Liberals Are SOY BOYS, Reject Masculinity, DEBATE Me w/ John Doyle & The Soy Pill
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: John Doyle @JohnDoyle (YouTube) Soy Pill @thesoypill (X) | @thesoypill1583 (YouTube) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
We were going over what is the core theme yesterday, and it's that masculinity is incompatible with liberalism was one of the arguments, or that liberalism rejects masculinity.
Yeah, I mean, that's absolutely true, whether you look at it from a fundamental perspective where 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.
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 at the Antifa mug shots.
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 a biological component, which I know we've covered on the show before with RFK and different things they're putting into the...
Yeah, in many cases, like typical male behavior, which would be used to take Things like that are culturally enforced to either be denigrated or demonized or in some cases like, yeah, you can have police harass you if you make – or maybe coworkers 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, you know, perceived gender roles.
You know, 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, then 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.
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 literally making it illegal to be a man or something, yeah.
Yeah, so there's an apparatus of law that is anti-male or masculine.
I don't know, I just don't see that.
I hear what you're saying.
I think a problem with the left is four years being a straight white guy.
It was like the norm, right?
And then finally the left starts getting into 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 an 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, in the 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, um, what's that Onion skit?
Where it's like, this is America.
No one deserves to be treated like a black man.
Right?
Like, yeah, it's like they ruled 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.
But as soon as you introduce the term like white privilege, 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, 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 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 do fall into, are not, 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 Like, 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 the 2016 era.
And, like, none of that made me less masculine or made 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.
It's pushing you into a different party.
It's weird to me because my ideals haven't changed.
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.
Like you don't have to go and talk to a bunch of like Trump supporters and appeal to them as like the white vote or the straight vote or 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 areicky or like down 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, you know, wanting to be left alone.
People can have their own identity.
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 issue is that even as you're describing it, 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.
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 you are allowed to be racist to a group of men that did not experience this white privilege that was described.
Well, first of all, again, as much as I have a problem with the term white privilege, I think you can look at, like, statistics of do white people get as much shit as, you know, black people.
Great.
Now let's go back to what I was saying about Gen Z. I'm just saying, like, you do experience it, but the problem is, like.
An 18-year-old man did not experience the white privilege of a 55-year-old white man.
Oh, you're saying economics.
An 18-year-old who's entering the world and saying, man, it's really hard on me.
And then 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, generation Yeah, you're not experiencing the boomer housing market.
I am not as well off as my parents.
They bought a house for $300,000 and it's now worth a bajillion dollars.
I would never be able to afford that.
I probably never will be able to.
I just have to wait for them to die.
But that's not the same thing as white privilege.
Blackrock will get it before that.
That's true.
Not even joking.
Yeah.
No.
The idea that like...
I think it's irrelevant.
But the point is, this is what I'm saying.
You don't feel white privilege.
I'm not like, oh boy, what a great day to be white.
Let's be real, it's kind of hard to be all the other races.
But you're not feeling this advantage.
The point is, if it was framed as something like black detriment.
I actually disagree with you about it's hard to be other races.
Harder?
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 – or 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 – I saw people that were maybe not as 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 a privilege.
Sort of.
Literally.
The point is, like, if you're looking at a societal thing, it's like, that is something that in this specific, 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 it worse off for so long.
But that's why I would call it, like, a black detriment and not, like, a white privilege.
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 how they're performing.
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 houses 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 principal way by which they perpetuated this.
We still see this today where...
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.
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?
He 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...
And I'm like, okay, 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?
It's not illegal.
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, We are becoming more progressive, but the idea that because it's illegal, it's gone now, is just not borne out.
These things absolutely still happen.
These people still hold these views in a lot of different places.
Any instance of racism, 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 blockbusters.
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 institutional racism or even 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...
On average, I think schools that are a majority-minority receive 1% greater funding from the federal government than schools that are predominantly white even.
They even have better credentialed teachers with advanced degrees.
They get more funding.
And I remember I went down to Cass 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 Cass Tech High School.
I'm, like, walking in between, like, crackheads and human feces.
And I go into what looks 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.
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 it 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 grew up, they don't have anything, like they don't have a lot of 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.
But 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.
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 toxic masculinity.
I know you covered the Gillette commercial, right?
Where everyone freaked out because he was calling out men.
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, hey, men, let's fix men as men, it's more of this, hey, guys, look at patriarchy.
Look at this, the men control everything.
The white people are repressing us.
And this idea does alienate people because you hear this and 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 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, you know, political spectrum saying Han supremacy is bad and, you know, Chinese people are oppressed?
Do they not lock up dissidents to a degree there?
Oh, yeah.
The point being, where is their political movement calling out their moral or racial or ethnic supremacy?
I don't know if there is one for racial or moral.
I mean, you can look at the concept of Taiwan or Hong Kong and these people kind of rebelling against the leadership there.
They're the same ethnic background.
Taiwan is the original republic of China.
It's a difference of political ideology.
Sure, but I think they consider themselves like different peoples, right?
Or maybe, I don't know.
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 outgroup 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.
I would argue that makes them the most racist.
If we're willing to vote for anyone in our outgroup?
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?
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.
Let me be clear.
There are people on, like, the fringe left that are like, oh, fuck white men, for sure.
But for the most part, it's just like, hey, like, I'll support anyone regardless of their politics.
And, like, 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 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 Tim Pool.
I would watch, like, anti-SJW 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?
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 things coming at me, you know, maybe some, like, mean comments.
But that's, like, really the extent of it.
Like, I don't feel discriminated against.
And, like, why let that change, like, who I am and 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.
And so 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 maybe is caricatural.
I feel like I said, my middle school was the most progressive.
Right, but the fact is that males tend to have a more tactile learning basis.
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 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.
Right, which is against their nature is kind of the argument.
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 all these programs, outreach, women in STEM, everything like that.
Because when you say they're going to be less successful, this has kind of been how we've done schooling for decades, right?
This wasn't really borne out in the past.
I guess you can say feminized.
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.
But if you're comparing this to 10 years ago or 20 years ago, maybe, yeah, sure.
But if we're looking at the past 100 years, and you talked about industrialization.
Where it's like, yeah, I think just on a whole, everyone is better off post-1860s invention of factories.
The point is, since we've implemented this institutionalized learning industrialization, you've had a downward trend.
That's what I'm asking.
What industrialized learning are you talking about?
Industrialized learning is when pre-industrial revolution, you had small school rooms sort of where it was 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 schooling.
Yeah, but I mean, if we're comparing it to that, we wouldn't say, like, we're smarter, better off than that as a whole.
I mean, I feel like most people are doing better, absolutely, than the, like, 1850s learning.
But we're not talking about technological advancement.
We're talking about the structure of society.
Yeah, I'm talking about like life expectancy, happiness, like all these things.
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.
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.
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 worse.
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 it.
I mean, people always bring up gun deaths, right?
There's like 13,000 of them per year.
Liberals will complain about this.
Most of them are suicides.
And if you have a gun, it's easier.
And women tend to do things like what?
Like risks off, pills.
Things that you can recover from.
And I think like it's one of those things where You've got all these opportunities, and I don't get any of these, and there's all these expectations.
It's like, what's the big lie of just go to college?
You'll be successful.
And 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 a house are the two engineers that got married.
And even then, they're not in California.
They're in Colorado.
They're in some other place.
easier.
So 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, as a whole, society in our generation is more unhappy because we're not getting what we want.
We don't have the house.
We don't have the white picket fence.
So once again, the issue is, if you're an 18-year-old white man and you grew up in a society Why do you say that?
No privilege?
Because you don't have the Gen X privilege, right?
You don't have that economy.
But when it's like, hey, like, because I hate the word privilege here because it's like you don't feel the idea of black people or 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, And for, like, the black who are not a former convict, the percentage of whether or not you get hired is already, like, ten times lower or something ridiculously low.
And then for the black convict level, even the white former convicts were getting, like, hired at, like, a ten to five percent 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 no such thing as white privilege.
That is a fact statement, not an opinion.
What do you mean by that?
'Cause what I just described is what people mean, but I think that's a bad word to describe.
Because when you're trying to determine any kind of fact basis in science, we look for controls.
We're a unique nation.
Meaningless.
So if I finish the point that I'm trying 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.
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.
I think you just described it.
The point is— So the point that I was making— You're agreeing with the concept, which I— There's no white privilege.
And if you're 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?
First of all, it's literally illegal, 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.
Well, that's not illegal to be hired based on merit, first of all.
Sure it is.
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.
If it was one slot and you're like, for this, It's one job.
You can't hire a white guy.
I think the only thing that would ever make sense for that is if you're casting for a show and this character's 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 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.
I like I said, I'll get some insults here or there, but it's not like 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 every other white person that I graduated with, all the white people around me.
None of these people are struggling.
Generations don't experience the same thing as the other generation.
Literally, Gen Z men are struggling.
I am in Gen Z, technically, and 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.
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, Yeah, in that specific thing.
Yeah, absolutely.
And this is what I was talking about.
Like, you don't 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.
You don't feel the absence of something.
You agree the majority group in control is going to have some sort of like in-group preference for that same- 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.
And major cities and institutions are liberal as well.
Major cities, yeah.
But if you're talking about the country as a whole, jobs, all these places, this is not everything everywhere.
It is absolutely part of it, 100%.
Half the country, sure, is liberal, progressive—not progressive, liberal, at the very least.
But the idea that that is the same as saying a white majority in-group is just not borne out.
There's not—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.
There's not like that sort of thing going on, like to the extent of like, "Oh, It's a sins of the father.
Penalizing how?
You talked 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.
Sort of, but again, this is a singular institution.
They literally deduct against your score based on your race.
Right, and they do that for Asians the worst, right, too?
Yeah, I know.
Racist.
Did they get rid of that?
I think they 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.
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?
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, safe spaces.
No, I experienced that.
I wouldn't call it—they don't call it safe spaces.
The argument was from Derrick Bell that— They said Plessy v.
Ferguson was wrong.
He says there should be black-only schools.
There should be black-only businesses.
This guy sounds like a radical racist person.
I don't like this.
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 like 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 where like, yeah, we need to segregate society back.
How much time did you spend 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— 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.
And it's like, 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.
Okay, interesting.
That is the critical race theory view of what 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 unracist?
The politicians themselves, yes.
Like Robert Byrd?
They didn't evaporate from the political landscape.
I'm saying that's the critical race theory argument.
It seems kind of like a weird conspiracy theory, but the whole point I'm trying to bring up is like, If I was a 1960s white guy, I'm not like, oh boy, there's no problems in my fucking life because I'm not forced to go into the left door instead of the right door.
I don't have white privilege at all.
I'm mixed race.
Well, hold on.
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.
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, 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 in college and they'd be like, what are you doing here?
You know, they give me looks because they're like, you're not like us.
You don't look like us.
And that feels like, oh, well, shit, like, because we've focused and, you know, 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.
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 working in your community towards the common goal, I don't think they're segregating 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.
Do 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?
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.
So why that is, I mean, do you really think that this education No, I don't think they understand sort of the problem there.
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.
not teaching you that white men are evil like they still one of 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 and they are moving away from that.
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 whole thing.
I went into 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, people in the past did things, and I don't have guilt for things I never did, and I'm just recognizing 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.
I understand that 100%.
My, I guess, olive branch of those people is like, why let that change your policy if these people aren't actually discriminating 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 feel guilt when they're like, oh, we're talking about slavery and white people did slavery.
It's like, okay.
I'll put it this way 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'd get stopped by the cops, and they'd detain you, and they'd 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.
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 this 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...
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 their gang splits up and you don't know who did the mugging?
I mean, you could stop people if 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 every 30 black people.
But if you give a description of a suspect, you've 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 them, right?
You mean if they have absolutely no other reason to other than, hey, can you really question you?
No, no, no.
If they put 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 rule 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 a contraband, then they can probably cause I can see ways of it being abused, but again, if the idea is the, 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, this kind of black person meets the description, and
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, okay, 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 this, 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, not Catholic, traditional masculinity.
traits except for the beard and this hasn't forced me out of wanting these progressive 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, okay, 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.
Well, I got to question.
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.
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, you know, in one of the suburbs that these people flee to because they're just so 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.
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.
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.
But 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, 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.
This is, that's what discrimination is.
The problem is discrimination is a dirty word, which is why I like To say a gynecologist can only inspect vaginas?
So if a trans woman went to a gynecologist and was denied service, Well, they don't have vaginas.
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— Latino.
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.
like yeah that's 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 gonna attach the oh so you wanna be racist and not hey like certain things are immutable I was asking, like, we're trying to figure out how policy and law should be applied to people.
Where do we all stand on the issue of choosing to discriminate based on immutable characteristics?
And for years after that, we had affirmative action, which is 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.
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 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 am saying, hey, everyone who's not black, you can't be here, but that's totally legal, right?
That's actually—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, we would say that's racially discriminatory.
It's racial discrimination, yeah, basically.
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 showed up, 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— Not the choice of actor.
That specific kind of discrimination is okay, which is why I was hesitant to say, of course there are discriminations that are okay.
It's a very wide spectrum.
Yeah.
I think we also have a big challenge.
Here's a question for you guys.
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?
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 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 programmed to be wearing a Klan hood.
crime that exactly which should happen well the problem is one you got to look at 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 um 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 um 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 Even if you look at, I think it's the actual-I'm actually largely kidding.
I think-For anything?
The average.
So I mean, in terms of fighting fires, women, it's completely, like, I'm actually joking.
My point largely is- What's her job, right?
Is she the person who has to go in and carry the life?
If they're choosing to hire five foot five women to do fire rescue and there's a morbidly obese man, they're like...
That's his fault for discriminating.
I have a few friends that are like five foot five Asian women with no muscles, and they actually do a pretty good job of being EMTs.
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 them.
Sure.
OK.
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.
So they'll say, hey, hey, hold on.
How come only 7% of the fire department in this 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 to 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 disagree with that.
It's like 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, most men can't pass that test, they shouldn't be Navy SEALs.
You shouldn't lower the requirements for some arbitrary equality of outcome thing.
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 is you've 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 Yeah.
I agree, and I think any firefighter would agree, too.
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, you know, 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, like, I'm more of an open-minded guy than that.
The idea that women are less temperamental is like, I don't know, we just saw the two most powerful men in the world have a bitch fit on the internet yesterday.
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.
There's a trend of people putting up viral videos of female cops struggling to arrest.
Teenage guys.
Oh, yeah.
And they're getting roasted for it.
Yeah, if their job is...
And, like, there are plenty of cops I've seen.
So there are examples.
Right, those are examples.
There are people that are like heavily overweight.
Film viral fires, you know what I mean?
Yeah, but if there was some crazy phenomenon of fires not getting put out and there's like, you know there'd be a fucking, I would imagine you'd see one of, like, some woman trying to hold the hose, and she can't, and, like, sprays it out, and the house burns down or something, right?
Like, levitating?
Yeah, yeah.
Exactly.
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 cop 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.
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?
As a skateboarder who has hopped many a fence?
Ain't no way Lady Cop's 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 stories from my friends where they were like on a rooftop and when the cops pulled up because it was a Okay, 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 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 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.
What kind of liberal are you?
Like in the Civil War movies, 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 you're morons don't.
Right-wing, 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 like— Is R.K. Jr. a liberal or conservative?
Hold on.
Let's talk about Tulsi Gabbard, right?
Like she had a very big right-wing shift.
She was someone who was—what was it?
In 2017?
Fossil fuels, right?
She was like a green person.
She was more environmentalism.
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.
No, no, no, hold on, hold on.
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...
It's not based on philosophies.
it's based on fact like worldview based on the policies that they support I think he was kind of like a crackpot, slightly environmentalist person, but he's never been a prominent liberal Democrat, and now he's supporting the anti-vax crowd, I guess.
I guess my question is, I'm trying to ask you, how do you define liberal and conservative?
Yeah, based on the policies.
So what policies am I for that are conservative?
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.
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?
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 traditional liberal, not classical liberal.
Classical liberals like Locke and 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, what do you mean?
Let's pick some of these.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, H.W. Bush, I think, are arguing about illegal immigration.
I think the question at this town hall for this debate was like, hey, what do we do for the kids of illegal immigrants?
You can look up this video.
Like, they're kind of almost, like, out-liberaling 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 eighties saying I support at least 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 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 there.
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...
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 filing.
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.
I think it's a majority of the Republican Party is majority for illegal in all cases.
That's not true, actually.
You ever hear of a moderate?
I know what a moderate is.
I'm saying that you're voting for the party that wants to illegal make this.
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 called 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 a cult.
What was cultish about what I just said?
Like, you can't...
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, 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 has Trump implemented that is aligned with your supposed- Anti-intervention?
Okay, so- So the neocons my whole life were pro-intervention and pro-war.
Yeah, Iraq war and all that.
And I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but he didn't start new wars, and he set timeline for withdrawal from- Escalated the drone strikes from Obama and changed the- During a withdrawal.
Indeed.
Right.
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.
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— 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, right?
If someone invades the United States, I will join the military.
Exactly, right?
So it's not pro-war to say, hey, we don't want new wars to start.
However, if Russia invades Ukraine, then we should give them money or weapons to stop that from happening.
That's like a defensive...
Why is that pro-war?
The war 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?
They're not an ally.
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 that?
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, what should we do?
It depends on why they did it.
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.
Indeed, so answer 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 we should punish.
And that's what Germany is accusing Ukraine of doing.
Germany's accusing Ukraine of the Nord Stream thing, right?
Germany has issued an arrest warrant for one Ukrainian who they said was accompanied by two other Ukrainians to bomb the Nord Stream 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...
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.
Sure.
That is the nuance of the conversation.
You guys are cultists.
Why is that cultish?
Because you can't understand nuance.
Let me take a step back.
You live in an isolated, one-dimensional reality of it.
Take a breather.
I just want to ask a really simple question.
I don't think I'm coming in here with some crazy ideal.
You can say I'm wrong.
Hold on.
You can say I'm wrong.
Neocons.
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 some crazy conflict Yes.
So when I say pro-war, I'm referring to what a traditional liberal is over the past 30 years, my whole life.
Tribal 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, 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?
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, shouldn't we do it?
One is our intelligence agencies— Who 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.
I'm anti-a shitty war.
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's police.
I think that America should be responsible to the American people.
I don't believe that the American— 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 died in the Kosovo thing.
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?
Like, I don't understand this.
Trump won the popular vote.
I'm talking, hold on.
You can't keep jumping around.
No, no, no, no, no, I don't give a shit about 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 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 them.
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 how are you a liberal from any of these areas?
Why not just say, I like Trump's policies because Trump is on the right and that's who I support.
What's wrong with that?
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.
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?
Doesn't make you 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 when 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, become immigration in the way that you want?
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?
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 U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict.
Yes, he did.
He didn't start the war.
Agreed.
Joe Biden got the U.S. 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.
And so I say I'll give you a name.
Yeah, what are you getting closer to with RFK Jr.?
Banning artificial dyes in food?
It's a very specific thing that I'm very much a fan of.
But like, when is he getting you closer to on other things?
What environmental things does he propose?
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've got to mix X, Y, and Z to get us closer to that original thing you had.
But 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 voted 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 closer 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.
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 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- We have special forces on the ground in Ukraine.
They're not fighting, right?
they're instructing people, right?
Look, I'm not gonna, this is such a psychotic 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 are you saying like, we find...
Like, this isn't us fighting in the war.
We were aiding an ally then.
And then we got, no, well, we got involved when, There's several reasons why the Japanese bombed us, one of which was we were supplying their enemies with weapons.
We have American special forces on the ground providing logistical support, instructing.
We have trainers in Poland training their troops.
We have U.S. citizen PMCs on the so volunteers or private PMCs are not 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 Ukraine.
What do they call themselves now?
They change their name every year or something.
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?
It came from you.
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 has not declared war on Russia.
The guys not really involved because they're only paying the guys, but the guys chose to be there of their own volition.
Do you ever question, like, if Russia gave you tens of millions of dollars because they thought...
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 host yourself on the media?
No, you guys believe fake cult bullshit because you live in paranoia.
Well, this is from the DOJ.
Maybe I should trust them.
They dropped it.
There's no evidence.
No evidence was ever released, and there's no case.
They dropped the case completely.
I will just say this.
The case is dropped.
I'm not going to...
How about you let me finish talking?
What are you doing?
I'm just asking if this is all fake, sure.
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.
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?
Pull 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 energy pipeline?
Did our ally Germany put money into that country to fight back against them?
Is 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.
It was attacked by Ukrainians.
Okay, 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% 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?
They said 100% this is confirmed or this is an alleged thing?
CBS reported that Germany has issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian diver named Volodymyr Z. And that means 100% it happened?
It means our ally has asserted that this is— 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.
Okay, 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 that were So the two Russians indicted, are they free now?
Who are they?
Kalashnikov and 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- They haven't even posted photos of these people.
So, okay, 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.
Okay, what is the source that is wrong then, right?
Because you just alleged 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 in 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 on it 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.
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...
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.
Because when the U.S. government, largely under the Biden administration.
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 Do you have evidence that the Biden government fabricated this to frame you because they hate your opinions on Ukraine?
I didn't say they did.
Well, that's what you're alleging right now.
No, I'm alleging that they...
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 what they did, right?
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.
So the Russian position 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, right?
Because they bombed the Nord Stream pipeline, according to Germany.
The point is that your position— What do you mean?
Are you going to get me to name all the Oblasts right now?
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.
Why is this?
Dude, if you're talking about 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?
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?
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?
No.
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?
Like, if I said, oh, it seems like we promised this country we'd defend them.
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, okay, but if you're saying the same things as Russian state TV, it makes it hard to take you seriously.
Does the treaty that we have with Ukraine that promises to defend them include any guarantees for Russia?
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 U.S. 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.
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.
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.
OK.
OK.
this.
Okay.
This is why Russia invaded.
Firstly, the reason why they seized Crimea in 20, I think it was 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-Didn't 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.
Right.
Then there was a Lisa-They invaded Ukraine after Joe Biden got back in.
Right.
Because when Trump won in 2016, all of these tensions simmered down and halted.
The response from the left, the Democratic Party One more time.
Specifically about my position is completely fabricated or brainwashed.
Because you don't know any of this but you want us to be involved.
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 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, well, 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.
What evidence did they release?
I don't know.
I haven't looked at the sources.
The indictment contains no evidence.
Can we call Lauren Chan on the phone and ask her right now?
The indictment contains zero evidence that anything that they've claimed happened.
Yeah, when the government releases a report on something, do they have like a list of sources at the bottom?
Or do 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, 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, I don't understand why.
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.
Speaking of not researching, can we talk about the fine people hoax?
You talked about it with Adam Conover and I think you bring that up with liberals a lot.
Okay, so some people, especially Chuck Schumer, he did this.
He said, Donald Trump called neo-Nazis fine people, which is not the quote, right?
They should be condemned.
Yeah, fine people on both sides, but I'm not talking about this.
But I think that completely ignores the context of the white nationalists who organized the rally, who was there on that day, and all the Identity Europa, the KKK.
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 you bring up the Snopes article that you...
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.
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, and 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 a person.
I'm just going to say it again.
This is why young men are leaving the Democratic Party.
Can you address the point I'm bringing up here?
I'll say it right now.
Who did Trump describe specifically as the fine people?
He said the people that weren't the neo-Nazis and the racists who should become condemned totally.
No, he specifically said some people who just didn't want to see statues torn down in their neighborhood.
So not those people.
So everyone excluding those.
So when Trump says, like, a little old lady doesn't want a statue torn down as a fine person.
The point is, this was a white nationalist rally organized by Jason Kessler, a white nationalist, 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 and this says, 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.
And it's also, if you look at 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 E. Lee.
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 Why do you say boogeyman for David?
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 supremacist.
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'll say it.
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.
Do you think that news organizations, even today, take direction from intelligence agencies?
Direction?
It depends on what you mean by that.
I'm not sure.
Like, they could be like, you have to report on this?
Maybe?
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?
That might be manufactured consent, but yeah, they probably do that.
So I can tell you with firsthand experience, the State Department particularly makes calls on the phone, the editor in chief, and tells them what to report.
They say, we need you to report on this.
Sure, but that's not forcing them to report on something.
If I 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.
No, I'm telling you that the State Department contacts the heads of news organizations and says – need this one out there.
Sure, but this is kind of...
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, 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 this conflict in Afghanistan 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 percent.
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 in.
Have you seen the clip of him on, 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 just really struggles to do it.
And it's like, hey, why are you so reluctant to do this versus every other politician who...
No.
Wait, what?
Why not?
Because it's a bullshit smear tactic.
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 and It raises questions where it's like hey, why is it?
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.
If he knows who he is, 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.
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 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.
Why is it that 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.
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.
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...
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.
unidentified
Last chance.
SUPER TUESDAY BRINGS CAUCUSES IN PRIMARIES IN 12 STATES.
FOR REPUBLICANS, ABOUT HALF about what you're even talking about with I don't know anything about Beginning with a new controversy surrounding Trump today, here's Major Garrett.
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.
Like, 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 worried about.
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 think 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...
transcripts.
You don't think that at all emboldens the 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...
what is this?
I don't know anything about Dave...
Why don't they have the video in here?
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-KK twice.
That's the one I pulled up.
Full interview, Trump denounces KKK.
Trump, I totally disavow the Ku Klux Klan.
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, like, a rising trend of these groups' influence, like, I think that's a very demonstrable material harm.
Liberals in California are stupid anti-gun, right?
They're, like, putting taxes on ammo, or, like, background checks on ammo, all this stupid shit, and 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, you know, welfare state, that keep me in this party.
hold on, that keep me in this party, if This is not the thing that is the deal breaker for him.
This is not his principal value.
You can call him 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.
OK, sure.
But the point is, the fact that who we I don't know if he got fired or what.
Yeah, like who he aligns with and who he votes for Okay, look, if I'm a right-wing person, if I say I'm right-wing because I vote for Trump, but, you know, I support every other...
I support 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?
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.
You could be a liberal Republican.
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.
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?
You vote for Trump because you think that these policies that you want are going to happen, right?
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 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 on 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.
Because 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...
And that makes sense then why you would vote Trump because they think 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, 20 years ago— And that's my point.
20 years ago, if you went to a liberal and said—actually, 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 was 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, 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.
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.
Anal sex in any circumstance is damaging to the body and can kill you.
Do you think that gay people should never have sex?
You mean like anal sex?
Yeah.
No one should.
Ask a doctor.
Go to a doctor.
So if we have a philosophy on gay sex can cause harm, because it can.
Colon cancers, incontinence, there's things that can happen.
Gastrointestinal infections, sepsis, and death.
So 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?
We shouldn't.
Because you can't prevent it from happening, right?
We 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 the safest way to do it.
Right, so don't do this.
They draw it out.
I went to a progress.
Bro, I'm a liberal, man.
I don't think you should teach children to 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.
That's not a liberal position.
Traditional liberalism.
Dude, come on.
Let's try this again.
No, you don't agree with the way that gay people have sex.
This is not...
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?
This is not what I said.
You said that...
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 that 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.
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...
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, alright?
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 gonna 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 fucking work.
I love how we've gone from like, Yeah, the thing that gave you to do when they have sex.
So 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.
D.A.R.E.
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, and this is the effects of it.
This is how you can avoid it, which is not what D.A.R.E.
was 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 superheroine, 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.
It's always fun to have these conversations, as contentious as they may become.
So I do appreciate you coming and John...
Yeah, yeah, we'll do more, and hopefully we can have you come for one of our live shows.
Should I do a call-out to the other 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 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 in the future.
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, Yeah, exactly what you just described, which is Trump and the period is making his face Hitler.
Yeah, but again, I have no problem with periodically you talk about Trump or criticism.
That's fine.
Like, your videos are...
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 name too often, and like every single video is just a random screenshot of Trump.
Anyway, did you want to, 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 bigger himbo.
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 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.
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.
