Trying (and Failing) to Talk - Lessons Learned

I reached out to an estranged friend after a decade of silence. This man is a well-established, intelligent, well-educated scientist. He has held significant positions as a scientific program officer in the government and is (as far as I know) well respected in his professional community. He presents himself as deeply Christian, committed to moral principles and speaks eloquently about faith, virtue, heaven, and God. He has wealth, privilege, standing, gravitas — the kind that insulates you from the immediate consequences of policy and permits you to freely offer your opinion and expect to be taken seriously.

Our friendship had fractured during Trump's first term - I had invited him to my wedding in August of 2016 where he publicly proclaimed to my friends and family that he was pro-Trump. I remember subsequently having a single conversation and a chat-message exchange with him in November of that year in which, I admit, I was angry and frustrated by his apparent measured reference to right-wing talking points. He said at the time that 'Neo Nazi and alt-right elements will have no influence in the administrations policies', and I was curt, angry and largely cut him off. I contacted him again in 2020 after January 6th —the violent attempt to overturn an election— and he still maintained Trump was the better choice than Hillary Clinton over the preceding four years. 

I could not deal with the sheer contradiction of it. He had invited me to private religious ceremonies that he participated in. I trusted him and always thought he was a good man - but here he was, advocating for Donald Trump and generally behaving as though what was happening in right wing politics was normal and preferential to the disaster, in his opinion, that Hillary Clinton would have unleashed upon the country. The disconnect was so profound, so bewildering, that I simply shut him out. 

In the intervening time I thought of my friend almost every time I heard about some perverse aspect of Trump's activities in the news, even before he regained the presidency. It still bothered me. 

Fast forward to now, I'd been thinking a lot about the best way to undercut the monstrosity of every single thing that was coming from right wing US politics and listened Ezra Klein's podcast on political dialogue in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination —my experiences with my old colleague still bugged me and I just thought that I should try to come full circle and see if he was open to a discussion. How we might actually bridge these divides? How we might have conversations that don't immediately collapse into combat or mutual contempt? 

So I reached out, sending him some of my recent writing, genuinely hoping we could restart the conversation on different terms. It was worth trying. If we can't talk to people we've actually known and respected, if every political disagreement means permanent rupture, then we're in serious trouble as a democracy. 

I have to give him some credit, he was open to the idea. He took the time to read my writing and responded, but that was where the trouble began. 

'I came here for an Argument'

I thought that we could just have at it and discuss our differences openly and candidly, but in retrospect, I can see how he was expecting a polite discussion where he could raise questions, make some points and I would just be happy to agree in places, disagree in others but generally be 'civil' and not have our feathers ruffled too much by the conversation. 

I grossly underestimated how many of his basic positions, general mannerism, and argumentation style would be something I found impossible to engage with politely or positively. I won't discuss what we talked about (it was a private conversation, after all), but within the first email, he made five or six points and each one violated some basic behavioral norm or position that I held (with regard to sexism, racism, transcending tribalism, behavioral norms around argumentation, privilege, etc.). 

I responded substantively—point by point. I challenged his positions and attempted to construct a counterargument - with caveats about how, if what I was saying upset him, we could talk it through. His rebuttal came a week later - doubling down and escalating his original claims whilst expressing annoyance and fatigue around the discussion. He said that this style of discussion was typical of his dealings with progressives and that he found it tiresome. I did attempt to salvage the discussion but found myself replaying his words in my head and realized that it was neither worth it nor healthy for either of us to continue. 

There's a Monty Python sketch that seems relevant - a man comes to an office and pays money to have an argument with someone - but rather than having a back and forth with substantive points, his adversary simply contradicts everything he says ("No I didn't!"). When the sketch ends, the man storms out, frustrated and annoyed. At some level, my estranged friend and I are both like this man - coming to an argument in the hope of countering the fractious, unpleasant, difficult energy we encounter in these situations - engaging in the conversation and eliciting a completely different response to the one we were hoping to encounter and then leaving frustrated and disappointed by the outcome. 

The experience clarified a couple of things for me though - firstly, political arguments of these variety are just horrible. They suck. They are so-not-fun. None of the most common manifestations of modern political discourse generate healthy debate. The choices are (A) screaming matches, (B) fact-checking based on evidence of varying quality and zero trust, (C) moral condemnation, (D) cutting people off entirely, or (E) just avoiding politics in general. None of these options satisfy the fundamental need that we have as a civic society of being able to understand the complex political environment we live and find some kind of workable consensus that helps society function better. 

So we're stuck in this bind: We desperately need to talk to each other. Effective governance requires it. But we don't know how to do it productively. Every attempt seems to make things worse. We are at the mercy of the attention-grabbing manipulative information industry that drives outrage, misinformation, and moral indignation to serve the needs of powerful, unscrupulous stakeholders.   

The problem is fundamental - it is the underlying human drive at the core of the act of arguing - the need to be right - to shut down others - to get that kick of dopamine at someone else's expense. 

There is an alternative - inquisitiveness, curiosity, courage, and, dare I say it, a sense of wonder when you find reconciliation and authentic communication when previously there was none. 

Switching Argument to Inquiry and Nonviolent Communication

I spectacularly mishandled that entire interaction - arguing was entirely the wrong approach. 

In an argument, when someone says something you disagree with, you would typically respond: "You're wrong, and here's why". At some level, the purpose of an argument is stop communication by winning.  In an inquiry, you start from a different place by saying "Help me understand". You don't need to agree, but you engage, you dig, you ask for more detail. You don't abandon your own views, you create space for  thinking and communication rather than defensive posturing. Most importantly, the purpose of the inquiry is to continue talking, opening up the discussion rather than trying to shut it down. 

When I talked to a trusted friend about this whole interaction, they mentioned 'Non Violent Communication' where the central idea is to provide connection and a sense of belonging to the people you speak to. I mention this because it seems highly relevant, but I'm not an expert in this approach so I can't really comment further on it. 

If I had the chance of a do-over with my colleague, I'd strive to engage from the perspective of an inquiry and to try to dig into the context of the discussion rather than responding combatively to his claims. 

But even then, I doubt that the situation would have lead to any meaningful discussion, since the frame of reference for each of us was just so wildly different - navigating that space with authenticity is going to prove incredibly challenging, even with the best of intentions and a solid, inquiry-based communication style. 

A Theory about MAGA Political Psychology

Our conflict arose because the moral, political, and societal spaces we each inhabit are wildly different. To me, he barely said anything before his discourse became problematic about race, gender, nationality, religion, and simple humanism. I would say that my highly critical reaction to his point of view, although devoid of direct personal attack, was enough to shut down the discussion. I became a tiresome liberal attacking him for his views, even though I only sought to engage him and actually flesh out the topics of discussion we were engaging in. 

For my friend, and possibly for MAGA supporters more generally, I felt that he was not really interested in the details of the political discussion, he just wanted to be able to speak with, and be recognized for some sense of authority about societal matters. This is consistent with my past history with him, when we would chat about all sorts of things, including politics. The main thing that changed was me between then and now is me - the stakes for me became non-arbitrary and consequential. If he supported Trump, then, as a moral, intelligent person, he needed to justify the reasons for his choice, but to my mind, there is  no authentic way any intelligent, moral, rational person could possibly reasonably support him, we were at an impasse. 

In previous essays (American Evil, and American Evil Part 2), I attempted to explain why people voted for Trump by suggesting that either (A) people were deceived, or (B) people found some kind of advantage by supporting him, or that (C) they were just plain Evil, Bad, and Wrong.

This interaction has revealed another possible explanation why so many of my fellow Americans are somehow happy with the current state of the country's politics: At some level, they just get to feel good about themselves right now. Maybe its being able to enjoy a position of moral or societal authority; maybe its a relief from all the criticism they received based on privilege, race, gender, etc; maybe its some sense of grievance or fear leveled at Leftists, Immigrants, Elites or some other category of people; maybe its just being able to express yourself in a way that was previously socially unacceptable and now its somehow OK. 

At the heart of this position is a profound lack of self awareness. They likely do not know why they like Trump and maybe, like some of the framing that my colleague saw fit to establish, they do not actually want to talk about policy, law, or society in any substantive way. That's not the point. The point is for them to get to feel good and Trump enables that. 

Of course, the flip-side of that idea is that the people who are against Trump make them feel bad - and so they think even less of those of us trying to argue with them.

Didn't we get the memo?   

To me, this is reminiscent of James Baldwin's writings about White Americans. He wrote: "They have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it". The bare-faced depravity of the current political moment and the level of misinformation surrounding it from right wing commentators and citizens is the most staggering expression of this willful, deliberate blindness that I have ever seen in my life. It is soul destroying. I find myself in despair. 

And yet, Baldwin also wrote: "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced."

This is why inquiry with someone like my former friend is so difficult. I'm not asking him to change an opinion about tax policy. I'm asking him to examine and confront aspects of his identity that he's willing to go to extreme lengths to preserve. I'm asking him to see what he's invested in not seeing. I'm asking him to reconstruct his entire sense of self and place in the world.

What This Means for Dialogue

To me, this reinforces the need for inquiry and nonviolent communication in political discourse - and to maybe recognize that discussions with MAGA supporters have little to next to nothing about policy, law, justice, or anything that can be solved by argumentation. They are principally about identity.

In my attempts to have these conversations, I will strive to engage with people at that level and dig into what is it that Trump and MAGA provides for them. 

I hope that somehow understanding the nature of that particular sacrifice and payoff could be something that could lead to authentic discussion and possible healing for us all.      

---

Epilogue + References

This essay was written with support from the Claude AI from Anthropic. I also draw on several key works that have shaped my understanding about totalitarianism and the disastrous potential consequences of the current moment. 

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996) - A controversial but illuminating analysis of how pre-existing cultural frameworks enabled ordinary people to participate willingly in atrocity.

James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963) and numerous essays and interviews - Baldwin's unflinching examination of white American identity and the refusal to face racial reality remains essential reading.

Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents (2020) - A profound reframing of American racism as a caste system with deep structural parallels to other caste societies.

Raoul Peck, I Am Not Your Negro (2016) - A documentary about Baldwin that shows how white America's reaction to Black humanity reveals the fragility of white identity.

Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012) - Useful for understanding conservative moral frameworks, though I use his work critically rather than accepting all his conclusions.

For those interested in understanding authoritarianism, Christian nationalism, and the MAGA movement, I also recommend recent work by scholars like Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Anne Nelson, Katherine Stewart, and Sarah Posner.

The conversation continues. The work continues. May we have the wisdom to know what's needed and the courage to do it.

A Critique of Ben Shapio's Vision - Lions vs. Scavengers

[Note that Claude was used extensively in the creation of this post - All Appendices were generated from Claude-based Deep Research from online-sources - with validation]

Just before Charlie Kirk's assassination, Ezra Klein talked to Ben Shapiro about his new book in which he outlines a two-sided framework for politics based on differentiating between "lions"—those who build, innovate, and defend civilization—and "scavengers"—those driven by grievance who tear down institutions. In my attempt to argue constructively with people on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I will here attempt to critique Mr. Shapiro's perspective as portrayed in this conversation

(note, I will not attempt to discuss the book itself, merely his conversation about the book with Ezra Klein). 

The core of Shapiro's argument is a truism that he strives to weaponize. 

First off, it is a truism to say that personal responsibility matters. Shapiro frequently points in the discussion that his distinction between 'Lions' and 'Scavengers' does not necessarily follow Right- or  Left-wing politics and reading his interpretation generously, his distinction could be considered as scavengers are those who 'complain unproductively' and as lions are those who 'find solutions'. 

He rightly points out that a viable political strategy is driven by harnessing grievance about life's unfairness and direct that energy toward resentment and anger rather than solutions. I agree that we  certainly should encourage people to take ownership of what they can control in their lives. Most conservatives and liberals agree on this. We want people to work hard, support their families, and contribute to their communities. The disagreement isn't about whether personal responsibility matters—it's about how we understand the obstacles people face and what role policy should play in addressing them. 

Shapiro himself says in the interview that his job is "to get the obstacles out of people's way so that they can succeed or fail based on their own merits".  His insistence that we live in society that is the most prosperous and most free that has ever existed (and that this is driven by 'private ownership') is a false claim. There are economic inequalities in US society not driven by meritocracy but other factors (such as long-term consequences of racism - see Appendix A), and that economic discrepancies are growing (see Appendix B). 

Shapiro condemns anyone raising their voice about attempting to address the unfairness of this situation as a 'scavenger' - and then uses the harshest language possible to decry them. In particular, he calls Bernie Sanders, a "putrescent Marxist pimple" who has "never created a damn thing." Sanders has been a mayor, congressman, and senator for decades. He's gotten community health center funding into law. He's been remarkably consistent about specific policy goals: Medicare for All, higher minimum wages, stronger unions. You can disagree with these policies, but they're not "envious scavenging"—they're policy preferences backed by arguments about how society could what would improve people's lives. When Klein points this out, Shapiro's says Sanders "maligns [wealthy people] as morally inferior" and asks "when you cross that $999,999,999 mark, is that when you become evil?" But Sanders isn't making a moral argument about individual billionaires—he's making a structural argument about how concentrated wealth translates into political power that shapes policy in ways that don't serve most people. Sanders does engage a moralistic language to argue his point, but does so based on the idea of the unfairness of aspects of private ownership and harm to hardworking citizens. The fact that this contradicts Shapiro's core premise is likely the reason he despises Sanders so much.  

This is the core problem with the framework: it treats any structural critique as evidence of "scavenger mentality." But saying "our tax code advantages wealth over labor" or "our housing policy has inflated asset values for owners while pricing out buyers" isn't scavenging—it's describing policy choices that could be different based on different strategic choices.

Demonizing language and mischaracterizing empathy

Furthermore, it's notable that Shapiro's language around is dehumanizing and reductive — he gleefully uses terms like 'looters', 'lechers', and 'barbarians', and attributes the motivations of such people in the worst possible terms. When campus protesters stand up for Palestinians, or when Bernie Sanders fights for universal healthcare, or when Ferguson residents protest police conduct, Shapiro sees only 'scavengers' driven by envy. He makes no effort to understand how these people see themselves - as defending the vulnerable, fighting injustice, protecting their communities.

This isn't just an analytical failure - it's a moral one. The same empathy Shapiro extends to conservative grievances disappears when confronting liberal ones. He can understand why rural Americans feel abandoned by globalization, but not why Black parents fear for their children during police encounters. He validates feeling threatened by 'wokeness' but dismisses feeling threatened by police violence.

Klein's most devastating point: Shapiro claims Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian values, but those very traditions emphasize care for the poor, the widow, the stranger. 'Blessed are the meek' isn't scavenger ideology - it's in the Sermon on the Mount. The prophetic tradition in Judaism is largely about calling out injustice and defending the vulnerable.

By treating any structural critique as 'scavenger mentality,' Shapiro isn't defending Western civilization's values - he's betraying them.

A lack of consistency around Trump

Shapiro's framework has another serious issue: by his own admission, Donald Trump engages in exactly the kind of grievance politics he criticizes. Trump's entire pitch to voters has been "you got screwed"—by trade deals, by immigrants, by elites who look down on you. His economic policies, particularly on tariffs, are explicitly premised on the idea that the system is rigged against American workers. 

Shapiro acknowledges this directly. When Klein asks if Trump pulled the right into scavenger mentality, Shapiro says: "I think with regard to sort of a populist economics. Yes." He admits Trump's approach "has aspects that are more scavenger-like." He concedes that Trump's policies have shrunk the power of Congress and that he has engaged in attacking his political enemies. 

Yet Shapiro voted for Trump twice and campaigned for him. His explanation? Trump delivers on other priorities—judges, Israel policy, opposition to DEI. This is honest, but it reveals that the "lions versus scavengers" framework does not matter that much when raw political power is involved.

Furthermore, it reveals severe inconsistencies when scrutinized critically. He claims that there is a stronger focus on 'meritocracy' rather than DEI, but the determining factor for success in Trump's adminstration is only blind loyalty to Trump - under any and all circumstances. This is born out by consideration of the composition of Trump's cabinet and his stated policy throughout his administration (See Appendix C).  

Right wing grievances 

Shapiro's discussion of history is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the discussion (especially when considered in conjunction with his commentary of events whilst they are happening). When Shapiro discusses the Obama years,  he cites several moments that right wingers felt Obama was "divisive":

The Henry Louis Gates incident: A Black Harvard professor is arrested in his own home after showing ID to police. Obama says the police "acted stupidly." Shapiro's interpretation: This shows Obama saw everything through a racial lens and was being divisive.

Trayvon Martin: Obama expresses empathy for grieving parents, saying "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." Shapiro's interpretation: This was polarizing and suggested Black Americans are "inherently victimized by a white supremacist system."

Ferguson: Protests erupt after Michael Brown's shooting. Some initial claims prove inaccurate. Shapiro's interpretation: "A lot of it was made up," and Obama's response created division.

Now contrast this with how Shapiro treats conservative grievances:

IRS "targeting": Shapiro treats this as an established scandal, though investigations found progressive groups were also scrutinized and no criminal charges resulted.

"Bitter clingers": Obama's comment about economically struggling communities is treated as sneering at religious, gun-owning Americans—not as a (perhaps clumsy) acknowledgment of how economic abandonment affects political behavior.

Treatment of Trump: Shapiro views the New York prosecution of Trump as politically motivated, though Trump was convicted by a jury. He's more willing to see prosecutorial overreach here than in any case involving police conduct.

There is a pattern here: When conservatives feel aggrieved, Shapiro validates the feeling, echoing the irritation at the commentary and how it reflects justifiable commentary. When Black Americans or progressives express grievance based on actual harm or injustice (being killed or arrested), he demands they first prove perfect factual accuracy in every detail, and even then questions their motivations.

Ben Shapiro's selective narrative around the Ferguson and Jan 6th Riots

Shapiro characterized the Ferguson protests as driven by delusional anger and described protesters as utopian visionaries with violent thugs as their minions [Ferguson's Days of Rage]. His language was exceptionally harsh. He called it a situation driven by a media-manufactured story about a racial killing, and compared Ferguson protesters to radical Muslims rioting over cartoons of Mohammed. He wrote that protesters in Ferguson need an external enemy to justify their own failure to make good in the freest country in the history of humanity - consistent with his current thesis of 'scavengers'. He described the protesters as having delusional anger and stated that facts become secondary to emotion when dealing with these Ragers. He accused the Ferguson community of lying, facilitating lying, or intimidating witnesses in order to put an innocent man behind bars because he happened to be white. 

In contrast, Shapiro's characterization of January 6th was notably more measured and defensive, finding exhaustive caveats and arguments that minimized the impact or malicious intent of the participants. Moreover he claimed that January 6th was an exception since "Republicans don't tend to riot in general". Furthermore, he compared it favorably to BLM riots, noting Jan 6 resulted in one direct death and about 1.5 million in property damage to the Capitol building, while BLM riots (which constituted more than one event) resulted in some 2 billion in insured property damage and two dozen deaths 

There are key differences that reveal an underlying bias:

1. Moral characterization: Ferguson protesters were characterized as having "delusional anger" and "failure to make good," while January 6th participants were described more neutrally as rioters, with many just "gawking" or being "sightseers."

2. Systemic framing: Ferguson was portrayed as driven by a false narrative and media manipulation, while January 6th was framed as having legitimate grievances that were being censored by media and Democrats.

3. Comparisons used: Ferguson protesters were compared to Islamic terrorists and radical Muslims, while January 6th was compared favorably to BLM protests to minimize its severity.

4. Attribution of responsibility: The entire Ferguson community was accused of conspiring to lie, while January 6th participants were often portrayed as individuals, with distinctions made between violent and non-violent actors.

5. Tone about consequences: Shapiro seemed satisfied that Ferguson "Ragers" would face consequences, but expressed support for many January 6th pardons, saying he had personal friends who were investigated and celebrated their pardons.

The presence of a double standard seems evident: racially-motivated protests are characterized as driven by delusion and failure, while a violent attempt to disrupt the certification of a democratic election is minimized as "gawking" and an "exception" to Republican behavior.

Shapiro's historical argument - What's Missing 

Shapiro talks about the foundation of Western Civilization being Judeo-Christian Morals and Greek Rationality, but crucial innovation that actually enabled Western technological and economic dominance: the development of systematic empiricism and the scientific method during the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Greek philosophy gave us logical reasoning. Christianity gave us certain ethical frameworks. But neither provided a systematic way to generate new knowledge about the natural world. That came from figures like Bacon, Galileo, and Newton who insisted that theories must be tested against observation and experiment.

This matters for Shapiro's framework because empiricism is fundamentally about challenging received wisdom—including religious and philosophical dogma—through evidence. The scientific revolution succeeded precisely by questioning authorities like Aristotle and the Church when their claims conflicted with observable evidence.

So when Shapiro criticizes people for questioning economic or social structures, he's actually arguing against the very principle that made Western civilization successful: the willingness to test claims against evidence and revise beliefs accordingly.

If you claim to value Western civilization's achievements, you should value the empirical method that produced them. That means:

1. Evaluating claims based on evidence, not authority: When someone says 'the system is unfair,' don't dismiss it as 'scavenger mentality'—look at the data on social mobility, wage stagnation, wealth concentration, etc.
2. Updating beliefs when evidence changes: Shapiro demands perfect factual accuracy from Ferguson protesters but doesn't apply the same standard to conservative narratives. Real empiricism requires consistency.
3. Recognizing that critique drives progress: Science advances by questioning existing theories. Similarly, social progress requires questioning existing arrangements—that's not 'tearing down civilization,' it's how civilization improves.

Shapiro talks about Western civilization while ignoring the empirical method that actually made it successful. He wants the fruits of Enlightenment rationalism without its commitment to evidence-based reasoning.

Moving Forward

If we are to attempt to find common ground, Shapiro is right to move beyond endless grievance without solutions. But the way he weighs into the discussion, primarily driving bias and double standards does more harm than good. In particular, his assertions about private ownership leading to prosperity and freedom no matter how they are implemented reveals that his premise is overly simple and does not truly drive a problem-solving approach.  

The "lions and scavengers" framework fails because it short-circuits the process of addressing problems intelligently. It transforms policy debates into character judgments. And by applying its standards selectively based on tribal loyalty, it becomes exactly what it claims to oppose: a way to validate your side's grievances while dismissing the other's.

If we want better than that—and I hope that Shapiro genuinely does beyond selling books and exercising power—we need frameworks based on measurable, objective fact that treat political opponents as people with different views about how to build a better society, not as moral inferiors trying to tear civilization down.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix A - Systematic Racial Disparities in the United States:

Employment Discrimination

The evidence on hiring discrimination is robust and consistent:

Resume/Name Studies:

• The landmark 2003 Bertrand-Mullainathan study found that job applicants with white-sounding names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, while those with African-American-sounding names needed to send around 15 resumes - a 50% gap in callback rates NPRNBER
• A 2024 update involving 83,000 fake applications to Fortune 500 companies found the typical employer called back presumably white applicants around 9% more than Black ones, with some firms showing gaps up to 24% White-sounding names get called back for jobs more than Black ones, a new study finds
• The original study also found that having a better resume helped white applicants much more than Black applicants - whites with higher quality resumes received 30% more callbacks, but the positive impact for African-American names was much smaller Employers' Replies to Racial Names | NBER
• The discrimination persisted across industries, with auto dealers and retailers of car parts being the worst offenders White-sounding names get called back for jobs more than Black ones, a new study finds

Wealth Gaps

The racial wealth disparities are stark and persistent:

Overall Wealth:

• In 2021, households with a White householder had 10 times more wealth than those with a Black householder Households With a White, Non-Hispanic Householder Were Ten Times Wealthier Than Those With a Black Householder in 2021
• White households made up 65.3% of all U.S. households and held 80.0% of all wealth, while Black households made up 13.6% of households but held only 4.7% of all wealth Households With a White, Non-Hispanic Householder Were Ten Times Wealthier Than Those With a Black Householder in 2021
• In 2022, the average wealth of white families reached over $1.3 million, compared to about $227,000 for Hispanic families and $211,000 for Black families - a gap exceeding $1 million for the first time A $1 million wealth gap now divides white families from Black and Hispanic ones, research shows
• Asian households had a median net worth of $320,900 in 2021, compared with $250,400 for White households, $48,700 for Hispanic households, and $27,100 for Black households How Black, Hispanic, Asian, White households compare in wealth | Pew Research Center

Despite Growth, Gaps Widening:

• Between 2019 and 2022, wealth for the typical Black family rose 61% and for the typical Hispanic family it rose 47%, while the typical White family saw a 31% increase The Fed - Greater Wealth, Greater Uncertainty: Changes in Racial Inequality in the Survey of Consumer Finances
• However, both the White-Black and White-Hispanic median wealth gaps increased by around $50,000 between 2019 and 2022, with each gap reaching over $220,000 in 2022, because Black and Hispanic families had less wealth to start with The Fed - Greater Wealth, Greater Uncertainty: Changes in Racial Inequality in the Survey of Consumer Finances

Mechanisms Behind Wealth Gaps

Homeownership:

• Homeownership is the primary driver of wealth-building in the U.S., and continues to lag for Black families in particular because of the stubborn legacy of racist housing policies A $1 million wealth gap now divides white families from Black and Hispanic ones, research shows
• In 2018, the Black-white homeownership gap reached 30.5 percentage points, its highest level in 50 years, and Black Americans remain the only racial group with a homeownership rate below 50 percent Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America

Intergenerational Transfers:

• In 2022, white families were nearly four times more likely to receive an inheritance than Black families and about five times more likely than Hispanic families Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America
• By some estimates, bequests and transfers account for at least half of aggregate wealth and account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other demographic or socioeconomic indicator The Fed - Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances

Asset Composition:

• Households with a White householder were more likely than households with a Black householder to own all asset types, and median values were higher - for example, checking/savings account values were 5.4 times larger Households With a White, Non-Hispanic Householder Were Ten Times Wealthier Than Those With a Black Householder in 2021
• Between 2019 and 2022, stock equity made up nearly 30% of white wealth but only 4% of Black wealth, indicative of intergenerational wealth divides resulting in the average white family possessing more investment capital Black wealth is increasing, but so is the racial wealth gap | Brookings

Debt Burden:

• Households with a Black householder were more likely than those with a White householder to have unsecured debt (61.3% vs. 53.4%), especially student loan debt (25.8% vs. 17.2%) and medical debt (22.5% vs. 13.4%) Households With a White, Non-Hispanic Householder Were Ten Times Wealthier Than Those With a Black Householder in 2021

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix B - Wealth Inequality Trends 

Overall Wealth Inequality is Increasing

Long-term trend: In 1963, the wealthiest families had 36 times the wealth of families in the middle of the wealth distribution. By 2022, they had 71 times the wealth of families in the middle Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America

The uninterrupted increase in inequality since 1980 has caused concern among members of the public, researchers, policymakers and politicians Trends in U.S. income and wealth inequality | Pew Research Center

Recent acceleration: In 2024, the world's 500 richest people got vastly richer, with the world's 15 richest individuals (14 of whom call the United States home) ending 2024 worth a combined $9.8 trillion What Would Surprise America’s Rich in 2025? Not Getting Richer. - Inequality.org

Elon Musk started 2024 with a personal fortune worth $229 billion and ended it with $442 billion, the largest personal fortune the world has ever seen What Would Surprise America’s Rich in 2025? Not Getting Richer. - Inequality.org

Concentration at the Top

Current distribution: As of 2024, the top 10% of households by wealth held 67.2% of total household wealth, while the bottom 50% held only 2.5% of total household wealth St. Louis FedStatista

Historical comparison: The share of America's wealth held by the nation's wealthiest peaked in the late 1920s before the Great Depression, then fell by more than half over the next three decades, but the equalizing trends of the mid-20th century have now been almost completely undone - the richest now hold as large a wealth share as they did in the 1920s USAPPInequality.org

Within the wealthy: In 1982, rich Americans needed $240 million (in 2024 dollars) to enter the Forbes 400, with an average of $730 million. In 2024, entry required at least $3.3 billion, with the average member holding over $13 billion - nearly 18 times the 1982 average after adjusting for inflation Wealth Inequality - Inequality.org

Wage and Income Stagnation

Productivity vs. compensation: From 1979 to 2024, average hourly compensation increased just 29.4% (after adjusting for inflation) while worker productivity increased 80.9% Income Inequality - Inequality.org

Unequal gains: Between 1980 and 2022, the bottom 90% of U.S. earners had wage growth of just 36%, compared to 162% for the richest 1% and 301% for the top 0.1% Income Inequality - Inequality.org

Asset Ownership Disparities

Stock ownership: The richest 1% own 50% of U.S. stock and mutual funds, up from 40% in 2002 Wealth Inequality - Inequality.org

America's top 1% holds more than half the national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds, while the bulk of their wealth comes from different and more lucrative asset sources than everyone else Ten facts about wealth inequality in the USA - LSE Inequalities

Pandemic Period

Billionaire gains: The collective net worth of America's top 12 billionaires increased by more than $1.3 trillion, or 193%, between March 18, 2020 and December 3, 2024, even during the most intense period of the pandemic USAPPInequality.org

Temporary narrowing: Between 2019 and 2022, the wealthiest families' wealth dropped from 91 to 71 times middle-class families' wealth - the only other time wealth inequality decreased since 1963 was between 1989 and 1995 Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America

Political Influence

According to Americans for Tax Fairness analysis, 100 billionaire families spent $2.6 billion, or 16.5% of total political contributions in 2024. In 2000, billionaire election spending came to just $18 million, or 0.6% of total political contributions Wealth Inequality - Inequality.org

Wealth inequality is increasing and becoming more severe. 

The evidence shows:

1. It's at historic levels - approaching the inequality of the 1920s pre-Great Depression era
2. It's accelerating - particularly since 1980, and dramatically in recent years
3. Gains are extremely concentrated - the very top is pulling away not just from the bottom, but even from the merely wealthy
4. The middle is falling behind - the wealth ratio between top and middle has nearly doubled since the 1960s
5. Workers' wages have decoupled from productivity - the economic gains go increasingly to capital owners rather than workers

This directly supports your point that the system is "becoming more so" unfair in terms of economic outcomes, even as absolute living standards have risen for many.

When Masculinity Gets Fragile: A Real-Time Case Study

Yesterday, I had one of those interactions on X (formerly Twitter) that felt like watching psychological research play out in real time. What started as a disagreement about gender differences quickly devolved into personal attacks, defensive posturing, and an almost textbook display of what researchers call "fragile masculinity."

Note: As an experiment, this post was almost entirely generated by AI (Claude Desktop) based on a transcript of the prompt and some minor prompting. The goal is to see if it could be possible to automate argumentation for online discussion in a way that effectively penalizes or counters bad arguments or toxic behavior.  Here’s the link to the post that triggered the discussion.  

The Interaction: A Case Study in Escalation

The exchange began when another user made sweeping claims about gender differences—asserting that women are "more relational" while men are "better at abstract reasoning." When I asked for sources to back up these broad generalizations, he immediately refused: "I'm not gonna spend time linking the articles just to satisfy you specifically."

This refusal to provide evidence was just the beginning. When I pushed back and called his dismissive attitude "insulting," he reframed his behavior as harmless fun: "It's good natured gender to gender banter. Something insufferable scolds like you wouldn't know anything about."

Notice the pattern here: first, avoid accountability for unsupported claims. Then, when called out, redefine the interaction as playful while simultaneously attacking the challenger's character. I became an "insufferable scold" simply for asking him to back up his assertions.

But it was what happened next that really demonstrated the fragility at work. When I persisted in pointing out that his "banter" had real impact, he escalated dramatically: "Go peddle your self-righteous moral preening to someone with enough self-loathing to actually care about your opinion."

The personal attacks intensified further when I noted the contradiction between his verbose responses and his profile's emphasis on brevity. His reply was telling: "You're just too weak for honesty so you've traded it for slimy fake empathy to get whatever your dark little cretinous heart truly desires."

Look at what happened here: A simple request for sources morphed into accusations that I was weak, dishonest, manipulative, and fundamentally corrupt. He positioned himself as the bearer of hard truths while painting me as morally deficient.

Even when I tried to de-escalate—apologizing and saying I was "just messing with you"—he refused the off-ramp: "I wasn't. Full offense intended." When I made a lighthearted comment about his use of long words, he claimed it was for "precision of meaning," but his final response revealed the truth: "More weak and pathetic behavior. See ya never!"

This wasn't just a disagreement gone wrong—it was a systematic demonstration of how fragile masculinity operates in practice. Let's break down the pattern:

1. Avoid accountability: Rather than support his claims with evidence, he immediately positioned himself as too important to be bothered with such requests.

2. Reframe and deflect: When challenged, he redefined his dismissive behavior as harmless "banter" while simultaneously attacking my character for not appreciating it.

3. Escalate and personalize: Unable to defend his position substantively, he shifted to increasingly personal attacks, questioning my motives, character, and fundamental worth.

4. Claim moral authority: Throughout, he positioned himself as the bearer of uncomfortable truths while painting me as weak, dishonest, and manipulative.

5. Reject de-escalation: Even when offered a graceful exit, he chose to maintain hostility, suggesting this was never about the original topic but about asserting dominance.

The Research Framework

This interaction is a perfect illustration of what psychologists Adam Stanaland, Sarah Gaither, and Anna Gassman-Pines describe in their 2023 model of masculine identity published in Personality and Social Psychology Review. Their research explains why some men respond to perceived challenges with such intensity.

According to their "Expectancy-Discrepancy-Threat" model, masculine fragility emerges when men experience a gap between who they actually are and the rigid expectations of masculinity they've internalized. When this gap is threatened—say, by being asked to back up claims with evidence or being called out for dismissive behavior—it can trigger what researchers call "externalized responses."

These responses include aggression, personal attacks, and attempts to reassert masculine status through dominance. Sound familiar?

Two Types of Masculine Motivation

The research identifies two key pathways that lead to fragile masculine responses:

Extrinsic motivation: When men conform to masculine norms because of external pressure—to avoid social punishment or meet others' expectations. These men are more likely to respond to threats with outward aggression and attempts to dominate.

Intrinsic motivation: When men have internalized masculine ideals as personal goals. These men are more likely to respond to threats with internalized responses like shame or self-harm.

This user's response pattern perfectly demonstrates the extrinsic pathway the researchers describe. He seemed less concerned with truth-seeking or meaningful dialogue than with maintaining his masculine presentation through dominance and aggression. Each escalation served not to advance the conversation but to reassert his position as the authority who doesn't need to justify himself to challengers.

The Online Amplification Effect

What made this interaction particularly telling was how it unfolded online. Research on digital communication shows how the medium can amplify defensive responses. Without face-to-face cues and with the safety of physical distance, people are more likely to escalate conflicts rather than de-escalate them.

The anonymity and asynchronous nature of social media can make it easier for fragile masculine responses to emerge. When someone's masculine identity feels threatened, the online environment provides a perfect stage for the kind of aggressive posturing that might be more constrained in person.

The Solnit Connection: When Mansplaining Turns Toxic

This interaction reminded me of Rebecca Solnit's groundbreaking essay "Men Explain Things to Me", where she chronicles the dismissive, condescending behavior that many women face when men refuse to acknowledge their expertise or even basic competence. What started as a discussion about research quickly became an example of exactly what Solnit describes—a man who couldn't tolerate being questioned by someone he perceived as challenging his authority.

But Solnit's work goes deeper than just mansplaining. She draws a direct line from these everyday dismissals to more serious forms of violence against women. The same psychological patterns that drive a man to refuse to acknowledge a woman's expertise can escalate to silencing women through intimidation, threats, or worse.

As a man, I have the privilege of expecting that an online disagreement will likely stay verbal. I don't have to worry that my challenger might escalate to doxxing, rape threats, or showing up at my workplace. In this day and age though, anything is possible. For women engaging in the same conversations, these concerns are real and reasonable, with countless examples of real, impactful retaliation whenever a woman attempts to stand up for herself. The research on masculine fragility helps explain why: when men are extrinsically motivated to maintain their masculine status, perceived threats can trigger responses that go far beyond the original disagreement.

Why This Matters

Understanding fragile masculinity isn't about attacking men or masculinity itself. It's about recognizing the psychological pressures that rigid gender norms create and how they can lead to harmful behaviors—both for men themselves and for those around them.

The research suggests several paths forward:

• Loosening rigid expectations: Creating more flexible definitions of masculinity
• Encouraging resistance: Supporting men who reject harmful masculine norms
• Addressing systemic issues: Changing cultural and institutional structures that reinforce toxic patterns
• Creating accountability: Developing social mechanisms that check aggressive behavior before it escalates

The sobering reality is that men like my X interlocutor are commonplace, and many operate without effective checks on their behavior. They can dismiss, belittle, and intimidate with few consequences, especially online. For women, this creates a climate where participating in public discourse requires navigating not just disagreement, but potential harassment and threats.

The Bigger Picture

My X interaction was just one small example, but it reflects larger patterns that researchers are documenting. When masculinity is treated as something that must be constantly proven and defended, it creates psychological fragility rather than strength.

Solnit's insight is crucial here: these aren't isolated incidents of bad behavior, but part of a broader pattern of silencing and intimidation. The casual dismissiveness I experienced is the same mechanism that keeps women out of conversations, out of leadership roles, and sometimes out of public life entirely.

Real strength might look more like curiosity than defensiveness, more like engaging with ideas than attacking the person presenting them, and more like admitting uncertainty than doubling down on unsupported claims.

The goal isn't to shame men or eliminate masculinity—it's to create space for healthier, more flexible ways of being human that don't require constant vigilance against perceived threats to one's gender status.

This interaction reminded me that the research on masculine fragility isn't just academic theory—it's playing out in real time, in real conversations, with real consequences for how we treat each other.

---

Reference: Stanaland, A., Gaither, S., & Gassman-Pines, A. (2023). When Is Masculinity "Fragile"? An Expectancy-Discrepancy-Threat Model of Masculine Identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(4), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221141176