| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
Check Rumble Wallet
00:03:49
|
||
| Welcome to the Culture War. | ||
| I'm Andrew Wilson. | ||
| I'm here to host this thing today. | ||
| I don't know where Tim Poole is, and I forgot my beanie. | ||
| Here with a great panel. | ||
| We're going to be discussing feminism. | ||
| So the actual prompt here is, is feminism bringing in communism as a resurgence? | ||
| And is it, what's the rest of the prompt? | ||
| What is the rest of the prompt? | ||
| Feminism is destroying America. | ||
| Reviving America. | ||
| It's too long. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Is feminism destroying America? | ||
| Yeah, all that stuff. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| So we're going to get into all of that. | ||
| It's going to be wonderful. | ||
| It's going to be great. | ||
| We've got Stray Raid here with us. | ||
| We've got Ian here with us. | ||
| Oh, God, Ian. | ||
| If Ian argues with me even one time, we play Helldivers together, and I told him, like, there's going to be so many team kills. | ||
| And then, of course, on this side of the table, we have Jennifer. | ||
| So with that, let's roll right into our first ad. | ||
| It is Bearskin. | ||
| Oh, boy. | ||
| My friends, you've heard of the Bearskin hoodie because you watched the show. | ||
| You know, and you need to get one now. | ||
| Smart people are grabbing theirs now because when it's already freezing, you want the gear that actually keeps you warm. | ||
| Bearskin is running a 60% off deal right now so you can finally upgrade the sad excuse for a winter hoodie you've been suffering in. | ||
| You've been suffering. | ||
| Trust me. | ||
| These hoodies are built for serious cold weather. | ||
| It's got 340 GSM of bearskin fleece, 10 legit pockets, a muscular fit, and even zips into the heavy storm rain jacket to turn into full winter waterproof armor. | ||
| Whether you're into hiking, hunting, traveling, just hate being cold, it's the last hoodie you'll ever need. | ||
| You'll get the free U.S. ship. | ||
| You'll get free U.S. shipping, fast delivery, and you're finally kitted out properly for winter. | ||
| So it's a win-win. | ||
| Do yourself a favor, text the word Tim to 36912 to lock in your 60% off. | ||
| Again, text Tim to 36912. | ||
| You'll get a link sent straight to your phone so you can check it out later if you're busy right now. | ||
| And when you shop with Bearskin, you're not just getting killer gear. | ||
| You're also supporting the fallen outdoors and the Hope for the Warriors veterans programs. | ||
| Don't wait till you're freezing to realize your hoodie socks. | ||
| Get Bearskin Now. | ||
| Wallet 60% off. | ||
| Text Tim to 36912. | ||
| You can also check out B-A-E-R.skin slash Tim. | ||
| Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. | ||
| It is Rumble Wallet on the App Store. | ||
| My friends, you got to check it out. | ||
| They can cancel your accounts. | ||
| They can freeze your cards. | ||
| Decide what you're allowed to buy. | ||
| Say or support. | ||
| Big banks and financial institutions have total control and they use it. | ||
| That's why financial independence matters now more than ever. | ||
| Go to wallet.rumble.com. | ||
| It's non-custodial. | ||
| Okay, let's break this down. | ||
| What does it mean? | ||
| On the Rumble Wallet, you can trade crypto with people who have accounts on Rumble. | ||
| It's like an app where you can send people cash, but it's either Tether, Tether Gold, or Bitcoin, making it really easy for you to tip people on Rumble and pay somebody money you owe them. | ||
| Maybe you're going to the store and you're like, hey, man, I want to get a slice of pizza. | ||
| I didn't bring cash. | ||
| Hey, let me Rumble wallet you some tether, which is effectively tied. | ||
| It is effectively US dollars. | ||
| It's tied to the U.S. dollar. | ||
| There's no permission, no middlemen, no cancel button. | ||
| No one's banning you. | ||
| No one's spending your accounts. | ||
| Rumble has no control over this. | ||
| There's no reality where Rumble can go in and ban you and shut down your ability to trade your currency. | ||
| It is yours. | ||
| It's not a credit line that can be shut off. | ||
| It's your wallet, permanently yours. | ||
| When the systems fail, institutions turn their own people. | ||
| Rumble Wallet is about politics, about freedom and ownership and protecting what's yours. | ||
| So take control. | ||
| Download Rumble Wallet now. | ||
| Step away from the big banks. | ||
| Go to wallet.rumble.com and check it out. | ||
| We got a link for you too. | ||
| I think it's, okay, well, that's not a good link I can say, but I'll have a link in the description below. | ||
| Check it out. | ||
| And we're back. | ||
| Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
|
Rumble Wallet Freedom
00:15:30
|
||
| We're going to dive into the topic. | ||
| Before we do, I want to go around the table, have everybody introduce themselves, kind of tell you a little bit just briefly about themselves, where you can find them. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
| Hi, my name is Straderade, aka Aaron. | ||
| I go, I'm live on Twitch, YouTube, doing React Stream political commentary Monday through Friday. | ||
| And then there's an empty chair over there, but the reason for that is because Ian never brings anything to any conversation. | ||
| So I sent him to get me coffee over here. | ||
| I'm Jennifer Gillardi. | ||
| I'm a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. | ||
| But for the purposes of this conversation, I was a former feminist 20 years in Comifornia. | ||
| Kind of got brainwashed and then saw the light around COVID, started questioning things and finally came back to being a normal woman, I'd like to say. | ||
| It's super hot. | ||
| Be careful. | ||
| You might want to take the lid off and let it cool down for a bit. | ||
| Why, thank you, Ian. | ||
| Ian, do you want to give your introduction? | ||
| Yeah, I started making YouTube videos in 2006 because I was like, what would Jesus do with this? | ||
| I was having all these epiphanies about like saving the world, you know? | ||
| I'm like, communication. | ||
| If we can communicate, we can overcome almost any issue. | ||
| Almost like humanity's pretty good track record of overcoming most of our issues, even with global internet and stuff. | ||
| So it's like the manifestation of it 20 years later. | ||
| I'm glad we're doing something like this. | ||
| This is great. | ||
| Let's go. | ||
| How's it working out, though? | ||
| Is YouTube saving the world? | ||
| A charmed life. | ||
| I could never, I mean, it could be better. | ||
| I could be a billionaire throwing money at this and that, but and I didn't, AI is another issue, you know, in the mechanicization of the universes. | ||
| Could be like the dehumanization and the roboticization could be a problem, but, you know, I don't know. | ||
| I'm not a Luddite, but I think it's. | ||
| How many drugs, Ian? | ||
| It's the best time to ever live as a human. | ||
| Is that even debatable? | ||
| A lot of drugs? | ||
| A little bit of drugs. | ||
| Okay, a little bit of a drug. | ||
| I'm wired on caffeine right now. | ||
| So, Aaron, you're a communist. | ||
| I am a communist. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Dive into that a little bit. | ||
| All for the stateless, classless, moneyless society, promote social equality. | ||
| But I do think that politics is more than just what we say we are. | ||
| That's like an ideological tenant of mine that's kind of in my brain. | ||
| But as far as like the actual change that I effectuate in the world, it's pretty unexceptional and boring. | ||
| I'm not out here organizing general strikes and tenants and trying to get like a tenants union or anything like that. | ||
| For the most part, I advocate people engage in electoral politics, local politics at, you know, the municipal, state, federal level. | ||
| I generally align with Democrats on most things. | ||
| On some, I'll be like an independent or whatever. | ||
| But I realize I'm further left than the majority of Americans. | ||
| But as far as like what I can achieve now or whatever, it's like, you know, I'm pushing for like a utopia here. | ||
| Yeah, you're promoting it as an ideology, though. | ||
| You would say. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And you're pretty unabashed, unashamed about. | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Gotcha. | ||
| And I would say that most, a lot of people that identify themselves as socialists are communists. | ||
| But because communism is like a dirty word in America due to the red scare, people generally in America not being so far left or whatever, they say socialist, but these are used largely like interchangeably. | ||
| Well, how do we distinguish between what's a socialist and what's a communist? | ||
| I think it really comes down, honestly, to self-identification as far as most socialists are more interested in. | ||
| As far as ideology. | ||
| As far as ideology, they're more interested in preserving, you know, some state apparatuses have more, I think, priority over the sort of short term, but there's not really a major distinction between them. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Which is why if socialists call themselves communists and communists call themselves socialists, I don't really think that's. | ||
| So part of the prompt is, is feminism reviving wokeness and is it reviving communism? | ||
| Would you say that would you first would you self-identify as a feminist? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And then do you think that it's bringing back communism? | ||
| No. | ||
| But I don't think we've ever, there's ever been communism. | ||
| Also, you can think of a communist society. | ||
| Well, is it moving us towards that or helping to move us towards that? | ||
| Okay, ideologically. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So that's not in dispute. | ||
| And then do you think it's reviving wokeness? | ||
| No. | ||
| But what is what do you mean by awokeness? | ||
| Well, that's I'm asking you from your metric, whatever, whatever you think wokeness is. | ||
| I mean, generally speaking, like wokeness is kind of this catch-all term that I feel like people just play fast and loose with. | ||
| Sometimes they mean kind of the excesses of social justice. | ||
| Other times it means kind of literally any promotion of social equality. | ||
| That's probably closer to my understanding of it or what constitutes like woke ideas. | ||
| And in that sense, yeah, feminism is moving us closer towards a more woke society. | ||
| Okay, I feel like we understand the ideology a little bit. | ||
| And then over here, let's dive into the same questions, exact same ones. | ||
| First, feminism, do you identify as a feminist? | ||
| No. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And then is feminism assisting with the revival of communism or moving us towards that ideologically? | ||
| Yes, the communists used feminism as a tool to further communism. | ||
| So the first International Day of Women was founded and formulated by communists. | ||
| And then is it reviving wokeness? | ||
| I didn't ever see wokeness really die. | ||
| I saw maybe a kind of moving away from it in the past, you know, three, four years, but I don't think it's dead. | ||
| I think it's alive and well. | ||
| So since wokeness is such a nebulous term, and both of you have kind of agreed that that's a nebulous term, let's leave that off of the table for the purpose of the debate and we'll focus on whether or not feminism is destroying America and whether or not it's moving us towards communism. | ||
| And if that's a good thing, you think it is, you think it isn't. | ||
| So with that, I'll open the floor here a little bit so we can get kind of back and forth into this debate. | ||
| So it's a pro side for feminists. | ||
| You can go ahead and open. | ||
| Pro side, I see a lot more upsides and downsides to the promotion of the social equality, economic equality of women alongside men. | ||
| I largely think that this promotes, you know, better social attitudes and relationships between genders, the sexes, however you want to, you know, whichever lines you want to divide it amongst. | ||
| I see more participation in the economy as a net good. | ||
| But overall, I also really care about, and I think most feminists care about personal liberty, personal freedom. | ||
| And the primary thing I'm always concerned about is people just being able to have the ability to kind of make the choices in their life that they feel comfortable with. | ||
| If that means embracing motherhood, the family, being a stay-at-home mom, that's great. | ||
| If that means working and raising a family simultaneously, that's fine. | ||
| If that means solely working and you're not interested in kids, I think all of these things are fine. | ||
| It just, yeah, I just want people to, women specifically, to largely be able to be in charge of the decisions that dictate their life. | ||
| Promise I'll let you get into it before you do. | ||
| You might have a little opening that you want to give there to kind of in response. | ||
| Well, I think the opening is kind of pushing back on all those points because feminism never was about, well, we're okay with you doing what you do and you do. | ||
| It was, it was very antagonistic towards women who wanted to stay in the home, especially if we want to call it second wave sexual liberty, whatever it was. | ||
| It was you're a slave, it's enslavement, you know, the drudgery of motherhood. | ||
| It was constantly framed as you are trapped by motherhood. | ||
| Motherhood is a trap. | ||
| So to say that feminism promotes, oh, it's just you do what you do. | ||
| That's a good choice. | ||
| That's a good choice. | ||
| That's not, it did value women's independence over other choices. | ||
| And it saw children as burdens, which then gave rise to more abortions. | ||
| And it, it really wanted to, I think, make women a superior sex to men. | ||
| It, you know, it triumphed independence over everything else, over codependence, over roles. | ||
| So I don't, you know, I don't think that that's true. | ||
| That feminism is all about just choice. | ||
| And then I think you also have to define what freedom is. | ||
| Well, the first thing we should do is make sure we get both of your definitions of feminism so that we're not speaking past each other, right? | ||
| So starting with you, how would you kind of define it? | ||
| Now, I understand you're not going to be able to give me an Oxford definition, and I'm not asking you to. | ||
| Just even a proprietary one so we understand where you're coming from from the worldview. | ||
| I would say the promotion of social equality between men, women, sexes, genders on economic grounds as well, and prioritizing liberty, independence for women. | ||
| Within that, obviously, I think it's not really, you know, the characterization you just gave of what you understand to be feminism. | ||
| I find a lot of people that push back against feminists or like feminist goals, feminist aims, kind of have this caricature of what they believe the goals of feminism are, which is supremacy to men, supremacy over men rather than equality. | ||
| And I think to the extent that you can make that argument, you know, the promotion of social equality between the sexes might be. | ||
| Hang on, Ian. | ||
| Let's just start with kind of a summarized definition that we can work from. | ||
| But just generally, yeah, promotion of social inequality. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| But not supremacy over other genders or men. | ||
| To me, I mean, that's fine. | ||
| We can even look up. | ||
| I mean, if we want to look up what the dictionary is. | ||
| I'm fine putting up a dictionary definition. | ||
| You don't have to use a proprietary one, but just the thing is, is it doesn't matter. | ||
| It's how has it played out, right? | ||
| The definitions at some point don't matter. | ||
| The technical definitions with something with a movement, right? | ||
| It is what people think it is, and it is what the consequences to society has been. | ||
| And the consequences have been taking women out of the homes, trying to, you know, it's weird because feminism says it's for women, but what it's resulted in is women becoming more like men and almost regarding men as the superior sex. | ||
| That's how it's played out. | ||
| Very quickly, maybe we can summarize this easily then. | ||
| The official definition here, the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality in sexes, I think that that's up for dispute. | ||
| I would just add that it's a movement towards egalitarianism, right? | ||
| And the attempt to deconstruct the patriarchy. | ||
| Would you agree that that's about right in summary? | ||
| I think that's important. | ||
| The deconstruction of the patriarchy. | ||
| So now we've established kind of something that we can both work off of here for the purpose of the debate. | ||
| And I'm sorry we had to caveat this a little bit, but I want to get to the heart of the issue or we'll never be able to debate it. | ||
| And even to segment this into four more complex things is there's four waves of feminism up to this point, and they're all different. | ||
| And they use the same word feminism, but with a different definition in every era that you see it. | ||
| Like the women's rights was a big part of it. | ||
| The thing is, though, is that she just said the advocacy of women's rights on the base of equality and the deconstruction of patriarchy. | ||
| She agrees. | ||
| Do you want to stick with that for now? | ||
| Well, they're operating off of this worldview regardless of the wave. | ||
| And so if that's going to help us get to the heart of the matter, then let's use that to get to the heart of the matter. | ||
| And I'm going to kind of open the floor here a little bit for you. | ||
| The other thing is that first, what we consider first wave in America feminism, which wasn't really the first wave because it goes back further than that. | ||
| But in America, the first wave, the suffrage movement, you know, the right for women not to be defined as property, they didn't identify as feminists. | ||
| They didn't call themselves feminists. | ||
| No, I can argue that I didn't even believe that their understanding of taking over the patriarchy was correct. | ||
| However, that term came to them retroactively. | ||
| So that's just, that's one thing. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| You did say something earlier, like Andrew was saying, just like broadly, we've agreed upon this definition for the purposes of the debate. | ||
| But as Ian mentioned, there have been different iterations of, you know, first wave feminism, which is primarily what you talked about, women's suffrage, political representation via voting. | ||
| And then you had like second wave feminism, and that is where you actually did see more attitudes where feminists were speaking out against women being confined to the family. | ||
| You have feminists like Betty Friedan, who talked about, you know, the problem that has no name and has a communist. | ||
| Suburbia and these sorts of things. | ||
| And while they may promise a kind of dream life for women where they have the nuclear family, they're raising their kids, they're supported by a husband, these don't actually fulfill or live up to what they promise. | ||
| And they leave women feeling alienated, depressed, et cetera. | ||
| And then you have, you know, third and fourth wave feminism that are more often than not coming in contradiction now with second wave feminism as they're more interested in expanding equality for women beyond the basis of sex solely. | ||
| You see the inclusion of like trans women. | ||
| They're not towards the same goal. | ||
| But they're all broadly moving in the same goal. | ||
| But there are a few times where you do see differences like second wave feminists more likely to identify as like TERFs, the Andrew Dorkin and whatnot. | ||
| Because they see how they protect women in a different way from their view, but they're still attempting to deconstruct the patriarchy on behalf of egalitarianism, right? | ||
| Yeah, you would agree that each wave has this in common. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So I think we can consolidate that a bit. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
| So Hugo, you said that the promise of marriage, family wasn't fulfilled. | ||
| You know, women at home weren't fulfilled. | ||
| I would say the opposite now. | ||
| I said that those feminists and second wave, like Betty Friedan, argued. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| So how's that working out for us now? | ||
| Because the promises that those women made that you'll be happier when you're independent. | ||
| You'll be happier when you can work like a man, when you can make money like a man, when you can have consumer purchasing power like a man, it doesn't seem to be working out so well. | ||
| There are upwards of 60% of women on SSRIs. | ||
| We see this war between the sexes. | ||
| Men and women are not dating. | ||
| They're not reproducing. | ||
| They're not happy. | ||
| They're miserable. | ||
| Look at the women out in Minnesota right now. | ||
| I've never seen angrier women in my life. | ||
| They have no direction. | ||
| They have no purpose. | ||
| And they're fat. | ||
| And, you know, we can wait. | ||
| The women in Minnesota are there. | ||
| There is an inherent anger at the way God has made women. | ||
| They are rebelling against what women would see as God, as the patriarch. | ||
| They are rebelling against their own form and function, their wombs, their innate design. | ||
| You can call it God. | ||
| You can call it natural law, whatever you want to call it. | ||
| There's just this anger for themselves, at who they are and what they were made to do. | ||
| I think I would agree with you that the social ills and issues that you're talking about with increased loneliness, that pertains to women and men alike, economic anxiety, people not feeling like they have the ability to start a family, et cetera. | ||
| I don't disagree with you that all of these problems persist throughout society. | ||
| I think I just disagree with you that it's the result of feminism, largely to the extent, or like when you talked about there being higher instances of use for women like with SSRIs, like what do you believe is the reason for that? | ||
| Do you really think it's just feminism? | ||
| I think it's a big part of it. | ||
| I think it's they believe the lie that independence is the primary virtue for women. | ||
| I think that, you know, men and women are meant to be complementary. | ||
| They're meant to support each other's strengths. | ||
| I don't think men and women are equal. | ||
| I think they're equal under the law. | ||
| I don't think they're equal under natural order. | ||
| You know, and I'll play devil's advocate. | ||
| I've been in a hospital with my mother the past week. | ||
|
Women's Power and Skin in the Game
00:14:50
|
||
| And I have to say the women doctors, I enjoyed them more because they weren't so offended when I asked them questions. | ||
| I know enough about the medical field to be dangerous. | ||
| And when I would ask them questions, it was like their ego wasn't bruised, right? | ||
| So I like their bedside manner more. | ||
| So there's certain careers that I think women and men can both excel in. | ||
| But when it comes to a surgeon, I don't care what his bedside manner is if he's working on my mother. | ||
| I want him. | ||
| And what I don't want is unfair, that they're not, they're being hired based on their sexual characteristics, right? | ||
| Not on their, not on their merit, right? | ||
| So anyway, I kind of went down, I veered off a little bit with that, but all that to say is like, I'm not saying women can't work. | ||
| What I'm saying is they, the second wave feminist, what they promised has not come to fruition, just like you said, what the family promised. | ||
| And I would say the family, the main cause of women being kind of depressed, needing mother's little helper, right, in the 50s and the 60s was because it was the industrial era. | ||
| Everything used to be centered around the home. | ||
| The whole economy that we used to have with agrarian culture was almost like communist. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It was shifting. | |
| It was communitarian. | ||
| It was communitarian, right? | ||
| And so when the Industrial Revolution took the men out of the home, I understand why women felt burdened. | ||
| They lost their partner. | ||
| They lost their mate. | ||
| So we're going to have to shift. | ||
| Like there's, I'm not saying there can't be changes to how the family functions, that we need to go back to the agrarian. | ||
| We're not going back there. | ||
| But you can't, I don't think you can deny the fact that a family unit, a mother and a father in a loving relationship with children is the best to build a society. | ||
| I do think that the most important thing is that children feel supported. | ||
| And right now, given the current economic order, dual income households are necessary for people to be able to adequately support all children that they have. | ||
| But returning to a claim that you made earlier, you said you don't believe that men and women are equal, right? | ||
| Not by design. | ||
| Not by design. | ||
| But you did say equal under the law. | ||
| Do you support repealing the 19th Amendment? | ||
| Do you think that women should ought to be able to vote? | ||
| I think that can be up for debate about the pros and cons of it. | ||
| The fact of the matter, again, it's not a problem. | ||
| But with any definitions, it's never going to happen. | ||
| It's not politically viable. | ||
| Hang on, hang on, hang on. | ||
| I know it's up for debate, but that's what we're here. | ||
| We're debating. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| But I also don't want to get off. | ||
| I don't want to go down into the weeds into this. | ||
| It's not going to happen. | ||
| So it's not calculated. | ||
| I don't think it's possible. | ||
| It's not politically viable. | ||
| I don't think it's the weeds to ask the question. | ||
| It's a fair question to ask. | ||
| Repeal the 19th or no. | ||
| I can see benefits from it. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So, yes. | ||
| So yes, do you support it? | ||
| I haven't, to be honest, I would need to think about it more because I don't give... | ||
| You haven't thought about whether women ought to be able to vote? | ||
| Yeah, no, I've thought about that, but I can see the pros and cons of both. | ||
| I do think that, you know, as a single woman with no children, married couples, men and women, have more skin in the game about what happens to this country when you have something to pass down. | ||
| I would say I'd like to see things, but it's not as, it doesn't, it's not as visceral for me. | ||
| I don't have children. | ||
| So what happens to this country after I'm gone, I can say, yes, I care, but I'm not passing anything down. | ||
| My kitty's not going to outlive me. | ||
| You know, I love that cat to death, but, you know, the truth is, so I can see why that only married couples with children should vote. | ||
| Now, assuming they are looking after the best for the whole country because of their children, they want to see this country thrive. | ||
| I want to see it thrive too, but I don't have, I don't have skin in the game as much. | ||
| Let's say I don't have as much skin in the game as parents. | ||
| So I can make the argument. | ||
| Would I really want it to happen? | ||
| Probably not. | ||
| But I can understand the argument. | ||
| So why wouldn't you want it to happen? | ||
| Because I like selfishly, I like having a say in what happens. | ||
| But I went, I was out in California completely apolitical. | ||
| Well, not apolitical. | ||
| I kind of got brainwashed and tugged along, but I didn't vote for years. | ||
| Nothing changed. | ||
| Do you vote now? | ||
| Life, huh? | ||
| Do you vote now? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| And you voted, who did you vote for in the most recent election? | ||
| Trump. | ||
| I see. | ||
| So I guess it's unclear to me why you would view that as selfish when I think the principle being, you know, no taxation without representation is generally defensible. | ||
| And I don't see that as any more, you know, particularly self-interested or selfish. | ||
| I do think it's reasonable for participants in a society, regardless of their sex, gender, et cetera, to want to be able to vote and have representation within, you know, representative or constitutional republic, representative democracy, et cetera, within the United States. | ||
| So you wouldn't push for it, right? | ||
| Not only because you think it's unrealistic, but I think that you also seem to believe that it would be more unjust than just to push to repeal the 19th Amendment. | ||
| I just don't see the policies that would come down from an institution from institutions of which I voted for, and they actually don't change my life a lot. | ||
| I mean, maybe taxes, but like, let's say for like medical care, I don't know. | ||
| I've always kind of lived outside the system. | ||
| So personally, I don't think it would really matter to me. | ||
| But again, would it matter to you if you have the right to vote or if the 19th Amendment were repealed? | ||
| I don't think it would change how I lived my life one way or another. | ||
| I think it would change your life significantly. | ||
| And I do think that you believe it's important to be able to vote because you participated in our last political election. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I did. | |
| And since you don't believe that, you know, if you believe that women's role should primarily be relegated to the home, what are your thoughts on the Trump administration having an unprecedented amount of women in power? | ||
| I didn't see that. | ||
| Even both the first and second term, like the first term he appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, that nomination went through. | ||
| So Trump's not a sexist. | ||
| Misogynist? | ||
| No, I didn't go that far. | ||
| So he's a sexist misogynist who puts women in power? | ||
| No, I don't think those are mutually exclusive, do you? | ||
| Well, I don't see a lot of misogynists who are sexist putting women in power. | ||
| No. | ||
| So you think it's mutually exclusive? | ||
| Can you name for me the most sexist misogynist person you could think of who's like, I love having women in power? | ||
| Can you tell me if you believe it's exclusive? | ||
| Answer the question before you ask one. | ||
| I asked the question first and you never answered mine. | ||
| I said, do you believe that I asked the question first and the question was, do you see a lot of misogynist sexists putting women in power or not? | ||
| And I asked my clarifying question first to get an understanding of where you're going to be. | ||
| Hang on, hang on. | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| I'm so confused. | ||
| Which part of this are you not understanding? | ||
| Do you see a lot of misogynist sexists putting women in power or not? | ||
| Anything in there you need to find. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| Anything in there you need to find, I'll define for you. | ||
| I like to answer your question. | ||
| Okay, where? | ||
| The Bush administration, his secretary of state was Condoleezza Rice. | ||
| I don't think that George Bush would identify himself neither as a feminist nor somebody who has a lot of women in power. | ||
| Yeah, I believe so. | ||
| I don't think that he had quite the amount of appointees, female appointees and women within his cabinet. | ||
| So we just generally look around at like corporations that put women as boss CEOs and things like this and go, those fucking misogynists? | ||
| Or does that usually mean something different? | ||
| Like, for instance, do you think that maybe that would mean or give evidence towards they're not actually misogynistic sexists? | ||
| Wouldn't that be better evidence for that? | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
How? | |
| I think because it would be very naive to think that just because you're appointing or elevating women to positions of status and authority, even ones as great as like political authority, secretaries, et cetera, that that means the, and you're like presupposing that those women in those positions of power being appointed are fine with the social equality of women. | ||
| That's like a contradiction in terms. | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| I think that's totally empowering women that have very rigid ideas of what womanhood and what women ought to be doing with their lives. | ||
| And in those days, girl bossing and the administration, the most powerful positions in the world, those damn misogynists. | ||
| Do you think that it's mutually exclusive that you could be a sexist, but also appoint a lot of women to positions of power? | ||
| I think that it's logically possible, but practically improbable. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Gotcha. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So do you agree with me that Superman's logically possible? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| But practically impossible? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct. | |
| Okay, great. | ||
| Glad we got that cleared up. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So sometimes it takes me a while to form my argument. | ||
| So I do want to go back to your like the voting thing because I do believe that any policies that consider children first will be fundamentally good for all of society. | ||
| So if the people that are voting for those policies have a vested interest in the continuation of our country as, you know, a free democratic republic, if they consider the children first, I think that's good for everybody. | ||
| So that would kind of be my argument for that. | ||
| And then you asked me about his administration being women. | ||
| I didn't say women can't work. | ||
| I didn't say they will only be fulfilled by a family. | ||
| Like I said, I am single. | ||
| I don't have a family. | ||
| I just think for the most part, for most women, the lie that they were sold. | ||
| And I guarantee you, if you ask any of these women in the administration, if they were asked to give up their job to put their family first, they would. | ||
| I know Caroline Levitt would. | ||
| She's probably the worst example you could have picked. | ||
| She had her baby and then declined to have a maternity leave. | ||
| I think after like maybe two, three days after giving birth, she was right back on the job because she said it was her duty to do this because Donald Trump had faced, I think, I can't remember if it was one or two assassination attempts at that time, but that's an example of a working woman that actually put her motherly duties secondary to her professional life. | ||
| But she's also working for someone that she sees that is going to secure the future for her child. | ||
| So it doesn't change the fact that she is prioritizing girl bossing it up and going to work and her attainment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You don't know what I mean. | |
| You don't know inferences based on her. | ||
| You're drawing inferences, but you don't know why she's doing what she's doing. | ||
| I bet if you asked her, she would say, I want to secure a future for my child that isn't going to tell me that my daughter can become a boy. | ||
| And it's temporary. | ||
| Her job is only three more years. | ||
| That's her cope answer. | ||
| I do think when you, regardless of her three years, subjective intent, when you analyze the effect that she's having on the world, her actions, yeah, she's putting herself first over her domestic duties of being a mother when she could have taken that maternity lady. | ||
| She could have done that, but she chose to say earlier that you have to, by necessity, have a two-income household. | ||
| Yeah, for the most part, yeah. | ||
| If you want to have the best. | ||
| I don't understand. | ||
| If it's the case that women need to have a two-income household, right, then aren't they being forced into work situations? | ||
| And if that's the case, how can you say that her subjective intent is not to put her family first if the requirement to feed her family is to work? | ||
| I said that I think that that's her cope answer because it just seems to me incongruent given the types of beliefs. | ||
| Women like Caroline Levitt. | ||
| It is kind of rules for the not for me. | ||
| Yeah, sure. | ||
| She will make the prescription that other women ought to focus on raising their family, their domestic duties, being a good person. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, maybe. | |
| Let's assume for a second that she's not a person. | ||
| Have you seen the white house? | ||
| There's kids all over the place. | ||
| Let's assume for a moment you're right and she's a total hypocrite and completely wrong. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| That does nothing for your position. | ||
| No, I'm not saying it does. | ||
| I was only saying it's the worst example. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let me finish. | |
| Let me finish. | ||
| I'm just saying that does nothing for your position because your position's P and not P. | ||
| It's like, yeah, we require two incomes in order to raise a family, but look at her girl bossing out there working, not prioritizing her family. | ||
| That would be P and not P. Andrew, I'm doing an internal critique. | ||
| I'm saying that based off of Caroline Levitt's espoused personal values, that her actions are at odds with that. | ||
| Now, I personally don't believe that there's an issue with a woman who is able to provide for her child via hiring nannies, private child care, if her husband, et cetera, returning to work and declining to have an extended family. | ||
| Well, let me do the internal critique back. | ||
| So then if she's out there and she's working, right, you would say that she is prioritizing family values. | ||
| Well, yeah. | ||
| Under my belief system, I don't think that those are mutually exclusive. | ||
| Okay, well, then the argument that you have then is pretty weak here, isn't it? | ||
| Because isn't, well, isn't your argument here that women who are in a position where they're forced to work, right, they have to in order to take care of their families. | ||
| Everybody has to work. | ||
| That's not actually a feminist ideal then. | ||
| That's no longer within the domain of feminism, is it? | ||
| Because it's a force to work rather than a choice to work. | ||
| I mean, I would agree. | ||
| Yeah, but then that gets into. | ||
| You're arguing from that gets into, but that gets into criticisms of like our economic system and the fact that we don't do that. | ||
| Yeah, maybe, but we're talking about feminist values right now. | ||
| And you can't say that it's a feminist value now that women work because by your own logic, they have to. | ||
| It sort of, I think, supports the claim that feminism has or is destroying the United States in that it in the 50s, they were like, hey, ladies, you should go get a job. | ||
| Don't feel like you have to be stuck at home. | ||
| They're like, okay, great. | ||
| So they went and got jobs. | ||
| And then there was two incomes for the family. | ||
| Then the economy formed around that. | ||
| And now we're in a position where like, it's not even feminism anymore. | ||
| Like, if you don't have two incomes, you better be making twice as much as, you know, it's like in the 1%. | ||
| I don't know what the argued. | ||
| I mean, it depends on what you value. | ||
| There's plenty of families that have a lot of children and they just, again, is it, is it ideal? | ||
| But what's your priority? | ||
| Is your priority vacations to the Bahamas, vacations to Florida? | ||
| You know, there's plenty of families that sacrifice to do, you know, better and best by their children, which means a mother at home. | ||
| So I think it depends on where you live. | ||
| If you're insisting on living in New York City and raising a family, then you're going to need a two-income thing. | ||
| But if you decide to live and, you know, traveling here from West Palm Beach, I really literally went coast to coast to Florida. | ||
| The middle of Florida is nothing like either side. | ||
| Yeah, but do you see that her criticism of you now no longer makes sense because from her view? | ||
| Wait, but wait, I still have issues with the way that you're characterizing. | ||
| Okay, and then you can respond, I promise. | ||
| But within your view, if she's out there working and girl bossing all day to bring home that paycheck, that's not a feminist ideal. | ||
| You criticizing women for working is now no longer on the plate. | ||
|
Maximizing Family Time
00:15:34
|
||
| How can it be on the plate if you say that it's a requirement for survival? | ||
| So they would be prioritizing family first. | ||
| It has nothing to do with feminism. | ||
| Well, I think there's a difference between what I'm criticizing is that, yes, under our current economic order, if you want to maximize the outcomes for your children, be able to provide for them adequately, dual incomes is ideal. | ||
| But for one, I also champion change to be able to support young people, families, et cetera, being able to have access to paid paternity leave, not have it all fall solely to the money. | ||
| Well, if I could just finish, paid maternity leave. | ||
| And as far as, yes, Caroline Levitt has to work, but does she have to be part of the Trump administration? | ||
| I do think that there's a difference between a woman getting a lot of people. | ||
| But now you get to pick women's skill sets or she's already. | ||
| I think there's a difference between a woman getting a job just because she needs to be able to survive and then trying to allocate the majority of her time, like minimize the amount of professional time that she needs to spend working to earn an income for her family and then maximize the time in the home versus Caroline Levitt, who is going out of her way to maximize the time that she spends outside of the home advancing her professional career. | ||
| So she needs to be a part-time waitress. | ||
| No, she doesn't need to be, but I'm saying that. | ||
| Does she need to get back to the kitchen, Erin? | ||
| Does she need to get back to the kids? | ||
| But I think under Caroline Levitt's personal worldview, these are the sorts of things that she would be saying that women ought to be doing. | ||
| Women obviously relegated primarily to the home taking care of their kids' domestic life. | ||
| If that's the case and you're saying there's no avenue to do that because you need two incomes, then she's not even in, she's not, she's congruent with your worldview without being a feminist right this second. | ||
| Do you really think that there's nothing to the fact that you think this? | ||
| No, I'm about to ask you thoughts on my position. | ||
| Do you think that there is not sort of any tension that exists between Caroline Levitt's stated views or our guests' stated personal views as like contrasted against their choices that don't align with what they espouse? | ||
| Do you think that there's not a tension that undermines their own ideology there? | ||
| Yeah, but all you're doing at that point is saying that the prisoner doesn't like the prison food but eats it anyway. | ||
| And that's what your view now has reduced to. | ||
| The prisoner doesn't like the prison food, but he eats it anyway. | ||
| It's a terrible argument. | ||
| That's not an argument at all. | ||
| It's a descriptive observation. | ||
| You're one. | ||
| And for two, my argument is a program so we can support doing these things. | ||
| It is an argument because you used it as support for feminism. | ||
| That would be an argument, one. | ||
| And two, you can make observational arguments. | ||
| That's the second thing. | ||
| You know this from philosophy. | ||
| I've seen your videos. | ||
| You know, at least basic philosophy. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Yeah, you can make descriptive observations, but I think what we're more interested in is exploring the normative claims surrounding these descriptive observations. | ||
| Well, we haven't done any normative claims. | ||
| That means moral. | ||
| We haven't gone into any moral anything. | ||
| I have a point. | ||
| Yeah, just let me say something. | ||
| I think that the idea of people who kind of what I call myself is after feminism, a world after feminism. | ||
| It's not going back to women not working, but I do believe, again, there are biological differences between men and women. | ||
| You can discuss what different professions where they're catered toward. | ||
| She has a very kind of feminine role. | ||
| Like press secretary, a lot of the times is a woman. | ||
| And you don't know how often that child is with her in the White House. | ||
| They've been extremely accommodating to children in the White House. | ||
| There's a lot of people bringing her together. | ||
| Does she bring her kid to work? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| They bring him in the White House. | ||
| Do you think that children ought to be in the workplace? | ||
| Wait, let me just finish. | ||
| Why not? | ||
| Why not? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Why not? | ||
| Put those little bastards sweeping the chimneys. | ||
| Do it immediately. | ||
| I'm a full year. | ||
| I want to follow this. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, no, no. | |
| This goes back to home economics. | ||
| Children used to work on the farm. | ||
| They used to be part. | ||
| They were part of a valuable economic structure of the home. | ||
| So maybe that's shifting from the home to the workplace. | ||
| And maybe they're not providing economically, but why not? | ||
| Why not be flexible about having children when mother can breastfeed? | ||
| Why not be accommodating to having children around every night? | ||
| It's not just take your daughter to work one day a year. | ||
| And again, there are roles, I think, that are going to be more feminine, that I think that are more conducive to a woman fulfilling than a man. | ||
| We can talk about construction workers. | ||
| You want to go down in a manhole and do that job? | ||
| No. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I don't think most men want to be doing backbreaking labor either. | ||
| Hopefully we get to a point where I think they may be on these jobs, but yeah. | ||
| But they're more physically built. | ||
| That's actually objectively incorrect. | ||
| They're more physically built for those jobs. | ||
| Well, it's not just a matter of more physically built for the jobs. | ||
| Men have preferences also to work with their hands. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I was raising my hands seeing how we do it. | ||
| Oh, sorry. | ||
| I mean, there is. | ||
| There's physiological nuts. | ||
| Men much more often have they have preferences towards physical labor. | ||
| I would work with their hands. | ||
| Maybe, because I wouldn't just say working with their hands because you can do a lot of things. | ||
| You can create art with your hands. | ||
| That ain't working with your hands. | ||
| Applick some guitars. | ||
| Get down with a face mask when you're welding in a fruit. | ||
| That's working with your hands. | ||
| You're now putting your, that's not so much working with your hand. | ||
| You're talking about safety. | ||
| Anything a manager is aware of. | ||
| Men are more willing to tolerate. | ||
| Anything. | ||
| I think men are more willing to tolerate high-risk jobs, right? | ||
| Coal mining. | ||
| Well, it's not tolerated. | ||
| They're capable of doing it. | ||
| Incapable. | ||
| Women don't have the same physicality that men have. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct. | |
| And if the guy dies, the girl can still go give birth. | ||
| But the guy is aware of that. | ||
| Aaron, this is usually where the argument from Outlier comes in, where you say some women, some women could have worked on the oil rig. | ||
| Yeah, they can, but generally, women are not too choosing to do that. | ||
| To answer your question, Jen, why you wouldn't bring kids into work if they disrupt the work environment, if they create a vulnerability, like they might get sick? | ||
| So there's a lot of reasons why little children should not be around a work environment. | ||
| I'm not saying 24-7, but I'm saying we can, I'm not, what I'm saying is we don't need to go back to the agrarian age to make more accommodations for family-friendly policies. | ||
| I agree with you on that. | ||
| I do think that this more, as like society is becoming more secular, I think that's something that has kind of been lost, but would be a positive thing to reintroduce would be more communitarian values. | ||
| And I do think it takes a village to raise a kid. | ||
| And, you know, if workplaces want to be more accommodating to young families, to be able to help assist them with child care, et cetera, providing them support for child care. | ||
| Or, you know, some offices I know have like child care centers where their employees are able to bring their children while they're working. | ||
| I think these sorts of things are positive changes. | ||
| Doesn't take a village to raise a kid. | ||
| Takes a motherfucker. | ||
| Kids are generally raised by them, by parents, an extended family. | ||
| And that's always been the case. | ||
| And I can tell you why it's always been the case. | ||
| I can prove it to you. | ||
| Do you agree with me that once upon a time there were way less human beings in the world and they were spread out much more? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| And so on these plots of land that they had, they were usually cross-generational, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| That was not the village. | ||
| That was the extended family who was taking care of the people. | ||
| Andrew, when I say it takes a village to raise a kid, did you mean that I was, did you mean, did you believe that I was saying it literally takes a village or did you, what sentiment did you make a lot of money? | ||
| Due to the fact that you're a communist, yes. | ||
| Okay, well, I literally think that that's what you mean because you're a communist. | ||
| I think that's a rational, that's a rational inference, but to clarify that I was not really using it in the most literal sense of the word. | ||
| I was just saying that, you know, support where necessary beyond just the mother and father, I think it's largely positive. | ||
| And I don't think that's something to need. | ||
| Do you think child care is easy? | ||
| But I don't think you need an entire community of people to literally raise a children because as you're saying, we have plenty of historical examples where one or two people is more than enough to suffice to raise a child. | ||
| And do you think child care is of equal value to an auntie or a godmother or a grandparent? | ||
| In what sense? | ||
| How do you mean? | ||
| Of taking care of a child. | ||
| Like somebody else's child? | ||
| Do I think it's like as if you have a child? | ||
| Would you rather put that child in daycare or would you rather have them taken care of by an auntie? | ||
| I mean, of like, are they equal? | ||
| Are they of equal value and worth? | ||
| An auntie, a godmother, a grandmother. | ||
| Yeah, is it better for Venezuela down the street to be taking care of your kid or you? | ||
| Or your own family. | ||
| I think, well, she asked, just, is it better for your own family as opposed to like nannies, et cetera? | ||
| I'd say, yeah, I would agree with that. | ||
| But I think so long as children are being supervised and watched by adults that are capable of providing for them, that's adequate enough. | ||
| But if we're asking about like what the ideal is, then I think, yeah, raised primarily by their own family is good. | ||
| There's a point made earlier I wanted to kind of poke a hole in. | ||
| So you guys think that both parents have to work. | ||
| That was kind of a claim. | ||
| It was like 100%. | ||
| We've agreed. | ||
| This is the situation now. | ||
| It is, this is the need. | ||
| I didn't agree with that. | ||
| Then you kind of disagreed with it. | ||
| You said you could have six kids and live at home and stitch together. | ||
| You didn't say this, but I'm thinking stitch together. | ||
| No, Hang on. | ||
| What actually happened there was a sequence of internal critiques. | ||
| I had her position. | ||
| She gave an internal critique to her position. | ||
| And then I gave an internal critique based on that, based on her grounding foundational position, that it largely requires two incomes. | ||
| Meaning that if that's the case, then women who are working, this is not due to a feminist ideal. | ||
| This is due to forced labor. | ||
| So should we from your view? | ||
| Yeah, from your view. | ||
| So if that's the case, then we can take off the table that women working right now has anything at all to do with them being feminist. | ||
| This is feminist. | ||
| That's where we can get, oh, with them being feminist, sure, whatever, in some instances, I guess. | ||
| Not in some instances. | ||
| You can't say that they're feminist because they're working. | ||
| That would be a contradiction to your view that it's necessary that they're working. | ||
| So the thing is, is like, again, that whole worldview, I think, is built on sand. | ||
| But it is your view that almost all women under your communist, and you're using a Marxist lens for analysis, I'm guessing, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Okay. | ||
| So under your Marxist lens, right now what's going on is that the proletariat is being exploited by the evil bourgeoisie and forcing these poor women who would rather stay at home with their little kids suckling at the teat into the workforce where they must slave away in order to help their capitalist overlords. | ||
| They can bring the paycheck home when they'd much rather be at home. | ||
| No. | ||
| I'm not saying that absent any economic coercion that you wouldn't see women opting to not have kids or still participate and do labor, et cetera, throughout their day. | ||
| It would just depend on that individual person at that point. | ||
| I think you would be able to see people being able to actually like live true to their values absent this like massive economic force of anger. | ||
| So we can't say it's defensible that because a woman's working, it's contrary to her values of being an anti-feminist. | ||
| That just doesn't make any sense under that analysis. | ||
| But as I said, I think that there is a tension there that exists when you're going so far as to maximize your professional outcomes as opposed to doing the minimum that is necessary to be able to provide for yourself. | ||
| That doesn't make any sense under that analysis either. | ||
| Why would you not try to maximize your earning outcomes if it's required that you earn money in order to give your kids a better life in this particular environment? | ||
| Because there's more to life. | ||
| Of course you're going to maximize. | ||
| There's more to life than money, just because I think it's rational for people, women included, to try to maximize their professional achievements. | ||
| If you really truly believe that a big part of your life ought to be centered around domesticity, then I think that there would come a point where you would deprioritize taking every single professional step, promotion, et cetera, to maximize those earnings and say, if the entire point of working, if the entire point of earning money is to be able to enable a domestic life that makes my family happy, I don't think that's going to go so far as to become like the press second skills and vibes. | ||
| You're just like, I feel like now it's too much. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But you're also getting a lot of money. | |
| Where do we get to the actual threshold here? | ||
| How many promotions can she take before now she's a feminist? | ||
| Do you just have to feel it and vibe it out or what? | ||
| Isn't this a continuum fallacy? | ||
| Well, it's not a continuum fallacy. | ||
| If it's the case that your position is you become a feminist at X point, when is that point? | ||
| I don't even disagree with you that a lot of it does come down to what you're saying is vibes, but I would say kind of subjective or arbitrary lines. | ||
| But just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean that we couldn't introduce some sort of like subjective rubric to try to see what's the subjective rubric. | ||
| I want to hear it. | ||
| It's a diminishing return on work. | ||
| Like if I need to max, if I need income, it doesn't mean I need to maximize all the way because there's exhaustion that comes in. | ||
| So you have to, you know, there's like wind, there's resistance that picks up the more you do. | ||
| Can we just look at the practical aspect? | ||
| Because you're picking on Caroline Levitt, right? | ||
| You're saying she's a terrible example. | ||
| You brought her up. | ||
| I did, but you said bring her up. | ||
| That's fine, but you said she's a terrible example. | ||
| I will say she's not a terrible example. | ||
| That woman had a career before she got married and had children. | ||
| That was the trajectory. | ||
| That was her trajectory. | ||
| Would you rather her go just work at a restaurant now or do something that she's not good at? | ||
| I think Caroline's fine making the professional choices that she does. | ||
| That's the trajectory she's on, right? | ||
| Whether the way I see it is God's given her talents. | ||
| She is using the talents and treasures God has given her to the best of her ability to provide for her family. | ||
| There is no reason she should start a new career because, you know, if she can manage, she also was obviously healthy enough to get pregnant. | ||
| When you talk to a lot of women in the workforce, and if we want to go to the fertility thing, they will say to you, they will tell people, women who want to get pregnant, I'll get pregnant in a minute if I quit my job. | ||
| It's the stress of that workplace environment, the, you know, trying to act like a man in the workplace environment that doesn't allow them to be feminine. | ||
| Somehow she's kept her femininity. | ||
| She's still getting pregnant. | ||
| Her health is still there to allow her to have children. | ||
| And she happens to be on this career trajectory. | ||
| Let's come back in three years and see what decisions she makes after this job is finished. | ||
| Again, her job is temporary. | ||
| And you look at someone like Susie Wiles. | ||
| This is kind of like late stage careers. | ||
| She's had her children. | ||
| They're out of the house. | ||
| So this is good for her now. | ||
| I truly believe, you know, women can work. | ||
| It's just they can have it all, but not all at the same time. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And so Megan Kelly talks about this. | ||
| You know, her career kind of skyrocketed after her children were a little older. | ||
| So I just think that women can do different things at different times. | ||
| Different jobs are more conducive to different periods of women's life. | ||
| You can't get away from the biological constraints that women are under. | ||
| So I want to ask you to clarify what you meant by like women shouldn't try to act like a man in the workplace. | ||
| What do you mean by that? | ||
| I think it depends, again, on the job. | ||
| If the time and dedication and stress it takes to become a good lawyer is a lot more demanding, right? | ||
| So if a woman wants to be a lawyer, that's going to take a bigger toll on her physical health than, say, if she wants to, I don't know, be an artist or have something that's more, that's a little softer. | ||
|
Biological Constraints in the Workplace
00:03:40
|
||
| But the fact of the matter is law, medical fields, they're kind of dog eat dog if they're based on skills, if they're based on skill set, if you're going by medical fields. | ||
| But you just said that when you were at the you said a hospital, you're recently visiting your mother, that when you were interacting with the female health care professionals, that you actually found them to be more suitable to those roles. | ||
| I didn't say more suitable. | ||
| I said what did you say? | ||
| I don't mean to suit. | ||
| They had a better bedside manner. | ||
| So that is one of those roles that were nurses or what roles were they in? | ||
| Both. | ||
| But all of the nurses were women. | ||
| Interesting. | ||
| But you did have a female physician that you felt had exceptional bedside standard and you did trust with your mom's care, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I'm not saying she's not able to. | ||
| And I also don't judge her for whatever choices she's made. | ||
| I don't know her family life. | ||
| Again, so this is where like, I think the debate comes of, you know, what is good for women? | ||
| But they've made their own choices, but I don't think it's at odds with feminism. | ||
| Andrew's saying that like he feels that too much of my, you know, internal critiques or whatever rely on sort of cutoff lines that like vibes and arbitrary red lines that I'm drawing. | ||
| What you're outlining sound or outlining really does sound very vibes based, which is that you're fine with women, you know, taking certain professional roles or whatever. | ||
| And every time I ask you for specificity, you're kind of like, well, it's really going to depend on the individual. | ||
| And if we don't know their life story, we don't know. | ||
| I think the medical reason works. | ||
| That's a fair critique. | ||
| That's a fair critique. | ||
| I get it. | ||
| It just seems like you're incapable of making kind of broad prescriptive claims that don't lead to a bunch of examples that you will say, well, that's an exception. | ||
| And that worked in that case, and that's an exception. | ||
| That works in that case. | ||
| But then, just how many more examples would you need to what I need to introduce to you before you're like, you know, maybe these standards that I've outlined just really don't hold up to scrutiny? | ||
| And it's a lot more complicated than just saying women ought to be doing this, but not up to that point because now it's just coming down to like your vibes. | ||
| I do think this is my vibes. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| I think it's complicated. | ||
| But I do think, again, if that woman chose not to have, I don't know anything about her, just like you don't know anything about Caroline Levin. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't. | |
| I don't know personally. | ||
| I can only look at what she does and go from there and try to make, you know, draw inferences off of her behavior. | ||
| Right. | ||
| But I think that's dangerous to just draw inferences. | ||
| Why is it dangerous? | ||
| That's how we do everything. | ||
| I would say we can't make observations about what people do and then make judgments from there. | ||
| What's dangerous about that? | ||
| You can make a judgment, but I think to be able to do it. | ||
| Well, I mean, it can be. | ||
| Like, for instance, I have a rolling chair at my house and I usually make the inference that if I sit back a certain way, it's not going to fall over. | ||
| And sometimes it does, and that can be dangerous. | ||
| So, yeah, I mean, inferences can be dangerous, but I don't think, I think generally that's how we reason things out is through logical inference. | ||
| So the critique she's making is fair, right? | ||
| My criticism to her was: look, you can't be using vibes. | ||
| I was attacking the foundation more than anything. | ||
| That was the end where I was moving into you can't, you can't just use your vibes as an arbitrary metric. | ||
| But her criticism to you is also equally fair under that metric. | ||
| It's like, well, when do we get to the specificity? | ||
| So to move this kind of debate along here. | ||
| Well, let me let me kind of answer that. | ||
| I think it might have to do with low-dose cortisol in the workplace. | ||
| If a woman goes into a job that stresses her out, it's going to cause fertility issues. | ||
| But that's kind of up to the woman. | ||
| Like, depending some jobs are like, is she getting stressed out as a nurse or does she love her job as a nurse? | ||
| That still sounds vibey, though. | ||
| It is vibey. | ||
| A different girl is going to have a different experience in the job. | ||
| Some jobs. | ||
| Some jobs, a woman is, no matter what, going to the military, you go to the front line, you're going to have cortisol. | ||
| Yeah, but a subjective experience that's largely based off of self-reporting and vibes. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
|
Why Women Appeal to Patriarchy
00:15:04
|
||
| At one point, you decide to invite like medical intervention. | ||
| No, she's right. | ||
| I mean, that's still vibey, right? | ||
| And so it's not vibe. | ||
| He points out something, something a little more tangible is cortisol levels and how those things affect. | ||
| I mean, again, there are, there are a wide range of women. | ||
| I don't think women have to be all one thing. | ||
| I don't think all women have to be mothers. | ||
| I don't think I agree. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Feminists agree with you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| That's fine. | ||
| But I do think there's a better model for society to thrive. | ||
| Yeah, but the patriarchy agrees with her too. | ||
| In what respect? | ||
| That all women don't have to be mothers. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Okay. | ||
| In that sense, yes. | ||
| That would be like, so the thing is, is like utilizing this idea that, oh, well, feminists want this for women. | ||
| Feminists also want to deconstruct patriarchal systems. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| So let me give you a logical argument here, okay, that I'd like you to respond to. | ||
| How can feminists do that without appealing to the patriarchy? | ||
| How can they take down the patriarchy without then appealing to the patriarchy in an infinite regress? | ||
| How do you mean? | ||
| Well, I would argue that men have the monopoly on force. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Overwhelmingly, they have the monopoly on force and they always will have the monopoly on force. | ||
| My proof and evidence is half of the world. | ||
| Half of the world right now, if they decide women are enslaved and did, they were. | ||
| And women could never appeal to anybody except men for their rights because they don't have force. | ||
| So because that's true, you tell me how it is that women, feminists, how it's actually logical for them to say we're going to dismantle the patriarchy, even though via the force metric, they're going to infinitely have to appeal to it for their rights. | ||
| I think there's kind of an to address your question, I'm just, I'm not trying to avoid it. | ||
| I just will say that like I do take some issue with the framing that maybe you could help me clarify. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| I do remember you presenting this in a conversation that you had with Max Carson where you laid out this general premise, you know, the force doctrine. | ||
| This is Max Carson. | ||
| Mr. Girl. | ||
| Oh, yeah, yeah. | ||
| And I largely agreed with his view, which is that he feels that you would set up a system that presupposes that there is sort of this like unity that exists between like among men and among women very, very neatly. | ||
| So you're saying like if all men wanted to enslave women, like they would be able to do it because men are stronger than women, et cetera. | ||
| Like half the world. | ||
| Right. | ||
| But he presupposes how most of the observable world actually operates. | ||
| In that respect, and that's not what I'm taking issue with. | ||
| The part that I'm taking issue with is just that it would break along these lines very neatly. | ||
| No, That's not the argument. | ||
| But I mean, what she presented to you is just that it would be like saying, like, if you have a group of people whose names start with the letter A, and then you have all the people whose names start with the letter B to Z, and all of those people work together to overcome the people whose names start with A, then yes, almost by definition, they would be able to like overcome the people with A, probably. | ||
| No. | ||
| Well, yes, but also no. | ||
| So let's copy out a few things. | ||
| First and foremost, do you agree with me that there have been many revolutionary fights and slave revolts? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Can you name any of them that were led or fought by women ever in history? | ||
| No, I don't believe so. | ||
| Ever in history. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, I don't believe so. | |
| One time in history. | ||
| No, I don't believe so. | ||
| So then what's going on? | ||
| Boudicca. | ||
| Boudica, the Celtic, the Celts. | ||
| They fought the Romans. | ||
| No, that was men, guarantee it. | ||
| We can look it up. | ||
| It was a queen. | ||
| I mean, like, they were having a Roman chariot, dude. | ||
| Hang on, hang on. | ||
| Having a queen there doesn't mean that the people who have the monopoly on force weren't men because it's always men who have the monopoly on force. | ||
| And so the reason she can't point, the reason she can't point to any time ever in history that slave revolts and things like this were ever in operation by women, women can never successfully take their freedom back from a patriarchal. | ||
| Hang on, let me finish. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| They can never take their freedom back from a patriarchal force without appealing to a patriarchal force. | ||
| Ever. | ||
| Not that queen, not any fucking queen, not any person ever in the history of all mankind. | ||
| Because it hasn't happened, it can't happen. | ||
| They can't. | ||
| But that's saying the only justification is because it hasn't happened yet. | ||
| No, the justification is that men are much, much stronger than women. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| Overwhelming. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I'll tell you what. | ||
| Show me. | ||
| Let's get 10 women in a room and hand them a magazine and watch what happens. | ||
| But the great equalizer, the ballistic. | ||
| No, it's not a great medical. | ||
| It's not a great equalizer. | ||
| Just like with the monkeys. | ||
| What happened? | ||
| The strongest monkey would be the alpha. | ||
| What happens is with these equalizers is men take the equalization away from women because they're much stronger, which is why you see all these police officers getting disarmed and women in combat getting their asses stomped. | ||
| That's why you don't see female Navy SEALs. | ||
| That's why you don't see any of that because they can't do it. | ||
| They're physically incapable of doing it. | ||
| Now, even if I grant you an outlier, even if I grant you G.I. Jane, who never came to fruition, G.I. Jane never existed, never came to fruition because they can't do it. | ||
| But even if I granted you a G.I. Jane, an outlier, the exception, would prove the rule. | ||
| So the thing is, is like the reason she can't name a single time that there's been a successful slave revolt or women gaining their rights by force from men without appealing to men is because it's never happened and it can't. | ||
| So because of that, my argument is simply this. | ||
| How do feminists ever take out the patriarchy without appealing to an enforcement arm, which is going to be necessarily patriarchal? | ||
| How's that even possible? | ||
| Well, there could be robots. | ||
| Yeah, okay. | ||
| There could be laser beams from outer space. | ||
| Enforcement arm that is not human men. | ||
| I can logically grant that a powerful, all-powerful gray alien species comes down here. | ||
| Drones. | ||
| And then you're appealing to the gray alien species to control. | ||
| It's looking for a type of force other than the human male and there could be appealed to. | ||
| I'm talking about symbolistics. | ||
| Who builds all the drones? | ||
| At this point, more drones. | ||
| Who builds them? | ||
| Somebody built some drone that builds more drones. | ||
| Who builds them in? | ||
| Know somebody could be, could be men who knows how to use all the weapons. | ||
| Men who can carry all the weapons. | ||
| Men who can load all the tanks. | ||
| Men, it's not 100% thing. | ||
| There are women that also do that stuff, but not the majority. | ||
| Well, they're unique, not every house, but they're more. | ||
| These badass women don't go. | ||
| Hey, I'm tired of wearing this really hot burqa in the middle of this sun and we got like, you know, millions of us, so we're just gonna take out this patriarchy, why not? | ||
| Well, they are stripping their burqas off in Iran. | ||
| They're and and appealing to men to come in and help them. | ||
| Yeah ballistic, force appealing to the force, basically appealing to the force. | ||
| So force doctrine unbeatable. | ||
| Always appealing to the patriarchy. | ||
| So answer me this question, how is it that women feminists, how is it, how is it even a logical position to say that you want to repeal the patriarchy, with full knowledge that you'll always have to appeal to the patriarchy in order to enforce your deconstruction of the patriarchy? | ||
| It's like it's the most circular, stupid thing i've ever heard. | ||
| I think you have to appeal to force to, and who has the monopoly on that current state? | ||
| Uh-huh, the human male. | ||
| Okay, so right, this second right, this very second. | ||
| If women want to deconstruct the patriarchy, who do they have to appeal to right? | ||
| Yeah men yeah, they've you steal man Ian's argument. | ||
| Yeah, Ian is saying, what if there was some technological marvel that equalized force, like guns? | ||
| I thought I got. | ||
| The sense that I got from your arguments is that, right now, the domain of force is and this is your view as well one that is overwhelmingly uh, dictated by, supported by and led by men. | ||
| But there exists a world potentially, where women could get access to this domain of force. | ||
| That either, I don't even think you're saying entirely excludes, but leads them to have an upper hand over men. | ||
| Right, because you're saying all of this technology is basically the great equalizer because, between drones tanks guns, etc. | ||
| Where, if it's just a matter of yeah, where what? | ||
| No, I don't think that you're saying it's happened yet, but you're saying that we can't just say, because it hasn't happened yet, that it necessarily won't in the future. | ||
| And this, all this stuff originated weaponry that i'm talking about originated because we had killed the male saying, no one can stop her. | ||
| The biggest strongest, i'll tell you, it's not the strongest that survives, it's the one that's the most adoption. | ||
| I'll tell you what then? | ||
| Advocate for feminism in 200 years where it's possible, but it's definitely not right now. | ||
| There's no world, right this second, which exists, or has in the last 7 000 years, where women can do anything but address their grievances to those who have the monopoly on force. | ||
| That's always men. | ||
| So you're necessarily always going to have a patriarchy. | ||
| It's a vision. | ||
| That's the fallacy. | ||
| Saying it always happened, therefore it will always happen, is a male, I said. | ||
| Appeal for it in 200 years. | ||
| Then, when it does happen where, if we're asking about logical possibility remember Superman's logically possible, I can grant a logical possibility where aliens come down and put shot collars on men and if they look at women cross-eyed they get zapped. | ||
| That's logical, it could happen. | ||
| Its possibility pragmatically is like fucking zero though. | ||
| So because of that, i'm going to look at this from pragmatic logic, practical logic. | ||
| If i'm looking at pragmatic and practical logic Ian, i'm going to ask you again, right, this second, if men want to appeal anything by power of law, who do they have to appeal to to enforce it? | ||
| If women want it? | ||
| If women, women do yeah, generally the male. | ||
| The government which is usually run the enforcement though yeah cops, it's going to be men, usually men. | ||
| All big, strong buffers everywhere, men. | ||
| And if men decide to collectively enslave women tomorrow, let's just say they no, that I don't agree with, because i'm not saying that you agree that it's morally correct. | ||
| I'm asking whether or not they could do it. | ||
| They could try, and then other men would stand up to defend against it. | ||
| So who are you appealing to? | ||
| Again still, we would be appealing to ourselves If men came in and they tried enslaving women, men would stop them. | ||
| And women would stop them. | ||
| Probably kids would stop them too. | ||
| But who would those women and kids be appealing to for force? | ||
| Their rifle. | ||
| What are you talking about? | ||
| Men. | ||
| They'd be appealing to the men. | ||
| If a bunch of dudes came to enslave the women in your neighborhood and you and your wife and your kids grabbed their rifles, you would all be appealing to what? | ||
| Are you talking? | ||
| They'd be appealing to the men. | ||
| You'd be to God your right to self-defense. | ||
| Can I just say someone comes after me and they have a gun? | ||
| I'm going to look to my husband with the gun. | ||
| I mean, I have a gun, but I'm going to look to my husband to protect me. | ||
| Hang on, Ian. | ||
| There gets to a point where he's going to hand you a rifle because the two of you are better shots than one of you. | ||
| Yeah, so 300 men, they invade a suburban neighborhood that has 700 women in it. | ||
| Are they going to win? | ||
| What is the situation? | ||
| So you're going to walk in the middle of the middle. | ||
| 700 women that is only a menu. | ||
| 700 women and they're in a suburban neighborhood and 300 men come in there and they're like, we're taking this. | ||
| Are the women strapped? | ||
| They're both strapped. | ||
| They're all strapped. | ||
| Probably 700 people are going to wipe those dudes off. | ||
| Oh, come on, they can shoot from windows. | ||
| These guys are walking on streets. | ||
| What a tactical disadvantage. | ||
| Are they train killers? | ||
| Who are these men? | ||
| Yeah, okay. | ||
| Ian. | ||
| Let's find out if this is true. | ||
| Let's just take a logical exercise here. | ||
| You are a prison warden, and you're offered two choices for those who can guard your prisoners. | ||
| You'll either get twice the women or half the men to guard these prisoners. | ||
| Now, these are the worst fucking prisoners on planet Earth. | ||
| They're big, they're mean, they're strong, and they're fucking awful. | ||
| Now, remember, you're going to get two women for every one male guard. | ||
| Which one are you going to choose? | ||
| The men. | ||
| Yeah, that's what I thought. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So anyway, back to the distance. | ||
| They're not shooting the kill, though, dude. | ||
| If you want to give me 700 rifles and you take 300 rifles, I'll take 700 rifles. | ||
| Okay, okay. | ||
| How about how? | ||
| If your guys are trained Navy seals, what about three women per one man? | ||
| Are they armed? | ||
| What are you talking about? | ||
| Hang on, Ian. | ||
| All things are equal. | ||
| In the guard towers, you can still have some women who are armed. | ||
| The ones who have to patrol the floor, though. | ||
| If I need dudes in hand-to-hand combat, that's its own thing. | ||
| But if I need guards with guns, I'm going to take the triple the guns. | ||
| What are you. | ||
| Yeah, in the towers, you're going to take guards in the tower, triple the tower. | ||
| I get it. | ||
| But who's walking the floor, Ian? | ||
| Put some, I don't know, big burly dudes down there. | ||
| Yeah, that's right. | ||
| That's not the argument. | ||
| The argument is that men can arbitrarily enslave women because they're stronger. | ||
| I mean, it's the most like black and white lack of anything. | ||
| Let me ask you a question. | ||
| That's why we built guns to defend against that mentality. | ||
| Help me out. | ||
| In Iraq, was there a right to own an AK-47? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know. | |
| There was. | ||
| How come the women didn't overthrow the vicious patriarchy? | ||
| In Iraq? | ||
| Are you talking about Saddam Hussein? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| How come the women, even though you could have an AK in every home, how come the women didn't grab that AK and just go, did they want to? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Well, don't they want to? | ||
| Would you want to live in oppressive heat with your burqa? | ||
| I don't think they wanted to overcome the kids. | ||
| It's because they fucking can't, bro. | ||
| They can't do it. | ||
| There's never been a female revolution ever using physical force against men, which has ever been successful or even really tried. | ||
| It was the French Revolution, which was full of men who were. | ||
| It was started by women, dude. | ||
| Who was taking the men to the guillotines? | ||
| Who got the weapons out of the Bastille? | ||
| It was the women. | ||
| Bro, who and who was using them? | ||
| They all did. | ||
| No, it was the men, dude. | ||
| Are you unfamiliar with the women that started the French Revolution? | ||
| Ian, let's walk through the French Revolution. | ||
| Who was taking the people to the guillotines? | ||
| I mean, I wasn't there. | ||
| Men. | ||
| You're saying 100% men? | ||
| Is this your argument? | ||
| It was all men. | ||
| Almost. | ||
| No women. | ||
| All men. | ||
| Yeah, basically. | ||
| No, I cannot believe that's an extreme. | ||
| I'll tell you what. | ||
| I'll just grant it. | ||
| It's 5% women. | ||
| Dude, the women started the revolution. | ||
| Do you not know that? | ||
| I'll just grant it for you that it's 5% women. | ||
| The women started the communist revolution in Russia, too. | ||
| So what? | ||
| It has nothing to do with forced software. | ||
| Overthrow the government broken, nothing to do. | ||
| You just said there was no successful revolution started by women out. | ||
| No no no, with physical force. | ||
| That was not a French revolution. | ||
| No, what are you talking? | ||
| They robbed the bank. | ||
| Sorry to interrupt, make your point. | ||
| Let's pretend for a second that you have 8,000 women in cages okay, and who are slaves. | ||
| And then you have slave masters, okay. | ||
| Can we point to instances in history where those all men who are in cages right, have successfully overthrown their oppressors? | ||
| You said there's women in cages, no men okay, so there's 800 men. | ||
| There's 8,000 men in cages. | ||
| Has there ever been an instance in history where they've overthrown the dudes without external help? | ||
| No well yeah, even without external help. | ||
| Not that I know of. | ||
| I mean people in cages, they're in cages. | ||
| The answer is yes. | ||
| There has been many rebellions which were successful led by men, of all men. | ||
| Not a single one by women. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| Ever, not a single one. | ||
| Will you ever be able to point to historically where women were enslaved in mass by men and ever were able to successfully use force stop, Ian to get out of their enslavement? | ||
|
Women's Forceuestion
00:05:38
|
||
| Not once. | ||
| They always have to appeal to males, always. | ||
| Which is why, when I gave her the example. | ||
| She, she was forced to agree. | ||
| There's no choice around it. | ||
| You always have to appeal to male force. | ||
| There's no way around it. | ||
| You're talking about women using like, loudspeakers and propaganda and shit to start fights sure, but they're not fighting. | ||
| The fights is my point. | ||
| They're always appealing to people who can. | ||
| That's the point. | ||
| And so if it's the patriarchy that we're talking about, it's always going to be those who have a monopoly on force. | ||
| So women, these feminists, are always going to have to appeal to those who have the monopoly on force, thus creating a new patriarchy. | ||
| It's just like an over and over and over again, cyclical. | ||
| It's just cyclical logic. | ||
| It's bizarre, it makes no sense. | ||
| But I just don't think that the that, the page that the monopoly on force equals male necessarily. | ||
| Yeah, it equals male. | ||
| It usually does, because men are physically stronger. | ||
| But then we built guns. | ||
| It's a relatively new invention and now you started to see like like, even men kind of don't have a monopoly on force, like we have robots that can drone, bomb shit, like we don't. | ||
| The robots do, i'm sorry. | ||
| Do robots operate and build themselves or something? | ||
| Well, not yet, but we're starting to lose the monopoly on force as human men. | ||
| No, we're not, dude. | ||
| A whole village can get blown up by an airplane. | ||
| Clean warfare, like largely a lot of it's happening from like the fucking sky, because you have people just piloting drones. | ||
| You don't have to be out into warfare anymore, like always, or you're in the Ukraine and you're in trenches and you're fighting combat and the women all flee. | ||
| They all fled, women all fled. | ||
| They're all in different countries. | ||
| They got the fuck out of there. | ||
| They high-tailed it. | ||
| They're not in the trenches fighting Ian. | ||
| How come? | ||
| That's really weird. | ||
| I'm not there, man. | ||
| That's really weird. | ||
| Where are all these fucking? | ||
| Where are all the? | ||
| I thought your point was that we're largely moving away from like this sort of trench warfare or whatever. | ||
| Yeah exactly, and we're starting to move towards like informational warfare, drone warfare, ai warfare. | ||
| There will always be trench warfare. | ||
| There will always be guys getting up each other's faces. | ||
| But yeah, ballistics have altered the way force is wielded And the way monopoly is drawn. | ||
| Oh, yeah? | ||
| Is that so? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Let me ask you a question. | ||
| All things equal between a man and a woman, right? | ||
| You give them both a gun, right? | ||
| One of them has to watch your back. | ||
| Who are you picking? | ||
| It's such a vague question. | ||
| I don't know them. | ||
| You don't know them. | ||
| Who are they? | ||
| You're just going to, it's going to be completely random. | ||
| You're going to push a button. | ||
| It's going to be a random woman or a random man who shows up with a gun to watch your back. | ||
| Which button are you pushing, Ian? | ||
| I don't know, man. | ||
| You don't know? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| You're not sure? | ||
| Pick the guy and get it over with? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| What if Kamala Harris had become president? | ||
| Who would have had the monopoly on force? | ||
| It's still always going to defer to the enforcement arm. | ||
| They're always going to have the monopoly on force. | ||
| You said they always look to their leader, right? | ||
| They look to the one to lead them. | ||
| You can be leading them a lot. | ||
| Here's the thing. | ||
| You can look to leadership unless you get to overthrow. | ||
| Well, now you're just saying that leadership doesn't matter, and that dismantles your initial argument that people are. | ||
| I'm not saying leadership doesn't matter. | ||
| I'm saying that men always have an option of force to change leadership and women don't. | ||
| Yeah, that argument is saying then leadership doesn't matter. | ||
| No, because we can just overthrow it anyway. | ||
| So it always comes down to whoever wants it can overthrow it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know. | |
| Not women. | ||
| Women can also overthrow it. | ||
| No, they can't. | ||
| People with weapons can overthrow systems of humans. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Then when's the last time women did that ever? | ||
| I just said they can. | ||
| I didn't say they did. | ||
|
unidentified
|
They can't. | |
| They can. | ||
| They can't. | ||
| They don't have the physical problems to do it. | ||
| They're not a personal president. | ||
| And the issue for the drone bombs, it would have been much easier for a female to take some physical. | ||
| I don't want to dominate this conversation. | ||
| She's going to use drones that men built in order to dominate her enemies. | ||
| That's adaptability. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| What's going to happen is this, is that if men want to change the conditionals of the state they're in, they have the option to and women don't. | ||
| And that's a fact. | ||
| And so the thing is, is that if men universally decide that they're going to enslave women, there isn't a fucking thing in the world women can do about it. | ||
| But if portions of men decide that they're going to enslave men, there is something men can do about it. | ||
| But the thing, no, you haven't mentioned this to historically. | ||
| Not a fact on planet Earth. | ||
| Yeah, but you're saying if this total and incapable is not if all men come together. | ||
| If it's the case that in the Middle East, the Middle Easterners want to enslave women, didn't they already do that? | ||
| Yeah, but that's different. | ||
| Why didn't you see the Iranian theocracy? | ||
| Yeah, well, any place you want to look at across the world where women are second-class citizens, can women do shit about that without appealing to men? | ||
| I don't know, but that's not the same thing. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| Answer the question. | ||
| Can women do shit? | ||
| I can answer the question any way I want to answer the question. | ||
| But you have to actually answer the question I'm asking. | ||
| No, I don't have to. | ||
| I can answer whatever. | ||
| Well, that's fine. | ||
| I mean, you can't. | ||
| If you don't like it, that's still my answer. | ||
| Oh, okay. | ||
| Well, then your answer is I don't like your question. | ||
| You gish gallop three questions in a row. | ||
| I didn't gish gallop anything. | ||
| I'm not sure if I can disprove your first point. | ||
| I'm asking two questions about it. | ||
| I'm only asking one question I want actually answered. | ||
| Give it to me again. | ||
| Okay, the question I want answered is right this second, in the Middle East, okay, if women wanted to determine to get their rights back themselves, right, without appealing to men, can they do it or not? | ||
| They'd have to appeal to like an external authority, similar to the American revolutionaries. | ||
| They couldn't do it alone. | ||
| They had to appeal to the French. | ||
| Like when you're under the boot, it's hard to get out without appealing to, but it doesn't have to be a man. | ||
| It could be a queen, you know, Queen Elizabeth or whatever. | ||
| It could have been. | ||
| Or you've got to flip people. | ||
| You got to find defectors, like male defectors that are willing to fight. | ||
| I'm going to talk about males again. | ||
| Back to males. | ||
| I mean, females make the best spies. | ||
|
Carrying Rounds of Ammunition
00:03:21
|
||
| That's true. | ||
| But you're always appealing to those pesky men for force, and there's nothing you can do about it every single time. | ||
| And that's why force doctrine is an unbeatable position because it's the observable fact of the world. | ||
| That I agree with. | ||
| Force doctrine, yeah. | ||
| But I don't think it always has to be a male in control of it. | ||
| But it is always men who are in control of it. | ||
| I mean, Elizabeth is an example of someone that was a dominating military force. | ||
| That was not a dominating military force made up of which sex, all of them. | ||
| Men. | ||
| Men and their wives, and they were the pilot, the dude got on the bottom. | ||
| Like, if we look up, let's look at, can we find out what percentage of her military was men, real quick? | ||
| Per military. | ||
| Yeah, but dude, earlier you're talking about how people appeal to their leader. | ||
| Like the masculine that you're always talking about who can change the conditionals of their leader. | ||
| The argument that strength gives you primary control is a fallacy. | ||
| It is adaptability. | ||
| Strength. | ||
| What's the fallacy? | ||
| That the stronger you are, the more likely you are to be in control. | ||
| That's not fallacious. | ||
| No, strength has diminishing return. | ||
| Yeah, but that's the same thing. | ||
| And it also makes you a target. | ||
| But that's not a logically fallacious argument. | ||
| That would be a proposition. | ||
| And so the thing is, is that propositionally, there's no fallacy there to make that statement, especially if it's observably true, and it is. | ||
| No. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| The strongest men are often the easiest to destroy. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| By other men. | ||
| By guns, by people with guns. | ||
| I'm not talking about that. | ||
| Wielded by men. | ||
| Hand-to-hand combat, dude. | ||
| It still exists. | ||
| But that age of like men can strangle their woman until she does what he says is gone. | ||
| I mean, you technically can, but there are cameras on you now. | ||
| Do guns require hand strength? | ||
| A little. | ||
| Yeah, do they require you to be able to carry a lot of equipment with you? | ||
| Do you have to feed yourself? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Well, I'm sorry. | ||
| You don't have to. | ||
| Well, yeah, if you're going to use guns for the purpose of combat, you're going to be carrying a kit. | ||
| You're going to be carrying a kit. | ||
| You're going to be carrying food. | ||
| You're going to be carrying all sorts of other equipment. | ||
| Not to mention that. | ||
| You just carry in Florida. | ||
| You're going to carry 300, 400 rounds of ammunition. | ||
| You're going to carry it in a chest rig. | ||
| Then you're going to carry a sidearm on top of that. | ||
| Then you're going to have your helmet on. | ||
| Then you're going to have body armor. | ||
| You're going to have all this stuff. | ||
| I'm talking about open. | ||
| I'm talking about carrying. | ||
| Yeah, but carrying Florida, bro. | ||
| Carry on your holster. | ||
| That's all you got. | ||
| That's not about joining the menu. | ||
| No, it's collective defense or it's not, and it's not collective assault. | ||
| That's not how that works. | ||
| Can I just say even if I have a gun and a man wants, depending on positioning, a man can always overpower me. | ||
| He can wrestle the gun from me. | ||
| He can, he will be by brute force stronger than I will be in a certain position. | ||
| Now, could I shoot him? | ||
| I mean, I went shooting with my boyfriend the other week. | ||
| He's just a better shot than I am. | ||
| He's, he's, maybe if I practice more, but I do think no matter what, most men will be better shots than women. | ||
| And then if I have a gun in that situation, it's just my, I will probably panic more. | ||
| I will probably not feel as confident with a gun. | ||
| And a man can overpower me, even with a gun. | ||
| So do you think that women should have Second Amendment rights? | ||
| Sure. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| It doesn't mean that they're not better at it, that they are not physically more capable of wielding it. | ||
| Like he said, if you're in combat, there's a lot of other factors. | ||
| There's like you have to carry more. | ||
| You have to carry rounds of ammunition. | ||
|
Recognizing Differences
00:04:44
|
||
| You have to be like, there's just, there's differences between men and women. | ||
| And we can go swirl down in these arguments over and over and over again. | ||
| But there's differences. | ||
| And the more we deny that and the more we deny that those differences have consequences out in the real world and jobs in the military. | ||
| It's just, it gets exhausting. | ||
| I'm listening to the two of you and I'm like, oh my goodness, there's differences. | ||
| And usually the menu is not. | ||
| And then if somebody denied that there are differences between men and women, because obviously there are. | ||
| I don't dispute that. | ||
| But then you're going to be a good person. | ||
| Because that's how we've gotten to this point where some people believe there are no differences and a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man. | ||
| Feminists just paved the way for that. | ||
| I think that they recognize those differences because if you're talking about trans individuals, they want to transition because they recognize differences between themselves as men and versus right? | ||
| No, I was trying to transition so they can go from being a man to being a trans woman. | ||
| There is no trans woman. | ||
| There's no such thing as a trans woman. | ||
| Like what you just said, if they really don't believe that there's any difference, why would they ever transition? | ||
| Well, why couldn't why the argument is if you're if you're a gay man, why can't you just be a gay man? | ||
| Why do you have to be well? | ||
| We're not talking about gay men. | ||
| We're talking about trans people. | ||
| That's people's sexuality. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And if sexuality is just so do like, who do trans women want to have sex with? | ||
| Anybody? | ||
| Again, sexuality. | ||
| I'm only talking about you said that there are these people that think that there's no differences between the sexes. | ||
| And if that were the case, why would they be bothering to undergo a physical transition or a medical transition if they really believe, oh, men and women, there's really no differences between us or whatever. | ||
| You wouldn't even see trans people if that were the case. | ||
| Or to the extent that you saw it as a phenomenon, it would literally be refined to just like social transition and like cross-dressing and changing their names. | ||
| But they take cross-sex hormones, they take puberty blockers or whatever because they recognize that there's differences between the sexes. | ||
| But they're trying to be something they're not. | ||
| They will never be. | ||
| Okay, but it's a separate argument from whether or not they believe that there are differences between the sex. | ||
| Trans people recognize that there are differences, which is why they want to transition. | ||
| Andrew, do you disagree with this? | ||
| Of course. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Oh, I did want to ask you. | ||
| Wait, wait, really quick. | ||
| Can we go back to the Force Doctrine thing? | ||
| I'm going to move into this argument. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know how you're looking at it. | |
| No, no, no, we can do it. | ||
| We can do it. | ||
| I thought we were about to move into one of my favorite topics. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| I had a question about the Force Doctrine thing, though. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So given that this is your view, how do you explain there being like social rights movements for women and like more parody now between men and women than there existed yet? | ||
| Well, I mean, I don't know about parody. | ||
| That's a hard one to prove. | ||
| What do you mean, parity? | ||
| Parody, how? | ||
| Political power, suffrage, for example. | ||
| Oh, I see. | ||
| So are you saying that can you appeal to men for rights and they give them to you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| No, I'm asking you, how do you explain different social media? | ||
| Women appealed to men for rights and got them, yes. | ||
| But they were appealing to men for them. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And now they want to deconstruct the patriarchy, which is the same thing they're going to end up having to appeal to again for rights. | ||
| And it's just going to be a vicious cycle. | ||
| They're going to appeal to men again. | ||
| And then they're going to appeal to them again. | ||
| And then they're going to appeal to them again. | ||
| And then they're going to appeal to them again after that because that's all that they can do. | ||
| And anytime collectively, men decide to not let women appeal to them, they don't have to. | ||
| And there's nothing women can do about it. | ||
| And that's the actual fact of the world. | ||
| Now, you may not like it. | ||
| You may say, Andrew, that's immoral. | ||
| Andrew, do you morally support that? | ||
| You can make all those claims if you want to. | ||
| But this is a descriptive truth of the world: is that if men decide that you don't have rights, you don't. | ||
| If they do that, but I don't think, I think that's highly improbable. | ||
| Like, if by what you mean, if they want to do it, is it logically possible for them to do it? | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| Yes, it's logical. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| It's actually practical. | ||
| It's pragmatically possible. | ||
| Is it possible or plausible? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Yes, it is. | ||
| Yes, it is. | ||
| No, because like Ian was saying, there would be defectors. | ||
| You would see there would be plenty of men and probably men that you would call like feminist sissy men, et cetera. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you? | |
| Gay men, men that don't see themselves as benefiting from patriarchy or whatever that would be totally down to join this women's liberation movement. | ||
| I understand the answer. | ||
| Similarly, you'd find women that are like, yeah, fuck this. | ||
| I don't want equality. | ||
| How can we support men? | ||
| But can we point something out, which is also an objective truth? | ||
| That it doesn't matter. | ||
| It's not a guarantee of victory because you have some men who defect and it's not a guarantee of victory because you really don't want it to happen. | ||
|
It's Pragmatically Possible
00:02:56
|
||
| The fact of the matter is that we've had many republics in the past that have failed. | ||
| And they Up coming back, right? | ||
| It ends up coming back to the idea of force. | ||
| And then you have empires, and they end up falling because it comes back to the idea of force. | ||
| And while all this great technology and electricity and all this stuff that women like to take for granted, which makes them believe in some crazy fucking world that they're the equals of men physically, which is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard in my life, or that they some way how have equity with men or ever could, at least in that domain, right? | ||
| I wouldn't say that they're they have less moral value. | ||
| I would never make that claim. | ||
| Only the claim there can never be equity and that that's stupid and it's based on the technological marvels which allow modern women to do any of these jobs successfully at all. | ||
| And if men decide at any time that they want to take that away, women can't do shit about it. | ||
| But men can. | ||
| Meaning, if groups of men want to take rights away from other groups of men as collectives, men have choices there. | ||
| We have revolutions. | ||
| We fight them. | ||
| We kill them, right? | ||
| It's not always as simple as like the stronger party winning, though. | ||
| I was going to bring this up while you were talking, like an example of like, okay, the Vietnam War, right? | ||
| By all metrics, previous to that starting, it would be irrational to assume that the United States is going to crush the Viet Cong, right? | ||
| But they did crush them. | ||
| Yeah, there were tons of deaths, obviously, but the Viet Cong were able to make significant dents and cause high casualty rates. | ||
| We had to have a lottery to conscript men to go fight in this war that they were not really interested in fighting. | ||
| The Viet Cong had a ton of women in it, you know, so it's not, even though you can, you know, here's what actually high likelihood that one party is going to succeed or another. | ||
| But like, you know, would you say like the first of all the United States lost? | ||
| Let's revise a couple things. | ||
| The United States lost our objective of the Vietnam War, which was to stop the spread of communism. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| I agree with that. | ||
| We fucking crushed the North Vietnamese army and absolutely fucking destroyed the NBA. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Brutally and quickly, and it wasn't even close. | ||
| And if we wanted to level all of Vietnam in three weeks and kill everybody in there, we could have done it. | ||
| We had a specific objection or objective, which was a police action and failed in that objective. | ||
| The military is not designed to be a police force. | ||
| They suck at it. | ||
| Historically, all militaries have. | ||
| The army is designed as this big giant machine to roll over everything and fucking crush it into dust. | ||
| That's what its job is. | ||
| It's not there to police populations. | ||
| That's what policemen are for. | ||
| They police populations. | ||
| The military is not good at that. | ||
| Never has been. | ||
| But if you're asking me, if we're appealing to force doctrine, oh, yeah, we could have crushed Vietnam like it was nothing. | ||
| MacArthur could have invaded China and crushed them too if he had wanted to. | ||
|
Why Force Matters
00:12:52
|
||
| The thing is, is like ultimately, it's always coming back down to the idea of force and who has the monopoly on it. | ||
| And I've never seen any historic evidence ever that women have ever had the monopoly on it nor ever successfully fought for any sort of independence or freedom where they don't have to appeal to men, but I've always seen men do it where they never had to appeal to women. | ||
| And so the historic standards on my side, the strength of force, and half of the conditions of half of the world right now is on my side for my argument. | ||
| What you guys have is vibes and maybe one day. | ||
| Vibes and one day though, Andrew, one day we'll be able to overthrow that evil patriarchy with fucking robots and shit like that. | ||
| And it's like, I don't think so. | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| But that's just me. | ||
| I think in regards to like maintaining authority, you need the strength to seize the authority and then you need the wherewithal to maintain the authority. | ||
| And that's more of the feminine energy of the leadership. | ||
| You need wisdom. | ||
| You need to see your own flaws. | ||
| You need to admit when you're wrong. | ||
| Like that's how you, but you do need strength to take it and to protect it. | ||
| And to keep it. | ||
| But what's on the inside is where the women become very important. | ||
| Well, this is not what's in dispute here. | ||
| What's in dispute here is not whether or not you can craft societies in which men grant women rights. | ||
| Because I would argue that obviously we can see societies right this second. | ||
| We live in one where men grant women rights. | ||
| Oh, God. | ||
| I don't want to interrupt you, but God grants the rights in our society. | ||
| Oh, yeah, does he? | ||
| Well, that's what the Constitution says. | ||
| Well, the Constitution operates on an axiom that all men are created equal under God, right? | ||
| This is axiomatic. | ||
| I'm not saying I don't think it's grounded, and I don't think it's well philosophically grounded. | ||
| While I, as a Christian, would argue that there's some positive rights, or at least could argue that there's positive rights, from her view, there isn't rights at all. | ||
| From your view, rights are a social construct, aren't they? | ||
| I mean, rights are whoever is able to enforce them. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| So it's a social construct. | ||
| But I don't even really dispute with you about the force thing. | ||
| Like, you know, who determines a right? | ||
| Is that by divine right, by God, or whatever? | ||
| But like, as far as like the practical reality of who can enforce their rights, that really comes down to force. | ||
| I just want to make sure we get this clear. | ||
| Is a right a social construction from your view? | ||
| We make it up. | ||
| And then we have guns and say, do it or else. | ||
| Or these people are allowed to do it or else. | ||
| There's something about my answer intuitively that wants to say no, I don't believe it's just like a social thing or a social phenomenon or a construct. | ||
| I don't know, not divine command theory, though. | ||
| So I'm not sure. | ||
| So you can't ground it in anything, can you? | ||
| I guess not, no. | ||
| Yeah, because you just make them the fuck up, don't you? | ||
| What do you ground it in? | ||
| Well, I ground it in God, but I have a different worldview than you. | ||
| And when we're debating this, we're debating it from the prism of our worldview. | ||
| While I, as the Christian, might be able to grant that there are rights. | ||
| Why should I ever grant them to you, Commie? | ||
| You don't believe in them at all. | ||
| From your view, if I take away all of your rights, we just made them the fuck up anyway. | ||
| I feel like it's a highly reductive way to characterize my argument. | ||
| I'm sorry you feel that way, but how is it not the case that from your view, we just made them the fuck up? | ||
| They're not grounded in anything. | ||
| And if I take them away, how's that even immoral? | ||
| You conceive of these things and look at them through lenses that I just don't find useful or I have not thought to do so. | ||
| They could be useful. | ||
| No, I'm saying from a Marxist materialist lens, yes. | ||
| But like, I mean, my general opinion on rights is that they're useless if you only have them du jour, but you don't actually have a way to enforce them. | ||
| Or similarly, it is, I wouldn't say equally as futile, but it's also a precarious position to be in where you can enforce your rights, but you have not actually secured the legal protections and the du jour actually gotten them ensconced in writing in a constitution, et cetera. | ||
| But how is it not the weakest sand on earth to say that we need to enforce these rights that I just made the fuck up? | ||
| Because they're not grounded in anything. | ||
| I just made them up. | ||
| And you think that them being grounded in God makes it more scary? | ||
| I think that the only argument that you can give to men, the benevolency of the patriarchy, is the entire appeal from people with your worldviews to appeal to us and our view who believe in rights because of God and say to us, don't we deserve them too, even though we don't actually even share the view? | ||
| To which I tell Christians, no, fuck them. | ||
| Give them nothing because they're appealing to your benevolence and they should beg, beg for you to be as benevolent as you are because from their worldview, they have nothing to ground it in. | ||
| Like you said, you have nothing to ground it in. | ||
| You just made them up. | ||
| Why should I believe them? | ||
| Why should I believe that you have a right to do anything? | ||
| You don't even believe you have a right to do anything. | ||
| Why should I believe in like divine command theory and that because God says it is that it doesn't? | ||
| That's the beautiful part of the argument. | ||
| You don't. | ||
| Because if we're operating off of your view, I'm just going to grant that it's false. | ||
| Who cares? | ||
| If we're both building it off of a house of sand and I just made up divine command theory and you just, which by the way, I don't believe in divine command theory. | ||
| But if I did, I'm sorry. | ||
| Okay, if I did, if I just grant that I made it up, it doesn't help your position a bit. | ||
| What is divine command theory? | ||
| It only helps, it only helps my position. | ||
| Hang on a second, Ian, one second. | ||
| It only helps my position. | ||
| Sure, I made the whole thing up. | ||
| How's that helpful to you? | ||
| Well, I'm asking, how do you intend to spread this to people that don't believe in your worldview? | ||
| With this argument. | ||
| Because you're going to have to. | ||
| When persuasion, which is hard to do. | ||
| I'm going to appeal to my worldview, whether it's true or not, because it's the only one, right, which I'm going to postulate I'm going to ground rights in. | ||
| You just got done saying rights are not grounded in fucking anything. | ||
| So if that's the case, fine. | ||
| I lied and made the whole thing up. | ||
| But rights aren't grounded in anything anyway. | ||
| So it doesn't help you a bit. | ||
| If I take them away. | ||
| But you think they're grounded in the divinity. | ||
| So I'm saying that a lot of people. | ||
| So you're appealing to my view. | ||
| Yes, I'm appealing to your view. | ||
| And in a world that's increasingly secular, how do you intend to persuade people? | ||
| Do you think that Christians ought to be using force or persuasion? | ||
| What do you mean? | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| Me? | ||
| Why do I need to do anything when the view of my opposition is that they have no rights, can't ground them? | ||
| I'm not saying that you need to do it. | ||
| I'm asking you how you intend to do it. | ||
| This is how I intend to do it, by pointing out that you live in your whole house is built on sand. | ||
| Persuasion. | ||
| And you have to literally appeal to me. | ||
| Well, even if I used force, you have no appeal against that. | ||
| Nothing's grounded in anything. | ||
| It's just all made the fuck up. | ||
| Sure, yeah. | ||
| I guess I sleep fine at night knowing this or whatever. | ||
| I guess I would consider I'm like a moral anti-realist. | ||
| I don't believe in these sorts of like. | ||
| And that's why you have to appeal, you moral anti-realists, to moral realists who believe in moral facts because that's what prevents us from enslaving all of you. | ||
| But to be honest, but hang on, hang on. | ||
| Isn't that true? | ||
| That what prevents us from enslaving all of you is you're appealing to our benevolence as moral realists. | ||
| You mean Christians? | ||
| What prevents Christians from enslaving everybody else? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I don't believe so, but. | ||
| Yeah, they're not appealing to their Christianity and Christian ethics to just not go ahead and enslave all women and stuff them in cages. | ||
| Just stuff them in there? | ||
| No, I don't think so, no. | ||
| Why not? | ||
| Because I don't think that that has necessarily been the basis for people arguing for equality or whatever. | ||
| I don't think that you're presupposing that it's always been by virtue of like appealing to the to Christian benevolence ethics, et cetera. | ||
| Never seen any appeal that was not dogmatic and religious for why women have rights ever in all of human history. | ||
| They always appeal to a God. | ||
| They always appeal to a higher power. | ||
| They always appeal to something external to them. | ||
| You just got done saying it's not grounded in anything. | ||
| You made it the fuck up. | ||
| If it's completely made up, it's not grounded in nothing. | ||
| Then you're appealing to Christians and Christian benevolence and their view. | ||
| Even if it's not true, you're appealing to their view that they believe it's true to not just stuff you in a cage. | ||
| And if you said that's wrong and they asked you, why is it wrong? | ||
| You'd have to say, I don't know. | ||
| It's not grounded in anything. | ||
| I just made it up. | ||
| And that's the most persuasive argument on planet Earth, in my opinion. | ||
| I think that the founding fathers sat around and had this conversation and they're like, look, we know through all human history, rights were dictated by who had the guns, who had the strength. | ||
| We have to change that because it constantly goblin king switches hands, the next strongest guy overthrows. | ||
| So they're like, let's say it's from God. | ||
| Or they really believed it. | ||
| I know they were like Christian dudes. | ||
| Not all of them were like Catholic or anything. | ||
| I mean, they were all their own. | ||
| Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. | ||
| What's that? | ||
| I said very few were Catholic. | ||
| Yeah, so they said, let's just appeal it to God. | ||
| Whether or not it's true, I don't know. | ||
| I don't know what God is. | ||
| But they knew that the moral order depended on a Christian worldview. | ||
| The more you go into like arbitrary kind of reason for rights, even if they weren't Christian. | ||
| I think was it John Adams that said a democratic republic is only fit for a moral and Christian society? | ||
| There's actually several foundational contributors who talked about how a morality, there has to be a shared sense of morality inside of a public in order for there to be a republic. | ||
| So that's true. | ||
| I think that that's true of any society. | ||
| I think there has to be some shared glue, right? | ||
| Here we used to have like patriotism. | ||
| We used to have all sorts of things that were a shared glue. | ||
| That's all gone, right? | ||
| Now I have to share my country with communists, right? | ||
| That's, and it used to be that we persecuted communists. | ||
| That was so base. | ||
| We get back to that. | ||
| We get back to fucking persecuting the communists. | ||
| But the point is, is like that this type of poison, in my opinion, is so invasive to the fabric of the United States that people who literally tell me they can't ground anything in nothing, know that they can't ground anything in nothing, that there's no such thing as moral facts, then tell me it's wrong if I stuff them in a rape cage. | ||
| And it's like, what are you talking about? | ||
| That's the stupidest shit that I've ever heard in my life. | ||
| But that's my opposition, unfortunately. | ||
| And so they appeal to the benevolence of those like me in order to prevent us from doing the thing that they don't want, that they don't even believe we shouldn't do because there are no moral facts. | ||
| That's the retarded state of the world that we're in. | ||
| And Andrew is very magnanimous for not stuffing lowly communists like me and gulags and whatnot. | ||
| Were you always, how is that anything but benevolent? | ||
| Why shouldn't I? | ||
| As a moral anti-realist, why shouldn't I do that? | ||
| What would make that immoral? | ||
| Tell me, what would make it immoral as a moral anti-realist for me to stuff your ass in a gulag? | ||
| What? | ||
| It's a more, it's a more consequentialist outlook that I think that based off the outcome of the majority of the people. | ||
| Wait, wait, there's no moral facts. | ||
| No, they're not real facts. | ||
| No. | ||
| So then there's nothing I'm really doing that's immoral, is there? | ||
| No. | ||
| No. | ||
| Oh, yeah, that's highly. | ||
| No, I disagree with you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Is that immoral? | |
| No. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| It's immoral, but not under the same framework. | ||
| I'm not using the same, like the moral realist framework to say that it's wrong. | ||
| It's wrong for other reasons. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Do you believe in objective truth? | ||
| No. | ||
| No? | ||
| Is that true? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So you believe in it. | ||
| You don't believe in objective truth. | ||
| Are you like a math realist? | ||
| Hang on, and I ask you if that's true. | ||
| And you say, no, that's not true either. | ||
| So I can't believe anything you say. | ||
| And you don't believe that there's any such thing as rights, but it's wrong for me to do something bad to you, even though there's no moral facts. | ||
| Fucking genius. | ||
| This is your opposition, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| These are the communists who are taking over academia and teaching your kids. | ||
| So wait, wait, what's your, you know, what if you believe that, then one, I think that goes to show that there are, you know, more powerful means than simply force to be able to enact your political will amongst the masses and the population. | ||
| You're saying that there are soft power and institutions that you can access that can erode these sorts of protections for Christians, for moral people, et cetera. | ||
| And there's not even a single drop of bloodshed. | ||
| There's not a shot. | ||
| But there could be. | ||
| If they wanted it to be happening, they're using soft power, and that in and of itself is pretty strong. | ||
| We'll win, soft power or force in the world. | ||
| Force will win, but I'm saying that I don't think that the, you know, even under his view, he's not discounting that there is a significant advantage in having these sorts of soft power and having access over these institutions, even if they're, you know, academia or whatever. | ||
| Maybe the only reason it works is because you're appealing to people that say, if you, if you kind of just come in here with force, that that's wrong. | ||
| And we have a moral order that would tell you that it's wrong. | ||
| But it still works. | ||
|
Why Female ICE Officers Resign?
00:14:52
|
||
| So what you're doing is, and what a lot of women do, we can maybe go back to the feminism thing for a bit, is appeal to emotion and say a morality, an objective morality to say it is wrong to enslave other people. | ||
| It is wrong to use violence against people because they don't believe, and this is what the left has done. | ||
| This is why they've worked, because they appeal to the goodwill of Christians, particularly women, and empathy that says, oh, I feel bad for this immigrant who's just murdered an American child or a nursing student. | ||
| The amount of tears that were wept for somebody like Lake and Riley over some arbitrary person they don't know that isn't from this country, a small child that hasn't like a five-year-old who supposedly was taken in by ICE, it's unbelievable. | ||
| It's selective empathy. | ||
| It's empathy in this broad, I'm not saying compassion isn't there, but these women have this empathy for broad, abstract people more than the people closest to them, more than the family. | ||
| This Renee Goode woman put her own family in jeopardy. | ||
| She is now has her son or daughter is without a mother because of this abstract idea of that we should protect some boy that she doesn't know. | ||
| I think empathy should work in the particular. | ||
| If you're going to put yourself in someone else's shoes, know who that person is. | ||
| But this kind of broad, abstract, we should feel good. | ||
| We should feel for everybody. | ||
| You can only do so much. | ||
| And she put some broad abstraction of children in cages, whatever the moral appeal was over her very own family. | ||
| So you don't think it's virtuous to have concern for other people, even if you don't know them? | ||
| No, I think that's compassion. | ||
| But I think there's an order of virtue. | ||
| I think she misplaced her priorities. | ||
| She misplaced her emotions. | ||
| She misplaced who she should be caring for first. | ||
| You have a child. | ||
| Are you going to put that child's life at risk to go fight for some cause where you could potentially die and leave that child alone? | ||
| Are you going to go fight for some abstract cause and abandon your child for that? | ||
| So your argument is that her duties were misaligned or out of order because she was prioritizing other people's kids, strangers, et cetera. | ||
| But what did she? | ||
| For her own personal family. | ||
| But I don't think that Renee Goode woke up that morning thinking that she was going to be shot in the head three times, even with the actions that she was through. | ||
| But why would you take that risk? | ||
| You know you're going to an armed conflict where there's force, where there's no way an armed conflict. | ||
| There's ICE agents. | ||
| There's people with guns around. | ||
| I would never. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| But I view that differently as an armed conflict. | ||
| This happened in like a cul-de-sac, right? | ||
| Or like a suburb? | ||
| Fair point. | ||
| Yeah, but why would you go into potentially dangerous situations? | ||
| The tensions have been known to be heightened in Minneapolis, right? | ||
| Why would you just abandon your duties and responsibilities as a mother to your child to go fight for some abstract cause where the reality is you're not going to make much of a difference? | ||
| So, well, there's, I guess, two things that I have to dispute with that. | ||
| For one, again, I don't think that she views this as sort of like an all or nothing thing. | ||
| I don't believe that she thought that as she was doing that, she was going to be abandoning or one, she didn't anticipate that she was going to be shot in the head three times. | ||
| Two, I don't think that she believed that she as by making that choice, it's mutually exclusive. | ||
| And therefore, by going to this ICE protest, that she was going to be abandoning her family for one. | ||
| So I think that kind of explains her subjective state of mind. | ||
| But then you're at the second part of your question was like, why would you do that? | ||
| And it's the same reason that Kyle Rittenhouse decided to take up arms and head to Kenosha and take matters into his own hands as far as he saw and try to defend the police, defend buildings or whatever, because he had a superseding moral principle and duty that he felt he was compelled to act on. | ||
| But he didn't have a family. | ||
| Did Rittenaus didn't have a family? | ||
| No, he doesn't have a father. | ||
| He's not a father. | ||
| I wonder if that would change his decision-making process to go into a risky situation. | ||
| He has a mother. | ||
| Right, but he's not responsible for the life of another human being right now or at that moment that he made that decision. | ||
| So that's the same thing. | ||
| That very based decision. | ||
| So then single people, you're fine with doing this because they don't have a duty to their children because they have no children to speak of. | ||
| Or no, that wouldn't be okay there. | ||
| Well, no, my risk calculations of what I do on a day-to-day basis are much different than probably a woman with children. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely they are. | ||
| Different, but would you can, if Renee Goode had been single, would you be saying, oh, well, it's okay because she wasn't in violation of her moral duty to her son? | ||
| I would say that the calculation would be different. | ||
| In what way? | ||
| You're just saying it's different, but in what way would it be different? | ||
| Well, she's not considering she has to take care of a family when she goes home or she has a moral responsibility for her son. | ||
| So I'm going to be more risk tolerant to go into situations that's highly charged where there is the possibility of force, whereas the possibility of her getting hurt. | ||
| And she didn't back down. | ||
| That was the thing. | ||
| They were very antagonistic to these ICE officers. | ||
| It just seems like a red herring because I think that you fundamentally believe that she was fighting for a cause that was not righteous and that is unjust. | ||
| And why not make the criticism on that grounds instead of saying, well, it's actually immoral because she has a duty to her family and to her son? | ||
| Sorry, what did you think it was? | ||
| I just think it's a, it's a dis. | ||
| I think her priorities are disordered. | ||
| I didn't say it was immoral. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Well, her priorities were disordered. | ||
| But again, then the disordered priorities just seems like a red herring to me because it doesn't really seem like that's the thing that you're really sanctioning her for or indicting her for. | ||
| It does seem like the issue is that you don't really think that the cause was just because if the cause became just enough, then it would reach a threshold where suddenly you would say that the duties maybe could be, there could be leniency as far as them being reordered. | ||
| I don't know if there's anything else. | ||
| And then there could be other social cause in your family or you as an individual. | ||
| I don't think there's any social cause worth risking your life for and risking leaving your child without a mother. | ||
| I don't. | ||
| So how do you feel about ICE agents then? | ||
| Because they're putting themselves in a risky, difficult position. | ||
| These ICE agents have family. | ||
| They're going out there with guns. | ||
| They're not charged to their family. | ||
| They're not charged with the nurturing and taking care of their children. | ||
| But they still charge their duties to their families. | ||
| They do, but they have different, they have different capacities. | ||
| Like we said, they're more forceful. | ||
| They're more likely to be safe in that situation than a woman is. | ||
| But you're just saying they're different. | ||
| They're different. | ||
| agree that they're different, but why this leniency for men to be engaged in these sorts of behaviors and not following their duty of caring, not putting themselves in situations because fathers and mothers have different roles within the family. | ||
| Their charge is to protect and defend. | ||
| A mother's role is to nourish and so male ICE officers, okay. | ||
| Female ICE officers, how do you feel about that? | ||
| I would probably argue it's not, I mean, again, do you have a family? | ||
| Does she is she's a female ICE officer with a family? | ||
| Do you think that she's engaged in something immoral? | ||
| No, I didn't say it's immoral. | ||
| Sorry, sorry, sorry. | ||
| You're right. | ||
| You didn't say that. | ||
| You did say that their priorities are misaligned, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Would you say that the female ICE agent with a family has misaligned priorities? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Okay. | ||
| If Kyle Rittenhouse had been a woman or a teenage girl instead of a boy, would you be condemning them? | ||
| I'm not condemning anybody, but I would say does that mean their character, their actions, their choices because it was a girl doing it now instead of a boy? | ||
| Does that girl have a family? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Then yeah. | ||
| Then it just comes down to, it really just comes down to whether or not they have kids. | ||
| And if she didn't have a family, then you wouldn't be criticizing them. | ||
| I would say it was a stupid move, but I don't think I would be as maybe judgmental, correct? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| You're talking about people getting whipped into a frenzy, like a moral frenzy to go fight some for some purpose that they barely understand. | ||
| And I keep thinking like the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, they rallied the men to go fight some conflict. | ||
| They garnered my empathy with 9-11 and then they used it for conflict. | ||
| But do you think that feminism, this whole bet, has made it so that they're drawing women into that frenzy? | ||
| Because seeing women out on the street marching like this, it feels like it does feel like, I mean, it feels like the United States is being manipulated by the world through the internet. | ||
| Like liberalism is being obliterated with new ideas. | ||
| And so I do think that people are like, yes, break up the family, poison yourselves, eat bad food. | ||
| This is how we'll defeat you from within. | ||
| But I mean, the argument I'm getting is that feminism has led to now enticing women into this toxically empathic state of being. | ||
| Whereas they used to not give a shit. | ||
| They wouldn't go out. | ||
| They didn't, I mean, they did start the French Revolution. | ||
| The women were the ones that went out because when the food runs out, they went out there with their cookware and they were pissed off. | ||
| But I mean, that was a really big deal. | ||
| They ran out of food. | ||
| You know, the women stepped up. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I'm asking you about your argument. | ||
| Are you saying that feminism is making women crazy, is making women severely empathic to a fault? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, I think it's appealing to, I think there's positive attributes to male qualities and positive attributes to female qualities and vice versa. | ||
| You can have what you call toxic empathy. | ||
| I don't like the word toxic in general. | ||
| I don't think, you know, masculinity is toxic. | ||
| I don't think femininity is toxic. | ||
| I think them aimed in the wrong direction leads us to where, to chaos, as opposed to order and compassion in the right direction. | ||
| I think these women are placing their empathy in the wrong direction because they don't, it is natural instinct. | ||
| It is biological difference. | ||
| Women are more empathetic. | ||
| They're more agreeable by nature, these kind of five personality traits. | ||
| And I think they have been manipulated to feel things to redirect what would normally be directed at a child or a family to these kinds of abstract social justice causes. | ||
| So what is your prescription for these women? | ||
| I'll go back to the female ICE agent with her family. | ||
| Do you think that any female ICE agent who has a family ought to resign from ICE? | ||
| I don't think that most women, because of their differences, because of their physiological tendencies, the way they think, the way they are in their femininity, would want to be a female ICE agent. | ||
| Now, if they do, that's fine. | ||
| Do you think that they ought to be resident? | ||
| That's fine. | ||
| If they exist and they have families, do you think they ought to resign, yes or no? | ||
| I'm not going to force them to resign. | ||
| I'm not asking if you would force them. | ||
| I'm asking if they ought to resign. | ||
| But they're there already. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I'm not asking you to make a descriptive objectives. | ||
| She's asking a direct question. | ||
| It's an ought claim. | ||
| She's asking yes or no from your view. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And yes. | ||
| You think they ought to. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And you see this like, I guess this kind of cuts against your kind of vibes argument because you're finally drawing lines in the sand with what professional achievements that you're willing to accommodate women making in this society. | ||
| And you draw the line at female ICE officers. | ||
| Risking your life. | ||
|
unidentified
|
For example. | |
| Yes, I would say risking your life. | ||
| There's a higher risk that your life is in jeopardy as an ICE officer than there is as a doctor in a hospital doing rounds. | ||
| Do you extend this to female police that have family? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So there should be a police force that's entirely comprised exclusively of and only of men. | ||
| Depends on their role in the police force. | ||
| Are you talking about a higher risk kind of role? | ||
| I'm sure there's, I don't know much about different roles in the police. | ||
| I mean, in the army, can women do certain things? | ||
| I mean, like pay the menu. | ||
| They're not a genetic and things like that. | ||
| I'm guessing that they're just that. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I'm not even talking about the more kind of like, to the extent that a blue collar job like police work has like white collar aspects. | ||
| I'm not talking about the paper pushing or the admin stuff. | ||
| I'm talking about people that go onto the field, effectuate arrests, or actually out in the community enforcing law. | ||
| Do you believe that that should be comprised of any women? | ||
| I think there are, if they want, if, yes, it can be comprised of women, but I'd be curious to know how many women choose that path. | ||
| So how come female ICE agents with families, you're saying that's a no-go, they ought to resign in your view. | ||
| But when it comes to the police force, domestic duties, law enforcement, et cetera, that can accommodate having women within its ranks. | ||
| Why is that? | ||
| I'm not saying it can or can't accommodate. | ||
| I am saying the first time. | ||
| Exceptions do not prove the rule wrong. | ||
| That's all. | ||
| You can, sure, you can have, if they could, first of all, if those women can live up to the standards of what needs to be. | ||
| I'm not saying that they disprove it. | ||
| I'm asking you to delineate and explain why in one case with the female ICE officers that have families, you say they ought to resign. | ||
| But when it comes to the police force, you're not calling for female cops or ones that have families. | ||
| But you forced me to a binary to say, should they resign or not? | ||
| I force you to answer a hypothetical question. | ||
| And I'm asking you claims about your worldview and your normal case. | ||
| Which is fair. | ||
| That's fine. | ||
| I get it. | ||
| But what I'm saying is how many women are actually as ICE officers, right? | ||
| You can have exceptions to a rule. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| So maybe I'll have to back away. | ||
| So would I ask them to resign? | ||
| No, but the thing is, is how many, I just don't think that you want a majority of police officers or ICE officers to be women. | ||
| The fact is those are roles better suited for men. | ||
| Are there some women that can fill those roles if they are as strong as men, if they meet the requirements, sure. | ||
| And if they want to, I can't force a woman to say who has children, don't do that. | ||
| I do, but if you could, you would call on them to resign from ICE. | ||
|
Protesting ICE's Role
00:03:54
|
||
| ICE is already struggling with recruits, even getting men, even with all of the generous benefits that they're offering. | ||
| And under your worldview and your normative claims that you've laid out in this conversation, you would be fine with working against the goals of the admin that you voted for and supported and channel and whose policies you champion. | ||
| You'd be only aware of that. | ||
| Let's say that ICE, 40% of it, again, comprised of women with families, you'd say it's more important that they ought to resign and work against your goals for the domestic gender with agenda within this United States to be able to prioritize that. | ||
| And I find that to be futile under your worldview, and I find that to be strange, honestly. | ||
| I think that at that point, it just seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot. | ||
| And you're not pragmatic whatsoever. | ||
| I would call on more men to step up and fill those. | ||
| They're calling on men and they're struggling to even get men to recruit, even with the incentives that they're laying out. | ||
| But it just seems self-defeating to me. | ||
| It seems like at that point, you know, a little feminism could do you some good because if ICE were, you know, 40% of it were comprised of women and that works in your favor because they're effectuating deportations, you know, detainment of undocumented citizens, and you ultimately think that that's a righteous cause. | ||
| It's a righteous goal. | ||
| I don't see why you would get tripped up over the fact that like, oh, well, I want that to happen, but it needs to be men doing it, not women. | ||
| Then it just seems like you're getting needlessly picky and working against your own interests. | ||
| Well, I also think that's what I'm saying. | ||
| As far as what your political goals are. | ||
| ICE is different in what they're supposed to be doing and now what they have to do within kind of what's happening in the culture right now. | ||
| ICE's main job is to enforce immigration law, right? | ||
| Now they're being kind of forced into these violent. | ||
| How do you mean? | ||
| Because Trump is the one deploying them and saying that they need to be going to these cities doing all of this shit. | ||
| So when you say they're forced into this position, who's forcing them? | ||
| Do you mean Donald Trump? | ||
| No, no, no, no. | ||
| I mean, I mean, typically, if an ICE agent or ICE agent was just to do their job, they would go in, take the illegal immigrants or whomever they're supposed to deport and take them out of the communities, right? | ||
| They wouldn't be involved in these violent conflicts if there wasn't this. | ||
| Mass deportation program underway, which I assumed you supported. | ||
| Do you not support the mass deportation program? | ||
| I support what they're doing, yes. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| But you're saying when you said, like, well, they're doing things that they're not supposed to be doing, I got the impression, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that they're coming up against conflict where that's not normally in the job description. | ||
| It's not normally in the job description that ICE is going to come up against conflict. | ||
| Well, no, if they're, they're coming up against mass and blocking traffic. | ||
| There's plenty of cities where ICE agents are doing their job and they're not encountering all of this crazy behavior, the whistles, the things that put them into kind of a sympathetic state of mind. | ||
| The whistleblowing, people standing on the sidewalk blowing whistles or whatever. | ||
| You think that's the best craziness. | ||
| You think the behavior you're seeing in Minneapolis and Los Angeles and the rioting, that that's kind of normal behavior of people who are whose emotional nervous system is well balanced? | ||
| You're saying that the people that are demonstrating protesting against ICE, they're doing so because they're hormonally imbalanced? | ||
| No, I'm saying they're not exhibiting behavior. | ||
| Somebody like Alex Petty, who's who is punching out lights, that's not calm protesting behavior. | ||
| They are antagonizing people. | ||
| They are intentionally antagonizing people. | ||
| They are blowing whistles. | ||
| They are screaming. | ||
| They are asking people for papers when they are not law enforcement. | ||
| They're not. | ||
| But who put them in this situation? | ||
| Trump deployed them and now it's incoming. | ||
| They're doing what's absolutely. | ||
| Guys, guys, we're coming to the top of the hour. | ||
|
Closing Statements
00:03:17
|
||
| So my moderation style, as I'm a debate participant here too, I wanted to make sure you had plenty of time to also engage in your views with the side of the table. | ||
| I think I did a good job of that and also engage with my views, which you've lost on. | ||
| But the thing is, is that I do want to point out a couple of things. | ||
| First and foremost, I want to give you both kind of a chance to wrap your thoughts up. | ||
| So let's start with you, Aaron. | ||
| Like, just take a quick minute and kind of wrap your thoughts up on the conversation that we just had. | ||
| I think reflecting on the... | ||
| Just consider it like a closing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| As a closing statement, I think the conversation that we just had is that if you want to indict my priorities as a feminist, as a communist or whatever, look no further than the arguments that were laid out by my interlocutor over here that were, to me, filled with internal contradictions, had a bunch of that were, even though I was being indicted for appealing to arbitrary morals or non-existent ones for going off vibes and feels or whatever that there were many times, and Andrew even granted this to me, | ||
| that my debate opponent was doing the exact same thing. | ||
| And then from there, I would ask the audience and the viewers and participants to evaluate our performances, evaluate our arguments and see if we're if I'll even grant we're both just going off vibes. | ||
| Whose vibes are more compelling? | ||
| My interlocutors over here or my vibes? | ||
| Can I shout myself out? | ||
| Of course. | ||
| We vibing, man. | ||
| We're vibing. | ||
| We're vibing, man. | ||
| Since we're vibing, I'm a live streamer. | ||
| I live stream on Twitch and YouTube Monday through Friday. | ||
| I'm at StradaidesTrader underscore on everything. | ||
| And yeah, that's my closing statement. | ||
| I do have a question for you, though. | ||
| Can I ask it? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Would you be interested in dropping the fee that you have to debate Pisco Liddy, the lawyer? | ||
| No. | ||
| Do you know why that fee is in place? | ||
| No. | ||
| Why is it fee in place? | ||
| It's because of how he treated my friend Rob Noor and he's going to pay the Piper for it. | ||
| And so everybody else in the world gets access to my enormous platform except him until he pays the fee. | ||
| How much is the fee again? | ||
| It's only 4K. | ||
| 4K. | ||
| And he can't, he has to pay it himself, right? | ||
| Nobody else can help. | ||
| Oh, I don't care if he fundraises. | ||
| Oh, he could fundraise it? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Of course. | |
| Okay, if he crowdfunded. | ||
| I don't care as long as liberals are paying it. | ||
| He's paying it. | ||
| I don't care. | ||
| As long as they pay it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
As long as they're paying it. | |
| I will accept it. | ||
| Now, here, to be totally fair to me, right? | ||
| That's like a three-hour stream for me on a normal night. | ||
| So I don't feel like I'm asking for much. | ||
| And it's a little bit of penance. | ||
| He should have thought about that before he treated my buddy Rob, who's blowing up, by the way, and is going to be on Timcast tonight. | ||
| He shouldn't have treated him like shit. | ||
| Made me very upset. | ||
| Made me very upset. | ||
| And I'm a very petty, vengeful person. | ||
| I know it's not very Christian of me. | ||
| Very petty, very vengeful. | ||
| Ian, your quick wrap-up. | ||
| Yeah, I felt like we opened up the toy boxes and threw a bunch of toys all over the room. | ||
| And then we're like, we're going to play with these and these and these and these. | ||
| And then the show ended. | ||
| So maybe we'll play with these toys some more in the future. | ||
| This was a great conversation. | ||
| Oh, I enjoyed the heck out of it. | ||
| And it was our back and forth. | ||
| It may have looked pretty brutal to the audience because it was. | ||
| And Ian argued with me. | ||
| And you know what's going to happen to Helldivers now? | ||
| You know, I told you what was going to happen. | ||
| No, you're the scout from now on. | ||
| And if something happens to you in the field, together we'll go straight up, Andrew. | ||
| Anyway, go ahead with your wrap of your closing statements here. | ||
|
Repealing Amendments Not Viable
00:01:44
|
||
| No, I mean, I think that, you know, I heard somewhere this week that a nation can't survive when it denies nature. | ||
| And I do think feminism denies the inherent difference, different natures of men and women and tries to make them equal. | ||
| I don't think they're equal. | ||
| But I think that the crux of the debate ended up coming down to, you know, the moral orders. | ||
| And that's not where I expected the debate to go. | ||
| But, you know, you can have, at least we have something we stand on and yours is nothing. | ||
| There are no, there are no laws. | ||
| So I kind of let him fight that battle for me and I agree with him. | ||
| But I do think feminism, I think no matter where we are now with feminism, we need to move towards a world after feminism. | ||
| We're here. | ||
| And I'm happy, like, I just feel like sometimes the nitpicking, it doesn't matter because the practicality of it. | ||
| And I like debating, but at some point, it just feels like circular tail wagging and navel gazing. | ||
| And I just want to, I always want to get to, okay, we're here now. | ||
| So like repealing the amendments, it's like, it's not going to happen, right? | ||
| We're not going to be able to do that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I agree with you. | |
| We're not going to repeal the 19th. | ||
| I don't think it's politically viable. | ||
| So I also work in the realm of, I like philosophy to undergird my arguments, but I also work in the realm of policy and what is politically viable, what is practical, what is policy is always an alternative between solutions. | ||
| It's never a best solution. | ||
| I don't think policy and politics will ever be the same. | ||
| I'm sorry, we're going to have to leave it there. | ||
| Make sure that you subscribe. | ||
| Make sure you smash the like button. | ||
| Make sure that you pump those numbers up. | ||