Here's a technology that is potentially more dangerous than nuclear weapons. We didn't let Oppenheimer start a company and start selling bombs to China.
That's a good comparison.
Hi everyone, this is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.
And I'm — who am I? I'm Scott Galloway. Sorry, I'm jetlagged is what I am. So, first off, I have to ask you, by the way, you've been doing a lot of stuff, but did you watch the enhanced games last weekend?
I didn't, although I got to be honest, I'm sort of here for it. I mean, I kind of had this idea to just take no holds barred and let freak shows show up. People are doing this to themselves anyways, but I did not watch it. Although, let me just say, for people who don't know, the enhanced games is a new sports event that allows athletes on performance-enhancing drugs and encourages them to try to break world records. Events included swimming, track and field, weightlifting, and strongmen. The experiment calls itself a global movement that unites humanity. Of course, it is a publicly traded company. Investors include Donald Trump Jr. and Peter Thiel. There's also a German executive I've met many times who's really into it. There were no things broken except by someone who was wearing the swimsuit that was barred — this special swimsuit. I don't know. The stock has gone down. I'm curious if there was a fight where both of us were enhanced, who do you think would win, you or I?
Well, you know the answer there.
Yeah, 100%. I've never been in a fight. I'm not a violent person. If someone hit me, I wouldn't know what to do.
You've never been in a fight? Wow.
Never been in a fight in my life.
Neither have I, I think. Let me think. That might not be true. No, I haven't. No, I haven't.
No, never. You know, I was beaten up by my ex-wife, but no, I was never in a fight. I think that I talk a lot about this — I never miss a chance to virtue signal and preach — but I think one of the core principles for men as they get older is just quite frankly emotional regulation. You know, are you willing to sit in discomfort and do you have control over your physical and mental well-being?
Well, it's an impulse to punch, right? It's an impulse to punch and men have it much more. I have — well, let me think. Saul's probably the most aggressive of my sons.
So, there's no arguing that men are more violent, but that doesn't mean women don't engage in violence. Domestic violence rates in LGBTQ couples is about 25% according to the National Institute for Health, and according to the CDC, anywhere from 17 to 40% of men are victims of intimate partner violence depending on the research methodology. There's a discrepancy between whether it was a phone survey or a web survey. And then furthermore, there's only about three shelters — there's only three shelters across the entire US devoted to male domestic violence. There's still a lot of shame and there's a view that it might be underreported.
Mostly women suffer from this problem, Scott.
Yeah, but it's true. There's an assumption.
Yes, I get it. Most violence is committed by men in general. In general, murders, blah blah, everything. Every statistic is largely men. It's not really — it's just I do think it's a function of gender. I do think it's a function of impulse control and everything else, but I'm no scientist.
Testosterone and cultural norms and —
Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Manliness, this man. There was a really great cover of The Atlantic recently about the sort of man-hating groups and they're always back. They're always like, they're back. I'm like, they're always there in some weird way. Speaking of men, there's construction crews building the UFC fighting cage on the south lawn of the White House in preparation for the night of mixed martial arts celebrating the 250th anniversary of US independence. Over 4,000 spectators plan to watch from inside the arena. Kind of looks like a roller coaster. And there's all this complaining by Joe Rogan and others about gnats and bugs outside. And some of the champions aren't coming because they don't usually do it outside. And it creates a — if you're going for world, you know, these are actual competitors. If you're going for titles, it's not a good thing to fight outside apparently. Weigh-ins will be held at the Lincoln Memorial, which is — I don't know what to say about that, but okay, fine. Fine. Fine. I just don't know what to say. It looks — it's ridiculous, you know, it feels clownish, but whatever. He's the president. I don't know what to say. I'm not going to get overly angry about it, but it seems ridiculous. But I don't know how you feel.
I was invited. I said no. I don't enjoy that stuff, and I don't need to be, you know, I think it's disingenuous for me to show up and break bread or party with someone who I'm constantly critical of. The event itself is brilliant.
Oh gosh. There's just an entire generation of young men and quite frankly a lot of women — their mothers and their sisters — who in America, and this will trigger some people, still vote for who they perceive will be most beneficial for their husbands and their sons. And young men are doing really, really poorly. And if you think about government in the United States, largely speaking, has been feminized. If you look at the events, the events are basically like, you know, like the queen was merchandising and throwing them for — government events are very feminine for lack of a better word.
Wait a minute. Come on, Scott. Today you're very anti-women today.
I'm not anti-woman. I don't think feminine is a bad thing. I'm just calling it — government things are feminine.
Oh, go to anything at the White House. It feels like it's been designed —
Oh, 100%. They're very proper, gentle. They're very feminine. And by the way, that —
Men can be gentle. I don't think that men can —
Yes, men can demonstrate wonderful feminine attributes.
You mean like medal giving is a feminine activity or —
I wouldn't describe medal giving, but the event —
A lot of medal giving at the White House.
Government events and ceremonies tend to be very what people would consider, I think, somewhat more — well, they're not a UFC fight. They're not a competition.
UFC fight is way — even like comedy. The White House dinner comes the closest to sort of something stepping out of what is seen as overly planned, nurturing, appropriate. Yeah, I think the events are very kind of very feminine. And what are these guys doing? They're throwing a UFC fight. And it's kind of — I think you're going to have — they're going to have huge viewership. It says to Trump, it reaffirms his view of one of the reasons he won the election and that is like, I'm a man's man. I see men. I appreciate, quote, for lack of a better term, masculinity. Unfortunately, it's a [__] up weird —
Performative dominant form of masculinity,
But it's a brilliant marketing strategy. Smart. I —
I don't — I think it sometimes works. Like, let me give an example of this attempt to turn James Talarico — like, Stephen Miller, who is literally the most weak-looking person you've ever seen — is calling, you know, he and others are calling because they're terrified of Talarico. So they're pulling out the anti-trans stuff immediately, saying the first trans senator — he doesn't know how to eat barbecue. Is that a — to Ted Cruz? Another like someone I could easily beat in a fight with the tofu barbecue. The idea of soy boy. I mean, this is not manly in any way. This is like — I don't — and I don't think it works as much anymore with people. It's deeply insulting. It might work in Texas. I hate to say it. I think the Talarico people should take this very seriously because Kamala Harris did with the trans stuff that worked really well in the election and it might work in Texas. But they're trying to, you know, paint him as gay. I think that's what they're — where's the girlfriend? That's what they're — trans? Is he trans? He's a soy boy. You know, this is all like — and what I think about it's so grotesque because I'm like, these are all men over 50 or whatever. I don't — I mean, Stephen Miller looks over 50 even though he's younger. But this is this like name-calling, bullying [__] that is not part of being a man. Any men I know that I think are decent men. It's fine if people want to do this. When I was a kid I went to fights with my grandfather and went to wrestling matches. He was a promoter. And he loved it. So I see the entertainment and everything else in it. But the soy boy trans thing that they're pushing on Talarico is so ugly and toxic. And unfortunately, it does work at some point. I don't know if you think it'll work in Texas, but it might. It certainly could.
Yeah. I think there's a fairly large distinction between a sanctioned sport where it's a lot of men in top physical shape. I don't like it. I don't enjoy watching it, but I think that that is a legitimate sport. It's a huge sport. It's I think arguably one of the most successful sports of the last several decades. It's a well-run sport. Creates a lot of economic value for many of the fighters. So I think you can — I think in a bipartisan way, you can say that the UFC serves a purpose and is successful. That the ugliness around Talarico is not only — one, it's not true, but two, to assume that levying an accusation that someone is gay or trans is supposed to be negative. It trains young people or people that if you call someone that, your opponent doesn't call you something unless they're trying to say to the world that's a negative, right?
Absolutely. No. No, no, 100%.
And I hope at some point people regurgitate on things like that and say quite frankly it's, you know, someone we used to call in college — you used to call people [__] —
Mhm. Yep. Dikes and [__]. Yep. I got it.
To be gay is to be bad. It's an insult. And at some point someone says, yeah, and or what? It's like people online call me a Zionist. And I respond, 'Proud Zionist.' I mean, I just — at some point people are going to realize going after people's sexual orientation just says more about you than it says about them.
It does. But it's a tactic. They're trying to drum that in in that race. And unfortunately, it might work in Texas.
Well, it's an indictment on Texas that these people have done the research and decided that it works.
So I hope he responds. I will say this that —
I'm not sure what the response is.
In defense — well, I'm not gay. In defense of James Talarico, he and I follow many of the same people on Instagram. And it's not thought leaders, Kara.
It's some scorching hot young ladies who make their living with a —
With a webcam. They also tried to do it to Andy Beshear. They obviously — Beto, everything. You know, it's to me it's mean at the end, misogynistic. And speaking of that, the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation. Of course, this all leads to the same thing. The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the former magazine writer who won two civil lawsuits against Trump totaling, you know, close to $90 million in payments tied to sexual abuse and defamation. The DOJ probe is reportedly focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in testimony. Typical, this is what they're doing to — whether it's to Letitia James or whoever they're trying to go at. Specifically, Carroll saying she hadn't received outside funding for her legal bills. Her lawyers later said Reid Hoffman had contributed. This is the latest in a series of DOJ probes targeting Trump's opponents and critics like James Comey, Letitia James, and others. Though none of these investigations have led to convictions. In fact, they get laughed out of court. I spoke to E. Jean Carroll for an episode of On in July 2025. She talked about the threats she's received and why she has no fear. Let's listen.
It's stupid to be afraid. Why live your life that way? I've been here 81 years and I'm not going to waste the last of it worrying about that guy in marmalade-colored makeup. It makes no sense. So that's what I'm going to do.
So what do you think about this? This talk about misogyny and getting — you know, she's won the cases against him and he's trying not to pay them and he's doing everything possible to try not to pay them. And this is the latest ploy using the Justice Department to carry out his toxic misogynistic efforts.
I think it comes down to this. So one, if she did say something that wasn't true under oath, that's real. And they're claiming that she didn't acknowledge that she was getting help with her legal bills. I don't know to the extent though in a case like that that is grounds for revisiting a case when it doesn't matter, when it doesn't have anything to do with the actual crime she's accusing the president of. What is consistent here is the weaponization of the DOJ to go after his political enemies.
So this is just another example of the fact that we don't have a government that's meant to protect the people. It's now there to protect the president. I mean, just to keep in mind, folks, this was a jury of his peers who heard a ton of evidence and they said, 'Well, it was in liberal New York.' Well, okay, New York, if you had nine jurors, five are probably Democrats, but four Republicans and two — to mature a conviction, all nine have to agree. So this was a — you know, this was — there's a reason that when someone is usually convicted of a crime the public used to come together and say this person is guilty and, you know, should be disqualified or, you know, we keep — every time this stuff happened we kept thinking that's it, over, and it wasn't. But it's just — I do think it's important to have a legal scholar to say in most cases with this type of infraction if in fact she — and she did. She did not acknowledge that she was having her legal —
Bill. Depends on when she was paid. They're going to have to investigate that. But still, they're just grabbing at straws here is what they're doing. That's what they're trying to do to find some way to impugn her and so he doesn't have to pay that money. It's all the same. It's all about money.
I don't even think it's about the money. I think it's about overturning a conviction of a perceived enemy and going after her.
I think the guy — the guy's made billions of dollars illegally on crypto. I think —
He still doesn't want to pay. He's a cheap bastard. He still doesn't want to pay.
I'm personally — I'm surprised they did this. I would have thought they would — I think this just brings it up again. I would have thought they would want it to fade into the distance.
He doesn't care. He doesn't care. Anyway, E. Jean, we hope this goes away, but it's such a [__] nuisance. It's such a ridiculous nuisance. Anyway, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, Pope Leo's warning about AI. I'm very excited to talk about this.
Support for the show comes from Hims. If you have weight loss goals, you already know how difficult it can be. Enter weight loss by Hims. It's designed to support you not only in losing weight, but keeping it off as well. And now, Hims is offering access to an affordable range of FDA-approved GLP-1 medications, including the Wegovy pill and the Wegovy pen. With Wegovy at Hims, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It can help you regulate your appetite and eat less, so success is within reach. Plus, Wegovy is the first-ever GLP-1 pill for weight loss, so there are no needles needed. Plus, Hims is everything online. You'll connect with a licensed provider who will determine if treatment is right for you. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.com/pivot to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. That's hims.com/pivot. Hims.com/pivot. Weight loss by Hims is not available in all 50 states. Wegovy is a registered trademark of Novo Nordisk. To get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wegovy clinical study information, restrictions, visit hims.com.
Scott, we're back and we're going to start off with our next topic with a question from a listener.
Hi Kara and Scott, my name is Bridget and I'm calling from Oakland. I'm asking as a Catholic Buddhist Pivotarian. I was so delighted to hear that Pope Bob, also known as Pope Leo XIV, delivered his first encyclical, which was about AI, and he was speaking truth to power from a place of power, which is pretty rare. Have either of you read it? And if so, what do you think? Do you think it can move the needle towards putting guardrails up for this juggernaut that's really careening off the road already? Or maybe even rein in those [__] who are mindlessly amping it up for their own self-serving profits. Thanks for all the humor and wisdom you've provided over the years. And keep it up.
Haha. Yep. I just set Prof up for a dick joke. I love Bridget. I love our listeners. Pivotarian. Let's start a religion.
That would be so good. Thank you, Bridget. That was a great question. We love your sassiness. That's the kind of listeners we love. So to catch people up, Pope Leo released his first encyclical this week, a 4,200-word letter to all about AI titled Dilexi te — Magnificent Humanity. I can't say it in Latin, but it's Magnificent Humanity. The Pope acknowledged that artificial intelligence can be a valuable tool — did not trash it — but also warned that AI could become a new Tower of Babel. He shared some strong words about what needs to happen next. Let's listen to him himself talk about it.
Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed. The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity.
Some of the specific things the Pope is calling for: government regulation of private companies driving AI development seems normal, protecting children from violent, sexual, or fake information generated by AI — excellent suggestion, safeguards to make sure humans are responsible for all decisions tied to the use of weapons — again, a great thing. He also didn't shy away from talking about people at the helm of AI. That was really the focus, is who's running it. In the abstract, technology in and of itself is not a solution to humanity's problems, just it is not inherently evil. In practice, however, technology is never neutral because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it. Some big tech folks are on board here. Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah joined the Pope at the Vatican as the encyclical was presented, but reactions from DC and Silicon Valley have been mixed. Vice President JD Vance called the Pope's warning profound. That was interesting, but Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Fox News, 'I didn't know what tech editorializing was part of the role being a pope.' Well, it is, Doug. It's certainly not part of your role as interior secretary. David Sacks wrote, 'The Pope rightly warns that AI must serve human dignity, not become a tool of domination or exclusion.' Well, someone who dominates and excludes — that was a nice thing to hear. But it goes on, if we hand — of course he goes on — if we hand the government sweeping power over AI development in the name of safety, how do we prevent it from being used to censor, surveil, or control citizens? Honestly, this guy is so hypocritical. Anyway, what did you think of the take? And I think he's been listening to Pivot or a lot of stuff we've talked about for years. I love Pope Bob being on this team, but thoughts on this?
Well, we talk a lot about the actions of the administration and different things that have just been really bad for brand US, whether it was the insurrection or, you know, cutting off USAID. There's just been so many poor decisions that have really hurt our brand. I actually think the best thing or one of the best things that's happened for the US brand — to a certain extent AI and just the economic boom out here and the fact that we — the most seminal technology in a long time in terms of share creation and what might have an impact on the world is just owned and dominated by the US — that's very good for our brand. Another thing that's been great for our brand is Pope Leo. He's just incredibly articulate. He comes across as measured, brave, connects real-world issues with spiritual issues and issues of dignity, and he's American. He went to Villanova.
Yeah, that voice. Yeah, Chicago. He's got such a Chicago accent. I keep wanting to go, the Bears.
