Colin Moriarty joins Joe Rogan to recount how a harmless tweet joke—"a day without a woman"—sparked sexist outrage in gaming, forcing his resignation from Kinda Funny despite 55M subscribers like PewDiePie facing similar backlash for satirical content misrepresented as endorsement. He critiques the industry’s cancel culture, comparing it to Gawker’s click-driven scandals and Snowden’s NSA revelations, exposing systemic media bias and government overreach while defending free speech. His new channel, Colin’s Last Stand, aims to counter ideological mobs with historically grounded discussions, but Rogan warns of balancing nuance with unintended consequences amid declining trust in traditional outlets. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, we should kind of explain what kicking you while you're down means, because it's more silly to me than anything, because it doesn't really make sense.
But you tweeted a joke.
And it's a real simple joke.
Jamie, see if you can pull up the joke.
This is what happened.
Colin tweeted a joke about a day without a woman.
And everybody knows that a day without a woman was like that day without a Mexican thing, where you're supposed to like, well, imagine if there were no women.
Well...
If there were no women, first of all, there'd be no fucking people.
Yeah, not really true if you leave the gaming industry, but, uh, roudly condemned in the gaming industry for sure.
Outside of that, people, I think normal everyday people that don't have an axe to grind about literally everything, found it, you know, read it, maybe groaned or maybe laughed and then kept going about their day like a normal person.
But at the same time, you know, I was in bed with my girlfriend actually when I wrote it and I showed it to her and I was like, it's kind of funny, right?
It's kind of stupid.
And she left.
She's an ER nurse and she works the overnight shift.
So she was just getting into bed as I was getting up.
And she's like, yeah, it's funny.
Then we didn't really think twice about it.
I sent it.
I got in the shower.
I went about my day.
And then when I got to work, I realized that it was a much bigger deal than I had thought.
And then everything fell apart and then was rebuilt very quickly.
And I say also that if a person that wasn't a self-described moderate conservative or libertarian sent that joke, it also wouldn't have gotten the firestorm.
Maybe in a different place, but not in the gaming industry, which is almost completely hyper-liberal.
So, I've had a target on my back for years, and that's, I think, kind of the point that's lost on some people, is that this was just an opportunity.
No one was offended by this joke.
No one was aghast.
Like I said on Ruben, the second time I was on there, I said, like, no one was crying in their shower, losing sleep, tossing and turning over this joke.
I made a name for myself, not only with criticism and with long-form pieces, but basically, I was writing pieces about political correctness in 2011. In 2012, people going after game developers, people going after all these things, and me kind of standing up and saying, this isn't okay, this character assassination.
A good example for everyone out there that doesn't know games, there's this game called Borderlands 2. One of the developers was giving an interview about it.
And this was back in, I think, 2011. He said something to the nature of, this particular mode in the game is accessible for everyone.
It's like a girlfriend mode if you want your girlfriend to come play.
He insinuated that women can't play games and don't know how to play games by using the term girlfriend mode.
And people went after this guy and tried to get him.
You know, and I wrote this piece saying like, what the hell is everyone doing?
This guy just is trying to explain something.
He's not a sexist.
Why do you make these assumptions based on this one thing about him?
And why do you want to ruin someone?
And that's the whole thing.
They want to ruin people.
So I was outspoken about this and I was outspoken for my support of Mitt Romney and I was outspoken about my support for Gary Johnson and my outspoken.
So you feel like there's a sort of a reinforced type of thinking, like a very liberal, reinforced type of thinking that you must subscribe to if you want to be a part of this.
Or do you think they're capitalizing on a moment where they feel like you have a target on you?
And they're like, kick him.
He's down.
We got him.
But this reaction culture that we have, like this overreaction culture that we find ourselves in today, It really does seem to foster that kind of behavior.
People really like it when someone gets caught doing something or when someone says something inappropriate, when you can just point the finger and then everybody can pile on.
And the beauty is, too, as you've probably noticed, is that I think in the last year or whatever, images used to take up characters, too, and videos and links.
I think the links are the only thing left that takes up the extra characters in addition to the name.
But it keeps everyone curt.
But that doesn't stop people from tweeting 7,000 times in a row.
Yeah, the Twitter thing is very weird, but here's something that I really don't like, and I'm glad I don't see much of it anymore, is that twit longer shit.
Everyone's always out to assume the absolute worst.
And that's what I was trying to write about.
I'm like, this guy is just...
Trying to make an example, he's probably given 15 PR interviews today.
He's probably exhausted.
He's also a developer, so he doesn't have much PR training.
He's trying to just get the point across.
Why do you have to assume the man is a sexist and a misogynist because of this one thing?
I'm willing to die on that hill because I feel like people deserve the benefit of the doubt.
People deserve to make a mistake or get a joke wrong or...
You know, all those kinds of things.
And I feel like, yes, people are allowed to exercise their free speech on the other end and be like, I don't like that joke, or I don't like this, or I don't like that.
But it doesn't stop there.
With what's going on with Dave Chappelle this week, I thought it was really actually interesting with his two specials on Netflix.
People are freaking out about, you know, his jokes about gay people or transgender people or whatever.
Like, I actually, after I saw all the stuff, I went and watched the first one and then I watched half of the second one and I was falling asleep, so I didn't want to watch it anymore.
But I was like, this is funny.
And...
Anthony Jeselnik or Daniel Tosh would make these people shit their pants compared to what's going on with this kind of stuff.
And it's always this drama that seeks to kind of...
It doesn't stop at saying, like, I don't like it.
It's often insinuated or outright spoken that they want to censor it or change it.
That's like where I... Because I was reading a piece specifically about Chappelle where they're like, this calls up questions as to how far should comedy go?
And I'm like, no, that doesn't call...
And that's when the free speech argument ends for me.
That's when I'm like, you're actually now talking about changing it.
I understand what they're trying to do because when they live in that world of cubicles and human resources and very restricted patterns of behavior that you have to follow...
If you live in an office environment and work in an office environment or other, there's a lot of people out there that are boxed into these terrible situations where you have to pretend to be this thing that you're not.
And again, you don't have any personality.
You're not allowed to say anything ridiculous or silly.
And when you have that kind of environment and you see someone who's free, like Dave Chappelle, You want to stop it.
And if you can, if you can point something out that can...
Look, they're in a bizarre environment where they have to fucking constantly defend their position.
They have to constantly get clicks.
They have to constantly get hits.
They can't just put an article out and nobody reads it.
They'll lose their job.
So they have to write about something that's inflammatory, write about something that's salacious, something that's going to get people excited.
I mean, that guy that wrote that thing about you for the International Business Times, I looked into that International Business Times, and one of the things about it is that there was a, I think it was a Mother Jones article about that website, where they were told that the people who write articles were given some ridiculous task, like they have to get 10,000 hits per article they write.
So that might have, for people who don't know, there was a guy who wrote an article about Colin where it said, Kinda Funny's Colin Moriarty resigns after writing a racist joke that targeted women.
It wasn't racist even remotely in the slightest.
But when you take into account the environment that these people are forced to work in, and you say, well, this guy literally is forced to write something that's more fucked up than it really is.
So you have to get people excited about this in a way that's going to get them to click on it and hopefully get him to his 10,000 hit quota.
If that is true...
I feel for him in a way.
I mean, I think he's working for a shitty business, you know?
But I tried to stay out of my way for, you know, writing inflammatory things.
Actually, there are a couple of examples where I wouldn't write a story because I felt like it wasn't pertinent to any information and it was specifically to assassinate someone's character.
I had a high-profile woman in the gaming industry tell me in an interview that was unrelated to what I was actually interviewing her that she never was once the victim of sexism in the industry, ever.
And I was like, I could write this, but this isn't why I was there.
Like, why does that have to be, in some ways, a target?
Like, why is that story a target?
Like, wouldn't you assume that if there is a person who can reach a high level of prominence in this very complicated business, right?
I mean, the gaming industry is incredibly complicated, especially how weighted everything is when it comes to male versus female stuff.
That whole Gamergate shit exposed so So much of that, which was really confusing to people on the outside, especially people like me who don't play games.
I was like, what in the fuck is going on with these gamer people?
The second story I think was more pertinent, though, which was this guy worked at a big publisher, and he was laid off, and he had this huge meltdown on social media.
And people were writing about it.
And I was like, I knew him personally, and I wasn't really friendly with him at the time.
But I knew him personally, and everyone was like, we should write about this.
It's weird that it's so unusual, you know, and that most people would be more self-serving and would choose the path that's going to get them the most clicks and, hey, if I got to fucking crack a few eggs to make an omelet, that's how it goes.
And I think that when there's all these people scrambling around, like we're seeing now, you know, trying to find their niche and trying to get attention, you find more of that kind of predatory behavior.
Well, it's kind of reasonable because there are carbon fiber blades and all these different plastic blades that they can make now that you could really fuck somebody up.
That are not going to show up in a metal detector.
I also want to give a shout out that serious things happen.
My dad's a New York, a retired New York City firefighter.
So it's, it's, that hit very close.
I knew people that died that day.
But it's still, you know, and my dad could have died that day, depending on the circumstances.
Thank God he didn't.
But to me, it's like the old Benjamin Franklin thing.
It's balancing your liberty and your freedom with security.
And I think that we've given them so much power with the Patriot Act, with the TSA, with all these things where I'm like, this is a bad road to go down, and they're just going to take more and more.
And I think the requirements that people have, what people request of them to make sure that they are safe, and then you give them $10 an hour, whatever the fuck they make.
bunch of underqualified people who are tired and they're tired of working like that the constant flow if you watch how I like to study people at the airport because I feel like it's one of the rare times where you could just stare at people while they're doing their job and no one gets weird with you because everybody's staring at that guy or that girl that's taking your license and scanning your ticket and all that jazz I just stare at him and I watch How they interact with all these people.
And people are fucking tired.
That's what I see.
I see frustration.
I see so many people in these lines.
And I see people just being exhausted.
And then the people that have to deal with the people that don't take their shoes off.
Sir, you have to take your shoes off.
Why do I have to take my shoes off?
Take your fucking shoes off, man!
You see that kind of thinking.
Right, right.
They're on the edge all the time.
So you're not dealing with them.
Well, sir, you have to take your shoes off because it's going through this thing.
It's not like he has one guy he's dealing with in the whole day.
He's dealing with this constant river of human beings that are coming through, and some of them have water bottles, and you've got to make sure those dangerous water bottles don't get on the plane.
There's a lot of stupid shit that goes with the TSA, but...
How the fuck else are you going to keep people from bringing shoe bombs or knives on planes?
I mean, I don't think that the counterpoint would be to just get rid of it, to just walk into a terminal and be able to get on an airplane.
But I remember, you know, and you remember too, and a lot of people do, We had a security apparatus before 9-11.
These guys outsmarted the security apparatus by doing very specific things, including, like, knowing how to fly planes and doing all the things that you can't possibly check for.
And also, people get guns and knives and weapons intentionally through the TSA all the time.
I think, wasn't it something like over 90% of, like, agents that were trying to get things through the TSA succeeded?
So, these are the people standing in between us and ISIS, you know?
Yeah, it's not a perfect system, and it's not going to be, and that's just the way it is.
It would be nice if it was more efficient.
It would be nice if people got paid better.
It'd be nice if it was easier and quicker.
There'd be a lot of, it would be nice.
But I don't know of anybody that's come up with a better system for scanning people and making sure that they don't bring guns or bombs or whatever the fuck it is on an airplane.
It's just bizarre that airplanes are the one place where we have so much fucking security.
Where malls, which are filled with way more people than your average plane...
There's something about terror and flying, where it's already terrifying, like, yeah, you think you're scared now, bitch?
What if it blows up in the fucking sky?
A dude pulls a fucking turban out of his bag and wraps it around his head and starts lighting his underwear on fire.
You know, that's what we're scared of.
We're scared of someone taking it to the next level, because people are already tensed, because you're in a metal tube hurling through the sky at 500 miles an hour.
If it blows up while you're doing that, it's even more freaky.
To your point with the mall and all these kinds of things and these public places, I think it just speaks to the fact that most people, vast majority of people, are just good, decent people that want to go about their lives.
Yeah, for sure.
And that these terrorists could target all these different places.
I don't think they do maybe because they can't, but probably more because they don't want to give themselves away for something that might be seen as minor.
Like 9-11 was a spectacle.
It wasn't only that 3,000-some-odd people died.
It was that it was the spectacle of killing those people in that way.
And so I think that there's something about that as well, which is why I'm more scared about, like, A dirty bomb or something like that today than I am of anyone taking an airplane over.
Because everyone knows what happened in 2001, so now if someone pulls out a knife on an airplane, someone's just going to tackle that guy and probably kill him.
Oh yeah, for sure.
I know the guy tried to blow his shoe up or something like that on the plane, that's why we have to take our fucking shoes off now.
But to me, I'm like...
The threat has changed.
The threat is evolving.
And we can be vigilant in all these ways, but then I wonder, it goes back to, like, NSA and all these things, like, how much are we going to give the government and how much are we going to give up in order for safety?
I'd rather live in a more dangerous world, personally, and know that no one's reading my text messages or no one's throwing out my hand lotion, you know, or harassing.
I saw these two women, Australian women, in the airport at SFO when I came down to LA last week, They were in wheelchairs.
They were going through all of their stuff and I'm like, what the fuck are you doing to these people?
Just leave them alone.
And I actually went up to them afterwards and I'm like, I'm sorry, we hate these people too, just so you know.
So this is not okay with any of us.
They were there for like a half an hour.
They had these frowns on their faces.
They looked dejected.
This might be their first time in the States for all I know.
I don't know much about it, you probably know more about it than I do, but someone was telling me a little bit about the way the Israelis do airport security, specifically, that it's all about, they're not profiling even based on race or anything, they're profiling based on your behavior.
And it goes to your point, these are well-paid, professional people that know what the fuck they're doing, know what they're looking for, and they're in the airport and they see someone just acting a little weird.
No, I mean, I think it goes back to me of like, I can't speak necessarily to the level of incompetence because I'm not in security.
I don't know like what they're specifically doing.
I don't know what their level of training is.
It just goes back to the constitutionality of it.
Like if we if we and it brings up those tough questions, it's the same way I feel about about the Second Amendment.
If we start seeding what this means in certain situations and before you know it, they'll just continue to erode it away.
Like and so what I'm like this is a warrantless search This is by definition a warrantless search if you went and got John Jay and James Madison and all these guys and asked them and Somehow told them what the fuck was going on and then said like what is does this look like this?
But you would have to go and get them and then go okay This is Isis and this is the internet and then this is Twitter and this is this is how they send information through pictures with metadata You know it's encoded in the picture and you have to break it down.
That's where the message is like They'd be like, oh yeah, search everybody.
I don't know if my argument makes sense to you, but to me, I just feel like these are certain sacred rights that need to be protected in any way they can.
And if we want to have a conversation about why we should cede this right in a specific way, then you have to do it a little more clearly.
And to me, I just, I think people take some of these things for granted that, you know, what's stopping them from, you know, if these rights continue to erode, then what stops them from busting into your house at some point and be like, well...
Well, they can do that, and there are some search and seizure methods that they're really being criticized for, lately in particular, for drug offenses, where they don't even knock.
They just break open people's doors and wind up shooting their dogs all the time, shoot people all the time.
I mean, there was an article written recently about the amount of people that are wounded in unnecessary How do they describe that kind of altercation between the cops?
No knock, searchless warrants, or what is it?
I think they just call it no knock.
Break-ins or something like that.
I don't know how they describe it, but if you've seen the way the DEA treats any sort of a situation, even when they just have marijuana, they'll kick down the door.
If they see a dog, they shoot it, and then they make people huddle up in the corner after they just murdered your family pet, and oftentimes they find like a pipe.
You know, I mean, there's many people that have been called on, like someone has turned them in or someone has said something about them that turned out to not be true.
Like, hey, these people have a grow up in their business or in their house, rather.
And one of them was a former FBI, a couple that both worked in the FBI. They kicked in their fucking door, held them at gunpoint.
The whole deal went to the basement.
They were growing tomatoes.
And they were like, what in the fuck?
These are retired FBI officers and the DEA broke down their door and pointed a loaded gun in their face and then found plants.
So he would get that package and somehow or another it got intercepted before it got to the postman and then they had a dummy postman come and bring it and then do the whole break down the door, shoot the dog thing.
They chased the dog, a golden lab, chased him out in the yard.
The dog ran and was running and hiding and they shot him in front of everybody.
And it turned out that the guy who was the victim of this and his family who were held at gunpoint and zip tied It was a mayor.
And so, you know, he was like, what in the fuck are you people doing?
But don't you think that you sort of imply at least a certain amount of consent when you get in that line and give them your bag and say, here, search this.
Like, no one's telling you that you have to do that.
Like, you could choose to fly with no baggage at all.
You could choose, if you wanted to, to send your stuff through the mail, and it would probably cost the same amount as it would to pay that 50 bucks or whatever it is with Southwest.
If you wanted to send your package through the mail, you could do it that way and just walk through with nothing on you.
Well, that mentality is also the justification for the NSA, being able to look at your text messages or being able to look at your emails.
And that's the big thing that was exposed by Edward Snowden that really pissed me off that so many people were so flippant about.
They were like, hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, don't worry about it.
Like, that is wrong.
You can't say that because you can't look at everyone.
You can't just randomly look at everyone and look at their private information.
You just can't do that because the people that are looking at that are just people.
And that's the problem with the TSA. It's not even necessarily the issue being that you get to search people's stuff to make sure there's no terrorists and no people bringing weapons on planes.
It's who gets to do that?
Who are these people?
Are these people experts?
Are these people security experts?
Do they work for the Musan?
Are they CIA agents?
Are they FBI? Who's looking?
Who are these people?
Are they competent?
Why are they doing...
You go to the airport, man, what you see is a bunch of people, and I used to do a joke about this, that I think that How do I phrase this to make it sound less insulting than it used to be?
That's an old joke.
But the idea was that I think that the people who work at Burger King at the airport and the TSA, they're the same people, and they just reach into a hat.
Today I got fries.
Oh shit, I'm on bomb duty.
It's literally almost like that.
It's like you see people that are just taking...
Whatever job they can get a hold of.
You know, I feel for them.
I mean, if someone comes along and you don't have a job and they say, hey, the TSA's hiring, 15 bucks an hour.
Okay, cool.
What do I got to do?
You got to stand here and make sure that people don't bring water bottles on a plane.
All right.
And then after, like, you know, the 50th day of people bringing water...
Yeah, my frustration grows in that way, which is people that in 2017 seem to have some...
Because you and I, I'm sure you do too, I fly all the time, right?
So you see all types, right?
And it's like, you always encounter the guys, like, have you not flown in the last 15 years ever to know that people trying to walk through the machines with their shoes on, their belt, it's like, what is...
Well, just in the sense, like, just a couple of weeks ago, I guess it was, when I came down to see Dave, I was with my girlfriend, and they were going through...
They were going through a bag.
They held my girlfriend's bag, but they were just holding it to a point for minutes.
We were in a rush, but I'm like, the guy wasn't even acknowledging that, like, hey, dude, our stuff's here.
We're kind of just standing here waiting.
And I said to him, are you enjoying your little bit of power right now?
I don't understand why you're doing this to us.
We said please and thank you.
We're doing our stuff.
So just these little confrontations.
I had a massive, when I was still in high school, because 9-11 happened when I was in 12th grade, and I flew down to...
In 2002, early 2002, I flew down to Virginia to see my sister who was teaching down there.
And they were going through my bags and stuff like that, and I had a confrontation with the TSA where one of them was like, son, do you know what happened or whatever?
You know, and, like, to the point where, like, where they called over, like, I was a 17-year-old kid, and to the point where they called over, like, some cops, and then they were just, they, like, just let me go, whatever, but I was like, at that point, it was so, so to me, where I'm like, why are you being so, why are you disrespecting me?
Like, you're going through my stuff if I'm a little upset about that, or I have something to say about that, like, I understand you have to probably deal with this all day, but don't, don't, Because I'm a young kid, I don't know what happened because I'm a young man.
You had no idea what my experience was.
Were you at the funeral for a firefighter that you knew that died?
You know, I was.
So like, you know, it's that kind of stuff always, I think it's so deceit in me very early with them where I'm like, eh.
So I acknowledge that part of it too, you know, where it's like there is a little bit of a chip on my shoulder with them.
I just treat it as, like, just this is what I'm doing now.
I don't say this is a big inconvenience.
I just say this is what you have to do.
This is what I'm doing now.
I do respect this idea that the Fourth Amendment is being violated, but I do not see a better alternative.
If I did, I would think that, well, we should definitely follow that protocol, whatever the better alternative is.
I just think...
Whenever you have non-skilled labor in those sort of situations, like the guy working the fries at Burger King or the guy who's, you know, doing that thing at the TSA, you're going to get a wide variety of people that need a job, and some of them are just going to suck at protocol.
They're going to suck at being polite.
They're going to suck at recognizing that this old...
And I don't think they have any leeway either.
If some old lady comes through in a wheelchair, I'm pretty sure you have to check her, just like you check everybody else.
And if you don't, you probably get fired.
They have cameras watching them everywhere.
So it's not their fault.
The organization itself, the TSA, I mean there's a diffusion of responsibility when you're one of the people that's responsible.
You're at the top and you make these laws and you pass them down to the people that are supposed to enforce all these regulations that you've written down.
There's almost like There's a diffusion of responsibility from the people that have created those laws.
They don't have to enforce them.
They're not out there doing it.
So someone else, it's someone else's job, the $10 an hour guy, it's his job to go out there and do all this stuff.
And so it's real easy for someone at the top who's not experiencing the interaction, the day-to-day interaction with these human beings to be callous about it or to make hard, fast rules like, hey, if someone comes through in a wheelchair, there's no leeway.
Let them go.
But then again, You have to think about it in their point of view.
Like, if someone was a terrorist and they did decide, well, here's what we do.
I mean, it's been proven for a fact that they've used children as suicide bombers.
So why wouldn't you use an old lady?
You know, why wouldn't you use an old man?
Why wouldn't you use someone in a wheelchair?
You certainly could.
So you have to follow the same protocol with everybody.
Everybody that goes through has to be scanned.
You can't let somebody not be scanned just because they're old.
Like, you've reached a certain amount of years on this planet.
You wouldn't do anything fucking crazy, would you, Bob?
No, not me!
You can't think like that, because if you do think like that, that will be your vulnerability.
That will be the path in that someone who's looking to do something horrible will take.
I think the solution, Joe, to bridge the gap in the way we feel about this and come to some sort of consensus, what might be And this conflicts a little bit with my small government kind of mentality, but it's just to say, to ask the kind of fundamental question, why are these people being paid $10 or $15 an hour?
Back to the Israeli experience of these guys that are professionals.
They take a lot of pride in their work.
They make maybe $80,000 or $100,000 a year.
Not that they necessarily need to make that much money, but people that are professionals, should we invest more money in making this smarter?
Yeah, I mean, the Israeli thing is interesting because Israel has a mandatory military service requirement that I am not in favor of, but I am.
I feel the benefit of it.
It's very rare to meet people that are more patriotic than Israelis.
People that are more committed to their country.
They feel very marginalized, very Targeted and rightly so and so because of that like people that I've met that work for the Israeli army or that have been Soldiers over there.
They have this very intense sort of view of altercation and of the world and when you're forced to do two years military service mandatory like they are you also have You're invested in this whole project of Israel.
I mean, there's not there's no veterans and then civilians, right?
Everyone's a fucking veteran And, you know, when you deal with a country where literally everyone does some military service, there's more chips in the game, you know?
Yeah, I think, you know, I went to school with this girl that was Israeli when I was at Northeastern in Boston, and I remember very clearly she had this, very unassuming, you would never know, but she had this picture of her with an assault rifle shooting at a range, and I'm like, this is so interesting.
It conflicts, because I agree with you.
It's like one of those things where I'm like I don't I can see both sides of this where I don't know that the state should have the right to exert that kind of power But at the same time does it have to be military service and when a person turns 18 Is it fair to say like just spend a couple years and give something to your country?
And whether it's you you you work in a soup kitchen or something or you do something that is for the society and really have some some investment in some skin in the game in society and I think that that's a nice idea, but I think that the way I feel about the state's exertion of power over the individual kind of overrides that.
But I like the idea in principle, like the idea of saying like, hey, and it's also easy for me as a 32-year-old that would be long, you know, to be like, ah, you guys do it.
So at the same time, I understand that argument as well.
But I think it's a very complex issue when you give away national secrets and you've signed an oath that you're not going to give away national secrets.
You sign an oath of secrecy and then you give away national secrets.
But, if those national secrets are, in the case of Edward Snowden, they're very detrimental to what we think of as freedom in this country.
Like, if you have a bunch of people, like you or me or Jamie or just a normal person, and they work at the NSA, and they can, as he has said, spy on their ex-girlfriends, read their emails, go into anybody's email that you want to and check them out, and then We were also being lied to by the government about the extent of these searches.
And he exposed that, that the president was saying it's just metadata.
And he was saying, no, it's not just metadata.
It's not.
It's the actual emails.
It's the actual text messages.
It's the actual photos that you're sending to each other.
They can get those.
They have all of those.
And that they're storing all this stuff.
People were horrified.
But this is also something that was exposed.
There was an NSA whistleblower from...
I want to say 2011, there was a guy who was a, I think he was a coder in the NSA, and he's gone public with this.
But he didn't go public with this in the same way, where he dumped a bunch of documents and let people go through them like Edward Snowden did.
And he also didn't face the consequences that Edward Snowden did as well.
He was criticized and it was debated whether or not him talking about it at all was legal or whether he should be able to, but ultimately he didn't face the same kind of consequences.
I mean, Edward Snowden can't live in America anymore.
I mean, Chelsea Manning has been exonerated or pardoned.
So they commuted the sentence, and she's allowed to be free in May, so in a couple months she'll be free.
But he's stuck in Russia, and he essentially...
The difference being, they said that Chelsea Manning went through the court system, was tried, and then Obama decided that it was a good enough amount of time, and then he was going to commute the sentence.
So I kind of see their point there that...
Edward Snowden fleed and didn't go through the whole, but why wouldn't he flee?
You're going to lock him in a fucking cage.
Chelsea Manning was locked in a cage 24 hours a day with the lights on with no fucking clothes in solitary confinement for I don't know how long, but it was a long period of time.
I want to say years.
I want to find out how long was Chelsea Manning in solitary confinement for?
Because I know the way they did it.
It was cold in there, and they took away all her clothes, or it was his clothes at the time.
Yeah, Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldiers arrest the U.S. military base in May of 2010. He concludes the U.S. military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day for over an 11-month period in conditions that he found.
Helicopters shooting fucking horrific gunfire down on these people that turned out to be reporters.
And then the callous attitude that these soldiers showed in the video.
We could hear them talking about whether or not there were kids in the van.
Well, they shouldn't have brought kids.
The whole thing was really dark.
And I think in a lot of ways...
Exposure to that stuff is good because unchecked behavior is extremely dangerous.
That seemed like it was unchecked.
And it seemed like unchecked behavior in a time of war is extremely dangerous.
And it was pretty obvious that when you looked at what Edward Snowden had revealed, it was pretty obvious that the majority of the American people had a huge problem with it.
The majority of the American people, you or I, who are doing nothing wrong.
I'm not committing any crimes.
I'm certainly not victimizing anybody.
Why do they have access to my email?
Why?
There's no reason?
No reason.
You just can?
Like, that seems insane.
And that, to me, is a way clearer violation of the Fourth Amendment than this weird sort of gray area, not necessarily gray if you're looking at it from a constitutional sense, of how They're allowed to check you at the airport.
That LexisNexis will call me a racist for the rest of my life.
But, yeah, to me, it was like...
I felt like it was very...
They didn't take the time to people died because of that stuff like there were people that were put in danger because of the things that they were put out because it wasn't they didn't Carefully comb through it and make sure that he's actually where people died.
Yeah Because of the way WikiLeaks released it because I don't think that I don't know if they're gonna point that specific things but the Way things were out like I don't think all the names were blacked out I don't think like operate the operations in process like people were in play and That were being outed in that way.
I think the reason I was a little softer on Snowden was because not only was it domestic, primarily, which I think is an important qualifier, but also because I think he went out of his way to not single any individuals out.
It was all about the apparatus itself.
It wasn't about like saying like general blah blah blah is doing this and general or admiral but it was about like hey this structure exists and it's really as quite nefarious indeed you know and I think that so I was always to me my stance on him is he's a patriot and he should be welcomed home and the fact that he wasn't he can't be I guess part he hasn't been tried or whatever but the fact that I know that some people think that Obama only pardoned Manning because it made him look good with the transgender community and with the LBGTQ community which I think is a little When
Well, also what's important to point out is that Obama's website, the Hope and Change website that he had when he was running for president and when he got into office, the original website had in it these provisions for how he was going to treat whistleblowers.
They were going to allow people to release information that showed crimes and they were going to protect them.
They were going to protect whistleblowers.
It was a very specific statement.
It was a very specific approach that they were having while he was running for president about whistleblowers, because he was about exposing these egregious offenses.
And once he got into office, one of the things that happened after the Chelsea Manning thing and after the Edward Snowden things, they removed that from the Hope and Change website.
Well, that goes back to the whole thing with Snowden when you were saying, well, you kind of take an oath...
You know to protect these secrets and all that kind of stuff But yeah, I look at it, you know I want people to be flippant with that kind of stuff like you were saying I want people to be flippantly being like well this is I have some sort of personal problem with this But I actually think it takes a level of courage to be like what in the fuck is going on here?
Oh for sure and also I believe that before he gave that information to Glenn Greenwald I believe he offered it to a bunch of different mainstream news sources like New York Times Washington Post correct me if I'm wrong Jamie I think that was in the documentary, the...
Sure, and even with the London terrorist attack...
The most recent one?
Yeah, the one that just happened, where people, they seem to have identified the person, new sources that you think are reputable say it, and then they have to retract it later.
Everyone's very quick to try to pull the gun first and be like, well, we have the story.
And then we're all victimized as people that are just...
We're not in the trenches, so we need the information.
We have to trust these people, and trust is broken, I think, in a little way.
Yeah, I certainly think there should be some sort of a national debate on whether or not Edward Snowden is a hero.
You know, whether or not Edward Snowden did something that benefited the American people.
Because I certainly think the overall reaction, the overall, like if you look at what Edward Snowden did and then you look at what are the consequences of what he did, I think it's good for us.
Because we got to see that all these Alex Jones type conspiracies were actually true.
When Alex Jones is ranting and raving about the government, looking into your emails.
But people were looking into that like, there's no fucking way.
There's no way the government really looks into your email.
There's no way.
It doesn't happen.
But yes, they do.
That was a stunner to me.
And for me, it was...
I had been telling people that Alex Jones, who's my friend and has been my friend for a long time, I get criticized so much by people for that.
They're like, he's so crazy and he's such a fucking right-wing wacko.
I'm like, Alex Jones is not right-wing.
He's not.
He's anti-government.
He's anti-tyranny and he might be crazy as fuck and he probably is.
But he's right about a lot of shit, and that's where it gets really scary.
He was talking about the NSA looking into people's emails and having the ability to...
I found out about that NSA whistleblower, the original one.
See if you can find who that guy is.
I want to say...
Yes, yes.
Pull up that article.
I found out about that from Alex.
He told me about it.
I went, what?
And then I hear, Bill Binney, the original NSA whistleblower on Snowden, 9-11, and illegal surveillance.
Now he was, oh God, I want to say it was before 9-11.
Wasn't it before 9-11 that he came out with this?
Scroll down.
Or was it right after 9-11?
He believes that 9-11 was preventable a month after it happened.
He resigned to protest from the National Security Agency.
Benny was part of an elite NSA team which designed and built an intelligence gathering system to target and collect data on terrorism threats.
He belongs to an intimate group of four whistleblowers, each of whom left the NSA after raising concerns about failures in the agency's intelligence gathering capabilities.
Yeah, so he was the first guy that was saying what they're doing is bullshit, and he alleges the NSA buried key intelligence that could have prevented 9-11.
He alleges the agency's bulk data collection from internet and telephone communications is unconstitutional and illegal in the U.S. He alleges that the NSA is ineffective at preventing terrorism because analysts are too swamped with information.
I mean, he's a very smart man, so he must know at the highest level that he's a geopolitical pawn that, like you said, could be played in any way at any point.
Well, I have a friend who used to be a big executive at Google, and she described to me some of the conversations that they had when they were dealing with the government and search engines and Right.
Right.
Right.
The searches.
They had to censor things.
I mean, the government of China does not feel the same way about freedom as the government of the United States.
And the government of the United States gets real sketchy with it.
As soon as you're doing what Edward Snowden has proven that they're doing, you're getting really sketchy with freedom.
I mean, you can land on the free, home of the brave, except I want to look at your dick pics.
Except, I want to be able to know where your phone is at all times.
I mean, that metadata from where the location of your phone is, is one of the primary ways they target terrorists.
People who are not aware of why so many civilians die in these terrorist attacks.
Part of the reason, especially in the early days of drone attacks, When they were trying to target terrorists, rather, was that they would use the metadata.
They would find out where the phones are.
So if your phone was in this apartment building, they're going to bomb that apartment building.
Sure, the NDAA. I mean, the NDAA, what they've essentially done is they've eliminated the right of due process.
They can lock you up for as long as they want.
They can deny you any sort of legal representation.
That's all been taken away from us now.
What used to be one of the foundations of being an American, the right to due process, right to have a lawyer, the right to a trial of your own peers, all that stuff is kind of gone now if they just decide that you're a terrorist.
And they can decide you're a terrorist if you have weed on you.
If you're involved in illegal drugs, you can be, under the Patriot Act, considered a terrorist.
It is, and it's scary in the sense, too, because it goes back to what they were saying, or what this gentleman was saying that we were just talking about, where he was saying, like, they have too much data.
They have too much to work with.
And at some point, someone has to be like, hey, the guy with an ounce of weed, or the guy, you know, even with four ounces of weed, why are we dumping him in with all the stuff that's just going to muddy the waters more about the real target that we're really going after, which is someone that's actually going to hurt someone, or someone that's actually going to cause a terrorist incident?
Right.
To me, if I were them, I'd be like, we need less.
We need way more targeted data.
We need to leave 325 million people alone, probably.
And here's another big part of the problem, was that when Obama was instituting these changes, and when the NDAA got passed, and when people were saying, well, hey, we're never going to use it.
This is one of the things they said.
We're never going to hold people without legal representation indefinitely.
We're never going to use the indefinite detainment.
Crazy person is now president, and you're like, well, now what?
Well, what about these fucking crazy laws, Obama, that you passed when you thought that it would be nothing but your standard politicians and hopefully Democrats from now to the end of time?
Guess what?
Now it's not.
Now it's a guy who wants to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency.
Now it's a guy who wants to drill pipelines through Dakota Access.
This is a guy that wants to do a lot of stuff that people find to be troubling.
And this guy has the same rights to use the NDAA as you did.
But to me, it goes back to the argument of executive orders, it goes back to the argument of all these things where, or the filibuster in the Senate, where what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You can't set up these rules that are just going to backfire on you and then complain about them later.
To me, I think it's a huge mistake.
That's why I have a lot of respect for presidents—we haven't had one in a long time—that are more restrained.
The presidents that defer executive power and actually say, like, maybe the legislature should be dealing with these kinds of things.
So Eisenhower was president from 52 to 60. Well, technically 53 to 61. And he was obviously one of the instrumental generals in the Allied assaults on Japan and on Nazi Germany.
And he saw the influence of the military growing and that in the Cold War, in the nascent era of the Cold War, that We were making bombs to make bombs, that we were trying to have conflicts, like with Korea, which he did end in the early 50s, and seeing these seeds sown of a perpetual war, a perpetual war that the economy was actually benefiting from.
We now stand 10 years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.
But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense.
We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.
The total influence Economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.
Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved.
So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel The proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
At the time, that was an amazing speech, and it's just prescient.
Yeah.
Because people have to understand, and you know, before World War II, we weren't a built-up and militarized society.
We would militarize when we needed to, and it was really...
Teddy Roosevelt and all those kinds of guys that started getting a little more bullish in that kind of regard with the Spanish-American War and the USS Maine.
But the fight over World War I was real.
We didn't want to get involved.
We got involved very late.
And people take for granted now that we have just massive military, we have this massive power.
But in the 19th century, not that you can't equate them necessarily to the 21st century, we weren't going around running roughshod over people and doing those kinds of things.
We were very isolationist.
That was kind of the American tradition.
And to hear that come out of Eisenhower's mouth, especially knowing his experiences in the war and his deep knowledge of the military and what was going on in the world, it's one of the great warnings of all time in American history.
So that massive amount of money, there's so many people that are involved in that, and so many jobs that have to be preserved, and so much of the industry relies on keeping conflict Active and I think that's what he was trying to warn us about but it's so interesting about it and it involves citizenry and that people need to be aware of it and to hear that from the president you're never going to hear anything remotely as even close to as candid as that is today.
No absolutely not and I think that even hearing that from you know just to reiterate like hearing that from a Barack Obama for instance would be strong right but hearing that from a Ulysses S Grant or a Zachary Taylor or a guy that served right especially at the level he served is like that That meant something to people.
And I think that's why that saying never went away, but under our noses it happened.
And what he said was going to happen is exactly what happened in Southeast Asia, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos.
And it's the same, you know, some people say the USS Maine and Spanish-American War in 1898 was another false flag or something that they let happen or something that was blown out of proportion.
Pardon the pun, because it was about a ship blowing up.
But yeah, it is a provocation that gets everyone involved.
And we had this nemesis.
It was good versus evil.
We were upset.
We saw, I think, especially against the Nazis, we saw the stature of the good versus evil argument.
And we won with the Allies.
So I think we tried to perpetuate that.
Immediately, the Soviets became the evil.
And then we created our bombs.
And then they created their bombs.
And then we just had these proxy wars that we were fighting against the Chinese in Korea and the Soviets in Vietnam, really.
All these things that were kind of...
You know, everyone knew what was going on, but no one...
I was just going to say, so I think that when the Soviet...
When everything started to get peaceful, what do they call it?
Glasnost?
In the Soviet, which is like the idea of a new era, like peace and prosperity with the West or whatever, in the late 70s, early 80s.
I think that the Boeings of the world and the Halliburton's of the world were like, oh shit.
You know, and...
Come 90s, but we immediately found new targets.
And we should be wary of why that happened.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't necessarily fight.
We have to fight sometimes.
But to have this industrialized nature of it, to have this need to lurch from one war to the next war to the next war to the next war is not what a thriving republic does.
Well, it's definitely what an empire that's dependent upon the control, or rather an industry, rather, that's dependent upon the control that it has currently maintaining it.
You need to maintain that money.
You need to maintain the business, the business of making these machines and of having these contracts.
I mean, it's a huge industry, and like all of these unlimited growth industries, Every business essentially operates under this paradigm of unlimited growth, or most businesses do, most corporations do, where every year they want to make more money.
And if that's applicable to a company that makes tanks, well, every year they want to make more money, they want to make more tanks.
Well, that's already been established by the International Business Times, Joe.
But to me, I just look at it.
I'm like, we can spend this money wiser and we can ramp up and have plans to ramp up.
People forget.
And you know...
GM, Ford, all these guys were making our armaments.
You know, Mitsubishi made the Japanese Zeros.
Offshoots of IBM were making friggin' punch card machines for the Nazis.
You know, like, people, you know, for better or for worse, ramp up and do what they need to do in times of war to make money.
And so we could have a plan in place to say, like, hey, if we need to ramp up, if something bad happens, if we need to go overseas or something, if we have to go engage the Russians because they're rolling into the rest of Ukraine, for instance, we can take care of that without having bases all over the world.
Well, the problem with that kind of thinking is, as soon as you say that, then they realize, well, there's a lot of money to be had if that is the case.
So, let's make that the case.
And then there's some weird fucking covert sneaky shit going down.
Do you have an earring on both ears or something that's going on here?
When I went to college, I went to school for American history, and I graduated.
And when I got my job offer in the video game industry, I was about to start my graduate degree at Northeastern in American history because I wanted to be a professor at the time.
So my real passion was American history and American politics, but I veered off into a different direction.
And the American Revolution, I think, is a fascinating revolution compared to a lot of other revolutions, primarily because it is, I think, an inherently, in some ways, conservative revolution, which is not common.
These were incredibly rich people fighting.
These weren't, like, poor, destitute people.
John Hancock had something like 1 350th of all of the value of the colonies under his name.
These people had everything to risk and everything to lose.
So it's, like, an interesting...
I think very principled revolution that they fought.
Although if you read like Howard Zinn or something, they would say that they did it to protect their money.
And it's sort of an unprecedented thing in human history.
I mean, it's a really crazy...
Union that we've established over here, and to see all these things that threaten what we find so amazing about it, like the violations of the Fourth Amendment, all the NSA stuff with Edward Snowden, all these different things that we see that are huge problems.
What they are is also they're weakening the foundation of these ideas that were so amazing when they were first established in 1776. Yeah, and to me, that's why I think that they're worth protecting.
It goes into the, like, is the Constitution living or not?
Is it a strict constructionist or a loose constructionist?
All those kinds of questions I think are valid.
But to me, I'm like, we have this very unique vision into what the founders intended, because they were one of the few, I think, people at that time that were like, we're going to...
The Federalist Papers are incredible if you read them.
You don't have to wonder what they meant.
They literally tell you exactly what they meant.
So when you go to Supreme Court cases, I don't know that there are many Supreme Court cases that don't even reference the Federalist Papers because it's like, well, they said this at Article 3, Section 2, but actually in this paper that they wrote anonymously that we know Alexander Hamilton wrote, here's what he said about it.
Now, how did this knowledge of politics and how did this fascination that you have with the history of the United States, how did this get you in, you know, quote-unquote, trouble in the video game industry with these people that are predominantly left-wing and predominantly progressive?
I say progressive, but progressive is kind of a dirty word now.
It would be great if everybody wanted people to have freedom of choice and freedom to be whoever you want, but that's not really what those things are anymore.
Those things are like ideologies.
They're these predetermined patterns of behavior that people subscribe to in a very, very rigid way.
What did you find was an issue when people found out about your extreme understanding and respect for the history of the United States?
Well, primarily they think it was kind of a joke, not a ha-ha joke, but like you're a clown, kind of.
Why?
Because I believe in a small government, for instance.
I believe in low taxation.
I believe in the elimination of the income tax and things like this.
But I don't actually have...
Not all my ideas are radical or even outside of the mainstream.
Socially, I'm probably further to the left than many of these people.
I think that it goes back to this idea, and this is something Dave Rubin has touched on a lot in his show, which I'm sure you're familiar with, which is this idea that it's really all or nothing.
Like they don't want to be an ally with someone that might be able to help them in X, Y, and Z if they disagree with people in A, B, and C.
So they could have had a great ally in me and be like, I've been pro-gay marriage forever.
I've been pro-choice.
I'm for the decriminalization of drugs.
I'm for the legalization of prostitution.
I'm for a lot of these things that are very far to the left socially that we probably could find some agreement on somewhere, and we can work on those things and get those things done together.
But because I say also like, hey, the income tax is predatory and really hurts people.
I own a business, and I guess I own another one now, and I know that I could have hired another person if I could have hired another person.
If taxes weren't so onerous on me And so I also stand on there and they they're like this never happened this stuff that you just said never happened This left this left wing stuff that we agree on never happened because you don't believe in Because you have this one thing that we have a problem with no Okay, but you're not being clear about that.
A lot of it's insinuations, because a lot of it isn't even things that I feel or believe.
So an example would be, you know...
I see a lot of people say all the time, like, Colin doesn't believe in welfare.
Or Colin doesn't believe in social security.
And I'm like, I never said that, actually.
I just, I believe that these things should be reformed and maybe taken back a step.
But they even look at that as a push too far on the system.
I guess what I'm trying to say to you, and I'm sorry I'm not being more lucid with you, I'm trying my hardest, is that they, you have to agree with them lockstep.
If they see you in one way that is injurious to their cause or that is conflicting or contrary to what they believe, they do not give a fuck about anything else you believe.
And that's the thing that always frustrated me and what so surprised me when people really were running me out on a rail out of the gaming industry with a completely innocuous joke, which I think tells you everything you need to know about the intent, that they don't want allies in different ways, allies in different clothes, allies in different...
You know, it's very Orwellian.
They just want you to be completely like them, and if you're not like them, they don't want anything to do with you.
And it's not even like I was advocating for anything crazy.
I don't advocate for anything crazy, I don't think.
But what's interesting is we've kind of turned a corner where, in many ways, the right is more tolerant than the left to variations in their ideology.
Whereas the right is much more tolerant to people that support gay marriage.
The right is much more tolerant to people that...
I mean, you could fill in the blanks.
There's a bunch of different rights that the right would sort of accept from someone who also voted Republican.
But the left isn't.
Like, if you got to the point where, like, I got in a heated argument with someone once about abortion, which I'm pro-choice.
But I was saying, well, essentially, it was a criticism of Richard Dawkins' quote, where he's comparing a human embryo to a pig fetus, or a pig embryo.
I forget the terms you used, but I'm like, well, that's ridiculous.
Because one of them is going to become a person if you don't take it out of your body.
And that was the idea behind it.
Like, you can't use that sort of an analogy because it's not true.
I mean, it's just one has the potential for being a person.
And I was being accused by this guy of being right-wing because of it.
And I was like, well, I'm not right-wing.
I'm just talking about the potential for life.
Like, a pig embryo is never going to be my neighbor Mike.
You know, it's just not.
You know what I mean?
But that baby, I'm not saying you should be forced to make that baby a person and keep it in your body when it's a few cells and then two weeks old.
I'm not saying that you can't choose when to terminate your pregnancy.
What I'm saying is you're terminating a pregnancy.
We both know what you're doing.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to do it, but to pretend that it's not messy.
And nobody wants it to be messy.
Nobody wants it to be a complicated issue.
They want it to be cut and dry, if you're on the left in particular.
It's pro-choice.
A woman's reproductive choice, the freedom of your body to do what you want.
I get all that.
I'm 100% with you.
But let's not lie about what it is, because as soon as we distort the reality of what the thing is, Then we put up these ideological boundaries and blinders, and we make communication very difficult, and we make these rigid ideologies almost like a religion.
They're almost like dogma.
That's a great way to put it.
I mean, when you do that, you have real problems because people can't communicate.
So if someone does bring that up and say, well, you know, what is abortion?
And then silence across the dinner table.
You hear people dropping their forks and like, what is abortion?
What are you doing?
At what age is it okay?
To have an abortion, what age is it not okay?
Is it okay to abort a baby a day before it's born?
Right, and this is what I always call, this issue to me particularly, Joe, is a 60-40 issue.
What I always say is, like, I am pro-choice, but I respect the pro-life argument, and I don't think you should just have unfettered access to abortions forever.
But to me, I'm like, yeah, you make a great point.
Because it is this dogmatic sense of saying, like, here's the way it is.
That's it.
It goes back to, you know, I heard you talking about it.
I was so glad to hear you say it.
Because it goes back to, like, the war on women.
Right?
Like, there's just a whole group of people, apparently, in the country.
150 million of them that hate women.
That because they're pro-life, for instance, which is a stance I don't share, but I respect.
Why does that mean that they hate women?
Why does it mean that like why does it always go from zero to ten you know for like immediately it's like and then and then there's all these lies mixed in like the The the pay gap which is a fucking lie.
So the pay gap claimed by studies, I guess the Department of Labor or something, is 21 cents or something like that.
So saying, I think, something like every dollar a woman makes 79 cents.
That's true only if you take every man...
Every woman take all the money they make and divide it by the amount of men and the amount of women.
Doesn't take into account careers.
Doesn't take into account personal choices.
Women, for instance, leave the workforce to have families.
Sometimes men are gravitating towards engineering or physics or things that pay them a lot of money, while women tend maybe towards psychology or something like that.
I think the argument is something like nine out of the ten top grossing career choices are men-dominated.
And nine out of the ten lowest money-making career choices are actually dominated by women.
I think the only exception there is clergy, which is dominated by men.
But it doesn't adjust for any of these things.
So when you actually adjust for choices, when you adjust for careers and longevity and hours and all of these things that are relevant, the pay gap closes to something like less than five cents.
And then there's even arguments saying that those could probably be explained away completely as well.
I know Christina Summers and some of these people that know way more about this than I do have videos about.
If you actually dive in, you probably can get rid of the entire number completely.
But it's preposterous to say that the woman makes $0.79 for every dollar.
The real issue is it's implying that two people working alongside each other at the Apple store, the man is making $5 an hour, the woman is making $0.79 an hour less.
It's just, yeah, corporations would hire women if they were just as competent and just as skilled.
And it's not that.
It's also men are more likely to die on the job.
Men are more likely to pick way more dangerous careers like forest fighting, forest firefighting, whether it's coal mining.
All those things are dominated by men and a lot of people die on them.
Law enforcement, of course.
There's a bunch of issues with it.
But the problem is it's...
Spewed out as an indication that we are an inherently sexist society.
And whether or not you can find sexism in our society, I'm sure you can.
It absolutely exists, just as racism exists.
I don't think it is nearly as much of a problem as they're trying to pin it out to be.
And I think there's a lot of other factors involved in why men make more money, and one of them may be the demand for a higher salary when they're being hired, better skills at negotiation, or more confidence in those sort of confrontations with employers.
I mean, there's a lot of factors, but it doesn't do anybody any good to repeat a false statistic when it's provably false, and then when people find out that it's false, then they lose confidence in the information they're being given.
The other half of it is, what does it say about a person that just continues to say it anyway?
At some point, truth doesn't matter anymore.
I want to have factual debates.
I want to have, this is the starting point.
These are objective truths, and then let's debate about those things.
But if that's your starting point, if that's a third of the entire reason why you're angry and in the streets in Washington, D.C., well, then I don't even know what you're angry about anymore, to be honest.
It goes back to Occupy Wall Street or all these things where I'm like, I don't know exactly what you're angry about.
And this is why this protest isn't working and isn't resonating with people.
Meanwhile, you ask them, you know, you ask one of these feminists, there's no reason with feminism if the goal is for total equality, but we all know that that's not really what feminism means today, that, you know, if you sit there and be like, can you name just one thing that I can do that you can't?
Just one.
And I'm not saying, like, you give birth, I can't, or something biological.
I'm saying, like, what can't you do?
Like, if you really wanted to.
I'm not saying that, you know...
I know, for instance, that, you know, the examples that people give, and I haven't seen the statistics, but I've heard it circulated, that even that, you know, companies are so desperate now to hire women because of this situation, this optical situation that they're in, where it seems like women are being pushed down, that women in their 20s and 30s are actually making more now.
You know, and certainly they're more likely to get a higher education, certainly they're more likely to even graduate high school.
So there are actually systemic benefits to being a woman, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that either.
But I just feel like it goes back to that thing of, like, why are we fighting?
Like, what is the divisive nature?
Can't we...
And this goes back to your question about the video game industry.
I'm like, hey, instead of yelling at me about this, we won't agree about these situations over here, but can't we advocate for these together?
Or do you not want my advocacy for gay marriage because...
I believe in small government.
You don't want my advocacy for, you know, transgender rights because I'm for low taxes.
I'm like, okay, that's weird because we can totally be friends here.
With the Women's March, I know that there were problems with pro-life organizations getting involved at a sponsorship level even.
And I think that this, you know, I'm reading more about it and learning more about it, so I'm still very ignorant about it, but this more third wave, what they call third wave feminism, which I'm sure is a term you've heard, that seems to be more about a combative nature to actually...
Instead of saying men and women are equal, men and women should deserve the same rights and the same treatment and all those kinds of things, it actually seems to be very anti-man in a way.
It seems to be almost like the tables have turned.
And I'm like, but why are you turning the tables?
Didn't you achieve what you wanted in the first place, which was just that we were going to be here together at the nexus of everything as two genders?
The live and let live nature to judge people based on their character and the quality of their intelligence or whatever it is you're looking for in them shouldn't be categorized in these specific ways by sex or gender, by race or religion, by any of those kinds of things.
It was uncomfortable and unsettling, and you really saw where everyone stood.
So one of the things I was talking with people about was how sad it was for me that very few people that I knew came to my defense.
And I wasn't saying they had to come to my defense and be like, Colin, that joke was fine.
If you didn't like the joke, I don't care.
It's fine.
It's a joke.
Jokes fall flat all the time.
You know that.
You're a comedian.
It's hard.
I don't do it professionally.
It's impossibly hard to get on a stage and do that kind of stuff.
But to me, I was like, hey, is anyone going to say that I'm not a sexist?
Is anyone going to stand up that's known me for 10 years and say, hey, we don't agree with the joke, but the way you're categorizing this guy, who I know, is not accurate.
And I heard that there were some fights behind the scenes with people, and I got a lot of DMs and messages, but very little in terms of public support.
That really hurt me.
That really, really hurt me and wounded me in a deep way and ruined friendships that I had for years.
And the thing that hurt me the most is that I'm not close with a lot of these people, but people that know me, there are people in this industry that are writing, that were piling on me, or remaining silent, that got freelance work because of me, that maybe even got hired because I was on a hiring committee, that pushed for them.
All these kinds of things.
And people I used to take out to lunch when I was senior editor to see how they were doing, if there was anything I could do for them, stuff like that.
And everyone's just like...
No, I'm not going to come back and help him out now.
And I try to put that good energy out there.
I'm not always full of good energy.
Sometimes I say negative things or bad things.
Sometimes I make mistakes.
But when a person comes after your character, and you damn well know that there are a bunch of people around you that know who you are, whether or not they agree with what you said or agree with what you do, but they know who you are, and they know the severity of what people are saying, and they don't say anything...
That really wounds a person and that really fucking hurt.
Do you think that what's going on in a lot of ways when people did not come to your defense is that what you're doing in many ways is making a very complicated and nuanced perspective from a person in your in your stance you're kind of You're taking this path outside of the ideology.
And by doing so, you sort of challenge a lot of the ways these people have been behaving for a long time.
And as soon as you do that, they have to kind of reconsider these ideological boundaries they've set up in their own behavior and thinking and communication.
And they don't want to do that.
They don't want to do that.
They like to keep things rigid and simple.
And they also want to continue to progress in their career.
And in order to do that, you have to kind of have this predetermined pattern that you follow.
Because, yes, there are people out there that cannot comprehend how a person who believes in small government, for instance, will use the same argument that says, the government can't touch my guns.
That's consistent with saying the government can't tell a woman what to do with her body.
That's consistent with the principle that says a government shouldn't even be involved in telling you who you can marry, and a man should be able to marry a man, and a woman should be able to marry a woman.
And I would go as far as to say that even a polygamist totally on the up-and-up, everyone's in on a relationship should not be the government's problem.
They cannot acknowledge that it's the lack of governmental power that gives you that right in my perspective.
When they feel like it's the wielding of government power that ensures those rights.
That's not congruent with them.
They don't understand how we came to the same exact conclusion by going just totally two different directions.
And that challenges them, and they don't have the philosophical bounding to figure out how that might be.
Well, that's the argument that the philosophy has to be bound in writing.
It has to be bound in some sort of a doctrine.
It has to be written down on paper and established and enforced by a government.
That's like a big daddy thing.
Instead of saying, give the power to the people, let people do whatever they would like to do as long as they're not infringing upon the rights of others, and let's have less and less people dictating what people get to do.
And they look at it, I don't want to say they, but a lot of people, a lot of progressives or regressives, depending on you want to look at them, will look at it and be like, well, the government has to insure these things because these are not natural.
These are not natural rights or these are not things that can be insured.
And I'm like, but In the natural society, in the natural sense, we have to have consistent rights.
I can't in good faith say, like, I have the right to wield a gun because the government can't tell me that, even though it's enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but then say, like, oh, the government can get involved in your bedroom, though.
Oh, the government can tap your phones.
Oh, the government...
I'm like, no, it's either all or nothing.
And if that's a philosophy that's too hard for people to wrap their minds around, then...
I don't know what to say about that, but to me, it's pretty clear and pretty lucid, the way I feel my principles are rooted in that philosophy.
Also, I think when people, they're seeking this sort of comfort level in life and in their positions, and I don't necessarily think people understand that as soon as you allow the government too much power, you will never get that back.
As soon as they have power, as soon as they can take away some of your liberties, those will never get returned.
One of the rare ones is marijuana.
I was trying to explain to someone the other day about this.
It's incredibly rare that something becomes legal that was illegal as long as marijuana.
It's very rare.
Something has to be just completely undeniably good.
For it to have gone through all the propaganda, all the bullshit, all the lies, all the governmental regulations, all the people being locked up in jail for life for, and then still come out on the other side on 2017 and be legal in a bunch of states, recreationally, not even just medically.
First of all, it's a honeymooners, married with children, all in the family level joke.
Something you'd see on the floor of a CBS writer's room.
Yeah.
But the point is that I could have probably apologized and groveled, but I'm like, no, because A, I'm not sorry, so that would be a huge lie.
B, I have to now really recalibrate the way I go about my business with my partners and with the audience, because...
You know, I didn't have the protections that I thought I would have when the mistake was made.
You know what I mean?
And that was what hurt me.
So I tried to do what I thought was the most principled and character-driven choice, which is be like, this is best for my partners, who don't agree with me.
This is best for the audience, who might not agree with me.
It seems like a lot of them do.
And this is the best for just everyone moving forward.
I'll have other opportunities and other things that I can do.
And the thing that, you know, it's sad to see because it's not my, I feel like I'm a pretty good natured person and I don't like seeing the rubber band effect going on where people now are suffering because they stood up and stood out or whatever.
It's just that, and I don't care about the people that were out to character assassinate me.
I'm talking about like, you know, my ex business partners and stuff.
It's just that, like, no matter what I say, it'll be twisted.
I tried to be very magnanimous and, like, very kind about it when I was on Reuben the second time, and people twisted everything to just be a problem anyway.
So I'm like, I'll just remain silent because I'd rather them misconstrue the silence than misconstrue the words, you know?
Yeah, but even that, it's not your responsibility as long as you're communicating in an honest way.
Sure.
I mean, you're thinking that's sort of the same reason why people didn't come to your support in the first place.
Because they were worried that if they spoke their mind, they would be targeted.
If they said, hey, I know that this is going on.
I think Colin's a great guy.
I don't think he's sexist.
And my feeling on him is that it was just a joke.
And then they could get targeted, and they chose not to.
They chose not to step up.
In a lot of ways, you not speaking your mind in a clear way sort of sets that same sort of tone.
I think you should be able to speak freely.
And I think you should be held responsible for when you say something and it's irresponsible.
Sure.
Or it's wrong, or it's hurtful in some ways.
And people make mistakes like that all the time.
And there's also, we have to take into account that a lot of times people don't realize the consequences of their words, or they say things in a flippant manner, or they're tired, or they're stressed, or things come out that they don't necessarily believe in that way, but especially when it comes to something like Twitter or some short form, short paragraph sort of a thing.
I think it's really important that we be given the opportunity to express ourselves fully and then The disagreements with that be categorized in an honest way.
And what I had the most problem with was not just someone calling you racist, but that everyone was making it out to be this horrible The sexist evil thing when it's clearly something said in jest and as soon as you can and that's my wheelhouse as soon as you start taking humor and something that people say that's absolutely Meant to be just funny and make it as like oh this guy just signed an affidavit that women should shut the fuck up because it's better I mean that's really the the
worst case scenario interpretation of what you said yeah, and and yeah, I think that That was the disappointing part of it was, again, it goes back to this point of like, it ignored everything, like my body of work.
I actually stood up very loudly for political and social causes many times.
There are huge videos I have of my feelings on the Confederate flag or like how I feel like- What do you think about the Confederate flag?
I think that you have the right to fly, I just think it's in terrible taste, and I understand why people are upset about it, and I don't think the flag of a traitorous country should be instituted in state flags in the United States.
Well, to me, I'm not talking about the legality of it, because if you want to fly a swastika out at your house, I think you should probably be allowed to do that.
I don't think you're an absolute idiot for doing that, but that's your right to be an idiot.
The Confederate flag thing was just a sign for me because it was this juxtaposition of saying, well...
We're talking about the legal rights, but actually I'm talking about the taste.
People don't remember what the CSA was.
I don't think a lot of people that even fly that flag know what the hell they're flying.
But to me, I'm like, let's put this in historicity.
Let's think about what we're doing here.
This country left.
To protect its slaves, its right to own slaves.
Any other interpretation of it is wrong based on what was going on in the 1850s and leading up to 1860. These states' rights advocates and all that.
That's not what it was about.
It's about economics.
Yeah, it's not what it was about.
It wasn't about states' rights.
It wasn't about any of those things.
It was about your economy would have fallen apart without free labor.
And these people left.
They caused a gratuitously bloody war.
And then they were let, you know, both Abraham Lincoln and then Andrew Johnson just let them back in.
You know, Jefferson Davis, who was the president of the Confederacy, wasn't murdered.
He wasn't executed.
You know, like, they were all let back in.
For some reason, because Reconstruction went the way it did, into the Ulysses S. Grant kind of era of presidency, people look at it and be like, well, things kind of ended good, and they're kind of like brothers again.
And I'm like, that's not really the way it was when Jim Crow came up and stuff like that.
This fucking flag means something nefarious.
And you can't...
So it's your right to fly it, and if you feel like that's a Southern pride thing, more power to you.
Yeah, but I think the issue is what it means to other people, you know, and whether or not that's valid.
I mean, you're not talking about, like, touchy-feely, like, people being oversensitive.
No, you're talking about a horrible war about slavery.
It's, like, probably one of the worst kinds of wars.
Like, a war, because we would like to keep people imprisoned and working for free, so we're willing to kill other people over it to fight for that right.
This is essentially what it was.
Right.
To the people of today, it doesn't seem like that because they're not living in 1850. They're not in the days when, you know, they would have these massive, like, Gettysburg.
They'd have these massive areas where people would be slaughtered.
I mean, there's people to this day that still find, like, Civil War shit where they have these massive battles and they can dig through the ground with metal detectors and they find...
I mean, I took the idea from Saving Private Ryan, the guy that would take dirt from all the battlefields that they'd go to and put it in jars.
They only showed it once in the movie, but I used to go to all these battlefields when I was a kid because I was fascinated by it.
My parents would bring me, and I would go buy baby food and dump them out and then go to all the battlefields and put dirt in each of them and put them on.
Yeah, since I was, you know, my earliest memory is of being into politics and history was the Gulf War, which was, you know, in the lead up to it with Kuwait and stuff in 1991. So I was like six or seven.
I remember, you know, Newsday is Long Island's newspaper.
I remember just seeing images and kind of maps.
And I didn't really understand what was going on.
I couldn't even read most of the words.
I mean, it's complicated geopolitical stuff they're talking about.
But ever since that point, I was very politically focused.
And my dad is a staunch, like Rockefeller Republican, like a paleocon, like a moderate Republican.
In the old north, you know people out there might know but like Republicans are pretty disparate group like Republicans in New England or Republicans in New York are very different than Republicans in Texas, but they're both Republicans and my dad grew up just in You know giving me things to read and feeding that fire and buy me maps and buy me books and we would listen to talk radio and we would Debate things and we would kind of come to these conclusions of different things and we disagree about a lot of things still to this day, but he's a great man and Ever since then, I was really, really interested.
And I knew when I was fourth or fifth grade that I would study history.
And I remember in New York, we have this thing called the Regents in high school, which are like these tests, these state-run tests that you have to pass to graduate.
So, like, you take your class, but then you have to take your final, but then you have to take a Regents exam, which is the state-run thing.
Say, like, you know math, you know whatever.
And I remember when I was in sixth grade, my sister, Allie, who's six years older than me, was taking the U.S. history Regents, like, the next, or a few days from then.
And I helped her study.
I remember she didn't know anything she needed to know.
I taught her what she needed to know just for this very rudimentary test.
That stuck in my mind because I have a real passion for this.
I really like it.
I enjoy it.
I don't know everything.
I make mistakes sometimes and I change the way I feel sometimes.
Well, if you scroll here, you'll see on the left side underneath the number, my only stretch goal was to reach $10,000.
So my expectations were blown out of the water.
And I really...
What I read into this show is...
People are just sick of this bullshit.
This is them speaking and being like, we need a conduit that's going to get into the history and get into the philosophy and the politics, but also that will stand up and say, I'm not sorry for a joke.
People have the right to make mistakes.
People have the right to express themselves.
It goes back to the Confederate flag thing.
I might disagree with a person that flies that flag, but I'm not going to go rap-bap-bap on their door and pull it off and call them a racist.
I'm just going to shake my head and walk.
Because there are other things to worry about.
So it's people that want...
More liberty-focused, individual-focused kind of things.
And that's just people speaking to me.
So the number will fall back down after the month, I'm sure, and that's fine.
But yeah, you can hide it, but I want it to be totally transparent.
What I keep telling people is as long as we keep a level, a sustainable level of money, which is way less than what I have now, there'll be no baked in ads, no product placements, none of that.
It's going to be, yeah, so I want to do two videos a week, between 10 and 15 minutes long each that are scripted and written.
And I know how to edit, and so I'm not very good at it.
The quality of the videos, from an optical perspective, you'll find better quality.
But I want the content to be really good.
And so I want to just do two videos a week.
One probably focused on history, and one probably focused on politics.
So one that's more rooted in philosophy that I'll go research and write.
I'm already researching and writing the first one.
I don't want to ruin it for anyone yet, but...
I think it's going to be really fun.
And then maybe the second video every week will be something about what's happening in the world.
And I'll talk to a camera and just be like, this is the way I feel about this.
This is maybe why I feel this way.
And just some stuff out there.
I want to treat people's time with care.
I don't have the brand you have.
I don't have people that are religious about listening to everything I do.
So I want people to look forward to saying, oh, twice a week, Colin might put up a 10-minute video that I can just, when I'm making dinner, just listen to it in the background and then go about my day and maybe learn something or maybe feel a certain way or maybe I disagree.
And then move on and just be a part of people's lives in that way.
It's like the imposter syndrome where you never really know that you're earning it or whatever.
And I'm like, I don't want to let anyone down.
I only have right now the intro video, which is just me talking to the camera kind of with what my plan is.
I'm trying to really keep people engaged and putting update videos on and letting them know where everything is.
But yeah, I was horrified because I'm like, you know, I only have the bandwidth to do two videos a week, whether I'm making $15,000 a month or $40,000 a month.
And so I put out a video to everyone being like, if this level is sustained or even a level that's in the 20s or 30s, whatever it is, I have to recalibrate what I'm thinking.
These are the things that I forgot for so long, in a way, because I was writing about games, which I love.
I love games.
I think they're important.
They're an important piece of escape.
They're an important piece of art.
I think that's all great.
But being able to engage with someone like yourself with someone like Dave Rubin or someone like a Steven Crowder or whoever it might be I was on Glenn Beck's radio show last week.
It brings out an energy in me.
Did he wear a bow tie?
Did he wear a bow tie?
I don't know.
I was on the phone so I have no idea.
He could have been naked for all I know.
It brings out an energy in me where I'm like, I can finally engage with people that know what the fuck they're talking about in this particular realm, which I think is so exciting and so interesting.
I'm trying to use this as an opportunity for myself and trying to use it as an opportunity to just carve out a little slice of the internet, however big or small it might be, where we can affect some positive change and ideas and learning and free expression and free thought.
And making mistakes and disagreeing and all that.
I think that's all great.
I want to use this as an example.
I want to get away from the orthodoxy of the gaming industry.
I mean, I know people that are like heads of studios that feel the way I do.
I know people that are in the trenches at QA and doing very menial things at gaming studios that feel the way I do and everything in between.
I remember a GDC game developer conference in San Francisco, which happens every spring.
Six or seven years ago a guy pulled me aside.
This is the first time it ever happened to me and this is when I was kind of starting to make a name for myself And he pulled me aside and he's like hey man I work at X Y& Z and I'm it works on a big game and he's like keep doing what you're doing There are a lot of people out there that agree with what you're saying But there's there they they don't dare speak out because they'll get lambasted in some way look what happened to me over something so innocuous and Well, obviously you were saying that there's some pushback about your ideas before this.
Well, so every time I would write a politically driven op-ed, for instance, when I was at IGN, I was senior editor, but I kind of had like editor-at-large qualities, meaning for people that don't know, editor-at-large basically...
In a way, do whatever they want.
Like, they'll find something to write about.
I used to go away for days at a time and do research things and then write these big 50,000 word articles.
Naughty Dog's this very huge, actually in Santa Monica, very huge game developer, very talented game developer.
I went and talked to 19 people, got about a bunch of primary sources and And all these things and wrote this piece that I really cared about.
But when I would write things like the political correctness piece about...
Let me give you an example.
There's a game that was cancelled maybe five years ago or so.
It was pretty late in development.
So it's weird to cancel a game when they've already spent a bunch of money on it.
It was called Six Days in Fallujah.
And it was a game about, it was a third-person shooter, I think, about the experience of Fallujah in Iraq.
Terrible conflict that happened there.
And people, even on the right, were getting upset about it, being like, it's too soon, this is still ongoing, how can you do...
And I wrote a piece being like, what are you all saying?
This is awesome.
This is so great that someone wants to tell a story like this and do something like this.
And you just get it from all sides.
People will be like, you know, it's not sensitive.
It's all these kinds of things.
And then the girlfriend mode thing I wrote about where people were like, oh, you're a sexist and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I'm like, I'm actually just protecting the sanctity of a man who might have made a mistake.
That's it.
You know, instead of destroying him.
It goes back to this whole thing of like the...
I'm sorry the girlfriend mode the Borderlands story I told you where the guy and they get they were all going after him and going after his job and all these things and I wrote a piece being like hey Yeah, like if this is a farce guys like right he made a mistake Maybe and I don't know that he should it was a soft target and they just went after it exactly and It reminds so you've experienced blowback yeah every time from that yeah every time what was the blowback from that from you defending this guy saying well He just really fucked up the way he described things,
but he was it was innocent in that regard Well, you lose, like, social cachet when every time something like this would happen, right?
So that's why I say, like, this was the moment, the joke was the moment that they were looking to pounce, really.
And I'm not saying that they were calculating everyone's waiting, but they saw an opportunity and they took it.
Because over time, you lose respect over people because your political stances, completely reasonable political stances, I think.
Where they remember that you said this and you said this and you said this and you said this.
You weren't really having debates with people where you were disagreeing with them.
It was simply a matter of reaction to some of the things that you had written where they were trying to box you into some sort of a conservative group.
To me, it seems like the far fringes, like the Richard Spencers of the world, the neo-Nazis, and the white supremacists, and the actual nationalists, you know?
A lot of people were very supportive on Reddit and all these kind of places that are a little more known for free thought, but there's this one video game message board in particular that is just insane.
And there was a 125 page or so thread about me.
20 posts, or I think it might even be 50 posts a page.
And I was reading it.
And it hurt some of it.
Because people are like, first of all, people are telling me I said things I never said.
Like what?
People are like, Collins, you know, his name is no taxation.
He doesn't even believe that taxes should exist.
I often talk about how I really like Ayn Rand and I really like Atlas Shrugged.
But I don't consider myself an objectivist.
I don't believe that selfishness is necessarily a virtue.
I just think she's interesting, and I think some of her ideas are interesting.
You know, God forbid I exist somewhere in the gray area.
I had a debate once about that with a friend who was an Asian actor and he was talking about the lack of roles for Asians in Hollywood and what a massive issue is and you know that he wanted to raise awareness of it I was like man, but this we're talking about a creative venture you're talking about somebody writing a story like I think the the correct way to go about it is to try to figure out how to get your own project through or someone else who feels very strongly about this trying to get their own project through but The right way is not for someone to have to compromise their creative vision
in order to encompass the full spectrum of races in whatever story they're writing.
Like, a creative story, like, if you want to write a story about a small town in Maine like Stephen King has done so often, you shouldn't have to have 10% Asians in that story.
I mean, that's not...
What creativity is about.
There are places and people that you're going to run into all black folks, or you're going to run into all Norwegian people.
Those stories are just as valid as a story that's fully diverse.
I don't think that that necessarily makes anything better.
And I also think that when you're talking about that, you're sort of talking about it like there should be a quota, you know, and like Hollywood should recognize the need for these people to be in films and movies.
And it's just, you're making this politically correct sort of...
You're passing these judgments on this thing that is all about imagination.
I mean, Hollywood essentially, when you're making a television show or you're making a movie, it's really about an imagination.
It's about imagination and vision and having that vision being entertaining for people.
And if you only want to write about the people that you were in college with, that you shared a dorm room with, you should be allowed to.
And if there's a disproportionate amount of people that are doing that, that happen to be white males, you know, we should probably try to figure out why.
But the idea that you have to force people to hire Asian folks or black folks or women or whatever, that seems so crazy to me.
And to give you a little glimpse, to give you some context with what might be going on in gaming, there was this very popular game series called The Witcher, which is made by a Polish developer called CD Projekt.
They're in Warsaw.
And it's based on the fusion of, like, Polish kind of identity with this famous book series that's based on, like, kind of Polish lore, you know, like kind of the Lord of the Rings, but in Eastern Europe.
And One guy, this cartoon character that works at this website called Polygon, in his review was talking about how there was no diversity.
And everyone's like, Dude, it's Poland, and it's based on Poland of yore.
And it's about dragons, and goblins, and there's some white guys.
And this is what you're upset about?
And there's another guy, I think he's Slovakian, somewhere in Eastern Europe, making a game called Kingdom Come Deliverance.
And it's supposed to be a very realistic look at something like the 14th or 15th century in that area.
And again, they're complaining there's no diversity.
There's no diversity.
And he's like, there was no black people in this area in 1500. I'm trying to make a game that's true to the era.
That doesn't make him a racist.
And this is just the kind of bullshit.
But you see this in movies.
You see this in TV shows.
It's not exclusive to gaming, but it's what I've had to deal with for a long time, and I'm just sick of it.
Thankfully, the people that make the games don't care.
They're like, we're going to make our game.
The people that are complaining about it, they're virtue signaling, which is not even a term I even knew what it meant until a few weeks ago.
I heard people throw that term around.
I didn't quite know what it meant.
I looked into it.
You know what it is.
It's the idea that these virtuous people, it's the same people that attack me for the joke.
I have to be virtuous and show that I am against sexism, so I have to attack the man.
I have to do all these kinds of things in this need.
But what they're saying when they're saying we have to have black people in this game in Eastern Europe in the 1500s, what they're really saying is you're a racist.
Gawker on Thursday evening helped a disgruntled sex worker extort the chief financial officer at Conde Nast and brother of former Treasury Secretary Kim Geithner.
Is that how you say his name?
Tim Geithner, yep.
Jetsoning any semblance of journalistic integrity and likely ruining a man's life in the process.
Because he tried to, you know, it's not our business if he's cheating on his wife, and it's not our business if he's gay, and it's not our business if he's trying to be with a male escort.
There's a responsibility that comes with this that there's almost like a power that has not been earned.
The power of whether it's social media or whether it's ability to write blogs about someone like that or whether it's ability to just to make tweets and just attack someone.
This ability is really very, very new.
And the ability to mass publish, like to make a tweet about a guy like you, just decide Colin Moriarty is a piece of shit, I can't believe that joke, fucking sexist, and then boom, put that out there, and then it gets retweeted over and over again.
That people don't necessarily understand the repercussions of these actions.
That this is like, there's an amount of power that they really haven't earned.
There's an amount of power and influence that you have.
Your ability to express yourself today, that's a really new thing.
I look at it a little differently in the sense that, because I think you're right, I think you're on to something there, but I think it's also the mob mentality that exposes the fact that Say I was ruined forever, right?
And they won, whatever that means.
And then people go like, hey, you just ruined that guy.
Why did you do that?
And they can be like, oh, he did it.
Oh, he did it.
Oh, he did it.
In other words, no one's responsible for it.
And when you're in this mob, it's old-fashioned witch hunting.
Do you think that there's also an inclination to do it because you're worried that it's gonna happen to you and you want to attack first?
Like this is almost a thing where the people want to take the vision off of themselves, or they want to take the scrutiny off of themselves.
And when you point it at someone else enough and you keep pointing it at other people, I mean eventually people kind of get it after a while.
It's that little expression that if you want to look at, like, with girls, it was always like the girls who would talk shit about other girls being sluts were always the biggest sluts, right?
You know?
I mean, there's this weird thing about people where if you're going after folks in a lot of those sort of situations, what you're trying to do is take some of the eyes off of you.
And I believe you, that you don't want to be involved in that.
And I think that's very virtuous.
I think it's very nice that you think the way you do.
I think it's important.
And I think it's important that you have this ability to express yourself and let people know that that is a good way to look at the least amount of conflict that you can go through life with, the better you're going to be off.
As long as it's unnecessary conflict, you know?
And I think in this situation, this is clearly unnecessary conflict.
But to me, I'm like, you know, and that's why it goes back, you know, the fact is, and I think this is an important component to maybe making you understand what happened a little bit better, because you're not in that ecosystem, but I think you can relate because you're seeing it happen elsewhere, is that the gaming media is dying.
And they're dying because no one really trusts or cares, trusts them or cares what they have to say anymore.
People, 10 year olds and 15 year olds today are not growing up being like, I wonder what Polygon has to say about the newest game.
They go to YouTube and find a guy there that they trust and believe, which is why the only people unanimously pretty much that came out in my defense were YouTubers.
Because they know that they're the next rung of this evolution of the way we absorb and communicate and absorb information and have news.
Meanwhile, these people, to your point, are writing clickbait, trying to stay relevant, but no one really cares what they're saying anyway.
So they're in their death throes.
This is a way for them to take shots at multiple people at the same time.
What Wall Street Journal did to him, this is just a sign of the times.
These are people fighting, and I really feel this way, and you might disagree, but I feel like a lot of it is these people are fighting for their lives.
If I were a person that was writing about- Hold on.
If I had written in the video game industry for 10 years, right?
I wrote in the gaming industry for 14 years.
But if I was a 10-year industry veteran, and I had fewer than 10,000 Twitter followers, and I'm writing for a site no one reads, and I'm trying my hardest to stay relevant and to do my thing, I'd be pretty mad, too, if I saw a guy that turns on his camera and speaks whatever he wants and gets the amount of views in 30 minutes that I'll get the entire year.
Yeah, and ostensibly, it's actually adding to their destruction, because people are looking at this, like the media, for instance, in the political landscape is dying anyway.
The decline is happening.
Wall Street Journal put up a piece not too long ago saying that per capita, viewership on television is actually starting to be outpaced by YouTube.
So that's over now, right?
And that's not on video online or video on demand.
That's just YouTube.
And so people are looking at the situation and actually precipitating it happening quicker.
So PewDiePie is the biggest YouTuber in the world.
He has 55 million subscribers.
And he's a millionaire.
Just to be clear, I don't really know him very well.
I think I've had one or two communiques with him at some point, but I don't know him, so I don't really have a horse in the race.
He lives in Europe.
He lives in England.
I think he's Swedish or something of that nature, but he lives in England.
And he has a massive YouTube following.
I mean, every video he does will have 10, 12, 15 million views.
And you know you're on YouTube, I'm on YouTube in a much lesser sense.
That's a lot of views.
And he pushed the boundaries in some ways, in some tasteless ways.
As this is right.
And the thing that really caught on was that he was using this service called Fiverr, which is this kind of TaskRabbit kind of thing where it's like you can pay people to do whatever you want.
And he paid...
Some of the things he did were otherwise, but he paid these guys in some country to hold up these...
Like, death to all Jews signs or something like that as part of a joke.
And, you know, and that's something I think is somewhat tasteless.
But he's trying to make a point.
Whatever point he was trying to make, he was trying to make a point.
It was lost on a lot of people.
And this combined with some other imagery he had been using, some, like, kind of fascist or Nazi imagery and some other things that have been going on over the months.
I'm sorry.
Did you want to...
Oh, I thought you were about to say something.
I'm sorry.
And so eventually the Wall Street Journal caught wind of this.
Wall Street Journal obviously have a prolific right of center but still pretty moderate newspaper and basically went after him and basically tried to destroy him and took a lot of things out of context and forced Disney...
Disney owns a studio that...
Funds him and all these kinds of things and caused a lot of personal and economic destruction for this man.
It seems like they intentionally took things out of context, too, and they distorted the actual intent of what he was trying to do, especially with telling people to not be Nazis.
He was, like, mocking people that were being Nazis, and they used that to say, this guy is pretending to be a Nazi.
It showed a lot of half-cocked thinking on the Wall Street Journal's part to think that this wasn't going to blow back on them.
And it showed a level, and I hate using this word because I don't think innately it's necessarily a bad thing because I think it drives you forward, but there's a level of jealousy at play with a lot of these kinds of things that are happening.
So that's what you were thinking about before when you were saying that someone who's struggling to get 10,000 views in any story they write is going to look at a guy like this that can do one video where he talks about farts and he makes...
You know, his 7 million views or something like that.
Yeah, and they're mad and they don't understand it.
And I get that.
You know, I look at some people that are famous or some people that are, you know, have a platform and I'm like, I don't get this, but I'm not going to like sit here and like rain on their parade.
That's their right.
They have an audience.
That's totally fine.
Maybe look at yourself and why you don't have an audience.
Maybe look at yourself and realize that if you've been doing this for so long and you're so proud of that, why isn't anyone listening to you?
Could it be you?
You know, instead of looking around for people to assassinate, which is what's basically happening here, I find it so distasteful, I find it so destructive, we're at the precipice of a very dangerous time because the trust in institutions, no matter where you are now, is just lost.
And a lot of it has to do, and that's what I was saying, with media precipitating the fall by not telling the truth, by not doing the right thing.
I think the media in terms of politics, for instance, is really rebounding from the fact that they thought Clinton was going to win, so they thought they can get away with saying and doing anything for that means to an end.
The Donna Brazile thing, for instance, where she was feeding questions to the Clinton campaign, is so incredible.
It shows such a level of bias and systemic inherent bias.
They thought they were going to get away with all of it.
Now no one trusts anyone.
So when I see all this stuff, I don't know what's going on with Russia and Trump.
For all I know, he could be a fucking Manchurian candidate.
But I don't believe a word they say.
When I read this about Paul Manafort, about Flynn, about blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I'm like, I don't know.
You lied about all this other shit.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I have to really do my own research.
I don't even know who to trust anymore.
They did that to themselves, and they precipitated their own downfall.
More and more people are going on YouTube to listen to people like you, to listen to people even like Alex Jones, to listen to Dave Rubin, to listen to- Giant problem.
And not a real objective sense of what the truth is and what the actual facts of a story are.
That's where journalism is a different thing now because it's now an entertainment show.
It's an entertainment show that also has the news in it.
But that's why the women are so hot.
That's why the women on Fox News are wearing these tiny little dresses and they have beautiful legs and heels on and they're talking about important issues.
But they're giving you a little bit of eye candy while they're doing it.
Do you feel like this is like almost an adolescent period in human communication, that we're going through this weird growth period where we have this incredible access to information and the ability to spread it like we have now with...
With social media and with YouTube and all these different things where anybody can kind of hop in and all of a sudden get a platform like this PewDiePie guy.
And he connected with people and carved out this path for himself and pretty much anybody can kind of do that now.
I mean, it's not easy.
If it was easy, everyone would do it, but it is not insurmountable.
I wonder what the next stage is in terms of the ability to share information, if it's going to change past where it's at now and get to some new level.
Yeah, I think you're right in the sense that the internet specifically had taken off so quickly.
The World Wide Web is only 24 years old.
The internet's way older.
But the way we communicate with each other now is so different than even Usenet in the 80s or We
need a media that we can trust.
But I don't think we need the media as it is right now either, because the media we have right now is bloated, dishonest, partisan politically and motivated, all these things that don't really serve a purpose to educating and informing someone.