What an amazing conversation! Thank you Sharon and thank you Ryan for going deep on these critically important ideas.
When Sharon pointed out that a private citizen was told they couldn't criticize the government—a classic warning sign of authoritarianism—I found myself nodding. But I'd go further: we're not just on a slippery slope; we've already slid down it. The widespread book banning we're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg that is the chilling effect in action. And we can see from authoritarian examples across the world, sometimes it doesn’t look like martial law, it’s just people oppressed into complying with government demands on thought.
I found myself going back to my "Project 2029" idea from a couple weeks ago, thinking about deterring the current administration with promises about what opposing actions will look like once Trump is inevitably gone. What if we started publicly declaring that every banned book will eventually get a special featured display when restored to libraries? Perhaps schedule featured talks about each book and why the government felt the ideas contained were dangerous? Ryan demonstrated this beautifully: they canceled his speech, but now his message has reached exponentially more people through this interview. Sometimes suppression backfires magnificently.
Sharon's observation about race being singled out as the uniquely "harmful" topic struck me as the interview's most revealing insight. When engaging with those who haven't yet viewed the administration critically, consider asking: If adult naval officers have access to literature covering every conceivable evil humanity has produced, why is *race* supposedly the one topic too dangerous for them? Even if someone believes race is over-discussed, surely they don't think it should be erased entirely from a library's collection. This reveals the strategy isn't "anti-woke" but "pro-racism."
The semantic battle over what constitutes "political" speech is fascinating. The academy claims their bans aren't political, yet Ryan's criticism of those bans somehow is? They seem to define "political" as being motivated by interests that conflict with educating military students. But how does that make sense here? The ban itself stems directly from a politician's election and agenda—that's the obviously political element. Meanwhile, Ryan arguing for principles transcending political expediency is arguably the opposite of "political" speech.
I'm genuinely curious: has anyone noticed MAGA "free speech absolutists" raising concerns about book bans? Ryan's courage inspires me to perhaps research this today, despite the mental harm I might be putting myself through by wading into that muck. All in the service of democracy, I guess! I want to understand most of all: what are the contradictions in that worldview that can be used in conversations to make people realize their Trump fantasy is built on a foundation of hypocrisy.
There's strategic potential here too. The narrative has long been that Democrats dismiss opposing viewpoints without debate, yet here we see top-down control of ideas in action. When speaking with Trump administration supporters, perhaps ask: "If your ideas are winning in the marketplace of thought, why the need to restrict access to competing perspectives?"
I've felt some apprehension about publicly criticizing the administration, given what is clearly a backsliding of democracy, but recent polls showing Americans' waning patience with the president have been encouraging. Maybe with worse polling news for Trump we will start to see some distance between Republican party loyalists and this authoritarian administration.
Democrats fundamentally erred in the 2024 election by not fielding a strong candidate from the beginning, instead running on an "everything's fine as is" platform. Voters weren't choosing the lesser of two evils so much as the "less recent" of two evils—and now they're remembering why they voted Trump out of office so emphatically in 2020. It wasn’t that long ago. He would have been so easy to defeat if the Democratic Party was motivated beyond the political motivations of its individual members. (BTW I should clarify that I am not calling Biden or Harris evil, just trying to describe the mindset of someone who struggled to vote for them during the last election.)
Going forward, I'm committed to pushing for reforming the system to choose candidates for competence and vision rather than party loyalty—candidates capable of maintaining baseline approval throughout their terms. Who's with me?
I've briefly talked to people in MAGA about book bans and their argument is always that "people can still go and buy the book. The book isn't banned." So seems they don't see it as a censorship they care about. Even though they don't realize limited access is censorship.
Thanks for this insight! That's good to know about average MAGA voters. Although I guess I am even more interested in those who are in more of an "influencer" position, who jump on social media to cry foul whenever someone limits the speech of literal neo-nazis on a private platform, whether they see any problem with the *government* stepping in and banning well-established literary works from their own bookshelves just because they center the experience of Black people. My guess: those influencers avoid the topic, because it doesn't fit the narrative.
Timothy -- One thing I've learned over the years is that (mostly?) Republicans--definitely MAGA--exhibit extreme degrees of irony. I remember evangelicals making statements about "W"...that he was ordained by God. Sent here to save America. Then, when Obama was elected, apparently God had nothing to do with that. Even the recent argument from (so-called "Christians") that the California fires are a sign of God's wrath upon California for being "Godless." Whereas floods and hurricanes in red, God-fearing states are caused by the "Devil."
At first I was going to say I hesitate to say that this is something inherent to one political party, but then I realized that we're talking about Republican politicians, not voters, correct? Because you're right, there are a lot of boneheaded politicians saying extremist things like that because they are incentivized to do so politically. But the average Republican voter? I doubt many of them feel that way. Just the ones who have a proclivity to defecate in our social media newsfeeds. 🥲
In reference to God/Red, Devil/Blue, Timothy, I can only say that I "hope" this doesn't describe the "average Republican voter." Here's my concern, however. While recent polling shows that Trump's popularity ratings are lower at 100 days in to his term than any president in modern history...his favorability ratings are still at 41%. I, for one, am bewildered that he's in double-digits, let alone 41. So, who are the 41-percent? Let's assume that the country is split (D/R) 50/50. Surely his favorability among D's is nearly 0%. For the sake of argument, let's say 2%. If we do the math...that means favorability among R's is 80%. That would suggest that it's not just MAGA extremists--rather "the average Republican voter." Again...I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm right.
I think we're talking about two different things though, you're calculating how many people still support Trump when asked by a pollster. I was talking about people who would say that Los Angeles deserves to burn for being godless. I hope there's a difference :)
Okay, Timothy. I think we are talking about two different things here. You're correct. I didn't mean to imply that 80% of Republicans believe that LA should burn.
You make an excellent point. I guess I’m seeing this could be a little different if argued effectively. Instead of relying on abstract arguments of distant consequences that will affect everyone, these would be policies directly inverse and worse (for them) on their selfish priorities.
Trump has already removed most of the military’s top-ranking women from their posts in the last hundred days. I’m sure this weighed heavily on Vice-Admiral Yvette Davids, Naval Academy Supt., when she made the decision to cancel Holiday’s talk. I guess she felt like it was more important to stay in her position for the battles ahead than to die on this particular book removal hill. It shows that Trump’s actions have already started to effectively chill dissent. Now I’m off to find a copy of Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic.
Sharon, I love the work you do! When you share videos like this, would it be possible to also share the transcript? It’s easier for me, to quickly read the transcript than to listen. Thank you for your consideration!
Our government has such a lack of faith in its people, and they're proving this over and over. If their ideas or beliefs are RIGHT no matter what, then reading a dissenting opinion shouldn't sway their voters, right? This goes far beyond Ryan Holiday, too... They're not just removing books. They're removing DATA from government websites... Because we can't prove something isn't true if there's no data to prove it's not.
Such a great conversation! I agree, the notion that learning ideas that challenge our beliefs is inherently bad, is the opposite of everything I grew up learning. Reading and listening to different view points is the hallmark of enlightenment. It makes me think about the case before the Supreme Court that was profiled here last week. The idea that reading about LGBTQ persons doing the same everyday things is bad, or something children can’t understand so they need to be “protected” plays into this as well. As a child I was never stopped from learning and reading what I wanted to read. There was never a ban on books in my home. It made me a more well rounded person and able to think critically. To see the nuance and not look at everything as “either/or”. Reading and listening to different perspectives opens worlds and helps us grow not only as collective nation but as an individual.
About 3 years ago, my university hosted our conservative governor as the graduation keynote speaker. The students on our campus tried to get the university to back out. Our president basically had to write a campus wide missive on how that would not be possible. He also went on to explain that as you enter the world, you will be faced with lots of people with different views. Disagreeing but also listening is an important life skill.
Had the university canceled the talk, that would 100% be censorship. But they didn’t. And I am willing to bet that the students who were in attendance did not have their worldview dramatically altered. But maybe it gave them some insight into other perspectives. Which is what we all should want.
A few days ago, I responded to Sharon's post with personal notes regarding the Patriot Act, and my university library activities involving The Communist Manifesto. Ryan's story today speaks to me, and so many others. He is an inspiration.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out one major aspect of Ryan's philosophy that he briefly mentioned in the interview, and that is the concept of "social contract." The founders of our country and constitution were influenced by a great many philosophers of the Enlightenment. Rousseau, Hobbs, Voltaire, and others. However, probably the most influential was Locke. His idea that a government--in order to be successful--must enter into a contract with the people, as government's very existence is incumbent on the will of the people. To expand on that idea, the one variable that is paramount regarding any contract is *trust.* Trust between the parties is the very foundation of a contract. When a government enacts policies that are demonstrably 'distrusting' (e.g. book banning), that government has breached the social contract. Without that, we are in--as Ryan stated, "a very dark place."
I think that this decision by the Naval Academy is an example of the Streisand effect (“an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information”). Ryan’s talk has likely reached thousands more people than the original intended audience. That said, I think it’s really important to continue to highlight the government’s attempt to silence ideas it views as problematic.
How sad that they missed out on your talk but I’m so glad you made the right choice. Thank you! You are so wise and so courageous and we need more people like you in this moment.
I keep trying to apply logic to all of these disgusting decisions and actions being taken by the Trump administration. But I'm realizing more and more the fundamental problem is their vision of America is completely opposed to the Constitution. Period. It will never make sense to those of us who are still attached to the Constitution and to the ideal of an equal America.
Awesome interview, thank you! I’ve become a fan of stoicism to assist me with dealing with these challenging times right now. I need to find my Maya Angelou books and treasure them greatly. Hopefully I can share them with my grandchildren someday.
Great conversation, and a clear explanation at what happened at the Naval Academy. I have been following Ryan for some time, and he provides ideas to help me be a deeper thinker.
Thank you for sharing this! I subscribe to The NYT too but I somehow missed his piece. This is important and inspiring. We need to all have that line in the sand whether it is with democracy, personal relationships, or work situations.
I do hope that this banning of books at the academy was more like Sharon suggests- a CTL F type thing and not a methodical one. Their response to this speech is purposeful and that angers me. It also angers me that the did a search for any books to be banned in the first place.
What an amazing conversation! Thank you Sharon and thank you Ryan for going deep on these critically important ideas.
When Sharon pointed out that a private citizen was told they couldn't criticize the government—a classic warning sign of authoritarianism—I found myself nodding. But I'd go further: we're not just on a slippery slope; we've already slid down it. The widespread book banning we're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg that is the chilling effect in action. And we can see from authoritarian examples across the world, sometimes it doesn’t look like martial law, it’s just people oppressed into complying with government demands on thought.
I found myself going back to my "Project 2029" idea from a couple weeks ago, thinking about deterring the current administration with promises about what opposing actions will look like once Trump is inevitably gone. What if we started publicly declaring that every banned book will eventually get a special featured display when restored to libraries? Perhaps schedule featured talks about each book and why the government felt the ideas contained were dangerous? Ryan demonstrated this beautifully: they canceled his speech, but now his message has reached exponentially more people through this interview. Sometimes suppression backfires magnificently.
Sharon's observation about race being singled out as the uniquely "harmful" topic struck me as the interview's most revealing insight. When engaging with those who haven't yet viewed the administration critically, consider asking: If adult naval officers have access to literature covering every conceivable evil humanity has produced, why is *race* supposedly the one topic too dangerous for them? Even if someone believes race is over-discussed, surely they don't think it should be erased entirely from a library's collection. This reveals the strategy isn't "anti-woke" but "pro-racism."
The semantic battle over what constitutes "political" speech is fascinating. The academy claims their bans aren't political, yet Ryan's criticism of those bans somehow is? They seem to define "political" as being motivated by interests that conflict with educating military students. But how does that make sense here? The ban itself stems directly from a politician's election and agenda—that's the obviously political element. Meanwhile, Ryan arguing for principles transcending political expediency is arguably the opposite of "political" speech.
I'm genuinely curious: has anyone noticed MAGA "free speech absolutists" raising concerns about book bans? Ryan's courage inspires me to perhaps research this today, despite the mental harm I might be putting myself through by wading into that muck. All in the service of democracy, I guess! I want to understand most of all: what are the contradictions in that worldview that can be used in conversations to make people realize their Trump fantasy is built on a foundation of hypocrisy.
There's strategic potential here too. The narrative has long been that Democrats dismiss opposing viewpoints without debate, yet here we see top-down control of ideas in action. When speaking with Trump administration supporters, perhaps ask: "If your ideas are winning in the marketplace of thought, why the need to restrict access to competing perspectives?"
I've felt some apprehension about publicly criticizing the administration, given what is clearly a backsliding of democracy, but recent polls showing Americans' waning patience with the president have been encouraging. Maybe with worse polling news for Trump we will start to see some distance between Republican party loyalists and this authoritarian administration.
Democrats fundamentally erred in the 2024 election by not fielding a strong candidate from the beginning, instead running on an "everything's fine as is" platform. Voters weren't choosing the lesser of two evils so much as the "less recent" of two evils—and now they're remembering why they voted Trump out of office so emphatically in 2020. It wasn’t that long ago. He would have been so easy to defeat if the Democratic Party was motivated beyond the political motivations of its individual members. (BTW I should clarify that I am not calling Biden or Harris evil, just trying to describe the mindset of someone who struggled to vote for them during the last election.)
Going forward, I'm committed to pushing for reforming the system to choose candidates for competence and vision rather than party loyalty—candidates capable of maintaining baseline approval throughout their terms. Who's with me?
I've briefly talked to people in MAGA about book bans and their argument is always that "people can still go and buy the book. The book isn't banned." So seems they don't see it as a censorship they care about. Even though they don't realize limited access is censorship.
Yes. Not realizing/admitting limiting access is censorship is a form of privilege .
It’s limiting for those with less resources, but not for those with more.
Exactly. 💯
Thanks for this insight! That's good to know about average MAGA voters. Although I guess I am even more interested in those who are in more of an "influencer" position, who jump on social media to cry foul whenever someone limits the speech of literal neo-nazis on a private platform, whether they see any problem with the *government* stepping in and banning well-established literary works from their own bookshelves just because they center the experience of Black people. My guess: those influencers avoid the topic, because it doesn't fit the narrative.
Timothy Patrick, thank you for saying, “we're not just on a slippery slope; we've already slid down it.”
Removing books does not lead to bad things. It Is The Bad Thing!
Timothy -- One thing I've learned over the years is that (mostly?) Republicans--definitely MAGA--exhibit extreme degrees of irony. I remember evangelicals making statements about "W"...that he was ordained by God. Sent here to save America. Then, when Obama was elected, apparently God had nothing to do with that. Even the recent argument from (so-called "Christians") that the California fires are a sign of God's wrath upon California for being "Godless." Whereas floods and hurricanes in red, God-fearing states are caused by the "Devil."
At first I was going to say I hesitate to say that this is something inherent to one political party, but then I realized that we're talking about Republican politicians, not voters, correct? Because you're right, there are a lot of boneheaded politicians saying extremist things like that because they are incentivized to do so politically. But the average Republican voter? I doubt many of them feel that way. Just the ones who have a proclivity to defecate in our social media newsfeeds. 🥲
In reference to God/Red, Devil/Blue, Timothy, I can only say that I "hope" this doesn't describe the "average Republican voter." Here's my concern, however. While recent polling shows that Trump's popularity ratings are lower at 100 days in to his term than any president in modern history...his favorability ratings are still at 41%. I, for one, am bewildered that he's in double-digits, let alone 41. So, who are the 41-percent? Let's assume that the country is split (D/R) 50/50. Surely his favorability among D's is nearly 0%. For the sake of argument, let's say 2%. If we do the math...that means favorability among R's is 80%. That would suggest that it's not just MAGA extremists--rather "the average Republican voter." Again...I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm right.
I think we're talking about two different things though, you're calculating how many people still support Trump when asked by a pollster. I was talking about people who would say that Los Angeles deserves to burn for being godless. I hope there's a difference :)
Okay, Timothy. I think we are talking about two different things here. You're correct. I didn't mean to imply that 80% of Republicans believe that LA should burn.
Timothy Patrick, yes, please continue your Project 2029!
But it cannot/will not be a deterrent, because there is no deterring short-sighted people with opposing actions.
Climate Change proves that. Even the destruction of this plant and life on it does not deter the Drill Baby Drill people.
If there is a short-term profit, no long-term consequence will deter them.
You make an excellent point. I guess I’m seeing this could be a little different if argued effectively. Instead of relying on abstract arguments of distant consequences that will affect everyone, these would be policies directly inverse and worse (for them) on their selfish priorities.
Trump has already removed most of the military’s top-ranking women from their posts in the last hundred days. I’m sure this weighed heavily on Vice-Admiral Yvette Davids, Naval Academy Supt., when she made the decision to cancel Holiday’s talk. I guess she felt like it was more important to stay in her position for the battles ahead than to die on this particular book removal hill. It shows that Trump’s actions have already started to effectively chill dissent. Now I’m off to find a copy of Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic.
Sharon, I love the work you do! When you share videos like this, would it be possible to also share the transcript? It’s easier for me, to quickly read the transcript than to listen. Thank you for your consideration!
Yes, please. I love choices. I’m very pro-choice.
I second this request!
Our government has such a lack of faith in its people, and they're proving this over and over. If their ideas or beliefs are RIGHT no matter what, then reading a dissenting opinion shouldn't sway their voters, right? This goes far beyond Ryan Holiday, too... They're not just removing books. They're removing DATA from government websites... Because we can't prove something isn't true if there's no data to prove it's not.
Such a great conversation! I agree, the notion that learning ideas that challenge our beliefs is inherently bad, is the opposite of everything I grew up learning. Reading and listening to different view points is the hallmark of enlightenment. It makes me think about the case before the Supreme Court that was profiled here last week. The idea that reading about LGBTQ persons doing the same everyday things is bad, or something children can’t understand so they need to be “protected” plays into this as well. As a child I was never stopped from learning and reading what I wanted to read. There was never a ban on books in my home. It made me a more well rounded person and able to think critically. To see the nuance and not look at everything as “either/or”. Reading and listening to different perspectives opens worlds and helps us grow not only as collective nation but as an individual.
About 3 years ago, my university hosted our conservative governor as the graduation keynote speaker. The students on our campus tried to get the university to back out. Our president basically had to write a campus wide missive on how that would not be possible. He also went on to explain that as you enter the world, you will be faced with lots of people with different views. Disagreeing but also listening is an important life skill.
Had the university canceled the talk, that would 100% be censorship. But they didn’t. And I am willing to bet that the students who were in attendance did not have their worldview dramatically altered. But maybe it gave them some insight into other perspectives. Which is what we all should want.
A few days ago, I responded to Sharon's post with personal notes regarding the Patriot Act, and my university library activities involving The Communist Manifesto. Ryan's story today speaks to me, and so many others. He is an inspiration.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out one major aspect of Ryan's philosophy that he briefly mentioned in the interview, and that is the concept of "social contract." The founders of our country and constitution were influenced by a great many philosophers of the Enlightenment. Rousseau, Hobbs, Voltaire, and others. However, probably the most influential was Locke. His idea that a government--in order to be successful--must enter into a contract with the people, as government's very existence is incumbent on the will of the people. To expand on that idea, the one variable that is paramount regarding any contract is *trust.* Trust between the parties is the very foundation of a contract. When a government enacts policies that are demonstrably 'distrusting' (e.g. book banning), that government has breached the social contract. Without that, we are in--as Ryan stated, "a very dark place."
My hope is that this story goes viral so that the titles and authors of those 381 books that were removed and banned from the Naval Academy library become best sellers. Here’s the list (I’ve included 2 links from sources - left and right) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/naval-academy-removed-from-its-library-during-dei-purge.amp
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/us/politics/naval-academy-dei-books-removed.html
I think that this decision by the Naval Academy is an example of the Streisand effect (“an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information”). Ryan’s talk has likely reached thousands more people than the original intended audience. That said, I think it’s really important to continue to highlight the government’s attempt to silence ideas it views as problematic.
How sad that they missed out on your talk but I’m so glad you made the right choice. Thank you! You are so wise and so courageous and we need more people like you in this moment.
I keep trying to apply logic to all of these disgusting decisions and actions being taken by the Trump administration. But I'm realizing more and more the fundamental problem is their vision of America is completely opposed to the Constitution. Period. It will never make sense to those of us who are still attached to the Constitution and to the ideal of an equal America.
Awesome interview, thank you! I’ve become a fan of stoicism to assist me with dealing with these challenging times right now. I need to find my Maya Angelou books and treasure them greatly. Hopefully I can share them with my grandchildren someday.
What a great interview!! Greatly enjoyed it.
Great conversation, and a clear explanation at what happened at the Naval Academy. I have been following Ryan for some time, and he provides ideas to help me be a deeper thinker.
Books on a shelf do not require its reading!
*library shelf
Thank you for sharing this! I subscribe to The NYT too but I somehow missed his piece. This is important and inspiring. We need to all have that line in the sand whether it is with democracy, personal relationships, or work situations.
I do hope that this banning of books at the academy was more like Sharon suggests- a CTL F type thing and not a methodical one. Their response to this speech is purposeful and that angers me. It also angers me that the did a search for any books to be banned in the first place.