Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 9, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:23

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #542

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	This is episode 542.
	I'm your host for today, Harry, and I'm joined by Connor.
	Hello there.
	And we're going to be talking to you about Twitter's secret blacklists.
	We're also going to be going on about how the kuffars are illegal in the UK. And then we're going to end off with something a little bit lighter, where we take a look at this week in women.
	Before I... Before I get any further into the news today, we do still want to make everybody aware that if you are a video editor, we do have a career opportunity open to you.
	Just to make it very clear, we do not work remotely, we work from our offices in Swindon, so if you're going to apply for this, you either need to be able to commute regularly, like Connor does, Or you have to be able to move to Swindon like the rest of us and suffer that fate.
	But it is a really good opportunity.
	We'd love to get somebody new in so that we can get some more content out the door because we're always working on stuff and we need fresh new talent to be able to help us to make our production values explode.
	So if you're really interested, you can go to the career page on the website, check it out, read the description, send in your application, and we'll get back to you with that.
	So, very exciting opportunity.
	And without any further ado, Let's get into the news.
	Alright, so Twitter Files Part 2 was released last night, and it's led to some pretty significant developments in the story, as we understood it.
	Before I get into the new developments, though, I wanted to point out that there were some supplemental files released earlier on this week as well, because if you remember, on Sunday, Elon Musk had tweeted out saying that there was going to be new Twitter files dropping on Monday.
	And then Monday came about and he said, well, it's going to have to be Tuesday.
	And then Tuesday came about and we were all waiting for a while until it turned out that there was some more information on this.
	Before I get into that as well, actually, I've just been reminded we do have some new content on the website that you should all check out for our premium subscribers.
	If you've got a silver membership, you'll be able to listen to the audio track done by the excellent Jonathan Crowe on this article by Thomas Dowling.
	Yes, he's not been in the office for a while, but he does still contribute work to us like these excellent articles that he puts out.
	I know that for a lot of people, Thomas can be a little bit Marmite, but you can always be assured that whatever he does write will be interesting and make you think and consider a perspective that perhaps you hadn't looked at before.
	So this one's about rentierism, the never-ending social plague.
	I have not been able to get round to reading this one just yet this morning, but as I said, I'm sure he's putting forward a very interesting perspective that might get your gears turning in just a little bit of a different way than usual.
	Anyway, let's get back onto it.
	So...
	Earlier on this week, I think it was on Tuesday, Matt Taibbi released this extra thread following up the original one from last Friday called Twitter Files Supplemental.
	And he was talking about, you know, okay, Friday, the first installment of Twitter Files was published here.
	We expected to publish more over the weekend.
	And a lot of people were wondering why there's a delay.
	And now they can reveal it.
	And it's because on Tuesday, Twitter Deputy General Counsel and former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker was fired.
	Among the reasons was that he was vetting the first batch of the Twitter files without knowledge of new management.
	So what it seems like was Elon released all of the files to the journalists, but there was a go-between.
	And that go-between was the lawyer, Jim Baker, and we were all wondering at the time, after the New York Post and other publications had pointed out that the Twitter files didn't seem to have any mention of the involvement of the FBI in censoring some conservative commenters and far-right after the New York Post and other publications had pointed out that the Twitter files didn't seem to have any mention of the involvement of the FBI in censoring some conservative commenters and far-right extremists, etc., etc.,
	And it seems that this was that something else, was that this literal former FBI general counsel decided to vet any of the information that would make the FBI look bad, and that's what's gone on here.
	So, over the weekend, we both dealt with obstacles to new sources.
	Barry Wise discovered that the name of the person in charge was Jim.
	When she asked what Jim's last name was, the answer came back Jim Baker.
	So, the first batch of files both reporters received was Mark Spectred Baker emails, and the...
	Taibbi points out that Baker's a controversial figure, been something of a zealig of FBI controversies dating back to 2016, from the Steele dossier to the Alpha server mess.
	He resigned in 2018 after an investigation into leaks to the press.
	So, for anyone who doesn't remember, Baker was a lawyer, general counsel, with the FBI, who was the one who received the...
	Intelligence from Michael Sussman, the Clinton lawyer, that was pointing to some kind of collusion between Trump and the Russian press, and the Russian Kremlin, where they were trying to point out that there may have been some telecommunications link between Trump and this alpha server, was it banking system or something?
	A bank?
	Russian bank part?
	Possibly.
	Alpha Server, either way, was supposed to be some Russian organization that Trump was using to filter information to and from the Russians, which, of course, after the Mueller report, we already knew it was all nonsense, but the Mueller report confirmed that it was nonsense, but Baker was a big part in that.
	So it's interesting how, after the questioning in 2018, he decided to resign, quite disgracefully.
	He ended up working in another...
	High-level, high-powered position in Twitter.
	Always interesting how these people fail upwards, isn't it?
	Because these people are not hired for their honesty or their competence in actually abiding the letter of the law.
	They're always hired for their competence in skirting around the law to get what people in power want.
	So that's always the case with these people.
	But as a result of all of this, after they realized what had happened, Elon Musk has quickly...
	Exited Baker, who isn't working for Twitter anymore, so hopefully any new information that we receive from the Twitter files will not have had that filter, filtering out anything that makes it look bad for certain public agencies, well, federal agencies from the US. Interestingly enough, after all of this came out and Elon had announced that, oh, we'll get more information out soon, if we go to the next one, Jack decided to stick his head up and proffer an opinion.
	That opinion was, if the goal is transparency to build trust, why not just release everything without filter and let people judge for themselves, including all discussions around current and future actions?
	Make everything public now!
	Thank you!
	Thank you, Jack, for finally becoming the free speech warrior We knew you always were, deep down inside, so valuable to have your opinion of everyone's in this pressing matter.
	Good God!
	Shut up, Jack!
	Yeah, look, there is the perception, I think, that Jack was riding a dragon which he could not control, and as we spoke about off-air, that requires either the assumption of...
	Gross incompetence on the part of a man who has multiple successful businesses like Signal, Cash App, Squarespace, as well as Twitter, or it assumes massive cowardice, and I think that's probably the truth.
	But for him to then come out and try and tell Musk how to release this information when, at best, he was being yellow-belly and caving to the political whims of Vijaya Gad and Yoel Roth...
	Staggeringly hypocritical.
	And also, the best place for you to have blown the whistle on how your team had become ideologically captured and weren't being honest to the American public would have been the multiple hearings that Ted Cruz staged with you, grilling you over it.
	You could have said it on camera, under oath.
	So I am interested to see if...
	Repeatedly claiming that you didn't shadow ban conservative figures.
	Well, the information from Twitter Files Part 2 is going to show that that is very untrue.
	I would be fascinated to see, and let's be fair, nothing gets done by the Republicans, let's be honest, I would be interested to see if they can get anyone on purging themselves under oath by lying to Congress when we now have the transcripts of their internal communications which says, here are the actual individuals we have suppressed despite not breaking any terms of service.
	Yeah, I'm still excited for when Elon eventually releases all of the files to the public, because it's going to be thousands and thousands of emails and all sorts to sift through.
	But you know that there's going to be stuff that, not out of any malice, that Taibbi and Wise have filtered out just because they're trying to put this into digestible Twitter threads.
	There's going to be extra stuff that we discover...
	As we go through here, there's going to be even more telling when all of these files are released to the public.
	Elon Musk responding to Jack here, though, seemingly still giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I understand that he's probably...
	I've had Torch passed to me from Jack.
	Jack's the one who built all of this infrastructure, so he needs to respect him somewhat, but I do think he is giving him a little bit too much benefit of the doubt when he says, most important data was hidden from U2, and some may have been deleted, but everything we find...
	Will be released.
	And once again, even if it was hidden from Jack, he knew the signs were there.
	He was having congressional hearings about this sort of stuff.
	At the very least, he should have tried to sort out whatever was going on behind the scenes after the Joe Rogan-Timpool grilling that he received on the Joe Rogan experience.
	So Jack trying to do this big redemption arc thing, which he seems to have been trying to do ever since he left his position as CEO of Twitter, I'm just not buying it.
	There's no way you can convince me that Jack was anything other than either an incompetent buffoon, which, given how successful he is, slightly unlikely...
	Strange credudity, yes.
	...or ignorant to the point of malice.
	But, anyway, let's move on to the Twitterfiles part two.
	Now, the first one was just revealing the obvious and clear political bias that was going on within Twitter.
	We received some information that we...
	Basically, we're already aware of.
	It was nice to have it confirmed.
	And this is a similar situation where the information is just confirming basically what we already knew, but it's good to have that confirmation.
	It's good to have screenshots of the files, screenshots of the internal documents that operate within Twitter, so that we can understand that we weren't being crazy.
	We were being gaslit when they said that they weren't shadow banning people.
	So, I'll carry on here.
	So...
	The new Twitter files investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees built blacklists preventing disfavored tweets from trending and actively limited the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics all in secret without informing users.
	So once again, we already knew this was happening, but now we get to see how and we get to see...
	Just that they definitely were doing it.
	We're not being crazy.
	Twitter once had a mission, blah, blah, blah.
	Along the way, barriers were erected to stop people from getting information out there.
	Take, for example, Stanford's Dr.
	Jay and I will...
	Bhattacharya.
	Bhattacharya, thank you.
	He's one of the members that created the Great Barrington Declaration, which was a selective shielding approach to tackle the pandemic rather than lockdowns.
	He also worked with the American Institute for Economic Research, which I've written for before.
	And I believe he's currently working with Reform or Reclaim...
	For a pandemic treaty for the UK for future to stop lockdowns.
	You could correct me on that, but he's a decent bloke.
	At the very least, thank you for preventing me from butchering his name.
	He argued that COVID lockdowns would harm children, which demonstrably they did.
	I think there have been studies done showing that now.
	Twitter secretly placed him on a trends blacklist, which prevented his tweets from trending.
	And if you scroll down, we can see this must have been the interface that they were using...
	To do this, or at least to show the current active incidents that were associated with certain accounts.
	And you can see there they had a tag for it, trends blacklist.
	This does remind me when I've been working for tech companies in the past as well.
	You have little tags that will apply different metrics and different algorithms to a particular person, and trends blacklist would just prevent him from getting trending.
	It's interesting as well for audio listeners.
	It says recent abuse strike here, but there's also a strike count.
	The strike count itself says zero.
	That is very interesting.
	I thank you for picking up on that.
	There's also, the next one, the right-wing talk show host, Dan Bogino.
	Bongino.
	Bongino.
	Thank you, Connor.
	You're really saving me today.
	Who at one point was slapped with a search blacklist.
	So, trend blacklist says it all.
	Search blacklist, I assume if you just type in his name or his handle, it would not come up.
	That's quite interesting as well, because...
	Purely speculative.
	He might have an anti-monopoly case on his hands, considering he's created Parallel Economy, which is an infrastructure that is the opposite to PayPal or Cash App.
	So, if this was conducted under Jack's reign while at Twitter, and he was building and promoting Parallel Economy at the time...
	Suppression of competition.
	Exactly.
	That's very interesting.
	That's a good one as well.
	I think some people are planning on...
	I know that James Woods is going to be planning on...
	Good on you, Hades.
	Yeah.
	He's going to be planning on trying to do a lawsuit.
	So if they did some kind of class action where a lot of these people who were involved all get together and sue Twitter...
	Well...
	I don't know if you'd want to sue Twitter now, or maybe sue the people behind it.
	I don't know if you could retroactively sue someone when they're out of the...
	I don't know how the American law system works, but one would think that somehow their contract immunises them from it from when they leave.
	Let us know in the comments if anyone knows.
	I guess we'll find out with how successful James Woods ends up being with this, because if he sues Twitter now, he's basically suing Elon, which would be counterproductive, to say the least.
	They also had the account of Charlie Kirk set to do not amplify...
	So Twitter's full of grippers, confirmed?
	Yep.
	Twitter denied that it did such things in 2018.
	Vijaya Gad, then head of legal policy and trust, and why are all these people with foreign bloody names, Kavon Bakepaw, head of product, said we do not shadow ban, then they added, and we certainly don't shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.
	I mean, that's rich.
	I do like how Charlie Kirk's account has a not suitable for work tag on it as well.
	What is he posting?
	Has he been liking some dodgy stuff?
	I mean, I don't pay attention to Charlie Perk's account.
	Do you remember when Ted Cruz, on his official Twitter account...
	Accidentally got horny on me.
	Accidentally.
	Also, Dan Crunshaw was tweeting out links to a Texas-based Lady of the Night.
	Oh, was he?
	Yes.
	Perhaps that was just in, you know...
	It was clearly his staffer, yeah.
	It must have been just, you know, the eyepatch, you know, visibility...
	Yeah, Twitter needs to improve his accessibility policies, definitely.
	Yeah, so what many people call shadow banning, Twitter executives and employees called visibility filtering, or VF. Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning.
	So this is classic doublespeak.
	We're not shadow banning, but if you'd asked them visibility filtering, they'd have probably had some kind of excuse up their sleeve for why it's not shadow banning, it's visibility filtering.
	Yadda yadda yadda.
	You've got to love the corpo speak.
	And then think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels.
	It's a very powerful tool, said one senior Twitter employee.
	I mean, that's shadow banning.
	If you want to change the definition of the word, fair play.
	We're just ensuring the health of the conversation, I'm sure, is the excuse.
	Yep, so it referred to Twitter's control over user visibility, it used VF to block searches of individual users, limit the scope of particular tweets discoverability, block select user posts from ever appearing on the trending page, and from inclusion in hashtag searches all without the user's knowledge.
	We control visibility quite a bit, and we control the amplification of your content quite a bit.
	And normal people do not know how much we do, one Twitter engineer told us.
	Two additional Twitter employees confirmed.
	So I like what they're doing here, which is they've not just gone through the information, they also seem to have done some interviews with the employees just to confirm the context of the information.
	So the group that decided whether to limit the reach of certain users was the Strategic Response Team Global Escalation Team, or SRTGET. It often handled up to 200 cases a day, and I can only assume that there were probably some that were more, you know, okay, is there some actual harm here, although given that Elon's the one who cleared out all the CP... And the Antifa accounts.
	And the Antifa accounts.
	Same thing, I suppose.
	I can only assume those 200 cases were heavily skewed in one direction, but there existed a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the rank-and-file moderators following the company's policy on paper.
	This is the site integrity policy escalation support, known as...
	S-I-P-P-E-S. And I'm just going to call them Sippies.
	And this secret group included Head of Legal Policy and Trust, Vijaya Gad, Global Head of Trust and Safety, Yol Roth, subsequent CEOs, Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.
	And this is why I don't believe Jack's redemption arc.
	I don't believe Jack when he's coming out and saying, oh, I had no idea about anything.
	You were part of the team.
	That organised all of the most politically sensitive decisions as wise states here.
	So what were you doing if not either happy to let it happen or just ignoring it like some incompetent fool or cowardly child?
	So your redemption arc just doesn't play well with me.
	And as she says, biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made in that team.
	Think high follower account, controversial.
	Another Twitter employee told us for these there would be no ticket or anything.
	So you would like, for instance, lives of TikTok here.
	It says, do not take action on user without consulting with SIPIs.
	That's really fascinating.
	The reason is, it's the admission that they know that they want to suppress the account for politically expedient reasons.
	However, because she just posts videos that other liberals, including leftist teachers, have made themselves, she can't be accused of doxing, harassment, incitement of violence.
	So she doesn't keep breaking the terms and conditions.
	Instead, they have to selectively censor Because they know that if they just censor it outright, it'll look too bad optically.
	So they are, with SIPs, mediating between the ideological instincts of the people doing the censoring on the engineer side, and the desires of the higher-ups to keep censoring, but have a steady stream of censorship that flies under the radar of a skeptical GOP establishment.
	So they basically want to look like they have plausible deniability, Of where they can pick and choose for what she would be censored, but they don't want to blacklist her outright because they know it will look too bad.
	Well, yeah.
	All the Sippy's team seems to be just arbitrary bans, arbitrary shadow banning, when it was convenient, when they'd just done something that a member of the team wasn't a big fan of.
	And this Vijaya Gads woman and Yol Roth, they don't exactly seem like well-adjusted people, shall I say.
	And one of the accounts that rose to this level of scrutiny, as we can see, was libs of TikTok, an account that was on the Trends blacklist and was designated as Do Not Take Action Without Talking to Sippy's.
	The account which...
	The woman who runs it began in November 2020 and now boasts over 1.4 million followers, was subjected to six suspensions in 2022 alone.
	Each time, she was blocked from posting for as long as a week.
	Twitter reportedly repeatedly informed Raychik that she had been suspended for following violating Twitter's policy against hateful conduct but in internal Sippy's memos from October 2022 after her seventh suspension the committee acknowledged that Libs of TikTok has not directly engaged in behaviour violative of the hateful conduct policy.
	And you can see the email here or the internal document here where they just say, "Yeah well she's not done anything wrong per se But she makes it look bad.
	Yeah, they say, based on the accounts continued pattern of indirectly So they're saying, well, she's not actually doing it, but we want her to be doing it, and I kind of have this gut feeling that she's doing it, so we'll just block her anyway.
	That's...
	Obvious and clear.
	Committee justified her suspensions internally by claiming her post encouraged online harassment of hospitals and medical providers by insinuating that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.
	And for the purposes of YouTube, I will make no further comment on that.
	Yes, we have to, because we're on YouTube, endorse the cutting off of 16-year-old girls' breasts for them.
	Stop right there.
	I will have to disavow anything that you say beyond that point.
	I cannot comment any further.
	Yes, compare this to what happened when she was doxed herself on November 21st, 2022.
	A photo of her home with her address was posted in a tweet that was garnered more than 10,000 likes.
	When Raychick told Twitter that her address had been disseminated, she said that Twitter support responded with this message.
	We reviewed the reported content and didn't find it to be in violation of the Twitter rules.
	No action was taken and the doxing tweet is still up.
	And that's one you should probably get sorted right now, Elon, because we know you're watching this.
	We know you're a secret fan.
	We know you're a gold-tier subscriber.
	You can join in the Zoom calls if you want.
	We won't mind.
	So this is not just politically biased, though.
	This is actively dangerous.
	And incredibly...
	Incredibly.
	Do you want to know what the mainstream response to this has been?
	I saw the most incredible tweet that I'm going to show us right now.
	Alejandro Caraballo, who I believe has had a few...
	We've spoke about before in reference to run-ins with Libs of TikTok.
	Barry Wise confirming what we all knew.
	Libs of TikTok was given...
	Are you ready?
	Special treatment.
	Preferential treatment.
	Special preferential treatment.
	Despite her account breaking the rules several times, despite Barry's claims, lives of TikTok was removed from search on November 19th, and this entire thread is full of absolute leftoid retards talking about how, oh, don't you see the top of it has a special note that says people can't even ban her?
	If she does break the rules, no, it means that that special note means they can do whatever they want, whether she breaks the rules or not.
	You absolute buffoon.
	It also means that defer to the censorship team so we can censor her, but only when it doesn't make us look too bad.
	Because they were censoring arbitrarily because she didn't actually break the rules.
	I mean, honestly, the level of brain rot that's in this thread is incredible.
	But let's go back to the...
	Actually important thread, I just wanted to point that out, that you will encounter people, if you mention this to them in public, who take that tact, who take that turn, and your duty is to laugh at them, ridicule them, and let them know how stupid they are.
	That's your duty.
	But, back to the thread, if we carry on, in internal Slack messages, Twitter employees spoke of using technologies to restrict the visibility of tweets and subjects.
	Here's Joel Roth, Twitter's then Global Head of Trust and Safety, in a direct message to a colleague in early 2021.
	Saying, a lot of the time it's used technicality spam enforcement as a way to solve a problem created by safely under-enforcing their policies.
	Under-enforcing their policies.
	Right.
	So if they say, oh well actually this doesn't break any rules, I just get to go, well, I don't care, ban them anyway.
	And that's an under-enforcement, as in we're not banning enough people arbitrarily.
	Yes, he says it's not a problem per se, but it keeps us from addressing the root cause of the issue, which is that our safety policies need some attention.
	Remember in subsequent interviews that he's given since he was fired from the organisation, he's said that misgendering Was really, really bad and deserved policy suspensions and bans and such for it.
	So this is, once again, these people are not stable.
	These people are not normal individuals.
	These are the far-left extremists that have dragged our culture and civilization, kicking and screaming into the realm of complete insanity, and it is our job, and no matter what you want to say about the guys on a personal level, Elon is doing good work by helping to pull that back, To some kind of centre of normality.
	So, we do appreciate that.
	Six days later, though, carrying on in a direct message, with an employee on the health, misinformation, privacy and identity research team, Roth requested more research to support expanding non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagements and de-amplification and visibility filtering.
	So they were just planning on making it worse.
	That's just what they wanted.
	He wrote, the hypothesis underlying much of what we've implemented is that if exposure to, e.g. misinformation, directly causes harm, we should use remediations that reduce exposure and limiting the spread virality of content is a good way to do that.
	So he may make a good note of the word hypothesis there.
	It's just a guess.
	We just assume that this is what he does, and what he was actively asking for was studies and research done To prove the hypothesis right, but before we've got any confirmation that we're actually right, we're just going to go ahead and do what we were going to do anyway.
	It's hilarious.
	These people don't care.
	This is how power works.
	When you're in power, you do what you want, and then you figure out the reasons and excuses for it later.
	It's an ideological feedback loop.
	Yeah, of course.
	He added, The authors, we've all got broad and expanding access to Twitter's files, and they say we're only just getting started on this reporting.
	So this is just part one and part two of something that is going to be carrying on for a long while, and I am very, very interested to see where it's going.
	It will be going back to Matt Taibbi for the next instalment.
	They seem to be tag-teaming this whole thing, so we'll see what else comes out.
	Yeah, the D-Generation X of anti-leftist action.
	Apparently so, and interestingly enough, we've got more.
	So, Elon Musk...
	Amusingly, tweeted in response to one of the tweets and Wise's thread, this screenshot of Vijaya Gad saying, back in 2018 maybe, Twitter exists to serve the public conversation, enabling important discussions around the world to occur.
	She's missing out a lot of context, which is within this boundary, within the playpen that we on the radical far-left Silicon Valley bubble say that you're allowed to.
	Always funny.
	We always knew that they were lying.
	It's just nice to have it confirmed for us.
	And here we go back to Yoel Roth as well.
	In the next one, we've got some screenshots of some things that he said.
	Yoel Roth, back in 2017, saying that, You are not the right kind of feminist.
	Backlash to yesterday's marches has begun.
	Did we learn nothing from this election?
	Yes, that person in the pink hat is clearly a bigger threat to your brand of feminism than, all caps, because these people, once again, are not stable.
	They're off the reservation.
	Actual Nazis in the White House!
	Great.
	Very performative.
	Delusional.
	Delusional is to say the least, but we knew who these people were.
	I'm not surprised at any of the information that's come out.
	It's just nice to have it confirmed that these people, yes, are as evil as they always seemed.
	And then you get the responses from some of the people who were actively being suppressed by this, like...
	Please pronounce his name for me again.
	Jay Bhattacharya.
	Thank you very much.
	Saying that he is still trying to process his emotions on learning that Twitter had blacklisted him.
	The thought that it will keep me up tonight.
	Censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures and a generation of children were hurt.
	So yeah, we can actually say as well, the information being suppressed, you can put that on people involved in Twitter.
	I think, unfortunately, Jay is assuming too much good faith on the part of the politicians who implemented the lockdown...
	That is also true.
	The types who were all too eager to be led by the nose from a scientific establishment staffed by literal communists like Susan Meachie and then be like Matt Hancock and give pandemic contracts to businesses you and your family have stakes in just to enrich yourselves.
	Yes, but I mean, they're all part of the same club and he even continues to say, I'm curious to see what the role the government played in Twitter's suppression of COVID policy discussion.
	We will see with time, I suppose, and given that we already saw...
	With the last one, the government's involvement in Twitter, and now that we've not got Baker in the way, I guess we'll find out more of that.
	Libs of TikTok, after seeing what had been going on with her, she just said, all I can keep thinking, I must be doing something right for them to go to these lengths to censor me.
	Promise you, I will never stop, and for that, you know, thank you very much for that one.
	I'm doing my part.
	Yes, we do have other journos who are completely salty about like this, like Matthew Iglesias.
	If you scroll down for us, we can see the tweet that...
	No, no, not this one.
	The one that Pedro is responding to here, where Matthew goes, I discovered the secret document, publicly available terms of service, that says Twitter sometimes limits the distribution of visibility of content, which...
	One is one of those things that you should be made aware of if it's going to happen, and two is not the exact same as the shadow banning that a lot of people were suggesting, where this was just done completely arbitrarily based along partisan political lines.
	So he's very salty about this.
	He's trying to say, like, oh, isn't it terrible when this is something that was out in the open in the first place?
	But scroll up for us.
	And we can see that what's actually gone on here, that Pedro is pointing out, is that Matthew was tweeting saying, before all this went down, if Elon Musk wants to give me exclusive access to internal Twitter documents, I'd be happy to do some PR for the world's richest man if he really has the gooders on the libs, probably a little bit more credible coming from me than Taibbi.
	You egotistical twat.
	He's salty that he got passed over.
	Because he wasn't allowed to gatekeep the information, because he wouldn't have done an unfiltered version of the reporting.
	No, of course he wouldn't.
	I'm just going to do a quick...
	I'm going to make Pedro proud here and do a quick physiognomy check on Matthew and say that he is not a trustworthy-looking person.
	In fact, he looks like a soy-estrogen-fuelled gremlin.
	You do know that he helps out Vox, right?
	That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
	And Elon's been talking further about some more developments that are going to be going on with Twitter in the first place.
	So this person said, be interesting when some people learn that they aren't actually shadow banned, it's just that they don't say anything worth reading.
	Shibatoshi's the guy that created Bitcoin, isn't he?
	Maybe.
	I don't know.
	I'm not into the whole crypto thing for the most part, so I couldn't say.
	But Elon eventually responded to this tiny little exchange here, saying that, scroll down a bit for me, please, John, tweets will show view count in a few weeks, just like videos do.
	Twitter's much more alive than people think, so now you'll be able to tell if you're being shadow banned or not just by being able to see the average engagement that your tweets get.
	As well, because the only feedback we have at the moment is how many comments you get, how many retweets you get, how many likes you get.
	We don't actually know how many views it gets unless you post a video.
	So, it'll be a nice little indication Was this tweet a banger, or was it just really bad?
	I will correct myself as well, but that isn't.
	He's just the same last name, so sorry for spreading misinformation.
	And then Adam Kriegler tweeted this out, just saying, F you Jack, when tweeting this screenshot of Dave Rubin saying, Do you shadowban people based on political beliefs?
	Simple yes or no will do.
	Jack says no.
	Computer said that was a lie.
	Sadly, you were not the father, Jack.
	It was a lie the whole time.
	And then Ian Miles-Chung followed this up, saying that here's the question for Elon Musk and Barry Wise.
	Were any political candidates, either in the US or elsewhere, subject to shadow banning while they were running for office or seeking re-election?
	And Elon just flat out says, yes.
	And I'm not going to suggest that that might purely be on the Republican side, even though it's incredibly likely that it will either be entirely or 99.9% Republicans being shadow banned in that situation, given the information that we've already seen.
	But I'm not going to say it outright, but that does have massive implications...
	For the elections of recent years.
	I'm not saying one way or the other, but it does have massive implications if Twitter was interfering with the information that gets out there.
	And I guess we'll just have to see what else comes out.
	I've been really enjoying seeing this all come out.
	And, you know, if it does lead to negative consequences for these people, honestly, I'll be surprised.
	Because like Jim Baker, sadly, a lot of these awful, awful people tend to fail upwards.
	Wonderful.
	I'm just going to quickly blow my nose.
	Connor's not feeling very well.
	I am sorry.
	I've soldered on, ladies and gentlemen.
	If you're wondering why Connor isn't the usual cocaine-fuelled ball of energy, it's because he's not feeling very well.
	I might actually talk at an understandable pace today now.
	You're welcome.
	Alright then.
	So an article in The Guardian yesterday endorsed criminalising Islamophobia, and used former Prime Minister Boris Johnson as the ur-case as to who should go to prison.
	Let's read the article, its related report, and point out the preposterousness of this proposal, while, of course, not criticising Islam ourselves, because I don't want to do jail time, because unfortunately this has been backed by the Labour Party and its front bench.
	Of course it has.
	Speaking of why free speech is curtailed for the public good, if you subscribe to our website and pay for us £5 a month, it's really worth it.
	It's better than Netflix.
	You can go and watch Carl and Callum chat about John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which the current neoliberal paradigm like to deflect to and say it's a really useful defence of free speech.
	However, it only defends it in terms of being of utility to...
	Grand-scale problem-solving rather than being in an inextricable right to your person to speak and then having moral constituencies Small satellite libertarian communities or...
	However you want to describe it.
	Exactly.
	Say that, well, we don't particularly...
	You don't line up with our ideals, so off you pop and find somewhere else.
	Instead, it's saying that the state, in theory, could constrict your speech if you are impeding the long arc of history bending towards justice.
	And that's the exact same idea that's behind this nutcase's academics plan.
	You could say that.
	His big defence that I'm mostly familiar with was that if you don't have the conversation that you might be potentially denying yourself some kind of knowledge or opportunity to strengthen your own knowledge, yada, yada, yada.
	The problem is that if the people within the state, in control of the levers of power, decide that there is nothing knowledgeable or useful to be gained of this situation or conversation, then they can just have free reign to go.
	Well, it doesn't count as free speech.
	You see it all the time, especially among leftists and Islamists saying that free speech is only free if it doesn't offend anybody.
	Exactly.
	If you're not engaged in the project of collective problem solving, then you don't get to talk.
	And that seems to be what this woman is talking about.
	If we can go on to her profile in academia, John, this is an Oxford academic called Dr.
	Soraya Bai.
	If we just take a cursory scroll down of some of the things she's written before...
	So, the most recent paper is the Index of Islamophobia, which we'll be reading through shortly, but it's other papers, if you just keep scrolling slowly, Cycle of Decolonisation, Panopticon's Power and Pleasure, Why the Hijab is Not a Problem.
	There's one where she says that COVID-19 positive tests should become a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
	I trust this person to respect Western values.
	Exactly my point.
	So, let's go on to the article, shall we?
	We've given ourselves a little bit of background.
	So, yesterday, she published this.
	Islamophobia from the likes of Boris Johnson must be punished, and this is how to do it.
	So we're going to take a cursory read.
	A House of Commons report confirms Islamophobia as the most common form of religious hate crime in the UK.
	Specifically, 42% of all religious hate crimes reported to the police were attacks against Muslims.
	Now, note the word attacks here.
	Because hate crime is an umbrella term, meaning you have taken offence and reported offensive speech, or you have perceived someone decided to beat you up because you were perceived to be a Muslim.
	Because the definition of the UK is Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
	And that is what someone takes action on if they're Islamophobic.
	So if they see you as a Muslim...
	And they're hateful towards you, and you can say, they were hateful towards me because they were racist, because they saw that I'm brown and they saw me as a Muslim.
	That means it's an Islamophobic hate crime, even if they just called you a silly name completely unrelated to it.
	So if I'm on the lash, out with the boys, and me and Raj, me and the old pal, get into a little bit of a scrap because we're both a bit drunk and rowdy, if he felt like it, he could, even though he wouldn't be like Muslim or anything, he could just hypothetically call the police and say he's being Islamophobic against me and get me arrested.
	Yeah, if you, for example, went out with your Indian friend, or you went out with someone you didn't know, right, and he was eating a kebab too quickly and you said stop being a pig, he could report you as Islamophobic.
	Brilliant.
	That is the state of modern Britain.
	So, she says, but a genuine effort to punish Islamophobia and Islamophobic attacks are so weak that statistics on prosecutions and convictions are entirely absent.
	We know nothing about how the police deal with complaints of Islamophobia or whether there is a uniform process across all forces.
	Meanwhile, Islamophobia goes unpunished and grows.
	This must change.
	This entire article is a call to action.
	Now, of course, when we're talking about policing speech, there's the issue of it is impossible to provide an objective definition of offense, as our ridiculous examples just gave.
	So how do you think she decides to work her way around the fact that you can't create an objective definition?
	Um, the definition is her personal definition and that's the one that should apply to all cases because she says so.
	No, she just says we don't need a definition at all.
	Oh, words don't need meanings?
	Yeah.
	I've never heard that argument before.
	The debate about how to punish it has been bogged down by the task of finding a definition.
	This may be important, but British Muslims cannot wait while scholars debate how to define what has long been an obvious and cruel daily reality.
	What obvious and cruel daily reality?
	If I remember correctly, British Muslims choose to self-segregate in their little enclaves, and I think it's only about 30% of British Muslims, which is an oxymoronic term in the first place, actually interact with anybody outside of the ethnic enclaves.
	Most of them either spend their time flitting between here and Pakistan, or they just spend all of their time in their little communities.
	Yeah, and so, unfortunately, if you do not integrate to Britain, the community tensions will continue to rise.
	And this creates a perpetual justification for saying society is intolerant of us, because we don't want to integrate, and instead we want to have preferential treatment.
	Well, I mean, even if they didn't integrate, I mean, one thing that would help all tensions and situations would be to stop grooming.
	That could land us in prison under this new law, unfortunately, Harry.
	So, enjoy your time in Belmarsh, mate.
	Alright, well, I'll take the rap for it.
	There you go.
	Community-based definitions of Islamophobia based on harsh experience are ignored by a legal landscape that approaches prosecution and conviction through outdated methods and systems.
	What, like asking for proof?
	Right.
	Okay.
	So, we should have Sharia courts.
	Brilliant.
	I mean, are we surprised that that's what she's asking for?
	No.
	So now that we've set in stone that the kafar must be punished, what's the solution?
	She says.
	How do we properly punish Islamophobes?
	It's a direct quote.
	As a lecturer in cultural geography at Oxford University, I've used my research skills to draw up an index of Islamophobia to help police, prosecutors, victims and analysts work out when to take legal action and how to map out the routes towards such action.
	Importantly, this is the first time an index to measure a hate crime has been proposed.
	So she's got a mathematical hate crime calculation index, which we'll be looking at very shortly.
	Published last week, this index of Islamophobia is accompanied by Pathways to Prosecution form, which helps identify the laws breached and scores each hate crime on the basis of intensity, intention, impact and recklessness.
	Those are actually the four metrics that she uses.
	So, intensity, so perceived hurt feelings.
	Intention, perceived intent.
	Impact, more perceived hurt feelings.
	And recklessness, more perceived intent.
	So, she's going to read the tea leaves as to whether or not you intended to destroy your entire religion and decide how upset she was and therefore how much time you should spend behind bars.
	I'm sorry, I'm just seeing some of the examples that she's giving in the next paragraph.
	Oh, just you, wait.
	So she says, A headscarf being torn from a Muslim woman and being called Shemima Begum in the workplace.
	Now, that last one, we're not going to go too much into detail with, but the Poplar and Lighthouse MP decided to say that happened to her in a parliamentary hearing on Islamophobia.
	So we have her word for it.
	If that happened, then I'm sure it was a reprehensible, ignorant comment and you shouldn't compare a member of parliament to an actual ISIS terrorist because that's pretty unfair.
	The other examples we will go through, though.
	Well, I mean, I'm sure that there's missing context in this paragraph here, but it's interesting that she's put her feely speech alongside actual incitement to violence and actual assault.
	Because we already have laws against those that don't need to be along racial lines.
	You can just say incitements are violent, don't do that.
	Assault, also don't do that.
	Simple as.
	Well, we'll go through these examples to see how legitimate they are, shall we?
	The first one, of course, I think she wants to imprison Boris Johnson over.
	And bear in mind, I'm no fan of Boris Johnson after he put me in house arrest for two years, but this is ridiculous.
	If we go over to the next link, please...
	John.
	This was what he actually wrote.
	Denmark has got it wrong.
	Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous, but there's still no reason to ban it.
	Right.
	So when he was making jokes about how Muslim women wearing the burqa, which is the isolate-only one, by the way, look like ninjas, bank robbers, letterboxes, all very Islamophobic content, which we cannot condone here, of course, I assume it's because he was trying to poke fun at you in the same way you would poke fun at a friend in order to help you integrate into British society.
	And he's actually defending your right to wear it.
	Now, I don't think it's a very healthy society which mandates women walk around with their face covered at all times, but Boris Johnson taking the very moderate, very liberal position here, and she's saying because he made a few mean jokes in his defence of allowing me to wear this tool of oppression throughout the Muslim world, then he should spend time in prison.
	I mean, I do find it funny.
	They always really, really hate Boris Johnson for this, even though Boris Johnson and the rest of the Conservative parties act as nothing but just an ushering in of leftist policies anyway.
	So even if you're complaining Boris Johnson said some mean jokes to you, he's still more than happy to go ahead, as this article proves, with everything else you want.
	He just wants to do it in a bit of a friendly way.
	So these sorts of laws, they wouldn't touch Boris Johnson, they wouldn't touch people who were in positions of power, they would hit the person on the street.
	The average Englishman who isn't particularly happy with how his culture is changing, with how his neighbourhood is changing, with how the jobs are changing, with the increasing prices of houses...
	But it would punish them for speaking out about it, because as we've established, there is no objective metric for whatever Islamophobia is.
	So even complaining, why have I lost my job to a bunch of foreigners, could be construed as Islamophobic in this situation.
	Yes, if you perceive those foreigners to be Muslim.
	And, for example...
	Complete anarcho-tyranny.
	Yeah, if you critique Albanian drug dealers, for example, well, they could perceive that as being Islamophobic.
	So...
	Why are the Albanians selling my teenage son cocaine?
	Sorry, mate.
	Off to the jail with you.
	Exactly.
	You shouldn't have spoken out against the Quran.
	Getting out on the London Tower again.
	The next example...
	So, this was actually linked to...
	Go back, please, John.
	This article from The Guardian was actually linked to in her article.
	So, you can...
	What is quite useful to do sometimes is just click the links that these articles actually link to and you can go down the rabbit hole.
	So it says, Communities across the UK have been responding to violent threats contained in a letter promising that 3rd of April would be Punish a Muslim Day.
	So this was a second example.
	The phrase was coined in an anonymous letter distributed to some homes and businesses last month with recipients in East London, the Midlands and Yorkshire.
	The letter suggested people could win points for a range of activities aimed at Muslims Including removing a headscarf from a woman or beating a person up.
	Muslim MPs were also sent the letter, as was Sajid Javid, who isn't a Muslim but was Home Secretary at the time.
	Now it goes about saying, don't call for violence if you don't want to end up in prison in Britain.
	As you already said, just simple.
	Doesn't matter if you have grievances with whatever group, just don't say beat people up and you won't spend time in prison.
	This prompted hashtag love a Muslim events to be set up in Nottingham, Bradford, Wakefield, Sheffield, Leeds, and a stand-up to racism event in Edinburgh.
	So you can see the...
	Non-profit, mobilized, grievance-mongering organizations come out with their counter-narrative, and they can solicit more and more donations, because, quite conveniently, there's an endless supply of prejudice to fight back against, and you should never trust an activist to solve a problem, because it's far too profitable to keep it going on.
	I always forget, what's the whole thing with non-profits not being, like, why do they call them non-profits?
	Because the people in charge of them always seem to be quite wealthy.
	Rich.
	It's like when Joe Biden set up a cancer charity and spent over 90% of it on salaries.
	The hashtag, hashtag PunisherMuslimDay, began trending on Twitter in the UK early on Tuesday.
	The vast majority of the tweets condemned the idea.
	Right.
	So, wasn't widespread Islamophobia then.
	Most of the tweets were about, why is this trending?
	Oh my god, that's horrible.
	Okay.
	However, some accounts using the logos of far-right organisations suggested the letter had been a false flag operation.
	Oh wait.
	So the far-right organisations, far-right, don't know whether or not they were.
	Also, I don't agree that fascism is far-right.
	See our book clubs on doctrine of fascism to explain why it's a leftist, collectivist ideology.
	Even they were saying, this seems a bit sus to me, mate, because we didn't put this out.
	So, this seems to be almost entirely astroturfed by one crazy person.
	And...
	What are all those hate crimes against black people in America being revealed as...
	Oh, they're being false flags by angry black students.
	We'll get onto that later.
	There were also some instances of fake claims about the day being spread on social media, with one tweet suggesting that ten Muslims had already been killed today in the name of Punisher Muslim Day, shared more than a hundred times, and other tweets claiming attacks had already begun.
	So there's no violence that happened because of this campaign.
	Again, silly to call for violence, but no violence actually happened.
	But look at the next one, as you said.
	The guy who did this was put in prison.
	Right.
	So the law worked.
	Alright.
	So why do we need more laws?
	Yeah.
	David Parnum, who called himself the Muslim Slayer, was jailed for 12 and a half years.
	Bear in mind he didn't slay any Muslims, so not very effective at your terrible job, are you?
	He sent packages containing fake anthrax, and he is to serve his sentence in hospital until he's well enough to be transferred from prison.
	The old bailiard, the 36-year-old, had launched waves of malicious letters targeting mosques, the Queen, and politicians including David Cameron and Theresa May.
	He admitted offences including soliciting murder, encouraging crime, bomb and nuxious substance hoaxes, and sending letters with intent to cause distress.
	That last one was what she was saying he should be definitely prosecuted for, the most egregious one, according to her.
	But he was sent to prison for a litany of other offences, and he's quite clearly a madman.
	So this doesn't really fit the bill for the rest of the complaints, particularly the Boris Johnson one, which was quite tepid.
	The court heard no violence was linked to the campaign.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So it didn't amount to anything.
	Just one nutcase.
	And he's already in jail.
	So why do we need to terraform our entire legal system to accommodate your offence?
	Let's go back to the article, shall we?
	So, she says, with reference to Boris Johnson's comments, his position as Foreign Secretary contributed to a score of 10 in the recklessness category.
	So this is where she's scoring his offence.
	So this is the power privilege calculation.
	Do I get to know how you got that 10 score?
	No.
	Absolutely not.
	Of course.
	There was genuinely no reasoning behind this.
	It's just arbitrary numbers.
	A score of 10 was also applied in the impact category, as the comments reportedly orchestrated a 375% rise in Islamophobic attacks against Muslim women in the UK. Have you heard that statistic before?
	I've heard it many times before.
	I think...
	I'm pretty sure I've debunked it, but I've forgotten how exactly.
	So I believe yourself and Callum covered this at some point, but I decided to look up, because I couldn't find the segment on our website, and...
	I only found...
	It's from Tell Mama, an organisation which exists to combat Islamophobia, and the sources are two blog posts.
	Two blog posts with...
	If you just scroll down, John...
	For our audio listeners, the blog post is a photo, and it just says, campaign group Tell Mama said it received 38 reports.
	So not 375% increase.
	That's a scary number.
	38 reports of anti-Muslim incidents.
	Right, so just maybe a rude comment or you felt offended because you read the article itself.
	In the week after the Nail PM compared veiled women to letterboxes and bank robbers.
	Go to the next one.
	So included with the 375% was people just getting offended at the article in the first place?
	And telling the grievance group that...
	The sectarian interest group.
	Which exists only as long as a perception of Islamophobia being widespread is perpetuated.
	Bear in mind, with this second blog post as well, this is where the 375% number comes from.
	So we know that it's only 38 incidents, but it's a 375% increase on top of what the former statistics were, and they've just linked this to Boris Johnson's Telegraph column, because for some reason everyone reads the Telegraph now.
	Despite readership being down pretty much across the board for all newspapers.
	And bear in mind, this is a blog post with no transcripts or police reports.
	So we don't know any of the individual case studies.
	And this is from an activist interest group who only get money as long as they continue to scaremonger.
	Entirely untrustworthy source.
	Well, yeah, this is just the power of propaganda.
	All it takes is a single sentence with some nonsense on it, and it keeps getting perpetuated year on year, so we're over three years down the line, and people are still using that statistic as if it's at all credible.
	Yeah, and there's tons of articles.
	The Independent was publishing multiple articles on the statistic.
	They never linked back to anything.
	They never linked back to the source.
	And this is the only source I can find.
	And it's from the group that they say it came from, but they've got no reports on their website or anything about it.
	It's just 38 people called up to us and complained, hopefully to access our services, which we get paid to do anyway.
	And so we said it's a 375% increase from the week prior.
	So 375 Karens decided to call us in, and suddenly we have to destroy the entire legal system in Britain.
	Okay, back to the article again.
	Intensity and intention were scored at 7 and 8 respectively, resulting in a total index score of 35.
	As a legal case before a judge, the high index would place squarely at the heart of the prosecution process the human impact of Johnson's comments, compelling an appropriate sentence.
	So Boris Johnson should go to prison because 38 people rang up a Muslim grievance organisation and whined.
	Right, so why is it actually being proposed here?
	Let's go on to our report.
	So this is the Index of Islamophobia Proposing an Enforcement and Prosecution Framework Report, which you can download the PDF from equalityactreview.co.uk.
	This is the PDF here.
	The foreword, if we can scroll down please, John.
	It's written by Naz Shah.
	Now, are you familiar with who Naz Shah might be?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so we're just going to go to Naz Shah's career history reported by the Metro.
	Bear in mind, this was the MP who was, I believe, Keir Starmer appointed her head of, like, community cohesion or something on the Labour frontbench.
	She'd been temporarily suspended because not only did she make a lot of anti-Jewish posts, but she said grooming gang victims should shut their mouths for the sake of diversity.
	Now, an Owen Jones parody account tweeted that out.
	She liked and retweeted it.
	I thought her finger slipped, bro.
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah, multiple times.
	It's okay for some Muslim woman to get vaguely upset at a telegraph column that is defending her entitlement to wear a burka in a public place, but actual rape victims should be quiet so we can increase immigration.
	So some victims were okay and not others.
	We're just establishing that here in the legal system.
	Great.
	So glad we have a two-tier justice system in the original home of the global gold standard of jurisprudence, but alright.
	So we can go back to the report PDF here.
	There's a very objective metric on page 7.
	This is her index.
	That's the entire index.
	That's it?
	Yeah.
	That's how she's proposing we should sentence people for Islamophobia.
	So I give you a word and then you just pull one out your arse, I'll give intensity, I don't know, six?
	Yeah, it's like Top Trump's has a more objective scoring metric than this Word document table.
	And for all audio listeners, again, it's a three-tier table.
	With four different, five different, sorry, boxes, and it just says intensity, score, intention, score, impact, score, recklessness, score, total, score.
	No way of even pretending there is an objective metric system to grey defence here.
	It's just saying, I'm going to rank you considering how upset I am and how demonic I think your intention was and boom, years in prison.
	Seems legit to me.
	I'm really glad we're creating a new state religion and an unimpeachable religious class to govern over us.
	So I'm just interested where statements like Islam is right about women or Islam is questionable will rank in that.
	Because...
	Obviously, there was a Scottish man who was arrested and charged for saying Islam is questionable, putting it on his own property.
	Where does that rank in that?
	Is that particularly intense?
	Is his intent to cause harm?
	None of this makes any sense, but it's not meant to.
	It's meant to be a naked power grab to make sure that their characteristic, which isn't even immutable, by the way, it's ideological, it's religious, it's self-associative, Is beyond reproach.
	You cannot criticize Islam if you're in the UK. And that's why I titled this segment, Criminalizing the Kafar.
	Because it actually outlaws non-belief.
	That is, if you drill down to it, if I were to say, as a Catholic, I think Islam is wrong, Okay, the impact of that, I suppose our audience has wide reach.
	It's reckless because it offends Muslims.
	It's saying that the Prophet Muhammad will not come down on Judgment Day with a winged horse with a human face.
	How could you criticize the obvious truth of Islam there?
	And I really look forward to serving time in prison for having a different conviction.
	Thanks very much.
	So what exactly is going to be policed?
	Go to page 11.
	Jokes.
	Right.
	Online comments posted on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, blogging sites, chat rooms, and other virtual platforms are often spaces in which Islamophobic language is rife.
	Such comments can also appear in the form of racist jokes and stereotypical banter.
	That's actually in this report.
	So, banter is to be criminalised.
	Thank you very much.
	Again, complaints about not integrating to British sensibilities.
	If you're trying to criminalise banter, well, it's kind of what our national continuity thrives upon.
	Which, add an additional layer of assumed protection for perpetrators.
	So you're just, if you're trying to make a joke, you're just veiling your obvious prejudice.
	I was actually told that once by a university diversity and inclusion officer as to where...
	Some of my friends had made edgy jokes, and she said, yeah, but the Nazi party disguised it as jokes to recruit people.
	No, they didn't.
	Because, to appropriate a joke, I think it was from Nick, where it's pretty famous that the Beer Hall Putsch was just a comedy night, the guy out of hand.
	Yeah.
	Academics have argued, in such incidents are left unregulated and unsanctioned, they can escalate into physical attacks.
	Over the last decade, a significant proportion of reports made to tell Mama comprised of an online incident of Islamophobia, Specifically, 69% were linked to the far-right groups, English Defence League and British National Party.
	Tracing the profiles of perpetrators, found that perpetrators of online abuse were mainly males who cited in their online abuse threats of offline abuse.
	Such threats were included burning down mosques to killing Muslim babies.
	Online commenters of hate were mainly anti-Pakistani, comprising of comments such as rape and paedophilia, incest, interbreeding, being terrorists and killing Jews.
	So they've just been watching Callum's segments...
	We cannot possibly comment on that, and I guess we just sort of have to move on.
	And then on page 21, the report also mentions her last example in the article, an epidemic of hijab-pulling hate crimes.
	Do you see a citation there?
	No.
	There's no footnote.
	No, in fact, I don't.
	I don't remember that article that we were starting the segment off with having a link on that either.
	No, it didn't.
	Isn't that amazing?
	But I did find one instance of it a little while ago.
	It was in New York, so it wasn't in the UK. So that's very far away.
	Yeah, and if we go to it...
	Oh, she made it up.
	So, she asserts there's an epidemic of headscarf pulling, but can't find a single example.
	And the one most prominent example in recent years, and this was six years ago now, so, still quite a way away, was made up.
	An 18-year-old Muslim woman who claimed that three men attacked her on a Manhattan subway this month and tried to pull off her job was charged on Wednesday with filing a false report, the police said.
	The woman, Yasmin Saweet, a student at Bangrook College, was also charged with obstructing governmental administration, the police said.
	Both charges are misdemeanors.
	So she got off with a slap on the wrist.
	Miss Saweet of New Hyde Park on Long Island had told the police that three white men screaming Donald Trump, the Jussie Smollett situation, again it seems, attacked her on December 1st at an uptown No.
	6 train at East 23rd Street, DNAinfo.com reported.
	And this is from the New York Times, so a bit of a strange source to cite, but there you go.
	She told the police that the men had called her a terrorist, and when she tried to remove to the other end of the subway car, one of them followed and tried to pull off her traditional headscarf.
	So...
	She gets away with a fairly light punishment, but she got an outpouring of sympathy on social media.
	There's obvious interest groups who exist to perpetuate an environment of Islamophobia to solicit donations.
	So there's a system of perverse incentives here, and this overhauling of the justice system is just going to instantiate a class beyond criticism based on a bunch of faulty premises.
	So then the report ends with this.
	We recognise the significant improvements must be made in the law to enable the prosecution of Islamophobic incidents.
	We propose a specific offence of Islamophobia to be instilled as part of the legal landscape.
	Based on what definition?
	The law commission to take a more specific and detailed review of the Public Disorder Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in relation to Islamophobia.
	The Crown Prosecution Service must, as a matter of urgency, define religion and hostility in order to ensure the incidents of Islamophobia are brought to justice, I
	suppose we'll have to apply that standard evenly over to the Quran as well then.
	Well, we're not going to.
	So I look forward to the incoming Labour government criticising my religion and critiques of another.
	Mashallah, my brothers.
	Alright, and on that cheery note, I think we should go to the last segment, which I'm going to try and make a little bit more fun, because some of that might have been a little bit distressing for some, because, as always, the demand for racism is vastly outstripping the supply.
	So, gentlemen, I sincerely...
	From the bottom of my heart, regret to inform you that it's time to look at this week in women because there has always been some developments going on with female empowerment and feminism and rising up against the patriarchy because we're allowed to call them women as long as it's in contrast to evil men.
	Any other circumstance, they're birthing people, they're womb bearers, they're carriers of mammaries, I don't know what you want to refer to them as, but they're only ever women If it's so that you can rub it in their face how much better they are and less evil they are than men.
	And that's what we're going to look into in a moment.
	I do want to point out as well, I like referring to this one that Carl released recently on the website and on YouTube, on the lotusseaters.com channel on YouTube that we have where we release some of our direct videos.
	And previews of the premium content.
	So if you're still unsure about checking out some of the premium content on the website, you can see the previews there.
	You should really check it out.
	But this is a recent video that he's put out called Reality Against Abstraction.
	And you can see just from the thumbnail that ideology is not real.
	Women and women's liberation has existed purely within the realm of ideology for a long time.
	But as we found out through anything from...
	Just real results in the real world and say STEM fields and such and the lack of women who go into them despite the fact that every opportunity is given to them.
	Scandinavian countries that have more and more gender equality than any other country in the world all becoming more diverse with the ways that men and women live their lives because it turns out if you let men and women just act how they want they'll act like men and women which are different.
	Or just any other number of metrics like surveys regarding women's happiness since women's liberation, it's not looked good.
	It's been a pretty steady downwards curve because it turns out that traditional gender roles didn't just work for men, they also worked for women as well for the most part, which is why they stuck around for thousands of years.
	Well, acting in contravention to your biology doesn't really do you any favours.
	Shocker.
	Reality is a set of guardrails, and if you try and breach the guardrails, well, it doesn't always do your psychology any good.
	It definitely does not.
	But moving on, you should check out that video that we've got there.
	Anyway, one of the first things that I wanted to point out, because this is going to be a bit of a mixed bag of topics that we're going to discuss today.
	The first one was there's been a little bit of mocking, a little bit of...
	Guffaws, given in the general direction of Jennifer Lawrence, an actress that back in the day, ten years ago when she was first starting to come out, was considered like, oh, she's like a bit of a girl next door vibe, oh, I bet I could get along with...
	No, she's just as entitled, just as stuck up, and honestly, just as stupid as everybody else in Hollywood.
	I was actually going to say that Jennifer Lawrence is one of the er examples of how someone's repugnant personality...
	Sorry, you said er earlier?
	What does that mean?
	I've never heard that before.
	The bar.
	The perfect example of how someone's repugnant personality can make them wholly unattractive, even if they are physically very attractive.
	She's a pretty girl, but she's so insufferably annoying and wooden on screen, I wouldn't touch her with a barge pole.
	Yeah, but let's just play the clip, because she said something quite confounding to anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of film.
	I remember when I was doing Hunger Games...
	Nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie because it wouldn't work, we were told.
	Girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead.
	Oh, absolutely.
	And it just makes me so happy every single time I see a movie come out that just blows through every single one of those beliefs and proves that it is just A lie to keep certain people out of the movies, to keep certain people in the same positions that they've always been in.
	And it's just amazing to watch it happen and watch you at the helm.
	Well, she knows she's lying because of the liar's smile.
	It's also interesting to have Viola Davis interview her because Viola Davis, with The Woman King, equally broke ground on being the first slave-owning loser to star in an action movie.
	Yeah, and I know that we all know that that's rubbish, but just for the sake of consistency, and just for the sake of being nice and thorough on this, we can just go to the next link, and I even chose that Star Wars girl, who is a woman herself, an actual woman, not one of those newfangled ones with the penises and such, completely debunking this.
	Yep.
	I mean, you can go back even further.
	You've got Sigourney Weaver, you've got Sarah Connor from the Terminator franchise, Lara Croft had two films.
	You could go all the way back to the 70s with Princess Leia, with What's Her Face and Halloween.
	Yeah, and you've got...
	Jimmy Lee Curtis.
	Jimmy Lee Curtis, yeah.
	You've got...
	Trinity and the Matrix, Terrible Resident Evil movies.
	Pam Greer in Jackie Brown, but you can go back to the 1970s and watch her in stuff where she's Foxy Brown in the Blaxploitation area.
	Sorry, love, you weren't even the first Mystique.
	Yeah, you were rubbish.
	And you know, yeah, you are a bit of a rubbish wooden actor as well.
	Sad to break it to you.
	I'm sure you can put some effort in, but you, I don't know, maybe learn to contort your face muscles a little bit more.
	Hold on, Lord of the Rings actually added an entire action scene just for Arwen.
	And it was good, don't get me wrong, but the film actually added in extra bits for its female characters to be boss girls.
	And it fit the characters, don't get me wrong, but this was 20 years before your career even kicked off.
	I will just carry water for the die-hard Tolkien fans out there.
	There are still plenty of people who are annoyed that Jackson did that with Arwen.
	That's fine to criticise it.
	That's alright.
	I just wasn't that fussed about it being included.
	But the point being, ten years before you were even doing movies, it was happening.
	So that was nonsense.
	Obviously, that's a load of rubbish.
	Everybody knows it's a load of rubbish.
	The fact that she's trying to erase the cinematic masterpieces that were the Resident Evil films by Paul...
	What was it?
	Paul Anderson?
	Paul W. Anderson?
	W.S. Anderson?
	There's a few too many Paul Andersons in Hollywood, but the fact that they're trying to erase those cinematic masterpieces is just beyond the pale.
	How could you do something like that, Jennifer?
	That's just absolutely disgusting.
	You're making me feel physically ill.
	But, we do maybe have some evidence that perhaps things aren't going so well for women in Hollywood, because, sad to break it to you boys, Wonder Woman 3's been cancelled.
	Yes!
	Yes, Wonder Woman, as done by Patty Jenkins, trailblazing female director, isn't going to be happening anymore.
	At least not in the way that she wanted it to.
	What, she's not going to make her a rapist again?
	Well, we're still deciding about that.
	We'll see.
	Whatever the vision she had for Wonder Woman 3 isn't going to be going ahead, because Warner Bros.
	Discovery passed on Patty Jenkins' third Wonder Woman film after her treatment was reportedly determined to not fit in with the studio's newly revised plans for DC's storehouse of IPs.
	I can only assume that they decided it wouldn't fit in after they watched...
	Wonder Woman 1984.
	Why did I decide that that would fit in?
	Yeah, I mean, I've not watched either of them.
	The first one's horrible as well.
	People liked that one for some reason.
	Because they're idiots?
	1984 just looked bloody awful.
	Oh, it's horrendous, yeah.
	It looked atrocious.
	But I just wanted to give this particular little story here a little womp womp.
	I think it's fitting.
	Moving on to other news for women this week.
	So Elon is being sued as part of Twitter for misogyny because apparently he targeted women for layoffs when he was firing like three quarters of the staff.
	So he called the useless jobs women most affected.
	That seems to be what's happened here.
	I have a scripted video coming out on basically how our entire economy is founded on ideological promises, unsustainable debt, and making a bunch of women who enter the workforce feel better about their meaningless jobs, and Elon Musk seems to be proving me right.
	Yeah, so the proposed class action filed late on Wednesday in San Francisco.
	Federal court said that after Twitter was taken over by Elon Musk, the world's richest person, for some reason Reuters needs to point that one out, it laid off 57% of its female workers compared to 47% of men.
	So, as you've maybe hinted at there, what does this say about the women who are working there in their job roles?
	And also, do I need to refer everybody back to the adult nursery TikTok videos of women in tech in Chicago talking about their days of work?
	Because it didn't involve much work.
	It mainly involved sitting around, chatting and gossiping with your friends, eating free food that they would give you for working in these organisations.
	It wasn't really labour-intensive.
	No, Cole doesn't have stations of box wine and little gifts laid around the office, funnily enough.
	And yeah, we're still working on getting those, because we deserve them.
	But that's not what we get every day.
	So the lawsuit was filed by two women who were laid off by Twitter last month, and they accused the company of violating federal and California laws banning workplace sex discrimination.
	Boo-hoo.
	Shannon Liz Riordan, a lawyer for the plaintiff, said women had targets on their backs once Musk acquired the company, regardless of their talent and contribution.
	So they just saw Lauren Chen's tweet?
	I feel like, yeah, I feel like this is saying more about your talent and contributions than it is about Elon, but...
	Your total, utter lack of either.
	Maybe some of these women will be appearing in the BBC's Top 100 Women of 2022 list, which we'll take a look at now, which...
	It's not great.
	It is pretty ideologically motivated.
	You'll notice that there are some trends that connect a lot of the people who are in there.
	Now, I'm not going to say that there's nobody worthwhile in this, because there are some women in here who really have done really good work and really have done some interesting things.
	Pete sent me through one woman who was a sufferer of Down syndrome...
	Yes, she's the woman that's tried to sue the UK to prevent the fact that abortions, if you screen for disabilities like a cleft lip or Down syndrome, you can abort up until birth.
	So she's trying to prevent that.
	Yes, so there are women in this list who are very worthy of admiration and worthy of celebration.
	Because, you know, we joke, but I'm not anti-woman or anything like that.
	Women can do plenty of very useful things.
	It's just that the things that they're being held up for most of the time in the establishment and the mainstream...
	Are not useful.
	It's astroturfing.
	Yes, it's completely astroturfed.
	Frankly, as well, just a serious point of clarification, Harry and I make jokes about women all the time because we live with them, and so the institution of the pub...
	We're best positioned to understand women.
	Yeah, the institution of the pub in Great Britain exists just so men can go for about an hour and complain about their wives and then go back home to their wives and treat them very well.
	So, in our immediate lives, we actually really enjoy the company of women.
	It's just...
	The bollocks perpetuated by the feminist establishment which keeps women unhappy offends us.
	Well, I mean, it's not like women don't do the exact same thing.
	My missus has been out with some of her friends today, and I'm sure there's been a few bad words pointed in my direction.
	Well, not just that.
	Female friendship groups are self-esteem firing squads.
	They all just cannibalise each other's image to boost each other up.
	And that's why my girlfriend's just become thought patrol for her group.
	She's like, no, I'm not letting them steal each other's men and do sexual sabotage for each other just so they can feel better about it.
	I'm just going to tell them, no, make sensible decisions, and then you might actually feel more confident about yourself, I mean, that does remind me, and this is going to be a little bit off topic, I noticed that Paramore, of all bands, released a new song today, which is actually quite good.
	It's a decent little tune.
	I actually quite enjoy their music.
	But Hayley Williams, despite calling herself a feminist nowadays, still wrote the greatest slut-shaming song of all time in misery business.
	I haven't heard it, but I'll go listen.
	You will have heard it, but it's a complete slut-shaming song, and it's actually quite fun.
	But anyway, let's take a look at some of the women who are on this list, including an Australian woman called Chanel Contos, a sexual consent activist who founded a movement dubbed Teachers' Consent that lobbies for holistic consent and sexuality education.
	So...
	I mean, I don't know strictly, but that sounds an awful lot like what DeSantis was legislating against, because I know the slippery slope that turns into holistic consent and sexuality education.
	It turns into what Project Veritas were covering yesterday, where we hand out dildos and bookplugs for the children in primary school and nursery.
	Not exactly what I wanted.
	You deserve prison time, not an accolade.
	And obviously she's bringing up some problems to do with sexual assault, especially in schools.
	That's always very good.
	The problem is that you...
	The problem is always...
	The way in which it's taught, because frankly, and I said this on Piers Morgan's show, the perpetual attempt to teach men not to rape, no, all it does is it graze the boundaries for most men who would like to approach a woman but feel discouraged by the likes of the Gillette advert, thinking they're going to be told they're toxically masculine...
	Whereas actual rapists whose brains are broken because they have no moral boundaries and they're weak men because they have to take advantage of women in vulnerable positions because they can't earn a woman otherwise, you can't teach them not to rape because they're so willing to rape they'll go to prison for it.
	So trying to teach people consent doesn't work.
	All you need instead is women to be armed to defend themselves and men to be strong enough to beat the crap out of those people and have pretty severe punishments for those that try to do it.
	Yeah, I mean, she launched a petition calling for earlier consent education in Australia to combat this, and like you say, this is...
	You do know that in, like, Norway and Sweden, when they had all of the migrants come over raping people, and they put on the little armbands that said, please do not rape me, they didn't do anything.
	They tried to teach the people not to rape, and they did anyway.
	The best thing to do is to criminalise it and make it really harsh punishments against it to deter it.
	That's the best you can really do.
	I mean, personally, I would argue for just, not chemical, but full-on castration as a punishment for rapists.
	Ham and hammer, I'll do it myself.
	There you go.
	We've also got Maud Goba, a UK LGBTQ plus activist who is a refugee who's worked for two decades with grassroots organisations to promote the integration of refugees, and she is currently a national manager for Micro Rainbow, which provides safe shelter to LGBTQ plus asylum seekers and refugees.
	So an open subversive.
	Yes, open subversive.
	You know, that incredibly broad spectrum of people who are LGBTQ plus from the areas in which we are receiving refugees and asylum seekers.
	The incredible influx of LGBTQ Albanians we've been receiving, I assume.
	Then we've got this amazing one.
	Woman cutting hair in Iran, who was a protester.
	We don't know her name.
	She's just woman cutting her hair.
	Inspirational.
	Inspiring.
	Brought a tear to my eye.
	Stunning.
	And yet brave at the same time.
	Then we've got one of my personal favourites here.
	Ursula von der Leyen.
	Ugh.
	You know, the chair, the president of the European Commission.
	Who's just introduced mandatory digital ID and a citizen's digital ID wallet to make you rent a bicycle or an apartment.
	Notice how she never said buy.
	I mean, she deserves celebration, obviously.
	And then we've also got Connor's crush, Billie Eilish.
	Look.
	Singer and songwriter.
	Look.
	Nobody's perfect.
	Go to the next one.
	You should find her there.
	Basically because they say that her song, Your Power, called out abusers who exploit underage girls.
	It did, actually.
	That's a fair message to spread, you know, fair play.
	It's quite sad.
	And to all the good girls go to hell, a song about climate change, which you say isn't.
	It's not.
	No, the line in it is, when the water starts to rise, referencing Noah's flood, because the song has biblical imagery.
	Now, I think it's openly subversive, because she calls God her, but...
	But it's not about climate change.
	No.
	I've just outed myself.
	You get to deal with that later.
	But they are celebrating her primarily because she used her Glastonbury headline spot to protest against the repeal of Roe v.
	Wade.
	Yeah, I did turn that off.
	And then the quote that they've...
	If you just scroll down just a little bit, the quote that they've included for her accidentally debunks the patriarchy because she says, I'm in awe of the time we're in right now.
	Women are at the top.
	Well, there it is.
	There's hope for her yet, I can fix her.
	Yeah, sure, okay.
	Elite capture of Billie Eilish.
	You say that, but then you did send me this to include in the segment as well.
	Yeah, I did, yeah.
	This next image, if you go to it.
	Yeah, this is actually satanic.
	Where her and her boyfriend earlier on this year in October dressed up together as a baby and an old man for Halloween.
	So if you think you can save that, you know, good luck to you.
	You've got a hell of a job ahead of you.
	Look, we all like a challenge.
	Alright, okay.
	This is horrendous.
	Alright, if you say so.
	Very disgusting.
	Very strange.
	You know, I get that couples can dress as weird costumes for Halloween, but if you're, what, is it 20 years older than your girlfriend, and you're an old man, and you're getting her to dress as a baby, that's very strange.
	Wasn't this a jackass skit as well, where he walks around with his granddaughter and, like, kisses her a bit too much, when Johnny Knoxville's in the old man...
	Makeup?
	So they satirised this as people were going to be disgusted in public because you're a creepy old paedophile.
	And they went, hey, how about we do that as a Halloween costume?
	Yeah, and then we've got this next article that came out from Vice recently talking about how...
	Yep.
	What are you doing, stepsister?
	Hooray!
	There's a new study come out that shows that man-children are destroying women's sex drives.
	Now, I actually approve of the general message, because there are a lot of soy-based, estrogen-glugging wimps out there, which is making it probably very difficult for women to be at all attracted to them.
	The types who have, you know, here's my wife and her boyfriend.
	Yeah, Nintendo Switch players.
	See my recent piece on birth control and how it being in the water has emasculated men and reduced sperm counts, most likely, and also put women in a state of diminished estrogen, which means they're less attracted to masculine men, and sometimes more attracted to women.
	So this is actually a consequence of the mass medication bisexual revolution?
	So you're arguing that the sexual revolution is what's caused the gigantic influx of women coming out as bisexual?
	I'm not arguing that.
	There are actual doctors arguing that.
	Go and watch the segment on the website.
	Fair play, but they dubbed the idea of the man-child as somebody who's basically someone who's going to turn their significant other, their girlfriend or wife or whatever, into just a replacement mum.
	Which women hate.
	Yeah, which women hate, but also there's a big problem, which is that women actively often nowadays, the empowered girl boss young women, encourage young men to behave more in a way that allows them to become replacement mothers for them.
	So the best thing that you can really do as a man is act like one, and don't take advice from women on how to be more of a man.
	General good advice...
	Right there.
	But of course they do eventually come back around to intersectionality.
	It comes down to Jordan Dixon, London-based psychotherapist, telling Vice that many humans struggle to look after themselves, both emotionally and physically.
	This is true.
	This struggle occurs primarily in the relationship with ourselves, and then, lo and behold, in our intimate relations with others.
	That can also be very true.
	It's best to be secure in yourself, so that you're able to be the best person you can be if you're entering a relationship or a partnership with somebody.
	But then Dixon rejects the term man-child.
	Fair, okay.
	Instead she prefers the use adult child, because as she says, anyone can be a child in a relationship, regardless of gender and sexuality.
	I actually agree with that.
	Yet she observes this dynamic, does often stem from, say it with me now everybody, heteronormative gender expectations.
	There we go.
	Nothing biological, it's all society's fault.
	Dixon explains that men often face more social pressures to confirm to conventional gender role behaviours, which they get from both men and women and their underlying biology, which for them has not historically included domestic labour.
	No, because generally, the domestic side was the woman's side...
	In the more traditional gender roles.
	And the going out and breadwinning part was the man's role.
	Neither of them was easy.
	Nobody ever said that either role was easy.
	But that's how it worked, because that was more of a fair split of the labour of the relationship.
	Well, not just that.
	It's biologically correlative, because you won't be working in the mines when you're pregnant.
	Yeah, that just...
	not makes sense.
	Although the people who made Last of Us Part 2 might disagree with you there, given that one of the main characters of that was a heavily pregnant woman going out to battle in guerrilla warfare.
	Right, that wasn't the...
	Because she was a girl boss.
	That wasn't the replacement protagonist with a linebacker jawline, was it?
	No, it was one of her friends who the main character ends up killing later in the game because somehow she didn't tell that she was pregnant, and interestingly enough, the fact that she was pregnant when Ellie kills her is one of the things that you're supposed to feel extra bad about.
	Oh, she didn't just kill the woman, she also killed the baby.
	Oh, so I guess it's a baby when it's convenient and you want us to feel emotionally manipulated to feel bad.
	Otherwise, it's just a parasite if you want to get rid of it yourself.
	Interesting double standard.
	At the same time, this article carries on, many studies have shown women are more likely to take on Carer roles.
	I wonder if there's any biological imperative pointing them in that direction.
	This is thanks, of course, to societal expectations of them being for others rather than being for themselves, as Simone de Beauvoir argues in Connor's favourite book, The Second Sex.
	Right, ladies, this is the example, again.
	Of why these people hate you?
	Because Simone de Beauvoir actually sets out in the second text, one, that logic in masculine hands is violence, because women can't understand science.
	She says that, I didn't, right?
	And then she says, until we abolish the patriarchal normative nuclear family...
	Mass-enroll women into the workplace and expropriate all property.
	And that paragraph cites Friedrich Engels for that, the co-author of the Communist Revolution.
	Fun.
	We will not dismantle the patriarchy.
	So she wants you to be childless, a worker drone, and to hate men.
	So, all of feminism is a praxeological method for making you miserable, for discontinuing the human race, and for impoverishing you at the expense of these ideologues who want to collectivise all of your property and be an elite class above you.
	Do not listen to this nonsense.
	Just have a wholesome family and don't hate the men in your life.
	Yeah.
	So despite all of that, I do sadly have to disagree with a lot of what this article is saying because it's trying to turn it into the intersectional review of relationships rather than the one that's rooted in reality and understands that men and women are different and how you can account for that in relationships to make it better for both members of the relationship.
	But, despite all of my complaints with this, I do still get the man-child charge, because it's been going on for a very long time that we have the soy beta cooks who are more than happy.
	There we go.
	This is a real person?
	This is a real person.
	I thought, wait, what?
	I thought Soy Jack was like a...
	He actually...
	My wife's boyfriend, I thought that was just a joke.
	I didn't realise it's a...
	Well, I think that Reddit post is a joke, but the guy himself is real, and if you look, that baby...
	Remarkably diverse.
	Remarkably diverse.
	He must have some incredible recessive genes, wouldn't you say?
	Poor guy.
	Poor guy, but he did it to himself.
	He's still doing the soy face, even in the family photos.
	And you can actually go to the Reddit post that the original one comes from, in this next one, where he says, I had a vasectomy yesterday, and when I woke up this morning, my wife surprised me with this.
	And this is Our Child Free, which all seems to be a group of...
	Feminist men coping over their terrible life decisions.
	Every single one of them going like, huh, now I won't have to spend all that money on children.
	All I have to be able to do every day is sit around and play my video games.
	I think the worst part of this photo is actually, he got Destiny in year one.
	Oh, that's probably not a good idea.
	That's more torturous than having kids.
	And this is quite an old post, but it is just sad to see how many people rationalise to themselves this childless, miserable, video game-consuming lifestyle.
	Because this isn't what women want, this isn't what women are attracted by.
	The fact that his wife surprised him with this, I would take this as, oh, okay, so you're leaving me.
	Because I'm going to need something to fill the time with instead.
	No, but it's absolutely ridiculous.
	I am fully on board with Carl now.
	If men want women to be better, we need men to be better in the first place as well.
	But the only problem is, if you want to be a better man, don't listen to women's advice on it.
	And there we go.
	Let's go into the video comments.
	Quick comic question for Connor.
	Is he aware of the Italian 70s series, Corto Maltese?
	It's an interesting kind of swashbuckling adventure series.
	It's kind of a precursor to Indiana Jones.
	Also gets a lot of references in DC, I noticed.
	The funniest part of the series is how there's like this Rasputin-y character that hangs out with him, who's basically just V in one of Sargon's RPs, a complete murder hobo.
	If you want to get a good sense of these characters, I'd recommend watch the French movie where they go to Siberia to steal the Tsar's gold during the Civil War.
	So I haven't actually read the series.
	I do know The Island of Corso Maltese.
	I believe it was first introduced in Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, and then it definitely crops up again in, I think it's John Ostrand's Suicide Squad 1, which is why it's in the Suicide Squad movie.
	It's the island where they're keeping Starro.
	Oh, fair play.
	Terrible film.
	I'm not...
	I thought it was fun.
	That fight scene, where it's basically like a bad kung fu movie, is indefensible.
	Oh yeah, I'm not saying that I'm defending that.
	I'm defending the rest of the film being pretty fun, though.
	I thought it was fun.
	I thought, for the most part, it was quite funny.
	I don't like when they make Harley Quinn a whore, either.
	Well, yeah, I didn't like the Harley Quinn stuff.
	I feel like Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn has mainly been a misstep after misstep.
	But, you know, the rest of it I enjoyed.
	Let's carry on.
	Baroness O'Neill is a philosopher and crossbench member of the House of Lords.
	Her five-part wreath lecture on A Question of Trust is worthy of particular attention on how we trust less as we measure more and hold people accountable.
	Her premise is that thoughtlessly gathered and improperly applied data actually creates bureaucracy that undermines trust in institutions.
	Her final lecture is excoriating about the press, upbraiding them for not abiding by the standards they report about others.
	What is interesting are all the things she foresees and the few things she cannot foresee.
	Oh, to be able to go back 20 years and talk to everyone about where we were headed.
	It's quite interesting how that links to the interlacing layers of judicial reform based on the faulty statistics that we're talking about in the second segment.
	Like the entire bureaucracy mobilizes around one bit of false information, builds and builds and builds, and eventually when that one building block comes out, it falls down like a Jenga tower, and we will have to suffer because we have to foot the bill for it.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, those are all the video comments, so let's go to the written comments of the website, starting off with Twitter secret blacklists.
	America's in Hospice Care says, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out that Jim Baker was still working for and getting paid by the FBI while he was working as Twitter's general counsel.
	Wouldn't really surprise me either.
	Lord Nerovar says, Seriously, we need to be keeping Elon Musk well within our sight right now.
	He may not be the perfect role model or even a particularly good character a lot of the time, but he is undoubtedly one of the most important people in the West right now.
	He's at serious risk of retribution from the cathedral over these Twitter files.
	We need to get behind him for now.
	I do agree.
	I think he is associating, for the most part, with a lot of people who...
	I know people don't like Ian Myles Chong, for good reason.
	But apart from that, he is associating with a lot of people who, generally speaking, I would say are our guys.
	Regime dissidents.
	Good guys.
	Yes, people who are useful in demolishing the regime, but not particularly useful in the post-collapse reconstruction, because they do not share our normative vision of the future.
	And Elon Musk definitely does not, given that he is an absent father and a transhumanist.
	So I am happy for him to be an instrument of demolition.
	However, I am very sceptical as to how he would like to fill the vacuum afterwards.
	I'm not entirely sure about the absent father thing just because I don't know enough about...
	He's got nine kids and he just keeps flitting between marriages.
	It's not very good.
	I know he's got nine kids, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's not looking after them.
	He's got three different mothers.
	That doesn't necessarily mean that he's not looking after the children.
	He's not present all the time, come on.
	Obviously, but I don't know enough about the man's personal life and how much time he spends with his kids to be able to comment on that properly.
	Andrew Narrag says these former Twitter executives need federal charges drawn up against them for deliberately trying to undermine the government and, as Democrats would put it, our sacred democracy.
	Yeah, the problem is, though, the people who support those decisions are the ones in charge right now, so...
	Until we do get Trump 2024, which we probably won't, then nothing's going to happen to them.
	And I'll read one more from this.
	General Hai Ping says, Always remember that the governments around the world held the documents in hand that stated untested and experimental and collectively said, All this is fine.
	Proceed.
	Very true.
	Also, General Hai Ping, I don't know if I've mentioned, but if I haven't, I'm going to say it now.
	Thank you very much, for sending the PS2. Oh, yeah.
	That was really, really kind of you.
	I know I emailed you, but I thought I'd put it out publicly.
	General Hyping, genuinely a really nice guy.
	Sophie, yeah, sorry, true equality means that we all face equal punishment for the same crimes, and we are all equal targets for satire and mean comments.
	Would be nice, wouldn't it, but given that Christianity is now in a minority in Britain, well, we're open for persecution again.
	Free will, 2112, because our politics are not the same as theirs, many of these hard lefties would imprison innocent people without trial if they could, but because they're not currently in a position to do so under the current system, they have to come up with increasingly ridiculous reasons as to why their political enemies ought to be imprisoned.
	Actually, they are in a position to persecute people without just cause.
	I mean, they nicked £800 from Count Dankula's bank account, even after the farcical nature of his trial.
	And I know Carl's friends with the guy, I haven't met him and I'm not the biggest fan, but Tommy Robinson got locked up for reading a BBC article outside of a court hearing about grooming gangs.
	And he got locked up in solitary confinement in one of the harshest prisons in the UK with a window which faced the mosque courtyard where other inmates could just put things through his window.
	I mean, no matter what you think about the guy, that's horrific treatment, but that's just punishment by the regime, pretty obviously.
	Andrew.
	Connor, don't forget.
	Strongly worded letters are among the most potent weapons around.
	True, I am very much on board with Carl's idea of...
	In classical Britain, perhaps.
	Well, actually, this is why the Karen archetype which Carl put his foot in when Kelly J was on.
	That's why women have a lot of social enforcement power, because women's complaints, men are compelled to act on them.
	We do have an instinctual thing to want to stop women crying.
	That can be weaponised to our own self-destruction sometimes.
	But this is why sometimes letter writing to your MPs, especially if you create a deluge, this is why the left try and manufacture consent, if you create an overwhelming consensus of being against something, it can be quite powerful.
	So I think we do need to get more involved in government consultancies and letter writing to MPs.
	Yeah, you are right.
	I often have a massive urge to stop the woman nagging.
	So, anyway, I'll just read out two from my last segment.
	I know which one you're going to read out.
	Well, one of them says, Look, her politics are horrible.
	I think she's got very talented vocal range, and I can fix her.
	Connor's a fan of her assets.
	X, Y, and Z says, Larry, keep in mind, I think that's a typo, society currently encourages the prolonged adolescence of men well into their 30s.
	I agree, and I agree that's a massive problem with men, but listening to intersectional feminists on how to fix that will lead them to prolonged adolescence all the way into their 40s as well.
	And the last one I'm going to read is Bass Tape saying, oh, come on, guys, let's not be mean to Jennifer Lawrence.
	She did a really good job in that home video that got leaked.
	All right.
	Right.
	I don't think we should be in the business of endorsing people's private photos being leaked from the cloud.
	Of course not.
	She's an attractive girl, but come on.
	It's a joke.
	It's a joke.
	Anyway, with that, that's all we've got for you today.
	Thank you very much for watching.
	Reminder to anybody watching, if you are an editor, to check out the careers page and apply for the video editor job that we have right now.
	Only if you can commute to or live in Swindon.
	You too can be paid to constantly look at me and Harry talking about comics for two hours a week.
	Yes, Jack's been loving it.
	But with that, thank you very much.
	We'll see you again on Monday.

▲