All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2019 - Louder with Crowder
01:03:49
#480 THE CONSERVATIVE DEPLATFORMING PURGE! | Dan Crenshaw Guests | Louder with Crowder
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Louder with Crowder Studios.
Protected exclusively by Walther.
and hopper Are you ready kid?
Ready to be heard!
I can't hear you!
I can't hear you at all!
Who lives in a swamp right under the sea?
My name's Crowder!
Who sniffs your aunt's head and won't let her flee?
My name's Chip!
Who touches your mom and gropes all the kids?
Be sure not to tell your dad what I did!
Biden-Grebin!
Ordee!
Biden-Grebin!
You're a strange animal!
That's what I know!
You're a strange animal!
I come to follow!
I'm a speedy dis- That's called the creepy man at Gerald's actual wedding.
He danced like this.
And we locked eyes and he looked across the floor and he was mad because I think he saw me, you know, mocking him naturally to my wife.
And he just was doing this, but he did this.
Like, gave it a little bit more vigor.
Gave it a positive anger.
Hey, uh, we have Dan Crenshaw on the show today.
My half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richman, is here in third chair.
Thank you very much.
Even though you have a screaming baby, I know he kept you up all night.
Yes, he did.
Little Asian baby.
You can still carry this show with one hand tied behind his back.
Mainly because he has very short arms.
Quarter black hair.
Show me your quarter hood.
Boom!
What's up?
And Gene Morgan Jr., what's the wine of the day?
That was your hood pass?
Boom?
What's the wine of the day?
Don't, don't, don't ask.
You missed your chance.
Nobody cares anymore.
I don't get to sell product and I don't pay.
Hey, question of the day.
We're going to have Dan Crenshaw on.
We'll be talking about the recent sort of de-platforming apocalypse, I guess.
We wanted to talk about the recent transgender vice powerlifting video, but it'll still be there Monday.
So question for you, question... It's still there.
Has the recent de-platformer that's occurred to a lot of people on Facebook and Instagram, has it been jarring or do you, like me, worry that it might just become white noise now?
And how close are any of you to deleting?
I see what you did there.
You can do it because you're yellow-ish.
Ouch.
How do you get close to deleting your social media accounts, and which platform do you think is most likely to go first?
We're getting an increasing number of emails about that.
Facebook.
Yeah, Facebook.
That's because your grandmother's on Facebook.
Really?
Facebook has gotten so old.
Remember when you used to have a college address?
Full of boomers.
It was like Myspace.
Myspace was for whores.
Zynga was for Asians, and Facebook was for elite college students.
There you go.
Not anymore.
You've lost your way, Facebook.
You need to be yourself.
When my mom's on Facebook, you know it's gotten old.
When you're on Facebook, you know it's gotten old.
Starting us off today... I'm not old.
Your mom's on me.
Jessica Chastain.
Whoa!
Do I pronounce that correctly?
Is it Chastain in French?
Yes, it's Chastain.
Jessica Chastain.
And what's the next player's name?
Ava Duvernay?
I don't even know who she is.
Ava?
Sure, Ava.
Anyways, they chastised Game of Thrones, see what I did there, for racial insensitivity.
This comes from the inside.
Both influential women of Hollywood tweeted following Sunday's episode in which the show's only named character, who was a woman of color, was killed.
Spoiler alert, I should have said that first.
Yeah, yeah.
I should note they weren't really upset about the killing as much as they thought it was racially insensitive the way
it was performed.
🎵 🎵
I could see how it registers a little tone deaf.
I get it.
A little insensitive there.
Okay, so the puck used to be in this zone, right?
Alright, we want women in things.
Okay, we need gay people in things.
Now we need people of color in things.
Now we need gay people of color that are women in things.
And now they must survive until the end of every episode of the movie?
Yeah, I was going to say!
There are only two episodes left!
No one was complaining about the white guys that died.
Yes, there's been hundreds and hundreds of white guys dying.
I mean, it's a miracle that she made it this far.
I'm pretty sure that the last episode is just going to be someone traveling in a DeLorean nuking the whole place.
No one's going to make it past the ending.
I don't understand here.
Why are you pissed?
Whatever.
You can have it.
You still like the show.
You guys hear about the recent thing with Captain Marvel about how Brie Larson was saying
well, you know, we want to be inclusive and have other women sign the petition.
And then all of a sudden it turned into, well, actually, Brie Larson, you shouldn't be it.
We don't have you anymore, actually.
Who's more diverse than you should play this role.
And it's like, well, it never ends, right?
I mean, soon you have women of color that are transgender that have arms, and then you need the ones without the arms, then without the fingers.
I mean, like, what?
I mean, where does it end?
They just think they're appeasing crocodiles.
It's like Piranha Night 3D with, you know, chicks with ***.
Next we have Nobody wants to see that.
This transi, and I'm saying that because since everyone's being deplatformed, we can get around it by adding transi.
Make it a thing.
This transi is making the case that Venezuela, we just saw this video and I promised you it's real, Venezuela more democratic, better off in the United States.
Here's a clip.
There is so much that we could learn in the United States from what they've done in Venezuela.
Yes.
Correct!
TransientQuestion at LavenderNRed on the Twitter biography refers to him, herself, Zirself as a transgender autistic revolutionary.
I thought autism meant you were a genius.
What does autism even mean anymore?
It's become an incredibly broad umbrella.
Perfect.
I see this program has commenced as planned, and they have yet to notice me.
But you must understand that for me, the shadows are not a place from which to emerge, but a place in which to dwell.
For it is in the shadows that I can accomplish my greatest work, and with time, exert my greatest authority.
So I had one autistic, when I was a kid, in grade school, we had one autistic, he was Chinese, his name was Do we have to bleep that?
Can I just, I'll say Wei Fung.
Does that help me?
Because autistic, and it seems like there's a range from genius, virtuoso, to actually mentally retarded.
This kid should have been called mentally retarded.
He'd walk around like, and he would talk about comic books.
And I would get in trouble.
This is a true story.
So we were in the middle of our final exam, you know, close to summer, and we're doing a math exam, and Wei Fung gets out from his desk, with incredible purpose, by the way.
Gets out from his desk, stands up in the middle of the exam, AHHHH!
HA HA HA!
And I'm sitting in my chair about having a heart attack, laughing.
Like, I just think it's just hysterical.
And they kicked me out.
They kicked you out?
I'm sitting there going, how do you kick me out for this?
Did they kick him out as well?
No, they didn't kick him out because he was retarded.
For an appreciative laugh at a power move like that, I mean.
And I knew exactly what he was doing.
I mean, I chew that in court all the time.
He was obsessed with video games.
And I knew he was doing the Shang Tsung, holding the glowing head.
And I knew it.
And I'm just sitting there laughing.
And they kicked me out.
This kid also, by the way, I've told this story before.
He punched me in the balls.
It's the one time I cried in school, in grade school.
We were learning the Fosbury Flop where you had to line up and run and jump over the high jump bar.
Is that what you call it?
High jump?
You know, Fosbury Flop is where you jump back and fall on your back.
So we'd have two lines in gym class.
I remember the name was Mr. Boner.
We called him Mr. Boner because we were incredibly childish.
I still thought of it.
I'm standing in line and I realize that this one kid is autistic.
They just called him autistic.
That's all we knew back then.
He doesn't realize that we're lining up to wait our turn and run and jump over the mat.
He just jumps and right on his shoulders, right in the hardwood floor, and starts freaking out.
Are you serious?
I'm like, what the f***, are you okay?
And he just started repeating, kick your ass, kick your ass, and punched me in the balls as hard as he could.
This is a true story!
And then now we're just like, now you just have some kid who's very smart and, you know, has to wear earplugs when he sleeps and we call them autistic.
Does someone know?
Where's the line?
Where is the line?
Genuinely.
It's getting broad.
I mean, there are lines.
It's just some folks choose to ignore them and exploit the labels for whatever they want to do.
I mean, they take something that is scientific and legitimate.
And certainly the boundaries are, you know, they have to be adjusted at times as more information comes.
There's different variants of different things.
But to be able to say wherever you want and whatever you think you are is just going to somehow be on the continuum of the spectrum just doesn't make any sense.
It's a whole big spectrum.
The ghetto lawyer just came out of him.
Wherever you is, you're live when you is on the continuum as it relates to the spectrum, which really relates to the panel.
You know how it is, though, right?
You know how- No!
They're picking up what I'm laying down!
That's $4.50 an hour.
That's because you do not understand the past- $4.50?
What am I, cheap?
You do not understand the past tenth of what I am laying down.
Finally, uh, and it must be hard for you to find the different- Honestly, like, autistic in Asian.
Because some of those kids, they're very socially awkward, and they're very good at things.
I would just say, well, autistic.
He just has a Chinese mom.
Sorry!
True.
Could have fooled me.
All day.
And banned.
Anyway, in other news, before we move on to social media, in 2020 news, Pete Buttigieg says that... I can't not laugh.
This week he said, if God belonged to a political party, it wouldn't be the Republicans.
This comes from Business Insider.
Of course, this was immediately after saying, it's important that we stop seeing religion used as a kind of cudgel.
Perfect word for him to use.
So God would not be Republican.
When reached for comment, however, Representative Satan said he was away on business.
So that was pretty... Oh my gosh.
When reached later for comment, he was too busy having sex with Pete Buttgig.
So here's to you!
Got stuff to do.
I think this is a little bit odd, right?
He claims to be, what is it, an orthodox, uh, it's not orthodox, he's a Christian.
Not orthodox.
Not orthodox, sorry, it's the wrong word, sorry.
He claims to be a Christian, and then he questions Mike Pence's belief in scripture.
He says, maybe Mike Pence doesn't believe in scripture now anymore, and I'm like, Sir?
Would you like to talk about homosexuality and the potential verses that could be in the Bible that affect that?
You're telling me that because you've got a bad guy, your word's bad guy in office, that Mike Pence doesn't believe the Bible anymore and your lifestyle probably doesn't?
Oh, it's Episcopalian!
Stop using religion to divide because you clearly have not read the Bible and don't know anything.
This week...
No, that's the point.
They say, don't use it to divide, and then they just say, you don't know any.
He just did!
Yes!
Yes, I know!
Is it lost?
Is it lost?
Was that lost on people?
That's the joke.
OK.
All right, Gerald.
All right, Bill, help him out here a little bit.
Unhelpable.
OK.
The week's trivia contest winner, by the way, is Sam Moore at Samtastic 300 for correctly identifying that the plus-size model test holiday's blood type was pudding.
So you'll be getting a free t-shirt and DNA scraping of half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond in the mail.
Still funny, by the way.
So, we're going to talk about, and I was super glad that half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond was here, and I can never tell, you know, he has a newborn, if he's tired, if it's just Asian face.
Mm-hmm.
Because you never get the bags under your eyes.
No, they're just there all the time.
No, they're not bags.
Your eyes are very tight.
You look like you've always slept well, but then you also look like you're always just a little bit irritated.
Yeah, no, that's actually, that's my life.
That probably works for you.
That's the lawyer part, right?
I have my features of hardened.
Yeah, exactly.
He is a court.
I just wanted to make that awkward for a few seconds.
I just wanted to see where we went with it.
That's how bad I felt.
That's how badly I felt when you just earlier stepped on and restated my position.
You're like, that's your position.
That's my position too.
All right.
Okay.
I hope your new wife, husband is watching.
Okay.
So over the past week, we've seen another purge, obviously.
Not only have we seen this of conservatives, but we have seen rejoicing from the left.
I'm delighted to see this.
They're taking out the trash.
These awful people, in many cases, encouraging violence, sanctioning violence.
Look, you have no right to speak on someone else's platform.
Let Milo Yiannopoulos go to GeoCities or MySpace or something.
He can't go on Facebook.
Facebook, and I think I agree a lot.
The man's like an anti-Semitic cartoon.
It's a company, right?
We don't like regulation, then it should regulate itself.
I feel like that first guy who was talking, Mr. Honey, Ilhan Omar's watching it like, I'm in!
Come on!
It was too soft to lay up.
We should just do this program like cable news.
It would be so much easier.
There'd be no prep.
Hey, what do you think, sir?
Outrage!
And I'm sounding slightly like Woody Allen crossed with the nutty professor from The Simpsons, Milo Yiannopoulos.
I want to make sure that we're I was agreeing.
I think it's incredibly important to set the tone because we're not making that argument.
This is not a freedom of speech issue, okay?
So before people yell private company, I want you to hear what we're about to discuss.
And let's go over the new rules as to what is and isn't allowed.
Yeah, you were about to say something there.
No, no, no, I was agreeing.
I think it's incredibly important to set the tone because we're not making that argument.
And that's what everybody is going to say, is that you're making a free speech argument
in the wrong case.
So just as important as kind of understanding why and which conservatives are banned is
looking at the behavior that's routinely accepted from the left.
So there have been clear terms of service violations from the left.
Things like doxxing, things like threatening people, things like inciting people to violence with no consequences.
I want to be really clear, I don't want any preferential treatment.
I don't think any, well I do think some conservatives do, and we'll have to get to that in a second.
I just want to know the rules.
And I think that's an important distinction that people need to make.
It's either dishonest business practices or not knowing where they line up and not applying the law equally.
Well, I think even just the point in our own experience has been the company is often unclear left-hand, right-hand about what the rules are.
Even day-to-day, even kind of handling the same videos being handled differently in different times by different people means that there's a level of subjectivity that means that when the company's out there selling its platform as A, in reality it's B. And that is where you get to the heart of a fraud that Yeah, there's an exchange of services here.
Like you said, the data is one of the big things that drives the revenue, obviously, of any of these companies.
Having access to consumers and understanding their habits, being able to crunch that data.
You've given your part, and now they're saying, no, you can't be on this platform anymore because of rules that we can't even tell you how to enforce.
And they clearly don't honor their own rules.
So just in case you think I'm making this up, Democratic State Representative, we'll talk with Dan Crenshaw about this in a second.
Brian Sims, did you guys see this, where he videotaped himself?
I don't know if videotape is a term anymore.
People are like, what does that mean, videotape?
You mean selfie?
Come on, Grandpa, think video.
We used to use the term videotape.
I just realized how dated that was.
You're an old man, Crowder.
We used to beta ourselves.
And then if we were lucky, we'd 8-track ourselves and send out a mixtape.
So he videotaped himself.
He videotaped himself.
He videotaped There it is again.
Pseudo.
Oh my gosh.
Oh, no, they're leaving now.
A bunch of pseudo-Christian protesters who've been out shaming young girls for being here.
There it is again, pseudo.
Yeah.
And so here's the deal.
I put pseudo in front of everything.
I've got $100 to anybody who will identify any of these three.
Makes it bad.
So we're actually here to donate to Planned Parenthood.
Wow.
Babies.
I'm going to donate to Planned Parenthood.
So look, a bunch of white people standing out in front of a Planned Parenthood.
Oh my gosh.
Wow.
Shaming people.
Let me make this really clear.
An elected official offered money to anyone who would dox pro-life prayer volunteers.
You could live the rest of your life with singular purpose and unbelievable focus in an attempt to... and still not accomplish anything that shitty.
You could set out to do it!
Volunteer prayers!
Oh my gosh!
Pseudo-Christians?
What does that even mean?
Don't use religion to divide!
By the way, you're a pseudo-Christian because you don't support my point of view.
That's also, Alexandria Cortez, she was talking about, Cortez was talking about this week, she says billions of people don't know anything about women's bodies.
Talking about the Georgia bill.
It's like, well, hold on a second.
We don't know anything about women's bodies?
All right, after six weeks, the reason it's called a heartbeat bill is because you're stopping a heartbeat.
Who's heartbeat?
Is that hate speech?
Can I not understand that because I'm a man?
Or do I actually just understand you're the party of science?
That if you have two hearts, you're a medical marvel!
Someone get Ben Carson to separate you two!
And by that logic, men should only be able to operate on men and women on women, because you can't possibly understand a female body if you're a man, so why would you dare try to operate on them?
Also plumbers.
This guy, by the way, what's also really egregious here is he streamed it.
He didn't videotape himself.
He streamed it on Periscope.
In my day, a Periscope was when you took some milk cartons, taped them together, and put a mirror on one end and a mirror on the other.
And he went, see?
See?
See?
I can look at the top of the car.
Oh my gosh.
He never did that trick?
No.
Everyone did that trick.
Everyone did that trick.
And he posted it to Twitter.
So this guy obviously feared no consequences.
That's what bothers me.
Doxing, by the way, and targeted harassment, Expressly outlined as bannable offenses on Twitter's Terms of Service.
That one's pretty clear.
And they should be.
This isn't an isolated incident.
Remember Peter Fonda, the actor?
He calls for Barron Trump to be abducted and raped by pedophiles?
Lest you think I'm exaggerating again!
And I know my half-Asian lawyer Bill Larichman gets a little uncomfortable.
He thinks I'm going too far.
This is a quote!
Peter Fauna.
Easy Rider.
Was Peter Fauna Easy Rider?
Yes.
Yeah.
We should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will stand up against the giant asshole she is married to.
Now I know at first glance that seems pretty cut and dry.
But then I see the blue check mark and I'm all, I don't know what to believe anymore!
And then he's still up on Twitter, by the way, right now.
No punishments.
But he apologized!
I'm sorry, it's too late.
Go upstairs.
I don't care!
Look, there's literally hundreds of examples.
The rest of the show, the rest of this next week's shows could all be the examples of this.
Jim Carrey, Kathy Griffin, every one of these people have said reprehensible things.
No, I think it's important to delineate.
Just showing a severed head is different from saying, rape this child.
I agree.
That's not all she's done though, right?
But there's so many things that they have done that would, under the ban that just happened, would easily have gotten them kicked off if they were on the right.
By the way, this is also something that's important.
It's also illegal.
That's something people need to understand.
Actually making a threat of violence or inciting people to violence.
This whole idea you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you actually can if there's a fire in a theater.
If there's not, I believe the legal term is fraud.
We commonly refer to this as lying.
The thing is, if you try to respect the laws, they don't abide by the laws.
We have people who sign consent.
We have people who say, I agree to appear on camera, it changed my mind, and then go to YouTube and say, I don't want to be on there anymore.
And YouTube makes us blur it.
And we say, well, first off, it's a single party consent state.
We're not breaking the law.
And we can show you.
them give information. So we don't care because we just don't want to deal with the problems.
That is the issue. These offenses are actually illegal. By the way, hit the notification bell.
Actually, just bookmark the channel on YouTube because notifications may not work.
Join up at bladoffcutter.com slash mugclub. And of course, you can leave a rating there on iTunes.
So let's compare this with what gets a ban on the right in direct contrast to leniency given to
leftists. Do we have anything right or wrong so far legally?
No, I actually was going to say that the exact other point would be probably people would hear
hear the end of the first comment and say, okay, so wait, what's your position?
That they should be allowed to say these things?
That they shouldn't be allowed to say these things?
And the point being that there's a disparity, right?
The whole point is people are being treated differently not because of, you know, the certain what they're saying, it's because of the view that is being espoused by what they're saying.
And Jonathan Honig was just making the point that I don't like what they're saying and so they shouldn't be able to say it.
I'm like, wait, what?
That's not what the argument is.
Well, that's what I went through the whole private platform thing and that's not what we're talking about.
We'll get to that difference between publisher and platform.
That's the most important point here that I think a lot of people have missed when they're calling for regulation.
So on Twitter, though, before we get there, several of the accounts that were banned, I think, within the last two weeks, the Ocasio-Cortez, the Parody account, James Woods was suspended.
The Magaphobia account, which was very surprising to me, it tracked violence against conservatives.
It's like a block parent on Twitter, effectively.
I'm videotaping what's going on.
It's like someone videotaping an antifa person punching an old lady in the face saying, hey, watch out for that guy.
You're banned.
Why?
Because you upset the old lady.
I was trying to stop her from getting punched.
She was really upset.
Exactly.
And paper-thin reasons were given.
For example, the parody account of Cortez would clearly fit the guidelines for Twitter policy.
Parody accounts are allowed.
Yeah, it was clear that it was a parody account in the writing.
What I love is that Twitter said the account was seen as misleading, going a little too close to the source material, I see.
Look, it's not their fault that AOC is actually that crazy that people were confused with that account.
That's what I'm saying.
It's not our fault that she actually is that crazy.
Sorry.
You're telling me that the problem is that I say stuff that should be completely untrue and nobody should believe it and that they believe it and that I'm the problem?
It's her.
Bernie's thoughts, it's hard for me to tell the difference.
Sometimes I have to undo the retweet because I retweet it thinking I'm dunking on Senator Sanders.
And I realize, oh, it's not him.
He really sounded like he was that mad about Pringles.
This person has emulated his voice remarkably.
And then, of course, Facebook and Instagram, they banned people like Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, which I really don't understand the Paul Joseph Watson thing.
No.
How did he get put in that list?
Well, they claim they violated the dangerous individuals policy.
You're dangerous.
But again, the reasons here hardly make any sense when you're... Splendid!
The show is continuing just as I'd hoped, though many do not know my name nor recognize my face.
It is by my gentle hand that this ship is guided, unnoticed.
And once that ship has served its useful purpose, I shall coax it into the rocky shore as a beautiful siren does, in beckoning from the dark sea.
So is there a legal precedent there for dangerous individuals?
Is that a law?
No, I mean, they have their own policies, right?
And those policies, sometimes they, you know, deign to give us a definition of them, sometimes they don't.
Those definitions often change.
It's possible that they have drawn from some statute, but it's not expressly referenced, so no.
The policy itself does not refer to any particular law when it says dangerous individuals.
What's really dangerous to me, ironically, here, is that they say someone like Gavin McGinnis, designated dangerous individual, came out of Facebook.
And now they're saying that anyone who associates with these people could also be a dangerous individual.
I don't know how far that necessarily extends.
Obviously, Gavin has been a colleague of mine.
We've worked together.
But then we've had people on this show who we don't agree with at all.
Is that considered association?
The rules are never clear.
Yeah, absolutely.
And they said something about, you know, just taking a picture with Gavin McGinnis.
Well, Louis Farrakhan was one of the guys that was banned on this.
By the way, I would stand up and fight and say I hate everything that person says, but I feel like they should be able to say it.
I'm pretty sure that presidential candidates, presidents, and plenty of people in the Democratic Party have had pictures with this guy, have attended his church, have sat under his tutelage, and they're still out there.
Right.
This isn't fair at all.
One more example.
I saw Barack Obama with a Farrakhan is my homeboy t-shirt as a fact.
I'm pretty sure he bought it at Urban Outfitters, which really just tells you that he's not all that original of a president.
It's a different fairytale.
Keep in mind, by the way, this is the platform that actually banned any pictures of anyone even seen wearing our Socialisms for Fig shirt, which, by the way, can be purchased at leathercuttershop.com, along with this wonderful new d-platform, this Crest t-shirt.
That's the Crowder Crest one.
I love that one.
But we retroactively photoshopped all of those pictures with the Socialisms for Fig shirts to abide by the Twitter terms of service.
So as you can see, always thinking one step ahead.
Makes no sense to people listening on audio.
Now, here's one thing too, a lot of people see that, they see any right-wing critique of social media companies as hypocritical.
Again, if you aren't clear about what your problem is.
Hey, can you regulate some industries?
Conservatives are like, it's not the government's job to regulate private business.
But then as soon as they feel like they're not getting enough retweets, Suddenly it's like, we're launching an investigation!
We've got to nationalize tech companies!
Long live socialism!
Bernie!
Bernie!
I love how that clip was dead silent until you could actually hear the applause break carton coming out.
Yeah.
The flashing.
He was like, I don't know what to do here.
I mean, I get he's the affirmative action comedy central hire, but we thought he'd make it easier for us to play along.
We don't want to nationalize social media.
No.
And this is my proposed solution.
This is really why I want to get bills taken.
This allows all parties the freedom to choose, OK?
And I think it just needs to be as simple as a question needs to be answered officially, legally, on the record.
These social media companies, in a court of law, they need to decide whether they're platforms or publishers, because those two things are very, very different.
A publisher, something like the New York Times, or even Lauderworth Crowder, or this channel, they can monitor content published on their site, They have to take responsibility for it.
If they publish defamatory information or they incite violence, they can be sued for that because they're responsible for the content.
A platform, which would be more like, say, a cell phone company, they provide a network, they don't monitor, they don't censor your calls.
Now the reason that people have referred to these social media companies and have come to know them as platforms is because they've legally been afforded some of those rights not granted to a publisher.
And what are those, some of you might be asking, ones that protect them from being sued as
Yeah.
long as they operate as a platform.
So if someone tweets, for example, something defamatory about me, like, I don't know,
puts on a fake Nazi symbol or says that I want them to kill all the Jews, Twitter can't
be sued for that as long as they're a platform.
But that means if they're a platform, this is how I understand it, and then Bill's going
to correct me here, they cannot determine which point of views are allowed, disallowed,
picked sides, or try to determine winners and losers just based on point of view.
There's a difference between a publisher and a platform, and I think that lately they've been acting in a way that will put them firmly in the territory of publisher, and people don't know the rules.
Bill.
I would give the analogy to explain it to the left of when you hear folks on the right say, guns don't kill people, people kill people, right?
It's the person utilizing the tool.
Facebook kills people.
Yes, they do.
In the back of a pizza parlor.
Joking!
I'm joking.
For people who got really... No, I'm not pushing Pizzagate.
So the idea is that is the tool doing it, or is it the person controlling it?
And if you're not controlling the tool, then the person who is is the one that's in trouble.
So it's the publisher, the one who's putting the message out, and the person who is just the phone line, the tool provider, the platform.
There has to be a protection of that, because otherwise there would be no financial incentive to be, for example, any kind of platform to provide those kind of tools.
If a criminal orders a drug deal over a cell phone, does that mean that we should punish the cell phone companies because they should be controlling it?
No.
And in that same way, the companies have changed.
Recently, Jack Dorsey actually admitted, surprisingly, in an interview that he found himself to be
a public marketplace of ideas and was talking about his determination as a company that
they should be censoring and again, censoring not in the constitutional sense but censoring
in the idea of how they're going to limit what the ideas are.
So they are actively choosing it.
By actively choosing, they've crossed that threshold from just a neutral platform to
a publisher who's choosing the messages they want to put out there and they should be held
in the same stage.
Would they be called to testify?
Does there need to be a hearing?
My point is, I think before we get to any kind of regulation, is give them the opportunity to answer.
Make them choose publisher or platform, in which case I think we'd be talking about public utility laws.
What would that be?
They have to testify?
Well, some of it could be within the courts, right?
So the existing law that's out there, the precedent that's out there about when you
cross from...
I mean, this isn't an unusual question.
It's not like this is the first case that would ever be heard about what's the difference
between being a publisher or a platform or that kind of thing.
But it's actually putting them to task.
And the thing is, is that people have asked this question over the years.
It's not like, oh, just all of a sudden, 2019, people are asking this question.
Right.
But in the past, it's been different, and we can see it's changed.
It's been in a creative change over the years where now they are firmly over the line, especially, you know, platforms like Twitter and the new policies that are coming out from platform and YouTube, or for Facebook and YouTube.
Yeah, YouTube.
That are making it increasingly different.
I mean, we knew, what, a year or two ago When it was open hunting season at Twitter on conservative views.
That's because when you move the center so far left, everything on the right is far right.
Which by the way is also very important to conservatives out there.
If we do this, and this is I think the route that we should take, again comment and let me know, that means that if you're a conservative, you're going to have to accept these rules for everybody.
So don't break the law.
Don't criminally trespass, right, and videotape someone, I'm gonna use that word again, film someone on their private property and then claim that you're being, please don't do that because you can film in a public area in a single party consense state.
You cannot go into someone's home or on their lawn and film them there.
Just like you can't put out there a false meme that you know to be false to harm somebody just because you don't like them.
And that means conservatives are going to have to allow Ilhan Omar, Farrakhan, to post all the anti-Semitic crap they want.
By that same token, Twitter, you can't allow Hamas to recruit people.
Right?
So at that point, when we say you're a platform, then at least we know, okay, you have to, at least there has to be some semblance of abiding by the law for which all of us can have reasonable expectations.
Right now there's their rule set, and then there's law.
And sometimes you can be obeying one and breaking the other.
For example, Peter Fonda hoping that Barron Trumps get raped by pedophiles.
You would think, Oh, I don't know.
That seems like a threat.
Twitter says we're A-OK.
AOC parody?
We're a little murky on the legality at that point.
I just want to know what the rules are, and I think that's what conservatives need to be pushing for, not locking arms hand in hand with people like Pelosi and people like Cortez, who also want sweeping regulation of these companies.
Yeah, and the point that Trevor Noah made that we want, like, it's because of retweets and likes and we're not getting it, that's not the point at all.
The point is that you have to have, and this is where it does circle back to a free speech argument, the only reason these things are coming up is because in the world, not on social media, there are free speech fights going on right now on what is hate speech.
Is it really even a thing?
Is it okay for you to try to understand what's in somebody's head when they commit a crime and it's a hate crime or what they say and it's hate speech or it's some pseudo-protected group that all of a sudden we can't say anything bad about them because they're the cause.
Well, I don't think hate speech is not an actual thing in the United States.
No, but people technically know.
But hold on, but people are calling it something, right?
They're saying that's hate speech, you can't say that, that's the movement right now.
Well, no, this is a real question.
Because in Canada and the UK, hate speech is an actual legal term that is an actionable offense.
In the United States, hate speech, is that a thing?
I'm not sure if there are some states or... I mean, each of the states could have their own law, so there's certainly some states that probably have that as a definition.
I don't know.
Yeah, so my point was not that it's a law, but society is starting to lean that way and say, oh, this is hate speech.
You can't say these things.
And that's filtering into these platforms.
The things that are happening out in our culture today are filtering into the platforms, and that's why they're kicking people off like that.
It's because there's social pressure from other people saying that's wrong.
That's why it is a First Amendment fight on that ground.
Yes, and I think it's important that people do understand the legality of it and understand the difference between a platform and a publisher.
And by the way, unlike where we're talking, we'll talk about Bill Barr with Dan Crenshaw, we have to get to him, he's probably waiting for us.
He's under no requirement to speak with more lawyers, by the way.
He's under no requirement to provide a completely unredacted report to the public and or all members of Congress.
This is a legally relevant question here, unlike the Barr situation, because I know people will accuse the left and the right, no man, you're all just playing politics.
No, no, we just want some clarity.
We're calling for more transparency, not less.
I think that's pretty important because again, When you talk about sweeping national legislation, it's not about Donald Trump right now.
Again, the MAGA hat-wearing people who just like to troll?
No!
There's going to be someone else in office after President Donald Trump.
So let's try and take some steps in the right direction, allowing for more freedom, not less.
The good news here is we can actually take a first step.
Low cost, requires very little bureaucratic red tape or any kind of overhaul right away.
It only requires the truth.
It requires social media companies to put their money where their mouth is.
And if they want to continue to benefit from the umbrella and the legal protection of a platform, Fine.
Or do they want to remove it, edit, and censor content based on point of view, like a publisher?
This can all start with just two yes or no questions.
And all that's needed to start a revolution, really, right now, in fairness and transparency and honesty, is to get these big tech CEOs, the owners, in the hot seat.
And all that's required is to get them to answer yes or no.
That's what I think a good starting point would be.
All right.
We do have to get going to Dan Crenshaw, a half-Asian lawyer.
Thank you.
We have to go.
He's smart, too.
Both.
Let's all go to the merch shop.
Let's all go to the merch shop.
Let's all go to the merch shop and buy ourselves some swag.
Snazzy clothing and swag to buy at louderwithcrowdershop.com.
Like this new signature baseball team.
Or these ranger panties.
Or of course, the Holy Grail itself.
Mug Club!
Let's all go to the merch shop!
And buy ourselves some swag!
And now for Barely Legal with Bill Richmond, sponsored by my club.
For Louder With Crowder, I'm half Asian lawyer Bill Richmond.
Today's question comes to us from Ethel in Beaver Lake, Kentucky, who asks, as I have often heard them used interchangeably, I'd like to know what is the difference between a TRO and an injunction?
If there is any difference at all.
Ethel, great question.
I'll start at the top.
An injunction is one of two things.
Either a court telling you, you can't do this, or affirmatively saying, you must do this.
Certain actions and restrictions.
So the types of injunction generally, and these words and terms kind of differ depending on what state you're in, you'll have a temporary restraining order, which is that TRO.
It generally only lasts a finite amount of time.
In certain states, like Texas, it will only last for two to four weeks.
In a temporary injunction, you will have, in for example, some courts, it will last the entirety of the case.
So while you're fighting for your life under a mountain of discovery, a temporary injunction will be in place.
Finally, at the end of a case, you may have a permanent injunction, which is a piece of paper that will control your life
forever because it's in place.
Now as a bonus, one of the things that you can learn is about contempt of court.
That's the failure to comply with an injunction.
You gotta listen to the gavel, Ethel.
You gotta listen.
Finally, I'd like to ask a question of my own.
Is your name really Ethel?
Were you born a 95-year-old with cataracts?
Some advice.
Find your parents.
File a permanent injunction.
This has been Barely Legal with Bill Richmond.
Sponsored by Mug Club.
fine, fine, fine.
Oh, yeah.
Mmm.
Mmm.
You know, I've noticed a change in dance trends.
It used to be all in the hips, now it's all in the shoulders.
Yeah, there's a lot, there's a lot, I mean.
You really, I mean, that is very, uh, that's very white, that dance.
I don't have a lot to do here.
I'm sitting.
For someone who is partially African-American, a person of color.
I'm sitting.
What do you prefer, by the way?
Have you ever told me?
Black, a person of color?
Negro.
Is it?
I don't know.
In French, that's the word.
My mother gets in so much trouble because in French, the word is similar to the romance language.
She gets in trouble and she's trying to find the right word in English, you know?
She can't say it right.
Alright, that's a horrible introduction, but my mother is French-Canadian.
It's true.
It's true.
The word in French is nègre in French.
That is the word.
And she would use it.
I think it's the same way in Spanish.
And then she would be like, Mom, you can't say that.
She'd be like, but I was trying to say the nice, but black is so much more offensive.
I'm like, Mom, it's not in the United States.
I don't know what to say anymore.
Oh, who knows?
All right.
Our next guest, he's been on here recently, but he's making waves because, first let me list his qualifications, and then I'll tell you why he's making waves.
Of course, he's a United States representative, second district, second congressional district in Texas, two bronze star medals, former Navy SEAL, Purple Heart, went to Harvard after the military service, and recently was on The View.
You can follow him at Dan Crenshaw, TX.
Representative Crenshaw, thank you for being here, sir.
Great to be with you again, Steven.
Hey, I'm glad to have you back.
Now, right before we went to air, I asked you, and you said you have very strong opinions on this.
Before we get to what happened with The View and Omar and all that stuff, can you name me an instance where it would be appropriate to wear black athletic socks with shorts?
I don't think there ever is.
Well, you're wrong.
So here's the thing.
It depends on how you're defining black athletic socks.
If you're talking about tube socks, Then I think you can make a pretty good argument.
I'm not so sure why anyone wears tube socks in the gym.
Okay.
Because, I mean, really, what is the functional value of the tube sock?
You have to constantly pull it up.
Is it looks?
Do you think it looks good?
If that's what you're referring to, then I agree.
But if you're referring to more ankle athletic socks, like running socks, then I really see no problem with having black socks.
I see a huge problem with it, as well as your comments on tube socks.
Allow me to explain my position.
You did not walk into the view here, sir.
I will defend my position.
Okay, tube socks, deadlifts.
Tube socks to reduce friction on deadlifts.
That's why all powerlifters use tube socks when they deadlift, because you can scrape your shins.
You've never deadlifted, if you think that's true.
Oh, of course!
Look at Magnuson!
Look at Andy Bolton!
It doesn't help that much, but it does help a little bit.
What's your deadlift, Max?
Tell everybody.
455.
It's not that impressive.
It's not like Manny, who's very small.
Yeah, I'm not...
That's not bad.
No, for me, I'm naturally a weak person.
I made the 1,100 total club with a 315 bench, 455 deadlift, and a 425 squat.
For me, that was a big deal.
Mark Repito has made fun of me repeatedly.
And you pooped your pants.
I'm not fucking for that.
I did not poop my pants while squatting.
My uncle did do that.
And then when it comes to athletic socks, you're a military man, so I would imagine you respect efficiency.
Here's the deal.
White athletic socks are always appropriate with shorts.
There is no discernible benefit to having black athletic socks ever.
So why not just have the white athletic socks?
Can we just go back to, do you mean tube socks?
No, I mean any black, even if it's not a tube sock, what's the advantage to a black sock?
What about sandals?
Exactly, that's a whole different, we'll agree on sandals, but what's the advantage to a black athletic sock ever?
What's the advantage to a white sock?
Because you can wear them with shorts!
Why can't you wear black socks with shorts?
You can.
No one will respect you.
Is this a Canadian thing?
No, it's not a Canadian thing.
It's a Canadian thing.
It's a man who knows... You still haven't explained why you need tube socks to do deadlifts.
I just, they all do.
All the best deadlifters do.
And so I do it.
It's anecdotal, but you know, I want to be like, I want to be like Magnusson someday.
No, it's not, listen, it's not going to protect it if you actually really pull it back into your shins, but it can protect with a little bit of like the friction burn.
That's supposed to smack your shins with deadlifts.
You're supposed to lean back on those deadlifts.
Oh yeah, we've had Mark Ripto in here and he's given me hell for not leaning back enough.
He's like, well, I deadlift more than you, so.
You probably do.
I give that to you.
And then Mark Ripto will tell us that we are all wrong every time on the show.
He's like, you are an absolute failure.
This is pathetic.
You can be right and he'll still say you're wrong.
Since we're talking about gym fashion real quick, the thing that I don't understand is the giant headphones in the gym?
Like, the big headphones?
Yeah, you mean the bacteria saucers, I call them?
Yeah.
Right.
It seems really hard to, like, sweat and be very active and dynamic with those big headphones.
So that's a question I have for people.
But it's not hard to wear them and sweat and be a douche.
So it depends on priorities when you go to the gym.
I don't mean to not say that about people.
They're all good people.
Not all.
Not all.
You don't need to say it.
I was like, not all of them.
Hashtag not all.
No, I do.
But I always look at them like, it is a back.
I mean, when I wear these, and we've had a couple days where it's hotter in the studio, you get sweaty in the ears.
I cannot imagine wearing this while working out.
While working out.
It would be miserable.
It would be absolutely miserable.
All right, speaking of miserable, that's a great segue.
You were on The View this week.
We covered it on the website.
When we first went and grabbed the video, it only had a few, a couple thousand plays.
Like, this is something everyone's going to want to see.
I want to toss to a clip here, and then ask you your thoughts.
Do we have that queued up here?
Yeah, we got it.
Here's Representative Dan Crenshaw.
What happened to our country's promise of give me your tired, your weak, and your poor people?
But as it turns out, about 80-90% of those don't have a valid asylum claim once we actually get their documentation.
Because what they've learned over the years is that they need only to raise their hand and say they're claiming asylum, and that they need a child with them.
That hasn't been done.
I deal with the Department of Homeland Security, and these are the numbers that are coming out.
I was on the border for one day in the Rio Grande Valley.
They had 14 kids that were identified as being with adults who were not their parents.
I thought this was a formidable performance.
I encourage people to go watch the entire interview, the entire segment in its context.
Let me ask you this.
What was the experience like and what did you expect, or I guess what did you expect to gain going on The View?
I think it's a great thing that you do, but some conservatives think it's a lost cause to go on shows like that.
Oh, it's definitely not a lost cause.
And you do this all the time.
You're always on college campuses.
You're always putting yourself in uncomfortable positions.
Politicians have to start doing the same thing.
I'm not the only politician to have gone on.
Mike Lee went on recently.
Steve Scalise went on.
What happened was exactly what I would have expected.
I think they are respectful in the sense that they stick to the issues that they said they would stick to.
I knew I was going in for a more combative conversation, but that's the point.
Right?
Like, you can't just be on Fox News all the time.
You can't just stick to your Republican clubs.
You've got to go to college campuses.
I've started doing that a lot more recently, too.
I was at ASU not too long ago.
We're going to start doing more college campus tours throughout Texas.
And you've got to speak to a different audience.
Right.
And you're not going to convince all of them.
The ones who already don't like you are still not going to like you.
That's fine.
But maybe some will be persuaded, and maybe some who really didn't have an opinion and now they do.
And hopefully it's a good one.
So you gotta stay on your ground, but do it in a respectful way, and that was our whole goal.
Do you find that it's tough, though, to express your, the whole idea, for example, behind camp, like we've done debates on this show, and obviously I've gone on, I mean, every network actually not named MSNBC at some point.
Sometimes I've never been invited back.
But do you find, and the idea behind Change My Mind was to remove the constraints of a network show, or cable news, where we go, let's not edit it, either mine or their responses.
Do you find it hard to make a convincing argument Within those constraints of traditional media and a commercial break, because what I saw was you talking about the illegal border crossings, you know, a hundred thousand last month and how, uh, border patrol agents, I think you said, um, I think the number you said it was, they say one, they maybe catch one in three and Sonny just saying, no, that's not true.
And not presenting any, any evidence or numbers of her own.
You don't have enough time to call her on it.
I mean, you just kind of have to move on.
Well, that is a constraint and it's just something you have to deal with.
As you know, when you're on these, you know, very quick segments, I think that's why Americans, by the way, are so much more enthralled by these long-form conversations.
That's why people are downloading podcasts more.
They want to listen to people talk for an hour or two hours.
They want to see a more drawn-out debate.
And there's a real hunger for that, which I think is a good sign.
It's a good sign that people are more interested in that.
But it's a constraint we have when we're on TV, and you've just got to anticipate the arguments so that you can quickly hit them back.
Right.
Right.
And I think when she said that, I simply said, well, you have no evidence for that.
Right.
I just called her on it right there because she did it.
And if you do show it to me, you know, and this is this is a problem with the immigration debate in particular.
uh... when i'm debating with somebody on the left they simply say well i don't
Okay.
believe your numbers well okay
what what would you believe in what do you think is happening why would i lie
to you about this what you know that's that's a
that's a kind of a cheap shot Right.
But again, I'm not trying to convince her.
It's particularly a cheap shot if they don't present anything themselves.
Like if someone says, well, hold on a second.
For example, you're taking these numbers here.
I've heard people talk about climate science.
They go, well, you're picking these decades.
And you're not picking these decades.
If you widen this graph, you look at a different financial outlook.
I understand that you can manipulate statistics.
Always.
But if they present nothing and just say, wrong.
What?
Yeah.
No.
But again, I'm not trying to convince her in that moment.
I'm hoping that people at home are watching and say, wait a second, she didn't actually,
she just called you a liar, but she didn't actually say why. Right. You know, that's what I'm
hoping and that's why you go on these shows because I'm speaking to a non-Fox News audience and
they're Americans too and we got to talk to them and I bet a lot more of them would agree
with us if we just spoke to them.
Yeah, that's true.
The non-Fox News audience is sometimes referred to as not 80-year-olds named Ethel.
So that's often the case.
And it really is true.
The median conservative demo on traditional outlets used to be really old and now with podcasts, you know, that's why they're trying to change social media.
They're trying to, because the demographics going younger, Generation Z, it skipped millennials.
Are we becoming more conservative?
Speaking of social media, you on Twitter were speaking about Representative Brian Sims.
We tweeted about this.
This story went everywhere, where he was effectively harassing elderly, well, at least one elderly woman outside of Planned Parenthood.
People can see the whole clip.
And you tweeted that it was, I want to make sure I have this right, that a great example of how to teach young men not to act.
Now, back on The View, you talked about criticizing ideas as opposed to insulting people in today's political dialogue, and I agree.
But let me also say, I mean, you really called, uh, Sim's character into question here, which I don't think is out of line.
How do you decide when that's appropriate and how to differentiate that kind of a soul sort of criticism versus an insult?
Because that was pretty, I mean, that was pretty rough.
I still, I don't think that was an insult.
If I, if I had said, um, that's a good question.
And the way I would differentiate it was I was actually still attacking his actions.
Yes.
So this is how not saying this is how not to act.
Uh, this is a great example of how not to act.
I didn't say, I didn't say this is a great example of who not to be.
I didn't say that he's not manly, even though his actions were very much not manly.
What he did is just... I'm so glad that this blew up all over the media.
And, well, conservative media.
I still haven't seen it on the news, unfortunately.
Do you think it would be in the news if you'd have tried to dox women?
Oh, my gosh.
Of course.
Of course.
I mean, it's not even a question.
And the way he did it was just so vicious and unrelenting.
You know, Trey, trying to dox underage girls, that's terrible.
And the way he just harassed this old lady for eight full minutes.
I mean, like, what are you thinking?
And I brought that up, you know, this is what now not to teach your young boys to act because, you know, I think a lot of us would agree that there is there is a cultural trend towards where we're not teaching young boys how to act.
No.
Whether it's with respecting women or respecting your elders or whatever the case is.
And this is this is this is a consequence of losing sight of traditional values.
and more generally speaking, this is a consequence of attacking chivalry.
You know, in your more liberal circles, you're gonna say, well, don't hold the door open for me.
I could, women will say that.
Right, also Dubai, but yes.
What are you creating when you attack these kind of values?
I mean, you're creating a moment like this where it's okay for this guy, Brian Sims,
to go up and treat people like that just because they have a different idea
or they disagree with him on something.
I mean, it was just such a vicious video.
It was really vicious.
It was incredibly vicious.
And I would not only say unmanly, I would say the action came across as b****y. Where do you live?
Where do you live?
Where do you live?
What's your name?
Where do you live?
Like repeatedly, I'm going like, that just really seems like a, I'm sorry, a b****y high school girl who's trying to humiliate somebody.
He's fanatical.
Yeah.
You know, he's so he's captive to his emotions in such an extreme way that he just he can't control it.
And that's really it was really obvious in that video.
He could not control his emotions the way he was attacking these women.
And because he's so set and he's so convinced of his righteousness.
Right.
And it's it's it's it's really problematic.
And I and I think a lot of conservatives see that we're like, that's It's something we deal with quite often where we're dealing with another side that
That seems a little unhinged sometimes.
And that was just an example.
And I do think it would be very different.
The fact that it was a representative is especially why I... I probably wouldn't have commented on it otherwise.
It's very scary that this man was elected at all.
And like you said, not only do I think if it were Republican, but let's be honest, your mugshot's not going to make a lot of friends with people who don't like you already.
This man harassed a woman.
They're just going to show a picture and be like, oh my God!
Look at that cleft in the eye.
What is he?
What is this monster?
You're not going to get a lot of grace.
I'm just shooting you straight here.
Not even close.
No way.
Or should I?
Nobody should get any grace for that.
Terrible.
All right.
Uh, finally, and then if we actually would like to go to a web extended really quick after this for people who are Muggler members, but final question before we go to that, uh, house judiciary, um, just this week voted to move ahead and holding bar and contempt of Congress for refusing to show up to yet another hearing.
Before we go, your, your thoughts on that.
Yeah, there's a lot.
Okay.
So first of all, they're asking him to show up and be questioned by lawyers, not representatives of the people, right.
Which was, which was problematic.
To begin with, and I don't see a problem with him saying, no, I'm not coming.
And also, I think we all have a pretty good idea of the circus that the Democrats are trying to put him through at this point.
The contempt issue is also regarding his unwillingness to release the fully unredacted report, which they know, Democrats know is perfectly illegal because of the grand jury testimony necessary in there.
Barr has offered about Sure.
between, I think it's 98.5% unredacted, 99.9% unredacted in volume two, which is all the
obstruction of justice, which is what they really want.
He's offered them that.
They refuse to see it.
So this is a total charade.
It really is.
They know it's illegal.
Let me ask you to simplify this for American people, because it's hard to keep track of this, just like the Russia story.
It is.
And they know that.
There's a lot of fatigue.
They know that.
That's the point.
They know it's hard to keep track of.
They know it's confusing.
And they're trying to win the war of confusion.
And it's a really dishonest way to battle.
I agree.
So let me kind of to distill this for people who don't necessarily know, you know, they've said we're in a constitutional crisis.
Is it a right of Congress or is it a right for these?
First off, is it a right of Congress to see a fully unredacted report completely?
In other words, is there a constitutional crisis and a lack of transparency there?
And is Barr legally required to show up to another hearing before lawyers?
No, neither, because this was an investigation done by the executive branch.
They don't have to share it.
Remember, Congress has the right to do its own investigation.
So the Democrats can still do that, and they can go through wasting all the resources they want to do the exact investigation.
So that's where the balance of power actually comes into play.
Well, I think it's just important to clarify for people because a lot of people say, well, hold on, he has to show up.
No, he doesn't.
Well, he has to release the full report.
It's illegal.
No, it's not.
And when you frame it that way, you go, huh.
Okay, maybe I should look into what's been confusing me a little bit.
Because yeah, I'd say we do have a constitutional crisis, if those things were illegal or legally required.
All right, if you can hold on for another couple minutes, that is Representative Dan Crenshaw, 2nd District of Texas, Dan Crenshaw, TX, on Twitter.
We're gonna go quick web extended for everyone who's in Mug Club because you gotta keep it longer.
Delicious!
As these unwitting imps fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, they will soon realize that they have merely been fulfilling their roles as hollow puppets, and I as their puppeteer.
Mug Club shall be mine.
Oh yes, it shall be mine.
One live read of the week ahead.
I bet you're expecting me to plug Mug Club.
Lodworthcreditor.com slash Mug Club, where you'll also have some exclusive content with Dan Crenshaw and the Hodge twins this week, along with the Daily Show.
But you already know about that, and if you haven't joined already with the dPlatform and you'll never join, there's another way to support this show.
Walther Firearms have the balls to sponsor this show, and we are eternally grateful to them.
They've stood by us through all the controversies.
They really haven't been that bad, let's be honest.
And I know they have a lot of choices for firearms out there.
You have... I don't know if I can name them.
Brandex.
They're all good.
Here's the truth.
I'm not going to lie to you and sell you something you don't need.
I particularly prefer the Walther.
I always have.
I went to them to become a sponsor, not the other way around.
And...
At a certain point, you just have to decide on personal preference and who you want to support.
So Walther firearms, just go to the range and try it.
They're fun, smooth triggers, extremely reliable.
These babies basically sell themselves.
I'm just goosing it along a little bit.
Are you ready, kids?
Are you ready, kids?
Don't touch me there!
I thought John was doing it.
I did it!
Okay.
I did it.
I did it!
Cash is hard to kill in that voice.
John!
I don't know where I am.
I'm just screaming.
It's cute to learn what he yells, but...
Hey kids!
Join Mug Club at louderwithcrowder.com slash Mug Club.
$99 annually, 69 for students, veterans, or active military.
You don't need a promo code anymore!
You just check a box!
Box!
You just need to click on the box!
Actually almost happened to me in Florida.
That's so unsafe.
My wife made me wear this weird SPF chapstick, and when I got in the pool, it started coming off.
And I actually was like, what is that?
What is this weird thing on my lips?
And I was underwater.
You forgot you were underwater.
And I forgot that I had to breathe.
Yeah.
Just...
Your preferred host, ladies and gentlemen.
This is why I say put no faith in me, because I put very little in myself.
Incredible job.
I almost forgot, I almost died because I forgot to breathe accidentally.
Think about that for a second.
I have no business being on this platform.
Thank you so much, Representative Dan Crenshaw.
Yeah, man.
Obviously, we had to pre-tape because he was a busy man this week, so there is that extended version, of course, for those who are at my club.
And if you're not, listen, we're not going to pitch you on it.
It just means you don't want any of the content anymore.
I wanted to talk about something here today.
You know, I was talking with someone the other day, and I realized this has always aggravated me.
And I kind of knew why, but I hadn't articulated why, and then it came up again.
How often do we hear this all the time when someone describes somebody?
Like, oh, he's really nice.
Yeah.
You hear that?
It's a lot.
You say, well, hold on a second.
How is this?
What do you think of this guy?
What does that mean?
Ah, you know, I guess he's a nice guy.
And I've heard that a lot, and I heard it recently with someone who had a daughter who was telling them, well, you know, I think this, I think that, I think who she's dating, he seems like a nice guy.
Who gives a rat's ass?
This is something that's always bothered me.
Sure, listen, don't get me wrong here before I move on.
It's obviously good to be polite, to be respectful, okay?
But we place far too great of an importance on nice.
Don't let nice be your guiding light.
Don't let nice be your litmus test.
If you make nice your primary value, And I know, ironically, it sounds nice to do.
It makes you sound like a nice person.
If you make nice your primary value, it can render the rest of your values completely meaningless.
Because guess what?
At some point, you are going to, if you're a person of conviction, you will have to unkindly defend your values.
You will have to unkindly stand for something.
Now, of course, I want to make it really clear here.
I'm not saying that all nice people are cowards.
That is not what I'm saying at all.
I'm not saying you should be mean.
But let me just let you in on something, and I think everyone knows this who's been actually betrayed in their life or who has had something happen with a friend.
Betrayal requires nice.
True deception requires nice.
The devil you need to worry about isn't the one who shows up with a creaky coffin and a pitchfork.
It's the sweet talker.
It's the charmer.
It's the one who can give you everything you want.
Or the one who even just provides a little bit of relief.
Just eases your discomfort a little bit.
Basically a nice guy.
And just as certainly the flaws that you may, and we've talked about this a lot on this show, trying to correct ourselves, trying to work towards self-improvement, the flaws that you may look for What's in yourself?
They're not often going to show up as festering sores.
Sometimes they show up as pretty bows that you wear to cover them up.
And none of this is to say that you should not be nice.
Being nice is a good thing.
More important than I would say being respectful than being nice.
Meanness for meanness sake just as surely is evil.
Don't get me wrong.
My point is that as a society, we really do place far too great of an emphasis on nice.
We often give it, when you think about it, first billing.
And how we describe people, ideas.
Even scarier, in how we judge them.
Often the people who say, don't be judgmental, are the people who judge people whether they're nice or not.
And my point here is that nice can lie.
Nice can deceive.
Nice can be wrong.
Of course, so can anger.
But guess what?
Truth can't.
Give you some examples.
Socialism passed off as nice, but it's wrong.
Osama Bin Laden in particular was apparently very nice to children, but he was wrong.
And that's why I've always said I don't believe in political centrism or middle ground for political centrism's sake, because people say, well, look, we found common ground, and oh, well, that's nice.
But what was the truth found there?
On that common ground.
Let me make it a little less extreme because I know you're thinking socialism, Osama Bin Laden, alright.
Everyone knows somebody like this.
Think of someone in your life, your buddy, who's the nicest guy in the world, never raised his voice, had a conflict in his life.
Could be him or her, okay?
We all know someone.
Got that person in your mind?
He's wrong.
Because some things, this is important here, and I know this may sound like, again, I'm saying not to be nice.
Some things in life are worth fighting for, and fighting by its very definition is not nice.
And sometimes we use the disproportionate value that our world places on nice to advocate our responsibilities, to avoid what we know is worth fighting for, or to avoid even looking at what is worth fighting for in the first place.
And because the fight, even though it may be righteous, we know is going to piss some people off.
And that's not fun.
That's hard.
No one ever blew a gasket at someone for being too nice.
I understand that.
That doesn't mean that it's right.
And this is something that I think probably Jordan Peterson has talked about this quite a bit.
It's important to be a good person.
It's important to be a well-rounded person.
Just as it's important to be physically healthy.
As it is to be mentally healthy and spiritually healthy.
It's important to learn to be polite, to learn to be respectful, and to learn to socialize with others.
But just as important, and something we don't often talk about, is to learn how to fight, to learn when to fight, to learn when conflict is appropriate, to learn when the value of nice should be trumped by the value of actually standing by your convictions.
So, the next time you think about someone, this is my challenge to you this week.
We all judge people.
So if you want to come in and say, I don't judge folks.
Yeah, you do.
You do judge people.
I judge people.
Everyone makes judgments.
The next time you pass judgment on an idea on a person this week, I want you to stop yourself and say, hold on a second.
Am I thinking, is my first value here, whether they're nice or not?
Are you looking for what they stand for?
By that same token, are you looking at your own ideas and your own actions, and are you saying, am I a nice person or am I a righteous person?
Am I doing the right thing?
If I could change nothing else this week, it would be that at least even just a few dozen of you go out there and place a different importance, a different level of priority on following, believing, living out your principles, fighting for them when appropriate, and then let's have nice somewhere toward the middle of the pack.
That's it.
You don't need to eliminate any of them.
Let's just shuffle up the leaderboard a little bit.
Okay, I'll see you next week.
Thanks for listening, watching, wherever you are.
I don't care.
▲
Export Selection