Myron GainesX analyzes David Burke's defense strategy against charges of murder and mutilation regarding Celeste Rivas Hernandez, focusing on challenging decomposition evidence and the chain of custody for items like chainsaws and body bags. The episode then shifts to a heated debate between Sneako and Akademiks concerning racial slurs, where Sneako argues intent is irrelevant while Akademiks insists on subhuman treatment, culminating in Sneako's departure from YouTube due to platform restrictions amidst live chat threats. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexities of high-profile legal defenses and the volatile nature of online discourse regarding race. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Murder or Financial Fraud00:06:42
You know, limited series and stuff like that.
How do you pick a jury?
How do you find a jury pool that hasn't heard about this case or that can weigh in on this case without having any impressions of Alec Murdoch or his family or any of the entire affair?
So, what happens, and this is very critical, what happens is when you select a jury, the calculus and analysis is not whether you've heard about the case.
Do you have an opinion about the case?
What do you think about the case?
What are your views about the case?
How much of YouTube did you see it on?
How much did you watch CNN?
The issue is.
Sir or ma'am, could you agree to put that aside and evaluate the case based upon what you hear in the courtroom, based upon what you see in the courtroom, based upon the evidence that is presented?
And if it's presented strongly enough, do you agree, sir or ma'am, to vote for the prosecution because you'd conclude that he's guilty?
In the event, however, that you conclude that the evidence in the courtroom, not based on your opinion, is of a value that it doesn't establish his guilt, he'd be not guilty.
Could you agree with that?
So that's really the analysis when you're selecting a juror.
Unless you're under a rock nowadays, Boris.
You've heard something because we are in such a social media sensationalized society.
If you're not watching it on TV, it's certainly there, right?
And so I think that if there is a retrial, that certainly is going to factor into it.
And if a juror says, no, no, I have opinions, he's guilty, they're not going to be paneled because they're going to be challenged for cause.
In the event, however, that a jury concludes that, you know what, I'm good and everybody has their opinion, I have mine, I could serve, then they'll serve.
But this is an important decision.
And I should also briefly note that the court was somewhat. concerned also because the case became all about his financial crimes.
And it was sort of like, wait a minute, are we on trial for murder of his two family members or is this a case about financial fraud?
And so the court, in its analysis and opinion, said, you got to limit that court moving forward.
Yes, you can put some of that out there, but when does it become a case about he's a bad guy convict him as opposed to he's a murderer because that's what we're here for?
Always have to keep your eye on the prize when you have a case before court and before jury.
A case like this one, especially the saga, continues.
Joey Jackson, thanks so much for joining us.
Appreciate it.
Okay, let's see here.
What can we.
David, case as well.
Updates on this.
What can we expect from the David defense team?
How will they challenge the prosecution's evidence?
What will be the defense for the serious charges of murder and sexual abuse and mutilation of human remains when it comes to the death of 14 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez?
He is represented by a very high powered attorney.
What can we expect?
Let's talk about it.
Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime.
I'm Jesse Weber.
Something we haven't yet explored in depth, we talked about a little bit, want to do a full episode on it, is the potential defenses in the David case.
What are his defenses to the crimes that he's charged with?
In other words, how can his defense attorney, Blair Burke, challenge the potential evidence against him?
And to be clear, too, I don't know for sure what's going to be argued.
I don't have like a crystal ball, I don't have an insight, I'm not friends with Blair Burke.
This is at least what I speculate may be going on.
This is what I know I'm going to be looking out for as this case progresses.
And just to give you an idea about where we are right now so, the 21 year old romantic homicide singer, real name David Anthony Burke, is facing charges of first degree murder, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14, and unlawful mutilation of human remains, all in connection with the tragic, brutal death of 14 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez.
And, guys, we're going to cover, we are going to cover the.
The debate with academics and Sneeko after this.
So don't worry.
And we also covered a little bit of the Alex Murdoch stuff.
And we turned the J2 back on just temporarily.
You guys know I hate this platform.
We're not going to be on here long.
Whose decomposed, dismembered body was found in a Tesla out in Los Angeles back on September 8th of last year.
A Tesla reportedly registered to David, the singer, out in Texas.
And remember, his family lives there too.
And prosecutors have alleged special circumstances with respect to the murder charge.
The reason that's significant is because that's what gets you the elevated penalty life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Potentially the death penalty, even though prosecutors haven't announced that they're going forward with the death penalty, and even though there's a moratorium on executions out in California.
But what are the special circumstances allegations?
What is this?
Murder of a witness, murder for financial gain, lying in wait.
They talk about using a deadly and dangerous weapon, a sharp instrument.
Medical examiner's office concluded that Celeste's cause of death was multiple penetrating injuries.
That David.
All right, so you guys were watching on Kick and you guys went over.
Motherfuckers.
Someone said Al Myron.
Okay, bro.
Enjoy the Shadow Realm.
See you, YouTube niggas, bro.
I don't like y'all, man.
Like, I don't fuck with y'all niggas, man.
Enjoy Shadow Run, bro.
I'm about to send you to the Shadow Realm.
The future is mine.
His name is Joshua369.
Niggas puts L. Myron in the chat.
Like, I'm about to just sit here and let you just say that shit.
Enjoy the Shadow Run, bro.
Allegedly murdered Celeste to keep her quiet.
That they were in this.
Yes, I covered Trump in China.
It's on kick, Perez15, whatever.
Guys, I don't stream on YouTube like that anymore.
You guys should know this at this point.
Like, I don't fuck with YouTube.
I don't like YouTube.
I only go on here just so you guys know that I'm live.
And then I get the fuck off.
Okay.
Alleged illegal sexual relationship.
Remember her being a minor.
That they have what they claim are text messages from the night before she died or allegedly died.
They say April 23rd is when she was killed.
That show they were fighting, that she was.
Somebody called Frank a mutt.
Enjoy the Shadowrun, bro.
Time to send you to the Shadow Realm.
The future is mine.
Going to expose him, that she was going to ruin his financially.
Oh, yeah.
And don't forget, we got two of them gone.
Double kill.
Career, and then he murdered her.
Prosecutors claim that on April 23rd, 2025, he lured Celeste to his home, stabbed her repeatedly, watched her bleed out, and then proceeded to order all these supplies online to engage.
Sorry, niggas.
I got a.
What the fuck?
In the dismemberment of her body and the cover up of the alleged crime.
Chainsaws, body bag, laundry bags, inflatable pool.
Setting the Preliminary Hearing00:03:53
They claim a combination of surveillance footage, cellular data, DNA evidence, witness testimony, all tie him to these alleged crimes.
And right now, as we reported yesterday, his preliminary hearing has been moved to the end of June.
It has been delayed once again, so the defense has more time to analyze the evidence, prepare their arguments at a preliminary hearing, and by all accounts, they're going to continue to get this evidence as it comes in from the prosecution.
So we go back to the main focus here, right?
What are David's defenses?
And yes, he is innocent until proven guilty.
These are just allegations.
And also, to be clear, I am not even saying that we're going to see these defenses at a preliminary hearing per se.
This is going to be more about what we can expect at trial.
Because here's the truth.
I spoke to attorney Alexandra Kazarian last night on my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, and the preliminary hearing is just for the defendant, she said, and I think it's a really good point, to strategize, to test, to see a sampling of what the Yeah, and also so that they can question witnesses on cross examine.
That's another thing as well that they're absolutely going to try to do.
So, prosecution's evidence is start challenging their witnesses, start coming up with a defense.
Because, look, here's the deal preliminary hearing, by all accounts, given what we've seen so far, and if we assume the prosecution has this kind of evidence that they claim they have in their pretrial brief, the court is probably going to say there's sufficient evidence to move forward with this case because the prosecution doesn't even have to present all of their evidence at Prelim.
Just the minimum necessary to establish probable cause that David committed these crimes.
Sufficient evidence for the case to move forward to trial.
That's a very low bar.
So I don't think David is going to go into that preliminary hearing currently scheduled to be.
Yeah, they just want to look at some of the witnesses, grill some of the witnesses, et cetera.
The end of June, thinking, yeah, I'm going to get the case thrown out.
But remember, this is just all what the prosecution claims they have, but I think it's going to be a test.
So when I talk about the defenses, the actual substantive defenses, I think you see this more after the preliminary hearing.
Just one more thing about that.
Yeah, again, what you hear from the prosecution are allegations.
This is what they claim they have.
We will see.
But again, let's talk about the defense.
That's what I want to get into.
And even before I get into the defense, who's his attorney?
Blair Burke.
I talk so much about her.
So she is a renowned attorney in Los Angeles, Harvard educated, very well experienced, reportedly an attorney to the stars.
Is that her with CeeLo?
Is that CeeLo right there, chat?
What the hell?
Fatassy low.
For example, represented Mel Gibson during his 2006 DUI arrest, 2011 in connection with a domestic abuse episode, represented Lindsey Lohan through a drug and DUI case in 2007, represented Harvey Weinstein in 2017 on a sex abuse case, represented Britney Spears, Kanye West, reportedly Leonardo DiCaprio, Channing Tatum, Johnny Depp.
In fact, before we even get to the actual defenses and that whole discussion, give you a sampling.
Here is Blair Burke in court.
Representing David in one of his initial appearances.
From the media reports, apparently there have been four months of secret grand jury proceedings.
We believe that Mr. Burke is entitled at the earliest opportunity to an open preliminary hearing and the proceedings not be done in secret.
So we are asking for a preliminary hearing to be set at the earliest.
I remember, guys, they didn't indict him, so he's entitled to a preliminary hearing.
Now, you guys that watched earlier, I explained to you guys.
How you're able to get access to preliminary hearing, and he counts for one now because they never actually indicted him.
So he can absolutely, he is entitled to a preliminary hearing right now.
Challenging Cause of Death00:03:40
Triple kill.
Possible date on the 10th day.
Your Honor, we believe the actual evidence will show David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez, nor was he the cause of her death.
And we would like to be able to have the evidence come into the light of day at the earliest opportunity in order to establish that.
Asking for April 23rd as a three of 10, Your Honor.
Okay, so let's get into the possible defenses.
And I want to start with the big one cause of death and manner of death.
And it just got pushed, guys, to June.
So it's no longer going to be in May.
Death.
You just heard it a little bit right there in that clip, right?
This is what the prosecution is relying on.
If you go back to the autopsy report, if you go back to the ME's findings, this ME report, this summary Death was pronounced at the scene.
Autopsy examination was limited by extensive post mortem changes.
Keep that in mind.
There are two penetrating wounds of the torso with smooth edges that may represent sharp force injuries.
The wound on the upper abdomen penetrates the liver, and the wound on the left chest penetrates one of the left intercostal spaces with disruption of the adjacent ribs' cortical surfaces.
The left lung appears intact.
The bilateral upper and lower extremities show full.
I'm getting a Halo 2 sound effects for you ninjas.
thickness dismemberment.
Multiple other skin and soft tissue defects are present without apparent associated internal injuries.
The etiology of these defects is not clearly apparent due to severe post mortem changes.
Post mortem toxicology performed on liver tissue shows the presence of a low level of ethanol, which may be due to post mortem.
Real quick, Chaz, is this the same?
Triple kill.
Triple kill.
That shit trash.
Triple kill.
Interesting.
Changes or ingestion and does not appear to be contributory to the cause of death.
Given the history and circumstances as currently known by me in the setting of the findings by examination, ancillary studies, and in the absence of other definitive causes of death, the cause of death is multiple penetrating injuries.
The manner of death is classified as homicide.
And by the way, manner of death could be, you know, homicide, suicide, accident, natural causes.
If you ask me, What is the defense going to do?
Challenge that.
They're going to challenge, in my view, the cause of death, maybe the manner of death, by highlighting there is a severe level of decomposition and dismemberment.
How can you know for sure what killed Celeste, given the state of her remains?
I mean, the report itself at times notes how the examination was affected by the condition of this 14 year old's body.
I don't want to say it.
I hate saying this, but that's what we're dealing with.
I mean, her mutilated remains.
I mean, you just heard what Blair Burke said in court, and it echoes a statement that originally came out when David was arrested.
That the evidence will show he didn't murder Celeste and not the cause of her death.
Now, I actually asked forensic death investigator, the host of the Body Bags podcast, Joseph Scott Morgan, about this.
Take a listen.
I think that the one thing about it is you're going to have to have a forensic pathologist that has a very strong background, most do, all right, in decomposed bodies.
But you're going to have to have a defense pathologist that can at least insert that seed for reasonable doubt.
Yeah, we did that, we watched this as well.
Ordering Supplies for a Body00:12:09
I'll say this, man.
The prosecution is very confident.
They're over here saying he watched her bleed out, is the allegation that the prosecution gave.
Okay?
Which is kind of insane.
Kind of insane, chat.
Relative to the level of decomposition, I think that that's really the only intellectual underpinning that you have.
You know, if you're trying to make that argument that you guys do in court, right, that's where you're going to go.
They're going to have to lean into the decomposition.
I know that sounds so bizarre, but for me, there's so much other evidence digital evidence, circumstantial evidence, testimonial stuff that's going on.
You know, in addition to the physical evidence that they have, this is a mountain.
I mean, it's a mountain.
I've seen, you know, cases with much less forensic evidence that have not gone well for the defendant.
Decomposition, though, have all this.
Quote, tellingly, defendants subsequently purchased tools to carry out.
This obviously makes him look bad.
Days after the murder, obviously, he got a bunch, he got like shovels and all this other shit.
His plot to dismember and dispose of the victim's body.
On April 24th, 2025, defendant ordered a shovel from Home Depot that was delivered to his home from Postmates.
On May 1st, 2025, defendant ordered and subsequently Amazon delivered two chainsaws to his home.
On May 5th, 2025, defendant ordered and Amazon subsequently delivered a body bag, heavy duty laundry bags, and a blue inflatable pool to his home.
He made these purchases under the fake name Victoria Mendez.
On May 8th, 2025, defendant returned to the same area in Santa Barbara County, leaving his home around 11 30 p.m.
He returned to the area again on May 31st, 2025.
This is an isolated site off SR 154 where the victim's identification was subsequently discovered in January 2026.
Additionally, on July 7th, 2025, the defendant ordered and subsequently Amazon delivered a burn cage to his home under the same fake name as part of his plan to incinerate evidence.
That's tricky for the defense.
Do they say, well, look, I don't know how we can argue against those purchases at those times?
I mean, I guess they could say, how do you know for sure?
David was the one who made those purchases?
Do they look at other potentially strange purchases he's made over the years?
Do they say, hey, this was for other purposes, a music video?
Strange timing of that, right?
Considering if they say she was killed April 23rd and then all of these very specific items are ordered and delivered.
And again, they say that she arrived at his place April 23rd, that she's killed shortly after she arrives.
There's no more cell phone use by her after that.
And then he buys all this stuff.
Or, Deborah, do they admit it?
Do they say, yeah, he bought this stuff.
And yes, he bought this stuff to get rid of Celeste's body.
That we will.
Guys, smash the like button for me, by the way.
Smash the like button for me.
Let's get to 500 likes.
We got 700 of you guys watching.
We're going to get into this secret debate here in a second.
Well, even in myth, this, again, from the prosecution's brief.
Moreover, defendant took horrifying measures to destroy and discard the victim's body.
After placing her body into the blue inflatable pool to prevent her blood from spilling onto his garage floor, defendant used a chainsaw and perhaps other tools to cut off her limbs.
Small blue plastic fragments were found embedded in the victim's remains, which were collected by the Los Angeles County Medical Examiners Department.
The fragments were analyzed by the LAPD's Forensic Science Division Trace Analysis Unit.
An expert was able to make a physical fit match from the blue fragments to the blue inflatable pool purchased by Defense.
And it says, watch this video of a based Chinese guy.
Okay, it's Leo Kings.
Hey, man, I apologize for what I sent earlier of watching a video before sending it.
It's my fault.
It's at work, but I respect you a lot.
Yeah, nigga, you're retarded for that.
Chat, call him a retard.
Leo Kings, you got to get cooked for that, bro.
Never do that again, bro.
Never, ever fucking do that again.
Send a video without watching yourself.
You deserve to get absolutely cooked for that.
They gave us like fucking clickbait Twitter garbage.
CIA raid a DNI office while press out of the country?
I don't believe that.
Give us a link.
Hey, Marin, a little bit off topic, but did you notice that Netanyahu admitted to Israel having nukes in the 60 minute interview?
We all know they do.
We've covered Tucker debating Kevin O'Leary, or should I watch on my own time?
They're debating AI.
Watch on your own time, nigga.
Nobody has any interest in that.
Nobody cares what Kevin O'Leary got to say.
He's a Canadian, bro.
Hope you get, Marin.
I know you said Charlie's trial would take time to start.
How much more time do you think?
It's going to be the end of the year.
David says, I see you're giving Abba the cow the Ted Bundy treatment.
Depleat us longer, Aragon, once the two days recover.
Yeah, we're going to destroy him, bro.
Alma destroys all the fairs, deserves all the fairs that come his way, bro.
He's such a fucking idiot, dude.
In May 2020, Leo Kings, we gotta bully you for a little bit for that, bro.
We gotta bully you for that.
Okay?
Guys watching on YouTube, smash the like button.
25, in order to distance himself from the victim, he amputated her left ring and pinky fingers because her ring finger contained a tattoo of his name.
Her fingers have not been recovered.
Defendant then placed her head and torso into the cadaver bag that he purchased.
He placed her limbs into a garbage bag, which he deposited into his front trunk, laying the cadaver bag on top.
For several weeks or possibly months, the defendant left the victim's body to decompose inside his Tesla.
And the list of potential evidence they say DNA evidence developed from blood stains collected from the defendant's garage, which match the victim's genetic profile, proof of the defendant's Amazon purchases and deliveries to his residence, including two chainsaws, a body bag, an inflatable pool, heavy duty laundry bags, and a burn cage after.
April 24th, 2025.
And by the way, private investigator Steve Fisher, who's been on top of this case, he shared photos of some of those alleged packages.
And you can see the deliveries are addressed to Victoria Mendez.
So it's, again, unclear why David would allegedly use that particular name.
But again, does he choose to admit all this?
That could be very hard to argue against, particularly if they can match these items that were with Celeste's body to the ones that were actually purchased, right?
It's not like he just bought, you know, an inflatable pool or bought these bags and the ones that are associated with her remains are completely different.
But Does he admit all this?
Quote proof of defendant's purchase and delivery from Postmates of a shovel from Home Depot to his home on April 24th.
Uber records showing defendant's transaction where he ordered an Uber to pick up the victim from her.
Yeah, that's a big one.
That's a big one right there that he sent her an Uber.
Lake Elsinore home and transport her to his residence the night of April 23rd, 25.
And they never saw her since.
25.
When LAPD served the search warrant at the home that David was renting after Celeste was identified, they reportedly found all sorts of evidence in the garage.
I said this, right?
The biological testing.
But there was also the inflatable pool, which reportedly had multiple linear cuts.
So, does he admit all this?
Does he not fight it?
Instead, do his defense attorneys say, yep, he purchased this stuff after prosecutors claimed she died, but it doesn't mean that he's responsible for her death, that maybe she died in another way, and then he panicked, and then he tried to cover this up, and then he was just part of her disposal?
That's what I think they're going to try to spin.
I do think that his defense team is going to try to spin it where, look, My client didn't kill him, kill her.
He found her dead.
And in a panic, he tried to clean it up.
I think that's what his defense is honestly going to try, chat.
That's what I think they're going to try.
So we'll see.
Or helped with the disposal.
We'll see.
I've seen cases like that before, different circumstances.
James Scandorino, though, Florida, found not guilty of the murder of his father, but guilty in connection with the dismemberment.
Took the stand, explained.
Yep.
It's possible, chat.
Very, very possible.
It was a disgusting story, but the jury believed it.
So, in other words, will we ever really know what happened to her?
And again, if they can show that her body was too decomposed, dismembered to know exactly what the cause of death is, they admit to.
Guys, it's important for you guys to realize when they found her body, it was cut up in pieces.
Like her head was cut off, her finger was cut off.
They had the David tattoo on it, which I thought was kind of crazy.
So, and the body was badly decomposed.
So they found it five months after the fact, okay?
She died in April.
They didn't find her until September of 2025.
To him panicking that she died, they come up with a narrative about how.
Literally five months later.
She died, or the circumstances regarding her death, and he panicked and just got rid of her body.
I mean, if he did that, he'd be found guilty of that, unless he pleads guilty to that, and you're looking at prison time.
I will also say.
Yeah, but he's not looking at the death penalty or life in prison.
You know, moving a body around, you know, covering up evidence, et cetera.
Yeah, he'll get some time for that, but he's not going to get life or the death penalty, which is what they're pushing for.
That defense attorneys will find any way.
To find chain of custody issues and contamination of evidence in any case.
So just taking a step back.
Absolutely, they're going to try to do that.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
That's not even a question.
I haven't a question.
That's what they're going to try to do.
They may not admit to any of this.
They may say there's problems in how all of this evidence was collected and processed.
Any opening to say the forensic findings are not accurate.
Don't forget, guys, this is how OJ got off.
Chain of custody problems.
Okay.
The DNA or the pool fragments that, again, wasn't handled or processed correctly.
That's common.
We see that almost in every case.
So that's putting law enforcement under the hot lamp during cross examination, questioning the findings.
But if you can show the jury that the official findings might be tainted, that they're not accurate, that is key.
I don't know if that's the case here, but calling out something to look out for.
And while I'm laying out what we can expect to see, again, I think there could be a real argument in strategy is, you know, look, the mutilation charge is what it is.
And there are other areas to chip away at too if we're talking about reasonable doubt, other places for reasonable doubt.
Because according to the prosecution's brief, they say surveillance video and other.
Yeah, because they're going to need to prove that he actually killed her, Chad.
Evidence confirmed.
And remember, the burner proof is on the state.
It's not on David, it's on the state.
Smash the like button for me, Ninjas.
Firm, defendant was the last person to drive the vehicle on July 29th, 2025, before he left Los Angeles on a concert tour.
Okay.
Now the defendant.
And that vehicle is the one.
That had the body in it.
Even then, Nika said, I didn't kill her, though.
I didn't kill her.
This is a natural question could be sure, but did anyone else move it after that?
How do you know?
Her body wasn't reportedly found until September in that car.
Who else had access to that car at that time?
Who else could have had access?
Several months.
This potentially does Celeste's remains.
I mean, the filing states that David lied to friends, business associates, and others about the strong smell of decay in and around the home in the car.
The defense will very much cross examine those witnesses about it.
Question those conversations.
Question what David really said or didn't say.
Raise hearsay objections.
And another way to look at it is it could be very difficult for defense attorneys to say that he was completely in the dark and had no idea what was happening.
Although, is it possible someone else is involved, had access to the car?
And if you do that, that changes the story.
It goes to this idea of who may be a cooperating witness as well.
And if someone took an immunity deal to testify against David.
Yeah, because the prosecution did say that.
He watched her bleed out.
That's a very specific statement to make.
That's a very specific statement to make.
That is prime ground for attack by defense under cross examination.
Moving Beyond Trigger Words00:12:40
Why do you need protect?
OG Ninja Watcher, appreciate you for the gifted step, my friend.
For all you guys that are watching on Kick, make sure to follow the channel.
We do it all over here.
We do politics, true crime.
We covered the China spy.
We covered the David case.
We're going to cover this debate right now.
Matter of fact, I should probably switch to it soon.
It's already 9 47.
So let's go ahead and just get right into it.
When guys spit, I want to make it like what happened to the building to get some technical advice.
Yeah, the white man knows how to fix it, right?
Yeah, I can't hear you.
I can hear you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, what's going on?
How are you feeling?
Listen, no, no.
Listen, I think we might have to bring it to a poll.
Sneeko, you got to stick to like some Islam stuff and overseas, brother.
Like, when it comes to, you know, we're in a very interesting, while you, Most of your streams is about what the hell Trump is doing and what the fuck is going on over Iran and them bullshit ass countries like Israel.
We don't give a damn about none of them.
They all could go to hell.
What we care about is what's going on over here.
And right now, race relations within this country is at a point that is much better than years previous.
And when we see an antagonist, I think that every race should come together and say, let's get this piece of shit out of the paint quickly.
That we don't go down a spiraling downward path like what happened when.
The BLM movement had to, you know, quote unquote, just jump out the blue.
And we all seen some of the errors with that.
But right now, we don't need some nigga named Chud the Builder popping up doing all the dumb shit.
Let's get this nigga out of the paint.
That's why I don't understand why you're.
I don't understand why.
In the words of Chud the Builder, they're saying you're chipping up.
I'm joking.
But what did I say that you're upset about?
I told him to stop doing the IRL streams like that.
It's a bad idea.
So why?
What's the problem?
I want him to continue.
So you want something violent to happen.
I don't want violence.
I'm love speech.
I don't want to see people antagonizing one another.
I don't want to see hate.
I don't want to see something bad happen.
So I said, you should probably go inside.
It's going to end up bad.
You can antagonize someone, someone's going to act in a way.
It's just a bad idea.
I'm not saying I want him to stop because of violence happening.
I want, based on what he's saying, he's saying he's down to stand on whatever he's been saying.
I actually believe if something was going to happen to him, it would probably be a Caucasian that would probably hurt him.
You know, usually when guys are spitting all of that political stuff, I don't see a lot of black people.
You know what I mean?
Look at Charlie Kirk, who clapped him.
Look at all these people who keep trying to shoot at Trump.
It's the white dude.
So when he's talking about First Amendment right and, oh, he's basically also saying, hey, he got his Second Amendment right.
To me, that's political.
He says he's a free speech advocate.
Black people usually mind their business, okay?
If they have issues, they have issues with people that are in their vicinity.
Over actual things that you know would make sense for interpersonal issues.
This guy is talking politics, and just look at the people who've been smoking the politicians.
Okay, that's very true.
That white people don't get blamed.
I think the person that's 100% sure would be white, but I'm not saying that he should continue that because I'm like, hey, listen, do you think something violent, do you think he should be handled violently?
I think he encourages it.
But you're not answering the question.
What do you think that somebody should do something violent to him?
No, but I think they should meet him with the energy that he has.
That's why I told him, I don't know why you're upset.
I told him you should stop doing these.
Yeah, I don't agree with that.
I think you just ignore him and walk away.
That's the best thing you can do.
Like, if, for example, let's say I'm walking down the street, right?
And some dude is recording, right?
And he's trying to get a reaction, whatever.
It's like, am I going to buy into the, you know, to the anger and like let them get content?
Like, no, I'm just going to walk away.
Just don't engage.
That's it.
Just don't engage and walk away, bro.
And the problem is solved.
That's how you deal with it.
Just don't engage.
IRL streams.
They should tell them to stop the rhetoric.
We should disarm the meanings of the.
Guys, smash that like button, by the way.
Smash that like button.
These words, we can't let words like that control us.
Why is that the only word where people feel justified in America to act violently over?
There's no other word in the English language that elicits the same reaction that that word does.
So, I'm not going to defend acting violent over a word.
Okay.
We can't repurpose history, right?
And that word is.
But we do all the time.
We do all the time.
The word retard doesn't mean the same thing.
The word dumb doesn't mean the same thing.
Even the word nigga doesn't mean the same thing.
Black people have used it colloquially.
And now that's a perfect.
That actually, the word you're talking about has been repurposed to be a term of endearment, to mean anything.
Sneeko.
What I'm saying is that you can't repurpose history.
But black people did.
Nigga has been repurposed.
It was a word to mean slave and now it means anything.
You're being obtuse.
That am I wrong?
Am I wrong?
The way he's saying what he's saying is a direct callback to slavery, brother.
Like, if you think it's not like he's saying it, meaning something else, we know what he means.
So, you're trying to make this point like, oh, has been repurposed.
Is that what he's saying?
Is he like, oh, what up, my is that what he's saying, or is he?
Actually, saying that hey, you are a lesser human being, and I'm using this word to remind you of that.
You tell me what he's saying, he is saying that, but it only has that meaning.
If you repurpose what he's saying, because someone walked in, so uh, so what's it called?
That's why Frank barked.
Sorry, chat, he never barks ever, he only he's only barking because somebody walked in.
We can't because we shouldn't let words control us, it's not.
Now, look, I see Academics' point, right?
He's arguing that the word has historical context, extremely negative historical context.
And I get that.
But let's be honest here, Ack.
The niggas that are reacting to this don't even know how to spell history.
You know what I'm saying?
Let's keep it a million.
Let's keep it all the way a million.
The dudes that are going crazy, the people that are pissed off, the people that are losing their minds, niggas can't even spell history, bro.
Okay?
We're talking about a lot of stupid ass niggas, man.
That are going crazy about this shit.
The people that are smart enough have the ability to look at it and be like, all right, this word has a negative historical context, but I have the IQ to understand that reacting to this is not intelligent.
And I'm going to control my emotions, right?
Someone said L taken here.
Nobody gives a fuck about your opinion, bro.
Like, nigga, nobody's here to listen to your opinion.
Nigga, get the fuck out of here.
Dude's name is Thugnific.
Thugnificent 77.
Yeah, we already know what race you are.
Hello, monkey.
The fuck out my chat, nigga.
Time to send you to the shadow realm.
The future is mine.
Fucking idiot.
L-Take, Myron.
Nobody gives a fuck what you gotta say, Tyrone.
Fuck outta here.
Dude's name is Thugnificent.
Shut the fuck up, retard.
Hello, monkey.
You're watching me, nigga.
Nobody's watching you.
Shut the fuck up.
Not about words controlling us, right?
So you're now talking about actions.
I'm talking.
These stupid ass pro black niggas come in here like I give a fuck about their opinion.
Get sent to the Shadow Realm, nigga.
Nobody cares.
Okay?
Seriously.
Enjoy the Shadow Realm, the watermelon realm, in your case.
Okay.
The fried chicken corner.
About the word, first of all.
So you're basically admitting that he's antagonizing race relations by trying to bring up a time or a, you know, he's trying to treat black people as subhuman by how he's speaking to them.
Yeah.
Right?
And then you're saying, okay, even if he's doing that, we should just not be violent.
You could, no, no, no.
What I'm saying is, we agree on the violent thing, but you could only get rage baited if you get rage baited.
You could only allow this word to have that power if you agree to that frame.
And here again, bro, it comes back to the accountability of the people that hear the word.
Okay.
If you're going nat nuts over hearing a word, like, bro, I'm sorry.
Like, life is way harder than hearing the end bomb being dropped.
Okay.
Like, life was way harder than that, bro.
If that's the hill that you want to die on, that's what you want to be mad about, that's what you want to go crazy about.
Like, bro, life is way harder than that, man.
Way harder than that.
Also, let's deal with the elephant in the room, bro.
Let's deal with.
You know, I'm still on YouTube.
I can't say it.
Let me just.
Let's go back to the debate.
I'll deal with the elephant in the room here in a second.
All right, we're not going to be on YouTube that much longer because obviously I can't even say what I really want to say.
So let me just keep going.
We should repurpose this word so that we can't be controlled by them anymore.
The same reason retard has been repurposed, nigga has been repurposed, dumb.
Even the word Negro used to be the correct word to call a black person, but it became a slur because it reminds us of a time of civil rights.
Now it is a slur, but at the time in the 60s and the 50s, Negro wasn't a slur.
Even back then in slavery time, it wasn't a slur.
That was the word for black people.
It became a slur because times changed.
All right, let me repeat again.
I'm going to go slow this time because I see you're trying to get your point off without actually engaging.
I heard what you said.
He's bringing back, he's talking about a time where it was degrading and he's calling people subhuman.
Hold on, hold on.
His intention, let's not say, oh, let's take the power out of the word.
Because if we took the power out of that word, he would use whatever word that had the power.
That's the only word that has that power.
That's the only word that has that power.
Brother, if he had to call you a slave, he would just say slave.
Come on.
The point is, his goal is to offend.
Let's stop acting like his goal is to say a word and we're triggered by the word.
You're right.
Right?
I agree.
So, okay.
So now that we agree on that.
Mm hmm.
Now we could get to the okay, what is the appropriate response in a very civilized and perfect world?
There is no violence when someone is either you some stupid in my YouTube chat.
Myron doesn't know how to run YouTube, all he does is react, bro.
Get the out of my chat, bro.
Get the out of here, you stupid ass, bro.
Time to send you to the shadow realm.
The future is mine, bro.
I've been out for like five hours, I've been cooking the whole time.
I do monologues, I react to news, I cover it all.
Shut your dumb monkey ass up, bro.
Get the out of here.
Use an oppressive language or either is trying to oppress.
But let me ask you since you're a big fan of religion, religious wars are some of the most violent wars in history.
You don't think that's where, at some point, even in religion, it gets to violence, right?
Wars.
Yeah, I mean, the most violence has been pushed for religion, for religious purposes.
This is true.
What's going on over there in, was it Gaza and Iran and Israel?
It gets to violence.
So I get what you're saying.
That's not a fair comparison.
There's a difference between.
They're fighting too.
At some point, it gets to violence.
Okay, that comparison doesn't make sense.
It didn't start based off of words.
The genocide in Gaza didn't start because they said, you're a terrorist.
It started.
Words could be oppressive.
Hold on.
Could words be oppressive?
If you let them, bombs are really oppressive.
Like bombs, ethnic cleansing, starvation, that's oppressive.
Words are only oppressive if you allow them to be.
You can't get rage baited if you aren't angry about it.
So, despite the mean, let me ask you a question.
Leaving YouTube for Real Talk00:01:33
Like, if you go back, if you go back, you know, in the original.
All right, guys, I'm gonna switch off YouTube because I wanna be able to say something right now and I can't say it on YouTube.
So, we're gonna switch over to YouTube.
We're also gonna cover the Chud shooting as well, which I can't cover that on YouTube either.
So, I'm going to end YouTube.
We're going to continue the debate, but I have something I want to say here when it comes to this whole situation because there's an elephant in the room that no one is addressing.
Okay?
There's an elephant in the room that no one is addressing, which I'm going to bring up right now.
Okay?
And a lot of niggas are not going to like to hear this, but I'm going to have to say it because everybody else is too scared to say it.
So, I'm just going to say what it is.
So, of course, we got a black dude in here saying Monkey Gains X.
Okay, bro.
Enjoy the Shadow Run, bro.
Enjoy it.
Fried Chicken Connoisseur.
Time to send you to the Shadow Realm.
The future is mine.
Like, bro, enjoy.
Now you're into Watermelon Rome for being a moron.
Congratulations.
You played yourself, dummy.
Okay?
Congratulations.
So stupid.
Yeah, come on over to kick, guys.
kick.com slash Mario Gaines X. I'm getting off YouTube because obviously I can't say what I'm going to say here, but I'm going to have to say some real shit that nobody's admitting and nobody's saying.
Okay?
So come on over to kick.
kick.com slash Mario Gaines X.
We got roughly another hour or so of streaming, as you guys know.
We got after hours at 11, so I'm about to cook here.