Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 19, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:06

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #374

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music Hello and welcome to the podcast with Loci teachers.
	Laughter On the 19th of April 2022, I'm your host Harry, joined by my special guest Callum.
	We've been planning that bit.
	We were throwing it about.
	Anyway.
	Just dip my toe in there, yeah.
	Today we're going to be talking about disrespect pronouns and get money, get that cash money, the plot to destroy lives of TikTok, by all the leftists, and Jack Dorsey backing Elon Musk.
	Because, I don't know, it's opposite day or something.
	Or he's found his cord.
	I think Jack has seen the light.
	He's had a road to Damascus moment where he realised, hold up, I was the bad guy the whole time.
	Maybe I should have done more to not ruin the West.
	Finally, you know, we'll give him kudos for finally getting there at least.
	Anyway, without further ado, we shall get into the news.
	Disrespect pronouns and get money.
	That is the new phrase that I think we should all surf on because there's an individual in the United States who has done this.
	He's got paid 400 grand for disrespecting pronouns.
	Not even joking.
	Seriously?
	Yeah.
	So we'll start off by me just shilling first, of course.
	So I'm going to shill this interview with Posty Parker here, a fellow pronoun disrespecter.
	However, she is not the focus of the day because there is a pronoun disrespecter in the United States.
	Who has done good.
	So, here goes to the story itself.
	You can see here.
	Ohio University pays out $400,000-y dues to Christian Professor for violating his First Amendment rights after he was investigated for refusing to use transgender students' preferred she-her pronouns.
	That's not a bad payout.
	That really isn't.
	That's a good payday right there.
	That's a very good payday.
	And you might wonder, how the hell did he get it?
	Well, he's American.
	So, of course.
	They have rights.
	He has a right.
	A First Amendment right.
	Amazing.
	To disrespect all the pronouns he wants.
	So, Meriwether, a devout Christian and a professor of philosophy who has taught at Shawnee State for 25 years, sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights.
	Shawnee State and Meriwether reached the settlement on Friday after a unanimous ruling by the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2021, found that the school had violated Meriwether's right to free speech and free exercise of religion.
	He's defending his belief that men and men and women are also on the religious grounds, which is quite funny to me, but...
	But also, fair enough.
	Go for it.
	Religion-backing science?
	Yeah.
	Who saw this one coming?
	I actually love this.
	There's a quote in the Quran that's very direct about this, which is that God made a man and a woman.
	That's just...
	Just done.
	The word of God.
	Can't argue with it.
	We're religious rights.
	Allahu Akbar, brothers.
	The controversy began on the first day of Shawnee's second semester in January 2018 when Meriwether responded to a student's question by saying, Yes, sir.
	And that's where all the trouble began.
	Those eyes.
	After class, the student, who was born a male but identifies as a female, asked that Meriwether refer to them as a woman and with female pronouns.
	Meriwether said he could not comply with the students' wishes because they violated his religious beliefs that gender is determined from the moment of conception.
	I presume the author meant to write sex there, because I don't know how your gender would be defined by conception.
	Surely just sex is fine, but okay.
	Sadly, we have got to the point where a lot of this language has become ubiquitous, and it is kind of difficult sometimes to stop yourself from using that kind of language.
	Although, frankly, I have always kind of hated this distinction even being made.
	Oh no, sex and gender.
	For most people, sex and gender mean the same thing.
	It's nonsense.
	Everybody knows, secretly, that the only reason back in the 90s and 2000s people used the word gender was because they didn't want to say sex in public.
	It seems...
	I know there is a definitional distinction in the dictionary and whatnot, but in general terms, when people actually talk to each other, no one really gives a talk.
	Before all these nutters came about, nobody cared.
	Sure.
	But anyway, that's a minor point.
	Court documents say that the student became belligerent.
	It's very ladylike.
	When Meriwether refused to comply, told him he would be fired, and said, I guess this means I can call you a C-U-N-T. I mean, technically, yeah.
	I mean, go for it!
	The professor's just like, free country.
	Yeah, you call me what you want, but you're still here to learn from me.
	Yeah, you're also being very ladylike with your belligerence.
	But there's obviously the point there that the individual here is deluded about the world.
	I mean, they honestly believe they can just go up to someone and demand that you say these things, and if they disagree, well, that's not allowed.
	No, of course not.
	No, they can.
	Well, I must be given respect.
	There's no way I should have to earn it in any sense.
	You can just demand belief of someone, and it will be so.
	I mean, they honestly are deluded enough to think about how that conversation was going to go.
	It didn't.
	So, the student filed a complaint with the school, and Meriwether was told by Dean Roberta Millikman Milliken to refrain from using gender pronouns at all in his class.
	Meriwether said this was next to impossible.
	It was like...
	Yeah, what are you going to do?
	You just point to the crowd and you go, you, yes you, not you, no you.
	It's going to work like the army where you have to say the last name for everyone.
	It's like, Ramirez!
	Take that point.
	Anyway, so yeah, he then offered to refer to the transgender student by their last name early, so he would shout Ramirez, the transgender person, and the administration accepted that, which is funny.
	But then the student also then complained about that twice more, because that wasn't good enough.
	Once after Meriwether referred to them as Mr.
	before correcting himself, correcting in quotes, And threatened legal action if they did not take action against the professor.
	Okay, so they get a demand.
	I'm not going to give in to your demand completely, but I will mitigate my own language for you.
	Not good enough.
	I want it only the exact way that I said, even though the way that you're changing your behavior should be enough to stop me from being offended.
	This is purely about control.
	You can feel the aspiration, though, in the professor.
	He's just like, I've tried to work with this person.
	Yep.
	Like, they're still being autistic.
	This student is just desperate to be at the centre of a controversy and have all attention on them.
	Well, I don't know if it's about attention, but necessarily it's definitely...
	It seems that way to me.
	It is definitely about genuinely wanting the other individual to call you by your preferred pronouns at any cost, and you believe that you can just demand this other person believe in that, and it will happen.
	No.
	Like, if the other person doesn't believe you're a woman and isn't going to accept that, well then, that's the end of the conversation.
	You've got to convince them.
	I think it is very telling of the attitude that this person is trying very hard to accommodate you, slips up a few times, not good enough.
	I'm not happy with it.
	Meriwether then offered to refer to all students by their preferred pronouns if he could include a note in his syllabus stating that he was doing so under compulsion and setting forth his personal religious beliefs about gender identity.
	He was like, no, I'll do it, but I'll do it under duress.
	Written duress.
	I've got a gun to my head here.
	So again, I mean, he's not being, well, the situation is unreasonable, and in the most unreasonable situation, he's being as reasonable as he could be, which is pointing out that this is stupid.
	The dean refused this option on the grounds that it would violate Shawnee's gender identity policy.
	Why do you need one of those?
	You're an institute for education!
	Points out that the policy's stupid and a waste of time.
	I mean, what does your biology class teach?
	Nothing worthwhile, I imagine.
	The dean then informed Meriwether that an investigation was being opened into complaints against him, which later resulted in the claim that he had created a hostile environment in the classroom.
	And this is just so insidious.
	I mean, that language there.
	I mean, leftism genuinely, as he points out there, proceeds in such a gradual way It's just a policy change.
	It's just a new position in the diversity inclusion department.
	So on and so forth.
	Eventually you've got to the point where if you don't agree to an insane proposition, you're the one creating a hostile environment.
	You've done this.
	This is the universities absolutely capitulating to the student protests from a few years ago.
	I forget if it was at Evergreen or one of the other universities that got involved in that, where there was that student who famously said, it's not about creating a place of learning, it's about creating a home for the students.
	No, it's not.
	It's Gradual change has allowed this hostile situation to be created.
	Even in that context, even in your own home, are you entitled to everyone to make you feel good and happy about yourself all the time, constantly?
	Surprisingly, no.
	No, you need to do the washing cup.
	Oh, you're offending me, you're attacking me.
	Oh, you're oppressing, anyway.
	You're just gonna start whining at the dishwasher.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	No duh.
	I mean, if you're literally saying, you must believe in this delusion, or, well, you're fired.
	Okay.
	I can't talk about the store then.
	Yeah, there's all conversation done.
	He feared that he could be fired or suspended for not following the school's beliefs.
	It's definitely their faith.
	He also says that the warning letter made it difficult, if not impossible, for him to be hired at another school should he actually decide to just leave after all this nonsense.
	Because, well, they would say, well, why'd you leave?
	And then, well, he's got this letter, isn't he?
	Bad man.
	In response to the warning, Meriwether filed a lawsuit against Shawnee State, alleging that the school violated his First Amendment rights.
	The suit was initially dismissed by the District Court for lack of standing, which doesn't make any kinds of sense.
	Presumably it's just some Democrat judge who decided that, well, they were going to be a tyrant, as usual.
	But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal and unanimously ruled that Meriwether's freedom of speech had been violated.
	They also said that his 14th Amendment rights to due process had been violated by the lower court, refusing to even listen.
	Well, that sounds legit to me.
	Fair enough.
	This is what it means to be an American, to be actually free for once.
	So the First Amendment's interests are especially strong here because Meriwether's speech also relates to the core religious and philosophical beliefs that he holds, says Judge Jamal.
	If professors lacked free speech protections when teaching, a university would wield alarming power to compel ideological conformity, said the judge.
	Well, that's right on the money.
	Which is, well, what's the purpose in all this?
	Why ideological conformity?
	I mean, the interesting thing as well, given that you said that he's a professor of philosophy, is that gender ideology comes from certain offshoots of the postmodern philosophers.
	Like, gender ideology, you can trace it back to people like Judith Butler.
	So if he ever needs to discuss Judith Butler's philosophy, you can't critique it.
	You can't question it.
	You can only go along with it, because that's the institution's rules.
	And that's insane.
	What's the point of philosophy if you can't question it?
	What's the point?
	Shut down the class.
	It's done.
	I guess we've figured it all out then.
	Well, that is the solution.
	I mean, as he said, that is the point.
	It's ideological conformity, which is what these individuals want.
	They don't want a university in which you can discuss ideas.
	There's no free debate.
	There's no marketplace.
	All of these concepts are alien to them completely.
	Instead, there is you believe.
	And if you don't believe, well, we're going to punish you.
	I mean, they literally tried to get him fired for him pointing out.
	Look here, sir.
	Now listen up, young man.
	That was what he was almost fired for.
	And I love that, so that's the male, who of course are right-leaning, so they're happy with that.
	I had to go to CNN. We need to see what they say.
	The person who wrote this is clearly just trying to keep to the facts, because they know they've lost.
	But also, you can sense the salt in which they write some sentiments in here.
	So, quote, As part of the settlement, the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students.
	Can Do what he wants.
	Love it.
	He can even use the wrong pronouns.
	Who cares?
	Literally free as man.
	The release from Meriwether's attorney is read.
	Significantly, the university agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex.
	So, yes.
	He can call you what he likes because he's a free individual.
	Wow, he can even misgender you on purpose for a laugh, even if you're cis male.
	Who cares?
	Why not?
	Shawnee University released a statement on the settlement saying that it was an economic decision.
	Purely economic.
	Purely economic, yes.
	Wasn't that they were going to lose, evidently, and therefore set down in stone in, well, US law, you are free to do as you please.
	No, they settled out of court to not make this precedent, purely for economic decisions, which is why they're pushing gender theory in the university for economic decisions.
	You know how it's basically a money mill pushing out gender ideology?
	Oh yeah, everyone who goes out of that course is going to be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
	Certainly if they work in the government, that's true.
	In the four years since the lawsuit was filed, the school said it became clear that the case was being used to advance divisive social and political agendas at the cost of the university and its students.
	And who started that?
	I love that because there was an organization that backed up him who were like, hmm, yeah, that's a good point.
	We could actually hammer down in law that you're allowed to do this under the First Amendment.
	It was, I think, the American for Freedom group.
	I can't remember their name.
	But I love that they identified that, yes, this is absolutely a cultural issue and you're going to lose it in the courts, which will have real consequences.
	Unfortunately, that's not happened.
	Whoever they did, pay as much money as possible to make sure that didn't happen, which is very telling.
	Well, to be fair, I mean, even though it's not in law, in the law books right now, this does send a message to other universities.
	Yeah.
	Break free speech, pay big books.
	And that's the way it should work.
	Yes.
	That's a beautiful world to live in.
	I want that future.
	And also, I love the idea that if more and more professors just start doing this and then they get persecuted, everyone gets 400 grand.
	400 grand here, 400 grand there.
	Do you want to take a trip over to America, Callum?
	I think we could make some good money.
	Gonna make a professorship and then just disrespect everyone's pronouns.
	Sis or not, don't care.
	That cost is better spent on fulfilling a Shawnee State mission of service to our students, families, and communities, they said in a statement.
	Presumably in deluding them into unreality, which is so much more a better use of money.
	There is some immense projection going on, trying to accuse this professor, who presumably has probably been there for a while, just doing what he does, as he has been for years, and now they're the ones coming in.
	Ah, you're just trying to divide people with your insidious political agenda.
	No, who did that?
	Sorry, like, everyone knew what a woman was.
	Right up until, like, you know, a couple of years ago, and then you guys...
	Yep.
	You guys made this an issue, and we'll take you to court and we'll win.
	That's a damn shock, because we've got solid definition, you don't, if nothing else.
	But it's a great point, it's just like, you're the divisive one.
	Really?
	Am I though?
	So meanwhile, in the UK, it's not as rosy.
	If you're an American, you're going to have some good times, especially if you're a professor, apparently.
	But in the UK, this is still being grim.
	So I thought we'd go through some of this to couse it in some what's going on.
	We can't have everything be good news, can we?
	No, not allowed.
	I think it's company policy.
	Oh, thanks, Callum.
	So I'll start off here with a home office email asking staff to state their pronouns, of course, because even though it's run by Priti Patel and the Conservatives, they're that kind of Conservatives, apparently, staff in the Visa Status and Information Services Department were sent a standardised format for their email signatures that included a suggestion that they include their preferred gender pronouns.
	For example, he, him, according to the Free Speech Union.
	And I'm inclined to believe the Free Speech Union over the Home Office, because, well...
	They have principles?
	Yeah.
	So according to the Guido Forks website, officials were told that the new email signature was part of a wider cultural change in the department.
	Oh, wonderful.
	Fantastic.
	We're going even more woke.
	Why not?
	Yes, that wider cultural change being the one just only to the left.
	That's the only way cultural changes are allowed to go.
	Far right, Priti Patel, who's going to send the migrants to Rwanda and...
	Pretty cool.
	But she'll make sure not to misgender them.
	Yes, of course.
	She will give them the preferred...
	Can you imagine being the migrant from Eritrea and you get an email from the home office like, Dear Abdul, you're being sent to Rwanda, signed Jennifer Lee She-Her.
	Imagine you're on the boat.
	You're about to be sent off and some bureaucrat...
	So-and-so just stands up and goes, before we go, everybody, I'd just like to take down all your preferred pronouns.
	But also it is obviously not really used because, well, you can't tell what the pronoun is.
	You can by looking, usually.
	99.9% of the time.
	We are evolutionarily designed.
	It's the first thing we notice is, what sex is this person?
	It's a Pledge of Allegiance.
	Whenever you see someone who's put their pronouns at the end of an email, it's either they've been forced to or they've willingly done it as a pledge of allegiance to progressivism.
	This is why I've said if you ever get handed a business card and it has pronouns in the bin, not doing business, bye-bye.
	I don't want to deal with that person.
	No.
	Probably going to be insufferable every moment of the day.
	So the story was strongly disputed by the Home Office, who said that it totally wasn't true, they swear, and I don't believe them.
	Please, guys.
	In a letter, Matthew Rycroft, the Home Office Permanent Secretary, the Free Speech Union claims that the directive, which appears to be mandatory, is a form of compelled speech that violates the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the right of free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Absolutely correct.
	Free Speech Union being good boys.
	Toby Young, the Free Speech Union's General Secretary, wrote, We trust that this directive was based on a misunderstanding by an overselless manager and was not official Home Office policy.
	And he goes on to basically be like, it better be, because if it's not, we've got a lawsuit on our hands.
	We're going to have some fun.
	We can make some more stonks here.
	Yeah, the Home Office responded by saying that this is false, the Home Office staff are not compelled to list their pronouns, we swear.
	It's up to them if they want to.
	I don't believe you in the slightest.
	I have no reason to believe you.
	And we have reason for this, which is, as they list at the bottom here, last year it was reported that officials in the Ministry of Defence have been told to state their preferred gender pronouns in meetings.
	The Scottish Government has also encouraged their staff to add terms explaining how they wish to be addressed in their email signatures.
	So, no, this is entirely believable that you would engage in such things.
	There's also just the question of, you had a look at the Home Office Police of Vice and Virtue?
	I've met people from the Home Office.
	Back in uni, I did a project for the people from the Home Office.
	It's insufferable.
	They are dullards and bureaucrats deep into their bones, and if they get something on a memo, they will go along with it without hesitation.
	At least the progressive ones.
	We can definitely see that.
	And if we go forward, we can see their influence on the police in this regard.
	I thought we'd just feature them, because I saw Faircop was tweeting them all, and I just thought it was funny.
	So if we can click on the second image there, as you can see, it's LGBT blah blah blah blah month.
	So what did the police tweet out?
	They tweet out this.
	So for those listening, it's an armed police officer with his gun and his pistol, aiming down the sights, presumably gaydar sights, I don't know, with a hashtag accepting you for you.
	Wait, would the gaydar have to be determined who to shoot or who not to shoot?
	He's heterosexual!
	Yeah.
	At least, I like the rainbow armband on the shoulder as well, so you know when you're being gunned down, it's by the gay police.
	He doesn't have a swastika armband, he's a rainbow armband.
	As he, in front of him.
	Face the wall, citizen.
	By the way, those are great shoes.
	Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang!
	I just, I can't believe they still put this stuff up.
	This is still up as well.
	A lot of people have just been like, what the hell?
	This is embarrassing.
	Because remember as well, for Americans this might not be as edgy, but in the UK, like, armed police officers aren't normal.
	Like, you'll find them around Parliament because Islam.
	But everywhere else, no.
	Like, this isn't a thing.
	So to even have this on an armed police officer is something else.
	The only time that I've seen armed police officers anywhere was in Manchester immediately after the MEN bombings.
	Mm.
	And the only thing I can think, if they had the rainbow armbands on, this would only further the convictions of the terrorists.
	They're like, yes, we're doing the right thing.
	Although he decided to bomb kids.
	Yes.
	Obviously not condoning that whatsoever.
	Yeah, yeah, of course.
	I'm just saying from their perspective.
	But you make a great point.
	Why is it on the arm as an armband there?
	Every time it gets worse and worse.
	Of course, if we go forward, we also have the Home Office, other police officers of Vice and Virtue.
	As you can see, Faircop being like, yeah, this isn't political.
	It's totally not political.
	The trans riot shield with policeman pride as he batters you over the head for turning up at that Robinson rally.
	Oof.
	Get back.
	And there was the big Manchester protest over the weekend for trans rights while I was back up north.
	I didn't see it.
	Can you imagine if it went out of It went out of order and the police show up beating the trans rights with the trans shields.
	I think that's a good point, though.
	To be fair, you think about it.
	They're doing this, obviously, as a way to try and, you know...
	Threaten you?
	I don't even know if it's a virtue signal.
	I think it's a threat.
	I do think it's a threat, but it's all in service of the leftist ideologues and the ideology.
	But you're never going to win them over.
	They hate the police to their core.
	All cops are bastards.
	Yeah, all you see all over places like that, especially at those sorts of protests, is ACAB. ACAB everywhere.
	They're not going to care if you show up with a rainbow armband or a trans-shield.
	They're still going to hate you.
	I really want one police officer to combine all these elements.
	Like, I want to see an armed police officer with a rainbow armband, trans-shield, and a little stash up there with rainbows as well.
	His gun shoots confetti.
	He just starts executing TERFs because he's a tolerant policeman.
	I mean, I'm sorry, but that's what that looks like.
	When you're like, yeah, I'm an armed police officer and I'm here for your protection.
	I stand with the LGBT lobby.
	Police with pride.
	All the gays back home are going to be so proud of me.
	Yeah, but if you're a TERF, Holy crap!
	They're showing their allegiance.
	If we go to the next one, we can see more of this as well.
	You can see Stop in the Name of the Law here from someone who's definitely not political.
	This person looks like they're on ketamine.
	I mean, so I suppose it fits with the culture, you know?
	I love the idea that she got banned behind and she's literally about to whack you because it's Pride Month.
	If we go to the next one, we also have more of this as well.
	As you can see, Greater Manchester Police Pride Network.
	No TERFs on our TERF, as in no people who believe women are women.
	So Manchester is a hostile environment.
	Literally.
	The Greater Manchester Police are saying, Manchester is our TERF, and if you believe that women are women, you're not allowed on our TERF. I'm so glad I don't live in Manchester anymore.
	This is what I mean.
	They're just openly threatening the public at this point.
	I mean, the Manchester police were the absolute clowns that had the it's an offence to cause offence van out that time.
	They were also one of the most, well, they are literally the most guilty police force in regards to the grooming scandal.
	They had to be shut down because they were failing so much.
	They had to be reformed.
	Look, progressivism destroys societies, and you can see it here in real time.
	If we go to the last one here, we can also see the funniest one I saw Faircop find.
	Westershire Police, LGBT Network.
	Toilet activism.
	Yeah.
	So, you're not a police force.
	You're an armed activist.
	That's what you people are.
	Nice to have an admission, at least.
	I'm sorry!
	Right, have you ever watched the show Community?
	I haven't, no.
	I have seen some.
	There's a character in that, Dean, who throughout most of the season shows up in increasingly ridiculous outfits, and one day he shows up in an outfit that's half suit, half dress, and he goes through his whole spiel, walks out, comes back in, and he's like, I'm so sorry.
	I look ridiculous.
	I've gone too far this time.
	So even basically a cartoon character knows how stupid this is.
	Yeah, but it's also just the open admission by the police.
	You are activists.
	Good to know, I suppose.
	But if you're an American, you actually have rights.
	You're a free individual.
	And if you're a professor, you might be a lot richer as well.
	Yes, there's money to be made, ladies and gents.
	Let's move on.
	Alright, so, by now you should all know who libs of TikTok are.
	We've covered them quite a bit.
	Even Tucker Carlson has interviewed them, or I should say her, on his show.
	John, do you want to just get up the first link that I've got in here?
	Yeah, thank you, John.
	Libs of TikTok, for those who aren't aware, have been doing excellent work exposing all of the absolute nutters and leftists who go on TikTok and just basically explain their evil plans to the world, to how they're going to indoctrinate and groom your children.
	It is hilarious.
	It is hilarious.
	These people have no self-awareness.
	They just put it all out there.
	And there are some examples of that that we'll show.
	But, as well as getting attention from all the right people, as you can imagine, it's also got all the attention from leftists who are not averse to shutting people down using somewhat coercive methods.
	And we'll get into what's going on with that in a moment.
	First, I'd just like to draw your attention to This premium video that came out a few months ago, all the way back in December, between John and Carl, I think it is relevant because it's talking about the feminist argument for abolishing the family, and if there's one thing that I think feminists, well, the intersectional feminists and gender ideologues share with one another, it's that they don't want people to have families.
	Certainly not normal families.
	The gender ideology is actively breaking up families and actively targeting children to destroy family bonds.
	So if you're interested in checking that out, you can find that on lotusseaters.com.
	But let's get into the rest of this now.
	So...
	People have been pointing out that, well, Libs herself said that the left has been triggered by seeing their own opinions being publicized.
	And this was on a recent segment that Tucker Carlson did where he references her.
	And I think he puts it quite well.
	So if we want to play this and it'll also include some examples of the kind of content she posts.
	Last night, Twitter suspended a very popular account called Libs of TikTok.
	Now, Libs of TikTok is essentially an account that finds video of liberals talking about themselves and their own beliefs and posts it.
	It was, of course, targeted because once you see what these people are saying, they discredit themselves and horrify normal people.
	Here's some of the footage Libs of TikTok has unearthed.
	I want to talk to the kids.
	Sometimes human beings are more than boy or girl.
	Sometimes we're something else.
	Sometimes we're both.
	Sometimes we kind of float in between.
	Mostly I feel feminine or non-binary.
	Today I'm feeling really femme and cat-like as well.
	Yeah.
	As you can see from those clips, she's been basically publicizing nutters who aren't saying anything out of context.
	This is just what these people put out there for all of the public to see.
	She's just created an account on Twitter where it's collected all of this and made it easy to find rather than being dispersed throughout all of TikTok.
	And for anyone wondering what Callum was laughing at, there is on screen what appears to be a monster.
	A woman.
	I think that's probably the best description for a lot of them, yeah.
	Yeah, most of them are monsters in a different kind, but this one seems to outwardly be trying to look like a monster, where she's got tattoos all over her face.
	You can barely see the face underneath it.
	A black face to a whole new level, that one.
	Yes, but other than revealing that she is a woman, Libs of TikTok has so far been very successful at keeping her identity unknown, which, as we know from incidents with the likes of Andy Ngo, is probably the best idea when you're revealing the kind of insidious plots that leftists have for our children.
	And she has pointed out herself as well, and other people have, remember, they're not after me, they're after your kids, I'm just in the way.
	It's true.
	It sounds a bit corny, it sounds like you're trying to be cool, but it's true.
	It's also a repurposed Trump meme about this, where it's like, they're not after me, they're after you guys, I'm just in the way as well.
	That's true.
	It's 100% true in the realm of lips and TikTok.
	But...
	As mentioned on that Tucker Carlson segment, she has recently been suspended.
	She's back up now, but she has been very, very well aware of this for a long time because she knows that what she's doing is going against the leftist agenda, which, incidentally...
	Until Elon gets his hands on the whole pie is the Twitter agenda as well.
	So she said back at the end of March, it's a matter of time before I get suspended.
	Never know which post will be my last.
	And then also, but just pointed out, if you want to keep receiving her content, she's got an email list so you can sign up for that.
	And then of course, almost immediately after, she did get suspended.
	And it was, if you just want to click on these images.
	So it was for targeted harassment.
	The targeted harassment of pointing out, here is what leftists are saying and everybody going, that's crazy!
	These people are nuts.
	Targeted harassment.
	Stop harassing the innocent left.
	All we want to do is groom your children, please.
	Is that too much to ask?
	Under the same policy that Twitter has, the targeted harassment, they've also taken down Jack Sobiak, Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, all in the past, and I think the Babylon Bee is still not allowed back up on Twitter, are they?
	They've got a pretty indefinite suspension going on, unless anything's changed.
	So this is basically just a cover-all policy.
	But I love it.
	That's so revealing, though, isn't it?
	The kind of people who are banned.
	It's like people showing the left what it is, and that's it.
	And people making satire.
	That can't be allowed.
	Well, I mean, once again, with stuff like the Babylon Bee, it's like South Park.
	The more satirical it gets, the more closer to reality it appears nowadays.
	But it's also because if you're the left, right, you want to shut down things that embarrass your ideology and are effectively embarrassing your ideology.
	So what do you go after?
	People showing other people what you are and people making a joke about you.
	People literally just sharing clips and they go, God, this makes us look terrible.
	Every single time.
	She is back up at the moment now, though, but that moves on to the next plot that is going on.
	The plot not just to suspend her, but to dox her.
	And with doxing, of course, comes physical threats of violence, comes all of the danger that comes with being a public figure.
	Whereas previously she was a private figure.
	And I have tried to make sure, when reporting this, not to give any details that have been revealed about her, because I do not want to be partaking in a doxing attempt.
	It's also not really relevant, I think.
	I mean, this is the difference between doxing and something that's in the public interest.
	I mean, like, Andy Ngo will release publicly available information of someone who's been arrested because it's in the public interest.
	You know, this person has been released again, and, you know, they've engaged in these previous arrests for these previous crimes, right?
	You know, showing the justice system doesn't work.
	Releasing Libs of TikTok's name and address, why?
	How is that in the public interest?
	It's not useful at all.
	Who does that serve other than, for instance, Antifa members who would want to physically harm her?
	Especially going after her family, which supposedly has happened as well.
	So I'll just read through a little bit of this.
	So, the process of doxing libs of TikTok began on Antifa-affiliated accounts, as if it would come from anywhere else, where users tracked through her tweets, linking them to dead accounts and following a trail of screen names, two accounts shared details that they found to link libs of TikTok to an actual person.
	Travis Brown, who doxed libs of TikTok, has a reported history of doxing, stalking and harassment.
	So, once again, these are good and virtuous people doing these things, as you would expect.
	From there, a story ran at the Daily Dot, a left-wing outlet that is comfortable publishing photos of the children and of journalists that they don't like.
	In the Daily Dot's hit piece, which is merely a precursor for Lorenz to launder it through the Washington Post, Lorenz is the surname of the journalist who has been undertaking a lot of the, uh...
	Can we call it journalism?
	Or is it targeted harassment of the actual kind?
	Yeah.
	I think we should call her a harasser.
	Yes, the harasser, Taylor Lorenz, who is working for, I think, the Washington Post.
	And like they say, the Daily Dot already had a hit piece.
	It seems to be a precursor.
	I won't go into any more detail other than just say that they are trying to connect libs of TikTok to January 6th, which may or may not be true.
	It doesn't really matter if it's true because it's not relevant.
	Yeah.
	It's not relevant to the content that she shares.
	But also, what does this have to do with anything?
	I love the idea that, like, she was the one who organised it all, bro.
	Yeah.
	Oh my god.
	What are you hoping to find?
	Like, she was the one who was stealing AOC's shoes.
	I just kind of like...
	I just...
	She was the one.
	Where is she?
	Where is she?
	Knocking on the cubicle door.
	I've got TikToks to show her.
	This is what you do.
	But yes, carrying on, so this harasser, journalist, Taylor Lorenz has been trying to get into contact with a bunch of people, including, of all people, I think, Christina Pushaw, who is the press secretary for Based Florida Man, Ron DeSantis, who has referenced libs of TikTok in the past and also said about how, you know, the fact that they've seen all the stuff that goes on there has actively informed policy decisions.
	So that's one of the reasons they are trying to take them down, is that libs of TikTok is actively...
	One, doing fantastic journalism of the legitimate kind, and two, pushing real change, or at least causing real change.
	I know, but I love the steps, which is that Libs of TikTok will find someone promoting critical race theory in schools, and the governor of Florida's press secretary will pick up on that to give us a reason to ban critical race theory.
	How could Libs of TikTok do this?
	She wasn't even involved in it!
	All she did was find it!
	That's all you did!
	So, this harasser, Taylor Lorenz, has got in touch with Christina Pushaw via email saying, Hi Christina, I'm a tech reporter at the Washington Post.
	We're running a story exposing the woman behind the libs of TikTok accounts.
	What does that mean?
	Yeah, what does that mean?
	What are you trying to expose and for what reason are you trying to expose it?
	Because you're not doing it for the benefit of the public discourse.
	So to say, because once again, it doesn't actually improve or add anything to the public discourse.
	If we don't know her home address, then we can't continue talking.
	Yeah, how is Ron DeSantis going to feel when he knows where she lives?
	Oh, I can't continue to associate with this woman.
	Our story mentions your many interactions with the account and praise of it.
	If you'd like to offer comment, please let me know within the next hour.
	Blah-de-blah-de-blah.
	Yeah.
	And so, Christina had a response to this, which was to just say, you're a clown.
	You're a clown.
	But this also got the attention of people like Glenn Greenwald, who said that Taylor Lorenz is about to expose the private citizen behind some anonymous account on Twitter, and when people criticize her for it, she and her real friends claim Taylor is the real victim, trademark.
	And anyone criticising this type of journalism will be guilty of causing her trauma.
	And he is absolutely dead on the money with that, with some of the stuff that we've got to go on further.
	But also, as was alluded to, Glenn pointed out that according to Libs of TikTok, if we move along, apparently Taylor the Wrens showed up at Libs of TikTok's relatives' houses.
	And trying to badger them.
	So the bullies are claiming to be bullied, and Glenn carries on here, saying, what's the new journalistic principle being applied?
	Is it now permissible for journalists to investigate and expose the real identity of any anonymous social media user?
	Which is a good point, because this is kind of opening up the floodgates for this sort of thing.
	If you can do it to one person, they can do it to all of us.
	Remember the CNN blackmail?
	Remember the guy, Hannah Asshole Solo, who put up a CNN meme that Trump retreated?
	I don't remember this, actually.
	CNN got hold of his name and address and threatened to release it if he didn't delete everything.
	Oh yeah, I did hear about that, actually.
	So he did, and then it was just like, CNN, what the hell's wrong with you?
	Like, this is evil.
	Yes, this is actively evil behavior.
	And he carries on, or is it just permissible if the anonymous social media user has a certain kind of politics?
	Because as we all know, this would not be happening if, for instance, it was cons of TikTok pointing out all the religious indoctrination going on in school.
	They'd be boosted.
	Yes, they would absolutely be all over CNN.
	It'd be all over all of the mainstream media circles.
	But because of the fact that it's pushing back against the leftist agenda, that is why this is suddenly permissible.
	And Taylor herself has released a very mature statement on this saying, with a meme, the most basic reporting practices, right-wing media, is this doxing?
	Yes.
	Yes, it is.
	You obviously just do not understand.
	Basic reporting practices.
	Yes, maybe if you were, say, trying to uncover the identity of a drug ring and their, like, kingpin or something.
	Here's their safe house opposite the police station.
	You know, that would be a story because it's an interest that the police are obviously corrupt.
	But I've been to their house and I'm going to expose her.
	Your own words, expose her.
	What is that?
	I mean, otherwise, I don't know what else to call it.
	Yes, this is doxing and this is actively putting those people associated with lives of TikTok as well as her herself in physical danger because we know what happens when people get this information.
	They show up at your house and they try and attack you and if they know your face, if you ever show up in public, Antifa will basically just try and kill you in the street.
	It's happened before.
	Or succeed.
	Yes.
	But somebody has followed up with the Washington Post to try and find out if Taylor did go to the home members of the family of TikTok, of the libs of TikTok, and they also point out here, Amber Athney points out the SPJs, the Washington Post's ethical guidelines on minimizing harm.
	Do you mind clicking on those images for me, John?
	Okay.
	Is it working?
	There we go.
	So journalists should balance the public's need for information against potential harm or discomfort.
	Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
	So she's going against her own ethical guidelines there.
	Not that I expect leftists to have particular ethics or principles or guidelines that they abide by.
	They have to have these as, you know, you have to have a health and safety report on tripping over wires.
	They're not really too important to harass us.
	No, they're really not.
	And somebody also pointed out that this is not just the harasser journalist herself, Taylor Lorenz's fault.
	It's not just her who's responsible for this doxing.
	There's also an editor behind the whole thing, Washington Post, who's presumably greenlit this whole activity.
	So we need to hold the whole institution, the whole publication, liable for it, realistically speaking.
	I mean, I'm imagining, because they haven't published yet, I'm imagining they're now deleting the address.
	Yes, this will not be released to the public.
	And if they do, my goodness, can you imagine?
	If they do, I mean, that's a ballsy move.
	You're stupider than CNN. That's good.
	Congratulations.
	But I also found that this is not the first time that Taylor Lorenz has actively doxed people and caused them to be harassed and have death threats against them.
	Back in 2018, she revealed that two Instagram stars were the daughters of Pamela Geller, who I'm not familiar with, but is supposedly an anti-Muslim right-wing activist in America.
	Okay, so she's read the Quran.
	Yes, yes.
	So it says here from Breitbart, in her article titled, The Instagram Stars Hiding Their Famous Muslim-Hating Mom Pamela Geller, the Daily Beast's Taylor Lorenz doxed the women as Pamela Geller's daughters.
	They had not disclosed the family link, perhaps due to the recurring death threats from Muslim extremists that Geller receives.
	Following the release of her article, which was heavily criticised on social media, Geller's four children immediately began to receive harassment and violent messages.
	Comments included racist piece of S... F you racist, racist bitch, and swine, the majority of which were sent to Geller's most famous daughter, Claudia, who runs a popular Instagram account.
	Geller's daughters, who are often referred to as the Oshry sisters, even had the talk show The Morning Breath, cancelled by oath, despite the fact the accounts that they run are all non-political.
	So she knows.
	She's done this before.
	This is the consequence of this kind of journalism.
	And this is just what happened to people who were incidentally related to somebody.
	Just two girls fooling about on Instagram and not releasing that their mother is this person because they don't want to be associated with it, which is their right to do so.
	You don't have to release this information.
	It wasn't really necessary.
	As in, like, there's no actual addition to public interest knowing this.
	By the way, did you know that you should also hate these people because they're related to someone you already hate?
	So this is trailer's history over here.
	Yes.
	But, as well as already knowing the consequences, apparently she knows what it's like to be doxxed herself.
	Oh, boo-hoo, poor tears.
	Let's see this clip from two weeks ago.
	You feel like any little piece of information that gets out on you will be used by the worst people on the internet to destroy your life.
	And it's so isolating.
	And terrifying.
	It's horrifying.
	I'm so sorry.
	It's overwhelming.
	It's really hard.
	If you couldn't see the subtitles because you're just listening, it just said, uh, cry bully sobbing.
	Pretty accurate right there.
	If you drown out the tears, you can hear some logic, which is that, well, this is clearly crocodile stuff.
	Like, she has engaged in doxing herself, and has now had something done to her, and it's terrifying, and unbelievable, horrifying, but now she's gonna do it to live to TikTok, why?
	She disagrees with me politically, and that makes it alright.
	But if it was conservatives doing this to her, then it's awful, I'm horrified, it's terrifying.
	But what is this person?
	Because either they're some kind of sociopath, who have got no thoughts whatsoever, or, I don't know, they just lack so much empathy, they can't even recognise that other people may have, well, problems.
	It's only her that ever has problems.
	I think it's a mixture.
	It's like a cocktail of all the worst things that you can imagine, all put into one.
	She has also made this statement before, without going into quite the hysterics she is in this interview, where someone, Katie Herzog, this is libs of TikTok herself, shared this screenshot, Katie Herzog, online harassment is terrible and should never be tolerated unless it comes to my enemies, in which case it's fine, which is basically just describing Taylor's position right there.
	And then Taylor herself, for some reason, responds to it saying, I know you're joking, but doxing, stalking, trying to hurt and smear people's loved ones, threatening them, it's not okay in any situation.
	Unless they're my enemies.
	Unless I do it!
	People on here who constantly stoke these politicised outrage campaigns want to dismiss it, but it shouldn't be dismissed, has very real consequences.
	To be fair, I can see how from her logic she probably sees what libs of TikTok is doing.
	As doxing and smearing people, but this is publicly available footage that they put out there.
	But I can see that's probably the logic that she's operating from, that she's using to justify it.
	Yeah, I mean, if you are wrong...
	If you don't know what doxing is, publicly available information isn't doxing.
	Like, the police report on Mr.
	X, Antifa member, who has been arrested for trying to kill a cop.
	Here's his multiple mug shots.
	Yeah, like, that's publicly available.
	If you upload videos to TikTok of you saying, I'm going to indoctrinate kids, please don't share, that's publicly available video where you can share, because you uploaded it to a public platform.
	Oh, I don't even understand.
	It was a verbal contract at the end.
	No, it was a private space that anyone can view.
	Okay.
	Yeah, sure.
	There was also just another funny thing that people pointed out, which was this little banner on the bottom here says one in three women under 35 experience online harassment.
	And then just move along, people also pointed out that click on the left image.
	She's not.
	She's not under 35, she's 43.
	So that was just a weird little tidbit of information going on here.
	And you might not think that it's relevant, but then again, Taylor, is Libs of TikTok's identity relevant?
	No, so we can dunk on you for whatever we want.
	Turns out, use your own logic against you.
	You're not under 35.
	Why did you say you were under 35 for the Chiron?
	Yeah, it's not making you seem like a particularly trustworthy person.
	Can't even get the age right.
	Yeah, and because this is a coordinated attack, it wasn't just the Daily Dot, but Media Matters also published a similar article, so they all seem to be rallying around trying to get libs of TikTok either doxxed or taken off of any platform where she can, you know, publicize all of this information, despite the fact maybe you should...
	Think about, if you're so worried about your not-so-secret gay agenda being revealed, maybe you should go back to it being not-so-secret and make it a secret agenda again instead of just publicizing it all over TikTok.
	Not to give you advice or anything!
	It is useful that they openly just say that they're evil now instead of trying to hide it.
	It is very useful, but I'm just thinking from a rhetorical standpoint, from their perspective, they go, hey, maybe we shouldn't look crazy and evil constantly.
	And they all go, no, it's the other people's fault for showing us being crazy and evil.
	But thankfully, for the time being, the end of this segment is just going to be me saying that thankfully, Libs of TikTok is currently safe.
	She has posted saying, words cannot express how appreciative I am of the support I'm receiving right now.
	Thankfully, I'm currently holed up in a safe location.
	I'm confident we will get through this and come out even stronger.
	Grateful for all the thoughts and prayers.
	And sadly, there are some comments on this thread of people, if you just scroll down, we'll probably spot a few, saying, I guess you don't have a problem with Antifa accounts or Anonymous now, correct?
	And then people just saying like, oh, this is just what you deserve.
	Oh, you're worried that people are going to track you down?
	Yes.
	Yes, but words cannot describe how vile some of the people who, despite the fact she's just been doxxed, despite the fact we all know all the problems that come with that, are still going, well, it's your problem, you did this to yourself, screw you.
	I can't get over the guy who's like, what about the innocent anonymous Antifa accounts?
	Like, no, we've got a police report of you trying to Molotov a man and burn to death.
	That's not your private Twitter account.
	Andy Ngo has a medical bill he would like to send your way, thank you very much.
	But yes, so for the time being, lives with TikTok, does seem safe, but they are trying to get her, and like we have already said, she's just standing between your kids and what's coming.
	Good girl.
	Good girl, yeah.
	Let's move on.
	Jack Dorsey has decided to back Elon Musk, which is an alliance I didn't see coming.
	He's decided to go anti-Twitter.
	Yeah.
	Interesting response.
	And I'll plug this first, which is a little bit shilling.
	This is the book club I did with Carl about active measures.
	And this is going to be relevant because one of the weird things is that a lot of spy work seems to take place on Twitter.com.
	I'm not even joking, or at least the active measures part of making up fake news all seems to take place on Twitter, as Thomas Ridd details.
	So it may be another reason as to why the establishment is so interested in keeping it under their control instead of as a free platform.
	But moving forwards, we'll go to Jack Dorsey, who decided...
	I don't know why.
	But this morning he decided to dunk on CNN, and I liked it.
	So here you go, here's Brian Stelther, CNN hack, saying, Tucker Carlson always selling the same thing, he's selling doubt.
	Ooh, fake news, Fox News are terrible.
	So Jack just responds with, and you're selling hope, are you?
	Drop mic.
	I mean, it's nice to see.
	It's a good point.
	You guys are such BS merchants.
	No one is taking from you that you guys are, you know, wholesome and innocent.
	I'm just trying to report the facts, bro.
	Mostly peaceful.
	I do like that he is dunking on these people, but I will be honest, I still don't trust Jack Dorsey as far as I can throw him.
	Not in the slightest.
	Yeah, not in the slightest, because I don't want this to be taken as like any of us endorsing Jack Dorsey.
	Certainly not me, because Jack Dorsey is not a thing.
	Yeah, it's not a thing.
	Jack Dorsey has only chosen to suddenly speak up about all of this as soon as he's out of his position with Twitter.
	He's no longer the CEO. He's no longer having to answer to all of the people, all of his minions.
	And Jack, as much as you can try and make up for it now, you did still set up this system.
	You are one of the main causal factors for where we are right now.
	Literally, you were the guy in charge.
	Yes.
	But it is interesting to see someone spin a dime here, and I'm wondering what else will come out in my mind.
	But we'll move forward.
	If we go to the next one, we can see some ho getting mad about this, saying, oh no, CNN are just selling the truth.
	What?
	Do you work for the Communist Party?
	What do you mean selling truth?
	They're just selling the truth, bro.
	The tobacco salesman.
	Mate, you want some truth?
	Yeah, like how naive and stupid do you have to be?
	Can you hover over the account?
	Because MSNBC contributor.
	I am shook.
	Oh, that's why.
	That's why they're literal.
	Pronouns in bio.
	Yeah, there we are.
	Hashtag BLM. Yeah.
	Waste of time.
	Moving to the next one, we have Jack responding to this verified disabled person, and Jack saying, I know this from being on the streets of Ferguson during the protest, and watching them try to create conflict and film it, causing the protesters to chant F-CNN. Well, that's very interesting, isn't it?
	I remember the F-CNN pie, at least I can't recall the story about Ferguson, in which apparently CNN tried to cause conflict, and then filmed it, and were like, oh my god, look at the conflict, ooh, story.
	Ooh, this is real journalism right here.
	Yeah, and everyone else was like, well, that's scummy.
	Yeah, you guys are literal scum.
	That reminds me of the old clip of the BLM riots when Antifa showed up and tried to start riots, and all the BLM guys were like, it's a bunch of white boys!
	I think I'll show you that.
	I love it.
	Black block, Antifa guy, there's cobbled streets, so he's got his little hammer and he's picking up the cobbles so he can throw them.
	And these three black guys just turn around and look at him and go, it's the white people!
	They grab him and his hammer and just throw him over to the cops and they're like, get him!
	Beautiful.
	Even if, you know, if only we could see that with these CNN journos.
	Yeah.
	It's the journos!
	Get him!
	So apparently that happened, and Jack saw it himself in Ferguson, and he's like, oh, okay, CNN are literal scum.
	You're not selling truth.
	You're not Pravda.
	I'm sorry.
	And they're creating truth.
	They're manufacturing truth.
	I suppose a member of the regime would turn around and be like, no, CNN are Pravda.
	Hail Gorbachev.
	No, hang on.
	Ridiculous.
	We'll move forward because we also have the fact that he's decided to turn around and call his own board dysfunctional.
	Or at least the board that he's, uh...
	Well, I mean, they are actively going against the financial duties they have to the shareholders.
	Yeah.
	Dorsey criticised the board in response to a post in which a user quipped that the company's early beginning was mired in plots and coups among its founding executives.
	It's consistently been that dysfunctional of a company, Dorsey said.
	Presumably, up to this day, still is an S show.
	And if we go to the next one, we can see him responding to someone, and they're asking, hey, are you actually allowed to say all of this?
	He's like, no.
	That's the one way that Jack will be able to redeem himself, in my eyes.
	If he takes down Twitter and takes himself down with it, He's like the heroic anti-hero at the end of the film who knows they've done wrong but sacrifices themselves.
	Metaphorically, YouTube, he's walking into the board with a suicide vest and going, I'm taking you all down with me.
	Yeah.
	He's going to do that by releasing every bad thing they've done up until this point.
	That's what he's going to do.
	At least, hopefully, I'd love to see it.
	We move to the next one because this is an interesting change of events.
	Because as you can see here, Jack, he'd long since left the board and left Mr.
	Weird Name in charge.
	And apparently he's some massive leftist.
	And Jack responded to Elon joining the board or proposing to join the board.
	I'm really happy Elon is joining the board.
	He cares deeply about our world and Twitter's role in it.
	Prague and Elon both leads with their hearts and they will be an incredible team.
	You seem jovial.
	Very interested in Elon Musk joining the board.
	Happy about it.
	Really wanted him to.
	And then when he didn't, because it was an obvious trap, and is now, well, declared war on Twitter, Jack's like, yeah, Twitter's kind of crap.
	The people who run out are idiots.
	And I find that very interesting.
	And very hopeful.
	He's like looking at his son, who's turned out to be like a serial killer or something, and gone, I made a mistake.
	So many mistakes.
	Much disappoint.
	This is not to forget, of course, Jack Dorsey.
	Like, I'm interested that he now has the opportunity to bring it down, and I hope he does, because it would be the right thing to do for your serial killer son.
	He's managed to grow a conscience, yeah.
	Yeah, but this doesn't excuse anything he's done, and the GOP have picked up on this, and rightfully, in my view, they're correct.
	House Republicans being like, this would be a great time for Jack to answer why Twitter suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	And he's like, I've answered that in front of Congress.
	Check YouTube.
	It's like, that wasn't good enough.
	Like, that really was not good enough.
	As you can say, calling it a mistake doesn't answer the question, as the House Republicans respond.
	The question is, why did you do it to begin with?
	You did it for political reasons.
	It's bleedingly obvious that's what you did.
	Try to rig the election yourselves by hunting down a story and saying that can't be circulated.
	I mean, that is you trying to make sure the voters are not informed about a story.
	For me, to the next one, we can see Vice News also reporting on Jack's Ton-effery?
	I don't know what I can say back in the day.
	It's tomfoolery.
	Tomfoolery.
	Yeah, it's tomfoolery.
	As you can see, this is them saying, even Vice were able to point out that Twitter was shadow-banning Republicans because if you looked up their names, they just wouldn't turn up.
	Even Vice managed to tell the truth?
	Yeah.
	Somehow?
	It was obvious.
	Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in their search results.
	So apparently when you looked up the Republicans, like their names, because I think I remember this, their names just wouldn't turn up.
	I think I've seen that in the past, yeah.
	Yeah, verified accounts, millions of followers, no, it's not there, don't worry.
	And it would only happen to Republicans.
	It happened to zero Dems.
	So, well, they were asked about this, and the guys at Twitter said that we're aware of some accounts having this problem, but it has nothing to do with us discriminating against them, it's just to do with behaviour.
	What?
	You're not discriminating against the accounts, you're discriminating against the behaviour of the accounts.
	That's some doublespeak.
	Yeah, I mean, on the Joe Rogan, Tim Pool episode where they interrogated Jack, he...
	Well, maybe it was a result of the solicitor who was next to him, but he didn't seem to understand that your rules on your website are targeted against conservative beliefs.
	He's like, no, they're not.
	And he's like, well...
	Well, I mean, what do you call this?
	What do you want?
	And if we go to the next one, we can see that the Washington Times picked up on this as well, in which Jack was like, no, we don't do it, we swear, we just do it to Republican behavior, not Republican views.
	It means nothing.
	And then he went before Congress and answered for this, and Congress just got him to admit Yeah, we were in the wrong.
	This is the clip here.
	I don't have time to show it, but you can see, go and check it in your own time, in which the Republican guy is just like, well, we're concerned that you're discriminating against us with this direct example.
	And Jack says, quote, we agree that result was not impartial, and that's why we corrected it and fixed it.
	Why'd you do it to begin with?
	And once again, in the terms and conditions, having it so, for instance, I don't know if it's still the case, I imagine it's probably worse, having it so that you can get taken off the platform for misgendering somebody is actively going against conservative beliefs that there is no such thing as misgendering somebody.
	Actively partisan.
	Great point by Tim Paul, as you say.
	And if we go to the next one, speaking of Joe Rogan, because remember he did have...
	Well, her and him on.
	And the legal robot and Jack Dorsey, the monk.
	And I'd love to see another episode.
	I mean, I'm interested to see what Jack has to say.
	With all of the failures he's got in the past, and even Joe Rogan said himself this interview wasn't good enough and he wanted to do another one, in which he gave him the four barrels of an answer for your crimes.
	Yeah, I mean, Jack, if you're so interested in making up for what you've done and you seem to recognise that, yes, you have done something wrong here...
	Yeah, there's an opportunity right there.
	Just to explain what's actually going on here in the power dynamics.
	And there's no better place than Joe Rogan's podcast to do that.
	And surely he doesn't need to have a solicitor sat next to him the whole time this time.
	Not anymore.
	He's a free agent.
	No.
	You can go just like dish it all out, Jack.
	Just let us know everything.
	Yeah.
	If we go to the next one, I also wanted to see that General Flynn has something to say.
	Of course he does.
	I love this.
	So, General Flynn put this out.
	Great point.
	I think General Flynn actually has a good point there, which is, if Elon does acquire complete ownership, well, he's going to have access to everything, in which case he'll find out what they were lying about before Congress.
	And I think that's also a major threat.
	If we go to the next one, we can also see the fact that apparently the board will get paid a ridiculous amount of money.
	And if we scroll up, we can see the board names and the salaries they get paid.
	Which is a lot.
	And they're all losing their jobs.
	And as Elon says, if you scroll back down, he's going to take zero buckaroos for controlling it.
	So that's $3 million a year saved.
	I don't think that that's what he said that he'll take.
	I think that'll just be everyone's salary on the board from now on.
	Well, I think he's the only guy on the board.
	Oh yeah, good point.
	It's just $3 million save right there.
	What's your problem?
	So again, a great offer.
	If we go to the next one, we can also see the fact that the people who do currently run the place, apparently they've got bugger all shares.
	So if you scroll up on this one, because I'm just noticing what Elon's noticed here, which is just, apparently they've got between them like 70 shares.
	I did notice that when I saw this screenshot going around.
	It's just, like, ridiculous.
	Mimi Alamehaya, 0.000%, so they don't own any shares, this person.
	One, maybe?
	But surely that would at least...
	I mean, I suppose it's only going to three decimal places, but surely you would at least be able to just scooch it over a little bit so you could show that, yes, they do own something.
	Yeah, Parag over there, who owns, what, about five shares?
	He's the one holding it hostage.
	Strange.
	It's just these useless people who run loads of money to do nothing and own nothing.
	Strange.
	Jack Dorsey being the biggest shareholder on the board at 2%.
	But these people are in control of what information that you see on one of the biggest social media websites in the world.
	Yeah, so, and if you scroll back down we can see Elon noticing that and being like, well, I'm not scared by this.
	And also, with Jack departing, the Twitter board collectively owns almost no shares.
	Objectively, their economic interests are simply not aligned with the shareholders.
	Certainly not.
	I do find it interesting because people are pointing out that this whole thing has revealed that, what we've all known for a long time, Twitter is not a business in the business to make money.
	It is purely there for control and to be able to manage the flow of information, what's allowed out there and what isn't.
	Yeah, to control our politicians by the back door.
	Kind of control would be illegal otherwise, but because it's on social media on a new platform, this is fine.
	Go to the next one, we can see the fact that someone tweeted out some footage from an old clip in which they label it here, Elon Musk trying to control people how we think.
	That's our job.
	Of course, many remember this is about Donald Trump, which MSNBC said, no, no, no, it's not for Donald Trump to control what people think.
	That's our job.
	Yeah, we watched this one before.
	It is great how she just flat out comes out and says it.
	Yeah, but of course, it is Elon in this case as well, which is that he's the descendant of Trump, as in the banner of freedom holds with him right now.
	And, well, he can't be allowed to control the space in which he allows all points of view.
	That would be bad.
	We have to censor half of it.
	That's our job.
	That is indeed their job.
	If we move forward, we'll see the fact that he decided to tweet out, love me tender.
	I just love the way he tweets it.
	Sorry, it's so cute.
	This is apparently a reference to something in stockworldery, which...
	I think Carl posted about it, there's something called a tender offer, which I assume is where you put forward a particular fiscal offer that's...
	I wouldn't be able to say specifically.
	If we go to the next one, we have someone else explaining it.
	Oh, okay, that's alright then.
	Hell if I know.
	So, Elon Musk tweeted, Love me tender today.
	What does this mean?
	Sounds like Mr.
	Musk will bypass the board and invite shareholders directly to sell, tender, their stock to him at a premium, so they'll make an S-load of money.
	Sounds like plan B. So, this presumably, if this guy's correct, the plan B was to just go to the shareholders directly and be like, Hey, buddy...
	So just in case, get some shares now, because he's going to be offering good money for them.
	For your five minutes with Eli.
	Gets to ruffle your hair and says, would you like some money, son?
	And then if we go to the next one, there is the response from Twitter, which, again, I'm not a huge knowledge on this, but apparently they have decided to go for the poison pill.
	So if we go to the...
	There should be another one there, but don't mind.
	We'll go to the next one, please, John.
	Which you can see that apparently Twitter are saying they're going to adopt the poison pill.
	And there are many kinds of poison pills that a company can take to stop someone just taking it over.
	The one they've gone with, apparently, is giving existing shareholders the ability to purchase additional shares in the company at discount, which in turn dilutes the stake of a person or party seeking to buy the company.
	Elon Musk has all the money and can just buy more.
	I was going to say, I mean, surely he's a shareholder now as well.
	Yeah, but he doesn't have like 50%, right?
	So it's going to harm him, his offer.
	Also, if I was a shareholder and offered, well, you can buy these shares at discount or get a nice fat lump sum from Elon right now.
	Yeah.
	But there's also just the fact that it doesn't really matter, because as Elon has said, I don't care about economics.
	It's not about the money.
	It's about sending a message, and he will burn all of his money by the looks of it to try and get this sort of thing.
	I'll burn you all down.
	Yeah, so he's going to buy it all.
	So I don't think this is even kind of a threat.
	Joker busk.
	Who knows?
	Maybe he's not gone full Joker pill.
	We'll find out.
	And if we go to the next one, we can see the Republicans have also noticed this and being like, I stand with Elon Musk.
	So, good boys there, I suppose.
	Standard bearers of freedom in the political realm.
	Who else are they going to side with?
	If we go to the last one here, I thought we'd also just have some fun real quick.
	Because remember, billionaires should not control media.
	It's evil.
	They will only ever push it in their own direction.
	We shouldn't let billionaires have undue effect on politics.
	I left their left wing.
	If they're left-wing, it's okay.
	Obviously.
	Come on, dude.
	I mean, we've got to make some exceptions, right?
	I'm not crazy.
	Ugh, free market and all for left-wingers.
	They're such well-known lovers of free markets and left-wing.
	So this is Fox News responding here.
	This is a great article for Fox News.
	Five liberal media outlets run by billionaires that have criticised Elon Musk's attempt to purchase Twitter.
	The Washington Post, we start off with.
	Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos purchased the Post for $250 million.
	Chump change for him.
	Yeah, that's pretty lucrative right there.
	Yeah.
	Have Washington Post said much negative about Amazon or Bezos since 2016?
	I don't think so.
	Doubt it.
	I doubt it.
	You might lose your premium membership.
	No more deliveries.
	Anyway, so they published a column from former CEO and Redditor Ellen K. Powell.
	Remember her?
	I'm a professional Redditor.
	Well, she was the CEO of Reddit.
	Professional Redditor.
	Miss Powell.
	Headlined, Elon Musk's vision of free speech will be bad for Twitter.
	Musk's appointment to the Twitter board shows that we need the regulation of social media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.
	Signed off by Jeff Bezos.
	Does that sound good, Jeff?
	It's laughable.
	But we all know that one.
	Move on to the others that Fox found, which is the next one is The Atlantic.
	So, Lauren...
	Sorry, Lauren Powell?
	I think that's just Lauren.
	Miss Jobs.
	Got lots of jobs.
	The widow of Steve Jobs became the majority owner of The Atlantic in 2017.
	She is an outspoken liberal.
	Leftist.
	American liberal, yeah.
	I still don't like it.
	Who donated 700 grand, which is because, I don't know, it's emptying our purse, presumably, on Joe Biden.
	And just gave him all that money, because for no reason.
	Not expecting to get anything in return.
	Completely neutral action.
	I'm sure.
	One Atlantic writer, Ian Bogg, made his feelings plain about Musk when he called him a billionaire BSer.
	Of course he did.
	Powell Jobs also owns a stake in Axios, which published a piece last week saying Musk was behaving like a supervillain for trying to use his money.
	Twitter is where journalists congregate to do a lot of their work and they don't really want to be in Elon Musk's private playpen, Axios wrote.
	Oh no, you'd love to be in, well, Miss Jobs' playpen though, that's fine.
	Again, she's just the misunderstood hero of her own story.
	Could you imagine working for one of these places as a writer and writing this crap and then thinking you're going to get away with it?
	What, and then looking myself in the mirror afterwards?
	No, I couldn't.
	We move to Time, because Time, of course, is owned by Billionaire as well.
	Mark Birnoff, the billionaire CEO of Salesforce, and his wife, Leanne, purchased Time in 2018 for $119 million.
	Oh yeah, just billionaires, just buying up the media.
	Why not?
	They're bored.
	They're allowed to do it.
	They're left-wing.
	The right-wing.
	Cut that.
	I mean, the thing is, Elon Musk, I don't even think he's right-wing.
	No.
	He seems...
	Centrist.
	Yeah, like a centrist.
	Filthy centrist.
	Oh god, he believes in freedom of speech.
	Disgusting.
	Him and Tim Paul holding hands.
	Setting on that fence together.
	So Time Editor at large and MSNBC Alanis, and his long name, tweeted that Tesla CEO was the reason to abolish billionaires, unlike her boss, because he's allowed to be.
	Because he supports her.
	Well, some billionaires are more billionaires than other billionaires.
	The billionaire billionaires we've got to worry about.
	Bloomberg, a former New York mayor and billionaire.
	Mr.
	Bloomberg, of course.
	Yep.
	They said it was bad news for Elon Musk taking over Twitter.
	That would be horrible to have billionaires in charge of the media.
	I'm sorry, but it is so transparent.
	We've just got to keep hammering this point home.
	Next one, Los Angeles Times, billionaire biotech businessman, Patrick, who cares?
	Who run their Los Angeles Times decided to go with Elon Musk's paradoxical vision of running Twitter, less democracy, more freedom.
	What does that even mean?
	I'm sorry, but it's so poor propaganda as well.
	They've not even tried.
	Well, I mean, no, the thing is, they call it paradoxical, but yes, less democracy, for the most part, generally does equal more freedom.
	Yeah, England was a free country long before we had democracy.
	Think about it.
	Constitutional monarchy, we were still free!
	Yeah, it's amazing what you can get done.
	And I'll end that there, because it's just, it's so crap.
	I'm sorry, but the propaganda is so transparent.
	It's billionaire upon billionaire lining up to tell you that this billionaire is the bad guy.
	Spaceman bad, as they say.
	Patrick Soon-Schlong know your place.
	That's a funny gag.
	I'm sorry, Dair.
	It'll be Soon-Schlong.
	Just give it some time.
	Oh, God.
	Got all that notes talking about the show.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	The GLA have all of their original stuff, naturally, but they're also based out of Africa now, and they have their own autistically made air force, complete with crop dusters and plague-sprinkling helicopters.
	The Chinese are more or less the same as they were in the last game.
	They've got some new fancy units, but for the most part they haven't changed.
	I'm not sure how they developed in the lore.
	So the Americans basically went all in on advanced drone technology, so pretty much all their new units are very strange drone vehicles or very advanced aircraft.
	It's funny how this game is basically just someone wrote a fan fiction sequel to the original games and then just made an entire video game around it.
	It's very fascinating.
	You should probably check it out.
	It is very good.
	I also do love the difference in factions.
	It's interesting they've become Boko Haram for the GLA, which is funny.
	Instead of ISIS, but whatever.
	There's just the interesting dichotomy that you've got, like the...
	The Third Worlders, who are...
	The S-hole occupiers.
	There's literally units called terrorists that are just suicide bombers, and there's another unit, which is the GLA Postal Service, which is a big truck full of explosives.
	I didn't follow most of that, because I didn't understand the game that you were talking about.
	What game is this?
	Commander Conqueror Generals.
	Oh, that's pretty based.
	Fantastic.
	That's pretty based.
	Made by EA when they used to be based.
	The GLA Postal Service, which is literally the truck that blew up the US embassies in Nairobi.
	And it's just like, I'll make the sacrifice.
	Blows up the Americans.
	I need to get this game.
	It's fantastic.
	But also, I do love that you genuinely get a difference in the factions that you very rarely get in the LTS. It's so different.
	The GLA are cheap and weak, but they're hard to kill because they'll just pop up somewhere or be invisible or something like that.
	Because the Chinese is just, lots of men, lots of tanks.
	That's the strategy.
	What I did was send in wave after wave of men at the killbots until they reach their kill limit.
	That's the red guards for you.
	And then you have the Americans who are just full-on into, what if we just don't even have humans on the battlefield?
	We'll just have robots doing the killing.
	I love that killbot reference, that's great.
	That's the Chinese.
	Mal was just Zap Brannockin' the whole time.
	Little short skirt.
	My velour uniform.
	It's just Kiff.
	There's Deng Xiaoping behind him being like, for God's sake, we're going to Purge again, aren't I? Oh, sorry.
	Yeah, we have more bodies than they have bullets.
	I love how that's also the NCR strategy from Fallout New Vegas.
	So it's just like, more troopers until they run out of laser rounds, and then we just win Helios.
	It's a beautiful strategy.
	It does work eventually.
	You've just got to be prepared to write a lot of letters to some widows, you know?
	It worked in Korea.
	It worked for the islands that they took back from the nationalists in southern China.
	So this is a viable military strategy?
	Look, human wave tactics are a meme in Russia, but in China it's a real thing.
	It genuinely doesn't work.
	Hey, if it works, it works, eh?
	I think it also worked against the Japanese, technically.
	Because, uh, you don't get that many deaths that easily otherwise.
	Yeah, true.
	I just, I can't remember, I think it's the Shinmin Islands or something in the south, but it is a genuine thing where they just put raft off the raft, like chock a block with red guards, sent them all over, and the Nationalists were just sat there with machine gun posts like it was D-Day, just gunning them down, and then they just ran out of bullets.
	Just like target practice, until it's not all of a sudden.
	They just ran out of bullets and left.
	Job's done, guys, we're just gonna go.
	Sorry.
	That's your sandwich.
	Let's go to the next one.
	If you're my father, if you love me, you'll shoot him.
	McClintock adapts Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew into the masculine and mannerly cattle ranching territory of the Mesa Verde in the mid to late 1800s.
	Oh, you shot him!
	You really shot him!
	Hey!
	If he dies, he'll be the first man ever killed with a blank cartridge.
	We use this to start the races on the fourth.
	The film is both witty and sensitive and must have been an influence on Blazing Saddles.
	Poor dear!
	You'd have had me shot in cold blood!
	I've not watched that one.
	That looks good, actually.
	Have you ever watched...
	You referenced Blazing Saddles.
	You've not watched that, have you?
	No.
	You really need to.
	It's fantastic.
	Do you recognise that cover, though?
	Also, I love the idea that every father in America should have a gun that just has blanks in it.
	For shooting unruly boyfriends.
	To be fair, if I ever end up having a daughter, I might keep one handy.
	It would be a good thing to have in your culture, if not just for the amusement.
	Yeah, yeah.
	See you in the next one.
	Aloha!
	Barney, no!
	I wasn't expecting that.
	Mashallah, mashallah.
	Did you send that one in, bro?
	That's the GLA Postal Service.
	Oh, okay.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I didn't expect this.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	This is really heavy.
	But honestly, it's no problem because I listen to Vale Raiders by Guard Bro.
	Check him out on YouTube right now.
	That what?
	I suppose...
	I was going to say stealth plug, but really stealthy because I couldn't tell what he was saying.
	That's some, like, Korean advert levels of...
	To be fair...
	The fact that it was just, like, his Spider-Man and then...
	Here's my YouTube channel, by the way.
	Yeah.
	I do love those Spider-Man fellas, but God, if Tobey Maguire doesn't pull some funny faces in here.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another Legend of the Pines.
	This is the Rockefeller College Quad on the Princeton University campus.
	It was built on a cemetery for the Fitz Randolph family.
	When workmen were knocking over some other building before, they found two skeletons in a wall.
	The ghosts in question reside in those rooms above the archway, and apparently they just move a couch back and forth, which seems pretty mild considering that they found two skeletons in a wall.
	I absolutely love it.
	Why are you laughing?
	Do you have some questions about the existence of these ghosts, Callum?
	Well, I just love the fact that he doesn't even have to try and argue or even justify the idea that there's a ghost in the story.
	He just said, like...
	Well, we found two skeletons.
	There's got to be ghosts somewhere.
	The jump between, oh, you found two skeletons.
	So the ghost?
	I mean, yes.
	What about this doesn't make sense to you?
	Uh...
	Not a man of the faith, are we?
	No, it's even just a given now.
	It's just like they're...
	Well, like they're real.
	I mean, yes.
	No, to be fair though, imagine if you were, like, literally a ghost, right?
	If they were real.
	And you've been trapped in this place for who knows how long, ever since you died, right?
	And all you can think to do with your time to scare these poor sods is just move the sofa just a little bit.
	And then when they're not expecting, oh, I'm going to move it back.
	Something to do, isn't it?
	I suppose so, you know.
	You know, giving them heart attacks got a bit old after a while.
	You know, there's people in the country who have way more boring things for hobbies.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Scare the wife.
	Move the sofa a bit.
	Or stamp collecting.
	Sorry.
	Alright, I'm pronouns.
	Oh yeah, a little gent does make me laugh.
	So the student of history says, my only complaint is that I'm taking the cash settlement and instantly rejects the possibility of setting a proper legal precedent that must be followed.
	That being said, cash is a good buyout, bro.
	To be honest, I prefer the cash in the sense of, I don't even think we should set a legal precedent, because that would stop the flood of money.
	I think we should just...
	This is a good money-making scheme.
	Well, look, we're already in tax to hell, and then the government just hands it over to diversity.
	No.
	So what I should do if I want to make some money, go to American University, say, how's it going, bro, to everybody who passes by until someone gets annoyed, at which point I get money.
	You've got to be employed, so I don't know, get a janitorial position for a week.
	Oh, okay.
	Hello there, sir.
	How you doing, ma'am?
	How do you feel, fellow male?
	Yeah, but I learned this from, who's the guy from, I forget his name, Harry Miller.
	He gave a talk in which he spoke about the fact that he took him to court, he won, and his big regret was not just taking all the money he could.
	Because frankly, that is the only way they're actually going to learn.
	Let's not say legal president.
	Let's just bankrupt them.
	I still think that even without the legal precedent, it sets a precedent, which is the universities can look over and go, yeah, the universities can look over and go, that's a lot of money.
	That's a lot of money.
	Don't want to pay that.
	You know that meme with the two guys sat there with the cash behind them?
	That's what I'm imagining where we're all going to be.
	Anyway, so Longshanks1690 says, South Park Craig voice, if I could get $400,000 for using biological correct pronouns, I'd be so happy.
	Yeah, I certainly would.
	Well, so, question, Longshanks, how do you keep coming up as the top comment on every YouTube video we do?
	Yeah, you do, don't you, actually?
	It's not just on our videos as well.
	It's on, like, all of the, like, anti-SJW sort of stuff.
	I'm pretty sure I've seen him show up on Sitch and Adam and a bunch of things.
	Yeah, it's impressive.
	I'd like to know how.
	Yeah, fair play to you.
	Just gets about, I suppose.
	Good comments, perfect timing, I guess.
	Silly Midon says the Home Office pronouns are a clear indication of how little control the MPs have over the civil service and what they get up to.
	Pretty needs to have a purge, but when she tried that a senior level, the only thing she got was a whole bullying scandal.
	And then she kind of doubled down and was like, yeah, I'm a bully.
	Get used to it.
	It's just funny.
	But there is differences in the departments, or at least that's what I've read from that crappy textbook I own, which is that the Home Office is notorious for being the worst one, just because of the nature of what it functions.
	The civil servants kind of run the place, but with everyone else, they're less important, so they're easier to bully.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Student history, the high patriarch of anti-pronoun action gets paid for being correct, and saying as such, walks into a room, you're all men, leaves, gets paid 40 grand.
	And one ping, sure that cop with the G36 might shoot you to pieces, but at least he'll be using your preferred pronouns.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Face the wall, please.
	Ahem.
	Sorry.
	Face the wall, ma'am.
	Thank you.
	Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
	Anthony Parris says, the only pronouns I want to hear from civil servants are unemployed.
	Apparently there is a purge coming.
	I saw the other day, I don't know how much of it plays the home office, but yeah, the government apparently getting rid of like 200,000 of them.
	It's not enough.
	Nah.
	I think if we could get rid of...
	Slash it.
	Slash it.
	If we could get rid of about 95% of government, I'd say that's a good start.
	I do love that libertarian language where it's just government bad.
	I just don't care what it is.
	It's true!
	It's true, though, man!
	But it's so simplistic.
	It's orc in the sense that it's true, but simple.
	It's just like...
	Government bad, leave me alone.
	It's all I'm asking for, and nobody ever listens.
	I've just painted a double yellow line, sir.
	Government bad.
	No, it's...
	It's literally like that Count Dankula video where it's literally the guy just wanted to build a bomb shelter in a small field on a plot of land that he owned and Goodman decided to show up and be like, can't do that.
	Why not?
	Can't do that.
	Need to fill out this form.
	Don't want to.
	Fill out the form.
	Bang!
	Well, the Killdozer.
	Oh yeah, Killdozer as well, yeah.
	Reasonable men in unreasonable times.
	Right, gotta be careful with this one, apparently.
	Taffy Duck.
	As someone who identifies as an 87-year-old disabled Korean woman, my pronouns are N and G. Work refused to put them in my email signature.
	No idea why.
	That's because you're being oppressed.
	Oh, I really hope you're black, Taffy, otherwise you're in some problems.
	By the way, I love the idea of being black and trying that on.
	It's like, no, identify as my...
	Hey, look, it's got an A at the end.
	It's fine.
	Yeah, Cedric, where are you at?
	Come back to the Gold Tier subscribers and give me that pass again.
	I need to...
	Lives of TikTok stuff, sir.
	Yeah, sure.
	M1Ping says lives of TikTok should hire Kyle Rittenhouse as security.
	He's proven super effective against nonces.
	That is true, but also we're maybe thinking about that, so, you know, bidding war on Kyle.
	Longshanks again says actually it's not that sex and gender are the same, it's that gender doesn't exist.
	Based.
	Based.
	context comes from an insane theory made up by the evil nonce john money yes i have covered him before that gender was entirely distinct from sex it's become muddled in the decades since but we really should stop using the word gender at all and only refer to sex from here on out i would absolutely do so the sad thing is that i think certain certain levels of leftist subversion have actually ingrained themselves in the language that we use on a day-to-day basis
	like me growing up gender became a common word and i'm sure it was like for you as well so to stop using it all together is going to be difficult but i feel like it's necessary - I agree.
	It's useful for academic debates, but outside of that, it's just in general language.
	I can't be bothered.
	No one really cares anyway.
	Gender and sex are basically the same word for most people.
	That is true, but I wouldn't mind just nobody using it ever again.
	Just not banning words.
	I'm not saying ban words, just everybody collectively agrees never to use it again.
	It's not a ban.
	Anyway, Baron Von Warhawk...
	I refuse to elaborate on this further.
	Moving on.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, For a safe and inclusive future, we must dox, bully, abuse, and threaten a woman in order to smash the white patriarch's supremacy.
	For now!
	Time for women's rights and lefts.
	Shout out to anyone who gets that reference.
	Yes, thank you very much, Baron Von Warhawk.
	Andrew Narog says these journalists deserve to be jailed for their blatant harassment.
	Utterly flabbergasting how blatantly evil the left is.
	I mean, on a daily basis at this point, really, there's more and more examples of just how evil they are.
	And unrepentantly, unapologetically evil as well.
	And I'm beginning to think it's just because they're too stupid.
	it.
	Chris Wolfe says, The left is in the grasp of something demonic.
	Whenever they feel traumatized, they can only find comfort in the demon.
	Their friends encourage them.
	Their demon is their friend.
	Even if they feel bad about what they've done, they're accepted by the demon.
	Feels like Sargon's take on the chaos gods and their tricks to get what they wanted.
	Libs of TikTok is shining a light on them, and they scream out of shame.
	I mean, what you're referring to there as the demon could be considered like the hedonistic mindset that a lot of people are in nowadays, whereas the demon is that impulse that a lot of people have to just do what they want right now, whether it's good or And I think a lot of people are very much beholden to their passions rather than the rational side of their brain, specifically more on the left than the right, I would say.
	Right off.
	I was just wondering if there was any reason you were giving me the look.
	I was listening.
	Oh, okay.
	That's fine.
	Sorry, sometimes you just look like you're...
	You do that thing with your eyebrow where you're like, hmm, okay, alright.
	I just don't want to get the Leo look, okay?
	You've got a horrible resting face back.
	I was just wondering.
	M1Ping says the anti-grooming law in Florida and other states would not be happening without libs of TikTok exposing the insanity of leftist teachers.
	She should be named the Heer of the Republic and presented with a laurel wreath.
	Yeah, I could go with that.
	Warhawk again says they went from we just want to marry to respect my pronouns or the jackboots of the Rainbow Stormtroopers will be coming for your face.
	True.
	they have into activism for their ideology, be it journalists, politicians, or burger flippers.
	They see their jobs as a platform and their cause as righteous and will sacrifice any social norms, ethics, morals, standards, and sense of right and wrong on the altar of ideology every single time.
	Alex Bradbury, the absolute irony of being Taylor Lorenz is beyond insane.
	She is the true definition of a cry bully.
	I think we can see from the examples I gave, that's very true.
	Lord Nerov In other news, grass is green and he should probably touch some.
	Very true.
	I'll see.
	God, there's a few comments here.
	Adam Clayton says, Ah yes, the old fabled tactic of the left, where when they can't win an argument or get repeatedly embarrassed, they dox you.
	Remember Hannah Solo with the CNN gif, just like you referenced there.
	I have an update from Longshanks.
	Oh yeah, okay.
	Longshank says, it's not my fault I make so many great comments that people want to upvote.
	Also, funny meme name helps, let's be fair.
	I mean, he's true.
	It's true.
	Chris Wolfe says, 15 years ago, Kentucky Republicans want to indoctrinate your kids with creationism in school 15 days ago.
	Republicans don't want us to bring in our drag queen friend with your kids in math class.
	These people are insane.
	My question though, because you know Jesus Fried Christ as well.
	Jesus Fried Christ?
	You don't know that account?
	No, I don't.
	He's always been like the top voted comment under Carl's videos for ages as well.
	I'm wondering, a long chance in Jesus Fried Christ the same guy.
	Conspiracy?
	I don't know.
	Logshanks, let us know.
	People must know what I'm talking about, because it's every time.
	Yeah, let's move on to your comments, though.
	Okay, so M1Ping says, I'd rather live free under a god-king than a press than a democracy.
	100% true.
	Yes, if we can get the true libertarian king as Hopper prescribes, then that would be perfect.
	This is why I really like the monarchists in Poland, because the Polish monarchy obviously being long gone, and Mickey over there being like, yes, we'll bring it back.
	And then we asked him, well, who's going to be King Mickey?
	And he was like, King will reveal himself.
	But it...
	I am really starting to come over to, like, the ANCAP hopper monarchist position, because it just makes more sense to me.
	It's like, yeah, I don't want retards in charge of all the political decisions.
	The King might kill two people, but if he kills only two people this year, he's still done less oppression than the government this year.
	Yeah, he really has.
	At least he lets me misgender all I like.
	Yeah, so there's a funny argument made.
	Of course, you know, monarchy can go terribly bad.
	I'm not arguing for absolute monarchy.
	Mickey is.
	But it's just like Mickey's argument isn't a terrible one.
	He's just like, well, look, you know, got a decent king.
	Nine times out of ten.
	I mean, we do have a thousand years of constitutional monarchy backing up.
	Yeah, it can work.
	Well, you know, he's still got the constitutional monarchy, but...
	Absolute monarchy.
	Doesn't go always bad.
	Yeah, true.
	Longshank says, I think Cannon was being too harsh on Jack, assuming he was all on board with the decisions to ban or shadowban content.
	He showed moral cowardice in the face of his employees who wanted to do those things.
	Absolutely, in my view.
	But at this point, we have no direct evidence he signed off morally on all of those things.
	I think he's felt this way for a while, but has felt between a rock and a hard place and doesn't know how to act.
	We can compare him to the Walmart manager from South Park who hates his job, but the machine is bigger and he cannot control.
	And...
	Jack didn't kill himself or feel suicidal either.
	Let's say that.
	Maybe.
	There is some evidence for this.
	So I remember after he left the board, as in like, I'm non-CEO. Done on the board, non-CEO. He did come out and he was doing some strange stuff.
	Because he started promoting Signal and talking about the fact that he was very upset that the internet wasn't freer, like Signal's going to be.
	Yeah, I saw a bunch of that as well.
	I mean, while I agree with everything that you're putting out there, he still did set up this whole system, whether or not he ended up getting crushed by it in the end.
	If I was to be the most forgiving, I could paint him as a Dr.
	Frankenstein figure who has created a monster who will eventually destroy him, but still created that monster in the first place.
	And...
	In the case of Jack, was too much of a moral coward to stand up to all of his employees and all the other board members when it was most important.
	I can see some sympathy with that view that he's done those things.
	The counter-argument, I would guess, is because we don't actually have another social media tech guy who's stood up to them.
	The only one we have is Elon Musk, and it didn't seem to cost him anything.
	No.
	I'm not trying to dissuade him from speaking up.
	I'm just saying that I don't forgive him.
	It's more that I don't...
	I'm not able to believe that Jack Dorsey couldn't have not been a moral coward.
	Instead, just...
	Okay, yeah, he would have lost some engineers or whatnot, or maybe some friends who were...
	Cool, cool.
	And quite frankly, that would have been for the better.
	You won't miss unreasonable people in your life.
	Especially when they're half controlling your board or something like that.
	You want rid of them, frankly.
	Surely that you have to interact with them more often in that situation.
	When you'd want to interact with them less...
	Yeah, I think it's valid to criticize him for all of these decisions, because he is ultimately the chief, and therefore takes all the responsibility, ultimately, like any chief, and he fell on those aspects badly.
	Freewill2112 says...
	Sorry, this about someone trying to challenge the billionaire globalist power cartel because Elon Musk is a real threat to these robber baron goons.
	They're starting to take notice.
	They certainly are.
	We'll end on some honourable mentions.
	So Angel Brian says, Oi oi lads!
	Angel Brain.
	Angel Brain.
	I can't read.
	We all know.
	Looks I'm going to be turning in more regular in the upcoming weeks, as last night I got sacked from my job due to a post I made on my personal Facebook that called the safety protocols of my recent job into question.
	Kind of like the IRL version of getting banned from Twitter.
	Still, onwards, my friends, ever onwards.
	Well, sorry to hear that.
	Good look for the future.
	Like you say, it's only up from here.
	I imagine the safety protocols probably were a bit mad, if you're with us.
	So it sounds like you're taking yourself out of a dangerous situation, actually.
	Andrew Narog says, the scandal around Hunter Biden's laptop made me realise the Bidens are just less competent Clintons.
	Yeah.
	These people are evilly corrupt.
	I was talking to someone yesterday, and they mentioned the fact that they keep forgetting about Hunter Biden because he's a minor political figure.
	I thought...
	He's not, though, is he?
	He's not.
	He's the president's son.
	He's a business figure.
	But the business he is a part of is just open corruption and nothing else.
	So he's a minus corrupt figure in American politics that just organizes corruption for Biden.
	And is also the son of the president.
	But that's the point, like, he's got nothing else.
	Like, his resume, if you actually broke down what is his point in existing, it's apparently to be corrupt man.
	And that's it.
	Anyway, we're out of time.
	If you'd like more from us, please go to TheLotusEars.com to subscribe to Gagsos to roll the premium content and help on the show to those of you who are.
	Thank you immensely.
	You also make the comment sections much worthwhile.
	I do love them.
	Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲