In this episode, Trent talks about two Catholic college students who have become victims of “cancel culture” and how to refute society’s mission to impose what Pope Benedict XVI called “the dictatorship of relativism.”
Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
We are building a dictatorship of relativism. Pope Benedict XVI uttered those words 15 years ago at the papal conclave and they’re even more true today. That’s what I want to talk about today here on the Counsel of Trent podcast.
I am your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker Trent Horn, and I want to give a big thanks to everyone who supports our podcast. First, just by listening you’re supporting us, by praying for us. I know I’m feeling the effects of your prayers. I really appreciate it. In this time that we live in where things are uncertain, where things can be stressful, I say a little prayer for you guys. If you could say a prayer for me and my family, I would really appreciate that.
Other ways to support the podcast is just by leaving a review on iTunes and Google Play. On iTunes it can be hard to find. If you scroll all the way down, you can click on the leave a review link, leave a starred review or a comment. I really enjoy reading those and it helps people learn about the podcast.
Then if you consider financially supporting the podcast, that allows us to grow. We can do more dialogues, more debates. I have my debate with Alex O’Connor here coming up in, oh goodness, like a week, week and a half. It’s going to be July 30th here on Pints with Aquinas. It should be a live debate actually. I think we’ll do it at noon July 30th Pacific time, 3:00 Eastern, probably what, 10:00, 8:00 in England, because my debate opponent, Alex O’Connor, is studying at Oxford University actually. He’s going to be doing it in the evening. I’ll be doing it in the afternoon here on the west coast. You’re not going to want to miss that. If you want to support us so we can do more debates, dialogues, rebuttal videos, consider supporting us at trenthornpodcast.com.
Now, onto the subject of today’s show, the dictatorship of relativism. What does that mean? It’s kind of like an oxymoron, right? You think of relativism as kumbaya, we’ll all sit around in our drum circle, and you can believe what you want to believe, I believe what I want to believe. Live and let live, right? A dictatorship is someone who has an iron fist, who demands conformity. Believe what we believe and only what we believe or else. How do those two go together?
Well, it basically goes like this. We have relativism. You believe what you want to believe. I believe what I want to believe. If you dare say it ought to be different, if you dare say I shouldn’t believe something or that I ought to believe something that you believe, even if I’m not keen to the idea, then the iron fist of the dictatorship of relativism will come upon you.
I want to share with you two news stories recently over the summer to give examples of that where the dictatorship of relativism or the relativistic mob has come after faithful young Catholics in college that we needed to stand up for and we need to support, because I remember being a Catholic in college. I mean, you have a lot going on, right? I remember going to Arizona State University, trying to balance classes, my part-time work. I was doing youth ministry. I’d be in classes and then professors take digs at you.
I remember once there was a professor who went on a tangent about abortion for no reason, and he just looked at me and glared at me before he did it and went on this big tangent. I just didn’t want to have to debate him because the professor always has an upper hand in the class. At the very least, even if you beat the professor in a debate, which can be hard for any undergrad who is still learning philosophy and learning theology to be able to do, even if you beat the professor in a debate in class, the professor still has the upper hand because he has the grade book. Unless you’re doing a course like math or calculus, where all of the answers are objective. I mean, you either got the math problem right or you did not. If it’s something where it’s a subjective analysis, like where he reads your paper, reads your discussion posts, he could be tempted to give you a bad grade just because he doesn’t like you.
So much stress upon our Catholic college students today, the generation Z that is out there if you will. I think that if you’re going to college now, you’re not a millennial anymore. You’re part of Gen Z. They have a lot going on. I want to share with you two stories of people that you should pray for and that we need to support, and then I’ll talk about how to refute relativism.
This first article comes from The College Fix. It was at the end of June. It’s a story about Melanie Didioti or Didioti. Here’s what it says. “A student at Villanova University is accusing her academic advisor of trying to intimidate her over tweets critical of the university’s promotion of Pride Month. Melanie Didioti, a graduate student at the Catholic university outside of Philadelphia,” Catholic in quotation marks I’m going to add, “Recently tweeted criticism of the school’s athletic department for its Pride Month tweet on June 22nd. The tweet,” the Villanova tweet, “Said, ‘Love is love. Happy Pride Month. We are proud to be an ally of the LGBTQ+ community.’ In response, Didioti tweeted, ‘Villanova is proud to be and ally of the LGBTQ community and ashamed to be Catholic, so I’m ashamed to attend here and that’s that.'”
Then the article goes on to say, “She said that this led to a contentious meeting with her academic advisor in the theology department, professor Jennifer Jackson, on June 26th. Jackson had originally claimed the meeting was just about the upcoming fall schedule. Didioti claims that Jackson instead used the meeting to criticize her tweets. Jackson did not respond to emails from The College Fix seeking comment. Jackson made several statements to her, Didioti claims, that implied she could lose her academic scholarship if she continued tweeting her beliefs on LGBT issues, specifically asking her if she still needed her scholarship to attend the university.”
“During the meeting, Jackson also allegedly warned that Didioti’s future networking could be harmed by her tweeting. Didioti also alleges that Jackson informed her during the meeting that she must ally herself with the LGBTQ community if she wants to truly respect all people. In response, Didioti told The Fix, ‘I told her that Catholics should seek to help individuals, not organizations that embrace things severely against the church.'”
Okay, so this tweet actually by Villanova is a great example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. It’s a fallacy you need to be aware of because it comes up a lot in online discourse and in attacks against the Catholic Church. It goes like this. First, you have to know a little bit about medieval history. In medieval castles, there were two areas. There was a motte, which was a central fortified structure that was very easy to defend, and surrounding the motte was a wide open clearing or field called a bailey, which was much more difficult to defend. You could have your troops out there, they could be easily overwhelmed.
What you would do is if you ever got overwhelmed in the bailey, you would retreat into the motte and wait for the danger to pass because the motte was this fortified structure, easy to fire your arrows and to stay safe, better than being out and open without defense or cover in the bailey. The motte, the easier to defend structure. The bailey is the wide open field that’s a lot harder to defend.
Now, here’s where it happens in arguments where the motte-and-bailey fallacy is committed. Imagine two claims that sound very familiar, like the claim Catholics should be allies of the LGBTQ+ community. Many of these claims can be interpreted in one of two ways, either a trivial claim that is easy to defend or a controversial claim that is difficult to defend. The trivial claim that is easy to defend, that would be the motte, and the controversial claim that is difficult to defend would be the bailey.
The motte-and-bailey fallacy occurs when someone puts forward a really controversial claim, the bailey, and when it gets refuted, they retreat back into the motte, the easier to defend claim. They say, “Oh, I was just defending the motte the whole time. I was never arguing for the bailey.” Then when the threat passes, they say that the bailey, the controversial claim, actually won, even though it wasn’t even refuted at all.
Here would be the example from the Villanova tweet. “Love is love. Happy Pride Month. We are proud to be an ally of the LGBTQ+ community.” Yeah, Catholics should be allies of LGBTQ+. Then when you step forward and say, “Well, when you look online, what it means to be an ally of LGBTQ+ is that you affirm the goodness of homosexual relations. You affirm things like same sex marriage. How can a Catholic school be an ally of LGBTQ+?” “Oh, I was never saying we should be an ally like that. I’m saying, you know, an ally, a friend, someone who cares for you, someone who helps a person, someone who fights against unjust discrimination. Melanie Didioti is wrong. Of course, we should be allies. We should be helping people, even if we don’t agree with them. Even if we don’t agree with their lifestyle, we should love them as human beings.”
Notice what’s happening here, that the person will retreat into the motte, the trivial claim that we should ally with someone in the sense of treating them like a human being with dignity and respect. Everybody agrees with that, but that’s not what it means here with this idea of, “Love is love. Happy Pride Month. We’re proud to be an ally of the LGBTQ+ community,” because they’ve already shown their hand. They’re not arguing for the motte, the idea of being an ally in the sense of respecting someone’s dignity, protecting them from unjust discrimination, because they tip their hand by saying, “Love is love. Happy Pride Month.”
Here, the Villanova athletic department is saying that anything you choose to call love, that is love and so it should be affirmed, whether it’s a homosexual relationship. What else would they affirm? A polyamorous relationship? Child brides? Who knows where the limit might go?
Notice what would happen here is I think a lot of these faculty advisors who would go after Melanie, they would say, “You’re saying we shouldn’t be allies? You’re saying we shouldn’t care about other human beings?” No, that’s not what she’s saying at all. The technical term ally is a term in the LGBTQ+ umbrella. LGBTQQIAI2SP, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, androgynous, ally, two-spirit, pansexual. Yes, I know. In fact, the acronym is actually longer according to some people, but that acronym ally is an important element. It involves people who would be quote unquote “cis-gender heterosexuals”, people who do not have same sex attractions, men who say they’re men, women who say they’re women. These people are allies to the rest of the letters in the LGBTQ+ alphabet because they affirm the identities and the moral goodness of the behaviors that acronym represents.
When there are liberal Catholics who would attack Melanie for saying we shouldn’t be allies of LGBTQ+, they’re going to be using the motte. They’re going to go back to saying, “You’re saying we shouldn’t treat them like human beings?” Well no, of course, but you’re arguing the bailey. You’re arguing for affirming the goodness and the moral goodness of homosexual relationships and the orderedness of things like transgender identities, which is opposed to Catholic teaching. Be aware of the motte-and-bailey fallacy.
Another example where it comes up is socialism. We saw that in my debate with Sam Rocha and a lot of the online correspondence that’s happened after that. Always happens with people who claim they defend Catholic socialism. They say, “Catholics can be socialists.” Then you put forward all the magisterial … That would be the bailey. You put forward all the magisterial documents saying you can’t be a socialist. Then the person says, “Well, I’m just saying we should love the poor and have generous social welfare programs. Don’t you agree with that?” That would be the motte. That’s a claim that’s permissible, but that’s not really what you meant when you said a grand claim like Catholics can be socialists.
When that claim is conceited and the critic goes away, the Catholic socialists will say, “See, he never refuted Catholic socialism. We should support socialism. We should support centralization of income, wealth, and productive property.” Then they, once again, they go back to the bailey and argue controversial claim, because when someone tries to is to pin them, they equivocate and switch and go to the less controversial claim like Catholics should support the poor, or Catholics should support people who have disordered sexual desires or identities, supporting them in the sense of protecting them from unjust discrimination and valuing them as human beings made in the image and likeness of God. When someone gives you the motte-and-bailey, pin them down and show them, they really were defending the country virtual claim the whole time, and the controversial claim does not meet up with scrutiny.
Let me give you another example of the dictatorship of relativism in action. This involves Jack Denton. He was the student of the Florida State University Senate, and he was eventually withdrawn because of comments that he made in a private chat about Black Lives Matter. What happened?
The students appeared to be having a conversation about the Black Lives Matter movement, whose public profile has been raised by protests responding to the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed black man killed by a police officer in Minneapolis. Denton responded to a message from one student listing organizations advancing the cause of racial justice that they could donate to by warning that the organizations Black Lives Matter, Reclaim the Block, and the American Civil Liberties Union quote, “Advocate for things that are explicitly anti-Catholic.”
When asked by other students to clarify what he meant by anti-Catholic, Denton said that Black Lives Matter fosters a queer affirming network and defends transgenderism, and the ACLU defense laws protecting abortion facilities and sued states that restricted abortion access. He even claimed that Reclaim the Block’s mission is contrary to the church’s teaching on the common good because the organization claims less police will make our communities safer and advocates for cutting police departments’ budgets. In a later message, Denton attempted to justify himself by saying, “If I stay silent while my brothers and sisters may be supporting organizations that promote grave evils, I have sinned through my silence.”
Everything he said there was 100% correct, 100% gracious. If I had been an undergraduate student at that time and had an opportunity to reach out … This was in a Catholic forum, by the way, a private Catholic forum where Denton made these comments. I wish I could have made them as graciously and persuasively as he did. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the comments he made.
In this op ed, here’s what they say was wrong with him. He says, “Denton’s words are alarming for many reasons.” The two authors, actually it’s two women who are writing this. I presume they’re two students, Emily Pacenti and Alanna Felton. It says, “His words are alarming for many reasons. Firstly, he interrupted a conversation about systemic racism and the murder of black Americans by police officers with his own fears of anti-Catholic discrimination.”
One, he’s not interrupting anything. He is contributing to a conversation in a private forum. I guess you’re not allowed to join into any conversation unless you 100% agree with the thesis that’s being proposed. We literally cannot have a marketplace of ideas on university campuses, even in private forums meant for this kind of thing, because it would, I guess, traumatized students.
Also the two, the duo writing this article completely misunderstand what he’s talking about when he says things are anti-Catholic. That he interrupted with his own fears of anti-Catholic discrimination. They go on saying that Catholics are not discriminated against like African Americans. Well, they have been discriminated against in this country. We didn’t have a Catholic president until 1960. There was virulent anti-Catholic discrimination in this country, and it still exists in places. I talked about that, how the Supreme Court recently handed down a decision overturning an anti-Catholic law preventing public funds from being used to fund parochial schools, I think it was in Montana, even though they could be used to fund other schools that are non-Catholic or elements like this.
But the point is that these two authors misunderstand, he’s not talking about discrimination against Catholics. When he says anti-Catholic, he’s not talking about discrimination. He’s talking about causes that are opposed to the Catholic faith, causes that are directly contrary to the moral teachings of the Church, like abortion, like same-sex, promoting same-sex sexual behavior or marriage, or transgender identities.
The duo eventually gets to that point, but they also miss the boat here too. They say, “Denton’s characterization of support for the LGBTQ+ community, abortion, and defunding police as anti-Catholic is inaccurate. None of these positions are inherently anti-Catholic. It is fully possible to be Catholic and support queer and trans folx,” F-O-L-X. I guess you can’t say folk. Why not? There’s a new rule every week. I never understand it. “Or be queer and/or trans yourself, abortion, and defunding the police. Like many, Denton is attempting to use his religious identification as a cover for bigotry and cannot be let off the hook.”
This is another example of the motte-and-bailey that comes up in discourse all the time, especially among the so called new Catholic left. The question is, can you be a gay Catholic? Motte-and-bailey, right? The bailey would be the controversial claim saying, well, can you engage in same-sex intercourse? Can you marry a person of the same sex and be Catholic? Well, no. Look at paragraphs 2357 through 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s abundantly clear you can’t. “Well, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that being a gay Catholic means you have a gay identity, you have same sex attractions. You can’t control your attractions, right? You’re saying that someone just because of their attractions can’t be Catholic?” Well, no, of course not. They can still be Catholic. “Ah, so you can be a gay Catholic.”
What they do then, they go from the motte and they tiptoe out in the bailey and they start to do things like this and say, “Well, why can’t someone who has these same sex attractions celebrate these attractions God gave them? Why can’t someone celebrate the goodness that’s found in their identity, even if they don’t act on these attractions?” Then slowly but surely the camel gets its nose under the tent to say, “Maybe this is actually good and the catechism misinterprets scripture and misinterprets the traditional teaching of the church when it comes to homosexuality.”
You’ve got to be careful with this relativistic discourse not to allow the camel to get its nose under the tent. If you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll want milk to drink when he’s watching the Pride parade, or whatever that might be.
All right, so those are two recent examples. Now, let me talk about some arguments against moral relativism. Probably the biggest argument against moral relativism is that it’s contradictory. The people who will espouse relativism, we ought to live and let live, they will push universal binding norms on people saying that you must support the social movement Black Lives Matter.
Racism is always wrong. There are still universal wrong … There are universal wrongs they believe in, so they’re not true relativists. They’re only relativists when it comes to certain kinds of moral issues like sexual morality, saying that Catholics can hold a wide variety of views on sexual morality. That can be relativistic, but Catholics can’t hold a wide variety of views on racism. You just have to be opposed to racism.
That is obviously true. The church is firmly opposed to racism. Read the catechism. Racism is a sin. The critic recognizes the moral objectivity of teachings on racism, on the wrongness of other moral crimes, rape, genocide, murder, but when it comes to sexual morality, all bets are off.
Finally, the moral relativist will say that you must be a relativist, that relativism is universally true, that it’s not relative to the individual, which is completely incoherent and contradictory. In fact, even atheists recognize the incoherence of this view. Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith, he puts it this way. Sam Harris, very famous atheist, part of the new atheists from the early 2000s, he wrote this. “Most moral relativists believe that toleration of cultural diversity is better in some sense than outright bigotry. This may be perfectly reasonable of course, but it amounts to an overarching claim about how all human beings should live. Morally relativism when used as a rationale for tolerance of diversity is self-contradictory.”
What Harris is saying here, he’s saying, “Look, you can’t say that morals are relative when you also say everybody ought to be a moral relativist.” Even if that’s a noteworthy goal, you’re not espousing relativism anymore. You’re espousing your own particular view of morality.
Harris, I really appreciate Sam Harris on this point because he goes after liberal college professors who they agree with him on Christianity, they hate Christianity, they hate Catholicism, but they have some kind of liberal white guilt so they can’t criticize Islam. What’s funny about their inability to criticize Islam is that that inability is actually rooted in a kind of racism.
Essentially, for many of these people, they won’t criticize Islam because they feel that if you criticize quote unquote “brown” people, then you are racist. But that’s racist, because many Muslims are not white and not all Middle Eastern people are Muslim. Many people in the Middle East are of course Jewish, many Christians, many Chaldean Catholics for example, Maronite Catholics that you’ll find the Middle East. Not all Middle Easterners are Muslims, and the majority of Muslims do not live in the Middle East. Most of them live in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. You can find Muslims in Subsaharan Africa, in Boko Haram in Nigeria. Muslims as a religion, Islam is a religion that is transracial. People of all races make up Islam, just like people of all races make up Catholicism. Criticism of Islam has nothing to do with racism, because Islam is a worldwide faith embraced by people of all races, and it’s worthy of criticism because of the positions that it takes.
Harris goes after liberal professors who won’t criticize some Muslim practices out of this mistaken sense of relativism, and this a clip from a talk where he gives an example of this, and I like how he describes it.
Sam Harris:
Another speaker came up to me and said, “Well, how could you ever say that the compulsory veiling of women is wrong from the point of view of science?” I said, “Well, okay, the moment you link questions of right and wrong to questions of human wellbeing, then it seems pretty clear that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags and beating them or killing them when they try to get out is not a way of maximizing wellbeing and therefore not a good practice.” She said, “Well, that’s just your opinion.”
Sam Harris:
I said, “Okay, well let’s just make it easier. Let’s imagine we found a culture that was removing the eyeballs of every third child. Would you then agree that we had found a culture that was not perfectly maximizing human wellbeing?” She said, “It would depend on why they were doing it.” Okay.
Sam Harris:
After I picked my jaw back up off the floor, I said, “Okay. Let’s say they’re doing it for religious reasons. Let’s say they have a scripture which says every third should walk in darkness or some such nonsense.” Okay. You’ll be pleased or horrified to know that she just bit the bullet here and said, “Then you could never say that they were wrong.”
Trent Horn:
Now, this brings up a good point, because no liberty is absolute, not even religious liberty. Of course we believe in religious liberty as Catholics. We should be free to worship, free to attend mass, but no religious liberty is absolute. Reynolds versus the United States was a very important Supreme Court case in the 19th century in the US that dealt with Mormon polygamy. The people were saying, “I have a right to be a polygamous because it’s a part of my Mormon faith.”
Now of course, Mormonism rejects polygamy. There are some fundamentalist Mormons in like southern Utah, northern Arizona who still hold onto the practice. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a whole rejects it. But back in the 19th century, they were in favor of it and said, “This is our religion.”
What the Supreme Court said was if religious liberty was an absolute, you couldn’t have civilization. It said every man would become a law unto himself. No religious liberty, no religious practice can be absolute. It can be governed by norms of right reason. Now, that doesn’t mean, of course, that morality is 100% secular. Many of our religious traditions are rooted in secular norms and morality. By secular, I mean those norms that can be known through the light of human reason. We can show that abortion is wrong. We can even show that marriage is naturally ordered towards the conjugal union of men and women. We can show that from the light of reason. Merely saying, “This is my religion so you have to let me do it,” is not a sufficient justification for religious practices.
Another example to be able to show this on morality would be the practice of sati. This occurred in India. It was the burning of women on funeral pyres. Actually, I remember Laura was reading to the kids Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne, and in the story the protagonist rescues a woman who’s going to be burned on a funeral Pyre. I’m explaining to my kids why this is happening. But they’re boys, they’re a lot more understanding of violence saying like, “He should kill those guys. He should save that girl.” But there are people who will say, “Well, you can’t say that, that they’re wrong. You can’t say that burning women on these funeral pyres is wrong because that’s their belief. That’s what they believe in.”
Now, why do they believe that? Before I talk about the rejoinder to it, here is a video on the Stoic Sadhu English Channel talking about the practice of sati in India, to give a perspective from someone who is from India to help people understand why would somebody even do this in the first place.
Speaker 4:
In our culture, a dutiful wife is considered the same as any goddess, and it is considered that a dutiful wife has so much strength and power that she can even bring her dead husband back. This has been beautifully portrayed in the story of Savitri and Satyavan. In the old times, when the husband used to die, it was generally considered in some groups that the culpability for the death of the husband was on the chastity of his wife, and so to repent for her wrongdoing, she used to perform sati. This was her fire ordeal, just as [inaudible 00:25:14] went through the fire ordeal in [inaudible 00:25:16].
Trent Horn:
I just want to make clear that the narrator of that video agrees that sati is a morally abhorrent practice and he opposes it, but he was just trying to explain why Indians did this. It was even occurring up until the late 20th century, which motivated the Indian government to pass the Sati Prevention Act of 1987.
But it was British colonial officials who at first had to oppose the practice. One of them was Sir Charles James Napier. He was a British general and commander in chief in India. The city of Napier, New Zealand is actually named after him. He’s famous for conquering the Sindh province of British India, which is now in present day Pakistan.
He spoke about sati at the time and he said … People told him, “You can’t say this is wrong, Commander Napier, Captain Napier, because this is our practice. This is our culture.” He says, “Be it so, this burning of widows is your custom. Prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
Ultimately when you try to put relativism into practice, it doesn’t work. You can’t say that every single culture, every single person should follow an individual or cultural code of morality, because these codes will conflict with other codes. At the very least, you’re telling one universal code, everyone should follow their own standard.
In fact, I don’t think there’s anyone today who really in academia or public life tries to argue for pure relativism. They argue for their particular bedrock principles when it comes to morality on sexual issues, on life issues. They’ll use relativism as a way to obfuscate the issue saying that, “Oh, well, Catholics can have a multitude of views on this issue, so you must believe this.” Well, if we’re allowed to have a multitude of views, why can’t I have the view that certain sexual activities are disordered? Why can’t I have the view that some ways of treating human embryos are barbaric?” It’s like they say out of one breath, “You can have your views. Just don’t tread on me,” but out of the other breath, “But if you do have those views, we’ll call them barbaric and awful. We’ll blacklist you. You won’t be allowed to be student Senate president. You won’t be able to go to this university. You’ll lose your scholarship. You can’t hold this job.”
At the very least, and do remember when you stand up for morality, you ought to do it graciously and persuasively. If someone says you’re being offensive, ask them, “Is there another way I could say my message without offending you?” If there’s no way to do that, then it’s not you that’s offending them. You never want it to be you that’s offending them. You want it to be the message that offends them. We cannot go through life with the goal of not offending people.
The Bible even says that Jesus Christ is the rock of offense. Jesus offended many people. Why do you think they wanted to kill him? They wanted to stone him to death. They wanted to crucify him. He offended them because the truth by its nature is offensive to ears that cling to evil, that cling to lies. Our job is to share the truth in a gracious, persuasive way and accept the costs of sharing it, which for now may be white martyrdom, losing jobs, losing positions, losing influence. In the future it could be red martyrdom, could be blood. It has been in the past. It could be in the future. Regardless, the one thing we must never give up on is our faith in Jesus Christ. He will see us through all of these difficulties and prosecutions. Our goal is always to persevere to the end, because as Matthew 10:22 says, “He who perseveres to the end will be saved.”
Well, I hope that was helpful for you all. Thank you so much for listening to the show today. I just hope you have a very blessed day.
If you liked today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.