Liberal men are soy boys. Debate me, okay? That's the debate tonight. Tonight. I always think it's nighttime. I'm just... You know, doing live in the morning. This morning, our debate is liberalism rejecting masculinity. We've got a couple of gentlemen joining us to have this debate. Sir, would you like to introduce yourself first? Yeah, before we start.
One of us is going to have to change, right? Well, we're not completely wearing the same thing, but I was wearing it first. So I've been told by Alex Jones that you wear the beanie because you have the, what did he say? Tim Pool has the Mark of the Beast on his forehead, and he hides it because he's the Antichrist. Well, I mean, he calls the Mark of the Beast a pentagram.
Okay. But yeah, I'm the soy pill. I make video essays. I'm a progressive. I'm a soy boy. But I try to own it and try to fight the stereotype. All right. He's a soy boy. And you are not a soy boy, sir? I don't know if I would identify myself as such necessarily. I'm simply a guy who talks about politics on the internet. My name is John Doyle, and I'm glad to be back on the program. I don't know. He looks like he works out more than you do. Well, he's got to. That's the thing.
That's why he calls himself the soy pill. His job and why he exists in the ecosystem is to sort of be a lightning rod and be like, soy boys, absolutely not. Look at me. I go to the gym. So it's like a costume. I mean, I respect a good physique, but it has to be that way because it's you. Respecting a man's physique.
It's pretty soy, I gotta say. You're checking me out. I didn't say that, but it's indicative of discipline and things like that, which 99% of people on your side would reject, but it's good for you. I'm happy for you personally. We'll try to change that. That's kind of the point. get into that. I mean, that's the general idea. There's a couple elements to this. We were going over what is the core theme yesterday, and it's that...
masculinity is incompatible with liberalism was one of the one of the arguments or that liberalism rejects masculinity. I guess That's your argument. Do you want to kick off what you mean by this? Yeah, I mean, that's absolutely true, whether you look at it from a fundamental perspective or the idea behind liberalism is more or less derivative of this blank slate. John Locke, father of liberalism, that we are...
all these blank slates and if there is to be a masculine or feminine identity that is simply because of what's popularly I guess argued to be like a social construct or something but it's not something that's really rooted in nature there is no natural way for men and women to behave and insofar as
We see those throughout society or history. It's because men typically have oppressed women for whichever reason. And so I would say that it rejects the concept of masculinity. And there are ways to intellectualize this and, you know, what is a real man or something. But I would just say that it's how men typically...
tend to behave when left to their own devices. Moreover, I would say it rejects it in terms of its political implementation, because when liberalism or liberals tend to get in power, what we tend to see is not only they're being rejected by men who are maybe more normal or masculine as you see whether it's you're looking at who men are voting for or you look at maybe the most
I guess, extreme manifestations of left-wing men in the country look like the Antifa mugshots. They all tend to look a certain way. And then when liberals get into power, they persecute masculinity. I mean, they make male behavior illegal. They empower women. They demonize men throughout the culture.
things of that nature there's even like a biological component which i know we've covered on the show before with rfk and different things they're putting into the the what male behavior is like illegal from like oh yeah i mean absolutely well first of all patriarchy fatherhood uh courting all things like that i mean illegal though
Yes. Yeah. In many cases, like typical male behavior, which would be used to take control of your household, to meet a woman, things like that are culturally enforced to either be, you know, denigrated or demonized. Or in some cases, like, yeah, you can have, you know, police harass you if you make, you know.
or maybe co-workers harass you or HR harass you for making an inappropriate comment at the office or something like that. Well, I would say to the illegal component, there is not that on the book it says...
Being a man is illegal. Obviously, beating your wife is illegal, and it should be. However, there are circumstances where because of this... system, the balances of it, men who don't beat their wives, who actually get beaten by their wives, will still have the police called on them and they are more likely to get arrested.
Yeah, but that's not making masculinity illegal. That's a concept of these perceived gender roles. Women are perceived as weaker, and frankly, mostly are. So if that does happen, it's just a matter of like, hey, there's this big guy. I said women are weak. Yeah, well, I mean, just...
In general, they're on a spectrum. Like, no, I mean, people get mad at the left for like rejecting the reality of like, you know, most women are weaker than most men, which is true. But like that does come back and hurt men too sometimes when it's like, oh yeah, like how could this woman be beating this man? Like how could that possibly happen? But that's a factor of viewing women as less. I'm just saying if we're going to view the law as a rigid...
It is as it is that I would disagree with you, John. It's not illegal to be a man. But if we're looking at the function of what law does, because typically we don't – I bring this up all the time. There are laws in the books we don't actually enforce. Sure.
My favorite, as I was reading this book, and it said it's illegal in Boston to cool a pie on your windowsill on Tuesday or something. Well, yeah, because it interferes with air traffic when the people float through the air. Well, back in the day, it was bears.
It's like you live in a small village, you don't want a bear coming by, don't put food on your windowsill, but now who cares, right? It's the results of social incentives, cultural programming, which create the same effect, a deterrent that would be created perhaps by a law that's enforced, but without having the bad optics of like...
making it illegal to be a man or something yeah yeah so there was a there's an apparatus of law that is anti-male or masculine I don't know I just I don't see that so I hear what you're saying. I think a problem with the left is, for years...
Being a straight white guy. It was like the norm right and then finally the left starts getting into the power and it's like hey Let's highlight all these marginalized voices right like women come here black people come here trans voices gay voices whatever and The problem is now it's not focused on men and a lot of these pendulum swinging
People are like, yeah, you guys are the patriarchy. You guys are the cishet white males. And there is like a attack or at least a narrative against that. But I don't know. It kind of reminds me of something like white privilege, like that term where if you look like.
back in the 90s and 2000s, I want to say, like, kind of everyone just accepted, like, oh, yeah, black people get treated worse by the police. Like, they have it worse off. Like, there's the, what's that Onion skit where it's like, this is America.
no one deserves to be treated like a black man, right? Yeah, it's like they rule that a white woman could be treated as a black man. Oh, right, right, right. And it's like that was kind of like culturally accepted. Yes, I know that one. But as soon as you introduce the term like white privilege...
now you have people like uh you know white guys like even me when i first heard this in high school i was like what the fuck does that mean you know like i have problems right like i things are happening to me that are out of my control that suck and now you're telling me my life's just better like this is kind of this weird uh term that's like attacking the people that
really haven't done anything wrong in a way to frame the idea that other people are less well off. And I see that kind of happening with men now where they're no longer centered because it was the norm for so long.
And so people feel rejected from the left. But really, the left is this umbrella of, hey, yeah, you can be a soy boy. You can be like a little twinkie guy, femme, coded, gay, whatever. But you can also be masculine. But those masculine, traditionally masculine people, which is the norm, which most people...
fall into are not uh don't feel as welcome because they're not the only thing that's being focused on which is what the right does right it's like hey you can be this is all we are rather than this is the umbrella that encompasses that and
People like me, like I, I grew up in the most progressive place on the planet in San Francisco. I went to like a liberal college, UC San Diego. This is like, you know, all the SJWs, there were people like on the middle of the campus with signs that said like white men bore me, you know, or little posters are like, oh, don't say.
minorities say poc right like very very progressive sjw stuff back in 2016 era and like none of that made me less masculine or make me want to be less masculine it just made me say oh okay that's kind of annoying or like that's weird but like the idea that
It's such a turnoff that it's pushing you into a different party. It's weird to me because my ideals haven't changed. It's just like, oh, okay, I can still be me. I can still be this in this party. I'm just not the sole focus. I don't think it's about sole focus or centering or anything.
I mean, if you even are familiar with the average temperament or disposition of a conservative or a Republican, these are people who fundamentally just want to be left alone. You don't have to go and talk to a bunch of Trump supporters and appeal to them as the white vote or the straight voter. things of that nature. And I think it is actually pushing people who otherwise would have preferred to identify themselves with like the predominant.
Party into the arms of Republicans or Trump, as has been the case with a lot of media personalities, for example, because they do feel ostracized, not just because of maybe some of the excesses that you see on the college campus with like a sign or a T-shirt that says like, boys are icky or like.
with white power or something, but because the policies which these people are pursuing ultimately are dispossessing normal white Americans, and they're becoming more aware of that, which is why they're walking away. They may agree with you on wanting to be left alone. People can have their own identity.
But at the end of the day, when that party gets into power, they act in ways which dispossess normal Americans, takes money from them, opportunities from them, and redistributes it to literally the entire world and demonizes them throughout the culture. So I would like it to be some umbrella. I think that would be. nice but that's not what we tend to see when you guys get into power and even in your own case the the the issue is that even as you're describing it um people view politics
and people of all generations as a single group. So when you say things like, you know, it's the right, they're white masculine men or whatever, and the left is trying to lift up voices that aren't actually white men. That is saying that the younger generation of liberals have an issue with boomers and Gen X, so they penalize Gen Z men in a way that these Gen Z men can't comprehend or they were not party to.
I think it's perceived as penalizing. I don't think it is, but I know what you mean. But it is. But it is. I have never felt penalized. A group attacking white people, insulting white people, and then they're allowed to do it, is creating a condition by which...
which you are allowed to be racist to a group of men that did not experience this white privilege that was described. Sure, but like— That's penalizing me. First of all, again, as much as I have a problem with the term white privilege, I think you can look at statistics of, do white people get as much shit as black people?
people great now let's go back to what i was saying about gen z i'm just saying how about we do experience it but the problem is like let's let's talk about my point we can 18 year old man did not experience the white privilege of a 55 year old white man oh you're so an 18 year old who's entering the world
and saying man it's really hard on me and then the the left in these colleges say hi you're white you're bad you're stupid you bore me and when they go please stop making fun of me they go no you have white privilege and he goes no the old guy might have but I don't well that's the thing is
when I say, hey, generationally, you can look at the way that these races have been treated. And yeah, like you're not experiencing the boomer housing market, right? Like I am not as well off as my parents. They bought a house for like, you know, 300 grand and it's now worth like a bajillion dollars. I would never be able to afford that.
probably never will be able to i just have to wait for them to die uh but that's not the same thing as white privilege before that black rock will get it before that that's true that's not even joking yeah no um the idea that like
uh, that has something to do with like the way that different races are treated by some sort of system, I think is irrelevant. But the point is, this is what I'm saying is like, you don't feel white privilege. I'm not like, Oh boy, what a great day. Well, I am like, what a great day to be white. Cause like,
Like, let's be real, it's kind of hard to beat all the other races. But you're not feeling this advantage. The point is, like, if it was framed to something like black detriment. I actually disagree with you about it's hard to beat other races. Harder? Oh, because you're Korean? Yeah, when I was growing up, I was told that if I put down that I was Mexican, I would get free stuff. Yeah.
So my parents told me not to put down that I was Asian when I was applying for anything because I'd be discriminated against. You're talking about like DEI policies and how like maybe like a front of action thing that's like trying to... correct historical records so like a white person might feel like well this guy because this happened to me in college like i saw people that were maybe not as like smart as me
get advantages maybe because it was like a you know SWE is like Society of Women Engineers like they'd get certain opportunities or scholarships and it's like well shit like I didn't get 10 grand to just go and do this like one particular thing it's literally just because you have a vagina that does have no privilege
sort of um literally the point is like if you're looking at a societal thing it's like that is something that in this specific uh you know minutia of college yeah there are people that are going to be lifted up over maybe white people but you don't see that as privilege insofar as like hey i don't feel like i'm getting the better
end of the deal in fact these people are but it's talking about a historical thing of oh these people had a it worse off for so long but that's why i would call it like a black detriment and not like a white privilege but this is back to your point on what was it what does that mean though the point had it worse for so long
I mean, we've been following the vector of, like, progressivism and civil rights for, what, 60 years now? Yeah. And by any metric, I mean, whether it's, like, familial wealth, house ownership, which you alluded to— I think black generational wealth right now is, like, similar levels to, like, Reconstruction era. It's not very—
Exactly. So we've been following this vector of progressivism and saying that this is to make up for injustices of the past. And this vector would suggest that those injustices have been alleviated because it's now illegal to discriminate in varying capacities. But the situation has not improved. Wait, wait, why would it suggest that it's been alleviated?
Because we have the civil rights movement, the great society, all of these fruits, which has made it illegal for you to discriminate in the ways that you're alluding to in terms of these past injustices. So if that's been made illegal, then it would suggest that maybe these injustices were not orchestrated from the top.
down people just being mean and racist for no reason, but that there are just cultural things that are different between people who exist in America, which is why there really hasn't been a big change between the 60s and now in terms of performing. I would argue that blockbusting and redlining, which still exists today, day illicitly would be the argument against that.
Redlining, if you look at the actual counties which were affected, it didn't take into account things like credit score, income. If you actually look at the data behind redlining, it's just a liberal talking point the same way that Jimmy— I don't know, blockbusting. Blockbusting is when, still to this day—
Real estate agents will intentionally buy a house, move a black family into a white neighborhood, then solicit the residents there to sell their properties because, quote, there goes the neighborhood, and then try and buy the house on a premium.
And then what they do is they buy the house, rent it to a black family, go to all the houses and say property values will go down because a black family moved into your neighborhood. You need to sell to us now. They'll get the property for a premium. Then. A year later, they move the black family out, restore the prices up to where they are in the market. This was made illegal in the 80s, but it was a principle way by which they perpetuated this. We still see this today where...
it is typically recognized as a market racist, a racist market fact. Like I'm not saying there's an individual who's racist, it's black people, but you go to any real estate agent and ask them like, hey, you've got investment properties.
what would you do if a black family moved next to your investment property? They're going to tell you they're going to sell. Yeah. And they're going to say, look, I've got no problem with a black family. Tons of friends are black, but the market will react negatively to this. So I probably don't want to lose money and I would sell that. concept perpetuates since the 80s. So I don't know how you get rid of this.
It's funny because even liberals do it. The story I've told is a woman that I worked with who was this progressive Hispanic woman. She said that she inherited a property in New York City from her grandpa or from her family or whatever.
She was woke, as one could describe woke. And I said, what would you do if a black family moved next door to your property? She goes, I'd sell right away. And I was like, isn't that racist? And she goes, I'm not trying to be racist, but my property would lose all its value right away. And I'm like, OK, so long as you believe that and perpetuate it, that's going to cause problems to the net worth and like the generational wealth of black families.
It's not illegal, right? Stuff like that happens all the time. That's kind of what people describe when they talk about systemic racism. It doesn't take a... like single individual being like oh i hate black people like throw them in jail although that does still happen and that's the other thing is like you talk about like yeah it is illegal yeah we did pass the civil rights law but like
you know, kicking and screaming half the country was fighting against it. And those people didn't disappear and their kids probably have very similar values. We are becoming more progressive. But the idea that like, oh, well, because it's illegal, it's gone now. It's just like not borne out. Like these things absolutely still happen. These people still hold these views in a lot of different places.
Of course it is. I mean, if there were any evidence that it were actually happening, even on the individual level, like this is the example that comes to mind. Look at like what happened to Papa John. Papa John literally said the N-word in a meeting telling employees of what not to say. No, no, no, no, no. He was quoting someone. Papa John said something to the effect of, how come Colonel Sanders said N-word and he got no flag for this? Why is that acceptable? He was condemning that...
Yeah. Colonel Sanders used a slur and no one cared. And they use that against them to strip him of everything. The point being, it's such a hot market. Maybe I can use this to pivot back to the topic, though, actually. Any instance of racism, you are, you know, you can file civil suits, you can do whatever. It can become a national media thing. You can get a...
book tour, whatever it is, if these instances were actually existing, even at the individual level. And so I feel like it's this game of, I don't know, whack-a-mole, where it's like, oh, surely these things must be being caused by institutional racism, even at the individual level. Whereas, I mean, maybe we've got...
the thing with the blockbusting, but there are also things like education, school funding, crime rates of course, all sorts of different things that we could use to explain the outcomes of different cultures in this country that we can't quite find so precisely with things like
racism or even, you know, anecdotally. But all of those things you just mentioned can be products of the institutional racism, like blockbusting, where it's like, hey, this entire neighborhood of black people is just more poor because of...
something that started off as a racism thing, or maybe from someone who was well-meaning, a liberal, progressive, woke person, and yet this is now downstream effects. The property values are lower. That means the school is going to be underfunded. That's why they get funding from the federal government. It's like 10%, I think.
public schools on average i think schools that are my majority minority receive like one percent greater funding from the federal government than schools that are predominantly white even i mean you go they even have better credentialed teachers with um you know advanced degrees um
get more funding. And I remember I went down to Cast Tech High School in Detroit because I was trying to do a fundraiser one time. And it was better than my high school, which was in Birmingham Public Schools. It was supposed to be like one of the better districts. And I go down to Cast Tech High School. I'm like walking in between like crackheads and human feces. And I go into...
what looks like, like a Silicon Valley startup building. And I was like, okay, this is like pretty advanced yet. I don't know how many kids in Detroit schools are literate. So clearly there's something else going on. Like 1% I don't think is going to make a huge difference. And I could just fire back an anecdote. I grew up in a particularly poor neighborhood.
And I was in like the OK kind of middle of the line mixed school. But all the schools down in Richmond, which is like a notoriously poor neighborhood, were really bad. There's like gunfights, drugs, people getting I mean, there's literally I think a movie about just how bad that was like Coach Carter or something like that. Like these are really, really.
bad schools the property values are really low and these kids like they grow up they don't have anything these like they don't have a lot of opportunities i don't think you can just attribute this to like well it's just the cultural thing but the culture is downstream of definitely things that happen
due to them being in these, like, segregated ghettos, essentially. I don't know, man. But wait, I wanted to focus back to the masculinity thing, because you mentioned the Papa John thing of this idea that, like, you know, he didn't actually do anything wrong, I don't think. He quoted someone.
you know, who did something wrong to disparage that racist guy. Right. And then the reaction was, let's cancel Papa John. Despite the fact that if you look at this in context, this man has no ill will towards black people. This man is specifically trying to call out racism. And I think that's kind of what's going on with the masculinity thing where you get this.
concept of like toxic masculinity I know you've you covered the Gillette commercial right where like everyone freaked out oh yeah like calling out men and like It wasn't calling out men. It was stereotyping and disparaging them. Right. And this idea that the pendulum swing back to the left is, hey, for so long we've seen these bad behaviors. And rather than try to integrate and like, hey, men, let's fix men.
as men it's more of this like hey guys like look at patriarchy look at this like you know the men control everything the white people are repressing us and like this idea does alienate people because you hear this and like you're like well even if you're not one of those people it's like oh well why are you being mean to me like you said like why are you pushing this on me and the reaction of like,
The concept of toxic masculinity becomes this like, oh, so being masculine is bad. Even though it's trying to describe the worst parts of masculinity, it's unfortunate that like people just hear that and they get turned off instantly. And it's like this overreaction from the left that causes an even more overreaction from the right to push.
I have a question. How come the toxic masculinity and patriarchy and white supremacy narratives don't exist in other countries to their dominant racial groups? Like in China, how come there's no like... left side of their political spectrum saying Han supremacy is bad and Chinese people are oppressors. I don't know specifically much about China. Do they not lock up dissidents to a degree there?
Oh, yeah. It's the point being like, where is their political movement calling out their moral or racial or ethnic supremacy? I don't know if there is one for like racial and moral. I mean, you can look at the concept of Taiwan or Hong Kong and these people kind of rebelling against the leader.
there but i can't speak background yeah i don't taiwan is the original republic of china it's it's a difference of political ideology sure but i think they consider themselves like different peoples right or maybe i don't know i'm not well the taiwanese are going to say they're taiwanese for sure
And China is going to say the Taiwanese are Chinese. My point is, in the United States, the only group with racial out-group preference are white liberals. Blacks, Asians, Latinos have a racial in-group preference.
And white conservatives have a racial in-group preference. White liberals have a racial out-group preference. You say out-group preference, like if you poll them, they're more likely to support their community than the party or something like that? No, they're more likely to support non-white people. Okay. And so white liberals are the only group that would support non-white liberals. So white, the racial out-group, meaning black people are more likely to vote for and support black people.
Latinos are more likely for Latinos, Asians for Asians, white conservatives for white people, and white liberals for any other race. Sounds like white liberals are the least racist people. I would argue that makes them the most racist. What, if we're willing to vote for anyone in our out group? No, it means they don't support white people. It means they have a preference. Oh, they specifically have an anti-white bias, you're saying? Yes.
Well, we call it racial outgroup preference. What I heard from that is like, oh, they're willing to support anyone other than specifically white people, which is kind of what my experience has been in like San Francisco. It's not. Let me be clear. There are people on like the fringe left. They're like, oh, fuck white men for sure. But for the most part, it's.
Just like, hey, I'll support anyone regardless of their politics. And that's kind of what that sounded like to me. Or at least maybe that was me projecting my experience onto what you were saying. Like progressive activists, one might say, are nuts. But they do hold a disproportionate amount of power among the liberal.
faction in this country, be the Democrats or otherwise. And then you see how they implement this in universities and at protests with the progressive stack. If you're a white man, shut up, sit down, don't speak. See, that's the thing is I experienced that right at the, the SJW college UCSD. Right. And I even took a gender studies class. They had like a requirement DEI class. Right. So like I thought like going in, I would watch, I would watch Tim pool. I would watch like.
anti-sgw content and i thought this was going to be like the wildest thing ever and going into that it was really just kind of tame like sometimes they would say some wild stuff but it was never like hey you're a white man sit down shut up if anything i was the guy talking in class the most like because i was the one who was more opinionated i wanted to
have these conversations I was really interested in like hey like this seems like an insane idea can I push back on it um like no one ever like marginalized me for being white at the worst there was maybe some rhetoric but that's kind of like my whole thing about this masculinity thing is yeah I get some bad coming at me, maybe some mean comments, but that's really the extent of it. I don't feel discriminated against, and why let that...
Why let that change like who I am in my politics and make me feel like it didn't make me feel like I couldn't be myself in the liberal party. Yeah, I mean, I would say that I know we all have our opinions and that's our prerogative, but we do live in a two-party system, which is to say that you have to at some point align yourself with whichever party you believe is going to be a better approximation of how you want the world to look.
I have complete respect for your opinions and your experience and you aligning yourself with progressives, maybe even voting for Democrats. But the problem is that when Democrats are in charge, whether that be expressly in political institutions or even culturally, you do see that demonization, which may be.
is caricaturized in something like a Gillette commercial. But even then, I mean, you can trace this back to growing up and you may not feel like a mean comment here or there is really like stripping you of some identity, but it is true that girls are encouraged. Boys are treated like they're defective.
girls. Girls are the example. You're supposed to behave and sit up straight and do all this. And boys are being plugged into this learning environment, which is frankly like alien to them in the way that boys tend to learn versus girls. And so a lot of them just check out. Like was the most progressive private middle school like you could ever like go to and like I was never shamed for being a boy
To be fair, I did a little rowdy stuff and I got in trouble for that, but it was never like, oh, you need to sit down and shut up like a girl. I'm a little confused. Right, but the fact is that males tend to have a more tactile learning basis. Like hands-on sort of stuff, yeah. Physical activity. things like that, a requirement for more physical activity. But the entire school system is, we give you seven hours of sit down and shut up and we give you...
half an hour of go run and play where boys probably need substantially more tactile learning. And so what John's saying is it's not that they're going to the boys and saying, you're a boy, you're bad. They're saying, behave.
in the way we've outlined. Right, which is against their nature is kind of the argument. It's just more feminine. It's more female-centric. It creates conditions which are going to make them less successful, and it tries to elevate women into being more successful, let alone to mention, you know, the things, all these programs, outreach, women and...
stem everything like that can we pause because like okay when you say they're going to be less successful i mean like this has kind of been how we've done schooling for decades right like this wasn't really born out in the past a hundred years that men were less successful because they were feminized. That's not, well, no, no, it's not, I guess you can say feminized, but, uh, well, that was what you guys were saying. Take a look at the last hundred years.
Quite literally, I think the argument would support that over the last hundred years of industrialized, institutionalized learning facilities, it has been to the detriment of men, and we can see that substantially. Men are more likely to... commit suicide. They don't live as long. They're more likely to be unemployed. Right now, especially in this generation, millennials and Gen Z, they're more likely to live at home with their parents, not have jobs, not go to university.
maybe yeah sure but if we're like it's a gradual 100 years and you talked about industrialization where it's like yeah i think just on a whole everyone is better off post like 1860s like invention of factories like the point is this city is like since we've implemented this this uh institutionalized learning industrialization, you've had a downward trend. And that doesn't mean it's the sole— What industrialized learning are you talking about? Industrialized learning is when—
Pre-Industrial Revolution, you had small school rooms sort of where it was— Yeah, like the schoolhouse with the one teacher and the 20 kids or whatever. And even then, it wasn't entirely that way. A lot of kids would just learn from their parents or through correspondence or through self-study or through their, you know, largely homeschooling.
You wouldn't say we're smarter, better off than that as a whole. I mean, I feel like most people are doing better, absolutely, than the 1850s learning. But we're not talking about technological advancement. We're talking about the structure of society. Yeah, I'm talking about life expectancy. Happiness, like all the other metrics. Technological advancement indeed has continued to go up, largely due to oil. Life expectancy is down, actually, in the 1850s.
No, maybe not from the 1850s, but quite recently, life expectancy has dipped, I think, in the last five or ten years or so, particularly for white men who have been so vilified unfairly. And what was the other one? Happiness. I don't know how you would quantify that. That is a hard one for sure. The general social survey.
Or, as Tim mentioned, suicide rates, that's a pretty good... No, no, no. I think it's quite simple. I mean, happiness is relative. It's subjective. And humans adapt. But the fact that we have a large portion of the younger generation of men...
their needs, not in an employment education and training, is indicative of a failure of our society towards men. Yeah. Women are more likely to go to university and graduate than men by like, what, it's like 60 to 60-40 now? But their suicide rates are up as well, right? I would say it's, I mean, men are better at everything.
So that's why we kill ourselves more because we're better at it and they're more likely to do I mean people always bring up gun deaths, right? Like I think half of them there's like 13,000 of them per year uh liberals will complain about this yeah most of them are suicides and like if you have a gun it's easier and women tend to do things like what like wrists off pills things that you can recover from and i think like it's one of those things where
people are unhappier in the trends right now because of what you're talking about because you look at your boomer dad and your gen x dad and it's like what the fuck like you got all these opportunities and i don't get any of these and there's all these expectations that's like what's the big lie of like just go to college you'll be successful and like i graduated college i
was one of the lucky ones a lot of people just didn't get jobs out of college they're struggling i can't afford a house the only people i know in my generation i'm 29 that have have a house are the two engineers that got married and even then they're not in california they're in like colorado they're in
you know, some other place where the cost of living is much easier. So like, I think this idea that this is because of the demonization of men is not nearly so borne out as it is people had this expectation of what life was supposed to be and it's just not happening and so all these like as a whole society in our generation is more unhappy because we're not we're not getting what we want we don't have the house we don't
So once again, the issue is if you're an 18-year-old white man and you grew up in a society... You've experienced no privilege. Why do you say that? No privilege. You don't have the Gen X privilege, right? You don't have that economy. But it's like, hey, like...
Because, again, I hate the word privilege here because it's like you don't feel the idea of black people or your cops are less likely to attack you. Because that's not right. Because what I would say is the challenge with what you're describing is it's based on class. for the most part.
with sometimes a racial component? I was reading a study actually from, I want to say this is, it's on a book called How Fascism Works, which is like the most liberal book I could have brought up here. But it was talking about the hiring practices of people who report themselves as... former convicts and it was like
Black versus white, not a former convict, black versus white, former convict. And for like the black who are not a former convict, the percentage of whether or not you get hired is already like 10 times lower or something ridiculously low. And then for the black convict level, even the white former convicts were getting like hired.
like a 10 to 5% higher rate. It does seem like there is at least this product of, and people call that privilege. I don't like that because if I'm a white guy not getting hired, I don't feel privileged, right? That's why I don't like the word. So the issue is there's not just a thing as white privilege.
That is a fact statement, not an opinion. What do you mean by that? Because what I just described is what people mean, but I think that's a bad word. Because when you're trying to determine any kind of like... fact basis in science we look for controls and when you look at any other non-white nation these concepts don't exist however we're a unique nation similar similar similar so if i finish the point that i'm trying to
to make, instead of you interrupting before the point can be completed, the Han Chinese, for instance, have an ethnic majority and supremacy, and they experience what one would define as a privilege. But it's not because it's white privilege. Yeah, it's Han privilege, sure. It's just majority privilege. A nation's ethnic and cultural majority tends to dictate what they want and what they expect. That will never go away nor change.
Well, I think it can change. You just described it. So the point that I was making... You're agreeing with the concept, which I... There's no white privilege. And if you are a Gen Z white man, you've never experienced such a thing. So when they say, you know, white guys would go and apply for a job, they'd get it. And now a 17-year-old white guy applies and they go, no white people, get out. And he goes, there's no privilege because there isn't. No white people?
I'm sure this has happened before, but is there a massive influx of people like, we don't hire white people? I mean, first of all, it's literally legal, right? It should be, but this is typically what the left supports. So we actually interviewed a pro skateboarder. I don't think people are, as a whole, supporting the idea of we can't hire white men. Absolutely. They're supporting the idea of, like, I worked at...
women in the S&P 100 or something. Boosting a marginalized group is not the same as saying no white men. If there are people that say you cannot hire white men, it is a matter of policy. It's illegal to hire white men. Wait, what? It's illegal to hire white men? If he started a company and all he were...
hiring were white men t-minus what until a lawsuit comes in they would be investigated you cannot start an s&p 100 company or some serious company without hiring at least some women some minorities so it's illegal to hire based on merit which yes in practice well that's not illegal to be hired
based on merit first of all because the idea that no because you're describing it like ah they just found a black woman on the street and they're like get in here right versus like hey when you look at a pool of qualified candidates you can't select one race which is a very different thing and it's not a zero-sum game you have a bunch of different slots
one slot and you're like for this one job you can't hire a white guy I think like the only thing that would ever make sense for that is if you're like casting for a show and this character is black right but it is a fact that this happens
That white guys are passed over. Right, but you're describing it as a phenomenon that is so widespread that every 18-year-old zillennial is experiencing this, which, at least in my experience, is like growing up in this progressive area, in the most progressive place on the planet. This is not happening. I'm not getting discriminated against.
for being white. Like I said, I'll get some insults here or there, but it's not like... That's called being discriminated against for being white, yes. Okay, sure, but not on an institutional level for jobs. How would you know? What are you comparing it to? I'm comparing it to like every other white person that I graduated with, like all the white people around me. Like none of these people are struggling. Generations don't experience the same thing as the other generation.
Like, literally, Gen Z men are struggling. I am in Gen Z, technically, and I grow up around, I hang out with a lot of younger people because I had a deferred college graduation. Would you agree that Gen Z men are struggling?
Yes, absolutely. But I don't think it's because of white men discrimination. I didn't say it was. It's a component. Yeah. The point is when the left comes out and says we want affirmative action in hiring and colleges and public contracting, the 17 or 18 year old white man is going.
Whatever it is you think boomers got, I don't have. I don't get. So when you create a racially discriminatory system, you have created a privilege for certain classes of people. Yeah, in that specific thing. Yeah, absolutely. And this is what I was talking about. even if like just for a second assume that the phenomenon that we both agree exists is called white privilege just because that's what people call it
It exists insofar as, like, yeah, this person might be preference in this specific area, or, you know, you might not just face the same problem as a black person here, but you don't experience white privilege. I don't believe that it exists. I don't feel the absence of something. You agree the majority group in control is going to have some sort of in-group preference for that same group. Which for the past 15, 20 years has been liberal left.
So they're white critical. To an extent. I mean, our country is not like a liberal left majority ruled by. When Jack Dorsey was in charge of X, for instance, if you post FBI crime stats, you'd get banned. I'm sorry, your example of whether or not white men or liberals are in control is just Twitter not allowing like...
Perhaps I could describe it as Facebook, YouTube, and Axe, the three largest social media platforms in the country and the world, banning people for posting fact data because it was deemed racist.
Yeah, but that's not just posting the fact data. If you're posting 1350 stuff, it's because you're trying to paint a greater narrative of, oh, black people have a crime gene or something. So you're not disagreeing with me? I'm saying that if you're using the example of, oh, look at our institutions and how they're overwhelmingly...
liberal if you're talking about social media yeah they were for a while i think that has since shifted obviously especially major cities institutions are liberal as well major cities yeah but if you're talking about like the country as a whole jobs like all these places this is not like everything everywhere like it is absolutely part of it 100
and like half the country sure is like liberal progressive not progressive liberal at the very least but the idea that like that is the same as saying like a white majority in group it's just not like borne out there's not like
I guess you might say certain people might discriminate against your politics in certain areas. Definitely in San Francisco, I've had people who are magalining at the least. But that is not the same as a white in-group preference that does exist in this country. There's not a debate on this issue. This is a fact statement. that we had Supreme Court hearings over as to liberal institutions not...
admitting, hiring white people. But that's not what I'm saying. You're saying, does this happen? I'm saying, yeah, obviously. I'm saying this is not the widespread concept of America, is this...
in-group privilege for white liberal progressives or liberal progressives. Like, I just don't think that's the case. No, it's anti-white. Sure. Liberal progressives being the... majority in-group in the same way you might say that america was a primary white in-group preference in like the 60s like that's there's not like a like that sort of thing going on like to the extent of like oh we're like the point the point being the left right now is penalizing young men for for something
they did not do. It's the sins of the father. Penalizing how? You talk about discrimination, which is true. Yeah, if you apply to go to Harvard, you have to score higher substantially than a Latino or black person to get in. That's called a penalization.
that sort of but again this is like they literally deduct against your score based on your race right and they do that for like asians the worst right too it's yeah yeah like there's like a whole lot about this did they get rid of that uh i think they technically Technically didn't.
They changed the way they went about it, which was another controversy. I don't know where the lawsuit ended up. It's been a while since we covered that one. But this is also one of the things where I'm like, I haven't gotten to finish this point. But the idea like you don't experience privilege is like you don't. You don't feel less detriment. You don't feel that.
ever felt more from it huh i've only ever felt more detriment exactly you only ever feel it when it's against you so like if someone is like oh like let's just say we're talking about the 1960s where like obviously you would assume like white privilege exists in the 60s right no no no
Okay. Well, I kind of know your politics. I don't want to get into it there. You couldn't marry someone who wasn't the same races. You couldn't live with them. Again, I don't like the concession of like, oh, my grandparents were the crazy ones, but I know better. It's like this has been a consistent trend.
And in the country's history, I'm literally just saying, was it not obvious that you had a harder life if you were black in the 60s? You can't say no to that. Come on. Actually, Derek Bell would disagree with you. I have no idea who that is. He's one of the founders of critical race theory.
He would say it was easier to be black in the 60s? His argument is that the end of segregation was a detriment to black people. Okay, I don't care. That sounds stupid. But the point I'm saying is obviously in the time— This is critical race theory. Yeah.
He works alongside Kimberly Crenshaw. They wrote the book on this stuff. The argument among the people who advocate the concept of white privilege is that separate spaces for black people, they call them POC spaces, are better. Yeah, same spaces. No, I experienced that. They don't call it safe spaces. basis the the argument was from Derek Bell that
They said Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong. He says there should be black-only schools. There should be black-only businesses. Okay, this guy sounds like a radical racist person. I don't like this person. But this is what you're describing. This is Critical Race Theory, the book. This is what the universities are teaching.
Derek Bell is a prominent thought leader on this. I didn't learn this in DEI course. I literally took gender studies. I didn't learn about Derek Bell, maybe, but I don't think this is what's the universal university. First of all, the fact that I am familiar with so many college people and no one has told me this before. I'm not saying this isn't real, by the way.
You haven't studied critical race theory. No, I'm saying this is not like the universally applied theory to most of these places. We're like, yeah, we need to segregate society. How much time have you spent in the black community?
A lot, actually. So during the Ferguson riots, for instance, and the Baltimore riots, they were circulating a letter, the teachings of Derrick Bell, advocating for a black-only community space. In fact, I think it was— But a black-only community space is different from— 1960s segregation, though. The argument predicated upon that before the end of segregation...
Black people had their own economy, their own Wall Street, their own wealth. Yes, I've heard this. It was better then, right? And what the argument they're making is, is that white supremacists, which had always been the Democratic Party, the party of the Klan and Jim Crow and slavery.
decided if we allow black people to establish their own economy, they will supplant us. What we need to do while they're still weak, force them by law to integrate with us so that our institutions will be over them. That is the critical race theory. view of what the end of segregation was. It was a ploy to subvert the black excellence kind of movement. They would have done better on their own. However you want to describe it, the point was...
The question asked by these critical race theorists, these black community leaders, is why did the Democrats do a 180 in a matter of four years? The Southern strategy? Some people try to make the argument that they were trying to win, but that doesn't change how an entire block of racists suddenly were not racist anymore. Did the racists become un-racist? The politicians themselves, yes. Like Robert Byrd and stuff?
evaporate from the political landscape, they just all of a sudden said, you know what? We agree. We're not racist anymore. Okay, sure. If the argument is that. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying that's the critical race theory argument. Sure. It seems kind of like a weird conspiracy theory, but the whole point I'm trying to...
to bring up is like look if we just talk about white privilege or privilege in general you don't feel privilege like I don't feel if I was a 1960s white guy I'm not like oh boy like there's no problems in my fucking life because I'm not you know forced to go into the left door instead of the right door and I
I don't have white privilege at all. I'm mixed race. Well, hold on. I mean, do you agree that if we're accepting the concept of white privilege in the 60s, that you don't feel privileged if you did have it then? You don't feel like, oh, everything's better. You just don't have it worse, right?
I think what I would say, just to clarify, is ethnic majority access is probably a better way to put it. Sure, sure. And you don't feel that until it's gone, right? And that's kind of what's happening on the left with men, where it's like we had a big in-group preference for so long, and now... because we're focusing on all these other groups.
i'm not getting the focus me white men big muscular guys people discriminate against me insofar as they're like oh like is that guy here to invade my space i've been in like they would go to these like feminist talk circles and in college and they'd be like what are you doing here you know they give me looks because they're like you're
You're not like us. You don't look like us. And that feels like, oh, well, shit, because we've focused and put the spotlight on these people who never did have it before, now I don't have it. It feels like something's been taken away from me. That's just the same problem regurgitated for a new generation. Right, right, right. just saying choosing anyone based on race is the problem
I'm saying that feels alienating, and I understand why men are not drawn to that, especially when the right offers them something like, hey, we're not doing that. It's just as simple as that. The left is basically going like, hey, look at that problem. Let's do the exact same thing again.
i think it happens sometimes but i don't think it's the exact same thing for example like you talked about if you have a black only community space i don't think that is the same thing as much as i say you don't need to have that necessarily like you can absolutely have white people you're working in your community towards the common goal i don't think there's
them because they're like, oh, we hate white people, we don't want them there. It's because they specifically want to hyper-focus the conversation on people who understand the problem because they're from that community and then spread those ideas to other places because it's not this exclusive segregating thing. You think it would be good if... Like we took a major city, say Chicago, and then made all the races live in race specific areas.
No, that— You kind of do that already now, actually. That's the point. Yeah, it kind of already happened. That's actually the structure. The level of segregation as it exists now is actually greater than it was even in the 60s pre the outline of that. That might be neighborhood segregation, but we're talking about—
hey you can't go in the same bar right yeah but but do you know very well hold on over the other you're from san francisco yeah i gotta you know i want to make this proposal to you but i also i don't want to be responsible for your death Are you telling me to go to a gay bar and I'll get... No. I'd like to bring you to K-Town. Okay. And see how long you last. Why would I... I'll kill you. You'll just die because you're white. Okay.
i mean that's because people killing people because they're white is bad yeah i don't know right the the point being that In racism and these these privilege and these things you describe are just like I feel like it's largely white people standing on a hilltop looking around being like, look how great we are. We're so great. How come it's so good for us? Why are we so great? These poor.
minorities, and then, like, take a stroll through a black neighborhood in Chicago and see what happens. You know, to be fair, like, Hyde Park is super nice. Is that not an indication? Because everyone is mad at white people all the time for no reason. Adjacent to the data you mentioned earlier about...
versus outgroup there's data even showing how races rank each other if you look at how white people rank themselves relative to other races it's pretty much a straight line if you look at how black people rank themselves it's the first every other race not so much white people last you need white boy magic same
Same thing with Hispanics, same thing with Asians. They all like themselves the most and dislike white people the most. And so that creates a problem when you have these communities. Like you're saying, if you walk through, I know you mentioned in the car you were Jewish, but if you walk through and they identify you as a white guy, that's going to be a problem in these neighborhoods.
And so why that is, I mean, do you really think that this education— Would you think if I said stop, I'm Jewish, they wouldn't kill me? No, I don't think they understand sort of the problem there. But I would say that— If you're in New York and you said stop, I'm Jewish, you'd get—
They'd kill me extra. Have you seen what's been going on in New York? Oh, I saw the thing that happened at that... Well, it's called the Knockout Game. And what you have is... Oh. Yeah, black men, teenagers, have been going around New York attacking Jewish people.
Wow. That's been going on for, I remember that was an Obama era thing as well. But the point I was trying to make there is if we can agree that say minorities are not getting the same access to education that white students are, which maybe I would disagree with, but let's pretend that's the case. Then this education they're getting, which a lot of...
conservatives would say is making them hate America and all this stuff isn't quite landing with them the same way. They're not getting A's on tests about all the evil white people who are mean to their grandparents, yet they're still doing things like the knockout game. Did you go to college? Is that what they're teaching? Because I literally took a gender studies class. They're not teaching.
you that white men are evil like they still have the coolest things that they taught me in that was about you know cointelpro like that whole program like the anti-civil rights like fbi okay so even better they're not teaching that but still the races are reporting these attitudes and how they feel about white people versus other races
And so what that would suggest is that, as Tim said, there is some sort of like anti-white cultural, maybe anti-majority cultural narrative that is predominant and that young people are recognizing and they are responding to. They are responding to other people's reaction towards their existence.
away from that right I agree with you completely oh that's this is what I'm talking about where it's like this narrative of hey these people have been in power so long and these injustices were caused by this group in power that's framed as oh I'm bad because I'm white and what I'm saying is I went through that
thing i went into the the trenches of the gender warfare and i didn't come out thinking like oh i'm bad because i'm white i'm bad because i'm a male i just thought oh yeah like people in the past did things and i don't have guilt for things i never did and i'm just recognizing like the historical things that might have happened that might have caused these
groups to suffer that's fine like that didn't cause me to leave the left and i'm not saying there's no reason to because some people do come out of that and they're like i feel demonized i understand that 100 my
I guess all of branch of those people is like, why let that change your policy? If these people aren't actually discriminated against you, they're just at worst kind of being annoying. Like that's really just been my experience. And it's like, that didn't make me less liberal. It didn't make me less progressive. It's just like, Oh, okay. Like I don't, I don't.
feel guilt when they're like oh we're talking about slavery and white people did slavery it's like okay i just simply not sure i'll put it this way on the on the race stuff chicago is deeply segregated by choice Yeah, that happens in most cities. But it is enforced to one degree by law. So where I grew up, if you crossed 47th from the south to the north, you went from a largely white, somewhat Hispanic...
neighborhood into an all black neighborhood. And if you did, you get stopped by the cops and they detain you and they usually drive you back. Is it because they're like, hey, this isn't safe and we're protecting you? No, because they said the only reason white boys come up here is to buy drugs, so you're leaving right now. Okay, but that's not...
legally enforced segregation that's a stereotyping... I said largely enforced by the law, which I meant the cops. I get what you're saying, but that's a pattern of behavior that they're trying to... The inverse, however, was that... There were several gangs of teenage black girls from north of 47th who would cross down to the south and then mug and rob young girls in the white neighborhood and the police. It became a huge issue with the local government.
And the cops were like, look, we can't do anything about it because if we stop these girls before they commit the crime, we're racist. So we're going to let them keep going. However, the problem is after they've already committed the robberies and the muggings and we know it is a gang. Well, then they're gone. What can we do? So it just kept happening in our neighborhood. This created... So it's like people choose to live near the races they choose, but this created pure racism.
Yeah, that's bad. I think those cops should have arrested the people doing crimes. They can't. Oh, they should. But it's racist. It's not racist to arrest people who's mugging someone. How do you arrest someone after they've been mugged and the gang splits up and you don't know who did the mugging?
I mean, you could stop people. They're like, hey, don't get me wrong. This does get applied in poor ways where it's like, hey, a black guy robbed me. And then they stop like every 30 black people. But like if you give a description of a suspect, you got to go stop them. I completely agree.
That's why I've always been a big supporter of stop and frisk. I think cops need to go and stop as many of these black people who fit descriptions as possible and search them in case they're the ones who committed the robbery, right? If you're responding to a crime, I think that's very different from just stopping random people that look suspicious on the street all the time. like they did in New York. But if someone fits a description, the cop should stop and frisk him, right?
You mean if they have absolutely no other reason to other than, hey, can you really question you? No, no, no. If they fit a description for a crime, the cops should stop them and frisk them. I don't know if the rule is that you're allowed to just immediately search them, but if they fit the role of a crime and they want to stop them and ask them. Cops can pat down, but they can't put their hands in your...
pockets or bag, they're allowed to feel the outside. And if they feel an object that they believe is a weapon or contraband, then they can probably cause it. I can see ways of it being abused, but again, if the idea is the... The dichotomy between not being able to stop a criminal suspect and frisking everyone on the street, I guess I don't want no one to be able to be searched. The issue that arises is you get activist groups.
that claim it is racism, white supremacy, because too many black people are being stopped. Yeah, well, that's the thing. Stop and frisk specifically was shown to be extra discriminatory, especially because the majority of the people, they were...
stopping and frisking weren't committing crimes so it was just harassing kind of people versus what you just talked about which is hey five people just committed a crime uh this kind of black person meets the description and then they go stop people i think these are very different situations certainly and the political climate is such
that in our neighborhood, the aldermen, the mayor, the police, they were like, I am not going to be the person who has to run for office and explain why we're stopping young black girls. I'm not getting involved in that. I don't want to be a racist. That is an indication of, I would say, over-progressive correction. That's what we're arguing against.
Right. But OK, here's the thing. If you say toxic masculinity is an overcorrection for like, you know, the patriarchy of men ruling for so long or women being discriminated against, like, yeah, I can see places where that has gone too far.
where it's like, oh, men are evil, kill all men. You see there's like super radical feminists, but like this isn't a majority of that movement. And I think that the concept of calling out something like a toxic masculine person shouldn't be alienating to someone who like, I don't know, I think I embody a lot of traditional Catholic, not Catholic. masculine traits except for the beard and this hasn't forced me out of wanting these progressive policies. That's all I'm saying.
Again, that's the problem here is like we were talking about education and crime. And on the one hand, it may just be an experience in a college classroom where some kid says something silly and everyone's like, OK, dude, whatever. But these kinds of people are those who grow up to end up being district attorneys who simply.
refuse to prosecute crimes and who are installed by wealthy progressives who are radical. And that's pretty much the story in almost every major city in the country. And you can hear these anecdotes about like women robbed at gunpoint on video and the crime doesn't get prosecuted for whatever reason. It literally happened to my mom in Detroit. They had this guy dead to rights on camera.
Robbed her at gunpoint and then got into a luxury sedan, which was crazy because I was always told that these people were impoverished. And then he was identified actually on the television, local news, by his parole officer. They bring the guy in. They've got him. And then some person just didn't submit some document in enough time.
time. And so unfortunately they couldn't get this guy. He ended up getting arrested two years later because he sexually assaulted a minor with a gun. And then now he's in prison for like decades. But then my mom had lunch with some woman who lives in one of the suburbs that these people...
flee to because they're just so crazy making this stuff up about what happens in minority neighborhoods. And she was like, yeah, that's the story. If anything happens to you in Detroit, they just won't prosecute if the victim is white. I got a question. It's like a question for this whole debate. be it race or gender or whatever, is it bad to discriminate against a person based on their immutable characteristics? Depends on how you're doing it, right? So that's a no.
It depends on how you're doing it. Well, no, because if you say, if I say it's not bad to discriminate, when people hear discriminate, you think of the historical examples of like the 1960s. Let's try this again. We discriminate all the time for various things. Are there any acceptable circumstances where it is okay to discriminate? on the basis of immutable characteristics. Yeah, 100%. Doctors do it all the time. Would you agree? Yeah.
Okay. Yeah, if I say, hey, I have a gynecologist, and the gynecologist is like, I'm an expert in looking at vaginas, and it's like, okay, I'm discriminating. All my patients are people with vaginas. That's an immutable characteristic. That's what discrimination is.
is the problem is discrimination is a dirty word which is why like it's actually illegal to say i'm only a gynecologist can only inspect vaginas uh so if a trans woman went to a gynecologist and was denied service trans women with a vagina Well, they don't have vaginas. Well, yeah, but it was like a plastic, like, petite one, or like... But that's still not a vagina.
Well, whatever it is, like if the gynecologist is able to assess the medical needs of that, then I think they should also do that. The issue where we're going with the Civil Rights Act is that... One of the arguments we've seen from LGBTQ groups is the end of gender segregation much like we saw the end of racial segregation. The argument they've been making for some time now is that
We used to have white and black bathrooms or I think it was white and colored because colored could be not just, you know, it could be any kind of mixed race or anything. And so the argument made by trans rights activists is that gender segregation. Under the exact same law that banned racial segregation, there should be no men's and women's rooms. Okay, wait, but take a step back. If you are against that, then you're for discrimination against an immutable characteristic, which...
Is what I was saying is like, yeah, I'm in favor of that. That's all I'm saying is like, yeah, the phrase I'm in favor of discrimination means so many things and people are going to attach the oh, so you want to. be racist and not, hey, like, certain things are immutable. Yeah, I wasn't asking about discrimination as a gotcha or anything. I was asking, like, we're trying to figure out how policy and law should be applied to people. Okay. Where do we all...
on the issue of choosing to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. The reason being, the law says you cannot. Well, it totally depends on the context. No, no, no, no. The law literally says you cannot. No, no, no. Okay, look. The 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sure. And for years after that, we had affirmative action, which is discriminative.
on like you know positive or negative discrimination based on an immutable characteristic and you can be for or against that but that was not illegal until the supreme court ruled on it recently right so but but this is
The 1964 Civil Rights Act bars the discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, religion. When you say discrimination, that word means so many more things than just I am not allowing someone to do something because of their race, gender. Discrimination is something that you're like, I am just.
distinguishing someone based on something right that could be a positive discrimination that could be a negative discrimination like if i again this is an example if you want to hire a black person for a role to play a black person in a movie that is positive discrimination i'm saying hey everyone who's not black you can't be here but that's totally legal right that's not that's actually i i i i do see what you're saying i think legally that is excluded from discrimination
Sure, but it is discrimination. That's what I'm saying. Maybe the word legally means something else, but discrimination just means I'm literally discriminating. I understand what you're saying. For the purpose of what we're talking about in – like if someone said I'm going to hire a bartender –
And then a white guy came and said, you get out of here. Like, we would say that's just racially discriminatory. It's racial discrimination, yeah, based on race, right. So I agree with you on the distinct semantics of the term. I do not think that if a movie studio said...
We have a character. He's a black man. And then a white guy shot up like, you don't fit. That's not discrimination. That is. Yeah. Maybe colloquially people would say, well, that makes sense. But that is literally racial discrimination. The role discriminated.
The choice of actor. You're saying you're white so you can't do this role, which is to play a black guy. That's racial discrimination. My point being the creation of the role was the creation of the discrimination. Sure. And that is also that specific kind of discrimination is OK, which is why I was.
hesitant to say of course there are discriminations that are okay uh it's a very wide spectrum yeah i think we also have a big challenge um you know so like here's a question for you guys uh If one racial group is committing more violent crimes than another, then should police use that as a determined factor in whether or not they would find someone suspicious?
No, I don't think so. I don't even think that you would need to take it that far. If police were simply allowed to do their job, so any reasonable person would want them to, then we would see less crime and we would see more people in jail. The problem is less crime might be acceptable, but more people in jail makes a lot of people very...
uncomfortable. Activist groups, media organizations, things of that nature. So that's why you have like predictive policing is very controversial because AI will look at neighborhoods where crime is more likely to take place, finds out these neighborhoods maybe have a higher representation of minorities, and they say, well, we should probably police these.
neighborhoods a little bit more. That has nothing to do with the fact that the AI is, you know, programmed to be wearing a Klan hood. That existed before AI, too, right? Like, these neighborhoods are already policed more because of the crime that is there, right? Exactly. Which should happen. Well, the problem is, one, you've got to look at, like...
Like, all right, which crimes are actually being followed up on? Like, there's plenty of white-collar crime that no one ever does. And if you look at, like, drug usage, right, even not white-collar crime, it's pretty similar between races. But they do go into the communities where it's more of, like, a perceived problem there. And that might play into...
arrest statistics that might play into incarcerations. Yeah, obviously, they should go where the crime is. I think the problem is you're assuming that all the arrest data is this like infallible like oh yeah like they're only arresting the people that are doing the crimes and not like there are specific areas that are targeted and some would say over policed i think women shouldn't be allowed to be firefighters
Even if you look at... I'm actually largely kidding. I think the average... So, I mean, in terms of fighting fires, women, it's completely... I'm actually joking. My point largely is we have... These affirmative action policies that you end up with like a 5'5", 120-pound woman as a firefighter, which is just the stupidest thing imaginable. What's her job, right? Is she the person that has to go in and carry the life? Fighting the fires, I'm saying.
Right, right. But like firefighting means a lot of things. Are you holding the hose? Are you chopping a door down? Are you carrying? It doesn't matter. Well, it does matter. It doesn't. Yeah, yeah. At any moment, anyone responding to an emergency is going to have to be able to handle any one of these jobs. If you've got a team of 10 firefighters and you've...
got six capable people of carrying a 300-pound obese man out of a tank. And there's seven people. And four of them can't. Like, I don't think that means this team is somehow less effective. Like, if these four people can do the jobs that are... Agreed. Fat men shouldn't be allowed to be firefighters, either. No, fat men shouldn't be...
allowed to be saved because it discriminates against women. The problem is they lower the qualifications. I do think that's the logical conclusion of the left. What? You think actually? If they're choosing to hire five foot five women to do fire rescue and there's a morbidly obese man, they're like.
Women can't carry them. That's his fault for discriminating. I have a few friends that are like 5'5 Asian women with no muscles, and they actually do a pretty good job of being EMTs. However, obviously... That's a very different job. Well, yes, but they do have to carry very fat people is what I'm saying. And what I'm saying is, look, if you have a...
team of firefighters and one of them is not capable of lifting the 300 pound man up if you could show me that this was less effective overall like this is causing all these fat people to burn to death because hey this person can't carry him sure okay but it seems like there's a team of people they all have different responsibilities There's enough people that can do that heavy lifting thing, and I don't think they should lower the requirements for people if everyone is...
actually legally required to be able to do that but if it's like hey you're carrying the hose or hey like you're getting the ladder up like so the issue the issue tends to be and the reason i bring it up is that what happens is the progressives will look at the outcome And then determine the system is sexist. So they'll say, hey, hold on. How come only 7% of the fire department in the city is female? They're clearly discriminating for some reason.
They then look through it and they say the discrimination comes from the job requirements, which is you've got to carry a 150-pound duffel bag over your shoulder through a simulated burning building, and women tend not be able to do that. So we have to change the threshold so that it's fair for all people. If that's what they're doing, I would just—
agree with that i mean like yeah if they're if they're it's like the the navy seals example always brings up where it's like why are there no women navy seals and it's like well if they can't fucking pass the test you know most men can't pass that test they shouldn't be navy seals you shouldn't lower the requirements for some arbitrary like uh equality of outcome
But if it's, hey, these women on this job as firefighters can do these jobs that they're allocated to and this doesn't affect the performance, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I think the requirement to be a firefighter should be the first test. You got to open a pickle jar. Do you have one? You walk in and then they're like, you're applying for a job. Here's one pickle jar. And if you can't open it.
get out. Yeah. That's the problem. I agree. And I think any firefighter would agree too. If like, you know, you're all there, you're a unit doing jobs. I don't care if this woman maybe doesn't like bench what I bench, but they do lower the requirements, whether it's for firefighters, police officers, you have one requirement for the men, one requirement for the.
women taking into account things like lower strength levels, lower endurance levels, perhaps. And if I were really sexist, I would say, I don't know if women even have the temperament to do these jobs, and maybe I would want to discriminate on that, but I'm more of an open-minded guy than that. You have to be not.
emotional to stop a fire i think in situations of high stress there is a sort of consideration that maybe you wouldn't want i mean i've seen a lot of videos for example of uh women making arrests and they panic and they pull a taser and shoot a guy and they go a lot of videos of guys doing that too and they're like oh my
god a black guy and they just unload a mag into him that's like not what happens i've seen it happen i think there's a lot like women are like less temperamental is like i don't know we just saw like the two most powerful men in the world have a bitch fit on like the internet yesterday like i don't know again you're comparing a situation where lives are on the line versus like two guys who are just like having a twitter fight or whatever the big beautiful bill lives are on the line i will say
So we don't have to deviate from that. The point being, to achieve this outcome where we can have an inclusive firefighting department or something does, as we see, require actually lowering those standards, which if people want fires to be fought properly, we can't have. So this has happened, right? You're saying they've already lowered the standards? Yes. some phenomenon of like fires not getting put out the way they should be because of this like I
I've never heard of that, if that's the case. You know, I spent some time at a fire station, actually. That's not what I asked about your time at a fire station. Well, what he's talking about is this instance of where people just seem to be taking the job less seriously, standards are being lowered, you have more accidents, things like that occurring.
are getting hurt and I don't expect the media to necessarily pick up this story because it would be incompatible with this idea of you know inclusivity but they just like lie let's just let's just be real like there's a trend of people putting up viral videos of female cops struggling to arrest like
teenage guys oh yeah and they're getting roasted for it yeah if their job is if they're incapable of doing the job because of their physical strength i don't think they should have that job and like there are plenty of cops i've seen their examples right those are examples there are people that are like heavily over viral fire
you know what i mean like yeah but if there was this some crazy phenomenon of fires not getting put out and there's like they you know there'd be a fucking there's lots of videos of fire being put out i would imagine you'd see one of like you know some woman trying to hold the hose and she can't like sprays it out and the house burns down or something right like this
Yeah, yeah, exactly like that that you would see that happen as well and like yeah if you can't meet the requirements of the job and you can see the detriment to that of like hey like a rat like cop You know interactions are getting worse because women are so scared and they're just shooting them or something like you know like yeah, I
would say you need to stop hiring people that aren't good at their job. The problem is I don't think this is like a female phenomenon. Because the technology with fighting fires has probably evolved to make it more automated than like with policing. So you can probably have weaker females operating these things.
and it's fine point the hose but if you've got them policing they're an autonomous body against another autonomous body it's like like you say i mean you see these videos and they just are simply incapable of executing where even a fat cop it's like a guy can use his mask sort of to his advantage
Yeah, but the guy gets away. Yeah. It depends on what, you know. I'm going to sit on you. Look at these examples of like, okay, this woman freaked out and shot a guy. And I probably agree. Like, yeah, she's a bad cop, right? But if you're like, first of all, I come from a nice neighborhood. And it's like, okay, can a female.
cop stop a skateboarder from going into a place he's not supposed to be yeah whatever like this is very different from what do you mean oh you mean like physically if like three teenage boys could probably overpower like as a as a skateboarder who has hopped many a fence ain't no way lady cop stopping me sure but like this is not going to turn into a physical interaction this is going to be like oh shit the cops like let's get out of here right like they're just enforcing that
So I have I have stories from my friends where they were like on a rooftop. And when the cops pulled up because it was a company, they ran to the side of the building and jumped 10 feet to a telephone pole and climbed down and ran away. OK, right. But that would work against a fat cop or a guy cop who couldn't catch up with you either. My point is that.
If you're doing low-stakes crime stuff that's not involving a bunch of physical altercations, this isn't some reason to bar women from ever being cops. It depends on what the job is. And I 100% agree. If she can't do the job, like in these videos, then she shouldn't be a cop. That goes for everyone, not just a woman.
There's a couple of ways that people look at the political landscape. There's revolutionaries. There's moderates, reformers. There's accelerationists. I don't like the word accelerationist. There's got to be a word for... Where you just want to sit back and watch as liberals politically immolate themselves and just like roll with it. Conservatives don't like this because of their moral framework.
They're like, it is bad that liberals enact things and do things that are detrimental. But as someone like me who like, I actually am more of a liberal guy, I can just look at liberals and be like,
Yeah, that's going to destroy your way of life and your society. But I quite frankly don't care because you'll cease to exist in 20 years anyway. So what kind of liberal are you? You know, like in the Civil War movies, like what kind of American are you? What kind of liberal would you say? Traditional.
What is that? My vibe from watching what I have, and I'll grant you this, I don't watch a lot of your show. I watch pieces, and I probably watch a lot of clips that are out of context, but it really seems like you mostly align with right-wing stuff, even if your morons don't. right-wing like you voted for Trump in 2020, right? So what does the vote of a person mean for your policies, your politics, and your— Well, that you agree with the policies— Is Tulsi Gabbard a liberal or conservative?
Right now, she's conservative. She used to be insofar as- Is R.K. Jr. a liberal or conservative? Hold on. Let's talk about Tulsi Gabbard, right? She had a very big right-wing shift. She was someone who was, what was it, in 2017? Fossil fields, right? She was like a green person. She was more environmentalist.
Now she's with a party that's promoting fossil fuels that doesn't do these green initiatives. She is moved to the right. It's not as if the left shifted around her. But that's a question of fact, right? Right. She is more right-wing now. What I'm saying is, like, you're asking about someone advocating for a fuel source. Right. So is your argument that right and left don't define...
political philosophies. A left-wing person is more likely to support some sort of Clean Energy Act. Tulsi Gabbard used to do that. She's no longer doing that. That is a shift to the right. Right. So the question I'm asking you is you define left and right not based on... Based on policies. It's not based on philosophies. It's based on fact, like worldview. Based on the policies that they support. Is RFK Jr. a liberal?
I think he was kind of like a crackpot, slightly environmentalist person, but he's never been like a prominent liberal Democrat. And now he's supporting the... anti-vax crowd i guess so i guess my question is i'm trying to ask you like when when like how do you define liberal and conservative yeah based on the policies so like progressive policies environmentalism like
Well, that's why I'm asking you. If you vote for Trump, what policies of his do you support that are liberal policies? Getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. No new wars. Those aren't liberal policies. Getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. What do you mean Bill Clinton led the charge on waste, fraud, and abuse? Saying that we should make something better is not the same as, hey, let's cut the entirety of the education department and the USA. Is Bill Clinton a liberal?
Bill Clinton is a liberal, but he would not do what I just described, which is what Trump is doing. So this isn't the same thing. Getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, cutting back on the load. You can say vaguely, I think we should make things more efficient. Probably everyone would agree with that. But when you see what it's borne out in the Trump administration, that's very different from what Bill Clinton did. Like, these are not the same things at all. He did a lot more, yeah.
No, he didn't do a lot more. You can say he made things more efficient, but this is not the same thing as I cut the entire Department of Education. I'm cutting USAID. These aren't the same thing. You can't umbrella these as, oh, this is the same kind of policy, especially when the policy is so vague as I'm making... something more efficient so uh traditional liberal uh not classical liberal classical liberals like lock and you know they're more like libertarians
Traditional liberal as a political term tends to describe the Democrat view from the 90s, which was abortion, pro-choice, safe, legal, rare, secure borders, no illegal immigration, workers' rights, workers' protections, and cutting the size of government. When you say no illegal immigration, like...
what do you mean like like let's pick some of these like in the 1980s right like ronald reagan and george w bush hw bush i think are arguing about like uh illegal immigration i think the question at this town hall for this or this debate was like hey what do we do for the kids of illegal immigrants
look up this video and it's like they're kind of almost like out liberal in each other one says like look i don't like the idea of illegal aliens in my country but these kids are here and i don't want to deprive them of this education i don't want them to be seen as criminals like this is the republican party in the 80s saying i support at least The Republican Party up to 2015 was for open borders.
Not open borders. That's a very different thing. These people are like, we need to secure our borders and we need to do something for these illegal people here. But I don't want to, like, you know, get rid of them. I'm not talking about the 80s. I said traditional liberal. But this is Republicans.
Past the 90s. And you're saying you're a Democrat from the 90s. The Democrats were more liberal than the Republicans were in the 80s. But you're not. In the 90s. You're voting for the guy who says mass deportation now. In 2008, Hillary Clinton called for a border wall. Okay.
I'm not talking about the 80s. Having a border wall is very different from, hey, let's deport every single election. Barack Obama was called the deporter-in-chief. Yes, and he also did DACA. Like, do you support DACA? No. Why not? Because you're an illegal immigrant and you're not violent. So you don't support Democrats from 20 years ago.
No, I think it's like the idea that you would support literally everything everyone does all the time is a weird cultist mentality. No, sure. I'm not asking you to do that. I'm saying your politics align with Trump today because Trump is a right winger. He's not a liberal. So Trump was called a moderate when he first ran. Okay. He is politically moderate to this day. In what way?
Uh, well, he got a lot of flack from- What is politically moderate about mass deportations? What is politically moderate about like- Look at what other regimes have done to illegal aliens throughout history. I'm talking about America today. Barack Obama was the deporter in chief. He's not- In fact, liberals right now- He did not advocate for mass deportations of-
every single illegal in the country. And liberals right now are bragging about how Joe Biden deported more than Donald Trump is. He did DACA. This is completely different. Joe Biden deported more than Donald Trump? Probably, yeah, if you look at the statistics. Well, first of all, we're in the first six months. His idea is...
the platform that he ran on that you voted for did you vote in 2024 for trump as well he was hey let's get rid of every single illegal immigrant that is not obama's policy that's not Joe Biden's policy, that's not liberalism from the 90s. It's not liberalism from the 2000s. You're isolating like a single point and saying that hereby determines- Okay, well, let's move on to another point that calls you a liberal. This is why I say the left is cults.
This is a cult. It's like... I'm just asking, what makes you a liberal? I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-progressive tax. But then you voted for Trump, who's trying to get rid of abortion everywhere. J.D. Vance said, I want to make it illegal nationwide. And Donald Trump got tremendous flack from the pro-life...
side who were saying trump is not pro-life in 2016 sure no in 2024 they said he's not pro-life enough yes and and they were saying don't vote for him okay and now the party that you voted for is attempting to well okay john do you want abortion to be legal like across the whole country Yeah. I think it's a majority of the Republican Party is majority for illegal in all cases. That's not actually. You ever hear of a moderate?
So I know what a moderate is. I'm saying that you're voting for the party that wants to illegal... So what? Well, because that's not a liberal position. You're voting for the people that want to get rid of abortion. Voting is not a political philosophy. It's who you choose to best represent your views. If you vote for Trump and then call...
yourself a progressive i'd be like in what way and then you say well my views are all this but i'm voting for the party which will materially make all these things the opposite of what i want how are you a progressive because my biggest priority is probably anti-intervention okay
I'm going to say it again. Y'all are cult. What was cult issue about what I just said? Like you can't. So I'm a reformer, not a revolutionary. And I say this all the time because the left is a cult. That means Trump does bad things. And I go, yeah, well, you know, like.
I'm going to win here, here, here, and here, and I'm a reformer, and I want those reforms more than I care about other things. That tends to be the average voter, largely on economics and immigration. The left is like, but how could you possibly vote for Trump if one thing is bad? Well, it's not one thing. I'm asking which liberal policy...
So the neocons my whole life were pro-intervention and pro-war. Yeah, Iraq war. And I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but he didn't start new wars and he set timeline for withdrawal from Middle East. During a withdrawal, indeed. Right.
The withdrawal. The reason why Donald Trump escalated drone strikes was because we were pulling troops out of the Middle East. Sure, but he killed more people in that area with drones and changed the reporting and changed the report. Okay, are you anti-interventionalist because you are afraid of like the death and the destruction? Or are you just like, oh, we shouldn't be located here? I can be in America and I can send missiles into another country. Donald Trump's policies in his first term.
extending even to now, have been the gradual rescinding of US military might in foreign entanglements. I'd say mostly that checks out. And that was the liberal position. for 30 years of my entire life and every protest I ever attended, and now the Democrats are pro-war. Pro-war? Oh, come on. How much do you want to give Ukraine?
That's not pro-war. Hold on, let me get an example. I'm not like a pacifist, but I never in my life hope to ever kill anyone. However, if someone breaks into my house, I'll blow them away. If someone invades the United States, I will join the military in two seconds. a war to say hey we don't want new wars to start however if russia invades ukraine then we should give them like money or weapons to stop that from happening that's like a defensive for war why is that for war
Because we didn't get started. It's not like America's like go commit war here. I love this. Let's try this gentlemen A foreign nation 12,000 miles away has invaded one of their bordering neighbor states of 29 million people. We need to send special forces, military training, attack them missiles. We need to provide intelligence. We need to sink the flagship of their Black Sea fleet and make sure they win this war.
And we're going to make sure American PMCs are on the ground aiding them. And I'm like, y'all are pro-war. Why is that pro-war if we want to help an ally when a war was started by anyone else? Ukraine's not an ally. They're not an ally of ours. They've never been a formal ally of NATO or the United States. Yeah, so they're not in NATO. That doesn't mean we don't support their common goals. That doesn't mean like officially we scribed it like on this. What should we do?
If a nation we are not aligned with bombs our energy distribution lines. Are you talking about the Nord Stream Pipeline stuff? I'm asking you a basic question. If an enemy or a friendly nation does it? I didn't say friendly nation. If an enemy nation does it? I didn't say enemy nation. If just a nation. did that if a nation bombed one of our distribution systems for our allies energy yeah what should we do uh it depends on why they did it
Because if you're talking to cut off our access to energy. Yeah. So like the idea of this concept of like I think the theory is that Ukraine did it to escalate our tensions with Russia so that we would support them more. Like that's the theory behind that. Right.
Like, and we should, if that's the case that, yeah. I asked you a question about if a nation. We both know what we're talking about, right? We're talking about the question and then we'll carry on. Yeah. If the case is that they did that, if that's what ended up happening, it's like, oh, okay. Like this country tried to sabotage us to make us do. something. That's probably a bad thing. And that's what Germany is accusing Ukraine of doing.
Germany's accusing Ukraine of the Nordstrom thing, right? Germany has issued an arrest warrant for one Ukrainian who they said was accompanied by two other Ukrainians to bomb the Nordstrom pipeline for the purpose of cutting off NATO access to energy so that Russia...
would stop getting the resources from Europe, which benefits them. I don't want to say the singular source funds the war, but it provides them with resources in war. So Ukraine attacked a NATO ally because they were trying to cause harm to Russia. I don't know if we know this is fact, and this is... That's fine. You know what? I don't care. I care. Our ally asserted it, and we should be aligned with NATO, not Ukraine.
If Germany asked us, hey, can you, first of all, Germany supports Ukraine, but if Germany said, hey, can you punish them for this, then I think that maybe we should listen to Germany if they did that. The idea that we should pull out of Ukraine because of this thing. How is this pro-war? We should not be involved in some other country's war.
They're not an ally of ours. They literally are an ally of ours. No, they are not. That's fake news. They literally, we helped them sign the agreement to give up their nuclear bombs. That's a memorandum, not an alliance treaty. Just because you legally didn't write the word ally down doesn't make it.
that, hey, we did not promise a security guarantee for you. There is something from a formal treaty alliance we do not have with Ukraine. Are you saying that if we make a promise to a country? You're pro-war. You're pro-war. Bro, you are in favor of foreign war.
And our involvement in it. Yes or no? I am in favor of defending a country that was attacked by another country if that country had security guarantees. Well, I know you're not. You're pro-war. Why is that pro-war? Do you think the U.S. should be involved in Ukraine's war?
Yes. Okay. We gave them security guarantees. The liberal position... Wait, hold on, hold on. Let's talk about NATO. If Germany gets attacked by Russia tomorrow, do you think we should defend them? Yes. Okay, are you pro-war? If our alliance... Yeah. is attacked by an enemy nation. Yeah, we're going to send American troops. They're all going to get shot by the Russian troops. Is that pro-war? Because that's our guarantee that we will go defend them. It's not.
Like, I don't know how y'all can't grasp this. Why is that not pro-war? Ukraine is not an ally of this country, nor are we being attacked. And I would also add, I am skeptical a bit on whether we should answer Article 5 for NATO. depending on what Europe is doing right now. So let's just hammer out the nuances of this. Five years ago, if Russia bombed...
Germany, then yes, we should answer the call of NATO. Is that pro-war? No, it's not. Why not? It's a war that you support to defend our ally. You support intervention. That is the nuance of the conversation. You guys are cultists. Why is that cultish? Because you can't understand nuance. Can we take a step back? You live in an isolated, one-dimensional reality of... Take a breather. I just want to ask a really simple question. I don't think I'm coming in here with some crazy...
You can say I'm wrong. Hold on. You can say I'm wrong. But when I see a country that we signed an agreement with that said, hey, we'll protect you so you can give up your nukes so that you don't need them for protection. And then they get invaded and we say, hey, we'll help you out.
This isn't like some crazy concept to me. Now, if you can explain why that's a bad thing, I understand. But I don't think that makes me pro-war, right? Yes. So when I say pro-war, I'm referring to what a traditional liberal is over the past 30 years, my whole life.
The liberals supported aiding people that we made promises to our whole life. Okay, once again, you are a cult. You can't seem to grasp nuance. Everything's black and white. You can't understand that there is... interventionary conflict which i oppose which had been the liberal position for 30 years no and we should not be intervening in ukraine's domestic politics and their war bill clinton intervened in kosovo was that pro-war yes why
We should not be intervening in foreign conflicts in foreign countries. So we should have let the Serbians genocide the Albanians. I don't know or care. Why not? It's not United States. You don't care about people dying? I care about people dying when it's in our country and within our purview. Yeah, but if we have someone that we can...
have some mutual beneficial relationship with, and they say, hey, please stop them from genociding us. Neocon, bro. You are allowed to believe what you want to believe. I just don't understand. They make a movie, Team America, World Police, just making fun of exactly that. What they're making fun of was the Iraq War. If we went back to 2000... Is Bill Clinton a neocon? Is Bill Clinton a neocon? If we went back to 2006, you would be the neocon. Bill Clinton was in 92. Was Bill Clinton a neocon?
Neocon's a neolibs. Wait, answer my question. Bill Clinton is a, what I don't think is a neocon, intervened in Kosovo to save the Albanian people from a genocide. You call this interventionist? Is he a neocon? When I call you... Because you guys live in a one-dimensional reality, you can't see the grass. Answer the question about Bill Clinton. He's not a neocon. But I think you lack the understanding.
What am I lacking the understanding of? I'm looking at an intervention that I may or may not agree with and say, oh, this one makes sense because of a security guarantee that we gave them. Why is that pro-war? Is Bill Clinton pro-war? I'm using the word pro-war to refer to your pro-
Intervention stance. You're comparing it to what I would. I'm not an isolationist. We would agree here. We would agree here. You don't like the George Bush Iraq invasion, right? Yeah. Like, I think that's not just interventional. Nor Serbia, Kosovo, nor Desert Storm. Hold on. One is stopping a genocide. One is our intelligence agencies. Who's stopping a genocide?
Bill Clinton stopped the genocide of the Albanian people in Kosovo using intervention, right? That's very different from our intelligence agencies lied to us about weapons of mass destruction, so we went in and devastated this country and killed almost a million people, right? You and I are both against that. That is not...
anti-war because i'm against that that is i'm anti a shitty you you like i know it's hard for you to understand and i don't know how to convey the idea to you that i don't believe the u.s military should be an apparatus of the world police Be it Serbia or otherwise, or Ukraine. Why not?
I think that America should be responsible to the American people. I don't believe that the American— You want to answer the question? Well, hold on. You asked me a question. I'm clarifying my question. If you get a beneficial relationship with a country by intervening and saving them from a genocide—
Isn't that good for America that we now have influence there? Why not? That's my point. I don't think a single American troop like died in the Kosovo. The American people should not be spending their labor. on foreign incursions by a political class that rejects the will of the people.
Do you think the will of the people was don't help the people getting genocided in Albania? I don't understand this. Trump won the popular vote. Hold on. You can't keep jumping around. No, no, no. I don't give a shit about...
Serbia and Kosovo, I already said no. I was a little kid. How old are you? I wasn't alive. Exactly. So let's not argue about things we didn't exist in. Because if we want to go back to the 80s, we can talk about Ronald Reagan being for gun control. And he was a conservative, and the Republicans love him, and I think he was a scumbag.
He was also in favor of no-fault divorce. Going back and talking about how politics change is not the point being made here. The point being made here— Wait, what it is? Because you say you're a liberal from 2002, and I'm saying none of your positions line up with these people. Traditional liberal tends to refer to where the Democrats used to be.
But you don't line up with those people. You're literally anti-Bill Clinton from the 90s, which was the liberals in the 90s. So even further back. I know this is hard for you to understand, but saying the same thing over and over doesn't change what I said. Because you're not acknowledging what I'm saying. You're not a liberal from the 90s. You're not a liberal from the 2000s. You don't support DACA.
So like, how are you a liberal from any of these areas? Just like, why not just say I like Trump's policies because Trump is on the right and that's who I support. Like, what's wrong with that? I think the bit, like I said this earlier.
One of the biggest divides between the left and the right is that the left is retarded and the right is slightly less retarded. I saw you tweet that this morning because the Brian Krasinski fell for your bait, right? Because you can't seem to grasp that I was 13 years old. When the U.S. began their interventionist neocon policies. In 2003.
And that is what I'm talking about. Okay. And then when you start talking about a bygone era to which I didn't exist in politically, nor you, it's immaterial. I talked about Obama. You were alive for Obama. You're disagreeing with Obama's policy. And disagreeing with one policy.
Which policies do you support? Does it make you look conservative? Which policies do you support? I'm in favor of universal basic health care. I'm pro-choice. But then why vote for Trump? He's not for any of those things. Do you think that I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris?
I'm a reformer, not a revolutionary. I get a withdrawal from the Middle East and I vote for Donald Trump. I want to reform the left-wing party from what I don't like they're doing. I'm voting for what? Are you going to vote for Trump and reform him to become pro-choice? immigration in the way that you want? Like, is this really what's happening? Are you changing the Republican Party to be more left? Is Trump pro-war or anti-war?
It depends on what you mean. He didn't start any new wars, but like I said, he escalated drone strikes. Say that one more time. Say that one more time. He's talking about invading Greenland. He struck Soleimani, which might have caused a war with Iran, which might still happen. No new wars?
No new wars? In his first term, yeah. You say no new wars? Oh, my God. That means I have a choice between the democratic establishment pro-war. Did Joe Biden start a new war? I actually don't know. Yes, Ukraine. And he got us involved in it. He started Ukraine? Joe Biden started the US involvement in the Ukraine conflict. Yes, he did. He didn't start the war. Agreed.
Joe Biden got the US involved in a foreign entanglement in Eastern Europe. It's fucking nuts. So you're like not just no new starting wars, no new involving ourselves with any country's politics that are at war. I'm not going to speak. in absolutes. My point is this, I am not a revolutionary. You live in a cult world where it's black or white. I am saying that the mathematic proposition of the last election is Donald Trump gets me closer to what I like with RFK Jr. Tulsi Gabbard.
Yeah, what are you getting closer to? Banning artificial dyes in food. Okay, that's a very, actually, I agree with that policy. Very specific thing that I'm very much a fan of. That's a very specific thing, but, like, what is he getting you closer to on other things? What environmental things has he proposed? Like, what clean energy, what, like, you say, aren't you pro-Green New Deal, right? Or no?
Did you say that at some point? I was pro-Green New Deal when the policy was we're going to build roads and bridges, not when it was we're going to racially discriminate against people in colleges. That's what AOC's Green New Deal was. I think I might have seen there was some DEI stuff in there. That's what you're talking about. So when AOC came out and said, we want a government program that reinvests in roads, bridges, and we want to focus on environmentally...
sound practices, I said, this sounds fantastic. And I made a video saying this is a good idea. It's going to bring back a bunch of middle class jobs. It's going to strengthen construction companies and it's going to fix our crumbling infrastructure. And then she released a resolution that said in hospitals, in universities, and in other hiring practices, race should be the preference. Right. So let's get closer to that. Because my policy is I might disagree with some of those things.
And I'm going to be in that party telling them, hey, you got a Knicks X, Y, and Z to get us closer to that original thing you had. You're voting for the complete opposite party who's nowhere close to that. Trump didn't start any wars.
Green New Deal. Obama started seven. What environmental policy is Trump getting you closer to, right? And the no new wars thing, again, Biden didn't start one. I didn't say I vote for Donald Trump for the Green New Deal. What did you vote for him for then? That's what I'm asking. You're saying he's getting you closer to the things you want. He's the less war candidate. Helping out Ukraine is not us starting a new war. Obama started seven.
Started seven wars? I think Syria, I know that one. What are the other ones? Yeah, wow, amazing. He got us involved in Syria without congressional approval nor notifying the public. And we only found out after we were already in Syria for like two years. Right, and you can be upset about that. But again, how does voting for Trump get you close?
to this. I just don't understand this. Like, I really don't. Right, because the left is a cult. If I have to choose, we can call it whatever we want. Did Donald Trump start any wars? In his first term, he did not start a new war. Famously, he did not. Famously, he did not. I'm going to vote for that every day of the week. Do you support him drone striking Soleimani? That's a coin toss. It's tough.
But, like, I don't know whether or not it's good. I'm like, oh, maybe we needed to do this, right? However, that absolutely could have started a new war. It might. end up being part of the reason we go to war with Iran. There's a really great point made by Sebastian Gorka when I talked to him recently is that the biggest concern that we have...
is we don't intervene with boots on the ground in foreign countries. However, when it comes— Did Joe Biden do that? We have special forces on the ground in Ukraine. They're not fighting, right? They're instructing people, right? Look, this is such a psychotic... Listen. It's not different. If I hand John a gun and tell him to shoot you, who killed you? John. And would I go to prison?
yes indeed right but so when the united states provides in world war ii when we gave guns to the british like i this isn't us yes fighting in the war we were aiding an ally then and then we got no well we got involved when well oh you're saying that's why the japanese bombed us one of the one there's
There's several reasons why the Japanese bombed us, one of which was we're supplying their enemies with weapons. Sure. Then they— Okay, so you're saying it's semantic to say we're not fighting the war because we're not shooting at them. We're giving them all the tools to do it. We have Americans—
Special forces on the ground providing logistical support instructing we have trainers in Poland training their troops We have US citizen PMC's on the ground pulling the trigger and shooting guns and it was the
Oh, okay. I have military contractors. Yeah, volunteers or private PMCs are not part of— It's funny how the media calls them volunteers and they're paid to be there, but sure. Well, I know there are volunteers in Ukraine that probably get paid by the military, but you're also talking about something like Blackwater, right? Like an actual—
private company is there fighting on behalf of you girls. What do they call themselves now? They change their name every year or something. Yeah, because they've got to dodge. I don't know that they're actually there. The volunteers that are fighting there are paid individual private military contractors to fight. That's not the American military. They're American veterans.
Money to pull the trigger. If I go and do that, right, I'm not an American veteran. I wouldn't say that America's on the ground. It's just an American citizen, right? If I give John $100 a gun and say, shoot you, will I go to jail? Yes. Indeed. And where did that money come from?
Came from you. Okay. But you're not fighting in the war. You didn't commit a violent action against me. You just contracted me to be killed. It's ridiculous semantics to be like, well, American citizens are there fighting and they are paid by the American government to be there. Not the military. The American military.
is not really involved because they're only paying the guys but the guys chose to be there of their own volition I think yeah I think the way to put it would be if you were in support of us fighting and then you're like
dude, Tim, it'd be so funny if you gave John a gun right now, and then he does, and then I kill this guy, and then you're like, but I'm not pro-killing. Well, the analogy is like, hey, John, I'm going to protect you for the rest of your life if you give up your gun, and then he comes at you, and I say, oh, shit, I did make a promise.
Here's a gun. I said I would do it. Like, this is not the same as America fighting. We need to simplify it completely and be like, Democrats want foreign entanglement. I don't. True. Do you ever question, like...
If Russia gave you tens of millions of dollars because they thought... And I think you were tricked by these people, right? That story's fake. Hold on. That story's not true. It never happened. The Edward Gregorian thing, right? Yes, it's not real. It never happened. It never happened? Never happened. They never tried to... No, you guys believe fake cult bullshit because you live in paranoia. They dropped it. There's no evidence. No evidence was ever released and there's no case.
They dropped the case completely. The two people, I'm not going to speak out of turn. I will just say this. The case is dropped. You can't speak out of turn if the case is dropped, right? It's all public now, right? How about you let me finish talking?
Well, I'm just asking if this is all fake. The case is dropped. There's no evidence. Why can't you talk about it? I'm talking about it right now. You said I'm not going to speak out of turn. Beyond what I can say, I will not speak out of turn for other people.
Okay. What I can say is there's no case. There's no evidence. As far as anyone can tell, it never happened, and it was dropped almost immediately the day they announced it. It was dropped immediately? Almost immediately after they announced it, the case was gone. I don't know if you have a Jamie. Can we pull it up? Pull what up?
Well, the fact that the case was dropped. How do you do that? How do you know it was dropped? Because I have lawyers that were working with the DOJ on it. That wasn't reported anywhere? Not a single person? Yes, indeed. Because the story wasn't real to begin with, and it was picked up by a bunch of fucking retards. We made it up. The DOJ made it up to go after you? I didn't say that. If it's completely fake, where did it come from? That's an interesting fucking question, isn't it? Yes.
Because my understanding was, I think you were deceived. I watched your response to it. What's your evidence that even happened? The DOJ report. That's all I have. What DOJ report? The DOJ PDF that they released with all the different names. It said that Russia was trying to pay people through a media company funneling money to host your content. This show, by the way. What's the evidence?
I don't have no fucking links in it. There was never any evidence. Okay, so where did it come from? What do you mean? I'm confused. Look, all I'm saying is, the story was, and if this is false, sure, the story was the Russian government thought it behooved them to pay you money because your talking points on Ukraine... were indistinguishable from their propaganda. Now, if that's not true, maybe. It's not true.
That's not even an indictment. When you scream Ukraine is the enemy of the people, that is essentially Russian propaganda. No, I don't think they're being paid for them. Did our ally Germany accuse Ukrainians of sabotaging our R&D pipeline? Did our ally Germany put money into that country to fight back against them?
Germany not raising money for them right now. You gave a specific quote when I said Ukraine is an enemy of this country. Because Germany, our ally, said that Ukrainians just bombed our energy pipeline. And I said, that makes them an enemy of us.
Our ally was attacked by Ukrainians. OK, so clearly the governments of these NATO countries don't agree with you insofar as they think, hey, it still behooves us to give money to this country and help it defend itself against Russia. I don't care about that. Meanwhile, the Russian narrative is 100 percent that that did happen in that.
way that you're describing where we don't actually know. This is my understanding. My question is, why should I take your Ukrainian facts seriously if this seems to be the case? What? CBS News. What's CBS News? What I just cited was CBS. They said 100% this is confirmed or this is an alleged thing. CBS reports.
that Germany has issued an arrest warrant for Ukrainian diver named Volodymyr Z. And that means 100% it happened? It means our ally has asserted that this is their stance on it, and we should stand with our native ally. So why isn't their conclusion Ukraine is the enemy of the people? Maybe it is. Well, no, it's not. They're giving them money. They're supporting them. That doesn't get into the nuance of a political climate in Eastern Europe.
OK, so what I'm asking you is your position on this seems to be at the least aligned with a lot of what the Russian position is, which is, you know, if that's your opinion. And what I'm saying is, why then are all these countries still doing the exact?
opposite of what you're suggesting. What does that have to do with what we were talking about? It has to do with the fact that, like, I'm asking you, why should I take any of your opinions on this seriously when it seems to be 100% aligned with a country that is the enemy in this situation? Are you retarded?
What? Are you a retard? I mean, yes, but that's irrelevant to what we're talking about right now. What does my opinion as an American who doesn't want to be involved in foreign wars have to do with whether Russia agrees with that or not? Because if the Russians thought that they should give you millions of dollars to spread your opinion, which helps them out— And they didn't, and that's made up.
Can we look at that? The case being dropped? Do you have an email from your lawyer about it being dropped or something that you're allowed to show? Is there any proof that it ever happened? The proof? Look, if you think the DOJ made it up out of thin air, maybe. I don't know. Okay, let's try this. Do you believe everything the government says?
No. And with no evidence being issued, no case ever being brought, no individuals ever identified. With charges. I mean, okay, with the two Russians. You just believe whatever the government says. To the two Russians indicted, are they free now? Who are they? Kalashnikov. the other one? I don't know. When have you ever seen them before? Are you saying these people aren't real? We don't know that they are.
I'm asking you if you haven't even posted photos of these people. So, OK, hold on. Let me just get this straight, because the idea is this entire thing was crafted out of thin air. We made up fake names. Why'd they drop it? Directly with XYZ people. It's directly linked to this company that we know is real, which is Tenet Media, started by Lauren Chen and her husband.
or whatever, but everything in between those names is completely fabricated. So you believe whatever the government tells you? That's not what I asked. I asked you if everything is completely fabricated in between those names. Just because they issued an indictment doesn't mean that they made it up.
They could be wrong. Well, who, okay, what is the source that is wrong then, right? Like, are all these Russians, because you just alleged that these Russian people don't exist. Here's the world that you live in.
You live in a world where if the government asserts it, it must be true without charge or trial. That's not what I said. I said if someone says something with a very credible report. You're using that to strike at my opinion on a war in Ukraine, which I think we shouldn't be involved in. It's because I'm questioning the veracity of some of the facts you're bringing up. Let's try this.
Because they are indeed aligned with Russian state propaganda. Let's try this. Okay, let's try this. Let's try the second biggest live show in the country is contacted by a conservative personality to license. a cultural debate show unrelated to the news. Sure.
The DOJ then comes out shortly before the election and claims that Russia paid for the whole thing. And then within weeks, it's completely gone. No evidence released. No charges. No trial. No evidence. Were the Russians not, excuse me, charged? I thought they were.
I'm saying outside the indictment. I don't think you committed a crime. I read the report. I watched your response, and it's like they deceived you to funnel money into you because they thought that your opinions aligned with theirs, and they want to spread those. That's it. That's all it looked like. I think you're a retard. Why? Because when the U.S. government, largely under the Biden administration. Okay.
wants to be involved in a foreign conflict, and the second biggest live stream in the country is saying we should not be, they then issue a statement without evidence impugning my honor that you are using to strike at my credibility. this to frame you because they hate your opinions on Ukraine? What? I didn't say they did. Well that's what you're alleging right now.
No, I'm alleging that they just said that. What do you mean? You just said when someone says something against the motives of the Biden administration, they might go after that second biggest podcast because they don't like what that podcast is saying. You said that's my point was that you are using. a claim without evidence to impugn my credibility.
No, I'm actually not. You literally just said, why should I listen to your opinions on this? Because your opinions are indistinguishable from Russian state propaganda, and it behooved them to give you money because they're like, I want these opinions disseminated more. is that they shouldn't have invaded Ukraine? So that's your basic position? I'm talking about Ukraine is the enemy of the people. America is fighting this war. Never said they were the people.
You literally said Ukraine is the enemy of this country or whatever. Because they bombed the Nord Stream pipeline, according to Germany. The point is that you know so little about the Ukrainian conflict. What do you mean? That you like. Are you going to get me to name all the Oblasts right now? I know one of them. Wow, I'm impressed. You don't know one. You don't even know two. I'm pronouncing them wrong.
Lohansk and Donetsk? Yeah. I don't care if you know the names of Oblasts. I just remember you called out Wick on that. You don't know shit about what's going on, but you are adamant we'd be involved. What do you mean I don't know shit? I know that the security guarantee happened. I know that we should defend it now. Why did Russia invade?
Why did Russia invade? Well, I think you're alleging that it was because of the trade deals and they didn't want their cheap European goods flooding into Russia or something like that. I thought you said that at one point. I'm sorry if that's not what you think. I read that in a Reuters article. Okay.
So what do you think? Why do you think Russia invaded? Because they don't want to lose control of Sevastopol. Okay. That's why they control the land bridge into Crimea. What does this have to do with anything I said? I've seen you talk about this stuff. You don't know why the U.S. is involved in Ukraine, but you want us to be there.
I think that the U.S. is opposing, one, the invasion of Ukraine because we promised that, hey, if you give up your nukes, we'll help you if you get invaded because we don't want the nuclear proliferation in this country. And what was that called? I don't remember. It's like 1993 or something, right? Listen. I have an issue with ill-informed individuals advocating for an escalation of war.
Dude, if you're talking about, look, I can probably name the way that you've described of Russia's goals in this country and all the points you're going over. My question is, why is it that when we do a security guarantee for a country, we shouldn't help that country out? What's the security guarantee?
is that if you give up your nukes, we will protect you, right? Tell me about it. Do you want me to pull it up? I don't have it memorized. Do you have it memorized? Yeah, it was the Budapest Memorandum. There we go. Didn't remember. It was the nuclear deproliferation, the beginning of the start treaties. Right. Now, why is the United States involved in Ukraine?
Because why are we involved in any foreign country? No, there's a specific reason we're involved in Ukraine. Are you talking about to combat the spread of Soviet stuff? Or what do you mean? I have an issue my whole life.
with ill-informed people propagandized by the government to advocate for foreign intervention in other countries. Why is this? What am I propaganda? Like, tell me what my brainwash position. Because in good faith, I'm asking you, what do you think my position, why I support this based on this, like, thing? If I said, oh, it seems like we promised this country we'd defend them. We'll be greeted as liberators. Huh?
Because you're basically saying we will be greeted as liberators. No, I'm saying it seems to me like we had a promise to this country to defend them in this case. My question is, what's wrong with that? Because maybe I'm wrong. But tell me about it. But my question originally was going back to this, like, OK, but like if you're saying the same things as Russian state TV, it makes it hard to take you seriously. Does the does the treaty that we have with Ukraine that promises to defend them.
Include any guarantees for Russia? Probably, I think so, right? Does it maybe, is there maybe some kind of issue pertaining to if the U.S. aggresses? You know, just tell me. I haven't read the whole thing since like three months ago or something. Was it Timber Sycamore?
Was that the operation? That was in Syria. Yeah. When the U.S. started providing weapons to Islamic terrorist groups so that they could topple the Assad regime, which was allied with Russia, where Russia has their naval base in Tartus. Okay. That was an aggress upon an ally of Russia, which destabilized the region.
creating a conflict, particularly around control of a Russian naval base, which put them at risk. Assad had to flee the country. We viewed him largely as a terrorist who was gassing his own people. Russia viewed him as an ally and sought to protect him. The US threatened to put a no-fly zone over Syria. to which Hillary Clinton said, let's do it. Even though she was warned that would start war with Russia directly, she said, I don't care.
Okay. The reason we are in Ukraine largely has to do with our attempts to bring natural gas from the Middle East into Europe to offset Russia's control of natural gas. Yeah, I've seen you talk about this. Okay. So the U.S. is setting up operations in Ukraine, running soft power operations to shift their government towards a pro-EU, pro-Schengen, pro-NATO.
sentiment. Russia opposes this. This is why Russia invaded. Firstly, the reason why they seized Crimea in 2014 was because they saw the writing on the wall with the ousting of Yanukovych. They didn't invade Ukraine at the time. They simply had their existing troops
in Sevastopol walk outside and then they put a bunch of special forces and like they were already there no the little green men thing right they were already there they have a naval base in Sevastopol no one said it was I'm saying this is what Russia did Russia invaded Ukraine in Sevastopol
Joe Biden got back in. Because when Trump won in 2016, all of these tensions simmered down and halted. The response from the left, the Democratic Party, was largely that Donald Trump was supporting Russian interests by removing our involvement from Ukraine. I asked what...
specifically about my position is completely fabricated or brainwashed but but because but but i'm also any of this but i'm also hold on but i'm also questioning everything you're telling me now because first of all you have been in this industry way longer than me i i would always concede and cop to the fact that
You probably know more about more things than I do and probably ever will. Not only do I know more about it than you, I was there twice at the start of the Civil War. My question is, if the Russian state media says, hey, this person's opinions are so aligned with ours, we want to give them millions of dollars, why should I believe you? That's made up.
And your evidence of it being made up is... You have no evidence of it. Yeah, but you're... If you think the DOJ completely fabricated it, just say that, but I don't think that's the case. Let's say their indictment is fine. Okay. What evidence did they release? I don't know. I haven't looked at the source. The indictment contains no evidence. It's like, can we call Lauren Chen on the phone and ask her right now? The indictment?
contains zero evidence that anything that they've claimed happened. When the government releases a report on something, do they have like a list of sources at the bottom where they say this is what we're alleging happened? Like, you know, Joe Biden said, hey, Russia's about to invade Ukraine in the coming weeks. And they didn't say, and these are intelligence sources.
and these are our spies. They were just like, this is going to happen. And then it did, right? If your only argument against the historical facts that I brought up is, but I heard from an indictment that you may have been paid by a foreign country. That's not my only argument. I have a lot of arguments there. I don't want to get into a whole Ukraine debate. My point is like, I don't understand.
understand why let's let's just let's just pause on the ukraine thing because i don't need to rehash a history lesson to somebody who didn't research it okay let's just talk about not researching can we talk about the fine people hoax you talked about it with adam conover and like i think you bring that up with liberals a lot um i just made a video on it you feature in it The Adam Conover clip itself. Right. You did research it. You did know the full quote.
yeah yeah so okay so people some people especially chuck schumer he did this he said donald trump called neo-nazis fine people which is not the quote right it's uh you know like they should be condemned fine people on both sides and then but i'm not talking about this but like i think that completely ignores the context of
The white nationalists who organized the rally, who was there on that day and all the like the Identity Europa, the KKK, like the idea that there were fine people in this group is kind of like what everyone was upset about is that he didn't condemn them on August 12th when white nationalists killed a guy.
Two days later, he gave a teleprompter speech that seemed kind of like wooden and hollow. And then on the 15th, he finally said the fine people thing, pointing to no one because there were not fine people on the side of the neo-Nazis. I think this is why young men are leaving the Democratic Party. Because we don't like neo-Nazis? Because Trump condemned. neo-nazis and you're not trying to make the case why he actually did can we talk can you bring up the snopes article that you
Where Trump said, not the Nazis. Well, here's the thing. If you look at that article, yeah, obviously, Snopes did a good job. They're like, we are here to report on the factual thing of what Trump said. Yep. You brought this up with Autumn Conover. Scroll down. Can you read that editor's note? Some readers have raised the objection.
that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in saying there were very fine people on both sides of the Charlottesville incident. That's not the case. The fact check aimed to confirm that Trump actually said not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists.
And therefore, Trump's characterization was wrong. Right. So like most of the people and the media narrative around this as a whole was that Trump is not condemning white nationalists at this rally that killed. I'm just going to say it again. This is why young men are leaving the Democratic Party. Can you can you address the point I'm bringing up? I'll say it right.
Right now. Who did Trump describe specifically as the fine people? So on August 11th. Who did Trump describe as the fine people he was referred to? He said the people that weren't the neo-Nazis and the racists. No, he specifically said some people who just didn't want to see statues torn down in the neighborhood. So not those people.
excluding those and so when trump says like a little old lady doesn't want a statue torn down as a fine person that's right where is this little old lady right the point is this was a white nationalist rally organized by jason kessler a white nationalist and and with the scheduled speakers being
David Duke, Mike Enoch, Richard Spencer. And so when you show up, you look at these promotional materials. And they should be condemned totally. And the news reports on this as this is going to be a white nationalist rally. And then you show up and you're like, well, I know I'm one of the 4,000 other Nazi people here, but I'm just here to protest.
the statue do you think those people like existed and and like this is specifically actually and it's also if you look at like the history of how these organizations operate throughout american politics it's exactly like you're describing where you've got something like a statue for robert
You've got Americans who are local and they're like, you know what, this is my heritage. Maybe I don't swear by it, but I like it and I respect it. And they all of a sudden can bring in these boogeyman figures like David Duke, who famously sold lists of his members to the SBLC. Why do you say boogeyman for David? Because that is what...
the grand wizard of the kkk the boogeyman referring to this sort of like archetypal scary thing so that the media can then report on it and now eight years later we're pretending that trump is maybe a white media didn't bring david duke to the rally david duke promoted and organized there is a there is a relation
relationship between the state, the media, and the boogeymen that seeks to take normal right-wing opinions and vilify them and make them scary and alienating to normal people. So you think there's some subversion tactic which made the white nationalists promote this rally to...
scare people away from defending the statue 100 yes that is how this has operated since the end of world war ii this relationship between the national security state far-right organizations and the media they all work together to vilify normal right-wing opinions such as we don't want a statue of a local hero I've got a question for you.
Do you think that intelligence agencies in the United States coordinate with news organizations? 100%, yes, of course. I mean, even worse than that, they subvert certain movements. Like I brought up Cointelpro, right? Do you think that news organizations, even today, take direction from intelligence agents? Direction.
I depends on what you mean by that. I'm not sure. Like they could be like, you have to report on this. Maybe, uh, if it's like, Hey, we're doing a story on this and we have insiders here. Would you like to make a story about this? Um, that might be manufactured consent, but yeah, they probably do that. So I can tell you with first-hand experience, the State Department particularly calls on the phone, the editor-in-chief, and tells them what to report. They say,
hey, you need to report on this, or hey, this is what happened if you're making a report on this. They say, we need you to report on this. Sure, but that's not...
forcing them to report on something if i you know bombed a country and then i'm like hey we're going to report that we just bombed cambodia or whatever and i get on the phone with washington post i'm like hey just so you know we just bombed a country we're leaking it to you first go ahead and you know i i i'm telling you that the state department contacts heads of news organization and says
We've got a big story that we need you to cover. We need this one out there. Sure, but the way you're phrasing it makes it seem like, oh, news, you've got to do this or we're going to punish you. And not, hey, you're a news organization. This is going to be a huge benefit for you to get ahead of this story and talk about this very big thing that's about.
to happen, which is a completely normal relationship. So I think because of movies, largely, people live in this world where they think everything's a perverse incentive or blackmail or a bribe. The reality is for news organizations. It's really simple. You just hire the people who will do what you say. You don't hire the people who you have to bribe. Noam Chomsky made a whole thing about this. So what ends up happening is you're a news organization.
And you want someone who's—you need to report that, you know, this conflict in Afghanistan is— It has to happen. And the Taliban are the bad guys. Oh, if you want to talk about how the media was very complicit in the Iraq war narrative, 100%. So what you do is...
You get a list of people who are writing. And one guy says, I'm a bit nuanced. I'll write whatever you need. One guy says, I hate the government of Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a scumbag. You're hired. Then when the State Department says, write this.
They go, hey, look what we got from the State Department. He goes, oh, yeah, and he writes it up. Yeah, there's ideological capture for sure. I don't disagree with that. Well, it's functional of the U.S. intelligence. Okay, but if we're talking about this and it's like, okay, if we look at the timeline, you had a bunch of neo-Nazis on August 11th go and talk about Jews not replacing us, blood and soil.
you know gas the k-word right and it's like the day after that he doesn't condemn those people versus every other republican politician coming he did no the day after that he doesn't condemn those people right he says he tweets something so stupid this is why young men are leaving the democratic party you can keep you can keep deferring to that
But the point is, like, your narrative on this is painted by what I will admit are people like Adam Conover who, like, don't understand it. They just hear this, like, oh, he called neo-Nazis fine people, and they brush it aside. They don't think about it. Did Adam Conover lie about it? Because the first thing he said was, the first thing he did was quoted it, then claimed he didn't know. Right, which is, like, pussy shit, in my opinion. And now what you're doing is called sophistry.
What is the sophistry to say that people were upset? You can look at the articles from this time. You are arguing the status of Trump instead of what actually happened. The day after neo-Nazis marched in this rally with the tiki torches, Republicans came out.
Mitch McConnell, the Bushes, all these other people came out and said, by the way, I'm not saying these people are good. I'm saying all the other Republican Party said, hey, these are neo-Nazis and these are bad. And Donald Trump said, oh, many sides, right? And people were upset about that. You mean after a different event? No, after the tiki torches.
Trump didn't say very fine people on both sides. No, the many sides was on August 12th. He said many sides. Fine people was on August 15th. That was three days later after he didn't say anything to condemn them for two days. Then gave the teleprompter speech. Then finally condemned them after every other reasonable politician who I, you know.
I fucking hate Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz was condemning this, and he wasn't. And it seems like the reason people are mad are not that he said verbatim, neo-Nazis are fine people, because he didn't. You're right. That is a lie. That's why they're mad. That's literally what they're saying. Why they're mad is because he refused to condemn one of the most egregious displays of...
white nationalism in this country. How many times has Trump condemned white supremacy? I don't know, but he seems really reluctant to do it compared to other people. A lot. Have you seen the clip of him on, was it Jake Tapper, where he asks him to like denounce the KKK and he just won't do it?
Have you seen literally the 57 times Trump's been like, why do I keep getting asked to do this and I do it every time? Because he really struggles to do it. And it's like, hey, why are you so reluctant to do this versus every other politician? Would you denounce the KKK, Tim? No. Wait, what? Why not? Because it's a bullshit smear tactic PR game. Ask me. I'll say yes. Why not? Because you're in a cult.
I'm in a cult because I will immediately denounce the KKK because I think the evil racist lynching group is bad. Why are you asking me to denounce the Klan? I'm asking you not because I think you support them. I'm asking you because it's showing how easy it is to denounce them, and he struggles with this. It raises questions where it's like, hey, why is it?
Yes, it absolutely does. This is why Trump won the popular vote. If he lies on national television when someone says, hey, will you denounce David Duke? And he says, I don't know who David Duke is. That's a great answer. No, because in 2000, he said, I'm leaving the Reformist Party because David Duke is part of it.
So he did know who David Duke was. No, he doesn't. Doesn't that prove the point, though, if he's leaving the reformist party? If he knows who a character is and then pretends like he doesn't understand the concept of the KKK, he says, I don't know this group. I'm going to say it again. Does this not raise questions, Tim? It does not. Why not?
I've got videos that I've been making. I've been making online videos where I talk for hours for like 16, 17 years. You know what the KKK is? Indeed I do. Okay. So why would you say I don't know what that is? Does that bother you? If someone went back and said, Tim, you know what's really funny? I'll tell you this.
When Andrew Tate got really big and everyone was talking about Andrew Tate, I was like, don't I know that guy? Oh, yeah. Holy shit. He was on the show. No. Eight years ago, he had DM'd me about the field reporting stuff. He had like 40,000 followers. If someone had asked me.
What do you think of Andrew Tate? I'm like, honestly, I don't know the guy. Bullshit. You were DMing with him eight years ago. I'm like, fuck, I didn't even realize. Yeah, but that's very different from citing him specifically as the reason.
as the reason you ended a particular part of your political career. It's like specifically because of this man. And then also saying, I don't know what the KKK is. You understand the problem with that though? It's like, okay. Can we bring up the clip? Can we watch it? I don't know what the Klan is. Can we watch it? In 2015. Donald Trump denounced KKK.
No, no, no, no. Let's look it up. Let's look it up. Maybe I'm quoting it wrong. I might be wrong. I think he said, I don't know about that group. I don't know about the KKK. My question to you is, he said, I don't know what that is. I don't want to say, quote it verbatim, so let's watch it together. Trump, okay, so then I don't, what do you ask me to, okay.
While you look that up, do you understand the problem with that, though, if it's 2015 and you're having a conversation with Trump and you're like, denounce David Duke, and he's like, I don't know who that is. And you're like, yeah, you do, because here's you denouncing him 15 years ago. He didn't actually bring it up.
Right. The point being, it's the same game. They've been doing it for decades. He gets bored of it. They just wait for him to not give a sufficient answer one time. And now eight years later, we're discussing it like it's relevant to his policy. Every other Republican politician can easily give the answer of, yeah, no, I don't like these white supremacist groups, but he struggles with it. He did, as Tim said. No, he did.
It took them days to denounce them. And we know about that one instance because that's the worst. And the KKK one, which is a completely different one. And also struggling to denounce the Proud Boys, which is another one. Like, this keeps happening, right? So my question is...
No, I'm not looking up, has Trump condemned white supremacy? This is obvious. He said it in the thing. Look up the... Oh, hold on, hold on. You're asking me to pull a single thing out of context. It's not out of context. I just searched for Tim Klan, white supremacy. Look up the CNN clip with him talking, I think it's Jake Tapper, where...
He asked him like, hey, David Duke has endorsed you. Will you just quickly denounce him? Which any reasonable person. I'm just pulling a bunch. I'm going to pull up all of it. No, you've been talking back and forth. This one's embarrassing, by the way. I just Googled search and I'm pulling up all that comes up. I'd like to watch that one. The National Guard, it would be over. There'd be no problem. But they don't want to.
except the National Guard. You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not...
add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in kenosha and as we've seen in portland are you prepared to specifically do it i would say i would say almost everything i see is from the left wing not from the right so what do you
I'm willing to do anything. I want to see peace. Then do it, sir. Say it. Do it. Say it. Do you want to call him? What do you want to call him? Give me a name. Give me a name. White supremacists and white supremacists. Who would you like me to condemn? White supremacists and white supremacists. Stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what. Somebody's got to do something. I think it's fair to say it was a gaffe.
Sure, if you want to say he fucked up there, but then if we look at the pattern of him failing to do this and we can please watch the KKK clip, which I think is even worse than that one, which was bad, by the way, telling a white supremacist group to stand by and not, hey, yeah, these people are evil and I hate them. Like, this is...
very like like i said you knew i mean you didn't want to do this because it was a smear tactic but anyone asks any of these republican politicians do you denounce the kkk yeah fuck them right easy because obviously versus someone who's like clearly struggling to do this. Now, by the way, I don't think this makes Trump a white supremacist. Like, I think this is literally just, he is very hesitant to alienate his base, but like, that's bad.
If you're emboldening like these really, really bad groups. Last chance. Super Tuesday brings caucuses and primaries in 12 states. For Republicans, about half... Right there, right there. ...about what you're even talking about with, uh... Hold on. I don't know anything about... I don't know anything about Dave. Beginning with a new controversy surrounding Trump today. Here's Major Garrett.
I don't know anything about David Duke, okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. Donald Trump demured when asked whether he could... Yeah. The full clip is much worse than that, too. I'm trying to find it.
The only thing that comes up, I got to be honest, when I search for it, is that Trump condemns white supremacy. OK, well, I promise you that's not all that I do agree with you. I can find it for you. I do agree with you. There's a longer clip. He basically was like, I know you're talking about. I don't want to condemn him.
Trump, KKK, CNN. And then it's like Trump campaign denounces Klan. Trump calls KK and Nazis repugnant. Trump denounces David Duke, 2016. I mean, here you go. CNN politics. Trump denounces David Duke, KKK. Yeah, he did it eventually, I'm sure. He's a bad person. He could eventually condemn white supremacists. So, I...
Does it not raise any alarm bells? No, not really. I hate to do this on stream, but I know it's in my video. If you go to my channel, you go to my most recent video, and you scroll to that exact clip, we can watch the whole thing in full. But you're correct.
Why don't you want to show the clip? I can't find it. I don't want to shamelessly promote myself, but if you go to my channel, it's in my most recent video, The Soy Pill. I know because I just released this on Tuesday, so I watched it like a million times. What I'm trying to do is find the actual raw clip. I cut out the dead air of it, if that's what you're...
For the same reason, I don't want to play the CBS Evening News clip. I'm trying to find the actual raw clip of what Trump said. That way, no one's going to say... First of all, I agree with you. You're correct. That when Trump was asked about it, he was like, I don't know anything about it. I don't want to. And it was contentious. And then he came out later and said, I do condemn them. Would you call that a gaffe? No. Call it inconsequential, I guess.
You don't think that that at all... I have a transcript. You don't think that at all emboldens the... But it's NPR. People don't trust them. I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group. I don't... Oh, wait. What is this? I don't know anything about Dave... Why don't they have the video in here? I know I got the video from... Wait, hold on. No. I don't know, man.
Does that not bother me? Does that not give you pause that someone you voted for is struggling to denounce a hate group when every other person can immediately do it? Let's just do this. Well, answer the question. I am, and it's called No. Because I typed in, Trump refuses KKK CNN. Trump condemns all white supremacists. Trump refuses to condemn white supremacists. Donald Trump stumbles on David Duke KKK twice. That's the one I pulled up. Okay.
Full interview, Trump denounces KKK. Trump, I totally disavow the Ku Klux Klan. Like... This is just a political non-story as far as I'm concerned. So when the groups come out afterwards when this happens and say, wow, we really feel emboldened by this person, and then you can see a rising trend of these groups' influence, I think that's a very demonstrable material harm. These people have no influence, though, dude.
The Proud Boys used to be a drinking club. Steve Bannon is an alt-right person. He's not hired by Trump. Steve Bannon is a broadcaster. No, he doesn't. What do you mean? Does he not complain to himself to be a proponent of the alt-right as he has since 2016? This is... Oh, man. You know what's really challenging in the political space is like... What about Steve Bannon isn't alt-right when he's co-tucked? What does alt-right mean?
Alt-right, oh man, getting me to define the concept of this. The AP guidelines have a definition of what alt-right is. Okay, and what's that? White nationalist. Okay. Steve Bannon is not a white nationalist.
If that's the only criteria for it, I don't think that he might still be, but I'd have to look into this. He's not. Steve Bannon thinks we should tax the rich to oblivion. He thinks there should be a wealth tax on billionaires. Okay, but that doesn't... By the way, I already know this, but that doesn't make him not right.
No, he's not alt-right. Well, first of all, there are Nozbols, which are Nazis who are super, super pro-socialist weird policies, right? You can have an economic left policy and be on the right. We had Steve Bannon on the show. And I asked him, I was like, you've been called white nationalist. He's like, I have. And I was like, so he was playing dumb because of course he would know that, right? We were specifically referring to alt-right as white nationalist.
And I was saying, they're claiming you're racist. And he was like, I said, there's a viral post on Reddit right now. It says this is the face of white supremacy. And he's like, I didn't realize they were saying that about me. Was this like 2016? No, no, no. He came on the show in 2021.
So for five years of every mainstream media outlet reporting on him like that, and he's never heard of that? Have you ever watched his show? I've never watched it. Did you know that he's pro-wealth tax? Wait, wait. Can we not move on from the fact that— We're not moving on. I'm asking you about the policies of Steve Bannon and what you know about him. I know that he wants to talk to billionaires, right? Why don't you like Steve Bannon?
Off the top of my head, I'd have to go look at all the articles that have been propagandized into my brain to force me to have this narrative. I can't remember right now. Probably. I mean, if you watch his show, you might be like, oh, this guy's Occupy Wall Street.
Yes. Okay. I can have people. I call them a leftist. If he's, if he, no, hold on. If he's occupied, let's, let's just say that he is like super mega leftist on this policy. Then why is he in the Trump cabinet voting for the Trump policies that are not getting us? Not getting us anywhere close to this. Well, Bannon wants arrests. Arrests for what? He wants the government dismantled, broken, arrested. Okay, look.
No one is 100% aligned with one policy, one party. I am on the left, I'm progressive, and I am pro-gun, right? I have policies. The left is pro-gun, though. Well, to the far left. No, the left is pro-gun. Liberals are not. Liberals in California are stupid anti-gun, right?
taxes on ammo or like background checks on ammo and all this stupid shit i think that's dumb right however that doesn't make me not left so the thing is there are key principles that i have like progressive tax rates uh you know welfare state that keep me in this party that hold on that keep me in this party if
Steve Bannon has this leftist policy of taxing billionaires, but he's completely aligned in voting for the right policy. This is not the thing that is the deal breaker for him. This is not his principle. I'm a liberal, but say he's on the right. He's in the Trump cabinet helping Trump win, which is right. He's not in the Trump cabinet. He was in 2016. Yeah, kicked out. Okay, sure. But the point is, the fact that who he was for. Or he retired or whatever.
I don't know if he got fired or what. Who he aligns with and who he votes for. A bunch of liberals are on the right. If I'm a right-wing person, if I say I'm right-wing because I vote for Trump, but I support every other taxation, progressive... I support, you know, gun rights progressive. I want to ban all guns, but abortion is my mainstream value. Am I on the left or am I on the right?
Like every single one of my policies is aligned with Bernie Sanders. However, I think abortion should be illegal in all cases. So I vote for Donald Trump because that's my delineating issue. What party am I in? What side of the aisle am I on? We can talk about tribal or philosophy.
So what I'm talking about is you're voting for the material outcomes that are caused by the Republican Party. So whether or not he wants to tax billionaires, he's voting for the party that is cutting taxes on billionaires in this new bill that they passed in 2017. So how does that make him on the left?
Steve Bannon? Steve Bannon is helping out the party that is doing the opposite of this left-wing party, right? You have to ask him to watch his show. My point was that he advocates for taxing the billionaires.
Sure. And if he's not doing anything to make that happen, why would that make him on the left? Maybe he is. I don't know. He's not. He's supporting Donald Trump. Once again, this is why I say the left is a cult. It's like a zero-sum reality. This isn't zero-sum. This is why do I vote the way I do. for trump because you think that these policies that you want are going to happen right like well because they did
Sure. And what I'm saying is if you say, hey, I'm a liberal because XYZ policy, but I vote for the exact opposite person on all these other ones because, let's say this. Because you're in a cult. No, because your mainstream policy, you're delineating like this is my... The dividing line is no new wars, no new conflicts. That's fine. That's why you vote for Trump. But then why pretend that you're a liberal and all these other things when you will vote for the material opposite of all of that?
People have different weights to what they find to be more important than other things. Exactly. It's a hierarchy of what you want to happen, right? I'm also anti-death penalty, and I don't go march for it. Right, but you are going to vote for the party that's going to try to reinstitute it, right? Indeed. Okay, so that's what I'm saying. Some things are more important than others. Right, and if war is your delineating factor, that's fine. I think woke cultism and critical ideologies are...
a threat to the existence of these United States. And that makes sense then why you would vote Trump because they said the same thing but that's not a progressive or liberal position. It's a classically liberal position and traditionally liberal. But it's not a liberal position. Traditional liberals were not in favor of whatever the weird...
shit y'all are doing now like cutting kids balls off well i don't i mean trans stuff is new but the point is that the policies of like that's that's my point 20 years ago if you went to a liberal and said actually i i we had a big video with like half a million views we talked about how
In like 2010 or whatever, CollegeHumor made a video with Jack Black and a bunch of celebrities where they said, you know, it's for Prop 8. And then the fake conservatives in it said they'll teach kids about sodomy. And the liberals go, that's a lie. They'll teach kids about, oh, like gay sex. But they do. Why would they not do that? So back in 2008.
2010. I would disagree with that ad then, because like, of course, if gay people have sex with sodomy, then why would you say, yeah, sex ed, but not for sodomy? So liberals back then said, we are not going to teach kids about sodomy.
That's dumb. And that's why 9 million Obama voters, I think they should not teach children about sodomy. Why not? Children should not be taught about fetish, kink, things that can destroy your body. Sodomy is not a fetish or a kink. It's the way that primarily gay people have sex. It's not sexual reproduction.
Okay. It's sexual gratification. Right, but if you're trying to prepare children for the outside world, and this is something that might happen if they're gay, don't you want them to be safe and know about it? No, you shouldn't teach kids about gay and anal sex. There's not really a safe way to engage in that. Anal sex in any circumstance is damaging to the body and can kill you. Do you think that gay people should never have sex? I... You mean like anal sex? Yeah.
That you should not have, no one should. Ask a doctor. Go to a doctor and ask. Okay, so if we have a philosophy on gay sex can cause harm, because it can. It does. Colon cancers, incontinence, there's things that can happen. Gastrointestinal infections, sepsis and death. Bad things can happen.
If we're dealing with the reality of, okay, however, there exist all these gay people that are having sex, wouldn't you rather them at least understand how to do that the safest possible way than not do it at all?
Because you can't prevent it from happening, right? You can't Thanos snap gay sex out of the world. People like gay sex. I'll say that. You shouldn't teach children to have gay sex. You're not teaching them to have gay sex. You're saying, hey, if you are gay and you happen to have a gay encounter, this is...
safest way to do it here here's right so don't do this draw it out and like i went to progress i'm a liberal man i don't think you should children have gay sex sorry i'm sorry you're a liberal but you're saying the way that most if not all gay people engage in sex with each other shouldn't be done. That's not a liberal position. Traditional liberalism. Let's try this again. No, you don't agree with the way that gay people have sex. This is not...
Look, do you believe that if in 2004 you went to a Democrat and said we should teach children about having anal sex, they would agree with you? Yes or no? Yes or no? We already agreed on this. You said it was in the commercial. So that's my position. Stop acting like you can't comprehend these things. You're saying that gay people shouldn't have gay sex.
People of any types, male or female, should not put things in their bum-bums. And that's not a liberal position from 20 years ago. No one said gay people shouldn't have sex. They said we shouldn't teach it in schools, apparently, from this commercial. People should not be putting stuff up their butt.
Okay, well, they're doing it, and if they're doing it, I want them to be safe about it. You know what else we talk about in school the kids shouldn't do? Smoking. You know the smoking cigarettes? Hear me out. Smoking cigarettes on average. Are you going to start your little dare group and go talk about how gay sex is bad? I was going to finish my point.
first, which was going to be that smoking cigarettes on average takes 11 years off your life expectancy. Not good. Sodomy, being a practicing homosexual, removes 20 years on average from your life expectancy because of the things he's mentioning, not to mention the proliferation of STIs within. the homosexual community and things of that nature. You know what stops that is education. That's not true, actually, though. Unfortunately, I wish it were true, but it's not.
So, promoting unhealthy lifestyles to children is bad. Telling people how to have safer sex doesn't stop the spread of STIs. Clearly no. What do you mean clearly no? Is AIDS as big as it was in the 80s? Because of massive viral subsidies, not because of condom proliferation. Happy days for the gays, nothing can go wrong Look, nobody's watching. It's time to spread some hate and put it in the Constitution. Now how? Proposition 8. Proposition 8. It's great. People listen to our plea.
They'll teach kids about... SADME! SADME! California said no. That wasn't right. That's a lie, but it worked so we don't care. Now you are sitting here telling us that's a good thing to do. I think it is good to teach people that if they're going to engage in sex a certain way, they should do it safely. We are in agreement of your worldview and my position from where I used to hang out.
with these people in California and you are on the other side of that. And you're behind them. I don't know where you're at. Tim, my liberal, super progressive middle school, when they did drug education, they did not teach us to do molly and cocaine and all this. However, they had a very comprehensive slideshow of
Here's every drug you might encounter because these things exist. All right. These things are out there. And especially in San Francisco, there's a good chance that you might find someone who's trying to sell it. And they're telling, hey, these are the risks of these drugs. These ones you should probably never, ever, ever do. These are the risks of these ones. This one won't harm you.
This one's addictive. And they gave a very good comprehension of like how to deal with these things in real life. And people are having gay sex. All right. I don't know if you knew this, but gay guys love fucking each other in the ass. It's like their favorite thing to do. And so if they're going to go out and do that, I'd rather them be doing it safely than say, hey.
actually just don't do it because that's how abstinence education works and it doesn't work. I love how we've gone from like the conservative traditional position of abstinence education and actual intercourse to but what about shoving stuff up your ass? Yeah, the thing that gave people to do when they have sex. So dare didn't work. Dare didn't work. Right, it didn't. So teaching kids about drugs actually backfired.
Maybe we should have just been like, let's not bring it up. I agree. Dare was like this, hey, look out for this scary guy behind the fucking school. You're right. They should have been like, here's meth. Here's how you do it safely. Literally, they're like, well, this one's really bad. You probably should never touch this, but however, this is what it looks like.
So the effects of it, this is how you can avoid it, which is not what Dare did. Dare was this very much this abstinence only type of thing to just say no. It's a horrible, this is to my point. You guys want to hear a funny story? So in Chicago, when fentanyl was starting to become like pop up on the scene. There was a fentanyl death on the south side where I lived, and the local news did a breaking story.
At the corner of 63rd and Sacramento, an individual was found overdosed, having taken a super potent super heroin, they're calling it, called fentanyl. The next day, they were 16 dead. You know why? Because everyone went to try it? Yeah! They said, everyone watch out for this crazy superheroine! And people ran full speed to go get it.
Do you think those are heroin addicts, though? Because if I was a heroin addict and I heard there's a superheroine, I would immediately go try it. Yeah. I don't know. Probably. This is different from like... We are way over, so I do apologize, but we do got to wrap things up. Okay. But I do appreciate you coming. It's always fun to have these conversations.
contentious as they may become so i do appreciate you coming and john and this is a lot of fun yeah yeah we'll do more and hopefully we can have you come for one of our live shows should i do a should i do a call out to the other like leftist himbo that won't come on shows like this the himbo the hassan piker
Should I call him out? You don't have to call him out, but I actually will defend Hassan because there are these personalities that I really despise where every thumbnail they make is a random picture of Trump and then the title is just...
Trump says bad thing. Trump does bad thing. And it's not actually news. It's like Trump looks disheveled and angry and they get millions of views. But Hassan doesn't do that. He actually talks about news stories. He's just a leftist. So I respect it. But shout out whatever you want to shout out. Hopefully we can have you at our live show. I'll call it.
So yeah, I'm the soy pill on YouTube. I do video essays. If you think I was even remotely good faith here, please go watch them. Although my most recent video... does feature trump look at his most recent yeah exactly what you just described which is trump and the period is making his uh face hitler um but yeah what is it an argument
My argument, you heard most of my argument. He's talking about the fine people thing, but the thumbnail is like Trump like this, and then he's got a Hitler. That's fine. I'm saying like...
Like, oh, Donald Trump said this egregiously big gaffe and look how disheveled he looks in this photo. They just go, oh my God, Donald Trump was on the news today. He looks crazy. It's getting so bad. Trump derangement syndrome is real. My dad has it and I'm trying to cure him. Perhaps he means something more like Trump had a bad day.
That is exactly what I was talking about. That was the day of the election. Yeah, that was a fun one. I really like that photo of him. Yeah, but again, I have no problem with periodically you talk about Trump or criticism. That's fine. Your videos are... You're talking about things. You're making arguments. I am. Does the left hate America? Does Trump incite violence? That's all fine. I'm fine with it. I'm glad. You should subscribe, too.
You look at some of these channels, which I've named too often, and like every single video is just a random screenshot of Trump. Anyway, did you want to? Oh, yeah. No, let me call out Hassan Piker. Hassan Piker, I challenge you for the throne of Twitch and the soul of America's young men. You get these aspirations of anti-Semitism and being a himbo. Well, I'll tell you what. I'm a big.
himbo i i'm jewish and i'm more anti-semitic than you because i have to live with jews okay while you were complaining about israel and their bombing campaign in gaza i was there on birthright having to listen to their stupid fucking arguments and you hold your your swastika sword in front of Ethan Klein. Well, I have felt the blade of the circumcision knife, okay? So no one is more anti-Semitic than me. So I challenge you, Hassan, for the throne of Himbo Twitch. Meet me in the ring.
Well, how about you, John? Yeah, you can find me at YouTube.com slash John Doyle, and I talk about stuff not maybe pertaining to the foreskin or lack thereof or anything like that, but it's a good time. Right on. Okay, we went a little bit over. We got to bounce now. We are back tonight. Timcast IRL. Roseanne's going to be here. It's going to be fun. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all then.