceled smell must be likely that peace will emerge. That like should be the ultimate goal. Um, not award that would lead to another war. And that's that mentality I'm talking about, Like when people who even warlike people will say, well, it's the that the goal is peace. You just have to do it through violence, which is tough to wrap your head around, especially if you're going to war is a last resort. That's a big one. These are all big And then finally, the total amount of evil. It's like a formula. The total amount of evil resulting from the war is outweighed by the good that will come out of the war. Right, So you have to fulfill all six of those before entering the war, right right. And then once you're in the war, you have to say, okay, um, what parameters do we have to work within for it to remain a just war? And we actually did an episode yeah the Rules of War up. So it was pretty good if I remember correctly. We recorded that in serious studios in DC. Remember that that was weird. It's just to show how great we are or were they trying to pilot us or something? I think so, Man, you remember those days hardly. Yeah, it's a long time ago. Um, but yeah, we did do that one in serious as studios and in d C. I think that's weird. Um. But when you're within award to maintain it being justifiable, you basically have to, um, you have to say, you have to be discriminate and the stuff you're doing has to be proportional. Right. So with the proportional thing, like if somebody is shooting at you with a machine gun and you fire a missile at that person, if that's the way you're conducting the war, you're you're not really carrying out a just war. But dudes are into war like no, no, no, that's exactly what you should do. Yeah, and um, and then uh, discrimination is a big one, and that's the one that we seem to be having increasing trouble with as the century goes on, or as the last century went on. That collateral damage where you have to discriminate between okay targets and not okay targets. Okay targets are other soldiers, other members of the military, or people who are enabling the the other side. To be to carry out war. Like even workers in a factory making missiles, they're they're a justifiable target in a just war, but the people who live around the factory they're not. So if you're gonna drop a bomb on that factory, that bomb has to hit and if you if it misses and you kill those people, well then you're not carrying out a just war. Supposedly, there's been a lot of bending over backwards and say no, no, there's spillage, there's collateral damage. You're some civilians who aren't intended to be targets are going to die in a war, but you want to limit those people. And the key here is to is to not specifically target civilians. And you're, okay, that's a that's a lot of bending over that's been done as war has gotten less and less discriminate over the twentie century. Yeah, and it's um, I mean, it's kind of ironic that we're far more precise than we ever have been in terms of targeting. But I think that just the sheer size of the armaments, Um, you can't help but have collateral damage. I saw um a a UNICEF article that said that at the beginning of the twentieth century, UM, collateral damage, civilian deaths represented about five percent of casualties in war. Yeah, used to mainly beat soldiers who died. By the n nineties, it was up to of the casualties in a war were civilian targets or civilian people who who like, that's beyond collateral damage. Yeah, And I think part of the problem, and boy, I'm just speaking off the top of my head here, let me preface that. But part of the problem there is the kind of wars we fight these days. You'll drop a bomb on a on a house where they are like five suspected terrorists in a neighborhood of you know, two thousand people, so that that probably has a lot to do with the and I'm just guessing here, but it should have a lot to do with the casualty rate of civilians. Is not like, you know, there are three thousand troops in that house. It's just not how it works these stays. No, it's not. You know, there's these small, tiny little groups, right, And I think specifically also from what I understand I'm speaking of the top of my head as well. From what I understand, um, the modern battlefield takes place much more and more populated areas, whereas before there used to be things that essentially resemble pitch battles. Yeah, let's go meet in this field and get out. You wear this color coat, We'll wear this colored coat, and then we'll shoot at each other. Right. But yeah, as it's started to move more and more into urban areas, and of course more and more civilians are going to die. Right. But I think part of the other thing that really started to drive up those numbers, Chuck were and it's stuff that you don't learn about in school in history class, were the bombing campaigns that were carried out on both sides. But the allies to the British and the US carried out bombing campaigns where we were just leveling civilians, just whole cities. We were just leveling with bombs, like fire bombs, like we fire bombed Japan in World War Two. The British fire bombed German city centers in World War Two, like like that was part of the strategy, was just killing so many people that we were trying to force them into unconditional surrender. It wasn't like nowadays where they're like have a geo coordinated target and it looks like a video game. It was like you've seen the old footage. It's like, well, we're over the city, start shoving bombs out the door, bombs away. Yeah. Yeah, So I think that drove up the numbers and really drove it from five percent at the beginning of the century to And you know, I'd love to hear from people that know a lot more about this on these couple of points that we just yeah, both both side guess that you know UM, but the the that the idea that the war used to take place basically outside of of UM populated areas, away from targets that should be discriminated against UM. Some people say maybe those wars were acceptable, but the type of war that we're fighting now has evolved so far away from that that that war is no longer acceptable. You can't justify it any longer. And there's actually a name for that type of pacifism specifically UM that I believe is a selective past no technological pacifism. Yeah, and uh, I want to quickly say that I think that's part of the idea of terrorism and the cowardism of terrorism is like, hey, let's go set up shop next to this nursing home, you know, is they don't want to be out in the open in the middle of the day, sert as an easy target, right. Yeah, So you mentioned that one of the types of pacivism I counted here and including the subgroups, I think they're about seven. Uh. And and you should think about passivism as a as a spectrum from absolute pacifism on one end, which is like nothing ever never no violence, no violence, no violence, no matter what, like not even I'd rather die a morally just death than even defend myself or your loved one, yeah, anybody. There's like no justification for violence ever. That's absolute. So that's on one far far end. Um. So then next we have conditional pacifism, and that's basically when you're like, you know what, I'm I'm opposed to violence in this particular situation. I don't think it's the right solution to this problem. Yeah, conditional pacivism, it's kind of like the some umbrella that really falls basically between absolute pascifism and everything else. It covers everything else. It's basically there's like there's some time when violence is is usable, right, and then there's a bunch of subgroups under that that conditional pacifism umbrella. UM for example, pragmatic pacifism. Right, So, pragmatic pacifism basically is a type of conditional pascifism where you're saying, I don't really have any problem with using violence, but in this particular circumstance, it's gonna make things worse. It's not going to solve the problem at hand. I'm a pragmatist. Thank you for listening to me, Um, And the example that this article gave us, um that the slavery, the war over slavery, like can can ending slavery justify a war? And a pragmatist may say, yeah, totally, we really should, because that's what it's gonna take to end slavery, and slavery is so bad that it's worth the lives that are going to be lost to end slavery. Ultimately, this, the good that comes out of it, is better than the evil of the war. But the pragmatic pacifist could also say, on the other hand, no, we really shouldn't start a war here because it's just going to cause the slaveholders to kill all their slaves out of spite. So like that's the two examples of of pragmatic pacifism. Yeah, and under that even as another subgroup fallibility pacifism. Um, you know how we talked about meeting those conditions of a just war. This is the kind of pacifist I am. So fallibility pacifism is like, yeah, sure, you could be down with that, but there's so much you don't know, and the scale of war is so massive that you can't you don't even have the information you need to decide whether or not it's a just war as a citizen. There's so many factors involved in in a war and going to war, so many things you're told or not told. There's so many ways you're manipulated through the media. Um, there's so many personal vendetta's possibly involved, money, oil contracts. Who knows that Because of the scale of of it and all of the factors, we can't possibly know even enough of the details, let alone all the details to say, yes, this is a just war, let's go to war. That's right, that's fallibility passive. Uh. Collectivist pascivism is um that Uh, maybe you might think that executing this uh person who murdered and uh sexually assaulted children is okay, Like not into violence. But this guy should not be walking around in the earth anymore. He needs to be wiped out. Um. But maybe, um, the sheer magnitude of a war, you might still be against. Yeah, for sure you should call that pick and choose pacivism. Well, but I mean that's a part of conditional pacifism, you know, it's saying, yeah, it's okay, and violence is okay in this sense, but not in this sense to me. And that's the thing. Like pacifists are called on to justify their beliefs a lot or else be thrown in prison or just be treated horribly. But the thing about passivism is it is about as personal belief as one can come upon. Yeah, and people may ask you to justify it, but there's no you have no burden to justify your own personal pacifism. Yeah, it's it just is it exists in you in that sense, um, and it's personal to you. It's it's an interesting thing. Like a collective pacifists might be against the death penalty even but they might have children, and if someone murders children, that might even sway them to say, you know what, I don't even believe in this, but I believe this person poked their card as a human when they did that. Right, that that's the that's the way that they would put it that they basically they had at one point had a right to be free from violence inflicted upon them, but what they did was so bad that it erased that. Right. Yeah, I'm kind of in that camp because I'm not I've never been a staunch advocate for the death penalty at all, but they're just some things. It's like, it's not like you can get the death penalty for any old thing. There's some things like just don't do that the worst thing. Don't do the worst thing, and you can still live and maybe be rehabilitated. And but when you have people like uh, you know, clearly sick serial killers and like the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world, what good does it do unless you're just literally studying their brain to keep them around them alive. I don't know, man, It's a very I had a lot of moral tug of war, big moral tug of war going on when it comes and stuff like well, I mean that's the yeah, and not just to people have been trying to wrestle with this thousands of years now, you know, I mean, like not a simple black and white thing. No, it really isn't. I mean, I guess unless you're touched by the pacifist bug and you just you just know, you just know how you feel about it. A smoked a dubie maybe maybe, or you know, I saw somebody shot in front of you or whatever. I think like personal experience definitely leads to epiphanies regarding pacivism for sure. That's my new favorite euphanism for smoking marijuanas Doobie. No. Touched by the passive spot. I think we could make that a thing, probably get that spread that around. We just put a T shirt, sell it on our spreadshirt store. I mean we made uh sniff him off the case the true saying, well not really, Mike's on pants off. Yeah, Clark me something, Yeah, Clark mean something. And those are all just dumb. Yeah, they're terrible. Touched by the passive a bug. That's for real. That should be an album title. It's gonna be uh, who is it? Um soup Dragons no diarrhea Planet. They'll be the name of their album. Those guys are gonna be like, why are you obsessed with? Stop? Please pretend we don't exist and then finally selective I'm sorry, not finally. Well, we've sort of talked about technological pacivism, but um, I guess Penultimately, selective pacivism is when you oppose certain kinds of violence, like and nuclear pacifism was a big kind of This was like, hey, I'll even support a war, but man, nuclear war, forget about it. Which these technological wars. A lot of people say that's as bad as nuclear war. Yes, some people do, but if you're a nuclear pacifist, you may be one of those people who say, no, as long as you're not using nukes and the war is just war, I'm fine with it. But there's no way you can justify a nuclear war because it's just too indiscriminate. It's just too It kills too many people who are who couldn't possibly be legitimate targets. So you could never justify a nuclear war. So that's why nuclear pacifism has its own thing. There's also other ones to like ecological pacifism. People are like, no war destroys the planet. There's um, there's a lot of different reasons people have pacifist beliefs. Some people too. Also, Chuck will Will say, I'm a pacifist, and um, my country is going to war, so I'm not I'm not doing anything. I'm not going to register for the draft. I'm not going to drive an ambulance. I'm not going to do anything. Other people will say. I will go to war for my country, but I'm not going to carry a gun or kill anybody else. We'll drive an ambulance. Or the new Mel Gibson movie The hacks All Ridge was a guy who was a pacifist who rescued a bunch of people, never fired a bullet. I wonder if it was one of those guys on that Cracked list, but it was totally Yeah, mel Gibson himself as a famous pacifist. Oh the way, that's not the word, uh, lover of pornographic violence. And then there's so chuck. There's one other thing we have to say about pacifists or what makes a pacifist. There is anti violence is a huge part of pacifism, right, but also there's this thing called positive peace too, which is okay. Not only you can't just sit there and be like no no war, no war, like like come up with an alternative, and pacifists say, oh yes, we have tons of alternatives. There's things like um diplomacy is a big one, like the entire existence of the State Department represents the idea of pacifism by the US government UM and even on a very local level. Pacifists believe that the more groups understand one another and the more they can possibly share in common, the less likely they are to UM engage in violence to resolve their differences. And so the the example, the idea of getting groups together to share stuff or to understand one another, or to see that their difference is actually enrich human experience rather than um threaten those people's stability, is the promotion of positive peace. So that promoting positive peace and being against violence, or basically the two halves of what the pacifist whole. Yeah, really interesting? Yeah, did you take it right? Sure? All right, we'll come back and talk a little bit about a little bit more about conscientious objection after this. All right, you know what I want to amend my statements from earlier, the death penalty. Okay, well not amend Well maybe amen, I just uh, it's tricky to throw that stuff out there in the public. UM. I think my deal is I don't care what you have done. Even if I think you might have revoked your card, there's still a compassion inside me for that person that's done the worst thing. That's really fascinating because because I think that a either what happened to them to make them like that or to lead them down that road. Man, my hat is off to you. Man, Well, you don't just turn out that way by accident. You even either I believe have something scientifically biologically wrong, biologically wrong with your brain or yeah, tough default people in that situation, or you have offered so much at someone else's hand as a child that you have become a monster yourself. And you know, I still might say that. I just I'm not one of those people that would go out at a at a execution and like party outside with It's just not I still have compassion for that person deep down. Wow, that's that's impressive. No, I don't think so. Like I would never be one of those people who celebrated someone's death ever under any circumstances. Um But I like those people that that you can feel compassion for. I like I people can do something that that turns off that switching me and it's replaced by by just vengeance. Like, nope, you're done. No, I hear you. I think for me, if you look at uh, if you just picked someone on death row, looked at their crime, and then looked at their history and childhood, there's probably there were probably victims of some serious abuse. Yeah. And I also want to say, I would guess that I would not feel vengeance towards almost anyone who's on death row right now, like, like, for for that vengeance switch to be flipped, you have to have done something like objectively evil, as evil as it gets, you know, like um, and I'm sure there's plenty of people on death row who would flip that switch for me, but just them being on death row, I don't automatically say, oh, well, you know you should you deserve to die. I like it. I'm a little a little more selective than that. But when you hear about somebody who who is like, ah, like you use child rapist slash murderer, it's an excellent example somebody who I like, even if they are redeemable. Is there a point that you get to where it's like, like you, you gave up the right for us to exert any effort or of you any any leeway any longer um and like, what you did you should be punished for, not the door should be left open for redemption. You should be punished by having your life ended. I struggle with this a lot, Like this isn't an absolute thing in me at all, Like I don't see any of this is black and white. But I have encountered crimes before we hear about it, and and I've just been like, yeah, the person should die for that, and it's a it's a terrible feeling, Like it's not a good feeling at all. Again, I would never celebrate that person's death, but it's something to to struggle with. I think people should struggle with it. Yeah, you know, yeah, I guess so. I mean, my wife is one of the most compassionate, kind hearted people I know, one of the best people I know. And she reads a story about someone doing something animals and she goes she goes cold. She's like, put me in a room with that person in a chair and give me a baseball bat. That's another good example. And she's like the least violent person you could imagine. And uh, when it comes to like animal torture and stuff, she's like, oh, man, I wish I could just take care of that anyway. Boy, who knew that we'd have like a deep conversation during the pacifism Well, we need to be we need to step out and get touched by the pacifist lug. So. One of the one of the reasons pacifists are largely famous is usually in reference to resisting a war. Right. World War one was a big one. Um in in uh and actually starting in the Colonial War, those Quakers, by the way, could have paid somebody to go serve in their stead and all the everyone in charge of the colonial militias. And I think you could do this in the Civil War too. Um. They were fine with that. It was fine, like here you go go pay somebody and the person makes some money and if they survived, great, Um, but you're considered having served by finding a replacement. Quakers are like, no, that that doesn't count. But World War one was when conscientious objectors really started to become part of the cultural landscape. Yeah, which kind of surprised me. I was surprised that way back in nineteen seventeen, there were twenty one men young men who sought to get exemption from the war in the draft that I don't know, it's just way more than I thought. You get the idea back then like everybody was always behind the war effort and that just wasn't the case. Yeah, And that was in the US alone. Great Britain had another sixteen thousand UM conscientious objectors, and in both countries the groups were treated horribly, very badly. And um, in Great Britain there was a kind of a grassroots campaign that was started I think by one of the military officials in Great Britain where um, women who saw a man on the street during the war who wasn't in a uniform would be give in a white feather, and a white feather was a symbol of cowardice campaign. Yeah, and it worked. A lot of people went and joined up after getting a white feather and then went and died on the battlefield. But hey, at least they proved they weren't a coward. UM surprised they went through all the trouble of being a conscious objector. Like I got out of the war and they're like, oh, I got that feather. That feather did it? I guess I'm going But it actually did do it. And one of the reasons why there was such a campaign is because this was during the time when UM countries, including the US, had universal conscription for men, which was if you were a man between this age and this age, uh, and you're able bodied, uh, you're you're you're in the military, You're being drafted to war during World War One. So the idea that these people had brothers and cousins and uncles and husbands and fathers who were going off to war to fight and possibly die. And these guys were walking around saying, I don't believe in war. That was their side. The other side was they didn't believe in more, they didn't believe in violence. And the ones who really stuck to their guns, um were Uh they suffered for it for sure. Yes, should we tell a couple of these stories. There were these dudes the Richmond sixteen I thought it was just one guy's name, confusing seventeen seventy seven, seventeen quickers. Uh. They were a group of conscientious objectors and they were sent to Richmond Castle, which was not the place you want to go. It was an NCC base and uh they were sent to war camps in May nineteen sixteen UM and court martialed, basically sentenced to death by firing squad and then Prime Minister asked with stepped in and said, now let's not kill him. The sentence some two ten years hard labor breaking up rocks in a Scottish quarry, and um, one of them died of pneumonia. They were all pretty upset when they found out they were busted up this rock to make military roads. Yeah, because remember still part of the war effort. Yes, they were like, no, we're not helping you with your war, but even breaking up rocks and the gravel to be used for roads for the military, that was a big one. That was a big deal to them. Yeah. And I don't think any of the sixteen came out of it, okay, No, I'm I'm sure there was death in suicide and malnutrition, depression. Yeah, yeah, none of them came out of that, Okay. Over in the States there was a guy named Evan Thomas who apparently, um it was not the only person who was treated like this. He um he was a conscious conscientious objector who was thrown in jail because he wouldn't do anything for the war effort. And um he went on a hunger strike and refused to eat, and so the prosecutor who I guess an army prosecutor, tried to get the government to just go ahead and execute him as a shot, as a show of strength, and the government said, yeah, you know what, We'll just give him twenty five years hard labor instead. He was freed on a technicality actually sooner than that. But he was Um, it wasn't him, I'm sorry. There was another guy in England who uh was still working after the war was over, after World War One was over. He was still being put through hard labor himself after the war for being a conscientious objector, which is just vile, you know, at the very least once the war is over, just let him go. He actually died during hard labor. He was on a diet of a slice of bread of day. His name was Ernest England of England. Ye, pretty on the notes. The word got out about these horrific stories though, and how these people were treated, and um, there was a little bit of public sentiment that moved in the other direction of respect and said that you know what this that actually takes a lot of courage to object to something and to stick to those values in the face of all this brutality that they're going to face. It's really interesting to go to prison and live on when when slice of bread to day die from hard labor and not just be like, okay, final drive an ambulance. It takes a lot of courage. And so as a result of that, by the time World War two rolled around, the consciences of objectors in that war were treated much better, much much better. They were treated almost respectfully. Really, some were still thrown in prison. If you wouldn't do anything the uh, you would go to prison. But the US government, in particular UM came up with a Selective Service and Training Act of nineteen forty. Part of that said, okay, you can drive an ambulance, you can be a medic, you can have a non combat role in the military, or yeah, that was one. Or you could just go work for the Civilian Conservation Corps where you're just doing infrastructure stuff within the country that's really not directly helping the war effort at all. Or yeah, you can be a laborate yeah. And there were there were dudes that did that and said, oh that's great. You know, I'll be a human guinea pig that beats going to war. And they said, all right, get in that room, we're gonna spray it down with D D T, or we're gonna inject you with a hepatitis virus or um make you going to starve yourself for a year. Basically, Yeah, the Minnesota Start University of Minnesota's starvation experiment. Yeah, so how's that. We all went, Oh, maybe this isn't so good either. They're like, do we get to eat if we're lice infested? And they said yep. Actually, there's a quote from one guy who was a CEO. His name was Neil Hartman. He said, I was young, and I wanted to show that I was not a coward, which is why he signed up for medical experimentation. You know. Well, the Korean War um kind of had a similar you know, things were just kind of going along in a similar fashion in as far as being offered alternative jobs, um of construction or farm work. And it was really the Vietnam War where things changed. Um, it became a lot harder to get that CEO status because the law changed and said basically, you the only reason you can be a CEO is if you have a religious reason and you're religiously opposed for a religious basis to all wars. It can't be. I don't think the Vietnam War is just or I'm opposed to all wars because I think all all soldiers are pawns of the elite ruling class. Um, it has to be for religious reasons, and so a lot of people, I think a hundred and seventy thousand, hundred and seventy thousand we're granted CEO status during Vietnam for those reasons, but other ones. And I think if you're a true conscientious objector, you're not gonna lie and say it's for religious reasons when it isn't for religious reasons. So those people, a lot of them went to fled to Canada, um or Mexico. I imagine too that the two countries the other two in North America. Yeah, I'd like to think if there was a draft today, I would go. I would try and get out by saying you don't want me. It would not be good at this. I'd go across the trenches and no man's land and say, hey, let's get a conversation going, yeah, like this is the last guy you want fighting for you really just let me stay at home, like I'll maybe I'll do some good writing for you, or maybe I'll do a great podcast on your efforts, and they'd hand you a picture of beer and say get in there and go throw that on that guy's head during war. Now, wait, there's there's one other thing that Vietnam changed. Vietnam see conscientious objection and pacifism in the Vietnam era became inextricably linked to hippies and free love and their version of the peace movement. Sure, and it just disgusted everybody who wasn't a hippie, and pacivism actually really um it became disjointed, disorganized and fell the pieces during Vietnam, not because Vietnam was a just war or that even most Americans were behind it, but because the pacifist groups were just so poorly organized during the time that it almost gave pacifism a bad name. And it wasn't until the early eighties that nuclear pacifism sparked a revival of pacifism in the United States. So those that was non hippie, yeah, that it was just about anybody could get behind of all stripes. Nuclear pacifism was I remember that being a big thing in the eighties, or nuke the whales, one of the two UH. In nineteen seventy three, the draft um ended and wars from that point on were voluntary. UM or military service at least was voluntary because there were still conscientious objectors within the military. In two thousand four, in Iraq, there were hundred and ten soldiers who filed their paperwork to become a CEO, not a commanding officer. Um. They're like, I don't want to be a grand Just send me to the top. Uh. And about half of these were granted and the ones that were rejected, some of them went a wall and I went into hiding. Some more Uh court martialed and went to jail. Which is unusual that there. This is the volunteer force. But they still had conscience as objectors on it. Wow, they didn't believe in that particular war effort. Perhaps, Um, let's go back to Gandhi a bit okay. Um, he had this this bag. His bag was called Sacha garha and that means truth force. And his whole thing was peace is a weapon. Yeah, and we can use it that way and basically equalize this struggle. Um. Use sing all kinds of folks in a peaceful way. But uh, not just to say, you know, I'm a pacifist, but to really try and disrupt the efforts of the war through pacifism. Yeah, he was be a thorn in the side. He He would be characterized technically as a pragmatic pacifist because he realized that violence was not going to help the Indian cause and was going to make it worse, and that non violence in this case could be weaponized. And he weaponized non violence and it really worked. And the reason why it worked was because the world saw these British soldiers like beating helpless Indians who were not fighting back. And the British had long said, you know, not just in India, but everywhere we have colonies, were civilizing these areas. But it doesn't make very civil yeah, when you're when you're beating an unarmed, non resisting Indian elderly person. Right. Um. And it worked in that sense. But again he was not against the use of violence and other situations. So while non violence is a part of pacifism, um, there there, they can be separate things. Yes, you don't have to be a pacifist to be non violent. It can just make sense in certain situations. Yeah, And there are three main ways that, Um, you can kind of go about this non violent resistance. The first you can you know, write letters, you can lobby, competition and pick it, you can wear symbol, you can march and protest. Uh. If you want to kick it up a notch, you can move on to non cooperation, which is boycotting something, slowing down something, UM, reporting sick, having walkouts, embargoes. And then finally, if you really want to go for it as a pacifist, non violent resistor, non violent intervention, which is fasting and sit ins. They form a shadow government, right, an underground newspaper. UM basically just um acts of civil disobedience. Yeah, pretty powerful stuff there and all that. All that's non violent. But again, you don't have to be a pacifist to engage in these kind of things. UM. So there's a lot of if you're sitting there like what about this? But what about that? What about this? You might be a poll hooker hooker poker, right, which is like a grand tradition in among humanity, because there's you know, there's basically two ways of looking at people. And we did an episode on UM I think it was called What's the most Peaceful Time in History? And we talked a lot about whether humans are inherently violent or inherently peaceful. Right, So people love to say, like, hey, weirdo, who who thinks there's no justification for violence? What about this situation? Poll Hooker's right? So the poll hooker might first say something like, well, wait a minute, Wait a minute. You're you're trying to tell me that you're cool with executing a criminal or shooting a guy who's coming at your family to set you all on fire, but you're not okay with going to war? What's the difference? Right? Or they might say, well, yeah, it's super easy to be a pacifist as long as someone else is going out there and fighting the war that keeps you free to be that pacifist, right, And that's that's one that pacifism probably has the hardest time answering, because yeah, it's for for a pacifist to sit around saying the United States, um, you you you're in a pretty safe, comfortable position in part because other people went off and fought worse, you know, or in a country that's been invaded before. You know, that's, um, that's a tough one to defend. And the really the only solution I've seen is that pacifists say, well, I think that we should outlaw all acts of aggression or all acts of violence, even against aggressors, And um, that's just how I feel. If other people are going to go fight, that's their thing. But if somebody came to kill me, I would let them kill me. Um. That's a that's a tough one for sure, because I think a lot of people who would say something like that might might not necessarily stick by it when they're actually being assaulted by somebody who intends to kill them, or probably more to the point, like their loved one is being assaulted by someone who intends to kill them, to just step stand by and say, I'm sorry, but abs pacifism is is the most morally upstanding thing I can do. So you're dead. Yeah, And I think, and I'm talking off the top of my head here again, but I think a pacifist it probably has to be a practice, like an active thing you work at, you know, because I think I think mostly the innate human response if someone tries to kill your child or your loved one is to snap and defend them. So you probably really have to like a meditation as a practice. I imagine that kind of pacivism has to be a practice. But one of those poll hookers as you call them, might say, did you do what's morally right when you let that person indiscriminately kill your child in front of you and didn't do a thing about it to stop them. I think that's so extreme though, It's just I know, but that's where philosophy exists, is in the in the on those extreme ends. You know, when you when you take an idea and you test it to it's it's for this tensile strength. Like that's when you really get into the meat of it, like what about this? What about that? You know? And um, that's a I mean, I don't I don't necessarily know that's moral. But then the pastivists would say, well, why is there why is their life that my child's life worth more than the life of this aggressor, right, which I would answer, well, your child is not an aggressor. Aggressor's taking a step below your child by being an aggressor. Boy, the tinsile strength is high. Uh, shall we talk a little bit about World War two here kind of half in the closing moments, Yeah, for sure, because it's really easy to look back at World War Two and kind of whitewash it as the boy the Allies were out there to fight Hitler because he was trying to kill Jews and uh, commit atrocities against humanity, and so we had to go in there and stop him at all costs. Right, And a lot of people point to World War two staying finally after years, here is what proves the just war theory. This guy was so bad and the stuff he was doing was so bad that we had to go to war to stop him. Pacifists your idiots for saying otherwise, Yes, but here with the benefit of hindsight. There are some people out there, historians, theologists. Uh there's one guy named Nick Stanton Rourke who said it's a sad fact that the Allies did little to thwart the worst of Hitler's atrocities. Times with death camps um which which we're bringing in and vetting more people every day. Transportation routes into death camps could have been targeted with no tactical risk to the Allied forces involved, but they were routinely denied, often because the military was careful to avoid the appearance of fighting quote for the Jews, which would have lost popular support for the war. So a lot of these historians now make a point that a lot more deplum diplomacy and pacifist resistance could have been more saved more lives even than the way they went at it with Hitler. I didn't know. I didn't know at all. So basically really eye opening from from what from what we found is that apparently, uh, the Allies were well aware of the threat to the Jews in Europe because it was going on for a long time before we got involved. Yeah, and he was publicly saying, if this turns into a world war, I'm laying it on the at the feet of the Jews and I'm going to exterminate the Jews in Europe. So US take that for what it's worth. And the US apparently knew this that if they entered the war it would spell doom for the Jews in Europe, and that had the passive and this is the pacifist stance. Had we Um gone to Hitler and said, you know what, what, we will accept conditional surrender, uh, if you will allow free passage for the Jews out of Europe into other places where they're going to be safe. If you'll just let them go. You're you're saying that you have to get rid of them because they're useless, and you can't afford to feed useless people, so you've got to exterminate them. Well, we'll take them from you. There was a lot of stuff that could have been done that wasn't done. So from the pacifist standpoint, to point to World War two and say this proves the just war theory and that pacifist doesn't work, the pacifist would say, actually, it proves that we were not willing to try pacifism even when it was apparent that that was going to possibly work way better than going to war was going to going after an unconditional surrender. Well, and some historians point to Denmark is being a prime example of how things could have gone differently perhaps and how they handled Hitler's aggression. Um, Denmark very famously was Um what did they say? They were neutral? Yeah, they said we're neutral, and Germany said we don't care. Yeah, so Germany invaded him anyway. But they said, you know what, we can't resist Hitler with arms, like we're all going to be dead. Um, because we're just too small. We have we have no means to fight this war machine that's coming at us. So they basically kind of gave up. UH, said that would be a suicidal move to do anything otherwise, and said, here's what we're gonna do. We're basically going to be pacifists, resistance uh resistors, and UH. They slowed things down. They delayed transportation, They sabotage equipment. UH, they sabotage railroads and infrastructure. Workers went on strike when they were producing materials for the Nazis. UH. They basically just said, we're not gonna follow your anti Semitic policies. And when Hitler said, all right, I want to deport all the Danish Jews, they said no, and they hid them. They said what Danish Jews? Yeah, and they hid them all in addition to about fifteen hundred more people who were refugees they're seeking uh protection and not a single Danish Jew died during the Holocaust. And apparently in the same post from nick Stanton rourke Um, he said that later on some of the higher ups in the in the Third Reich said that they were confounded whenever they were confronted with non violence because they didn't know what to do with it, Yeah, you know, and that that the that nonviolent resistance to the Third Bich actually was more successful than bombing it into into nothingness, because you still you still need some sort of support, public support behind you. And if you if the news reports are of like Nazis just wasting away Danish citizens who aren't fighting back like they're not, they're not gonna have any support from their own followers. Well, and remember in our Dictators episode we talked about how uh belligerents from a foreign nation often causes the population to be afraid and get behind their dictator. Where um Nicholson Baker, who's an author who is also a famous pacifist, he basically said that that it was fear that bound Hitler and Germany together, whereas if suddenly there was a cease to fighting and there is no threat any longer of being invaded or bombed by the Allies, that who knows what could have happened Hitler. There were a lot of like tratorious conspiracies against Hitler within his own ranks. There are a lot of resistance movements against him. Maybe he would have been replaced and at the very least he would have died eventually and and um, probably some of the victims of the Holocaust would have been saved. It's a it's like that's but think about it, that's almost blasphemy to talk about that, like not being violent or aggressive toward Hitler. But apparently that's because of a revision over time over the goals and the reasons why we entered World War two. Interesting, it really is. It's very eye opening. And then lastly, does pacifism work with terrorists like isis? I love how this article basically sums it up. No, nope, Yeah, nobody knows what what No pacifist knows what to do with something like isis they? Maybe they probably break pacifism even more than Hitler does the idea of it. Yeah, well that's a big one. Yeah, boy good. We haven't had a good deep talk like that in a while. I'm glad we uh touched what was it we were touched by the pacifist bug. Yeah, glad that happened. If you want to be touched by the pacifist bugs. Is typed that word into the search bar. How stuff works, and it will bring up this great article. And since I said search bar, it's time for listener mail. We got an email about our CTE episode from a NFL player from a Dallas Cowboy. Did you read that one? Wow? Emmett Cleary. He's a guard. He's a guard for the amazing offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys and a smart dude, which Boston College thanks for writing. Yeah, I was pretty excited. Any Um he said that I could read this. Uh. Hey, guys, current NFL player, A big fan of the show. I have a background in science biology at Boston College and my interest was piquked about CTE. You covered all sides of it, but I wanted to share the perspective and active player. As the research has progressed in garner media coverage over the last ten years, awareness of the risks of repetitive brain trauma among players has grown. Can't speak for everyone, but guys seem more cautious with their brain health. From the time I started college football, football culture has changed. UH. Players have become more proactive reporting head injuries and more conservative in returning to play. I've seen my teammates look out for each other and advise each other towards safety. UH and an occupation that promotes a warrior mentality. This is a good thing. We understand that nobody gets out of the game healthy, and while most people are okay with bad knees or shoulders or back problems, brain health is a serious concern. As this all went public, it became increasingly apparent how deceitful NFL leadership has been. While the league office in club medicals tasks include many good people who undoubtedly care about our long term health, the leadership is consistently OBUs skated evidence, promoted pseudoscience, an outright lied about the effects of head injuries. Retired players feel betrayed, and active players have no reason to trust that league that the league will prioritize our health overcovering its own. But legally, protecting brain health is good for everybody involved, but the league is more concerned with avoiding liability uh in convincing public that football is harmless. Until longitudinal studies can accurately quantify the risk of football, we do the best we can with the information we have. Guy's balance and known risks of against the joy and benefits of playing. Personally, I'm hoping to enjoy my career and get out relatively healthy. I love my job and don't want to jeopardize my long term well being. Thanks for bringing your typical rigorous research and balance. You point to a critical issue. Offensive guard Emmed Clary, don't tell anybody said this. Okay, man, I know, I know that was a great email. Thank you. Offensive lineman Clary. Think how you address professional football play? So uh he said, if we come back to Dallas or Chicago, because he's maybe from Chicago, well hang cool, drinking contest, nice and we'll put on the helmets and crack them together. Yeah. Oh I watched the game. Um oh, man, I think it was Louisville versus somebody who knows a team that had different colors on right, college football, Yeah, it was. It was one of the It was a bowl Louisville versus somebody whoever they played in their bowl. I'm not sure they played this year. Well, somebody um lad with the crown of their head and hit somebody else in the in the the helmet um and got ejected for the game and rightfully. So they made a big deal of it. Yeah, college football, they'll do that. They call it tar getting it. Yeah they did. And um but I mean I remember a couple of years ago they're like that goods are good hit. Yeah, you're wrong his bill. But everybody's talking very seriously and quietly about how this is a big deal. I'm like purpose progress. Yeah, well thanks a lot again, offensive Lineman Cleary. Uh. And if you want to get in touch with this like he did, you can tweet to us. I'm at josh um Clark uh. And I'm also at s Y s K podcast on Twitter. Chuck's at Charles W. Chuck Bryant on Facebook and at Facebook dot com slash Stuff you Should Know. We can both be reached at Stuff Podcast at how Stuff Works dot com via email, and has always hang out with us at our luxurious home on the web. Stuff you Should Know dot com for more on this and thousands of other topics. Is it how Stuff Works dot com. I'm at, I'm null, I'm Ben, and we are Stuff they don't want you to know. Each week we cover the latest and strangest in fringe science, government cover ups, allegations of the paranormal, and more. New episodes come out every Friday on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play, and anywhere else you get your podcasts.