[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> mary catherine hamm, co-author of end of discussion, what is the outrage industry that you refer to the subtitle. >> guest: oh one of the things we talk about in this book and in the discussion is that every single thing becomes a thing. it is driven by social media, it starts on college campuses and it's these very tiny slights, the wrong word at the wrong time that everybody gets into a tizzy about. i think it ends up being a lot of pressure on everyday people for how they talk about issues

especially political issues. the risk of having people come after them on facebook, twitter or in their job as we have seen in other places where people see face economic costs where people have the wrong opinion or send the wrong world. >> host: what's an example of one of those wrong words? >> i think there's a bunch of them. we talk about categories of wrong words. it is a whole lexicon of outrage and silencing. like micro aggressions so anything that might offend you for anything is a micro- aggression and it's a way of saying i'm offended by something i'm gonna try to shut it down. it's also privilege we don't like what you are were going to say privilege because we put an heard enough of your side. applies white men as myself. we sort of think that there are plenty of true examples in life,

like you should not try to offend people. you should not be room for no reason. or a white male you should recognize that we have enjoyed very privileged place for many generations but those things are many generations but those things are not enough to justify shutting down or delegitimizing someone's points are thought which is sometimes how this game works. >> this can get uncomfortable, can't it? >> yes. that's something we have wrestled with. navigating all of this ourselves and thinking who's going to throw the flag on us and where. what we want to encourage is that sometimes people make mistakes and you don't have to get up in arms about it because that prevents the back-and-forth. every time you talk to someone who disagree with you you're not going to communicate exactly the same way about exactly the same thing. we have to have some ability to deal with that. >> we had one example where sort of in the lgbt spectrum of issues on the t part,

transgender, we chronicle an end of discussion how various people have transgressed by using the wrong word or adding a next or syllable to the word and that being viewed as transpose back and shut it down. we show how how this applies to a columnist to get raked over the coals to carry katie couric and other left leading journalists. savage was a liberal gay-rights got letter bomb because. >> and then all the way through to rupaul, perhaps the most famous transit gender/cross-dressing person in america was castigated because on her show she had a segment called you gottsch e-mail. that was transferred back. it's like like nobody is immune to this insanity. >> was being offended? >> that's one thing we talk about in the discussion that these groups can be really small

and make a lot of noise. one of the things that society at large needs to do is respond occasionally with a little more hey, chill out. not that many people are actually offended by this. too often we hear the squeaky wheel and we think it's a giant giant story because it sounds bigger than it is. sometimes we need to say i understand your problem. one of the parts of discussion is that it's primarily the political left that is and we contribute to that problem where there is a tendency to substitute outrage for actual argument. to try to shut it down by the debate. within gets toxic for a for a country that should thrive on free expression. >> many in our side would say we

should have this arms race of outrage that chilly way to teach these guys a lesson. we just think that sounds awful. >> an issue of outrage we have heard in this 2016 campaign has been donald trump not responding fast enough to david duke and white supremacy. would that be an example that one would find in the discussion? >> i think, yeah. we talk about a whole chapter on race. with donald trump it's funny, he appeals to a lot of people who are opposed to political correctness and he is clearly not politically correct. that's one of the things that can be refreshing about him. there is a distinction between political correctness and abject rudeness for the sake of rudeness. when it comes to the kkk david duke thing, one thing that is frustrating and we chronicle it and the left sometimes tries to attribute as racist or anything

that, there's a secret whistle in there and that's appealing to racist. i think when you asked a question on national television about whether or not you are rejecting the ku klux klan and well no white supremacist, that's not a dog whistle, there's one correct answer to that. based on just a basic human decency and that is to reject them out of hand immediately and clearly. the fact that he didn't in that interview raised eyebrows for a lot of people. what we have argued is there's overt racism. so what we want to do is say that that status should be reserved for really awful and important things. not redistributed to every little thing. so i think as he was mentioning his a little bit of the problem in this case. he is sometimes off-the-cuff cough and politically incorrect. he he also uses the tactics of

the left to say year this or year that, he's an interesting dichotomy on the subject. >> what is your relationship, how did you get together to write this book. >> we are extremely close friends. we were hooked up way back in the day used to go by a well-known tv mainstay. he suggested, she was working here already at that point. he said that we should hang out we did. we've had her cell having conversations about the topic of this can you believe what's happening, we feel like and then finally we set someone should write about it and perhaps it should be estimated. >> so just run. >> yes. there is a chapter in here and i don't know who wrote it in a light will ever run it talk about it. it's called the vaginae demagogue.

>> but we talk about in that particular chapter of the discussion is the feminist movement and how so much is built on saying that if you disagree with any part of their political agenda then you are not a real one. thirty-two clear often explicit disqualification. i happen to be one that doesn't happen to agree with modern feminist on every issue. yet they will say over and over again, stop talking. that's. that's enough out of you or you are just a tool for other people. that robs women of their individuality. it robs them of their equality to say that unless you are in this place over here you cannot speak on political issues. my grandmother, my mother before me, very interested in equality of the sexes and that's why i'm here today and on tv and trying to have a family and do all these things at one time.

i did not get liberated so i have to believe everything the left tells me to. >> one of the campaign issues especially in the democratic side is that women make 72 cents on every dollar that men make. is that something you address in the discussion? >> we do. at that very chapter. it's part of the war on women that the left shows an it mostly is driven by abortion, they don't want to talk about the fact that women are basically evenly split on abortion and their overwhelmingly opposed to it. they want to hide that issue because it's not convenient to them so they dress up other questions and hurl other accusations, the actual and we can talk about the studies, they been debunked multiple times over. there white house economist would have been part of that debunking in the white house themselves pays women less by

their own clumsy standard. so to try to say a hard tension of america we have your back and they don't like you, they don't represent you on they hope the details get glossed over. >> i would argue there's plenty of discussions to be had about why there is a gap. let's talk about the fact behind that not just say that white house economists over obama had said will that's not really the whole story. it's not just discrimination. if you want to solve the problems and you look deeper than that. >> to political issues like that work? >> that's what they have done. one one of the things that we address in the discussion is how we can fight back on the war against woman and we profile senator corey from colorado and he made his entire campaign about it is called -- he was

lying about abortion and distorting. in corey gardner figured out early on the best way to respond to that in a cheerful, truth based way. so it's not all complaining about how the sky is falling, it's falling, it's not all what right wing either. we believe that in order for this issue, the free exchange of ideas, and cutting down on demagoguery, or cutting cutting some of it out of our diet, it has to come the people of goodwill on both ends of the spectrum. we have to link arms and say let's come together as americans, calm down a little bit and not assume the very worst about each other on every issue so we can actually have a discussion rather than and it before it began. >> you can see you on fox news and cnn, you can buy your book

you're watching book tv. >> this weekend on afterwards, sue, the mother of dylan cleavable discussions the junction between violence and mental illness. she is in conversation with mary gilberti, on the national alliance of mental illness. >> in 1999 your son dylan and eric harris took the lives of 12 students and one teacher in their high school and then their own. 24 others were wounded. a devastated those the devastated those families and affected really the whole nation. i think one of the questions people have is, why did you decide to write this book now? seventeen years later? >> well, probably because it took me that many years